Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage

1. Gay marriage has been achieved in some states (and coming soon, to all states) through a series of tactical arguments, and by tactical arguments, I mean dishonest ones.

Scalia objected to Anthony Kennedy's claim that the Constitution forbade any distinction whatsoever in heterosexual and homosexual conduct, stating that this ruling would in short order be used as a basis for arguing a positive Constitutional right to gay marriage.

Pish-posh, the gay lobby said; it will do no such thing. It is simply the deletion of an odious and unjustifiable remnant of the law.

Flash forward just five or six years later and the removal of any distinction between gay and straight sex is used as the basis for arguing a positive Constitutional right to gay marriage.

Similarly we were told we had no need of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment, because DOMA would protect states from having gay marriage forced upon them by lawsuit. The lawsuit chain would be thus: gay marriage is granted in one state; the couple moves to a state where gay marriage does not exist; the couple sues the state on the theory that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution demands that one state respect the marriage contract of another.

Well, right now Obama is talking up repeal of that provision, which would in very short order impose gay marriage by lawsuit on all fifty states.

In addition, the claims that we do not need a Federal Marriage Amendment to preclude this possibility were always disingenuous. The gay marriage lobby always intended this one-state-leads-to-another plan and fought the Federal Marriage Amendment largely to leave this option on the table. The claims that DOMA would serve as protection against this were always dishonest. They knew DOMA could and would be changed on a whim, and if it couldn't be changed legislatively, it could be rubbished in the courts.

Without even bothering to look it up, I know that some people opposing gay marriage argued at some point that gay marriage in some states would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws in the several states, and that gay marriage should be resisted on these grounds. Without looking it up, I know that gay marriage proponents cried hogwash to this concern, and claimed that the states should serve as laboratories of democracy (even court-imposed non-democracy) and certainly the idea of "uniformity" was a trivial and silly matter that should not be used as a basis of argumentation.

However, I know this: Now that a small but nontrivial minority of states have implemented gay marriage, the gay marriage lobby will begin to argue that "uniformity of marriage laws" is a paramount consideration, and that we surely cannot tolerate a chaotic patchwork of differing marriage laws in the several states, and of course that means we must have nationwide all-50-states gay marriage.

Of course it will be ignored that just five years ago the states' marriage laws were quite uniform on this single point, and that the lack of uniformity was created by the gay marriage lobby, which will now seek to use that lack of uniformity to create a new uniformity.

That has been the game all along. It is a cunning game, designed, as it is, to boil the frog slowly so that he never jumps out of the pot.

But like most cunning strategems, it is entirely dishonest, and always has been so.

Do the ends justify the means? For those convinced this is a sacred right unfairly denied to gays, I suppose it must seem that the ends justify the means. Certainly the stratagem employed belies such a belief.

But dishonesty remains dishonesty, which I think most still consider a rather bad thing even in this rapidly-"evolving" world where apparently only One Single Thing Really Matters.

It becomes harder and harder to believe anything gay marriage proponents claim about their future agenda when every past claim about their next moves has been false (and false from the moment of utterance).

The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."

Um, yeah. Because you've been so upfront and candid with me in the past.

2. There are two parallel agendas here, one I broadly support, one I basically oppose. They are gays' seeking of broader tolerance and acceptance (this one I support, generally), and gays' seeking to redefine marriage (which I oppose, basically).

The gay marriage lobby believes -- wrongly, to a large extent -- that changes in the legal code will effect changes in people's hearts. Or at least many of them seem to believe this.

That's not the only reason they seek gay marriage, of course -- they also believe it's an unjustifiable form of discrimination which should be overturned no matter what secondary effects doing so might (or might not) have.

However, there does remain at least something to this idea that once the state-sanctioned forms of divergent treatment of straight and gay marriage are eliminated, people will become more comfortable with homosexuality as a general matter.

What there is to this belief I don't know, but I think it's mostly wrong. "The law is a teacher" I think, but I'm not sure how much of a teacher it is. People are generally skeptical of government, and increasingly believe government and law are a crooked game which a Good Citizen ought to respect only to the extent necessary to avoid jailtime, and decisions like this reinforce that idea.

I think then that while the idea might be the state sanctioning of gay marriage shall lend the institutional prestige of the state to gay marriage, in fact there is more of the almost-opposite thing going on, gay marriage erodes whatever's left of the institutional prestige of sanction by the state.

There is a certain amount of counterproductiveness going on here, too, which erodes and undermines what is a real and inarguable tendency towards detente between gays (and their gay-friendly urbanite super-allies) and those generally uncomfortable with homosexuality.

The right sometimes castigates the left for its hypocrisy as far as hate and intolerance. We point out that while they claim to be opposed to hate and intolerance, in actual fact they wallow in it, directing true hatred at anyone who disagrees with it.

They reject the claim of hypocrisy here. They say, "I am entitled to hate them not because of what they are, necessarily because they're Christian or rural or white, but because of the odious politics they inflict on the country."

In other words, they use the tangible legislative/cultural preferences of the right as a justification for giving in to the irrational and frankly evil emotion of hate.

People are extraordinarily good at justifying to themselves what they wish to do anyway. People are amazing at this.

It takes a rare and keen intellect (you're welcome!) to be aware of the human ego's ability to knit together very convincing (to ourselves) "logical" arguments about why we should do what the id wants us to do.

And so with traditionalists and gays. Even while there is a growing rapprochement between the fair-minded individuals on either side of the debate, this furious agenda to Win At Any costs pushes fair-minded traditionalists away from their growing "Eh, what do I care if they're gay" sentiment.

As with the left, justifying its hate of traditionalists/religious folk based on their tangible agenda, so too the traditionalists/religious folk will justify a fresh dollop of animosity towards gays based upon their tangible agenda.

And you can't really argue with them. We generally say the rule is that you cannot despise someone (fairly) based upon innate traits that can't be changed, but it's fair to despise someone for their politics.

Our whole partisan rules of engagement are based on that idea.

Well, this would be a tangible agenda, then.

Now, for many gays or straight proponents of gay marriage, they'll probably say, "No matter what the consequences, this discrimination is wrong, and I'd rather be a hated first class citizen than a well-regarded second-class one."

I suppose. But we seem to be putting the cargo before the cult here.

The most important thing -- tolerance and acceptance -- cannot be state-compelled.

And the ever-reliance upon state compulsion for these purposes will end rather badly.

No one likes being bossed about. Gays included. And I think they'll find that as they rack up victories in the courts, they lose battles where it's more important, in peoples' hearts and minds.

I would still urge people to resist that on the basis of They know not what they do.

But this is a real thing. Tell people you're going to force them to accept something they don't care for and you're not going to actually breed more acceptance, but likely nearly the opposite.

3. Some conservatives are semi-praising the legislative decision by saying, "At least the legislature imposed this before the courts did."

This is a victory for democracy, then? Really? A legislature acted because they knew the courts would soon take an anti-democratic step and remove the issue from their consideration at all?

A thief may shoot you and pluck your wallet from your cooling body. Or a thief might put the gun to your chest, cock the hammer, and demand you hand over your wallet.

If you hand over your wallet, you won't get shot (probably -- see California where the thief decides he didn't like the manner of your handing over your wallet and decides to shoot you anyway), but the fact you've handed your wallet over does not in fact render this transaction voluntary.

It does not make it democratic. The victim of a mugging cannot be said to have had due process rights and voting rights in this exchange simply because he took prudent steps to avoid being left for dead.

4. The supposed libertarian "position" on this is not a position. It is a dodge. It is a feeble attempt to not decide. And as Rush said, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." (Duhn-duhn.)

It's bullshit. The government must be involved in marriage because the government enforces all contracts and makes numerous rulings upon what sort of contracts are illegal or proper (no personal service contracts longer than seven years, contracts with minors are voidable by the minors' choice, a huge amount of jurisprudence on the "default" terms of any contract in which specific terms on the disputed thing were never reached.)

If you don't believe me, read Ann Coulter.

The government cannot say "We are entirely out of the contract-enforcement business. It's on you."

This is the whole point of government -- to provide working ground rules, with state enforcement, so that people do not resort to "self help" in vindicating what they believe are their rights. And by "self help" I mean anarchy or rule by personal ability to coerce/compel someone through force.

I know some people would like very much to have no opinion on this, and to say "Leave it to others to decide" or "I am tired of these relentless culture wars by two sides that plainly despise each other with all the hate a heart can hold and would like to signal my non-affiliation with either side."

That's fine. But if that's what you want, just say so. This libertarian dodge/non-position that in one area of contract law the government shall go strangely absent is intellectual bullshit. It's bumper-sticker thinking.

Go with the true, defensible position you really hold: You don't know. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." In fact, I'd say the ability to say "I don't know" is one of the most virtuous things an honest mind can do.

And, one day, if you're convinced of one side or another, join that side.

But the "government should get out of the marriage business" is not a side. It's a way to sound smart while saying "I don't know," overlooking the fact that saying "I don't know" is often a pretty damn smart thing to say.

5. On private contract, it is true that a gays, even absent a specific marriage contract, could secure almost all of the incidences of marriage by signing a contract with each other that enumerates the specific pledges made and the specific duties expected.

That's a fair thing to note but, going back to Ann Coulter, the reason we have a collection of contractual rights collected under the rubric "Marriage Contract" is for user convenience.

Given that, it probably would have been best, I think, for everyone to negotiate some off-the-shelf contract of civil union that was marriage-like enough for gay marriage proponents and yet not so like marriage as to upset traditionalists. That is, a series of contractual provisions collected up under a single header (like our laws of marriage are) so that people could grab this off-the-shelf ready-to-eat thing rather than cadging together their own do-it-yourself semi-marital contract.

It's a solution that would have actually pleased very few but in politics (and often in life) the object is not reach a resolution that is pleasing, but simply one that is livable for all.

Now I never pushed for this very much (though I have alluded to this being my basic position). But I never pushed for this, so I don't say this in a "Told you so" way. I say it retrosopectively, looking backwards, informed by current information that we didn't have previously.

But neither of the two sides most invested, emotionally, in this issue really ever considered that third path, because neither actually wanted it. Gay marriage proponents were gay marriage all the way. Oh, they did play around with civil unions for a year or two, before realizing "We can win and have it all" and discarding this negotiated solution for an open war they believed they'd be victorious in.

I'm not sure if they're right about that, but I have to admit, that gamble is looking wise. If all you care about is winning.

And the traditionalists never much wanted civil unions either.

So there was a third way available, sort of (but see California, of course, where the gay marriage proponents decided that civil unions, considered progressive state-of-the-art just five short years ago, were now the most evil, retrograde, freedom-destroying equality-killing thing they ever heard of).

This is often my consideration when you hear me talking like a "squish." My consideration is that we can gamble and try to win it all, but should note that when you play to win it all you can also lose it all, and sometimes I think there's a way to negotiate some outcome that kinda sucks for everyone but doesn't really suck for anyone.

This isn't to blame the traditionalists, though; just making a general point about tactics in political war and peace and negotiated treaties.

Civil unions never had a chance because within five minutes of the public growing comfortable with them the gay marriage lobby decided that they could not possibly endure under such a despicably discriminatory regime.


(Still More To Come.)

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM



Comments

1 It's too early for me to be seeing double

Posted by: Uddercha0s at June 25, 2011 11:58 AM (sWBlL)

2 Re: double post

It is so good it needs repeating!

Posted by: Saxon at June 25, 2011 12:00 PM (mrXus)

3 I love a good double post on a Saturday morning!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 12:01 PM (Wm4Mf)

4
Just sent this to a friend about a question they asked about gay marriage...

[begin cut and paste job]

You'll find some mixed thoughts from conservatives on the matter, mainly because you'll see those with libertarian leanings contrasted against the pure conservatives. That is to say, you'll find some people who simply do not care and want to be left alone, and would therefore reflect that for other people: seeking to leave the gay marriage supporters alone to do as they please. (aside, in case you didn't know: libertarians are different from liberals... google 'wikipedia libertarian' if you need to)

I can agree with that up to a point: I do not want to know what happens in "your" bedroom and could care less. However, this is not the point for the gay marriage supporters. They could always do that, without the endorsement of state law. They seek at least three other things: tax benefits reserved for married people filing jointly, the implied moral endorsement from state law, and to undermine traditional morality.

Related to that last point: the overwhelming majority of the 'gay rights' people are liberals, not libertarians simply seeking to be left alone (because the libertarians do not want gov't involvment in their life, they would not petition the government for more "rights"... see my point?).

Getting back to the top level here... For the conservatives who are less libertarian, they focus on the aspects related to traditional morality. Because this is so contrary to traditional views on marriage, and because it is an obviously immoral behavior in the bible, conservatives typically would resist the 'gay marriage' movement. As more and more components of traditional morality are wiped out by so called 'progress'/enlightenment/social acceptability, the remaining moral fabric of society is undermined.

The undermining of that moral fabric is the unspoken goal of the liberal/big gov't agenda. An immoral society cannot self-govern. A moral society does not require government to create rights for groups of people, because the moral society believes in God-given unalienable rights. By removing a traditional morality from society, liberals create the need for government to issue "rights" to groups of people (increasing the power of that government). Remember, a right issued by government/man can be taken away from man by government/man. A right issued by God cannot be denied to man by another man/government. (let that sink in)

Anyway, I can respect the libertarian view here, but gays can already be gay in the privacy of their own home. Therefore, I'm left to consider the impact to traditional morality, and it is a detriment to the moral fabric of society (because it is a sinful behavior). Plus, this just increases the number of "rights" granted by government.

(If I took this position to debate a gay rights supporter, typically this becomes "I hate gay people" - no, in fact, my libertarian leanings would allow me to say, "I'll not seek you out to impose my will upon you, do as you wish inside your own bedroom")

This is why I (personally) would support a constitutional amendment to either: 1) define marriage heterosexually, and/or 2) guarantee a state's ability NOT to recognize a marriage license between gay people from another state (aka, just like the Defense of Marriage Act <--google if you need to). Neither of those would bar gays from having gay relations, but it would protect that portion of traditional morality. The tax issue is totally separate, and should be handled by modifications to the tax code.

[end cut and paste job]

Critique or borrow ideas at will.

Posted by: knob at June 25, 2011 12:01 PM (qKPU8)

5 Look to Europe and Canada who always lead us in the latest Orwell as how-to guide. They already punish traditional religious views on homosexuality if expressed openly. Children in daycare and VPK are to be reported for any deviation.

Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 12:02 PM (sOtz/)

6 I said two years ago, over on Redstate, that this is a lost cause on the social agenda. Ironically, the only thing that could roll this back is sharia law.

It is a waste of time and resources to fight this fight, because it is lost. The public opinion is firmly on the side of gay marriage (55%+ last time I checked).

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 12:02 PM (cSkZ5)

7
The reality is, many in the "Gay Marriage Lobby" aren’t going to be
happy with ANYTHING:
In yesterday’s Times, Columbia Law School professor Katherine M. Franke
opined that, while some gay couples may wish to get on board with marriage,
others don’t see the “one-size-fits-all rules of marriage” as the ideal setup
for the kinds of arrangements some same-sex relationships demand. She goes
on,

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being
forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage
equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay
people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners
will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in
order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may
mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded
into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.
After “winning the right to marry,” Franke argues, couples uninterested
in marriage risk being “forced to marry” in order to keep their domestic
partnership rights. She wonders further why couples should have to seek marriage
at all if they seek mainly to have their relationships “recognized and
valued.”
http://is.gd/DE22xW
(I hope the formatting holds - if not, my apologies....)

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (wtQcz)

8 Getting a gay marriage line on the 2012 ballots will only help the Pubs, the places that support it are lost causes, so no real concern about rilinbg up that massive gay lobby. Getting authentic african-american leadership on it wont help the Dims either.

Posted by: Jean at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (TjgR9)

9 waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (Anl+W)

10 Replying to Ace: kinda like how Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the best thing since sliced bread, but then became unbearable oppression once they had it long enough.

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 25, 2011 12:04 PM (qITqt)

11 Oh, and in 30 years (provided we are not an islamic state) the new fight will be legalization of polyamory. Come to think of it, if (when?) we become an islamic state, polyamory comes with it, doesn't it?

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 12:05 PM (cSkZ5)

12 One fun fact though, is all the gay couples who are benefiting from domestic partner health benefits have to get married, or lose the benefits.

Love those unintended consequences.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 12:07 PM (cSkZ5)

13 Ace, thank you for drawing the distinction between gay marriage proponents and those of us who are queer in general. A is Not A, at all.

The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."
Yeah, that has always been utter bullshit. See re: Catholic Charities and adoption in MA.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 12:07 PM (sf+iw)

14 Ace - Correctamundo! This has been their game all along.

I have argued for years that marriage should never have been institutionalized by government. It is a religious construct. Short of divorcing (no pun intended) marriage from federal government by striking all laws from the books specifically targeting married persons, including tax laws, it is inevitable that gays will win marriage equality one way or another.

My thoughts are that a civil union should be the only thing the government recognizes.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 12:08 PM (Wm4Mf)

15 Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.
Of course. Why would gay marriage affect narrow passages of water. Unless of course you are speaking metaphorically.
It does affect heterosexuals in that it redefines marriage as a nothing.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 12:09 PM (5tl1Y)

16 Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

I'm with you, my stretchy, brown-eyed friend.
Now if I could just marry my cow and my father at the same time, I could have two hairy hineys, one for the free milk and one to beat the inheritance taxes. WINNAH

Who is with me??????

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 12:09 PM (le5qc)

17 I still dont understand the POINT of labeling "marriage" on their relationship...is this yet ANOTHER example of them wanting to feel.....'normal'? yeah?


Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 12:10 PM (ZJIX/)

18 Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

It's a huge bitch for the fjords though.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 12:11 PM (sf+iw)

19 I'm for having marriage be a religious construct and "civil bonding" or the like be a state construct. Just don't call the civil bonding "marriage" because it's not.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 12:11 PM (5tl1Y)

20 Speaking of honesty, it's long overdue that we all be honest and admit that this has nothing to do with equality, it's a pissing match between Christians and gays. Christians for years have been railing against gays, calling them sinners and saying they can be converted into being straight and gay marriage is all about gays using government to force Christians to validate their lifestyle.

I don't have any problem with government granting the same rights to gay couples as straight have, or recogniinzing them as married, but if you think it will stop there, like Ace said, you haven't been paying attention. Churches will be forced to recognize and marry gay couples eventually because that's what this is really about.

Posted by: booger at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (9RFH1)

21 #17 This is what I'll do; say nothing, but if pressed, say it's not marriage; say a dog isn't a fish.

Posted by: ParisParamus at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (QN76w)

22 The reason they (the "sexuality uber alles" crowd) love to scream "homophobia" at every one who disagrees with them, no matter what the issue,is that their "reasoning" can't withstand any scrutiny. Everything they want is a "human right" and everything you want is "bigotry", end of story. No point in talking to such rigid and fundamentally dishonest people.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (Z05lF)

23
It affects hetero people by undermining moral society.
Without moral society, no self government. (You get away from negative law and move directly into positive law.)

Posted by: knob at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (qKPU8)

24 Having been married and divorced all I can say to gays is becareful what you wish for.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (MtwBb)

25 Posted by: getoverthegays

Fuck off asshole. It already IS affecting heterosexuals. If it didn't, I wouldn't give two shits, but this is part and parcel of a gay supremacy movement.

They did this same bullshit with AIDS to cannibalize all the federal funding for it, despite the fact that cancer killed 50 times as many people a year. How is that fucking fair? Equality? Fairness? Never heard of it.

Fuck the gays.

Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (TCyyS)

26 Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 12:05 PM (cSkZ5)

Okay, in this hypothetical Islamic state that is coming, can one have a polygamous marriage with both a man and a woman?

I love cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (LH6ir)

27 The left views lying as a legitimate political tactic. Remember how the healthcare bill would lower the deficit, and insure 30 million people for free? Yeah lies, all repeated by every Dem.

Posted by: Mr Pink at June 25, 2011 12:15 PM (VbGDW)

28 Remember this the next time someone pooh-poohs the "slippery slope" argument.

Posted by: Andy at June 25, 2011 12:16 PM (DOi+Y)

29 Christians for years have been railing against gays, calling them sinners and saying they can be converted into being straight and gay marriage is all about gays using government to force Christians to validate their lifestyle.
I must have missed that. In fact the Catholic Church says to love the homosexuals and treat them well but not to confuse that with thinking that any kind of extramarital sex is not a sin. The Church doesn't consider homosexual butt/oral sex with one of the same sex any more sinful than heterosexual butt/oral sex extramarital or not.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 12:17 PM (5tl1Y)

30 My view on this has evolved over the years... but I'm now to the point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business anyway...
It should all be contractual in nature... creating a household... with legal Powers of Attorney and Joint Property agreements involved.
Marriage should be between you, and your religion... not you, and the State.

As to the idea that the DOMA LAW would somehow bypass the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution... I just don't see how that works... its a Marriage LICENSE... given by a State...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 12:17 PM (NtXW4)

31 On the other hand, look at all these people voluntarily registering as homosexuals when they get marriage licenses. What could possibly go wrong with having that information readily available in public records? After all, no civilized society would ever suddenly decide to scapegoat a minority. Ja?

Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (1+CnU)

32 Churches will be forced to recognize and marry gay couples eventually because that's what this is really about.
Posted by: booger at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (9RFH1)
Yeah that's the problem with it. The supreme court has already decided that gay relationships isn't a moral issue.
The more the state takes away the rights of religions the worse society becomes. Europe is a shining example of this. Hopefully the first amendment will prevail and the government will be prohibited from making laws that affect religion but as we have seen before the constitution these days is only as good as the balance on the supreme court.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (MtwBb)

33 It's shit like this that brings secession closer and closer. At some point, those of us who are sick of it all are just going to say "fuck you, we're leaving". I don't really know how that will actually work, but it's all getting a bit too much for some people, and a good number of others would leave, or break away as well.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 12:19 PM (Wm4Mf)

34 so i guess this means the lesbian down the road with the 3 kids can marry her girlfriend? lol

lesbians...they always seem to have churns runnin around somewhere....that mental defense mechanism/anger/fear at the opposite sex has got to give them the runs sometimes i bet...

Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 12:19 PM (ZJIX/)

35 waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.
Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (Anl+W) Anl? Really?I don'tcare if NY does this. I'm gladthey had a democratic, small d, vote on it instead of a creative reading ofsome constitution.Only the future ramifications in other areas concern me.

Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 12:19 PM (sOtz/)

36 Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM

Nope, not at all

Posted by: Dire Straits at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (so1xa)

37 It would be interesting to see the statistics on fidelity in gay marriages. Do they have the same levels of extramarital sex as heterosexual marriages? Less? More?

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (5tl1Y)

38 "Fuck the gays."

Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (TCyyS)

You said it not me...

Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (Anl+W)

39 My list of political issues that don't matter:

1) Abortion
2) Gay marriage

Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:

1) School choice
2) Deregulation
3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (5KnyG)

40 There will not be true marriage equality until the state recognizes my union with Miss Precious Perfect!

Posted by: Keith Olberman at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (+otRH)

41 After all, no civilized society would ever suddenly decide to scapegoat a minority. Ja?


Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences
.......
jawohl mein herr!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 12:21 PM (Wm4Mf)

42
Incidentally, one of my college-aged daughters is gay (and Conservative). She's been in a relationship with a nice young lady for several years now, and honestly the only thing that they worry about(in terms of the law) is being able to have similar access to benefits as a committed couple.
While she doesn't understand our views on gay "marriage", shedoes understand that we don't have a problem withcivil unions between committed partners.
She attended a few meetings of the college LGBT group - she couldn't stand their myopic activism, especially when she realized thatmost of what they were doing was to draw attention to themselves (most of them honestly didn't realize that was what they weredoing; when she tried to point that out, all she got were blank stares).
She realized they were a lost cause when they wanted to be SO inclusive that they were looking around for more "letters" to add to their acronym. Thinking it would be"cool"toadda "P" (for pedophiles) in the LGBT***** alphabet soup "inclusion" acronymwas the last straw. She was flabbergasted that they would even entertain the idea of having the movement associated with CRIMINALS.
She told me, "I hate gay activists....."

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 12:22 PM (wtQcz)

43 Part of the problem with the general public's acceptance of gay "marriage" is that it stems from two places: folks who thing with their emotions and want some kind of "fair" world and those who really have no concept of marriage beyond a form of contract law. The gay marriage lobby has done a marvelous job of preparing the battlefield by effectively redefining marriage even before trying to make it apply to all people/beings regardless of biological status. This fight was lost when marriage was allowed to be defined in purely secular terms: like it or not, true marriage requires a religious aspect; anything else is just contract law.

Full disclosure: I don't have a problem with civil unions between anyone who wants to enter into one, but don't call it a marriage. Marriage comes from God, civil union from the State.

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 12:22 PM (WKOe/)

44 Stuff White People Like!Eleventy!!!

Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 12:23 PM (nfn9A)

45 Gay Marriage is the Socialists idea of giving the illusion of freedom. Gays are free to marry but don't even THINK about sugar and butter frosting on the wedding cake

A wise man once said; "You can buttfuck your buddy on a streetcorner but you can't light up a Marlboro"

Posted by: kbdabear at June 25, 2011 12:23 PM (so1xa)

46 Gay Divorce Court would be an entertaining television program.

Posted by: sTevo at June 25, 2011 12:23 PM (VMcEw)

47 That should be THINK with their emotions. Brain faster than fingers...

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 12:24 PM (WKOe/)

48 so i guess this means the lesbian down the road with the 3 kids can marry her girlfriend? lol



Posted by: str8 outta
.........
Probably not gonna happen if marriage goes federal. These folks are probably raking in $20,000 a year in Earned Income Credits because they don't have to combine their salaries like married couples do.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 12:25 PM (Wm4Mf)

49 Rights? You kip using dat word... I dunah thinnk that means what you thinnk it means.

Posted by: InMeGo MountOhYa at June 25, 2011 12:25 PM (lQo3l)

50 I think I am for gay marriage or civil unions, or whatever...but I also assume this is the real goal:

The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."

I hope I am wrong, but I just have a suspicion that gay activists are all living a fantasy where they force their Christianist daddies to finally accept them via the State saying you have to.

My parting note to the SoCons...you need to take what you can get, and the best deal would be libertartian positions - yes, you won't get to have the state push your religion, but be realistic - if the Dems keep winning, then the State will instead push against your religion.

Keep that in mind when you decide you have to push a hard socon agenda in 2012 and alienate all kinds of independents.

Not saying you can't state your views, or hold them. Just don't push them on everyone else. Lead by example.

In 2012 let's concentrate on keeping our rights and getting rid of Obama, not on banning the ghey, banning evolution, and prayer in school.

In return, I won't go on and on about how pot should be legalized or prostitution and what not.

p.s. My next prediction will be that Polygamy will be legalized...consenting adults and religious freedom. Plus the Islamic angle means the feminist lefties will have to be for it. Then they can wear their fake burkas when protesting the right for some dude to have 4 wives.

Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:25 PM (lGaUI)

51 updated.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:26 PM (nj1bB)

52 "Full disclosure: I don't have a problem with civil unions between anyone who wants to enter into one, but don't call it a marriage. Marriage comes from God, civil union from the State."

Exactly. This is why the socons and religious folks need to appreciate the libertarian position...we would get rid of the State involvement in marriage, and then your church would gain back its power of marriage. And everyone can go get a civil union from the county for the legal issues.

Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:27 PM (lGaUI)

53 "marriage equality bill"

If a dictionary falls open to the definition of marriage, does the word have a definition?

Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 12:27 PM (wOaLi)

54 Tell you what, New York... We'll recognize your gay marriage laws when you recognize our concealed carry laws, mmkay?

Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 12:28 PM (1c0W9)

55 but I'm now to the point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business anyway...

So, govt should just leave the field. Nice runaround that doesn't solve the problem of moral dissolution in this country. Libertarians are always good for that.

Posted by: jeanne at June 25, 2011 12:28 PM (qAAKD)

56 The most important thing -- tolerance and acceptance -- cannot be state-compelled.

And the ever-reliance upon state compulsion for these purposes will end rather badly.

Ace puts his Ewok paw squarely on the kernel of the Leftist project. The dream is to have the State compel even our own thoughts. To, you know... perfect mankind.

Oops, humankind. I denounce myself. What will be the politically correct word when "humankind" becomes species-ist?

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:28 PM (AZGON)

57 We as conservatives are still missing the point. Liberals play the long game. They call themselves Fabian Socialists for a reason, they will never give up, and they will win the battle of attrition. As others have already mentioned, the big targets are the religious institutions. Once they can fully undermine them, as they already are, buh-bye America. Collective salvation, social justice, are you kidding me? Just semantics to try and fill the God vacuum. Second part of the whole gay marriage thing, is the normalization of homosexuality. But it goes further than that. It isn't just about acceptance, it is about promoting the lifestyle. The reason? Simple mathematics. More gays means more potential sex partners. There is a vocal and active segment of the gay community that is highly promiscuous, and they will not take no for an answer. Just think SF bathhouses or Gaëtan Dugas. The left is working in concert with the gay lobby because they know that homosexuality makes a fine vehicle fordestroying the pillars of a just society.

Posted by: Joefrog of the Stonecutters at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (vKUhG)

58 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry
How long until GLAAD and the rest of the MoveOn-dot-Gay organizations demand exemptions for gay couples? Reparations and all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with being equal, it has to do with being "special", and they're gonnaneed some other plaintto gain that status now.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (Z05lF)

59 "The gay marriage lobby believes -- wrongly, to a large extent -- that changes in the legal code will effect changes in people's hearts. Or at least many of them seem to believe this."

Some just want to get married. Some others want to b able to march into a Mormon Temple with the power of the state at their back and DEMAND that the church marry them or they can say "hate speech."

Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (lGaUI)

60 Ace, here is another random thought. Consider the damage done to the conservative American's ideal concept of marriage by the current American hetero population, can gays make it any worse? Honestly, SoCons, check the stats and get back to me.
SoCons and gays both living in Lala Land. Wishing/praying doesn't make it so.
There are so many real outrages this one isn't even top ten.

Posted by: The Depressive realist at June 25, 2011 12:31 PM (le5qc)

61 "So, govt should just leave the field. Nice runaround that doesn't solve the problem of moral dissolution in this country. Libertarians are always good for that."

1) You can't force people to be moral.

2) Just teach your kids and be a good example.

Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:32 PM (lGaUI)

62 Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

It does effect us all. It is all about the money. Surviving spouses receive benifits - like social security and pensions. That is a lot of money that WE ALL have to come up with.


Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 12:32 PM (YHrQZ)

63
<blockquote>

Romeo13
My view on this has evolved over the years... but I'm now to the
point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business
anyway...

It should all be contractual in nature... creating a household...
with legal Powers of Attorney and Joint Property agreements involved.

Marriage should be between you, and your religion... not you, and the State.</blockquote>
That is pretty much how I view the issue as well. The more I ponder it, the more puzzling the notion of state regulation of marriage becomes to me. Why people even choose to get a government marriage seems more to do with tradition and convention than anything else.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (5KnyG)

64
@46 sTevo
I think it's a "will be"now.Should be fabulous.

Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (sOtz/)

65 My position has always been that if States have the authority to regulate marriage then they have the authority to designate who can marry who, and they have done this throughout history.

Gays already have just as much right to get married as straights, there is no discrimination. Straight men can not marry other men and gay men can not marry other men. The fact that straight men don't wish to marry other men is immaterial to the law.

The same goes for women.

Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2011 12:34 PM (M9Ie6)

66 The Marriage License doesn't obligate the married couple to do anything. It requires the Govt. to afford them benefits/considerations. It's more of a check on Govt. than it is a requirement of citizens. (At least in it's ideal form.)

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:35 PM (Z05lF)

67 Both Sexypig and Ace pretty much nail it for me (pun unintended). The more libertarian side of me does believe very much that government getting out of the marriage business would be a good thing, especially given the number of gay couples I know who take their committed relationships very seriously. But then reality sets in.

As noted, this is much less about couples getting married than it is about a full frontal assault on religion, specifically Christianity, in this country. It's Western deconstruction 101, and it makes me really uncomfortable.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:35 PM (WRtsc)

68 Let's also recall a very simple truth here: This is not about marriage "equality," but about redefining marriage.

People who are attracted to those of the same sex have always had the freedom to marry people of the opposite sex. They have always had the same rights in that regard as heterosexuals. There has never been any litmus test concerning your "orientation" required to marry... Only that you're of a certain age, that you're not already married to someone else, and that your future spouse be of the opposite sex.

New York has not done anything to change the access of gays to the institution of marriage. What it has done is to redefine it to mean something it has never meant.

Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 12:35 PM (1c0W9)

69 Addendum: if I hadn't had some of my gay friends tell me that to my face, it wouldn't bother me so much. But they did, and it does.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:37 PM (WRtsc)

70 Marriage law has become a complete clusterfuck in this country. There's virtually no legal protection for husbands and fathers should the marriage end, it provides a multibillion dollar industry for lawyers, it produces inequitable tax laws that favors married couples while fucking over single people, and now teh gheys are stewing their own smelly shit into this mix. Jesus Christ.

Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM (TCyyS)

71 I have to go honey badger on this...don't give a shit
As long as they aren't sticking shot in my ass or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares.
Then again I'm a dem

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM (klsTp)

72 How long until GLAAD and the rest of the
MoveOn-dot-Gay organizations demand exemptions for gay couples?
Reparations and all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with being
equal, it has to do with being "special", and they're gonnaneed some
other plaintto gain that status now.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM

Yep.

Posted by: huerfano at June 25, 2011 12:40 PM (izDdO)

73 I have to go honey badger on this...don't give a shit

As long as they aren't sticking shot in my ass or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares.

Then again I'm a dem

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM

Is your kid in public school?

Posted by: Kevin Jennings at June 25, 2011 12:41 PM (izDdO)

74 it's long overdue that we all be honest and admit that this has nothing
to do with equality, it's a pissing match between Christians and gays.

Desecrating holy symbols in the form of Jesus Butt Plugs or irrelevant cross burnings, for in stance, are a pretty good hint.

Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 12:41 PM (wOaLi)

75 As noted, this is much less about couples getting married than it is about a full frontal assault on religion, specifically Christianity, in this country. It's Western deconstruction 101, and it makes me really uncomfortable.
It's full-blown nihilism, and its purposeis to destroy life itself.
There are few corporeal acts more nihilistic thanplanting your seed in another man's anus, or using your birth canal as areceptacle for another woman's fist.
The ultimategoal here is the extinction of the species.

Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (nfn9A)

76 "...or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares."
You're a Demeven though they support teaching that crap to your kids (and sneak it in wherever they can)? What are you waiting for? One of them to get sent homewith a gerbil for a "class project"?

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (Z05lF)

77 As long as they aren't sticking shot in my ass or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting

You can't be a Democrat because that remark is bigoted. If you won't teach your child about masturbation, then we will. Wait until you see our advanced programs in the works!

Posted by: Joycelyn Elders at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (AZGON)

78 The major contention between sides, to my mind, seems to come from partisans from both sides of the aisle who want to control the other. The gay lobby wants to force acceptance of their lifestyle on religious institutions and everyone else they don't like, while on our side the argument is made that by merely accepting the concept of acceptable homosexuality we bring about the moral downfall of Western civilization and thus it cannot be allowed. As a practicing Christian, I can understand the latter point of view, but I cannot agree with it. As human beings, I believe we have to be allowed the maximum amount of self determination possible without directly infringing upon someone else's; that's what the Constitution was supposed to be all about. Get the government out of the marriage business and no one's views can be forced on anyone else. What is God's is not Caesar's, and your civil union does not threaten my marriage in the slightest. It's when you demand to call it a marriage in a naked attempt to gain legitimacy in order to undermine my religion that I start getting angry...

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (WKOe/)

79 Great piece ace and spot on.Gabe is either blinded by emotion on this or disingenuous.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (aLloM)

80
tmi3rd,

the anti-religionists and anti-civilizationists will wedge their way into everything. So for that reason we keep government in the marriage business where it doesn't belong? That's handing them another victory of sorts.

Posted by: arhooley at June 25, 2011 12:43 PM (xjkGU)

81 Bravo Cuomo!11!!11!! Talk about job creation, think of all the fabulous Easthampton weddings to cater for my fag friends. Why Michael FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzMichael have already scheduled a butt-blowout for Labor Day. Fabulous!11!!!1 See you at the beach!11!!!!! Toodles!1!1!!1!

Posted by: The Barefoot Contessa at June 25, 2011 12:43 PM (le5qc)

82 Does anyone think that our country's morals have improved over the last 40 years? If this is progress, let me off.

Posted by: packsoldier at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (XAlr4)

83 updated again.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (nj1bB)

84 I'm wondering what benefits I can claim if I say I'm "gay". I mean didn't the word "gay" formerly mean happy? I hereby reclaim that definition and from here on I am gay, if I can get something from everyone else.

Posted by: kansas at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (mka2b)

85 Tell you what, New York... We'll recognize your gay marriage laws when you recognize our concealed carry laws, mmkay?Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 12:28 PM (1c0W9) Nominee for early thread winner.

Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 12:45 PM (sOtz/)

86 But we seem to be putting the cargo before the cult here.

I am so stealing that.

The update about forcible "tolerance" is dead on. It's Gay, Inc. that makes me want to slam the closet door shut and bolt it behind me. I loathe the concept that queerness comes with the non-optional Leftist political beliefs action pack. I loathe it but I understand where the idea originates. What most people see on the news and read on the blogs, etc. etc. is militant leftist identity politics.

You know, there is a reason why I bring up being queer, other than attention whoring. It's to point out that conservative queers do exist and that not every queer believes in gay marriage (my position - don't give a crap about it other than marriage is a religious practice and the government needs to gtfo of it) and that Gay, Inc. does not speak for me.

I do not blame, at all, those who are being accused of hatred with no basis for deciding that they might hate if that's the accusation no matter what. I don't like it, but it's the inevitable consequence.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 12:45 PM (sf+iw)

87 In the larger scheme this is a relatively small thing.If the country weren't fucked six ways to Sunday I'd be hopping mad at this.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (aLloM)

88 Some just want to get married. Some others want to b able to march into a Mormon Temple with the power of the state at their back and DEMAND that the church marry them or they can say "hate speech."
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (lGaUI)

I equate these with "moderate Muslims", that in their heart of hearts wouldn't give 2 shits if their radical brethren achieved some of their agenda. You wont see "moderate homosexuals" marching in the street when the radicals are forcing the Catholic Church to perform their marriages.

Posted by: TendStl at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (GiF31)

89 86 Very good Alex,I know you aren't the only one out there who thinks that way.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:47 PM (aLloM)

90 Who are the 4 GOP Senators who sold us out? Better not have been mine, I did place a call to his office and the aide told me I was the only one who'd called that day who made any sense. This is what I told him my feelings are on the subject:

1) I'm not religious or anti-gay marriage, I just didn't understand why we were so intent on legalizing non-illegal activity. To the best of my knowledge, any one can have a gay wedding ceremony and not end up in jail.

2) Many liberal proponents claim this is a civil rights issue, and I've even heard many chiding anti-gay marriage blacks over it. First, that is despicable and offensive. Second, they are not pushing for equal rights. They want a special right. Any gay man always had as much right to marry a woman as any straight man. Straight men have never had, or asked for, the right to a same-sex marriage. Not equal, new and different.

3) Some proponents whine that they just want their feelings for each other validated. I don't think I've ever heard a more pathetic argument than that of demanding the government validate your insecure feelings. Losers.

I asked him not to indulge these children, I hope he didn't. Gonna go check...

Posted by: mugiwara at June 25, 2011 12:48 PM (KI/Ch)

91 Great post, Ace! And that shifting tactic strategy you identify is used by the left on everything! That's why it's so, so hard to have an intelligent argument with them, because you know they're not being straight with you about their goals. Like how they really really want single-payer, but refuse to admit it, and if the current path of Obamacare just happens to get 'reformed' into a single-payer system, well dandy. The scariest part for me is that, while surely there must be some higher-ups in the movement coming up with the grander strategy, the 'little people' on the left seem so sincere about whatever argument they're making at the moment, even if it's the complete opposite of the one they so sincerely made six months ago. Just down the memory-hole, rewritten history, straight outta Orwell. What scares me about that is I don't know whether they're all liars, or just incredibly dumb sheep, or which possibility would be worse.

Here, by the way, is my favorite post ever on gay marriage and other social issues, which had a major impact in changing me from a libertarian into a social con.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 12:48 PM (PY4xx)

92 87

Right. It's just one more small step on the road to destruction...

Posted by: packsoldier at June 25, 2011 12:48 PM (XAlr4)

93 Does anyone think that our country's morals have improved over the last 40 years? If this is progress, let me off.
-------------------------------------
In some ways yes, in some ways no. The crushing tide of inevitable demographics make this issue a foregone conclusion.

It's over.

Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 12:49 PM (BKOsZ)

94 The Catholic Church wont do it.(oh some individuals will and be excommunicated but not the church).They will stop doing marriages altogether if they are forced.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:49 PM (aLloM)

95 There are few corporeal acts more nihilistic thanplanting your seed in
another man's anus, or using your birth canal as areceptacle for
another woman's fist.

Oh, I don't know, I'm thinking suicide bombing in front of a maternity ward might just have that beat.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 12:49 PM (sf+iw)

96 Let's first impose gay marriage on Islam.

Then let's kill all the lawyers.

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 12:50 PM (4sQwu)

97 That is pretty much how I view the issue as
well. The more I ponder it, the more puzzling the notion of state
regulation of marriage becomes to me. Why people even choose to get a
government marriage seems more to do with tradition and convention than
anything else.


Posted by: Lee Reynolds at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (5KnyG)



You are ignoring the fact that the traditional family has formed the basis of Western civilization for a long time (millenia, depending on which root of the West you start at). The government needs to know what "a family" is in order to understand how that grouping is truly situated in our culture. You cannot divorce a government from the underlying culture of the governed. Our immigration policy is family-based, for example, because we consider families ... TRADITIONAL FAMILIES ... to be an exceedingly important foundation of our culture and our citizenry. Those traditional families had assumed many obligations in the maintenance of oreded and dynamic Western society for millenia. Now, the government has been in the business of taking those rights (to carry out the traditional familial obligations) away from the family and is finishing up the assault from outside. We will have a government that can make no distinction between citizens and aliens, humans and animals, organic and inorganic matter. The governmental language that is used to impose restrictions on the population would have finally been stripped of all possible, stable meaning. Of course, society itself will tear apart long before our language reaches absolute zero.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 12:52 PM (G/MYk)

98 updated again. Libertarian position is not a position but a dodge and pure question-avoiding horseshit.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:52 PM (nj1bB)

99 Update: My GOP Senator who we just promoted from the Assembly last year and was one of the "maybes" voted no. I shall support his reelection.

Posted by: mugiwara at June 25, 2011 12:52 PM (KI/Ch)

100 Now that we have redefined marriage to include members of the same sex, what will the next group be?
Some man or woman is going to want to marry their adult son or daughter. Think about the pension/benefits the offspring will receive for a very long time.
Why can't other "groups" define marriage to be what they want?

Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 12:52 PM (YHrQZ)

101 Having been married and divorced all I can say to gays is be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (MtwBb)

Heh. Ditto.

Been enjoying the discussion on Twitter. Here's from Treacher: There's still time to block gay weddings, NY conservatives. Just convince Bloomberg they're fun.

Posted by: Theresa D. at June 25, 2011 12:53 PM (819f8)

102 Why bother with gay marriage at all? Marriage as an institution has been dead in the Western world for quite a
while now with only the shell of its tradition remaining. People
nowadays just go through with the ceremony of taking their vows but know
in truth that no one will actually hold them to said vows or condemn
them for breaking them.

Marriage in the Western world has become noting more than a meaningless public declaration of love. The social contract was ripped to shreds long ago by the feminists and their unwitting patsy's the white knighting social cons.

Posted by: GhostShip at June 25, 2011 12:53 PM (sbaXF)

103 "But this is a real thing. Tell people you're going to force them to accept something they don't care for and you're not going to actually breed more acceptance, but likely nearly the opposite."- Ace

I agree with most of your post (about the shifting arguments and the end goal for activists. But I think you're wrong about the effectiveness of law on our daily lives.

I hate that I have to put this caveat/disclaimer, but I am not calling you a racist or even a homsexual bigot or whatever: I'm sure that some guy wrote something similar in the 60s. "You can legislate whatever you want some people will never accept negroes as neighbors or coworkers.". But 30 and 50 years later, that's unimaginable. The Supreme Court and Title 9 have basically eradicated de jure and de facto racism. Gay marriage proponents are counting on the same thing happening. And it will probably work. There will be holdouts at first, especially among the boomer generation. But young people are already in favor of it. And their kids, who will no doubt grow up with married gay couples next door and working in the next cubical over, won't be able to imagine life before it.

They call it the coercive machinery of the state for a reason.

Posted by: Trent at June 25, 2011 12:54 PM (+FDl5)

104 That bow fucker chick is coming to NY with a lawyer .

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:54 PM (aLloM)

105 Tip of the Day- Use one color, and select different species of flowers all of that color.-- FABULOUS!1!!1!!

Posted by: The Barefoot Contessa at June 25, 2011 12:54 PM (le5qc)

106 The government cannot say "We are entirely out of the contract-enforcement business. It's on you."

Absolutely right. Government can no more "get out of the marriage business" than it can get out of adjudicating disputes over any other kind of contract.

It's like demanding to swim but not get wet.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:55 PM (AZGON)

107 Arhooley, I think of it more as a firewall than anything else. One of the things that I watch with dread is the inability of various sects of Christianity (I came fairly close to going into the Jesuit priesthood) to get on the same page and find ways to present a united front.

To me- and I don't pretend mine is the only right or wrong answer here- splitting the contractual law element away from the sacramental element sucks a lot of the oxygen away from the fire.

I think it's important to not overlook the cottage industry that various activist groups have created- I'm wondering if shutting that cottage industry down may not be the most important front in the war in the long run.

Again, I don't pretend to have all the answers on this... I'm sort of crystallizing my opinions as we go here.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:55 PM (WRtsc)

108 How does discrimination play into this?


A man can marry any consenting woman he wants.

Posted by: JavaJoe at June 25, 2011 12:56 PM (e9JZd)

109 Who do we call to get a waiver? Isn't this like Obamacare?

I heard the Reverend Wright just got his.

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 12:57 PM (4sQwu)

110 And the difference between democrats and republicans is? neither gives a flip about western civ
voting means nothing: one partyis full-blown pro-degenerate and the other party will stab you in the back so that it will be liked and feted by the pro-denegrate party and it's allies.
Enjoy four more years of Baracky....

Posted by: unintended consequences at June 25, 2011 12:57 PM (VxqUc)

111 Can someone again remind me how gay marriage benefits society.?

Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 12:57 PM (p2IBw)

112
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex unions are an aberration, end of discussion.

Let common-law or civil unions handle any questions of rights.

First, last and only time I post about the subject.

Posted by: irongrampa at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (ud5dN)

113 Oh, I don't know, I'm thinking suicide bombing in front of a maternity ward might just have that beat.
Exactly, you cupid stunt- I was explicity thinking of MURDER as beingone of the "FEW CORPOREAL ACTS" which would be even more nihilistic than homosexuality.

Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (nfn9A)

114 Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:49 PM (aLloM)

I think you're right. I think some squishy Protestant sects will buckle, and there may be another minor schism within the Catholic Church, but in the end they'll stop doing official weddings first. What you'll likely see is Church weddings confined to practicing members of said church only and only after said Church's requirements have been met.

To be perfectly honest, there is something appealing about this concept...

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (WKOe/)

115
You know marriage was in trouble when the bride gets drunk and humps her previous boyfriend on her wedding night. Yea, I read it in Brides Magazine while sitting in the City of Las Vegas pre-booking room prior to my bond hearing.

Posted by: Ashley Dupre, Client #9's Main Squeeze at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (cwFVA)

116 Why bother with gay marriage at all? Marriage as an institution has been dead in the Western world for quite a while now with only the shell of its tradition remaining.

Apart from its clear legal implications, you may be largely correct about marriage. As an institution, society hardly affords it the public respect it once had. That does not mean we need to discard it, on the contrary it might be nice to take it more seriously.

The big thing here is the defamation and deconstruction of marriage is part of the Leftist project.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:59 PM (AZGON)

117 Gay thoughts on stray marriage. C'mon, Ace. Give us some more.

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 12:59 PM (4sQwu)

118 Ace, where do you come down on government enforcing the contract law element and religion enforcing the sacramental side, but a split between the two? I'm asking, again, because I'm trying to make up my mind on this.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:59 PM (WRtsc)

119 From the CDC for 2008

Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,726,566Birth rate for unmarried women: 52.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 yearsPercent of all births to unmarried women: 41%I have a hunch gay marriage will not have any effect on these stats. I'm listening, explain to me again why marriage is so important.

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:00 PM (le5qc)

120
"Let's first impose gay marriage on Islam."

Going to be an interesting 21st Century.

Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 01:00 PM (sOtz/)

121 113 Get lost fucker.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:00 PM (aLloM)

122 But the "government should get out of the marriage business" is not a
side. It's a way to sound smart while saying "I don't know,"
overlooking the fact that saying "I don't know" is often a pretty damn
smart thing to say.

Oh bite me. It's a perfectly cromulent position to say that ultimately government should get out of the marriage business. It is not a dodge. It is not an attempt to play cute. It is a valid expression of a belief as to the proper role of the government on this issue.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that what you mean is that someone holds the position that the government should be out of the marriage business without expressing an opinion as to what should be done until that point is attempting to dodge the issue.


Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 01:00 PM (sf+iw)

123 There's still time to block gay weddings, NY conservatives. Just convince Bloomberg they're fun.


Priceless!

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:00 PM (AZGON)

124
What most of us - gays included - forget is that pastors, preachers, and priests always include that little phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of _______" at the end of the marriage ceremony.
I still remember my High School government teacherremindingus ofthat VERY important phrase. Those few words actually allow most of us to be married in the eyes of the Church AND the eyes of the State in one fell swoop. We forget that the church and the state entered into a convenient "relationship" for the marriage ceremony, more to kill two birds with one stone.
In many European countries, people have two ceremonies - a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony. If necessary, churches can "divorce" themselves fromperformingcivil ceremoniesin order to get away from the clutches of the state.
Couples can still have a religious ceremony in addition to a civil ceremony. The gay activists may not like it, but if they want to change it, they're going to have to fight a whole other battle....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 01:01 PM (wtQcz)

125 More on the shifting goalposts tactic, so typical of the left:

"Discussion of [the ERA] bogged down in hysterical claims that the amendment would eliminate privacy in bathrooms, encourage homosexual marriage,
put women in the trenches and deprive housewives of their husbands'
support." N.Y. Times, July 5, 1981 (excerpt of a book by Betty Friedan).


see here

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:02 PM (PY4xx)

126 Posted by: Unreconstructed Paleocon at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (nfn9A)

Whoah, dude, AT EASE! Totally unnecessary there, especially in response to a reductio ad absurdum comment rendered (unless I miss my guess) more than a little tongue in cheek. Don't turn this into Kos or some other shithole just because you don't like someone's tone.

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 01:02 PM (WKOe/)

127 Exactly, you cupid stunt-

Either have the balls to call me a cunt or don't bother.

As for the rest of your position, hey, you've already opened your mother and removed all doubt.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 01:02 PM (sf+iw)

128 What scares me about that is I don't know whether
they're all liars, or just incredibly dumb sheep, or which possibility
would be worse.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 12:48 PM (PY4xx)
"I would not fear a pack of lions led by a sheep, but I would always fear a flock of sheep led by a lion."Alexander The Great (attributed)

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 01:03 PM (G/MYk)

129 another one:

"What foes of ERA contend were valid arguments and what advocates claim were emotional scare tactics
also seemed to sway sentiment among the women against the amendment [in
North Carolina]. Opponents, for example, suggested passage of ERA would
mean abortion on demand, legalization of homosexual marriages,
sex-integrated prisons and reform schools -- all claims that were hotly
denied by ERA supporters." U.S. News World Report, Apr. 28, 1975.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (PY4xx)

130 113 Get lost fucker.
No, FUCK YOU and your nihilistic desire to squelch freedom of speech.
We real people in the real world have just about had it up to here [gestures at ceiling] with you nihilists and your totalitarianism.
FUCK.
YOU.

Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (nfn9A)

131 "...hysterical claims that the amendment would eliminate privacy in bathrooms, encourage homosexual marriage..." N.Y. Times, July 5, 1981

I'm a-tellin' you, in twenty-five years or so we will see Pedobear out, proud, and accepted. Sooner in Europe.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (AZGON)

132 Tell people you're going to force them to accept something they don't care for and you're not going to actually breed more acceptance, but likely nearly the opposite.
Force me to accept something I'm inclined to go along with, and I'll be disinclined to go along with it any more.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 01:05 PM (jAKfY)

133 130 Nobody is squelching your freedom to be a complete dick.Carry on.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:05 PM (aLloM)

134 These are awesome finds, Adrian. You've perfectly demonstrated Ace's thesis.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:05 PM (AZGON)

135 Rock Hudson married Jim Nabors on June 29, 1970 in a more enlightened parallel universe.

Oh, and fuck all of you!

Posted by: Gaybe Trivia at June 25, 2011 01:06 PM (NAmOv)

136 Rock Hudson married Jim Nabors on June 29, 1970 in a more enlightened parallel universe.

Gomer's Pile!

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:06 PM (AZGON)

137 130

This is why we can't have nice threads...

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 01:07 PM (WKOe/)

138 I think it's important to not overlook the cottage industry that various
activist groups have created- I'm wondering if shutting that cottage
industry down may not be the most important front in the war in the long
run.
This is a good point. When I'm in a toy with the mouse kind of mood, I bat around some of my more extreme lefty friends with the concept that their position re: gay marriage and religion will result in the Phelps Phreaks being able to claim the same level of discrimination about which said lefty friends are currently shrieking. The attempts to sputter otherwise make me happy.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (sf+iw)

139 This desire by homosexuals to marry is a pretty new phenomenon.Why is it neccessary anyway?Why do they desire approval from those who will not give it?

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (aLloM)

140 >>>e. It's a perfectly cromulent position to say that ultimately government should get out of the marriage business. It is not a dodge. It is not an attempt to play cute. It is a valid expression of a belief as to the proper role of the government on this issue.

It's absolutely unfathomly stupid.

Alex, let's next have government get out of the business contract business, right?

Who do you think enforces contracts gone bad?

The courts.

The government.

Where do you think you'll have a broken marriage contract worked out, alex?

And don't say "private mediation" because private mediation is itself a CONTRACTUAL provision enforced by the state. And, further, contracts specify that if private mediation fails to resolve the matter, then the matter can proceed to the bodies which typically resolve contract disputes -- the courts.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:09 PM (nj1bB)

141 The concept of "Full Faith and Credence" was trashed years ago! Think not, try to carry a Gun in Illinois on your legal license from any other state.

Posted by: Old Dog at June 25, 2011 01:10 PM (z/KTb)

142 I really appreciate you covering this.

Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage. Life is hard and lonely and I wouldn't wish for anyone to have to traverse it outside of a committed relationship. (yes i know civil unions accomplish that but for them it "feels" like it no longer counts, so here we are) I would prefer to see it done on a state level but am skeptical if that's long term workable and it will be messy. Under federalism once you get down to the last few states as hold outs they would come under a severe and ugly media demonetization blitz. Bonus the whole world would get to see the how extremely intolerant is the party of "tolerance".

My concern as regards gay marriage, is that of religious freedom. There are already more then a few cases where a few radical gay couples target small church's demand to be married in them and then sue them into closure/submission for refusing. Since it would only take one radical gay couple in each state to create such a crisis its obviously going to happen. *We all know it will be but a heartbeat before religious protections put into gay marriage laws are labeled Jim Crow.

All churches and religious building including Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Mormon, and etc.. Temples and Synogogues that would refuse to perform gay marriages will be vulnerable. To:

-first and least, losing tax exempt status (close down the poorer and smaller religious groups)
-Onerous lawsuits that quickly close down all but the largest religious networks
-Eventually, plausible seizure by the state
-Eventually, plausible arrest of clergy

In short this cat is out of the bag, whole generations of children have been indoctrinated that helping to push through gay marriage is the civil rights struggle of their lives. All that argument about racism or sexism the last few years sounds like listening to an oldies station. Sane people have long acknowledge that in terms of laws and institutions equality has long existed. At this point its a lefty only crusade for special rights that obviously turns the public off. Hence the focus on gay equality on marriage.

I want to feel more for the religious people who will for this, but honestly it was all a perfectly predictable consequence when everyone stood by while the left wrested total control over education and academia, judges and lawyers, and news and entertainment media. Back then their were the numbers to stop them.

The only thing that would stop gay marriage now is the only thing that
would stop immigration. If either group started voting republican by
60+%.

Posted by: Shiggz at June 25, 2011 01:10 PM (mLAWK)

143 140 Exactly.How else to settle a divorce?

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:10 PM (aLloM)

144 You know, we could demand government get out of the "age of consent" business, too. Not that this would create chaos, or anything.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:11 PM (AZGON)

145 The Tree of Woe, the stats are actually much, much worse than even that. The argument you're making is the most convincing one to me, ie that marriage is already dead, so who cares at this point about anything. But just keep in mind that the illegitimacy rate hovered around 10% for as far back as the records go, over 200 years, no matter what happened in society over all that time, it stayed at around 8 to 10 percent, then, the 60s happened, and in less than ten years from the mid sixties to the early seventies, the rate skyrocketed at an unprecedented, previously completely unthinkable pace, to over 30 percent, and it's been climbing ever since. And the same people who destroyed marriage in the 60s to get it to the point you bring to our attention today, are the ones today claiming how important marriage is and how we have to let gays in on this sacred human right. If you still believe they're being sincere, and that this isn't just the latest volley to completely annihilate whatever is left of traditional morality in our society, well, I've got some bridges to sell you.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:12 PM (PY4xx)

146 142 What more could we do than vote?They got what they wished through the courts often as not.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:13 PM (aLloM)

147 It's absolutely unfathomly stupid.


You're right, it is unfathomably stupid that I forgot to include get the government out of the marriage business except on a contract basis. Let me clarify, I am not being sarcastic, it was stupid of me to leave that out. I left it out because I assumed it was implied. It was an idiotic assumption of me to make. Mea maxima culpa.

Ace, I agree with everything you said about government of necessity being involved in contract interpretation. You were right. I expressed myself v v badly.


Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 01:14 PM (sf+iw)

148 -first and least, losing tax exempt status (close down the poorer and smaller religious groups)

From your mouth to the ears of the IRS

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:14 PM (le5qc)

149 116
Why bother with gay marriage at all? Marriage as an institution has
been dead in the Western world for quite a while now with only the shell
of its tradition remaining.





Apart from its clear legal implications, you may be largely correct
about marriage. As an institution, society hardly affords it the public
respect it once had. That does not mean we need to discard it, on the
contrary it might be nice to take it more seriously.





The big thing here is the defamation and deconstruction of marriage is part of the Leftist project.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:59 PM (AZGON)


I would like to marriage as an institution restored into society but I really don't see it happening.
The feminists are right when they describe marriage as a tool for enforcing patriarchy and for that reason I see feminists and social conservatives will fight any meaningful efforts to rebuild it.

Posted by: GhostShip at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (sbaXF)

150 Age of consent? I'm thinking we should adopt Sharia Law and/or drive horse buggies.

That's the ticket.

Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (p2IBw)

151 Exactly.How else to settle a divorce?

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:10 PM

Duels?

Posted by: Kevin Jennings at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (izDdO)

152 Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (aLloM)

I'm going to be a pedantic literalist here and just say it's a useful club with which to beat their opponents in the culture war in our current climate of special interest politics and bend-over-backwards political correctness. It has, in the overall, very little to do with approval and much more to do with power. People who care strongly will never accept them, but the squishy, ignorant middle only hears "fairness" and "tolerance," words to which they have been conditioned for years to be responsive. Again, this fight was lost when religion was successfully removed from the argument by secularists of all stripes. After all, what relevance does religion have on a contract between two (or more) consenting parties?

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (WKOe/)

153 135: Grow up.

Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 01:16 PM (BKOsZ)

154 Duels?

Posted by: Kevin Jennings at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM

Ewww, that sock is nasty!

Posted by: huerfano at June 25, 2011 01:17 PM (izDdO)

155 Civil unions: government
Marriage: religion

A couple of terms that the government needs to distinguish and put an end to the social upheaval.

Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (wOaLi)

156 I'm a-tellin' you, in twenty-five years or so we will see Pedobear out, proud, and accepted. Sooner in Europe.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (AZGON)

George Orwell, absolutely. Kathy Shaidle has been saying this for a long time, too, that pedophile rights will be the next thing, that in twenty years we'll be seeing plays about poor, misunderstood child rapists.

"People were shocked back in the 1990s, when little girls dressed up
as “Pretty Woman” (i.e., a prostitute) for Halloween. These days,
pre-pubescent girls dress like that to go to school every day. Movies
from obscure festival prize-winners to Oscar winners like American Beauty
are incrementally normalizing pedophilia. Glamor is a potent agent of
erosion. (Which is why, incidentally, Catholics renewing their baptismal
vows promise to “reject the glamor of evil.”)

As Mark Shea has observed ruefully: today’s progressives (rightly)
condemn pedophile priests (although mostly as a stick to beat the
Catholic Church with); tomorrow’s even “more enlightened” ones will be
obliged by their own twisted, doctrinaire logic to hail them as poor,
misunderstood victims of society’s “dark age” intolerance."

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (PY4xx)

157 the illegitimacy rate hovered around 10% for as far back as the records go... it stayed at around 8 to 10 percent, then, the 60s happened... the rate skyrocketed at an unprecedented, previously completely unthinkable pace, to over 30 percent, and it's been climbing ever since.

Very distressing. Two things come to mind. First,w while this may be true in the West, how is the illegitimacy issue viewed in, say, China? Second, this seems to nearly coincide with the devastation of the black family. The black family was in very good shape until the sixties arrived and the left decided to infantilize minorities instead of make them equals, especially blacks.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (AZGON)

158
And all this is happening, with people are claiming that polygamy will never follow, while we have the first direct product of a true polygamist family occupying the White House. How odd.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 01:19 PM (G/MYk)

159 152 Yeah,my questions were more rhetorical.I agree with you.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:19 PM (aLloM)

160 completely annihilate whatever is left of traditional morality in our society

Traditional morality can't end soon enough. Count me in as an atheist who has Old Testament values. Where did the Jews ever get such ideas, and why did they abandon them for what currently passes for law in America? In current American law right and wrong count for nothing.

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:21 PM (le5qc)

161

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE













MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



























































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}



Forgive the long Ace-like essay friends… Ace doesn't do the ban-stick for things like this, right?


I’m a woman in NYC with quite a few close gay male
friends. I used to believe in the
so-called conservative case for gay marriage. Then I started having
serious conversations with said friends, who were quite candid in telling me
that gays (gay men) might get married, but will have little compunction toward
monogamy, confirming what I think a lot of you who are smarter than myself already knew. That was, if they even saw fit to get married in the first
place. One friend said he didn't want gay marriage to be passed so that
his partners would not, in turn, push him into monogamy. Another who was
very pro-gay marriage would follow up his rally cry by saying, "But, I
don't know why people get married anyway, it's a total bullshit
institution." Enough of these incidents changed my mind on the
subject completely. That and Stanley Kurtz's articles on gay marriage in
Scandinavia.
I'm a woman who's lived in NYC now for nearly 8 years.
In that time, in my extended social circle, I've met many cohabiting unmarried
couples, people who've married for green cards, numerous people with incurable
STDs (herpes HIV), one person who has knowingly given his HIV to numerous
partners, and numerous straight couples consisting of the 30-something-year-old
woman and the 50-something-year-old man who was either married before or screwed
his way through 40% of SoHo before deciding he was getting old and should
settle down. I know lesbians with
babies, single women who decided to have children without any man in the
picture. I know of one - count 'em, one - straight married couple
comprised of two people of similar age who are on their first marriage.
There's a reason for this (and it's not that I’m some
outlier with a fucked up social circle).
If you live in place where the cost of living has been taxed and
otherwise artificially jacked up to insanity (incentivizing early cohabitation),
a place where straight women vastly outnumber straight men (disincentivizing
monogamy, and pushing women towards early promiscuity in relationships and sexual
competitiveness), a place where there is a welfare state that rewards people for
being unmarried and where private workplace benefits systems often make no
distinction between cohabitation and marriage, this is the end result. As if all these conditions didn’t take away much of the ability for
straight women to persuade straight men into marriage, gay marriage will send
stronger signals to straight men that marriage is either “a total bullshit
institution,” or that monogamy isn’t all that serious of a requirement. Which might be all well and good, except, if
Kurtz’s stats about Scandinavia translate to the U.S., and there’s no reason
they shouldn’t, cohabiting unmarried couples with kids break up at rates 2-3
times that of married couples with kids.
So cohabiting is not equal to marriage, marriage is not just “a total
bullshit institution” and this will not bode well for family stability, nor for
all the concomitant problems that arise with lack of family stability.


Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at June 25, 2011 01:22 PM (LFxOm)

162 147......government of necessity being involved in contract interpretation.


Yes, you would need to cease allowing or requiring church representatives signing any documents and have lawyers and notaries perform the contractual obligation. When the churches perform a ceremony as a religious rite as it was intended then no one can demand their ceremony as a right.

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 01:22 PM (lpWVn)

163 OT But speaking of Sharia,the US Army has granted conscientious objector status to a muslim soldier.That is a Big Fucking Deal.We Are So Fucked.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:22 PM (aLloM)

164 139
This desire by homosexuals to marry is a pretty new phenomenon.Why is it
neccessary anyway?Why do they desire approval from those who will not
give it?
Because it isn't about marriage. There isn't going to be a flood of New York gheys chomping at their bits the bit to get marriage licenses, outside of the initial vanity rush of (short-lived) ghey weddings officiated by George Takei.

