J. D. Hayworth: I Am Schtoopid

May I be blunt? The idea that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to bestiality is one of the most stone-dumb reactionary talking points of the religious right. Do these people really think the only reason humans don’t “marry” animals is because it’s against the law? Good grief.

Maybe this says more about them than they’d like to admit.

The latest Neanderthal to pull out this scaaary boogeybeast is John McCain’s Republican opponent in Arizona, tea party Birther candidate J.D. Hayworth: ‘You could marry your horse’. He might as well be wearing a badge that says “I AM SCHTOOPID.”

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”

“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.

“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the “only way” to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

Jump to bottom

300 comments

1 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:36:20am

Well, Caligula made his horse a Senator. Hayworth is going for his hay’s worth and hoping it happens to him.

2 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:36:26am

I can’t marry my dogs or my cat because they’re all boys…and same-sex human-animal marriage will likely be the last thing to get legalized, for it could lead to human-asexual bacteria marriage.

3 Political Atheist  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:37:56am

California has consenting adults, not consenting vertebrates in our laws. If your argument is admittedly ridiculous-Shut up.

4 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:37:59am

If you nellie take this sentient being to be your lawfully wedded spouse please stomp twice.

5 jaunte  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:38:39am
6 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:39:48am

re: #5 jaunte

Ooh…that nose is begging for a good rub.

7 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:39:50am

This could be good news for Kinky Kelly and The Stud.

SFW clip of maybe the best scene in a movie ever, EVER I SAID!

8 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:40:37am

If I were Hayworth, I would be more worried about women marrying horses. It’s a size thing.

9 Olsonist  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:40:40am

Is this Republican stupidity or just stupidity? Hayworth is a Republican running in a Republican primary appealing to Republican votes. Unless the Republican Party actively disassociates itself from this madness the way Ronald Reagan disavowed David Duke, this is Republican stupidity.

10 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:40:42am

That didn’t take long. If I may re-post from the last string to this more relevant one, not even the freepers are buying Hayworth’s horse marriage warning:

I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.
No fooling. Stupid and desperate. If that’s the best argument he can come up with, he probably should avoid the subject.

And the inevitable “Wish I’d thought of that” moment:

Gives new meaning to the words, “getting hitched”.
11 thedopefishlives  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:40:55am

I’m sure there are people for whom the only barrier to marrying their animals is that it’s illegal. That doesn’t make his argument anything resembling valid.

12 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:41:41am

The concept of “consenting adults” is overriden by their obession with their obsession of the notion that homosexuality “an abomination against God”, which to their pea-brains, places it in the same category as bestiality, pederasty and hamster breeding…

13 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:41:44am

Actually, what JD Hayworth is saying, and John McCain would be wise to point this out, is that Arizonans are SCHTOOPID. Sure, he’ll get the bible-thumper vote, but is that enough to win the primary? I don’t think so.

14 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:42:28am

I would be willing to give up my marriage deduction to settle this stupid debate. The state no longer needs to incentivize population growth or marriage so lets get our laws up to date to protect dependents of all types and keep marriage, nuptials or flying spaghetti monster twinings for away from fiduciary or legal benefits and solely in the discretion of the religion they come from.

Any other policy seems inherantly discriminatory to me. Let people declare partners and have them legally protected equally.

15 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:42:44am

re: #4 DaddyG

If you nellie take this sentient being to be your lawfully wedded spouse please stomp twice.

“Neighhhhhhh!”

*horse trots off…*

16 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:42:56am

If people are allowed to marry Republicans, why shouldn’t they marry other animals too?

17 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:43:01am

re: #5 jaunte

[Link: img59.echo.cx…]

Hey she’s kind of cute. /

18 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:43:18am

An interesting point about morality.

Lowbrow people will tell you not to do something because you will get punished if you are caught.

Moral people tell you not to do something because it is wrong.

And no I am not saying that same sex civil unions are wrong. The state has absolutely no right to tell people who they can or can not marry if you are talking about adults.

I am talking about something that Charles picked up on.

When we were kids in school and we would see some presentation from the police or whatever other low brow authority figure, the message was always submit or suffer the consequences. It was never, don’t do this because it is wrong to do.

IF the only reason you have to not do something is that you feel you will get caught, then of course you might try it if you think you can get away with it.
TO make your “moral” arguments based on the notion of blind obedience, rather than to an appeal to an actual rightness and wrongness of things is to abandon notions of right and wrong all together.

If someone actually thinks that the only reason not to bang your four footed friends is because it is illegal, they have no concept of any other reason not to do so.

To say it that is less bizarre and inflammatory, the lowbrow reason to not steal a wallet is that you might get in trouble.

A better reason is to feel empathy for the owner of the wallet and not wish to hurt him.

A lowbrow reason not to cheat on your wife might be that you have to face a messy divorce.

A highbrow reason might be not to hurt her and an even higher reason might be that you honor your vows and would not so defile yourself.

The Religious Right proves in a very deep way that for all of their talk about morality, they have no concept of it in a meaningful way.

19 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:43:48am

Of course, it wasn’t so long ago when certain groups in the US would publicly claim that interracial relationships were a form of bestiality.

20 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:43:49am

re: #16 Cato the Elder

If people are allowed to marry Republicans, why shouldn’t they marry other animals too?

BOOO!

21 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:02am

re: #16 Cato the Elder

If people are allowed to marry Republicans, why shouldn’t they marry other animals too?

No self-respecting horse would marry a cowboy anyway, because cowboys are notoriously bad lovers…due mostly to the fact that they think eight seconds is a long ride.

22 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:05am

re: #1 Cato the Elder

Well, Caligula made his horse a Senator. Hayworth is going for his hay’s worth and hoping it happens to him.

A horse is horse, of course, unless the horse is wearing thigh highs?

23 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:08am

re: #16 Cato the Elder

If people are allowed to marry Republicans, why shouldn’t they marry other animals too?

“And that…is why you fail.” - Master Yoda

24 fantasmaguero  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:16am

One jar of Tradition and two cans of Slippery Slope, stirred into a well-simmered stock of idiocy. Logically fallacious pseudo-arguments seem to be the stock-in-trade among the fringe, and (unfortunately) “business is a-boomin’”.

25 Firmworm  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:17am

Do these people really think the only reason humans don’t “marry” animals is because it’s against the law?

Yes

[Link: www.news.com.au…]

26 comradebillyboy  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:21am

JD and his friends are all about our freedom, the freedom to believe what he believes (or rather pretends to believe) and behave only in the manner that he approves of.

27 Professor Chaos  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:43am

re: #13 darthstar

Actually, what JD Hayworth is saying, and John McCain would be wise to point this out, is that Arizonans are SCHTOOPID. Sure, he’ll get the bible-thumper vote, but is that enough to win the primary? I don’t think so.

That might make me start respecting McCain again, if he came out and said that Hayworth is a demagogue who obviously thinks Arizonans are stupid.

28 jaunte  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:44:57am

re: #19 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Of course, it wasn’t so long ago when certain groups in the US would publicly claim that interracial relationships were a form of bestiality.

There are still many echoes of that in all the wookie comments we’ve seen on some sites lately.

29 webevintage  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:45:09am

I still don’t know why we care if a dude in Korea married his pillow or a lady in NY wants to marry her ferret?
Who cares.
Why should we care.
So non caring….

30 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:10am

My ex-wife is married to a horse’s ass. They live in Massachusetts, though, so it’s probably legal.

31 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:20am

re: #13 darthstar

Actually, what JD Hayworth is saying, and John McCain would be wise to point this out, is that Arizonans are SCHTOOPID. Sure, he’ll get the bible-thumper vote, but is that enough to win the primary? I don’t think so.

The problem is that not many people vote in off-year primaries. Bible-thumpers are important because the centrists often don’t show up. That said, Hayworth was down by double digits the last time I checked. I don’t think this particular kook is going to win.

32 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:29am

re: #25 Firmworm

Do these people really think the only reason humans don’t “marry” animals is because it’s against the law?

Yes

[Link: www.news.com.au…]

The law didn’t seem to stop him, did it?

33 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:45am

re: #27 Girth

That might make me start respecting McCain again, if he came out and said that Hayworth is a demagogue who obviously thinks Arizonans are stupid.

Don’t hold your breath…right now he’s probably raging at the mirror shouting, “Why didn’t you think to say that? We’ve got lots of horses in this state!”

34 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:47am

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

If only J.D. represented the ‘Religious Right’.

35 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:46:58am

re: #2 darthstar

I can’t marry my dogs or my cat because they’re all boys…and same-sex human-animal marriage will likely be the last thing to get legalized, for it could lead to human-asexual bacteria marriage.

Hypno-Germs!

Bean and Germ must never mate!
It is written on this grape!

36 thedopefishlives  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:47:47am

re: #34 Oh no…Sand People!

If only J.D. represented the ‘Religious Right’.

More like the Religious Wrong.

37 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:48:08am

I know some donkeys who are married to elephants. Is that a bad thing?

38 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:48:52am

re: #37 Cato the Elder

I know some donkeys who are married to elephants. Is that a bad thing?

If they’d quite screwing the rest of us, I suppose I could live with it.

39 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:49:16am

re: #32 Charles

The law didn’t seem to stop him, did it?

One would think basic physiology might have.

40 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:49:25am

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

In short: Christians who attempt to proselytize by warning of the brimstone that otherwise awaits do themselves, and more importantly, sane Christians a disservice.

41 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:49:41am

re: #37 Cato the Elder

I know some donkeys who are married to elephants. Is that a bad thing?

OK, if you don’t make the obligatory Katherine the Great joke, I shall!

42 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:50:03am

re: #32 Charles

The law didn’t seem to stop him, did it?

This is my favorite related story of all time and since the guy is from AZ I think it’s on-topic:
[Link: www.thesmokinggun.com…]

Fire Chief Caught On The Lamb
Arizona man, 52, found with pants down in neighbor’s barn


When later confronted, the 52-year-old Johnson, who apparently had been drinking, told the neighbor (who has the improbable name of Alan Goats), “You caught me Alan, I tried to f*** your sheep.”
43 Summer Seale  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:50:12am

It’s amazing how these people know absolutely nothing about ethics, and then try to hoist all their ignorant claims on the rest of us who actually do know what we’re talking about.

The reason I don’t go around killing and pillaging (raping is a little hard as a woman…tho I’ve heard it has been done…), or marrying animals or having sex with kids, isn’t because it’s illegal or that it tells me not to do so in some ancient book. The reason I don’t go around doing some terrible things is because it’s wrong and everyone knows it’s wrong as a sort of human universal experience thing.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this is an absolute idiot. Not only that, they’re fucking insulting as well.

44 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:50:19am

re: #25 Firmworm

Do these people really think the only reason humans don’t “marry” animals is because it’s against the law?

Yes

[Link: www.news.com.au…]

but was it consensual!
////

45 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:50:23am

I dunno. I’m marry my cat, at least he doesn’t hog the covers on a cold night.

46 fantasmaguero  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:50:28am

re: #41 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, if you don’t make the obligatory Katherine the Great joke, I shall!

And so early in the thread, too :P

47 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:51:31am

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

An interesting point about morality.

Lowbrow people will tell you not to do something because you will get punished if you are caught.

Moral people tell you not to do something because it is wrong.

And no I am not saying that same sex civil unions are wrong. The state has absolutely no right to tell people who they can or can not marry if you are talking about adults.

I am talking about something that Charles picked up on.

When we were kids in school and we would see some presentation from the police or whatever other low brow authority figure, the message was always submit or suffer the consequences. It was never, don’t do this because it is wrong to do.

IF the only reason you have to not do something is that you feel you will get caught, then of course you might try it if you think you can get away with it.
TO make your “moral” arguments based on the notion of blind obedience, rather than to an appeal to an actual rightness and wrongness of things is to abandon notions of right and wrong all together.

If someone actually thinks that the only reason not to bang your four footed friends is because it is illegal, they have no concept of any other reason not to do so.

To say it that is less bizarre and inflammatory, the lowbrow reason to not steal a wallet is that you might get in trouble.

A better reason is to feel empathy for the owner of the wallet and not wish to hurt him.

A lowbrow reason not to cheat on your wife might be that you have to face a messy divorce.

A highbrow reason might be not to hurt her and an even higher reason might be that you honor your vows and would not so defile yourself.

The Religious Right proves in a very deep way that for all of their talk about morality, they have no concept of it in a meaningful way.

Good point, but speaking about higher reason can cause trouble with the relativists, so cops and teachers tend to play it safe with the lowbrow reasons.

48 Summer Seale  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:51:33am

And yes, I have a seriously bad issue with that stupid fucking argument. I’m sick of it and I’m not afraid of letting people know how incredibly angry I am every time it is brought up.

49 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:51:56am

Maybe he’s worried that someone might marry their pillow?

50 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:53:01am

re: #25 Firmworm

Ahem. In an otherwise relatively free society, you cannot make a law forbidding a marriage of any kind. You can only make a law forbidding the relevant governments to recognize the marriage for pertinent legal purposes.

Go find a church who will marry you to a cauliflower, if you wish. Nothing is stopping you.

51 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:53:14am

Coming next…

Laws against inter-religious marriages.

Anyone Lizards here who, because of religious beliefs, thinks that it’s wrong to marry across religious lines?

52 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:53:27am

re: #42 RogueOne

Good touch.
Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-d touch.

53 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:54:18am

re: #42 RogueOne

That reminds me of the story of the young guy who got hired to cook for a sheep farmer and his crew. While the men were out sheep dipping, shearing, etc. he decided he wanted to impress his boss with a nice meal. Behind the kitchen was a lamb tied to a fence post. The boy thought, “I’ll roast that lamb for dinner!” Well, he wound up over-salting the lamb, over-cooking the vegetables, and when the crew got back from the field for dinner, they took one bite and said, “This is awful!”

The boss said, “Where the hell did you get this meat, anyway?”
“I took the lamb that was tied to the fence,” replied the young man.
“WHAT?” Shouted the boss, “You mean to tell me that you not only fucked up my cooking, but you cooked up my fucking?”

