Duck Dynasty Star Suspended for Comments About Homosexuality
At the end of a slow news week, the controversy of the day is clear. In an interview with GQ Magazine, Duck Dynasty star (star?) Phil Robertson said . . . well, read it for yourself:
Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Now, he has been suspended from the show:
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
Other than saying Robertson’s views did not reflect their own, spokespeople for A+E Networks did not elaborate further on A+E Networks’ own views of the relative merits of the anatomical features of men and women.
On indefinite hiatus
P.S. The linked Hollywood Reporter article also claims: “The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine.” From GQ:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
If that is a “comparison” then it should be noted that he also “compared” homosexuality to drinking, among other things.
Well this should be interesting, shouldn’t it?
If only he said he wanted to defecate in their mouths …. he may have been lauded as sexually avant garde.
Rodney King's Spirit (11dcd5) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:43 am… point being double standard. I don’t agree with Mr Duck but he has a right to his opinions.
Rodney King's Spirit (11dcd5) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:44 amWe must prosecute the bearded bastard for thought crimes!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:45 amHis plainspeak or candor reminds me of what Liberace reportedly said years ago. He was quoted as saying he could understand why many people had a negative visceral reaction to at least male homosexuality because of the type of behavior it entails, as described by Phil Robertson. That and the fact STD’s run rampant in the gay (certainly meaning the males) community.
That many liberals like to sidestep this reality is analogous to their always yelling about how various people are racist this, racist that, while they themselves would crumble and die if they had to move to the city of Detroit or send their kids to a school typical of the ones in that particular community.
Liberalism: Phony baloney.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:46 amAre the drunkard’s offended?
mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:58 amGQ? GQ!!!???
I agree with Mr. Duck about women’s you-know-whats. It’s a weakness, what can I say. I also pretty much agree with that passage from Corinthians but not exactly the way Robertson interprets it. Close though.
I agree that he has a right to say those things he said. He also has a right to enter into an employment contract that says “you better watch what you do, you better watch what you say”. And that’s where the ducks are (the heart of the issue).
Is he willing to lose money so he can keep his freedom to speak? Is A&E willing to lose money so it can enforce its principles (snicker)? Is steel shot good for the water quality but cruel to birds because it leaves too many wounded? Sigh.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:59 amThis is just another manufactured distraction.
AZ Bob (ade845) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:05 amHmmm… if one’s comprehension of the quote is that he “compares” homosexuality to beastiality then he also “compares” it to heterosexual promiscuity. OUTRAGE!!!!!!
PRM (54b77f) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:06 amthe important thing is this will free him up for to be a spokesperson for many Republican campaigns next year
this will help Team R’s rebranding campaign and help it transform itself into the party that rejects gay people
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:17 amAs usual with this sort of outrage, I went back to the original article to read the outrageous stuff in context.
In this case the author of the magazine article paints a picture of a guy who carries a loaded crossbow on the dash of his truck in order to do a bit of off-season poaching of deer from the roadway should the opportunity present itself, and we get several other “quotations” from the interview subject that just don’t scan right to me as someone with a college roommate who was from that county of Louisiana.
So I’m thinking that I won’t put much stock in anything in that article until such a time as tapes or transcripts might be posted.
Esquire sent a bigot to profile someone of the class that he is bigoted against, and he filled the article with cartoonish stereotype. The commentariat take it at face value, and say “well what else would you expect to hear from someone who is:
Douglas2 (b7749e) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:26 am– southern
– large family
– Christian
– likes hunting
– etc”
We have as much free speech as our employers decided we have, nowadays.
Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating the mutton and turnips raised on his own land. ~ C. S. Lewis
The Sanity Inspector (ca8d89) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:26 amPhil is not a natural fit with either GQ’s base readership, its ad pages or its editorial stances. Yet he went there. I think he knew exactly what he was doing in making a somewhat provocative (but not censor-worthy) statement. I think he embraced this opportunity to honestly express his beliefs and to remind people of the mechanics of gay male sex. He seems to be on firm ground since there is no obvious hypocrisy as with Baldwin, or a personal attack against an individual as with Bashir. He was testing A&E because of an agreement he apparently has with them, and he thinks that in America he still has the right to say what he thinks in an interview and he chose to test that, too. I also don’t think he’ll be willing to be Paula DeenII.
Conversely, offering this “interview opportunity” to him was part of a strategy by people with other agendas who want to dehumanize him and the segment of the electorate he represents to many –and also to conveniently change the subject from Obamacare. Both he, and the fancy media interpreting his interview comments have played their predetermined roles. Now the fun begins.
I just hope that those of us on the sidelines can remain vigilant and on point. We need to resist the manipulation and the lure of the squirrel with the bushy tail that GQ is hoping to mesmerize us with. We need to talk about Obamacare and the NSA and the lies told by the President of the United States to its citizens.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:31 amIOW, what MrBob of Arizona said.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:38 amA+E, being a private company, is free to do whatever it wants.
Of course, they were willing to make money themselves with this fellow on the air until he said something controversial.
I found this statement interesting:
based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty.
I’ve never watched the show (don’t have cable or satellite), but from what little I know it sounds like what he said is pretty much in keeping with what the show reflects.
It will be interesting to see what the rest of the crew do with this.
It will be also interesting to see the ripple effect of this through all of the companies that sell merchandise.
On a related note, I read the other day that a few years ago “Tom’s Shoes (etc.)” had a to-do with the GLBT community because the founder did an interview with Focus on the Family, and he/they released a statement saying they were so sorry with appearing on a show with such “extreme views”. (On a related related note, I thought Tom’s shoes started out as these inexpensive $6 a pair things, not the expensive designer stuff they sell today. Do I remember correctly?
Yes, similar passages also include being a coward, which often goes along with slandering, cheating, and heterosexual promiscuity. Often if a person had more courage, we wouldn’t slander or cheat or be unfaithful.
So, the same hating party-poopers who are against SSM ought to be against polygamy and corruption in government.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:40 amPhil’s greatest sin is that he turned away from his 60’s values and therefore must be destroyed before he leads any others away from the left’s view of a perfect life.
crazy (d60cb0) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:43 amLooking at A&E’s daily schedule, they don’t have much to fall back on if Duck Dynasty leaves.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:47 am…and subsequently fired.
He has every right to his opinions. What he doesn’t have is the right to a job on TV.
repsac3 (f97aa5) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:48 amAre the drunkard’s offended?
Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:58 am
Hmmm… if one’s comprehension of the quote is that he “compares” homosexuality to beastiality then he also “compares” it to heterosexual promiscuity. OUTRAGE!!!!!!
Comment by PRM (54b77f) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:06 am
Reading that passage from Corinthians in its entirety, you can see that the commonality of the things St. Paul lists is a degraded and debased condition. Not confined to a Christian or Old Testament Jew viewpoint. The most pagan of Romans of that time would not want to known to be any of those things. He would not want his children to grow up to be any of those things. If he had any pride or self-respect. And I’ll leave it at that.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:49 amRepsac – Could you provide us with a list of beliefs that should preclude your ability to be employed?
JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:50 amit’s not just the show
he’ll lose a ton of sponsorship opportunities now
nobody’s gonna want to pay the anus vs. vagina man to sponsor products and stuff (except maybe those chicken sandwich people)
it’s nothing personal it’s just cause of he has his own agenda about the anuses and the vaginas
kinda like how Anita Bryant did
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:51 amintroducing the Chik Fil A Vagina Supreme Chicken Melt!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:57 amMaybe GQ could do a follow up interview with Phil the Duck to see if he has any comparisons to make about predatory homosexuals who abuse their own children and the constitutionality of upping their bailbonds. (Drudge has a link to Lee Roop’s report at lroop@al.com)
ropelight (846eca) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:59 amhe has his own agenda, feets?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:00 amas if others don’t?
Happy Feet you are a particularly foolish troll. But then you’re sort of like Pajama Boy in your snarkiness.
As to whether Phil Robertson will “lose a ton of sponsorship opportunities”? Frankly my dear he doesn’t give a damn. The duck call business is doing just fine, and somehow I don’t think Happy Feet is in that business’s target demographic. They’re marketing efforts target duck hunters, not silly geese.
Comanche Voter (bd140e) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:01 amIgnore the link in #22 above it goes to his email, not to the article quoted.
ropelight (846eca) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:03 amit’s nothing personal it’s just cause of he has his own agenda about the anuses and the vaginas
Errm, it’s totally personal. And the history of
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:04 amthe human raceall life on Earth.I think Uma Thurman is gonna play Anita in a movie coming up here pretty soon I’ll ask the googles later
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:07 amI don’t think it’s about beliefs (or about free speech)… It’s about costing your employer money or reputation. If you work in the public eye, and say something (or some things) that offends the public and that your employer believes will cause the sponsors or the viewing audience to go elsewhere, they can choose to take action, from private reprimand to public disavowal of what you said, to “hiatus” to firing.
(Really, this shouldn’t be news… It happens on both sides of the sociopolitical spectrum–not so much in the moderate middle, for obvious reasons–relatively often.)
repsac3 (f97aa5) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:14 am“Saaaay — that there varmint don’t think like us. Git ‘im!”
Icy (5ca00e) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:14 amComment by ropelight (846eca) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:59 am
There’s an earlier case, that of Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong, that caused me to rethink some things. About gays, gay adoption, and gay marriage. You won’t find any news stories about it in the U.S. media even though Truong was sentenced in LA on October 29 of this year.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:15 amWell, the WH just hired someone who said that the Repub Party is like the Jim Jones cult, and apparently the WH doesn’t care much about their reputation.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:19 amThough I guess you could say that the WH is not a moderate middle outfit, so why bother.
Greetings:
I seem to find it interesting that Charles Darwin, an ofttimes favorite of the political left, never seems to get included in these “homosexuality” discussions.
11B40 (4a23c9) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:20 amLooking at A&E’s daily schedule, they don’t have much to fall back on if Duck Dynasty leaves.
