Mark Joseph Stern’s Weak Defense of Mozilla
Mark Joseph Stern, the “gay politburo official at Slate,” has an extraordinarily silly piece titled The Astonishing Conservative Hypocrisy Over Mozilla and the First Amendment. Stern is the Slate writer who last month fell for a hoax story written by a satire publication that publishes such articles as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un Announce Openly Gay Relationship, Plan Global ‘Reign of Tyranny’ as New Power Couple. Now Stern turns his extraordinary powers of observation towards conservatives, whom he brands as hypocrites for denouncing the ouster of Brendan Eich as the CEO of Mozilla. Eich’s sin? Having donated $1000 to the pro-traditional marriage Prop. 8 campaign several years ago. Here’s Stern:
A repeated cry in conservative and libertarian circles over anti-gay Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s resignation is that the company is somehow trampling Eich’s free speech rights. Eich, as you’ve surely heard, donated $1,000 in 2008 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which successfully outlawed gay marriage in that state before getting shot down by the courts. It’s true that, because of this donation, Mozilla’s leaders and board members pressured Eich to resign. But it’s absurd and hypocritical to claim that this pressure constituted an infringement of Eich’s legal rights.
Stern begins the analysis by destroying a strawman argument: that Mozilla, a private company, is violating Eich’s First Amendment rights. Only government can violate someone’s First Amendment rights, but no serious commentator is arguing otherwise. So let’s move on:
But I can already hear the inevitable retort: Sure, Mozilla wasn’t literally trampling on Eich’s First Amendment rights, but it was violating the broader principles of free speech and free association. This argument is strikingly one-sided and opportunistic. Corporations like Mozilla, for better or worse, are also endowed with significant rights of free speech and free association—for instance, the freedom of Mozilla’s board and leadership to condemn Eich’s anti-gay actions. And make no mistake: Freedom of association includes the freedom of exclusion, particularly the freedom to exclude from your private organization an individual whose conduct is inconsistent with your values. Mozilla’s decision to seek Eich’s resignation implicates the same First Amendment principles that famously allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay troop leaders.
Here Stern is conflating two distinct issues: 1) should Mozilla have the legal right to dismiss Eich? and 2) should Mozilla have dismissed Eich? Stern seems to argue that, because the answer to the first question is “yes,” that somehow refutes those of us who answer the second question “no.” Here, Andrew Sullivan (yes, Andrew Sullivan!) makes the correct argument:
As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line.
I agree — although it also matters, I think, what that sincere conviction is, and how it is expressed. People understandably want to propose a rule that will apply to any belief, however outrageous and inappropriate, and however it is expressed. But not all speech and beliefs are the same. If instead of donating to Prop. 8, Eich were donating to the KKK, I would have no problem with a company wanting to bounce him out. The example becomes even easier if Eich were expressing that sentiment publicly, in crass ways: imagine if Eich had a personal blog in which he continually used disparaging racial or religious epithets as he encouraged readers to donate to the KKK. The fact is, not only should a company be entitled to decide whom it employs, but sometimes a company is right to use a person’s personal beliefs — depending on what they are and how they are expressed — as a reason to fire an employee.
A similar point of view was expressed by Ken White in this post about Pax Dickinson, although I felt that Ken’s post was a bit too dismissive of the legitimacy of criticism of certain social consequences for speech.
Even though I think employment-related social consequences for speech can be appropriate, I maintain that such situations are, and should be, extremely rare — and that questionable cases should generally be resolved in favor of not disciplining an employee, because of the danger of letting political correctness ruin people’s lives.
Ultimately, I think you can’t draw lines that don’t take account of the fact that some speech simply is appropriate, and some is not. You can’t go around insulting everyone you meet, using profanities in inappropriate situations, and using racial and other epithets without risking some severe social consequences. On the other hand, when a company fires people for holding beliefs that were once expressed by the current President when he was running for office, I think that company ought to come in for some criticism.
Getting back to Stern, my assessment of him is that he considers opposition to gay marriage to be 100% equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage: it is indicative of a bigoted state of mind, and the holder of that sentiment deserves any negative consequence he has coming to him. Stern and I simply disagree here, and even though I voted against Proposition 8, I do not consider all (or even most) supporters of that proposition to be bigots or homophobes. I consider most of them to hold sincere beliefs based on a respect for an institution — traditional marriage — that has survived for millenia.
And Mr. Stern? If Vladmir Putin and Kim Jong Un want to get married, as the publication you trust claims, then I have no problem with that. But I don’t want to go on a witch hunt against people who do.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:25 pmStern’s argument comes down to: “Conservatives are hypocrites, so it’s OK for us Progressives to be hypocrites too.”
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:32 pmCorporations like Mozilla, for better or worse, are also endowed with significant rights of free speech and free association—for instance, the freedom of Mozilla’s board and leadership to condemn Eich’s anti-gay actions.
Well, except for those who claim otherwise when criticizing Citizens United. Anyone detect a wee bit of inconsistency here on the left?
Bored Lawyer (badb9a) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:34 pmno, i’m not detecting a wee bit…
😎
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:37 pmTo riff off of Bored Lawyer’s on-target criticism of one aspect of Stern’s towering hypocrisy, let’s note another example. If corporations can have values, tell me again why Hobby Lobby must be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations when it violates their values?
Or is only the board of directors at Mozilla allowed to have values, but not the Green family that runs Hobby Lobby.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:39 pmI should have said companies like Hobby Lobby, since the Greens are only objecting to providing abortifacients.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:40 pmI have seen another article stating that while California is a “at will” state for employment purposes the “at will” is limited by not being able to fire people for being in the usual protected classes: race, sex and political affiliation. So Mozilla may not be in the clear in this forced resignation.
Is that correct?
BK
Agesilaus (bfa0f2) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:41 pmI’m not an employment lawyer, but I would be interested to read an opinion from one, regarding whether Eich has a cause of action under California law.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:42 pm‘Because I said so’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/04/05/ny-times-mozilla-ceos-anti-gay-stance-definition-disqualifying-he-needed
is the short answer, forget the fact that Mozilla wouldn’t exist in it’s current form with Eich,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:45 pmThe liberal fascists always do this. If you are for something, like marriage, or free speech, or religious liberty, then they deliberately accuse you of hating something.
You can’t be for religious liberty, for instance, when it comes to having a right to follow your conscience. No, you’re anti-woman.
As an aside, there’s a good article up at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349140/ending-dream-gay-marriage-strengthens-marriage-maggie-gallagher
Since I know for a fact that in Scandinavia feminists like Kari Moxness seized on the idea of legalizing same sex marriage to hasten the decay in marriage, and its had precisely that effect, why should I pretend otherwise?
This is the real reason people like Eich have to be hounded into oblivion. There can’t be any debate allowed.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:53 pmGetting back to Stern, my assessment of him is that he considers opposition to gay marriage to be 100% equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage. . .
Mark Steyn has already done a great job of demolishing this argument. Sorry that I can’t provide a link — I am on my way out and in a rush — but he points out that the legal prohibition of interracial marriage was uniquely American in nature and not recognized in other parts of the civilized world. At the time that Americans were so worried about miscegenation something like 30% of British officers stationed in locations like Egypt, Hong Kong, and India were marrying local women. On the other hand, however, there has never until now been any sort of advanced society where gay marriage was the norm. In other words same-sex marriage is a wholly new invention, so it is inaccurate to try to draw a direct comparison to miscegenation laws.
JVW (9946b6) — 4/6/2014 @ 4:58 pmCrimethink must be eradicated;
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controversial-mozilla-ceo-made-donations-right-wing-candidates-brendan-eich
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 5:10 pmJust to be clear–we’re not going to let Andrew Sullivan try to sneak back into the good graces of Republicans (and Republican-friendly independents), are we? He’s behaved despicably for a decade now over his obsession on one issue (larded with his secondary obsession over Sarah Palin’s uterus), and now that he feels triumphant he expects to be able to return to as things were without consequences? To hell with that.
M. Scott Eiland (8d3966) — 4/6/2014 @ 5:16 pmWell no, his Huntress obsession, tourette’s like impulse to yell ‘torture’ when it’s not warranted,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 5:18 pmis more ‘broken clock strike right once;
He seems to most recently been a supporter of Tom McClintock, too much sense indeed,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 5:27 pmI agree; I don’t forgive that. But when he’s right, he’s right.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/6/2014 @ 5:43 pmso did the fascist whores what resigned from the mozilla board of directors unresign or are there like 3 empty seats now?
nobody tells me anything
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:12 pmwhether Eich has a cause of action under California law
Eich seems like kind of a weenie to me. Why did he resign instead of making them fire him?
Unlike Sarah Palin, who when faced with adversity cowardly bailed on her job after begging and beseeching and wheedling the voters to give it to her, Eich wasn’t running into an expensive legal situation.
Do you think he got a more better exit deal by resigning and going away passively like a beaten dog?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:15 pmoh. And conservatives *are* ungodly hypocrites generally speaking, especially the “social” ones.
But Slate Boy dies a very bad job at making the case.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:17 pmmy chicken is done in 3 minutes and i have people coming over
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:18 pmHow gullible is he, that he would take such a story at face value:
http://pagesix.com/2014/04/04/vegas-or-bust-for-republicans/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:21 pmyeah that’s stupid
sheldon is a weirdo though but a lot of that is just him trying to please his batty wife
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:27 pmthis whole chicken thing isn’t happening on schedule btw
i need to get a trusty oven thermometer cause i don’t think the temperature matches what the dial says
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:29 pmIs that so?
How’s the chicken doing now?
Gerald A (bfbd30) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:39 pmHe seems to have gone ‘Scott Martelle’ it seems to be going around,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:41 pmSpeaking of annoying anti-Palin obsessions. . .
M. Scott Eiland (8d3966) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:54 pmAs for Eich, he probably didn’t want to tear apart a company he’s almost certainly a big stockholder in to keep a job where he wasn’t wanted. This should make it more likely that he’ll get another high level job with a company that *doesn’t* have to pander to the “purge those who were in the mainstream within the span of the current presidential administration” crowd. His call.
M. Scott Eiland (8d3966) — 4/6/2014 @ 6:58 pmWhatever Eich should have done is totally irrelevant. Naturally happyfeet wants to make Eich the issue, which is revealing.
Gerald A (bfbd30) — 4/6/2014 @ 7:11 pmMozilla doesn’t have stock. (It also doesn’t have any income. It runs on donations.)
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 4/6/2014 @ 7:36 pmI just looked it up: most of the money comes from Google.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 4/6/2014 @ 7:37 pmStrikingly the recent behavior, makes the point the Prop 8 forces were putting forth;
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html
narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 7:45 pmkeep plucking that chicken, feets!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/6/2014 @ 7:57 pmIf Eich supported marriage between men the Taliban would chop of his head.
ropelight (21134b) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:00 pmExactly. Google “donates” hundreds of millions of dollars to Mozilla in return for Mozilla using Google as the default search engine for Firefox. I debunked statements to the contrary made by a couple of commenters a few nights ago here.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:14 pmMozilla didn’t take a position. It succumbed to extortion.
Or more exactly, it didn’t want to take a position on this – and the only way it would be allowed to remain neutral was not to have Eich as CEO.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:29 pmWrong, Sammy. Mozilla does have a position on gay marriage. https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/29/on-mozillas-support-for-marriage-equality/
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:38 pmLizard Wrangler is Winifred “Mitchell” Baker, “Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting openness, innovation and opportunity on the Internet”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:39 pmnk: your link: Internet Explorer says:
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:41 pmI did find this:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/amid-ceo-fallout-mozilla-affirms-support-for-lgbt-marriage-equality/
Also this, dated MArch 29: (Saturday a week ago)
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:44 pmMozilla March 29:
Not everyone will agree, about marriage, but everyone is welcome as long as they respect others. Mozilla is made up of people who have very diverse personal beliefs.
Now suddenly someone has to leave? Is that Moxilla’s real position, or a way for Mozilla to avoid becoming an enemy to some people?