And they don't desire approval, they desire validation. Validation via the police power of government. Anyone who doesn't approve, well that's just too damn bad, because if you run anything from a church to a bridal dress outfit to a catering service in the state of New York, and are not down with all imaginable permutations of perversion the fags are going to try to bring through your doors (to prove a point, not because they're really interested in marriage), you're about to be sued and/or run out of business.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (cOkIN)

165 158 Holy Smokes! That's 100% on the money.

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (lpWVn)

166 A statistic I've never seen is how many gays actually line up to get married in states where gay marriage has been legalized. I've only heard anecdotal accounts, but they suggest that the number of gay marriages is pitifully small. Why, it's almost as though all those passionate advocates of gay civil rights really had no interest in taking advantage of the right that they fought for!
So what's the motive here? Allow me to adjust my tinfoil hat.
What motivates the gay marriage movement is the destruction of traditional Western society. I'm serious. Look at the hatred that the Left bears for all things Western. The destructive ideology (maybe not even ideology; more like a visceral, unthinkinghatred) that motivates middle class college kids to help smuggle weapons into Gaza also motivates the gay marriage movement.
Choose your own metaphor, but I'll say marriage is the bedrockthat supports traditional Western society. When the definition of marriage is extended to any relationship that somebody might prefer, it has no meaning at all. By destroying the meaning of the institution, you destroy the institution. When marriage is denatured, one huge pillar of society has been kicked out from under it. Chalk up a big win for the pseudo-intellectual anti-Western nihilists.
I have no personal animus at all toward gays.My stepbrother is openly gay and a friend I've kept from a job decades ago is gay. I recognizewhat gays have contributed,especially in terms of art andliteratureand society is a better place for it. But I also understand the gay marriage movement has little to do with "gay rights." It's aTrojan horse for the bindly anti-Western impulse that motivates much of the Left today, and I will never support it.

Posted by: Cicero at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (Txl/u)

167 157
the illegitimacy rate hovered around 10% for as far back as the
records go... it stayed at around 8 to 10 percent, then, the 60s
happened... the rate skyrocketed at an unprecedented, previously
completely unthinkable pace, to over 30 percent, and it's been climbing
ever since.

And it will continue to rise as there is a lot of free money in having no husband - the state pays for all and the father runs free with no responsibility or repercussions.

Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (YHrQZ)

168 Kathy Shaidle has been saying this for a long time, too, that pedophile rights will be the next thing

Frankly polyamory will arrive first, given our genuflections to Islam. Nevertheless, the Pedobear party will arrive, beginning with arguments over age of consent.

While Pedobear may seem permanently exiled given cultural support for things like Chris Hansen's "Predator" and our numerous CP laws, your reference to the dreadfully boring "American Beauty" is prescient. (Actually I howled out loud at most of the movie; it is unintentionally funny when serious and dreadfully dull when trying to be touching.)

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (AZGON)

169 Grief, Ace, give a brother a chance to keep up! I make all these great points only to find out you've already made them and in a much more concise and erudite fashion! Seriously, best take down of this subject I've read in a long time, and pretty much in sync with what goes on in my brain, although I tend to pay a bit more attention to the religious angle w/regards to marriage overall. Now I have to go back and check the article to see what else you've posted in the three minutes it's taken me to think out and type this. I shudder to think of the rate you must go through keyboards...

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 01:25 PM (WKOe/)

170 Ace,you really need to do a post about what I mention in 163.It is hugely important.This insanity must end.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:26 PM (aLloM)

171 We've termed "single mom" into a sweet badge of honor, and now let's certify it economically by giving her (and him, too) the same tax rate as if married.


Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (4sQwu)

172 And they don't desire approval, they desire validation. Validation via the police power of government. Anyone who doesn't approve, well that's just too damn bad, because if you run anything from a church to a bridal dress outfit to a catering service in the state of New York, and are not down with all imaginable permutations of perversion the fags are going to try to bring through your doors (to prove a point, not because they're really interested in marriage), you're about to be sued and/or run out of business.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, because the ultimate business plan is to NOT take money for a service because you don't approve of the sex lives of the people giving you the money. These people deserve to go out of business for being stupid, not sued out of business.

Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (BKOsZ)

173 "first and least, losing tax exempt status (close down the poorer and smaller religious groups)From your mouth to the ears of the IRS
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:14 PM "
I love when poseurs lift the curtain...

Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (VxqUc)

174 164 Yeah validation was the word I should have used.They want their lifestyle completely accepted and validated by everyone.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (aLloM)

175 La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at June 25, 2011 01:22 PM (LFxOm)

You have also described much of Los Angeles.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (AZGON)

176 I have to go honey badger on this...don't give a shit
As long as they aren't sticking shit in my ass or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares.
Then again I'm a dem

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 01:28 PM (klsTp)

177 The black family was in very good shape until the sixties arrived and the left decided to infantilize minorities instead of make them equals, especially blacks.
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (AZGON)

Gee, couldn't be what Malcolm X said that the "Great Society" would become "welcomed enslavement".

Certainly LBJ and the Democrats (years after openly persecuting blacks in the South) couldn't possibly have had a different motive for GS than "helping the poor".

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 01:29 PM (hZs9Q)

178 "These people deserve to go out of business for being stupid, not sued out of business.
Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM "
How dare someone be free enough in America to make moral decisions for himself. Why yes I'll cater your wedding to a nine year old, Mohammad.

Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 01:30 PM (VxqUc)

179 177 The implication of the GS was that blacks were incapable of taking care of themselves.Sel fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:30 PM (aLloM)

180 @9

Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.

-----------------------------

Well, it affected this "strait" when the united way was sued into oblivion for supporting the boyscouts because they dared to hold meetings at churches.

And it affects this "strait" when the gay political agenda attacks my church.

It also affects this "strait" when I have to deal with being called a homophobe and hate filled person any time I voice my moralistic thoughts on gay marriage. This is a direct result of the Gay political agenda's constant efforts.

It affects me in my workplace (I work for a marketing agency) where my gay co-workers feel the need to shove their gayness in everyone's face as they "fight" for policy positions like gay marriage. Though I guess the women seem to find this somewhat endearing.

You may not think this is bad, but don't you dare say it doesn't affect people who aren't gay you small minded fuck.

Posted by: emaugust at June 25, 2011 01:31 PM (E8wmM)

181 >>>Ace, I agree with everything you said about government of necessity being involved in contract interpretation. You were right. I expressed myself v v badly.

It's more than that, alex. You fail to realize that 90% of contractual disputes are over things *NEVER CONSIDERED IN DRAWING UP THE CONTRACT.*

You know what you need for a sales contract? You need a quantity and you need a price. That's it.

You can leave all the other terms blank and it's still a contract for sale.

What happens if some of the delivered goods are spoiled or defective? If you're buying watermelons, what is the "permissible, expected" quantity of watermelons that are expected to spoil during transportation, and so you can't complain about that, and what is the level above which spoilage will be considered a breach of contract?

You don't have to specify these things in contracts, and many, many, manymanymanymany times, people DON'T specify them.

So what happens when 15% of the watermelons are spoiled and you only expected 8% spoilage but your seller thinks that 15-20% is what's fair and normal?

Neither party ever agreed to this term.

What happens now? It hasn't been privately negotiated.

What happens is you go to court, where the court imposes its own third-party ruling on how much spoilage seems fair and normal and reasonable.

That is what the courts do. That's 90% of their business. Resolving disputes where no private contract actually provides any guidance on the instant dispute, and where the court is asked to step in and simply impose a solution.

The courts have a huge case law on this. precedents, prior rulings of what is "fair" and "reasonable" in just about everything.

And yet they keep on churning out new opinions, because every single day, there's a new dispute over an unspecified, left-blank contract term no one has ever litigated before.

When we talk about marriage law, we're talking about the same damn thing, but applied to marriage contracts.

What happens if a wife starts fucking a husband's brother? Is he husband entitled to a divorce? Is the wife entitled to alimony or equitable division, given that she, you know, was fucking the guy's brother?

You really think a contract specified what should happen in that eventuality? No, it didn't. No one even thought of it.

This is what we call "marriage law."

the idea that government should "get out of the marriage business" is all babyfood. It's a babyfood position. It's mush. It's sounds good and nice and avoids contentious debates on the surface, but with the slightest scratching into it it's revealed as thinner than the shiny gloss on the page of a celebrity magazine.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:32 PM (nj1bB)

182 In other words, gay marriage started with activists yelling "Stop being like the other states! Allow it!!!!"......and it'll end with the very same group yelling "Stop NOT being like the other states! Allow it!!!!"...cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com

Posted by: cnredd at June 25, 2011 01:32 PM (XdXvF)

183 160


Traditional
morality can't end soon enough


Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:21 PM (le5qc)

Tree, do you know the number one predicting factor for poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, crime, depression, suicide attempts, sexual abuse, illiteracy, and just about all other manner of serious dysfunction? It's being born to a single parent family, ie to an unwed mother. Marriage matters, and the destruction of marriage since the 60s has had a terrible effect on the social fabric, the social capital of this country. You don't have to be religious to believe that, you just have to think happy, well-adjusted people are better off than homeless junkies. If you're not willing to make that cruel, judgmental leap into the harsh waters of traditional morality, then there's nothing I can say to convince you, sorry.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:33 PM (PY4xx)

184 And they don't desire approval, they desire validation. Validation via the police power of government.

It's really all about moving goalposts.

We've termed "single mom" into a sweet badge of honor

The fact that there is no longer shame in being a single parent is a problem. Does this mean we should look down on single parents? NO, NO and NO. However, once something loses the taint of shame, the human condition virtually guarantees you will get more of that something.

In fact, celebrating single parenthood is one of the worst things we can do to parents and children alike. Saying what I have just said makes me a monster in many people's minds.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:33 PM (AZGON)

185 Also, I have long thought that churches should stop trying to own the government version of marriage. If they want to stick it to the gays, they should start pumping the fact that a "real" marriage is one consecrated in the bounds of the church (whatever the denomination) - and that government marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper.

I think that would resonate... And for those so inclined, give *them* something they can have that Gays can not - so long as the relevant church does not do gay marriage.

Posted by: emaugust at June 25, 2011 01:34 PM (E8wmM)

186 There is no such thing as gay marriage. Never has been and never will. What they are looking for are special rights based on who or what they prefer to sleep with. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman from the beginning of time. Whether it was for social position, arranged, love, or whatever reason, it has always been between a man and a woman. It is not for the government to give a right that cannot exist. And someone upthread is correct in stating that an immoral society cannot govern itself. This is just one more step down the road to tyranny.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 25, 2011 01:34 PM (ekWve)

187 Hmm I did a repeat comment
Stupid iphone

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 01:35 PM (klsTp)

188 OT: This is astounding: Former Car Czar Steven Rattner 'gets' it on ethanol and the problems it's caused in world food and energy markets. AND the NYTimes publishes it!

Posted by: Truman North at June 25, 2011 01:35 PM (K2wpv)

189 >>> Also, I have long thought that churches should stop trying to own the government version of marriage. If they want to stick it to the gays, they should start pumping the fact that a "real" marriage is one consecrated in the bounds of the church (whatever the denomination) - and that government marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper.

That's a version of "private marriage" that the traditionalists may have to seek, because the Gay Marriage Lobby is winning.

And they only need five votes to take it national, and I think they probably have them.

That may wind up being the only solution traditionalists can have... at least until the gay marriage lobby starts litigating THAT, too.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:35 PM (nj1bB)

190 39 My list of political issues that don't matter:1) Abortion Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government.

You don't see the irony here? Fascinating.


Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:36 PM (5tl1Y)

191 But I also understand the gay marriage movement has little to do with "gay rights." It's a Trojan horse for the bindly anti-Western impulse that motivates much of the Left today, and I will never support it.

Posted by: Cicero at June 25, 2011 01:24 PM (Txl/u)

There are people who are gay, and there are gays.
There are people who are sexually gay, but that is only a part of who they are. It isn't their end-all, be-all. Many in the former don't support the strategies and tactics of the latter. They aren't the ones who get any attention of course. The ones who do, are the ones that metaphorically beat you head with an 18inch dildo by a man dressed in a pink thong while simultaneously screaming ACCEPTANCE!


South Park had a great episode, the Death Camp of Intolerance. The whole point at the very end was that "tolerating" something doesn't mean you bend over backwards and look the other way, or that you have to like it, you just live and let live. It doesn't give the opposite party the right to start suing and chasing you down.

The American Left has subverted society by pitting people into oppressor and oppressed. The oppressed are then "freed", but rather then the next stage being reconciliation and moving on, it becomes a fucking "now we have the upper hand" fest. We have gone from one extreme to another in just a few short years.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 01:38 PM (hZs9Q)

192 Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM (VxqUc)

Tax exemption is crony fascism, sweetie. Get the Gov out of all social engineering. If you want your religion, then cough it up. Don't ask me to pay for your Mohel, Priest, Pastor, abortion, education, horse or home. Fair enough?

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:38 PM (le5qc)

193 And when they have finally achieved their goal, they will look upon the desert and call it "marriage".

Posted by: Steve C. at June 25, 2011 01:39 PM (V3oL8)

194 I find it amazing how some folks don't want to deal with "social issues" i.e. abortion and gay "rights".

Those issues are some of the ways the Progressives can enact their long term goals. Reduce the population of "undesirables", Margaret Sanger's words not mine.

Several years ago GW Bush was talking about Social Security going into the crapper and he gave a number of missing tax payers. It was roughly the same as those who've been aborted.

Gays can't reproduce. More gays means less people in the long run. Simple math. Just look at Algore's recent comments about empowering women so they basically stop or minimize reproduction.

Meanwhile your friendly neighborhood Islamist is going buckwild in the sack and pumpin' babies galore. See Europe.

So this we got bigger fish to fry than these "petty" social issues is going to hurt us.

Posted by: Lou at June 25, 2011 01:39 PM (Q8eRK)

195 I do believe homosexuals are owed about 8,000 years worth of reparations.

Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 01:39 PM (Qs0Qk)

196 Well put, Ace. And I find myself in that position. I'm a liberal turned libertarian turned conservative/libertarian. I was always very tolerant of gays. Knew some at school, worked with some, was never a problem, never an issue. Each to his own. And because I grew up in a family that dug broadway, I even was happy that that segment of our society produced (generally speaking) an art form I really enjoyed.

But the more I get pushed around, the more I get accused of being some right-wing nazi, the more I want to push back. Fuck 'em.

Cause what they want is not tolerance, but celebration. That I'm supposed to be just as happy to see to young gay dudes holding hands as when I see a young couple in love.

Well, that's never gonna happen. It's just not. Homosexuality is abnormal. Always has been, always will be. And most people are always going to be at least mildly weirded out by it. The best they are ever gonna get is for normal people to pretend not to notice. Which I've done my whole life.

Increasingly I just think of gays as more left-wing trash incessantly calling me a racist, or sexist, or homophone -- even though I haven't done a goddamn thing. I'm just sitting there, minding my own business. But that's not good enough for them. So fuck 'em.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 25, 2011 01:39 PM (QcFbt)

197 Very distressing. Two things come to mind. First,w
while this may be true in the West, how is the illegitimacy issue
viewed in, say, China? Second, this seems to nearly coincide with the
devastation of the black family. The black family was in very good
shape until the sixties arrived and the left decided to infantilize
minorities instead of make them equals, especially blacks.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (AZGON)

George Orwell, I have no idea what the issue is like in China, the stats I'm using refer only to America and Britain since 1800 or so, got them from a great book called The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values, by Gertrude Himmelfarb, though they are widely available from other conservative sources.
The scariest part about the devastation of the black family? When Moynihan warned about the black illegitimacy rate in his famous report that got him exiled from polite society and that thus of course turned out to be 100% right, the black rate he was concerned about is the illegitimacy rate among whites today. So just give it a few years...

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:40 PM (PY4xx)

198 History teaches us that once the homos are out of the closet, political and social disintegration shortly follows.

Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 01:41 PM (Qs0Qk)

199 "Tax exemption is crony fascism, sweetie. Get the Gov out of all social engineering. If you want your religion, then cough it up. Don't ask me to pay for your Mohel, Priest, Pastor, abortion, education, horse or home. Fair enough?
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:38 PM "
1. don't call me sweetie - I am not one. oh, and fcuk off
2. you don't like religion - it's has nothing to do with fairy tale libertarianism
you are a poseur - and not a very good one.

Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 01:42 PM (VxqUc)

200 >>>The fact that there is no longer shame in being a single parent is a problem. Does this mean we should look down on single parents? NO, NO and NO. However, once something loses the taint of shame, the human condition virtually guarantees you will get more of that something.

Just a note, watch the locution "single moms" because many single moms are actually DIVORCED moms and are single moms only because they married guys who didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously.

This is always the big tension that makes these questions hard.

Do I really really WANT to get all judgmental and run someone down for bad decisions?

Not really. I do, sort of, but also feel this is a moral vanity on my part, and moral-superiority happy-dance, and really, aren't people who have made their lives difficult being punished enough without my piling on?

On the other hand, just as you say, once stigma is removed, you have more of it.

This is why this continues to be such a hotly-contested type of issue, over and over again. It's unresolvable.

There are two sides, both of which are right by their own terms, and both of which would impose a negative on society. The different sides just disagree on how bad that negative is.

Will. Never. Be. Resolved.

No, I don't want to pounce on never-married never-sexually-prudent single moms very much. They've got it hard.

On the other hand, how do I be supportive while also attempting to signal "Hey, let's try to avoid too much unprotected sex outside of marriage"?

How do you express support for the CURRENT cohort of people who have made poor decisions, while also attempting to reduce the COMING cohort of those who would make the same poor decision?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:42 PM (nj1bB)

201 @181

This is why we come here over and over to read what so-called morons write. Ace delivers Teh Clarity with refreshing flavor. It's posts like this that prove there are actually people out on the intertubes who can write and analyze as well as (and usually better than) our precious elite media commentariat. Yes, you don't need to have a Krauthammer or a Lowry or a Thomas Fucking Friedman to address current affairs. We learn more in discussions at a place like AOSHQ than in dozens of pages at NRO's Corner or freaking Politico.

Just a fine thread and post.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:43 PM (AZGON)

202
Nice scribe Ace.

My two cents.... and I think this supports the Ewoks musings....

What two consenting adults do with/to each other in the privacy of their domicile is actully none of my goddamned business.....

.... but I am goddamned sick and tired of said consenting adults not only asking.... but demanding my ...... blessing and approval.

You.are.wearing.thin.

Posted by: fixerupper at June 25, 2011 01:43 PM (ffV1/)

203 tree of woe.....how are you paying for the tax exemption? you are just not able to spend what you think the religious would have contributed in taxes forgetting that everyone in the pew is paying taxes and making donations that spread through out the community directly impacting the poor with soup kitchens and temporary housing....so tree of woe....get your hand out of the cookie jar.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 25, 2011 01:43 PM (eOXTH)

204
181 When we talk about marriage law, we're talking about the same damn thing, but applied to marriage contracts.

I was the head cantor at a big catholic church (super wealthy parish) and performed at dozens of weddings. I was almost always there in the planning and organization and as the years went by the prenuptial contract was becoming standard with detailed obligations as to fidelity and support and dissolution terms contracted. So yes, the state is inextricably involved.

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 01:44 PM (lpWVn)

205 God is also a bad guy because men can't have anal pregnancies. God is a racist sexisthomophobe.

Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 01:44 PM (Qs0Qk)

206 Ugggh
Can't catch up on the posts!!

Btw, the girl goes to an all girls catholic school so all the weird sex shit she has to learn in the gutter like her parents did

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 01:44 PM (klsTp)

207 Also, I have long thought that churches should stop trying to own the government version of marriage. If they want to stick it to the gays, they should start pumping the fact that a "real" marriage is one consecrated in the bounds of the church (whatever the denomination) - and that government marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper.
The Church has no wish to "stick it to the gays" (WTF?) Believe me there are PLENTY of gays in the Church. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure most of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are gay.
The Catholic Church holds that marriage is a Church Sacrament. It has absolutely nothing to do with the state. The Church politely signs the state marriage license as a service to the participants in the sacrament, noting more. It does believe that govt marriage is a piece of paper, nothing more and, in fact, doesn't recognized govt divorce either.
However, there is absolutely 0 chance that it will recognize gay marriage as a sacrament. Yet, it knows that the govt will try to insist that itrecognize it and attempt to make it an active participant. Since gay marriage isincompatible with the sacrament, it can't happen.
How the upcoming battle against the Church on this topic is different than Stalinism, I don't know.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:45 PM (5tl1Y)

208 The scariest part about the devastation of the black family? When Moynihan warned about the black illegitimacy rate in his famous report that got him exiled from polite society and that thus of course turned out to be 100% right, the black rate he was concerned about is the illegitimacy rate among whites today. So just give it a few years...
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:40 PM (PY4xx)

Moynihan was a liberal who genuinely wanted to make America better. He published that report as a wake up call and to try to start a dialogue on proper public policy. He got called a racist and was ignored.

Scarier is what you said. The illegitimacy rates for blacks he was warning about is now the same for whites today. Oh, we've become more equal all right. In our race to the bottom of the drain.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 01:45 PM (hZs9Q)

209 I am in the separate marriage from civil unions. Let the state deal with the legal crap and let the churches deal with marriage. Then if the gays think they can force the churches to do anything they are mistaken because those would be laws infringing on the free practice of religion.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (iGZkF)

210 A libertarian with two cents and a comcast connection has something to add. Marriage started off a long time ago as a way for church, sect, or religion to gather around and celebrate "Holy Union". The belief and advantage of this action or union was the expansion of said "church" and future existence of the "word" or "belief". Governments foster commerce and provide protection for that commerce to transact. Any thing more and a government steps in to dictate, regulate and pervert individual rights. Marriage is a contract. But it exist between God and the united. Governments may have an interest in contract enforcment. But, that interest is precluded because as powerful as they aregovernments don't have an internet connection to God. Homosexual marriage should be conducted in that "church" that wishes to perpetuate that belief. Governments should not provide ANY benefit to the state of marriage. Marriage benefits come from the blessings of God.

Posted by: mantuaBill at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (96j+b)

211 well well. Knuckleheads are dragged kicking and screaming into the future again. Over and over again the knuckleheads lose. If it was up to the knuckleheads, there would be no universal suffrage, and forget about desegregated schools. and women would not have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

You always lose.

Posted by: oliver sipple at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (xRTH5)

212 buy windows 7 cd key CD Keys ARMA 2 CD Key Call of Duty CD Key Company of Heroes CD Key Command Conquer CD Key Dawn of War 2 CD Key Dead Space CD Key Fallout 3 CD Key Mass Effect 2 CD Key Silent Hunter 5 CD Key The Sims 3 CD Key GTA 4 CD Key NFS CD Key Titan Quest CD Key RUSE CD Key F1 2010 CD Key Two Worlds 2 CD Key Star Trek Online CD Key Spore CD Key Far Cry 3 CD Key Dungeons CD Key Dragon Age CD Key Divinity 2 CD Key Dead Space 2 CD Key Crysis 2 CD Key Cities XL 2011 CD Key HomeFront CD Key Shogun 2 Total War CD Key Fable 3 CD Key PES 2011 CD Key Duke Nukem Forever CD Key Dungeon Siege 3 CD Key FEAR 3 CD Key NBA 2K11 CD Key RIFT CD Key Red Faction: Armageddon CD Key

Posted by: 0jc0wej0 at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (jZp9J)

213 by the way, if there were any modicum of decency among liberals and the media, BIRM, what happened to the black family thanks to LBJ and friends would have become the major story of our lifetimes and ended welfare forever. But they absolutely refuse to acknowledge what happened! It's infuriating, same as with the examples I pasted above about shifting goalposts, it's impossible to have adult conversations with these people. They have literally destroyed -- destroyed -- black America, and yet they continue to insist they are fighting for blacks and that we are the racists. There's no way to respond to that, you can't do anything but throw your arms up and walk away.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (PY4xx)

214 so all the weird sex shit she has to learn in the gutter like her parents did
Which is as it should be(actually Catholic school still covers the biology of reproduction)without the frills, ie condom on a cucumber.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (aLloM)

215 It's more than that, alex. You fail to realize that 90% of contractual
disputes are over things *NEVER CONSIDERED IN DRAWING UP THE CONTRACT.*




Where? Where did I fail to realize that? When, exactly, did I make such statements? Please stop making huge assumptions about my position based on things that *I have not said*. Please stop imputing your assumptions about my position into this discussion.

And, seriously, given that I've spend over a decade doing litigation, including commercial litigation, I think I'm well aware of the underpinnings of contractual disputes.

Obviously, we have a serious disagreement as to whether or not there is a solid philosophical basis for the belief that marriage, on the civil side, should be recognized by the State on a contract basis only. You have made your view that there is none perfectly clear. I will consider any further discussion of this topic to be moot.




Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (sf+iw)

216 ....and for all of you who don't think that gays want to march their asses up and down St Patrick's Cathedrals aisle with the priest resplendent in his vestments consecrating what can't be consecrated....you are beyond naive.....and if you don't think they will march said priest, who refuses to partake in their sham, to the gulag you are beyond stupid........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (eOXTH)

217 >>>Cause what they want is not tolerance, but celebration.

and

>>>.... but I am goddamned sick and tired of said consenting adults not only asking.... but demanding my ...... blessing and approval.

I don't agree exactly that this is what is sought.

This is a nice semantic formulation, and I'm sure there are SOME gays who really really want a Gold Star for Being Awesomely Gay, but I doubt it's true that many really seek the sort of full-spectrum celebration and validation you're talking about.

I think it's more like they just want homosexuality to be so normal people don't notice that someone's gay or it's not odd that a gay guy introduces his "husband."

That's not really celebration per se. It's normalization/routinization, which some have a problem with.

I also think that's quixotic. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, though. But 20 years is a generation.

This is why I say the cargo is being put before the cult. What is being sought is de jure routinization without de facto routinization.




Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)

218 211 You are a genius.Now,go get your fucking shinebox!

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (aLloM)

219 How do you express support for the CURRENT cohort of people who have made poor decisions, while also attempting to reduce the COMING cohort of those who would make the same poor decision?

Yes, it's an ageless problem. It's the human condition. What is the fine line between discouraging bad behavior and ostracizing people to no fruitful result? I don't know.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:48 PM (AZGON)

220 >>>Obviously, we have a serious disagreement as to whether or not there is a solid philosophical basis for the belief that marriage, on the civil side, should be recognized by the State on a contract basis only

If I get a girl pregnant without a contract, what happens to the kid, alex?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:48 PM (nj1bB)

221 Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 01:33 PM (PY4xx

This is the traditional argument for 'traditional morality'. My point is that tradition is bullshit. I question everything. I agree with you entirely about the societal benefits of marriage, but reject the idea that we should somehow force people to stay together if they decide differently. I believe people should be responsible for their own shitty lives and decisions. Live or die, sink or swim. Get gov out of societal engineering.

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:49 PM (le5qc)

222 Good writing, Ace.

I have a belief that traditional marriage, its defense and recognition is critical in holding societies together. Now anybody can find historical references to disagree, but marriage did not come about through history accidentally. Part of being a conservative is not throwing away things that work on a whim. Someone may also argue divorce rates and marriage rates, but neither of those is an outright attack on traditional marriage and its recognition.

None of the previous paragraph had to do with religion, but there is no doubt in my mind that there will be never-ending attempts to force gay marriage in churches.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 25, 2011 01:50 PM (ldUCK)

223 Another domino falls. Congrats, NY.

Posted by: Jordan at June 25, 2011 01:50 PM (4z6KA)

224 Any argument this contentious and this fraught with significance in the basic fabric of human society should be decided by doing the least and changing the least. But that's not how activists work: they find a goal, then they work to achieve it no matter who pays or what damage is done.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 01:51 PM (r4wIV)

225 Just a note, watch the locution "single moms" because many single moms
are actually DIVORCED moms and are single moms only because they married
guys who didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously.

Many? I doubt that. Besides we've spent the last thirty years beating into mens heads how mean, stupid, useless and unnecessary they are then are surprised when they start acting that way.

Posted by: lowandslow at June 25, 2011 01:51 PM (GZitp)

226 Hey, did you bunch of knuckleheads know that you always lose right up until the point society itself collapses and everyone loses?

Loo-hoo-serrrrrrs!

Posted by: Gaybe Trivia at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (cOkIN)

227 La Mauvaise, 161: I used to believe in the so-called conservative case for gay marriage.
Funny thing -- my trajectory on this has been the opposite.
I used to believe in the liberal/progressive case for gay marriage. I figured that a person should get to pick who's kin once in their life, but mainly I kept my thoughts to myself.
Whenever a discussion arose, that'd be my position, reluctantly expressed. Invariably, I'd get bombarded with other people's opinions: That people who don't actively and enthusiastically fight for gays' rights on this are like those Europeans who let the Holocaust happen; that I'm a bigot because I don't instinctively know what to call agay person's relationship (partner, life partner, companion, husband, wife, etc.)even though the term used varies among couples and seems to be different every time; and, of course, that marriage is a bullshit institution.
As a married guy, I find that last argument alienating.But even if these points weren't so offensive to me personally, I'd still be suspicious because they seem so adament and desperate to have me on their side. People who use nastiness, whether directed at me or not, to persuade me of something usually fail.
So now I'm against "equality of marriage" and the logic behind any of the arguments, pro or con, has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (jAKfY)

228 When can I settle down with my Burro?

Posted by: Man Donkey Love Assoc. at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (yQWNf)

229 Then if the gays think they can force the churches
to do anything they are mistaken because those would be laws infringing
on the free practice of religion.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (iGZkF)
That's hardly an obstacle. All you need are a few judges who really really really want to be able to force the churches to do something and they'll work backwards from there to find some legal reasoning to make it happen.

Posted by: Dan K. at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (BFm2s)

230 I wonder why so many gloating trolls today?

Posted by: Truman North at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (K2wpv)

231 Anyone can opt-out of the Standard Model Marriage Contract by simply crafting an (expensive, time-consuming, and watch-it-or-its-void) pre-nup.

But what are you saying, alex? That there should be no off-the-shelf Standard Model Marriage Contract available where people can just go to the church and get hitched and worry about divorce later?

You're saying that each private contract should be negotiated ex nihilo? That the state shouldn't have a Ready To Wear model?

People don't behave like this. If your idea is that people just start negotiating private marriage contracts, ummm... they won't, meaning the state has to step in with its own series of rulings on unnegotiated terms of the contract.

I don't know what you mean, I guess. On one hand you say you want the state out of the marriage business but every point I bring up proving the inextricability of the state from marital contract enforcement, you seem to agree with.

You have some very nuanced idea of what no state involvement means here, I guess.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:53 PM (nj1bB)

232 Nora, what I think about religion is my business. And I will defend your right to love your religion to the death. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:53 PM (le5qc)

233 So what happens when 15% of the watermelons are spoiled and you only
expected 8% spoilage but your seller thinks that 15-20% is what's fair
and normal?



Neither party ever agreed to this term.



What happens now? It hasn't been privately negotiated.



What happens is you go to court, where the court imposes its own
third-party ruling on how much spoilage seems fair and normal and
reasonable.




That is what the courts do. That's 90% of their business. Resolving
disputes where no private contract actually provides any guidance on the
instant dispute, and where the court is asked to step in and simply
impose a solution.

But, this is part of the problem. It this isn't the job of the courts to complete contracts for people, outside of what would be generally accepted assumptions in the "industry". If neither side specified
anything about spoilage rates, and there were no pre-existing industry
standards or generally accepted principals for such, then the contract
should not have any impact on the soilage dispute, at all. It isn't the
court's job to complete contracts for parties that wrote them sloppily
and didn't protect themselves (on either side).

Am I missing something?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 01:54 PM (G/MYk)

234 My point is that tradition is bullshit.
Because you are more brillant that 10,000 years of every human experience. Got it.
Read Sowell's "The Vision of the Annointed". The Marxists believe the same thing and their little experiment outside of tradition has led to endless murder, famine, plague, and death.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:54 PM (5tl1Y)

235 Hey, I want to post something now! Lemme just reach around ya there... ooh! Theeeeere we go....

Posted by: the guy in oliver sipple's ass at June 25, 2011 01:54 PM (cOkIN)

236 The most important thing -- tolerance and acceptance -- cannot be state-compelled

Whence the saying "You cannot legislate morality."

Posted by: dad29 at June 25, 2011 01:55 PM (Xrozh)

237 Early on the church thought is was a wonderful idea to allow the state into the marriage business, but the tables have turned against them. If you want freedom of religion then don't hop into bed with the state. It is time to divorce church and state in the area of marriage and probably tax status as well because we are already seeing that the state now thinks it can dictate what is said in church because of tax status. Freedom isn't free and it carries consequences.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 01:56 PM (iGZkF)

238 and erg shows up.

Btw, really wish people would stop with the interracial argument angle about this.

It is really infuriating to think that gays want to associate their "struggle" with something that was truly perverted. "interracial" marriages weren't banned in Europe nor were they in the colonial days. States had different laws but in most of the country it was still legal, even if it wasn't socially acceptable.
Slavery in the 1800s became harder to defend, so the excuse of "well they are different races/different animals in fact" served as justification. However, you couldn't have that train of thought without it derailing over things like interracial marriage, because, hey, you wouldn't marry your dog, right?
Even after reconstruction and the radical civil rights legislation passed, anti-miscongeniation laws persisted in many states until 1967.