That’s just it. I don’t watch Duck Dynasty or anything else on A+E, but I was under the impression that it was by far the biggest thing they had going on that channel. It’s amazing that they are risking antagonizing the fanbase for their biggest show in order to appease the gay lobby. Are the planning on re-launching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or something?
JVW (709bc7) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:31 amA&E’s schedule has been dreck for sometime now,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:34 amDissident thought is intolerable. Everyone must conform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Scott (6f0efa) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:36 amMr. Feets – Can we call A&E the Anus Channel now based on their agenda?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:18 amMr. Feets – What part of Mr. Robertson’s words are hateful?
The part where he explains why he is a heterosexual male as opposed to a homosexual male, or paraphrasing the bible to explain sin?
Please explain teh outrageous outrage.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:20 amHmm. I wonder what A&E will do now that 12 million viewers have been alienated.
CrustyB (5a646c) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:21 amMr. Feets – When Dan Savage talks graphically to utes about butt sechs is that parfectly fine because “if it’s more ghey then it must be okay?”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:25 amdon’t look at me I just wanna drink my cocoa and talk about health insurance
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:26 amMr. Feets – It’s too late, you already piped up weith your usual hatey hatefulness in the thread so I’m looking right atchoo.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:28 amThey find this shocking? Justice Scalia arguably equated homosexuality to bestiality in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/ScaliaLawrenceDissent.php
Great minds think alike.
Or you can hold hands with Mr. Feets and jump off a cliff yelling “WTF,” which is what this great liberal experiment in reengineering society through executive orders and judicial dictates amounts to.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:38 amPeople should be both allowed to say their evil Christian views and how evil Christian views are.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:38 amok I’m a tell you how to make the perfect hot chockit
you need one of these
http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2010/09/NestleCocoa1.jpg
(it doesn’t have to be fancy the store brand is fine – you’ll see why in step #2)
and one of these
http://img4-1.cookinglight.timeinc.net/i/2011/10/1110p42-hersheys-milk-chocolate-fun-size-l.jpg?400:400
(that’s a “fun-size” one, which is the one you want)
and a fistful of these
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Mini_marshmallows_in_bowl.JPG
ok step #1 empty the cocoa packet into your mug
then step #2 unwrap the fun-sized chockit bar and put that on top of the powder (make SURE you unwrap it first)
then step #3 fill the mug the whole way with marshmallows
ok then you can just add hot water (step #4)
it’s more better though if you mix one part water to one part half-n-half and nuker that for like 2 minutes in the microwave and then pour that in your mug (step #4, alternate version)
ok enjoy your hot chockit! (step #5)
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:42 amAs an aside, this is why I was against gays in the military. Here, we’re talking about a TV show. Imagine what this kind of crap does to unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Every word during a six month cruise with no privacy has to be guarded lest your gay political thought and speech commissar raise holy hell.
When the top brass tell you integrating gays into the military is a non-issue, think the management at A&E.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:45 amBetween now and the first week of November 2014, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men (and women) will attempt to distract the American electorate from the ObamaCare disaster.
Every journalist who belongs to Journolist or is a card-carrying member of Obama Zombies Inc will thrust a microphone or tape recorder in front of any conservative capable of providing a potentially controversial soundbite.
Please, please, please let’s not throw any fuel on any of their little bonfires.
Rather than discussing the mechanics of sexual relations, let’s focus on how we’re all getting screwed by ObamaCare.
For the sake of the future of the nation, Todd Akin and Richard Murdoch are currently being held in an undisclosed location where they are gagged and bound, in accordance with the Geneva Convention guidelines.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:50 amRepsac – he paraphrased the Bible. At least one sponsor has no issue with it.
http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-sponsor-skyjacker-phil-robertson-homosexual-gay-church
JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:52 amStandard hf operating procedure. Throw in some hate, then temper it with faux cutesy-poo nonsense. It gets so old.
Gazzer (74e832) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:53 amMeanwhile this whole kerfuffle is purely because Phil is a Christian with a hit show. See Baldwin, A. Not too many years ago the gay community just wanted to be left alone. Now, they sue you if you won’t bake thir cake or photograph their wedding. I used to have a live and let live attitude but they are now virtually indistinguishable from terrorists.
As in most cases the majority of them don’t particular care for these extreme tactics, but it is the vocal minority that set the tone for the rest.
I can see having a problem with someone speaking out against homosexuality, saying it’s immoral. But to pretend it’s un-Christian is ridiculous.
I saw some people making that argument earlier on Facebook, which made me roll my eyes more than a bit.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:54 amWTF do you know about Christianity?
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:59 amsilent night, vaginas delight
anuses don’t – the logic’s tight
sarah palin says i stand with phil
phil says anuses don’t fit the bill
but what then of sarah’s anus?
what indeed of her a-
nus?
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:00 amA&E better watch their step. The single-minded and dedicated activists at the Westboro Baptist Church get wind of this outrage and they just might decide to make sure A&E’s chickens come home to roost.
ropelight (846eca) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:09 amMore than enough.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:11 amWhy doe some people here think not talking about social issues makes them go away?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:38 amWhy doe some people here think not talking about social issues makes them go away?
The French thought that surrendering to the Germans would keep them at bay.
JVW (709bc7) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:40 amIt’s more fun bashing other Republicans for 1) not being conservative enough; 2) being too conservative; 3) liking ketchup on their hot dog.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:47 amFormer Conservative, you know with EPWJ gone, you really did not need to pick up the concern troll slack/comic relief slack.
SPQR (768505) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:48 amYeah, a few of the people I know who are still in the military thought they could have a live-and-let-live attitude about gays if they could openly serve. But then they were also persuaded by the infantile argument that the only reason others didn’t want to let gays serve was because they were somehow insecure in their sexuality.
Sort of like being convinced they had to vote for Obama to prove they weren’t racist, they advocated for gays in the military as a demonstration of how secure they were in their heterosexuality.
Now they’re finding out differently.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/14/us-army-defines-christian-ministry-as-domestic-hate-group/
The current liberal definition of tolerance; if you don’t agree with every single tenet of their agenda and actively support it, you are an intolerant H8er. You don’t have a right to your own unapproved opinion. You have a right to theirs or they’ll call you names. Racist. Sexist. Homophobe. Islamophobe.
A reminder; as reported in other news stories the different branches have also labeled Evangelicals and the Catholic Church as hate groups or extremist groups in their diversity training. Followed by the warning that they can be punished for being affiliated with a hate or extremist group. This training took place at Fort Hood, where Nidal Hassan went on his murderous rampage shouting Allahu Akhbar:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat/
Got that? If Barack Obama along with the left wants to fundamentally transform the country in wildly unpopular ways, that’s bringing the country together. If you hold a majority view that is in opposition to this fundamental transformation (Obamacare, anyone?), you are the one tearing the country apart.
This is all part of the left’s attempt to atomize society. When dissenting views are outlawed and are firing offenses, people will be made afraid to express anything except the approved opinion. And even though the majority of people disagree with it, if they’re silenced each individual can be made to believe they’re alone in their opinion. When it’s the individual alone against the government, the government wins the contest every time.
If you look at the military you can see the left’s plan for society in the future. Because the military is the only segment of society which the government totally controls, and it has its own legal system. In wider society expressing an unapproved opinion or belonging to an unapproved group is merely a firing offense. Do that in the military and it can be a criminal offense under the UCMJ. The whole purpose of lifting the ban on gays in the military was to criminalize what was formerly not only legal but widely held opinions and practices. Such as the practice of religion.
It is no accident that Obama talks about freedom of worship rather than freedom of religion. It is no accident that one of the things Obama’s military was willing to spend money on during the government shutdown was guarding military installations against the threat of Catholic priests voluntarily performing Mass on base.
Welcome to your fundamental transformation, homophobes.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:53 amSpeaking as a gay man, I fully support the right of the Arts and Entertainment network to throw away their top-rated show and all the revenue it brings in.
In a semi-free market, others will bid for their service and already have begun doing so.
Let the sorting of America commence!
luagha (5cbe06) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:57 amWhat I find interesting is A&E should give him a raise and put him on the air again ASAP if making profit was the central goal of the company.
But otherwise, to me, this is PC Clowns throwing away millions of dollars so that way they can go to Cocktail Parties and be liked.
Rodney King's Spirit (11dcd5) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:10 pm#59 which is why PC is to Neanderthals what Truth is to Humans.
Rodney King's Spirit (11dcd5) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:11 pmEPWJ is too busy to comment here these days because he’s sitting in on so many of the Fox News meetings.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:21 pmHe’s an insider, you know !
At least one of Robertson’s sponsors has come out to indicate they support him, so I’m not convinced he’ll lose his sponsors. Will A & E dump this program, which is the highest rated reality show, in order to appease people based on some article that a nitwit from GQ wrote?
rochf (f3fbb0) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:25 pm53. Can I go to recess now, my wittle bwain is full?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:26 pmHear, hear.
Not to go full metal Mark on everyone, but one of the reasons we absolutely need to talk about them is that while Obama talks about fundamentally transforming America, he and the rest of the left never talk about what they have in mind as an objective.
President “If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period.” knows that the truth doesn’t serve his purpose.
We have historical examples, though. When the communists took over East Germany they didn’t immediately force everyone into the collective. For instance, it took on the order of 10 years to force small holders into collective farms.
They boiled the frog slowly. One of the things they did was to turn what were formerly religious holidays like Christmas into celebrations of socialism.
Keep that in mind when one of your brainwashed relatives comes home from college and starts spouting off about Obamacare using the OFA talking points. We laugh now. So did many Germans, no doubt, early on. It was certainly very unpopular. But it was all part of developing their “socialist conscience.”
Firing Phil Robertson for his “homophobic” remarks is part of developing our socialist conscience.
The military is an ideal institution for developing hundreds of thousands of people’s socialist conscience, since the government exercises the same control as the Soviets did over the whole of East Germany.