That
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:48 pmR.I.P. Mickey Rooney
Icy (20cbd1) — 4/6/2014 @ 8:53 pmI use IE, Sammy, and posted the link with it.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:04 pmTaxable Mozilla Corporation is the entirely-owned, private corporation of not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation. Besides its business contract with Mozilla Corporation, Google is the main donor to Mozilla Foundation. Maybe 80% of its funding (but, you know, internet information). Taking that as true, Google “owns” Mozilla. Mozilla cannot survive without Google. And Google was more anti-Prop 8 than Vaugn Walker, Ted Olson, and David Boies at a steam bath. K?
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:14 pmfirefox is a muy bueno browser i tried to replace it and i just can’t
what’s a lil pikachu to do
the chicken turned out very well but I don’t think I’m getting that kind again – it was very ethnic latino with the marinade on and a vegetable or two packaged with it
I like it personally but you have to really plan on cooking it at like 350 for an hour and 45 minutes or so, cause of how the marinade chars the skin at 425 but you haven’t really cooked all the way through
i guess maybe if you grill it it’s a whole different deal
but whatever
i also tried roasted radishes with greens again
that was fine but it’s a work in progress… very tricky lil side dish
the pasta was a win
nobody under 35 has a gd clue who susan dey is
and i find that profoundly sad
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:22 pmWow. Mickey Rooney passed away at 93. I know a lot of people consider him a joke, but he was a top performer in the ’40s. As a matter of fact, he was a good actor well into the ’50s and ’60s if you discount “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”
He was a product of the studio machine and survived.
We should remember him if for nothing more than putting on a show in the barn. With Judy Garland. As Andy Hardy.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:22 pmSince asparagus is in season, put a couple pats of butter in the sauce pan, chop off the tough ends of the asparagus and saute for a minute or two.
Before the asparagus gets too soft, add chopped chives, chopped garlic and salt and pepper to taste.
Then add grape tomatoes and warm.
Then, vote for Republicans. The voting part may taste bad for the freedom-minded, but the asparagus part will not.
Look, I am not fond of Republicans, but I am damn sure the Democrats are worse, kind of like Susan Dey’s acting.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:37 pmWe should remember him if for nothing more than putting on a show in the barn. With Judy Garland. As Andy Hardy.
Not to be too crude, but he apparently scored with an awful lot of leading ladies in his day too. A hero to short guys everywhere. RIP.
JVW (9946b6) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:41 pm425 is way too high for chicken, happyfeet. 375 is as high as I’ll ever go with a preheated convection gas oven. And that’s with a cut up chicken. Whole chicken you should maybe “slow cook” at 325? Ovens vary, too. And you doan need no steenkin thermometer. Stick a fork in it. If the juice is pink is white, it’s done. If it’s pink, keep cooking.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:43 pm*If the juice is white, it’s done. If it’s pink, keep cooking.”
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:44 pmThe biggest problem I had with Prop 8 was the way it was treated in court. The process was entirely corrupt from beginning to end. The people who swore to defend the laws of the State of California refused to; the judge was was in the tank; the Ninth Circuit likewise; the Supreme Court totally weird with an off-the wall ruling on standing*. There was simply no legitimacy at any stage of the judicial process. Dishonest lawyers and dishonest judges vs. the people.
*That was a weird lineup. Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan vs. Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2014 @ 9:55 pmNo, there was no legitimacy at any stage. But I’d have to agree with Ed Whelan that the worst of the lot was Vaughn Walker.
The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge
Although Ed is being too polite even at that.
He flat out lied by deliberately editing what the pro-Prop 8 attorney had said, to make it appear he had said things he had not, knowing that most people wouldn’t read the transcript. Although I do agree with Ed’s conclusions:
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 11:16 pmLet me sum up here:
1 – Ad Hominem – “You should dismiss Stern’s opinion because he is stupid (fell for a false story)”
2 – Yes they have the right to fire him, but shouldnt have because I dont think standing against gay marriage is as morally repugnant as the KKK. And oh by the way Im right even Obama thought that once.
Well im sorry but they do think it is. And frankly it doesnt matter how sincere or deep rooted a religious belief is. It can still be discriminatory / bigotted. Case closed.
So now it seems that you are acting out in the same manner they are. Uninstalling firefox (and encouraging others to) in order to hurt a company that is acting in a way they have every right too is parallel to firing someone for doing something he has every right to.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2014 @ 11:58 pmThat’s interesting, Gil. So I take it you’ll pick up some Chik-Fil-A and eat it while watching Duck Dynasty? You get to hurt somebody because he disagrees with you, but we don’t get to retaliate because it makes us as bad as you? Thanks for the invite, but you can have your philosophical corner all to yourself.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 12:15 amtrader joe’s choppers off the bad parts for you
but then they charge you like a million dollars a spear
which, you know, it’s all good
i love the part about the grape tomatoes
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:18 amMr. nk i just get really anxious cause i feed so many people and i don’t want them to get sick
but yeah that was my first experience with pre-marinated latino “chicken steak”
yeah
“chicken steak”
and everyone loved it but I think I’m gonna keep exploring the wunnerful whirl o chicken
California is getting kind of stale
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:35 amhere’s the linker for the trader joe’s asparagus
http://www.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_id=1597
so that’s like $4 a pound i guess, which is NOT value – not really, anyway
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:48 amThere’s the problem right there. We’re not arguing on whether or not a litmus test should be used, we’re just arguing on where to draw the line.
All the free speech advocates (including Pat) make this same mistake.
Business can do this for anyone at anytime unless you have a contract that protects them no matter how repugnant the reason my be. Or how mainstream or not the the reasons given are.
To argue anything else is hypocrisy.
I go along with the idea that from now on, everyone should make those sort of decisions based strictly on whether the person’s beliefs interfere with the performance and the benefits or trouble those beliefs bring to the business.
This applies to religion also and an effort must be made to get the laws to reflect this.
Of course liberals will holler about it but so what?
jakee308 (f1b953) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:13 amIt’s called spiking the ball,
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/04/a-future-of-fear/
Eich did nothing but contribute money, so money is speech, only in this instance for the left,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:40 am“Let me sum up here:”
Raise your hand if you knew what was to follow would be mendoucheous.
Sadly, his actual work as an Exec is ignored. His history of being a fair and “inclusive” manager. Ignored. He was railroaded for exercising his political right to make a donation, holding a position at the time that was also held by Obama and Clinton.
JD (5a9bdf) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:11 am52. The logical fallacy Gil uses is called “Argument from authority” with this twist -supposed strength of feelings is the highest authrity – no, wait, that’s wrong – that would mean religius beliefs prevail – oh, wait, there is something stronger than religious belief. He says so.
I don’t know how you rank them. It sounds like it hangs in the air.
Or is it how strong the feeling is? Or who has it?
Or does it depend on who is more impacted by a decision one way or the other?
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 6:26 amI’m sure gillie will be for firing anyone who belittles another’s religious beliefs. After all, it is discriminatory, right?
Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 4/7/2014 @ 6:32 amDude: did you read the post? It’s all about making the point that we have to draw the line.
I don’t argue that all speech is the same, or that all similar reactions to speech are equally deserving of criticism or blame.
That is why I support boycotts in favor of free speech but dislike boycotts designed to punish free speech. Now: the former can also be the latter, because an act designed to punish free speech can itself technically be free speech. But when an act is both speech and punishment of free speech (like firing someone for their political beliefs) I don’t support government involvement to restrict that act, but I am all in favor of imposing social consequences for that act (i.e. boycotting the company for doing something they have every right to do but which is wrong).
That’s why it is a mistake to set up every act of speech as something that is untouchable even by social consequences: because then, only the other side gets to impose social consequences for speech, while we are not allowed even to impose social consequences for the other side’s imposition of social consequences in an unfair and thuggish way. It makes no sense to remove from our quiver a constitutional and indeed appropriate weapon.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/7/2014 @ 7:27 amHi Everyone
Seems I struck a nerve, it hurts when you get a glimpse of your error. Some points:
1. JD, implying that I am a douche does not strengthen your position. Nor does it matter who may aggree with that position.
2. Cliff, I often point out that I dont respect religious beliefs or even belittle them. But I do not discriminate against those who hold them. Also see point 1 regarding calling me “gillie”
3. Nk, I do not dispute your right to retaliate. Im just pointing out that you are behaving in the same manner as the people you are complaining about.
4. Finkleman: What I did is not an argument from authority. That is actually what Patterico and JD imply by quoting Obama and or Clinton and saying “see those guys believe it so it must be reasonable”
Religious beliefs should be held to the same standard as every other belief one may hold. For example if I were to tell you it is my sincere belief that the earth was flat, that would be open to ridicule and rightly so. The sincere belief that it is wrong to be and or have homosexual relations is equally ridiculous and regardless of sincerity or origin it should not be ok to act on it in the public sphere.
Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:58 amIm just pointing out that you are behaving in the same manner as the people you are complaining about.
And I’m pointing out that you’re trying to paint me in a philosophical corner and I’m not buying it. Mozilla hurt Eich. I hurt Mozilla. Balance.
What the militant pro-gay marriage crowd tried to do was send a message that if you oppose them you get whacked. And we’re sending a message “F*** yourselves”. What’s so complicated?
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:13 amFor example if I were to tell you it is my sincere belief that the earth was flat, that would be open to ridicule and rightly so. The sincere belief that it is wrong to be and or have homosexual relations is equally ridiculous and regardless of sincerity or origin it should not be ok to act on it in the public sphere.
And you just gave yourself away. So, get some Anusol and leave us alone.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:15 am@nk Re: Anusol.
It is telling that in the face of a differing opinion your reaction is to suggest I be soddomized and tell me to go away rather than discuss the merits of your position.
Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:25 amit was just a suggestion
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:28 amAg80 #45,
I would say that Mickey Rooney was one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:39 amGil – Open your good eye.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:40 amTo “soddomize”… teh act of characterizing a male as a luckless, hopeless individual. British in origin; see: Sad Sack;
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 12:11 pmBarack Obama should resign the Presidency effective immediately as a result of publicly holding the same position which Brendan Eich held privately, in 2008.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 4/7/2014 @ 12:38 pmThe fastest and most effective way to educate Mr Stern is to turn the tables on him – have him fired for something he said or wrote or donated to someone.
Let’s look for an opportunity to heap opprobrium and abuse on Mr Stern, shall we?
Mercilessly.
Paul A'Barge (6851c2) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:05 pm“What I did is not an argument from authority.”
Gil – No, what you did is miss the point entirely. the issue underlying Eich’s ouster is largely irrelevant. What it represents is an exercise in liberal fascism. When downstream users of a company’s product say they will not allow people to access their website unless the producer of that product fire an employee, they are extorting that employer and demanding control over that employer’s employment practices.
Most states, including California, have a body of law preventing discrimination in hiring, including discrimination by age, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Those same provisions also cover terminations, even in at will situations.
What I wonder is if Mozilla terminated all of its employees who contributed to a pro-Proposition 8 Group or whether it just singled out Eich. If any thought criminals remain at Mozilla and Eich were inclined to be a trouble maker, the company might have a doozy of a lawsuit on its hands.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:07 pmWell, Gil could argue that Barack Obama only agreed (in public) with a certain position, but he didn’t do anything actively to promote it – like contributing $1,000 to an initiative campaign to reverse a California court decision.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:08 pm63. Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:58 am
4. Finkleman: What I did is not an argument from authority. That is actually what Patterico and JD imply by quoting Obama and or Clinton and saying “see those guys believe it so it must be reasonable”
No, Patterico and JD were not citing Obama or Clinton as authorities. They were not even citing it as proof that that was a reasonable position, because they would not agree that all other things they might say were. They were citing them to show how widespread this position was – and that therefore it would unreasonable to retaliate against anyone for that.
Religious beliefs should be held to the same standard as every other belief one may hold. For example if I were to tell you it is my sincere belief that the earth was flat, that would be open to ridicule and rightly so. The sincere belief that it is wrong to be and or have homosexual relations is equally ridiculous and regardless of sincerity or origin it should not be ok to act on it in the public sphere.
There is an argument or discussion about if the Torah had not been given would we know that certain things are wrong to do. There are certain things – like not stealing – that reasonaing would tell you are wrong. You seem to be saying taht reason does not tell you anything involving sex can be wrong or inappropriate – well, actually you probably do think some things are wrong. I am wondering if you could justify them all by reaosning.