"gay marriage" didn't exist anywhere until very recently.
Interracial marriages, always rare (and still rare today) happened in most civilizations (in some they were for political reasons, even, to unite or subjugate empires) and were legal even in the United States until the late 1790s-early1800s. Banning them was a horrendously stupid side effect of dealing with the moral questions of race and slavery. It was corrected, thankfully, in 1967.

I highly doubt there is a person here who would ever undo that.

For gays to even try to compare their situation to that is fucking insulting.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 01:57 PM (hZs9Q)

239 "I said two years ago, over on Redstate, that this is a lost cause on the
social agenda. Ironically, the only thing that could roll this back is
sharia law."

Wow that's so funny. After fear mongering about Sharia Law, the Right's only option against gay marriage is..wait for it... Sharia Law!

Basing law and "morality" on the Bible is no different than Iran or Saudi Arabia basing their laws on the koran. We just don't do that here. And hopefully never will.

The bottom line here is this is about freedom.If you can identify an injury done to you by gay marriage then maybe it should be illegal. But you can't. What happens to you when two gay people get married? Not one single damn thing. Not a thing. That's why it is so perplexing to see the right try to use government to step into people's lives and tell them how to live.

It reeks of hypocrisy and really makes your side look like a total joke.

There's actual immorality abound in our system causing actual injury to people that we hear nothing about from the right. Not all Americans are conservatives and republicans. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married, idiots. That's all you need to do.

Posted by: Jimmy_joe at June 25, 2011 01:57 PM (/LqDJ)

240 It's just more marxism. The topic doesn't matter. Desolve the family. Build up the State. You are all workers with no ties that bind.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:57 PM (5tl1Y)

241 Read Sowell's "The Vision of the Annointed". The Marxists believe the same thing and their little experiment outside of tradition has led to endless murder, famine, plague, and death.

That book is crucial. It's a tough read but my Gaia, it is brilliant.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:58 PM (AZGON)

242 This is a nice semantic formulation, and I'm sure there are SOME gays
who really really want a Gold Star for Being Awesomely Gay, but I doubt
it's true that many really seek the sort of full-spectrum celebration
and validation you're talking about.


I disagree Ace.... this is entirely about acceptance and validation. I think you've split a hair here between wanting a Gay Gold Star and normalization. At the end of the day..... the gay community really wants a "Yeah.... you're OK and we approve" And as you pointed out.... they are using the State to enforce that acceptance....with all the pertinent repercussions backlash you illustrated in the post.


Posted by: fixerupper at June 25, 2011 01:59 PM (ffV1/)

243 Jimmy_joe?

You're the guy in my ass?!

I really gotta keep better track of these things...

Posted by: oliver sipple at June 25, 2011 01:59 PM (cOkIN)

244 Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 25, 2011 01:43 PM (eOXTH)

Please, I'm not being snarky. Why should your plate contributions be tax deductible? I'm a lapsed PCUSA, so I know what great records we kept to send in with our tax returns. Exemption is a poison in our system, home, child, makes no difference, it is a gov attempt to give someone a favor at the expense of you and me

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:59 PM (le5qc)

245 >>> It this isn't the job of the courts to complete contracts for people...

Yes it is.

>>>Am I missing something?

Yes you are. You are missing the part about recognizing how business is actually conducted (and, by extension, how people actually behave), instead insisting that they behave differently so that your neat programmer-code version of libertarian all-by-specific-contract plan for life will neatly apply.

as an introduction to the topic try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism

Legal realism.

People behave as they behave, progress. You have a weird, counter-conservative idea:

That rather than the government adapting to how people actually naturally behave, people should start behaving differently in order to facilitate a particular ideological conception of government.

Yes, your plan would work if people behave like you are suggesting they should.

But if they won't, it won't work.

And they won't. We know they won't. They don't. It's established.

People don't think about the law much, progress. Except for lawyers, who are paid to think about it. Most people want to conduct their business and get hitched without thinking too seriously about what happens in a breach, or arguable breach.

Yes, maybe they "should" think more about this.

But I'm a conservative. I don't really have much patience for arguments about what people "should" do. I only care about what they do do.


Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:00 PM (nj1bB)

246 Homosexuals do not want marriage for the same reason heterosexuals generally want it. They simply want what is not theirs because it's denied them. Like little children, the reason why it's denied them doesn't matter. No reason is acceptable. And like children, when given something they do not deserve they despise it and treat it with contempt. They know only that they want and tend to destroy what they're given.

They've done it with everything that's been granted them, but in that respect they're no different from any other liberal who does likewise.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 02:01 PM (B60j2)

247 If I get a girl pregnant without a contract, what happens to the kid, alex?

Same thing that happens with the kid of any unmarried couple. Civil laws regarding custody rights apply. Those laws do nor require the state to recogize marriage.

What happens if two strangers both claim to have invented a software program? The state can decide who is the owner without declaring them husband and wife (or husband and husband).

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:01 PM (YlfqW)

248 We should be more concerned about the Casey Anthony trial rather than gay marriage.

Posted by: Fox News at June 25, 2011 02:01 PM (M9Ie6)

249 If I get a girl pregnant without a contract, what happens to the kid, alex?

Oh for pity's sake, what the hell, ace? You did notice the two sentences after what you quoted, right? That was the v v polite way of stating that I do not want to get into a hugely drawn out discussion of the precise nature of what governmental recognition of marriage on a contract basis only means for domestic and contract law writ large.

Yes, there are huge implications. Yes, it would be a bitch to implement. Yes, that's why I admit that my position on this, and I can only speak for me, is an extremely radical one. No, I do not agree that it's a tissue thin position.

We do not, and will not, agree that the aforementioned position is without philosophical merit. I fail to see how continuing to disagree about this over and over and over again leads anywhere.



Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:02 PM (sf+iw)

250 Why should your plate contributions be tax deductible?
Because it's a chartible contribution, you idiot. That's what churches do, you fool.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 02:02 PM (5tl1Y)

251 The government can't stay out of the marriage business because the government enforces all contracts?? But the government's involvement in marriage is not limited to enforcement of a private contract; it includes DEFINING THE TERMS of that contract as well. By this logic, the government should also regulate restaurant menus and the prices on those menus, for example. Or dictate prices and features of cars, or how much what job should pay. Oh wait, they already do that... Well, almost. Conservatives hate THOSE things, right?

Posted by: Pete at June 25, 2011 02:02 PM (8FSgk)

252 Btw, really wish people would stop with the interracial argument angle about this.

Well again, it's just one more path to validation. Gheys are basically sad, fucked-up people. They have to piggyback on the genuine historical grievances of the past, because they don't have any valid ones of their own.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 02:03 PM (cOkIN)

253 Basing law and "morality" on the Bible
You've got it backwards. Law, morality, and the Bible all represent the distillate of millennia of human living and finding out what works, and what doesn't.
The law doesn't ban, e.g., murder or theft because the Bible says to. The law and the Bible agree that murder and theft undermine the social fabric, and therefore are to be discouraged.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:03 PM (7CHWu)

254 I'm from CA. I did not vote on Proposition 8 because I did not care.
If I had it to do over again,I would vote, and the vote would be yes - meaning anti-gay marriage. What changed my mind was the reaction to the vote, i.e. the gigantic temper tantrum. Screeching Gay/Leftist street mobs vandalizing churches, businesses, and passing cars. Organizing boycotts and harassment against anybody who public records showed had donated money.
Discovering that the measure was passed due to a large majority of Black and Hispanic voters, and that a majority of white voters voted against it, made me wonder why the boycotts, harassment, and vandalism were limited to whites only; it could be reasonably surmised that the mob went after soft targets due to not wanting to get their asses kicked. There was some overt racism on a couple of gay issue blogs, but nothing in person. Soft targets only.
And it was pointed out at the time, on conservative web sites, that gays regarding marriage as a corny, laughable thing that breeders and Christians did, had been the norm untiljust a few years before, when it suddenly changed. And that civil unions alreadydid just about evverything marriage did. Like, maybe gay marriage wasn't really about marriage
Since then, a gay activist judge has invalidated the measure, which we should recall, was an amendment to the state constitution. He just didn't like it, that's all.
I thought, if this is how you react after a political set-back, then maybe I do care after all. Fuck you screamers. God damned children. Cowards.

I don't believe I am alone in having reacted this way.
There is an another aspect - the irritation that some married people feel about the issue now, especially men. Marriage is often difficult, even a soul-crushing burden at times. About half of marriages end in divorce. A combat unit that lost 50% casualties would be considered destroyed and unfit for battle. And the idea of this being trivialized by validation tourists sticks in our craws. It's an emotional reaction. Think of a bunch of grown men at an Army theme party, with miniature helmets set on their heads a jaunty angles, camoflage pattern shorts with pink army boots,sipping tropical drinks dipped from a punch bowl modeled after the battle of Tarawa and so on. Then imagine them wanting benefits from the VA. Like that. I'm not asking anybody to say this is an admirable way to react - but perhaps it can be understood.

Posted by: Anthony Weiner, Ready for Hire! at June 25, 2011 02:03 PM (C0Z3w)

255 Oh, and I think that the libertarian position is less "I don't know" than "I don't want to say anything that makes me see uncool to my friends and gay is so hip these days."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 02:04 PM (r4wIV)

256 Well again, it's just one more path to validation. Gheys are basically sad, fucked-up people. They have to piggyback on the genuine historical grievances of the past, because they don't have any valid ones of their own.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 02:03 PM (cOkIN)

I don't find people who are gay fucked up, I do find the "gays" identity brigade to be rather tasteless. I mean really. Garter belts and feathers? It doesn't go together at all.


Piggybacking on that fight infuriates me- and I am all for gays getting married. It is just hard to have a group of professional whiners trying to say being denied marriage is the same as being lynched for a black guy banging a white girl or jailed and beaten for being a white guy and marrying a black one (like in the Loving case).

It isn't the same thing.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 02:05 PM (hZs9Q)

257 Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:54 PM (5tl1Y)

You should have read the next sentence

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 02:06 PM (le5qc)

258 Sock off.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 02:06 PM (C0Z3w)

259 The law doesn't ban, e.g., murder or theft because the Bible says to.


Judge Blackstone and western history disagree.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 02:06 PM (r4wIV)

260 236 Whence the saying "You cannot legislate morality.

Actually, that's just about the only function of most penal and civil codes. They legislate against murder, rape, theft, and a variety of civil and commercial wrongs.

You can't stop people from murdering, raping or stealing, anymore than you can make them accept gays or gay marriage. But you can certainly legislate on those issues and the law has a significant deterrent or otherwise persuasive effect on people's conduct and attitudes.

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:06 PM (YlfqW)

261 It is time to divorce church and state in the area of marriage

It currently is, many of believe that gays are trying to re-marry church and state in this instance.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 25, 2011 02:07 PM (ldUCK)

262 Today is also another lesson in the perils of Facebook as I checked in to see my lefty family and friends gloating.

I don't even care much about this issue. But now I kinda hate a couple of my cousins.

As the saying goes:

Twitter makes me like people I've never met.
Facebook makes me hate people I already know.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 25, 2011 02:07 PM (QcFbt)

263 What Ace carefully illustrates here is something easily overlooked. He notes the gaping chasm between a pedestrian notion of fairness (Hey, gays are people too! Let's have them marry!) and the opaque, serpentine network of rules and laws that must be toppled in order to implement the desired fairness. We cannot treat marriage as a single block in the edifice of laws that can be swapped out for one of a different color. The ramifications of changing marriage are more like tearing out the building's plumbing. One pipe connects to another and another and eventually you've pulled out a tangled mess. You had no idea the plumbing was so convoluted.

Maybe the plumbing needs a refit, but it won't be a simple matter.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 02:08 PM (AZGON)

264 #239 derp?

Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 02:08 PM (p2IBw)

265 Twitter makes me like people I've never met.Facebook makes me hate people I already know.

That's awesome.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:08 PM (sf+iw)

266 --People behave as they behave, progress. You have a weird, counter-conservative idea:



That rather than the government adapting to how people actually
naturally behave, people should start behaving differently in order to
facilitate a particular ideological conception of government.



Yes, your plan would work if people behave like you are suggesting they should.



Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:00 PM (nj1bB)
I have no idea how you managed to come to this line of reasoning from my comment.
--your neat programmer-code version of libertarian all-by-specific-contract plan for lifeAnd I am truly stumped by this one.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 02:09 PM (G/MYk)

267 If 50% of marriages end in divorce that means 50% end in death!

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:09 PM (iGZkF)

268 Hey, let 'em get married! Then they can be as miserable as the rest of us.

Posted by: Homer Simpson at June 25, 2011 02:10 PM (Tj88Z)

269 The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."
The destruction of religious institutions through litigation regarding the performance of gay marriage ceremonieshas always been a part of the end game.

Posted by: lurkerdelurked at June 25, 2011 02:10 PM (JbdnV)

270 by the way, progress, they crafted what you'd probably consider an ingenious solution to this.

Most states have passed a variation of the UCC or universal commercial code, which is a set of "default settings' for all unspecified contractual terms.

You can of course turn these default settings off, by contract, or tweak them, or whatever.

But if you don't, and a dispute breaks out over an unspecified terms, the UCC will generally hold (states have different variations on it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

Which is what marriage/family law really are, a sort of UCC for unspecified or contentious terms in a marital dispute.

No one ever thinks about this stuff. Well, 1% of the richest people think about it, because they can pay lawyers to think about it. And they can negotiate detailed pre-nups (but they also have to make sure the opposing party has adequate representation, which often means they have to pay their spouse's lawyer -- expensive proposition!).

For everyone else we takes our chances in divorce court.

Yes, people COULd and maybe SHOULD all have these detailed marriage contracts worked out beforehand.

I sort of wonder what that would do to the marriage, rate, though. When a couple intending to get married have to negotiate how many infidelities they are permitted.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:10 PM (nj1bB)

271 That rather than the government adapting to how people actually naturally behave, people should start behaving differently in order to facilitate a particular ideological conception of government.

Again, "A Conflict of Visions" by Sowell is quite apropos to this observation.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 02:10 PM (AZGON)

272 I don't find people who are gay fucked up, I do find the "gays" identity
brigade to be rather tasteless. I mean really. Garter belts and
feathers? It doesn't go together at all.

Every gay person I've ever known has been self-loathing and insufferably vain. Every. Single. One. It goes with the territory and it's at the root of the ghey-"marriage" push.

And we as a generation have been subject to relentless cultural brainwashing in the attempt to get us to normalize and celebrate their psychological problems.

Well, fuck that. Gays are fucked in the head. Period.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 02:11 PM (cOkIN)

273 "At the end of the day..... the gay community really wants a 'Yeah.... you're OK and we approve' "

Most of them will not admit this but they ALREADY have that from the vast majority of people. If not "we approve" - because heterosexuals will never fully approve what homosexuals do - they DO get "Okay, fine, you're gay. Congrats. Here's a party hat. Now just go live your lives and don't always be in our faces with it, okay?" is the best they can hope for. And they should be happy to get it; who among us can really expect more from others?

Problem is, what I assume and hope is only an asshole minority of homosexuals INSISTS on defining approval as everyone else stopping and watching the most ENDLESSLY flamboyant idiocy they can contrive. The majority of homosexuals who know the assholes among them make them all look bad need to step up and tell the assholes to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. ALREADY. Have they done so? Doesn't look like it.

You homosexuals want more than mere tolerance? You want approval? Fine -- start by dealing with the assholes who make you all look bad, since we aren't allowed to without being called homophobic and risk being sued.

DO IT ALREADY.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 02:11 PM (B60j2)

274 This is a nice semantic formulation, and I'm sure there are SOME gays who really really want a Gold Star for Being Awesomely Gay, but I doubt it's true that many really seek the sort of full-spectrum celebration and validation you're talking about. Gotta disagree, ace. Here in California they're pushing teaching homosexuality in schools. Homosexuals (as a pressure group, not necessarily every individual) don't want tolerance - they've got that - they want acceptance, they want to be considered normal, which they're not.
The real problem is not with female homosexuality. It does not undermine society significantly, and basically is irrelevant. It's with male homosexuality, because guys want to screw anything and everything, and when there are no women involved to put the brakes on, they will do just that. Then all it takes is a virus or bacterium and poof! Disease runs rampant through the homosexual community, and jumps into the normal community through bisexuals. AIDS is, of course, the classic example, but homosexuals are a major reservior of STDs and hepatitis B as well.
So the problem with mainstreaming male homosexuality is the public health threat. In this connection, a recent study in California showed that 1 in 4 male homosexuals are HIV positive. One in four.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:12 PM (7CHWu)

275 The real problem is not with female homosexuality. It does not undermine society significantly, and basically is irrelevant.

1)
You love lesbian porn is how I read that.

2)
Who needs fathers anyway, right?

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 02:14 PM (hZs9Q)

276 alex,

>>>Yes, there are huge implications. Yes, it would be a bitch to implement. Yes, that's why I admit that my position on this, and I can only speak for me, is an extremely radical one. No, I do not agree that it's a tissue thin position.

if you don't want to discuss it, fine, I will drop it.

But I will note this, in parting:

those who glibly speak of this do not generally have answers for these things or, like you now say, actually have a bafflingly radical way to "solve" these problems.

I think, if it's the latter, there is a certain amount of dishonesty in glibly saying "I merely believe the government should be out of the marriage business," when what is contemplated is by no means "mere" at all.

It's a shorthand that conceals, whether knowingly (for those who have considered the full ramifications and don't feel like talking about them) or unwittingly (for those for whom this is just a cute get-out-of-jail-free card on this whole issue), exactly how unworkable and/or radical the position actually is.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

277 It's one thing to "tolerate and accept" the individual homosexual, it's quite another to be forced to accept the homosexual lifestyle as equal to traditional marriage.

What's to stop the growing Muzie population from demanding multiple wives? Nothing, that's what.

I am sick and tired of atheists lecturing on morals, homos lecturing on normalcy, traitors lecturing on patriotism, etc, etc. We are no longer being ASKED to accept these individual deviates, we are being TOLD to accept and even embrace these deviate lifestyles or suffer the consequences.

And the consequences are becoming more severe all the time.

Posted by: Cooter at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (KJ2wJ)

278 Like I said in the post yesterday, before Gabe killed it: This is and never has been about marriage.
The homosexual lobby does not want marriage--they want to force you to follow their beliefs. Because they sincerely believe you are forcing them to follow yours.
That's why Andi Sulli can say a Christianist Theocracy runs America with all candor. Because if a society does not actively condone, nay celebrate!, his personal life choices and decisions it is an oppressive regime of evil.
They have to destroy religion and the most sacred practice of religion--after baptism-- is marriage. It was the evil religion that first made them feel bad 'cause they had homosexual daydreams. It is the evil religion that still makes them feel bad. And they will destroy it or all of us--either way, they don't care.

Posted by: Jimmuy at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (+Fmdb)

279 Even God doesn't care about lesbians because there is no prohibition in the bible.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (iGZkF)

280 Look, this is just me, but I don't think we should destroy 10,000 years of marriage just so that 1% of the population doesn't feel bad about it.

Yes, that seems radical and ridiculous to me.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:16 PM (nj1bB)

281 >>>Every gay person I've ever known has been self-loathing and insufferably vain. Every. Single. One. It goes with the territory and it's at the root of the ghey-"marriage" push.

How many do you know, and more importantly, how many do you know well?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (nj1bB)

282 Dagny You should check your Funk and Wagnalls--- something given to a person in need, generous actions to aid the poor
No mention of tax deductions

Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (le5qc)

283 Ace, that sounded very thoughtful.

Would you rub my belly?

Posted by: Homer Simpson at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (Tj88Z)

284 Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:53 PM (nj1bB)
Actualy, private Marriage contracts are more the norm throughout history, than our modern cookie cutter approach. Dowries? Land Inheritence? Titles? They were all done via Contract... which was then approved by their religion, then whatever secular authority there was.
IMO Legal Zoom should come out with a State Specific Contract, with various Options which you could check off, to create your "Paternership"... including such things as Property, Powers of Attorney for Medical, Child custody... even alimony or such.... enough volume and the internet would make it cheap...
And open it up to ANYONE who wants some type of Lifetime Partner... whether there is Sex involved or not.
But for that to work, the State (Governments) would have to get out of the failed Social Engineering business of trying to favor one lifestyle over another, and allow We, the People, to decide how to live our lives.
Note.. last weeks realese of Calif. Census data where only 23% of Households were nuclear families.... people are already making choices as to how they want to live.... and the State should NOT be favoring one choice over another.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 02:19 PM (NtXW4)

285
How many do you know, and more importantly, how many do you know well?

Family members and close friends. Their vain, navel-gazing selfishness is their common trait.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 02:21 PM (cOkIN)

286 "You love lesbian porn is how I read that."

May I say I am available to review any alleged porn for lesbian content. As a public service.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 02:21 PM (AZGON)

287 The real problem is not with female homosexuality. It does not undermine society significantly, and basically is irrelevant. 1) You love lesbian porn is how I read that. 2) Who needs fathers anyway, right?
You're right about fathers (not so much about the lez porn!). But, seriously,lesbians aren't the destabilizing factor that male homosexuals are. Look at zombie's coverage of the Folsom Street Fair. Scarcely a woman in sight.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:21 PM (7CHWu)

288 Hmm.
Maybe if we just change the language from "gay marriage" to "government-sanctioned gay monogamy" then everything will be okay?

Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 02:22 PM (p2IBw)

289 Are there any polls with statistics of support of gay marriage?

Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 02:24 PM (jAKfY)

290 Yes, people COULd and maybe SHOULD all have these detailed marriage contracts worked out beforehand.



Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:10 PM (nj1bB)
That wasn't the point I was addressing. I was saying that the court's concern with contracts is over whether the contract is legal, binding, the terms have been fulfilled, and the parties are acting in good faith - including a judgment and mechanisms for forcing what the court sees as the actual obligations of the contract. Nothing else, really. If the contract is sloppily drawn up then the parties suffer their mistake, at least so far as the court shoudl be concerned with the contract. If there is a separate civil suit, then that is distinct from the contract dispute. That's part of a resolution system that operates without underlying contracts, on independent and free human action (and thought, for many of the crazier parts) not constrained by any prior agreements between the parties. Just because these parts are not specifically separated in the system doesn't take away from the fact that they are distinct.But all of this stuff about contract law is different from the government RECOGNIZING what a "family" is, which is why the government HAS to be in the marriage business. This started with Judaism, I think, where we've had pre-nups and a written marriage contract from very early on. This was necessary because Judaism was not just a religion, but a nation (the first nation with an abstract concept of citizenship implemented, I would say). Any nation MUST know what its fundamental cultural elements are and must be in the business of defining them as they exist.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 02:24 PM (G/MYk)

291 (Regarding Single Mothers: )
How do you express support for the CURRENT cohort of people who have made poor decisions, while also attempting to reduce the COMING cohort of those who would make the same poor decision?
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:42 PM (nj1bB)
Unfortunately, I don't think you can. The two positions are irreconsilable.
You sacrifice the current single mother in order to prevent future single mothers.
Call it triage, if you like.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 02:25 PM (Y2WVW)

292 "288 Hmm.
Maybe if we just change the language from "gay marriage" to "government-sanctioned gay monogamy" then everything will be okay?"

How about the "individual man date?"

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 02:25 PM (AZGON)

293 I resent the all out totalitarian and orwellian aspect of this. The word "marriage" had (has)a specific meaning and that meaning was changed through political will. This can be done to any and every word that encompasses a concept so now we all will be participants in theagenda chosen by others and by extension now speak of things that before had a meaning that we never intended.War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Right is Wrong.

Posted by: Minuteman at June 25, 2011 02:25 PM (B4Wbw)

294 How about the "individual man date?"
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 02:25 PM (AZGON)

This is why you get all the monies.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 02:26 PM (hZs9Q)

295 I am sick and tired of atheists lecturing on morals, homos lecturing on normalcy, traitors lecturing on patriotism, etc, etc. We are no longer being ASKED to accept these individual deviates, we are being TOLD to accept and even embrace these deviate lifestyles or suffer the consequences.And the consequences are becoming more severe all the time.
Posted by: Cooter at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (KJ2wJ)
I find myself agreeto this position on morals from someone with the nick of"Cooter". Only on AoS.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 02:26 PM (5tl1Y)

296 fogure,

>>>Problem is, what I assume and hope is only an asshole minority of homosexuals INSISTS on defining approval as everyone else stopping and watching the most ENDLESSLY flamboyant idiocy they can contrive. The majority of homosexuals who know the assholes among them make them all look bad need to step up and tell the assholes to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. ALREADY. Have they done so? Doesn't look like it.

This is unfair, because you know there are a lot straight assholes who frankly really are kind of hate-y about this, and what are we doing about it?

You are thinking of the Fulsom Street Fair types, the one who want to essentially have live-action Satanic Verses where they use outrageous sexuality to mock religious tradition, men cross-dressed as nuns having sex with each other, etc.

Of course that's egregious and a straight-up deliberate provocation and an insult. And etc.

But how many assholes do we have on "our" side? And what can we *realistically* do about that?

We can't force them to not be assholes.

I know no one here is a Fred Phelps type, but they're obviously anti-gay marriage. (They're also anti-gay *existence,* but whatever.)

But what can we really do to stop them from being assholes?

We can call them out, of course.

But... has no effect.

What you're talking about with respect to those Fulsom Street Fair types is a bunch of psychologically-damaged and personality-impaired freaks who nearly literally have nothing going for them except their sexual proclivities and hence celebrate that.

They are not merely damaged goods; they're incredibly weak characters who cannot conceive in themselves in terms other than "penetrable object."

But what kind of sway do you think any normal-ish gay guy would have with them?

There is something, say, Gabe could do about that. He could post something about that, and express his own moral distaste for such parades of perversion.

But I have a feeling I know why he wouldn't. I have a feeling he would not, because he'd suspect that the discussion would not be restricted to the specifics of the perverse behavior he was scolding, but would quickly turn into "this is why gays are, fundamentally, crazy or evil (or whatever)."

So it's a no-win proposition for him. He could undertake the step you suggest of morally condemning the Fulsom Street Fair, but he would know to a mathematical certainty that much of the ire would simply be indiscriminate and target him as well.

It's a tough situation.

It's a difficult thing when you don't think people will have your back, or will lash your back, if they catch sight of it.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:26 PM (nj1bB)

297 and the State should NOT be favoring one choice over another.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. This is not about the individual and hedonism; it's about the stability of society, and protecting its weakest - but arguably most important members - its children.
Liberal policies shattered the black family. How has that worked out for blacks? Public policy should encourage strong nuclear families to avoid society as a whole experiencing the same social disintegration - and its attendant crime, gangs, drugs, illegitimacy, and misery -that blacks have had to endure.
So the State should most certainly favor one choice over others. Just as it should favor productive labor over idleness and theft.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:27 PM (7CHWu)

298 I think, if it's the latter, there is a certain amount of dishonesty in
glibly saying "I merely believe the government should be out of the
marriage business," when what is contemplated is by no means "mere" at
all.

Okay, I think I see where the major source of my frustration lies. I react so strongly to the idea that my statement about wanting governmental recognition of marriage to be via contract only as being glib because I have thought about it and I have considered the alternatives and I do recognize that it's radical. Thus, I do believe that it is incumbent about me to have a position that deals with the current state of affairs because what I want is not going to happen. My position is not glib or a dodge, it's the product of long, hard thought on my behalf. To have that dismissed as unutterably stupid is deeply insulting.

Sadly, however, I fear that most people who say that haven't thought it through and are using it as a dodge, making your comments hold more weight than I care to admit.

It's a shorthand that conceals, whether knowingly (for those who have
considered the full ramifications and don't feel like talking about
them) or unwittingly (for those for whom this is just a cute
get-out-of-jail-free card on this whole issue), exactly how unworkable
and/or radical the position actually is.


I don't intend to do it knowingly, perhaps more unconsciously. I've had these arguments so many times, for so many years, with so many people that I just assume that a. people know what I think and b. I forget that I am not that damn important that people would remember.

if you don't want to discuss it, fine, I will drop it.

Thank you. I have v v important tennis watching to continue (GO BAGHDATIS).





Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:29 PM (sf+iw)

299 dagny, Prager has been talking about how the Catholic charities have been packing up and leaving, ending all their good work, because the activists forced them to facilitate gay adoptions. There's unfortunately a lot of squishy Catholics out there, but even they have limits, it seems.



This is the
traditional argument for 'traditional morality'. My point is that
tradition is bullshit. I question everything. I agree with you entirely
about the societal benefits of marriage, but reject the idea that we
should somehow force people to stay together if they decide differently.
I believe people should be responsible for their own shitty lives and
decisions. Live or die, sink or swim. Get gov out of societal
engineering.



Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:49 PM (le5qc)

To quote Chesterton, tradition is the democracy of the dead. What about all those people responsible for their lives and decisions over the past 10000 years who, rather than live in their own filth, managed to come up with a pretty darned decent civilization? We should ignore all their personal choices and any possible reasons for them, figure they were all morons, and just start from scratch? And ditto our children, and their children, and every ensuing generation, just start over from birth each time?
You really think you're the first person intelligent/brave enough to question tradition? Or perhaps it is slightly more likely that there have been millions of skeptics like you in the past who questioned everything, and had their debates with the morals of the times, and lost, which is how those apparently arbitrary moral rules ended up sticking around long enough to become tradition.Do you realize how much easier it is to tear things down than build them up all over again? Like, if you live in a nice house, and you decide to live your own life and question architecture, and tear down your house, fine, that's your choice, you were able to choose between tradition and skepticism and you freely chose skepticism, fine. But if you have a kid you then raise on the empty lot the house used to be on, he is no longer free to choose! That is, if he really really really wants a house, he will have to start from scratch, invent the very idea of what a house is, invent architectural principles on how to construct such a strange alien structure, invent building materials, chop down the wood and mine all the rock, etc, etc, etc, and do it all from zilch. Good luck to him with that. Even if he manages it, it'll be a freaking wobbly tent, not a nice suburban home. Far more likely, he will just grow up soaking wet and shivering in an empty field. A victory against tradition!

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 02:29 PM (PY4xx)

300 Yes, but are they allowed to eat trans fats?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 25, 2011 02:29 PM (GKQDR)

301 285

How many do you know, and more importantly, how many do you know well?

Family members and close friends. Their vain, navel-gazing selfishness is their common trait.

* * *
He's right. I was in the Navy -- was acquainted with 2 there, and a few others I suspect were closet -- and later was in the Theater department of a particularly liberal college. Unavoidably for that setting, I knew several homosexuals, staff and students...a few I got to know very well (I dated one of their "fag hags" for awhile).

One thing they all had in common: they were the most profoundly sad men and women I've ever met, even in a setting (theater department, liberal school) where they basically ruled the roost as The Favored, and they knew it. Let me repeat that: EVEN IN THEIR OWN ELEMENT, if you got to know them outside of work and whenever they turned off the gay "act" (I've seen them do that, too, like a light switch), they were always pitifully sad. Without exception.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 02:30 PM (B60j2)

302 Look, this is just me, but I don't think we should destroy 10,000 years of marriage just so that 1% of the population doesn't feel bad about it. Yes, that seems radical and ridiculous to me.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:16 PM (nj1bB)
You wouldn't want to do that but I am not sure that allowing gays to marry does that, at least no one has made that arguement to me.
If I decided to marry again the last thing I would take into concideration is whether or not gay people marry, in fact I wouldn't think about it at all.
What I am worried about is the long term affect on peoples freedom of religion. I understand that argument and agree with it.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 02:30 PM (MtwBb)

303 >>>. If the contract is sloppily drawn up then the parties suffer their mistake, at least so far as the court shoudl be concerned with the contract.

No. Your idea is the state simply turns up its nose and says "We shall not deign to interpret an incomplete contract?"

Um... well that's going to benefit ONE party in the dispute. If someone already got paid but delivered shoddy good, he wins by state non-involvement.

So the state effectively chooses a winner here. It just does so haphazardly and ignorantly, as it obsesses over formal requirements of a contact.

if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

Someone in a contract dispute is almost always in a better position than the other, sans legal intervention. Just turning one's nose up and saying "leave it where it lay" gives and advantage to that party.

Haphazardly, randomly.

And in fact you're not getting the point: Sellers and buyers ignore these terms, typically.

What you are suggesting is that 90% of contracts be treated as void by the state simply because real-life businesspeople usually don't sweat this crap.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:30 PM (nj1bB)

304 It's a tough situation.

It's a difficult thing when you don't think people will have your back, or will lash your back, if they catch sight of it.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:26 PM (nj1bB)

Nobody wants to be the whipping boy.
Unless literally on Fulsom Street.

Kind of sad.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 02:31 PM (hZs9Q)

305 Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 02:19 PM (NtXW4)

Good post and I agree that civil unions should be administered by the state and leave marriage to the churches. I have been snarky today, but this whole thing bores me to tears because the solution is fairly simple and straight forward. That isn't to say that with equality the gay movement wouldn't try to force the churches to marry them, but what would be their legal argument then? This is the reason the sooner the church divorces itself from the state the better.

