Cake Maker Denies Wedding Cake to Gay Couple
LAKEWOOD, Colo. – Chick-fil-A’s president recently spoke out against same-sex marriage, sparking a huge uproar in the gay community, and now the issue is spilling over to a Colorado bakery, CBS Denver station KCNC-TV reports.
The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local same-sex couple, and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.
Shop owner Jack Phillips probably didn’t think he was going to be wading into a civil rights debate when he told the couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding, but that’s exactly what has happened.
. . . .
Mullin and Craig [the gay couple denied the cake] were stunned. They went online and posted their experience on Facebook. The response has been huge.
Dozens of protesters gathered outside the shop on Saturday and were very angry.
Bigger protests are planned. Meanwhile, of course, gay marriage opponents are buying more cakes at this bakery. And so the politicization of the marketplace continues.
Where you come down on this probably depends on how you view opposition to same sex marriage. If you support it, then denying same sex couples seems like an affront. If you are against it on moral grounds, it probably seems like a business owner following his principles, and getting punished for it.
Me, I support same sex marriage, but I am not self-righteous in my condemnation of those who don’t. My view is that the owner should have the right to sell cakes to whomever he wants, and customers should have the right to buy cakes from whomever they want.
I am ambivalent on boycotts generally. They are an example of free speech, to be sure, and why should anyone have to buy from (or sell to!) people they consider immoral? At the same time, boycotts have a whiff of totalitarianism about them — an effort to actively punish people for their opinions. Often those who carry out a boycott don’t stop there, but also run off to government to try to enlist its help in stamping out speech they don’t like.
In addition, it bothers me that the country increasingly seems to be mixing business and politics, to the point where you seemingly have to be careful about where you buy your groceries, what movies you see, what TV you watch, etc. — all in the name of political purity. It’s not just the consumers’ fault, either. When Chick-fil-A or this wedding cake guy or any number of liberal businesses make a public spectacle of their political leanings, they are inviting customers to be offended.
There was a great story in the Atlantic recently about Chris Christie’s unrequited love for Bruce Springsteen. Like many from New Jersey, Christie is a lifelong Springsteen fan. But Springsteen treats Christie like dirt:
Despite heroic efforts by Christie, Springsteen, who is still a New Jersey resident, will not talk to him. They’ve met twice—once on an airplane in 1999, and then at the 2010 ceremony inducting Danny DeVito into the New Jersey Hall of Fame, where they exchanged only formal pleasantries. (Christie does say that Springsteen was very kind to his children.) At concerts, even concerts in club-size venues—the Stone Pony, in Asbury Park, most recently—Springsteen won’t acknowledge the governor. When Christie leaves a Springsteen concert in a large arena, his state troopers move him to his motorcade through loading docks. He walks within feet of the stage, and of the dressing rooms. He’s never been invited to say hello. On occasion, he’ll make a public plea to Springsteen, as he did earlier this spring, when Christie asked him to play at a new casino in Atlantic City. “He says he’s for the revitalization of the Jersey Shore, so this seems obvious,” Christie told me. I asked him if he’s received a response to his request. “No, we got nothing back from them,” he said unhappily, “not even a ‘Fuck you.’”
So how does Christie handle this? By boycotting Springsteen? He would never do that.
And then comes that moment in every Springsteen concert when he brings everything to a halt in order to provide his diagnosis of exactly what ails the country. It’s a tradition, like playing “Born to Run” with the house lights up. The band quiets, and Springsteen steps to the mic. I’m curious to see how Christie handles the homily. Springsteen has become an angry man over the past 10 years, angry at the sort of people—billionaires, to be precise—who gathered last summer in New York to try to persuade Christie to run for president.
Christie calls over to his brother, Todd—who made his money as a Wall Street trader—and says, “Attention please, it’s a lecture. Lecture time.” Springsteen begins to mumble in what the music critic Jody Rosen calls his “flat Dust Bowl Okie accent,” and I can’t make out a word he’s saying. I ask Christie if he understands him.
“You want to know what he’s saying?,” Christie asks. “He’s telling us that rich people like him are fucking over poor people like us in the audience, except that us in the audience aren’t poor, because we can afford to pay 98 bucks to him to see his show. That’s what he’s saying.”
Wait a second, this is Bruce Springsteen we’re talking about, the guy you adore?
“I compartmentalize,” Christie says.
He compartmentalizes.
I do that all the time. If you don’t want to give up watching movies and listening to music, you’re going to have to put up with the fact that some of the artists you admire turn into jerks when it comes to politics. Most of the time I can live with that — as long as the artist isn’t unbearably obnoxious about it, and sometimes (depending on their talent level) even when they are.
He told me once that he accepts Springsteen’s “limousine liberal” politics the way a spouse accepts an annoying tic in her partner. “There is some of his work that is dour and down,” he says, “but the thing that attracted me to his music is how aspirational it is—aspirational to success, to fun, to being a better person, to figuring out how to make your life better—and you can’t say that about most people’s music. They become successful and then they become self-consumed and then boring and narcissistic.”
In refusing to become bitter about Springsteen’s rejection of him, Christie comes off very well, while Springsteen comes off looking like a self-righteous jerk. In this way, Christie shows himself to be — I can’t help it — the bigger man.
Again: people should be free to buy and sell for whatever reasons they like. Chris Christie would be well within his rights to gripe about Bruce Springsteen’s attitude — to boycott his concerts and encourage others to do the same. But he seems to have a better time being Springsteen’s fan.
Somehow I feel like both the wedding cake maker and his customers could all learn from Christie’s example. They would both be better off if they concentrated more on making and seeking out the best cakes possible, and laid off the politics.
Since that’s not going to happen, everyone will have to make their own buying and selling decisions, and the marketplace will decide. But that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about watching the marketplace become increasingly politicized.
Not this is an interesting point. Countless restaurnats and such nationwide have signs decclaring “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Normally people think of this as the restaurnats right to ejct rowdy or drunken customers.But whatabout raicsl bias? I’m sure we al recall the lunch counter protests of the late 50’s and early 60’s opposing segregation.
Most recerntly a Baptist church refused to marry a straight black couple because parishoners objected. The minister had them married at a neighboring church, but as you can well imagine this left a bad oder in its wake.
Speakign for myself when the Prop 8 overturn is finally insituted and I can marry my lover of 38 yearsI doubt I’d have any difficulty in finding a cakemaker.
Still it’s odd t a see a line drawn for same sex rights in chicken sandwiches and wedding cake.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:02 amI don’t know what the law is in Colorado, and so I don’t know what the baker’s legal situation is. Does the state have a broad anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Even if it does, is refusing to make a *wedding cake* while not otherwise refusing to sell to gay people actually evidence of discrimination?
I have no idea what the law is in Colorado on this, and don’t have the time to find out. So i’ll merely note that there is a potential legal dispute, depending on how the law in Colorado has evolved in the past.
But I take it that most of the outrage felt by both sides over this is a *moral* outrage. Gay rights activists are outraged that a gay person is being treated differently because of who he wants to marry; gay rights opponents are outraged because someone is being pressured into doing something he thinks is immoral.
I’m ambivalent on this. On the one hand, I think it’s bizarre for a baker to care about what his customers do with his baked goods. On the other hand, he certainly has a moral right to not sell something he thinks is going to be misused – it’s the same right the providers of some of the drugs used in lethal execution have to refuse to sell their product to an entity they think is going to use it to execute people.
So, it seems absurd to me that he cares, but if he does, he has the *moral right* to not sell to the person trying to buy.
On the other hand, the activists have a moral right to say, ok, if you’re going to not sell to someone because of this, we don’t want to buy from you. That doesn’t have to be done in outrage, incidentally; it can be done sorrowfully, too. “I really like your cakes, I think they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I can’t support you in this decision, and if you won’t sell to my friends, then I’m not willing to buy from you.”
So … the outrage is overblown. Everyone should calm down. A man made a decision he has the moral right to make; some people who don’t like that decision made decisions of their own which they have the moral right to make.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:04 amSome liberals boycott Target because of political causes that it supports. Some religious conservatives boycott Starbucks because of its gay-friendly values.
Yet their political differences have not prevented Target and Starbucks from forming a close alliance to the benefit of both companies. Hundreds of Target stores feature Starbucks kiosks, where shoppers can enjoy a latte break.
aunursa (7014a8) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:05 amThen, Pat, you understand the whole Chick-Fil-A thing. There are people in the Gay community who have a nose permanently out of joint and are looking to unload their intolerance upon the first person they disagree with.
Gays do themselves no favors by being in the face of others and trying to destroy cultural institutions they don’t agree with.
BTW, I supported free speech by driving 200 miles round trip to buy 3 of Dan Cathy’s sandwiches.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:05 amMy view is that a cake maker who denied cakes to, say, black people, would be a bad businessman who would go out of business — whether a law existed or not.
And if he refused to hire, say, qualified black employees and hired less qualified white employees, his business would fail because he would be using an inferior work force due to his prejudice.
In other words, I think the marketplace would eventually correct unreasoning racial prejudice (or unreasoning prejudice of any other kind).
I recognize that we have chosen to pass laws about such things. But even if we hadn’t, I think the free hand of the market would discourage unreasoning prejudice.
Patterico (8b87cf) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:08 am4- i have a strong suspicion that you have a crease on the back of your neck and large patches of back hair
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:08 amTye, you don’t want to know what suspicions folks have of you.
Simon Jester (903208) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:10 amPatterico, if that’s true, part of the reason it’s true is that non-black people would be upset with his decision to deny cakes to black people, and would stop doing business with him.
Which seems to be analagous to what’s happening here.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:10 amtye, your suspicions have been proven wrong many times. No one here takes you at your word.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:11 amPublic accomodation has non-discrimination rules or so I expect. Perhaps you should look into the other incidents.
1. A B&B in Hawaii denied a gay couple.
MyOpinion (4ff715) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:12 am2. A photographer was fined for refusing to serve a gay couple.
MyOpinion, those are state laws, the first in Hawaii and the second in New Mexico. Not applicable in Colorado.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:14 amMyOpinion, if we’re talking about the law, SPQR is right on this: the B&B, and the photographer, ran into problems with state laws that don’t apply in Colorado.
It would be interesting if someone familiar with Colorado law could chime in and discuss it. 🙂
But, if we’re talking about *morality*, then the law is irrelevant, except insofar as you want to argue that disobedience to the law is per se immoral, or to the extent that you want to talk about how there’s a problem when the law compels you to do something you believe to be immoral, and how we as a society should handle that conflict.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:16 am6, tye, you have proven yourself incapable of telling the truth. Why should I be bothered what you think?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:17 amCongratulations on eating three chicken sandwiches
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:17 am“Most recerntly a Baptist church refused to marry a straight black couple because parishoners objected. The minister had them married at a neighboring church, but as you can well imagine this left a bad oder in its wake.”
David – Do you have a safe link for this story?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:18 am14, again you make an incorrect assumption without any facts to back it up.
I gave 2 to 2 female friends I had along. THBBBBT!
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:19 amDaleyrocks, CNN has covered it here.
This incident isn’t actually on point to the discussion of how religious observers should be exempt from anti-discrimination ordinances, because the church is *not* claiming that their religious views prohibit such unions; it appears to have been a choice made by the priest based on the fact that some parishoners objected.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:22 amHere’s a link to that story, daleyrocsk
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding/
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:24 amThe minister did not have them married at a neighboring church — he performed the ceremony at a neighboring church, and I do not know how this did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Yes, 1871.
nk (875f57) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:34 am17, 18, 19 – Thanks.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:36 amReally good post. The mixing of business and politics is a topic well worth discussing.
Beyond the things you touched on, there was another really interesting question raised by that Christie/Springsteen article: which of the two men is a better champion of the people they claim to fight for, and why? If either of them is an effective champion for the causes of the working class, which traits make him that effective champion? And if either is precluded from being an effective champion, which traits so preclude him?
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:38 amComment by aphrael — 7/31/2012 @ 8:16 am
😉
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:40 amWouldn’t it be nice if the politicians who support boycotts of people who don’t like same sex marriage also refused to accept their tax payments?
And, maybe if these liberal idiot “artists” only charged $5 for a show or $1 for a movie ticket, their opinions might be more meaningful. As long as they make millions each year and live like royalty, their opinions on the rights of the poor don’t count to me.
Jim (748bc6) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:41 amWell that’s an intereesting question, nk.
As laws stand, as I understand them, religions have a considerable amount of leeway re the marriages they perform. No one would expect a Baptist minister be required to marry a couple in say a Jewish ceremony. And even if smae-sex marriage passes nationwide no church would be required to perform it as it goes against its beliefs.
The case of this black couple, however, is quite different. It’s blatant racial discriminination of the sort one would have thought vanished some time back. If this is what the other parishoners wanted one wonders why they joined that church to begin with.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:41 am“In addition, it bothers me that the country increasingly seems to be mixing business and politics, to the point where you seemingly have to be careful about where you buy your groceries, what movies you see, what TV you watch, etc. — all in the name of political purity.”
– Patterico
Compartmentalization really is a good solution to this (and a good word for this), and I credit Christie for doing it and for using it respectively.
It can be taken too far, of course, but sometimes you just want a f*ckin chicken sandwich, hold the bullsh*t.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:41 amMeanwhile on the same-sex marriage front —
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Two-Thirds-of-Democrats-Now-Support-Gay-Marriage.aspx
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:45 amAnd on the chicken sandwich front —
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151064258828648&id=61486638647
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:48 amPathetic. But don’t give up, Christie. You may finally be rewarded for total self abasement. It’s turning out to be the new American way.
rrpjr (cf5a7f) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:49 amOn the real topic, I have no problem with boycotts in any of the three instances (Chick-Fil-A, B&B, cake). You don’t like my friends? Fine. You are not the only game in town. And they can be as vocal as they need to gather more support and to get the message across.
The line, for me, is Benini and Rahm abusing their positions in, basically, an unlawful manner.
nk (875f57) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:50 amDavid #24,
Moreover, as a legal question, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is based on the enabling clause of the 13th Amendment, incidents and badges of slavery. Even if there were a genuine religious issue*, it’s a conflict between two constitutional amendments.
*I would doubt the sincerity of any such because nobody would be that wacky, would they?
nk (875f57) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:57 amIMHO, this is the huge sticking point here.
In the case of the baker (and the B&B and photographer) the business person was being asked to do something they considered immoral. This is not a case of mere tolerance, but an actual violation of conscience.
This isn’t the only area where this conflict is now taking place. The area of abortion is another similar issue. If you consider abortion to be murder, what does it do to you to be forced to perform an abortion, or to dispense drugs that cause an abortion? Morally (at least as far as your conscience goes) that makes you an accessory to murder, or an actual murderer.
How is that ethical in any sense?
A significant aspect of the First Amendment is freedom of thought and conscience. Specifically, the free exercise of religion is explicitly mentioned. Sometimes exercising that religion means saying “No” when asked to do something which your considers immoral.
BTW, Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against homosexuals. They serve everyone (though I suspect there may be an exception for anyone who actively causes trouble, which would be true even of pro-gay organizations) and they also hire some. All they do is that the owners use their earnings to support camps and other organizations to help people make their marriages (one man/one woman) stronger. That is not imposing their beliefs on others, but gay activists seem to think that it’s okay to try to force their beliefs on the owners of Chick-fil-A.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:58 amThe refusal may stem from something more than just a same sex wedding issues. It very well could be that the outward behavior of the couple, possibly the type with the extra flaunting which becomes repulsive. I personally repulsed by gay behavior – because I am straight, but I can tolerate it, partly because I am of the opinion gay inclinations are genetic as opposed to a defiant choice.
I deal with quite a few gay couples in my business and get along quite well with them. However, there are gay couples that their behavior becomes quite repulsive and I would prefer not to do business with them.
The point of my comment is that it is likely to more than just a same sex marriage issue.
Joe (a00dc1) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:58 amChristie knows a lot more about music than Springsteen knows about politics.
Haile Tsada (deb7f6) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:59 amI love the jersey pumpkin. I love how he has both the thick skin and intelligence to be able to brush off ugly acts, slights, and words which, because some don’t like his politics, are directed to him in a very personal way. I wonder how many times multi-millionaire Jon Corzine, the former Democratic N.J Governor and master thief of MF Global Holdings got a shout out from The Boss and a friendly backstage greeting.
elissa (1a6129) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:59 am“those are state laws, the first in Hawaii and the second in New Mexico. Not applicable in Colorado”
That’s not the way Patterico defined the problem. He said “why should anyone have to buy from (or sell to!) people they consider immoral?”
This is yet to be played out in Colorado. There will be political pressure on the Colorado Cake Maker.
MyOpinion (4ff715) — 7/31/2012 @ 8:59 amQuickly about the black couple married elsewhere-
Few people will defend this, and I believe it is in the news because of how atypical it is. Some will say this shows how racist the country is, while others can point out this is one wedding in one church in a country of 300 million people.
My guess is that this will not happen again with this church either, if the church even survives as a congregation; or if it does happen again, it will be with a remnant of the current congregation. I think we all know any group of people, especially a voluntary association, have those who want to assert themselves, those who resent it, and those trying to bring some resolution/keeping the peace. One one hand the main qualification to go to church is to know one is a sinner and in need of God’s mercy and grace, but it is also true that once there that same mercy and grace is to move the believers into more Christ-likeness.
it bothers me that the country increasingly seems to be mixing business and politics, to the point where you seemingly have to be careful about where you buy your groceries, what movies you see, what TV you watch, etc. — all in the name of political purity. It’s not just the consumers’ fault, either. When Chick-fil-A or this wedding cake guy or any number of liberal businesses make a public spectacle of their political leanings, they are inviting customers to be offended.
I don’t think the primary issue is with either the customers or the owners of the businesses. People are increasingly pushing to have law either condone or reject what once were personal decisions. If you wanted to smoke in a restaurant, there was a place you could sit, if you didn’t want to be bothered by smoke there was a place you could sit. If the restaurant could not accommodate both groups of people they lost some business and gained some other.
If there was not a concerted effort by many to essentially change the definition of marriage, this same bakery may have felt it odd/out of the norm to make the cake for a SS wedding celebration, but may have been more willing to do it. In some ways whether one “cooperates” in a SSM by selling goods or services is essentially a referendum vote on how one thinks and feels about the issue, with the “society as a whole” as portrayed by the media and press saying those not OK with an openly “in your face” lifestyle are bigoted neanderthals. Yesterday I saw an ad for a new TV show that looks like another network’s version of Modern Family.
When the majority of people feel forced into accepting something I think normally there will be resistance, whether it is something as morally neutral as preferring “New” vs. “Classic” Coke, or as charged as changing the definition of thousands of years of societal norm. I suggest that if one wishes to see less of such conflict, keep the legislative process to things like making assault illegal, no matter who or why or what reason and enforcing the laws equally.
Otherwise the public sphere will be little more than pi**ing matches.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:02 amBut does the law cover “matters of conscience” — and if so, how?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:05 amI consider this the same as militant Vegans blocking access to a McDonalds. They have a right to protest, but not interfere with other people’s rights. On a jury I would not vote to convict a person being blocked from a totally legal activity (Eating at McDonald’s) by extremist, nutcase protesters who exercised his right fist and/or left fist to gain entry to the McDonalds.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:07 am> All they do is that the owners use their earnings to support camps and other organizations to help people make their marriages (one man/one woman) stronger. That is not imposing their beliefs on others, but gay activists seem to think that it’s okay to try to force their beliefs on the owners of Chick-fil-A.
I think that depends on the activist. Most of the gay people I know who have expressed an opinion on this are of the opinion that they don’t want to buy from Chick-fil-A because their purchase ends up putting money in the hands of someone who will spend it in a way that they believe will hurt them. I don’t think that’s forcing their beliefs on anyone; it’s just being a wise consumer.
People who would use the power of the state to deny business licenses because of this, on the other hand, are way out of the bounds of the proper use of state power, and should get slapped down by the courts for it.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:10 amWhat’s the difference between militant gays–or preaching Springsteens–and the Puritan Blue Stockings who wanted to force their morality on the rest of the country. We finally got rid of the Blue Laws. But who will rid us of these turbulent liberal militants?
Comanche Voter (29e1a6) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:14 amAaron just got a big notice over at Hot Air on the thread that discusses Cardinal George’s letter to Rahm over Chick-Fil-a and Chicago values. Good on you, Aaron.
elissa (1a6129) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:17 amAbout the black couple that were denied their ceremony in the one church. I have a few questions. First, were they actually members of that church? Because churches are not required to marry couples who do not belong to their church or who refuse church counseling prior to the marriage. You cannot simply decide to use their facilities for you own purpose if you are NOT a member of the church. Actual member certainly have the right to refuse to facilitate a marriage that using the church facilties that they have provided and maintained through their gifts to the church and its mission. Second, often the date for wedding is booked a year in advance. No reasonable person thinks that someone should be able to come in and ruin another’s scheduled event by taking the place they have reserved in advance. Third, I am very suspicious when I hear this type of story that on its surface seems so blatantly racist. Where is the story on the part of the church? Were any representatives of the church even contacted for a comment? Was the church ‘set up’ for a lawsuit by this couple? In conclusion, this is a very one sided story that appears to have an agenda: once again white Christians are racist, homophobic, gun clinging, knuckle dragging, anti-Obama bigots. Horse feathers! A story written to fit the template rather it is true or not it certainly fits the liberal media bias to a T.
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:19 amYou mean gay militants want to force you to marry a man against your will, “Comanche Voter”?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:21 am38 the prosecutor would take one look at your neck crease and dismiss you from the jury without a single question.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:22 amI burned all my Dixie Twit CD’s.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:22 amI wish that artists and celebrities would stay with what they do best/or not best and leave the politics to the politicians.. Using their “power” for making speeches and lectures to the masses while at a concert or some other event..I’m not paying to hear their opinions.. I’m paying to see them sing !
Alissa Dirks (a95d6f) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:24 amNo, the ones who want to force people to “celebrate their wedding” despite moral objections. Try to keep up.
Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:26 amI try to avoid going to or renting Sean Penn, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins movies, but sometimes the chirren get the upper hand. The idiocy is just too much for me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:27 amIf I were the owner of a bakery or specifically a bakery that specializes in baking wedding cakes, I wouldn’t turn away a same-sex couple.
Their money is just as good as anyone else’s !
Besides, if you bake them a wedding cake, you’re not necessarily endorsing civil marriage laws for same-sex couples.
It’s just a cake.
If the owner of the bakery were running a restaurant, and a same-sex couple came in for dinner to celebrate their anniversary, would the owner, upon realizing the couple was indeed ‘a couple,’ decide to evict them from the restaurant ?
Of course not.
Now, it’s totally acceptable for a religious cleric to deny a wedding ceremony to a same-sex couple, as that involves religious values.
But, c’mon, bake ’em a cake !
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:27 amAs far as the Chick Fil A deal goes, I find it frightening when government tries to punish the speech of private citizens. So my family and I are giving a lot of business to them. Besides, they are a great community partner. They have made huge commitments to help fundraising in our schools and they employ lots of our young people. Theses young people have truly learned great skills in customer service and politeness pleases the value of quick service. These skills will translate into higher earnings for these kids in their adult life.
The chick Fil A government harassment reminds me of the Romney support outed by the Obama team as a ” man of questionable character” Lo and behold a couple weeks later he is being audited by the IRS for two separate years tax findings and another agency is auditing labor records for three of his foreign farm workers. Coincidence? I think not. Ask Joe the Plumber!
My point is that when government at any level targets private speech, private donations or private records it sends a chill wind blowing against our freedom of speech guaranteed in the first amendment.
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:28 amAs far as I know the government hasn’t been harrasing Chick-fil-a in any way. Just few politicians have been dissing it. No legal action has been taken against Chick-fil-a.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:35 amA very reasonable attitude, Elephant Stone.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:36 amTexasMom- I’ve wondered many of the same things you are and have some of the same suspicions that the church case feels very manufactured and politically convenient. But I have not had the time to do any research on this situation to get any other views on it, so I chose not to make any comment. Since you’ve put it out there I’ll add this: The coincidences of Obama recently sitting down in a diner with three veterans who did not not live in the same town, or know each other beforehand yet just happened to be eating pie at the same table when the president walked in the door for a photo op, coupled with the meme plants at Obama campaign events that frequently are outed as OFA or DNC staff, suggests the church’s story deserves at least a bit of scrutiny.
elissa (1a6129) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:40 amGreetings:
I just can’t understand how people can object to sexual dysfunctionals redefining society’s primary sexual relationship.
11B40 (f4fe7d) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:41 amAs far as I know the government hasn’t been harrasing Chick-fil-a in any way. Just few politicians have been dissing it. No legal action has been taken against Chick-fil-a.
That’s a nice business you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. If you don’t think that what the Chicago alderdouche did was a gross violation, then there is no curing your stupid.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:42 amComment by TexasMom2012 — 7/31/2012 @ 9:19 am
When I heard a blurb about the story I wondered if we weren’t getting all of the info either. The link is helpful, but then again the CNN story may have left out things that would have put a different perspective on it. They do quote the pastor involved, but then again we don’t know what he may have said that they didn’t quote.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:43 amFreedom has a price.
mg (44de53) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:46 amHere’s another link about the black couple. It sounds like a few “prominent” members made a big fuss and the pastor tried to find a way with the least conflict. There is nothing said about whether the couple were or were not members or any other consideration other than their being black. Then again, sometimes what is not said is important.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/07/town-rallies-for-black-couple-denied-wedding-in-white-church/1#.UBgLxKD_Jj4
Do I believe there is a least one small congregation with some members who are racist that have been part of the church for 50 years that pressure the pastor? yea, I can believe that. Maybe that is not what happened, but even if it was, we are talking about a few people out of 300 million and a surrounding community that said the rest of us don’t think that way.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:54 amWas Rham packing heat JD? Was he “doing s Pesci” on Dan Cathy?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:56 amThis whole mess exists because somewhere along the line we took what was traditionally a contract between man and his god, called marriage, and turned it into a contract between man and his government. Marriage should be administered by religious powers. As an example, think of baptism. The state has no say in baptism, as it is clearly defined as a religious ritual. I am baptized, though I’m sure practitioners of many religions don’t recognize my baptism the way I do…and I dont care. It has nothing to do with me and any other man or woman. It’s between me and my God. There are religions and demoninations that would marry same sex couples, and some that won’t.
Civil unions are the appropriate tool for handling the legal aspects of forming a partnership or family, for gay or straight couples. And gay couples should have every civil and legal right offered a straight couple when they make the choice to take the step to form a partnership and family in a legal union. Just my opinion.
Regarding the wedding cake…you say every owner should have the right to sell to whomever they want and every customer buy from whoever they want. This clearly can’t work, as in this case the owner didn’t want to sell while the customer did want to buy, so something has to give. This is why we do have laws protecting against discrimination in the market. As a society, we need to decide if sexuality needs to be protected in the marketplace in the same way we protect gender, race, handicap, etc. I’d personally side with the customer in this case.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:04 amErrorstein wants to ignore the words of the alderman, and the demands he stated Cathy would have to agree to.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:05 amMarriage is a contract issued by the state, “Mostly Right.” Always has been.
Does siad alderman have any power, JD? When’s the trial?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:13 am44, Pat, don’t you have a minimum age and IQ to be able to comment here? Tye has a lower IQ than Forrest Gump.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:21 am“There is nothing said about whether the couple were or were not members or any other consideration other than their being black.”
MD in Philly – One of the stories I read acknowledged that neither party was a member of the church, but that they attended services occasionally. They were apparently planning on joining the congregation after they got married.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:36 amIt would be nice if homosexuals would respect the right of religious freedom by individuals. A wedding cake can be made by many different bakers, why force one whose faith is opposed to same sex marriage to provide one? We have a club owner out in CA denying entry to someone whom they know do not support same sex marriage – why is that different?
Krystal (8e2b67) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:38 am> A wedding cake can be made by many different bakers, why force one whose faith is opposed to same sex marriage to provide one?
Sure. And if a particular provider isn’t going to sell a wedding cake to gay couples, I don’t have to patronize him. How is that force?
> We have a club owner out in CA denying entry to someone whom they know do not support same sex marriage – why is that different?
It’s not the club owner should not deny service to people based on that.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:40 amHow about frog and pig filet-a?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kevin-swanson-nostalgic-time-homosexuals-death-penalty
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:44 amThat isn’t force. What is force is going to the government and having the government make every baker—including the original one—make that kind of sale.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:49 amDoes said Alderman have the power. Yes.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:49 am“Sure. And if a particular provider isn’t going to sell a wedding cake to gay couples, I don’t have to patronize him. How is that force?”
aphrael – I think that depends on what happens next. As your comments indicated yesterday, if the bakery is a public business and the decision by the baker to turn away gay wedding customers in some way violates some anti discrimination statute, even if the baker is turning away the business for religious reasons protected by the First Amendment.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:53 amOr, if you consider different tactics…
Suing the baker for not making the sale is beyond simply not buying from them, it’s actively damaging them. Even if the baker wins, they’re still harmed by the costs of litigation. That’s force.
This is becoming routine, even in cases where the provider goes out of their way to offer referrals to a competitor who is just as good and willing to do the job. So far I’ve heard of this happening to multiple photographers, this bakery, psychologists, and pharmacists.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:54 am“Does said Alderman have the power. Yes.”
JD – Aldermen are Gods, more powerful than Obama, at least in their own back yards.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:55 amAnd that’s where I think the battle line is truly drawn. For all our hoopla over how vital and protected the First Amendment is in our country, the “free exercise thereof” clause is all but ignored. Yet it is still part of the “supreme law of the land”. If you are using government power to force someone to violate their religion, then that is a violation of the First Amendment, no matter what common laws try to say.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:58 amHere’s that Chicago story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chicago-alderman-says-hell-block-chick-fil-a-expansion-in-northwest-part-of-the-city/2012/07/25/gJQAnPIt9W_story.html
The alderman saus “Chick-fila” “Has nothing on the books” re discrimination. As I recall its made statemnts saying it does not discriminate when it comes to customers. Chick-fil-a does, however had considerable interest into whether its franchise owners are “good Chistians.” Not sure how that works out legally.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:58 am“Chick-fil-a does, however had considerable interest into whether its franchise owners are “good Chistians.” Not sure how that works out legally.”
David – It’s still a private business, right? Is there some kind of a right to be granted a franchise?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:03 amHugh Hewitt never went to Chick-fil-A before the controversy. He says he’s now gone there and likes the food.
Mike Huckabee has declared August 1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”
Gerald A (138c50) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:03 amPatterico:
Always
Oftenthose liberals who carry out a boycott don’t stop there, but also run off to government to try to enlist its help in stamping out speech they don’t like.— FTFY
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:08 amI don’t understand the hoopla over Chick-fil-A.
The chain does not engage in discrimination in the workplace, nor does it engage in discrimination toward potential customers.
All that happened is that the owner—a private citizen—made a statement regarding traditional marriage.
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all had the opportunity to “take a stand” against traditional marriage as President. Yet none of them did. Obama pretends to, but he’s only willing to make a statement—he’s not willing to go any farther than that.
But now, the owner of a fast food chain is allegedly the new incarnation of Satan simply because he holds the same public policy view as several of the 20th century’s most beloved Democrat Presidents ?
This is insanity.
If Chick-fil-A had made a public announcement that they intend to discriminate in hiring or in dealing with potential customers, that would be totally wrong.
But that’s not even the issue.
The issue is a private citizen holding a public policy position that is well within the mainstream, and he is neither imposing his point of view upon employees nor customers.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:16 amDaley – I like how he ignores Moreno’s demands that Cathy not only not exercise his 1st Amendment rights, but also affirmatively support and work with the LGBT community.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:18 amHe didn’t just make a statemnt of his personal beliefs. Chick-fil-a put its money where Cathy’s mouth was in supporting anti-gay orgs. This is the root of objectiosn to Chick-fil-a.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:31 amDavid is letting his inner fascist out again.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:33 amTo defend myself and others like me is to be a fascist?
What’s the air like on your planet?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:37 amaphrael: a choice made by the priest
Baptists don’t have priests, they have ministers. A priest is a Christian cleric with spiritual powers derived from Christ through the “apostolic succession”; i.e. Catholic (Roman and Eastern), Lutheran, or Anglican/Episcopalian. All others, ministers, who are just learned persons.
MostlyRight: what was traditionally a contract between man and his god, called marriage…
There were no Christian church marriages until well into the Middle Ages, and the sacrament of marriage wasn’t established till much later.
Marriage in ancient non-Christian societies was not a religious ceremony, nor is it in non-Christian societies today.
Many Protestants deny any sacramental quality to marriage. John Calvin himself stated that marriage was ordained of God, as a worldly good for mankind, but so were shoemaking and hair-cutting.
Rich Rostrom (5f4863) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:38 amFunny thing about that, he also issued fatwas against Coalition forces
http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220727poultry_excuse_mayor_radical_imam_ok_but_not_chick-fil-a
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:38 amThe alderman saus “Chick-fila” “Has nothing on the books” re discrimination. As I recall its made statemnts saying it does not discriminate when it comes to customers. Chick-fil-a does, however had considerable interest into whether its franchise owners are “good Chistians.” Not sure how that works out legally.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/31/2012 @ 10:58 am
— It’s called freedom of association.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:39 amSo you’re in favor of racial segregation Icy?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:41 am“it bothers me that the country increasingly seems to be mixing business and politics”
This is a natural consequence of government’s expanding role in our everyday lives. We can’t stop talking about it, because its omni-present and growing in importance in our ability to live and work and consume as we wish.
Bret (73ed2c) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:42 amSame-sex marriage isn’t even legal in Colorado, so it’s not like they were gonna use it to celebrate a real wedding ceremony.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:48 amSexual orientation is NOT a protected class, Mr. Ehrenstein.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:49 amDavid condones Govt officials using the power of government to force private individuals to refrain from protected speech, and mandate that they engage is speech and actions they do not agree with, in order to do business in an area. That you see nothing wrong with what the Alderdouche did is no surprise, but is quite telling. What is next?
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:52 amI’m well aware of that Icy. I’ve been a gay activist since 1969. And if you’re interested in finding out what I was up to in that regard see the documentary Vito, which is premiering this month on HBO.
That’s me in the first shot of this trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxjMj0byLXo
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:54 amNext, JD, is my forcing myself upon you in a dark alley.
That’s what you really want — right?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:00 pmYou are sick.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:01 pmIcy, at 88, whether sexual orientation is a protected class under state constitutional law depends on the state. It is in California.
Whether it’s a protected class at the federal level is a question that can best be described as ‘in dispute’. it’s never been held to be, but both lawrence and romer somewhat imply that it is.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:07 pmI take issue with David condoning the fascist actions of the Chicago Alderman and David equates my opposition to their actions to wanting to be raped in an alley by David. What a sick twisted dark person he is.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:07 pmIcy, at 87: their wedding is *real* and their wedding ceremony is *real* whether the state chooses to recognize their marriage or not. What makes a marriage is the consent of the partners, and the support of their friends and family; and, if they are religious, the participation of their church.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:08 pmSorry but I’m in excellent health.
Here’s a commentary on Chick-fil-a-gate that may interest more thoughtful Parttoricans
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/07/waldmanchick.html
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:08 pmQuadGMoto, DaleyRocks – so the question then is, does Colorado have an anti-discrimination statute which covers this? I haven’t the faintest idea. 🙂
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:09 pmI agree with you in spirt, aphrael. But unless there’s a license issued by the state it’s not a marriage. It’s a “Commitment Ceremony” with no legal standing.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:10 pmAphrael, no no no.
Marriage is a contract with the state. Three entities enter into a binding contract.
A marriage unrecognized in law is not a marriage. It can be a covenant, a promise, and it can last a lifetime, but it is not marriage.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:11 pmThe less said about “Ehrenstein” and ‘dark alleys,’ the better.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:11 pmIcy hear’s somehting ticking in those dark alleys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8MqjoFvy4&feature=rec-HM-r2
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:19 pm48- and I’m sure that their box office numbers have taken a serious hit because of it. Devastated they are, to be sure.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:22 pmso the question then is, does Colorado have an anti-discrimination statute which covers this?
— aphrael, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that retail businesses in CO actually do have the right to refuse service.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:23 pmThis is my biggest beef with same-sex marriage – a perfect union of two souls is not and never has been the point or purpose of marriage. The point and purpose of marriage is to manage (to the good of society and ordered liberty) the reproductive capacities of men and women and what happens naturally when they are not constrained.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:24 pm94- best that you don’t use the f word if you’ve clearly demonstrated that you haven’t a clue what it means. Ask a liberal; they are both smarter and more educated.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:25 pmStill waiting for tye to admit he was wrong
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:26 pmTye approves of the fascist actions in Chicago as well. SHOCKA
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:27 pm104- aww a romantic at heart.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:28 pmHe wasn’t wrong, Chuck. He told a lie. Were he just wrong, he would have corrected and moved on,
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:28 pmSarah, at 104: this is why the debate on the issue is so bitter, and why many straight SSM supporters think it’s obvious that gay marriage should be state recognized while many opponents think it’s obvious it shouldn’t be: whether marriage is about managing reproduction, or whether it’s about the perfect union of two souls, is the crux of the debate, and many of the straight supporters of SSM *already* live in a world where marriage, for them and their social circle, is about seeking a perfect union, not about reproduction per se.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:34 pmHey biff point to the point in my post that I a) admit the actions were fascist and b) claim support for such fascist actions. Two apologies please, pronto. Or you can continue to act the lying, immoral coward that is your status quo here. Which is it?
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:35 pmI don’t need you to admit the actions, were fascist, tye. You never would. You don’t admit when you tell lies, like the one Chuck called you out on. Hold your breath waiting for an apology, for an observation easily made from the tone and tenor of your deceitful nasty remarks.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:40 pmHow can people just assert what the sole purpose of marriage is without supporting the assertion? I say this as a Christian: does it say in Scripture that the sole purpose of marriage is to manage reproduction? Why did God make Eve? I read: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Reproduction didn’t even enter into the picture until after the Fall.
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:42 pmThe one about Romney not paying taxes in 2009? Prove it.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:43 pmGoalposts moved. Again.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:44 pmActually, for most of human history and in most societies, SarahW’s view of marriage is closer to the truth. The concepts of marrying someone you love and choosing your own spouse are relatively new. In most societies, marriages were arranged by the parents.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:49 pm“QuadGMoto, DaleyRocks – so the question then is, does Colorado have an anti-discrimination statute which covers this? I haven’t the faintest idea. :)”
aphrael – I don’t have any clue either but it parallels the issue you raised yesterday in another thread. Or is there a federal statute that covers the issue?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:50 pmDavid,
Marriage existed before the state. It’s a ceremony to declare that only children of the wife can inherit the husband’s property, and a pledge of faithfulness before a higher power. I can understand the desire for you to have legal privileges associated with marriage in your relationship with your partner. However, I don’t think there is any reason to call that marriage. Call it a civil union or domestic partnership and you have a much better chance of being accepted.
There is no reason for gay people to be married that cannot be resolved by civil unions or domestic partnerships. In fact, I believe domestic partnerships would be a good choice for casual straight marriages or various Hollywood micromarriages.
OmegaPaladin (f2d931) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:50 pmI didn’t specify. So now I am. 2009-tax data. Fetch. Or are we going to get back to the subject of the thread which is the conservative hate-fest of homosexuals?
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:57 pmWe have no actual proof that tye did not download child pornography in 2009
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:58 pm“He didn’t just make a statemnt of his personal beliefs. Chick-fil-a put its money where Cathy’s mouth was in supporting anti-gay orgs.”
David – Is it Cathy or the Corporation exercising it’s First Amendment rights? Neither is illegal.
It’s just you don’t want people expressing speech you object things, right? We need more enforced tolerance in this country to satisfy liberals rather than a diversity of opinions. Funny how that works.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:58 pmYou made the claim, you back it up. Show us the IRS investigation into Mitt Romney for non-payment of taxes.
Can’t find it? That means he paid them.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:59 pm“I didn’t specify.”
tye – Of course not. You are just parroting the Obama campaign ad of the day because you don’t have original thoughts of your own.
Sucks to be you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:01 pmActually I’m a Romney voter.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:05 pmI fine it very comely in a politician to have rode into wealth on daddy’s coat tails neglecting to focus on the sticky stuff like integrity that daddy at least attempted to teach junior. See: dubya.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:07 pmI didn’t specify. So now I am. 2009-tax data. Fetch. Or are we going to get back to the subject of the thread which is the conservative hate-fest of homosexuals?
Comment by tye — 7/31/2012 @ 12:57 pm
— The first step on the road to a cure IS to admit that you’re a thread-jacker.
Icy (fb0afd) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:13 pmI predicted back at 6:41 am PDT that tye would move the goalposts. And, sure enough, he did.
Now he’s lying about who he supports.
Come on, tye, show us a link to back up your claim that Romney paid no taxes.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:17 pmYour assertion. Your burden of proof. So far, you have managed to prove yourself a deceitful liar. What do you know that the IRS does not?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:18 pmTo me, homosexuality shares more in common with alcoholism than it does with racial equality. Race is an inherent characteristic that cannot be denied. Homosexuality may be an inherent desire, but one can certainly choose to not act on that desire. Like alcoholism, homosexuality may have both a genetic and environmental component. Like alcoholics, homosexuals should be treated with compassion and respect. But I cannot honor the act of an alcoholic getting drunk, nor honor homosexual acts – even if the definition of marriage is legally altered.
MKS (62961f) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:19 pm129 whatever happened to my apology when you called me a liar about the Palin deal to which I provided a video. You called me a liar and I proved you wrong. It’s sad that you demand proof that Romney didn’t pay taxes when in fact you should be demanding this information from him yourself. You claim Obama isn’t transparent enough but you don’t demand anything close to that transparency from your own candidate.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:22 pmOmegaPaladin this needs to be emphasized over and over again. We have an entire body of historical and legal evidence about what the understanding of marriage has been since marriage moved from the province of ecclesiastical law in Britain in, I believe the early 1600s, to English civil law to date.
And of course, even earlier than that. You can go back to Augustine marriage law, and of course the Roman laws shaped the western legal understanding of the institution. And even earlier than that, back to the Greeks, since the southern Italian Greek colonies had a great deal of influence on the Latin peoples who later became the Romans.
Marriage has always been about producing heirs. This is why most marriages historically have been arranged. Who inherited the property the family had built up over generations was too important to leave up to the vagaries of a couple of teenagers’ passions.
This was so important to the Greeks, for instance, that traditionally they’d marry cousins. That kept the property in the family.
Marriage was never even about fidelity. Not for the Greeks, certainly not for the Romans. But in general adultery laws only applied to women. A man could have all the affairs or sexual liaisons outside of marriage he wished, as these illegitimate children could not inherit (although the contractual obligations of concubinage would provide for any issue). A man could only be guilty of adultery if he slept with a married Roman woman.
It was only in the Christian era that marital fidelity became a requirement for both men and women. And Christians only became interested in the institution of marriage when it became clear that the Second Coming may not occur as early as they had assumed, and that Christians too would have to reproduce if there were going to be future Christians.
But again children remained central to the purpose of marriage. Fidelity had become a requirement of Christian marriage, but one mustn’t confuse a condition placed upon maintaining the marital state with the purpose of the marital state. “Commitment” was still not the purpose. And love still hadn’t entered into it. It later became a nice-to-have extra if it came later, but it was neither a condition (either for entry or maintenance) nor the purpose.
We developed a body of law to resolve issues regarding marriage as they came up. These legal traditions were passed down to us eventually through the English legal tradition. And then in America we developed further laws.
Yet never, not once, has anyone ever asserted that procreation wasn’t the ultimate aim of marriage.
This is why Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 decision is such a travesty. In order to assert the preposterous claim that the definition of marriage has always included same sex marriage, he had to pretend that the institution of marriage has no history going back beyond the last two or three decades. Because that’s the definition of marriage he adopted. And that allowed him to claim that only religious bigots could reject the argument.