And how do you feel about cannabalism? What about not just cannabalism, but selling human meat in supermarkets? (ethically obtained, we will say)
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:17 pmWhat the militant pro-gay marriage crowd tried to do was send a message that if you oppose them you get whacked. And we’re sending a message “F*** yourselves”. What’s so complicated?
To answer your question, there is nothing complicated about it. Homosexuality is naturally occuring. Animals can be homosexual. It follows that people can be too. Discriminating based on the natural way people are (sex, race, and yes now we know sexual orientation) should not be allowed.
And yes, allowing one group of people to get married and disallowing another group is discrimination. Period.
Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:40 pmteh “love that dare not speak its name” sure is a loud mouthed fascist!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:44 pmComment by Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:40 pm
Homosexuality is naturally occuring. Animals can be homosexual. It follows that people can be too.
I don’t know if that’s true. I think it is highly exaggerated.
It is definitely true that animals have no incest taboo. So human beings shouldn’t either?
Discriminating based on the natural way people are (sex, race, and yes now we know sexual orientation)
No, we don’t know that. That’s what they say. And if this is natural, why is pedophilia not natural, or is it??
And yes, allowing one group of people to get married and disallowing another group is discrimination. Period.
Wait – would “marriage” and all of its laws, be the proper legal way to deal with something that is different? And should the same prerequisites or pre-conditions apply?
And do you alos favor allowing any two people to get married?
What about people already married and not divorced?
Arranged marriages where the two people never saw each other before?
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:49 pm==Homosexuality is naturally occuring. Animals can be homosexual. It follows that people can be too. Discriminating based on the natural way people are (sex, race, and yes now we know sexual orientation) should not be allowed.==
It occurs to me that we should prolly introduce Gil to Mark.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:51 pmgil – Has the Human Resources Department at Mozilla posted or circulated a list of ideas or beliefs which are firing offenses or bars to hiring at the company yet?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:51 pmIsn’t it very logical that at least a different word should be used, so we won’t get misled by semantics?
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:51 pm80. I think all that’s done on an ad hoc basis based roughly on how many protesting e-mails they get.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 1:52 pmGil – Can Mozilla fire all its employees who are registered Democrats because they are anti-science and demonstrably stupid when it comes to fiscal and economic matters?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:03 pmCrimethink is a tricky thing,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:05 pmAt the end of the day, have you no lungs, Gil?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:07 pmIt’s the new McCarthyism, all dressed in rainbow colors…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:08 pmGil’s resemblance to
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:10 pmli’l Skippy the Mudskipper
was not just skin deep
Crimethink for you but not for me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:08 pmMore bad science from Gil.
No. Animals can’t be homosexual. Not as a permanent orientation. They can engage in homosexual behaviors. For instance male ducks will (and it’s not consensual, if ducks can consent; it occurs at the end of what’s called a “rape flight”). But those same ducks will mate with females when they’re available. Which also usually involves what we would call rape, unless it involves a permanently mated pair.
In fact, most examples the gay rights crowd try to cite of homosexuality in animals, aren’t. For instance those two famous male penguins who were raising a chick together? That’s just pure parenting instinct. It wasn’t like they were trying to mate with each other. They were feeding a chick.
The fact is that the idea of “Homosexuality” as a gender orientation, once gay always gay, never existed before it was recently invented as a political movement. It’s not natural in the sense that just like with the animals you cite, Gil, human sexual behavior is much more elastic than the gay mafia can allow to be said. This is why ancient cultures that recognized and accepted homoerotic behavior still never defined that behavior as marriage, Gil. Even in ancient Greece (and not all Greek city states swung that way; there were 1500 of them) or certain provinces in Japan the essential element of marriage was that it be opposite sex. Never same sex.
Nobody was traumatized by being “forced” into marriage with an icky woman. Because it was inconceivable to everyone involved that there was anything remotely like a permanent condition called “gay.”
There are cultures where it just doesn’t exist.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/
As an aside, Gil, if homosexuality was so prevalent among animals as you insist the Aka would have a word for it. Given the fact that they’re hunter-gatherers. And hunter-gatherers live by being keen observers of animal behavior.
The authors conclude:
So, to sum up. Homosexuality doesn’t exist in animals as the pro-SSM crowd understands it. A permanent, immutable characteristic. Neither does it exist in humans as such. There are some populations where it doesn’t exist at all. It is in essence a learned trait. The Ngandu had to travel to the big city to discover it even exists.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:10 pmJust to clarify and to be perfectly clear–my comment @1:51pm was referring to the data and studies Mark has compiled–such as the study of boys at boarding schools in India and such.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:11 pmGil – Can Mozilla fire all its employees who are registered Democrats because they are anti-science and demonstrably stupid when it comes to fiscal and economic matters?
No, no, no — don’t be silly, daleyrocks: they can only fire those employees who donate to Democrats. Or if we can prove that they actually vote for Democrats.
JVW (aa050c) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:23 pm“Just to clarify and to be perfectly clear–my comment @1:51pm was referring to the data and studies Mark has compiled–such as the study of boys at boarding schools in India and such.”
elissa – I still don’t understand the purpose of that heavily edited excerpt Mark included in that thread. Was the implication that everybody experimenting with gay sex in middle and high school remained gay? There was no such conclusion in the full article.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:26 pmUninstall Firefox from your computers.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 4/7/2014 @ 3:44 pm“Homosexuality and masturbation are rare or nonexistent [in these two cultures], not because they are frowned upon or punished, but because they are not part of the cultural models of sexuality in either ethnic group.”
That’s consistet with the vampire or contagious theory of homosexuality.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:07 pmIt also may be consistent with homosexuality simply being a very rare condition, no greater than one in 300 men.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:09 pm66.@nk Re: Anusol.
It is telling that in the face of a differing opinion your reaction is to suggest I be soddomized and tell me to go away rather than discuss the merits of your position.
Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:25 am
“Butthurt” is a slang term for “offended”, too. A double entendre is unavoidable in the context of this discussion and I knew that, but my suggestion was that you were already “butthurt” (in any sense you choose), not that you should be. Anusol stops butthurt.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:09 pmComment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 2:03 pm
Can Mozilla fire all its employees who are registered Democrats because they are anti-science and demonstrably stupid when it comes to fiscal and economic matters?
Didn’t something like that happen in 1896? This is one reason we have the secret ballot. In 18966 I think some people were told if Bryan wins don’t come in to work.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:11 pmnk – Can you use Anusol for toothaches if you don’t have any Anbesol handy?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:18 pmThe sincere belief that it is wrong to be and or have homosexual relations is equally ridiculous and regardless of sincerity or origin it should not be ok to act on it in the public sphere.
Maybe Gil could point out where Eich staked out said position? Nah. Nevermind. Gil is intolerant of intolerance.
JD (5a9bdf) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:22 pmmoney is not speech, JD, except when it is,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:24 pmNo, it isn’t. But I imagine you believe if you keep repeating that inanity often enough you can make it true.
In order to allow gay marriage we need to redefine marriage to the point where we make marriage irrelevant. Everyone, including gay people, are here because sperm met egg. Which is a good thing, but you may have heard of too much of a good thing. The whole reason marriage exists is to regulate that opposite sex relationship because out of wedlock births cause huge social problems.
The first court to throw out anti-miscegenation laws was not the SCOTUS in the Loving case in 1967. It was the Kali Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp in 1948. I bring this up because people try to claim that opposing gay marriage is just the same as opposing interracial marriage. It’s important to note that the plaintiffs make a religious argument. And the court agrees. All over the world people have recognized that the opposite sex nature of marriage is an essential component. But race has never been an essential component of marriage. No one has ever tried to insert race as an element anywhere but the US, in a few states, and at certain times.
http://multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html
The court listed marriage and procreation not as two seperate activities, but because the order in which it was done was the compelling state interest in even having and regulating marriage in the first place. Men and women can have children. The compelling state interest is that they do so responsibly. As noted legal scholar Blackstone noted in his commentaries, civil society created marriage to prescribe “the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.” Marriage exists for no other purpose but to regulate procreation.
Since there is a compelling state interest involved, responsible procreation, then it is not discriminatory to permit some categories of people to get married but not others. Those categories of people never involve race, but do involve gender.
Gay sex is not fundamental to the very existence and survival of the species. Never has been. Which is why cultures that accepted homosexual relationships as perfectly normal were never silly enough to include it in the definition of marriage. So SSM proponents fabricated an argument that the central reason marriage exists in the first place, procreation, isn’t the reason marriage exists. Gay marriage advocates have to argue that procreation has nothing at all to do with marriage. Instead it is a vanity item pure and simple. It is about adult self-expression.
You can’t argue with a straight face that an institution that exists solely to “celebrate” adult expressions of their attraction for each other is fundamental to the very survival and existence of the species. In fact, you can’t argue it’s very important at all, that the government has any compelling interest in regulating it, or that it’s worth considering such an inconsequential matter a “fundamental right.” Which is why in countries that have legalized gay marriage in Europe, heterosexual marriages have plummeted. The two go hand in hand. If that’s all marriage is about, heterosexual couples don’t see the point of marriage if they can make babies and express their love just as well outside of marriage as in it. It’s a lot less hassle just to forgo the whole marriage thing in terms of expense and legalities, too.
Of course out of wedlock births cause all sorts of social problems. Which brings us back full circle to why marriage exists in the first place. As Lord Blackstone observed:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp
..the eftablifhment of marriage in all civilized ftates is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children ; for that afcertains and makes known the perfon who is bound to fulfil this obligation : whereas, in promifcuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown ; and the mother finds a thoufand obftacles in her way
But once you break the link between having children and marriage, once you change the definition so that marriage has nothing to do with responsible procreation, you can’t turn around and teach young soon-to-be-unwed mothers they need to wait until marriage to have children. Even though that’s the best antipoverty course, the best solution to controlling welfare spending, the best solution to raising children in stable environments so they don’t become delinquents and future criminals, etc. Which might be manageable in a small Scandinavian country with a population of 5.6 or 9.5 million like Norway or Sweden but not in a country with over 300 million like the US.
You can’t tell a single mom that when you’ve decided as a society that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with responsible procreation. You can never go back.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:25 pmI have no experience with either, daleyrocks.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:28 pmI wonder if Karl Rove is behind all of this.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:35 pmYou make an interesting point, Stevemit’s not a coincidence that the push to encourage single motherhood, preceded this latest demolition of the family,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:47 pmSteve57, nice post.
Mike K (cd7278) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:52 pmLife of Julia, narciso. She doesn’t need a husband. She’s got the government.
http://thelifeofjulia.com/
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:55 pmGuys, the “n” in nk stands for naive. When gay marriage came into the radar, I honestly thought that it was a reining back of the sexual revolution and promiscuous catting around. I mean, better to have monogamous, private relationships than encounters in the bathrooms of gay bars, right? I hadn’t kept up with the Western left’s assault on “bourgeois values”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2014 @ 4:56 pmburning or flogging;
http://linkis.com/brendaneich.com/2012/qf6sa
narciso (3fec35) — 4/7/2014 @ 5:54 pm==elissa – I still don’t understand the purpose of that heavily edited excerpt Mark included in that thread.==
Me neither, daleyrocks. It was strange to say the least. I have a theory, though. I suspect Mark scours the internet for articles–any articles at all about homosexuals, and homosexual activity and practices–and then saves them up to post here whenever the word “gay” or such is mentioned in any context on any thread. It seems like he demonstrates a prurient (as opposed to policy) interest in GLBT, and I’d guess that actual applicability of his posts to the thread topic are not necessarily uppermost in his mind when he gets it on. Often his posts detract from, rather than enhance the policy discussions that are going on –such as happened in the thread to which you refer.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/7/2014 @ 6:16 pm“Animals can be homosexual.”
LOL… I always wondered about dogs and their fixation on a certain part of other dogs’ anatomy. It would also explain some of the bright, gaudy colors that are often on display in nature, as well as some of the amusing walks.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/7/2014 @ 6:21 pm==“Animals can be homosexual.”==
Excellent!! I see business opportunity!!! Love the possibilities of an untapped market for little wedding outfits for gay cats and dogs, cakes, lovely outdoor receptions, and photos for the scrapbooks of their proud owners.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/7/2014 @ 6:56 pm==“Animals can be homosexual.”==
elissa – More Judy Garland CD sales!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 7:57 pmWow! What a firestorm.