54 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:54:40am

re: #51 Walter L. Newton

Coming next…

Laws against inter-religious marriages.

Anyone Lizards here who, because of religious beliefs, thinks that it’s wrong to marry across religious lines?

No. Just not as practical as saddling yourself with someone who shares your basic assumptions about life, the universe and everything. (Not to mention beliefs about credit card debt and spanking children).

55 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:55:37am

re: #40 Aceofwhat?

In short: Christians who attempt to proselytize by warning of the brimstone that otherwise awaits do themselves, and more importantly, sane Christians a disservice.

I was being more diplomatics and not quite trying to go there, but yes that follows precisely. It also follows for some Muslims and some Jews.

You refrain from doing terrible things because they are terrible and hurt others or defile your own honor. You do it in an act to preserve things of value and to protect others and yourself from harm. The focus is on others and on preserving actual values.

If on the other hand, your reason for not doing something awful is not wanting to get caught, you are only saying that you would do it, except you don’t want to pay the price.

In essence the stance of “hell and brimstone” is a renunciation of everything positive to say about a religious system. Do you do something out of love, compassion and a desire to have honor, or do you act based on solely weighing personal costs and benefits?

56 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:55:50am

re: #43 Summer

bookmark: at some future distant time, i’d love to have a lighthearted debate about the “universal human experience”.

i say ‘future distant time’ because it doesn’t have anything to do with the example under discussion. i’ll bring it up with you (and Iceweasel, who still owes me a very similar chat) on some open thread one of these days-

57 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:55:54am

re: #51 Walter L. Newton

Coming next…

Laws against inter-religious marriages.

Anyone Lizards here who, because of religious beliefs, thinks that it’s wrong to marry across religious lines?

From the theological viewpoint I espouse (LDS) I understand why, but that’s just me and my opinion based on the theology and the way it represents itself. Anyone else not of my club, who does not see my opinions the way I do, can marry whoever they want.

58 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:55:58am

…Wow, that level of Stoopid could obliterate stars…

59 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:56:08am

re: #46 fantasmaguero

And so early in the thread, too :P

Ehhh I’m just horsing around.

60 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:56:38am

re: #59 LudwigVanQuixote

On a roll today, LVQ, well-played.

61 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:56:43am

re: #46 fantasmaguero

And so early in the thread, too :P

I find your choice of avatars wise…

62 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:57:13am

re: #60 Guanxi88

On a roll today, LVQ, well-played.

Thank you!

63 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:57:25am

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, that was a home run!

64 fantasmaguero  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:58:23am

re: #43 Summer

It’s amazing how these people know absolutely nothing about ethics, and then try to hoist all their ignorant claims on the rest of us who actually do know what we’re talking about.

The reason I don’t go around killing and pillaging (raping is a little hard as a woman…tho I’ve heard it has been done…), or marrying animals or having sex with kids, isn’t because it’s illegal or that it tells me not to do so in some ancient book. The reason I don’t go around doing some terrible things is because it’s wrong and everyone knows it’s wrong as a sort of human universal experience thing.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this is an absolute idiot. Not only that, they’re fucking insulting as well.

Solipsism. Plain and simple. “I think, therefore I am guided by something even greater.” The lethal combo of solipsism and superstition are at the root of the right’s positions on global warming, GLBT civil rights, and evolution. Without humor, it would drive any serious observer mad within a week.

65 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:58:45am

re: #47 Dark_Falcon

Good point, but speaking about higher reason can cause trouble with the relativists, so cops and teachers tend to play it safe with the lowbrow reasons.

And by assuming that children can not deal with higher reasons we rob them of instructing them with them. The cost outweighs the benefit.

66 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:58:55am

re: #63 Irenicum

Ludwig, that was a home run!

Thank you!

67 TDG2112  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 10:59:15am

I remember this when my wife’s boss started passing out this stuff out back during the Prop 8 fight. The boss was from mainland China, and a real hard core Christian. We ran into her in front of a super market passing this out. I was pretty amazed she’d be doing that. So all the literature was in Chinese and I had to get my wife to help translate it.

For this argument alone I voted no on Prop 8. The more stupid and ridiculous the argument on a side the stronger my opposition. I went from not caring in the least to a total rabid foaming mouth advocate for gay marriage.

My wife had to work to keep me far from any of her Chinese co-workers/friends during that election cycle. I’d totally forgotten how homophobic people were in Taiwan when I was there (and I didn’t really run into too of it while I was there actually) I had thought (being married to my wife) that people with higher degrees from over there lost that characteristic. BOY was I wrong! My wife works with nothing but PhDs and MS (usually multiple masters degrees) people from Mainland China.

68 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:00:17am

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

I was being more diplomatics and not quite trying to go there, but yes that follows precisely. It also follows for some Muslims and some Jews.

You refrain from doing terrible things because they are terrible and hurt others or defile your own honor. You do it in an act to preserve things of value and to protect others and yourself from harm. The focus is on others and on preserving actual values.

If on the other hand, your reason for not doing something awful is not wanting to get caught, you are only saying that you would do it, except you don’t want to pay the price.

In essence the stance of “hell and brimstone” is a renunciation of everything positive to say about a religious system. Do you do something out of love, compassion and a desire to have honor, or do you act based on solely weighing personal costs and benefits?

Indeed. It also diminishes one’s capacity to identify those items one truly avoids for the purposes of avoiding negative consequences. I do not live on a diet of Oreos and milk because i wish to avoid the consequences. There is no other reason why I don’t live on Oreos and milk.

Making similar statements about moral issues confuses the matter by making it akin, as you pointed out, to the reason why i do not live on a different diet.

69 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:00:25am

re: #57 Oh no…Sand People!

From the theological viewpoint I espouse (LDS) I understand why, but that’s just me and my opinion based on the theology and the way it represents itself. Anyone else not of my club, who does not see my opinions the way I do, can marry whoever they want.


This is one reason I (as and LDS believer) feel there is a danger in the government putting a stamp of approval on one church’s marriage and not another. Anything they can award rights to, they can regulate. I’d just assume not mix the two as they are currently.

70 Summer Seale  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:01:30am

re: #56 Aceofwhat?

Yea, I actually had to walk away just now and calm down. And yes, as an Atheist, I’ve heard this argument time and time again. And many religious people seem absolutely unaware at how incredibly personally insulting this argument is. It drives me nuts. I would counter that they are the ones with ethical problems for even assuming this and bringing it up in the first place. I’m sick and tired of that crap.

BTW, just to note: I know lots of religious people who don’t make that stupid argument and are fully aware of how incredibly insulting that argument is. And my deepest thanks to those of you who don’t do it. Just had to say that. Now I’m gonna make some tea.

71 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:01:38am

re: #58 Varek Raith

…Wow, that level of Stoopid could obliterate stars…

Then it seems clear what you should do: Load J.D. Hayworth into a resonance torpedo casing and fire him out of the Sun Crusher. The problem is I think that will actually earn you Light Side points.

72 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:02:15am

re: #69 DaddyG

This is one reason I (as and LDS believer) feel there is a danger in the government putting a stamp of approval on one church’s marriage and not another. Anything they can award rights to, they can regulate. I’d just assume not mix the two as they are currently.

‘Brother’ DaddyG, welcome. *adjusts tie in ‘secret’ fashion*

73 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:02:16am

re: #65 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, I like making the ‘lowbrow’ argument when it shows that there is no need to even think about the murkier ethics. The ‘low-brow’ argument is useful for showing what is realistically achievable. In other words, demonstrating to people that although their ‘high-brow’ ethical examination might indicate one path of action, a ‘low-brow’ analysis will show that path is self-defeating.

Sorry if that’s overly abstract, I’m having DST-dissonance.

74 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:02:22am

re: #53 darthstar

Ewwwe!

My cousin Sammy could do things with a sheep’s penis that still baffle me. He’d roll the ram on his back, press (I guess) on it’s bladder, squeeze the penis shaft and hit a man on the other side of the barn with piss. That, my friends, is talent.

75 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:02:36am

re: #67 TDG2112

I work with a for a TON of Chinese - mainlanders and ROC folks. Funny thing is, the older ones seem to have no idea that homosexuality even exists. “I wonder why a handsome young man like X and his friend Y don’t start looking for wives?”

Eh, but, in general, Chinese, irrespective of background, are VERY conservative in their social beliefs.

76 pharmmajor  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:02:58am

If Hayworth actually beats McCain in the primaries… well, there’ll be a lot of crying coming from my house.

77 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:03:02am

re: #42 RogueOne

Can you imagine the absolutely exquisite humiliation of getting caught doing that? How would such an offender fare in prison.

The Sun (the British tabloid) has a long-standing practice of publishing all the details of UK citizens who are on trial for such offenses. It’s pretty funny if you’re not queasy.
One poor perv was abusing a sheep in what he thought was a secluded grove. He didn’t realize that he was just twenty feet from a busy rail line. A commuter train with hundreds of passengers went right past him and several of them took photos. He had heard the train, obviously, but thought it was on the other side of the trees, not right in the clearing with him and his sheep.

78 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:03:42am

re: #65 LudwigVanQuixote

And by assuming that children can not deal with higher reasons we rob them of instructing them with them. The cost outweighs the benefit.


Absolutely! I try to answer the “why” question as often as possible. There are very few absolutes where I ask my kids to believe “simply because” and hopefully my track record with them is good enough they have some level of trust with me on the questions I don’t have a ready answer to. There are always going to be articles of faith in any belief system but fear of judgement and appeal to authority are not a strong bulwork like trust.

79 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:03:52am

re: #71 Dark_Falcon

Just fire it at some Ewoks. Or Bothans.

[Link: www.penny-arcade.com…]

80 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:03:58am

Well, now I gotta go! Later folks…

81 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:04:42am

re: #70 Summer

Yea, I actually had to walk away just now and calm down. And yes, as an Atheist, I’ve heard this argument time and time again. And many religious people seem absolutely unaware at how incredibly personally insulting this argument is. It drives me nuts. I would counter that they are the ones with ethical problems for even assuming this and bringing it up in the first place. I’m sick and tired of that crap.

BTW, just to note: I know lots of religious people who don’t make that stupid argument and are fully aware of how incredibly insulting that argument is. And my deepest thanks to those of you who don’t do it. Just had to say that. Now I’m gonna make some tea.

I love talking to atheists in good faith (heh), but it’s best done with good intentions and a good setting. Enjoy the tea!

82 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:05:42am

re: #79 Obdicut

Just fire it at some Ewoks. Or Bothans.

[Link: www.penny-arcade.com…]

That’s evil.

83 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:05:43am

re: #77 Shiplord Kirel

I remember that story, good times, good times. What struck me funniest about the fire chief was how quickly he admitted it almost in a “sorry ‘bout that” kind of way.

84 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:06:11am

re: #74 Jeff In Ohio

Ewwwe!

My cousin Sammy could do things with a sheep’s penis that still baffle me. He’d roll the ram on his back, press (I guess) on it’s bladder, squeeze the penis shaft and hit a man on the other side of the barn with piss. That, my friends, is talent.

Talent + practice, you mean. It’s the latter half of that little equation that is freaking me out at the moment…

85 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:06:20am

So back on topic…

Hypothetically if I did marry a horse would my employer be required to carry their veteranarian insurance as part of my family coverage? /

86 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:07:33am

re: #85 DaddyG

Yeah. And they’d have to go to the farmacy.

87 Professor Chaos  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:07:40am

re: #85 DaddyG

So back on topic…

Hypothetically if I did marry a horse would my employer be required to carry their veteranarian insurance as part of my family coverage? /

Better yet, could I get covered under my horse’s policy?

88 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:07:56am

re: #85 DaddyG

So back on topic…

Hypothetically if I did marry a horse would my employer be required to carry their veteranarian insurance as part of my family coverage? /

Better question…can you still shoot it if it becomes more hassle than it’s worth//

89 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:08:43am

re: #74 Jeff In Ohio

Ewwwe!

My cousin Sammy could do things with a sheep’s penis that still baffle me. He’d roll the ram on his back, press (I guess) on it’s bladder, squeeze the penis shaft and hit a man on the other side of the barn with piss. That, my friends, is talent.

Reminds me of this very special episode of Dirty Jobs:

IANAL but I’m pretty sure that kind of behavior will get you jail time in 38 states.

90 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:09:04am

re: #85 DaddyG

So back on topic…

Hypothetically if I did marry a horse would my employer be required to carry their veteranarian insurance as part of my family coverage? /

Of course

re: #87 Girth

Better yet, could I get covered under my horse’s policy?

Of course.

That is of course, unless the horse, is the famous Mr. Ed.

91 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:09:08am

And there would definitely be S & M, what with all the whips and stirrups.

92 theliel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:09:48am

re: #78 DaddyG

Absolutely! I try to answer the “why” question as often as possible. There are very few absolutes where I ask my kids to believe “simply because” and hopefully my track record with them is good enough they have some level of trust with me on the questions I don’t have a ready answer to. There are always going to be articles of faith in any belief system but fear of judgement and appeal to authority are not a strong bulwork like trust.


That of course depends on the age of the child.
It’s all well and good to answer the why questions so that by rote repetition if anyone doesn’t give them an answer that doesn’t come with ‘…because blah blah blah’ they should immediately be skeptical of it (it’s input not in the right format) the fact is until a certian age you’re not going to get ‘higher’ functions, thus we run with getting caught


the last scary study I saw suggested that up to 22% of people never really develop the bits of the brain neccissary for that ‘highbrow’ reason…

93 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:09:53am

Oh, Hayworth, you really stepped into an innuendo minefield with this one!
Idiot.

94 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:09:53am

DecaturDeb would be making hay in this thread………….

where is she?

95 spare o'lake  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:10:15am

If murder was legal for just one day of the year, how many deaths would it take ‘till we knew that too many people had died?

96 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:10:22am

re: #94 wozzablog

Probably horsing around somewhere.