Obama’s war on Christianity must be seen in this light, since one of the main goals of religion is to shape the conscience of its members.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/penance/examination-conscience-in-light-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm
The left cannot tolerate any composition in this area. Hence the Obamacare contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate. The mandate makes zero sense on economic terms. With a minimum of effort you can find free condoms, for instance, in any metropolitan area. But it does make sense from the perspective of shaping Americans socialist conscience. Barack Obama will allow you freedom of worship. But outside of your weekly or daily ritual, you are subject to the governments mandates. You do not have the right of conscience. Unless it’s their conscience.
This wasn’t some oversight or an accident:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/25/little-sisters-of-the-poor-file-lawsuit-to-stop-hhs-from-forcing-them-to-fund-contraception-coverage/
It’s part of a plan.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:26 pm65. One hurdle for any revolution is timing.
Ten-year T-Bill today at 2.92%. Treasury will begin to groan and panic set in circa 3.5%.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:39 pmWell we see how Salafism even Choudhary’s brand isn’t formerly sanctioned, he’s a new channel toward recruiting Syrian jihadists, which will boomerang, yet Christianity is looked down up,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 12:44 pmNote neither the Times or the Journal, have acknowledged the crimethink opinion on the contraceptive mandate.
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:00 pmThere’s been some chatter about California Governor Jerry Brown giving consideration to running for President in 2016.
I don’t think he could win a general election, but it would still be interesting if he enters the race. His longtime animus against the Clintons is well known, and he might really take the gloves off against Hillary.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:09 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Comment by Scott (6f0efa) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:36 am
Just repeating it, as it seemed worthwhile.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:17 pmSame thing under Nazis or Stalin, apparently.
Tyranny is tyranny. Forget fundamental logical principles, it is all about what the people in charge will allow you to believe, think, and do.
It’s great to say we want to focus on things like ObamaCare, entitlements, the deficit, jobs and the economy. Those are the big issues that face us, and it’s what we should be talking about. But as long as Obama, the media, and the left aren’t talking about those things — and they won’t as long as they are political losers for them — then whatever we on the right think about those topics is just background chatter.
What’s more, by running away from social issues like this, we’re making them even more powerful issues for the left. Do you really think what Phil Robertson thinks about homosexuality is front page news? It isn’t, but every time we panic over what someone on our side says about social issues, we make it front page news. Take a lesson from JD’s “Racist!” campaign. Don’t be afraid of ideas or words. Be afraid of people who want to censor them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:20 pmIf the Dallas Cowboys win their final two games, they win their division. In that case, they would actually host a playoff game against a wild card team.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:22 pmIn other words, we make social issues powerful because we’re afraid of them … and the left knows it and capitalizes on it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:23 pmWhen the Democrats start talking about a federal mandate to wear one-piece pajamas, I think we should counter with “I like my flannels and my t-shirt, and I’m going to keep them. Period.”
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:26 pmIt’s just his belief/opinion. The intolerant Tolerance Cabal just need to get over it. More power to Phil!
Colonel Haiku (bb45bf) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:29 pmI really hope Tony Romo bounces back from last Sunday’s game. I do not get the hatred that so many football fans have for him.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:37 pmI am curious as to who on this thread today you think is panicking or is walking way from Robertson. I’ve reviewed the thread, admittedly in a hurry, and except for Happyfeet being Happyfeet it seemed to me that everyone present is not only generally supportive of Robertson but thinks he’ll probably win this round handily. Do you think we are missing part of the story or that there is something we can say better and more effectively to each other on a blog than Robertson has said nationally?
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:39 pmElephant Stone.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 1:48 pmelissa:
Of course, that’s not exactly what I said. I said people are walking away from social issues. For example, my reading of your comment 12 and Elephant Stone’s comment 46 is that you hope readers will not to get distracted by topics like this — topics I consider to be social issues — and will instead focus on things like ObamaCare.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:11 pmI did talk about panicking about social issues, and I think sometimes we do. But maybe I read too many of happyfeet’s comments.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:13 pmTrue. Socialists try to argue minutia. Obama can’t really be a socialist because he doesn’t own the means of production. What Obama has in common with Hitler and Mussolini is that he, unlike Lenin, knows he doesn’t have to own title to anything in the dwindling private sector. In fact as Mussolini observed from the Bolshevik economic collapse in the 1920s, his earlier suspicions were correct. It’s better that he didn’t actually own such enterprises because the government is not capable of running them.
But the government is capable of ruling them with an iron fist, directing what services or goods they will provide, how much they will provide, what they will charge, and how much they can make. You do not have to formally call business owners government employees. You can simply force them to function as government employees. Socialists are deluded by this facade into thinking national socialists or fascists weren’t socialists.
Take the latest Obama directive. Insurance companies will provide coverage for anyone who thinks they’ve enrolled in one of their policies regardless of whether they’ve paid by the deadline.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/14/government-takeover-white-house-forces-obamacare-insurers-to-cover-unpaid-patients-at-a-loss/
A&E is a private company, you say? Yes, but the FCC licenses cable operators. It would be just as easy for the left to expand its regulatory control over that sector of the economy as it has over health care. In fact, no doubt it will. And then it won’t be up to A&E if they want to fire Phil Robertson or not.
The government takeover of health care is a blueprint for how the government will regulate other aspects of the economy until they too are centrally directed. It is important to understand that when the left was advocating for what became Medicare back during the Truman administration they acknowledged that compulsory insurance for the elderly was simply part of their foot-in-the-door strategy. Once they got their foot in the door, they could expand the program in every direction until it enveloped everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Obamacare.
When the government was defending the individual mandate they argued the health care market was unique. But it’s not. It was only unique because it was regulated by the feds into its current form. The government could do that to any sector of the economy.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:15 pmI think, in typical Happyfeet form, he is the only one equating Robertson’s isolated comment into a representation of the R’s and all that is wrong with the party. Social issues are pointless and best left ignored lest everyone think we’re nothing more than baby savers and prudes.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:17 pmelissa,
My point was social issues, not Robertson. I consider this Robertson incident another example in a long line of political dust-ups over social issues. Republicans, especially moderate Republicans, seem terrified to talk about and run candidates who talk about social issues. Maybe there’s a good reason for that but I’m not convinced social issues are the losing issues some fear, except perhaps in urban areas in blue states. And how many of those urban areas do Republicans win these days?
FWIW, I’m not concerned about Phil Robertson. I suspect he did this on purpose because he feels his TV show and popularity are vehicles to talk about God and issues like this. If so, don’t feel sorry for him. He did this on purpose.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:19 pmThis is exactly what I’m talking about. There is no place for me in the Republican Party is this is true, but John Boehner helped me realize that earlier this week so this is really just icing on the cake.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:21 pmWhat’s ironic is by not speaking up about social issues and cowering instead makes us look like weenies without a spine. OTH, in light of the economy, Obamacare, NSA, etc, etc, there are more pressing issues to focus on.
I’m just so over the weak willed cowardly R’s.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:29 pmDana:
That’s part of the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. When people are afraid to talk about social issues, they make those issues more powerful and that magnifies the left’s power.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:34 pmhe is the only one equating Robertson’s isolated comment into a representation of the R’s and all that is wrong with the party
well except also Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are all aligning Team R with the earthy and plainspoken reality tv star’s comments about anus
it’s looking very very likely in fact that 2016 will be the first year in decades that the word anus will appear in a major U.S. political party’s platform
unplanned and spontaneous, what we’ve seen in the last 24 hours has been quite a wake-up call, both for conservatives and America more broadly – a wake up call reminiscent of how the tea party began
let’s just say it – Phil Robertson is the Rick Santelli of anus, and I’ve no doubt the movement he’s started will prove to be every bit as epic and enduring
it makes no difference whether or not one agrees with Mr. Robertson’s point of view – it’s undeniable that his thinkings about anuses have struck a chord with today’s Republicans, and for that we all owe him our thanks for the debate he’s stimulated
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:36 pmhttp://mises.org/daily/2312
We are in the midst of getting a fourth New Deal.
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20081124,00.html
Complete with official compulsion this go around. The HHS now functions for the health care sector as Hitler’s Reichswirtchaftsministerium did for the entire economy. Indeed, nearly all aspects of the economy are now regulated by HHS.
Are you not fundamentally transformed?
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:36 pmDRJ, your poignant questions deserve a well-thought-out answer, and I don’t have the time to go into my usual long-winded detail, so let me just say this:
Yes, our side needs to start talking about social issues and the decay in morals and manners and the coarsening of attitudes in this country. But it takes someone who is a serious thinker and can place all of this in the context of a society that is losing its work ethic, that prolongs adolescence way too far into what should be adulthood, and that becomes dependent upon charity from private citizens and, most acutely, government agencies. Too many politicians on our side lack the gravitas or the intellectual wherewithal to begin this discussion, and we far too often lapse into “the Bible says. . .” which is a huge turnoff to a large segment of the audience we are trying to target.
What we really need is for someone to unify these themes of modern decadence and show how it is lessening the American spirit, not uplifting it. Mark Steyn is a master at this, in my opinion, but because he is essentially a humorist he comes off as flippant. I would guess that he strikes most liberals in the same way that Jon Stewart strikes most of us conservatives (though naturally I think Steyn can run intellectual circles around Stewart). Guys like George Bush and Rick Perry have their hearts in the right place, but just aren’t good enough communicators to get the message across to the brainwashed masses. Let’s face it: when we start talking about problems like unwed mothers, degrading music, and cultural solipsism, half of America’s eyes glaze over and they go back to reading TMZ and watching Miley Cyrus videos. Until we figure out how to make a compellig argument, we are just Sisyphus trying to roll the boulder up the hill.
I still managed to be pretty long-winded.
JVW (709bc7) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:36 pmWell, ultimately it’s playing right into the hands of the Dems. I do think however there is a serious problem with the R congress people etc in being able to coherently and smartly articulate the R’s position on social issues . They typically are either deer in the headlights impotent or just stupid.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:38 pmComment by JD (4e327f) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:52 am
he paraphrased the Bible.
To argue that Lev 18, in particular 18:22 – and we’re not talking about Lev 20 in particular 18:13 – is right, is now blasphemy.
It’s the new Established Religion.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:39 pmYou complain about fascism, Mr. feets.
So why are you working so hard to enable the people who are bringing it about? And shutting people up so they won’t talk about the issues that need to be discussed to stop it?
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:41 pmAnd the nonstop rant of “social conservatives always lose” continues.
Icy (940358) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:45 pmMr. Steve nobody is shutting nobody up
in fact, there’s been an explosion of discourse on the subject of anus
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:51 pmJVW,
I don’t think Republicans need a rule that says only its experts can talk about social issues and/or only a strong, charismatic leader should address this topic so as to withstand media scrutiny and avoid inflaming the culture wars. The more Republicans treat social issues like something to be afraid of, the more power it will hold over them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:54 pmHey, happyfeet. Do you know how Neptune was discovered? The orbit of Uranus was not as theorized.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:55 pmAnd shutting people up so they won’t talk about the issues that need to be discussed to stop it?
What kind of person, left or rights, seeks to stifle public discourse?!
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:55 pmNo Mr. feets. But the fact you think that’s the subject shows your socialist conscience is already well formed.
Enjoy your fundamental transformation, Mr. feets.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:55 pmComment by nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:15 am
There’s an earlier case, that of Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong, that caused me to rethink some things. About gays, gay adoption, and gay marriage. You won’t find any news stories about it in the U.S. media even though Truong was sentenced in LA on October 29 of this year.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/2-convicted-adopted-son-porn-article-1.1385895
Even the latest developments:
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/usatoday/article/3939263
Otherwise, it’s in Australian media.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/20239872/australian-pedophile-gets-30-years-in-us/ (Yahoo Australia)
Also, a Canadian source:
http://www.ecanadanow.com/world/2013/12/11/peter-truong-pedophile-smiles-during-sentencing/
A Russian source (the news agency that Putin closed and replaced with something he controls more)
http://en.ria.ru/crime/20131210/185438661/Pedophile-Jailed-for-30-Years-in-US-for-Sex-Abuse-of-Adopted.html
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:56 pmThey have shown on balance, that they prepare to be in the minority, little of what matters, really animates them, they have failed to acknowledge the really toxic nature of the regime.
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:57 pmDRJ– I am so very sorry you feel that way (that there’s not a place for you.) I guess I see it the opposite. I love that the R party, flawed as it is, has always embraced rugged individualism and free thinking and differing points of view on various issues and tactics. I want to be in a party where there is intellectual rigor, and where (just for instance) both pro-life and pro choice citizens can co-exist, and where economic conservative gays can feel warmly welcome to lend a hand.
OFA and Axe and MSNBC by now have the progs marching in formation and in lockstep on every single issue. There is no deviation. Basically there are no more blue dogs allowed. I don’t want to be in that kind of inflexible party, or have it viewed as that type of rigid inflexible party.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:58 pmA person who’s afraid, that’s who.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 2:59 pmi’m not socialist i don’t even have cable
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:00 pmteh Left done been duck-baited.
Colonel Haiku (bb45bf) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:02 pmHappyfeet @ 51,
This is what makes R’s look stupid. Any opportunit to smack Palin is tired and boring and dumb. If you are going to buck up the big tent, you’re going to have to up your game.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:05 pmelissa,
I’m glad you’ve found a home in the Republican Party and that the GOP is welcoming of the people you care about. I’d like a Party that is welcoming, too, but my support for conservative Tea Party groups isn’t welcome in John Boehner’s Republican Party.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:05 pmActually, I’m still feeling good about this. It’s going to save me a lot of money and if I need a label, there’s always Libertarians of Independents or the generic Tea Party. I don’t think I need a label, though.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:07 pmI think this may backfire, too, Colonel. It’s hard to tell but I think it’s possible.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:09 pmTheir way works, the jammed this law, the Consumer Bureau,the TARP all down our throat, same with gay marriage, the contraceptive mandate, they don’t actually solve any problem they just create new ones,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:10 pmWhich parts of the sample party inclusions that I listed above do not appeal to you or ring true to you, DRJ?
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:10 pmDana, in my lifetime I’ve never seen anyone on what’s called the right in this country try to shut other people up.
On the other hand, if you want to see what kind of leftist tries to shut people up, just go to any college campus when Ann Coulter or any other conservative has been invited to speak. If the university administration doesn’t cancel the event out of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”
An old-fashioned liberal attorney, Harvey Silverglate, discusses the hypocrisy of college campuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHh1WV-81gE
I think just about any modern leftist would shut people they disagree with if they had the power. Because they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that conservatives are hateful racist, sexist homophobes. Because of course there is no rational basis to disagree with the obvious compassion embodied in leftism. So if anyone disagrees they must have some irrational basis, and the most obvious basis is hatred.
Therefore any speech they use is by definition hate speech. And freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. Ergo, it can not be tolerated.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:13 pmHer judgement on balance has been solid, yes she endorsed McCain, of course if she hadn’t the cries of diva would be deafening, in her public work, she didn’t really push her faith, that didn’t matter to the narrative, so she’s much more expressive on that point now,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:14 pmHere are the ones you mentioned:
I agree with this, just as I think everyone should feel welcome in the public square.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:17 pmDRJ, I think I kind of outran my idea if I gave the impression that I think only a select group of conservatives should be talking about social issues. My point is more that our side needs to move beyond saying “You shouldn’t do this because it’s morally wrong” and go more in the direction of “you shouldn’t do this because the long-term effects of such behavior have disastrous consequences for our society.” It is a very hard argument to make, and it requires politicians and rhetoricians who have given it more thought than just to rule something out of bounds because “it didn’t use to be like that” or because “all decent people know that you shouldn’t do that.”
Just a quick example:
Wrong way to address social issues: “Teenage girls shouldn’t have sex because God doesn’t want you to and because you’ll get a reputation as a slut.”
Right way to address social issues: “Teenage girls and boys shouldn’t have sex because the risk of pregnancy or of complicated emotional attachments greatly outweighs the fleeting moment of pleasure. If you focus on developing yourself into the happiest and most self-sufficient person that you can be, you will attract someone who is worthy of your love and you can have a fulfilling life together.”
JVW (709bc7) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:17 pmThey just do it, and then dare us to do something about:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/19/new-mexico-supreme-court-says-state-must-recognize-gay-marriages-as-a-matter-of-equal-protection/
they attack homeschooling in ohio, because of their negligence,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:23 pmit’s beginning to sound a lot like anus
everywhere you go
just turn on the cable news and whichever channel you choose
you’re sure to get an earful of asshole
it’s beginning to sound a lot like anus
anuses galore!
whether you’re christian or heathen we’ve come to a moment when
you have to pick a side in culture war
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:26 pmyou ask for a miracle, Theo
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-dems-defy-obama-on-iran-20131218
I give you a bill that doesn’t challenge this idiocy until it’s too late,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:27 pmDana, this is the kind of person who would shut conservatives up.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/04/25/can_you_have_a_rational_opinion_against_gay_marriage_and_not_be_homophobic.html
Spoiler alert: the answer is no per the lesbian writes about lesbian-themed Japanese animation and comics when not penning articles like this for slate.
You can sum up all those irrational reasons in one word. Hate. As did the gay marriage advocates who are still targeting anyone who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121979337416974603
But then, we’ve seen this before. Back in the ’30s. See comment #88.
It’s a free country. You can have your opinion. But you will be compelled to comply.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:31 pmas the proverb say, it’s not merely a crime, it’s a mistake.
http://twitchy.com/2013/12/19/camille-paglia-our-pc-nation-has-become-utterly-fascist-and-utterly-stalinist/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:36 pmWell even before Prop 8 won, the notion that hanging someone in effigy, and setting fire to a church, were acceptable tactics, to counter an opinion, the last happened after the vote,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:42 pmJVW,
Republicans are free to craft and enforce a template for proper speech on social issues, if that’s what they think will work best. My Party would let people be themselves. Will they mess up sometimes? Sure, but that’s how we learn and I have a feeling voters will respond to my Party’s real people better than your Party’s perfectly-crafted statements.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:44 pmYes, lets follow Europe’s lead, what could go wrong;
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/19/germany-under-investigation-for-their-green-energy-policies/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:52 pmFollow-up to 112:
Of course, feeling welcome doesn’t mean you have a right to expect everyone to agree with you or your choices.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:53 pmOnly one view is permitted:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/radical-feminist-mob-storms-catholic-cathedral-hang-abortion-banner-from-altar/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:56 pmAs an aside, children are the reason for the institution of marriage. This is why marriage has received such deference from the courts and has been recognized as a fundamental right. As one justice put it, “marriage is how society reproduces itself.” In this society marriage has evolved to reflect one overarching social value; all responsible procreation takes place within marriage.
There is a rational basis for defining marriage as one man and one woman. Because once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriages become equally worthless. It isn’t just that heterosexual marriage can’t be preferred over homosexual relationships. Marriage itself can’t be preferred over no marriage at all. Marriage is no longer how society reproduces itself.
Are you not enjoying your fundamental transformation?
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:57 pmnarciso @118, it’s good to see that Camille Paglia has the common sense to recognize that Naziism and communism are on the same end of the political spectrum.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:00 pmI believe there is something called “participatory democracy” that the Left likes, the democracy that counts is who can shout the loudest and make things go their way, whether they are the majority or not. Those promoting the idea, I believe, are like Hillary Clinton, who said that dissent is patriotic when the R’s were in power, but dissent is racist, hateful, and obstructionist when her side is in power.
And the media goes along with it.
Since the 1980’s there have been prominent gay rights and AIDS activists, at least here in Philly, that promoted the most graphic descriptions of gay sex activities as crucial public health information. Anuses were just the beginning…
On one way Mr. Duck was going after them at their own game- hey, the human body is not designed to work this way, after however millions of years of evolution you think we’ve had, nature never saw fit to make better allowances for “normal behavior”.
In one way the argument sounds ludicrous, and I think it is, but that is only (IMO) because the proposition under discussion is ludicrous.
Whoever wants to govern this country well needs to know how to appeal to the common sense of 66% of the people in a way that doesn’t offend them, no matter how loud 33% howl and rage.
The problem is, most people are not of the mindset to fight over whether 2+2=4, so while most just go home the few that are left declare that 2+2=5 after all.
Did Orwell or Huxley ever think society would fall prey to such manipulation of its own willingness??
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:01 pm‘we are not entertained’ in reply to Maximus,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:02 pmA&E is hit with some actual diversity and decides it doesn’t like it.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means to live and let live, even if you think the other folks are behaving badly. Acceptance means you have to treat their behavior as correct.
Christians have no problem with the former when it comes to gays, but big issues with the latter. Why is this so hard to understand. Certainly gays have exactly the same attitudes towards Christians.
Oh, wait, they’re not tolerant either.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:02 pmOrwell did, Huxley seemed to suggest amoral technocracy in Brave New World,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:03 pmComment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:56 pm
Hey, “Occupy the Cathedral”, coming to a church near you, I’m sure.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:03 pmDid Orwell think the public, as in the media, would eagerly go along, or did he think a totalitarian government would push it?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:04 pmBecause once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriages become equally worthless.
So, because my marriage occurred after my wife could no longer conceive, my marriage is worthless?
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:05 pm2% of the population and the media can control almost anything.
mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:06 pmEspecially when talking anus.
==once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriages become equally worthless.==
Late life marriages which occur well past childbearing years and often are the result of the death of a spouse or the result of a divorce can be loving, nurturing, sexually satisfying and healthy for both the body and soul. They create a family. Re write your script, m-kay?
Long married couples who were never able to conceive may take umbrage at your pronouncements on procreation as well.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:10 pmI don’t think that what was meant, Kevin M. I think what was meant that once the definition of marriage (not any individual marriage) was stripped of anything to do with having and raising children, then no definition of marriage (in general) would be any better or worse than any other definition of marriage.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:10 pmDon’t worry, MD, some of the Occupiers have been way ahead of radical feminists.
Guess what some of the “sisters” did, good doctor? Go ahead, guess.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:13 pmWell the tale of how exactly IngSoc took power, is vaguely stated, Big Brother(Stalin) arose with persons like Aaronson and Rutherford, Trotsky and Zinoviev?
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:14 pmAre there any such things as feminine and masculine? If so, do they exist without being necessarily accompanied by children? I guess if one said so, one could base marriage on the idea of gender complementarity. this would be closely related to procreation, but not identical to.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:14 pmI’m just thinking out loud there, not making any claims.
I read it exactly the way you did, Kevin M. And I thought, “that Steve57 guy sure sounds like a big ol’ romantic!”
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:15 pmWell, Steve57, the fall will happen when the movement extends outside of SF.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:16 pmI don’t think it would work in Boston yet, or even NYC.
Christians have no problem with the former when it comes to gays, but big issues with the latter. Why is this so hard to understand.
Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:02 pm
I think because they don’t want to understand; they want to be right.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:18 pmThe left has done a very good job, of Rule 5, when it comes to institutions,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:21 pmhttp://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-defends-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-tolerance-is-a-two-way-street/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:22 pmI realize it’s “take umbrage at Steve57 day,” but go back and read what I wrote.
All responsible procreation takes place within marriage. This is why even childless couples don’t sever the connection between marriage and procreation. If you’re not going outside your marriage, Kevin, and having kids then your marriage upholds the principle which gives it value.
No need, elissa. Late life marriages can also produce children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Iglesias,_Sr.
Go figure. Even elderly men can have kids if they choose to marry a younger woman.
But no combination of ages among same sex couples can have children within marriage. Procreation can only take place outside of their marriage, never within it. That’s what severs the connection, and renders marriage worthless.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:29 pmtolerance is not a street at all it’s an abstract notion of having forbearance towards people who hold different views than you do
it’s implicit then that if you want to show tolerance you’re not going to go out of your way to gratuitously antagonize people like how phil robertson did
phil could have made his point about a thousand different ways without antagonizing anybody – but he wanted to make a big ass out of himself
so now phil ain’t got no tv show
sarah palin is of course welcome to talk all about anuses and vaginas on her new show
we’ll see if homegirl has the courage of her convictions
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:30 pmI took no umbrage at all. Was just pointing out some weakness in your writing and logic, there, Steve.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:38 pmfamily is the bulwark against the state, this is why every totalitarian regime from the Jacobins to Chavez’s have sought to undermine it, in small ways as large,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:39 pmNO, Feet…you are wrong….because IF what you defined above is true, then the tolerance only goes one way here….remember what Phil says in the same interview….
“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and, like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
So, he used YOUR definition of tolerance, and he got shit on by your excuse after that….
If he has not shown disrespect towards others, and continues to live his life that way, he has met your definition….
So, what is his problem again???
reff (4dcda2) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:41 pmEven the best and most fsmous writers usually use editors to get a second opinion and to clean things up before publication. There’s no shame in it.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:44 pmNow it will be about hunting family, and the great outdoors,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:54 pmphil could have made his point about a thousand different ways without antagonizing anybody – but he wanted to make a big ass out of himself
I don’t think Phil cares about what people think of him one way or the other. He seems pretty sure of himself as is. So I don’t buy that he inttentionally tried to offend anyone or gave much thought it. I think he as just being honest. In a day and age of varnished liars and charlatans, I find his directness refreshing.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:56 pmas long as these low-church christians find it equally refreshing when people go out of their way to antagonize them then I don’t see a problem
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 4:59 pmYes I left the comma out, of course we will be subjected to the horror, that is Kathy Griffith and Anderson Vanderbilt, because the universe is unfair,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:00 pmphil could have made his point about a thousand different ways without antagonizing anybody – but he wanted to make a big ass out of himself
No offense intended, feets, but you’re treading a fine line between a beclowning self-parody and a cogent point.
Colonel Haiku (bb45bf) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:00 pmWhen dealing with low info folks, like Obama voters,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:04 pmremember their standard bearers were honey boo boo, and snooki, clarity is appreciated.
Mr. Colonel it’s just how a pikachu get raised up.
Mama Pikachu, she would have been mortified six ways to sunday if the GQ came over and wanted to talk to her baby boy and I opened my fool mouth and held forth on the subject of anus.
This is just now who we are as a people.
When the media come by we talk about freedom and liberty and we talk about independence and we talk about our role in the church and the community and such we do NOT talk about anus.
This is just something we’re taught from an early age.
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:06 pmThis is just *not* who we are as a people I mean.
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:07 pmelissa #148,
Yeah, Hemingway couldn’t spell or punctuate to save his life—no pun intended.
Nelle Harper Lee is believed to have leaned heavily upon her editor for help in putting “To Kill a Mockingbird” together.
I bet Doystoevsky (sp?) was a good speller. After all, if he could spell Doystoevsky, he could probably spell a lot of other words without consulting spellcheck. Or whatever they used back then. Over there.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:09 pmExactly. But I also meant that marriage becomes no better or worse than any other arrangement for having children. And since society no longer reproduces itself through marriage, then that means that the society that was no longer exists. You have something new. And not better, as we are witnessing as single motherhood increasingly becomes the norm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all
Frank Furstenberg doesn’t grasp the concept of cause and effect. Marriage hasn’t become a luxury good. By and large if you don’t want to live in poverty, you can’t afford not to be married.
Anyone here want to argue that the reason these single moms don’t have a four year degree is because they had the kid first?
This is why social issues are economic issues. Do we want a more or fewer wards of the state?
And what might the poverty rates be for those groups? 38.2% of black children live in poverty, 35% of hispanic children, and 12.4% of white children.
Guess what passes for a single mom supporting herself in Lorraine, Ohio?
Of course not. Marriage is actually counterproductive if you’re a ward of the state.
In the article the liberal explanation of the cause for the decline in marriage is that men’s wages have fallen, making them less attractive candidates. But if men’s wages have fallen as the good jobs leave Lorraine, have the women’s rose? Uh, no, you really can’t make that much working the night shift in a gas station. In fact, you have to be pretty desperate to take a job working all night in a gas station as a lot of bad stuff can happen after dark.
I never said gay marriage has caused the decline in the value society assigns to marriage. But it’s a symptom of it. It becomes thinkable as marriage becomes devalued among wider society as just a piece of paper. But once it becomes a reality, it becomes a cause of the decline. The final nail in the coffin.
And then what lies ahead?
http://l.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/the-life-of-julia/
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:11 pmBy and large if you don’t want to live in poverty, you can’t afford not to be married.
this is a very powerful argument in favor of the gay marriage
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:13 pmYou think that’s tough, think about write in in Cyrillic characters,
btw, his majesty will magnanimously allow the purchase of bare bones policy, which ones and how, that’s left unclear,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:14 pmI bet Doystoevsky (sp?) was a good speller. After all, if he could spell Doystoevsky,
Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:09 pm
Actually, ES, he cheated by spelling it in Russian.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:17 pmhttp://weaselzippers.us/2013/12/19/white-house-to-allow-americans-to-purchase-outlawed-health-plans/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:20 pmHere ya go:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:21 pmhttp://moonbattery.com/?p=40387
bobby orr never met a Russian who’s ass he couldn’
pdbuttons (741f08) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:23 pmt kick= estoy desnudo
What weakness in my logic? As long as a marriage is defined as one man and one woman then all marriages can reinforce the cultural value that all responsible procreation takes place within marriage. Even childless marriages can do that as long as you’re not John Ewards looking to become a baby daddy on the side.
Same sex marriage cannot since same sex couples can’t procreate. The whole point of same sex marriage is to break the link between marriage and procreation.
And break that link, and it has a damaging effect on society.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:23 pmSince gay marriage becomes more acceptable as marriage itself is seen as just a piece of paper, totally unnecessary to having and raising children, you have things exactly backward.
But the good news is that pointing out how gay marriage harms society will become hate speech and you won’t have to listen anymore. People can just wonder why the food stamp rolls and unemployment keep growing by leaps and bounds as the government cultivates wards of the state like lettuce.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:30 pm125. Comment by Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 3:57 pm
As an aside, children are the reason for the institution of marriage.
I don’t believe so. The fundamental reason for marriage is to define adultery (and bigamy when applicable) and prevent jealousy.
This is why marriage has received such deference from the courts and has been recognized as a fundamental right. As one justice put it, “marriage is how society reproduces itself.” In this society marriage has evolved to reflect one overarching social value; all responsible procreation takes place within marriage.
There is a rational basis for defining marriage as one man and one woman. Because once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriages become equally worthless. It isn’t just that heterosexual marriage can’t be preferred over homosexual relationships. Marriage itself can’t be preferred over no marriage at all. Marriage is no longer how society reproduces itself.
Are you not enjoying your fundamental transformation?
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:30 pmi like gay marriage I think it’s nice for people to have that choice if they want it
plus i don’t think it hurts anything
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:32 pmThis is why marriage has received such deference from the courts and has been recognized as a fundamental right.
Courts may come up with reasons, but the truth is marriage is required in order to define adultery.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:32 pmBy and large if you don’t want to live in poverty, you can’t afford not to be married.
this is a very powerful argument in favor of the gay marriage
Comment by happyfeet (c60db2)
feets, also if you want to live surrounded by tasteful interior decorating.
Colonel Haiku (bb45bf) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:32 pmi was looking at barry bonds’ mansion on one of those click-bait things today
he is definitely not gay married to nobody
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:34 pmVladimir Tretiak want to facebook me
pdbuttons (741f08) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:35 pmfirst thing is you do NOT make eye contact
happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:36 pmIn this society marriage has evolved to reflect one overarching social value; all responsible procreation takes place within marriage.
No, no.
All sex takes place within marriage.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:37 pmThat was the old social value.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:37 pmKevin Mchalesis a major asshole.. I went to his house knocking on door as a chillen.for the charity.he dam gum slammed the door in my face
pdbuttons (741f08) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:39 pmso I pissed on his car
174. 175. LOL. You are en fuego tonite, Sammy!
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:40 pmKevin Mchale 6 ft 11..big orangatan arms..owned Bill Lambier…hates children..yup..that guy
pdbuttons (741f08) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:41 pm“Duck Dynasty’ is a popular reality show, and I do not think that Mr. Robertson should be suspended by A & E for the comments made within the interview with GQ magazine.
While opposition to homosexuality has biblical support, let’s not confuse a sane public debate about same-sex marriage, or gays in the military, for instance, with unnecessary graphic talk about the virtues of anuses vs vaginas.
What is the objective in saying, “Oooooh, them gays do groossss things!”—other than to provoke people ?
Also, Mr. Robertson is framing the issue as if gay people are merely choosing their orientation from a dessert menu—-“Hey, Phil, do you want cake ? Or ice cream ?”
Gay people do not ‘choose’ to be gay—it is their biology, just as heterosexuality is the biology for those of us who are straight.
Most people are born straight, while some people are born gay. There also appears to be a small percentage of people who have an inclination to go both ways, or have fluidity. But for most people, their inclination appears to be biological, and fixed.
The other thing is that sexual orientation is not merely about physical acts—it is about love, romance, and companionship.
The commenter who lives in New York (I can’t remember his name) said a few weeks ago that as a gay man, he finds emotional and romantic bonding to be natural with a man, rather than with a woman.
Naturally, procreation is necessary for our species and heterosexual marriage is God’s plan for creating and nurturing offspring.
European social states are finding out that if people don’t have children when they’re 25, 35, or 45, there won’t be any taxpayers around to support them during their old age when they expect a pension.
Having constructive debates about gays in the military or same-sex marriage decided by each of the 50 states is legitimate.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:45 pmBut I think conservatives should avoid all of the “ooooh, that’s so gross !” talk, and instead, attempt to articulate to people of all sexual orientations why conservative values and conservative public policies are not only in their best interest, but in the best interest of society.
Well it’s not about personal satisfaction, it’s about the integrity of institutions, consider that as they hollow out and transform all of them,
Now I wouldn’t have used that particular verbiage, but we’re dealing with an intellectually vaccu0us cohort of those who buy GQ,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:50 pmES,
aphrael is who you refer to.
The ideas that 1) same sex attraction is innate at birth and 2) equally “normal” to heterosexual attraction are simply claims of “fact”, not statements of scientific finding.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:53 pmThe reality that many people keep saying it does not make it so.
MD:
I agree, and I think this illustrates the problem with having a rationale for the existence of marriage and then trying to evaluate that rationale based solely on specific examples. It’s like trying to justify a rule because it has exceptions.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:54 pmAsmodeus, pass me the ice skates. Finkelman just made sense.
phunctor (40c3d1) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:59 pmElephant Stone:
I thought Republicans wanted to reach out to new groups, but what I keep hearing is how careful Republicans need to be in how they speak so they don’t offend anyone. Isn’t it possible that there are a lot of people — like low-income, young white males — who never think about politics but who might get interested if they heard Phil Robertson talk about vaginas and anuses? Do you guys really think everyone in America lives in LA or Chicago and shudders when they hear those words?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:00 pmFew people would argue that because adultery happens, marriage has nothing to do with fidelity.
Michael Ejercito (906585) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:03 pmMD in Philly,
We just disagree on that point.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:03 pmI think for most people, orientation is biological.
If God didn’t create it that way, the species would have a much tougher time having survivied through the ages.
Sammy, even societies in antiquity in which a married man could have concubines and visit prostitutes had adultery laws.
For instance in Rome adultery meant any married woman having sex with someone besides her husband. The only way a man could be guilty of adultery is if he had sex with a married Roman woman.
Bigamy wasn’t an issue in societies in which a man could have as many wives as he could afford. It only became illegal when marriages became monogamous.
Both were outlawed for the same reason; children. Legal heirs. A married Roman man could not be guilty of adultery no matter how many children he had with his concubines or prostitutes, or slaves, because those children could not inherit. But he would be guilty of adultery if he had sex with a married Roman woman (non-citizens didn’t count) because that child could inherit, but that child was not the child of the legal father.
Defining adultery and bigamy was important, but only to clear up matters of paternity. Once again, you miss the point as to why these concepts even evolved.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:09 pmconservatives are saying we need to have a national conversation about anus and Jesus
that this is a teachable moment thank you brother Phil
color me skeptical
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:21 pmThe idea is to create the New Man, that’s why they revised the Calendar during the French and Russian Revolutions, another way as Brecht, put it was to ‘dissolve the people and elect another in their place;
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:21 pmThere’s the rub.
We’re a naturally polygynous species, and for good reason. Women provide the rate-limiting step in reproducing or expanding a population, so it’s important that most of them reproduce. It is not important in the same way for most men to reproduce.
So men have competed for mates with some men winning multiple and others none. In fact, we have twice as many female as male ancestors.
Polygyny benefits children by increasing their genetic fitness over generations. While stable relationships; e.g., marriage; is important to child development, it doesn’t need to be monogamous. Indeed monogamy, strictly practiced, will inevitably lead to dysgenic results in offspring and, due to asortive mating, an increasing difference in the genetic quality of upper and lower classes.
In polygynous societies, females with lower genetic quality are nonetheless mated with higher quality male mates. Indeed, various traits such as intelligence are distributed wider on the Bell curve in males than among females.
Rome is of course the society that used force to make much of the world monogamous, including the ancient Jews and us. But there is nothing particularly natural or innate about it.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:25 pmNo, the leftists who’ve formed your socialist conscience just want you to think that. And apparently they’ve succeeded.
But if you’re tired of this we can talk about the “War on Women” (TM), and the reason Evangelicals and Catholics don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives is they’re anti-woman.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:28 pmAnd if not polygyny, then infidelity, which is largely a type of polygyny. This provides eugenic effects on the genome over time as more-desirable men impregnate a larger percentage of females, cuckolding some men who nonetheless provide homes and resources to the offspring. Ultimately this behavior is for the benefit of children, but of course results are mixed. On average, they have tended to be positive in the past, which is why these behaviors or at least desires for these behaviors are common.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:34 pmThe trick with Newspeak as O’Brien explains is to narrow the scope of thought, they can’t do it with words, but the concepts they underly,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:35 pmthe reason Evangelicals and Catholics don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives
it’s the pitiful small shrunkened-upness of these low church evangelicals and catholics what is so tedious and off-putting I think Mr. Steve
why can’t they just say hey
taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for this crap!
no they have to be special aggrieved victimy snowflakes as if Jesus gives two craps about what some random-assed unremarkable fascist whorestate like failmerica has in their budgetary line items
it’s fine if they want to act like they’ve been thrown to the lions – these ones are melodramatic to a fault having been raised up on 700 clubber trash tv – but they shouldn’t do so on behalf of a whole political party
cause in reality our little country flat out has to make hard choices about what it spends its limited resources on, and the hard cold truth what buttresses that assertion makes for a way more compelling argument I think, an argument every Republican can support, and no small number of Democrats besides
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:37 pmThis article linked below, written on a blog in Scientific American by a Progressive gay man makes several compelling arguments on there being a genetic and hereditary component. But the most interesting part of the article is his theory that gay men who permanently or temporarily married women, as they very often did in the days not so long ago, routinely produced some offspring that had that gay gene or marker–and so sent it on into the next generations. He says that in our current millennium with gay men discovering themselves, coming out at earlier ages, and producing fewer biological children because they are forming relationships with other men rather than ever marrying women, fewer and fewer babies will be born with the gay gene or marker. Therefore, despite increasing acceptance of gays, he posits ironically that over time a society with gay marriage will result in fewer and fewer gays.
One may find the article fascinating as I do, or hogwash. But there’s no question that it’s interesting to read and to think about. The link may need a subscription to Scientific American to work properly, but it’s worth a shot.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/y
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:42 pmWe just disagree on that point.
I think for most people, orientation is biological.
If God didn’t create it that way, the species would have a much tougher time having survivied through the ages.
Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:03 pm
I think there is a gap in the logic of what we are saying.
I never said that heterosexual orientation was not biologically based and inherent;
I said to claim that same sex attraction was simply an equally natural and biologically inherent thing was an opinion not based on scientific evidence.
I am not saying the experience of aphrael and others as they perceive it is dishonest or not valid; I am saying it is a leap of logic to say that since a person doesn’t remember anything different that it was inborn and “just as normal” as something else.
A very, very poor analogy would be to take a person who has a severe phobia over cats. Just to see a picture of a cat makes the person start to sweat and hyperventilate, and the actual presence of a cat throws a person into a panicked hysteria and he resorts to violence to get away. The person cannot remember a time they did not react this way, in fact family can recall instances even as a toddler where the child was inconsolable upon seeing a cat that the person has no recollection of.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:49 pmNone of that would prove that the child was born with a phobia about cats, not would it be a reason to say a phobia over cats was “normal”.
Now I would say it would be criminal to provoke such a person with a surprise “cat attack”, but I would not make a city ordinance against owning cats as an accommodation.
As I already said, I consider that a poor analogy but perhaps useful in clarifying points of disagreement.
It’s a conundrum, when the law is lawless, who do you turn to;
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/12/19/justice-department-inspector-general-pushes-holder-on-misconduct-reported-by-pj-media/?singlepage=true
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:53 pmRome didn’t even use force to make Roman society monogamous. That’s why the ancient church fathers were so strident on the subject of sex. They considered Roman sexual practices horrific. What particularly outraged them was that Roman men had free access to slaves of both sexes, which as far as they but not society was concerned was rape.
They couldn’t do much about it even as their influence grew, and even after Constantine converted. Which is why they yelled a lot. Their congregations weren’t even listening. They tried to outlaw prostitution in Constantinople. But the most they could accomplish was to end the Empire’s tax on prostitutes so at least the state wouldn’t have a financial interest in the sex trade.
Heck, they couldn’t even end slavery.
They certainly didn’t force the Jews into monogamy. Jewish law permitted but did not enact polygamy, but monogamy as seen in the story of Adam and Eve was considered the ideal. Monogamy was largely the custom in Israel since the return form the Babylonian exile. But although monogamy was the ideal, polygamy survived in practice at least until the second century AD. Actually it survived into the Middle Ages in Europe, but it was rare. Usually only in the case of childlessness. Since the Jewish view is that marriage exists not to satisfy sexual urges but to raise children, if one woman couldn’t have one the man might be permitted and even urged to take a second wife.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 6:53 pmPrison sex disproves your theory, Elephant Stone. So do blowup dolls and Fleshlights. And other things. If people are not allowed to find sexual gratification with their first choice, they’ll make do with what’s available to tickle their fancy. And that’s just for sexual gratification.
If a society considers marriage and children an indispensable requirement for responsible adulthood, then people will marry Diana, and close their eyes and think of Camilla when they are making William and Harry. Or Tony Blair. You’re a smart guy, you know what I’m getting at.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:01 pmHey, elissa,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:01 pmthe link “works”, but I get an article about the adolescent girl perspective on the onset of menses.
Not quite the same as gay males.
As you point out, Steve, it wasn’t absolute monogamy (no society achieves this because it goes against our biology), but it was enacted in law (force) and it had an effect. Christian tradition built upon Roman tradition regarding monogamy:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:06 pmr u kidding me MD? well, try the google with some of those key words then. I think his name is Jesse Bering and it was in about 2011. (Or maybe on a day like today it got “disappeared”) Wouldn’t be the first time, eh?
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:15 pmNot kidding.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:32 pmI think the link took me to the current version of his regular column,
searching his name, gay, and August 2011 got me the link you mentioned.
Of note, among his books are:
Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections on Being Human (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, released July 3, 2012), and Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 8, 2013).
Yes, he makes reference to some twin studies, pardon me, but I am going to avoid reflecting on why the penis is shaped like that as well as tracking down the references.
And yes, it is interesting to think that “success” would lead to extinction.
No gene caused the defective blood vessel in my brain. (It’s debatable if it happened in the womb, even. When do new blood vessels stop forming in the brain?) Genes are only the starting point, even a dummy like me knows that.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:38 pmphil could have made his point about a thousand different ways without antagonizing anybody – but he wanted to make a big ass out of himself
It is surprising, happy, that you could be so wrong on a self-ass-making point.
He was being interviewed by someone who wanted to get him to make just this kind of statement, for their own purposes. Bet you GQ has got lots of sales and/or page views out of this. Which was the whole point.
The losers are A&E. That will be pretty clear within a week as they fire whoever suspended Phil.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:40 pmWhat happened to the psychological theory of homosexuality, identifying with the wrong parent and all that? And which is “the gay gene”? They’re going from one ignorance to another.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:40 pmelissa,
I think this is the link to the Bering article:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
Note that there’s an extra Y at the end of your link, and I think that may be the culprit. I’m not sure if that’s irony or poetic justice.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:41 pmI realize it’s “take umbrage at Steve57 day,” but go back and read what I wrote.
Go back and read it yourself. BUt who said I was taking “umbrage” — you would know it if I took umbrage. I just thought your point silly and/or badly stated.
Marriage has something to do with raising children and something to do with social stability. One argues for your point, one argues against it.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:42 pmmaybe it was this way, or the other;
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/duck-dynasty-the-show-that-got-away-from-them#ixzz2nyxDgqJm
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:46 pmJust another example of unintended consequences, MD. The progs seem to be really really good at that.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:47 pm#184 Comment by DRJ
Your comment for some reason brought to mind an article I read the other day about white people who are afraid to be called racist. The conclusion of the experiment was that white people who go out of their way to appear not racist actually appeared more racist to the observers.
It’s ironic that when people (myself included) go out of their way to impose a certain appearance often times the opposite is perceived. That is why guys like Phil are a breath of fresh air, they don’t beat around the bush, they call it like they see it. And nobody is left wondering about their hidden motives. I believe the Republican party needs to do they same. Everyone respects those who call it like they see it, we all notice those who beat around the bush and they are not trusted. That is why Bush 43 did well.
MSL (5f601f) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:47 pmI’ll go further: marriage, from the State’s point of view, is mostly about the security of the state as happily married people are highly risk-adverse and disposed towards security themselves. The least stable societies are those with large numbers of single males. You don’t get married men to be suicide bombers.
But you can have lots of babies without marriage. So, keep banging on that point if you must, but it isn’t all that convincing.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:50 pmIt’s dangerous to live in a country where the risk of offending someone takes precedence over saying what you believe. This Robertson story makes me think we’re living in that country.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:51 pmComment by nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:40 pm
The psychological/developmental theory that I am most familiar with, though by no means do I try to “keep up on the literature”, is that the main issue is a lack of identification with the same sex parent, rather than an over-attachment to the opposite sex parent.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:51 pmI can’t say that I have always seen that to be evident, but when I have known some one well enough it sure seems to often be the case, whether the physical absence of a parent, or a parent being abusive, or a parent enabling an abuser.
But certainly there is nothing like a simple direct cause and effect, and often there is nothing “blameworthy” in the raising of the child.
But I am not making that a definitive statement of “how it goes”.
You and I may be on the same wavelength, MSL.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:54 pmi say what i believe all the time
where my cookie
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 7:54 pmDefining adultery and bigamy was important, but only to clear up matters of paternity. Once again, you miss the point as to why these concepts even evolved.
So, this may be my day for misreading you, but are you saying that given accurate paternity tests and/or contraceptives that adultery and bigamy are useless concepts?
I don’t think so, mainly because marriage is about far more than children and inheritance. It’s about two people acting as one in a state of mutual trust in many areas of their lives. They anchor themselves with each other whether or not they have kids. The pool their resources for the common good. They develop a deep and mutual sexual and emotional bond.
Adultery destroys the trust, and bigamy is a basic contract violation where one spouse has their interest divided.
So, again, it isn’t just about children at all.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:08 pmpd buttons- Mchale ahould have kicked your begging ass.
pope on a rope (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:24 pmbeg pardon?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:25 pmThere’s a matter of institutional foundation, try polygyny in this country, and see what a mess would occur,
http://twitchy.com/2013/12/19/in-defense-of-duck-dynasty-sarah-palin-rocks-camo-cross-and-christmas-tree-on-hannity-video/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:25 pmHere is the Robertson family’s official statement:
http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:31 pmand we far too often lapse into “the Bible says. . .” which is a huge turnoff to a large segment of the audience we are trying to target.
That’s a good point, particularly when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, since I think many people have an innately negative reaction towards it not because of religion or the Bible but because of what Phil Robertson said. IOW, there is something intrinsically off-putting about same-sex behavior, particularly between males more so than between women.
To drop all the pretense and psycho-babble, I recall no less than Howard Stern saying years ago that the thought of male homosexuality was repugnant to him because he couldn’t stand the thought of the smell of a guy’s butt. I always found that interesting and ironic because he’d often go on and on about anal sex, but presumably between a male and female.
I’m dedicating this truly off-color and “TMI” posting to happyfeet, because social-cultural liberals love to dish it out, and therefore deserve it thrown right back at them.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:38 pmI’ve felt that way for a long time. I just don’t talk about it much anymore. All it generates are arguments about whether I’m stupid or a closet-dem. Or both. Really, we are told, “Shut up, get in line, vote Republican… Did I mention shut up? Good.”
No thanks. I’ve reached LIB territory (not short for liberal). If Republicans have it right, they’ve made it clear they don’t need me or my opinions. So be it. I will vote Tea Party in primaries, support them if they make the ballot, and otherwise vote Zombie-Reagan or for the Dem if they are truly awful. Anything to hurt establishment Republicans. If they’re supported by McCain, Rove, Boehner, or any other insider, I will help them lose if I can.
Nobody tells me to shut up, no matter how subtle they try to be.
Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:47 pmWell they talk in generalities, who can object to love, but it’s more properly attraction or infatuation, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the specifics aren’t discussed,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:47 pmRome didn’t even use force to make Roman society monogamous.
Beyond that, it’s fascinating that the ancient Greek philosopher Plato originally said that people who were opposed to homosexuality were — to paraphrase — country bumpkins or philistines (ie, his stereotyping makes me think of Obama’s infamous comments about small-town Americans clinging to their guns and religion), but later in life started to disavow homosexuality himself. BTW, Plato predates Christianity and the Bible.
Also keep in mind that the wife of New York City’s new mayor is a self-described lesbian who ended up marrying a dude (and, btw, she’s black, he’s white) and having two kids with him, and apparently remain very much a devoted couple.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:49 pmI know even down here, where there are some aspects of sanity, our governor and his attorney general, sold someone down the river, to the weaselly prosecutor, he was elected in part on a TEA banner,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:50 pmWhere does Plato say that, Mark?
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:53 pmWhere does Plato say that, Mark?
^ As much as things change, some things never change.
Plato — if he can be placed in modern political terms — was attitudinally a right-leaning Republican. Good for him.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:05 pmMark, I don’t think you meant that Plato predates the Torah?
MSL (5f601f) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:12 pmI don’t think you meant that Plato predates the Torah?
MSL, Plato obviously doesn’t predate, as one example, the era of Moses. But the so-called “Christian Bible,” or New Testament, is mainly associated with the time of “AD” and not “BC.”
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:26 pmI suspected that is what you meant. I would point out the Torah also mentions the sin of homosexuality besides all the other sins. I am sure there were other ancient non Jewish societies that frowned upon homosexuality. Nonetheless, I think we are much in agreement.
MSL (5f601f) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:41 pm223-Stashiu – Best thread I have read in many moons.
mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:31 pmThanks.
Kevin @217, I believe this is your day for misunderstanding me.
I referred to Roman marriage laws because even today much of western civilization’s legal system is derived from the Roman.
And the only reason adultery was illegal was entirely due to issues of paternity. That’s why only a woman could commit adultery each and every time she had sex outside of marriage. Because the paternity of the children would be in question.
As long as a married man chose permissible partners, he could have as much sex outside of marriage as he wanted and it wasn’t adultery.
Bigamy, too, was illegal because even in the Roman republic a man could only have one wife at a time.
So, yes, you are misunderstanding me. These concepts didn’t come into existence for any of the reasons you’re talking about. This is a matter of historical record, not my opinion. Now, if you want to say that these concepts have evolved to encompass other considerations you won’t get any argument from me. In fact, those other considerations are why the Catholic church used its influence to expand the definition of adultery to include the married man.
But that wasn’t the discussion I was having with Sammy. And how you get the idea that I think adultery and bigamy are useless concepts because we have effective contraception and accurate paternity testing escapes me entirely.
Why do you insist on arguing with things I haven’t said? I said children were central to the purpose of marriage. It is why our civilization’s legal system recognized it as a private sphere upon which it shouldn’t intrude except under extreme circumstances. If marriage only existed so that adults could establish satisfying emotional relationships, there would be no state interest in marriage. There certainly wouldn’t be such a thing as divorce. Why force consenting adults to go through an expensive and emotionally draining legal process to dissolve a relationship that’s no longer emotionally satisfying if the purpose of marriage was the emotional satisfaction of the participants? The answer is that was never the purpose of marriage and never the reason governments legally recognized them. The word matrimony, after all, is derived from the Latin mater. Mother. That doesn’t mean that every marriage has to result in motherhood. It certainly doesn’t mean that people can’t derive other benefits from marriage other than children. But redefining marriage to include combinations of partners that can never produce children within the marriage under any circumstances completely shatters the meaning of marriage.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:34 pmYou’ve always been more perceptive than I, Stashiu3, but it’s good to see we’re on the same page.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:37 pmUnfortunately, I don’t believe Mr. Feets’ Anus Monologue will be a one night stand.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:04 pmAt least you acknowledge that marriage isn’t a private matter but a relationship in which society has an interest. You get close to why that is in the first sentence. But if I have to choose between what you think the state’s interest in marriage happens to be, and what the people who crafted and interpreted our legal code said the state’s interest in marriage happens to be, I’ll go with the latter.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book1.14.html
We inherited our legal system from England. And our entire legal understanding of marriage is that that it is procreative in nature, and it is in society’s interest to confine and regulate procreative relationships to marriage. The principal purpose of which is to produce children. Because to do otherwise destabilizes society.
Even the case gay marriage advocates point to as if it supports their cause undermines it. In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. But the reason Virginia and other states had miscegenation laws in the first place was because of the fact that heterosexual relationships are inherently procreative. It’s precisely because these relationships can produce children that they were outlawed. That’s what miscegenation means when you take it back to its Latin root words; to mix kinds. The children would be of mixed kinds.
Up until about 20 years ago that was the government’s position on why it was concerned with marriage. The notion that marriage is not about children but about stable adult relationships was fabricated out of whole cloth back in the 70s for entirely political purposes and never gained much traction until the 90s. It was essentially concocted to deny history. Which is exactly what Judge Vaughn Walker did in his lengthy, well footnoted, monument to historical illiteracy, illogic and obtuseness that was his Prop 8 decision.
Apparently something prevents you from acknowledging the fact of the history I’m referring to. But in all fairness, I find your alternative interpretation explanation of the purpose of marriage less compelling than Lord Blackstone’s. Because the stable, risk adverse marital relationship exists in order to provide a stable parental relationship with the children of that marriage. To deny that fact is to make a fundamental mistake that societies have refused to make for thousands of years.
You can make lots of babies without marriage. At society’s peril. And it is precisely because making lots of babies without marriage is a really, really bad idea that we developed the concept of marriage that we did. It represents the verdict of history. And now we’re chucking it all aside because a small segment of society is throwing a tantrum.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:30 amActually, you do.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/pakistan.suicide.couple/index.html
Precisely because single men become ineffective when people think along the stereotypical lines reflected in your statement. It’s the same reason terror groups used women. Hamas began using suicide bombing as a tactic in 1993. It used its first woman suicide bomber in 2002. Why? Because Israeli security forces were focusing very intensely on young single men. It became very difficult for men to get through security checkpoints, but women could travel more freely. For this reason many terror groups also began using elderly men, or like the Taliban they used children. Married couples, these risk adverse types as you call them, are the next step in the evolution of the suicide bomber. When lone actors have difficulty slipping by security, couples can.
You’re speculating in absence of the facts.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:03 am223- stashiu, Scott Brown did not have a good showing in N.H.
mg (31009b) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:18 amThey don’t like his bloomberg backed gun control. I doubt he wins the primary, and people forget his vote passed dodd/frank. Besides he could not beat lieawatha.
Actually, the married suicide bomber isn’t all that rare.
Sometimes they function alone as conventional suicide bombers. Both men and women.
http://news.yahoo.com/russians-hunt-husband-suicide-bomber-124506712.html
http://www.darpanmagazine.com/2013/09/married-to-londons-77-suicide-bomber-and-now-suspected-in-kenyan-mall-attack-the-white-widow/
And they’ve been operating as teams since the 2005 AQ attack on hotels in Amman Jordan.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/jordan_suicide-bombers_include_husband_and_wife_team/
It was confirmed. The wife’s belt failed to explode. She was captured.
How’d you miss all this, Kevin? Maybe the Amman Jordan attack has faded from memory, but the Northgate mall shooting in Kenya was big news just a couple of months ago. And the “white widow” and her story was covered extensively.
Yes, you do get married men to be suicide bombers.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:46 amAnd keep an eye on Katherine Russell, Tamerlan’s significant other,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/20/2013 @ 4:09 am115. I’d be all for a culture war if there were any.
What is plainly obvious by the phenotypical Republitard is that the genepool rot is pandemic.
Malthus will have his day. Most of Homo sapiens is a Darwin selection in actualization. Without our wealth Amerikkka is quintessentially unfit for survival.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/20/2013 @ 6:50 amActually, you do.
Proves nothing, For every married person willing to do so there are likely 100 single men.
More to my point, and possibly yours, is that polygamy destabilizes a society by increasing the number of unmarried men, and may be the real reason the Romans banned it. Made the job of empire harder.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:26 amWhere are you getting that ratio, Kevin? Because the motivations for suicide bombers vary widely. As widely as for suicides in general. And also by country. These two studies concern Palestinian attacks on Israel. The first is a Shin Bet study of suicide bombers in Israel between 2000 and 2005.
http://israelsmessiah.com/terrorism/suicide_bombers.htm
If you scroll down you’ll see that in that time period 13 of 144 suicide bombers were married, or 9%. So for every married suicide bomber there were approximately 9 unmarried men willing to blow themselves up.
But then, the profile of the suicide bomber changes over time. Israel has had to tear up and redo its profile of the suicide bomber several times over the years. Prior to 2002 women weren’t even part of the profile.
This is a 2007 study. It actually breaks down the profile of the suicide bomber by gender and motivation (two broad categories of religious and nationalistic).
http://www.ijcv.org/index.php/ijcv/article/view/13/13
11.2% of the women with a religious motivation were married, while 17.5% of the women with a nationalistic motivation were married. Among men, approximately 16% of the men in both categories were married. Not a large number, perhaps, but the important thing to note is that in two years there was leap in the percentage of married suicide bombers from 9% to 15%. That’s a significant change.
Of course, you can’t extrapolate from this to suicide bombers in places like Checnya or Pakistan.
But where are you coming up with this 100 to 1 ratio? The numbers from Israel don’t support that. If the trend has continued were probably talking one in five suicide bombers being married, at least.
As far as polygamy destabilizing society, historically polygamous societies have tended to anticipate and come up with a solution to exactly the problem you mention. So they exported their excess young men to raid into and destabilize other societies.
Polygamous societies, if they lasted long enough, tended to learn the lessons of history. I suggest we should as well.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 5:38 pm