The longer you stay in unholy union then the state can dictate the terms or worse yet you move toward a theocracy. A theocracy of your favorite religion is supposedly a good thing until it no longer is your favor religion calling the shots. You are always free to be moral and a good citizen in accordance with your religious beliefs, but the law should apply equally and blindly to all people regardless of their particular religious affliction.

Just think about our own "Christian" past with so much hatred of different sects and the Jews, so now add in Islam and we are in for a legal tilt-a-whirl. We need to be moral people, but we need to focus on the inalienable rights of all our citizens and if they want to be joined in civil unions (legal recognition) as part of their pursuit of happiness then have at it. Keep the religious rites in the churches and the legal rites in the courts.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:31 PM (iGZkF)

306 well, alex, if you have the time, perhaps you will consider guest-posting about what you actually think about this, because I have literally NEVER heard anything but the most superficial, glib "I just think the governemnt should get out of the marriage business" statement on the point.

I don't say you should guest post to convince me (you won't), but instead just so I can see what the actual idea is, because no one ever tells me.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:33 PM (nj1bB)

307 Opposing the homosexual agenda is presented as antediluvian and uncool. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Working hard, saving, keeping your nose clean, taking care of your family, being patriotic, paying taxes, and generally doing more than looking out for #1 are generally considered pretty uncool too. Yet those behaviors are the bedrock of society. The "cool" are worthless. All of them.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:33 PM (7CHWu)

308 I think it's more like they just want homosexuality to be so normal people don't notice that someone's gay or it's not odd that a gay guy introduces his "husband." That's not really celebration per se. It's normalization/routinization, which some have a problem with.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)
The ones who want normalization act normally and have for hundereds of years.
The ones prancing in feather boas in parades want something else.

Posted by: Oldcat at June 25, 2011 02:33 PM (CN+Qv)

309 The Marxists believe the same thing and their little experiment outside of tradition has led to endless murder, famine, plague, and death.
You can't grok Marxism until you realize that "murder, famine, plague, and death"are thegoals of the nihilism which fuels "Marxism" - that the Gulag was not an unfortunate side-effect of Bolshevism, but ratherthat the Gulagwas thePURPOSE of Bolshevism.
Unfortunately,it seemsto requirea great deal of time staring into the abyss before the truth ofit allreally sinks in, andwhat with thesaccharinized, prozac-ified,unicorns-pooping-skittles cultureof adolescence* in which we findourselves, there just aren'tmany folks who are willing tosuck it up and facethe underlyinghorror of this nihilism.
And, as I indicated above, the very same nihilism propels the sodomites - there is no more futile, purposeless, nihilistic act than planting your seed in another man's rectum:Taking your God-given ability to create new Life, andwasting itinsteadonthe unleashingofEternal Death.
These people aren't about "discrimination" or "acceptance" or"rights" or "codifications"- they're about driving the species into extinction.
They do not love life; they are infatuated with Death.


*A culture imposed on us by the very same nihilists promoting "gay marriage" BTW.

Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 02:34 PM (nfn9A)

310 >>>You wouldn't want to do that but I am not sure that allowing gays to marry does that, at least no one has made that arguement to me.

My statement was actually in response to the idea we should just basically wipe marriage off the books entirely so that the government isn't seen to be discriminating against gays.

The libertarian dodge, I am talking about. I do not support this idea of just wiping away marriage so that gays don't feel bad.

Either exclude or include, but don't sell me on this jazz we'll just destroy marriage altogether so that 1% of the population doesn't feel cheated.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:34 PM (nj1bB)

311 We need to be moral people
Why?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:35 PM (7CHWu)

312 Say Ace, I thought it was Folsom Street Fair.
Like in the oldsong
"I'm struck with Folsom jism
And flashed with rigid dongs"
Perhaps you subconsciously want it to be "Fulsome Street," and be Lesbians only.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 02:37 PM (C0Z3w)

313 I sort of wonder what that would do to the marriage, rate, though. When a couple intending to get married have to negotiate how many infidelities they are permitted.
Posted by: ace

I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was one of the funniest things you have ever written.
And yes, this is another toll of the bell of our social gotterdammerung.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at June 25, 2011 02:37 PM (sJTmU)

314 The ones who want normalization act normally and have for hundereds of years.

The ones prancing in feather boas in parades want something else.

Posted by: Oldcat at June 25, 2011 02:33 PM (CN+Qv)

Rauschenberg, Philip Johnson, Warhol, Francis Bacon, the list is endless for gays who were out of the closet but whose priority in life was their work and output and not their sexuality. Compare them to the freaks on Castro street. Fuck, at that point compare HARVEY MILK to the idiots who chant his name now in San Fran. Its like night and day,even comparing that activist to today's lot.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 02:37 PM (hZs9Q)

315 --No. Your idea is the state simply turns up its nose and says "We shall not deign to interpret an incomplete contract?"




That's right. There are standard assumptions that can be left out of contracts and still have those contracts be considered complete (which would be the court's task to so rule). One simple example is a "year". It can be assumed by all who sign contracts in America that a "year" is a Gregorian year - though I expect muslims to begin challenging this, at times that islamic years might suit them better. Leaving out that specific definition is not being sloppy, just as leaving out the two genders in defining marriage wasn't being sloppy. All human languages carry many assumptions in each sentence.

--Um... well that's going to benefit ONE party in the dispute. If someone
already got paid but delivered shoddy good, he wins by state
non-involvement.





Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:30 PM (nj1bB)
When a sloppy contract is drawn up one party getting a raw deal and the other benefitting is to be expected. That's why we pay lawyers to draw them up. But they have never seemed to be able to draw up contracts that can actually survive more than three minutes in court, no matter how they're written, because the courts always know what is reasonable and fair and adjust the incomplete (in the court's mind) contract to reflect their empathetic views.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 02:38 PM (G/MYk)

316 1) To those who take the "doesn't affect traditional marriage at all/marriage is a joke today anyway" people. Screw that. You may not take your marriage seriously or there may be people you know who don't take their marriage seriously. But I take my marriage seriously and so does everyone in my family. It was an oath before God. So the whole "let gays get married so they can suffer like the rest of us" is insulting, stupid, neither pithy nor original or clever. It is a stupid fucking canard.
2) I know a lot of gay men (and several lesbians--some of who were married and had kids). There is no such thing as monogamous homosexuals. They will play house, even live together for decades but, every single one I know and have heard of have played around--multiple times--even the long-term "committed" ones. They want to take the same oath before God that I and my wife made and pretend they have done the same when there is no way they will ever give it the sanctity or respect it deserves.

Posted by: Jimmuy at June 25, 2011 02:38 PM (+Fmdb)

317 Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:27 PM (7CHWu)
Then you are in Favor of some mythical Personified "State" having control over its Citizens? and not Vice Versa?
The whole idea of "State Interests" is canard thrown out there by those in power, who wish to tell the citizens THEIR view of how to live.... and has been used time and again throughout history as an excuse for Limiting the Freedoms of people.
Note... it is now in the 'State Interest' to have Green Energy... and so the Government is pushing it, even against the will of the People.
Note... it is now in the 'State Interest' to go bomb Libya, even though the vast majority of people don't want to.
Since when is it OK, in America, for the STATE to tell its free people how they should live??? through either reward, or punishment? (because rewarding one group over another, does put that other group at a disadvantage).

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 02:39 PM (NtXW4)

318 Either exclude or include, but don't sell me on this jazz we'll just destroy marriage altogether so that 1% of the population doesn't feel cheated.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:34 PM (nj1bB)
Oh, yeah I agree you need marriage laws, you could get by with some of the existing laws not regarding marriage but it would put an unfair burder on the weakest economic contributor to the marriage. On second thought it would never work you need marriage laws, marriage is it's own unique situation.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 02:39 PM (MtwBb)

319 Ace, you vastly overstate the difficulties and consequences of the state getting out of the marriage business.

They don't regulate the boyfriend/girlfriend business. Nobody notices, nobody wants them there. They certainly don't recognize the meaningful aspect of marriage -- whether the people involve actually love each other. They haven't intervened in Anthony and Huma's marriage yet.
And child custody and welfare they regulate whether the couple are married or not.

What's so complicated about eliminating state marriage licenses and letting the state continue doing whatever it already does to resolve disputes between unmarried couples, business partners, and complete strangers?

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (m7mGc)

320 >>>Say Ace, I thought it was Folsom Street Fair.

This was a clever trap of mine to get the homos to out themselves.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)

321 OT: In the sidebar, re Mona Charen, "how the Democrats nearly destroyed the economy". What does she mean "nearly"?? IMO they pretty much have and are still.

Posted by: KG at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (LD21B)

322 well, alex, if you have the time, perhaps you will consider
guest-posting about what you actually think about this, because I have
literally NEVER heard anything but the most superficial, glib "I just
think the governemnt should get out of the marriage business" statement
on the point.
I'll think about it and let you know. That's not (entirely) a dodge, I have family stuff to do later today and tomorrow and I'd want to take time to tl;dr it. Plus, well, you summed up the reasons why I would be loathe to do so in your discussions about Gabe posting about Fulsom. I'm not remotely as tough as I like to play at on ye olde internets.

I cannot tell you how horrified I am that you've never heard anything but that. I don't mean by you, I mean that it brings up yet again how few people actually think things through. I really need to stop thinking that they do.

I don't say you should guest post to convince me (you won't)
Oh, I don't think I'll convince anyone. That's another reason I wanted to drop the discussion, almost everyone is convinced of a position on this topic and it is not often amenable to pure theoretical discussion.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (sf+iw)

323 The biggest problem with the "homosexual marriage doesn't change anything" line is that marriage isn't a purely of-the-state institution. It's a two-parter composed of a civil contract (and co-attendant changes in the eyes of government) and religious ceremony. Despite claims to the contrary, it is impossible to separate "marriage" from its religious connection in the popular consciousness. The pro lobby is fully aware of this. Civil unions granting every benefit of marriage without the name have been offered and soundly rejected by the pro lobby because, as Ace mentions, delegitimizing the religious argument against homosexuality is their primary goal. The pro lobby wants the government to define "marriage" in direct opposition to the religious definition thereof in order to grind down social opposition, which is primarily religious, to homosexuality. After all, it's much easier to "win" the argument about the morality of homosexuality when you claim that "marriage" makes no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals and can sue anyone who disagrees with the government definition. They want the word, because the word carries the weight of morality. That is the end-game. It's not equal rights or tolerance. They want a government-backed seizure of the word "marriage" and its moral value from religion. Like it or not, this is a culture war, and the pro lobby is the aggressor.

Now, what to do about it? Simple: Get government out of the marriage business. Contrary to Ace's statements, this is a valid position, just not the version he's talking about. Yes, the government has to be involved in all contracts, but why does marriage have to be a contract? Why not separate the two components of marriage entirely? Remove "marriage" from all government documents (homo- and heterosexual), replace with "civil unions" or whatever you like (again, for both), and relegate the title of "married" purely to religion. If two homosexuals want to be "married", then they can find a willing church of some sort and have their ceremony and whatnot. If heterosexuals don't like it, they can argue that said "marriage" isn't Biblical (Torah-ical, Koran-ical, whatever), ergo it isn't a real marriage. This puts the argument back solely in the realm of philosophy and religion. The two sides of the morality-of-homosexuality argument can have at without either one being able to use a government-power redefinition of the terms... until the next plan is cooked up, I suppose.

In my opinion, the best tactical move in this sort of situation is one that undercuts the opponents' objective while looking like an concession. Hence, the bill should be phrased in such a way as to be confined purely to removing the concept of "marriage" from government purview, replacing it with whatever other term you like, and opening that institution to homosexuals. The end result, taking away the pro lobby's objective of government-redefined "marriage", will be a natural effect of the legislation, so it won't require any special legislative language and should not be advertised. The con side can claim, honestly, to be giving the pro side everything it wants: The homosexual lobby gets the "win" of equal standing, by the same words, under the government. I've got no problem with that "concession", and I doubt most folks do, either. On the other hand, it also takes a powerful weapon in the war to restructure morality out of the hands of those who want to suppress Christian principles through government force.

Posted by: Cortillaen at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (brMcr)

324 In the future it will be common forheterosexual guys to"marry" to get thebenefits and knock up as many women as possible to procreate and continue their line. The Government will take care of the kids in childcare.We'll be one big happy family. loved by a daddy that doesn't know our favorite flavor of ice cream, what makes us happy or what makes us sad,or evenourname or birthday except in relation to a social security number.

Posted by: Minuteman at June 25, 2011 02:41 PM (B4Wbw)

325 >>>. They certainly don't recognize the meaningful aspect of marriage -- whether the people involve actually love each other

Um, that is not the meaningful aspect of marriage. That seems to the meaningful aspect of marriage to people who aren't aware of the actual meaningful aspect of marriage, which is to create a stable law around the human fact of childbirth and child-rearing.

Those who think marriage is about the juvenile passing fancy of romantic love are redefining it just to qualify gays for it. and doing so in a rather unserious way.

Marriage is not a Government Certificate of Goin' Steady.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (nj1bB)

326 This was a clever trap of mine to get the homos to out themselves.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)
But nobody fell for it, right?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (C0Z3w)

327 Someone in a contract dispute is almost always in a
better position than the other, sans legal intervention. Just turning
one's nose up and saying "leave it where it lay" gives and advantage to
that party.



Haphazardly, randomly.



Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:30 PM (nj1bB)
Sloppily ... as the contract was written.If someone runs with a knife and falls on it, that's no ones fault but the runner. If someone runs with someone who is running with a knife and the knife holder falls into the other guy, that's just tough. That's no ones fault but the guy running with the guy running with the knife. I don't see why you find the state has a compelling interest in assinging knife blame to one of the two willing participants in the dangerous act. They both knew (or should have known, as our culture would say) that they shouldn't run holding knives out or around.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (G/MYk)

328 Alex, omg, I hate djokovic so much! Did you see Tomic, seems like all the hype about him is deserved.



War Between, something happened to gays in the past few years. From Oscar Wilde to the San Fran bath-houses, I always got the impression they used to revel in underground counter-cultural rebellious status, and they mocked the lame straight squares. And now they whine like any run-of-the-mill victim group. Unlike Jay, I blame the lesbians (except Camille Paglia, she's brilliant), they ruined gay men for the rest of us. They used to be so happy and fun!

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (PY4xx)

329
Here's a small point that goes to demonstrate why these tactics are hurtful for America as a whole. I understand NY passed this legislation bypassing their own 72 hour rule that says the law has to be published 72 hours before being voted on. They did this "legally" because the used the option that allows emergency legislation to be passed without the 72 hour period.

But everybody knows that there was no emergency except that wanted the Govs signature before opposition could swing some votes.

This sort of conduct undermines respect for American institutions and THAT is a problem.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (KOAYS)

330 What's so complicated about eliminating state marriage licenses and letting the state continue doing whatever it already does to resolve disputes between unmarried couples, business partners, and complete strangers?
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (m7mGc)
That's basically what marriage laws do, the only difference is that in most states they deem both partners equal contributors to the estate after marriage. Contract law doesn't do that.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 02:45 PM (MtwBb)

331 I always figured the end game for the gays was having a 'marriage' that would be recognized by the Social Security Administration. Which would be one more giant hole in the side of that ship.

In reality, because SSA doesn't recognize GM, gays pay into the system for decades, can die early, with no spouse to collect survivor benefits. Bad for gays and their significant other, good for the sinking ship.

Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at June 25, 2011 02:45 PM (IhHdM)

332

This sort of conduct undermines respect for American institutions and THAT is a problem.







Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (KOAYS)
The Democrats in a nutshell.

Posted by: KG at June 25, 2011 02:46 PM (LD21B)

333 If it helps any, homosexuality was more-or-less publicly socially acceptable, an open secret that wasn't really all that secret,in Classical Greece (~350BC and before). And Classical Greece seems to be the only civilization of any stature that treated the behavior as being this socially acceptable; all others treatedit as (usually very much) less acceptable.
But, publicly, men married only women. And no one, at least in the mainstream of society,saw any other alternative. This also seems to be true for just about every culture known, and in all times and places. There were exceptions of course; certain cultures had shamans who were held in high regard and behaved differently (and were accepted), others had the very less reputable districts ....
Somewhat more importantly, the social acceptance in Greece died out towards the end of the Classical era: even Athenian playwrights made fun of the practice, and at a time when the Greeks considered themselves to be the paragon of human civilization. Why?
Fast forward to today: there's evidence that a very large percentage of gay brains are wired this way, from potentially more than one cause, and there's effectively no way to change the wiring. Ok, I believe this.
But we're still dealing with a behavior, one that is of the sort that is not really a public activity. I see no reason to deny gays any of the usual rights; contracts, voting, equality before the law, etc. ....
But there are a couple of things that come up ... should we award minority status, special legal protections/rights, etc., to a group that is differentiated by behavior? And eventually, the subject of children comes up ...not just adoption, but certain activists, pedophiles. This is a major problem, and it even gets mentioned (even in print)when discussing activist gay rights stuff and political platforms.
I think NY made a big mistake. The outcry here in CA about the (latent) judge's ruling on Prop. 8 is not trivial. I think 2012 will see more than a few NY state legislators out of jobs, and perhaps legislation to change ...

Posted by: Yogi Yorgesson at June 25, 2011 02:46 PM (HlMmB)

334 Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (m7mGc)

I have to agree, you don't have to dismantle the legal system if you remove "marriage" because the state could still administer civil unions or domestic partnerships. Those are the legal equivalent of "marriage", but have zero religious overtones.

The state and the people then could decide the legal limits for domestic partnerships and define them by the rule of law. This would of course be a very slippery slop in some places, but even in CA there is fairly reasonable assurance that you won't be able to enter into a domestic partnership with a goat.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:46 PM (iGZkF)

335 Alex, omg, I hate djokovic so much! Did you see Tomic, seems like all the hype about him is deserved.

Yeah, I like Soderling though so I was a little bit bummed. Tomic does look like the real deal. He and whatshisface, the wee baby Canadian player who got hurt the other day, they both look great.

I'm a Rafa girl, through and through. I soooo want another Rafa Roger final.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:47 PM (sf+iw)

336 Hmmmm.... interesting question...
Could you create a legal contract for Polygamy today? But NOT call it a marriage, and thus be legal?
Child custody and such is not really a big deal, and you can have full parental rights and never be married.... Three adults living together and having Sex is not illegal...
Heck, you could even do a Legal name change without being legaly married...
Add in Powers of Attorney for Medical, Legal, and Financial reasons... and an unlimited Partnership for Property...
Heck, you could even have a Religious Cermony as long as you Never got a Marriage License, or stepped over the Common Law barriers (which could be a problem, but I think you have to ask for that status, it can't be forced up on you)...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 02:47 PM (NtXW4)

337 This is unfair, because you know there are a lot straight assholes who
frankly really are kind of hate-y about this, and what are we doing
about it?

Easy. Reasonable people - the majority, I like to think - SHUN them and let them know why. Eventually, the pressure works, in all settings. All it takes is numbers and consistency.

You know that Bill Cosby is one black American who has tried, publicly, to call out the elements of black culture that embarrass most blacks. He's not alone; other less visible than Cos have finally begun to stand up and say out loud what everyone knows and sees, but only certain people can SAY. Has it had a positive effect in those communities? Some say it's started to. I'd choose to believe that.

I see your point about not confusing rainbow freaks with the majority of homosexuals but, seriously, which type is the rest of the country almost always shown? Even on TV, "respectable" homosexual characters are almost always flouncy, snarky types; even if not, sex is always forefront of the mind and suggestiveness is always a subtext (see Doogie Howser's recent ad for that award show where he references, needlessly and tastelessly, his own ass...he is now a gay role model. If you know of any homosexual writer or commentator who has decried this as not only unrealistic but counterproductive, please link me, I'd love to read it. The stereotypes exist for a reason; it's up to the people unfairly painted with them to prove their not true.

I likewise see your point of wondering what in the world a reasonable, embarrassed gay man could do when two sneering leather boys try giving each other cotton candy enemas on a public street corner at noon "because that's who we are," but it's got to start somewhere and -- as Cosby showed -- it's got to start with THEM.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 02:47 PM (B60j2)

338 Let's pretend we're creating the perfect conservative society and are about to draft the laws.

Let's see, what two things do I want to give the government a complete regulatory monopoly on?

(1) My relationship with the person I love the most in the whole world! What a GREAT idea!!!

(2) My healthcare!!! I want the government to be the sole and final decisionmaker with respect to my body.

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:48 PM (m7mGc)

339 Sorry for the block posts, for some reason my line breaks are not staying in once I post.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:49 PM (iGZkF)

340 Frankly, this doesn't just piss me off at gays, who are a very small minority, it pisses me offat the politicans who allow this small minority to dictate what the rest of us have to accept, and how this country has to change to accomodate them.
I don't give a flying fig about gays one way or the other. They can do whatever they want. Doesn't matter to me. What does matter to me is their insistence that they are somehow better because they are different. By that I mean, they deserve some kind of special status based on who the hell they fuck.
One woman years ago won her legal battle to take prayer out of schools. Because of that one woman,anything with a Christian label has been under assault from that day forward.
The people that we have put in power to represent us have listened to those small minorities and shoved their bullshit down the throats of the rest of us. Because of those small minorites screaming yelling and throwing temper tantrums this country is on the verge of ruin. Activist progressives, gays, and atheists have inflicted on this country a hell of a lot of destruction. They don't care about freedom, as they insist. What they care about is making all the rest of us, the majority, give up our freedoms and morality to appease them.
They just want their way, and the rest of us be damned. They are like little children in the toy aisle when they are told no. Show your ass loud enough and long enough and maybe you'll get your way. Then, next time you scream for bigger toys, and throw bigger fits to get your way. It's not really about the toy. It's about control. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: Steph at June 25, 2011 02:50 PM (AkdC5)

341 In reality, because SSA doesn't recognize GM, gays pay into the system
for decades, can die early, with no spouse to collect survivor benefits.
Bad for gays and their significant other, good for the sinking ship.
Actually, from the long game cynical standpoint, once gay marriage is decreed by Justice Kennedy to be the law of the land (shut your mouths those pointing out that supposedly he's indicated otherwise), and the SSA has to pay to gay spouses, then there will be sudden and massive support for privatizing Social Security. Now that I can support.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:50 PM (sf+iw)

342 Why would domestic partnerships end now? Many straight couples are in domestic partnerships, even though traditional marriage has been available to them. How would gay couples' partnerships have to end with the advent of gay marriage?

Posted by: Ellen at June 25, 2011 02:52 PM (rY7F+)

343 Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:50 PM (sf+iw)


Now that is also a position I can fully support.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 02:53 PM (iGZkF)

344 We find an institution that we can recognise as marriage in every society. The details vary, but at the root of every society there is a socially recognised father-mother-child relationship.

Societies whose institutions strengthen the connections between men and their child's mother, do better. The children do better (better survival, higher status, more likely to reproduce). The men also benefit, as does society in general.

It seems to me that gays are grasping for some external change that will accomplish some mystical change that will magically improve their lives.

Men and women often find themselves in marriage like relationships without seeking any ceremony or recognition, sometimes without intention will get generally treated as "married".

So legal marriage strengthens supports a natural human tendency that has proven to be socially beneficial.

If 'gays' are seen to live in committed exclusive relationships, accepting legal and responsible obligations towards their partners, this would be recognised and respected. If they had their own name for this relationship, this term would be adopted. There would be little real opposition to legal recognition.

However, the liberal agenda seems to try to make distinctions impossible. So we have to use code to express unfashionable realities.


Posted by: Trudy at June 25, 2011 02:54 PM (g72QS)

345 Alex, yeah, Raonic. I thought the young American, Ryan Harrison, also looked good against Ferrer. I wanted a Roddick-Federer final, alas, not to be now that Roddick decided he's going to play like a wuss the rest of his life.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 02:54 PM (PY4xx)

346 No, not going to pretend to have read that, but I'm gonna keep repeating this:

It is same-sex pseudo-marriage.

Posted by: Chuckit at June 25, 2011 02:56 PM (3tscI)

347 I wanted a Roddick-Federer final, alas, not to be now that Roddick decided he's going to play like a wuss the rest of his life.

Yeah, but he has his wife as a consolation prize. I think he wins.


Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 02:58 PM (sf+iw)

348 Um, that is not the meaningful aspect of marriage. That seems to the meaningful aspect of marriage to people who aren't aware of the actual meaningful aspect of marriage, which is to create a stable law around the human fact of childbirth and child-rearing.

Not all married couples have children and not all couples with children are are married. The presumption behind every marriage is that the two people involved love each other and wish to declare to the world they have an exclusive relationship. That is the most meaningful aspect of it.

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:59 PM (m7mGc)

349 >>>Easy. Reasonable people - the majority, I like to think - SHUN them and let them know why. Eventually, the pressure works, in all settings. All it takes is numbers and consistency.

Not really. I have to tell you I let most of the stuff I hear that I don't like go, because who feels like being a perpetual scold?

People think I get off on that but I don't. I hate it.

Always scolding gets very nanny-ish and fuck it, who has the time?

Here's an example. I like "War of the Undead States." I think he's a good commenter.

Several of his comments are too antagonistic for me.

Should I scold him?

What good would that do? He'll just be pissed off. Who the fuck wants to be scolded? I don't. I'm sure he doesn't.

I did ask him a question ("how many gays do you know well?") but that's neither scoldly nor shunny.

It is very easy for me to scold the left. I don't like them, and they don't like me. It is easy for you to scold the left for the same reason.

It is difficult to scold someone you like or consider an ally. It's tricky.

By and large we don't bother doing it because it changes no minds whatsoever and just leads to drama.

People gonna think what they gonna think, people gonna feel what they gonna feel.

Further, I imagine the freak provocateurs you're talking about don't like "normal gays" and consider them Homo Uncle Toms anyway and would just sneer at any attempt to scold.

I get this myself, when I scold on, say, over-the-line racially-edged remarks. I'm immediately told I'm a sell-out to the PC Power Structure and an eager agent of censorship (and untruth) in order to curry favor with a beltway cocktail circuit.

So I'm a Conservative Uncle Tom, or a "House Conservative."

Same dynamic is going to be in play anywhere. People's response to scolding is generally:

1, fuck you,

2, how dare you?,

3, you think you're better than me?,

4, fuck you, I just wanted to mention that again, in case you'd forgotten, and

5, you are inauthentic and attempting to please an enemy cohort by selling us out to curry favor with people who hate you anyway so you're not only a traitor you're a stupid, self-deluded traitor who thinks the enemy will really accept your defection.

It's always that, not just for conservatives, for anyone.

People do not like scolding. I hate it myself.

You know how people get really pissed off at me for imposing a standard of conduct here?

Right?

Oh man, you should have seen me on other boards, flouting every fucking rule as hard as I could, and then complaining about being censored by a bunch of fuck-witted buzzkills.

Yeah, ME TOO!! I don't like it either when it's done to me, so I know it sucks when it's done to others.

That said, having changed position from "commenter" to "moderator," I am now a little more understanding of the need for baseline rules of behavior.

anyway, point is, shunning/scolding tends to be ineffectual and generally results in the scolded group splitting off into self-validating smaller groups where they actually harden in their beliefs because any sense of persecution/unfairnesss/sneering superiority winds up reinforcing the scolded belief as it invests it with the sense of need for personal validation.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)

350 War Between, something happened to gays in the past few years. From
Oscar Wilde to the San Fran bath-houses, I always got the impression
they used to revel in underground counter-cultural rebellious status,
and they mocked the lame straight squares. And now they whine like any
run-of-the-mill victim group. Unlike Jay, I blame the lesbians (except
Camille Paglia, she's brilliant), they ruined gay men for the rest of
us. They used to be so happy and fun!
I have a close gay friend (had, I suppose -- our friendship didn't really survive the Obama Regime) who was very much this way until the gay-marriage movement really picked up steam over the last decade. It became his most passionate cause, and he was otherwise all about the rejection of societal norms (especially in the Deep South, where we came from). Except for this societal norm, which for some reason had to be completely appropriated and adapted to fit his lifestyle.

Because for him it was all about state-sanctioned validation, whether he realized it or not. (He had no interest in getting "married" himself.) I'm sure he's celebrating today, and damn the consequences he either doesn't see or doesn't care about. His philosophy about Americans, regarding every one of his liberal pet issues from ghey marriage to ethanol, always was a smug "well, they'll just have to adapt." (Why does that sound so familiar....)

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 03:01 PM (cOkIN)

351 >>>Not all married couples have children and not all couples with children are are married. The presumption behind every marriage is that the two people involved love each other and wish to declare to the world they have an exclusive relationship. That is the most meaningful aspect of it.

The vast majority of real marriages produce children the vast, vast majority of gay marriages will not. Fact.

You can argue about corner cases -- some straight marriages are empty-nest arrangments, and some gay couplings will include adoption or surrogated children -- but we usually craft laws for the ruling case, not the exceptional case.

As for your continued insistence that marriage is about love: How old are you?

Let me guess, never married, eh? Kind of young?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:01 PM (nj1bB)

352 282 Dagny You should check your Funk and Wagnalls--- something given to a person in need, generous actions to aid the poorNo mention of tax deductions
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (le5qc)
I only use the OED. However, the US tax code allows for tax deductions for money or goods given to charity. But of course you statists don't want that, you want money taken by the govt to be dispersed to those it sees fit to disperse it to.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:02 PM (5tl1Y)

353 Frankly, considering the state of marriage in general, and especially male-directed punitive alimony and child support laws, in 50 years only gays will be married anyway. I'd rather keep my money.

Posted by: cheshirecat at June 25, 2011 03:02 PM (KDuam)

354 This is the juvenile rebranding of marriage not as something sacred due to the benefits CONFERRED on society (raising the next generation, keeping the human species alive) but rather as all about the benefits RECEIVED by the blissfully happy couple so "in love" with each other.

yeah, let me tell you something, romantic love is dime a dozen and does not last.

It's nothing the state has any fucking interest in promoting. For one thing, it yields zero benefits. For another, romantic love is such an overpowering (but ephemeral) emotion it hardly needs any promotion at all.

No one needs to be told "Hey, being in love is kind of awesome."

But yes, just to get gays on board, let's pretend marriage is nothing more than a Government Certificate For Goin' Steady, just a way for the state to celebrate how goshdarn "in love" you are.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:03 PM (nj1bB)

355 Yogi Yorgesson, Prager was talking about that just the other day, about how we have had all these great moral thinkers throughout history, Aristotle or Jesus or Aquinas or Luther or Maimonedes or Locke or whoever, and they have all struggled with all manner of moral question and social injustice, questions about slavery, liberty, race, gender, marriage, divorce, love, contracts, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - and yet not one of them, not ever, thought to mention gay marriage. And not as if gay people, and married people, weren't around. And yet this issue, which is so silly and farcical and made-up that it never even occurred to any serious or even unserious or even completely-stoned-out-of-his-mind thinker in the whole of human history, suddenly became a fundamental human right, a case of JUSTICE DENIED, one that is worth fighting for and that defines people's entire identity these days? Really? wtf?

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:04 PM (PY4xx)

356 352 Yes,the left wants to enforce "charity" by higher taxation.Big Daddy gubmint squeezes out private charity.Like in Europe.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:05 PM (aLloM)

357 I don't think you can blame gayjerks for beingjerks on their gayness. I do think you can blame it on their liberalism. Their parades, protests and whiningare no different than the parades, protests and whining liberals take part in all the time. They even dress the part just like the liberals do in their protests of the minute.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 03:06 PM (MtwBb)

358 Marriage isn't about "love" or sex. It's about security of children. In fact, most married couples with children will tell you that they were only "playing house" until the kids came along.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:07 PM (5tl1Y)

359 re: the facebook thing, yeesh. Logged in to so many status updates about "Proud to be a New Yorker today," I thought they had banned smoking all over again.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:08 PM (PY4xx)

360 Maybe it's not a done deal......
http://bit.ly/kYR1RV

Posted by: frankly at June 25, 2011 03:11 PM (2PHPH)

361 Gay 'marriage' = A fountain pen that can write under whipped cream.

Posted by: Sir Moeington at June 25, 2011 03:12 PM (HKALw)

362 But dishonesty remains dishonesty, which I think most still consider a rather bad thing even in this rapidly-"evolving" world

Not to liberals and the left in general, where moral relativism is indeed king.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 25, 2011 03:13 PM (vbh31)

363 Ace,

First, I like the way you run things here. If anything, last week or two (whenever it was) you were to lenient with the Hammer of Ban; too many threats and warnings. Examples needed made, but that's just my opinion. Your house, your rules, cool with me.

Would reasonable homosexuals be dismissed as "house fags" or whatever by the freaks among them for asking the freaks to stop embarrassing the fuck out of all homosexuals? Yes, probably, just like Cosby was dismisses as a house you-know-what. That's what adults with the emotional minds of children do. It's to be expected.

All the same, Cos was RIGHT to say what he said and -- my point -- only a black man could dare say it.