That’s irrelevant, aphrael. As a matter of fact, that’s changing the topic to avoid the relevant facts. Which is what Walker did in his dishonest ruling.
Marriage has a history. The history of marriage is shaped by not just our religious traditions but our social and legal traditions as well (which is why Leviticus’ reference to the book of Genesis is also completely off point).
You seem to be saying that those who are and choose to remain ignorant of that history should get to redefine marriage as they wish. Is that your position, aphrael?
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:27 pmtye, when PCD claimed that Obama had set up offshore accounts for his daughter, you demanded proof. When he claimed that the Kennedy family trust is offshore, you demanded proof.
I am going to hold you to the same standard you hold others: you have claimed that Romney didn’t pay taxes, and I demand that you prove it.
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:30 pmCathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and Chick-fil-a’s monetary support of anti-gay organization sre perfectly legal. That’s not the point.
I’ve been a raging “alcoholic” the better part of my 65 year MKS. And I’ve loved every nanosecond of it.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:31 pmReally enjoyed that post, Patterico. Definitely was not the direction I expected based on the way it started.
Enigmaticore (a023c1) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:32 pmI’d rather have a president that “rode to wealth” on daddy’s coattails, than one that “rode to power” on a terrorists coattails.
SPQR (b3ebd7) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:32 pmI, unlike you, noted my surprise that I was wrong. I don’t believe your claim, but am willing to claim I am mistaken. You did not prove anything.
The IRS was fine with his taxes. What do you know that they do not ?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:40 pmErrorstein approves of govt punishing people for exercising protected speech, and govt demanding fealty to a particular viewpoint in order to be granted the privileges from our govt masters.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:44 pm133 I’m so glad you mentioned that. Now demand proof from pcd.
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:44 pm137 yeah but no apology?
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:45 pm“Chick-fil-a’s monetary support of anti-gay organization sre perfectly legal. That’s not the point.”
David – I still have not seen evidence from you that the corporation supported anti-gay organizations.
I understand the point from your perspective is that they are engaging in speech you do not like and must be punished severely.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:45 pmNo apology. I made a mistake. I don’t believe your claim for even a fraction of a moment, but I cannot provide evidence of your position on either side of that particular issue. State your position, for the record?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:49 pmTha “ceremony” Omega Palladin came about because of property owners who wanted tocreate inheritance rights. IOW marrage was an arrangement between men to commingle land and holdings. A “daughter given in marriage” was an extra.
All this talk about “changeing the meaning of marriage” is quite sillyt. The “meaning” of marriage has changed over the years in all sorts of ways. JUst look at divorce laws. It’s only in very modern times that the wife was regarded as having any rights at all. She was her father’s property. We don’t see it that way anymore.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:51 pmDavid – feel any remorse for your rape fantasies?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:52 pmdaleyrocks, Chick-fil-a’s monstery support of anti-gay orgs is a matter of public record. So is the support of anti-gay orgs by Waffle House, Domin’s Pizza and White Castle.
It is not about their being “punished severely.” Neother I nor anyone else has the power to do that — much less the inclination. Actions have consequences. When it’s known that a business gives over a healthy portion of its profits to anti-gay orgs I have a perfect reason not to be a customer — as well as a perfect right.
Here’s an op-ed declaring that the days of anti-gay businesses are numbered.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 1:56 pmBeing against changing the definition of marriage is not the same as being anti-gay.
What was alderman Moreno doing, if not punishing them for their beliefs?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:00 pmI have a perfect reason not to be a customer — as well as a perfect right.
Savage that strawman. Nobody suggests otherwise.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:03 pmI don’t who says that the sole purpose of marriage is children. If you’re using that as a scriptural allowance for same sex marriage that’s absurd. Both the OT and NT make clear homosexuality is a sin. How could God possibly approve of same sex marriage?
Gerald A (138c50) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:06 pmSaying that Marriage Equality is “changing the definition of marriage” is rather suggestive of soemone who is anti-gay altogether.
Alderman Moreno was doing what many alderman do in one way or another — playing to portion of his constituency.
No strawman at all. I have been accused of being a fascist for declining to eat at Chick-fil-a because of its support of anti-gay orgs.
Still I must say the disagreements i’ve had in here Pattericoland is tons more copasetic than “Protect Marriage” and its tweets.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:10 pmHe certainly approved of David and Jonathan.
As for “His” attitude toward Marriage “God” is rather complex.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:13 pmSaying that Marriage Equality is “changing the definition of marriage” is rather suggestive of soemone who is anti-gay altogether.
Nope.
Alderman Moreno was doing what many alderman do in one way or another — playing to portion of his constituency.
He is punishing a private individual for their protected speech. That you approve surprises nobody.
You were not called a fascist for refusing to eat there. That is a lie. You approve of a govt official demanding someone relinquish their 1st Amendment rights, and mandate support of his approved political positions in order to do busiiness there. You and Moreno squeal tolerance while being intolerant and authoritarian.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:15 pmYou should seek help about your rape fantasies, David.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:16 pmFor some reason, JD, you think I want to marry Moreno. If that isn’t a rape fantasy I don’t know what is.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:19 pmDavid is off his meds again.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:21 pmShould the anus be used as a sex organ? Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on “Can you explain…” Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.
Robert Hagedorn (22931a) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:25 pmYou’ve already asked him for proof. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a conversation between you and PCD, and does not include me.
You and I, however, are having a different conversation. I have provided evidence that you were wrong, and you backpedalled and minced your words. I have asked you to provide evidence to back up your claim, and you have refused.
So, tye, put up or shut up: where is your evidence that Romney has paid no taxes?
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:31 pmI see something called “The First Scandal” on that page — not “Can You Explain”
Am I in the right place?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:32 pm@Robert Hagedorn I think you’ll find your answer HERE
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:34 pm156- it was on media matters or something 😉
tye (ba133c) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:35 pmWell, if mediamatterz said so, it must be true. They would never lie.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:40 pmWhat was “Media Matters” talking about?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:44 pmAs far as societal sanction of marriage, historically I don’t think there has been a better setting to raise children, the sustainers of society, than a family with a father and mother. Orphanages are not better, boarding schools are not better, child labor camps are not better, the street is not better, and while some heroic single parents turn out great kids, I doubt the majority think it is better that way but rather made the best of their own situation. I know I prefer parenting as part of a couple rather than the idea of doing it myself.
Unless on really thinks that in general men and women are not very different and it doesn’t make a difference whether a child is raised by a man and woman vs. two men vs. two women, then the argument can be made that the government does have a legitimate role in promoting marriage.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/31/2012 @ 2:57 pmHave you actually examined another setting to raise children? Or are you just guessing?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:02 pmThis so-called cake baker person doesn’t understand the spirit of cake any better than that one guy understands the spirit of tasty chicken sammiches.
The whole point of tasty foozle is to be unitey, not dividey.
Plus wedding cakes are big big big to where you almost *have* to share them. I do not think cake boy’s mommy and daddy taught him about sharing very good, or about graciousness.
But it’s never late to learn! That’s like a silver lining to this whole sorry situation.
happyfeet (928ad9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:06 pmSaying that “marriage equality” is changing the definition of marriage is suggestive of sanity.
Actually, refusing to use the stupid euphemism “marriage equality” is also suggestive of sanity.
I earlier noted Lakoff’s book, The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic.
The Orwellian doublespeak contained in the term “marriage equality” is emblematic of Lakoff’s recommendation to lie through euphemisms when discussing the democratic “vision.”
This whole issue is just based upon one lie upon another.
One of the fundamental lies is arguing that “gay marriage” isn’t changing the definition of marriage.
Another is that since the definition of marriage has been changed to include other things as priorities in addition to procreation, we can now eliminate procreation as the historically and legally recognized central purpose of marriage and all pretend it never was even included in the definition of marriage.
I’m sure this appeals to a certain type of person. The kind of person who would dutifully cut and paste an extended article on the Bering Sea into there New Soviet Encyclopedia when the party decided to airbrush Lavrenty Beria out of the pages of history.
A third lie is that marriage is a creation of the government. It is not. Government has recognized and respected the institution of marriage that society has created, and alterations that society has made to its understanding. But that does not mean that a court ordering a redefinition of marriage has anything to do with how “we” understand and have defined it. It is a usurpation of what the the SCOTUS has recognized as a private sphere upon which government could not intrude.
To argue before a court that it’s within the court’s power to define and redefine marriage is not only a usurpation of the popular will, it is turning our legal understanding of what is marriage on its head. It is not only NOT a private sphere upon which government can not intrude but subject to hijacking by the government.
A fourth is that by one can fight DOMA in the court and pretend one is for keeping the federal government out of what should be a state issue. When the only thing that keeps the definition of marriage a state issue is DOMA. As it stands now the only reason North Carolina does not have to adopt New York’s definition of marriage is because of DOMA. Without DOMA, or some other Congressional action, gay marriage activists need just a single state to adopt gay marriage to argue the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires all other states to recognize gay marriage.
Yet supposed libertarians are actually clueless enough to buy this obvious contradiction in terms; that DOMA is the intrusion on states rights.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:06 pmNever *too* late to learn I mean
This goes for caramel rolls too plus also ribs
happyfeet (a12946) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:12 pmThis makes me want some wedding cake.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:13 pmErrorstein, this is beyond stupid.
If two men want to commingle land and holdings they can and have historically done so by contract.
A “daughter given in marriage” was not an “extra” but central to the purpose of marriage. Because a marriage does not comingle land and holdings as if they contracted a business relationship. The land and holdings remain theirs until they die. And even then it does not necessarily comingle the land and holdings unless they leave those land and holdings to the same heir.
Creating heirs has historically been the central purpose of marriage. Multiple marriages leave multiple heirs. A marriage does not comingle land and holdings. Not immediately. And not necessarily inevitably. These lands and holdings may never be comingled if they leave the land to different heirs. Which has always been a distinct possibility and in fact has been quite likely down through the centuries.
Marriages are and have always been arranged by these men you refer to in order to create heirs. Comingling of lands and holdings have never been the intended or even effectively the result. In fact, if you look at the squabbling royalty in Europe down through history multiple heirs have created multiple claims to the same property, leading more often to wars and the division of property when these multiple claims existed.
And marriages among royalty have never been the norm anyway. Examining who ultimately inherited property among lesser folk would further weaken your already preposterous assertions.
Do you really think society should adopt your insane idea you are not redefining marriage based upon your historically illiterate and in fact quite incoherent and demonstrably false understanding of the traditional purpose of marriage.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:19 pmDavid E, You wrote “Saying that Marriage Equality is ‘changing the definition of marriage’ is rather suggestive of soemone who is anti-gay altogether.”
“Marriage equality” is a little trick of language employed to avoid calling it what it is: same-sex marriage. Asserting that there is some right to enter into a same sex -relationship that is recognized to have legal rights and responsibilities attached is no better argument than asserting people have the right to enter into a relationship with ANY person or persons, which they do not have.
Contempt or disapproval for homosexuality does not enter into the question about whether same-sex unions require redefinition. It does. get over it.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:19 pmI would have made them a nice cake, FWIW. That doesn’t mean I have to say same-sex marriage serves the same point as traditional marriages.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:22 pmwhenever two or more of you meet to have cake in the name of whatever please to save me a piece
happyfeet (928ad9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:25 pmClearly, multiple marriages can leave multiple heirs. But then, so can a single marriage.
To argue that two men arrange a marriage to comingle land and property, and that a “daughter given in marriage” is an “extra,” demonstrates a blindingly stupid understanding of the historical purpose of marriage. Actually accepting the proposition as if it were remotely linked to reality requires much more serious drugs in much more copious amounts than the original person consumed in order to hallucinate this up in the first place.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:26 pmTye has managed to be exceeded in stupidity and dishonesty by Sen Hairy Reed.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:34 pmIn other words, you have no evidence. Thanks for playing, dope!
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:46 pmSlavery and segregation were also the “popular will.”
When “Loving vs. Virginia” was decided the “popular will” was overwhelmingly opposed to interracial marriage.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:49 pmI beg to differ. They were of parmpunt importanceto the overall transaction. Have you ever heard of a “dowery”? They don’t exist in the West any longer — thus altering the definition of marriage.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:51 pmExpecting honest discussion from David E is like thinking the Cubs will win the Series, or unicorns will fart skittles.
JD (318f81) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:54 pm“This goes for caramel rolls too plus also ribs.”
– happyfeet
I’m making some tasty ribs as we speak.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:56 pm“Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and Chick-fil-a’s monetary support of anti-gay organization sre perfectly legal. That’s not the point.”
“I have a perfect reason not to be a customer — as well as a perfect right.”
David – What is the point? You claim you don’t want to see the corporation punished:
“It is not about their being “punished severely.” Neother I nor anyone else has the power to do that — much less the inclination. Actions have consequences.”
I flat out don’t believe you. People were able to see the consequences of the Prop. 8 vote and the punishment meted out to businesses and individuals who did not support your side. There was the power and inclination to do that, although not imposed by the government as suggested by the excerpts Patterico published concerning Cathy and his company. Were you writing posts discouraging people from punishing people on the wrong side of the Prop. 8 vote? Can you link those posts here?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 3:57 pm“I don’t who says that the sole purpose of marriage is children. If you’re using that as a scriptural allowance for same sex marriage that’s absurd. Both the OT and NT make clear homosexuality is a sin. How could God possibly approve of same sex marriage?”
– Gerald A
I’m not trying to make a point about a Scriptural allowance for same-sex marriage, really – just wondering where people got the idea that the central purpose of marriage is reproduction.
The question of same-sex marriage is immensely difficult for me as a Christian. I don’t know how to answer it.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:00 pmTo JD “an honest discusion” means a complete surrender to his position.
Then the sticking point is what you mena by “punishment.” Because of Chick-fil-a’s support of anti-gayy orgs i do noteath there and encourage others not to do so either. Does this constitute “punishment” in your view? If so that’s rather odd.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:08 pmTwo can play at this game.
I am being punished by DOMA. The refusal of the government to give my 38 year relationship legal standing is punishment for the Thoughtcrime of gayness.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:11 pmChick-fil-a’s monstery support of anti-gay orgs is a matter of public record. So is the support of anti-gay orgs by Waffle House, Domin’s Pizza and White Castle
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/31/2012 @ 1:56 pm
— I work for one of those companies, Errorstein (hint: spooky Bain Capital owned us for awhile) and the company does not contribute a dime of support to ANY “anti-gay orgs”. I know that you’re just repeating somoene else’s lie, but when you don’t bother to fact-check it makes you every bit the liar yourself.
F***ing liar.
[BTW, my boss is black, and one of my co-workers (a man that I personally hired) is gay, so take that bigot-card you were trying to play on me and shove it up your dark alley!]
Icy (f9cb18) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:16 pm“Then the sticking point is what you mena by “punishment.””
David – Please elaborate on what I said that you found unclear. The difference between the post-Prop. 8 vendettas and the Chick A Fil situation is politicians advocating using the force of the state to harm a business for sin of freedom of expression. It seems clear you have no problem with that or the post Prop. 8 reprisals against people.
Please elaborate if your views are in fact different.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:18 pmThought crime, Ehrenstein? Assumes facts not in evidence.
SPQR (6e06be) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:19 pm“Two can play at this game.”
David – I’m not playing, I’m merely asking you to clarify your intolerant fascist position.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:20 pmSPQR – The words thought and Ehrenstein do not belong in the same sentence. I suggest knee-jerk reaction instead.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:22 pmIOW, daleyrocks “First the sentence then the verdict.”
Please elaborate as to what you’re talking about when you refer to “the post-Prop. 8 vendettas.”
Are those upset by the role of the Mormons an The Cahtolic Church had in pushing Prop 8 to be accused of a “vendetta”? Ins’t the “evendetta” coming from their side?
Please name the specific company you’re working for Icy and then I’ll cite the information I’ve read.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:23 pmWhy is my defense of gay rights “intolerant” and “fascist”?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:24 pmFrom an NYT review dated 1985:
The spherical trust is new again!
phunctor (6e8a27) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:37 pmI do not support gay marriage. And I have a constitutional right not to.
The Emperor (dc5ae1) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:41 pmMeanwhile, of course, gay marriage opponents are buying more cakes at this bakery. And so the politicization of the marketplace continues.
I would buy from that bakery. Does he accept donations too?
Whodathink it would all come down to cake?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:45 pmhttps://patterico.com/2012/07/28/chick-fil-a-pr-head-dies-of-heart-attack-fringe-left-rejoices/#comment-1028667
Colonel Haiku (251fea) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:55 pmIt rhymes with the name of your favorite breakfast cereal: Romney-O’s
Icy (f9cb18) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:56 pmi encourage everyone to take a look at the “popular now” comments in this yahoo article about chick-fil-a protests. it will put a smile on your face 😀
razor419 (42f6c5) — 7/31/2012 @ 4:58 pmThousands of years of history, social tradition, and legal tradition continuing in a more or less unbroken line down to this day. Which one off-topic quote from the Book of Genesis is entirely insufficient to undue, if you’re at all aware of it.
Which I take it you’re not. Moreover, I take it that you intend to continue to avoid the extensive judicial authority, documentary evidence, and scholarship that demonstrates exactly that fact.
I get that impression from most gay marriage advocates because if they had to acknowledge that all of the above existed they couldn’t dismiss real, authentic marriage advocates as mere religious bigots.
Which, again, explains my disgust with Judge Walker and his blatantly dishonest ruling on Prop 8. In order to engage in his anti-Christian screed he had to work backward from his foreordained conclusion and deliberately ignore the voluminous amount of evidence the Prop 8 supporters brought to trial. Indeed he had to lie in ruling and claim that the Prop 8 attorneys told him that he didn’t need evidence.
When in fact that the transcript of the closing argument shows the exact opposite. Cooper, the attorney for the Prop 8 side actually told him that the evidence was overwhelming.
Judge Walker pulls a bait and switch in his ruling; he demands testimony. Because the historical figures back to Blackstone that Cooper cited, authority upon authority stretching back before the founding of this nation, who have created the precedents upon which an honest, responsible judge would have relied upon in his decision are not available to testify as they are dead, Walker ignored the volumes of evidence offered as exhibits and claimed in his ruling that essentially since these people didn’t testify Cooper offered no evidence.
No, he meant to be flip. As well as dishonest.(3039:16-18 in the transcript.)
What Cooper said per the transcript:
As distorted beyond the point of lying in the ruling:
He edited the attorney’s statement to make it appear he said something he didn’t. So that Walker could ignore the court cases, as well as all the rest of the mountain of case law he had been presented with, in order to pretend no evidence had been offered. You will find no mention of what Cooper clearly discussed before and after he raised his ridiculous objections, clearly designed to create “soundbites” to pepper his already-written kangaroo court ruling.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that you think one quote from Genesis is all the Bible has to say on the subject. But if you’re having difficulty with the subject does that mean the fault lies with Christianity or with your understanding of it?
But the larger point is that Christianity is not the sole authority on this. The historical record is clear; the central purpose of marriage is and has been procreation since before there was a United States. Airbrushing that from history definitely is a redefinition of marriage.
Denying that they are airbrushing history or indeed redefining marriage is not beyond the scruples of the people who will impose SSM upon an unwilling nation no matter the cost. Walker demonstrated that, as do some of the commenters here.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:00 pmEhrenstein playing more dumb than usual is fascinating to watch. Just like Obama, he cannot honestly defend his positions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:17 pmHold same position as Obama up to two months ago? Ugly bigot.
SPQR (6e06be) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:22 pmYou cannot honestly accept anything I say. So you ignore it and claim I’ve said nothing.
LIAR!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:32 pmDavidE is still killing strawmen.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:33 pmFeel any remorse for your rape fantasies?
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:34 pmUsing all the same level of veracity tye uses:
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/13/obama-sets-tax-shelter-his-kids
Oh, and go back to 7/15 in this blog, too, tye.
PCD (d3f1b7) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:37 pmThose were YOUR rape fantasies.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:37 pmErrorstein is sick in the head. Objectively.
JD (cfef43) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:38 pm“You cannot honestly accept anything I say. So you ignore it and claim I’ve said nothing.”
David – I’m waiting for an honest response to #183, not a dishonest accusation of being a liar. Other people can see who is being nonresponsive.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:42 pmtye, http://www.davidstuff.com/opinion/taxes.htm
Look at next to last paragraph. You god, Teddy put the trust off shore.
PCD (d3f1b7) — 7/31/2012 @ 5:51 pm__________________________________________________
Patterico, if that’s true, part of the reason it’s true is that non-black people would be upset with his decision to deny cakes to black people, and would stop doing business with him.
Which seems to be analagous to what’s happening here.
No, because he apparently would sell them a cake just as long as it isn’t customized for a same-sex wedding. So it’s analogous to his refusing to sell a cake to customers — who happen to be black — based on their request that it be decorated to glorify the Black Panthers or Malcolm X.
But if the owner is being bigoted to the gay couple, then he’d be no less bigoted if a polygamous trio, or quartet, or quintet, walked into his store and requested — much less demanded — he create a cake with small figurines on top representing a male groom surrounded by several females.
Mark (70c729) — 7/31/2012 @ 6:41 pm___________________________________________
He told me once that he accepts Springsteen’s “limousine liberal” politics
In the case of Springsteen, that phrase truly does apply due to his sizable income. But I think that concept fits a whole variety of liberals regardless of their checking account, because it denotes just how hollow their supposed tolerance, compassion, generosity and sophistication really are.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a scrutiny of Springsteen’s wealth — and tax returns — revealed the singer was similar to Warren Buffett, another limousine liberal who has wailed about how the rich should pay more in taxes, while his own Berkshire Hathaway owes the IRS hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mark (70c729) — 7/31/2012 @ 6:49 pm“Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that you think one quote from Genesis is all the Bible has to say on the subject. But if you’re having difficulty with the subject does that mean the fault lies with Christianity or with your understanding of it?:
– Steve57
I dunno. Why don’t you tell me, since you know so much about the vagaries of my faith? Keep in mind that I’m from the “Genesis Only” sect, though, so some of your stuff might be new to me…
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:11 pmI wouldn’t buy a cake from a person too proud of their cakes to sell them to someone just trying to celebrate their own happiness.
Dustin (73fead) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:15 pmNot only are the people in the audience not poor, Springsteen’s net worth is north of 200 million dollars.
The self loathing left always needs to assign blame.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:16 pmThis is true, although I must include gay marriage supporters regardless of gender. I note that the Coalition of African American Pastors is organizing a campaign to urge blacks not to support Obama or the Democrats due to their stance on gay marriage. I also note that the president of the CAAP, Rev. William Owens, has announced the group’s solidarity with the owner’s of Chick-fil-A.
In fact Rev. Owens has compared the anti-religious bigotry spat out by Emmanuel, Menino, and others to the bigotry he faced when marching for civil rights in the deep south back in the 1960s.
Leftists have grossly under-estimated their ability to rewrite history, such as Walker in his Prop 8 decision, or attempt to “repackage” the debate by inventing Orwellian terms like “marriage equality” and simply get everyone to march in lockstep toward their vision of our authoritarian future as if we’re all going to simply develop the historical and cultural amnesia required for that to happen.
I can tell you that there is a great deal of resentment in the black community when SSM advocates attempt to hijack the legacy of the civil rights movement and steal it for their own.
Many Blacks, not just pastors, are aware of the vast differences. Furthermore, they are aware of the enormous role religion and religious leaders played in advancing the cause of civil rights.
They are not about to let the memory of the civil rights movement be rewritten and used against them. Over 70% of blacks in Kali voted for Prop 8 (over 50% if hispanics as well; think of the split in the Democratic coalition if the RCC throws in on this issue in addition to the HHC mandate). Overwhelmingly, blacks in North Carolina voted against gay marriage.
Now they’re being called bigots and their religious liberties are being assaulted. They too are getting the clue. SSM along with various other flagship issues adopted by the Democrats/Obama such as “reproductive health rights,” means no meaningful first amendment rights (the bill of rights are not Chicago values. No religious, speech, or assembly rights.
Also, as highlighted by the case of Chick-fil-A, no meaningful economic rights. Getting less play is the losing argument the DoJ advanced in the Colorado case against the Newland family. Devout Catholics who own Hercules industries and who won an injunction against the HHS mandate. The DoJ argued that once individuals use their property and/or land for “secular” commercial activities they have no religious liberties.
So one will have to choose in our brave new world. You can be an employee if you insist on observing the dictates of your conscience as informed by your religion. You lose that right if you dare to want to become a business owner; the government will tell you what the dictates of your conscience is allowed to be.
I suggest this pendulum has swung too far in the authoritarian direction. Which is good in my view, because Emmanuel and Menino didn’t sieze upon this because they support gay rights. They seized upon it because in their lust for power they wish to destroy competitive sources of moral authority.
You have to be something of a dupe if, as a gay rights advocate, you believe that the Emmanuels and Meninos of the world who are embracing Muslim clerics in Chicago and Boston who advocate harshly punishing gays even with death are attacking the Cathys of the world because they sincerely find their views on SSM repugnant.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:36 pmMeant orientation.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:36 pmThe question of same-sex marriage is immensely difficult for me as a Christian. I don’t know how to answer it.
Comment by Leviticus — 7/31/2012 @ 4:00 pm
What is the difficulty? Do you dispute homosexuality is a sin according to the bible? There are people who dispute it using verbal gymnastics worthy of Olympic gold.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:51 pmThis libertarian view always intrigues me: If one holds that the market place would naturally decide the success or failure of a business, what do you believe determines the tipping point for Congressional intervention (e.g. Civil Rights Act) as opposed to letting those principle naturally evolve over time and reap their results?
Dana (292dcf) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:56 pm“What is the difficulty? Do you dispute homosexuality is a sin according to the bible? There are people who dispute it using verbal gymnastics worthy of Olympic gold.”
– Gerald A
What marriage do you think is worth more in the eyes of God: a marriage between a couple of men who love each other and are loyal to each other or a marriage between a man and a woman who don’t love each other and aren’t?
At the same time, it would take significant semiotic gymnastics to dispute that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible – which I believe to be the word of God.
That’s the difficulty.
Do you really pretend to have the answers to questions that hard?
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:06 pmAs consistently happens when conservatives face off against liberals. While there are always exceptions, being liberal seems to tie to being mean, small-souled, and rabidly vicious about your ideologies, with few exceptions. Totalitarianism/Fascism always lies at the heart of it. The number of liberals who are not natural brown-shirts are few and far between.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:08 pmLOL, neither. Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
Stop posing “yes/no”, “true/false” challenges by asking questions that clearly have the “trinary” answer: “not applicable”.
There’s simply no way to argue against it — According to the Bible, homosexuality is WRONG, period.
Now, for the most part, the historical persecution of gays has also been wrong — you don’t bring someone into the fold by abuse, torture, and rejection. But that doesn’t mean the other extreme, total acceptance, is right either.
Marriage, though, has two functions — one is civil — it’s a contract between two people for a purpose. The other is spiritual/religious — it’s a contract with God involving two people.
Hence, while something akin to civil unions is acceptable, “marriage”, in the religious sense, is not. God does not accept homosexuality as anything but a serious sin. Claiming God would accept a contract affirming a serious sin is just stupid and religiously ignorant. You might as well propose God acknowledge murder as acceptable behavior. The simple fact is, though God may forgive, it does not mean He accepts.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:18 pmI personally would say when violence is being committed.
I think that was when Harry Truman drew the line — while he was a lifelong believer in segregation and the “superiority” of the white man, his ire was raised when he heard of newly discharged black soldiers pulled off of trucks in the south and beaten — just because some whites figured that was what was needed to put them back in “their place”.
Being prejudiced is its own reward… but when you can’t even wait for social pressure on your side to “win”, then you’ve crossed a blatant line.
Not saying that’s the line, but it’s certainly one of the starting points in defining that line.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:22 pm“I wouldn’t buy a cake from a person too proud of their cakes to sell them to someone just trying to celebrate their own happiness.”
Dustin – Given the content of David Ehrenstein’s comments here over time, I could easily see him requesting a wedding cake with giant anatomically correct dicks, balls and chocolate starfish covering its surface. The man is just that obsessed with his penis and where he puts it.
Such a request could might cause many bakers to get verklempt and turn down an order, out of embarrassment or religious or moral reasons.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:22 pmThis needs to be said again* because it’s so dead on:
Well said Steve57!
* With very minor editing for clarity
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 7/31/2012 @ 9:43 pm_________________________________________
I wouldn’t buy a cake from a person too proud of their cakes
I hope that isn’t being applied to the owner of the bakery in Colorado, since it would be a gross oversimplification of what the story — and conflict — really is all about.
it would take significant semiotic gymnastics to dispute that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible
The religious angle regarding homosexuality is not as meaningful or influential to me as much as the sense — an innate one, at that — that such behavior is peculiar. I recall thinking that way even when I was quite young, before I knew exactly what genitals were for — other than in the male anatomy their being used to take a leak — or how they worked. I think a lot of people have a similar gut reaction towards this issue, even various liberals who on the surface try to be so permissive and sophisticated about “GLBT.”
Mark (70c729) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:12 pmThanks for the clarity, QuadGMoto.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:26 pm“You might as well propose God acknowledge murder as acceptable behavior. The simple fact is, though God may forgive, it does not mean He accepts.”
– IGotBupkis
That’s funny. How do you feel about capital punishment, Mr. Bright-Lines?
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:28 pmFor the record: I believe that the government should only recognize civil unions, for gay and straight people alike. Marriage is a religious bond, and should be managed by religious institutions by their own standards without government interference.
That’s the easy part.
I don’t know the answer to the more difficult question. I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on the subject of homosexuality. At the same time, I have a hard time believing that deep love between two gay men or women means nothing to God. I don’t know what to do about that confusion. Good for you if you’ve avoided it altogether.
The nice thing is, I trust that God has the answers that I don’t. I’m not going to spend too much time trying to classify and catalogue my neighbor’s sins when I’ve got plenty of my own to sort out.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:40 pmWell, Daleyrocks offered a good example of a reasonable reason someone would refuse a cake order. If the order required the baker to make something obscene.
But if he was simply asked to make an ordinary wedding cake and wouldn’t do it because he was asked by gays, he’s judgmental of his fellow sinners to the point of closing his doors to peaceful fellow men. Shunning is not righteous.
Am I talking about this particular baker? No. None of us know the real story. I’ve seen some amazing lies lately, and I know it’s not that hard to twist things to a ridiculous degree. That’s why I have to speak to a more generalized situation that gets to the principle in question.
I wouldn’t want to celebrate my happiness with a cake from someone who shuns people like that.
Dustin (73fead) — 7/31/2012 @ 10:51 pm“If the order required the baker to make something obscene.”
Dustin – I know the nice blue haired ladies at a couple of my local bakeries would probably faint dead away at the type of order I described, but somebody like Ehrenstein would give it a try just for the shock value.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:01 pmwalmart has a chockit starfish as part of their freaking logo Mr. daley
the shock value is just gone anymore
and you know what that’s ok
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:04 pmthis too shall pass
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:14 pmFor you, maybe. But then it’s easy for you since you insist on remaining willfully blind to the facts. Because it’s a historical and legal fact that marriage has not been merely a religious bond under the English common law for at least 500 years. It has been very much a government issue. Since marriage was and is how society had organized itself into families, then marriage was the basis upon which the law dealt with issues of family formation, dissolution, and inheritance.
And we derive our legal system from the English.
Earlier, I mentioned that I had the distinct impression you intended to remain willfully ignorant of the various bases upon which people know (not believe but know) that marriage is between a man and a woman and the central purpose of the institution of marriage is producing and raising children.
This is not just based upon the Bible. The Bible serves as one but only one authority for this common sense and historically accurate view of marriage. The only historically accurate view of marriage given US customs, traditions, and law.
So, you will continue to insist on saying unsupportable, verifiable falsehoods in order to bitterly cling (as Obama would put it) your fictional view of what constitutes marriage?
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:36 pm“walmart has a chockit starfish as part of their freaking logo Mr. daley”
Mr. Feets – No, that would be an asterisk-star in the Walmart logo. A virtual sunburst of happy shopping experiences to come. A chockit starfish is something you poop out of. Iffn you want an obscene cake, everybody who knows somethink knows you go to an erotic bakery or you make ur own.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:40 pm“So, you will continue to insist on saying unsupportable, verifiable falsehoods in order to bitterly cling (as Obama would put it) your fictional view of what constitutes marriage?”
Steve57 – Reread 226. Leviticus is stating his opinion or belief, not doing what you accuse him of.
Decafe.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:49 pmSo St. Paul was not righteous? Because that’s exactly what he advised Christians to do in Chapter Five of his First Letter to the Corinthians. Shun the sinner.
Of course, he said he didn’t mean at all those immoral sinners “of this world.” But those who claim to be righteous while persisting in sin.
If this baker sincerely believes that this is a sinner that falls within the category of those who should be shunned according to the guidance of St. Paul, even if you or I might come to a different conclusion, how can you turn around and call him unrighteous?
After all, if you aren’t correct when you say that “shunning is not righteous.” Not according to the Bible. Sometimes, but not always, shunning the immoral is required. If, that is, you believe what the Bible says.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/31/2012 @ 11:57 pmI did. It’s simply not accurate to say “marriage is a religious bond.” That’s not a statement of belief but of fact. It is simply not true that marriage is a religious bond, although it can be that as well.
He could say “marriage should be just a religious bond.” That would be an expression of belief or opinion.
But that isn’t what he said.
What am I getting wrong?
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:11 am==What am I getting wrong?==
Maybe it’s the preachy scoldy haughty attitude toward other commenters that sometimes comes through in your writing, Steve57 (which may tend to overshadow for some here the fact that your points are usually thought provoking and otherwise ooze insight). Maybe you could consider picking and choosing battles and when best to use your heaviest verbal armament. Leviticus, for example, is not tye or Ehrenstein.
elissa (1e3ef8) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:07 amRepeat warning:
The advantage to communication by written word over the web is it makes it possible to not need to respond in real time, when emotions may be high; the disadvantages are that we often fail to make use of the advantage, it is easier for many of us to be more strident when not looking at somebody, and we lose all of the communication information in tone of voice, body language, etc. that helps modify our presentation.
Back to your usually scheduled commenting-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:42 amI do not take the ceremonial aspects of marriage seriously. Possibly because my formative years were spent in a country in which the church had sole jurisdiction of marriage and divorce. Even when my wife and I decided to make it official, we just dropped in to City Hall for a few minutes. I do consider it a spiritual and material bond but I do not consider that I really need anybody else’s blessing, priest or civil. Some gay people think they do and big deal. There are not so many of them that they will clog up the courts or chapels.
I agree with the sentiment in Genesis, referred to by Leviticus, that nobody should be alone. Even if we take the position that homosexuality is a deadly sin, all the more reason to allow homosexuals whatever happiness they can find in this brief, only, life that they will have.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:03 amJust don’t do it on the street and scare the horses. 😉
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:07 am228 many homosexuals may feel the same, but there are some legal benefits as well. Also it is interesting to read between the lines of your comments to see how much superior you believe you are…
tye (eb442d) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:09 amBite me.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:15 am==Also it is interesting to read between the lines of your comments ==
Ah. No wonder! He now admits he responds to what he alone sees between the lines of others’ comments–not what’s actually written in them. Good on him for finally clearing it up.
elissa (1e3ef8) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:20 amThis troll is so predictable, it’s getting banal. You caught the accusations of superiority? More projection.
He has been skooled repeatedly, is insulting, trivial, and guilty of most of the sins he ascribes to others.
Yawn.
Simon Jester (dab08c) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:24 amNo, tye is right. You can easily read between the lines of his comments, right to the point where you see that he wants you to send him sexy pics of your spouses. It’s quite clear. Once can, and should, assume the worst of tye.
Pious Agnostic (40defc) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:29 amYe, though I walk through the valley of the trolls, I shall not fear the idiots, for I am meaner than the little f****ts can ever dream of being.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:29 am“So St. Paul was not righteous?”
– Steve57
“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.”
Romans 3:10
Guess who wrote that?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:47 amOf making books there is no end. “In the beginning was the word”, I take as a caution. We can say and write any nonsense we wish.
It was araining the day that I left,
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:53 amThe rain it was dry;
The sun so hot, I froze to death;
Suzannah, don’t you cry.
I’ll reach across the aisle and invite Leviticus to one of our local Zombie Culls after he settles on a new pistol to play with. I’ll even pay his entry fee.
No, we won’t be shooting tye.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:54 am“So, you will continue to insist on saying unsupportable, verifiable falsehoods in order to bitterly cling (as Obama would put it) your fictional view of what constitutes marriage?”
– Steve57
No matter how hard you pound your fists on the table, it is painfully, painfully obvious that there is no single definition of marriage.
This shouldn’t shock you, at this point, but I think of the significance of marriage as a spiritual significance. So, yes – I will continue to remain willfully blind to your English common law view of marriage, because I think it misses the point. You’re gonna insist – insist! – that I respect your authoritay as to this definition of marriage, but if you tell me that we’re gonna keep gay people from getting married simple because it’s tradition I’m gonna laugh in your face.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 6:59 amIf you have anything like a S&W 15, lend him that, with wadcutters, PCD.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:00 amNK, What I have is a M1911-A1 .45ACP with various loads from 185 grain Zombie Max to 230 grain Military Ball, a Ruger Mk II with various .22 loads, a Belgian Browning A5 12 gauge, a Marlin .30-30, and a Marlin Model 70 with scope and 25 round clip. I don’t have anything S&W. I do have cast lead wadcutters for the .45
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:09 amS&W 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S%26WModel15-4_01.jpg Safe for work. But only woman is more beautiful.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:10 amI like subsonic .22s, .30 calibers, and expensive .380s. Why? Because I want to.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:13 amNK, more beautiful, my daughter, called “Brenda who doesn’t eat dog” by Bill Handel, shooting her 20 gauge “Alice gun” (short barreled pump shotgun with pistol grip instead of a stock).
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:14 amI don’t understand the relevance of the question.
Now I had to look up what semiotics is.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:33 am“What am I getting wrong?”
Comment by Steve57 — 8/1/2012 @ 12:11 am – His first words.
“For the record: I believe that the government should only recognize civil unions…………”
These are obviously statements of opinion, not fact or anything else.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:34 am“I don’t understand the relevance of the question.”
– Gerald A
I should have phrased it differently. It’s rhetorical, anyway…
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:35 amSemiotics is the interpretation of “signs”.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:35 amIf God did not like queers, he would not have made their tongue-loving behinds in the first place.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:40 amThe Scriptures are writings of immeasurable beauty and wisdom. Just as long as we leave God alone. How can you believe in Him, if you understand Him?
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:45 amthere are so so many different cakes to love and ways to love them it’s almost like a metaphor
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:10 am“How can you believe in Him, if you understand Him?”
– nk
To some extent, I think that’s right.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:20 amI find it fascinating how you can supposedly look around, yet still fail to see that family is the foundational structure of society. It’s the first line of care, assistance, defense and cooperation in any individual’s life. It’s also how the next generation is created and nurtured. (Yes, parents have more influence than even schools on the children’s characters.)
It’s also amazing how effectively close your eyes to simple physiology; M + W = C. I suppose it’s pointless to refer you to the CDC’s studies which show massive disease problems with homosexuality; or even others which show that supposed SSM isn’t stable or even monogamous. (Meaning that SSM’s only similarity to Natural Marriage is two people having a ceremony.)
Over and over I’m reminded that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You’re just one more in a long line of examples.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:20 amthat’s just a hypothetical I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:24 amHow can you believe in someone—let alone love someone—that you know nothing about?
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:24 amSigh.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:34 amGod didn’t made people that way. They didn’t find a “gay gene” when they mapped the human genome. Of course Christians never believed there was one in the first place.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:36 am“How can you believe in someone—let alone love someone—that you know nothing about?”
– QuadGMoto
There’s a big difference between “don’t pretend to fully understand” and “don’t know anything about.”
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:40 amDavid Ehrenstein #52, you are either dense or dishonest or both.
Do you really think that any of the myriad of Chicago bureaucrats and inspectors will write up the same violations at a Chick-Fil-A that they would at Louis Farrakhan’s restaurant, now that King Rahm has publicly asked the question, “Who will rid me of this troublesome
priestchicken cooker?”You know better.
SDN (4bfe62) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:43 am“It’s also amazing how effectively close your eyes to simple physiology; M + W = C.”
– QuadGMoto
M + W + W + W + W + W + W = CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC. Which is awesome – so many children. Provided that the man is of prime genetic stock, society ought to be set.
Which has nothing to do with marriage, obviously.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:45 amThere’s aldermanic privilege in Chicago. Aldermen are bosses of liquor and zoning in their respective wards. And privileges are negotiable and tradeable across wards. So, yes, Moreno is a power.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:49 amBy that logic, God must really like assclowns, because He made so many of them 🙂
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:55 amI like, “God must love poor people because he made so many of them”. And I have a Jewish one, too, but it’s kind of long. http://krites.blogspot.com/2006/07/overheard-inside-israeli-tank.html
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:01 am“I find it fascinating how you can supposedly look around, yet still fail to see that family is the foundational structure of society.”
QuadGMoto – Have you heard about the Sheik’s 50 wives? 49 of them have it soft.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:09 am“No matter how hard you pound your fists on the table, it is painfully, painfully obvious that there is no single definition of marriage.”
QuadGMoto – Dolphins, it’s a thing.
In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world’s first person to “marry” a dolphin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:21 amEhrenstein the liar slinks off again
Icy (f9cb18) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:21 amIf God did not like queers, he would not have made their tongue-loving behinds in the first place.
Comment by nk — 8/1/2012 @ 7:40 am
Am I the only one that shuddered after reading that?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:24 am___________________________________________
If God did not like queers, he would not have made their tongue-loving behinds in the first place.
Jocularity aside, STDs are known to be common in the gay community, referring to male homosexuals in particular. I also recall reading somewhere about research that indicated a high number of gays tend to have a poor sense of smell. Combining that with the large percentage of them who seem to gravitate towards leftist politics or preferences, it would make poor decisionmaking and bad judgment on their part just about guaranteed.
What irritates me the most about all of this is they then they have the gall to blame others for their plight in life.
“Ronald Reagan is why AIDS became so horrible and deadly!!,” they’ll happily proclaim.
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:32 amIsn’t this an argument in favor of gay monogamy?
That’s the grand compromise I always liked but realize is impossible. I’d love to see a single state criminalize adultery and permit gay marriage. If you don’t want to be legally bound to someone else, exclusively, you do not get married.
If the nuclear family justification for marriage isn’t enough, then make it a sexual health justification. It is far, far better for people to stick to a single mate after making their decision carefully. There are strong public policy reasons to encourage this.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:38 amAm I the only one that shuddered after reading that?
Comment by SPQR — 8/1/2012 @ 9:24 am
I initially thought that nk had been sockpuppeted. I’m still not sure he wasn’t.
tye? is that you?
Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:39 am__________________________________________
I’d love to see a single state criminalize adultery and permit gay marriage.
Dustin, I’d rather have that than what, in reality, we’re actually going to get stuck with. IOW, we’re going to have the ethos of homosexuality-is-the-new-race-or-ethnicity, and lawsuits up the ying-yang based on that concept, all draped around the mindset of drunken self-entitlement and “if it feels good, do it!”
We’re going to end up with the worst of both worlds.
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:52 am______________________________________________
I wouldn’t want to celebrate my happiness with a cake from someone who shuns people like that.
I know that Gay Pride parades and festivals held in various American cities each year aren’t representative of each and every person in the “GLBT” community, but such events certainly haven’t caused a stir or ruckus the way the small bakery in Colorado did. Pardon me if that does affect my perceptions of what the two sides are all about and influences who I’m going to generally sympathize with to a greater degree.
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:00 amDrive by 3 Chick-Fil-A since 11:00. Huge lines of people outside, and cars backed up for blocks waiting for the drive-thru.
JD (cfef43) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:02 amSo, you’re claiming that it takes one man plus more than one woman to produce a single child? How exactly does that work?
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:33 amOK, so he forms his opinions in a complete vacuum, insulated from the facts, thus allowing him to say what “marriage is,” and describing it as a religious commitment when it is not and never has been that. Not in this country, anyway.
In my opinion pigs are birds and can fly. You can point me to any facts that might conflict with my statement about what “pigs are” but I guess I’m free to ignore them if they conflict with my opinion.
Other opinions:
The Earth is flat.
The Earth is the center of the universe.
Mr. Rogers was a Navy SEAL.
All equally valid opinions, and equally impervious to the facts, as “marriage is a religious commitment.”
I can even phrase my opinions the same way as Leviticus phrased his: “For the record: I believe that the government should outlaw globes. The Earth is flat.”
Better?
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:36 amThe many Cs represent many children, not one.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:37 amwe let people what can’t have babies get married all the time – lots of people are infertile or old or what have you
I guess we all know they’re not really bible marriages they’re more like pity marriages cause people feel sorry for them I guess
but still I go out of my way to treat them like everybody else
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:42 am“OK, so he forms his opinions in a complete vacuum, insulated from the facts, thus allowing him to say what “marriage is,” and describing it as a religious commitment when it is not and never has been that. Not in this country, anyway.”
– Steve57
“Not in this country, anyway”… it’s almost like, I dunno, some kind of implicit acknowledgement (or something) that there might be more than definition of marriage if one broadens the scope of one’s gaze a little. Some other useful disclaimers: “Not in this time period, anyway,” or the more honest “Not in my opinion, anyway.”
See, the difference between me saying that “I believe marriage is a religious commitment” and me saying “I believe the earth is flat” is that you wouldn’t need a hilariously self-defeating disclaimer to dismiss the latter hypothetical belief.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:55 amNo, happyfeet. That’s simply wrong. It’s long been recognized that childless marriages still uphold the social ideal that all responsible procreation takes place within marriage. As long as the fertile partner doesn’t go outside the marriage to have a child he or she can’t have within the marriage.
It is extremely rare, almost a statistical improbability unless someone deliberately alters the equation by getting a vasectomy or whatever, that both partners are infertile. Even in the case of a couple growing old together, if the 70 something man decides he really regrets that he never had a kid he could go out and knock some younger woman up.
But as long as he remains faithful to his wife, their marriage reinforces the standard that responsible procreation takes place within marriage.
Which is why gay marriage stands the definition of marriage on its head. No procreation can take place within a “gay marriage.” All procreation must take place outside a “gay marriage.”
Thus helping feminists destroy the concept of marriage by separating procreation from marriage.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:57 amI thought lawyers say that bad cases make for bad laws. In other words, don’t make laws to govern normal occurrences based on things which are not “normal”. People of the same sex, no matter how inventive, cannot produce a child on their own. People of the opposite sex, even if it is not their intention and priority, tend to produce children when they engage in with physical intimacy. That is the norm. Base laws on the norms and let others scratch their heads about the unusual situations.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:59 amold people with shriveled nads remarry all the time plus a surprising number of people don’t even want children for various reasons – they’re no different than gay people getting married since they’re getting married for ulterior non-bible motives having nothing to do with having kids, but we let them cause they’re not bothering nobody, least of all me
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:00 am__________________________________________
they’re more like pity marriages cause people feel sorry for them I guess
hp, I used to have more sympathy for the “GLBT” crowd until I started to read things like the following, succeeded by my originally falling for the notion — which many in that group like to promote — of “if I could choose my sexuality, why would I choose to be gay?!!!”:
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:03 amUhh, Leviticus, you do realize that if gay activists want to claim marriage is a “right” they either have to claim it’s a right under the equal protection clause of the Constitution or that it’s a fundamental right which means deeply rooted in the history and the traditions of the United States.
You can claim all you want that marriage can have multiple definitions. But SSM advocates can not claim it SSM is a right (as they are so doing) without dealing with the history and laws of the United States.
So they deal with it by pretending these things don’t exist. As do you.
That is a fact. Which I don’t expect to see informing your concept of what “marriage is” or what the government should or shouldn’t recognize.
The argument over SSM can only advance in the direction of the SSM advocates when the facts are studiously ignored as if they don’t exist.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:04 amThis gets back to the I point made in another thread. Yes marriage doesn’t necessarily include children but it usually does. Dennis Prager points out that ratifying gay marriage is an implicit statement that there’s no difference between two mothers or two fathers and a mother and father. Nobody but the most crazed gay marriage advocate would try to claim that.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:04 amYeah they are happyfeet. But please join Leviticus in not letting the facts get in the way of a good false narrative.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:08 amAll mankind has sinned and fallen short. Why is it so hard for the fallen to believe it so?
We want God to accept us on our terms, because we want it that way.
The four year old doesn’t get it, lots of adults don’t get it.
If we stamp our feet, throw ourselves on the floor and holler bloody murder it changes nothing.
Queers want the imprimatur of ‘normal’ just to pimp straights. Its a feature.
They don’t believe they’re normal anymore than the straights.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:12 am“You can claim all you want that marriage can have multiple definitions. But SSM advocates can not claim it SSM is a right (as they are so doing) without dealing with the history and laws of the United States.”
– Steve57
Umm. Okay. So are you admitting that there is no one definition of marriage? That was my point: you jumped all over me for making it, and I’ve responded to your remarkably self-assured assertions in a way that (in my opinion) makes them look silly. I never claimed that SSM was a “right”, so unless you’re implicitly addressing my point it’s inevitably going to look like you’re moving the goalposts a little…
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:16 amThere is not multiple definitions of marriage under common law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:24 am298. Words have multiple definitions, big deal. Just because gays get married doesn’t mean I teach my kid to respect them.
Just because I teach my kid to respect theirs doesn’t mean I let her think the she can sleep over.
This world is a broken, messed up place because we’re in it, doing our own thing without regard for the Good.
Calling open relationships Ok, doesn’t change the damage it does, in particular, to ourselves and our relationship with our Creator.
Same goes for many other evils we hold dear.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:25 amWedding cakes are a fertility symbol. So if the baker makes a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding…
“The cake is a lie.”
suburbanbanshee (ec8c24) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:27 amAnd my point, which for some “unexplainable” reason is being dodged like someone is shooting at you, is that unions which produce children happen one at a time. One egg plus one sperm equals one child; with the occasional exception of twins, which still come from one sperm and one egg.
One man plus one woman is the rule. It is that case because that is how we naturally fit together. It is the amazing unwillingness to recognize that simple and obvious fact which is so fascinating.
BTW, a male/female couple which does not produce children is the exception not the rule. You cannot argue rules by citing the exception to the rule. Male/male and female/female coupling never produces children. That is a hard and fast rule. That is nature. Yet some of you are really d**n intent on denying nature.
So when do you start claiming that the sky is red or the earth is flat and the center of the universe?
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:40 amROTFL!!
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:43 am__________________________________________
Where you come down on this probably depends on how you view opposition to same sex marriage.
For me it goes far beyond that. It goes beyond the purely religious or political aspects of the controversy. It really is the social and cultural peculiarities of a sub-section of society that is far too accepting of what’s illustrated below. Or people who are resentful of their being held accountable — and not even to a higher standard — for major symbols associated with their community while demanding that those on the countervailing side of the issue close their eyes and “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
And they wonder why they have such a, uh, strange, freaky reputation?!
And negative stereotypes are unfair and due to anti-gay propaganda!
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:46 amLeviticus, throughout this discussion you stated that it’s a complete mystery to you how people can claim that marriage is centered on procreation.
And proceeded as if it is “painfully obvious” there is no “single definition of marriage.”
This is an argument one can only make from ignorance. As if this country’s single definition of marriage is not firmly rooted in our laws and traditions, both of which go back for centuries.
It matters not how many wives King David had several millenia ago or how many wives you can have in Yemen today.
As long as you refuse to deal with the reality that you and the rest of the SSM advocates have only a single well established definition of marriage to deal with and continue to feign confusion over why people seem to think marriage is between a man and a woman and that its central purpose is procreation when you can dredge up a 6,000 year old manuscript that indicates people thought differently or some newly discovered stone-age tribe in the Amazonian basin that has some entirely different concept of gender and marriage then I will continue to jump all over you for your willful avoidance of reality.
The fact of the matter is that your opinions carry no weight because they are formed in ignorance of and in obvious disrespect for the history and traditions of this country. Which are not malleable.
And no, your serial ejaculations of studied ignorance do not make me look silly. I suppose that convincing yourself that’s the case somehow is some sort of compensation for being on the losing end of the argument.
And since your opinions are shallow and uninformed, and thus have lost whenever put to the voters who like me are frankly getting irritated by how you continue to pretend you represent the reasonable side when you demonstrate merely that you are being stubbornly obtuse, the SSM crowd has moved on to convincing the courts that SSM is a right.
Because only the population of justices in this country offer a sufficient proportion of over-educated buffoons who can be convinced to ignore culture, tradition, centuries of legal authority to impose an alien definition of marriage upon an unwilling country with one, entirely different single definition of marriage.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:48 am“OK, so he forms his opinions in a complete vacuum, insulated from the facts”
Steve57 – There you go again.
You asked earlier what you got wrong. I pointed to the first words of the relevant comment by Leviticus yet you continue in my opinion to willfully misread them. Words mean something thing and you can choose to be a complete dick and ignore what people actually say and bludgeon them with straw men as you seem fond of doing, or you can to understand what they are saying and respond to it, which you have demonstrated little capacity for doing.
I don’t want to put words in the mouth of Leviticus, but my interpretation of the plain english of his comment #226 is that the state should be out of the marriage business and that marriage should be reserved as a matter for the church. It is not a description of how the world is today, but how Leviticus would like to see the world be in the future.
Please describe for me how you interpret that aspiration to be devoid of fact, arrived at in a vacuum, contains unsupported, verifiable falsehoods. It’s a freaking opinion for cripesakes. Get a grip.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:55 am“The fact of the matter is that your opinions carry no weight because they are formed in ignorance of and in obvious disrespect for the history and traditions of this country. Which are not malleable.
And no, your serial ejaculations of studied ignorance do not make me look silly.”
steve57 – You do look silly because of your intolerance. You are in effect saying everyone must believe as you believe. Well played. GFY.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:03 pm“And my point, which for some “unexplainable” reason is being dodged like someone is shooting at you, is that unions which produce children happen one at a time. One egg plus one sperm equals one child; with the occasional exception of twins, which still come from one sperm and one egg.
One man plus one woman is the rule. It is that case because that is how we naturally fit together. It is the amazing unwillingness to recognize that simple and obvious fact which is so fascinating.”
– QuadGMoto
I’m not dodging your point; I’m questioning its relevance. A man could have sex with a new woman every day – a union producing children one at a time – and I doubt that the abundance of babies that resulted would assure you that “M+W+W+W+W…” is a good family structure. So what relevance does it have? But you want to stick to successfully producing babies, rather than lovingly raising them, because while the former is impossible for a gay couple, the latter is perfectly plausible.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:11 pmThose aren’t the words Steve57 is arguing against. But I’ll take these.
What is he smoking?!? Because they are the most basic of social relationships, family structures have to intersect with government. There aren’t just rights in a family, there are also responsibilities. When a child is born, who is responsible for the care and raising of that child? When someone dies, who gets his stuff? When someone makes a lifelong promise to someone else (which is a contract!) what happens when that contract is broken? Heck, what defines appropriate and legal sexual behavior (for example, what is rape)? And that’s just for starters.
All of these questions affect society as a whole and are legitimate areas of government involvement, whether that government is simply tribal elders or a more formalized system like we have. The society sets the rules for appropriate behavior (otherwise known as laws) and then everyone is expected to act accordingly. If you actually think about it, government cannot not be involved! Otherwise, you wind up with anarchy on the level of cavemen knocking a woman over the head and dragging her back to his cave.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:11 pmSteve57 @ 305,
My spidey-sense tells me this conversation isn’t going anywhere.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:17 pmHistory has repeatedly shown that such structures produce unstable societies; and that the most energetic societies are the ones where one man/one woman marriage for life (with no sleeping around) as the hard and fast rule. (Gee, doesn’t that describe the United States up until the late 60’s? Look what’s happened to us in every area since then: crime, economy, suicide, etc.)
Even in modern times, study after study after study have shown that the family structure which which is MOST like to produce the most emotionally well balanced, self-sufficient, law-abiding adults is one where the child was raised by their biological mother and father. Though I suspect you wouldn’t know that because those studies haven’t penetrated your wall of belligerent ignorance.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:18 pm“I don’t want to put words in the mouth of Leviticus, but my interpretation of the plain english of his comment #226 is that the state should be out of the marriage business and that marriage should be reserved as a matter for the church. It is not a description of how the world is today, but how Leviticus would like to see the world be in the future.”
– daleyrocks
Yup. Pretty straightforward.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:19 pmWrong again, daleyrocks. I’m saying the reason SSM is a flop as a political issue is because the SSM advocates pretend that there is no single definition of marriage and that people who believe there a single definition of marriage believe that based upon nothing but bigotry, (read Judge Walker’s anti-Christian screed for a shining example of that).
You have to inhabit an alternate universe to convince yourself of the above. So let me amend my earlier statement; Leviticus’ multiple ejaculations of studied ignorance can only make me look silly to inhabitants of that alternate universe.
Since I’m not taking on Leviticus over matters of belief but fact, my statements can not be evidence of intolerance. Except like the rest of the SSM crowd, daleyrocks, deigning to know the facts is in itself a sign of intolerance?
Tolerance means developing historical and cultural amnesia upon command?
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:23 pmBut, but, but, didn’t you know that statements of fact and/or logical conclusions are intolerant?
It’s true! Reality is particularly unkind (intolerant!) to those who try to deny it.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:26 pmLeviticus, if that was your meaning you should have chosen different words. Because the way you put it you believe the government should do something (recognize only civil unions) based upon a fact (marriage is a religious commitment).
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:28 pmEhrentsein is just miffed because there’s no Dick-fill-A**
Icy (f9cb18) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:33 pm“Those aren’t the words Steve57 is arguing against.”
QuadGMoto – SHOCKA! Because he erected strawmen totally unrelated to the content of the comment from Leviticus he attacked.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Reread the thread if you don’t believe me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:37 pmIcy,
You just won the “word play” game of the century.
OUCH !
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:37 pmSteve57 is apparently not a big tent person.
elissa (1e3ef8) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:38 pmTo the inhabitants of that alternate universe I referred to earlier, yes. I learned that when I was in high school.
I suppose those inhabitants will accept the notion that I’m just quibbling over Leviticus’ poor phrasing of a single sentence.
But much like Obama’s pronouncements about who built your business, when you put the statement in context, it’s worse.
You really can’t square his contention that marriage should be a religious commitment with all his other comments as that is an admission that marriage is currently not defined as a religious commitment.
If marriage should be a religious commitment, it is not that now. So it is something. But he pretends it’s a mystery to him as to what it is.
It’s defined now as something else besides a religious commitment, and it takes studied ignorance to pretend it’s completely indecipherable to discover what that “something else” is.
And if I claim to know what that “something else” is, and horror of horrors point him to the historical record where that “something else” definition can be found then daleyrocks will accuse me of intolerance.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:39 pmAnd if I claim to not only
Just let them eat cake.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:40 pm“Since I’m not taking on Leviticus over matters of belief but fact, my statements can not be evidence of intolerance.”
Steve57 – Thank you for finally admitting you are not actually addressing what Leviticus said in comment #226 that you claimed to be addressing earlier. More honesty on your part is always appreciated.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:43 pm“I suppose those inhabitants will accept the notion that I’m just quibbling over Leviticus’ poor phrasing of a single sentence.”
Steve57 – No, rational people will see that you are inventing an argument not contained in his comment with which to insult him. It is not very hard to see.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:47 pm“your serial ejaculations…” – Steve57 @ 305
“Leviticus’ multiple ejaculations…” – Steve57 @ 313
daleyrocks, take it easy on Steve. He’s just bent out of shape that my multiple ejaculations in this thread could have put to better use, impregnating women to preserve the institution of marriage in its sole and objective form.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:50 pmSteve57,
I started out making fun of daleyrocks, but halfway through, I realized that it actually is true that reality is intolerant. It doesn’t matter how hard you believe you’ll be fine, if you run out in front of a moving train, it will hurt you. It doesn’t matter if you’re absolutely convinced you can fly (even with Spock’s help to remove all doubt), if you jump off a tall building without mechanical aids, you will be injured by the sudden stop at the end.
When my children were little, I was very intolerant about them running into the street without looking; even if there weren’t any cars actually coming. I guess being intolerant means I was a bad parent.
Read this carefully and understand it, daleyrocks: If something is harmful and/or destructive of an individual or society as a whole, then I do not tolerate it. In those cases, I am very intolerant, and that’s a good thing. Sometimes being intolerant is The Best Thing You Can Do For Someone! So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. I hope you choke on it.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:51 pmRight daleyrocks. I set up this strawman. Through sheer mind control I forced Leviticus to say:
It isn’t my straw man; it’s Leviticus’ contention throughout this thread that it’s “obvious” that marriage has no single definition. And therefore he’d like to clear up the mystery for civil society by offering one we can use in the future: marriage is a religious commitment.
To pretend that marriage has not had a single definition in this country that goes back centuries before its founding, as the Mormons found out in the 19th century and gays are finding out in the 20th and 21st, is an example of willful ignorance. Not tolerance.
Then Leviticus goes on to argue against a strawman of his own making in order to avoid the facts:
Mere tradition is what you end up with when you have some sort of cultural artifact which has a forgotten purpose. Marriage on the other hand remains a vibrant institution that people will protect because they understand perfectly well its purpose. It may be a mystery to Leviticus, but not to everyone who understands the reality that it is not a laughable tradition and therefore rejects the alternate definitions offered.
Leviticus has to argue against strawmen because he can’t argue against evidence.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:53 pmSSM proponents’ tactic – of attacking businesses whose proprietor’s do not agree with their political cause – is backfiring even as homosexuality becomes more accepted in our society.
That’s the reality. SSM proponents do a better job of raising opposition to their proposals than do opponents.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:55 pm“Tolerance means developing historical and cultural amnesia upon command?”
Steve57 – I addressed intolerance not tolerance. Since you claimed Leviticus’s opinions about how the state and religion should function regarding marriage going forward differed from yours they carried no weight, were formed in ignorance, were shallow and uninformed, not based in reality, and perhaps belonged to an inhabitant of another planet, please explain how your view of Leviticus’s beliefs is not intolerant.
Please.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:55 pm“Leviticus has to argue against strawmen because he can’t argue against evidence.”
Steve57 – Put down the goal posts and stop arguing like a liberal.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:57 pm“If marriage should be a religious commitment, it is not that now. So it is something. But he pretends it’s a mystery to him as to what it is.”
– Steve57
Ouch – the normative and the positive are now mutually exclusive? The idea that “all is well” rendered a paradox? Once again by Steve-fiat, I presume?
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 12:58 pmIf a business utterly refused to deal with homosexuals, say a grocery banned them all from shopping in the store, or a movie theater banned them from buying tickets at all, the American people would support a boycott of that business by a rather large margin these days. I’d suspect such a business would go out of business in days if not hours.
If a bakery refused to sell any cakes to a homosexual, I think the same would occur.
But attacking a business because its proprietor expresses a political opinion outside of the doors of his restaurant, or attacking a baker who does not wish to create a specific wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, those strike closer to the kind of political thuggery and attacks on freedom of expression and association that Americans find repugnant.
The SSM proponents live in an echo chamber and seem to be utterly clueless of the kind of damage they are doing to their cause.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:00 pmBut then, I often think that for quite a few SSM proponents, the “cause” is not obtaining equal opportunity at all. For far too many, the “cause” seems more focused on sticking a thumb in society’s eye. That’s a lot of what I think that the American public is picking up on.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:02 pmSteve,
If you went out on the street and asked 50 (unbelievably patient) people what their definition of marriage was, how many answers do you think you’d get?
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:03 pmExactly. Chick-fil-A is experience the backlash of the SSM activists today. It’s so “bad,” that in Scott Ott’s satirical news video on PJTV, he said that next week Mr. Cathy is planning to make a series of controversial statements expressing his love for the American flag, baseball and apple pie in hope of producing additional protests. (CFA didn’t actually announce that, that’s the satire.)
I drove out of my way to get lunch there. It’s always been busy when I’ve gone there, but today there were people standing in line waiting to get in and cars wrapped around the building and as far as they could go in every direction. Yet everyone was cheerful, patient, cordial, gracious, laughing and smiling, holding doors for each other, making sure cars could get through, etc. I’ll take the character of this “hateful” crowd any day of the week over the activists who issue vulgar, profanity laden insults and death threats.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:06 pmContrast the Chik-FilA supporters to the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Because that’s what the public is doing.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:08 pmdaleyrocks, are you being deliberately obtuse?
His views are not tolerant and I demonstrated why in my post #326. He offers an alternate definition of marriage, a religious commitment, and deliberately mistates the argument that we don’t need an alternate definition of marriage because we have a perfectly fine one now as mere “tradition” and offers to laugh in my face.
Simply because I know the history of and reasoning behind the current definition of marriage he expresses contempt. He has consistently refused to even acknowledge there is a current definition.
That is shallow, uninformed, and intolerant.
Insisting that I’m a mere “traditionalist” is not much different than insisting that all the people who voted for Prop 8 are mere bigots, as Judge Walker asserted in his ruling.
The tolerance enforcers have a low tolerance for facts, to the point where they can’t admit there are facts, as well as people who base their opinions upon the facts.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:08 pmWhere I live: 49 would say one man, one woman.
Now if you asked what the “traditional” or “historical” definition of marriage is, you would likely get 49 “one man, one woman” answers anywhere.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:09 pmGlenn Reynolds, who himself supports SSM, approvingly quotes this:
And so its more bizarre that Obama abandoned his previous pandering to the middle to be moved to the left in the middle of a reelection campaign.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:13 pmPerhaps five. The vast majority saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, a few adding in for the purpose of having and raising children (although a great many of that vast majority wouldn’t object if I suggested adding it in), and a few outliers who’ve been so misled by the propaganda that they’d offer up some version of the SSM rationale brewed up in recent decades for the purpose of assaulting marriage.
But let’s put it to the voters. Oh, wait, we already have. And so far when it’s been put to the voters the vast majority have agreed with me.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:14 pmQuadGMoto – fair enough. Let me rephrase: if you asked 50 people what the purpose of marriage was, how many answers do you think you’d get?
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:15 pmOh, and by the way Leviticus, your vocabulary is as stunted as your logic and your grasp of history:
I’m sure it’s an example of intolerance that I know what the word means and you don’t. Just like “marriage.”
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:19 pm“daleyrocks, are you being deliberately obtuse?”
Steve57 – I am addressing your views. Why can’t you answer my question? Stop dodging.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:21 pmSteve57, you really seem intent on wearing out your supply of good will.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:21 pm“He has consistently refused to even acknowledge there is a current definition.”
– Steve57
A current definition. A single, scientific definition. Yes. I don’t think there is one – ONE – definition of marriage, which has been my point all along. I think the most cursory survey of world culture and world history supports my opinion, but it remains my opinion. What you don’t seem to get is that this question isn’t susceptible to an easy right or wrong answer.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:21 pmLeviticus, a survey of world culture is irrelevant. World history is irrelevant. There are a lot of things extent in world culture and history that are not acceptable to the American public. And should not be.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:23 pmSteve57 – Did you ask Leviticus what he meant by his comment #226 or did you just invent and assume an argument for him?
I think it’s the latter and it’s pretty damn funny.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:23 pmSecond example was “uttered a profane ejaculation upon stubbing his toe in the dark” which for some reason isn’t visible although I typed it in.
Synonyms include: cry, exclamation, interjection.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:23 pm“Oh, and by the way Leviticus, your vocabulary is as stunted as your logic and your grasp of history.”
– Steve57
Just makin’ a little joke, Steve – albeit it your expense, but without malice. Freud might have something to say about your choice of words, though – all this talk of the institution of marriage has got ejaculation on your brain. “Fabrication” would’ve worked fine, or (if you were interested in being polite) “demonstration” would’ve worked pretty well, too… but you’re free to consider my ejaculations all you want. I mean, if you want to…
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:26 pm“His views are not tolerant and I demonstrated why in my post #326.”
Steve57 – Leviticus has expressed an idea which is different than yours for the future which causes you to label him intolerant.
Seriously, this just keeps getting better and better.
WE CANNOT HAVE COMPETING IDEAS ON THIS FORUM
INTERVENTION PLEASE
Comedy gold.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:28 pmOh, dear. It appears I’ve ejaculated all over this thread. Please forgive me, innocent bystanders.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:28 pmdaleyrocks, did you ask him what he meant when he said it was painfully obvious that marriage has no single definition?
Do you think that’s accurate in terms of the history of legal authority, culture, and traditions of this country?
Of course the anti-marriage crowd in the courts have been creating an alternate paper trail for the past 20 years while burying the past and pretending it never existed.
But in terms of legal authority up until the late ’80s or early ’90s.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:29 pmI’d be more sympathetic to a SSM campaign that appealed to American values and principles, rather than engaged in (often false) sophistry. (I’ve seen advocates claim that SSM is more accepted in Western Europe than is actually true as an example).
And I think the American public would be more sympathetic to a campaign that appeared more interested in convincing the electorate than in hectoring, insulting and threatening them. The immense amount of bile and invective we saw in the California Prop 8 campaign was noticed far beyond. And that’s why Chick-FilA is getting huge crowds today.
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:30 pm“There are a lot of things extent in world culture and history that are not acceptable to the American public. And should not be.”
– SPQR
I agree. We choose our own definitions in this country, just like every other country.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:31 pmdaleyrocks, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.
I’m sorry for you that you can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact, but you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that failing on this and other threads.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:31 pmEvery time I’ve asked the question, the answer I’ve gotten is “I never really thought about it before.”
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:34 pm“daleyrocks, did you ask him what he meant when he said it was painfully obvious that marriage has no single definition?”
IntolerantSteve57 – Refresh your memory. I entered the conversation when you jumped all over him for things he did not say in comment #226 and began fabricating arguments for him.
Your refusal to answer simple questions and tendency to put words in the mouths of others does not improve your credibility.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:37 pm“daleyrocks, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.”
– Steve57
I never meant to state a fact when I said that “marriage is a religious commitment.” I meant to state an opinion – transitive property of “I believe” at the start of the paragraph and whatnot. I suspect this was quite obvious to most people – most people understanding that they can’t shape reality to their whims by unsupported declarations.
I then went on to state another opinion – that there was not a single, universally accepted definition of marriage, that there were many definitions of marriage.
So I don’t know what this “not entitled to their own facts” nonsense is all about. I don’t think anyone’s actually talking about facts – you included.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:39 pmThat’s the problem, Leviticus. We don’t choose our own definitions. If you offer to sell me a quarter pound diamond for $10 bucks, then hand me a lump of coal in the exchange, you aren’t going to get away with just because you choose your own definition of what constitutes a diamond.
Just like you can’t choose your own definition of what “marriage is.”
You certainly can’t claim you’re free to come up with your own definition of “diamond” or “marriage” by claiming there are no accepted definitions of the words.
And I’m not pulling the “diamond” thing out of my nether regions. People have tried that dodge before; “well, to me that’s a diamond.” It’s called fraud.
I believe that’s why the SSM argument has been so soundly rejected by the voters whenever asked. People recognize it as a fraud.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:39 pm@357
Ok, Leviticus, got it. You have an Alice-in-Wonderland view of language.
Good luck persuading the American people that your lump of coal is a diamond.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:44 pmOh, but… see, I pointed out that other cultures have a different understanding of what a marriage is, and SPQR made the astute point that what other cultures call marriage shouldn’t affect what marriage means to our culture, because we decide what marriage means for ourselves. So, we kinda… do choose our own definitions.
My point has been that the fact that we chose that definition from a selection of definitions (variety evidenced the world over) means that there is more than one definition. That’s the only point I’ve been making ever since you got on my case for what I think is a truly innocuous, neutral statement.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:47 pmLeviticus, now where is the definition and justification for your version of “marriage” that excludes un-American things like polygamy, and other forms of group marriage?
SPQR (b93549) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:50 pmI don’t believe Leviticus has explicitly dealt with what QuadGMoto has raised, which I raised much earlier, which is that children growing up in a family with one man and one woman is the best building block for societies. If that is true, or the predominance of available evidence suggests that it is true, then government has a legitimate reason to encourage this as the “typical”/”normal” family unit, irregardless of religious belief.
I saw an ad again today for The New Normal which I guess must be an NBC (Olympics on) answer to Modern Family.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:53 pmOkay. Since one of us is a remedial communicator, let me do my part to try to be clear:
I don’t believe there’s a single unassailable definition of marriage.
I believe that marriage is primarily a religious commitment (an oath of loyalty to a spouse sworn before God).
Start from there, and we can try to claw our way back up the rabbit hole.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:54 pmLeviticus, you’re basically telling the world you don’t understand what culture is, how it develops, and how it works when you reduce it to mere “choice.”
You’re not alone. It’s an understanding the SSM crowd in general grossly lacks. Hence the backlash.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:55 pmI think 363 was posted before my 362 was up. We could also start with marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman intended to be life long where they share finances and material possessions and together raise children if they “arrive”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 1:58 pm==We don’t choose our own definitions….Just like you can’t choose your own definition of what “marriage is.”==
Steve57–please consider this: if you were on a thread discussing social norms and the institution of “marriage” with an American Islamic mullah I suspect that the two of you might indeed have the same or a similar view of homosexuality. But, still, I sincerely doubt that the two of you would ever be fully able to agree on what the current definition of heterosexual marriage is, (or always was) or what the scope of marriage’s traditions and rights and roles and internal mores are–each of you coming from a different place/religion as it were. How do you think the mullah would react to your my way or the highway approach no matter how positively righteous you consider yourself to be? Do you believe in America he is entitled to his views and opinions on the marriage contract and family life even if they are different than yours and even though you may find them objectionable in some or many respects?
elissa (1e3ef8) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:00 pm“daleyrocks, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.”
IntolerantSeve57 – I think I’ve heard that before. Go back to comment #226 and point out what part was opinion and what part was fact please.
Since you claim I have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact, please help me out and enlighten me here.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:04 pm“I don’t believe Leviticus has explicitly dealt with what QuadGMoto has raised, which I raised much earlier, which is that children growing up in a family with one man and one woman is the best building block for societies. If that is true, or the predominance of available evidence suggests that it is true, then government has a legitimate reason to encourage this as the “typical”/”normal” family unit, irregardless of religious belief.”
– MD in Philly
I have not. My apologies.
I think it makes sense that children benefit from the one-man, one-woman family model. If you think that the government has a legitimate interest in propagating that family model for the developmental benefit of children, and you’re comfortable with the government deciding what shape “optimal” families ought to take – for the children – then that’s… surprising (for a conservative), but okay.
But that doesn’t explain why the government would allow civil unions and adoption rights for gay people while simultaneously disallowing marriage. For the “healthy family unit” folks, it should be the other way around: the government should allow marriage (which doesn’t necessarily implicate childrearing, as people have pointed out over and over) and disallow adoption (which necessarily does).
The fact that it’s the other way around makes me think the government thinks it has some other interest in prohibiting gay marriage, beyond the “healthy family unit” interest.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:05 pm“Do you believe in America he is entitled to his views and opinions on the marriage contract and family life even if they are different than yours and even though you may find them objectionable in some or many respects?”
elissa – No way, no how! IntolerantSteve57 has already stated we are not allowed to hold two different views of marriage on this blog. It’s his way or the highway.
Silly girl. What were you thinking, what were you thinking?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:08 pmLeviticus, disallow adoption? You’ve tried to create contradictions that are not merely artificial but just don’t exist.
You’ve also engaged in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Regardless of whether society has an interest in prohibiting gay marriage (which in fact the current law does not do), that does not mean that it must necessarily then recognize gay marriage.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:13 pm“I never meant to state a fact when I said that “marriage is a religious commitment.” I meant to state an opinion – transitive property of “I believe” at the start of the paragraph and whatnot. I suspect this was quite obvious to most people – most people understanding that they can’t shape reality to their whims by unsupported declarations.
I then went on to state another opinion – that there was not a single, universally accepted definition of marriage, that there were many definitions of marriage.”
Leviticus – The use of “I believe” near the beginning of your comment was sort of a tip off to me of the intent of your comment. The attempt by others to blame you for their willful misreading of what you said and subsequent insults is just BS because they can’t admit they screwed up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:15 pmNo apology necessary, just pointing out a part of the discussion that hadn’t been picked up on while other things were…
Responding to your comment, it’s not just for the children, it’s for the future of society and the government governing it. It makes a difference in 40 years how the children of today turn out.
But again, it’s not always the ideal or nothing. A caring single parent is likely better than an orphanage, for example.
Although variations such as polygamy with concubines, etc. have existed throughout history, has there ever been a society (especially relatively successful) that did not consider a man and a woman and their children as the typical smallest unit of society? If so, it seems to me the burden of proof is on those who wish to change it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:19 pmI apologize to everyone I grossed out with my “tongue-loving behinds” comment. I had been watching women’s beach volleyball. Considering that four out of five SSMs are girl on girl, I did not think that it might conjure other images. Sorry.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:23 pmnk, uh that did not help much …
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:23 pmMD in Philly,
I think it’s a question of whether or not we’re going to allow what’s typical to unilaterally dictate what’s acceptable.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:23 pm“I think 363 was posted before my 362 was up. ”
– MD in Philly
Just saw this. My comment at 363 was absolutely for Steve, not for you.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:26 pmLeviticus-
I think it’s a question of whether we recognize how the universe works or not, and in general work with it or against it. Whether I want to accept how strong gravity on the earth is or not is of little consequence to the Universe or the Earth. If I slip and fall or drop something there will be a consequence.
The question is to what degree human behavior and social interactions have “built in” components such as the law of gravity in physics, and to try to shape and run society in ways contrary to that is wise or stupid.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:30 pmdaleyrocks, tell you what. Here’s an experiment you can run if you’re having trouble understanding why I’ve said you demonstrate you have trouble separating opinion from fact.
Try getting married to more than woman at one time in your state and test Leviticus’ “opinion” that there are multiple definitions of marriage.
He says that is an opinion. See if that contention is truly a matter of opinion as he claims.
Let me know how it goes.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:33 pm“Whether I want to accept how strong gravity on the earth is or not is of little consequence to the Universe or the Earth. If I slip and fall or drop something there will be a consequence.”
– MD in Philly
And, reasonably, that observation affects your understanding of the natural order of things. At the same time, the existence of gravity does not prompt you to prohibit (say) air travel. Gravity may indicate to you that man was not meant to fly through the air, but that doesn’t stop you from acknowledging that some people might benefit from air travel.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:36 pmMy point is, human beings disregard the natural order on a regular basis – sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:37 pm“Try getting married to more than woman at one time in your state and test Leviticus’ “opinion” that there are multiple definitions of marriage.”
– Steve57
Try marrying a man in Vermont and test yours.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:38 pmYes, Leviticus, but flying through the air still follows the laws of gravity, it is just additional forces come into play.
There are limits of what one can not do in the physical universe. The question is how much of human behavior and societal function has built in laws as well. One can theoretically (and actually) make a flying machine, but one cannot necessarily find a way to build one in two hours with duct tape and string if that is all you have.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:41 pmThen try moving to North Carolina, Leviticus.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:42 pmVermont is a pretty good example of the “what’s all the fuss about” argument. The place still has not been deluged or buried under lava.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:44 pm==has there ever been a society (especially relatively successful) that did not consider a man and a woman and their children as the typical smallest unit of society?==
I think almost all Americans agree that’s the ideal for so many important reasons. But unfortunately, largely thanks to a certain political party, LBJ and the Great Society, and 40 years, that ship has sailed, I’m afraid, Doc. The never married single mother homes with multiple absent baby daddys, rudderless hopeless kids in poverty (some being raised by elderly grandparents and great-grandparents), middle class children of divorce shuttling between houses, cities, states etc., are more prevalent in many areas than traditional nuclear families are. Sadly, we don’t live in Eisenhower America anymore and Ozzie and Harriet and Ricky are dead.
elissa (1e3ef8) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:45 pm“Then try moving to North Carolina, Leviticus.”
– Steve57
Okay. You realize you’re making my point for me, right?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:50 pm380. No example or definitions given.
On takes in sustenance through the mouth and once extracted relieves one via the ureter and anus.
Exceptions within the natural order: One expels a poison by vomiting.
Unnatural: bulemia, following colostomy one wears a waste bag.
“All the time”.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:57 pm386- Truly sad those times have passed.
mg (44de53) — 8/1/2012 @ 2:58 pmDobie Gillis, My Three Sons, My Friend Flicka, Rin Tin Tin, Mr. Ed.
Clean T.V.
That’s the problem. Government is currently deciding what shape families ought to take. The problem is, it isn’t the kind of thing that can be “decided”. The optimal structure of marriage can only be discovered. The lessons of history (not to mention numerous careful studies) have produced the discovery that one man/one woman/for life is the optimal family structure; and by a wide margin to boot.
It’s the attempt to deny observation and decide anyway that’s causing trouble.
In your airplane example, they don’t deny nature, they kept studying and studying until they understood it better. Engineers who attempt to deny nature inevitably produce devices and structures which fail. (History is littered with those too.)
Likewise, denying human nature has produced the greatest failures in history. (Communism, Nazism, Serfdom, etc.) Even generally successful societies have collapsed when they got cocky and thought they could do anything they want because they thought human nature had changed or didn’t matter. It is only through understanding human nature better that our Founding Fathers were able to create a country which, though flawed, rose to become the most powerful nation history has ever seen. But now we’re in a phase where you and your ilk are ignoring human nature and the innumerous lessons of history and messing with the foundational structures of society like a monkey playing with the controls of nuclear reactor.
QuadGMoto (3eb042) — 8/1/2012 @ 3:01 pmDoc, my “intolerant” view is much like the one you expressed.
That there are limits on what you can impose upon people. And how fast.
Culture sets those limits. Cultures evolve over time. How they evolve depends on the results they value, and how effectively the culture achieves those results.
Culture is never static; through a process of externalizing our beliefs about how to look at things and do things as well as our values, then objectifying that set of beliefs and values, we reinternalize those beliefs and values. It’s a constant feedback loop. We change the culture, the culture changes us, wash, rinse, repeat.
You can not ignore the culture just because you can not reach out and touch it. You can not deny it’s importance. You can live in a culture with a different definition of marriage such as a polygamous muslim country. Where women are property, children are sexualized because while women must not be adulterous men are free to have sex with whomever and whatever they please, and consequently economic development is low. Move to Kabul, enjoy living the dancing boys, and the 10th century.
Or you can live in a country like ours, where women’s equal status is reflected in our monogamous system of marriage and children were formerly desexualized by the cultural norm that sex and love were properly confined within the bonds of matrimony. And you can enjoy modernity.
We do not have a “choice” of how we define marriage. How we define marriage has evolved over time depending upon the results desired and attained. The SCOTUS justice who observed “marriage is how society reproduces itself” was saying far more than people give him credit for.
My “intolerance” is due to the fact that I have observed that only monstrous and inhuman societies expect to “perfect” the culture by imposing top-down legal regimes and expecting people to comply based upon sheer force. Which is the only way to achieve SSM in this country. That’s how it’s been achieved so far; never by popular referendum but rather by judicial fiat or in the case of NY what is widely seen as a betrayal by legislators who got elected promising they’d vote otherwise.
In humane societies the law reflects the culture, not the other way around. It’s a question of whether or not the government serves the people, or the people are to serve the government’s agenda.
We know how Emmanuel and Menino come down on the issue. We’ll only get SSM in this country if they get their way.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 3:36 pm“daleyrocks, tell you what. Here’s an experiment you can run if you’re having trouble understanding why I’ve said you demonstrate you have trouble separating opinion from fact.
Try getting married to more than woman at one time in your state and test Leviticus’ “opinion” that there are multiple definitions of marriage.
He says that is an opinion. See if that contention is truly a matter of opinion as he claims.”
IntolerantSteve57 – I have no idea why you keep trying to get me involved with Leviticus’s statement about multiple definitions of marriage since that was not part of my original beef about your dishonest attack on his comment. It’s just another example of your goal post moving in which I’m not interested in participating.
When you accuse someone of ignoring facts, reality, etc., etc., without even bothering to ask what factors they considered or balanced in order to arrive at an opinion or belief as you did in this thread last night and then proceed to imagine an argument for them, I think it is clear that it is you who have credibility and tolerance issues as well as problems dealing with plain english.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 3:40 pmNo, I’m pointing out that while you can change the law that’s not the same thing as changing the culture.
If you go to a place in this country where the laws still reflect the values of the people as opposed to whatever opinions are fashionable in the judicial ivory tower you’ll find one accepted definition of marriage.
And if you go to places where it’s been judicially imposed it is still the accepted definition of marriage and the legal regime is seen as illegitimate.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 3:40 pmdaleyrocks, I haven’t moved the goalposts since I first joined this comment thread:
But always nice to hear from the peanut gallery in the alternate universe. The intellectually dishonest one.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 8/1/2012 @ 4:07 pm“I think it’s a question of whether or not we’re going to allow what’s typical to unilaterally dictate what’s acceptable.”
That’s not correct, either. Leviticus. SSM can be “acceptable” to anyone or no one. The question is whether or not government must be or should be compelled to recognize it and give it the legal incentives that heterosexual marriage has.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 4:19 pm“daleyrocks, I haven’t moved the goalposts since I first joined this comment thread:”
IntolerantSteve57 – Sure you have, cowboy. You finally admitted you were not addressing Leviticus’s comment and instead created a conversation out of whole cloth.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 4:50 pmComment by elissa — 8/1/2012 @ 2:45 pm
Yes, that ship has sailed- “how’s it sailing for ya?” would be the pertinent question. Even rats know enough to get off of a sinking ship, but apparently some people don’t.
Doc, my “intolerant” view is much like the one you expressed.
Agreed. I’m thinking an issue involved is whether a person believes that people and culture can choose to be whatever they want, that human choice has power over all, or whether humanity actually needs to live within parameters that are external to it. (Lewis, Abolition of Man).
380.My point is, human beings disregard the natural order on a regular basis – sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/1/2012 @ 2:37 pm
Actually, I disagree. Airplanes are not an example of disregarding the natural order. Airplanes are an example of engineers learning how to work within the natural order to accomplish something people could not do previously. (Point/s similar made above).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:02 pmI’m not sure how often people actually disregard the natural order and get away with it. Besides, individuals are given wide latitude in doing stupid things when they will be the only ones to suffer negative consequences, I would think government has little requirement to endorse behavior that has negative consequences to society.
Okay. So can we play around with my hypothetical, then? If the government’s main interest in recognizing straight marriage and not recognizing gay marriage is that the government is concerned for the healthy development of children in one-man, one-woman households, should the government allow gay couples to adopt children?
Assuming that the government were to prohibit gay couples from adopting children, what further reason would the government have to not recognize gay marriages?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:19 pm“I’m not sure how often people actually disregard the natural order and get away with it.”
MD in Philly – Where did that “get away with it” qualifier come from? That’s what choice is about. People abuse their bodies with all sorts of substances and as a result may live shorter lives than if they did not. Which is the natural order, the longer life or the shorter life and why?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:36 pmCome on Steverino is right, governments a lot more libertarian than ours are obliged to legislate marriage associated law.
This is stupid.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 5:45 pmCivilization is “changing the natural order of things” in one word.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:38 pmMy daughter has an aunt three months younger than my daughter is. The aunt’s second oldest brother (older than her by three years) was a test tube baby. Her oldest brother is 46 years older than she is. All the aunt’s nephews and nieces, on her father’s side, are older than she is.
In the sexual revolution, I was 4-F. I am a monogamist. Imposing celibacy on homosexuals is not something we any longer tolerate in this country. Allowing them monogamy is the nearest best solution.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 7:47 pmComment by nk — 8/1/2012 @ 7:47 pm
heterosexual or homosexual, legal marriage is not needed for monogamy nor does it automatically insure monogamy. No one is imposing anything on homosexuals. Some of us just say that thousands of years of “normal” should be changed by somebody imposing something on the rest of us.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/1/2012 @ 5:36 pm
Absolutely correct I added the qualifier. I added it because it was implied in Leviticus’ example that one could flaunt the natural order without consequence (flying in an airplane). Yes, people are often allowed to do all kinds of things that damage themselves, but then when we feel the ramifications for society at large are also getting weighty, we regulate it. The questions are when, where, and how to draw the lines.
The natural order is that doing some things help live a long and fruitful life (though they do not guarantee it), and doing other things often shorten it and make on and others miserable in the process.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/1/2012 @ 5:19 pm
For many, many years, a certain color has been called “yellow”. Why would you want to change it now, even though there is no moral or sociological hindrance to it?
When something has been called “marriage” for many, many years, which has moral and sociological ramifications thrown in, why do you want to change it? I will not agree to the default question being “Why not change it?” The question at hand is why should the definition be changed, you convince me.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:04 pmSome of us just say that thousands of years of “normal” should be not changed by somebody imposing something on the rest of us.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:06 pmnk, how does refusing to apply the word “marriage” to their relationship morph into not allowing them monogamy?
And how does applying the word “marriage” to their relationship somehow ensure monogamy?
“Marriage” isn’t an incantation. Marriage has to have certain elements associated with it. If we remove one or more, such as the procreative purpose and the normative purpose, how can anyone expect it will retain any of the other elements? Such as fidelity.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:11 pmMD,
Societies stagnate, evolve, and some accelerate. I want to be in the one that accelerates. I agree with the principle that the acceleration has to be by popular consensus, not minority fiat, but that’s basically a given in a democratic society.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:14 pmOf course, marriage is an incantation, a magic word, Steve57. If not, nobody would care. And we no longer imprison anyone for adultery, but there is some magic in that blue-bordered, embossed paper and the vows it took to get it. Sure, it doesn’t work all the time, but what does?
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:20 pmAnd those somebodies imposing this something on the rest of us have already decreed that even if we determine this imposition a mistake, we can’t ever go back.
The 9th Circuit Court refused to adopt Walker’s reasoning that the definition of marriage has always included gay marriage. And when something is too weird for the 9th Circus you know it’s got to be out there.
But they still struck down Prop 8 because they said that would cause harm to those gay couples who had married. Prop 8 had been passed several months after the Kali Supreme Court invented the idea that the right to marry could be found in the Kali constitution, and in the meantime many gays married. So it was too late, or as the 9th Circus ruling put it could not be reinstated because of its “relative timing.”
In other words, when this new marriage right is invented by a court against the will of the people even for the wrong reasons, it is a mistake that can never be undone.
Especially because, the 9th Circus opined, the harm the Prop 8 proponents sought to prevent was a too small to justify changing back. Kali voters had created a civil union that had too many of the same “incidents” of marriage.
In other words, since Kali voters had been too generous in granting the rights and privileges of marriage to civil unions, their wishes that marriage be defined as a union be between one man and one woman could not be respected. Even though there was nothing in the 9th Circus’ ruling that could possibly lead one to believe that such a definition is at all unconstitutional.
Which is why I can’t be a proponent of civil unions, either. And neither really can anyone else if they value the institution of marriage. Because the 9th Circus has put us on notice that if in their opinion a civil union looks enough like marriage, the courts can call it marriage and give us the finger.
At least not until this is settled in the SCOTUS. The Prop 8 proponents have already filed a petition of certiori asking the court to review and reverse the 9th Circus’ incoherent decision. It’s highly likely that the court will grant the petition, and even likely that it will overturn it.
Then, at that point, things will be different.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:36 pmI haven’t read all the comments so maybe I’m missing the context of that. Are you saying gays can’t be monogamous without marriage? Or that not allowing s.s. marriage imposes celibacy?!
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:49 pmJust go back 10 comments, Gerald.
Steve57, I consider “Judge” Walker to be a ridiculous jackass who should be impeached for abuse of office or just being a ridiculous a**.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 8:55 pmIf there ever was an opinion meant to be reversed, it was Walker’s. Let’s see if we have four Supremes who want to bother. They can remand for further findings, from a different judge, under their supervisory power, without addresing the appealed issues.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:02 pm401. Fine civil unions for the bennies and insurance. Done.
Lets move on or carve the Right into pieces.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:23 pm________________________________________________
Imposing celibacy on homosexuals is not something we any longer tolerate in this country. Allowing them monogamy is the nearest best solution.
Huh? That sounds very naive, as though the typical homosexual of today is quivering in the proverbial closet of the 1950s, surrounded by strict conformity and a shame-laden cultural ethos. Or that a typical gay person in the Western World of 2012 is living in a society very similar to that of an Islamofascist one.
What’s ironic is that the prevailing attitude of today takes both traditional marriage and traditional morals in general less seriously. So to believe that a further dumbing down of marriage as we know it will somehow magically transform the GLBT community into a more reserved and circumspect enclave is the height — the epitome — of wishful thinking.
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:29 pmHope is one of the three Paulian virtues, Mark. Faith and Love are the other two. Love being the greater.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:32 pmThe attack by big city thug politicians on Chick-FilA was a large mistake by Democrats. Even people who are sympathetic to SSM are offended by this, and this is the kind of thing that can set the tone of the 2012 election.
Against Democrats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:34 pm413. Paul would say expel the couple practicing SSM. He considered himself a murderer, but a repentant forgiven one.
The sin isn’t finding one self attracted to the same sex, unable to purge the thoughts. Rather it is behaving as if it is acceptable to God.
His hope would be that the couple would cease the latter, living alone if possible.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:39 pm“The natural order is that doing some things help live a long and fruitful life (though they do not guarantee it), and doing other things often shorten it and make on and others miserable in the process.”
MD in Philly – Good answer. I thought you were leaning in the direction of choosing longevity as the natural order. Since man has been engaging in activities which shorten lifespans for millenia and I believe our curiosity and intelligence encourages us to continue engage in activities which have the possibility of shortening our lifespans such as flying, I don’t believe I have the wisdom to pronounce a human activity outside the natural order. Periodically as you note, however, a society sometimes feels the need to regulate human activity for what it falsely or legitimately believes is the greater good. It doesn’t matter whether that society is totalitarian or democratic or theocratic, similar reasons are usually given.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:41 pmTo the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you. ”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
Humans have made sure that none of this s**t, except for the very last line, happens anymore, even if it does disturb the natural order of things. And we will take care of that last line, too.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:43 pmMD, I was responding to
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:47 pmMark. I would never say s**t to you.
417. You don’t get out much. You know crop insurance just pays for the seed and fertilizer?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:51 pmHill farm. No insurance.
And no God promising today will be like yesterday, either.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 9:59 pmThen I don’t see how anything’s changed except an old man’s memory.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:02 pmIs that it? A Covenant that the world will always be the same?
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:04 pmYour vision’s your problem.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:06 pm422. Half a billion in India are without power. Suicide among farmer’s is leading the demographic in Finland and India and is rising elsewhere.
Here in the US, in your own state, farmer’s will forego an income this year. The PDO and AMO went negative within a couple years of each other two winters ago. They could easily remain that way for a decade. The Dust Bowl saw them in that phase only a half-dozen or so.
Our wealth is passing away. We were blessed for a time. Get over it.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:11 pm423. Rather I stand on the shoulder’s of giants where you prefer your own stature.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:13 pmNo problem, gary. I’m on the second half of the Smirnoff’s, too.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:16 pmI support gay marriage in that I believe they should be afforded all the rights as regular married people get (whether tax right offs or whatever).
I don’t think a church should have to marry them. As far as I know it’s the church that really defines marriage.
The government should recognize civil unions and let churches deal with marriages. VOTE FOR ME! Noodles!
Noodles (3681c4) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:18 pm_____________________________________________
Hope is one of the three Paulian virtues,
nk, I don’t know about hope and biblical text, but what really unnerves me is the story of Sodom and Lot. That’s because even a non-literal, scientific assessment of the Bible must gravitate towards the idea that it, at the very least, records and depicts eons of the pros and cons of human nature.
For the character of Lot to have encountered a male populace so deviant that it wanted to rape his two male guests is bad enough. But for Lot to instead have offered his daughters in place of the two males, as a weird sort of sacrifice (but also reminiscent of a bad joke about, say, a bunch of lonely women dropping by a bar, unaware that it’s a gay one, and being insulted and puzzled when they don’t get lucky for the evening) really makes me think that male sexuality can become more perverse and corrupt that presumed.
I guess this is just another way of saying that male sexuality appears to be more chaotic than I originally believed, susceptible to a lot more free will and poor choices than GLBT activists (and liberals in general) want the public to be aware of. Because of this, I find I’m more cynical about the GLBT agenda — and less sympathetic towards it — than in the past.
Mark (70c729) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:21 pmGenesis is a myth. Allegories, teaching stories, and cautionary tales. Never to be taken literally, always to be remembered.
nk (875f57) — 8/1/2012 @ 10:32 pmWonderful goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re simply too great. I actually like what you have obtained right here, certainly like what you’re saying and the best way during which you assert it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to learn much more from you. That is actually a great website.
short story about love (91a27c) — 8/1/2012 @ 11:43 pmSteve57, your reading of the ninth circuit opinion is simply wrong. It is not true that “they still struck down Prop 8 because they said that would cause harm to those gay couples who had married.”
The California Supreme Court, when it upheld Proposition 8, constrained it *not apply* to those couples who had married during the five months gay marriage was legal in California. Thus, the issue of what to do about those marriages was never before the 9th Circuit. The couples in those marriages suffered no harm because their marriages were not affected by Proposition 8.
aphrael (5d993c) — 8/2/2012 @ 7:49 am_______________________________________________
Never to be taken literally, always to be remembered.
How literally should this be taken? BTW, that’s an image from a Gay Pride event in, no, not San Francisco, New York City or LA. It was in…Salt Lake City, a very swinging, super hip, libertine city, and published in an article at the guardian.co.uk from several weeks ago.
Mark (70c729) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:00 am_______________________________________________
I guess I should provide a link to the article I mentioned previously, because its author pretty much fits the worst stereotype possible, expresses resentment that such a stereotype should be perceived as negative, and directs his ire at those who find things like “assless chaps” as pathetic and freaky.
I bet he has the nerve to blame others (“Ronald Reagan is why AIDS became so BAD!!!!”) for things like HIV and AIDS.
^ And yet the comments and reaction of the owner of a bakery in Colorado or a fast-food franchise based in Atlanta — and expressed in a comparatively private, non-in-your-face manner — are deemed as controversial by the left, by the GLBT crowd.
Mark (70c729) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:18 am“Airplanes are an example of engineers learning how to work within the natural order to accomplish something people could not do previously. (Point/s similar made above).”
– MD in Philly
I think this analogy begs the question as to what “the natural order” is. If human beings flying through the air from Miami to Paraguay – making a mockery of the entire history of human locomotion – doesn’t violate the natural order, I don’t know what does. If we’re going to take such a broad view of what can occur within the confines of the natural order, then there are plenty of arguments that gay marriage fits into the natural order of the human family as well as flight fits into the natural order of human locomotion.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:22 am“For many, many years, a certain color has been called “yellow”. Why would you want to change it now, even though there is no moral or sociological hindrance to it?… I will not agree to the default question being “Why not change it?” The question at hand is why should the definition be changed, you convince me.”
– MD in Philly
I’m sure I won’t, given that I’m not fully decided on the matter myself; but I agree that the default question should be “why” rather than “why not”, so I’ll start there:
Do you believe that marriage is an institution that promotes societal health?
If so (and I’d imagine so) what are the qualities of marriage which promote societal health? (Facilitates healthy parenting, values honesty and loyalty, increases familial stability, weaves the married into the social fabric?)
How many of the qualities of marriage you pinpointed apply as readily to a gay couple as a straight couple? And at what cost to the marriages of straight people?
That’s the argument. To society, the benefits outweigh the costs. Gay marriage gives all the benefits of marriage to gay people without any cost to marriage as applied to straight people. The benefits don’t outweigh the costs when it comes to changing “yellow” to “sneefledorp.”
It’s a utilitarian argument, and I’m not a utilitarian person, which is why I retain my ambivalence on the matter. It is, I dare say, above my pay grade. But I see the argument. Marriage is an incantation, as nk says, and I think the more people that are challenged to the love, loyalty, and commitment that a marriage entails the better.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:39 amI have too much to do today to post at length. Appreciate dialogue by all, even those of you who are wrong. 😉
Leviticus- we are talking past each other or something. There is a difficult issue involved which I already alluded to, but flying airplanes is not it.
The “natural order” is the way things are, which in physics and chemistry are easier to understand as fixed. A chemist learns laws of how matter is composed and reacts and manipulates things within those laws to accomplish things. An alchemist would be one that would wish to find a way to turn lead into gold by “magic” if one could (though I imagine historically there was some overlap).
Flying through the air makes a mockery of human locomotion no more than riding on a horse does, or the running of a trained athlete in 2012 compared to 500 BC.
Now, if you demanded that a man could fly without appealing to the use of tools, that would be against the natural order, because the laws of physics make only some things possible, not any you want.
People need to breath oxygen to live. A person can stay underwater a long time if a way can be made to keep the person supplied with oxygen. But there is a physical limit to how long a person can be trained to hold their breath underwater.
The near impossible question to answer definitively is how much of human individual and societal behavior is “fixed” like laws of physics and how much manipulation can be done within those boundaries. must stop now…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:42 amGay marriage gives all the benefits of marriage to gay people without any cost to marriage as applied to straight people.
In my opinion that is a huge assumption. That works only if looking at the case of how does Jim and John being married in Hawaii affect Steve and Sally in Virginia. When discussing a societal norm nothing is that simple.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:45 am“When discussing a societal norm nothing is that simple.”
MD in Philly – Correct. And as you have acknowledged on this thread, societal norms can change over time. Folks on one side of an argument may prefer to cite norms created thousands of years ago in support of their positions, while others point to different data and reasoning.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:02 am“The near impossible question to answer definitively is how much of human individual and societal behavior is “fixed” like laws of physics and how much manipulation can be done within those boundaries.”
– MD in Philly
I agree. That’s what I meant when I discussed “begging the question as to what the natural order is” in #434 (although you make the point much more clearly than I did; and I suppose I’m begging the same question to the same degree).
“Flying through the air makes a mockery of human locomotion no more than riding on a horse does, or the running of a trained athlete in 2012 compared to 500 BC.”
– MD in Philly
Sure it does. All other human locomotion historically took place on the ground, subject to the rule of gravity. Air travel doesn’t do away with the rule of gravity (obviously) but it spites it for a net-positive human good. Similarly, marriage has traditionally been reserved for some combination of a man and a number of women, subject to the rules of reproductive biology; (in my opinion) gay marriage doesn’t do away with the rules of reproductive biology, but it spites them for a net-positive human good – more marriages leading to more loyal, stable, loving homes and families.
(Again, I agree that we’re disagreeing about the proper scope of “the natural order”…)
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:17 amAgain, Leviticus, again? Now because you’re saying you don’t know the history of human locomotion that flight makes a mockery of it?
Flight no more made a mockery of the history of human locomotion than the steam engine did over 100 years earlier.
You are not aware of all the scientific research that they requested from the Smithsonian that preceded the Wright Brothers’ first powered aircraft? The coefficient for lift, the “Smeaton coefficient,” had been developed over 100 years earlier. The Wright Brothers solved an engineering problem that aviators had been working on because during wind tunnel testing they discovered a flaw in Smeaton’s equation because they were confronting problems with powered flight that Smeaton couldn’t possibly have anticipated.
Flight does not make a mockery of the history of human locomotion. Quite the opposite. It proceeds on the basis of sound scientific and engineering principles. The roots of these methods going back centuries.
Analogous to the development of marriage in many respects.
At what point while you’re sitting at your computer imagining anything is possible because you haven’t bothered to check facts because you aren’t aware there are facts is it going to dawn on you that all the arguments you’re making are doomed to failure because, indeed, there are facts. And a historical record that references those facts.
That is the case with marriage as well as flight.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:18 am“In my opinion that is a huge assumption.”
– MD in Philly
I think you’re probably right, but that’s brass-tacks stuff and a huge assumption either way. Will you assume it for the sake of argument? If you do and the argument holds, we will at least have pinpointed the source of an intractable (though hopefully amicable) disagreement.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:20 amDoc, your analogy is flawed. Riding horses or running does not require the use of the scientific method or the application of engineering principles. Powered flight did.
Which is why flight does not “make a mockery of human locomotion.” Flight was only possible due to centuries of development. The Wright Flyer was only possible, for instance, because someone else had developed the internal combustion engine (thus solving some issues with the external combustion or steam engine). That was the only way the Wright brothers could have acquired an engine light enough to power the aircraft it was possible to build given the materials and technology available at the time.
The Wright brothers simply took what others developed, learned from others’ as well as their own mistakes, and solved the remaining difficulties using sound methods.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:39 am“Flight does not make a mockery of the history of human locomotion. Quite the opposite. It proceeds on the basis of sound scientific and engineering principles. The roots of these methods going back centuries. Analogous to the development of marriage in many respects.”
– Steve57
I agree. A thing (like locomotion, or marriage) can come to look very, very, very different from what it once looked like, by small incremental steps rooted in sound principles – and this is perfectly natural, and may well proceed to the benefit of mankind.
Finally, some consensus.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:41 amHow do you suggest we have a civil discussion, Leviticus, when you insist on discussing issues in proud ignorance of the facts.
1. All prior locomotion took place on the ground? So you’re not aware that prior to the Wright flyer people had invented ships. Including powered ships that used propellers to propel them not on the ground. And that the Wright brothers had to rely on the principles of nautical engineering to apply the me to aeronautical engineering to solve the problem of using a propeller to drive an aircraft through the air.
2. Don’t discuss flight if you’re not aware of the principles of lift and thrust. Flight does not “spite” gravity anymore than thrust “spites” drag.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:45 amYes, consensus, Leviticus. I’d like to have a civil discussion. I think my discussion with aphrael has been civil (I’m looking into the 9th Circuit case to see if my memory is flawed and will provide a link if I can locate it again).
But I first suggest you learn what those principles are before floating ideas about how to change something.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:50 amUh-oh. All this talk of thrust is going to get you back to talking about my ejaculations again, isn’t it?
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:55 amBut I’m glad we can agree on my point at 443.
Leviticus (e923df) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:56 amSteve57, the 9th circuit decision is at this address.
The California Supreme Court decision restricting proposition 8 to the name marriage only, and holding that it doesn’t effect the marriages entered into prior to its enactment, is this address.
As far as the latter goes, the relevant portion is on page 13:
aphrael (5d993c) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:57 amFinally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the
marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of
Proposition 8. Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question
whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or
retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to
apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior
to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be
recognized in this state.
Thank you, aphrael.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:04 am“How do you suggest we have a civil discussion, Leviticus, when you insist on discussing issues in proud ignorance of the facts.”
IntolerantSeve57 – I would suggest there is not much hope when you make such hostile statements as the above.
You suggest you dialogue with aphrael has been civil. Why not take some cues from that. Does aphrael insult you with same vigor you show to Leviticus when you disagree? Absolutely not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:08 amSteve57, like daleyrocks, I find that in this thread, it is you who have not held up your end of a civil discussion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:11 amComment by nk — 8/1/2012 @ 9:43 pm
Humans have made sure that none of this s**t, except for the very last line, happens anymore,
What? This is no longer true?
If that were no longer true, there would be no such thing as abused wives.
Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:19 amWe agree to a certain point. And actually I’m glad you brought up flight.
Whereas you are correct that both marriage and locomotion can look very different over time, marriage is a cultural creation that is evolutionary while locomotion is an engineering problem.
The problem is, what I am “intolerant” of, is that SSM advocates and the courts have decided that marriage and family is an engineering issue.
California Multiple Parents Bill: Proposed Legislation Would Allow Children To Have Three Or More Parents
This is the next step in the gay rights agenda. Redefining marriage to divorce it from procreation was step one (and their declaration of victory is way, way premature) now separating parentage from biology is next.
Here is the sponsor’s “reasoning:”
First of all, diverse circumstances haven’t reshaped Kali families. Court rulings have. Now this guy would give the courts more grounds to impose even more bizarre court rulings upon the people of Kali.
Does anyone really think this sort of court imposed “engineering” is the right way to go. You can’t force the evolution of society to go down prescribed paths. We ought to have learned that from the last century’s lessons taught by murderous communists also bent on reshaping humanity to make it accord with their agenda.
And just how much of this crap does anyone think people will put up with before the backlash goes beyond setting record sales at Chick-fil-A?
Also, Leviticus, do you think that if the legislature imposes this upon the people of Kali, that means that there is no single definition of family? The people undoubtedly will not consent to this. That was the crux of my disagreement with you about the definition of marriage. That just because a court imposes a legal regime upon a people, it does not change the culturally accepted definition of whatever the court chooses to redefine.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:22 amTaken onboard. I will not make excuses for myself.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:25 amSteve57, the California law under discussion, allowing multiple parents, is a reaction to what people are actually doing and the way people are living their lives.
Imagine two parents divorce. They both remarry. The child’s time is shared between both parents. The step parents have no legal rights, but the step parents in question are *inevitably* closely involved in the lives of their partners’ children.
The bill would grant the parents in such cases legal rights.
This isn’t an imposition from above; it’s a reaction to real-world situations on the ground.
aphrael (5d993c) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:25 amComment by SPQR — 8/1/2012 @ 1:00 pm
attacking a business because its proprietor expresses a political opinion outside of the doors of his restaurant
It wasn’t even a political opinion. It was a religious opinion, in a religious (Baptist) publication.
The gay rights activists had to go looking for this, and they did, with all the zeal of people stamping out heresy.
The SSM proponents live in an echo chamber and seem to be utterly clueless of the kind of damage they are doing to their cause.
They want to prevail, not because people agree with them, but because they are afraid not to.
Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:27 amThe complete thought was “Court rulings and the legislature have created the diverse circumstances.”
The assemblyman speaks in the passive voice to avoid the fact that these circumstances didn’t just happen, but that legislation and judicial decisions imposed them.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:28 amL: Gay marriage gives all the benefits of marriage to gay people without any cost to marriage as applied to straight people.
MD: In my opinion that is a huge assumption. That works only if looking at the case of how does Jim and John being married in Hawaii affect Steve and Sally in Virginia. When discussing a societal norm nothing is that simple.
L: Will you assume it for the sake of argument? If you do and the argument holds, we will at least have pinpointed the source of an intractable (though hopefully amicable) disagreement.
No, I will not for the sake of the argument, because that is the argument. You (and others) assume that changing the definition of marriage and equating SS unions and heterosexual unions has no effect of society because you say you don’t see how it effects Dick and Jane in their marriage. I think that is a very superficial argument, though I guess thought by most to carry the day.
It is another example of people on the Left side of things want to say that conservatives are “anti-science” when they want to adopt something without rigorous thinking at all.
A problem in any discussion which is happening here, examples and analogies are good to a degree, usually trying to illustrate a particular point, not a wide ranging general point. In one way human locomotion by a horse is different than by a train as one requires a knowledge of training an animal and the other the building of a machine, but they both make a human travel faster and longer than they did otherwise, and they both require a manipulation of something from an “unadulterated natural state”, to a “manipulated state within the bounds of natural law/the natural order”. One does have to figure out how to catch and tame a horse. So in some ways a horse and “iron horse” are different, but they both allow people to travel farther and longer than their own legs.
But the latter is a side point, though it can get in the way. Back to work post lunch break.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:28 amThe historical purpose of regulating and publicizing marriage is, I think, to eliminate jealousy, and to establish what is and is not adultery and bigamy.
Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:29 amaphreal, we already have solutions to that.
And what I most reject is the idea that this is being done for the benefit of the child.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:30 amI agree. A thing (like locomotion, or marriage) can come to look very, very, very different from what it once looked like, by small incremental steps rooted in sound principles – and this is perfectly natural, and may well proceed to the benefit of mankind.
Finally, some consensus.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/2/2012 @ 9:41 am
No consensus here. I don’t care whether steps are small and incremental or huge. What I care about is whether or not the laws of physics are obeyed.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:32 amCorrect. When marriage was an issue subject to ecclesiastical law the prospective bride and groom had to publish news of the impending event in the banns of marriage. So that anyone who had an ecclesiastical or civil law-based objection to the marriage could raise it.
Licensing eventually replaced the banns by simply requiring the two involved to certify there were no barriers that would prevent them from entering into marriage.
This is why marriage vows still invite objections before declaring the two husband and wife. That gives anyone with any knowledge of legal impediments to raise them.
Most people who’ve seen “The Graduate” seem to think it’s to invite someone who’s in love with one of the principals to start screaming they’re making a big mistake.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:38 amSteve, quoting directly from the law in question:
In an appropriate action, a court may find that a child has more than two natural or adoptive parents if required to serve the best interest of the child. In determining a child’s best interest under this section, a court shall consider the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents’ relationships with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships.
So the law says that a court may, if the court finds that it is required to serve the best interest of the child, rule that there are more than two natural or adoptive parents.
Since the law *requires* that this only be done when a court finds that it is necessary to the best interest of the child, I think the only way you can argue that it isn’t being done for the best interest of the child is if you assume that trial courts will regularly ignore this direction.
Do you have any evidence from family law cases in California which suggest that courts ignore such law?
aphrael (5d993c) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:39 am__________________________________________
California Multiple Parents Bill: Proposed Legislation Would Allow Children To Have Three Or More Parents
Which is priming the pump for extending the concept of family and marriage to a polygamous one. And that ain’t no slippery slope either since in some tradition-bound societies (eg, Islamic ones) — and going back in history — multi-partner marriages (of one male and multiple females) are actually considered unremarkable and embraced by such community’s social-cultural conservatives. But hardly surprising, since in a way that adheres more closely to the dynamics of basic human sexuality, of both men and women. Or based on the factors that make it far more common to see old guys with young girlfriends/wives compared with old women with young boyfriends/husbands.
In all of this, I have to laugh at any prototypical Hollywood couple who gets a divorce because one spouse (mainly or generally the husband) was found cheating on the other spouse, and the wife — no less liberal, philosophically permissive and pro-SSM than her old man — couldn’t abide by that.
In a brave new world, you better be prepared for the unexpected.
Mark (70c729) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:42 amaphrael, you described an already unstable environment for the child. Now due to this law the child’s environment becomes even more unstable.
Do you really believe it’s in the child’s best interest that after believing he or she had a certain set of parents to have a court later tell that child he has a new set of parents? In the name of “the best interest of the child” any kid subjected to this is going to grow up hopelessly scarred.
The concept is fundamentally flawed.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:47 amSteve57, the point to the law is to allow the court to conform the legal parentage to the actual parentage the child has known. That is to say, it is to provide legal recognition to parents who have acted as parents, and been recognized as parents, by the child, even though those parents previously had no legal standing.
This will provide *more* stability in the lives of the children, not less.
aphrael (5d993c) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:53 amSammy Finkelman,
Dude.
The general purpose of marriage is to restrain the sexual appetite of men (who otherwise would seek multiple partners) by encouraging them to be a loyal husband/father.
Now that marriage is seen as ‘old fashioned,’ an incredible amount of men are facillitating children out of wedlock, by multiple partners.
The premise of “shame” is good for society.
Unfortunately, our society no longer values shame.
…and that is a shame.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:54 amaphrael, your example is of self-indulgent adults putting their own whims ahead of the child’s interests.
What I’m saying is that only a society that has convinced itself that marriage is to serve the whims of the adults involved and should prove no barrier to them pursuing their desires elsewhere when the mood strikes, rather then for the purpose of having and raising children, could convince itself that this multiple parent bill is the solution to providing a “stable” society for the child.
This is a solution to a problem that has been created by a society that has developed a fundamentally flawed idea of marriage.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/2/2012 @ 11:02 am______________________________________________
Now that marriage is seen as ‘old fashioned,’ an incredible amount of men are facillitating children out of wedlock, by multiple partners.
You can say that again. From the extreme of the past to the extreme of today, with the irony that some believe trendy new standards are a sign of compassion and wonderful, beautiful tolerance. Never mind whatever impact that new ethos had on the children.
Even the concept of “honey, consider the kids, think of how this will affect them!” sounds quaint and boring.
Mark (70c729) — 8/2/2012 @ 11:09 am“The general purpose of marriage is to restrain the sexual appetite of men (who otherwise would seek multiple partners) by encouraging them to be a loyal husband/father.”
Elephant Stone – I have been informed, reliably I believe, that strip clubs and gentlemen’s establishments do a brisk business with married folks and that “lap dances” can be an appetite suppressant IYKWIMAITTYD. I have also been informed that many such establishments frequently offer inexpensive and delicious weekday lunch specials.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 11:21 am==L: Gay marriage gives all the benefits of marriage to gay people without any cost to marriage as applied to straight people==
==L: Will you assume it for the sake of argument? If you do and the argument holds, we will at least have pinpointed the source of an intractable (though hopefully amicable) disagreement==
==MD: No, I will not for the sake of the argument, because that is the argument. You (and others) assume that changing the definition of marriage and equating SS unions and heterosexual unions has no effect of society because you say you don’t see how it effects Dick and Jane in their marriage. I think that is a very superficial argument, though I guess thought by most to carry the day==
L.’s theoretical point which Doc rejects out of hand is in fact a key one as far as I am concerned. All the talk of natural order using locomotion examples fails because it uses things—-not humans– to make the point. Yesterday when I used the “that ship has sailed” phrase to describe some of the very real, albeit (to me) unwelcome evolutionary changes to society’s norms and accepted behaviors with concrete examples, I did it specifically because it does involve humans and it does reflect actual societal changes in living arrangements and relationships and child rearing that are here today, even prevalent, yet would have been unthinkable across society a century ago.
I noticed that daleyrocks (in considerably fewer words) put out what I saw as a similar concept this morning at 9:02 A.M. So, if a gay couple (men or women) has lived together as a family for several years, and they are already raising a child whether through adoption (which is completely legal) or the biological child of one of the partners conceived through a medical procedure (which is done these days by many heterosexual couples both married and unmarried as well)— how does the single word “marriage” added after the fact change in any manner either the living arrangements, the family members, or their singular contributions/detriments to the community from what was there before they were deemed “married”? How, at that juncture, does the word have an “effect on society”? What has that magic word changed other than that the children who never asked to be put into that situation can at least say their parents are a married couple?
So no, I do not see how that affects my own heterosexual marriage at all, or how it affects any relationship between heterosexual couples whether they marry or just shack up. MD, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you describe the way you believe real Dick and Jane’s marriage will be affected if real Tom and Ted call themselves married, but I may have missed it.
Oh, and does anybody still think VP Biden “goofed” when his “unscripted mistake” put this whole issue and Obama’s gay marriage conversion out into the public in an election year? This is so not the discussion our country needs to be having right now. Yet, here we are.
elissa (8b73eb) — 8/2/2012 @ 12:03 pmdaleyrocks,
Ha, ha, touche.
I get what you’re saying.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/2/2012 @ 12:17 pmBut the focus of my remarks were in the context of fidelity to one’s committed partner, as opposed to guys just running around like a neighborhood stray dog, impregnating multiple partners.
“I noticed that daleyrocks (in considerably fewer words) put out what I saw as a similar concept this morning at 9:02 A.M.”
elissa – I guess I see a conflict in folks arguing that “facts” are IMMUTABLE on the one hand while acknowledging that norms change on the other.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 12:45 pmComment by elissa — 8/2/2012 @ 12:03 pm
L.’s theoretical point which Doc rejects out of hand is in fact a key one as far as I am concerned.
What I was trying to do at this point was not reject the assumption out of hand as much as say that the assumption is the crux of the issue, make the assumption and the issue largely goes away. But if you want to reason why you want SSM, one needs to do more than assume.
All the talk of natural order using locomotion examples fails because it uses things—-not humans– to make the point. Yesterday when I used the “that ship has sailed” phrase to describe some of the very real, albeit (to me) unwelcome evolutionary changes to society’s norms and accepted behaviors with concrete examples, I did it specifically because it does involve humans and it does reflect actual societal changes in living arrangements and relationships and child rearing that are here today, even prevalent, yet would have been unthinkable across society a century ago.
This is a difficult discussion in part because we are not operating with a mutual understanding of some of the building blocks of the argument.
I do not care if “the ship has sailed” or not. My point is, if the ship is not seaworthy, it will sink. I don’t care if society has decided certain behaviors are acceptable. What society decides means nothing, unless what the society decides is a reflection of what has been observed to be true, to “work”. Segments of our society have been running an experiment several decades now on whether women who give birth out of wedlock and their children tend to do better or worse in “general function” compared to historical norms and groups who currently emphasize children within marriage.
The early results of that natural experiment is that in general out of wedlock births are associated with increased rates of poverty and criminal behavior in the children. Is this observation reflective of inherent “laws” of human nature similar to the laws of physics and chemistry, and if so, how so? A society may accept as normal the condition where a woman has several children from different relationships, none of which have been long-lasting, but if that society wants a certain “result” in what the society looks like in 40 years, it may just not be able to get there from here.
This is one heck of a long discussion simply trying to establish the premise that needs to be debated. I am not sure if I am being that bizarre in my thinking or what.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 1:16 pm“What society decides means nothing, unless what the society decides is a reflection of what has been observed to be true, to “work”.”
MD in Philly – That is certainly one POV, but another is that societies take risks all the time in making decisions about the future before having perfect information about whether things will work. In fact, taken from the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a society, I would suggest it is the natural order of behavior.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 1:31 pmComment by daleyrocks — 8/2/2012 @ 1:31 pm
Agreed. But usually we make decisions based on some combination of rational looking at facts and emotional “gut feelings”. The issue is how much and how strong is the information available and the emotional appeal to change.
In some quarters there is a big push to make society change the way it generates, consumes, and conserves energy. Some think everybody should buy a Chevy Volt, others think we should build a pipeline for oil from Canada so we can get gas cheaper for our SUV’s.
So the process of making decisions is in the natural order of behavior. Whether a decision “works” is another issue. The question is whether there is enough wind and sunshine available that can be used to harness enough energy to make electricity (with current technology in an economically feasible way) to bring success to those who make the decision to use Volts.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 1:53 pm==A society may accept as normal the condition where a woman has several children from different relationships, none of which have been long-lasting, but if that society wants a certain “result” in what the society looks like in 40 years, it may just not be able to get there from here.==
Sadly, repairing all of American society’s broken seams, squeezing the toothpaste back in the tube and putting Humpty Dumpty back together again are quite likely nearly impossible, MD. The challenge we conservative types continually face in the world, I think, is to realistically understand and manage the tension between our respect for history’s lessons, and the traditions and institutions which made America great while also recognizing that to some extent things are going to morph and change around us no matter what we do and how much we really don’t like some of it. But I still happily prefer facing these challenges every day over living the shallow, narcissistic, and spiritually bankrupt lives of so many of our progressive neighbors.
elissa (8b73eb) — 8/2/2012 @ 2:05 pmelissa- in this discussion my aim is not so much to turn back the clock on the last 45 years or so, but to prevent what I would see as yet one more mistake, that being to “officially affirm” that SSM is no different than heterosexual marriage, and such definitions have no impact on the society at large.
It is puzzling to me in some ways. On one hand, I have no desire to make an individual woman “feel lousy” about herself for having 3 children by 3 men, for instance, and going about with a “Scarlet A”, but at the same time that situation likely came with a lot of baggage and the promise of more for the future, and it is not a good idea for 12 year old girls or boys to see that and think it is “normal”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 2:43 pm“No consensus here. I don’t care whether steps are small and incremental or huge. What I care about is whether or not the laws of physics are obeyed.”
– MD in Philly
I know – that is, I’m not surprised. I was just (passive-aggressively) highlighting what daleyrocks pointed out directly, that “I see a conflict in [Steve] arguing that “facts” are IMMUTABLE on the one hand while acknowledging that norms change on the other.”
“This is one heck of a long discussion simply trying to establish the premise that needs to be debated.”
– MD in Philly
I agree, although I think (based on my request for an assumption and your reasonable refusal to grant it) that we have more or less pinpointed the premise to be debated at this juncture: that gay marriage helps society more than it harms it, and that allowing gay marriage doesn’t affect the marriages of straight couples. That’s the premise to be debated, if I’m not mistaken – the crux of the issue, as you pointed out. elissa’s identified it as well.
I’m willing to have that discussion if you are.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/2/2012 @ 4:10 pmwe have more or less pinpointed the premise to be debated at this juncture: that gay marriage helps society more than it harms it, and that allowing gay marriage doesn’t affect the marriages of straight couples. That’s the premise to be debated, if I’m not mistaken –
Comment by Leviticus — 8/2/2012 @ 4:10 pm
I didn’t know there was any other possible premise, unless it is “lots of people are bigots and may not hate gays but they wish they would go back in their closets and leave all the rest of us alone”.
A side note- A number of years ago it became popular in some circles to hyphenate last names when there was a marriage. I heard a blurb somewhere the other day that the fashion was becoming problematic at the next generation, as John Doe-Smith would marry Jane Brown-Wilson to become John and Jane Doe-Smith-Brown-Wilson. I guess the main problem was too many wedding announcements were ending up in the business section because it sounded like the opening of a new law firm. 😉
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 6:50 pmSurely we can get to 500 comments on this thread without breaking a sweat.
Patterico (8b87cf) — 8/2/2012 @ 7:33 pmgay marriage?
still pretty effing cool
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/2/2012 @ 7:34 pm“Surely we can get to 500 comments on this thread without breaking a sweat.”
Patterico – Cake at 500?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 7:41 pmSurely we can get to 500 comments on this thread without breaking a sweat.
Comment by Patterico — 8/2/2012 @ 7:33 pm
Well, seeing that this was at #479, I’m willing to have that discussion if you are, it would seem we’re just gettin’ started.
How about chicken sammiches and cake for dessert?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:04 pmWell, tomorrow is the Big Kiss Off
Yeah, I’m thinking this won’t help their cause. There’s a faction on the Christian right that will just be grossed out and start yammering about Sodom & Gomorrah, and then there are those on the right who don’t support SSM, but aren’t bothered by gays, who will be bored with the jr. high antics and figure if that’s all they’ve got, then whatever.
I don’t believe this issue is one of quick persuasion, but rather an underlying philosophy evolving and processing through. Some will land supporting SSM, others will be convinced more than ever that their stand is correct.
And others of us still want to know when we can expect the narrow-minded left to admit that not supporting SSM is not the same as being anti-gay?
Sliding toward 500.
Dana (292dcf) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:13 pm(oh! Kiss In! Kiss In)
Was *not* part of the quote from the LAT. I happened to read it is as Kiss Off and typed that…. Freudian or something… somehow it seems more effective to kissing off their naysayers…
Dana (292dcf) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:15 pmWait a minute. Yesterday they were saying stay away from Chick-Fil-A, and tomorrow they’re saying go there? I assume that at least some of those going for a snog will feel a bit peckish afterwards, and buy lunch. And if the kissers are cute (or at least think they are) they’ll surely attract more people to Chick-Fil-A to see them, who will also buy food. Isn’t this kind of counterproductive?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:31 pmMaybe, but there are probably more people who will think it hot.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:32 pmI don’t think so, Milhouse. (with the exception of a few young hetero males on the lookout for a couple of hot lesbians together…) I think most people will be bored, ignore it, or simply buy more chicken.
Dana (292dcf) — 8/2/2012 @ 8:37 pm“(with the exception of a few young hetero males on the lookout for a couple of hot lesbians together…)”
Dana – Ageist! I’m not sure older hetero males would have a problem with hot chick on chick action at Chick Fil A.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:25 pmi don’t think people are gonna go to a fast food place and kiss each other that’s just gay
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:30 pmBetter.
Pie.
Patterico (8b87cf) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:31 pmWhere’s my pie?
At Chick-Fil-A?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:44 pm___________________________________________
has some gay and lesbian supporters
I find it interesting that even the vocabulary for homosexuals — in and of itself — is discriminating. That word usage illustrates a desire to, if you will, verbally or symbolically segregate, with male homosexuals way over on one side (“gay”) and female homosexuals way over on the other (“lesbian”).
Why is that? Doesn’t that make homosexuals seem or sound odd, as though they’re from another species? I mean male and female heterosexuals aren’t labeled so distinctively or separately from one another, so why are homosexuals treated quite differently? The lexicon therefore is RACIST!!! Or sexist! Or homophobic! Or classist! Or imperialist! Or nationalist! Or hegemonist!
Mark (70c729) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:47 pmI think I’ll go to Chik-Fil-A when they have their ‘Kiss In’ just to point and laugh. But then again I might not, the scene of them kissing while wearing assless chaps would probably make me vomit. Damn, I feel some vomit creeping up my throat just thinking about it.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:48 pmI’m thinking of gay customers who will go to see all the hot young guys making out. And to eat chikin.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:50 pmI don’t care what they do with each other or to each other in private. Just quit trying to make me agree that it is normal in any way. Hell, I don’t even like to see overt heterosexual conduct on public either. Sex needs to be kept in the bedroom where it belongs. Or maybe sometimes in the kitchen or the back seat of a Chevy! 😆
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:54 pm492. Pie and ice cream.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/2/2012 @ 9:59 pmSo which posture of Bootblack will cost him more votes with his base, “you dint build dat” or support for SSM?
Morris says he’s certain Slick is voting for Willard. Pretty sure he decided a while back.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/2/2012 @ 10:46 pmAnd here it is, post #500
Comment by Mark — 8/2/2012 @ 9:47 pm
Maybe they should start using gay and “gai”, like Bobby and Bobbi, Randy and Randi, etc.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2012 @ 7:11 amPie
Dustin (73fead) — 8/3/2012 @ 7:12 amBoy and boi? Oh, wait, they already use that.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 8/3/2012 @ 4:28 pmLeviticus, I apologize for the tone of my disagreement with you. I don’t offer this as an excuse, just an explanation, but I was caught up in things that had nothing to do with you and I shouldn’t have let one thing spill over into the other. But I did.
I disagree with you. But I’m profoundly sorry because my disagreement came across as insult.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/4/2012 @ 12:06 pmDo you really think that’s a fair characterization of what I’ve been saying? Since I’ve been saying the black robed mullahs ought to stay out of it. Whether they’re on our 9th Circus Court dictating that marriage ought to look like their imagined vision of the 25th century or Iran’s revolutionary court saying marriage ought to look like the hadiths described it in the 7th.
You’ve taken great offense when you’ve accused me of mischaracterizing your statements. Just wondering if you think the above is fair.
Steve57 (68fdc0) — 8/4/2012 @ 12:23 pmIn 1990, a friend of mine took a job waiting tables at a Friendly’s in rural Pennsylvania. The manager counseled him on his first day: we here have to be anti-discrimination. That means that if colored folks come in here, you’ve gotta serve them and treat them just like you do everybody else.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, your day is coming, whether you like it or not.
We The People (0a199e) — 8/5/2012 @ 8:26 amIf it looks anything like Chick-fil-A’s day, they can retire on it and send their grandkids to college.
Steve57 (5797fd) — 8/5/2012 @ 9:57 pmor they could get all new hardwood floors
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/5/2012 @ 10:08 pmHow’s that different from normal adoption, where one parent is substituted for another? Are you seriously suggesting it’s less scarring for a child to be told not only that he has a new parent, but also that he’s lost one of the ones he had before?!
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 8/6/2012 @ 7:17 pm