97 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:10:23am

re: #93 Varek Raith

inn-eww-endo

98 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:10:23am

Someone should create a commercial to counter this absurd conclusion. One that focuses on the basic concepts regarding the creation of a contract.

*have to be legal adults (human)
*of sound mind
*mutual consent
*consideration (promise for a promise)

I say this because Hayworth said this to create an (irrational) emotional reaction. The best way to counter this false claim, IMO, is to respond calmly and with facts.

99 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:10:33am

re: #87 Girth

Better yet, could I get covered under my horse’s policy?

The pain killers are serious business.

100 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:05am

re: #95 spare o’lake

would there be anyone left after 00:01 to care?

101 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:11am

re: #98 eclectic infidel

I prefer direct and unrelenting ridicule.

102 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:15am

It’s slightly preposterous to argue, as some seem to attempt, that same-sex marriage would lead as a matter of course to bestiality and such-like.

No, it’s more than slightly preposterous, its quite absurd. One can marshal reasons for the status quo without having to look like a dolt in so doing, but these folk seem incapable of it.

103 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:27am

re: #91 Irenicum

And there would definitely be S & M, what with all the whips and stirrups.

What about for the horse?

104 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:36am

I’d die laughing if Hayworth made this into a campaign commercial…

105 reine.de.tout  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:53am

re: #94 wozzablog

DecaturDeb would be making hay in this thread…

where is she?

DecaturDeb is a he.
The Decatur Deb was a B-17.

106 zora  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:11:58am

re: #89 RogueOne

that should definitely make the top ten episode.

107 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:12:34am

re: #93 Varek Raith

Oh, Hayworth, you really stepped into an innuendo minefield with this one!
Idiot.

Innuendo has always sounded vaguely dirty to me.

108 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:12:40am

re: #105 reine.de.tout

Now that nic finally makes sense! Thanks Reine!

109 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:13:18am

re: #73 Obdicut

Well, I like making the ‘lowbrow’ argument when it shows that there is no need to even think about the murkier ethics. The ‘low-brow’ argument is useful for showing what is realistically achievable. In other words, demonstrating to people that although their ‘high-brow’ ethical examination might indicate one path of action, a ‘low-brow’ analysis will show that path is self-defeating.

Sorry if that’s overly abstract, I’m having DST-dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the consequences of a wrong act. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t mention them. I am saying however that if the essence of a moral code is based on service to and compassion for others, then merely making it a selfish argument (i.e. you will get caught and bad things will happen) defeats the code.

It also replaces the sense of rightness and doing what is needed for justice, with a sense of vengeance if someone does get caught.

I can see the need to occasionally, in extreme cases with absolutely solid evidence, execute. However, the second someone is jumping up and down happy for the execution or is filled with glee over it, they have left the realm of justice and entered into vengeance.

The trap here is that by removing empathy from your “moral” code at the start, it stays removed all the way through and debases everyone.

110 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:13:26am

re: #43 Summer

You’re also a woman. Sexual deviance seems to be a guy thing as a opposed to a gal thing. Not that women don’t engage, it’s just not usual. Although wasn’t there a story last year about a woman who married a dolphin? Something like that. But generally, we aren’t wired the same.

However, what Hayworth and his buddies are trying to do is make homosexual behavior as deviant as it could possibly be. Plant the idea. If you let gays married, the next thing you know, we’ll be screwing dogs in the street. See how that works? A + B = Z

111 fantasmaguero  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:13:40am

re: #70 Summer

Yea, I actually had to walk away just now and calm down. And yes, as an Atheist, I’ve heard this argument time and time again. And many religious people seem absolutely unaware at how incredibly personally insulting this argument is. It drives me nuts. I would counter that they are the ones with ethical problems for even assuming this and bringing it up in the first place. I’m sick and tired of that crap.

BTW, just to note: I know lots of religious people who don’t make that stupid argument and are fully aware of how incredibly insulting that argument is. And my deepest thanks to those of you who don’t do it. Just had to say that. Now I’m gonna make some tea.

Couldn’t agree more. The arrogance - intentional or not - is extremely off-putting. Tea sounds like a good idea, actually…

112 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:14:10am

re: #92 theliel
Yes, I do tailor the answer to the age. I just don’t rely on “because I said so” until waaaaay down the string of “why”s.

22% incapable of higher reasoning?! Does that include not processing sarcasm? That is a scary high number.

113 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:14:11am

re: #103 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The horse could always “buck” the rider. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, click, click)

114 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:14:16am

In related news, Catherine The Great has been hired by Hayworth’s campaign as the liason to the equine/human hybrid community ….

115 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:14:29am

re: #85 DaddyG

So back on topic…

Hypothetically if I did marry a horse would my employer be required to carry their veteranarian insurance as part of my family coverage? /

LOLLLL

You have veterinary insurance???

116 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:15:13am

If I were McCain, I’d be having a field day with this…What are the odds he will?

117 thedopefishlives  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:15:15am

I get the feeling we’re going to be wandering into Rule 34 territory before too long.

118 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:15:25am

They do stop short of making the argument that allowing gay marriage will summon God’s wrath upon us, besetting us with floods, plagues earthquakes and hurricanes galore.

But I am sure that is one of their main concerns

119 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:15:40am

re: #117 thedopefishlives

I get the feeling we’re going to be wandering into Rule 34 territory before too long.

I think it’s long past that point.

120 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:16:07am

re: #102 Guanxi88

I get the impression that the only way social conservatives can tackle the issue of legal equality for gay Americans is to continually frame it in terms of morality. Once they leave the realm of morality, their opposition to what is now known as “gay marriage” falls flat on its face. If looked at from a contractual position, there isn’t any rational argument one can make to oppose it. Of course, by cloaking the issue in morality, it’s a convenient way to avoid have to admit that one is simply prejudiced against gay Americans in the first place.

121 thedopefishlives  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:16:10am

re: #119 Varek Raith

I think it’s long past that point.

Well, so far, we’re still in well-documented territory. Sheep, horses, etc., it’s all been done before (pardon the pun).

122 Professor Chaos  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:17:20am

re: #118 ralphieboy

They do stop short of making the argument that allowing gay marriage will summon God’s wrath upon us, besetting us with floods, plagues earthquakes and hurricanes galore.

But I am sure that is one of their main concerns

See Robertson, Pat, et al, re: 9/11, Katrina, Haiti, etc.

123 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:17:40am

I’m waiting for the scuttlebutt on Hayworth. How much you wanna bet he’s caught walking out of a stable, zipping up his pants.

It could happen!

124 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:17:48am

re: #110 marjoriemoon

You’re also a woman. Sexual deviance seems to be a guy thing as a opposed to a gal thing. Not that women don’t engage, it’s just not usual. Although wasn’t there a story last year about a woman who married a dolphin? Something like that. But generally, we aren’t wired the same.

However, what Hayworth and his buddies are trying to do is make homosexual behavior as deviant as it could possibly be. Plant the idea. If you let gays married, the next thing you know, we’ll be screwing dogs in the street. See how that works? A + B = Z

Nah, trust me there are just as many shall we say “kinky” gals as guys. I will grant that women tend to express it differently, but sexual dysfunction is not limited to one gender.

To be very specific, and I apologize for the example, many women have figured out that dogs like peanut butter and will lick pretty much anything covered with it clean.

125 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:18:34am

And speaking of Monty Python and wink wink:

126 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:08am

Outrageously Scandalous Outrage, this thread has become!
/
XD

127 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:18am

re: #97 wozzablog

inn-eww-endo


In-ewe-endo.

128 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:25am

re: #123 marjoriemoon

I’m waiting for the scuttlebutt on Hayworth. How much you wanna bet he’s caught walking out of a stable, zipping up his pants.

It could happen!

wide stance?

129 Guanxi88  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:29am

re: #120 eclectic infidel

I get the impression that the only way social conservatives can tackle the issue of legal equality for gay Americans is to continually frame it in terms of morality. Once they leave the realm of morality, their opposition to what is now known as “gay marriage” falls flat on its face. If looked at from a contractual position, there isn’t any rational argument one can make to oppose it. Of course, by cloaking the issue in morality, it’s a convenient way to avoid have to admit that one is simply prejudiced against gay Americans in the first place.

See, it’s the hybrid nature of marriage - a contract under the law that ALSO carries cultural freight - that leads to these things.

I’m not an advocate of the civil modification of marriage, on the grounds of the potential cultural effects, but I could easily support divorcing the contract of marriage (so to speak) from its current position within the purview of the State. A marriage contract should be treated as little more than yet ANOTHER contract executed between two adults for a specified purpose; no state action is required or should be to create the infrastructure for the contract, but should be in place for its enforcement.

So, I guess the easiest solution is to take the state out of the marriage business.

130 simoom  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:42am

Here’s the audio of the J. D. Hayworth “horse marriage” quote:

131 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:43am

re: #115 marjoriemoon

LOLLL

You have veterinary insurance???


Just for the dogs and cats. We don’t own animals just small furry children.

132 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:45am

re: #124 LudwigVanQuixote

Nah, trust me there are just as many shall we say “kinky” gals as guys. I will grant that women tend to express it differently, but sexual dysfunction is not limited to one gender.

To be very specific, and I apologize for the example, many women have figured out that dogs like peanut butter and will lick pretty much anything covered with it clean.

Its that damn external genitalia which means the guys get caught more often.

/

133 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:46am

Mister Ed: Don’t yell at me, Wilbur, I’m not your wife.

(actual quote from the show)

134 The Yankee  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:19:47am

I really think the only reason the Republican party has been so successful is because their are so many people that just want to either have lower taxes or are pro-life. And are just holding their noses at what other parts of the party and (right wing) does or says. As long as they get what they want.

There is just simply no good reason to be against gays getting married. All the ones i have heard are shallow.

135 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:20:47am

re: #124 LudwigVanQuixote

ahhh…much, much too much, ahhh, thankyouverymuch…

136 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:20:49am

re: #127 DaddyG

Now who’s got the sheepish grin?

137 Professor Chaos  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:20:58am

re: #123 marjoriemoon

I’m waiting for the scuttlebutt on Hayworth. How much you wanna bet he’s caught walking out of a stable, zipping up his pants.

It could happen!

Lol…”I just said it would be wrong to marry a horse. I never said nothin’ ‘bout screwin’ ‘em!”
/

138 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:21:10am

re: #124 LudwigVanQuixote

Nah, trust me there are just as many shall we say “kinky” gals as guys. I will grant that women tend to express it differently, but sexual dysfunction is not limited to one gender.

To be very specific, and I apologize for the example, many women have figured out that dogs like peanut butter and will lick pretty much anything covered with it clean.

Not dysfunction, not kink, deviant behaviour. Raping and having sex with animals is deviant behavior which is pretty much a guy thing. I didn’t say 100% guy thing.

139 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:21:31am

re: #116 Varek Raith

If I were McCain, I’d be having a field day with this…What are the odds he will?

He’ll scold Hayworth for his stupidity, but otherwise take the high road. This one is so over the top that it’s best just to let the other guy make an idiot out of himself.

140 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:22:36am

What is not schtoopid is that if the fight for gay marriage is won on the grounds that any impediment whatsoever to consenting adults marrying whom they will is unconstitutional, then polygamy rides in on the coattails of gay marriage.

Legalizing polygamy would be a huge mistake. It would hurt the standing of women in society. It would encourage the spread of doctrines that are oppressive to women. It would exacerbate beyond endurance the “winner take all” aspect of American society.

What is the poor man to think, when not only a hugely unequal share of the money, but an unequal share of the wives, gravitate to the rich?

If gay marriage is to become federal law, best it be done by way of a Constitutional amendment defining “marriage for purpose of federal and state law, taxation, inheritance law, [and so forth, thus by enumeration confining itself to secular matters that are properly the concern of State authority, and excluding any implication that churches might be required by law to solemnize gay unions], as the union of two, and exactly two, consenting adults who are biologically separated at least as far as second cousins are.

Sloppy writing of law encourages uses of the new law in ways that strike its authors as preposterous. So what? Courts go by the letter of the law, and if the letter allows preposterous uses, that’s somebody else’s problem.


As things now stand, nothing in the Constitution warrants the judiciary to redefine marriage along the lines outlined above. Now we can, if we like, get around this by arguing that the Constitution is worthless and that whenever something comes along that the majority wants, or even a vehement minority, they ought to get their way, and that the way to do that is to get judges to reinterpret any provision of the constitution that stands in the way.

The trouble with that is that then you don’t really have a constitution. You have a document that means nothing, because it means only whatever the current climate of opinion wants it to mean.

141 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:22:43am

re: #131 DaddyG

Just for the dogs and cats. We don’t own animals just small furry children.

I had one vet who offered insurance maybe 15 years ago. Now none of the ones near me do. I would probably take it if I had it.

142 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:22:44am

re: #136 Irenicum

Now who’s got the sheepish grin?


Did I get your goat?

143 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:23:38am

re: #123 marjoriemoon

I’m waiting for the scuttlebutt on Hayworth. How much you wanna bet he’s caught walking out of a stable, zipping up his pants.

It could happen!

Lol you make a good point…

There is a definite trend of GOPer makes much noise about a certain sexual behavior, cheating on spouse, homosexuality etc… only to be caught doing it shortly after.

The people who deny the loudest and find ways to insert there public stance on private issues at inappropriate times and places, usually have something to hide.

144 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:23:45am

re: #142 DaddyG

Nah, but ewe did almost pull the wool over my eyes.

145 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:24:29am

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

Lol you make a good point…

There is a definite trend of GOPer makes much noise about a certain sexual behavior, cheating on spouse, homosexuality etc… only to be caught doing it shortly after.

The people who deny the loudest and find ways to insert there public stance on private issues at inappropriate times and places, usually have something to hide.

I THINK FUCKING HORSES SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!

146 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:24:39am

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

“insert there public stance”

Ludwig, watch your language!

147 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:24:49am

re: #138 marjoriemoon

Not dysfunction, not kink, deviant behaviour. Raping and having sex with animals is deviant behavior which is pretty much a guy thing. I didn’t say 100% guy thing.