Call it scolding if you want; I suppose that fits. But I maintain: what we need -- no, what the homosexual community needs -- is for a very brave homosexual to stand up in front of cameras and do what Cosby did...instead of "Pull your damn pants up," make it "Keep your shit in the bedroom, idiots, you're EMBARRASSING yourself and us." And then KEEP saying it. Because most people already agree with him.

That's not an unreasonable wish, is it?

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 03:13 PM (B60j2)

364 354
This is the juvenile rebranding of marriage not as something sacred due
to the benefits CONFERRED on society (raising the next generation,
keeping the human species alive) but rather as all about the benefits
RECEIVED by the blissfully happy couple so "in love" with each other.


Very well said!

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (PY4xx)

365 what's next, blacks and whites getting married? doesn't anyone hold "traditional" values that made this country great?

Posted by: archie bunker at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (2PsGd)

366 I don't really care at all about gay marriage. I've never heard a cogent, convincing argument AGAINST gay marriage. That said, in most issues, the people who are pro-gay marriage are against about every thing I DO care about, so I have no book in helping them. In fact, as long as they burn up valuable resources and political capital pushing gay marriage, it keeps them off other topics. Also, their 'in your face', abusive and divisive rhetoric keeps the left out of the mainstream. Even Obama, who embraces the most leftist of issues, dare not piss off the black churches by backing gay marriage. Good. This has benefits as well, keeps gays pissed at him, which cools them as political activists working for him. So, all in all, I'd like to keep the debate going as long as possible.

Posted by: docweasel at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (G92eR)

367 Well, I go off half-cocked a lot and no, I probably shouldn't be using some of the rhetoric I have been. I'll dial that back.

This whole thing has me very pissed off. If we can't agree as a nation about what marriage is then we're in very big trouble. And I never had a problem with gays before all of this started sprouting up out of the blue.

The gay marriage movement is going to create more "homophobic" people than it ever imagined.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (cOkIN)

368 >>>I don't think you can blame gay jerks for being jerks on their gayness. I do think you can blame it on their liberalism.

I don't get the sense that most of those cats are serious political thinkers.

I think their politics consists chiefly of yelling "H8r!" and giggling over Perez Hilton.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (nj1bB)

369 358 Marriage isn't about "love" or sex. It's about security of children. In fact, most married couples with children will tell you that they were only "playing house" until the kids came along.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:07 PM (5tl1Y)
Being 52 and single... its amazing to me the amount of single ladies who end up divorced as soon as the kids are out of the house.
Once that common goal is done, once that 'glue' is gone... they often suddely figure out that the benefits do not outweigh costs (and it could be either party who does this, it takes two to make a marriage, only one to cause a divorce).
Marriage is already evolving... people are making different choices than they did a couple of generations ago..

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 03:15 PM (NtXW4)

370 BigHollywood has lots of Tweets from blithering idiot libtards celebrating this.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:15 PM (aLloM)

371 ace at June 25, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)
I hear ya, but I don't agree that shaming/scolding doesn't work.
That is what we did with public and private displays of racism. Shamed and scolded the shit out of it. Now it is almost (almost) unheard of.
Same thing is happening with...expressions of homophobia/anti-gay bias/support of traditional marriage, etc.
If you make an off color joke about homosexuals, or express support of traditional marriage, you will catch a shit storm of shaming and scolding. Depending of course on where you are. In your catholic church, if you support traditional marriage, not big whup.
If you are a public figure...or speaking at a public venue...very, very big deal.
Just ask that Miss America contestant.
The pro gay marriage crowd is counting heavily on being able to shame / scold gay marriage into existance.
Yeah, you may say it is the courts and legislature that are actually doing it. But the threat of the never ending shaming and scolding is a big driving factor in many of these decisions.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:16 PM (Y2WVW)

372 I think their politics consists chiefly of yelling "H8r!" and giggling over Perez Hilton.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah I know, that's why I made the comparison. Watch some you tubes of the wisconsin protests sometime.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 03:18 PM (MtwBb)

373 anyway, point is, shunning/scolding tends to be ineffectual and
generally results in the scolded group splitting off into
self-validating smaller groups where they actually harden in their
beliefs because any sense of persecution/unfairnesss/sneering
superiority winds up reinforcing the scolded belief as it invests it
with the sense of need for personal validation.

Let 'em. They'll be that way no matter what happens, or doesn't happen. They're emotional children.

As long as whatever adults exist in the homosexual community stand up, at long last, and draw the "them/us" line (something no one outside their community can do), they'll benefit from it.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 03:18 PM (B60j2)

374 Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 03:15 PM (NtXW4)
Probably true. I happen to also be wildly in love with my security which works well for me personally but I don't inflict that on others.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:20 PM (5tl1Y)

375 Marriage is a ceremony expressing deep commitment and out laws should reflect that. It's a commitment so deep that we must ensure no-fault divorce is the law to show how seriously the partners take that commitment.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 03:21 PM (OXB7R)

376 >>>Call it scolding if you want; I suppose that fits. But I maintain: what we need -- no, what the homosexual community needs -- is for a very brave homosexual to stand up in front of cameras and do what Cosby did...instead of "Pull your damn pants up," make it "Keep your shit in the bedroom, idiots, you're EMBARRASSING yourself and us." And then KEEP saying it. Because most people already agree with him.

>>>That's not an unreasonable wish, is it?

1, to some extent, people do do that. I think -- and I hate to even credit this asshole for anything -- I think Andrew Sullivan did some of that moralism agaisnt the more outre gays (and got punished with those leaks of his bareback sex ads).

2, which leads to the observation that the gay left is a particularly smug and self-satisfied thing that is so convinced of its sacredness that any awful behavior is not only justified, but demanded.

So bear that in mind. Yes, you need some bravery.

3, I'm not sure we have too many gay spokesman who are not captured by the gay left. In other words, we on the right, or the more traditionalist camp, have not nurtured nor embraced many "Normal Gay Spokesmen."

If there's not enough gays who WOULD say this sort of thing, it's partly because the people who WOULD have their backs haven't elevated them to a Cosby-level of prominence.

4, as I said, it's a no-win proposition if the gay left will wind up savaging you, and the gay center-liberal/default liberal/just likes to think liberal thoughts majority will also savage you for speaking out against other gays as an uncle tom homo, AND on top of that the right will also not really super-have your back either, but will sort of have your back, but only with a lot of chatter about you being a goddamned homo too.

Any advocate needs an audience to advocate to. Is there a big enough audience for this kind of thing?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (nj1bB)

377 That is what we did with public and private displays of racism. Shamed and scolded the shit out of it. Now it is almost (almost) unheard of.
Think again. My son is in high school and the racism and anti-semitism is so out in the open that I found it shocking.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (yQWNf)

378 >>>Yeah I know, that's why I made the comparison. Watch some you tubes of the wisconsin protests sometime.

Right, that occurred to me too, that this is how most people experience "politics."

However, re the Folsom Street Fair crew, I get the sense that there is an even more trivial investment in political thought than is usual among the yell-y scream-y "political" actors in the country.

Maybe that's just a stereotype. However, when a 300 pound guy is dressed as a nun except with his saggy white buttocks exposed, I just get a sense of the man as having not read de Toqueville.*

* Neither have I, for that matter, but at least I've read people who quote de Toqueville.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:25 PM (nj1bB)

379 375
Marriage is a ceremony expressing deep commitment and out laws should
reflect that. It's a commitment so deep that we must ensure no-fault
divorce is the law to show how seriously the partners take that
commitment.


Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 03:21 PM (OXB7R)

Yes, this is my take, too. I'll drop any opposition to gay marriage if it comes with a reinstatement of no-fault divorce.

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:26 PM (PY4xx)

380 #355 Adrian
" great moral thinkers throughout history, ... ..... ....., etc, etc - and yet not one of them, not ever, thought to mention gay marriage."
Interestingly, if you read enough about events in Europe, for example, there is a mention at the Wiki site concerning The Bonfire of the Vanities (IIRC) that indicates that all the gays were driven out ... the implication being that they were ignored / tolerated by society.
I take this to mean that, historically, everyone has understood "gay".
What we are seeing now is an attempt to change people's beliefs and values. I think it will backfire badly. This may be unfortunate, as there are certain countries that are truly over populated AND hae an excess of men; China: perhaps 10,000,000 extra, perhaps 30,000,000 extra, and the 10-30M womenno longerexist. What to do? This I think will get real ugly, and If I'm lucky, I will only have to watch, not participate ...

Posted by: Hogarth de la Poubelle, The League of Ugly Shirted Gentlemen at June 25, 2011 03:28 PM (HlMmB)

381 Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (yQWNf)
Interesting. What sort? Whites denigrating blacks? Or vice versa?
I'd expect the later. The former would surprise me. As for the anti-semitism, is it related to left wing hatred of Israel?
I'll be honest, I don't have a good handle on high school environments.
Care to elaborate?

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:28 PM (Y2WVW)

382 Yes, this is my take, too. I'll drop any opposition to gay marriage if it comes with a reinstatement of no-fault divorce.


Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:26 PM (PY4xx)

And by reinstatement, naturally, I mean getting rid of it. oops...

Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:29 PM (PY4xx)

383 And the traditionalists never much wanted civil unions either.
Civil unions never had a chance because within five minutes of the public growing comfortable with them the gay marriage lobby decided that they could not possibly endure under such a despicably discriminatory regime.
Getting into this late, but I'll say this ace. I think your second portion explains the first part of these two statements. I also saw that you said "get the government out of marriage" is a dodge but its one I think was the "correct" method. In that I think marriages under the law should all be called civil unions under the law. Remove marriage from the legal versions and you cannot attack it through the law. Gays would no longer have their arguments about equality under the law because they would actually have equality under the law and marriage would still have its traditional marriage.
And really if you want to call your partner your husband or wife and even say you're married even though you only got a civil union under the law I don't think most would raise a stink anyways.
But this has never actually been about equality. Its not a gay marriage agenda. Its a liberal agenda wrapped up in a rainbow.

Posted by: Billy the Kid at June 25, 2011 03:29 PM (oVQFe)

384 and I forgot to fix my sock.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 03:30 PM (oVQFe)

385 Maybe that's just a stereotype. However, when a 300 pound guy is dressed as a nun except with his saggy white buttocks exposed, I just get a sense of the man as having not read de Toqueville.* * Neither have I, for that matter, but at least I've read people who quote de Toqueville.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:25 PM (nj1bB)
I think it's mostley about outrageous outrage with the left, whether your gay or not.
de' who?

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 03:31 PM (MtwBb)

386 It is interesting that this thread appeared because last night Red Eye had Adam Carolla and Nick Gillespie on the show. They briefly discussed gay marriage and like the rest of the show, it proved rather disappointing. Everyone took the mushy way out that Ace describes: the detached "libertarian" view that somehow marriage can be divorced from gubmint, or that "we're sick of talking about it, there are more important things."

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 03:32 PM (AZGON)

387 381 I do some online gaming and I can tell you,white kids throw the N word around at people they perceive as black.They also make racist images with the emblem creation aspects some games give you.

Posted by: PETA at June 25, 2011 03:32 PM (aLloM)

388 gay marriage is teh future like India and Missy Peregrym and cassava chips I think

Posted by: happyfeet at June 25, 2011 03:32 PM (Xne72)

389 387 Sock fail.They also throw a lot of antisemitic stuff out there.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:33 PM (aLloM)

390 When the left and the courts impose gay marriage on us, in addition to all the other impositions, when do we say enough? When does it become apparent that there is no path to freedom via the peaceful political process?

Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 25, 2011 03:34 PM (NLWij)

391 I don't care if the person pushing me into a cattle car is wearing a black uniform or a pink tutu.

Posted by: guy who wants to marry his sheep, one step closer at June 25, 2011 03:34 PM (BARAe)

392 They also throw a lot of antisemitic stuff out there.

Ah, the tolerance of the gaming community. Let me put it this way, whenever I hear teabagger I think of Halo, not the Tea Party.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (sf+iw)

393 Care to elaborate?
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:28 PM (Y2WVW)
From what I have seen the High School he goes to is completely Balkanized. Whites openly hostile to blacks. All openly hostile toward asians. Everyone against gays. It is really sad. So tangled and sad. Most of the kids do not know any better other than they don't like the "other". No reason why. The open anti-semitism is what bothers me most. I think that so much PC crap has been force fed to these kids that it has just magnified the differences of those that are "not like us", and it has desinsitized this generation.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (yQWNf)

394 386 Gillespie is very much the hardcore libertarian on the subject.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (aLloM)

395 "Gay thoughts on straight marriage"
You assholes keep your mitts off Sarah Palin's reproductive organs. That's my beat.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (XtpDT)

396 PETA at June 25, 2011 03:32 PM (aLloM)
Yeah, it seems like the anonymity of the internet with throw away tags and personasis the exception to the rule of my shaming / scolding.
"Meat-space" is mostly what I am refering to.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (Y2WVW)

397 392 Ha!True.I hated that,little weasels.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:37 PM (aLloM)

398 When does it become apparent that there is no path to freedom via the peaceful political process?
Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 25, 2011 03:34 PM (NLWij)
about the time you feel froggy enough to go up against the USMC and find out you made a big mistake.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 03:37 PM (MtwBb)

399 From what I have seen the High School he goes to is completely Balkanized. Whites openly hostile to blacks. All openly hostile toward asians. Everyone against gays. It is really sad. So tangled and sad. Most of the kids do not know any better other than they don't like the "other". No reason why. The open anti-semitism is what bothers me most. I think that so much PC crap has been force fed to these kids that it has just magnified the differences of those that are "not like us", and it has desinsitized this generation.
I agree with the younger gen being DONE with PC. In our experience, the whites are terrified of the blacks and avoid them at all costs. It's not H8tred. It's fear.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:38 PM (5tl1Y)

400 Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (yQWNf)
Now this is interesting. Does the balkanization of this high school student body and attitudes reflect itself in the larger community?
What state and city is this?

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:38 PM (Y2WVW)

401 One problem with the opposition to gay marriage was that for many it was an all-or-nothing issue. The forbidding of legal status because it is so intertwined with the religious status.

There is only one way to protect religious institutions from government attempts to coerce them into gay marriage recognitions.... civil unions for all, gay or straight. Yes, your priest, minister, rabbi or whatever would lose his or her ability to change one's legal status, but then the lack of just that means the government has no say in the rite.

The real problem is this is one of the few areas where church and state are not separate and since the state is changing its views, churches that do not agree with the new view are now vulnerable.

Break the link... civil unions for the legal status and religious ceremonies for those who wish them.

In case it matters, I support gay legal marriage and my faith (Wiccan) has no problem with them. However, I do agree that religious institutions have the right to define marriage as they see fit and not perform ceremonies against their beliefs. They have the first amendment on their side here, but the fact that someone's religious rite has legal implicatons also makes them vulnerable to state interference and rules.

Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 03:39 PM (nJMhY)

402 war between the undead states,

sorry, I really didn't mean to scold you, was just throwing it out there.

I think there are two kinds of people who talk smack about gays:

1. People who really, really do not like gays and can/will justify it.

2. people who get angry about gay lobby stuff and wind up speaking intemperately and overbroadly about gays.

I suspect many people are in camp 2 but probably could do a better job of signaling that.

The Camp 1 people do not sound good and I tell you this: To the extent the public sees Camp 1 types as the advocates against gay marriage, the public will side with gay marriage, because it's not a good face to put on it.

People like to think they are tolerant and broad-minded and above irrational bigotry.

If you give people a public face of seeming intolerant and angry and just sort of not liking a certain type of person based on what are believed by most to be inborn traits, they're going to chose the other side, and it's not even going to be about politics, it's going to be about a personal decision to dissociate themselves from people they don't wish to be grouped in with.

I know a bunch of homos. Like, not a bunch, but I know like, maybe, six homos, to one extent or another.

The homos I actually like I like and there's nothing wrong with them, as far as I'm concerned, except they like to do sexual things I'm not interested in, which isn't a big deal because I once got hacked with a busty lesbian picture and I don't want to be judged regarding that political hit-job hack.

There are homos I don't like, partly because they're just assholes or embody the usual string of stereotypes one assigns to homos. And sure, those stereotypes are true, as most stereotypes are true-- and when you find someone with one of the stereotypes they tend to embody several of them.

But then, there are homos I like who embody few, if any, of those stereotypes, and only to a limited extent. Like, okay, yeah, most homos are a little bit more up on fashion than most. Not really a hanging offense.

Anway, as with all bigotries, it really depends on who you meet and who you know.

I'm sure the people who don't like gays aren't making stuff up -- they probably have met gays that are obnoxious and all that.

But while it's natural to generalize from your own experience (hard to avoid it), it has to be born in mind that it is just your own experience, and gays being such a small % of the population (1-2%), you're unlikely to know many at all, and if you happen to run into the obnoxious sort, that's naturally going to color your feelings.

But you have to discount that to a fair degree -- your sample size is relatively small, isn't it?



Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:42 PM (nj1bB)

403 Then you are in Favor of some mythical Personified "State" having control over its Citizens? and not Vice Versa?
Nice straw man, on so many levels.
Let me turn it around, sans the curious 18th century orthography: are you in favor of the State having no control over its citizens? Anything goes?
No. Of course not. The State can, does, and should exert some control over its citizens. See "murder, theft, rape, incest, drug dealing," not to mention at various periods, "the draft."
In any case, I wasn't talking about State control over citizens so much as encouraging socially useful behavior. And yes, that can be carried too far, but on the other hand, the ideal amount of State influence is not zero, either.
True?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 03:43 PM (7CHWu)

404 Think again. My son is in high school and the racism and anti-semitism is so out in the open that I found it shocking.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (yQWNf)
The point was, in MOST of America it has been scolded out of existence.
I couldn't walk around with Erinn 50 years ago in Maryland without being harassed, or marry her without being sent to jail.

Outside of some spots here and there, nobody cares.


People anonymously post all sorts of shit online, so racism still exists but it has become more private.

I see another lib troll had to bring up interracial marriage AGAIN, further showing their lack of interest in reading any of the comments.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 03:43 PM (hZs9Q)

405 This calls for a celebration of the moment, at least for tonight.

http://tinyurl.com/37gtet

Posted by: Fritz, slashing the irony with a feather boa at June 25, 2011 03:43 PM (p2IBw)

406 1, to some extent, people do [shame others]. I think -- and I hate to even
credit this asshole for anything -- I think Andrew Sullivan did some of
that moralism agaisnt the more outre gays (and got punished with those
leaks of his bareback sex ads).


Did not know that. I'm guessing he quit scolding altogether after that.




2, which leads to the observation that the gay left is a particularly
smug and self-satisfied thing that is so convinced of its sacredness
that any awful behavior is not only justified, but demanded.


No argument there.



3, I'm not sure we have too many gay spokesman who are not captured by
the gay left. In other words, we on the right, or the more
traditionalist camp, have not nurtured nor embraced many "Normal Gay
Spokesmen."


Like I said before (or thought to type it in case I didn't), the person wouldn't necessarily need to be a self-identified conservative. You and I know such men and women exist but, as you say, they're either locked into lefty orbit, don't have the bravery or/and platform to do it. But they're out there, somewhere. One of these days, they'll surface.




4, as I said, it's a no-win proposition if the gay left will wind up
savaging you,

A given,

and the gay center-liberal/default liberal/just likes to
think liberal thoughts majority will also savage you for speaking out
against other gays as an uncle tom homo,

Very probably,

AND on top of that the right
will also not really super-have your back either, but will sort of have
your back, but only with a lot of chatter about you being a goddamned
homo too.




That may be a bit unfair. There'd be a lot of that but, at the same time, there'd be the usual glomming on to this person a la the glomming on by many cons to Hitchens just because he is anti-Jihadist, even though he's still a devout Marxist and even devouter (for the moment) atheist. You've surely read more about him than I, but I do not recall hearing any con say "You know, I'd like to agree with Hitchens about the need to obliterate jihadists wherever they're found but, goddamit, he's a commie atheist, so I just can't." No, they took truth where they found it. I think most would do the same with a scolding, finger-pointing homosexual.


Any advocate needs an audience to advocate to. Is there a big enough audience for this kind of thing?

Given the right exposure? You damn well know there is: the vast majority of Americans (sorry to repeat) already know what they know and see what they see, but in today's atmosphere they're forbidden to utter the truth very loudly. A homosexual could, and would have instant credibility BECAUSE we already know what he's saying is truth.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 03:43 PM (B60j2)

407 Except you already have to have a state marriage license to have a religious ceremony. Just issue the license for civil union. If they want to get married, go to religious route, if you don't believe in religion, just be content with the civil union. A religious rite without the state license is meaningless outside of the church/temple/whatever.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:43 PM (5tl1Y)

408 I just really loved how Gabe talked about the inclusion of "Religious Exemption Clause" as if they aren't already thinking of ways to get around that already.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 03:44 PM (oVQFe)

409 By the way, ace... saying that "you didnt play fair" is kind of a weak argument. Changes always come in increments and no one who is smart asks for the moon all in one shot. The overall aim of general acceptance of gay marriage has been obvious for quite some time now, at least since the late 80s for anyone paying attention and one reason why many conservatives didnt and still dont want to entertain any kind of modification to the law.

DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.

Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 03:44 PM (nJMhY)

410 What state and city is this?
I am in MD. No, it does not spread across the community at large. That is what is also very worrisome. We are integrated and get along in almost everything, but yet we see our kids coming home after having to deal with some real vile shit. I haven't really talked to a cross section of parents to see if they see it too. I think that the internet has made a lot of these attitudes easy as well. I check my kids FB and the back and forth from the kids that are on it is enough to curl my hair.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:45 PM (yQWNf)

411 #410
heh.
I left that hellhole for California.

Maryland is the biggest pile of hypocrisy on earth.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 03:46 PM (hZs9Q)

412 411. This. I am not that far from Gettysburg and I would love to move up to Pennsyltucky.... if I could just sell my house.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:48 PM (yQWNf)

413 410 From the white kids perspective I think much of it is blowback at all the PC pushed on them.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (aLloM)

414 DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.
Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 03:44 PM (nJMhY)
You mean Clinton.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (oVQFe)

415 My view on this has evolved over the years... but I'm now to the point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business anyway...

It should all be contractual in nature... creating a household... with legal Powers of Attorney and Joint Property agreements involved.

Marriage should be between you, and your religion... not you, and the State.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 12:17 PM

What about people who want to get married, but are not religious or part of any religion? Are they no longer to be considered married?

So we'll basically move to a society where we'll have religious couples called "married", non-religious couples called "in a government contracted union" and same-sex couples called "gay married"?

Interesting...

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (kmmGJ)

416 DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.
Spare me. Even marxist Bambi paid lip service to it. There isn't general acceptance or they could win by referendum not judicial fiat. It's just one more marxist ploy to destroy society and make the state supreme.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:50 PM (5tl1Y)

417 #411
HAH!
Baltimore County then? Or Carroll County?
Both are cesspools.
I went to Western Maryland College, not terribly far from Gettysburg.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 03:50 PM (hZs9Q)

418 I left that hellhole for California.

So you like hellholes?

By the way, I live in freaking Clownifornia. Do you smell the sulfur and brimstone on the morning breeze like I do?

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 03:50 PM (AZGON)

419 So we'll basically move to a society where we'll have religious couples called "married", non-religious couples called "in a government contracted union" and same-sex couples called "gay married"?
Or everyone who isn't religious being in a contracted union.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:51 PM (5tl1Y)

420 #418
I wake up with a face full of boobs.
It eases the pain of living in the fourth circle of hell.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (hZs9Q)

421 there'd be the usual glomming on to this person a la the glomming on by
many cons to Hitchens just because he is anti-Jihadist, even though he's
still a devout Marxist and even devouter (for the moment) atheist.

Look at the comments to this post. Look at the things that are said about Gabe in nearly every post he makes here. Now, consider that and then tell me why anyone would bother.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (sf+iw)

422 What about people who want to get married, but are not religious or part of any religion? Are they no longer to be considered married? So we'll basically move to a society where we'll have religious couples called "married", non-religious couples called "in a government contracted union" and same-sex couples called "gay married"? Interesting...
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (kmmGJ)
I said it in another comment. They can call themselves married for all I care if all they have is a civil union. It can't be that big of a deal. I mean what is it with people thinking that they need a piece of paper from the state to legitimize their love.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (oVQFe)

423 "Like, okay, yeah, most homos are a little bit more up on fashion than most. Not really a hanging offense."

Hah!

One of my oldest friends is gay, and he is about as far from being up on fashion as I am. Maybe even farther.

And you know something? It's a pleasure to talk with him because he has lots and lots to talk about besides his gayness. I have told him before that I actually don't give a rat's ass about his sex life; the only sex life I care about is my own.

But...he is at least as conservative about most things as I am. Does he want gay marriage? Yes, but it isn't a burning issue. His issues are national defense and domestic fiscal policy and the destruction of our intellectual underpinnings in this country.

Do I disagree about some things with him? Of course -- but because he considers himself a man first, rather than a GAY man, and an American first rather than a GAY American -- it's easy to work around our disagreements. And that's the point; he, and many (if not most) gays are other things as well. But the media and our politicians have decided that the only gays who count are the aggressively out, politically hard-left, in-your-face fags.




Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (LH6ir)

424 I remember being promised in the media by all these sainted activists that no gay proselytizing would occur in grade schools and on every TV show and movie made.

I remember being told that my kid wouldn't be preached at about oral, fisting and anal sex or asked survey questions about it in grade school.

There was also an absolute assurance that incest, pedophilia, bigamy, bestiality, and a host of other perversions were not waiting in the wings to be legitimized.

So far that isn't working out to be true.

Doesn't matter to me where people want to put their little private parts or what they want to rub them against. Lie to me and the shit isn't so funny.

But it matters a great deal to me that my lifestyle is demeaned and mocked on a daily basis. And that my child is destined to be encouraged in public school to engage in this behavior in the name of tolerance and going with the flow.

Future 7th grade union teacher: "Oh, all seventh grade boys are taking it in the keester these days. It's a trend. It was even on Twilight IX: The Sparklening. We encourage students to expand their horizons."

And if we forbid it we will be ostracized and perhaps prosecuted by the State.

If "anything goes" is the ultimate goal, just fuckin say so. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.



Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (BARAe)

425 I wake up with a face full of boobs.
It eases the pain of living in the fourth circle of hell.

So, do you see boob prints when you shave?

Life is good.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (AZGON)

426 Sorry, I'm not here often enough to know who Gabe is. Please explain so I can understand?

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (B60j2)

427 Actually now that I think of it most of the gay guys I know don't dress particularly well.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (nj1bB)

428 417 Frederick County. I know W MD College well. Frederick Country is as red as any county in Montana. This is a real weird state.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:54 PM (yQWNf)

429 Seems to me like church-married or synagogue-married or temple-married or mosque-married are clear differentiators.

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 25, 2011 03:54 PM (yrGif)

430 >>>One of my oldest friends is gay, and he is about as far from being up on fashion as I am. Maybe even farther.

Yeah I just thought of this myself in my above 427.

The entire basis for my saying this is that Gay Patriot wore like a houndstooth jacket that fit him at CPAC.

But he was actually underdressed, because everyone wears suits at CPAC.

CPAC has taught me that deep in their hearts, straight white conservative men are gay for business suits.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:55 PM (nj1bB)

431 Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (kmmGJ)

Sure. Why not? the complaints from the marriage proponents have all been legal. Why not make marriage a purely religious construct? It removes a contentious topic from the public debate, and allows all religions to act as they see fit.

I don't have any problem with one rump-ranger wanting visitation rights and power-of-attorney for his gravely ill partner. And default inheritance for your bugger-buddy as a matter of civil union contract? Sounds fine to me.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 03:56 PM (LH6ir)

432 It was even on Twilight IX: The Sparklening.

I am so blindly jealous that I didn't come up with that.

Sorry, I'm not here often enough to know who Gabe is. Please explain so I can understand?
Gabriel Malor aka Gabe is a cob-logger. He happens to be out. Nearly all, if not all, posts he makes end up having comments left about his sexuality and not in a positive light.


Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 03:57 PM (sf+iw)

433 Gabriel Malor aka Gabe is a cob-logger. He happens to be out. Nearly
all, if not all, posts he makes end up having comments left about his
sexuality and not in a positive light.

Thanks. One further questions: does it take the form of give-and-take friendly banter, or is it one-sided assholery entirely at his expense? I'm guessing #2 from what you're saying.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (B60j2)

434 I wake up with a face full of boobs.
It eases the pain of living in the fourth circle of hell.

True. Gabe could post on The Law of the Sea Treaty and someone would call him a homo for it.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (AZGON)

435 oops, I screwed that up.

I meant to quote

Gabriel Malor aka Gabe is a cob-logger. He happens to be out. Nearly all, if not all, posts he makes end up having comments left about his sexuality and not in a positive light.
--
True. Gabe could post on The Law of the Sea Treaty and someone would call him a homo for it.


sheesh, that was confusing

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:02 PM (AZGON)

436
11 Oh, and in 30 years (provided we are not an islamic state) the new fight
will be legalization of polyamory. Come to think of it, if (when?) we
become an islamic state, polyamory comes with it, doesn't it?

Only if the practitioners are hip neo-pagans, urban swingers, or Muslim. Pasty white Fundamentalist Mormons need not apply.

Posted by: J. Random Dude at June 25, 2011 04:02 PM (72afg)

437 434 I wake up with a face full of boobs. It eases the pain of living in the fourth circle of hell. True. Gabe could post on The Law of the Sea Treaty and someone would call him a homo for it.
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (AZGON)
Yeah but we'd call anyone else a homo for that too.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 04:02 PM (oVQFe)

438 So, do you see boob prints when you shave?

Life is good.
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (AZGON)

Life is very good, at least with that.
The smog, taxation, and Jerry Brown?
Not so good.

Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 04:03 PM (hZs9Q)

439 Thanks. One further questions: does it take the form
of give-and-take friendly banter, or is it one-sided assholery entirely
at his expense?


Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (B60j2)
Gabe gives as well he gets.That's what they say, anyway.(an example for you)But there are very serious differences most commenters have with Gabe's position and how he abuses the language, himself.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 25, 2011 04:03 PM (G/MYk)

440 Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:42 PM (nj1bB)

No, you're right. I have no desire to allow my temper to paint myself or anyone else into the Group 1 category.

But while I don't hate gays; I don't hate anyone; I do firmly believe that there is a common strain of narcissism at the root of all homosexuality, and that it is what's fueling the relentless drive toward government-imposed Acceptance. Yes, it may be overgeneralizing, but I've seen it in all of the gays I've known in my life. I've managed to cultivate friendships with some of them anyway and have been anguished over the strain politics has put on (and in one case destroyed) those friendships.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 04:04 PM (cOkIN)

441 Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:55 PM (nj1bB)

You know what "houndstooth" is?

You are clearly gay.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:04 PM (LH6ir)

442 True. Gabe could post on The Law of the Sea Treaty and someone would call him a homo for it.


Got it. I'll pay attention to that from now on.



sheesh, that was confusing

yes

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:04 PM (B60j2)

443 foguere at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (B60j2)
Gabe is Gabriel Malor. Used to post here a lot. Now he still does, but much more infrequently.
Gabe is gay. He came out of the closet after he had been posting here for a year or so.
Prior to that, Gabe was liked by some and disliked by others. The ones who liked him considered him smart and astute. The ones who didn't like him considered him to be smug and condescending.
Most peoples opinion of him didn't change after he came out of the closet.
Hope this helps.
(If yer interested in "Changes in International Law of the Seas and How This Relates to You", Gabe is your man.)

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:05 PM (Y2WVW)

444 One of the annoying things among gays is:

The Gay Guy Who Just Wants To Be The Gay Guy All The Time.

One of the annoying things among straights is:

The Straight Guy Who Will Not Let The Gay Guy Be Anything But The Gay Guy Even When He's Actually Trying To Not Be The Gay Guy All The Time.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 04:05 PM (nj1bB)

445 My hate keeps me warm and helps me start the barbecue.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:05 PM (BARAe)

446 What next, a constitutional amendment demanding the right to pregnancy by hiney insemination? Or maybe a right that all latex double-siders shoot real juice? Its been a long road for them to change the original psychiatric diagnosis into a lifestyle choice. Gotta give 'em credit for keeping their hands on the balls, bull.

Posted by: NumberTwo at June 25, 2011 04:06 PM (S2Mn5)

447 444:

If he'd stop wearing that shirt it would help.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:06 PM (BARAe)

448 The gay guys I know seem relatively well adjusted (I don't reallyask), but of the handful of Lesbians I know/have kniown, 90% were on lithium or someother heavy psych drugs. Not happy people.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:07 PM (Z05lF)

449 $5

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:08 PM (B60j2)

450 sheesh, that was confusing

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:02 PM (AZGON)
Actually I liked it very much.Gabe can be a bit pompous and condescending (sort of like, um, all of us), but the vitriol is just ridiculous.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:08 PM (LH6ir)

451 How about the atheist who manages to work atheism into everything?

Actually used to have an aquaintance who managed to work atheism into a discussion about growing tomatoes at a barbecue.
We all stood our drunk asses up out of our lawn chairs and clapped for him.