Steve, announcing that I am citing “bad science” is laughable when at the same time you use an article from a non-peer reviewed commentary magazine as your source.
In fact domesticated sheep have been observed in exclusive homosexual orientation as far back as 1964 and some percentage of rams do as well. Google Book Link (references peer reviewed article inside)
Everyone here may insist that it doesn’t make sense, or insist that it is a learnt trait – and sure with some people it is – but there can be no doubt it does occur naturally. I mean even the most basic internet search will generate a ton of evidence for you, but no Steve hopes we rely instead on that beacon of good science: The Atlantic. To the readers out there please don’t behave like Children with their fingers stuck in their ears and eyes closed.
Regarding your next post on the purpose of marriage:
1. Please don’t cite court decisions as if they are ironclad. These are judgments made by fallible people. Or is it your position that judges don’t make mistakes / bad decisions? As in Plessey v Ferguson that upheld segregation? Or for that matter Roe v Wade?
2. The idea that if gay marriage was allowed that our entire civilization would be threatened due to an explosion of out of wedlock birthing is laughable. Europe is now in decline because of gay marriage? There can be many reasons for heterosexual marriage going down. You don’t just get to make assertions like this. Prove the connection. And please don’t find a Christian magazine article to support your opinion.
3. I (nor anyone else for that matter) needs the institution of marriage to teach children about personal responsibility. How silly is this conversation:
“Son you should be in a committed relationship before having kids”
“Nah Dad, you buffoon. If it were really important then the government would make special concessions to people to encourage marriage”
Oh by the way, how does this fit in with your small government, the people know what’s best view? Suddenly only now when it comes to marriage we need regulations to keep people doing what is best for them, but for say healthcare nah they know what’s best.
4. Besides all this, gay marriage could benefit society. Think of all the kids in foster care that could be adopted into loving, caring homes. Surely they would be better off than staying in the foster care system. But no, because of an opinion informed by 2000 year old iron-age peasants who knew shockingly little about the world, we are stuck now arguing about this. Oh well it will pass given time. I can at least take comfort in that.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:16 pm“In fact domesticated sheep have been observed in exclusive homosexual orientation as far back as 1964 and some percentage of rams do as well.”
Gil – Why are you comparing gays to animals in the first place? Isn’t that sort of frowned upon or is okay if you are arguing from the correct perspective?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:25 pmGenius, the author was interviewing scientists who have published those findings in peer reviewed journals. They’re just not available for free online.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:30 pmReading comprehension is a beeotch, ain’t it Gil?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:35 pmMt family has a female terrier who has been neutered. She tries to hump all sorts of things. I often wonder what kind of message she is trying to send.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:36 pmMy family
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:36 pmGays can do that with civil unions now. Or without, for that matter.
You don’t just get to make the assertion that somehow gay marriage will improve the situation. Prove the future benefit of gay marriage over gay civil unions.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:38 pmWhoops, my bad. I was able to find the peer reviewed article online.
Exactly the same as in the article. I’d seen it before, just couldn’t find it today.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:48 pmhttp://jambo.africa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/kiroku/asm_normal/abstracts/pdf/31-3/107-125.pdf
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:49 pmGil said:
If I said I agree with you, would you at least take the time to consider that some people believe that “marriage” is a covenant of God between and man and a woman?
This whole argument is about forcing people of faith to accept government control of the sanctity of marriage.
Frankly, I do not care who anyone shares their life with for whatever reason. It makes no difference whom one marries. I have no idea why this is so important and why any couple would want legislative action to enforce their union. After all, it’s a small step from freedom to force.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:02 pmIf I said I agree with you, would you at least take the time to consider that some people believe that “marriage” is a covenant of God between and man and a woman?
@ Ag8o : Sure people believe all kinds of things. For example that the Lourdes has healing powers because of religious reasons. It does not make it true. And thanks for having the courage to agree with me. Prepare to be shat upon by the masses.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:18 pmI’m not going to cite all the historical and legal authority. I cited Lord Blackstone, for instance, who was not issuing an opinion. Marriage was entirely a matter for the Church in England up until 1600. Then if became a matter for the civil authorities precisely because men and women can produce children. The only reason marriage exists is because of children. That’s the only reason the courts have considered marriage to be a fundamental right; because without it ordered society wouldn’t survive. That’s just a matter of historical record.
So instead it’s up to you to demonstrate some compelling state interest that requires the state to even recognize let alone recognize a relationship that is solely about celebrating two people’s love for each other.
I can prove correlation.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Marriage_and_divorce_statistics
And that this effect is precisely what gay marriage proponents intended to achieve.
http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/04Doc124Gunnar-3.pdf
Apparently feminist sociologists like Kari Moxness are influential figures in countries like Norway since people like her can write front page articles for the Norway’s largest newspaper the Aftenposten. But she hasn’t just been an observer watching as marriage has become an empty institution. She’s been working to see that it does become an empty institution. She is correct. SSM becomes more acceptable as marriage becomes increasingly irrelevant.
It’s easier to find the same shift in public opinion here than the same polling data in Europe.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mlsvlgvzqkmkny1c5yx3yg.png
It goes hand in hand. If marriage is irrelevant why not SSM?
You do realize that when single moms raise kids, dad’s not around?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:27 pm*let alone
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:28 pmrecognizeregulate*Ok I apologize, Iwas mistaken you do have a study. I am sorry to change track. Diving more deeply the cited article does not really bolster your position. The researchers did not find evidence of homosexual orientation within 56 interviewed hunter gatherers. 56? I can go on the street in San Francisco and find 56 heterosexuals. Does that mean its unnatural to be homosexual? Oh by the way a few sentences down your article says the people in the study described homosexual sex as “unknown or rare“. Oops.
Do those researchers ever conclude that based on 56 people Homosexuality is unnatural? Remember the famous phrase: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What about the source I pointed to? Is it invalid?
What about the mountains of evidence and sources anyone can easily dig up for the opposing view.
And an earlier commenter asked if this is comparing gay people to sheep. No of course not. It is just showing that it can occur in nature. Being part of nature, it then follows that it occurs in us.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:29 pmaddress how that fits in with your small government people know best view regarding other government regulations such as healthcare instead of picking on a semantic? The same conversation is ridiculous with a mom.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:36 pmIt seems like he demonstrates a prurient (as opposed to policy) interest in GLBT,
Elissa, that’s a stupid comment, and you know it. I described in careful detail in the other thread the exact purpose of my citing that article. Either you didn’t read my post or you’ve purposefully ignored it. If you, in fact, did see it, you’re trying to pull the exact type of stunt I was pointing out in that thread.
If you don’t get what I’m referring to, I can say that the reason you have a lot of squish in your heart for the GLBT agenda is because the homosexuality of the female relative you used in a hypothetical a few weeks ago — the one who you described as inviting family members to a same-sex wedding — secretly turns you on and you envy her.
Yea, call that method the tactics of challenging the arguments of a person one disagrees with by lobbing ad-hominem jerkiness his or her way.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:39 pmWhile all of your polls and statistics are impressive, and clearly the change you describe is present, there is not one iota of evidence tying this to SSM. Sure we have your assertion, but that’s all we have. Attitudes change all the time for many reasons. Why is this exclusively tied to passage of SSM?
Or is your position – “well nothing else makes as much sense, so then SSM must be the cause”?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:41 pmOops. They can’t exactly say it’s unknown to the Ngandu since some Ngandu men who’ve been to Bangui know it exists and they know the French term for it.
Yes it’s easy to find more than 56 people in SF. Even heterosexuals. But can you find 56 people who have no word for homosexuality in their native language because it doesn’t exist in their societies? Also, it’s a lot harder to find more then 56 people in the Central African rain forest. Hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers don’t live in large groups and it’s hard to find anything there. But they know all know 4-500 people, practically everyone in their society, because they make contact with other villages and they have never heard a word for homosexuality nor ever met anyone (in the case of the Aka) who even knows what it is. In the case of the Ngandu, only in the big city, where almost no one is Aka or Ngandu. There is no evidence that the Ngandu men ever engaged in it, but given the fact that they are aware of it the researchers can’t exactly discount the possibility it may have happened.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:48 pm4. Besides all this, gay marriage could benefit society.
By the same token, polygamy could benefit society by allowing lonely or certainly financially struggling women to group together in larger units, where the pooled resources provided by a male figure will make life easier, both financially and operationally, for various females.
Actually, I don’t say that sarcastically or glibly, or even to challenge your sympathy for SSM. You perhaps may also sympathize with the idea of people having more than one spouse.
In some ways, multi-partner marriages make more sense in terms of human nature (particularly given the natural non-monogamous orientation of many males) and history too. Men having several female partners is actually a more common phenomenon — today and in the past — than a man having a husband or a woman having a wife.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:50 pmGil, I’ve provided more data than you have. So answer the question.
Tell me the compelling interest that government has in recognizing and regulating adult relationships that exist solely to celebrate the affections those adults have for each other.
Because we have lots of different kinds of adult relationships that fit that description and we’ve never seen fit to make any of the others contractual relationships.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:53 pmHomosexuality does not exist in all cultures.
That’s fascinating because even I assumed that the argument of “homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom” in order to challenge those people who repudiate the GLBT agenda at least had some biological strength behind it. Apparently not. It sort of runs parallel with the surprising polymorphous nature of even self-labeled gays who admit to initiating honest, legitimate heterosexual relationships on at least a few occasions during their lifetime.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:58 pmPure speculation. So, again, answer the question. Why would gay marriage benefit society, considering your example has nothing to do with gay marriage? Gay couples can adopt when in civil unions, or even when not in any government sanctioned relationship.
So since gay couples can adopt now, without gay marriage, how will gay marriage benefit society?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:58 pmWhat part of “SSM becomes more acceptable as marriage becomes increasingly irrelevant” do you not understand?
I never said the change was due to gay marriage. Gay marriage is first a symptom of the change, then when legalized becomes an additional cause.
It has to do with that question I asked you earlier. Name the compelling interest in adult relationships that exist solely to “celebrate” the affection those adults have for each other? Because that’s a pretty frivolous reason to enter into a binding contractual relationship, one that requires an expensive divorce to get out of, when you can simply celebrate your love for each other without getting married.
Oh, should add, one reason that marriage has fallen off in Europe is that when they create civil unions, they don’t always limit them to gay couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Civil unions. Most of the legal protections and the tax benefits of marriage without the expensive divorce. Ideal for the throwaway relationship.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:17 pmI believe the troll has gone.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:18 pmThis is not going to be resolved based on who can provide more data. 1)Your data does not mean anything. Just because it does not exist everywhere does not mean it is not natural.
I also never said the government has no interest in heterosexual marriage. Of course they do. The interest in allowing SSM – perhaps the interest in having an equal society. Perhaps no interest at all. So what? This is not a zero sum game where granting SSM eliminates traditional marriage. It affects you not one bit if consenting responsible law abiding adults who happen to be homosexual get married. You can claim it will be the beginning of the end for America all you want, that holds no water.
I wonder how humans survived for the 10s of thousands of years before governments stepped in and created marriage.
Again a few lines down in your study it says “absent or rare”. Come on, seriously?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 11:30 pmJust when do you imagine there weren’t marriage laws?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:04 amAnd actually my data does mean something. As opposed to your idle speculation such as “gay marriage could benefit society.”
Look at the European Commission data and point out where SSM marriage has benefited society society?
SSM was sold here on a similar basis as it was in Europe. That it would benefit society. Such as:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/28/nation/la-na-tt-boost-american-marriages-20130327
That’s a pretty bold statement, don’t you think? It will boost American marriages. Gay marriage has existed for over a decade in some European countries. There is zero evidence that it’s had that effect there. In fact the decline has just accelerated in some countries.
So, no dice there.
You cited adoption, apparently not realizing gay couples can adopt now. Without gay marriage. So dice there.
So how could SSM benefit society. Or will you just admit that’s just a baseless assertion you just put out when pressed, but you have no clue how that could happen.
And I at least can present data that shows SSM does not benefit society. I said I can prove correlation between SSM and the decline in marriage rates, and that SSM was intended to be the death knell for marriage by many European SSM enthusiasts.
But at the very least I can say, No, SSM will not benefit society.
And if it will not benefit society, pray. Tell me what compelling state interest it will further?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:19 amI need to correct this confusion you have about marriage.
Government didn’t create marriage. If you read through what I wrote I said governments recognized and regulated marriage. The English civil authorities didn’t get around to regulating marriage as a civil matter until 1600. But it existed in England before that. The Aka and the Ngandu have their own tribal laws that they enforce themselves. And throughout that study men and women talk about being married. They live in their own societies beyond the reach or the interest of their governments. But they do have their own marriage laws.
People created marriage among themselves. And when left to the people, it’s an opposite sex proposition.
It takes a government to create something so fundamentally irrational as SSM. Which the courts are doing here now.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:32 amTwo Spirits sheep! They make each other sweaters out of their own wool!
Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 4/8/2014 @ 2:04 amThink of all the kids in foster care that could be adopted into loving, caring homes.
Yeah, right.
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:37 amA loving, caring adoption: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/2-convicted-adopted-son-porn-article-1.1385895 DISTURBING.
But sheep do it, too.
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 5:10 amIf this keeps up, it’s going to get ‘Red Wedding’
real fast;
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 5:15 amI don’t think I’m going to get involved in this much, but for those observing (as I don’t think anyone can say anything that get a certain person to think twice), I’ll just say that if you want to determine what “normal” human behavior is by looking at animals you need to deal with two things:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 5:57 am1) Realize you are saying humans are not significantly different from other animals. Of course, for many people this is a central truth claim. I think this leads to the idea that there really is no such thing as anything transcendent in beauty, creativity, morality.
That’s fine if you want to believe it, just realize what the assumption is.
2) There are lots of things that animals do that most people would not want to be considered normal behavior. For example, many animals are territorial, so one could claim that gangs are normal activity, rape is a normal activity, and so is killing your neighbor’s children to give your own a better chance in life.
Usually we call such behaviors “inhuman”.
==If you don’t get what I’m referring to, I can say that the reason you have a lot of squish in your heart for the GLBT agenda is because the homosexuality of the female relative you used in a hypothetical a few weeks ago — the one who you described as inviting family members to a same-sex wedding — secretly turns you on and you envy her.==
Oh Really? Well, when you can find that post you described above please do us all the favor of pointing it out by date and time and full quote. (You won’t find it because you fabricated it to serve your own purposes, Mark, something you do here a lot.) The closest you will come is a recent thread when I constructed a purely hypothetical situation in which you, Mark, were invited to a (hypothetical) bridal shower for the (hypothetical) homosexual child of a (hypothetical) work colleague hosted by other (hypothetical) professional work colleagues all of whom you (hypothetically) respect, work closely with, and are somewhat social with outside of work. I formulated my question because while you love to pontificate and analyze others I was interested in seeing how you’d respond to a potential situation that could quite realistically involve you, or any of us, who live in the world in this day and age–“squish” or not. Your response was actually a little “squishy”, wasn’t it?
Finally, in my opinion, on that other thread when you seemed to lose sight of the broader issue (the loss of freedom for us all to be able to think and speak for ourselves and still be employed), I thought it was unfortunate because that’s the discussion we need to have with America. The specifics that surround and swirl around Brendan Eich’s dismissal and his harassment by the radical gay mafia, are only one piece of the larger leftist agenda to punish thought crimes in many areas. So, when you started focusing instead on a largely irrelevant study of boarding school boys in India you disrupted the thread. That is only my opinion. YMMV.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:01 amIt’s more in the manner, of how conduct that is ‘out of the norm; and more often disfunctional, is being encouraged, with total ignorance of the impact to society,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:17 amConsidering the impact on society was never a big issue with the “do your own thing” crowd.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:23 amAnyone that disagrees with Gil is a bigot and does not deserve employment
JD (5ecd29) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:38 amComment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 10:29 pm
I can go on the street in San Francisco and find 56 heterosexuals.
And it’s probably easier than finding the opposite. This was presumabably a random sample, that is, nobody was eliminated.
Does that mean its unnatural to be homosexual.
No, but it means that it is rare. Which poses a problem for the theory that it is natural, because the question then becomes, how do they find each other? Or how did they in the days when it was all in the closet? Postulate a 10% rate and it is not so impossible. Postulate a 0.3% rate and you have a problem. Therefore we always had the claim it was a relatively high number.
Being part of nature, it then follows that it occurs in us.
The same logic would apply to incest.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:41 amComment by Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:04 am
Just when do you imagine there weren’t marriage laws?
I think he may be confusing laws recognizing marriage, with governments keeping a central repository that records all marriages. That didn’t become nearly universal until maybe te beginning of the Twentieth Century. A holdover from that is the “common law marriage”
We didn’t have that with real estate either until rather recentlly. People used to have deeds. A holdover from that is “title insurance” which should not be necessary. (there still can be irregularities, though)
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:48 amOh Really? Well, when you can find that post you described above please do us all the favor of pointing it out by date and time and full quote.
Here is it. However — although I don’t know why it needs to be clarified, since it’s hardly a case of having to read between the lines — I could have stated specifically that the article about the growing amount of homosexuality in schools in India should automatically be seen as a rebuttal to those people (primarily of the left) who state that human sexuality isn’t pliable and instead is generally fixed, and resist the notion of it likely being negatively affected by a dumbed-down culture.
Elissa, you’re way too defensive about this controversy and, again, the ad-hominem reactions are coming to the surface.
BTW, one issue I have with the format of Patterico.com is that too many of its entries, which should be grouped together — or where the link to a new blog entry should be combined with that of an existing one — are instead often created as solo affairs. So there are plenty of orphaned or semi-dead-end threads, or a set of posted messages that seem stranded, with no more than perhaps 20 to 30 postings instead of 100 or 250.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:36 amWell, when you conflate homosexuality with animals displaying dominance, then you can pretty much be confused about anything!
Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:40 am“Here it is”. No, it is not. That’s one of your comments, not the one you attributed to elissa (which does not exist).
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:43 amSnails are perfectly hermaphroditic, I’ve heard. They’re the perfect examples, lacking as they do both sexism and homophobia.
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:47 am“Here it is”. No, it is not.
You’re correct. I inserted too many details into or made too many assumptions about Elissa’s hypothetical. I was thinking of situations similar to those of Dick and Lynne Cheney and their daughters, where clashes (or also squishiness) can arise because of the social-political agenda of one versus the other—who often are all members of a family, since they’re more likely to trigger stronger personal reactions compared with those that involve friends or acquaintances.
I guess I also immediately drew the conclusion that my post in the other thread had gone unread because why anyone would still be puzzled why that snippet about schools in India was pointed out in the first place seems to me like a case of willful ignorance or an odd inability to connect the dots.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:03 am==“Here it is”. No, it is not. That’s one of your comments, not the one you attributed to elissa (which does not exist). Comment by nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:43 am==
Thank you very much, nk for standing up for truth justice and the American way. I sincerely appreciate it.
==Elissa, you’re way too defensive about this controversy and, again, the ad-hominem reactions are coming to the surface.Comment by Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:36 am==
==You’re correct. I inserted too many details into or made too many assumptions about Elissa’s hypothetical. Comment by Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:03 am==
No sh#t, Sherlock. But no apology I see.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:26 amHere is a link to the full text of the article about school kids experimenting with homosexual activities in India which Mark linked in the other thread.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110904/jsp/7days/story_14461440.jsp
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:49 amMD, I don’t blame you for not wanting to get too deeply involved.
I only seized on that point because it was an issue in the Prop 8 case.
That the vase majority of gays and lesbians are consistent in self-identification, behavior, and attraction throughout their adult lives. I.E. being gay or lesbian is a permanent, immutable characteristic and therefore the option of marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn’t exist.
I was pointing out that you can’t use animals to prove that. In fact, animals prove the opposite. That a permanent homosexual orientation doesn’t exist in nature. Some individuals might engage in homosexual behavior, but they will also mate with the opposite sex.
Actually, you can’t even use people to prove that. But then we’re not going to be relitigating the Prop 8 case, so it doesn’t really matter anymore what the facts actually are.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 11:23 amNo Im not. Humans are significantly different from other animals because our brains are complex enough so that conscience has arrisen.We can think, evaulate options, and have empathy. Thats significant and is all that is required for transcendance / morality. The truth claim you refer to comes in with regard to our relationship to the other animals and evolution.
I think you are confusing what occurs naturally and what is normal. Regardless ill take these in reverse order. Killing neighboors children does not give you a better chance in life. Humans are social animals who thrive in societies. You cannot have a society where people are killing eachothers children. The same can be said about rape or gangs. All these things are examples where our empathy and morality come in to help us build a society.
And before you come in and apply that line of thinking to homosexuality “hey Gil people being gay reduces populations and eventually there will be no society left”. No. Incorrect. Homosexuality is not comparable to the above described behaviors. It is inane. It does not harm others. To build a society where maximum human well being exists you accept perceived imperfections. For example we do not disregard people born with mental or physical handicaps because we could be more efficient without them etc. To do so would be harmfull in and of itself.
On the flip side: “Serial killers occur naturally Gil why do you discriminate against them by putting them in jail?” Dont even start. Some traits warrant elimination from society and some do not. We can evaluate them on a case by case basis and determine the best way to thrive.
Gil (febf10) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:56 pmWhat’s good for the goose, is apparently not good for the gander;
http://minx.cc/?post=348423
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 1:00 pmnarciso – Reminds me of the 1980s when investments bankers in the muni bond business funneled their pay to play political contributions through financial printers or other intermediaries because each party was watching the other so closely. Just a dirty, dirty, dirty way to get business.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2014 @ 1:50 pm160. Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:56 pm
Some traits warrant elimination from society and some do not. We can evaluate them on a case by case basis and determine the best way to thrive.
I think we all could agree with that, or come close. But then a lot of what you said is begging the question.
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/8/2014 @ 3:14 pmGil, like Charles, wants to direct this to a philosophical exercise. I imagine it’s from GLAAD’s playbook, and you would be subjected to much the same and worse if you were to be stupid enough to attend one of it’s
diversityre-education forums.Don’t fall for it. If you give them an inch, they’ll want the other five too.
Stick to the facts. Brendan Eich got driven out of the organization he founded because gays in Silicon Valley got butthurt that he gave $1,000 to Prop 8 in 2008. That’s all. How do you feel about that, and what are you going to do about it?
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 3:27 pmAnd is the Yasgun fellow did a similar thing, some years ago,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 3:30 pmGil, glad you’re back.
You still haven’t told me what the compelling state interest is in the trivialized version of marriage that SSM represents.
If two people want to celebrate their love for each other in a public fashion, why does that require a government-recognized contractual obligation?
And where’s your evidence that SSM could benefit society? It hasn’t in Europe.
Of course, you thought it was adoption, without realizing gays can already adopt.
Have any better examples?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 3:37 pmI love it when trolls ask for evidence, and then tell you that they will disregard evidence from sources that might say so ethi g contrary to Teh Narrative.
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 3:54 pmComment by Gil (febf10) — 4/8/2014 @ 12:56 pm
FWIW to those observing, I think Gill is finding ways to make assertions and end runs without grappling with challenges to his previous arguments. I think from his discussion so far he is not interested in dialogue, but telling some of us why we are wrong.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:05 pmWhile I do think he/she is wrong, I am willing to dialogue the issue with anyone genuinely interested, if there is such an onlooker.
I do not for a moment think I can “prove” anything to anybody, but I can give one things to consider, if one is interested in such.
Always happy to hear from you, MD.
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:09 pmJD–We see that many of our trolls just come around to aggravate and incite (Booosh, 7 million Obamacare signups!!, da Koch brothers!!) even though they, too, know that most of what they’re spouting are just BS talking points.
I think we have a true believer here in Gil, though. He’s testing his theories and arguments outside the bubble. I imagine they prolly sound much better and are more eagerly received, and seem more convincing within his bubble.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:20 pmA digression.
One of the few things I remember from the blitz that was Russian Literature in Translation- Dostoevsky, was Brothers Karamazov Book XII, Chapter X. The Speech For The Defense. An Argument That Cuts Both Ways
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28054/28054-h/28054-h.html#toc209
People talk about “leaps of faith” in a derogatory tone as if they are irrational. Actually, I think it is more true that there are steps of faith that actually go one of two (or more) ways, and people choose, though they sometimes don’t own up or understand that they are choosing.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:22 pmAnd I am writing this on a machine running XP…
(I do have others with 7 Professional)
I discussed libertarian theory with my daughter this weekend. It started with proper behavior at her school — a teacher was suspended indefinitely for shoving a sixth-grader and making him cry because he had forgotten his assignment book at home.
Basic principle: KYFHO, pronounced “Kaif, Ho!” (makes it easier to remember ;)). If you want to be polite, KYHO. Keep your hands off. The longer version, “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their property”. She’s twelve, doesn’t have a lot of BS stuffed in her head to muddy her thinking yet. She got it and she can formulate her own corrolaries and apply it to specific situations.
nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:30 pmWhat seems clear, as with Prop 187, another effort that had widespread support, the left has thought to ‘salt the earth’ of any notion of immigration enforcement, similar with the Levick Grp defending Gitmo detainees to such a degree, that they threatened to disbar an official that questioned them, also the Mann lawsuit against Steyn, all of these, collectively make center right politics, anathema,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:32 pmMD @168, I know you’re right. This guy Gil is immune to evidence. Since our system of law is derived from English Common Law. We know why the civil authorities authorities came to conclude that marriage, which was previously left to the Church, was a public matter.
They wrote it down and told us. And those reasons are why our legal tradition has treated the matter seriously.
But it occurred to me; if marriage didn’t exist and we were presented with the argument the SSM advocates claim for their version of marriage. I’m not trying to create a strawman; if someone can put it better please do. But apparently the purpose of marriage is to provide public recognition for two people’s love and commitment to each other.
Would we create this entire legal edifice called marriage just for that?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:45 pmProperty rights.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 4:50 pmThat made me laugh, elissa.
Of course!
Clearly, if marriage didn’t exist we wouldn’t have figured out a way to deal with that issue by now.
How can you deal with property issues unless you’re in a government-recognized conjugal relationship?
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 5:11 pmFrom one narrative to another;
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/08/rand-study-by-our-estimate-3-9-million-people-signed-up-for-obamacare-not-7-1-million-like-the-white-house-says/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 5:55 pmnobody wants crappy food stamp healthcares Mr. narciso
just the people what are all up into the whole “food stamp culture”
and frankly those ones are kind of trashy
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/8/2014 @ 6:17 pmnk, didn’t mean to ignore you at 169, but I needed to take the daughter to gymnastics.
I appreciate your encouragement and interest and would enjoy the intellectual workout, we’ll see what I can do.
Off the top of my head,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:20 pmremembering the saying that hard cases make bad law…
The continuing of the human race depends upon having children and helping them grow up to responsible adulthood. The best place that this happens is in a stable family unit with the complimentary contributions of a male and female parent. The fact that some couples can not or do not have children has little bearing on the main principle. Even in the situation of a couple without children, there is a complementariness of the male-female couple.
If you want to appeal to a version of natural philosophy and what we observe among other animals in nature, I don’t see how such an argument can be refuted.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has that God created humans male and female, and that together they reflect the image of God. That is consistent with the standard observed in nature, and consistent with the human conscience (when not willfully opposed).
One could argue, that even in a society where cohabitation is more the norm than marriage, that there is still a deep seated belief that a man and woman are to be faithful to be a couple. Having sex outside of marriage is seen as no big deal, but having sex with someone who is not the person you are in a relationship is generally seen as “wrong”.
You know a funny thing about that congressman, caught up in this brouhaha;
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20140408/NEWS01/304080023/Pastor-says-McAllister-staffer-leaked-video?nclick_check=1
narciso (3fec35) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:27 pmNo sh#t, Sherlock. But no apology I see.
Yea, Elissa, because I’m too busy giving back rubs to my gay lover, and also, at the same time, leering lewdly at the young teenage dude walking down the street.
Here is a link to the full text of the article about school kids experimenting with homosexual activities in India which Mark linked in the other thread.
If this blog weren’t owned by a person who I greatly respect but who I also think is terribly naive about the concept of SSM — and all of its negative ramifications — I wouldn’t be quite so insistent on pointing out that human sexuality is surprisingly polymorphous. I now want to say d’oh! about just how naive I was regarding human behavior until not too many years ago.
Calls to mind my opinion of rap music over 15 or 20 years ago. I recall one time thinking that such a form or style of music couldn’t possibly ever catch on with so many people. That the nature of rap was so unappealing, that the human brain as I understood it (ie, based on my own biases and preferences) would never get in sync with the nature of bad “ghetto” rhyming.
I was wrong.
But I also was wrong when I gave the benefit of the doubt to the crowd who’d rally around the meme of “why would I choose to be gay if I could be straight?!” in their ongoing arguments aimed at people opposed to SSM.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:33 pmHi All
1. These are my thoughts on the subjects. Im not merely trolling. If you genuinely don’t want to discuss this then fine Ill leave. But don’t tell me “yes we want to discuss, but only by our rules”
2. @ Steve – I think I answered you somewhere on that wall of text. There is no obvious economical interest for the government to promote a relationship simply because of love. But so what? The interest is in having a society in which people have equal opportunity to pursue their interests. You continue to state that SSM will trivialize marriage and somehow cause the downfall of society as we know it, and that just doesn’t wash.
Here is a question for you Id like an answer to. I thought we all knew what was best for ourselves without the government. You seem to now run in conflict with the prevailing ideology on this site (one that I share) that we need less government interference. Why is it that only in the case of marriage is it “critical” that government sanctions it, and not only that but sanction it only in this way (man + woman) otherwise people will not be able to function?
Im not immune to evidence. Im immune to bad evidence or irrelevant evidence. For example a study that says homosexuality is “absent or rare” is not very good or easy to use because those two words are opposites. Secondly I have no use for irrelevant evidence such as “people dont take marriage seriously anymore in Europe”. So what? You make it sound like now theyre making babies all willie-nillie and its chaos on the streets.
Another point: Law is not the end all be all. Judges make mistakes. How many of you here agree with Roe v Wade? What about Plessey v Ferguson.
The moment marriage was taken out of the church and put into public practice it becomes subject to public law and secular ideologies which change with time. Its time to accept that the public’s view of morality is changing and stop kicking and screaming.
3. @ MD : I am not making assertions and ignoring previous arguments. My last response was to you addressing your idea that according to my viewpoint it could be considered normal to kill my neighbors kids. I think I addressed it well. You seem to have ignored it.
4. @ JD:
Do you mean the evidence that I cited regarding homosexuality found naturally occurring in sheep and rams? That study does not say homosexuality in sheep is “absent or rare”. I at least addressed the points made by Steve. By the way, how is it that you are contributing to this conversation? By calling me a troll? Is that not trolling in and of itself?
5. @ Steve
Oh I don’t know. Its a good thing every person Ive sold property too had a government recognized conjugal relationship with me before signing! Oh wait. With a contract?
6. Okay I admit #5 was kind of silly.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:35 pmProperty rights may be involved, and I have absolutely no knowledge of the development of that.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:35 pmI would think that property rights could be linked to providing for the welfare of the children, including the surviving parent for the sake of the children.
And in the event of a childless couple, property rights would help provide for the welfare of the next of kin, the children of one’s sibs.
At least that seems to make sense to me,
but may be not borne out in the details of history.
I’ll be Frank, Gil. I started with mocking, as your early comments were of the tone that unless we agree with you, we are bigots. The areas of nuance that many people have seem lost on you, and in the context of forced thought or lose your job, I personally don’t see the point in discussing things with someone that wants to scream bigot at others for disagreeing.
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:42 pmPolyamory occurs in nature. Should we force people to believein that in order to keep their jobs? Should we mandate that the government redefine marriage to include that? If we are going to change the legal construct from man-woman to man-man or woman-woman, why not MMW or WWM? I you recognize the difference between disagreeing with changing the definition of a word and support of a lifestyle? Enough musing … Consider those rhetorical.
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 7:46 pm3. @ MD : I am not making assertions and ignoring previous arguments. My last response was to you addressing your idea that according to my viewpoint it could be considered normal to kill my neighbors kids. I think I addressed it well. You seem to have ignored it.
Well, I don’t think I ignored you and your argument so much as I directly stated that I did not think it worth my time to engage you, but was willing to discuss the issue for interested observers.
For anyone who thinks I have ignored your point because I did not have reasoning for my claims, here goes.
Gil previously said:
Homosexuality is naturally occuring. Animals can be homosexual. It follows that people can be too. Discriminating based on the natural way people are (sex, race, and yes now we know sexual orientation) should not be allowed.
I think you are confusing what occurs naturally and what is normal.
By what criteria do you judge what is normal and what “occurs naturally”? You make the claim that homosexuality is seen in animals, so it is “natural”, and if “natural” then it must be “natural” for humans. In your pro gay argument you did not raise a claim about “normal” vs “natural”. Are you claiming some kind of objective standard of what “normal” should be? If so, where do you get that from?
Regardless ill take these in reverse order. Killing neighboors children does not give you a better chance in life. Humans are social animals who thrive in societies. You cannot have a society where people are killing each others children. The same can be said about rape or gangs.
So what. You are the one introducing a teleological argument, that somehow humans know what would be best in the future and so make choices that do not make sense in the moment. Lions are social animals that have a societal structure, and I understand that male lions will kill the offspring of other males. Besides, humans do kill their neighbor’s children at times thinking it will help their own. A basic idea of primitive (unspoiled by development) tribal society is that in the competition for resources get rid of the competition.
If you say that may be naturally occurring but not normal, on what basis do you judge such a thing, your cultural experience as opposed to someone else’s?
All these things are examples where our empathy and morality come in to help us build a society.
Morality is a frail and nebulous thing if defined by the time limited cultural norms of a group of people.
For example if I were to tell you it is my sincere belief that the earth was flat, that would be open to ridicule and rightly so. The sincere belief that it is wrong to be and or have homosexual relations is equally ridiculous and regardless of sincerity or origin
After clearly making such a statement, do you expect me to waste my time trying to dialogue with you? I have many better things to do. Sometimes my better things to do have been to treat people with HIV infection acquired through gay sex to help them live and live as well as possible.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:04 pmI have engaged in this for the sake of any observers who thought that I considered your claims too difficult to handle.
And I see no reason to have to do it with any more examples, unless someone else puts forth a question looking for understanding, not arguing.
There is no obvious economical interest for the government to promote a relationship simply because of love. But so what? The interest is in having a society in which people have equal opportunity to pursue their interests.
Just as long as you realize it’s neither big hearted nor humane to be so cavalier about an environment that doesn’t inculcate stable families — with more kids than not favoring a two-parent household, where both mom and dad are around for them from start to finish — then I’ll at least know your “progressive” ideals aren’t resting on an even bigger bed of BS.
^ That the left has been so blase about one of the underpinnings of this society is merely Reason Number 1 Million why I have such disdain for liberals and modern-day liberalism.
But I also have disdain for all the squishes throughout America who proudly proclaim “I’m an economic conservative — supportive of a wonderful capitalistic way of life — but I’m also a lovey-dovey social liberal!” Disdain for such “centrists'” inability or unwillingness to see that one actually is closely related to, if not dependent upon, the other.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:07 pmYes. I just read an excellent an excellent article over via HotAir at The Federalist.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/08/the-rise-of-the-same-sex-marriage-dissidents/
Mollie Hemingway makes the point I’ve been trying to make much more eloquently.
Marriage is treated differently than all other relationships in life because it’s about things that are important. Propagating the species, and ensuring that the father stays around to take care of his children. Which is why, unlike any other adult relationship you’ll have, marriage has a contractually-binding aspect to it.
Publicly celebrating a couple’s love and commitment may be what the ceremony and the reception is about. But it’s not what marriage is about.
I honestly see no point in entering into a contractually-binding relationship just for the “celebrating love and commitment” part. One can do that and treat that relationship just like every other relationship in life. As in, you don’t need to get the government involved just for that. I can’t think of even a mediocre reason why the government should be involved. But the government does have a compelling interest in a relationship that might produce children. Because once the “love and commitment” tank runs low there’s no collateral damage if you walk away if that’s all that was ever going to be involved anyway. But if the marriage resulted in children there is. Which is where the contractually-binding part comes. in. According to the SCOTUS, though, the government has no more interest in the latter relationship than it does in the former.
But as I read Ms. Hemingway’s article I realized why the pro-SSM crowd has to get so fascist. Because if all they’ve got is the “celebrate love and commitment” part then every day has to be the wedding day. And really, hasn’t “tolerate” turned into “celebrate?” It isn’t enough to put up with it. You must be an enthusiastic supporter of it. It’s all they’ve got. Which is why, as Ms. Hemingway observes, it can brook no dissent. It’s just a further dumbing down of marriage.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:16 pmPainted Jaguar (Thoughtfully): “Tolerance”. Hmmmm. I don’t think that word means what they think it means…
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 4/8/2014 @ 8:51 pmI am intolerant of intolerance. My favorite leftist quote EVAH
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:02 pmI have disdain for naive commenters who keep describing how naive they are for us in the body of their comments yet would have us believe they can read the minds of other commenters.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:03 pmThis is the only point I’m going to address as it demonstrates your immunity to evidence. That study used the words “unknown or rare.”
Which is apparently simply a convention among researchers. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The researchers are just being cautious about presenting their research for peer review.
But had you read the entire study you would have known that they found no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality exists among the Aka or Ngandu. As in, not a shred. Zero. None. Nada.
It isn’t that the evidence is “not very good.” It’s just that you are not very good with evidence. As in, immune to it. Were you not immune to evidence, you would have been able to look past how these anthropologists stated things and looked at what they came up with. You know, the evidence to which you are immune.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:12 pm@MD
Morality is about well being. We can be discover truths about what will maximize well being for humans. For example, honor killings and witch trials are not going to do so. How do you define Morality? By divine fiat? Morality has moved on from that in terms of women’s rights and abolishment of slavery.
I don’t want to get hung up on definitions (re normal and natural) lets set that part aside. We are probably differing here on semantic use of the words. Regardless of that, It is clear humans can consider their actions and act in ways to maximize human thriving within a society. That is why it is immoral to kill your neighbors children even though it might help you in the short run. In the long run it is detrimental to human well being on the whole. Lions do not make these considerations. Im surprised to have to point this out.
@Mark
This is obvious and not in contention. Two parent households are better than single parent households. You have not demonstrated that SSM leads to an explosion of single parent households. Sure you assert it, but your article does not support you. It merely restates that 2 is better than 1. Given that we all do not need the government in order to choose what is best for us (Obamacare anyone?), I do not understand why government redefinition of marriage will cause us all to lose our way.
@ JD: Im sorry my early posts caused you to feel that way. Tell me, how would you refer to someone who wants to deny something to an entire class of people who have otherwise caused no demonstrable harm?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:14 pmIndiscriminate sex without regard to ethnic descent is a 1500+ year old British tradition
Michael Ejercito (906585) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:16 pm.
Yes.
God, who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, who does as He pleases, whose might makes right, decides what morality is.
Michael Ejercito (906585) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:17 pmYou are not sorry. That was a lie.
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:19 pmWhen Gil says “Tell me, how would you refer to someone who wants to deny something to an entire class of people who have otherwise caused no demonstrable harm?”, it shows that his apology was, at best, insincere.
JD (fd19e2) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:20 pm==No sh#t, Sherlock. But no apology I see.
Yea, Elissa, because I’m too busy giving back rubs to my gay lover, and also, at the same time, leering lewdly at the young teenage dude walking down the street.==
I hesitated to even dignify this idiocy with a response, Mark, but finally decided that I will. I am not unaware that a few of the guys here have ribbed you. I, too, observe that you seem to have almost an obsession with homosexuals and a weird curiosity about them and focus on them. Since the comment quoted above was directed at me I can only guess that you have convinced yourself and now believe I have insulted you by insinuating you yourself are gay. To the very best of my recollection I never have said, or insinuated that. It is absolutely true that from several years of reading your posts I’ve come to view your Pavlovian responses/uncommon interest in talking about gay sex at any opportunity as somewhat juvenile and prurient akin to pre-teen boys sneaking peeks at dad’s dirty adult magazines or watching purloined porn and sharing with their friends. But I don’t think you’re gay.
Here’s the deal. You have already been caught imagining, misquoting and misrepresenting my posts once already today. You literally made stuff up that I never said. But if you can point to where I’ve ever said you’re homosexual on this blog I’ll certainly apologize to you.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:26 pmApropos to not much. Since I had the study open:
Regarding Prop 8, it was painful to read the anti-Prop 8 briefs about how self-identification, attraction, and behavior are immutable characteristics. Which is why opposite sex marriage isn’t an option because there is a universal trait called homosexual orientation. It was clear they thought they were speaking the revealed truth about human nature. When in fact that makes us the freaks if we believe this to be true. That’s just a Western construct. It doesn’t exist in most of the rest of world. Depending on where you are, they might engage in homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent. But if you called them “gay,” and then described what that meant because they probably have never heard of it, they’d look at you like you had two heads. If they don’t cut them both off.
And, Westerners are so precious, they’ll say they’re “in denial” or “suppressing their true sexuality” or something because these people aren’t conforming to the Western cultural model. And most Westerners think there is no Western cultural model just a universal one.
It’s also why I cringe when Obama goes to Africa and lectures them about gay rights. Just like the anti-Prop 8 types he thinks that what he sees around him here in the US must be true in all places, and have been true at all times. Like that’s just what some rural African farmer living where “social security” means having enough kids to take care of him when he’s too old to work needs. Gay rights.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/8/2014 @ 9:58 pmBut if you can point to where I’ve ever said you’re homosexual on this blog I’ll certainly apologize to you.
Elissa, when you also write “you seem to have almost an obsession with homosexuals and a weird curiosity about them and focus on them,” I’d say you’re being a bit disingenuous to then turn around and, playing the naif and innocent, claim obliviousness to the tactics I described the other day. Or where people who are big squishes or leftists about GLBT like to imply that people who they’re arguing with, and who are opposed to the agenda of the GLBT, are somehow manifesting latent homosexuality on their own part. Such a tactic in itself is very telling because it really does show that homosexuality, even to the squish or liberal, is perceived as a non-positive, if not pathetic, trait.
The good thing about that sort of “Freudian slip,” if you will, is it illustrates that so-called “homophobia” is a natural and, yes, instinctual reaction, more crucial today than in the past. The innate reaction or gut instinct behind such a tactic is rooted in various people’s moral compass and intrinsic desire for tried-and-true stability. IOW, I think society is better off it it maintains a bit of “homophobia.”
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:22 pmhe thinks that what he sees around him here in the US must be true in all places
That’s even more of a given since he reportedly patronized gay bath houses in Chicago and has been described by a classmate of his from his grade-school years in Hawaii as being identified as a gay or certainly bisexual teenager.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:29 pmYou’re truly a piece of work, Mark. Consider my offer withdrawn.
elissa (b364f8) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:32 pmTwo parent households are better than single parent households. You have not demonstrated that SSM leads to an explosion of single parent households. Sure you assert it, but your article does not support you.
Gil, the article does place the onus of burden upon “progressives,” and it doesn’t take only the most savvy of observers to realize that social-cultural patterns in this society have been shaped (and corrupted) by decades of liberalism.
The GLBT agenda by itself may not be the ultimate trigger behind an avalanche of single-parent households, but the leftism that saturates it certainly is the primary fuel that has stoked a dumbed-down, anything-goes attitude.
A basic awareness of human nature should easily lead a person to the conclusion that if same-sex households become increasingly common or unremarkable, and if that phenomenon works its way into the consciousness of young people and their grade-school classroom (from grade K to 6, etc), then a further cheapening of the image of a traditional opposite-sex household will ensue.
Call it the Bill-Clinton-White-House-intern Syndrome, where what disturbed or shocked people in the past eventually becomes a case of c’est la vie in the future. So if two guys can be represented as husbands to each other, and two women can be represented as two wives to each other, the specter of a single woman giving birth to and raising a child all by herself loses even more of its original stigma.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:47 pmConsider my offer withdrawn.
Elissa, sorry, but that offer wasn’t very serious or all that well thought out to begin with.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/8/2014 @ 10:52 pm@ Mark:
I am not making a claim. I simply do not believe yours. Regardless of what you think the article does, the person making the claim must provide justification. You claim SSM and liberalism will lead to the downfall of society starting with rampant out of wedlock births. Two “ifs” and a “then” leading to a “cheapening of traditional households” is not evidence. It is speculation.
Lets repeat the question, and see if someone has the courage to answer.
If people are to be trusted to know what is best for them (aka this site’s mantra) why is it that we are dependent on government to define marriage in a specific way to keep us all from destroying civilization as we know it?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/8/2014 @ 11:35 pmMoral to kill babies in the flood: check
Moral to kill innocent firstborn babies in Egypt: check
Moral to own people as slaves: check (Exodus 21:20)
Moral to beat said slave as long as he survives a day or two before dying: check (Exodus 21:21)
Moral to stone someone for working on Saturday: check
Moral to propogate entire species from a drunken father and incestuous daughters: check
Moral to condemn billions of people to hell for eternity who he engineered to be born without the chance to “hear the good news”: Check
Errm. Good luck with that!
Gil (27c98f) — 4/8/2014 @ 11:52 pmGil, you’re hilarious. You get everything arse backward. You know those people who you believe are to be trusted to know what’s best for them? They passed Prop 8. To keep marriage the way they defined it. One Man, one woman.
Then your side freaked and went screaming for big government’s help.
So, why are you SSM types so dependent on government in the form of the courts to define marriage for you? We know why.
Because without big government there would be no SSM in Kali. This is the first time government is defining marriage. Congrats, Gil, you man of the people you!
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 12:47 amHow do remain so obtuse, Gil? I personally couldn’t do it.
Let’s see. You said SSM would beneifit society, because think about all those foster children who could adopt!
Not knowing gays can already adopt without SSM.
Now you’re demanding to know why we conservatives don’t trust the people, but instead we need government “to define marriage in a specific way to keep us all from destroying civilization as we know it.”
Not knowing that we authentic marriage types do trust the people. It’s your side that doesn’t and demand that government to step in.
I would say you’re too funny, but your “deep thinking” on this issue does make me fear for civilization.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 12:54 am*who could be adopted*
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 12:56 am“for instance, the freedom of Mozilla’s board and leadership to condemn Eich’s anti-gay actions.”
being for traditional marriage is hardly anti gay unless you believe that not allowing your children to have unlimited candy is anti-children … just because they want something and you disagree doesn’t make you anti anything …
JeffC (8ad636) — 4/9/2014 @ 3:24 amHand waving is fine.
The question stands.
Try to turn it around all you like Steve. The fact is you are saying that if the government makes this change society will fall apart due to rampant cheapening of marriage and hysterical baby making without regards to consequences. Why is that? Don’t people know its best only to have children in wedlock? Do we need the government to sanction marriage only in this way so we all can operate in our own best interest?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/9/2014 @ 3:51 am@MD
Morality is a frail and nebulous thing if defined by the time limited cultural norms of a group of people.
Morality is about well being. We can be discover truths about what will maximize well being for humans.
You ignore an opportunity to clarify what you mean with a restatement of your opinion. You’ve said nothing.
I don’t want to get hung up on definitions (re normal and natural) lets set that part aside.
You raise what you think is an objection to my argument, then abandon it when challenged and run off in a different direction.
You repeatedly have shown an inability or unwillingness to persist on a topic to give a thoughtful discussion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/9/2014 @ 4:29 amIf someone else has a question about some point you have raised I will try to respond if I have time. I don’t know if you are deluded and think you are making sense or just dishonest in trying to get the result you want, but I hope for your own sake that one day sooner than later you get some insight and understanding on whatever it is that drives you.
I think we should rename beef as a vegetable, so vegetarians will be able to eat cheeseburgers. If not, you are anti-vegetarian bigots.
JD (81017c) — 4/9/2014 @ 5:01 amJeffC said,”being for traditional marriage is hardly anti gay unless you believe that not allowing your children to have unlimited candy is anti-children … just because they want something and you disagree doesn’t make you anti anything …”.
Well said. There are miles between the 2 positions, but trolls like Gil refuse to even acknowledge that differences even exist. Gil and its ilk simply want to co-opt the name, and force acceptance. Jailing comes later.
JD (81017c) — 4/9/2014 @ 5:04 amI won’t convince Gil, I don’t care to, and I won’t bother. This is FWIW.
When a man and a woman do what comes naturally, babies are a natural and pretty much inevitable consequence. A committed husband to care for the new human and the new mother is very important. The babies are not an effect of normal marriage, they are a compelling reason for it.
And not only that they should be fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated. But that they should belong. To a class, a tribe, a country — things that come from ancestry. It’s mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe. A baby born in wedlock mostly makes the “maybe” into “yeah, it’s mine”. Hmm?
Now with gays, when they do what comes naturally, babies are neither an inevitable nor natural occurrence. Adoption is a red herring. So is birth by surrogacy (turkey-baster. Because these are elective things, one might even say self-indulgences. And they are capable of deciding to have a child, whether by adoption or surrogacy, only if they are certain that they are capable of raising it. No necessity compels them. And marriage is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for adoption. Fitness as a parent is. Unmarried people can be fit parents, and married people can be unfit parents. Hmm, again?
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2014 @ 5:34 amIf people are to be trusted to know what is best for them (aka this site’s mantra) why is it that we are dependent on government to define marriage in a specific way to keep us all from destroying civilization as we know it?
Not sure if you’re trying to have it both ways.
So, Gil, if a brother and sister want to initiate a social-sexual relationship out of love and compassion, why should the government say otherwise? At the very least, you admit there are, or should be, limits to what type of relationships are formally-legally recognized by the public sector. Or perhaps you don’t agree with that assertion. If so — and if such relationships, after all, are rooted in love and personal self-determination — then, yes, why shouldn’t humans be allowed to marry anyone or anything?
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:09 amSo, Gil, if a brother and sister want to initiate a social-sexual relationship out of love and compassion, why should the government say otherwise? At the very least, you admit there are, or should be, limits to what type of relationships are formally-legally recognized by the public sector.
We should stop self determination when there is cause. The government should do so in the case of incest because it causes demonstrable harm. There is no demonstrable harm in allowing SSM. The main objection raised in this thread is the “cheapening of marriage” and eventual decline of society due to out of birth wedlock. I respond with the above question because this argument substitutes demonstrable harm for undesired behaviors in justifying the suspension of self determination.
Gil (febf10) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:44 amYou ignore an opportunity to clarify what you mean with a restatement of your opinion. You’ve said nothing.
Im sorry I did not realize we need to spell this out. Life is prefferable to death. Pleasure is prefferable to pain. Satisfaction is prefferable to hunger. These are basic truths. We can take these truths and build on them finding the correct action to take in a given situation. And build morality that way.
For example is it immoral to steal?
Yes
Is it immoral to steal from a closed drugstore when you need medicine to treat someone who just collapsed with a heart attack?
No
Humans can make these evaluations on their own without a book or absolute standard. I take it you disagree. Please explain why? Could we not discover on our own that murder is a bad idea? How is it that humans survived before being given that message on Mt Sinai?
Im not avoiding your argument with regards to natural/normal. I think we are using the words in different ways and dont want to get sidetracked into a semantic word game. Its not useful and we wont make any progress.
Gil (febf10) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:56 amWe should stop self determination when there is cause.
Okay, so you do admit that when the concept of “cause” enters the picture, the government should set limitations. Therefore, to casually proclaim that love, compassion and self-determination take precedence over “cause” really isn’t the best argument to use when articulating support for SSM. So it comes down to defining “cause,” and who’s to say your cause is any better than my cause?
After all, two fully grown, fully adult people who just happen to be brother and sister, who are madly in love with each other, who fully understand the quirks of the other one better than anyone else, may have just as legitimate a reason for wanting to get married to each other as two guys or two women do. Or, for that matter, a guy who wants 2 or 3 wives, or, less commonly, a woman who wants 2 or 3 husbands. Even more so, if, say, the brother is sterile and cannot possibly conceive a child with his sister, thereby rendering moot the issue of the government’s worry about genetic mutation.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:56 am==There is no demonstrable harm in allowing SSM.
Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:44 am==
Because——-shut up. Right?
Gil, you guys are going to have to do a lot better than that–now. You overplayed a risky hand. You should understand that what has so publicly been done to Brendan and others has made this
elissa (b364f8) — 4/9/2014 @ 8:21 amargumentstatement far less credible today and subject to far more scrutiny now than might have been even a year ago. You probably don’t see the effects yet, yet but there are many modest supporters or at least live and let live people out here who were willing to give you a chance. But the radicals (are you one? I don’t know) have set your cause back, way back, not forward.As nk said, FWIW for observers:
Humans can make these evaluations on their own without a book or absolute standard. I take it you disagree. Please explain why? Could we not discover on our own that murder is a bad idea? How is it that humans survived before being given that message on Mt Sinai?
Humans survived before Mt. Sinai the same way as after, in spite of their eagerness to kill each other.
Take a look at a book/film “The End of the Spear” as an illustration.
Please explain why?
that’s funny coming from you.
Im not avoiding your argument with regards to natural/normal. I think we are using the words in different ways and dont want to get sidetracked into a semantic word game.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/9/2014 @ 8:24 amYou are the one who started it, and you used the claim in an attempt to rebut an argument of mine. If you don’t think it matters, then go back to my original argument and try again.
Its not useful and we wont make any progress.
On that we agree.
Winning!
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/08/mozilla-haz-a-big-sad-and-arithmetic-troubles/
Turn on your spellchecker Gil.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 4/9/2014 @ 8:36 amComment by Gil (27c98f) — 4/7/2014 @ 9:16 pm
Comment by Gil (febf10) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:44 am
Talk about moving the goalposts, big guy.
Actually, though, you yourself demonstrated the harm. Marriage was created by the people to because as a whole society (not government) was interested in continuing the human race. They were also interested in making sure that the parents, particularly the father, stuck around to take care of the kids. Which is why it’s an enforceable obligation.
Except for the voluntary human extinction types, I’m sure if I took a vote I’d get a majority to agree that continuing the human race are very important things. Consequently I think marriage should remain primarily centered on those things.
You on the other would redefine marriage based on this:
Leaving aside the fact that when governments began to regulate the marriages that society had already created, they weren’t “promoting” those relationships but enforcing the obligations that people created by getting married, let’s move on to the harm that you yourself identify.
You have redefined marriage so it is no longer something that society has an obvious interest in regulating into something that society has no obvious interest in at all.
This is what I’ve been saying all along.
So marriage goes from something that society in general has not just an obvious but a compelling interest in, and you’d redefine it to the point where society has not only no compelling but no obvious interest in. That’s the harm.
It’s also called trivializing marriage.
Thanks for playing, dude.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 9:45 am*I’d get a majority to agree that continuing the human race and the welfare of children are very important things.*
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 9:46 amSteve57 – A good effort and I applaud Gil for attempting to stick with it in the inconsistent manner he has.
You pointed out the obstacle you face, Gil airily waves away or dismisses arguments he does not like and then claims there is no proof or evidence against his claims.
“I will summarily dismiss what you say so there is nothing possible for you to say which runs counter to what I say.”
I think we have seen that movie a few times. Just because Gil keeps repeating something does not make it true.
Opinions and laws do evolve over time. Sometimes laws are dictated by monarchs or written by parliaments or other elected bodies. What is relevant is that marriage, defined as between one man and one woman, existed long before it was codified into U.S. law. In how many states where voters have been asked to change that definition to include SSM has the change been accepted? Does the public really see the benefits or lack of harm which Gil claims?
While opinion may be changing, I think the record speaks for itself.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:08 amdaley, opinions do change. Which identifies another harm. Here we have the government, the courts, imposing a definition of marriage on people. Opinion be damned.
I’m sure more thoughtful same sex marriage advocates would agree that how something is done is just as important as getting the result you want.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:19 amSteve57 – Exactly, which is why I brought up voters rather than courts or legislators.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:41 amI realize that, daley.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:50 amhttp://www.seraphicpress.com/the-rise-of-homo-fascism/#more-21123
The comments discuss possible alternatives and problems. One person wrote: “Sorry, but the real response to this can’t be to deprive yourself of a free product the use of which (maybe) gives some indirect benefit to these fascists..” but nevertheless changed Firefox “so that it no longer puts the ‘Mozilla’ string into the User-Agent field of the HTTP header (now it says ‘Bozilla’).” (which is legal since it is open source.)
Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c) — 4/9/2014 @ 2:08 pm“Theres just too many of them!”
This will be my last post in the thread. You may rejoice now.
The fact remains you want to deny something to an entire class of people without cause. You’re rallying cry is to assert a perceived “cheapening of marriage” – the effects of which – mass chaos, kids out of wedlock, dads abandoning kids etc. make no sense. As if suddenly people will stop realizing how important it is to get married and exercise personal responsibility when bringing kids into the world. This runs counter to your core belief in less government and trust in people to manage their own life decisions.
@ MD – Some rhetoricals:
Humans survive in spite of their eagerness to kill each other? How many people reading this blog wake up every morning looking for a reason not to kill their neighbors? Humans are incapable of making correct moral decisions? How is it that we have abolished slavery given that The Bible condones owning people as slaves (Exodus 20) and beating them as long as they don’t drop dead within a day? In fact the Bible was used to justify owning slaves in Ephesians and Titus. Be honest with yourself.
@ Mark: Good point. Love itself is not the only argument, it involves discrimination as well. The brother and the sister can get married to anyone they want save 1 case. But for homosexuals there is no situation when they can. I suppose the obvious retort would be that I am bigoted against brothers and sisters. But I think we can both agree that’s just being silly.
Until next time pattericoland!
Gil (27c98f) — 4/9/2014 @ 6:37 pmThe brother and the sister can get married to anyone they want save 1 case. But for homosexuals there is no situation when they can.
Hmm, you’ve got a good point there.
Naw.
Mark (14c5d3) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:05 pmGil, you demonstrate why some people need adult supervision all their lives.
JeffC had you nailed @210.
But then, so id JD @213.
As I said earlier, if the level of thinking (if we can call it that) you’ve displayed on this issue is any indication, then we have a very good reason to worry civilization as we know it will end. In fact, if you represent the majority it already has.
I’ve wasted enough time on you and your online tantrum. You clearly need no help from me to make a spectacle of yourself.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:35 pmSteve57 – There is no cause to deny people these rights because Gil says so and he doesn’t care what the rest of you have to say.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:46 pmI think I’ve spent the past few days arguing with Sen. Boxer.
Who can’t understand why religious objectors who don’t want to provide insurance that covers abortifacients for their women employees have no problem paying for viagra for men?!?!
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/25/boxer-why-doesnt-hobby-lobby-oppose-viagra/
“Chronically misinformed.” And proud of it, apparently. I’ll have to remember that.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 7:56 pmGil sez,”The fact remains you want to deny something to an entire class of people without cause. ”
He cannot even state the positions contrary to his honestly. My initial reaction was spot on.
JD (1d292d) — 4/9/2014 @ 8:25 pmJD – Stop teh H8!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:34 pmMy favorite part was this:
Aside; I never knew I was a rallying cry.
Actually, in Europe it was pretty sudden. And why not? Why should people fail to realize how important it is to get married before having kids when society and the government says marriage is not about having kids.
Because of course if marriage was about having kids, that would provide a rational basis to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 10:54 pmI feel like I’ve spent the last two days trying to convince Sen. Boxer that Viagra is not remotely comparable to an abortifacient.
I knew I was going to fail, but it still fascinating to watch.
Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/9/2014 @ 11:06 pmLong ago in a different millennium and far away in a different climate zone, I took a 200 level moral philosophy course. The professor, by no means a conservative sort, was more-or-less appalled by the lack of thoughtfulness and reasoning among his students. Most of the time people were happy to proclaim slogans and weren’t even aware that they had no reasoning for their views, nor did many care.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/10/2014 @ 5:25 amQualche tempo fa avevo scritto un altro post in cui dispensavo consigli utili a chi ha bisogno di capire se la scarpa Louboutin che ha davanti, anzi, dietro lo .
prezzo louboutin (18cccd) — 4/10/2014 @ 9:33 pmprezzo louboutin http://digitalmarketer.com/test/tacchiconplateau.php?p=prezzo-louboutin