I apologize for trying to keep the tone light with such a repugnant topic.

I simply am not convinced that men do this stuff more than women.

148 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:25:01am

re: #143 LudwigVanQuixote

Lol you make a good point…

There is a definite trend of GOPer makes much noise about a certain sexual behavior, cheating on spouse, homosexuality etc… only to be caught doing it shortly after.

The people who deny the loudest and find ways to insert there public stance on private issues at inappropriate times and places, usually have something to hide.


In that case I am going to louldy and publicly take a vow of poverty. (How soon before the graft and bribes come my way?) /

149 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:25:48am

re: #146 Irenicum

“insert there public stance”

Ludwig, watch your language!

You caught my pun!

There was not a typo that time :)

150 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:25:49am

re: #147 LudwigVanQuixote

I apologize for trying to keep the tone light with such a repugnant topic.

I simply am not convinced that men do this stuff more than women.


We keep asking the women but… //

151 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:25:51am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

The Constitution forbids gay marriage? I don’t get your post…

152 spare o'lake  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:26:37am

Most Americans are in no rush to marry a horse, according to the latest gallop poll.

153 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:26:38am

Any sexual act that requres a stepladder should be carefully thought through and probably avoided.

154 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:26:40am

re: #148 DaddyG

In that case I am going to louldy and publicly take a vow of poverty. (How soon before the graft and bribes come my way?) /

Well it seems to work well for many preachers, televangelists and GOP politicians… Give it a go!

155 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:26:52am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

Polygamy? Seriously? Who said anything about polygamy? Oh, that’s right…you did.

156 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:27:31am

re: #149 LudwigVanQuixote

Sick, oh I mean great, minds think alike!

157 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:07am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

You are also the schtoopid, if you think that polygamy— a contract between multiple partners— is in any way affected by decisions about marriage, a contract between two partners.

What a terrible argument.

158 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:20am

re: #154 LudwigVanQuixote
As an executive branch employee I have to limit my bribes to educational materials under $12.

159 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:30am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

I am utterly confused on the polygamy issue. I agree with you that it’s oppressive to women and that legalizing it could just not be a good thing, but at the same time the way it’s been handled in the past—like loading all those kids onto buses with their sobbing mothers standing around was a sad situation.

160 spare o'lake  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:32am

re: #124 LudwigVanQuixote

Nah, trust me there are just as many shall we say “kinky” gals as guys. I will grant that women tend to express it differently, but sexual dysfunction is not limited to one gender.

To be very specific, and I apologize for the example, many women have figured out that dogs like peanut butter and will lick pretty much anything covered with it clean.

Chunky or smooth?

161 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:45am

re: #153 DaddyG

*except for dwarfs

162 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:28:50am

re: #152 spare o’lake

Beast one yet!

163 darthstar  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:29:03am

re: #152 spare o’lake

Most Americans are in no rush to marry a horse, according to the latest gallop poll.

I can see Eric Cantor this issue before the press.

164 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:29:15am

re: #158 DaddyG

As an executive branch employee I have to limit my bribes to educational materials under $12.

I hear that in some parts of DC that will still get you blown…

165 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:29:18am

re: #155 darthstar

Polygamy? Seriously? Who said anything about polygamy? Oh, that’s right…you did.

Gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamist marriage!111!!1
But, you what the biggest slippery slope of them all is? Marriage. Yep, it started the whole downward spiral of civilization. Solution? Ban all marriage.
///

166 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:30:40am

re: #160 spare o’lake

Chunky or smooth?

LOL, somehow when my siblings (medical doctors who had to treat a woman who got nipped) were telling me of the case, I forgot to ask the brand of peanut butter.

167 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:30:51am

re: #161 Obdicut

*except for dwarfs

How narrow minded of me! 8-o

168 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:31:21am

re: #51 Walter L. Newton

Coming next…

Laws against inter-religious marriages.

Anyone Lizards here who, because of religious beliefs, thinks that it’s wrong to marry across religious lines?

That would be me. But if some nice Jewish boy, not of my family, wants to get hitched to some sweet Evangelical or Muslim babe, that’s not my problem.

169 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:31:26am

Well this thread has been punishing enough for me. See y’all later. And don’t go marrying anything with four legs, just four eyes.

170 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:31:48am

re: #145 Walter L. Newton

I THINK FUCKING HORSES SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!

Verb or adjective?

171 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:31:57am

re: #98 eclectic infidel

The concept of loving marriage with two equal parties being the norm is a relatively modern - nay - progressive one.

172 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:32:02am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

Not sure why you’re arguing about not having a constitution or that it speaks specifically about gay marriage.

It’s another fallacy to think that allowing gay marriage will allow for polygamy. One person marrying one person is all we’re saying, not marrying 4 people, not marrying horses, not marrying your computer just one other person REGARDLESS of gender.

173 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:32:29am

re: #168 Alouette

That would be me. But if some nice Jewish boy, not of my family, wants to get hitched to some sweet Evangelical or Muslim babe, that’s not my problem.

Thats a personal belief, not an outside agency threatening legal action.

174 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:32:57am

re: #169 Irenicum

I’m in love with a 4 eyed ginger - everytime i look in the mirror.

175 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:33:04am

re: #168 Alouette

That would be me. But if some nice Jewish boy, not of my family, wants to get hitched to some sweet Evangelical or Muslim babe, that’s not my problem.

So umm this daughter of yours… Did you see my response about my DNA ;)

176 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:33:06am

re: #170 Silvergirl

Verb or adjective?

I dunno?

177 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:33:43am

re: #168 Alouette

But you wouldn’t do anything negative to a member of your own family who married outside the faith, either, right?

I mean, once it happened, you’d accept her as part of the family.

178 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:34:17am

re: #147 LudwigVanQuixote

I apologize for trying to keep the tone light with such a repugnant topic.

I simply am not convinced that men do this stuff more than women.

You can’t really be serious that women rape…. who? men? as often as men rape women. Or wouldn’t you consider rape to be a deviant behavior.

179 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:36:33am

re: #151 Varek Raith

The Constitution forbids gay marriage? I don’t get your post…

The Constitution allows to stand, by its silence on the topic, the traditional definition of marriage. Any aspect of common law not addressed is presumed to be taken in, untouched, into U.S. law.

180 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:37:12am

re: #178 marjoriemoon

You can’t really be serious that women rape… who? men? as often as men rape women. Or wouldn’t you consider rape to be a deviant behavior.

Ludwig was saying that he was not convinced the woman are much less likely to have sex with animals than men.

181 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:38:26am

re: #179 lostlakehiker

The Constitution allows to stand, by its silence on the topic, the traditional definition of marriage. Any aspect of common law not addressed is presumed to be taken in, untouched, into U.S. law.

Link to something that makes you point?

182 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:39:38am

re: #180 Dark_Falcon

Ludwig was saying that he was not convinced the woman are much less likely to have sex with animals than men.

I have no idea about that really, but I would imagine (are their studies?) that he would be wrong. Men are far more sexually deviant as a whole then women are. I’m not talking kinky sex. I’m talking abhorrent sex. Necrophilia, bestiality, rape. Men make up the majority of these people, not women.

183 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:39:48am

re: #134 The Yankee

I really think the only reason the Republican party has been so successful is because their are so many people that just want to either have lower taxes or are pro-life. And are just holding their noses at what other parts of the party and (right wing) does or says. As long as they get what they want.

There is just simply no good reason to be against gays getting married. All the ones i have heard are shallow.

There exist defensible reasons.

For example, current research implies that biological components only partly explain homosexuality. I love my homosexual friends. However, I simultaneously wish to avoid exposing homosexuality to my children as a state of affairs that is “natural and as preferable as homosexuality”. If they grow up to be homosexual, I will love them and accept them. However, it is absolutely my job to provide guidance during their earlier years, and I am uninterested in explaining alternative options ahead of schedule.

Therefore, people are conflicted. For example, I do not wish to appear as if any particular marriage between two consenting adults threatens my personal peace. At the same time, I do not wish my elementary school to teach that two fathers are every bit as common as one father and one mother. We can love the children of such households just as much as any other child without having to delve into the details. Were I to suspect that such proselytizing were the desire of homosexual married couples, I would be less inclined to support gay marriage.

there you go. mind you, I am offering this as a logical reason that I understand and can identify with on some level, nothing more.

184 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:40:03am

re: #178 marjoriemoon

You can’t really be serious that women rape… who? men? as often as men rape women. Or wouldn’t you consider rape to be a deviant behavior.

OK woah, rape is another issue.

I was not going there at all. Obviously, by nature of physiology, rape is difficult for a woman to do.

However, on the subject of bestiality, that is one of those things that goes both ways.

Again, I have a lot of medical doctors in my family. There are certain bugs that you only get if you have been intimate with certain critters. There are certain wounds that one might get as an ermmm occupational hazard.

According to my medical relatives, plenty of women indulge in this behavior too.

185 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:40:12am

re: #178 marjoriemoon

You can’t really be serious that women rape… who? men? as often as men rape women. Or wouldn’t you consider rape to be a deviant behavior.

In the law, any sex with a minor who has not reached the age of consent is deemed rape, whether or not it was forcible. There are more than a few newspaper accounts of teachers who bedded their 14 year old male students or what have you. The kid probably didn’t complain, but the law had its objections anyhow.

By the way, that behavior is socially deviant by definition. But it’s not, biologically. Some of those women wanted, and got, children out of the deal. Do not mistake this observation for approval; the guy is injured whether he understands that at the time or not.

186 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:40:46am

re: #178 marjoriemoon

You can’t really be serious that women rape… who? men? as often as men rape women. Or wouldn’t you consider rape to be a deviant behavior.

And the last question was really uncalled for in that remark.

187 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:41:04am

re: #105 reine.de.tout

i knew that - just referencing the plane and seperating the two occasionally causes a slip of the digital tongue on my part.

188 prairiefire  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:42:42am

re: #171 wozzablog

Thank goodness. I would have ran off with the Fool, back in the day.

189 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:42:50am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

What is not schtoopid is that if the fight for gay marriage is won on the grounds that any impediment whatsoever to consenting adults marrying whom they will is unconstitutional, then polygamy rides in on the coattails of gay marriage.

Legalizing polygamy would be a huge mistake. It would hurt the standing of women in society. It would encourage the spread of doctrines that are oppressive to women. It would exacerbate beyond endurance the “winner take all” aspect of American society.

What is the poor man to think, when not only a hugely unequal share of the money, but an unequal share of the wives, gravitate to the rich?

If gay marriage is to become federal law, best it be done by way of a Constitutional amendment defining “marriage for purpose of federal and state law, taxation, inheritance law, [and so forth, thus by enumeration confining itself to secular matters that are properly the concern of State authority, and excluding any implication that churches might be required by law to solemnize gay unions], as the union of two, and exactly two, consenting adults who are biologically separated at least as far as second cousins are.

Sloppy writing of law encourages uses of the new law in ways that strike its authors as preposterous. So what? Courts go by the letter of the law, and if the letter allows preposterous uses, that’s somebody else’s problem.

As things now stand, nothing in the Constitution warrants the judiciary to redefine marriage along the lines outlined above. Now we can, if we like, get around this by arguing that the Constitution is worthless and that whenever something comes along that the majority wants, or even a vehement minority, they ought to get their way, and that the way to do that is to get judges to reinterpret any provision of the constitution that stands in the way.

The trouble with that is that then you don’t really have a constitution. You have a document that means nothing, because it means only whatever the current climate of opinion wants it to mean.

I think polygamy is a red herring issue. Only a small sect of a greater religion even follow the practice. There are people who already practice polygamy anyway and perhaps with exception to the women involved in those marriage arrangments, where’s the credible proof that women everywhere are harmed by the actions of a few?

Once again, I argue for legal equality on the basis of contract law, and as another poster pointed out, its high time that the government cease playing nanny with rights.

190 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:45:25am

re: #188 prairiefire

Ah, back in the day.

We were all so young.

*sigh*

191 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:46:18am

re: #171 wozzablog

The concept of loving marriage with two equal parties being the norm is a relatively modern - nay - progressive American one.

one could make the case…

192 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:47:55am

re: #185 lostlakehiker

In the law, any sex with a minor who has not reached the age of consent is deemed rape, whether or not it was forcible. There are more than a few newspaper accounts of teachers who bedded their 14 year old male students or what have you. The kid probably didn’t complain, but the law had its objections anyhow.

By the way, that behavior is socially deviant by definition. But it’s not, biologically. Some of those women wanted, and got, children out of the deal. Do not mistake this observation for approval; the guy is injured whether he understands that at the time or not.

I thought it was pretty clear what I regarded as sexual deviancy for Christ’s sake. Not an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old.

I gotta go.

193 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:48:45am

re: #185 lostlakehiker

I remember learning about a tribe in Africa when I was in college.

They have a custom that16-17 yr old boys marry 14-16 year old virgin girls. However, before the boy can get married, he is taken in by a 30 year old woman (usually a widow) as a student.

The young man gets taught the ways of women from an experienced woman.

The older woman gets no strings attached attention from an eager teenager.

The young bride gets a husband who knows what he is doing.

While I am not going to argue this on Torah grounds (obviously Torah would look dimly on the situation) I have to lean back and appriciate the merits of the system.

194 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:48:56am

Regarding the pic in Charles’ post, I wonder if this is the same horse?

Image: im_a_horse.jpg

That always manages to get a snort out of me, for some reason.

195 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:49:03am

re: #189 eclectic infidel

Completely agree

The current debate is about changing the definition - in law- of marriage from a man and a woman, who are not directly related, are not marrying for the purpose of sham and who are both above a certain age.

Changing that to -

a couple, who are not directly related, are not marrying for the purpose of sham and who are both above a certain age.

196 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:50:25am

re: #189 eclectic infidel

What’s really scary, however, is I hear a lot of this. Not so much that gay marriage leads to bestiality (there’s that), but it will lead to polygamy. It’s a bunch of crap. The same fear tactics.

I really do have to go.

197 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:50:48am

re: #183 Aceofwhat?

If your kids are gay, they’re going to be gay, man. Even if there’s some non-natal stuff, it’s in early development.

Preventing your kids from hearing that homosexuality is something that’s perfectly acceptable is either going to make them homophobic, or, if they are gay, feel like they’ve disappointed you.

I mean, if you got really lucky, you’ll just be able to shame any bisexual children you have into never revealing that to you. That’s the best possible outcome from trying to shield them from teh gay proselytizing.

198 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:53:34am

re: #193 LudwigVanQuixote

I remember learning about a tribe in Africa when I was in college.

They have a custom that16-17 yr old boys marry 14-16 year old virgin girls. However, before the boy can get married, he is taken in by a 30 year old woman (usually a widow) as a student.

The young man gets taught the ways of women from an experienced woman.

The older woman gets no strings attached attention from an eager teenager.

The young bride gets a husband who knows what he is doing.

While I am not going to argue this on Torah grounds (obviously Torah would look dimly on the situation) I have to lean back and appriciate the merits of the system.

You will now get updinged by all males imagining tutoring in the ways of women by 30 year old widows.

199 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:53:47am

re: #191 Aceofwhat?

There is a case to be made - but i doubt that any society a hundred and fifty years ago with vast discrepencies of wealth and status did not engage in some level of “match making” among elders of inheritees.

200 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:54:41am

re: #197 Obdicut

If your kids are gay, they’re going to be gay, man. Even if there’s some non-natal stuff, it’s in early development.

Preventing your kids from hearing that homosexuality is something that’s perfectly acceptable is either going to make them homophobic, or, if they are gay, feel like they’ve disappointed you.

I mean, if you got really lucky, you’ll just be able to shame any bisexual children you have into never revealing that to you. That’s the best possible outcome from trying to shield them from teh gay proselytizing.

Paragraph #1: Bullshit. If i had a nickel every time i heard a story of someone whose experimentation led them to a preferred orientation, I could buy Soros.

And your second paragraph is not a response to anything i said. I said “We can love the children of such households just as much as any other child without having to delve into the details.”

Your third paragraph is just insulting.

201 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:54:58am

re: #199 wozzablog

There is a case to be made - but i doubt that any society a hundred and fifty years ago with vast discrepencies of wealth and status did not engage in some level of “match making” among elders of inheritees.

quite true. excellent point.

202 charles_martel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:55:25am

I’ve read some comments above that in a “free society”, there should be no laws at all governing marriage. Well, that’s just a bad idea. It is against the law to marry a parent, a sibling, a child, for obvious reasons. Should those laws be abolished to be a “truly free society”? And what about polygamy?

203 prairiefire  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:56:36am

My cousin was married to his long time partner in CA when it was still legal. We celebrated this as a family. I explained to my then 10 and 5 year old that about 10% of the population is attracted to their own sex. My boy said “well, I like girls”, my girl said “well, I like boys”. I said that’s great, then everything is all settled for you. But what if one of them had said “hmmmm?” Defining it early for them is not a threat to their sexual development. It’s a path to understanding if one of them were gay.

204 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:57:48am

re: #203 prairiefire

Right on.

205 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:58:08am

re: #197 Obdicut

If your kids are gay, they’re going to be gay, man. Even if there’s some non-natal stuff, it’s in early development.

Preventing your kids from hearing that homosexuality is something that’s perfectly acceptable is either going to make them homophobic, or, if they are gay, feel like they’ve disappointed you.

I mean, if you got really lucky, you’ll just be able to shame any bisexual children you have into never revealing that to you. That’s the best possible outcome from trying to shield them from teh gay proselytizing.

Obdicut, you are over the top in assigning these scenarios to Ace.

206 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:59:33am

re: #202 charles_martel

Ok, i’ll bite……..

I’m not sure thats the take away i have from this conversation.

No one is arguing for incestuous unions…….. or under aged unions………..

207 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 11:59:58am

re: #198 Silvergirl

You will now get updinged by all males imagining tutoring in the ways of women by 30 year old widows.

And no women would approve of a 17 year old, in prime condition, eager to please, African warrior lover?

208 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:00:10pm

re: #203 prairiefire

My cousin was married to his long time partner in CA when it was still legal. We celebrated this as a family. I explained to my then 10 and 5 year old that about 10% of the population is attracted to their own sex. My boy said “well, I like girls”, my girl said “well, I like boys”. I said that’s great, then everything is all settled for you. But what if one of them had said “hmmm?” Defining it early for them is not a threat to their sexual development. It’s a path to understanding if one of them were gay.

Perfectly done. I’ve had the same conversation with one of my kids. I am opposed to the conversation being belabored by their school. Were that on the agenda, I would have more antipathy towards the subject of state-supported gay marriage.

209 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:01:17pm

re: #207 LudwigVanQuixote

And no women would approve of a 17 year old, in prime condition, eager to please, African warrior lover?

I call faux piety/

210 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:02:12pm

re: #205 Silvergirl

Obdicut, you are over the top in assigning these scenarios to Ace.

Thank you. I worked hard to make a distant point, and it was unfortunate to be slapped despite my efforts to be practical and unemotional.

211 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:02:19pm

re: #209 Aceofwhat?

I call faux piety/

I concur.

212 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:02:26pm

re: #207 LudwigVanQuixote

And no women would approve of a 17 year old, in prime condition, eager to please, African warrior lover?

Maybe women in a hurry.

213 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:03:35pm

re: #212 Silvergirl

Maybe women in a hurry.

I dunno about that… A boy that age is into third and fourth helpings.

214 Kragar (Antichrist )  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:06:27pm

Here is one for the ladies,

Hello Ladies…

215 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:07:02pm

re: #208 Aceofwhat?

state-supported gay marriage

I don’t think for a second gay marriage would be supported by the state in the current climate - if it were found legal (i bleieve it is) - i’m sure it would be barely tolerated in many states.

This is why i want Gub’mint out of the marriage business entirely.

Government shoudl allow to people to register long term loving partnerships - and could provide a signing ceremony - in the manner of civil weddings presently.

Churches of assorted denominations would then be free to “marry” whomever they choose by concience. (insert tax free satus/discrimination proviso here).

216 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:07:32pm

re: #200 Aceofwhat?

Paragraph #1: Bullshit. If i had a nickel every time i heard a story of someone whose experimentation led them to a preferred orientation, I could buy Soros.

That’s not, in any way, scientific data. Why isn’t your interpretation that experimentation revealed to those people desires they had? There is no good scientific data showing that there is any mutability of gender preference through experimentation. None. There is a difference in behavior, but not in desire.



And your second paragraph is not a response to anything i said. I said “We can love the children of such households just as much as any other child without having to delve into the details.”


I have no clue what you mean by ‘the details’. What you said is :

However, I simultaneously wish to avoid exposing homosexuality to my children as a state of affairs that is “natural and as preferable as homosexuality”.

I assume you meant ‘heterosexuality’ at the end there. And homosexuality is, to homosexuals, natural and definitely preferable to heterosexuality.

Your third paragraph is just insulting.

It shouldn’t be. It’s what I’d call the ‘low-brow’ analysis of this. If you indicate to your children that you see homosexuality as less than heterosexuality in any way— less natural, less desirable, in any way more negative— you are going to make them feel like they’ve failed in some way if they are homosexual.

This is not a matter I cut slack on, not for Barack Obama, and not for you. I in no way am saying that your love for your children is any less than it is or that you are not trying to do the best for them: I am saying that your methodology is bad and will achieve no good aim.

“You’re doing it wrong” is not an insult.

217 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:07:36pm

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

I dunno about that… A boy that age is into third and fourth helpings.

I name Silvergirl the winner. To quote my wife’s inability to understand the recent rash of older woman teacher / younger male student affairs, “what woman is so frustrated that ten seconds of movement followed by extended breaks sounds better than other options”?

218 charles_martel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:08:21pm

re: #206 wozzablog

Well, true, but the unavoidable fact is that marriage has always been governed by a set of laws and it always will. I got the sense from some posters that marriage should be free and unfettered by any laws. I do feel that the widening of the definition of marriage will lead to a challenge of the polygamy laws. It is happening right now in the UK, where polygamy is being accepted by the government, despite the laws on the books against it.

219 fantasmaguero  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:08:43pm

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

I dunno about that… A boy that age is into third and fourth helpings.

Wanting more is an age-dependent thing?
Hooray for arrested development!/

220 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:09:12pm

re: #214 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I thought for sure it’s be Big Jim Slade………….. (NSFW)

221 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:10:06pm

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

I dunno about that… A boy that age is into third and fourth helpings.

This may look good on paper, but not, as the saying goes …

in bed

222 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:10:56pm

re: #218 charles_martel

Um. Living in the UK myself - and fairly aware of whats happening - i get no sense of the government tolerating polyagmy.

Cases still go through the courts involving bigamy and polygamy.

223 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:13:19pm

re: #218 charles_martel

The definition of marriage is not widened by allowing gay people to marriage. There is no difference, in a democratic society, between the genders. We’re all just citizens, man. No law has to be changed to accommodate gay partners— just laws against them marrying have to be done away with. Marriage, the institution, will function the same.

Polygamy would actually change the nature of marriage, and would actually require new laws, since there’s be three or more people involved. It’s very different. The institution would actually have to change.

224 charles_martel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:14:39pm

re: #222 wozzablog

Here is an example:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

I have read in the British press of Muslim immigrants with multiple wives living on the dole:

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk…]

225 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:16:49pm

re: #218 charles_martel

Well, true, but the unavoidable fact is that marriage has always been governed by a set of laws and it always will. I got the sense from some posters that marriage should be free and unfettered by any laws. I do feel that the widening of the definition of marriage will lead to a challenge of the polygamy laws. It is happening right now in the UK, where polygamy is being accepted by the government, despite the laws on the books against it.

Gotta chime in.

Here in the states, the Fundamental LDS church would file suit. Don’t count out Islam either. These groups are both modern day polygamists.

226 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:18:26pm

re: #216 Obdicut

That’s not, in any way, scientific data. Why isn’t your interpretation that experimentation revealed to those people desires they had? There is no good scientific data showing that there is any mutability of gender preference through experimentation. None. There is a difference in behavior, but not in desire.

Ok, let’s go with your definition. The experimentation revealed desires those people already had. Fine.

If it took experimentation to reveal those desires, then it will GENERALLY be true (not universally) that the desires remained below the surface because the individual was already attracted to the opposite sex, and then found that they were also attracted to the same sex. That supports my point. Such a person is not gay, they are bisexual. I don’t care if my children find out later that they are bisexual. At least I will have done my duty to help them craft their initial identity.

“You’re doing it wrong” is not an insult.

Saying that i intend to “shame my children into being bisexual” is not disagreeing with my parenting methods. It’s just insulting, and it is not related to anything i actually said. At least have the stones to own it if you don’t wish to retract it. I can take it - i’m just not going to reply to it. we can stick to the other points.

227 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:18:36pm

re: #225 Oh no…Sand People!

It has zero to do with gay marriage. Nothing at all, in the least.

228 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:20:51pm

re: #227 Obdicut

It has zero to do with gay marriage. Nothing at all, in the least.

Not the way they will look at it. The lawsuits are going to come. Whether they will be validated is another story, but they will try.

229 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:21:49pm

re: #224 charles_martel

What you are trying to say is “tolerance of polygamy” involves driving a wedge between the distinction without difference involved in “getting married more than once at a time” - which is illegal, and marrying abroad polygymously and arriving back with the second marriage which is something the law hadn’t (in 2000) caught up with.

First link is from 2000 and involves a second marriage occuring in Pakistan.

Second link is related to the first in that the law did not get clarified in 2000 and the beaurocracy of legend - the DWP - created a spreadsheeted consultation with a perverse outcome.

230 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:23:41pm

re: #226 Aceofwhat?

That supports my point. Such a person is not gay, they are bisexual. I don’t care if my children find out later that they are bisexual. At least I will have done my duty to help them craft their initial identity.

I don’t understand this at all. How have you done your duty? What duty did you perform? What did you achieve?

Saying that i intend to “shame my children into being bisexual” is not disagreeing with my parenting methods.


Good thing I didn’t say you intended to shame them, and never said what you would do would push them into bisexuality, then. Putting words in my mouth isn’t cool. I said that what you would accomplish was that they wouldn’t reveal their bisexuality to you— as many bisexuals do ‘pass’ and hide their sexuality from parents. And I said it because I thought it was something you didn’t intend at all— if I thought you intended to shame them, I wouldn’t be being polite to you. I have no doubt about your intent for your children to be happy and free.

At least have the stones to own it if you don’t wish to retract it. I can take it - i’m just not going to reply to it.

I don’t wish to retract anything I said, given that I didn’t say a fucking word about your intentions that wasn’t complimentary. Read it again. It’s about what is going to happen, not what you intend.

231 charles_martel  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:27:36pm

All I’m saying is that if gay marriage is legalized across the nation, the Mormons and the Muslims will try to change the laws in their favor as well. They will try. Whether they succeed or not depends on the political climate of the day.

232 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:32:25pm

re: #231 charles_martel

They will not succede.

going from *one man and one woman* to *a loving couple* will not sit in law with comparing it to *a triumvirate of woman, woman and donkey*

233 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:32:58pm

re: #232 wozzablog

Unless the last part is just my enduring memory of a Tijuana bar show………

234 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:34:26pm

re: #222 wozzablog

Um. Living in the UK myself - and fairly aware of whats happening - i get no sense of the government tolerating polyagmy.

Cases still go through the courts involving bigamy and polygamy.

You might want to check the Sharia position on polygamy.

235 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:35:32pm

re: #230 Obdicut

I don’t understand this at all. How have you done your duty? What duty did you perform? What did you achieve?

What duty did I perform? You mean “parenting”? Is it someone else’s job to help my children flesh out their identities?

I don’t wish to retract anything I said, given that I didn’t say a fucking word about your intentions that wasn’t complimentary. Read it again. It’s about what is going to happen, not what you intend.

Note: on a subject as delicate as this, telling me that i will shame my children is not an improvement over telling me that I intend to shame my children, especially when the source is one wholly lacking in parental experience.

I can take it. Don’t sweat it. But the semantics of ‘intend/will’ don’t work when discussing someone else’s kids, and someone else might lose their shizniggity in a similar situation - not without reason, either.

236 I Am Kreniigh!  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:36:57pm

Coming late to the discussion again..

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development:
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What’s in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

237 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:38:30pm

re: #234 Spare O’Lake

The Crown Prosecution Service of Her Most Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, does not operate via Sharia law.

238 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:40:17pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

What duty did I perform? You mean “parenting”? Is it someone else’s job to help my children flesh out their identities?

How did you help them flesh out their identities?

Note: on a subject as delicate as this, telling me that i will shame my children is not an improvement over telling me that I intend to shame my children, especially when the source is one wholly lacking in parental experience.

It should be. The difference in intent is clearly important. If you seriously think that someone saying that your course of action will result in something you don’t like is the same thing as saying you intend for the result that you don’t like to happen, your logic is incredibly flawed.

And I’m not wholly lacking in parental experience, thanks. I just don’t have any biological kids of my own.

I can take it. Don’t sweat it. But the semantics of ‘intend/will’ don’t work when discussing someone else’s kids, and someone else might lose their shizniggity in a similar situation - not without reason, either.

And a gay parent might loose their shizniggity about you saying that somehow protecting your children from gay proselytizing is a duty of a parent.

239 SixDegrees  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:42:14pm

re: #218 charles_martel

Well, true, but the unavoidable fact is that marriage has always been governed by a set of laws and it always will. I got the sense from some posters that marriage should be free and unfettered by any laws. I do feel that the widening of the definition of marriage will lead to a challenge of the polygamy laws. It is happening right now in the UK, where polygamy is being accepted by the government, despite the laws on the books against it.

Marriage - as it is being discussed here - is a contract between consenting adults. There is also the matter of what various religions refer to as marriage, but that, despite the name, is a completely separate construct, with no relation to the legal contract conferred by the state known as a “marriage license.”

So as far as homosexual marriage, or polygamy, my response is - yeah, so what? As long as everyone involved is in agreement, they’re free to enter into such a contract. And as an entirely separate matter, they’re free to find a church willing to recognize the same arrangement, if they can - or not.

Note that this scotches the whole farm animal fantasy.

It is also entirely separate from the only issue that might be of any concern - tax treatment. Also not a problem, since the tax laws can easily be changed to confer special status, not to individuals or couples, but to a married group as a unit. So your obligation to society remains intact, although your exemptions may be diluted amongst all your partners.

240 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:42:34pm

headed upstairs before the Secret Shria Police of West Sussexshire strike me down for loitering with intent to whack-a-mole.

241 TDG2112  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:45:10pm

re: #75 Guanxi88

You just reminded me of one of the comments made by one of my wife co-workers. He swore if Prop 8 failed he’d move back t China. It was just stunning because he equated prop 8 with making homosexuality not just legal, but forcing everyone to be homosexual.

I think after my wife told me of that conversation was when she realized she couldn’t take me down there to meet any of her friends for lunch for a while (I had previously argued with the husband of one of her friends (white guy) and beat him senseless with logic. Her friend (this guy’s wife) reported that he spent a month with a chiropractor because of the stress that argument had inflicted on him.)

My wife has learned to keep her mouth shut. She finally stopped complaining about my being so quiet when we’re hanging out with her Chinese friends.

242 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:45:17pm

re: #231 charles_martel

All I’m saying is that if gay marriage is legalized across the nation, the Mormons and the Muslims will try to change the laws in their favor as well. They will try. Whether they succeed or not depends on the political climate of the day.

It’s not just about Mormons or Muslims Truthbearers

My problem with the argument that ‘gay’ marriage will lead to challenges is that there are already challenges and people advocating for challenges and have been since ‘gay’ marriage came on the political radar. It’s still there gay marriage or not and the challenges are still going to happen. It’s just a bad reasoning to use the ‘potential’ threat to not legalize gay marriage.

243 Jadespring  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:46:28pm

re: #242 Jadespring

PIMF …since BEFORE…gay marriage

244 SixDegrees  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:50:37pm

re: #231 charles_martel

All I’m saying is that if gay marriage is legalized across the nation, the Mormons and the Muslims will try to change the laws in their favor as well. They will try. Whether they succeed or not depends on the political climate of the day.

So what?

Mormons, by the way, officially renounced polygamy as doctrine many decades ago. Despite a few holdouts, who are openly denounced by the church for straying well outside it’s teachings, Mormons are officially and widely monogamous.

That could change, but it would require a fundamental change in church doctrine.

And again, if that should happen, who cares?

245 Lidane  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:08:12pm

re: #43 Summer

It’s amazing how these people know absolutely nothing about ethics, and then try to hoist all their ignorant claims on the rest of us who actually do know what we’re talking about.

The reason I don’t go around killing and pillaging (raping is a little hard as a woman…tho I’ve heard it has been done…), or marrying animals or having sex with kids, isn’t because it’s illegal or that it tells me not to do so in some ancient book. The reason I don’t go around doing some terrible things is because it’s wrong and everyone knows it’s wrong as a sort of human universal experience thing.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this is an absolute idiot. Not only that, they’re fucking insulting as well.

THANK YOU. I’ve been saying this for ages.

There’s a huge difference between doing the right thing for its own sake and doing the right thing to avoid punishment. They’re not even remotely the same thing.

There’s also a world of difference between being a decent, charitable, moral human being because that’s how you should act, and doing those things with the expectation of a divine reward when you die. A lot of these far right religious whackjobs seem to forget that.

246 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:35:40pm

re: #238 Obdicut

And a gay parent might loose their shizniggity about you saying that somehow protecting your children from gay proselytizing is a duty of a parent.

Hmm. What right should anyone, including teh ghey, have to proselytize to my children? It is surely my duty to protect them from proselytization of all kinds, including this. Note that I am using the Merriam-Webster definition of the word ‘proselytize’ here, lest we again read more into my statement than was intended.

In any case, any group under consideration has already lost their minds if they find this notion offensive. Who in their right mind believes they have the right to proselytize to others’ children?

247 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:40:21pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?

It might help if you could explain what the hell you mean by gay proselytization beyond the statement that gay people are normal and that it’s not an inferior state to homosexuality.

In any case, any group under consideration has already lost their minds if they find this notion offensive. Who in their right mind believes they have the right to proselytize to others’ children?

Everyone who writes a children’s book that touches on any issue of morals is proselytizing to the children.

248 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:41:37pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?

And I am not talking about their right to ‘proselytize’, anyway, but the merits of you shielding your children from said ‘proselytization’.

249 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:45:07pm

re: #247 Obdicut

Whoops, in my first sentence, Homosexuality = heterosexuality. Heh.

250 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:45:38pm

re: #246 Aceofwhat?

Who in their right mind believes they have the right to proselytize to others’ children?

Been to Texas lately? Oh, you said “Who in their right mind

Never mind, then.
/

251 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:46:22pm

re: #247 Obdicut

It might help if you could explain what the hell you mean by gay proselytization beyond the statement that gay people are normal and that it’s not an inferior state to homosexuality.

Everyone who writes a children’s book that touches on any issue of morals is proselytizing to the children.

Fair point. I buy the ones i wish to buy, though.

252 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:46:33pm

re: #249 Obdicut

Whoops, in my first sentence, Homosexuality = heterosexuality. Heh.

yeah, i did it too…

253 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:48:26pm

re: #247 Obdicut

It might help if you could explain what the hell you mean by gay proselytization beyond the statement that gay people are normal and that it’s not an inferior state to homosexuality.

It was your word, not mine, IIRC, first came up in #238. I went along with it. Perhaps i should have first asked for your definition?

254 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:48:42pm

re: #250 Slumbering Behemoth

Been to Texas lately? Oh, you said “Who in their right mind

Never mind, then.
/

i had a dog…and his name was BINGO!

255 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:50:27pm

re: #248 Obdicut

And I am not talking about their right to ‘proselytize’, anyway, but the merits of you shielding your children from said ‘proselytization’.

no, you said that minds would be lost if i wished to shield my kiddies from proselytization. Your words. if that’s not what you meant, we can change direction. i can only work with the materials provided…/

(lofty snark meant to be humorous rather than arrogantly butthurt)

256 What, me worry?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:51:58pm

re: #186 LudwigVanQuixote

And the last question was really uncalled for in that remark.

Sorry. You know I love you.

Here is the behavior I’m talking about. I know how you feel about rape and I know how you categorize it. I was only including it as deviant behavior.

paraphilia - a psychosexual disorder marked by sexual urges, fantasies, and behavior involving objects, suffering or humiliation, or children or other nonconsenting partners.

It’s impossible to think that women and men are on equal footing here. It’s quite obvious they are not.

Another reason women should be running the world :P

257 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:53:47pm

re: #253 Aceofwhat?

Well, you said, before that:

At the same time, I do not wish my elementary school to teach that two fathers are every bit as common as one father and one mother. We can love the children of such households just as much as any other child without having to delve into the details. Were I to suspect that such proselytizing were the desire of homosexual married couples, I would be less inclined to support gay marriage.

Which is kind of just a strawman, because no gay activists are trying to say that gay couples are as common as straight ones. So it kind of just makes no sense.

But you also said the part which is much more troubling to me:


I love my homosexual friends. However, I simultaneously wish to avoid exposing homosexuality to my children as a state of affairs that is “natural and as preferable as homosexuality”.

Do you believe that homosexuality is a state that’s somehow not natural— not stemming from the nature of that person— and do you believe that it is somehow less preferable to heterosexuality?

258 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:55:26pm

re: #255 Aceofwhat?

See my 257.

259 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:01:22pm

Speaking of perversions has anyone seen the KIA commercial with Muno from Yo Gabba Gabba?

260 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:15:13pm

re: #257 Obdicut

Well, you said, before that:

Whoops. You’re right. Damn…i hate that/

Ok, back to that part. There are plenty who, either through experience or paranoia, believe that pressure will be exerted on public school curricula if gay marriage becomes more legal. Note that i started this chain of thought by saying that opposition to state recognition of gay marriage can be a logical, non-hateful response to such a belief. I do not believe such a thing, and won’t until i hear a group of gay people tell me they wish to change my elementary school curriculum. It was an example of a non-hateful opposition, clearly stated as not my opinion. By ‘proselytizing’ i mean “to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause” per the dictionary.


Do you believe that homosexuality is a state that’s somehow not natural— not stemming from the nature of that person— and do you believe that it is somehow less preferable to heterosexuality?

All desires stem from the nature of a person. There is no ‘unnatural desire’…but there are unhelpful desires. Assuming that my children display heterosexual tendencies, I will model good heterosexual behavior for them and I will not model possible alternatives (≠ fully shielding them from alternatives, mind you). I do not believe that a person with heterosexual desires lacks anything that a bisexual experience would have to offer.

Note again that I have no quibble with a bisexuals. It’s simply not something I need to model or preach to my children. Tolerance and love of people regardless of their sexual choices ≠ extolling the virtues of all possible sexual choices to one’s children.

For example, a married man who was at one time happy with his marriage is no more justified in finding alternative satisfaction in the arms of another man as he would have been justified to fall into the arms of another woman.

However, if a person has solely homosexual or heterosexual desires, there is no ‘preferable’ state. The state simply is what it is.

Hmm. Not pithy. sorry. work distracts on occasion…

261 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:16:28pm

re: #258 Obdicut

See my 257.

Yep. Point yielded, retracted, and i accept your figurative boot up my a$$. Unfortunately, i’m just too naturally heterosexual to go past figurative with you on that/

262 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:20:54pm

re: #260 Aceofwhat?

Gay people don’t proseltyize. They do say it’s okay to be gay.

However, if a person has solely homosexual or heterosexual desires, there is no ‘preferable’ state. The state simply is what it is.

Then I have no clue what you’re trying to shield them from. I also have no clue why you think gay people— or anybody— want to teach that being gay is as common as being heterosexual.

Tolerance and love of people regardless of their sexual choices ≠ extolling the virtues of all possible sexual choices to one’s children.

What choice are you talking about here? The choice to actually act on one’s homosexuality?

There is nothing virtuous or invirtuous about a homosexual choosing to have sex with another homosexual. Nor is there anything virtuous about a heterosexual choosing to have sex with another heterosexual.

So where does this ‘extolling the virtue’ thing come in?

263 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:22:28pm

re: #261 Aceofwhat?

No problem. I just mainly don’t want you to think I was smearing your intentions. I wasn’t, in the least, nor ever would. I know you have only the best of hopes for your kids in all ways.

The very sad and obvious reason to not want a gay child is knowing that they will be vilified for what they are by so many people, and one can’t shield them from that.

Hopefully that will soon change.

264 suchislife  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:23:02pm

re: #262 Obdicut

Hey, just dropping in to spell out my updings of your comments in this thread by saying, I agree, thanks for the solidarity, and that I very much appreciate your participation here in general.
I’m pretty busy lately, so I just don’t have the energy to join the discussions and it seems to me that popping up once a month or something to provide a link is just fine, but when you offer your opinion, or maybe your values, you should stick around and invest some time in giving the others a reason to care about it and I’m not up to that right now.
So I just happily upding, which is amazingly relaxing.

265 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:31:25pm

re: #264 suchislife

Thanks very much. I’ll try to live up to that.

266 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:36:58pm

re: #262 Obdicut

What choice are you talking about here? The choice to actually act on one’s homosexuality?

The choice to explore every desire. I spent all that time elucidating about bisexuality as opposed to homosexuality…and i think you went past it. Maybe not…

267 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:39:43pm

re: #262 Obdicut

Then I have no clue what you’re trying to shield them from. I also have no clue why you think gay people— or anybody— want to teach that being gay is as common as being heterosexual.

For the third time, I don’t. Others do, whether they heard it firsthand or are simply paranoid. For the third time, i was illustrating an example of a non-hateful position. It is not a position that I agree with; I do not think that teh ghey want to teach elementary school children the wonders of teh ghey lifestyle.

268 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:43:27pm

re: #266 Aceofwhat?

Bisexuality is not a choice either, man. Bisexual behavior is.

Are you really saying that there’s something wrong with bisexuals choosing to date (and do jiggly things) with people of both genders? What is the invirtuous aspect of acting on that desire? I don’t get what you’re trying to say at all.

There is nothing really different about bisexuality as compared to homosexuality.

re: #267 Aceofwhat?

For the third time, I don’t. Others do, whether they heard it firsthand or are simply paranoid. For the third time, i was illustrating an example of a non-hateful position. It is not a position that I agree with; I do not think that teh ghey want to teach elementary school children the wonders of teh ghey lifestyle.

Okay. I’m not sure why you brought up the position, then.

You said:

At the same time, I do not wish my elementary school to teach that two fathers are every bit as common as one father and one mother. We can love the children of such households just as much as any other child without having to delve into the details.

A) I’m not sure why you brought up something that nobody is advocating the teaching of,

B) I don’t know what the ‘details’ are.

269 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:46:38pm

re: #267 Aceofwhat?

For the third time, I don’t. Others do, whether they heard it firsthand or are simply paranoid. For the third time, i was illustrating an example of a non-hateful position. It is not a position that I agree with; I do not think that teh ghey want to teach elementary school children the wonders of teh ghey lifestyle.

Most likely because there is no such thing as the gay lifestyle. (I always ask, as opposed to the straight lifestyle? Because God knows a straight Al Qaida member and a straight Baptist preacher live essentially the same “lifestyle”)

270 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:46:47pm

re: #263 Obdicut

No problem. I just mainly don’t want you to think I was smearing your intentions. I wasn’t, in the least, nor ever would. I know you have only the best of hopes for your kids in all ways.

The very sad and obvious reason to not want a gay child is knowing that they will be vilified for what they are by so many people, and one can’t shield them from that.

Hopefully that will soon change.

I don’t want a promiscuous child. Exploring every possible desire necessarily requires promiscuity. My child may have latent desires for all sorts of things. If they exhibit heterosexual tendencies, I will encourage those and discourage all others. If they exhibit solely homosexual tendencies, I will do my best to guide them in that respect as well. Sexual experimentation outside of a committed, long-term relationship is something I’ll discourage as best I can within the bounds of good parenting.

I never said I don’t want a gay child. I said that a heterosexual child is not benefited by an encouragement to explore other avenues.

271 FriendsofHummus  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:47:20pm

Which is why horse-man marriages skyrocketed right after Massachusetts and DC legalized gay marriage. The problem with those who argue gay marriage violates the sancity of marriage is that they forget that governments once banned people from marrying if they were of different races. Plus, the pro-creation thing is silly too in light of older couples who marry and couples who can’t biologically have kids either.

272 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:49:16pm

re: #270 Aceofwhat?

I never said I don’t want a gay child. I said that a heterosexual child is not benefited by an encouragement to explore other avenues.

Nobody is advocating that they do, dude. What are you talking about? I honestly can’t figure out what it is you’re referring to that you’re against. I’ve never seen it.

I have no problem with most of what you’re saying, the problem I have is that you appear to be indicating this shadowy agenda of someone or another to convince straight people to experiment with homosexuality.

273 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:51:09pm

re: #268 Obdicut

Bisexuality is not a choice either, man. Bisexual behavior is.

This is where I have too many friends to be able to agree with you. Latent bisexuality is. It must be explored in order to be expressed, and in doing so, multiple partners are pursued. Latent bisexuality is fine. My wife thinks that other girls are pretty. She’s not going to explore whether or not she could be sexually active with them, and she’s none the worse for not finding out what lays down that path.

So she may be a latent bisexual. Beats me. Should her parents have encouraged her to figure that out? Should I? Or can we just be happy the way that we are? Are you following me now?

(repeated questions are lazy as a result of multitasking…i reread it quickly and it may sound arrogant…if so i apologize - just trying to clarify)

274 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:53:31pm

re: #183 Aceofwhat?


I simultaneously wish to avoid exposing homosexuality to my children as a state of affairs that is “natural and as preferable as homosexuality”. If they grow up to be homosexual, I will love them and accept them. However, it is absolutely my job to provide guidance during their earlier years, and I am uninterested in explaining alternative options ahead of schedule.


It is “as natural”, as it, you know, occurs in nature. Whether or not it’s preferable depends quite largely on whether you, you know, prefer it. Since we’re talking your kid’s orientation, what are you saying is that you prefer one orientation for your child over another, to the point that you are unwilling to prepare for the possibility and hope for the odds to carry you over the line without having to face it. Good news: your kid has a better than 90% chance of feeling supported, as your kid and as a persopn. If s/he falls into that homo- or bisexual portion of the population, well…

275 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:54:28pm

re: #272 Obdicut

Nobody is advocating that they do, dude. What are you talking about? I honestly can’t figure out what it is you’re referring to that you’re against. I’ve never seen it.

I have no problem with most of what you’re saying, the problem I have is that you appear to be indicating this shadowy agenda of someone or another to convince straight people to experiment with homosexuality.

You’d have to go back to the first post i made about it. It was stated that all opposition to gay marriage is shallow. The argument I am parroting is logical if it were true that elementary school curricula and other legalities would necessarily change as a result.

Not all opposition to gay marriage is shallow or hateful. Misunderstood, maybe.

276 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:54:55pm

re: #273 Aceofwhat?

It must be explored in order to be expressed, and in doing so, multiple partners are pursued.

Who made you king of deciding what makes a bisexual a bisexual?

I know a bisexual man who has never had sex with another man in his life. He’s sure he’s bisexual because he’s had active fantasies about other men, and is sexually aroused by them.

How is he not bisexual?

So she may be a latent bisexual. Beats me. Should her parents have encouraged her to figure that out? Should I? Or can we just be happy the way that we are? Are you following me now?

I don’t care. I always think self-knowledge is a good thing, but I really don’t care.

I do think that children should be taught that they might be gay, and if they are, it’s perfectly fine to be that way. Or to be bi.

Because it’s true.

277 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:58:00pm

re: #275 Aceofwhat?

Opposition to gays comes from ignorance, mostly, rather than hate. Very few people who actively commune with and interact with gay people hate them.

Which is why it’s very important to make sure your kids know that gay people exist and that there’s nothing wrong with that, both in case your kids turn out to be gay and so that they treat gay people without ignorance.

278 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:58:14pm

re: #270 Aceofwhat?

I don’t want a promiscuous child. Exploring every possible desire necessarily requires promiscuity. My child may have latent desires for all sorts of things. If they exhibit heterosexual tendencies, I will encourage those and discourage all others. If they exhibit solely homosexual tendencies, I will do my best to guide them in that respect as well. Sexual experimentation outside of a committed, long-term relationship is something I’ll discourage as best I can within the bounds of good parenting.

I never said I don’t want a gay child. I said that a heterosexual child is not benefited by an encouragement to explore other avenues.

And you just accused those who advocate teaching of respect for all as being the same damn thing as encouraging lots of teen sex, with no respect to gender or number. Really, Ace? MassResistance update their talking points?

What I would think a parent would want to do is communicate to their child how to be a good partner, and let the gender of that future partner or partners be left unimportant. You’re acting as if the possibilities of being a parent to hetero or homo kids somehow imply radically and wildly different paths, that being a parent to a gay kid somehow requires learning and teaching different sexual values and relationship rules. It really doesn’t.

279 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 2:58:31pm

re: #274 torrentprime

It is “as natural”, as it, you know, occurs in nature. Whether or not it’s preferable depends quite largely on whether you, you know, prefer it. Since we’re talking your kid’s orientation, what are you saying is that you prefer one orientation for your child over another, to the point that you are unwilling to prepare for the possibility and hope for the odds to carry you over the line without having to face it. Good news: your kid has a better than 90% chance of feeling supported, as your kid and as a persopn. If s/he falls into that homo- or bisexual portion of the population, well…

hey torrent. i’ll try to discuss this with you without offending. for starters, i love you.

the million-dollar question, and i admit that i think i have it answered on anecdotal evidence alone (because i don’t know if actual data exists), is whether someone with latent bisexual tendencies can find satisfaction in a monogamous relationship.

if the answer is yes, then modeling good monogamous relationships is a preferable state of affairs. i believe that the answer is yes. at the moment, my daughter is exhibiting heterosexual behavior and my son is too young. so for my daughter, we do not wish to extol the virtues of a bisexual or homosexual choice insofar as she can be happy with heterosexuality.

did that make any sense?

280 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:01:55pm

re: #273 Aceofwhat?

This is where I have too many friends to be able to agree with you. Latent bisexuality is. It must be explored in order to be expressed, and in doing so, multiple partners are pursued.

Whereas heterosexuality is usually explored with one person? Heteros tend to mate for life with their first sexual partner, while bisexuals play the field?

Ace, this is absurd on its face. Dating multiple people of the same gender is somehow superior and doesn’t count the same as dating multiple people of two genders?

281 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:03:15pm

re: #279 Aceofwhat?


did that make any sense?

Yes, but I think it leads into my next salvo at you (278), which asks whether you think there is a major difference in what it means to raise a hetero or homosexual kid.

282 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:06:39pm

re: #276 Obdicut

I don’t care. I always think self-knowledge is a good thing, but I really don’t care.

Self-knowledge is not always a good thing. I don’t know how heroin would make me feel. I intend not to find out.

But WRT the subject at hand, I do not begrudge your opinion, but I personally think that sexual exploration outside of a long-term, committed relationship is not worth the self-knowledge. Surely your statement has bounds even in this context. For example, i don’t know if it would turn me on to pick up a female prostitute with seven toes. I don’t intend do procure that knowledge.

I do think that children should be taught that they might be gay, and if they are, it’s perfectly fine to be that way. Or to be bi.

I have found that the tendencies begin to manifest themselves before I am ready to have that conversation in any more depth than what I already have “sometimes there are boys who like boys, and that’s ok…”

Reinforcing the pre-existing tendency is neither an unsound philosophy, nor one I am cautious about defending, nor one that can’t be executed without pillorying the alternative.

283 FriendsofHummus  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:07:17pm

I am not sure the best way to educate kids about homosexuality is or at what age but kids I say need to know that homosexuality/bisexuality (A) exists and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of look down on people who are (B). Personally, though I think I became more tolerant of gays in high school after finding a couple of gay relatives. The thing is with kids many of them don’t see homosexuality as really morally wrong but more “Ewww two guys kissing gross.” Same reason why your average high school boy is uncomfortable with male homosexuality but more tolerant of lesbianism at least when the women are attractive. Not sure how the female mind works in regards to that.

284 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:09:04pm

re: #280 torrentprime

Whereas heterosexuality is usually explored with one person? Heteros tend to mate for life with their first sexual partner, while bisexuals play the field?

Ace, this is absurd on its face. Dating multiple people of the same gender is somehow superior and doesn’t count the same as dating multiple people of two genders?

Oh, i see what you mean. I will preach the virtues of minimal sexual activity (and responsible birth control, yes, should message #1 fail…). I hope that she marries her first sexual partner…it’s a goal.

285 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:10:13pm

re: #278 torrentprime

And you just accused those who advocate teaching of respect for all as being the same damn thing as encouraging lots of teen sex, with no respect to gender or number. Really, Ace? MassResistance update their talking points?

Where did i say that? Now i kinda want to stop…if you’re getting that from me, i’m afraid.

286 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:10:49pm

re: #282 Aceofwhat?

I do not begrudge your opinion, but I personally think that sexual exploration outside of a long-term, committed relationship is not worth the self-knowledge.

Please stop assigning me positions I don’t hold. I haven’t advocated such exploration— though I do think it’s foolish to hope someone’s first sexual partner will be a compatible long-term match for them. We’re human, we generally have to try something a few times before we get it right. It doesn’t have to be that way, but the luck of the draw makes it usually so.

Again: Do you think my friend is bisexual? Remember, he’s never had sex with another man.

You seem to think that sexual exploration can only occur with other people. Sexual exploration occurs mainly inside our own minds.

287 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:12:36pm

re: #278 torrentprime

What I would think a parent would want to do is communicate to their child how to be a good partner, and let the gender of that future partner or partners be left unimportant. You’re acting as if the possibilities of being a parent to hetero or homo kids somehow imply radically and wildly different paths, that being a parent to a gay kid somehow requires learning and teaching different sexual values and relationship rules. It really doesn’t.

Sorry, dude. They’re waaay to curious for such things to be left ‘unimportant’. She’s exhibiting hetero tendencies, i will reinforce them as the best option for her, it reinforces her self-esteem. See how that goes? To do otherwise would be counterproductive for a little kid.

Mind you, this is a LITTLE kid. As i said multiple times above.

288 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:16:19pm

re: #285 Aceofwhat?

Where did i say that? Now i kinda want to stop…if you’re getting that from me, i’m afraid.

Fair enough: this is what I was responding to: “I don’t want a promiscuous child. Exploring every possible desire necessarily requires promiscuity.”
Exploring a orientation, usually a gay or bisexual one, since no one in our society feels the need to ask for permission to explore a hetero one, is not the same as “go bang everything you can and see how it feels.” What gay rights advocates want most for kids is for them to feel ok being who they are, to feel able to pursue a crush on John as well as Mary. The goal is not to assist them in becoming class whores. It is a common tool of the rright to conflate the one with the other, hence my angry reply.

289 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:16:22pm

re: #286 Obdicut

Please stop assigning me positions I don’t hold. I haven’t advocated such exploration.

Your unabashed statement in favor of self-knowledge was unqualified. I took it at face value. I’m sorry if that went too far.

I think that your friend is bisexual, absolutely. If he was or is married to a woman and was or is happy, his bisexuality is not something to be explored, IMHO.

If he is unattached, then he explores his bisexuality at the expense of sexual activity (no different than were he to explore different expressions of heterosexuality).

290 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:20:30pm

re: #288 torrentprime

Fair enough: this is what I was responding to: “I don’t want a promiscuous child. Exploring every possible desire necessarily requires promiscuity.”
Exploring a orientation, usually a gay or bisexual one, since no one in our society feels the need to ask for permission to explore a hetero one, is not the same as “go bang everything you can and see how it feels.” What gay rights advocates want most for kids is for them to feel ok being who they are, to feel able to pursue a crush on John as well as Mary. The goal is not to assist them in becoming class whores. It is a common tool of the rright to conflate the one with the other, hence my angry reply.

I fully support that. I simultaneously believe that the highly formative years (pre-teen) give plenty of indication to the parent about the kids’ sexuality without the confusion of the awkwardness of adolescence. I believe that there should be as little sexual and religious education in public elementary school as possible. In pre-adolescent class, there is little need for sexual discussions of any kind.

In adolescent class, we should teach empathy for all stripes, period. At this point the parent has either reinforced and supported their kids’ natural tendencies or failed to do so, and has lost the chance (because of adolescence!!)

Still making sense? the entire discussion above related to pre-adolescence.

291 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:20:41pm

re: #289 Aceofwhat?

If he is unattached, then he explores his bisexuality at the expense of sexual activity (no different than were he to explore different expressions of heterosexuality).

But this isn’t true. He can explore it in his mind, through fantasy, by reading literotica.

Exploration is not limited to the gross physical with other people’s dangly bits.

Basically, what Torrent said.

292 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:23:28pm

gotta run. hope to bbl, although Dragon Age Origins has been winning the battle of Ace’s free time…re: #291 Obdicut

But this isn’t true. He can explore it in his mind, through fantasy, by reading literotica.

Exploration is not limited to the gross physical with other people’s dangly bits.

Basically, what Torrent said.

Ah, sorry. You’re right. I’m limiting the term ‘exploration’ too far.

What a person explores in their mind is waaay more open, IMHO, than what they physically risk to explore. Explore away…my only quibble would be when exploration leads one to be tempted into promiscuity. but that’s a quibble for a different day. i gotta run.

and updinged for ‘other people’s dangly bits’. nice turn of phrase, there…

293 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 3:23:35pm

re: #287 Aceofwhat?

Sorry, dude. They’re waaay to curious for such things to be left ‘unimportant’. She’s exhibiting hetero tendencies, i will reinforce them as the best option for her, it reinforces her self-esteem. See how that goes? To do otherwise would be counterproductive for a little kid.

Mind you, this is a LITTLE kid. As i said multiple times above.

And nailing down the gender of your little one’s future partner is thus critical…. how? I still feel that one need express that the gender of a kid’s future partner is irrelevant, but, following your example, how will the kid be able to share those little moments with you, perhaps talking about a future husband or wife, if only one gender is allowed and encouraged by you?
Also, frankly, if the child is that young, very little of their behaviors will fall into hetero- or homo- tendencies. I mean, unless you’re reading very much into “He asked for a red bike instead of a blue one. Is red too much like pink?” I mean, really, what kind of “tendencies” are you able to see now that belong to either a hetero or homosexual orientation?
Also going back to your example, how will your theoretical gay kid get those self-esteem reinforcements you mention unless they know they can tell you whichever they prefer? And how will they know they can tell you? By the messaging you’ve sent previously on the unimportance of the gender of the partner. It all comes back to the tone the parent(s) set.

294 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 4:22:12pm

re: #155 darthstar

Polygamy? Seriously? Who said anything about polygamy? Oh, that’s right…you did.

What legal reasoning supports the theory that notwithstanding the wishes of the majority, notwithstanding current law that has stood for centuries, or, if we go back to common law, thousands of years, and notwithstanding long tradition and custom, and notwithstanding the evident inapplicability of all the reasons hitherto given for why the State should recognize and protect marriage, gay marriage is already legal after all?

The theory I hear is that anything whatsoever goes, and that the State has no right to interfere in any arrangement at all that any number of consenting adults might wish to make. (And then enjoy the tax, social security benefits, and immunity rights, that go with marriage).

If you have a different theory, let’s hear it. If you win with that theory, then like it or not, and whether you meant for it to play out that way or not, you will have legalized polygamy.

Or maybe your theory is that you have the power, so who needs a legal theory? But strangely, when it’s put to a vote, even in California, you lose. So you’re back to winning on legal theories.

The long term trouble with this is that if the law and the constitution mean whatever clever elites wish it to mean, then they mean nothing. And if the people have no recourse through voting, you cannot expect them to take seriously the talk on the Lincoln monument about government of the people, by the people, and for the people, for it shall have become none of the above.

295 Egregious Philbin  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 4:29:27pm

I live in the Oaf’s former district.

Hayworth supporters are the most idiotic, one issue knuckledragging mouth breathers out there.

JD redefines “stupid” every day. Can’t wait to watch McCain whip his ass.

296 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 4:39:28pm

re: #294 lostlakehiker

The theory I hear is that anything whatsoever goes, and that the State has no right to interfere in any arrangement at all that any number of consenting adults might wish to make. (And then enjoy the tax, social security benefits, and immunity rights, that go with marriage).

Given that those rights are dependent on there being only two people involved, you’re very off base.

You make absolutely terrible arguments sometimes.


The long term trouble with this is that if the law and the constitution mean whatever clever elites wish it to mean, then they mean nothing. And if the people have no recourse through voting, you cannot expect them to take seriously the talk on the Lincoln monument about government of the people, by the people, and for the people, for it shall have become none of the above.

Nice slam against the elites. And no, we’re not subject to mob rule, thanks very much, and we should be glad we aren’t.

That’s what the constitution means: it means lack of mob rule.

297 Tigger2005  Mon, Mar 15, 2010 6:17:51pm

Let’s, for a moment, take this argument seriously (and include pedophilia and necrophilia, two other fundie boogeymen, along with bestiality), and address it logically, leaving aside any instinctive revulsion we feel for these behaviors.

A horse, a child, a corpse… none of these can give CONSENT. You cannot have a consensual, mutual, equal marital relationship with an animal, a child, or a dead person. This simple fact alone makes such marriages legally impossible. You don’t need arguments from the Bible, or from nature, or even from the natural sense of revulsion these behaviors prompt.

Now, when it comes to polygamy, it gets a bit trickier. Some don’t have any moral or ethical problems with polygamy. I do, because I think it results in an inherently unequal relationship (of course, some people don’t think marriage is an equal partnership). But are my moral objections to polygamy sufficient argument against it? No. However, I think a strong argument can be made that legalizing polygamy would create too many legal issues and complexities, for the individuals involved in the marriages and for society as a whole. Divorces in polygamous marriages would be legal nightmares. I think the case can be made that allowing polygamous marriage would be against society’s best interests.

298 lostlakehiker  Tue, Mar 16, 2010 12:58:20am

re: #172 marjoriemoon

Not sure why you’re arguing about not having a constitution or that it speaks specifically about gay marriage.

It’s another fallacy to think that allowing gay marriage will allow for polygamy. One person marrying one person is all we’re saying, not marrying 4 people, not marrying horses, not marrying your computer just one other person REGARDLESS of gender.

Well if that’s what you’re saying, what I’m asking is that you spell it out explicitly in whatever law you write. Please do not enact laws that you can say at the time do not include polygamy, but that by their wording can be argued do. Most especially, do not argue before the courts that gay marriage is already legal, whether or not the law says otherwise, because it is unconstitutional to place any impediment whatsoever in the way of arrangements people would like to call marriage. Polygamy, after all, is on much stronger ground to count as marriage than gay unions are. Polygamy has been a legal form of marriage in some places at some times. It is now recognized as marriage in large parts of the world. It serves the biological purpose of marriage. Gay unions that are counted as marriage by national law are a novelty and an exception. Few nations do it that way, and none have, until recently.

So if you’re going to win on gay marriage, please win in a way that preserves the one-to-one nature of the contract. Write it out in explicit detail: marriage for the purpose of federal law is defined to be the union of exactly two people, not more, consenting adults, not related.

Spell it out, also, that this new arrangement counts for purposes of federal tax law, state tax law, witness protection, etc., insurance coverage, but that churches do not have to solemnize these arrangements. They ought not be brought up on discrimination charges for failing to perform ceremonies for gay couples. Because if you do that, then churches are stuck: they cannot in conscience comply, and the law will go to destroy them if they don’t.

Damage control is important. Writing the law this way would limit and contain the damage it causes to society, compared to the damage that would flow from a carelessly worded law or worse yet, a judicial overthrow of the very idea of letting legislatures write laws and having courts stick to deciding whether the facts of a case fit a law.

The tone of comment on this topic is strange. People seem to think that if in their view something is right, then the law ought to be interpreted so as to conform to their opinion. It is as if we thought driving fast was safe, so speed limits of 70 mph ought to be interpreted by the courts to mean 70 miles per half hour.

If we want a new speed limit, the legislature should pass a bill. And if we want new laws that accord gay unions the same status before the law as marriage, and that attach that word to these unions for purposes of federal law and override state law on the matter, then at least do the job right: put the bill before the U.S. Congress and pass it if you have the votes.

299 robdouth  Tue, Mar 16, 2010 2:24:16pm

This is sad, because there’s no real call for backing up certain things here. Calling Hayworth a birther is disingenuous at best. He’s unfortunately not researched the meme like Charles has and just mentioned the talking point that Obama “hasn’t released the certificate” which is of course bogus. However, repeating a debunked talking point, and believing that Obama wasn’t born here are clearly two different things. One is a sad thing, but the other is an automatic disqualifier for the Senate race in my opinion. Given he’s clearly stated that he believe Obama is exactly who he says he is, I’m not going to disqualify him because he doesn’t know that the discredited talking point is not valid.

Further more, his marriage arguement is sloppy, but the point still stands that intimacy is a ridiculous standard. I’ve heard the argument more eloquently put with the historical practice of inter-familial relationships. It’s illegal in something like 30+ states, but if cousins want to get married, why shouldn’t the be allowed to. I never understand why if you are supportive of gay marriage because they are “in love” then you at least have to be consistent across the board. Some will claim it’s a hateful and distracting question, but it’s a legitimate one. If the idea is you can’t discriminate, then you can’t across the board. There is no good legal argument that include gay marriage, but exclude the marriage of consenting adults, no matter the relation. I’m not saying one should/will lead to the other, and I’m not even saying gay marriage is a bad thing (which I’m sure I’ll be accused of), but I’m saying if you are going to be logically consistent, you have to be all or nothing. It’s either 2 consenting adults, or the historical definition, I don’t think you can pick and choose.

300 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 16, 2010 9:05:15pm

Should have known someone would show up and actually defend this moronic crap.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s Disregard for Human Life Has Resulted in 200K Deaths and CDC Guidance That Can’t Be Trust… As America's Covid-19 death toll passes another grim milestone the devastating consequences of President Trump's disregard for human life are still becoming clear, as they did this week when the CDC mysteriously removed guidance from their website indicating that ...
Thanos
2 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 236 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200920 There's always an issue of weeds on a paver deck. We weed whacked the deck before power washing.Then we couldn't get the deck sealer and paint down fast enough.So lots of weeds started coming up through the cracks.There's no ...
dangerman
3 days ago
Views: 287 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
ON the Agency of Objects — Protagony One: Joipatreon: patreon.comtumblr: innuendostudios.tumblr.comtwitter: @InnuendoStudiostranscript: innuendostudios.tumblr.com
Thanos
4 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 334 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
AJR - Bummerland (Official Video) BUMMERLAND OUT NOW ajrmusic.co Check us out everywhere online @AJRBrothers Directed by Edoardo Ranaboldo Bummerland Lyrics: BummerlandHere I amBetter nix my summer plansBummerlandGive a cheerCause you’re only going up from here This monthI got seven haircutsAnd now my hair ...
Thanos
5 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 384 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
London Grammar - Baby It’s You (Trizz Visual) Baby It’s You - Listen Now: londongrammar.lnk.to “It's always a pleasure to work on a music video, but it's tenfold when you are a fan. I instantly connected with London Grammar, from the cinematic mood to the expansiveness in ...
Thanos
5 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 380 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Sam Smith - Diamonds Diamonds out now: samsmith.world Pre-order 'Love Goes' out 30th October: samsmith.world Directed by: Luke Monaghan LyricsHave it allRip our memories off the wallAll the special things I boughtThey mean nothing to me any moreBut to youThey were everything we ...
Thanos
5 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 375 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Chris Mike - Limerence - Official Video Taken from the album "Socialholic", out October 16th, 2020CLICK HERE TO PRE-SAVE: orcd.co All music written by Chris Mike.Produced and mixed by Chris Mike. "Socialholic" album track listing:1. Headbang2. Limerence3. Wildfire (feat. Derek Sherinian)4. Velour5. Rue Flower6. Socialholic7. Detox ...
Thanos
5 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 374 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
YOUR HONOR Trailer (2020) Bryan Cranston New SeriesYOUR HONOR Trailer (2020) Bryan Cranston New Series© 2020 - Showtime
Thanos
5 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 421 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
LOVE and MONSTERS Trailer (2020) Dylan O’Brien, Jessica Henwick MovieLOVE AND MONSTERS Trailer (2020) Dylan O'Brien, Jessica Henwick Movie© 2020 - Paramount
Thanos
5 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 439 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Yusuf / Cat Stevens - Father and Son From Tea for the Tillerman Remake SUBSCRIBE yusufcatstevens.lnk.to and ENABLE 🔔 The official video for ‘Father & Son’ by Yusuf / Cat Stevens. Directed by director Chris Hopewell, Jacknife Films and Black Dog Film. Order Tea For The Tillerman 2 here: catstevens.lnk.to Listen to Father ...
Thanos
6 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 470 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 5 • Share to Facebook