Last barbecue he ever attended.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:09 PM (BARAe)

452 Gabe is a good egg when he isn't pushing the gay legislation or spouting off about international law.

Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 04:10 PM (p2IBw)

453 446
What next, a constitutional amendment demanding the right to pregnancy by hiney insemination?

Billy Crystal made that movie back around 1980. Disney, I think.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:10 PM (B60j2)

454 Gabe seems nice.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:11 PM (BARAe)

455 This thread needs a soundtrack by Coldplay.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:11 PM (BARAe)

456 >>> I do firmly believe that there is a common strain of narcissism at the root of all homosexuality,

noooo.

The root of all homosexuality is a genetic/chemical signal in the womb that exists in virtually all animals.

The narcissism, to the extent it exists (and it really exists in one type of Gay Dude), is the product of a subculture which has grown, as all subcultures do, divergently from mainstream culture and has taught itself to celebrate things the mainstream culture doesn't celebrate.

The whole camp/celebrity-mad thing, the whole Endless Impressario act.

But this is a subculture which exists in some strongly and others not strongly at all.

There is a contributing thing here: women dress to please other women, it's always said.

Men dress to please themselves.

Gay men are often in a different sort of thing because they're attempting to attract the same sex, and, besides, I think they have brains that in some ways are more feminized in some areas. Like, I'm guessing, personal grooming and pride in appearance. More female traits.

Which then looks like (and sometimes becomes) narcissism. But it's no more narcissistic than women getting dolled up.

The idea you're expressing is that some dudes are SO INTO THEMSELVES that when they seek a sex partner they need it to be so similar to them that they're looking for the same sexual organs.

That's silly. A lot of good looking straight guys are very narcissistic and arrogant and etc. and do they look for dick? No, they look for ginch.

I do not believe anyone decides to become gay because they're so into themselves.

Did Anthony Weiner look for dick?



Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 04:12 PM (nj1bB)

457 You know what "houndstooth" is?

You are clearly gay.

But houndstooth paired with foulard stripes? Seriously style-challenged.

Not that I know anything about foulard stripes or houndstooth. Of course, if I did, there would not be anything wrong with that.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (AZGON)

458 Homosexuals have been dishonest from the beginning. First, they asked for tolerance. Then, they asked for acceptance. Now, they demand one of the most sacred rites of the Church and society, as though marriage is just for sex and pension benefits.

Well, I'm gonna apply for a license to marry my nephew.

Posted by: apodoca at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (C4Y9x)

459 This thread needs more cowbell.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (Y2WVW)

460 Not to ask anyone to speak for him but would Gabe be the kind of guy to speak out against stereotypically flamboyant displays that paint all homosexuals as...well...stereotypically flamboyant?

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (B60j2)

461 Or maybe a right that all latex double-siders shoot real juice?
I probably don't want to know.
Gay, I sorta understand, lesbianism....not so much. I can't figure out the point.

Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (5tl1Y)

462 I wonder what kind of special marriage contract covers Huma and Tony's unique arrangement?

And does it involve hurling saucepans lately?

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:14 PM (AZGON)

463 240 It's just more marxism. The topic doesn't matter. Desolve the family. Build up the State. You are all workers with no ties that bind.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:57 PM (5tl1Y)

This. We are deliberately regressing into feudalism, and liberals are leading the way, backwards through history. The fascination liberals have with "the commons" and "it takes a village" is telling. Back to the dark ages, peasants.

Posted by: Boots at June 25, 2011 04:14 PM (neKzn)

464
Hard to be surly on a beautiful day like today. My cold is going away, the Sam Adams is cold, and I can smell the pork on the smoker wafting into my office from the window.
Got my first tomato off the vine this morning. 3/4lb of awesomeness.



http://tinyurl.com/6ku5vdo

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:16 PM (BARAe)

465 Did Anthony Weiner look for dick?

Well, I had heard that he did, right before he clicked the wrong button on twitter. That sort of killed that rumor dead though.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 04:17 PM (OXB7R)

466 You know, some of the traditional family arrangements deserve a renascence. Like le droit de seigneur.

Posted by: Dominique Strauss-Kahn at June 25, 2011 04:17 PM (AZGON)

467 Got my first tomato off the vine this morning. 3/4lb of awesomeness
You don't live here then, mine are just starting to bloom. Of course it's only been over 70 twice this year.

Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 04:18 PM (MtwBb)

468 I suppose some people may have "gay genes", but certainly millions of others have been "converted". By desire for gratification, otherpropensities, or evenforce,whether in theRoyalNavy, Prison, Ye Olde Boarding School,or wherever.Not hard to believe that many of them had no such chemical signal and developed a taste for it all on their own. There's a lot more to sex (and sexual deviance/gratification) than reproduction. Immersion gayness, as it were.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:18 PM (Z05lF)

469 Did Anthony Weiner look for dick?

Well, if you believe Democrats, everyone does.

Posted by: Rick Perry at June 25, 2011 04:18 PM (AZGON)

470 Something BIG just occured to me.

How many of those advocating the pseudo-libertarian position of "getting the government out of the marriage business" really want government to get out of the child-rearing business? The schools are basically big day-cares with two hot meals a day in select areas, I understand. It's the enforcer to all the varied forms of Child Support, and also provides Aid to Families With Dependent Children on top of all the other forms (like the schools).

Before they tear down the last little bits of traditional society, in the name of "libertarianism," can I at least get a dollar figure on how much socialist money we spend a year to make up for all the other parts of traditional society we've abandoned?

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 25, 2011 04:18 PM (rVfMa)

471 Gay men are often in a different sort of thing because they're attempting to attract the same sex, and, besides, I think they have brains that in some ways are more feminized in some areas. Like, I'm guessing, personal grooming and pride in appearance. More female traits.
True, except for the bears/leather types. Which is the exact oposite.
Gay men seem to diverge into two camps. One very macho. One very femmy.
Gay women...not so much. Yeah, you got the bull dykes. But the lipstick lesbians? Mostly just made up by the media/straight chicks looking for attention.
If you a lesbian and you aren't bull dykey, yer probably more mainstream looking.
So their split is "very macho vs. normal looking."

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:19 PM (Y2WVW)

472 Why should your plate contributions be tax deductible? I'm a lapsed PCUSA, so I know what great records we kept to send in with our tax returns. Exemption is a poison in our system, home, child, makes no difference, it is a gov attempt to give someone a favor at the expense of you and me
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:59 PM (le5qc)
Our entire tax code is a toxic stew used by the government to control our decisions in so many pernicious ways. What you address here is a point of division in the tax code that they can use against us as believers or non-believers. The current tax regime needs to be replaced by a neutral one. That's why I'm for the Fair Tax.

Posted by: Minuteman at June 25, 2011 04:19 PM (B4Wbw)

473 467:

Burbank. We have a perfect micro-climate for tomatoes. I picked new potatoes yesterday morning.

Those fuckers are living on borrowed time until America Day on July 9.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:20 PM (BARAe)

474 We've been able to pick a few small zucchini, summer squash and cukes so far. Also, one jalapeno that I devoured off the vine. Best I've ever had. Little baby watermelons just started showing up today. Can't wait for those.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:23 PM (Z05lF)

475 We have to drive up to Piru in order to find watermelons with seeds. Seedless watermelon doesn't taste as good, I think.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:25 PM (BARAe)

476 >>>Gay men seem to diverge into two camps. One very macho. One very femmy.

There's a third type: Those not really identifiable as belonging to any known subculture.

Telling you guys, you probably know more gay guys than you realize because some of them just do not show it.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (nj1bB)

477 Little baby watermelons just started showing up today. Can't wait for those.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:23 PM (Z05lF)
Just what are your plans for these baby watermelons? You do know that they are raised in inhumane conditions until they are ripped away from their mothers don't you?

Posted by: Vegetable Rights Action League at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (yQWNf)

478 I do not believe anyone decides to become gay because they're so into themselves.
Christ no. Who would "decide to be gay" for Gods sake? It's not a choice. Period.

Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (Z71Vg)

479 foguere at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (B60j2)
I think he tends to be embarassed by it. In many ways his morality views are pretty conservative.
On the other hand, I remember one of his comments in a thread, hesaid he didn't usually talk about what happened at gay parties/gatherings/soirees, because it tended to freak out the straights.
It could be because straights would be freaked out by the idea of gays holding hands. Or it could have been more...explicit.
But I think it was leaning more towards the later. Not necissarily crazy so. But leaning that direction. More so than straights did.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:27 PM (Y2WVW)

480 Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:20 PM (BARAe)

I hate you.

I live in NJ, supposedly the home of great tomatoes. That is such a blatant falsehood that I struggle with my temper every time someone mentions how wonderful Jersey tomatoes are.

I used to live in California. A friend brought me tomatoes from his dad's house in Bakersfield one summer. This was 13 years ago. I still vividly remember the taste.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:29 PM (LH6ir)

481 >>>Not to ask anyone to speak for him but would Gabe be the kind of guy to speak out against stereotypically flamboyant displays that paint all homosexuals as...well...stereotypically flamboyant?

No idea. I have never actually discussed anything about sexuality with Gabe.

I actually don't know what the protocol is. Probably there isn't one. Am I supposed to note someone's gay and ask gay-type questions, which shows an interest but also makes the gay guy The Gay Guy, which he might not want to be, or do I just sort of ignore the whole subject, in which case I'm not making him The Gay Guy but I'm also signalling that I don't want to hear about it?

I know one of my best friends brings up his gay romps some times and I cut him off and say "that's gay, dude."

An ex-girlfriend told me I was supposed to encourage him, and maybe I was "supposed" to, but honestly, I didn't really want to hear about it.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 04:32 PM (nj1bB)

482 ace at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (nj1bB)
Yes, of course. Just like with the mention of lesbians a bit earlier.
However, we're talking about trends, noticeable trends. There are always exceptions to the rule.
By the way, I don't live ona dirt road in Alabama.
I've been arround gay people aplenty.
Also, you can't keep saying that gays are only 1% of the population, and also say that hidden gays are all around us.
Especially when gays tend to very much congregate in certain metro areas (SF, NY, Austin, DC)

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM (Y2WVW)

483 "The root of all homosexuality is a genetic/chemical signal in the womb that exists in virtually all animals"

ace, this should be axiomatic, but for some reason many people are convinced that being gay is a choice.

For most of history, and in many places to this day, being a homosexual was very bad for one's health. Like beaten to death bad or hanged bad or stoned to death bad. Yes, some societies tolerated homosexuality, but most didn't up until very recently. So arguing that it is a choice makes me think that people are confusing homosexuality with masochism.

Who would choose to be ostracized, denigrated and hated, with a side of brutality?



Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM (LH6ir)

484 How dare someone be free enough in America to make moral decisions for himself. Why yes I'll cater your wedding to a nine year old, Mohammad.
-------------------------
You missed the point, or have a rapier wit. I'm going to bet on missed the point.

Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM (BKOsZ)

485 If it weren't for gay men, my only friend would be my mirror. And I break those things by merely looking at them.

Posted by: Kathy Griffin at June 25, 2011 04:34 PM (AZGON)

486 An ex-girlfriend told me I was supposed to encourage him, and maybe I was "supposed" to, but honestly, I didn't really want to hear about it.
Exactly, but I also don't want to hear about the sexual escapades of my straight friends either. Some things just don't need to be discussed. I always wondered about some people I know who had to let me know every detail of their sex life. I just. don't. care.

Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 04:35 PM (Z71Vg)

487 480
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:20 PM (BARAe)

I hate you.

Welcome to the party Pal!

They've got commemorative shirts in the gift shop.


lol

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:36 PM (BARAe)

488 I know one of my best friends brings up his gay romps some times and I cut him off and say "that's gay, dude." An ex-girlfriend told me I was supposed to encourage him, and maybe I was "supposed" to, but honestly, I didn't really want to hear about it.
Holy crap, that is hilarious. Man, I can totally see getting lectured by some chick about that...and the discomfort that would cause.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:37 PM (Y2WVW)

489 358 Marriage isn't about "love" or sex. It's about security of children. In fact, most married couples with children will tell you that they were only "playing house" until the kids came along.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:07 PM (5tl1Y)

This. Hubby and I have been a couple for 12 years. Got married after cohabitating for 6 years and it didn't actually change much. Then, about a year later, we had our first child. Having children completely changes your relationship. For us, it deepened our love and admiration for each other. And when I say love, I don't mean just the romantic stuff. You love your spouse in a much more meaningful way than before. And for the sake of my love for him as a human being (and not just an object of my sexual desire) as well as for the well-being of our children, the ONLY reasons I could ever divorce him would involve physical abuse or serial adultery- and that's because those would both be detrimental to our children. I could figure everything else out in order to keep my family together.

Posted by: Mandy P. at June 25, 2011 04:37 PM (vGmv/)

490 yeah, let me tell you something, romantic love is dime a dozen and does not last. It's nothing the state has any fucking interest in promoting. For one thing, it yields zero benefits. For another, romantic love is such an overpowering (but ephemeral) emotion it hardly needs any promotion at all. No one needs to be told "Hey, being in love is kind of awesome." But yes, just to get gays on board, let's pretend marriage is nothing more than a Government Certificate For Goin' Steady, just a way for the state to celebrate how goshdarn "in love" you are.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:03 PM (nj1bB)
Love is like pancakes. And I don't see the state promoting pancakes.

Posted by: Minuteman at June 25, 2011 04:37 PM (B4Wbw)

491 If I can jump in on the "knowing gay folks" thread here....

To establish my bona fides, as many of you know, I'm an opera singer (used to being the only straight man in the room) and moving into medicine (and one of my more recent "accomplishments" was diagnosing a yeast infection in a friend's goatee after he'd been tossing salad).

Sexuality is more easily discussed with my friends if it starts clinically (which, of late, has been more common). In any event, the various social subsets that I've had a chance to have conversations about have typically been very critical- most of my colleagues regard the Berkeley-type acting out as making their lives more difficult. They won't speak out against them because they regard them as allies of convenience (and usually easy lays), but the tone of disapproval is impossible to miss.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 04:38 PM (WRtsc)

492 If "anything goes" is the ultimate goal, just fuckin say so. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (BARAe)
But "some people are different and we treat each other with respect" isn't what's being taught, is it?We finally thought we found a form of government that didn't expand like an explosion to take over everything in your life, only to find that it did, it was just a little slower than the others.You can dodge, you can bob and weave, but you can never run quite fast enough to get away from it.I am waiting to see what happens when the European-style "enforcement of government-approved social norms on the churches" comes. They don't care about the 10th or 2nd Amendments, why should they really care about the 1st?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 04:38 PM (bxiXv)

493 It doesn't make sense to me that anything that, if practiced universally, would end the species would occur by choice or be anything else but an abnormality.

An uncontrollable desire to jump off cliffs.

An uncontrollable desire to leap into oncoming traffic.

An uncontrollable desire to not engage in breeding behavior.

All end in the same thing.

But because people can still get a nut off of it, it becomes something different or more important somehow.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:40 PM (BARAe)

494 I actually don't know what the protocol is. Probably there isn't one.
Am I supposed to note someone's gay and ask gay-type questions, which
shows an interest but also makes the gay guy The Gay Guy, which he might
not want to be, or do I just sort of ignore the whole subject, in which
case I'm not making him The Gay Guy but I'm also signalling that I
don't want to hear about it?

I just ask him which is better: a clip-on tie or one of them new fangled zip-up ones. That ends the conversation right there and I can go back to thinking about Yvonne Craig.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:40 PM (B60j2)

495 Exactly right so far, Ace. Please keep going.

Posted by: cinyc at June 25, 2011 04:42 PM (JWnXR)

496 Sexuality is more easily discussed with my friends if it starts clinically (which, of late, has been more common). In any event, the various social subsets that I've had a chance to have conversations about have typically been very critical- most of my colleagues regard the Berkeley-type acting out as making their lives more difficult. They won't speak out against them because they regard them as allies of convenience (and usually easy lays), but the tone of disapproval is impossible to miss.
It does make their lives more difficult. Both my kids are embarassed as hell by these boa wearing, thong wearing, in your face gays. They both went to one gay pride event here several years ago and never went again. They were completely disgusted by the behavior.

Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 04:43 PM (Z71Vg)

497 go back to thinking about Yvonne Craig

mmm... Batgirl and the green woman in that awful Star Trek episode in the insane asylum.

Mmm.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:44 PM (AZGON)

498 Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage. It's about f' you normal people; if I can't be normal, normal will not exist--f' you!

Posted by: ParisParamus at June 25, 2011 04:44 PM (QN76w)

499 Sifty, my biology emphasis is more on microbiology, but it seems to me that the small percentage of homosexuals (especially as observed in rat populations) is sort of a bit of genetic population control... and by definition, an abnormality.

As has been noted above, I don't know any gay folks who say they would choose to be gay. I know plenty who have found ways to become more comfortable with it, but largely, there is a perceptible amount of self-loathing among many of my gay friends. Is it a direct function of them being gay? I can't say, I'm not a shrink.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 04:44 PM (WRtsc)

500 Who would choose to be ostracized, denigrated and hated, with a side of brutality?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM (LH6ir)
Queers For Palestine?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 04:45 PM (bxiXv)

501 In order to accommodate the 2.5-3% of the population that is GAY, marriage is now GAY. That is to say, a big Gay party thrown by fabulous gay men to celebrate their fabulousness. It is nothing for any straight guy.

Instead, straight guys now have role models: Levi Johnson, got two teen girls pregnant, Mike the Situation Sorrento, and Johnny Knoxville from Jackass.

So, that's the marriage situation. Its for gay men (congrats elites!) and kids are for single mothers who have a different kid by a different father each time (congrats elites for making family like a nest of scorpions!)

Congrats elites!

Posted by: whiskey at June 25, 2011 04:45 PM (L03mw)

502 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)
Devil's Advocate/ my position on the topic of gay predestination, abbreviated...
The problem with the absolutist genetic view,as I see it, is that it flies in the face of reality.Obviously, there's juvie/prison sex. Does it never carry over to the outside? And we all know about the girls who "experiment' in college. And the"happily married" fathers of four whose genes magically switch at age 45, what to make of them?
As far as Rights go, none of this matters until you start assigning special status. Are you assigning it based on a behavior? A gene? A state of mind?

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:46 PM (Z05lF)

503 Jewells, that's been my experience almost without exception... the freaks are regarded as exactly that- freaks- and there is a real hypersensitivity about the notion of being judged by the company you keep.

As a tangential topic- a couple of my most trusted religious teachers were gay Jesuits. I'm curious to hear what they have to say about this.

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 04:46 PM (WRtsc)

504 To establish my bona fides, as many of you know, I'm an opera singer (used to being the only straight man in the room) and moving into medicine (and one of my more recent "accomplishments" was diagnosing a yeast infection in a friend's goatee after he'd been tossing salad).
Heh. Maybe medicine wasn't such a good idea? Opera...not so bad in comparison.
Speaking of medicine, what is up with the lack of female protologists? I mean, I gotta get my stuff checked out. Ladies get lady gynocologists (or at least have the option) Me? I'm stuck with the male doctor who decided that looking up asses all his life was A-OK.
I mean, if if gotta have a hand up my ass, couldn't it least be a petite lady hand? It'd feel less gay.
I'd be willing to pay extra for that. Seriously. The thought of having to look some man doctor in the eye and talk to him after he's had his hand in my ass is kinda bringing me down.
God forbid I see him on the street afterwards... "Hey, there's the guy who just had his hand up my ass."
Who needs that?
Forget it. I don't need a protologist that bad. I mean, the odds of colon cancer aren't that high.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:48 PM (Y2WVW)

505 Lots of this is over my head. I got too much alfalfa in my veins.

http://tinyurl.com/69ge5mp

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:51 PM (BARAe)

506 mmm... Batgirl and the green woman in that awful Star Trek episode in the insane asylum.



Mmm.
The most attractive I've ever seen her was in an early episode of Man From U.N.C.L.E. Weird, yeah, but she was stunning.

Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 04:52 PM (B60j2)

507 504:

For an extra $30, my proctologist wails on my prostate like Randall "Tex" Cobb.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 04:53 PM (BARAe)

508 the freaks are regarded as exactly that- freaks- and there is a real hypersensitivity about the notion of being judged by the company you keep.
Yep. Both of my kids wish that any strides made towards acceptance of gay marriage or even just gays in general could have been done more "under the radar" so to speak. Speaking about it ina civil tone, laying their case before friends and family etc. in a rational way. The freaks have set their cause back 50 years. Of course some people will never accept it. Hell I have a BIL who thinks all gays are going straight to hell. He's great with my son and daughter and of course would never say that to their face, but his strict catholic upbringing won't let him think otherwise. But at least he keeps his opinion to himself.

Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 04:54 PM (Z71Vg)

509 sifty at June 25, 2011 04:53 PM (BARAe)
Heh.
I find your mind/thoughts...disturbing.

Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:57 PM (Y2WVW)

510 Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:46 PM (Z05lF)

I used shorthand, which was obviously not a good idea.

I believe, and there is evidence to back me up, that there is a genetic component to homosexual behavior in humans.

But human behavior is unbelievably complex, and genetic effects in general range from miniscule to profound. So it is reasonable to assume that there is a range of homosexual behaviors that may be minimized or maximized by the environment.

This genetic component, even if proved by science, has nothing to do with marriage as I see it. Marriage has been defined by society as the legal and spiritual union of a man and woman. I see nothing in society that requires that this definition be changed.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:57 PM (LH6ir)

511 >>>The problem with the absolutist genetic view, as I see it, is that it flies in the face of reality. Obviously, there's juvie/prison sex. Does it never carry over to the outside?

This is solid factual rebuttal to an *absolutist* view, but you have to examine the oddball circumstances of these situations.

What they have in common is:

* Large number of boys or young men in peak sex drive years

* Absolute or near-absolute deprivation of contact with the opposite sex

and, critically:

* A law of the jungle (prison) or authoritarian (boys' school, British navy of the 1800s, Roman army) power structure that permits/encourages rape or near-rape (such as sexual bartering).

I'd add a fourth factor that is often but not always present:

* A disrespect of women or belief they are kin to animals

You look at places where there is a high rate of homosexuality (or, probably, selective/opportunistic bisexuality and dominance-rape) and those factors are in play.

Like Afghanistan, for example, which has a lot of boy-rape.

I would also guess you need a cadre of "Super Male" gene carriers (the XYY gene, often associated with criminal/dominance/violent behavior) to get the ball rolling by establishing the ground rules so that what would normally seem preposterously evil gets accepted as normal.

Now, obviously, these factors have been present in history, and are still present (most of the Islamic world, frankly) and sure, America COULD go down this road, I suppose.

But I really doubt it. Many people don't like the sexual liberation of women (and here I mean sexual in terms of having sex), but the fact that the sexes intermix a lot, and women are given due respect, and women are frankly giving it up a lot easier than they used to, creates a very infertile field for such "homosexual conversion."

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 04:58 PM (nj1bB)

512 It is my guess that homosexuality is probably lower in America now than it has been in years past, because, for all of the toleration of homosexuality and mainstreaming of it, the factors for opportunistic/situational bisexuality are at their lowest in all of history.

With the exception of our very large (historically tops) prison population.

You look at things like the Army and Navy and they seem more family-friendly than ever before. Still a huge strain on the family and male-female relationships, and causes a lot of hardship and all the typical problems, *but* they seem more mindful of all of this, and seem to have a good instinct to reduce this to the extent possible.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 05:03 PM (nj1bB)

513 Genetic abnormality or not, a horny guy is gonna find a hole. And if they are tough enough it won't matter if the target says NO.


Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 05:04 PM (BARAe)

514 @ace

I'm not sure that XYY is implicated in violence. There were studies done in the 1960s that showed some mild increase, but they were superseded by a larger study in Scandinavia that showed no link.

[I majored in this shit in college. I am not just spouting (this time)]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 05:07 PM (LH6ir)

515 It's nothing the state has any fucking interest in promoting. For one thing, it yields zero benefits. For another, romantic love is such an overpowering (but ephemeral) emotion it hardly needs any promotion at all.

Exactly my point. The state has no business promoting it. You're dead wrong about the benefits -- to the people who love each other, to those around them -- but no, the state has no business regulating it.

Yes, the state must insure the welfare of the children when the romance goes dead but that only highlights the importance of the love. You still haven't shown how the state issuing marriage licenses protects children. The laws which govern custody and support perform that function, whether the parents are married or not.

Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 05:08 PM (m7mGc)

516 Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 05:04 PM (BARAe)

Bullshit.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 05:09 PM (LH6ir)

517 504 ............................................
Speaking of medicine, what is up with the lack of female protologists? I mean, I gotta get my stuff checked out. ...............................
I mean, if if gotta have a hand up my ass, couldn't it least be a petite lady hand? It'd feel less gay.
................................
Forget it. I don't need a protologist that bad. I mean, the odds of colon cancer aren't that high.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:48 PM (Y2WVW)

ed, FWIW, if you have the digital test, female doctors have smaller fingers ... as opposed to to the guy who is 6'3" with a pinkie th size of your thumb ... I vote female in this case.
However, if you have the periscope test, all 6 feet plus (and there are VERY MANY BETTER WAYS to die than colon cancer), you might be better off with a guy. I failed my first test, specifically by not saying "NO Doctor, excise ALL of it", butI will point out that we had journeyed all the way down the Yellow Brick Road, so I was somewhat otherwise occupied at the time. When we went back, again, all the way down the Yellow Brick Road, it seems that the Wicked Witch of the West had moved and left no forwarding address. This is unlikely to be a source of embarassment only for me. Had the doctor been female, well, there's the whole FemDom thing, and it seems freaky enough, but there has to be som action for me ... but probably not in this situation, so no.
But for other medical procedures, female doctors and nursescan be quite reassuring. Getting a dental crown really is a bit easier ....

Posted by: Arbalest at June 25, 2011 05:10 PM (HlMmB)

518 I feel as though I have no stake in this argument. One one side of me are
the Christians/conservatives who claim to be defending marriage, and to
believe that homosexuality is an unfortunate choice. They've conceded
nothing, offered nothing to the other side - now they really have
something to worry about, and saying that they, or in fact
they're chosen lifestyles (the one that requires a belief that homosexuality can in no way be a natural occurrence) are under attack. That strikes me as calculating. If it's a sincere belief, then it's just pathetic.



On the other side are liberals, many of whom are gay. I'm a straight
woman who does not understand gay men, and I had no preconceived notions
about homosexuality at the outset. Have met a bunch of gay men by now, and have never
found any common ground; it's like their identities are wrapped in
liberalism first, their sexuality second (or the reverse?) and I can't relate
to either of those. Essentially I would like to see normal, loving
couples recognized as normal, loving couples without giving mobs of
effete, snarky, self-celebratory crotch-focused hornballs some kind of
victory. Unfortunately, that's not possible.

Posted by: Tee at June 25, 2011 05:12 PM (nJfqR)

519 ace and CBD, I see exactly what you bothmean, andthose are the reasons arewhy I don't have a 100% declaration of my position on the issue. Still haven't figured it out.
Back to one of my earlier points, if we're going to be Legislating around something thenwe should be able to define it. Is it a behavior? A condition? In short, are all homosexuals created equal? Might sound petty and semantic, but ultimately we're talking about real things ranging from property rights to collegescholarships to discrimination suits.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 05:15 PM (Z05lF)

520
@39: "My list of political issues that don't matter:

1) Abortion - with us forever, so yeah, it doesn't matterany more. It simply is.

2) Gay marriage - will be with us until Sharia takes over, so it's not an issue either way. Won't be stopped until the Crescent rises, won't last 5 minutes after it does.

Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:

1) School choice - Teachers unions will never yield. "For the chilluns" agitprop will always work. Should matter, but as a practical matter, never will.

2) Deregulation - Dead issue for a good while. People will not soon forget 2008. Maybe not the fault of deregulation, but tough to sell deregulation after it.

3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government - Never happen (short of genociding its adherents). Marxism and its analogues ARE our culture, society and goverment now.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 25, 2011 05:15 PM (2xfbm)

521 Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 05:04 PM (BARAe)

Bullshit.


Riiiight.

Prison rape doesn't exist. My bad.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 05:16 PM (BARAe)

522 "Given that, it probably would have been best, I think, for everyone to negotiate some off-the-shelf contract of civil union that was marriage-like enough for gay marriage proponents and yet not so like marriage as to upset traditionalists."

They tried that in the early 90s and it was a big fucking mess. The problems came when they went to the civil and criminal courts to enforce their stupid contracts. You think hetereo couples can be nasty, you should see it when homo couples break up. Lots of violence.

Posted by: mike at June 25, 2011 05:16 PM (KsI1l)

523 >>>The fact that there is no longer shame in being a single parent is a problem. Does this mean we should look down on single parents? NO, NO and NO. However, once something loses the taint of shame, the human condition virtually guarantees you will get more of that something.

Just a note, watch the locution "single moms" because many single moms are actually DIVORCED moms and are single moms only because they married guys who didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:42 PM

Well, the divorced single mom is also not completely blameless in her failed marriage. She made the decision to marry the guy who turned out "didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously". That's a mark against the divorced single mom for apparently not taking seriously the selection process of whom to marry and be the father of her children. Sure, the guy may have been a loser, but the woman should take full blame for marrying that loser in the first place.

If we want people to take marriage more seriously, as has been suggested in previous comments, we cannot simply blame divorce on the men. Unless the man forced the woman into marriage, she takes full blame for the failed marriage and choosing the wrong guy to marry. Blame the man for being a bad husband and father, but ALSO blame the woman for making the bad decision to marry this guy in the first place and not taking the husband selection process more seriously.

Case in point, there is truth to the adage that 'women marry men hoping they change, men marry women hoping they don't change'. There are too many women out there who marry men for superficial reasons and then expect them to change during the marriage, only they never do. Then when the marriage ends in divorce, the woman goes around acting like a victim of a bad husband, when, in fact, she screwed up in getting a husband who simply stayed the same man as the man she married. It's not entirely the man's fault for not knowing that his marriage vows/contract came with the implied caveat that he was supposed to change into a man his wife wanted eventually.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 05:29 PM (kmmGJ)

524 Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 25, 2011 05:15 PM (2xfbm)

Ladies and gentlemen, Dostoevsky! Performing right here at our own AoSHQ!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 05:38 PM (bxiXv)

525 Does this mean we should look down on single parents? NO, NO and NO.
However, once something loses the taint of shame, the human condition
virtually guarantees you will get more of that something.

Shame and shunning are awesome (dictionary sense, not surfer dude speak) cultural players which we have mostly abandoned.
For a glimpse into the possibilities, check out the people in Canada who, after the riot, are currently being named and shamed.
Considering the internet and its potential, I believe shaming will come back into vogue. The problem is, in many cases it will be lefties shaming and outing traditionalists.

Posted by: kdny at June 25, 2011 05:48 PM (C4bBq)

526 (C4bBq)

C4 BBQ? Awesome!

Posted by: kdny at June 25, 2011 05:50 PM (C4bBq)

527 The problem is, in many cases it will be lefties shaming and outing traditionalists.
Posted by: kdny at June 25, 2011 05:48 PM (C4bBq)
In the larger and more organized sense, yes. Kind of like how reporters would pretty clearly *love* to do Keef Olberdouche's "worst person" routine every day but get reined in by their editors (they still do sometimes, especially small papers/stations).
But to an extent I think once that ball gets rolling it will be everybody with time on their hands shaming everyone they don't like.Kind of like 50% of the "funny pictures" industry is today.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 05:52 PM (bxiXv)

528 This desire by homosexuals to marry is a pretty new phenomenon.Why is it neccessary anyway?Why do they desire approval from those who will not give it?Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (aLloM) Narcissism.Anotherattempt to fill up the emptiness - this time, with government-mandated approval, because what narcissists can't abide is guilt. And it's destined to be another failure.The only thing all your past failures have in common is YOU.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 25, 2011 06:07 PM (lGFXF)

529 Just a note, watch the locution "single moms" because many single moms
are actually DIVORCED moms and are single moms only because they married
guys who didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously.


Overlooked, per usual, as in the tiresome "check one" choice: Married, Single, Divorced.

Posted by: Widowed with Children at June 25, 2011 06:13 PM (wOaLi)

530 Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 05:16 PM (BARAe)

You are probably gone, so this is going nowhere...but you didn't specify which tough, horny men you were discussing.

I have been horny for as long as I can remember, and I can certainly handle myself in a fight. But that doesn't mean that I take what I want sexually.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 06:17 PM (LH6ir)

531 Still here. I could have worded things better.

I meant men in a confined space for long periods of time. Ship, prison, summer camp, broken elevators, long car trips, porta-potties. Stuff like that.

We cool.

Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 06:39 PM (BARAe)

532 This was interesting and becoming increasingly relevant

30 Ways the IRS ControlsChurches

http://tinyurl.com/yrr5y9

Posted by: Shiggz at June 25, 2011 07:08 PM (mLAWK)

533 "
I feel as though I have no stake in this argument. One one side of me are
the Christians/conservatives who claim to be defending marriage, and to
believe that homosexuality is an unfortunate choice."

--- it is a choice. nothing so far has proven otherwise. science hasnt either.

Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 07:22 PM (ZJIX/)

534 79
Great piece ace and spot on.Gabe is either blinded by emotion on this or disingenuous.

He's an emotional lawyer. They're the -second- worst. The worst being emotional judges. (See Prop 8.)

Honestly, when I did some digging on NY's bill (now law) yesterday, I found that they had broken the usual 72 hr posting procedure (sound familiar?) and I also read that the conscientious objection protections were weak. I was unable to find the text of the bill.

I assumed that our resident legal beagle (Gabe) would have found it, analyzed it, and posted it.

Instead, I found a victory dance of a post with no analysis and a snotty concluding statement about "marriage equality" that clearly was intended to stick his finger in our eyes. (And I know which finger.)

So I'm basically done with this guy who claims to be a lawyer. I find no evidence that he has a legal mind. I only find evidence that he has an emotionally immature nature.

Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 07:40 PM (TFxd0)

535 I should add that I am deeply appreciative of ace's posts on this subject - as well as on abortion. His sympathies lean more leftward than his readership on both issues, but somehow he manages to actually do some real analysis. I think it shows he has a disciplined mind and a good soul.

Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 07:41 PM (TFxd0)

536 Now now Y-Not. Gabe makes posts like a reporter with no bias at all. He's written comments saying as much. Wish I still had the link to the comment he made that really soured my opinion of him.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 07:45 PM (oVQFe)

537 Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 07:40 PM (TFxd0)
IANAL, so the fact thathe never deigns to defend any of his gay-related posts against legitimate criticism is what tells me his analysis isn't worth much.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 07:46 PM (/t9t1)

538 Who would choose to be ostracized, denigrated and hated, with a side of brutality?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM

Well, while most teens who choose 'alternative' personalities do not go through all that nowadays, some teens do actually choose 'alternative' personalities -- ie, goth, militant (either the radical militants or I'm thinking of the Judd Nelson character in The Breakfast Club), stoner, D&D role-playing, game-playing geek, etc -- in order to go 'against the grain'.

But, many teens actually choose to be the "anti-cool kids" purposely and thrive on being 'ostracized, denigrated and hated'.

So I don't think it's out of the question for people to decide to be 'the other' even when it comes with negative attention, since they take the negative attention as a sort of badge of pride or something.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 07:47 PM (kmmGJ)

539 "So I don't think it's out of the question for people to decide to be
'the other' even when it comes with negative attention, since they take
the negative attention as a sort of badge of pride or something."

---BINGO.

homosexuality in my opinion derives from this and also a mental-defense mechanism, the lifestyle built up around it entraps them. so their 'identity' forms through this and its hard to break away from. kind of like how aging hippies never can let go of the 60's.

Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 07:51 PM (ZJIX/)

540 Hey, where's that troll shivas irons from the thread last night on this one? I mean, the guy said he was only gonna pimp the blog but steer people clear of the comments section due to the inordinate amount of Pant-Shitting Fear the commentariat here held toward Teh Gheys.
Forget seeing 150mil uniques now man. Game over.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 07:51 PM (/t9t1)

541 @536, 537
Yep. You know, DrewM catches a lot of crap here, but I hope his opponents appreciate that fact that at least he stays on the threads and defends his position.

Of course, I'm a dirty RINO, so I agree with DrewM half the time anyway -- but I think my point is still valid.


I've said it before, but I will remind the pro-gay marriage crowd that they took this little black duck from an position of agnosticism on the issue (personally opposed, but...) to being firmly opposed to gay marriage. I have never read a valid argument for why it is needed. And I certainly agree with those who recognize that polygamy is next.

Now you can say "why should I care? does that affect me?" But from what I've read of the situation in Europe, especially the UK, the drain on their welfare system from supporting Muslims' multiple wives is pretty bad.

Posted by: Y-not channels a certain segment at June 25, 2011 07:54 PM (TFxd0)

542 /sock off
So I don't think it's out of the question for people to decide to be
'the other' even when it comes with negative attention, since they take
the negative attention as a sort of badge of pride or something.

This is absolutely true. Anyone should recognize this from their own experiences and certainly mental health professionals know this to be true.

Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 07:55 PM (TFxd0)

543 "I have never read a valid argument for why it is needed. "

--- they tell me "equality"........bwahahahahaha

its a validation of themselves. they want to 'feel' normal...because deep inside they KNOW theyre not.

put a gay man around 10 hot chicks oiled up in bikinis...watch em sweat.

theyre scared/awkward around the females.

Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 07:57 PM (ZJIX/)

544 Charles Porterfield Krauth, a 19th century theologian, said heresy always proceeds in three stages: weakness/asking for toleration; growing strength/asking for for equal rights; institutional control/supression of orthodoxy.

Posted by: Diver at June 25, 2011 07:59 PM (o7a02)

545 Late to the game, but some interesting reading none the less.

Why Lesbians Aren't Gay.

Gay Gene Or Gay Germ?

Posted by: ranger117 at June 25, 2011 08:00 PM (LxMIe)

546 >>theyre scared/awkward around the females

I notice that homosexual men tend to act like old biddy aunties in work settings. They get in everyone's business and dispense advice to moronic women about their love lives and expect it to be followed. The women who enable these guys by fawning all over them and following their (invariably terrible) advice irritate the heck out of me.

The homosexual women I've worked with fall into two categories: aloof (which is fine by me) and dominant bitches. But at least they are not given any special rarefied status by straights as having superior judgment (and fashion sense).

Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 08:04 PM (TFxd0)

547 put a gay man around 10 hot chicks oiled up in bikinis...watch em sweat.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 07:57 PM (ZJIX/)
Can't tell you how many gay men I've known who have no problem going straight when given the right circumstances.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 08:05 PM (/t9t1)

548 I think it's hard for the gay lobby to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that homosexuality is anything but a genetic certainty. The moment they acknowledge even extreme examples of that being the case, they have to examine the lesser examples. Do the "Joe Camel" cartoon rules apply, where mere exposure increases propensity? Is a kid who grows up in P-town more likely to be gay than a kid in Dallas? If so, why? These are bad questions when seeking special status, good questions when looking for real answers. Which ones do they ask?

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 08:07 PM (Z05lF)

549 homosexual women fall into two categories ive seen.

the burning hatred of men, alot of em have the chirrens and family thing goin...man cheats/leaves...she gets pissed, determined not to be done wrong again...boom lesbian...

...the other type i think is jealous of the male strength, and strength of character (sense of honor, compatriotism etc ) with other males. its a bonding they dont feel as much with other catty women...so they become bull dykes....

gay men are more inclined to be trapped within the homo-lifestyle-identity politic moreso than the womenseseses.

straight men have shed all caring for their awkwardness around hotties when reaching a certain age. weve all took one for the team, weve all had the one hottie we'll never see again, and have mostly satisfied themselves sexually. its really not rocket science...

Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 08:10 PM (ZJIX/)

550 Don't know if this was brought up before but all the arguments for gay marriage I've heard all inevitably lead up to the laws we used to have in this country about prohibiting misegnation and how unfair all those were.
I shoot back; those were unfair, but interacial couples usually didn't force the issue as much. The one couple who did and got it legalized; the Lovings, were just ignoring the law and living however they pleased. It was when the government tried to arrest them THEN they took it to the courts.

Posted by: Serena at June 25, 2011 08:11 PM (44LEs)

551 I think it's hard for the gay lobby to acknowledge even the slightest
possibility that homosexuality is anything but a genetic certainty.
As a biologist, I have never understood how that argument gets them anywhere. Lots of schizophrenics have a genetic pre-disposition to that syndrome. They get treated.


I know that there are folks in the deaf community, the Asperger's community, and others who have decided to embrace their condition and elevate it into some kind of culture. They're proud of their conditions and resent it when the majority tries to offer cures.

I think this is the same thing.

But, hey, if someone doesn't want a cochlear implant. That's fine. However, I am not going expect the world to turn itself upside down to reinvent reality so that somehow deafness isn't an abnormality. If you want to live with it, fine. But don't make me pretend you aren't different.

Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 08:21 PM (TFxd0)

552 Every gay person I've ever known has been self-loathing and insufferably vain. Every. Single. One. It goes with the territory and it's at the root of the ghey-"marriage" push.


Basically it goes like this: being gay makes you feel like a weird outsider and feel guilty because you desire what everyone around you thinks is repulsive at the very least. In order to fix these feelings of estrangement and guilt, some gays are loudly demanding everyone stop saying they're weird, normalize their behavior - no matter how strange - in society, and shun anyone who dares disagree with this agenda.


Its an attempt to fix what's inside by making everyone else act differently. Its sort of like Black Adder when the Old Wise Woman suggests BlackAdder kill everyone else on earth to fix his problem.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 08:23 PM (r4wIV)

553 523. "Well, the divorced single mom is also not completely blameless in her
failed marriage. She made the decision to marry the guy who turned out
"didn't take marriage and child-rearing very seriously". That's a mark
against the divorced single mom for apparently not taking seriously the
selection process of whom to marry and be the father of her children.
Sure, the guy may have been a loser, but the woman should take full
blame for marrying that loser in the first place."

How do you know someone's not going to take marriage and child-rearing seriously, before the marriage and the children actually happen?

Posted by: Tee at June 25, 2011 08:26 PM (nJfqR)

554 I'll take one more chance at being banned by the software here (2 times so far) and comment.
"The worst being emotional judges. (See Prop 8.)"This is one of the major points about gay marriage that I have a big problem with.
The particular judge in question was apparently an active homosexual, an in a relationshipat the time of the ruling, but this information was not public.
It has only recently been made public, and rather than accept it as a reason to reverse his ruling and retry, the claim has been made, in public print, that to expect his decion to be simply reversed and that he should have recused himself in the first place is like saying a minority judge should not rule on discrimination cases.
On the face of things, this is bullshit, and the judge should be removed from the bench for not either recusing himself, and/or not fully disclosing his behavior and current relationship(s).
Homosexuality is a condition caused / identified by behavior, rather specific behavior(s) in fact. If you do or engage in certain behaviors, then you are, if you do not, then you are not. After all, you cannot be a master of kung-fu simply because you say you are; you need to be able to show some moves.
This is unlike race or sex or age or ... where you are what you are, simply by existing.
In a subversive manner, this judge advanced his cause. Rather than make his situation and implicit biasespublic, up front, he allowed the general public to believe that he was like anyone else, or at least 96% of everyone else, and forced a change in ... culture ... societal norms ... acceptable behavior ... on everyone else in California.
So, we havecouple of problems here in California:a rogue, activist Federal Judge, answerable to almost no one,is legislating "... culture ... societal norms ... acceptable behavior ..." his way, by deriving rights, assuming meanings that clearly were not intended, etc., and the CA State government will do nothing to protect the citizens.
This situation generates various questions, like: What rights do we, individual citizens, really have? What guarantees do we have that these rights will be respected / enforced against the government? Who will do the enforcing? What guarantees do we have that these rights will not be suddenly taken away, perhapsby some off-the-cuff judicial ruling?
If a judge can simply derive meanings, rights, etc., by his own will, what's to stop him from abrogating existing (and, implicitly, inconvenient) rights, on the spur of the moment?
Suddenly, I see gay marriage as now suddenly much less of an issue.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 25, 2011 08:27 PM (NhL36)

555 From the Weather Underground, the Marxist strategy for the US

We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society. Getting from here to there is a process of coming together in a disciplined way around ideology and strategy

Posted by: Cherry π at June 25, 2011 08:29 PM (OhYCU)

556 Everything you need to know about Obama, the Left, and gay rights....

Our intention is to disrupt the empire ... to incapacitate it, to put
pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning
against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from
the inside.

Our intention is to engage the enemy ... to wear away at him, to
harass him, to isolate him, to expose every weakness, to pounce, to reveal his
vulnerability.

Our intention is to encourage the people ... to provoke leaps in
confidence and consciousness, to stir the imagination, to popularize power,
to agitate, to organize, to join in every way possible the people's day-to-day
struggles.

Our intention is to forge an underground ... a clandestine political
organization engaged in every form of struggle, protected from the eyes and
weapons of the state, a base against repression, to accumulate lessons,
experience and constant practice, a base from which to attack.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 25, 2011 08:31 PM (OhYCU)

557 "Its an attempt to fix what's inside by making everyone else act
differently. Its sort of like Black Adder when the Old Wise Woman
suggests BlackAdder kill everyone else on earth to fix his problem."

---/agree. kind of like when a gay man who hits on you says "how do you know YOURE NOT GAY!" as if a light will suddenly go on and you agree to a date.

a male's instinctual hunter-gatherer compatriot disposition is why homo-men have it harder "leaving" the gay circle. itd be like trying to ask a cowboy fan to don a steeler shirt for day.....aint gonna happen.


Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 08:34 PM (ZJIX/)

558 The particular judge in question was apparently an active homosexual, an in a relationshipat the time of the ruling, but this information was not public.
It has only recently been made public, and rather than accept it as a reason to reverse his ruling and retry, the claim has been made, in public print, that to expect his decion to be simply reversed and that he should have recused himself in the first place is like saying a minority judge should not rule on discrimination cases.
Yeah they use that argument because they think its the best bet they can go to and win.
This follows more of an example of say a lawsuit being brought against a specific church and the judge being a member of that church. He could stand to directly benefit or be harmed by the decision and should not be the one on that case.

Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 08:36 PM (oVQFe)

559 Totally skipped a negative inthe secondsentence of #548. Gracious morons didn't make fun of me. How very kind.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 09:02 PM (Z05lF)

560 Anyway, I'd like anyone fromGLAAD to Lady GaGa, from Jim Nabors to Anderson Cooper, anyone at all, to tellme what qualifies one as "gay"? Three hummers and a handy? One too many peeks in the boy's shower? Girl Scout Band Camp?

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 09:07 PM (Z05lF)

561 interesting blog

Posted by: shanghai massage at June 25, 2011 09:36 PM (Bvxwe)

562 ..but I thought liberals hated marriage...termed it, "outdated"...

Now it's important to them?

Posted by: Rondinellamamma at June 25, 2011 09:37 PM (165ZM)

563 pdf to flash converter Powerful
evidence: using PDF to IMAGE Converter, U can convert pdf to all kinds of image
formats: JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, PCX, TGA, TIFF. U can also adjust the color,
quailty, resolution, page of the files converted!


video to ipad converter
Optimal preset formats
for iPad, Galaxy Tab, Dell Streak, iPhone, iPod, Gphone, Blackberry, PS3, Xbox,
PSP, Wii, DV, etc.


ipad converter iPad Video Converter is then designed for iPad
fans to convert videos to iPad. iPad converter This special
ipad video converter can convert all video formats to iPad compatible formats. DVD to ipad ipad to Mac
transfer ipad to
computer transfer ipad transfer epub to ipad |

Posted by: chaeli at June 25, 2011 09:41 PM (PQIzz)

564 There is no such thing as 'gay' marriage. Just as there is no such thing as a martini made with orange soda and yogurt. Wrong ingredients.

Posted by: tolerance does not imply approval at June 25, 2011 09:48 PM (4zYjy)

565 Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 06:39 PM (BARAe)

We are absolutely cool. I will defer to your superior knowledge about homosexual sex, coerced sex, and sex in prison!

[And please reassure me that I don't need a stupid "Joke" emoticon]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 09:59 PM (LH6ir)

566 The only goal of the leftist is to destroy the building blocks of society, so they can remake it in their own image. They don't give a shit about homos. Gays are just a convenient weapon to use against the building block we call the family. If the libs can redefine the family until its a meaningless concept, then whatever they say is a family is a family. Whether its "My 2 Dads" or Uncle Sugar and the Welfare Queen.
In this sense this gay marriage agenda is truly an assault on our society and should be resisted vigorously.

Posted by: Iblis at June 25, 2011 10:02 PM (37NT4)

567 @87:
In the larger scheme this is a relatively small
thing.If the country weren't fucked six ways to Sunday I'd be hopping
mad at this.

Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (aLloM)
This is part of the reason the country IS fucked six ways to Sunday.Our elections keep being decided on the basis of "social issues" -- the lefties keep scaring everybody with their crap that conservatives are gonna re-institute the Salem witch trials -- and that is why the damn socialists keep winning the elections -- and then imposing their will on us about everything, not just "social issues" but economic and foreign policy issues, too.Plus, the artificial separation of "moral" and "economic" issues reflects the erroneous premise that they're not all part of the same social fabric. Classic political thinkers would be scratching their heads at our stubborn obtuseness on this. As many on the thread (along with John Adams, Ben Franklin and a bunch of other wise people) have pointed out, self-government is only possible when you're talking about a moral, self-disciplined people, which is both cause and effect of strong, generationally-connected families.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 10:11 PM (2AfqM)

568 How do you know someone's not going to take marriage and child-rearing seriously, before the marriage and the children actually happen?

Posted by: Tee at June 25, 2011 08:26 PM

Well, if a woman doesn't know the answer to that question concerning the man she's considering marrying, she shouldn't marry the guy. Period. Same goes for a man considering marrying a woman.

There is no blueprint to know whether someone is ready for marriage or parenting. But there are signs. No one should ever go into a marriage on the hunch that the person they will marry might be a good good spouse/parent. There are signs you pick up on regarding someone's character, personality, integrity, honor during the dating process. How they treat their family and friends, how they treat their coworkers, how they handle stressful situations, how they handle life's challenges, etc. All these should give you an idea of whether or not someone will make a good spouse/parent.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 10:13 PM (kmmGJ)

569 Be asured, once "they turn the corner" on the political curve, they WILL go after ALL the Judeo-Christian institutions......cept the religion of pieces of course. They are collectively to cs and loafer squishy to even dare that one.

Posted by: Richard at June 25, 2011 10:14 PM (qSBEX)

570 "I feel as though I have no stake in this argument. One one side of me are
the Christians/conservatives who claim to be defending marriage, and to
believe that homosexuality is an unfortunate choice. They've conceded
nothing, offered nothing to the other side - now they really have
something to worry about, and saying that they, or in fact
they're chosen lifestyles (the one that requires a belief that homosexuality can in no way be a natural occurrence) are under attack. "

Speaking as a Christian/conservative, it's not so much that we believe homosexual behavior is a choice, we believe that it is a sin. And given that biblical doctrine tells us that the heart is wicked without God, then everyone starts in that state. The first concern of a fundie should be that these people are unsaved, not that their behavior or inclinations speak to that. Now, a lot of people will tell me that having that belief is hateful and intolerant, but I disagree.
If not for the threats to free speech, threats of liberal indoctrinational creep, I doubt most Christian people would be so up in arms over this issue.
On the surface, I really could care less about gay marriage or people being gay or whatever. I believe it's wrong, but I also believe a lot of other things that go on in this world are wrong too. Believing something is a sin does not mean I hate gays or want them to be beaten, or any other ridiculous thing I have heard some activists spout off. However, it does concern me that if asked if I or my church believes homosexuality is a sin and we answer truthfully, that that will land us in jail for hate speech sometime in my lifetime. Or have the church burned down by a mob while the cops look the other way.
I know some will claim that that is silly and that it's born out of fear or intolerance. However it's hard to circle that square when my attitude around the gay people I associate with (including a few I consider friends) has pretty much been that they know I'm a fundie and hope they would convert, but most of our interactions are "Hey, let's go have coffee and talk about movies."

Sorry for such a stream of consciousness type of post, but I think the slippery slope fear is very real for some of us and with good cause.







Posted by: Stella at June 25, 2011 10:16 PM (80vm5)

571 Iblis @ 567:
Megadittos.
See the brilliant Ann Coulter making this same point:
http://tinyurl.com/6hqnx7n

Also, see this great article about the Frankfurt School, and how openly they talked about how the quickest, most effective way to destroy society -- and therefore, their number-one most important tactic -- is to destroy the family and sexual morality.
http://tinyurl.com/3bxekqw

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 10:18 PM (2AfqM)

572 KfromK @ 572
You'll also notice that traditional morality was tossed aside in the soviet union. That's why to this day, they have negative population growth, and massive problems with prostitution.

Posted by: Iblis at June 25, 2011 11:21 PM (37NT4)

573 ADRIAN,

You totally rock.
I wanna join your fan club!
There are so many, many good commenters on this thread, I almost hate to single one out -- but you do stand out.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 11:48 PM (2AfqM)

574 Oh, and George Orwell. As usual.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 11:50 PM (2AfqM)

575 Dagny@207:
However, there is absolutely 0 chance that it will recognize gay
marriage as a sacrament. Yet, it knows that the govt will try to insist
that itrecognize it and attempt to make it an active participant. Since
gay marriage isincompatible with the sacrament, it can't happen.
How the upcoming battle against the Church on this topic is different than Stalinism, I don't know.

Perhaps you've seen this very disturbing (but very possibly accurate) statement by the Archbishop of Chicago:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr." --- Francis Cardinal George, 2010.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 26, 2011 12:04 AM (2AfqM)

576 Lots of great comments here.
You know what happens when the state does not sanction marriage? You get a lot of impoversished single mothers andlot of messed-up kids. You get stuff like a Muslim man being able to divorcehis wife by saying "I divorce you" three times, and immediately marrying her sister because she is younger and more fertile. Men are pigs who are not naturally monogamous, while women want one mate for life. This puts women at a disadvantage in the relationship, unless the state imposes and enforces the marriage contract. It puts children at huge risk of poverty and dysfunction if Dad can just walk out when he feels like it.
The state has an absolute interest in securing the rights of women and in promoting stable families with both biological parents present. This is worth a tax break for married man/woman couples, just as owning a home gets you a tax deduction because homeownership is beneficial to society.
What is the state's interest in sanctioning and enforcing a commitment between two people whose motivations are the sameand who cannot produce children? Why should they get a tax break? Who gives a shit if Steve walks out on Gary? They are equally likely to stray and tire of monogamy, and there is no greater chance of either being impoverished by a divorce.
This is really important stuff which neither supporters nor opponents of same-sex marriage generally want to discuss. I don't care what the Bible says, I care that we need monogamous man/woman couples raising children in a stable environment in order to avoid massive poverty and societal dysfunction. Because this is most assuredly not a natural state for heterosexual men, the state needs to encourage it and enforce it by sanctioning marriage.
We need same-sex marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

Posted by: rockmom at June 26, 2011 12:04 AM (u8gFC)

577 foguere@246:
Homosexuals do not want marriage for the same reason heterosexuals
generally want it. They simply want what is not theirs because it's
denied them. Like little children, the reason why
it's denied them doesn't matter. No reason is acceptable. And like
children, when given something they do not deserve they despise it and
treat it with contempt. They know only that they want and tend to
destroy what they're given.

Bingo.
They're throwing a petulant, nihilistic temper tantrum.

The real rage is against their own condition -- which is why they overcompensate so much in the matter of "gay pride."

It reminds me of the "I am woman, hear me roar" type feminists, who hate their own biology so much that the only way they can see themselves as being able to stay competitive with men is to kill the children they conceive in their own wombs.

It's ironic that many people in the abortion-"rights" and "gay"-"marriage" movements are also ardent environmentalists, because, deep down, they HATE Mother Nature.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 26, 2011 12:24 AM (2AfqM)

578 docweasel@366:
Even Obama, who embraces the most leftist of issues, dare not piss off the black churches by backing gay marriage.

Nor his Saudi benefactors and Iranian pals.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 26, 2011 01:46 AM (2AfqM)

579 You're not really this morally obtuse, are you?

You support "gay tolerance" but you oppose gay marriage. What did you think was eventually going to happen to society once the sin and perversion of homosexuality became "tolerated?" Did you think they would stop making demands for validation of their deviancy once you gave them their "tolerance?" Or did some voice in the back of your head say "they won't settle for this", just as Christians and social conservatives had warned you?
It's now become a crime to criticize homosexuality as immoral or perverse. It's fashionably chic to praise homosexuality as normal and valid, even though faith and culture and basic human anatomy tell us otherwise. And it's still not enough. Gay marriage is no different from all the other issues that led up to it--- they don't want to get married, they just want to use the law to beat every person into silence who pricks their conscience.

Posted by: RealityCheck at June 26, 2011 02:01 AM (zcgPp)

580 Sooner or later, the Left's gay-marriage/"free love"/abortion-rights agenda is going to collide with its Islam-appeasement agenda.

Actually they're already in conflict; the Left's just in total denial about it.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 26, 2011 02:53 AM (2AfqM)

581 Fa Cube Itches@520:
"My list of political issues that don't matter:
1) Abortion - with us forever, so yeah, it doesn't matterany more.

Yeah, it doesn't matter. When you've already murdered 50 million people, what's another million or so a year?

I nominate you for this thread's Uncle Joe Stalin award.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 26, 2011 03:12 AM (2AfqM)

582 Doom to them.
Let me finish this by saying that as I observed the "Coming OUT" in the S.F region 1978-1981. The carnal deprivation evidenced in the Castro district was nothing short of Roman Fall! So much sothat the mayor closed down ALL the bath-houses because they were nothing more than SUPER incubators for AIDS. Which in hind-sight was a gross error in judgment given todays headaches. Even without religious conotations the very simple biology of male/ female anatomy stands in mute testament to their overwrought argument and screaming meme to ACCEPT them as normal?
Not until natural biology births us all with 2 sets of reproducing organs.
REALLY.....was that so hard?

Posted by: Richard at June 26, 2011 03:43 AM (qSBEX)

583 To get right down to it...the hostility directed towards gays is not religion-based...though it may give a "legitimate" reason for it. It's sheer disgust at the act. It's visceral, and no law or protest can change this. I know the argument.....if you dislike the thought of it so much, you must be gay...and I reject it as utterly ridiculous. Even the most liberal hetero can't get past this, if they were ever honest. This is a big reason why even the "enlightened" youth of today still freely use "gay" as slur (among other words).

Way back at comment number 6, the writer said that 55 percent of the population approves of gay marriage. Why, then, must it always be implemented by rogue legislatures or judicial activists?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 26, 2011 05:49 AM (jn3w5)

584 I agree *mostly* w/ point 4. I'd argue that some who claim to speak for libertarians are uncritical in their reasoning. For most of human history, the religious aspect of marriage was foremost. Government most definitely should NOT be in that business. There is a need for orderly probate and things like that, so certainly gov't should recognize some sort of 'cohabitation contract', but that should be as broad as possible. (Think two elderly spinsters living together to share expenses... Why shouldn't they get some of the same tax, etc. benefits?) But let's reserve "marriage" for the religious ceremony and use some neutral term for whatever arrangements the gov't recognizes.

Posted by: Eric S at June 26, 2011 08:49 AM (GPwIb)

585 If anyone thinks for a minute that the gay rights lobby will be satified with civil marriage they are clueless. The only goal of same sex marriage is to destroy Christianity. They will not settle for anything less.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 26, 2011 09:54 AM (4zKCA)

586 Like others have said, pretending this is irrelevant "because we have bigger problems" is like missing the gushing artery because you need to focus on how you feel so weak and dizzy. The gushing artery is why you feel that way.


Moral decay and a deliberate, systematic corrosion of virtue is why we are seeing the problems pile one on the other. This is a direct, one to one causation, you trace the present problems to the past corruption of basic ethical values and traditional virtue.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 11:10 AM (r4wIV)

587 Let's also be real clear. Gays claim to be a minority in the same way blacks and asians are, which is because of their biology. "Its who they are". Well as they themselves teach us in evolution, its impossible. Homosexuality is a genetic dead end. Homosexuals by their very nature select themselves out of the gene pool. They don't reproduce, so if there was a "gay" gene it does not get passed down, so, as per evolution its not a successful surviving trait. Because let's be honest, if there was a "gay" gene they'd be clubbing us over the head with it. And you can be damn sure that in the rest of the world any fetus that carried that gene would be aborted.
So by the standards of evolution we know homosexuality is not genetic. Thus the behavior is either a choice, conscious or subconscious. Now some would argue in favor of it being a biological condition: "Who would choose to live as a homosexual given all the negatives (social, health, mental etc) experienced by homosexuals? Its insane to do that, so it must be genetic." But we know its not genetic, so the only logical alternative is that its a form of mental illness.
So the question to us is, why are we upending our society's building blocks to satisfy a mentally ill group? What does that say about our sanity?

Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 11:30 AM (37NT4)

588 In the 80's the narrative of the left was 'Dont force your values on us rightwingers!"
Facts:
Marriage is a religious institution. It existed long before this (or most) government existed. This government decided at its inception (as do all governments) to recognize that institution. That does not give this government, or any special interest group, the right to change the rules, or very nature, of an institution that existed thousands of years before the founding fathers were born.
I wish the left would live up to it's own principles,ha-ha, what am I thinking, that will never happen!

Posted by: hughie at June 26, 2011 11:47 AM (+56Bh)

589 Iblis: the idea of a "gay gene" that's part of all animals (that's another one of the arguments - its natural because animals do it) does a lot of violence to the basic concept of evolution as a slow, progressive series of mutations which gradually wean out weaker and less environmental-adaptive species for stronger ones that adapt better.


A "gay gene" is a self destructive dead end, and would have wiped its self out billions of years ago by this scheme. The fact that some argue it persists suggests a serious flaw in the entire theory.


But if you accept that, you have a choice between "gay is natural" and "evolution is truth" and which will people pick?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 12:17 PM (r4wIV)

590 CT,
I know. Why do you think I framed it they way I did? Delicious isn't it? They have to choose which is more important to them.

Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 12:36 PM (37NT4)

591 A "gay gene" is a self destructive dead end, and would have wiped its self out billions of years ago by this scheme.

Schizophrenia has familial genetics and has persisted for fucking ever. Recessive genes get passed along by the "lucky" ones with differing dominant genes.

Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 12:47 PM (wOaLi)

592 Also, environmental factors can determine whether a gene gets "switched on or off."

Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 12:53 PM (wOaLi)

593 That still doesn't help with the basic conflict here, Word Equality. The fact that even a recessive gene continues to exist does damage to the entire scheme. So its either not a gene issue or Evolution is flawed at best. So which will it be?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 01:04 PM (r4wIV)

594 585
Agreed. It would be up to government to decide if a religious ceremony would include the rights of a civil contract or if those wedded in marriage would have to seek a separate civil contract.

Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 01:09 PM (wOaLi)

595 594
I don't think anyone is qualified to say whether it's an either/or question.
It's clear that things evolve, but the "theory of evolution" is ridiculous as an answer to life itself.

Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 01:16 PM (wOaLi)

596 If you split off marriage into two types (government and religious) then inevitably, the religious sort will become nothing but a name while the government one will be the only one with legal and tax-based protection. Is that what you want?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 01:20 PM (r4wIV)

597 596, It is an either/or question and we should force the libs to choke on it.

Ace is right though, the more the government pulls stuff like this, the more it de-legitimizes itself.

Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 01:24 PM (37NT4)

598 In the 80's the narrative of the left was 'Dont force your values on us rightwingers!"

Trust me, it's still the narrative, even as they take away our incandescent lightbulbs, make it impossible for us to smoke, jack up the price of gasoline (and force us to use lousy toilets and washing machines that don't clean laundry) in order to save the environment, and foist same sex marriage on us and demand that we approve it.

Posted by: Kensington at June 26, 2011 01:30 PM (uaEZS)

599 Christopher... Yes, that's exactly the point. Although I'd differ that the religious union would only be in name. To me that's the only important thing. I didn't get married to make sure I was able to file my taxes jointly. The whole dispute has arisen because everyone's asking the federal government to arbitrate amongst various ideas about marriage when that's not a power granted to the Feds under the Constitution. Yes, our legal system needs to create an environment where a contract between two people will be upheld, but it is not up to the Feds to dictate the nature of that contract.

Posted by: Eric S at June 26, 2011 08:10 PM (GPwIb)

600 Culture v Law.

Culture wins.

Posted by: St. Villainous at June 26, 2011 09:53 PM (m81NZ)

601 Joefrog of the Stonecutters at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM said

"... The left is working in concert with the gay lobby
because they know that homosexuality makes a fine vehicle
fordestroying the pillars of a just society. ..."
============================

Well, that, and ORGASMS!! They want to make sure that everybody from infancy on is exposed to sex and lust and more sex. Let's start in grade school and teach the kids that their bodies are capable of really good sensations and that they have a RIGHT to do anything they want, with anybody they want, in any WAY that they want. Sex is natural and healthy and important --but not sacred and not special-- and as long as the Left can provide bread and circuses and SEX, the slaves won't care that they're slaves.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at June 27, 2011 12:12 AM (RkQ5v)

602 The funny thing about all of this - is that the proponents of 'tolerance' wish to eradicate anything to tolerate. They don't really want tolerance: Disagreement but, civil acceptance. They want to force agreement.

-You WILL accept the idea that gay marriage is no different than tradition marriage.-

That isn't tolerance. Tolerance assumes disagreement. Tolerant people disagree, but live together peacefully NOT forcing their disagreement or view upon one another.

Posted by: adc at June 27, 2011 01:00 PM (VCCe8)

603 Like it or not gay marriage is inevitable. When have liberal social laws passed in the long run ever been rescinded? As we go through conversative liberal adminstrations there will always be social changes in the laws favoring the winning administration. However the conservative / liberal blips on the screen tend to move to the liberal side as time goes on. Let's stop wasting time move on to the more important fiscal conservative issues, where we can help the country get strong again

Posted by: Steve at June 27, 2011 09:26 PM (/68PJ)






Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1311 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0441 seconds, 612 records returned.
Page size 460 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat