Religious Leaders Support Cordoba House, Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment

More than 40 prominent American religious leaders have released a joint statement strongly supporting the Cordoba House project and condemning the fear-mongers: Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center:

As Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars committed to religious freedom and inter-religious cooperation, we are deeply troubled by the xenophobia and religious bigotry that has characterized some of the opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque near where the World Trade Center towers once stood.

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, is the most recent prominent opponent to cast this debate in a way that demonizes all Muslims and exploits fear to divide Americans. “It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way,” Gingrich said in a statement. Sarah Palin called plans for the center a “provocation.” Fox News has aired a steady stream of irresponsible commentary and biased coverage that reduces what should be a civil debate into starkly combative terms.

The profound tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001 revealed the horror that can unfold when a small minority of violent extremists manipulates religious language for political gain and falsely claims to represent one of the world’s great religions. We have witnessed this sinful corruption of religion across faith traditions throughout history and must condemn it without equivocation whenever or wherever it occurs. However, we fail to honor those murdered on that awful day - including Muslim Americans killed in the Twin Towers and Pentagon - by betraying our nation’s historic commitment to religious liberty, fueling ugly stereotypes about Islam and demeaning the vast majority of Muslims committed to peace. The proposed mosque would be part of Cordoba House, a center open to all Americans that will provide Islamic, interfaith and secular programs. The project aims to support “integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” according to the Cordoba Initiative, which promotes improved “Muslim-West relations.” These are exactly the kind of efforts that foster dialogue, break down barriers and begin to build a world where religiously inspired violent extremism is less likely.

Mr. Gingrich, Ms. Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace. Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals.

Jump to bottom

468 comments
1 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:26:45pm

This is what religious freedom leads to. Time to put a lid on it

/

2 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:27:57pm

re: #1 ralphieboy

This is what religious freedom leads to. Time to put a lid on it

/

But if we leave the lid off and let it all out, there won’t be any left.

/

3 deranged cat  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:28:44pm

that was fantastic.

4 jaunte  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:28:50pm

It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that some political demagogues choose to deliberately insult us this way.

5 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:28:52pm

oh bull shit, james dobson is against it and he’s a REAL christian…or something.

//

6 deranged cat  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:30:23pm

the last paragraph was particularly good. (also on the front page)

Mr. Gingrich, Ms. Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace. Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals.

again, fantastic.

7 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:30:36pm

I see that the religious leaders deliberately chose to exclude Khornate Cults from their statement. I’m sure the anti-mosque activists will welcome them with open arms.

/

8 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:31:53pm

Unofficial word leaking on prop 8, ban to be lifted, marriages to be allowed at once.

9 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:33:06pm

“We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries.”

Good quote.

Now, I’m gonna lay it out there, John Esposito signed this thing, and for some folks that will be all they need to denounce it.

/not so much

10 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:33:33pm

I just had a raging justicegasm.

11 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:34:38pm

Live feed Prop 8

[Link: www.sfgate.com…]

12 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:34:59pm

re: #9 SanFranciscoZionist

“We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries.”

Good quote.

Now, I’m gonna lay it out there, John Esposito signed this thing, and for some folks that will be all they need to denounce it.

/not so much

These aren’t right wing religious leaders, that’s for sure. The right wing is lost.

13 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:35:23pm

Thanks for this one, Charles. It’s good to see the majority throwing a punch in defense of our shared and essential liberties.

14 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:36:36pm

re: #9 SanFranciscoZionist

“We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries.”

What does Fred Flintsone’s home town have to do with this discussion?

15 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:37:31pm

re: #14 ralphieboy

What does Fred Flintsone’s home town have to do with this discussion?

What? You don’t like documentaries?

/YEC

16 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:37:43pm

re: #14 ralphieboy

they may try to ban the royal order of the water-buffalo next?

17 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:38:13pm

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Live feed Prop 8

[Link: www.sfgate.com…]

12:32 PM - Still no confirmation of the Twitter note from Lambda Legal that the ban was lifted but there is celebration here in San Francisco City Hall. I hope this is not a hoax.

12:27 PM - Unconfirmed reports from Twitter c/o Lambda Legal - The ban has been lifted.

18 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:38:49pm

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Unofficial word leaking on prop 8, ban to be lifted, marriages to be allowed at once.

In response, God has cancelled tonight’s Perseid meteor shower.

19 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:38:50pm

OT

Prop 8 stay has been lifted.

20 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:39:21pm

re: #19 Thanos

WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!

21 sagehen  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:39:28pm

Stay remains in effect until August 18, then it’s lifted.

22 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:39:50pm

re: #16 Dreggas

they may try to ban the royal order of the water-buffalo next?


And the Grand Poobatollah

23 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:40:13pm

Prop 8 lifted as of August 18 at 5pm.

24 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:40:54pm

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Unofficial word leaking on prop 8, ban to be lifted, marriages to be allowed at once.

I’d be nervous about that..What happens if you are gay..Get Married Saturday and then the appeals court overturns the decision? Then what?

25 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:40:58pm

re: #20 Dreggas

WOOOHOOO!!!

Seeing indicators that the celebration might be premature - nothing official yet

[Link: www.dallasvoice.com…]

26 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:41:04pm

re: #23 darthstar

Prop 8 lifted as of August 18 at 5pm.

That gives the pro-bigotry group time to get their emergency appeal heard.

27 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:41:46pm

re: #24 HoosierHoops

I’d be nervous about that..What happens if you are gay..Get Married Saturday and then the appeals court overturns the decision? Then what?

They have to return the toasters.

28 cronus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:41:46pm

re: #21 sagehen

Stay remains in effect until August 18, then it’s lifted.

Clocks ticking CA heteros. You only have six days to fortify your marriages before the gay onslaught.

29 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:42:00pm

So the couples who lined up to get married might have jumped the gun…

30 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:43:03pm

The PDF is online

[Link: ecf.cand.uscourts.gov…]

31 Interesting Times  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:44:42pm

re: #23 darthstar

Prop 8 lifted as of August 18 at 5pm.

Perfect image to celebrate the fact? :)

…or get yourself covered in bits and pieces from exploding wingnut heads ;)

32 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:46:16pm

re: #9 SanFranciscoZionist

Jon Esposito remains quite controversial, as Charles has pointed out here, given how politicized his work is and the fact that his program at Georgetown is funded by the Saudis.

And Charles, the Jewish leaders who have signed this really are not prominent. Sure, the JCC in Manhattan is a great institution, but again, is its leader prominent? And J Street? They’ve ranted a lot, but still have not been embraced by the mainstream Jewish community.

It’s fine to support the mosque, but the political posturing has gotten tiresome. It’s starting to feel like Jews are being used by mosque proponents and opponents alike.

For instance, I noticed on Cordoba’s site that they thanked David Harris of the AJC for his support. Kind of odd, because Harris’s backing is very conditional, based on the willingness of Cordoba’s founders to provide full transparancy about their backers. He also expressed concerns about radicalization in U.S. mosques and strong reservations about the project.

But we’re beyond rational discussion, here. The narrative being pushed by the media, and this blog, is that you’re either an stand with Pamelo Geller or are a supporter of the first ammendment.

The rational middle, which includes Christopher Hitchens, is shut out of the discussion.

33 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:47:00pm

re: #28 cronus

Clocks ticking CA heteros. You only have six days to fortify your marriages before the gay onslaught.

Damn. Our anniversary is Sep 3, and I was hoping to make it 44 years.

34 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:49:04pm

re: #32 davesax

It’s unconstitutional and unamerican to try to deny this - it doesn’t matter what your motive is. If it were a synagogue, temple, church, or shrine I doubt you would be here making this argument.

35 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:49:55pm

re: #26 darthstar

That gives the pro-bigotry group time to get their emergency appeal heard.

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

36 webevintage  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:50:02pm

re: #33 Decatur Deb

Damn. Our anniversary is Sep 3, and I was hoping to make it 44 years.

I just don’t know how my “Traditional” marriage is going to survive if there is a gay explosion of weddings on the 18th.

37 cronus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:52:00pm

re: #33 Decatur Deb

Damn. Our anniversary is Sep 3, and I was hoping to make it 44 years.

44 years is quite an accomplishment. I bet your bond is one that can persevere.

38 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:53:46pm

re: #19 Thanos

OT

Prop 8 stay has been lifted.

I’m going to need shoes to go with the dress.

39 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:53:54pm

re: #33 Decatur Deb

Damn. Our anniversary is Sep 3, and I was hoping to make it 44 years.

wow. congrats.

40 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:54:03pm

re: #21 sagehen

Stay remains in effect until August 18, then it’s lifted.

Whoooo! August 19 is my third anniversary!!!

41 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:54:10pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

Just because a majority of Californians voted to restrict the rights of a group of people doesn’t mean they were right.

And no, it’s nothing like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’.

42 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:54:20pm

Thanos,

I realize the tendency on these boards is to attack anyone who brings up another point of view, but I’m not making an argument. I’m telling you that this has gotten so politicized that people on both sides are using Jews to try and make their case.

And you don’t know how I’d feel if it were a synaogue or church. You really don’t.

43 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:54:23pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

the court overturned a bigoted mandate from voters who believe gays are second class citizens and that the marjority should vote on the rights of the minorty. so yes, the opposition to a court ruling that extends the same rights to gays as heteros is bigoted.

44 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:54:44pm

re: #40 SanFranciscoZionist

Whooo! August 19 is my third anniversary!!!

Punk kids.

45 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:55:01pm

re: #41 darthstar

Just because a majority of Californians voted to restrict the rights of a group of people doesn’t mean they were right.

And no, it’s nothing like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’.

not believing that they were right ≠ they’re all bigots. just so we’re clear.

46 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:55:06pm

re: #40 SanFranciscoZionist

Whooo! August 19 is my third anniversary!!!

August 22nd is my first!

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:55:30pm

re: #24 HoosierHoops

I’d be nervous about that..What happens if you are gay..Get Married Saturday and then the appeals court overturns the decision? Then what?

When Prop 8 went through, the courts determined that marriages performed while same-sex marriage was legal would remain legal.

Only way to do it, I think. You can’t have the state running around marrying and then unmarrying people.

So if the appeals court overturns the decision, I assume we’ll do some similar thing.

48 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:55:34pm

re: #46 darthstar

August 22nd is my first!

See my #44.

49 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:56:10pm

re: #38 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m going to need shoes to go with the dress.

Will this work?
[Link: cgi.ebay.com…]

50 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:56:13pm

re: #31 publicityStunted

Perfect image to celebrate the fact? :)

…or get yourself covered in bits and pieces from exploding wingnut heads ;)

Oh, I love that one. A friend had it as her Facebook photo for a while.

51 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:56:23pm

re: #43 zora

the court overturned a bigoted mandate from voters who believe gays are second class citizens and that the marjority should vote on the rights of the minorty. so yes, the opposition to a court ruling that extends the same rights to gays as heteros is bigoted.

i am awed to be in the presence of minds so vast and powerful that they have deemed such a thorny topic closed to further discussion. i will endeavor to drink from the fountain of your wisdom.

52 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:56:50pm

re: #42 davesax

Thanos,

I realize the tendency on these boards is to attack anyone who brings up another point of view, but I’m not making an argument. I’m telling you that this has gotten so politicized that people on both sides are using Jews to try and make their case.

And you don’t know how I’d feel if it were a synaogue or church. You really don’t.

I agree that it’s politicized, but stepping outside the political args and objectifying it in light of our constitution really puts all args to rest. I don’t know if the Jew thing really applies, since there are more evangelicals opposed than Jews from what I’ve seen.

53 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:56:58pm

re: #45 Aceofwhat?

not believing that they were right ≠ they’re all bigots. just so we’re clear.

True. But it’s also true that a lot of the people who voted for prop 8 wouldn’t do so today, having realized what their vote actually meant. It’s the bigots who are continuing to fight to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians…as if granting those rights would hurt themselves in some way.

54 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:58:12pm

re: #51 Aceofwhat?

Which rights of yours would you consider up for discussion?

55 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 12:59:03pm

re: #53 darthstar

True. But it’s also true that a lot of the people who voted for prop 8 wouldn’t do so today, having realized what their vote actually meant. It’s the bigots who are continuing to fight to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians…as if granting those rights would hurt themselves in some way.

i’m sure that some who oppose this are bigots. i’m sure that some are not. i’m open for discussion on the whole thing…but apparently, i’m in the minority. gotta love the “agree with me or you’re a bigot” parade we seem to attract on this issue.

56 tradewind  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:00:26pm

So Cordoba House/ the mosque are now copacetic?
No more Park51?
Just checking.

57 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:12pm

re: #55 Aceofwhat?

i’m sure that some who oppose this are bigots. i’m sure that some are not. i’m open for discussion on the whole thing…but apparently, i’m in the minority. gotta love the “agree with me or you’re a bigot” parade we seem to attract on this issue.

For the record, I’ve never considered you to be a bigot, nor have I implied as much.

58 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:16pm

re: #54 zora

Which rights of yours would you consider up for discussion?

what right is being so hatefully restricted in this case?

59 skullkrusher  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:24pm

“Mr. Gingrich, Ms. Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace. Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals.”

Asking Christian Real Americans to act like Christian Real Americans? Revolutionary! :)

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:42pm

re: #56 tradewind

So Cordoba House/ the mosque are now copacetic?
No more Park51?
Just checking.

I just hate ‘Park51’. It sounds ridiculous.

61 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:53pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

You use children to sell inequality. That isn’t a redeeming virtue either.

62 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:01:56pm

re: #52 Thanos

Thanos,

I again, I’m not objectifying it in the light of our constitution or anything else. And neither is Christopher Hitchens, who supports the right of these people to put this mosque/center where they want but thinks it’s in poor taste.

The constitution says that evangelicals have the right to call themselves Jews for Jesus and stand at Union Square and approach Jews and try to convert us. But I think it’s in poor taste.

As far as the mosque, well, all I’m going to say is that they have the right to put it wherever they want.

But I’m also telling its proponents: don’t try to sell it by making every Jewish person who leads some organization and signs a petition “prominent”.

The Jews on this petition are not necessarily “prominent”.

Understand?

63 Amory Blaine  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:02:19pm

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

I just hate ‘Park51’. It sounds ridiculous.

Sounds like a cheesy disco.

64 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:03:04pm

re: #57 darthstar

For the record, I’ve never considered you to be a bigot, nor have I implied as much.

no. you have not. i was…speaking sideways. however, your initial statement didn’t leave a lot of room for disagreement, if you’ll notice. whether or not i agree with the wording of Prop 8, i have a significant distaste for judicial intrusion into unclear moral territory. so i might be against this ruling after i read it, which would put me in the ‘bigot’ category according to some…

65 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:03:13pm

re: #55 Aceofwhat?

the case did demonstrate that there were few valid reasons to support prop. 8 save for fear and bigotry. I bet many voted out of fear, regardless of how rational that fear was but I would also bet the majority voted because of a dislike of gay people due to religious intolerance.

66 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:03:25pm

re: #61 goddamnedfrank

You use children to sell inequality. That isn’t a redeeming virtue either.

pardon me?

67 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:03:40pm

re: #56 tradewind

So Cordoba House/ the mosque are now copacetic?
No more Park51?
Just checking.

And of course, I’m sure you realize that my objection was to the term “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is a ludicrous distortion invented by bigots.

68 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:04:45pm

Readers with Twitter accounts — remember to retweet LGF posts! Just takes two clicks and a few seconds.

69 tradewind  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:05:01pm

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist
It was pretty unclear as to what the heck.
I never did understand the lack of a space between ’ Park ’ and ’ 51 ‘.

70 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:05:29pm

re: #66 Aceofwhat?

pardon me?

You’re on record as opposing same sex marriage on the grounds that it would lead to parity with regards to custodial rights.

71 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:08:01pm

re: #64 Aceofwhat?

no. you have not. i was…speaking sideways. however, your initial statement didn’t leave a lot of room for disagreement, if you’ll notice. whether or not i agree with the wording of Prop 8, i have a significant distaste for judicial intrusion into unclear moral territory. so i might be against this ruling after i read it, which would put me in the ‘bigot’ category according to some…

I don’t see anything immoral about love between two people. Not that I think you do, either. I think the biggest objection to gay marriage people have is the ‘ick factor’ that they associate with men having sex with each other.

72 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:08:02pm

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

I just hate ‘Park51’. It sounds ridiculous.

Freaks me. We were married at 59 Park.

[Link: www.oursaviournyc.org…]

73 cronus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:08:25pm

I propose we come together in a spirit of mutual respect to calmly discuss Cordoba and gay marriage over a meal consisting of this steaming plate of awesomeness.

Things That Actually Exist: A Grilled Cheese Sandwich Stuffed With Fried Mozzarella Sticks

74 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:08:36pm

re: #65 Dreggas

the case did demonstrate that there were few valid reasons to support prop. 8 save for fear and bigotry. I bet many voted out of fear, regardless of how rational that fear was but I would also bet the majority voted because of a dislike of gay people due to religious intolerance.

IIRC, though, Prop 8 was largely symbolic. it did not prevent the state from granting actual helpful rights to gays, rights that i believe they should have. it simply reserved the symbolic term, ‘marriage’, for its original symbolic meaning. there is something unique, though, about heterosexual marriage. not everyone who wants to preserve a unique symbol for a unique relationship does so out of fear and bigotry.

75 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:09:24pm

re: #73 cronus

I propose we come together in a spirit of mutual respect to calmly discuss Cordoba and gay marriage over a meal consisting of this steaming plate of awesomeness.

Things That Actually Exist: A Grilled Cheese Sandwich Stuffed With Fried Mozzarella Sticks

Really, is there something wrong with having these things on the side?!?

76 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:10:04pm

re: #74 Aceofwhat?

IIRC, though, Prop 8 was largely symbolic. it did not prevent the state from granting actual helpful rights to gays, rights that i believe they should have. it simply reserved the symbolic term, ‘marriage’, for its original symbolic meaning. there is something unique, though, about heterosexual marriage. not everyone who wants to preserve a unique symbol for a unique relationship does so out of fear and bigotry.

Well, what is it that you find so unique about it?

77 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:11:07pm

re: #74 Aceofwhat?

IIRC, though, Prop 8 was largely symbolic. it did not prevent the state from granting actual helpful rights to gays, rights that i believe they should have. it simply reserved the symbolic term, ‘marriage’, for its original symbolic meaning. there is something unique, though, about heterosexual marriage. not everyone who wants to preserve a unique symbol for a unique relationship does so out of fear and bigotry.

Your symbolic term represents such a unique relationship that people use it for ketchup bottles. If it’s good enough for your condiments, it’s good enough for the gays.

78 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:11:37pm

re: #12 Charles

These aren’t right wing religious leaders, that’s for sure. The right wing is lost.

It is indeed. My involvement with conservative politics dates back to 1964, when I was a teenage volunteer for the Goldwater campaign. A few years later, my yellow-dog Democrat parents took me along when my mom was a delegate to the 1968 Democratic convention. They hoped I would witness the process in all its populist glory and be converted from my wayward Republican ways. What I witnessed instead was the Chicago convention riots and the establishment muscling Hubert Humphrey into the nomination. This confirmed to me that I had been on the right track. My parents were deeply disillusioned themselves.

A lot of water flowed under the bridge in the meantime, but I stayed with the conservative cause until fairly recently. In retrospect, I had been growing uncomfortable with what passed for conservatism for many years. I opposed the Clinton impeachment, for example, regarding it as a facetious witch-hunt.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that the rot really started in 1980, when the Reagan campaign made a conscious effort to recruit the nascent religious right as a GOP voting bloc. This involved the kind of compromise that everyone condemns but that all politicians practice. As with so many things that turn out badly, it seemed like a good idea at the time. It would scarcely have seemed possible that a bunch of Bible beating nuts could actually take over the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, and Barry Goldwater. They could help at the polls, though, and with grassroots activism (a traditional weakness of the GOP) so compromise we did.

Our creation has devoured us now, and Republican conservatism as I knew it has not so much changed as ceased to exist. This process has accelerated with astonishing speed since the 2008 election, with the nuts now fully in charge and the adults either marginalized or driven completely out of the party.

I persisted as long as I did because I thought the nuts would fall flat on their faces and the rest of us could re-build the movement along rational lines. That is impossible now, we are past the point of no return.

The other day, when Robert Gibbs denounced the “professional left,” I suggested that Obama might be trying to construct and define a new right wing to replace the one that has gone over the cliff. I wasn’t joking at all.
Obama is pretty much center-right by global standards anyway. Perhaps we are just catching up with the rest of the world in defining the terms. The self-declared conservatives who attack him are off the scale entirely, a xenophobic mob of quacks and charlatans who have no awareness of, or concern about, what goes on in the rest of the world.

79 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:11:54pm

re: #70 goddamnedfrank

You’re on record as opposing same sex marriage on the grounds that it would lead to parity with regards to custodial rights.

Not exactly. The fabric of our family laws are woven with the threads of the importance of biological parents. Our laws are quite firmly slanted to highlight the importance of the relationship between parents and child. I am not proposing anything unique; i’m simply bemused by the speed with which such a vast quantity of legal precedents is shunned as a possible reason for keeping our terminology straight.

80 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:13:18pm

re: #76 JasonA

Well, what is it that you find so unique about it?

my children live with their biological mother and biological father.

81 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:14:44pm

Did the Judge state the ban ends on the 18th or that the stay is being extended till the 18th pending further review? I’m seeing different takes on it.

82 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:15:36pm

re: #79 Aceofwhat?

Not exactly. The fabric of our family laws are woven with the threads of the importance of biological parents. Our laws are quite firmly slanted to highlight the importance of the relationship between parents and child. I am not proposing anything unique; i’m simply bemused by the speed with which such a vast quantity of legal precedents is shunned as a possible reason for keeping our terminology straight.

I get it, adoptive parents don’t have an equally important relationship because it isn’t biological.

83 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:15:37pm

Are these people insane? How can we run a country if people can’t be made to hate each other over religion and shit?

84 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:15:43pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

Voters will!! Voters will!! What a crock of shit.

Against gay marrige? YOU ARE A BIGOT!!! There is no gray area anymore.

85 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:15:49pm

re: #31 publicityStunted

Perfect image to celebrate the fact? :)

…or get yourself covered in bits and pieces from exploding wingnut heads ;)

That… is… awesome! The perfect image to celebrate the victory in CA.

86 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:16:13pm

back to the actual topic of the thread (NTTAWW going OT), most of the Christians i know either believe the same as this guy, or are very close to being persuaded to believe the same. so the right wing may be in shambles, but i have hope for the mass of modern Christianity.

87 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:16:22pm

re: #80 Aceofwhat?

my children live with their biological mother and biological father.

What about gay dads using their own sperm, egg donors, and a surrogate mom?

88 tradewind  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:16:48pm

re: #67 Charles
I always thought ’ Ground Zero Mosque ’ was a silly designation, maybe partly because Morgan Freeman’s joint is so big down here.
But seriously, thanks for your answer…. I really was just checking. I remember there was a lot of talk about it.

89 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:16:49pm

re: #79 Aceofwhat?

Not exactly. The fabric of our family laws are woven with the threads of the importance of biological parents.

WTF? Am I watching the 700 Club? Some people just can’t let go.

90 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:19pm

re: #80 Aceofwhat?

my children live with their biological mother and biological father.

Bluntly: So what?

I don’t even get the remotest hint of what your argument is about.

If it’s that having two biological parents, one of each gender, is the ‘optimum’ in some way— so what? We don’t, haven’t ever, and never would restrict marriage on the grounds that the people marrying would make less than optimal parents.

What is your actual argument?

91 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:20pm

re: #82 goddamnedfrank

I get it, adoptive parents don’t have an equally important relationship because it isn’t biological.

That’s not a good argument.

92 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:27pm

re: #80 Aceofwhat?

my children live with their biological mother and biological father.

So had I gone ahead and married my ef-gf, who had two children already, our marriage would somehow have been significantly different?

93 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:31pm

re: #62 davesax

No, because this is what ya said:

But we’re beyond rational discussion, here. The narrative being pushed by the media, and this blog, is that you’re either an stand with Pamelo Geller or are a supporter of the first ammendment.

You can ramble all you want but when you make sweeping statements collectivizing or homogenizing the readers of this blog it’s just you being an ass.

94 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:35pm

re: #82 goddamnedfrank

I get it, adoptive parents don’t have an equally important relationship because it isn’t biological.

oh, you think that if a biological parent changes their mind halfway through the process, that the court tends to treat them as being on the same footing as the proposed adoptive parent?

surely you can do better.

95 freetoken  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:17:45pm

re: #78 Shiplord Kirel

Very well said.



Obama is pretty much center-right by global standards anyway.

All those screaming that he is some sort of Leninist Muslim (one very strange claim) can’t reconcile their hatred with reality. President Obama has shown that he is anything but an ideologue, that his gradualist approach to change is anything but revolution, and that his ideals are pretty much centrist on any serious scale.

96 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:18:51pm

So did the Judge say the stay is automatically lifted on the 18th?

97 Decatur Deb  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:19:12pm

BBL

98 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:19:26pm

re: #87 prairiefire

What about gay dads using their own sperm, egg donors, and a surrogate mom?

I think it’s fine. Their child will not be living with a biological father and a biological mother, however. That is what is unique about my home, and your home.

99 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:20:14pm

re: #95 freetoken

If anything, he’s obsessed with hewing to the middle, at the expense of issues like energy independence, where we kind of need (in my opinion, of course) somewhat more of a firebrand.

100 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:20:24pm

re: #90 Obdicut

Bluntly: So what?

I don’t even get the remotest hint of what your argument is about.

If it’s that having two biological parents, one of each gender, is the ‘optimum’ in some way— so what? We don’t, haven’t ever, and never would restrict marriage on the grounds that the people marrying would make less than optimal parents.

What is your actual argument?

scroll back farther

101 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:20:39pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

I think it’s fine. Their child will not be living with a biological father and a biological mother, however. That is what is unique about my home, and your home.

Yes, but is our situation better?

102 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:21:54pm

re: #93 Thanos

Now comes the name calling.

Which only supports my point.

103 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:21:57pm

re: #96 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

So did the Judge say the stay is automatically lifted on the 18th?

5pm on the 18th. The six days doesn’t make sense to me, but I suppose that was to give the appeals courts time to hear the emergency pleas for keeping the stay in place.

104 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:22:35pm

Ace, I hope you’re not suggesting that any marriage devoid of children isn’t deserving of the label “marriage,” because your words could be interpreted that way, what with you wanting to preserve the “uniqueness” of it and all…

105 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:23:02pm

re: #100 Aceofwhat?

scroll back farther

I’ve read everything you wrote, but you’ve put it in cotton wool. Can you actually just say what you’re saying in a way I can understand? You’re being as subtle as a leaf falling among bombs, and I have no idea what you’re actually saying.

106 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:23:16pm

re: #89 Vambo

WTF? Am I watching the 700 Club? Some people just can’t let go.

WTF. People chucking their brains out of the window left and right here.

A couple gets divorced. They had two children, but the father was a stepfather. Assuming that both parents wish full custody, and assuming that both parents are found suitable, which parent will get full custody?

Not rocket science. Our laws are built on the notion that there is something unique about a relationship between a child and their biological parents. What is 700 club about that little slice of legal reality, pray tell?

107 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:23:27pm

re: #103 darthstar

5pm on the 18th.

Gaypocalypse Now!

108 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:23:44pm

re: #102 davesax

Now comes the name calling.

Which only supports my point.

Ok wear your martyr cloak because you take exception to someone catching you out with a blanket statement about one of the most diverse political blogs on teh innernetz…

109 MJ  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:23:58pm

re: #32 davesax

Jon Esposito remains quite controversial, as Charles has pointed out here, given how politicized his work is and the fact that his program at Georgetown is funded by the Saudis.

And Charles, the Jewish leaders who have signed this really are not prominent. Sure, the JCC in Manhattan is a great institution, but again, is its leader prominent? And J Street? They’ve ranted a lot, but still have not been embraced by the mainstream Jewish community.

It’s fine to support the mosque, but the political posturing has gotten tiresome. It’s starting to feel like Jews are being used by mosque proponents and opponents alike.

For instance, I noticed on Cordoba’s site that they thanked David Harris of the AJC for his support. Kind of odd, because Harris’s backing is very conditional, based on the willingness of Cordoba’s founders to provide full transparancy about their backers. He also expressed concerns about radicalization in U.S. mosques and strong reservations about the project.

But we’re beyond rational discussion, here. The narrative being pushed by the media, and this blog, is that you’re either an stand with Pamelo Geller or are a supporter of the first ammendment.

The rational middle, which includes Christopher Hitchens, is shut out of the discussion.

I can’t speak about everyone on that list but I do know Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman of Congregation Shaarei Shamayim in Madison, WI. She was one of the leaders of Madison/Rafah Sister City Project and and remains a vociferous critic of all things Israel. She also signed a letter condemning Israel for War Crimes in Gaza. She is about as far removed from mainstream Jewish leadership as you can get.

110 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:24:04pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

I don’t see the connection there at all. In fact, it’s been a long while since I’ve seen such a hinky comparison.

Anyway, what if the voters in some state mandated that only Christian marriages were valid? Or that only white people could marry other whites?

Fuck the voters, in that case. Let them find a country with a bendy constitution, or none at all, and set up their little bigot’s paradise there.

111 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:24:19pm

re: #101 prairiefire

Yes, but is our situation better?

Some would say yes, some no. At the very least, it’s not worse. But it is unique. What is the harm in preserving a unique term for a unique arrangement?

112 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:24:29pm

re: #62 davesax

In your opinion, which objections to the Cordoba project are valid?

I’m asking because I honestly cannot see a single objection that isn’t based on prejudice — on the implicit assumption that the Muslim developers are somehow linked to the people who attacked us on 9/11.

So go ahead, tell me what I’m missing. What’s the non-prejudiced, non-stereotyping argument against Cordoba House?

113 Taqyia2Me  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:03pm

re: #103 darthstar

Tried to congratulate you for your anniversary on last thread but had a fat finger operator error…
So. Congratulations on your anniversary!

114 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:33pm

My children live with both parents also. So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Who says these marriages will even include children?
We had a celebration dinner at my house on the day of the court ruling. It was a win for civil rights in our opinion.

115 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:40pm

re: #111 Aceofwhat?

Some would say yes, some no. At the very least, it’s not worse. But it is unique. What is the harm in preserving a unique term for a unique arrangement?

~*~*U R a beautiful and unique snowflake*~*~

116 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:45pm

re: #105 Obdicut

I’ve read everything you wrote, but you’ve put it in cotton wool. Can you actually just say what you’re saying in a way I can understand? You’re being as subtle as a leaf falling among bombs, and I have no idea what you’re actually saying.

I am saying that there are non-bigoted reasons to be on either side of this issue.

OT, my wife can’t handle cotton balls. Gives her the heebie-jeebies. That’s what i thought of when i read “cotton wool”…

117 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:52pm

re: #94 Aceofwhat?

oh, you think that if a biological parent changes their mind halfway through the process, that the court tends to treat them as being on the same footing as the proposed adoptive parent?

surely you can do better.

You seem to think that your relationship with your kids is superior to that of an adopted person, like say Hoops has with his parents, simply because your relationship is consanguine. I find this view rather arrogant and unsupported by fact.re: #98 Aceofwhat?

I think it’s fine. Their child will not be living with a biological father and a biological mother, however. That is what is unique about my home, and your home.

The word unique doesn’t mean what you think it means.

118 webevintage  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:25:54pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

I think it’s fine. Their child will not be living with a biological father and a biological mother, however. That is what is unique about my home, and your home.

So you are saying that kids are better off in homes with a mother and father who are the biological parents of said child?

Except a new study (gotta find it but I also have to leave) found that lesbians actually produce the most self confidante, happy teenagers with fewer “issues”.

119 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:26:30pm

re: #111 Aceofwhat?

Some would say yes, some no. At the very least, it’s not worse. But it is unique. What is the harm in preserving a unique term for a unique arrangement?

I think I will share the term with gay couples who want to marry. I would not want to share the term marriage with folks want illegal marriages of all sorts. But, gay marriage should not be illegal.

120 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:26:41pm

re: #113 Taqyia2Me

Tried to congratulate you for your anniversary on last thread but had a fat finger operator error…
So. Congratulations on your anniversary!

Thanks!

121 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:27:14pm

re: #116 Aceofwhat?

I am saying that there are non-bigoted reasons to be on either side of this issue.

OT, my wife can’t handle cotton balls. Gives her the heebie-jeebies. That’s what i thought of when i read “cotton wool”…

Ace, I don’t think you’re bigoted. I do think that you’re clutching to a definition of “marriage” that was left behind, by straight people, decades ago.

122 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:27:30pm

re: #106 Aceofwhat?

A couple gets divorced. They had two children, but the father was a stepfather. Assuming that both parents wish full custody, and assuming that both parents are found suitable, which parent will get full custody?

Not rocket science. Our laws are built on the notion that there is something unique about a relationship between a child and their biological parents. What is 700 club about that little slice of legal reality, pray tell?

I do believe that the laws are evolving to address many different family lifestyles now because they have to. What the laws may currently be in any given jurisdiction is hardly a reason to deny a segment of the population their full and equal rights. I have never heard a legitimate reason to do so, and this one doesn’t qualify any more than “they’re icky, that’s why!”

123 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:27:51pm

re: #110 Cato the Elder

I don’t see the connection there at all. In fact, it’s been a long while since I’ve seen such a hinky comparison.

Anyway, what if the voters in some state mandated that only Christian marriages were valid? Or that only white people could marry other whites?

Fuck the voters, in that case. Let them find a country with a bendy constitution, or none at all, and set up their little bigot’s paradise there.

they would be voting to alter the current definition of marriage. opposing such a thing wouldn’t be a bigoted, anti-Christian affair, although some may vote against it simply for antiChristian reasons.

(see what i did there?)

124 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:29:00pm

re: #116 Aceofwhat?

I am saying that there are non-bigoted reasons to be on either side of this issue.

OT, my wife can’t handle cotton balls. Gives her the heebie-jeebies. That’s what i thought of when i read “cotton wool”…

Give me a non-bigoted reason, then. What is it?

“It makes laws easier” is not actually a reason, you know.

125 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:29:04pm

re: #112 Charles

Charles, my old friend, I’m not sure how to answer that.

The statement, “I honestly cannot see a single objection that isn’t based on prejudice”, isn’t really an invite to debate.

126 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:29:13pm

Biological parents — an ideal that the government must honor

In a 1994 story in The Topeka Capital-Journal, he and his brother Mark Phelps said they and their siblings grew up in a violent household in which they were frequently beaten by their father. Mark Phelps, who also cut ties with Fred Phelps, said he used to beat his own siblings under orders from his father.

///

This whole discussion is a complete joke.

127 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:29:23pm

I think any reasonable person would rather grow up in a home with two sane, well-adjusted gay people as parents rather than with biological progenitors who were assholes, or alcoholics, or meth addicts, or just stupid.

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.

128 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:29:53pm

re: #118 webevintage

So you are saying that kids are better off in homes with a mother and father who are the biological parents of said child?

Except a new study (gotta find it but I also have to leave) found that lesbians actually produce the most self confidante, happy teenagers with fewer “issues”.

i saw the study. that’s not what it said…but we can get into the study at another time. we may indeed find that some or all homosexual couples can nurture children just as well as heterosexual couples. there’s still something unique and symbolic about a heterosexual marriage.

maybe we just need a new, gay-only term for marriage? some cool new word…make all the heteros jealous and then tell them they’re not allowed to have it!

129 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:30:12pm

re: #127 Cato the Elder

I think any reasonable person would rather grow up in a home with two sane, well-adjusted gay people as parents rather than with biological progenitors who were assholes, or alcoholics, or meth addicts, or just stupid.

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.

Well, not until the reading of the will…

130 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:30:16pm

re: #118 webevintage

So you are saying that kids are better off in homes with a mother and father who are the biological parents of said child?

Except a new study (gotta find it but I also have to leave) found that lesbians actually produce the most self confidante, happy teenagers with fewer “issues”.

I am looking forward to seeing “The Kids Are Alright:”[Link: movies.yahoo.com…]

131 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:30:40pm

re: #128 Aceofwhat?

there’s still something unique and symbolic about a heterosexual marriage.

What is it?

132 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:30:42pm

re: #124 Obdicut

Give me a non-bigoted reason, then. What is it?

“It makes laws easier” is not actually a reason, you know.

i already did.

133 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:30:52pm

re: #125 davesax

Charles, my old friend, I’m not sure how to answer that.

The statement, “I honestly cannot see a single objection that isn’t based on prejudice”, isn’t really an invite to debate.

No, it is an invitation. I haven’t seen an argument that isn’t based on prejudice. So if you think there is one, please make that argument and then we can hash it out.

134 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:31:04pm

finally something to post under moonbats in spinoffs

[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

135 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:31:44pm

re: #109 MJ

MJ,

Of course she is. Because mainstream Jews and Jewish organizations, have stayed out of this and issued tepid statements of support.

136 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:32:02pm

re: #127 Cato the Elder

I think any reasonable person would rather grow up in a home with two sane, well-adjusted gay people as parents rather than with biological progenitors who were assholes, or alcoholics, or meth addicts, or just stupid.

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.

there are thousands of pages of family and divorce law which explicitly contradict your belief. i do not wish to quarrel with your belief, but rather the notion that you or anyone else can simply wish away volumes of precedent when it isn’t helpful to the way that you feel.

137 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:32:28pm

re: #123 Aceofwhat?

although some may vote against it simply for antiChristian reasons.

(see what i did there?)

I see what you did, and it’s fucking ignorant. And stupid, and has no basis in reality.

What you’re saying is that gay people are voting for gay marriage just to aggravate Christians.

Please. Shut up.

138 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:32:58pm

re: #127 Cato the Elder

I think any reasonable person would rather grow up in a home with two sane, well-adjusted gay people as parents rather than with biological progenitors who were assholes, or alcoholics, or meth addicts, or just stupid.

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.

During the past snowstorm there a story of a family who died from carbon monoxide poisoning due to cooking on a charcoal grill in the house. My 13 year old saw the article and sarcastically responded that the parents must have been gay to do such a thing.

139 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:33:13pm

re: #136 Aceofwhat?

there are thousands of pages of family and divorce law which explicitly contradict your belief. i do not wish to quarrel with your belief, but rather the notion that you or anyone else can simply wish away volumes of precedent when it isn’t helpful to the way that you feel.

Loving v. Virginia

Next argument please.

140 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:33:20pm

re: #132 Aceofwhat?

i already did.

Then say it again in a different way, Ace, because, to me, and I believe to many other people, you have not actually pointed out anything unique about heterosexual marriage.

You have pointed out something about a heterosexual relationship— that it’s biologically the only way to create a child— but that is not actually something unique about heterosexual marriage.

So, to be sure I don’t misunderstand you, please tell me, in away I can understand— and as someone who’s totally heterosexually married— why I should feel my marriage is different from that of my gay married friends.

141 prairiefire  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:34:17pm

re: #128 Aceofwhat?

“We may well indeed find…” Baloney. It is happening every day, right now.

142 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:34:32pm

re: #136 Aceofwhat?

Legal precedent doesn’t really matter, Ace. If your argument is “Well, marriage law has criminalized homosexual marriage for a long time”, um, yeah, that’s the reason why we’re talking about homosexual marriage now.

It’s a pretty recursive argument.

143 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:34:47pm

re: #121 JasonA

Ace, I don’t think you’re bigoted. I do think that you’re clutching to a definition of “marriage” that was left behind, by straight people, decades ago.

really, that’s all i’m shooting for here. i’m only interested in challenging those people on either side of this debate who think they’ve heard all there is to hear.

144 blueraven  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:34:57pm

re: #134 Thanos

finally something to post under moonbats in spinoffs

[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

Good! What a couple of idiots. The other guy should resign as well. They are too stupid to hold office.

145 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:35:18pm

re: #137 Vambo

I see what you did, and it’s fucking ignorant. And stupid, and has no basis in reality.

What you’re saying is that gay people are voting for gay marriage just to aggravate Christians.

Please. Shut up.

that’s not even close to what i said. read again, and this time hook yourself on phonics.

146 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:35:58pm

re: #136 Aceofwhat?

there are thousands of pages of family and divorce law which explicitly contradict your belief. i do not wish to quarrel with your belief, but rather the notion that you or anyone else can simply wish away volumes of precedent when it isn’t helpful to the way that you feel.

I didn’t say children get a choice, did I?

I’m just pointing out that biology can get stuffed as far as I’m concerned. The old saying “you can’t pick your family” is not just a statement, but a complaint.

147 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:36:00pm

re: #140 Obdicut

So, to be sure I don’t misunderstand you, please tell me, in away I can understand— and as someone who’s totally heterosexually married— why I should feel my marriage is different from that of my gay married friends.

It’s speshuler. That’s the only thing I can get out of that argument.

148 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:36:33pm

re: #139 goddamnedfrank

Loving v. Virginia

Next argument please.

non-sequitur

149 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:36:39pm

re: #145 Aceofwhat?

that’s not even close to what i said. read again, and this time hook yourself on phonics.

Ace, you really should not be so condescending while strenuously avoiding planting your feet down while making your argument.

I cannot, still, for the life of me figure out what the ‘unique’ nature of heterosexual marriage is, other that they were the only legal ones until recently.

If you want to make rather vague arguments, feel free, but showing condescension for others at the same time is foolish.

150 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:36:41pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

Ah, yes. Any opposition whatsoever to a court overturning the clear mandate of the voters must be bigoted.

That’s a lot like saying ‘any Muslim who wants to build something religious near Ground Zero must be kicking sand in our face’. Presuming ill intent on the part of another isn’t a redeeming virtue.

Personally, I’m not sure how the backers of Prop 8 (AFA, FotF, etc) can be construed as anything but bigoted. It’s right there in their rhetoric and in what they advocate for.

The problem with calling marriage this rmantic institution is it’s not. Divorces are legal. Marriage is a financial and legal arrangement, a legal apparatus to allow people to share resources and have access to each other.

151 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:37:12pm

re: #143 Aceofwhat?

really, that’s all i’m shooting for here. i’m only interested in challenging those people on either side of this debate who think they’ve heard all there is to hear.

All I’ve heard so far is that:

1. man/woman marriage w/ biological children = speshul.

which is not very challenging.

152 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:37:53pm

re: #146 Cato the Elder

I didn’t say children get a choice, did I?

I’m just pointing out that biology can get stuffed as far as I’m concerned. The old saying “you can’t pick your family” is not just a statement, but a complaint.

i quite agree. i actually think that there is TOO MUCH favor for biological relationships in our law right now. but i am not going to pretend that it doesn’t exist when it isn’t helpful to the argument at hand, unlike some others.

gotta run very fast. Obdicut - i’ll come back to it - i owe you an answer or two. give me ten minutes.

153 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:38:24pm

re: #151 Vambo

All I’ve heard so far is that:

1. man/woman marriage w/ biological children = speshul.

which is not very challenging.

I’m starting to think we need a new label for that kind of relationship.

154 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:38:33pm

re: #143 Aceofwhat?

really, that’s all i’m shooting for here. i’m only interested in challenging those people on either side of this debate who think they’ve heard all there is to hear.

What have you said here, or what have you got to say, that we haven’t heard already?

Because I’m not hearing anything from you but “my children came from my own sacred sperm, and that makes me special”.

155 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:38:47pm

re: #149 Obdicut

Ace, you really should not be so condescending while strenuously avoiding planting your feet down while making your argument.

bullshit. someone who can’t even read what i wrote correctly and then wants me to shut up is going to get a big cup of sarcasm au lait…

bbiam

156 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:39:17pm

re: #152 Aceofwhat?

i quite agree. i actually think that there is TOO MUCH favor for biological relationships in our law right now. but i am not going to pretend that it doesn’t exist when it isn’t helpful to the argument at hand, unlike some others.

gotta run very fast. Obdicut - i’ll come back to it - i owe you an answer or two. give me ten minutes.

I have a question. If you can write “TOO MUCH” in capital letters, why can’t you use them at the beginnings of sentences? :P

157 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:39:23pm

re: #154 Cato the Elder

What have you said here, or what have you got to say, that we haven’t heard already?

Because I’m not hearing anything from you but “my children came from my own sacred sperm, and that makes me special”.

legally, that is special. sorry to break it to you. sit in a family or divorce court sometime.

158 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:39:39pm

re: #156 JasonA

I have a question. If you can write “TOO MUCH” in capital letters, why can’t you use them at the beginnings of sentences? :P

DAMMIT.

that was awesome.

159 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:40:09pm

re: #155 Aceofwhat?

bullshit. someone who can’t even read what i wrote correctly and then wants me to shut up is going to get a big cup of sarcasm au lait…

bbiam

No, Ace. You haven’t actually said anything in any comprehensible way. You may think you have, but the fact that nobody else on the thread can figure out what you’re talking about should indicate to you that the problem is not them, it’s you.

160 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:40:33pm

re: #157 Aceofwhat?

I think by special you mean different.

161 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:41:10pm

re: #157 Aceofwhat?

legally, that is special. sorry to break it to you. sit in a family or divorce court sometime.

The point, dunce, is that children are not the only point of marriage. We’re talking about marriage here, not children.

162 freetoken  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:41:49pm

re: #134 Thanos

To me, Halloran’s comment is much worse than Horigan’s.

163 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:42:06pm

re: #146 Cato the Elder

I didn’t say children get a choice, did I?

I’m just pointing out that biology can get stuffed as far as I’m concerned. The old saying “you can’t pick your family” is not just a statement, but a complaint.

Hi Cato..Boy I’m really trying to steer clear of this topic..So far so good..When I got adopted at 12 I had to go to Court and tell the judge I picked my family..So I did get to pick my family..But they picked me first.. Then the State of California amends your Birth Certificate…Obama would be so jealous of me..
LOL.. I’m pretty sure a parents love has nothing to do with being straight or gay. Hope you are well today

164 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:42:24pm

Charles:

1. I think the builders of this mosque have a right to put it wherever they want. I never said they didn’t.

2. I already told you, on another thread, that I’m not a fan of Faisal’s writings at the Washington Post, where he excoriated the creators of South Park, when they were threatened with violence, rather than admonish the person who threatened them (he said American’s have to learn to show restraint.) I also am not a fan of his writings on that blog which claim Sharia law is really one in the same as the U.S. constitution (yes, he really does say that).

3. And in an era where the NYTimes is writing articles about “right wing Jewish Americans” funding settlements in the West bank, or building in Jerusalem, I find it odd that people who support this project unconditionally care not one iota where the funding is coming from. This is especially odd to see on this blog, which still has posts from 2005 related to Wahabbi penetration of American mosques.

4. Faisal’s imploring the U.S. government to come to an “understanding” with the government of Sudan strikes me as morally repugnant.

So, like Christopher Hitchens said in Slate, I believe Faisel has the right to build this and should not be stopped by anyone. But I’m not wholly comfortable with his views, and can’t help but wonder, given some of his writings, if he’s playing it straight.

165 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:42:49pm

In addition:

There are heterosexual marriages where the man is the primary caregiver for the children and the woman is the primary breadwinner.

This marriages are also different, and treated different in family law.

166 freetoken  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:43:04pm

re: #127 Cato the Elder

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.


Well, there is the whole suckling thing…

Basically, though, I agree with you.

167 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:43:16pm

Laws change every day to reflect the most current standards of the society. And Loving v Virginia is far from being a non-sequitur. It is exactly the heart of the matter.

168 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:43:35pm

re: #157 Aceofwhat?

legally, that is special. sorry to break it to you. sit in a family or divorce court sometime.

But marriage isn’t only for biological parents, it’s not only for parents at all, it’s not only for people who’ve never been married before, it’s not a one-and-out thing, it’s not only for people who don’t have kids from a previous marriage. Not legally. It’s finances, it’s taxes, it’s rights, it’s access to hospitals, access to health care. it’s all this boring stuff, it’s not the symbolism. The symbolism is an emotional argument. We’re talking legal here.

169 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:43:42pm

re: #165 Obdicut

In addition:

There are heterosexual marriages where the man is the primary caregiver for the children and the woman is the primary breadwinner.

This marriages are also different, and treated different in family law.

Where can I find one of those…?

170 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:43:49pm

The only conceivable way in which homosexuality could be a threat to straight people and their families is if hordes of gay people start breaking into the houses of other people and fucking in front of their kids.

Since that doesn’t seem to be happening, I don’t see how the objection to gays getting married makes any sense.

171 Vambo  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:44:29pm

re: #161 Cato the Elder

The point, dunce, is that children are not the only point of marriage. We’re talking about marriage here, not children.

It’s all so confusing, I wish someone would explain what Prop 8 and child custody in for biological parents have to do with each other.

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:44:36pm

re: #63 Amory Blaine

Sounds like a cheesy disco.

Yeah. “I’m dropping the kids off to swim at Cordoba House” sounds like something a sane person would say. “I’m taking the kids to Park51” sounds like they’re going to be bored and fidgety while the adults eat vertical food.

173 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:44:44pm

re: #165 Obdicut

In addition:

There are heterosexual marriages where the man is the primary caregiver for the children and the woman is the primary breadwinner.

This marriages are also different, and treated different in family law.

That would be my brother’s marriage! He’s the househusband dad who collects Transformers and plays in a folk band, his wife works for NOAA as a scientist. :D

174 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:45:15pm

re: #166 freetoken

Well, there is the whole suckling thing…

Basically, though, I agree with you.

I had a cat that tried to breastfeed once. Freaked me the fuck out…and I was wearing a shirt.

175 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:45:20pm

re: #164 davesax

Can you name one of these people who support the project unconditionally and don’t care where the money is coming from?

176 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:45:28pm

re: #172 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah. “I’m dropping the kids off to swim at Cordoba House” sounds like something a sane person would say. “I’m taking the kids to Park51” sounds like they’re going to be bored and fidgety while the adults eat vertical food.

“I’m dropping the kids off at Nova Prospekt. Remember Freeman!”

177 freetoken  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:45:44pm

re: #173 WindUpBird

… his wife works for NOAA as a scientist. :D


Ahh… so she is part of the great HOAX!

178 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:46:15pm

re: #159 Obdicut

No, Ace. You haven’t actually said anything in any comprehensible way. You may think you have, but the fact that nobody else on the thread can figure out what you’re talking about should indicate to you that the problem is not them, it’s you.

I’m back.

Note that the sarcasm was a special dish not for someone who couldn’t understand what I meant, but for someone who drew a helluva wrong inference, and a mean one at that. Big difference. Show me where i said that gays are for this bill specifically to be antiChristian? I wrote a sentence with some of those words in it, but that doesn’t mean you can add ranch dressing and toss it any which way…

179 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:46:35pm

re: #170 Fozzie Bear

The only conceivable way in which homosexuality could be a threat to straight people and their families is if hordes of gay people start breaking into the houses of other people and fucking in front of their kids.
.

The Night of Broke in Ass.

And with that gem, I am outta here.

180 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:46:47pm

re: #177 freetoken

Ahh… so she is part of the great HOAX!


ahahaha totally! Man she has some opinions on AGW deniers :D

181 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:46:58pm

re: #164 davesax

Does this really sound like a radical Islamist to you? On Faith Panelists Blog: Center an attempt to prevent the next 9/11 - Feisal Abdul Rauf

The center will be open to everyone, not just Muslims. That is our mission - to provide common ground for people of all faiths.

Freedom of religion is something we hold dear. It is the core of what America is all about, and it is what people worldwide respect about our country. The Qur’an itself says compulsion in religion is wrong.

One of our goals is to encourage all countries that now shut out religions to understand this.

American Muslims want to be both good Americans and good Muslims. They can be the best assets the US has in combating extremism. They know that many American values — freedom of religion, human dignity and opportunity for prosperity — are Muslim values too.

We believe that people of good faith can use the common core of their religions to find solutions to problems that will let them live together. The genius of America has been to overcome fear and bigotry against newcomers with different religions to welcome the energy of the immigrant. I am confident that will happen again.

I have been the imam at a mosque in this same neighborhood in New York for 27 years. I am as much a part of this community as anyone. That is why I enjoy local support of my neighbors who wonder why outsiders are twisting my record. My work is precisely to make sure mosques are not recruiting grounds for radicals.

182 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:47:25pm

re: #168 WindUpBird

But marriage isn’t only for biological parents, it’s not only for parents at all, it’s not only for people who’ve never been married before, it’s not a one-and-out thing, it’s not only for people who don’t have kids from a previous marriage. Not legally. It’s finances, it’s taxes, it’s rights, it’s access to hospitals, access to health care. it’s all this boring stuff, it’s not the symbolism. The symbolism is an emotional argument. We’re talking legal here.

what’s the difference between a marriage and a civil union guaranteeing all of those things?

183 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:47:30pm

re: #87 prairiefire

What about gay dads using their own sperm, egg donors, and a surrogate mom?

My husband was raised by his biological mother and his stepmom, after his father wandered off to wherever the hell he is now. Alabama at last report.

My niece was raised by her biological mother and her stepdad, after her biological father moved in with a cocktail waitress.

The difference is, only one of these couples can get legally married.

184 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:48:29pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

I think it’s fine. Their child will not be living with a biological father and a biological mother, however. That is what is unique about my home, and your home.

But we have never, ever, limited marriage to create that situation.

185 dallasdoc  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:48:30pm

I hate to be difficult, as i do support the statement. But, are these really ‘top” religious leaders as the press release claims, or ‘prominent’ religious leaders as the LGF site claims? I cannot speak about the Christian and Moslem leaders at all, but the Jewish names are hardly top or prominent. few if any represent or lead anything other than local or very small national groupts

186 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:48:44pm

re: #164 davesax

Basically,, it sounds like you’re getting all your right wing Geller/Spencer/Limbaugh/Levin talking point conspiracy theories about Park51 mixed up with, you know, the establishment clause.

Establishment clause wins!

187 RadicalModerate  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:48:56pm

re: #162 freetoken

To me, Halloran’s comment is much worse than Horigan’s.

Yeah, I agree. Horrigan’s statement was a badly-advised attempt at humor, while Keith Halloran was a mean-spirited ass.

In fact, as I’m writing this Rick Sanchez on CNN is slamming him for his ugliness.
He’s calling it “hateful opportunism”, which is right on the mark.

188 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:49:04pm

re: #44 Decatur Deb

Punk kids.

Heh.

189 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:49:32pm

re: #181 Charles

Does this really sound like a radical Islamist to you? On Faith Panelists Blog: Center an attempt to prevent the next 9/11 - Feisal Abdul Rauf

Well, its not liking they’re going to come right out and admit it!

///

190 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:49:43pm

re: #182 Aceofwhat?

what’s the difference between a marriage and a civil union guaranteeing all of those things?

Nothing. If the ‘civil union’ guarantees every last one of those things, then it is marriage, and should be called marriage, because that’s what a synonym means; you can call it either word.

If this is just a semantic attempt to separate the terms: the reason that Loving vs. Virginia is relevant is that it found that no separate institutions can ever remain equal.

191 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:49:47pm

re: #183 SanFranciscoZionist

My husband was raised by his biological mother and his stepmom, after his father wandered off to wherever the hell he is now. Alabama at last report.

My niece was raised by her biological mother and her stepdad, after her biological father moved in with a cocktail waitress.

The difference is, only one of these couples can get legally married.

Families are complicated and come in many shapes and sizes and the rights of Americans should reflect that.


equal rights under the law

how does one argue against equal rights under the law? I simply do not get it.

192 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:49:58pm

re: #165 Obdicut

In addition:

There are heterosexual marriages where the man is the primary caregiver for the children and the woman is the primary breadwinner.

This marriages are also different, and treated different in family law.

quite. but if one of them is not the biological parent, they will be treated differently in family law.

i think our law is currently too slanted towards biological parents. but it is slanted. are we at least agreed on this point?

193 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:50:25pm

re: #181 Charles

No, it doesn’t.

But that’s one of many statements, Charles.

Others I have noted, the substance of which have yet to be addressed.

194 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:51:03pm

Imam Rauf on Sudan: On Faith Panelists Blog: Sudan’s democratic potential - Feisal Abdul Rauf

It is essential that we not whitewash the real negatives of these elections. But it is just as critical not to ignore the hopeful signs. The universal ask I got from the man and woman on the street to government leaders, in North and South Sudan, was not to abandon them after the elections. They understand the fragility of what just happened, and although they each want continued American engagement for their own reasons, the common plea was to help fashion Sudan in the American image of a federation of states, where life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the common rights of all.

Given our costly experiences in evolving authoritarian Iraq and Afghan regimes towards democracy, wouldn’t you agree that America’s Sudan approach is no less as credible?

195 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:51:50pm

re: #184 SanFranciscoZionist

But we have never, ever, limited marriage to create that situation.

It is not necessarily bigoted to believe that situation to be worth preserving, if only in a symbolic manner, in our lexicon. That is my only point at the moment, although i do tend to digress too easily at times!

196 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:00pm

re: #192 Aceofwhat?

Why are you talking about family law as it regards to biological parents? I thought we were talking about marriage.

I would really appreciate it if you actually just laid out what you’re trying to say straightforwardly.

197 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:09pm

re: #193 davesax

So when you cite all this stuff, are you just getting it fed to you through so-con anti-Islam sites that twist and turn and outrage and incite? Or are you actually reading what the guy has said?

198 bratwurst  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:09pm

re: #185 dallasdoc

I hate to be difficult, as i do support the statement. But, are these really ‘top” religious leaders as the press release claims, or ‘prominent’ religious leaders as the LGF site claims? I cannot speak about the Christian and Moslem leaders at all, but the Jewish names are hardly top or prominent. few if any represent or lead anything other than local or very small national groupts

I will be looking forward to your next post in 6 years!

199 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:20pm

meanwhile chicken spins
Image: chickens-are-spinning.jpg

200 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:37pm

Quick… anybody know where I can find the Dick Cheney/Chuck Norris jokes?

201 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:52:58pm

I think we’ve been giving the opponents of same-sex marriage too much of a pass on one of their bedrock premises, that broadening marriage eligibility will somehow destroy or undermine traditional heterosexual marriage.
Really? Who says? Will a young man’s fancy suddenly turn to——-other young men? Will we all become gay and refuse to marry the opposite sex? What are these people talking about?

In fact, marriage is the legal, civil, and religious affirmation of a relationship. Long-term heterosexual relationships are far more than this. They are rooted in the human biological process and in evolution itself. Society’s sanction for these relationships, heterosexual marriage, dates from prehistoric times and exists in virtually every human culture to one degree or another. Providing legal and social affirmation for another kind of relationship is just not a threat to this.

From a different perspective, I have seen a good many divorces and very rocky marriages among fundamentalists. Perhaps (with the willing help of their leadership) they like to blame outside influences for this, rather than their own distorted priorities and lack of commitment.

202 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:53:13pm

re: #182 Aceofwhat?

what’s the difference between a marriage and a civil union guaranteeing all of those things?

Everything.. This is America..We all get the same rights or none of us get the rights…What would happen if Blacks could only get Driving permits and whites get Drivers Licenses? You both get to drive but yet…
Words mean things…

203 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:53:59pm

re: #200 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Quick… anybody know where I can find the Dick Cheney/Chuck Norris jokes?

Dick Cheney Facts.

204 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:00pm

re: #192 Aceofwhat?

quite. but if one of them is not the biological parent, they will be treated differently in family law.

i think our law is currently too slanted towards biological parents. but it is slanted. are we at least agreed on this point?

Sure, the law recognizes biological relationships. Nu?

205 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:03pm

re: #200 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Father in law had double bypass surgery… am looking for some Dick Cheney jokes to add some levity to the evening. Can’t seem to put together the right string of words in a search engine to get them out…

206 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:14pm

re: #195 Aceofwhat?

The situation doesn’t exist in our current lexicon, Ace. Your whole semi-argument is based on a false assumption

We do not call heterosexual married couples with kids ‘married’ and heterosexual couples with no kids something else. There is no current lexicon to defend.

That is, if I’ve understood the argument you’re walking backwards, covered with a veil, correctly.

207 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:17pm

re: #203 Fozzie Bear

Dick Cheney Facts.

Thanks!

208 skullkrusher  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:35pm

re: #181 Charles

Free candy and pony rides sound great too - unless the guy offering them is wearing a clownsuit and driving a windowless van :)

hehe jk

that still sounds great

209 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:41pm

re: #195 Aceofwhat?

It is not necessarily bigoted to believe that situation to be worth preserving, if only in a symbolic manner, in our lexicon. That is my only point at the moment, although i do tend to digress too easily at times!

So what you’re really saying is that gay people using the word “marriage” makes you feel like less of a speshul snowflake.

Your self-esteem is not their problem.

210 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:54:42pm

re: #205 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

He came out great. That’s why I’m gonna go for the laughter.

211 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:55:13pm

re: #195 Aceofwhat?

It is not necessarily bigoted to believe that situation to be worth preserving, if only in a symbolic manner, in our lexicon. That is my only point at the moment, although i do tend to digress too easily at times!

The only point I’m making right now is that we have never defined marriage in those terms. Think of the Brady Bunch, for heaven’s sakes.

212 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:55:27pm

re: #190 Obdicut

Nothing. If the ‘civil union’ guarantees every last one of those things, then it is marriage, and should be called marriage, because that’s what a synonym means; you can call it either word.

If this is just a semantic attempt to separate the terms: the reason that Loving vs. Virginia is relevant is that it found that no separate institutions can ever remain equal.

they’re not exactly synonymous. in my relationship, it is possible for my children to live with their biological mother and father. while that situation does not always occur in heterosexual marriages, the potential exists, or used to (my elders get married too). no such potential exists in a homosexual coupling. that does not make them bad…just different. why is different bad? i thought different was good…i’m confused…

(just being light there at the end)

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:56:05pm

re: #201 Shiplord Kirel

I think we’ve been giving the opponents of same-sex marriage too much of a pass on one of their bedrock premises, that broadening marriage eligibility will somehow destroy or undermine traditional heterosexual marriage.
Really? Who says? Will a young man’s fancy suddenly turn to—-other young men? Will we all become gay and refuse to marry the opposite sex? What are these people talking about?

In fact, marriage is the legal, civil, and religious affirmation of a relationship. Long-term heterosexual relationships are far more than this. They are rooted in the human biological process and in evolution itself. Society’s sanction for these relationships, heterosexual marriage, dates from prehistoric times and exists in virtually every human culture to one degree or another. Providing legal and social affirmation for another kind of relationship is just not a threat to this.

From a different perspective, I have seen a good many divorces and very rocky marriages among fundamentalists. Perhaps (with the willing help of their leadership) they like to blame outside influences for this, rather than their own distorted priorities and lack of commitment.

I always thought Lou Sheldon and his cohorts didn’t give the appeal of heterosexuality enough credit.

214 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:56:51pm

re: #192 Aceofwhat?

quite. but if one of them is not the biological parent, they will be treated differently in family law.

i think our law is currently too slanted towards biological parents. but it is slanted. are we at least agreed on this point?

So what if the current situation is slanted, that isn’t an argument against altering the inertia of the status quo. If the precedents are wrong then they should be reversed. Again, Loving v, Virginia. Injustice doesn’t develop existential merit simply by virtue of being entrenched.

215 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:57:06pm

re: #205 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Show him this:

Image: cheney_tenways.jpg

216 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:57:34pm

re: #196 Obdicut

Why are you talking about family law as it regards to biological parents? I thought we were talking about marriage.

I would really appreciate it if you actually just laid out what you’re trying to say straightforwardly.

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure, the law recognizes biological relationships. Nu?

Yes. A heterosexual marriage sometimes has the potential to create a unique biological relationship, one recognized quite thoroughly by our laws. It is not necessarily bigoted to wish to reserve a unique term or tradition for a unique situation. That is all.

217 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:57:46pm

re: #201 Shiplord Kirel


From a different perspective, I have seen a good many divorces and very rocky marriages among fundamentalists. Perhaps (with the willing help of their leadership) they like to blame outside influences for this, rather than their own distorted priorities and lack of commitment.

But don’t some people get stuck with jaguars when all they want is a chevrolet?

218 ShaunP  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:58:09pm

re: #164 davesax

This is not an attack; just wanted to address the items you noted:

1) Awesome

2) Sharia Law is in a way like the constitution. It creates a groundwork for the laws in muslim nations.

3) I was under the impression that the funds had not even been raised for the construction effort. I agree that there should be close oversight of where the money comes from, but assuming that a good portion of the money comes from legit sources in Saudi Arabia; what next? Aren’t we allies with Saudi Arabia? What’s Ok about sending billions to Saudi Arabia for their oil and not Ok about letting them fund building of a mosque?

4) I don’t see the issue with his statements on Sudan as being particularly inflammatory. He essentially was saying that the first election was less than perfect, but an important first step on the road to democracy. This doesn’t sound like a radical:

It is essential that we not whitewash the real negatives of these elections. But it is just as critical not to ignore the hopeful signs. The universal ask I got from the man and woman on the street to government leaders, in North and South Sudan, was not to abandon them after the elections. They understand the fragility of what just happened, and although they each want continued American engagement for their own reasons, the common plea was to help fashion Sudan in the American image of a federation of states, where life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the common rights of all.

219 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:58:35pm

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

they’re not exactly synonymous. in my relationship, it is possible for my children to live with their biological mother and father. while that situation does not always occur in heterosexual marriages, the potential exists, or used to (my elders get married too). no such potential exists in a homosexual coupling. that does not make them bad…just different. why is different bad? i thought different was good…i’m confused…

(just being light there at the end)

And in the case of a childless heterosexual couple, it’s not possible for the children to live with their mother, because they don’t exist.

So what’s your point? That couple is still married.

220 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:58:42pm

re: #211 SanFranciscoZionist

The only point I’m making right now is that we have never defined marriage in those terms. Think of the Brady Bunch, for heaven’s sakes.

mmm…Marsha.

221 sagehen  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:58:46pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. A heterosexual marriage sometimes has the potential to create a unique biological relationship, one recognized quite thoroughly by our laws. It is not necessarily bigoted to wish to reserve a unique term or tradition for a unique situation. That is all.


So second marriages involving step-parents and blended families shouldn’t be able to call themselves married?

That’s pretty ridiculous.

222 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:58:52pm

Imam Rauf “excoriating” (actually, not) South Park: On Faith Panelists Blog: Conflicting cultural norms require respect, restraint - Feisal Abdul Rauf

Freedom of expression is the law in the United States. It is something that the government must uphold. But the people who create this insulting material about the Prophet Muhammad should not be naïve. They are digging deeply at the cultural values of huge numbers of people, many of whom now live as law-abiding citizens of the United States.

In this enlightened age, would the producers of South Park insult the values of African Americans?

As to burqas, it is the cultural norm in Belgium and France for women to reveal their faces. It is a cultural norm in Saudi Arabia that they do not. If Muslims support the right of the Saudi government to require Western women in Saudi Arabia to wear abayas that cover their bodies and heads (but not their faces), then Muslims must support the right of the Belgian and French governments to ban the burqa in Belgium and France.

Can we be upset in these times of heightened national security that the Belgians and French want to know who is walking around on their streets? And in these times when sensitivity about religion and respect are at a boil, cannot the arbiters of Western media show a little restraint?

Whoa. A radical Islamist who supports the right of Belgium and France to ban burqas. Haven’t seen that before.

His point about South Park is pretty clear — he’s definitely not advocating censorship, he’s criticizing them for being deliberately insensitive. Which, uh, South Park kinda is. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen other people than Muslims get offended by South Park too.

223 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:59:22pm

re: #214 goddamnedfrank

So what if the current situation is slanted, that isn’t an argument against altering the inertia of the status quo. If the precedents are wrong then they should be reversed. Again, Loving v, Virginia. Injustice doesn’t develop existential merit simply by virtue of being entrenched.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Believing that the precedents ought to be reversed in some form at least leads us to see that there may be others who supported Prop 8 because they agreed with the precedents…as opposed to simply being fearful or bigoted.

see? that’s all.

224 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:59:52pm

I hereby announce that the term marriage will be replaced by the term “civil unions” in all official local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If you wish to get “married”, find a Church who will sign off on it.

Everyone happy now?

225 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 1:59:58pm

re: #210 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

He came out great. That’s why I’m gonna go for the laughter.

Bah, he only thinks he’s great, wait until they start walking him….

/seriously hope all goes well, I just had a quint so I know how these things go… poor guy probably has a few IV’s including that one in his neck with a pacemaker, and probably three drain tubes and a catheter… life can get ugly when you are all tied up like that…

226 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:00:10pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. A heterosexual marriage sometimes has the potential to create a unique biological relationship, one recognized quite thoroughly by our laws. It is not necessarily bigoted to wish to reserve a unique term or tradition for a unique situation. That is all.

That argument makes no sense, Ace, because of the ‘sometimes’. We do not, in the lexicon, distinguish between childless heterosexual couples.

And the ‘it is not bigoted’ part is what you’re trying to prove; asserting it does nothing to prove that. At all.

227 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:00:27pm

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

they’re not exactly synonymous. in my relationship, it is possible for my children to live with their biological mother and father. while that situation does not always occur in heterosexual marriages, the potential exists, or used to (my elders get married too). no such potential exists in a homosexual coupling. that does not make them bad…just different. why is different bad? i thought different was good…i’m confused…

(just being light there at the end)

Different is fine. But many, many families exist, and have existed since the dawn of time, where the children are not biological relatives of both adult partners. This is not modern or new, this is basic family stuff.

But since the beginning of time, people have been allowed, nay encouraged, to get married even if they have no children, or their children are only related to one of them, or to neither of them.

Suddenly deciding that it changes everything if one class of people who didn’t have biological children together get married doesn’t seem rational to me.

228 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:00:27pm

re: #209 Cato the Elder

So what you’re really saying is that gay people using the word “marriage” makes you feel like less of a speshul snowflake.

Your self-esteem is not their problem.

No. I am saying that i can build a case to reserve a unique situation for a unique situation without resorting to bigotry.

229 Killgore Trout  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:01:45pm

re: #199 Thanos

meanwhile chicken spins
Image: chickens-are-spinning.jpg

Handsome birds.

230 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:06pm

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

No. I am saying that i can build a case to reserve a unique situation for a unique situation without resorting to bigotry.

Then quit wasting time and actually make that case.

Instead of just asserting it.

231 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:20pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. A heterosexual marriage sometimes has the potential to create a unique biological relationship, one recognized quite thoroughly by our laws. It is not necessarily bigoted to wish to reserve a unique term or tradition for a unique situation. That is all.

A heterosexual quickie between two people married to others in the coat room at Ruby Sky also has that potential, and the biological relationship is also recognized by law.

And the ‘unique term’ is NOT reserved for the ‘unique situation’.

232 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:22pm

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

No. I am saying that i can build a case to reserve a unique situation for a unique situation without resorting to bigotry.

You have yet to do so.

233 calochortus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:25pm

.re: #182 Aceofwhat?

I suspect one big difference between civil unions and marriages is that federal law doesn’t say states need to recognize each others’ civil unions, nor do federal tax breaks or social security payments go to people with civil unions.

A lot of people seem to confuse civil marriage with religious marriage. Trust me, I can’t go in to the Mormon temple and demand a Temple marriage, because I’m not Mormon-I wouldn’t even be allowed to attend a ‘sealing’ ceremony. No Catholic church is going to do a nuptial mass for any member of my family. It is their right to reserve those rites for their own members. They do not, however, own the word marriage. Virtually everyone who considers themselves married today has a civil marriage-it ain’t sacred, its a legal contract. Many people, but not everyone, also goes through the rites of their religion.

How about a nice definition of “marriage” from Merriam-Webster:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

It doesn’t really strike me as being particularly unique sort of relationship. Nor is is particularly monolithic. There’s a lot of room for different sorts of relationships in there

234 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:30pm

re: #221 sagehen

So second marriages involving step-parents and blended families shouldn’t be able to call themselves married?

That’s pretty ridiculous.

nope. that’s not what i said. scroll back farther.

although while we’re on this subject, have you ever seen a step-parent try to get custody of a step-child? tough sledding, which is odd, because none of our laws hold any special concern for the importance of a biological parent/

235 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:53pm

Those requesting to know “where the funds are coming from” — there are Christian terrorists, (Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, Scott Roeder just to name the first three that come to mind) does that make it ok to ask where the funding for any church in the US comes from?

236 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:02:53pm

re: #127 Cato the Elder

I think any reasonable person would rather grow up in a home with two sane, well-adjusted gay people as parents rather than with biological progenitors who were assholes, or alcoholics, or meth addicts, or just stupid.

Biology really means nothing at all past the point of womb-exit.

Purely ancedotal, but two of the most neurotic, anxious people I know are siblings whose parents stayed together “for the sake of the kids”. They spent every day since their early teens with the knowledge that their parents were locking themselves into an unhappy and loveless marriage for them. Both ended up wracked with massive guilt as a result.

237 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:01pm

re: #228 Aceofwhat?

No. I am saying that i can build a case to reserve a unique situation for a unique situation without resorting to bigotry.

No, it sounds like you’re trying to argue that bigotry, if cloaked in the law or in biological terms, is somehow less wrong.

238 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:14pm

re: #230 Obdicut

Then quit wasting time and actually make that case.

Instead of just asserting it.

you asked me to restate it…and now you’re upset that i restated it?

come on. 9_9

239 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:17pm

re: #222 Charles
“But the people who create this insulting material about the Prophet Muhammad should not be naïve. They are digging deeply at the cultural values of huge numbers of people”

Really? By having a cartoon that didn’t even show the profit Mohammad in the first place?

We should show “restraint”?

And when did I say he’s a radical Islamist?

240 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:45pm

re: #216 Aceofwhat?

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. A heterosexual marriage sometimes has the potential to create a unique biological relationship, one recognized quite thoroughly by our laws. It is not necessarily bigoted to wish to reserve a unique term or tradition for a unique situation. That is all.

So I can assume you’ll be sending the purveyors of The Ketchup Saver a very stern letter for desecrating your unique term and tradition:

The safe easy way to marry ketchup bottles

241 RadicalModerate  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:45pm

re: #224 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I hereby announce that the term marriage will be replaced by the term “civil unions” in all official local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If you wish to get “married”, find a Church who will sign off on it.

Everyone happy now?

Gotta disagree there. Marriage is a legal term. The religious term you’re looking for is Holy Matrimony (or Holy Wedlock). The religious groups can keep that desgniation and discriminate all they want as to who they recognize. However that will have zero legal standing.

242 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:03:51pm

re: #221 sagehen

So second marriages involving step-parents and blended families shouldn’t be able to call themselves married?

That’s pretty ridiculous.

If I understand Ace’s argument correctly, the heterosexual marriage is privileged because it could produce this particular family structure. I don’t get it. We have never told the infertile that they couldn’t get married, although their chances of producing biological offspring are about the same as Joe and Henry’s.

243 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:04:46pm

re: #237 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

No, it sounds like you’re trying to argue that bigotry, if cloaked in the law or in biological terms, is somehow less wrong.

are we really going to argue about my intentions?

244 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:04:57pm

re: #223 Aceofwhat?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Believing that the precedents ought to be reversed in some form at least leads us to see that there may be others who supported Prop 8 because they agreed with the precedents…as opposed to simply being fearful or bigoted.

see? that’s all.

Ace, I’m really trying here, but let me say, when I see all this sophistry directed at a real-world goal—telling people I know, who raised kids together, and loved each other through thick and thin that it’s not OK for them to get married—it is very hard. This is not abstract for me in the slightest.

245 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:05:00pm

re: #199 Thanos

meanwhile chicken spins
Image: chickens-are-spinning.jpg

Yumm!

246 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:05:07pm

re: #238 Aceofwhat?

you asked me to restate it…and now you’re upset that i restated it?

come on. 9_9

You just keep blithering on about biological children being the apex of unions between two people, when that is simply not the case even between heterosexuals.

You are a biology bigot.

247 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:05:23pm

re: #185 dallasdoc

Super sleeper!

248 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:05:33pm

re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist

If I understand Ace’s argument correctly, the heterosexual marriage is privileged because it could produce this particular family structure. I don’t get it. We have never told the infertile that they couldn’t get married, although their chances of producing biological offspring are about the same as Joe and Henry’s.

And it also presupposes that gays can’t have children, when we know that gayness does not make a person infertile, and that many gays have children. They find ways you know.

249 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:05:53pm

re: #238 Aceofwhat?

you asked me to restate it…and now you’re upset that i restated it?

come on. 9_9

YOu haven’t made an argument, Ace. You’re asserting that it’s not bigoted, based on a completely false presumption that the word ‘marriage’ signifies two fertile heterosexuals having children. Which it doesn’t. It encompasses a wide, wide range of relationships.

Your entire argument about the lexicon is based on a false assumption.

Your argument that there are non-bigoted positions for objecting to gay marriage is completely unsupported; you’ve just asserted it repeatedly.

250 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:06:39pm

re: #240 goddamnedfrank

So I can assume you’ll be sending the purveyors of The Ketchup Saver a very stern letter for desecrating your unique term and tradition:

gasp. you mean that the same word, in colloquial English, can have more than one meaning or implication?

i wonder if that’s why it’s so important, in legal documents, to keep the semantics straight…no, it couldn’t be…

(btw, ketchup is a threat to the sanctity of my marriage…too much sugar)//

251 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:06:58pm

re: #243 Aceofwhat?

are we really going to argue about my intentions?

So far, it seems like you’ve been trying to argue against labeling all those who supported Prop 8 as bigots, except you’re doing a piss-poor job of doing so.

252 HoosierHoops  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:07:21pm

re: #247 wrenchwench

Super sleeper!

Another from the Class of 2004.. with 2 posts!

253 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:07:37pm

re: #248 Thanos

And it also presupposes that gays can’t have children, when we know that gayness does not make a person infertile, and that many gays have children. They find ways you know.

Like recruiting from College students to replenish their numbers.
/

254 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:08:23pm

Funny that we are running a parallel thread on Park 51 and Proposition 8, they both concern things that I personally do not support or encourage but at the same time see no reasonable grounds to oppose.

255 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:09:17pm

re: #250 Aceofwhat?

Ace, the ‘lightness’ is not really appropriate, and really does seem like you’re condescending to everyone else on this thread.

Do you think that an infertile couple should not be allowed to get married, but only get a civil union?

Yes or no question.

256 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:09:50pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

Ace, I’m really trying here, but let me say, when I see all this sophistry directed at a real-world goal—telling people I know, who raised kids together, and loved each other through thick and thin that it’s not OK for them to get married—it is very hard. This is not abstract for me in the slightest.

But i’m not talking about disrupting their ability to do any of that. If they could pursue a legal union to codify their relationship, would that do the trick?

257 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:09:57pm

re: #240 goddamnedfrank

So I can assume you’ll be sending the purveyors of The Ketchup Saver a very stern letter for desecrating your unique term and tradition:

It even looks like a marital aid.

258 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:00pm

A very serious story.

So, a penguin is driving along in the desert, and his car breaks down. He takes it to the mechanic and the mechanic says it will take him about an hour to fix it. The penguin decides to go to the nearby 7-11 to get some vanilla ice cream. Since penguins don’t have long arms, nor are they terribly coordinated, he ends up getting ice cream all over himself in his effort to consume the delicious comestible. After his snack, the penguin goes back to the mechanic, and the mechanic says “It looks like you blew a seal”. The penguin replies, “Nope, I just ate some ice cream”.

259 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:09pm

re: #225 Thanos

Oh, the pain is terrible. I know. Having your chest cracked open is not for wimps. He’s a bad ass man tho. Chosin Reservoir vet… real live war hero too!

I’m a foot taller than him and he scares the ever-loving shit out of me.

Told me (when I was dating his daughter) “I’ve had 30 kills. 31 don’t bother me.”

I am totally serious.

And I adore the man.

260 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:18pm

re: #233 calochortus

.

I suspect one big difference between civil unions and marriages is that federal law doesn’t say states need to recognize each others’ civil unions, nor do federal tax breaks or social security payments go to people with civil unions.

Ding ding ding.

A lot of people have been popping up in these threads saying, “Well, why not just a civil union that has all the same privileges?”

Well, I’d call that a marriage, but sure, I think that might be OK. The problem is, the same people who oppose same-sex marriage with big money and big threats ALSO oppose civil unions, or federal recognition of same.

And then I end up here with people saying, “Well, if I could get the moon for you, would you accept it without the sun?”

261 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:27pm

I fully support gay marriage because of the federal civil codes in place. I fully support Gay Marriage due to equal protection and the 14th amendment. I fully support gay marriage because it will tweak the fundy’s blue noses.

262 darthstar  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:35pm

Here’s some more fun wing-nuttery from Florida…

Marg Baker - GOP State House candidate:

We can follow what happened back in the 40s or 50s. I was just a little girl in Miami, and they built camps for the people that snuck into the country, because they were illegal. They put them in the camps, and they shipped them back. We can do that.

Concentration camps!

263 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:10:50pm

re: #234 Aceofwhat?

nope. that’s not what i said. scroll back farther.

although while we’re on this subject, have you ever seen a step-parent try to get custody of a step-child? tough sledding, which is odd, because none of our laws hold any special concern for the importance of a biological parent/

No one said that, but MARRIAGE does not have anything to do with biological relationships.

264 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:11:12pm

re: #256 Aceofwhat?

But i’m not talking about disrupting their ability to do any of that. If they could pursue a legal union to codify their relationship, would that do the trick?

What exactly is wrong with simply calling it “marriage”? Beyond your apparent dislike of applying that term to anything but heterosexual couples with one or more offspring?

265 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:11:37pm

re: #259 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, the pain is terrible. I know. Having your chest cracked open is not for wimps. He’s a bad ass man tho. Chosin Reservoir vet… real live war hero too!

I’m a foot taller than him and he scares the ever-loving shit out of me.

Told me (when I was dating his daughter) “I’ve had 30 kills. 31 don’t bother me.”

I am totally serious.

And I adore the man.

Your family has really had more than its share of medical troubles recently.

I hope everything gets better from here on out.

266 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:11:40pm

re: #250 Aceofwhat?

gasp. you mean that the same word, in colloquial English, can have more than one meaning or implication?

i wonder if that’s why it’s so important, in legal documents, to keep the semantics straight…no, it couldn’t be…

(btw, ketchup is a threat to the sanctity of my marriage…too much sugar)//

Yes, the reason that people argued against Loving was because they didn’t want a bunch of mixed race children getting married to ketchup bottles.

Use children. Sell inequality.

That’s.what.you.do.

267 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:11:52pm

re: #239 davesax

“But the people who create this insulting material about the Prophet Muhammad should not be naïve. They are digging deeply at the cultural values of huge numbers of people”

Really? By having a cartoon that didn’t even show the profit Mohammad in the first place?

We should show “restraint”?

And when did I say he’s a radical Islamist?

So this guy disagrees with you about South Park. What, exactly, does this demonstrate?

268 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:12:03pm

re: #256 Aceofwhat?

No, because Fed statute prevents the offspring in Gay civil unions from receiving SSI benefits if one spouse dies. It’s not pro family, it’s not equal.

269 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:12:07pm

re: #253 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Like recruiting from College students to replenish their numbers.
/

We had this very point raised here in New Zealand when we were considering expanding our human rights laws to exclude discrimination against gays in employment, housing etc. Some people said that if gays were allowed to be teachers, they would have more chances to recruit young people to their ‘cause’. (This was less than 20 years ago.) Thankfully, the majority of people rejected that line.

270 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:12:17pm

re: #249 Obdicut

YOu haven’t made an argument, Ace. You’re asserting that it’s not bigoted, based on a completely false presumption that the word ‘marriage’ signifies two fertile heterosexuals having children.

This is part of the problem. That is not what i said. This is what i said.

while that situation does not always occur in heterosexual marriages, the potential exists, or used to (my elders get married too). no such potential exists in a homosexual coupling. that does not make them bad…just different.

why would you misquote me so grossly? perhaps your belief that i haven’t made an argument is rooted in not reading me carefully enough?

271 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:12:23pm

I propose that we change the word “marriage” to the word “tuna sandwich”, and allow gay people to have tuna sandwiches.

That makes about as much sense as any argument against gay marriage I have seen here.

272 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:13:22pm

re: #270 Aceofwhat?

This is part of the problem. That is not what i said. This is what i said.

while that situation does not always occur in heterosexual marriages, the potential exists, or used to (my elders get married too). no such potential exists in a homosexual coupling. that does not make them bad…just different.

why would you misquote me so grossly? perhaps your belief that i haven’t made an argument is rooted in not reading me carefully enough?

Here’s an easy way to cut through, then, Ace:

Do you think that a couple who are known to be infertile should be allowed to get married, or should they have to get a civil union instead?’

273 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:13:41pm

re: #271 Fozzie Bear

don’t lesbians already get those?

//

274 wee fury  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:13:50pm

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

275 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:13:56pm

re: #269 Kruk

We had this very point raised here in New Zealand when we were considering expanding our human rights laws to exclude discrimination against gays in employment, housing etc. Some people said that if gays were allowed to be teachers, they would have more chances to recruit young people to their ‘cause’. (This was less than 20 years ago.) Thankfully, the majority of people rejected that line.

I had an openly gay professor back in 1974. He didn’t try to recruit me. It would have been a very tough sell anyway.

276 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:14:08pm

re: #248 Thanos

And it also presupposes that gays can’t have children, when we know that gayness does not make a person infertile, and that many gays have children. They find ways you know.

Back when Roberta Achtenberg was running for mayor of SF, my dad was very into her campaign. He was talking her up to a cranky friend of his, who didn’t want to vote for a lesbian. My dad kept talking about how wonderful and family-values oriented she was, and pointed out that she had a son (Benji was, I think, about eleven then.)

“She has a kid?” the friend grumbled. “Where’d she get HIM from?”

“Ted,” my dad said, “you’re a doctor. Do I really need to explain to you where babies come from?”

277 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:14:20pm

re: #271 Fozzie Bear

I propose that we change the word “marriage” to the word “tuna sandwich”, and allow gay people to have tuna sandwiches.

That makes about as much sense as any argument against gay marriage I have seen here.

I have to be honest, this is the very first time I’ve seen such an argument, that allowing gays to marry is wrong because “marriage” is reserved for a “unique” situation that exists between two heterosexual partners with one or more offspring.

278 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:14:42pm

re: #252 HoosierHoops

I hope y’all don’t hate me for this. I kinda noticed the same thing. Many folks that signed on were from “diversity type” groups. But they did not strike me as major religious leaders.

Now, that I’ve said that… I should add, we need more diversity/inter-faith cooperation groups.

So, I wasn’t complaining.

279 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:15:35pm

re: #278 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was kind of expecting it to be thirty Unitarian churches and a few Quaker meetings.

280 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:15:49pm

re: #274 wee fury

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

Good judges do not legislate from the bench, they interpret the law and the Constitution. When that conflicts with the results of a majority vote, that is not “to hell with voting”, it is doing one’s job of protecting the Constitution.

281 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:15:55pm

re: #255 Obdicut

Ace, the ‘lightness’ is not really appropriate, and really does seem like you’re condescending to everyone else on this thread.

Do you think that an infertile couple should not be allowed to get married, but only get a civil union?

Yes or no question.

levity is nearly always appropriate. i will make no apology for attempting to keep me and others in good humor, and i’m frankly disappointed that you’d even attempt to assert otherwise. lighten the fuck up, Francis.

I think that an infertile couple should be allowed to get married. Infertility does not preclude the creation of a child from the mother’s eggs and the father’s sperm, and the question of whether the prospective parents have enough raw materials to seed an artificial fertilization is too intrusive and too exceptional to preclude a marriage.

But that is not the question. The question is whether we can believe differently without being a bigot.

282 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:16:04pm

re: #274 wee fury

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

Before you get all wee-wee’d up, it is not “legislating from the bench” to overturn a law that violates the Constitution. It is judges doing what they are supposed to do.

To hell with voting? Yes, if voting results in violations of civil rights.

283 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:16:09pm

re: #256 Aceofwhat?

But i’m not talking about disrupting their ability to do any of that. If they could pursue a legal union to codify their relationship, would that do the trick?

Yes. You actually are. I’m sorry, but the argument on the floor in the US now is between people being able to get married and not. It doesn’t matter what we call it. The point of Prop 8 was not that people wished gay people would get civilly unionized instead.

284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:16:31pm

re: #265 Cato the Elder

No doubt. Mom’s in chemo, Paralyzed future son in law, … now this.

poop.

I was thinking, “only direction is up.” That’s just not true tho.

Thanks for the kind words.

285 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:17:16pm

Back to work! See ya, slackers!

286 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:17:31pm

re: #268 Thanos

No, because Fed statute prevents the offspring in Gay civil unions from receiving SSI benefits if one spouse dies. It’s not pro family, it’s not equal.

Then i quite disagree with that provision. That is not in the best interests of the children, at all. If the statute were changed to be more equitable, would your position change?

287 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:17:53pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

pimf. me = myself.

288 Jack Burton  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:17:55pm

re: #260 SanFranciscoZionist

And then I end up here with people saying, “Well, if I could get the moon for you, would you accept it without the sun?”

Just make sure they didn’t use Gru’s shrink ray to get it… if you decide to go that way.

/

289 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:18:11pm

re: #284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

No doubt. Mom’s in chemo, Paralyzed future son in law, … now this.

poop.

I was thinking, “only direction is up.” That’s just not true tho.

Thanks for the kind words.

So sorry to hear that, dude. All the best to you and your loved ones.

290 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:18:27pm

re: #274 wee fury

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

You are stupid.

291 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:18:32pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

Many forms of infertility actually do preclude the creation of a child from the mothers eggs and the fathers sperm, Ace.

Do you seriously not know that?

the question of whether the prospective parents have enough raw materials to seed an artificial fertilization is too intrusive and too exceptional to preclude a marriage.

It’s not exceptional at all, Ace. Infertility is a very common thing, and a lot of people aren’t comfortable with the medical treatments that get around it. Many of them are perfectly open and honest about it, too, so there’s no intrusiveness.

So, again:

Do you feel that a couple that is known to be infertile should be able to get married, or only get a civil union?

292 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:18:32pm

re: #274 wee fury

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

No. Just no.

See, we have this thing called the constitution, and it has a number of amendments. One of those amendments, the 14th, to be precise, has what is called the “equal protection clause”. This clause mandates that any law must equally apply to all, or it is unconstitutional.

The constitution also proscribes roles for each of the three branches of government. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and invalidate laws which violate the constitution. This is precisely what happened.

A constitutional republic isn’t just simple majority rule. It is majority rule, tempered by guidelines. Legislate outside the guidelines, and that legislation will be struck down.

Take your bullshit talking point, and shove it up your ignorance-hole.

293 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:19:04pm

re: #279 Obdicut

I was kind of expecting it to be thirty Unitarian churches and a few Quaker meetings.

OK, here’s a concept. We build the mosque, and call it the Cordoba House Unitarian Universalist Community Center. Then, the prayer services go on, and the kids swim, and we’re all happy, because nobody doesn’t like Unitarians.

Except for Garrison Keillor, but I don’t count him.

294 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:19:46pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

levity is nearly always appropriate. i will make no apology for attempting to keep me and others in good humor, and i’m frankly disappointed that you’d even attempt to assert otherwise. lighten the fuck up, Francis.

I think that an infertile couple should be allowed to get married. Infertility does not preclude the creation of a child from the mother’s eggs and the father’s sperm, and the question of whether the prospective parents have enough raw materials to seed an artificial fertilization is too intrusive and too exceptional to preclude a marriage.

But that is not the question. The question is whether we can believe differently without being a bigot.

Sure. We can believe differently without being bigots.

Now, why can’t my friends Mirele and Keyle get married again?

295 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:19:55pm

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Then i quite disagree with that provision. That is not in the best interests of the children, at all. If the statute were changed to be more equitable, would your position change?

Which do you consider easier? Making gay couples wait for years or decades for the slow advance of political progress to blunt Republican power in Congress enough to pass through sweeping revisions of all federal laws connected to marriage to make them recognize a separate arrangement specifically for them?

Or simply allow gay couples to be legally married and leaves the laws as they currently exist?

296 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:20:27pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

Your perseveration in the key of biological children borders on the psychotic.

297 calochortus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:20:28pm

re: #269 Kruk

We had this very point raised here in New Zealand when we were considering expanding our human rights laws to exclude discrimination against gays in employment, housing etc. Some people said that if gays were allowed to be teachers, they would have more chances to recruit young people to their ‘cause’. (This was less than 20 years ago.) Thankfully, the majority of people rejected that line.

Back in jr. high school (this would be the mid-60s) I had a couple of teachers who were almost certainly gay. I don’t recall their recruiting anyone. Heck, what did we know? I doubt the thought ever crossed any of our little minds. As far as we knew, teachers got put away in drawers in the teachers’ lounge overnight and were trotted out again in the morning. Our parents knew, but no one cared. They were fine teachers. My kids had a gay teacher in high school (in the 90s) and once again, it was a non-issue.

298 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:21:40pm

So to catch the thread up to date: Civil Union not equal to Marriage at Fed level, and words matter, and “They aren’t really that prominent” isn’t much of an argument.

299 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:22:07pm
300 wee fury  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:23:04pm

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

301 sagehen  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:23:56pm

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Then i quite disagree with that provision. That is not in the best interests of the children, at all. If the statute were changed to be more equitable, would your position change?

It’s not one provision, or two, or three — there’s 1800 rights that are part of the package deal when people get married.

And that’s just rights that come from the government; it doesn’t even begin to include private, free-market things like how auto insurance is cheaper for married people than singles, or family discounts to join a gym, or how expensive the legal fees are for paperwork to enable unmarried people to buy property together, if they can even get a joint mortgage…

302 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:24:49pm

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Then i quite disagree with that provision. That is not in the best interests of the children, at all. If the statute were changed to be more equitable, would your position change?

Ace, this is starting to make me sad, because you’re disregarding the very real legal disabilities of same-sex partnerships, and treating them like incidentals.

Yes, if you could deliver on the actual meat of marriage equality—partnerships with all the legal state and federal privileges of marriage—sure, I could live with calling those things marriages only colloquially, and having the state reserve the special word ‘marriage’ for heterosexual couples. I’d think it was stupid as hell, but I’d do it.

But you’re talking as though the real point here is whether such things get called marriages or not, and not whether equality under the law is available.

Believe me. The people who are pouring money and passion into preventing same-sex marriage, as political movement, are not in it to protect the word ‘marriage’. They are in it to prevent the state and nation from recognizing gay relationships as equal under the law.

You may be able to prove that there are special reasons that a person can want ‘civil unions’ instead of ‘gay marriages’ without being a bigot, but you’re not going to be able to disprove what I said above.

And so, when we go another round of “Well, what if they got absolute equality under the law? Would they be willing to give up on my special word THEN?” I get tired, and sort of impatient.

303 calochortus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:25:24pm

re: #299 Obdicut

LOL.

304 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:25:37pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

Prop 8 *was* a huge waste of time and money. A lot of people got very worked up about something that was none of their business.

305 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:25:41pm

It’s almost as though people fear that if we don’t preserve traditional definitions of marriage, we might not have a next generation to carry on the torch for humanity.

I submit that you could implement a strict penalty of flogging in the public square to nearly the point of death, and there would be no reduction in the incidence of childbearing.

People will fuck, no matter WHAT we do. Children will be born, and each parent will try their best to raise them well, because we are wired to love children every bit as much as we are wired to screw like rabbits. There is nothing to be afraid of. Humans, gay, straight, or asexual, are wired to see small creatures with round heads and large eyes, and nurture them.

There is nothing to worry about. NOTHING could change these basic facts. Children will always be cherished, even if the caretakers are dressed like the village people.

It just… doesn’t matter.

306 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:25:50pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

I’ve been wondering that myself for awhile. So far as I can tell, the pro-Prop 8 guys believed that, once voted into law, no judge would rule it unconstitutional because it enjoyed “majority support” and thus represented “the will of the people.”

307 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:26:08pm

re: #283 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. You actually are. I’m sorry, but the argument on the floor in the US now is between people being able to get married and not. It doesn’t matter what we call it. The point of Prop 8 was not that people wished gay people would get civilly unionized instead.

How do you know? Was there a survey, where 0.0% of “yay” Prop 8 voters registered in favor of civil unions as an alternative?

I’m asking in all seriousness. If there is a countermove underfoot to deny gays basic union rights, then I’ll sign up to the “they’re all bigots” camp.

308 calochortus  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:26:22pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

Because that’s the way the process works. The courts can’t review legislation or constitutional amendments that don’t exist.

309 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:27:16pm

This is what keeps happening when I go and read one of these articles by Imam Rauf that are supposed to be so upsetting — I keep discovering that he’s amazingly reasonable sounding, and the things I’m supposed to be upset about are actually either 1) exaggerated, or 2) taken out of context.

310 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:27:23pm

re: #305 Fozzie Bear

And Japan, the country with the lowest birth rate among industrialized nations, is one of the most gay-intolerant.

311 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:28:34pm

re: #309 Charles

He is more conservative than I am on the burqa issue, for example.

He is exactly the sort of Imam that, if we are serious about our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about supporting Israel, we need on our side.

Instead, he’s being demonized.

It’s insane.

312 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:28:42pm

re: #310 Obdicut

And Japan, the country with the lowest birth rate among industrialized nations, is one of the most gay-intolerant.

But they sure as hell love their small creatures with round heads and large eyes! They also sell used schoolgirl panties in vending machines on the street, so yeah, not alot of “traditional” basis to be found there, either.

313 blueraven  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:29:41pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

It was a huge waste of money as it was unconstitutional. The groups that forced the issue and got it on the ballot should be charged with the cost, and they should be ashamed.

314 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:31:03pm

re: #310 Obdicut

And Japan, the country with the lowest birth rate among industrialized nations, is one of the most gay-intolerant.

And yet mutant squid/schoolgirl relationships are gaining wider acceptance every day.

315 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:31:05pm

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

How do you know? Was there a survey, where 0.0% of “yay” Prop 8 voters registered in favor of civil unions as an alternative?

I’m asking in all seriousness. If there is a countermove underfoot to deny gays basic union rights, then I’ll sign up to the “they’re all bigots” camp.

There were plenty of racists during the Civil Rights movement who argued against doing away with things like Jim Crow and desegregation, saying it wasn’t because they hated black folks, but because they believed in “states rights.”

I’m sorry, but I’d have a hard time believing any poll of pro-Prop 8 folks saying that the majority are doing so because they think “civil unions” should be the goal.

316 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:31:06pm

re: #291 Obdicut

Many forms of infertility actually do preclude the creation of a child from the mothers eggs and the fathers sperm, Ace.

Do you seriously not know that?

Many ≠ all, which is why I qualified my statement accordingly. Read more carefully, s’il te plait.

It’s not exceptional at all, Ace. Infertility is a very common thing, and a lot of people aren’t comfortable with the medical treatments that get around it. Many of them are perfectly open and honest about it, too, so there’s no intrusiveness.

So, again:

Do you feel that a couple that is known to be infertile should be able to get married, or only get a civil union?

No.

By the way, i included above a nod to the elderly in order to head off this very question. To oppose the marriage of infertile couples is to oppose the marriage of elderly couples; that’s why i specifically included them.

317 wee fury  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:31:23pm

Appreciate the responses. I learned a lot.

318 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:32:31pm

re: #316 Aceofwhat?

Many ≠ all, which is why I qualified my statement accordingly. Read more carefully, s’il te plait.

No.

By the way, i included above a nod to the elderly in order to head off this very question. To oppose the marriage of infertile couples is to oppose the marriage of elderly couples; that’s why i specifically included them.

Great. So you don’t actually oppose gay couples getting married.

Thank god that’s over.

Or— can you explain why the couple being infertile as a matter of gender rather than other genetic causes matters?

319 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:32:44pm

re: #291 Obdicut

Many forms of infertility actually do preclude the creation of a child from the mothers eggs and the fathers sperm, Ace.

Do you seriously not know that?

It’s not exceptional at all, Ace. Infertility is a very common thing, and a lot of people aren’t comfortable with the medical treatments that get around it. Many of them are perfectly open and honest about it, too, so there’s no intrusiveness.

So, again:

Do you feel that a couple that is known to be infertile should be able to get married, or only get a civil union?

And to take this slightly further: Should the sweet old people who wed their childhood sweethearts in their 80s and 90s be denied the right to marry, and forced to have civil unions instead? At that age, one can pretty safely assume the question of biological children from the union is moot. Questions of inheiritance, retirement benefits, health care and the ability to make legal decisions for a person who can’t make them are not.

320 RadicalModerate  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:32:44pm

re: #274 wee fury

O.K.
Legislate from the bench. To hell with voting.

Do yourself a favor and look up the phrase “Tyranny of the majority”. I’d recommend starting with Federalist Paper #81 by Alexander Hamilton, where Judiciary powers and limitations are discussed.

321 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:33:32pm

One thing Japan in its favor, the growing number of returning Japanese Brazillian immigrants

322 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:33:40pm

re: #277 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I have to be honest, this is the very first time I’ve seen such an argument, that allowing gays to marry is wrong because “marriage” is reserved for a “unique” situation that exists between two heterosexual partners with one or more offspring.

i have heard it. this is one of my mother’s favorites. needless to say we don’t talk about this often. by the way, she is not a bigot. just a heterosexual supremacist.

323 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:33:42pm

re: #305 Fozzie Bear

It’s almost as though people fear that if we don’t preserve traditional definitions of marriage, we might not have a next generation to carry on the torch for humanity.

I submit that you could implement a strict penalty of flogging in the public square to nearly the point of death, and there would be no reduction in the incidence of childbearing.

People will fuck, no matter WHAT we do. Children will be born, and each parent will try their best to raise them well, because we are wired to love children every bit as much as we are wired to screw like rabbits. There is nothing to be afraid of. Humans, gay, straight, or asexual, are wired to see small creatures with round heads and large eyes, and nurture them.

There is nothing to worry about. NOTHING could change these basic facts. Children will always be cherished, even if the caretakers are dressed like the village people.

It just… doesn’t matter.

This “wiring” is evolutionary in origin. Perhaps fundamentalists believe heterosexual marriage is so fragile and vulnerable because they don’t believe in evolution. They do not understand the enormous power of the natural forces involved. For them, the same libs and pinkos who expelled God from education could easily abolish heterosexual marriage if they are given a chance to do so.

324 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:33:42pm

re: #314 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And yet mutant squid/schoolgirl relationships are gaining wider acceptance every day.

You make it sound like it’s a bad thing.

/

325 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:34:47pm

re: #305 Fozzie Bear

It’s almost as though people fear that if we don’t preserve traditional definitions of marriage, we might not have a next generation to carry on the torch for humanity.

I submit that you could implement a strict penalty of flogging in the public square to nearly the point of death, and there would be no reduction in the incidence of childbearing.

People will fuck, no matter WHAT we do. Children will be born, and each parent will try their best to raise them well, because we are wired to love children every bit as much as we are wired to screw like rabbits. There is nothing to be afraid of. Humans, gay, straight, or asexual, are wired to see small creatures with round heads and large eyes, and nurture them.

There is nothing to worry about. NOTHING could change these basic facts. Children will always be cherished, even if the caretakers are dressed like the village people.

It just… doesn’t matter.

I worked at a mostly gay synagogue for a while. This was the beginning of the great ‘gayby boom’, and hardly a week went by that someone wasn’t giving birth, or adopting, or flying to China to get their daughter.

The older men at the shul were fascinated. Theirs had been a generation where being gay really did preclude you from having a family. They went into hyperdrive, buying stuff for people to take to orphanages in Russia, worrying about whether there’d be room for the religious school in the new building.

It was interesting to watch.

326 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:35:07pm

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

How do you know? Was there a survey, where 0.0% of “yay” Prop 8 voters registered in favor of civil unions as an alternative?

I’m asking in all seriousness. If there is a countermove underfoot to deny gays basic union rights, then I’ll sign up to the “they’re all bigots” camp.

You do not get to keep the word “marriage” all to yourself and your kind. Period.

If that makes you feel less unique about your family, well, guess what? You were never unique to begin with.

327 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:35:50pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

I think that an infertile couple should be allowed to get married. Infertility does not preclude the creation of a child from the mother’s eggs and the father’s sperm, and the question of whether the prospective parents have enough raw materials to seed an artificial fertilization is too intrusive and too exceptional to preclude a marriage.

My mother re-married twelve years ago, several years after having a total hysterectomy, including the removal of both ovaries. My step-dad was sixty at the time with a vasectomy and an antipathy towards the idea of having any more kids.

Should that have been allowed? Should they have gotten a civil union instead?

After all, there was absolutely no procreative point to the exercise.

328 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:36:47pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

You may be able to prove that there are special reasons that a person can want ‘civil unions’ instead of ‘gay marriages’ without being a bigot, but you’re not going to be able to disprove what I said above.

Don’t be sad. I like you too much to make you sad. This is all i set out to prove, anyway. You’ll find that if you press me on any single point of inequality, I’ll wish it didn’t exist.

329 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:37:14pm

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

How do you know? Was there a survey, where 0.0% of “yay” Prop 8 voters registered in favor of civil unions as an alternative?

I’m asking in all seriousness. If there is a countermove underfoot to deny gays basic union rights, then I’ll sign up to the “they’re all bigots” camp.

Hmm, let’s turn this around. Can you find any evidence that the leadership of the Prop 8 movement has any tolerance for the idea of gay equality under the law? Because if you think this is NOT about denying gays basic union rights, you bloody well aren’t paying attention.

330 Randall Gross  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:37:51pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

Sure it was a huge waste of mormon church and out of state money, but the dictate of the masses will usually get overturned when it abrogates individual rights. That’s one of the truly beautiful things about this country — the majority cannot tyrannize the minority when it comes to rights.

331 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:38:38pm

There simply is no moral basis to the argument that gays should not be allowed to adopt. There are many orphaned children in this country, and many more in the world.

Unless one is prepared to make the argument that children are better off with no parents at all than they would be with adoptive gay parents, that argument falls flat as well.

Opposition to this not only has no moral basis, it is in itself an immoral position to take. There aren’t enough people who want to raise all the children that are out there. ANYBODY who is willing to do the job should be given a chance.

332 Kragar (Antichrist )  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:38:39pm

re: #324 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

You make it sound like it’s a bad thing.

/

I never meant it to.

/

333 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:39:06pm

re: #328 Aceofwhat?

Don’t be sad. I like you too much to make you sad. This is all i set out to prove, anyway. You’ll find that if you press me on any single point of inequality, I’ll wish it didn’t exist.

Except for reserving the term “marriage” exclusively to people like you. There’s a little bit of inequality you’re just fine with.

334 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:41:21pm

re: #328 Aceofwhat?

Don’t be sad. I like you too much to make you sad. This is all i set out to prove, anyway. You’ll find that if you press me on any single point of inequality, I’ll wish it didn’t exist.

That’s actually what’s making me sigh. So much money and fervor going into blocking equality, and we’re fighting about what to call things.

335 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:42:43pm

re: #318 Obdicut

Great. So you don’t actually oppose gay couples getting married.

Thank god that’s over.

Or— can you explain why the couple being infertile as a matter of gender rather than other genetic causes matters?

See? That made me chuckle. And i didn’t get upset that you made me chuckle/

It is not necessarily bigoted to say that there is something unique and special about a union in the tradition of a fertile coupling, even if the participants cannot or choose not to produce offspring.

Now if we start to go in SFZ’s direction, where the actual aim is to deprive homosexual unions of basic functionality which impairs their day-to-day life, then sure. That’s difficult to rescue from the charge of ‘bigotry’.

336 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:43:17pm

re: #334 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s actually what’s making me sigh. So much money and fervor going into blocking equality, and we’re fighting about what to call things.

It’s odd, but I was pretty sure that after Brown v Board and the Civil Rights Movement, that “separate but equal” being seen as anything but defacto discrimination was a dead concept.

337 JamesWI  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:43:50pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

And that is exactly what social cons do. They waste tons of time and money on things that likely will get overturned (in the case of gay marriage) or will no doubt be overturned (in the case of extreme abortion restrictions, creationism in the classroom) because they believe they are on a mission from Jesus, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.

338 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:44:16pm

re: #335 Aceofwhat?

See? That made me chuckle. And i didn’t get upset that you made me chuckle/

It is not necessarily bigoted to say that there is something unique and special about a union in the tradition of a fertile coupling, even if the participants cannot or choose not to produce offspring.

Now if we start to go in SFZ’s direction, where the actual aim is to deprive homosexual unions of basic functionality which impairs their day-to-day life, then sure. That’s difficult to rescue from the charge of ‘bigotry’.

Wow.

It’s like a bloody perpetual-motion machine with you.

OK. You’re unique and special.

Feel better now?

339 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:44:41pm

re: #338 Cato the Elder

Wow.

It’s like a bloody perpetual-motion machine with you.

OK. You’re unique and special.

Feel better now?

Just like everybody else. *rolls eyes*

340 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:45:04pm

re: #335 Aceofwhat?

Now if we start to go in SFZ’s direction, where the actual aim is to deprive homosexual unions of basic functionality which impairs their day-to-day life, then sure. That’s difficult to rescue from the charge of ‘bigotry’.

Since it has been established that gay people getting married is no threat to straight people and their families, what basis is left for arguing against the legality of gay marriage, save bigotry?

There is none. “Marriage” as an institution doesn’t need defending from gay people.

341 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:45:30pm

re: #329 SanFranciscoZionist

Hmm, let’s turn this around. Can you find any evidence that the leadership of the Prop 8 movement has any tolerance for the idea of gay equality under the law? Because if you think this is NOT about denying gays basic union rights, you bloody well aren’t paying attention.

Only that the proposition itself, and PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong, seems almost purposefully limited to ensure that there are other avenues for the pursuit of such rights.

Prop 8: should the constitution of california be amended to say that
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That’s the entirety of it, right? So i read that as being a narrow statement in order to leave latitude for the pursuit of robust unions. You think i’m being naive?

342 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:45:37pm

re: #339 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Just like everybody else. *rolls eyes*

Snowflakeology.

343 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:46:26pm

re: #335 Aceofwhat?

It is not necessarily bigoted to say that there is something unique and special about a union in the tradition of a fertile coupling, even if the participants cannot or choose not to produce offspring.

Sure. But that’s not what marriage is. That’s being a biological parent. So it has nothing at all to do with opposing gay marriage, or calling gay marriage marriage.

Again: Can you explain why a couple being infertile because of gender should have more weight than a couple being infertile because of any other genetic cause? Why does the first mean ‘civil union for you’ and the second ‘marriage’, in your book?

If the same infertile man marries a woman, in your version of things that’d be fine. But if that same infertile man married a man, you’d want it to be a civil union.

There is no logic to that. At all.

344 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:46:49pm

re: #340 Fozzie Bear

Since it has been established that gay people getting married is no threat to straight people and their families, what basis is left for arguing against the legality of gay marriage, save bigotry?

There is none. “Marriage” as an institution doesn’t need defending from gay people.

It does, on occasion, seem to need defending from straight people. After Britney Spears’ seventy-two hour marriage, several gay people I know more or less exploded. I’ve never seen so much venom directed at one pop star.

345 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:47:10pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

You think i’m being naive?

Yep. At best.

346 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:47:20pm

re: #335 Aceofwhat?

It is not necessarily bigoted to say that there is something unique and special about a union in the tradition of a fertile coupling, even if the participants cannot or choose not to produce offspring.

A marriage between two people who know they can’t have children is not in the tradition of a fertile coupling, though.

347 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:47:32pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

Only that the proposition itself, and PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong, seems almost purposefully limited to ensure that there are other avenues for the pursuit of such rights.

Prop 8: should the constitution of california be amended to say that
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That’s the entirety of it, right? So i read that as being a narrow statement in order to leave latitude for the pursuit of robust unions. You think i’m being naive?

Except that such unions, no matter how “robust,” are still not recognized by federal law and thus those who enter into such unions would basically be a second-class compared to heterosexual couples. I was under the impression that segregation, at least so far as in the legal sense, was frowned upon.

348 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:47:37pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

Only that the proposition itself, and PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong, seems almost purposefully limited to ensure that there are other avenues for the pursuit of such rights.

Prop 8: should the constitution of california be amended to say that
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That’s the entirety of it, right? So i read that as being a narrow statement in order to leave latitude for the pursuit of robust unions. You think i’m being naive?

Yes, very.

349 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:48:06pm

re: #333 Cato the Elder

Except for reserving the term “marriage” exclusively to people like you. There’s a little bit of inequality you’re just fine with.

I can make a baby with my significant other. That may or may not be, of itself, a significant enough inequality on which to justify separate terminology. But the biological inequality is there whether you like it or not. Science is mean sometimes…

350 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:48:08pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

You are being incredibly goddamn naive, Ace. To those of us with gay friends who have suffered, you are being insultingly naive.

351 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:48:50pm

re: #340 Fozzie Bear

Since it has been established that gay people getting married is no threat to straight people and their families, what basis is left for arguing against the legality of gay marriage, save bigotry?

There is none. “Marriage” as an institution doesn’t need defending from gay people.

i didn’t say it was a threat.

352 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:50:14pm

re: #349 Aceofwhat?

I can make a baby with my significant other. That may or may not be, of itself, a significant enough inequality on which to justify separate terminology. But the biological inequality is there whether you like it or not. Science is mean sometimes…

You know what, I wish you would stop boasting about your manly balls and all the little spermies in there and what they can do with your lady’s eggies.

It’s just unseemly.

353 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:50:26pm

re: #349 Aceofwhat?

I can make a baby with my significant other. That may or may not be, of itself, a significant enough inequality on which to justify separate terminology. But the biological inequality is there whether you like it or not. Science is mean sometimes…

Except science is not static, it’s ever-changing and progressing. Already, inroads have been made into allowing two women to produce offspring utilizing their own genetic material, rather than relying on an outside source.

354 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:51:03pm

re: #344 SanFranciscoZionist

It does, on occasion, seem to need defending from straight people. After Britney Spears’ seventy-two hour marriage, several gay people I know more or less exploded. I’ve never seen so much venom directed at one pop star.

There’s a great quote I heard about freedom. It’s like oxygen. If you have it, you never think about it. If you don’t have it, it’s all you can think about.

355 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:51:39pm

re: #351 Aceofwhat?

i didn’t say it was a threat.

You implied that it was a threat to your special uniqueness, precious.

356 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:51:52pm

re: #349 Aceofwhat?

I can make a baby with my significant other. That may or may not be, of itself, a significant enough inequality on which to justify separate terminology. But the biological inequality is there whether you like it or not. Science is mean sometimes…

Yes, but she is equally mean to the gay and the straight.

I have a good friend who is infertile as a result of an illness in her adolescence, and another who is probably so, due to emergency surgery when she was fourteen.

Both of them are straight. Both have been married to men. Neither was denied that right on the grounds that they couldn’t make children with their partner.

357 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:52:26pm

re: #345 Cato the Elder

Yep. At best.

re: #348 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, very.

I accept that charge. Accordingly, i will amend my position to “it is not necessarily bigotry to wish to reserve a symbolic nod to heterosexual marriage if one at least supports the right of any two people, on a state and federal level, to organize a legal relationship with survivorship, guardianship, etc. benefits as they see fit.”

better?

358 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:53:19pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

Only that the proposition itself, and PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong, seems almost purposefully limited to ensure that there are other avenues for the pursuit of such rights.

Prop 8: should the constitution of california be amended to say that
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That’s the entirety of it, right? So i read that as being a narrow statement in order to leave latitude for the pursuit of robust unions. You think i’m being naive?

Extremely. The Church of LDS didn’t spend millions of dollars pushing prop 8 so they could preserve “robust unions”. They did it because they hate gays. That’s all there is to it.

MARRIAGE DOESN’T NEED DEFENDING. The DOMA is bigotry enshrined in law. Prop 8 is bigotry enshrined in law. There is no rational basis for either. It is injustice, and any person that calls themselves a follower of Jesus, or a moral person, should oppose it fervently, or admit they know nothing of compassion.

This is basic golden rule shit here. This is basic humanity. This is morality, in its simplest form.

Shit this stuff makes me angry.

359 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:54:06pm

re: #353 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Except science is not static, it’s ever-changing and progressing. Already, inroads have been made into allowing two women to produce offspring utilizing their own genetic material, rather than relying on an outside source.

Sure. Two people plus science can do a lot of things that two people alone couldn’t do.

360 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:54:07pm

re: #357 Aceofwhat?

re: #348 SanFranciscoZionist

I accept that charge. Accordingly, i will amend my position to “it is not necessarily bigotry to wish to reserve a symbolic nod to heterosexual marriage if one at least supports the right of any two people, on a state and federal level, to organize a legal relationship with survivorship, guardianship, etc. benefits as they see fit.”

better?

No.

361 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:54:42pm

re: #309 Charles

Charles, that’s subjective.

To tell South Park’s creators to show “restraint” over, well, showing nothing all that offensive, anyway, after an implied threat to their life, makes me queasy. It’s implying that the responsibility for any backlash lies with them, and not the people who threaten violence. I would think a true moderate would, first and foremost, be unequivocal in condemning threates of violence, before warning that Muslims are deeply offended.

And thanks for pointing out his statements on Darfur. I guess what I’m looking for is an Arab-Muslim leader to unequivocally condemn the horrific genocide there, and I would think a true moderate would do that. But I guess that’s a matter of expectations, as well.

We could go on like this longer, but it seems we’re on different sides of the issue and that won’t change.

As far as your pointing out the hysterics of the right on this issue, good work. I’ve never stood with them. Years ago, when these boards were populated with right wing crazies, I stopped posting and even voiced my discomfort to you about it. I’m glad you purged them.

But really, the narrative that you’re hewing to - that anyone who has any discomfort with this is simply bigoted and stand with the bigots - is not one I agree with.

362 albusteve  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:55:38pm

I’m married to myself…quite an affair
pretty simple

363 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:55:48pm

re: #357 Aceofwhat?

re: #348 SanFranciscoZionist

I accept that charge. Accordingly, i will amend my position to “it is not necessarily bigotry to wish to reserve a symbolic nod to heterosexual marriage if one at least supports the right of any two people, on a state and federal level, to organize a legal relationship with survivorship, guardianship, etc. benefits as they see fit.”

better?

To me, irrelevant. Sorry, but given what some people I know went through over Prop 8—including getting fired, threats to their businesses, traumatized children and personal heartbreak—I honestly have a limited concern for the feelings of the opposition.

But if you’re on the equality bus, I’ll give you a seat, even if we may have to argue the whole way about the use of the word ‘marriage’.

364 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:55:55pm

re: #355 goddamnedfrank

You implied that it was a threat to your special uniqueness, precious.

no, i didn’t. i said that preserving different terms for different situations was not necessarily a bigoted position, although i’ve since amended it in light of SFZ, Cato, and Obdicut’s belief that i am being generously naive to the opponents of Prop 8.

phonics…get hooked, baby!

365 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:55:58pm

re: #359 Aceofwhat?

Sure. Two people plus science can do a lot of things that two people alone couldn’t do.

Such as allowing otherwise infertile heterosexual couples utilize that “unique potential” to produce offspring. But you seem to be okay with allowing them to be considered “married,” but two women using science to produce a biological offspring are “different.”

366 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:56:04pm

re: #360 Cato the Elder

No.

damn.

367 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:56:28pm

re: #357 Aceofwhat?


What symbolic nod would that be?

368 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:56:54pm

re: #365 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Such as allowing otherwise infertile heterosexual couples utilize that “unique potential” to produce offspring. But you seem to be okay with allowing them to be considered “married,” but two women using science to produce a biological offspring are “different.”

well, sure. it’s different. see, when the male becomes aroused…wait, really? you think it’s exactly the same??

369 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:57:39pm

re: #364 Aceofwhat?

Again: You are basing your argument about ‘different terms’ on a completely false assumption. The word ‘marriage’ is not in any way reserved for fertile couples currently, and you have provided absolutely no rationale why couples infertile on the grounds of gender shouldn’t be included in the word marriage.

370 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:57:39pm

Ace, do you believe that the golden rule is an excellent moral guide to live by?

371 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:58:18pm

re: #367 Obdicut

What symbolic nod would that be?

hmmm. how about the term ‘marriage’?

372 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:58:28pm

re: #368 Aceofwhat?

well, sure. it’s different. see, when the male becomes aroused…wait, really? you think it’s exactly the same??

Oh wait, so now the process is what matters? Infertile couples, regardless of the “unique potential,” are now out of the “marriage” pool too?

373 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:58:47pm

re: #371 Aceofwhat?

hmmm. how about the term ‘marriage’?

Bigot.

374 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 2:59:52pm

re: #370 Fozzie Bear

Ace, do you believe that the golden rule is an excellent moral guide to live by?

now THAT is an interesting question.

no. i don’t. i think it doesn’t go far enough. when i was little, i was a brat in large part because i felt like i was allowed to dish out whatever i could take.

i think an excellent moral guide to live by is “love thy neighbor as thyself”, and “love thy enemies”.

375 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:00:09pm

re: #371 Aceofwhat?

hmmm. how about the term ‘marriage’?

Well, given that that term isn’t currently a nod towards child-producing heterosexual couples, I don’t think we should preserve something that doesn’t exist.

Did I miss somewhere where you clearly explained why Infertile Igor should be allowed to marry Isolde but not Ivan?

376 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:00:22pm

re: #373 Cato the Elder

Bigot.

really? even though it describes different circumstances?

377 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:02:02pm

re: #357 Aceofwhat?

re: #348 SanFranciscoZionist

I accept that charge. Accordingly, i will amend my position to “it is not necessarily bigotry to wish to reserve a symbolic nod to heterosexual marriage if one at least supports the right of any two people, on a state and federal level, to organize a legal relationship with survivorship, guardianship, etc. benefits as they see fit.”

better?

Still bigoted.

378 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:02:17pm

re: #368 Aceofwhat?

well, sure. it’s different. see, when the male becomes aroused…wait, really? you think it’s exactly the same??

re: #374 Aceofwhat?

now THAT is an interesting question.

no. i don’t. i think it doesn’t go far enough. when i was little, i was a brat in large part because i felt like i was allowed to dish out whatever i could take.

i think an excellent moral guide to live by is “love thy neighbor as thyself”, and “love thy enemies”.

Why aren’t your gay neighbors relationships as unique and valuable as yours is? Why don’t you love them as you love yourself? Why aren’t they equal enough with you to share a word?

379 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:03:44pm

re: #375 Obdicut

Well, given that that term isn’t currently a nod towards child-producing heterosexual couples, I don’t think we should preserve something that doesn’t exist.

Did I miss somewhere where you clearly explained why Infertile Igor should be allowed to marry Isolde but not Ivan?

yes. not “should be allowed” but “could be argued without being a bigot”. keep the goalposts fixed.

the term is currently a nod, at least in the minds of some, towards couples in the tradition of child-producing unions. like i said above.

and don’t think you’re the only one with gay friends, or that i haven’t already had this discussion fifty times with mine. some agree, some disagree, but so far, 0 of them believe that only bigots can be in favor of mirroring the physical differences with a terminological difference.

380 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:05:35pm

re: #376 Aceofwhat?

really? even though it describes different circumstances?

Dickbigot.

381 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:06:39pm

re: #378 goddamnedfrank

re: #374 Aceofwhat?

Why aren’t your gay neighbors relationships as unique and valuable as yours is? Why don’t you love them as you love yourself? Why aren’t they equal enough with you to share a word?

they are unique and valuable. they’re different. for many people, different is code for “worse”. what many appear to be saying here is that in this case, perceiving a difference (which seems obvious to me) without perceiving inferiority is not humanly possible.

i beg to differ. (heh) one can be different without being inferior as a result.

i thought this would be self-evident to liberals.

(BAM! POW! ZING!)

well, at least one of us is having fun

382 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:07:28pm

re: #380 Cato the Elder

Dickbigot.

i am not bigoted against men, although i admit that i find them quite less attractive than women.

383 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:08:17pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

yes. not “should be allowed” but “could be argued without being a bigot”. keep the goalposts fixed.

What could be argued, Ace? Isn’t it that that marriage shouldn’t be allowed? If not, what do you mean by ‘could be argued?


the term is currently a nod, at least in the minds of some, towards couples in the tradition of child-producing unions. like i said above.

And in that vein, a gay couple is in that tradition as well, given how many adopt. It’s as much in that tradition as any other infertile couple. You have done nothing, zip, nada, zilch, zeppo, to show otherwise. You have not made an argument.



and don’t think you’re the only one with gay friends, or that i haven’t already had this discussion fifty times with mine. some agree, some disagree, but so far, 0 of them believe that only bigots can be in favor of mirroring the physical differences with a terminological difference.

I think misguided people can, as well, not just bigots. But I do believe that mandating that difference in terminology is bigoted.

Have you asked any of them whether they think many of the Prop 8 objectors really just wanted full-rights civil unions?

384 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:08:50pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

yes. not “should be allowed” but “could be argued without being a bigot”. keep the goalposts fixed.

the term is currently a nod, at least in the minds of some, towards couples in the tradition of child-producing unions. like i said above.

and don’t think you’re the only one with gay friends, or that i haven’t already had this discussion fifty times with mine. some agree, some disagree, but so far, 0 of them believe that only bigots can be in favor of mirroring the physical differences with a terminological difference.

What about interracial? Those are physical differences. Should they have different terms for the union in which they engage? It comes down to you feeling threatened by sharing the same word with a group you disagree with.

385 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:09:45pm

re: #382 Aceofwhat?

i am not bigoted against men, although i admit that i find them quite less attractive than women.

You’re bigoted about your swinging cod, and the fact that you’re married to a member of the opposite sex.

386 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:10:25pm

re: #381 Aceofwhat?

they are unique and valuable. they’re different. for many people, different is code for “worse”. what many appear to be saying here is that in this case, perceiving a difference (which seems obvious to me) without perceiving inferiority is not humanly possible.

i beg to differ. (heh) one can be different without being inferior as a result.

i thought this would be self-evident to liberals.

(BAM! POW! ZING!)

well, at least one of us is having fun

just like there is no difference in riding in the front or back of the bus. i mean really, everybody is on the bus. one isn’t better than the other just different. your arguments are getting worse.

387 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:10:31pm

re: #381 Aceofwhat?

You said ‘special’ Ace. Not ‘different’.

The marriage of two fertile people and two infertile people is indeed different. So is the non-marriage but actively-fucking relationship of either of those pairs.

So marriage doesn’t really have much to do with that.

388 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:10:53pm

re: #381 Aceofwhat?

they are unique and valuable. they’re different. for many people, different is code for “worse”. what many appear to be saying here is that in this case, perceiving a difference (which seems obvious to me) without perceiving inferiority is not humanly possible.

i beg to differ. (heh) one can be different without being inferior as a result.

“Separate but equal is inherently unequal.”

389 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:13:28pm

Isn’t “my relationship is special and unique and yours isn’t” rather definitional of bigotry when it comes right down to it?

390 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:13:33pm

re: #385 Cato the Elder

You’re bigoted about your swinging cod, and the fact that you’re married to a member of the opposite sex.

not at all. let me clarify. a heterosexual union is different in some respects than a homosexual union. i posit that one can support the codification of said difference without wishing to deny either group actual, meaningful rights, and thus without bigotry.

391 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:13:54pm

re: #384 recusancy

What about interracial? Those are physical differences. Should they have different terms for the union in which they engage? It comes down to you feeling threatened by sharing the same word with a group you disagree with.

The sad thing is that these are not just rhetorical questions. They were used in the argument against inter-racial marriage. And as was pointed about just above ‘seperate but equal’ is not equal. We seem to be fighting the very same battles generation after generation.

392 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:14:06pm

re: #390 Aceofwhat?

not at all. let me clarify. a heterosexual union is different in some respects than a homosexual union. i posit that one can support the codification of said difference without wishing to deny either group actual, meaningful rights, and thus without bigotry.

So separate but equal?

393 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:15:25pm

re: #389 allegro

Isn’t “my relationship is special and unique and yours isn’t” rather definitional of bigotry when it comes right down to it?

who said “yours isn’t”?

394 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:15:44pm

re: #390 Aceofwhat?

not at all. let me clarify. a heterosexual union is different in some respects than a homosexual union. i posit that one can support the codification of said difference without wishing to deny either group actual, meaningful rights, and thus without bigotry.

Be careful. Next thing you know, you’ll have gay couples sittin’ at lunch counters, demandin’ to be served. Or refusin’ to give up their seats on the bus.

/

395 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:16:34pm

re: #393 Aceofwhat?

You keep arguing that your relationship is “special and unique” and that’s why you should get to call your relationship marriage and teh gays shouldn’t get to.

396 Nimed  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:16:41pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

and don’t think you’re the only one with gay friends, or that i haven’t already had this discussion fifty times with mine. some agree, some disagree, but so far, 0 of them believe that only bigots can be in favor of mirroring the physical differences with a terminological difference.

Why should we do this with this particular physical difference? We don’t have special marriages for the tall, the skinny, the blond, the handicapped, or the infertile, or people with a mole right below their left nipple. This is because physical differences are only acknowledged by our laws when they are considered relevant for some reason — which brings us back to the original question of what’s so special about gender.

Also, AFAIK (but I could be wrong here), parental right are exactly the same in the case of biological or adopted children. Thus, even when it comes to paternity it can be argued that our legal framework already doesn’t recognize the notion that biological paternity is special.

397 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:17:05pm

re: #390 Aceofwhat?

not at all. let me clarify. a heterosexual union is different in some respects than a homosexual union. i posit that one can support the codification of said difference without wishing to deny either group actual, meaningful rights, and thus without bigotry.

So, you can have all the legal rights of a heterosexual married couple as a gay couple, but just don’t dare try to claim that you’re married?

That is bigotry.

398 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:17:22pm

re: #300 wee fury

To clarify.
Why put Prop. 8 on a ballot to be voted on (cost factors, etc) if the outcome can/will be overturned (again, cost factors).
Seems to me like a huge waste of time and money.

You realize that laws are created all the time, that take time and effort to vote on that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Was all of that a waste of time and effort? Prop 8 was determined by the judge to be a specific effort to disenfranchise a group of people from the same rights that other citizens have.

By definition it doesn’t matter if everyone wants something, if it’s unconstitutional it’s not going to happen unless there’s a constitutional amendment.

And who knows what the supreme court is going to do. they may determine the lower courts went to far and reverse the ruling. Ultimately the court decides what is constitutional. which is not something that can be overruled by a simple majority no matter how much people might want to at times. and that’s a GOOD thing.

399 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:17:30pm

re: #393 Aceofwhat?

who said “yours isn’t”?

You did, if the “yours” is a homosexual couple. Or are you arguing that they’re both unique just in different ways? Because that’s still making a separate but equal argument.

400 zora  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:18:40pm

re: #390 Aceofwhat?

not at all. let me clarify. a heterosexual union is different in some respects than a homosexual union. i posit that one can support the codification of said difference without wishing to deny either group actual, meaningful rights, and thus without bigotry.

except the right to marriage. i believe that you would classify marriage as a meaningful right. see the problem. you believe marriage is so meaningful that it is only for heterosexuals. give them some bootleg form of marriage or it’s ruined for all.

401 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:18:45pm

re: #392 recusancy

So separate but equal?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

402 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:19:42pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

All marriages are different. Ain’t no two alike.

403 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:19:47pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

Meh. You just used the term “marriage” for both unions. Was that so very difficult?

404 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:19:54pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

No.

405 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:20:46pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

It’s different because you want it to be.

406 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:21:05pm

re: #403 Cato the Elder

Meh. You just used the term “marriage” for both unions. Was that so very difficult?

No. Mind you, and i keep having to repeat this, i am not stating my position on the issue. I am testing whether one can support Prop 8 without being a bigot.

407 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:22:10pm

re: #406 Aceofwhat?

No. Mind you, and i keep having to repeat this, i am not stating my position on the issue. I am testing whether one can support Prop 8 without being a bigot.

Why is this the point you’ve decided really matters here?

408 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:22:17pm

re: #405 recusancy

It’s different because you want it to be.

well that’s just silly. i made babies. of course, total idiots can make babies, too. i don’t really think that distinction is worth the fuss. but i’m not ready to castigate those who fuss as “bigots”, given that the distinction is real as opposed to racial distinctions, which are perceived.

409 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:22:23pm

re: #406 Aceofwhat?

No. Mind you, and i keep having to repeat this, i am not stating my position on the issue. I am testing whether one can support Prop 8 without being a bigot.

And the answer is simple: one can’t.

410 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:22:31pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

You’re arguing that they’re “different” on biological grounds, correct? Crack open a history book and you’ll find all sorts of “arguments” made first for keeping blacks enslaved, then “separate but equal,” and finally from marrying white folk based upon “scientific evidence.” They went so far as to argue that blacks weren’t human, but rather little better than animals.

411 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:22:50pm

re: #361 davesax

Charles, that’s subjective.

To tell South Park’s creators to show “restraint” over, well, showing nothing all that offensive, anyway, after an implied threat to their life, makes me queasy. It’s implying that the responsibility for any backlash lies with them, and not the people who threaten violence. I would think a true moderate would, first and foremost, be unequivocal in condemning threates of violence, before warning that Muslims are deeply offended.

There are so many statements from Rauf condemning violence in the name of Islam, I don’t see this test as really being meaningful. In fact, in the very article about South Park you’re referring to, he is clearly referring to extremist violence when he says:

Can we be upset in these times of heightened national security that the Belgians and French want to know who is walking around on their streets?

So I think it’s pretty clear he isn’t trying to deny that Islam has problems with extremists who commit violent acts.

And thanks for pointing out his statements on Darfur. I guess what I’m looking for is an Arab-Muslim leader to unequivocally condemn the horrific genocide there, and I would think a true moderate would do that. But I guess that’s a matter of expectations, as well.

What he did do is to support Sudan on its first steps toward democracy (and with more than words, he went there as an election observer), while fully acknowledging Sudan’s existing problems. Doesn’t somebody eventually have to do things like this if these countries are to ever evolve out of the Middle Ages? And shouldn’t we be supporting Americans who do?

But really, the narrative that you’re hewing to - that anyone who has any discomfort with this is simply bigoted and stand with the bigots - is not one I agree with.

No, that’s not my point. The real bigots are the ones who are actively opposing this project. Not everyone who expresses discomfort is a bigot — but I think I can make a pretty good case for ignorance, because I still haven’t seen a really good reason for this “discomfort.”

412 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:24:26pm

re: #407 SanFranciscoZionist

Why is this the point you’ve decided really matters here?

Because i think it’s closeminded to paint an opposition as “bigots” when there exists any potential that an opposing argument is not, in fact, steeped in bigotry.

And i have low tolerance for closemindedness here at LGF.

I hope that i’ve kept my nose clean enough not to offend anyone, and that i’ve stated often enough that i’m not actually arguing MY position on this affair…and i accepted your and Cato and Obdicut’s charges of naivete earlier.

413 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:24:34pm

re: #406 Aceofwhat?

No. Mind you, and i keep having to repeat this, i am not stating my position on the issue. I am testing whether one can support Prop 8 without being a bigot.

It’s like “testing” whether one can support Jim Crow laws without being a racist. Supporting bigotry, regardless of whatever bullshit “excuse” or “argument” you may spout, is still bigotry.

414 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:24:44pm

re: #401 Aceofwhat?

i don’t think that’s an accurate analogy, and this reply is for Frank as well, who made the same point.

“separate but equal” fails racially because it fails logically, but aren’t homosexual marriages different than heterosexual marriages? not better or worse…just different. right?

You don’t get it, separate but equal fails institutionally. The only differences are in your head.

415 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:25:40pm

re: #410 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

You’re arguing that they’re “different” on biological grounds, correct? Crack open a history book and you’ll find all sorts of “arguments” made first for keeping blacks enslaved, then “separate but equal,” and finally from marrying white folk based upon “scientific evidence.” They went so far as to argue that blacks weren’t human, but rather little better than animals.

Yes. And i’ll find mathematical arguments proving that the earth was flat.

The question is not whether a similar argument failed in the past; the question is whether the item at hand is true or not.

416 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:27:26pm

re: #415 Aceofwhat?

Yes. And i’ll find mathematical arguments proving that the earth was flat.

The question is not whether a similar argument failed in the past; the question is whether the item at hand is true or not.

Weren’t you the one arguing just up-thread that legal precedent is on the side of biological parents, thus allowing gay couples to adopt is a bad idea because the law would not be on their side?

417 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:28:23pm

re: #408 Aceofwhat?

well that’s just silly. i made babies. of course, total idiots can make babies, too. i don’t really think that distinction is worth the fuss. but i’m not ready to castigate those who fuss as “bigots”, given that the distinction is real as opposed to racial distinctions, which are perceived.

You’re not ready to castigate yourself as a bigot. Most bigoted people don’t feel they are. And racial distinctions and height distinctions and age distinctions and weight distinctions are all real. It’s just that you just don’t have a problem with any of those (as you shouldn’t) therefore you can term them perceived.

418 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:28:38pm

re: #414 goddamnedfrank

You don’t get it, separate but equal fails institutionally. The only differences are in your head.

Ah. Well, the good news is that we’ve identified where we disagree. That, at least, is progress.

Courts usually favor the mother over the father in custody cases. Is that fair, in your opinion?

419 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:29:20pm

re: #416 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Weren’t you the one arguing just up-thread that legal precedent is on the side of biological parents, thus allowing gay couples to adopt is a bad idea because the law would not be on their side?

no. that’s a poor argument. what other bad things have you attributed to me in your mind? the Jim Crow thing was a nice touch. thanks for that.

420 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:30:13pm

re: #418 Aceofwhat?

Ah. Well, the good news is that we’ve identified where we disagree. That, at least, is progress.

Courts usually favor the mother over the father in custody cases. Is that fair, in your opinion?

Is there a law stating that the mother should be favored in custody cases? If not your analogy holds no water.

421 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:30:35pm

Sigh. It’s like arguing with a tar-baby.

422 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:31:39pm

re: #417 recusancy

You’re not ready to castigate yourself as a bigot. Most bigoted people don’t feel they are. And racial distinctions and height distinctions and age distinctions and weight distinctions are all real. It’s just that you just don’t have a problem with any of those (as you shouldn’t) therefore you can term them perceived.

let me extend my analogy from post 418. i think it’s unfair that mothers receive preferential treatment in custody cases. however, i’m open to the possibility that one can disagree with me without being a bigot…even though i am tempted to feel that such a disagreement would be - at least in part - bigoted.

Is that analogy solid enough for comparison?

423 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:33:09pm

re: #419 Aceofwhat?

no. that’s a poor argument. what other bad things have you attributed to me in your mind? the Jim Crow thing was a nice touch. thanks for that.

So what exactly are you trying to argue, Ace, because you haven’t been especially clear? You keep dragging the goalposts around, to the point that you can’t even remain consistent on what varieties of heterosexual couple qualify as “unique” enough to be considered “married.” And now you’re sounding like a 1960s “states rights” Dixiecrat, trying like mad to spin supporting a two-class system of “marriage” versus “robust unions” as anything but segregation and bigotry.

424 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:33:59pm

re: #420 recusancy

Is there a law stating that the mother should be favored in custody cases? If not your analogy holds no water.

IIRC, in cases where full custody was awarded to one spouse, it was awarded to the mother over 80% of the time. granted, i’d need to go find a link if you think that sounds fishy at face value.

425 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:34:14pm

re: #412 Aceofwhat?

Because i think it’s closeminded to paint an opposition as “bigots” when there exists any potential that an opposing argument is not, in fact, steeped in bigotry.

And i have low tolerance for closemindedness here at LGF.

I hope that i’ve kept my nose clean enough not to offend anyone, and that i’ve stated often enough that i’m not actually arguing MY position on this affair…and i accepted your and Cato and Obdicut’s charges of naivete earlier.

OK. Let me be clear—I absolutely support marriage equality. I think the overriding purpose of those who oppose it is to institutionalize bigotry against gay Americans. I think the people behind these movements promote bigotry, and those who vote for their measures, for whatever reasons, are enabling bigotry, whether they themselves deserve the specific title of ‘bigot’.

Not everyone who supported Jim Crow was a racist asshole. Most of them were endorsing the way things had always been, and responding to fears about how the world might change. I’m not going to damn them to the outer rings of hell…their lives are a whole story, and only they and God know it, not me. But did they vote for bigotry, did they support it? Hell, yeah, and no one now will deny that.

I’m more concerned with combating bigotry than I am with being absolutely sure I don’t unfairly malign anyone who might have voted against marriage equality in California with the purest of intentions. If want to get out and explain their motivations to me, they are welcome, and I’ve had this discussion with several real Prop 8 voters, who know exactly how I feel, and I know how they feel. But I am not going to worry about the feelers of people on LGF who don’t want to be called bigots but can’t explain why they’re not.

And who, BTW, don’t really deserve that you should take up so much of your time arguing a possible case for them.

426 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:35:53pm

re: #422 Aceofwhat?

et me extend my analogy from post 418. i think it’s unfair that mothers receive preferential treatment in custody cases. however, i’m open to the possibility that one can disagree with me without being a bigot…even though i am tempted to feel that such a disagreement would be - at least in part - bigoted.

Is that analogy solid enough for comparison?

It is not. In child custody cases the courts determine in the best interests of the child after extensive study of the family situation, usually done by third party psychologists. If mothers are more often awarded custody in a dispute it is because it is determined, after study, that she is the most qualified for the job.

No such argument can be made in arguing for or against gay marriage.

427 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:37:10pm

Thought experiment:

A heterosexual union that is unstable deserves the term “marriage” less than a homosexual one that is “robust”.

Yes or no?

428 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:37:54pm

re: #408 Aceofwhat?

well that’s just silly. i made babies. of course, total idiots can make babies, too. i don’t really think that distinction is worth the fuss. but i’m not ready to castigate those who fuss as “bigots”, given that the distinction is real as opposed to racial distinctions, which are perceived.

Racial differences are just as real, genetic; physical, observable differences can be cheaply verified with any reflective light meter. Those differences are still meaningless rubbish. Just like your perception that consanguine parent - child relationships are inherently better is rubbish.

re: #421 Cato the Elder

Sigh. It’s like arguing with a tar-baby.

That likes to use children to sell inequality.

429 allegro  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:38:27pm

re: #425 SanFranciscoZionist

Upding a hundred million eleventy times

430 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:38:58pm

re: #425 SanFranciscoZionist

And who, BTW, don’t really deserve that you should take up so much of your time arguing a possible case for them.

All right. I read all of that. And you are so incredibly fair-minded that i have an enormous amount of respect for you as a bellweather.

I am also pursuing this debate because it’s an unpopular line of thinking here, and sometimes i enjoy debating a point that requires me to respond quickly to a number of sharp people.

But if i am in danger of really making people sad, or doing irreparable damage to my ability to be taken seriously in unrelated discussions in the future because this debate is simply traumatic, then i will stop immediately on your word alone.

I’m having fun. And i’m trying to be clear about the fact that i don’t personally support denying anyone the rights that i have as a husband. But if it’s all too much, say the word, and i’ll quit, and i won’t hold it against you for a second. I trust you that much.

431 albusteve  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:39:28pm

what’s with
hte gheys….or whatever
I don’t get it

432 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:40:33pm

re: #422 Aceofwhat?

let me extend my analogy from post 418. i think it’s unfair that mothers receive preferential treatment in custody cases. however, i’m open to the possibility that one can disagree with me without being a bigot…even though i am tempted to feel that such a disagreement would be - at least in part - bigoted.

Is that analogy solid enough for comparison?

How does this analogize with wanting separate but equal treatment? This just sounds to me like you trying to be a character witness to yourself recalling a time in the past where you restrained yourself from calling someone else a bigot.

433 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:42:56pm

re: #432 recusancy

How does this analogize with wanting separate but equal treatment? This just sounds to me like you trying to be a character witness to yourself recalling a time in the past where you restrained yourself from calling someone else a bigot.

i’m simply trying to think of a situation where our society has more or less embraced a practice that, when examined dispassionately, smacks of “separate but equal”, where my shoe would be on my other foot. follow?

434 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:43:45pm

re: #430 Aceofwhat?


I’m having fun. And i’m trying to be clear about the fact that i don’t personally support denying anyone the rights that i have as a husband. But if it’s all too much, say the word, and i’ll quit, and i won’t hold it against you for a second. I trust you that much.

How is it fun to base an argument on a false assumption and ignore that when it’s pointed out to you multiple times?

What is the fun part of this for you?

435 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:43:50pm

re: #428 goddamnedfrank

That likes to use children to sell inequality.

i am not saying better. i said that the LAW says better.

436 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:44:52pm

re: #433 Aceofwhat?

i’m simply trying to think of a situation where our society has more or less embraced a practice that, when examined dispassionately, smacks of “separate but equal”, where my shoe would be on my other foot. follow?

Actually I have no freaking idea what that means.

437 recusancy  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:44:54pm

re: #430 Aceofwhat?

All right. I read all of that. And you are so incredibly fair-minded that i have an enormous amount of respect for you as a bellweather.

I am also pursuing this debate because it’s an unpopular line of thinking here, and sometimes i enjoy debating a point that requires me to respond quickly to a number of sharp people.

But if i am in danger of really making people sad, or doing irreparable damage to my ability to be taken seriously in unrelated discussions in the future because this debate is simply traumatic, then i will stop immediately on your word alone.

I’m having fun. And i’m trying to be clear about the fact that i don’t personally support denying anyone the rights that i have as a husband. But if it’s all too much, say the word, and i’ll quit, and i won’t hold it against you for a second. I trust you that much.

I’m guessing that you love the sound of your well spoken voice and sight of your well written words so much that you may overestimate the intelligence of your thought.

438 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:45:33pm

re: #434 Obdicut

How is it fun to base an argument on a false assumption and ignore that when it’s pointed out to you multiple times?

What is the fun part of this for you?

really? i need to justify that i’m having fun?

is everything ok? if you’re just in a chippy mood, i can roll with it, but…?

439 Targetpractice  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:46:03pm

I gotta run out and pick up a few things, so BBL

440 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:46:59pm

re: #436 Cato the Elder

Actually I have no freaking idea what that means.

that criticism, from you, is quite meaningful. i will try again.

i’m simply trying to think of a situation where our society has more or less embraced a practice that, when examined dispassionately, smacks of “separate but equal”.

441 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:47:28pm

re: #437 recusancy

I’m guessing that you love the sound of your well spoken voice and sight of your well written words so much that you may overestimate the intelligence of your thought.

well…i do think i’m the cat’s meow. so you may have something there/

442 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:48:23pm

re: #438 Aceofwhat?

really? i need to justify that i’m having fun?

is everything ok? if you’re just in a chippy mood, i can roll with it, but…?

What the hell, Ace.

I just don’t get this.

Really, how is it fun? What’s the fun part? Why is making— or really, failing to make— an odious argument, on a subject that causes many people personal pain, fun

I’m not just in a chippy mood. At all.

I want to understand what’s fun about this for you. If you were arguing well, it’d be one thing, but your basic premise is fundamentally flawed: the word ‘marriage’ does not connote ‘couple that has or could have a child’.

Any man and woman could have a child together.

443 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:50:19pm

re: #435 Aceofwhat?

i am not saying better. i said that the LAW says better.

And you’re against the law being changed in California, because it’s the law and you respect legal inertia, not because you’re a bigot.

Again, Loving v. Virginia. I’m sure there were plenty of people then who felt the same way about the ban on interracial marriage ending as you do now about gay marriage, for the same exact reasons, and they weren’t bigots either, they were just incredibly, embarrassingly wrong.

444 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:53:01pm

re: #442 Obdicut

What the hell, Ace.

I just don’t get this.

Really, how is it fun? What’s the fun part? Why is making— or really, failing to make— an odious argument, on a subject that causes many people personal pain, fun

I’m not just in a chippy mood. At all.

I want to understand what’s fun about this for you. If you were arguing well, it’d be one thing, but your basic premise is fundamentally flawed: the word ‘marriage’ does not connote ‘couple that has or could have a child’.

Any man and woman could have a child together.

If it were that odious, i wouldn’t have any more gay friends. Down with the hackles.

The word “marriage” connotes many things. It is possible to support the codification of the term as a heterosexual union because one does believe that the connotation and tradition of fertility is worth the semantic effort. I do not think that is a bigoted opinion unless it is a trojan horse to deprive any couple of the actual fundamental rights that a marriage endows.

445 garhighway  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:53:57pm

re: #182 Aceofwhat?

what’s the difference between a marriage and a civil union guaranteeing all of those things?

Have you read the opinion?

446 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:54:09pm

re: #443 goddamnedfrank

And you’re against the law being changed in California, because it’s the law and you respect legal inertia, not because you’re a bigot.

Did i say that? I’ve been saying over and over that one COULD be against the law being changed in Cali for that reason, and that one COULD support Prop 8 for reasons unrelated to fear and bigotry. However, if i accidentally made it sound like that was my actual personal position, i’m sorry. It is not.

447 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:54:13pm

re: #440 Aceofwhat?

that criticism, from you, is quite meaningful. i will try again.

i’m simply trying to think of a situation where our society has more or less embraced a practice that, when examined dispassionately, smacks of “separate but equal”.

Yet what you’re actually advocating is just that. “Marriage” for thee, but not for those two guys or gals over there. They get “civil unions”.

Look. No one is trying to force churches or synagogues to marry couples that they don’t consider to be valid couples. No one is telling churches that they have to officiate over marriages between, say, an atheist man and a voodoo-woman, either. So what possible problem does it pose for you, aside from a threat to your special uniqueness, if some other church that you don’t attend on the other side of town decides that they want to perform such ceremonies? Is it teh repulsive ghey-sex images that spring to your mind? Is it the thought of people doing things with their equipment that you wouldn’t do with yours? Is it really about babies, and nothing but babies?

You ought to get over your word-fetish.

448 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:56:39pm

re: #444 Aceofwhat?

If it were that odious, i wouldn’t have any more gay friends. Down with the hackles.

.

Don’t presume to tell me what or what I do not find odious, and don’t use the ‘Some of my best friends are X’ defense, please

The word “marriage” connotes many things. It is possible to support the codification of the term as a heterosexual union because one does believe that the connotation and tradition of fertility is worth the semantic effort.

Only if, as I said, you ignore that this is not actually the case. Marriage does not connote fertility, and it is not a tradition of fertility. It is a tradition of two people binding together in support of each other in many things— among them, traditionally, in raising children. Furthermore, you have done nothing, at all, in any way, to address why infertile couples who are infertile because of gender should have to get a civil union while infertile couples who are infertile for other reasons should.


”’ I do not think that is a bigoted opinion unless it is a trojan horse to deprive any couple of the actual fundamental rights that a marriage endows

It is not necessarily a bigoted opinion. It is a thoroughly illogical one based on a completely false premise.

Again: What is fun about this for you?

449 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:57:06pm

re: #447 Cato the Elder

And now i will admonish you. Unless i have made some accident, you are purposefully misreading me to imply that this is my personal position…because i refuse to believe that you have such poor reading comprehension that you’ve misread me by accident.

I know it infuses you with helpful passion to project this position to me personally, but it’s not my opinion. My opinion is that one COULD adopt this position, not that i HAVE.

450 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:57:45pm

re: #446 Aceofwhat?

Did i say that? I’ve been saying over and over that one COULD be against the law being changed in Cali for that reason, and that one COULD support Prop 8 for reasons unrelated to fear and bigotry. However, if i accidentally made it sound like that was my actual personal position, i’m sorry. It is not.

I find it borders on the incredible that anyone would spend as much time and energy as you have done here to defend a hypothetical person against a hypothetically misplaced charge of bigotry.

In fact, I don’t believe you. I think you are defending yourself, in a mealy-mouthed, roundabout way, against a charge of which you know yourself to be guilty.

451 Mr Pancakes  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:59:18pm

I had something profound to say on this subject, but after a ferocious burple, I lost my train of thought.

452 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:59:29pm

re: #450 Cato the Elder

I find it borders on the incredible that anyone would spend as much time and energy as you have done here to defend a hypothetical person against a hypothetically misplaced charge of bigotry.

In fact, I don’t believe you. I think you are defending yourself, in a mealy-mouthed, roundabout way, against a charge of which you know yourself to be guilty.

Don’t be a nincompoop. I’ve been away from LGF for a while. I have an unusually large appetite for debate tonight. I’m no liar. This isn’t “spending energy”. Killing myself on the tennis court is “spending energy”, and even that is fun. This is recreation.

453 Cato the Elder  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:01:23pm

re: #451 Mr Pancakes

I had something profound to say on this subject, but after a ferocious burple, I lost my train of thought.

And with that, I’m going to let it drop. Thanks for the laugh!

454 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:02:32pm

re: #448 Obdicut


Don’t presume to tell me what or what I do not find odious, and don’t use the ‘Some of my best friends are X’ defense, please

Please. You did the “my gay friends would be offended” bit. Don’t whine about my following the path you blazed.

It is not necessarily a bigoted opinion. It is a thoroughly illogical one based on a completely false premise.

Again: What is fun about this for you?

All right. It’s not bigoted. Progress!

Look, my killing you on the tennis court might be fun for me. Your boxing my lights out in the ring might be fun for you. I miss LGF. Been away - busy. It struck me that i was in the mood to debate an unpopular position, so i did. So what? It’s a debate. Debates are fun.

455 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:02:43pm

re: #451 Mr Pancakes

I had something profound to say on this subject, but after a ferocious burple, I lost my train of thought.

awesome

456 Mr Pancakes  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:04:49pm

re: #455 Aceofwhat?

awesome

Hey dude….. burple saved your ass!

457 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:06:40pm

re: #454 Aceofwhat?

Please. You did the “my gay friends would be offended” bit. Don’t whine about my following the path you blazed.

You really, really, really, really, really need to learn a greater capacity for self-criticism.


All right. It’s not bigoted. Progress!

Yes. If you contort yourself to avoid reality, and make an argument based on a false assumption, it can be not bigoted.

Which I actually said about fifty posts ago.


Look, my killing you on the tennis court might be fun for me. Your boxing my lights out in the ring might be fun for you. I miss LGF. Been away - busy. It struck me that i was in the mood to debate an unpopular position, so i did. So what? It’s a debate. Debates are fun.

You don’t have an argument, though. This isn’t a debate. This is you lying on the ground claiming we’re having a boxing match. This is you eating a tennis ball and claiming we’re having a tennis match.

You have not made an argument. You have made a number of false assumptions— that the lexiconal use of ‘marriage’ refers to or nods to the biological capacity to produce children, rather than the relationship between those two people, and that infertility because of gender matters in some way that infertility for other genetic reasons— and based your non-argument on that.

This is not a debate. This is tiring, annoying, and I’m going to go make dinner.

458 Kruk  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:07:48pm

One final thought on this, and then I’m out: “Marriage” has been precisely defined over and over in case law in hundreds of different situations over the decades. “Civil Union” has not. No matter how carefully the legislation is crafted, any law that grantscivil unions but not marriages to gay couples will force those couples to extend in long and expensive legal battles to gain the rights that married couples have without question. (Americans, who are famously litigious over the smallest legal points, would be different in this case? Please.) So, what these no-bigoted people are claiming is that gays should have to go through years of pain so that they can reserve a word for themselves alone. And that’s not bigotry?

459 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:07:59pm

re: #456 Mr Pancakes

Hey dude… burple saved your ass!

cheers-

460 Wozza Matter?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:12:11pm

re: #125 davesax

Charles, my old friend, I’m not sure how to answer that.

The statement, “I honestly cannot see a single objection that isn’t based on prejudice”, isn’t really an invite to debate.

mate, y0u have to atleast have TRIED to to make a sensible argument against the mosque/community centre/swimming pool in order to claim that Charles has shut down debate. He has given people - since the start of this debate to come up with an argument that does not involve denying religious liberty against the constitution…..and no one has…..

461 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:19:10pm

re: #457 Obdicut

You have not made an argument. You have made a number of false assumptions— that the lexiconal use of ‘marriage’ refers to or nods to the biological capacity to produce children, rather than the relationship between those two people, and that infertility because of gender matters in some way that infertility for other genetic reasons— and based your non-argument on that.

This is not a debate. This is tiring, annoying, and I’m going to go make dinner.

Look, you’re always welcome to leave a discussion because you don’t think it’s fun, and i won’t hang around claiming victory. why keep debating if it’s tiresome? you don’t owe me that…i don’t want that favor. i’m sorry if you think i begged you to stay past your expiration date.

but let me restate my assumption, one more time, because the one you wrote above is not correct. i may be right or wrong, i’m not trying to score here, but i want to be clear.

oops - i already explained this. i’ll just quote you.

“Only if, as I said, you ignore that this is not actually the case. Marriage does not connote fertility, and it is not a tradition of fertility. It is a tradition of two people binding together in support of each other in many things— among them, traditionally, in raising children.”

raising biologically related children = fertility. mind you, i am not saying that this needs to be the ultimate factor. I simply think that it could be the ultimate factor in someone’s mind, and no Cato, i am not talking about me.

my opinion is that we place too much emphasis on biology.

IMHO, the bigotry actually enters the scene when someone wishes to withhold more than just the traditional semantic terminology. That is my point - that there is room for semantic dithering among non-bigots here.

463 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 4:54:31pm

re: #462 joest73

So how about the NCOC? Not so fringe.

464 joest73  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 5:47:16pm

re: #463 Aceofwhat?

So how about the NCOC? Not so fringe.

Fringe? No. Controversial? Maybe.

465 Pacificlady  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 7:30:20pm

Who gives a rat’s ass if Tom want to marry Harry, and Cindy wants to marry Jane? America is imploding. People need jobs, and our borders need to be secure.

466 davesax  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 9:18:31pm

Charere: #411 Charles

Charles:

Thanks for taking the time to hash this out.

I will take your points to heart.

467 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 10:05:44pm

re: #78 Shiplord Kirel

I went through the same process on the other side. Coming from grandparents who walked into NYC voting booths, pulled the “straight Democratic” lever, and walked out, and parents who were fervent Wilson-FDR-Truman-Stevenson Democrats, I watched the party of my family disintegrate during the later Sixties and Seventies into a pathetic pile of beached jellyfish, with all the backbone of your basic amoeba. I spent years supporting Republicans whom I really didn’t like, then Democrats I didn’t like.

Now I vote against. Neither the party with no heart nor the party with no spine deserve my vote.

Just as I won’t worship a “God” who permits so much crap to happen to people who don’t deserve it and rewards the most vile, I will not vote for people of either party who are so mean-spirited yet so weak.

468 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Aug 12, 2010 10:24:56pm

re: #179 JasonA

The Night of Broke in Ass.

And with that gem, I am outta here.

Obviously, you define “gem” a little differently than I do. Yeesh!

re: #185 dallasdoc

I hate to be difficult, as i do support the statement. But, are these really ‘top” religious leaders as the press release claims, or ‘prominent’ religious leaders as the LGF site claims? I cannot speak about the Christian and Moslem leaders at all, but the Jewish names are hardly top or prominent. few if any represent or lead anything other than local or very small national groupts

Judaism has many different branches. The main ones, as is well known among us, are Traditional Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanistic, and Fundraising. The top Jewish leaders (to the extent that we HAVE religious leaders, which isn’t much) are weenies, mostly afraid of alienating anyone, too scared of their own shadows to take a stand on anything lest they lose their version of manna, specifically donations.

I can’t speak for the other rabbis involved, but I am personally acquainted with Rabbi Ingber. We’ve worked together on several projects (or more accurately, I’ve done some minor work on projects he’s spearheaded), I’ve been in a play or two with one of his three daughters, and my late roommate and he were very good friends. He’s no left-wing loon by any means. He’s one of the few clergymen on this planet of whom I can say, “If he’s for it, that’s pretty much good enough for me.”


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
St. Vincent - the Melting of the Sun (Official Video) Pre-order/save the new album Daddy's Home, out May 14th: lnk.ilovestvincent.comListen to "The Melting Of The Sun": lnk.ilovestvincent.comListen to "Pay Your Way In Pain": lnk.ilovestvincent.com Watch St. Vincent perform live on SNL: lnk.ilovestvincent.com Animation by Chris McD CALL 1-833-77-DADDY FOLLOW ...
Thanos
23 hours, 15 minutes ago
Views: 117 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 5 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210404Did you spend all week thinking about solar power and pumps? We didn't either.A week of flawless electrics and hydraulics.The first few days we went out to check on it like hourly.Now we don't even think about itThe proof of ...
Dangerman
3 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 305 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 •
Springsteen - “Prove It All Night” Live at Cleveland Agora, 1978This is so perfect.
Secret ANTIFA Operative
6 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 480 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 3 •
Foster the People - Lamb’s Wool (Official Music Video) Official animated music video for Foster The People's single 'Lamb's Wool' off of their most recent EP 'In The Darkest Of Nights, Let The Birds Sing'. Listen to 'Lamb's Wool' here: stem.ffm.to Listen to 'Lamb's Wool (with Poolside)' here: ...
Thanos
6 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 440 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Talk Talk - It’s My Life (Live at Montreux 1986) Live at Montreux 1986 is a concert video release by the British synth pop band Talk Talk of a concert at 1986 Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland. The show was part of a tour that started in April 1986 ...
Thanos
6 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 489 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
KALEO - Skinny [OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO] Music and Lyrics by JJ Julius SonNew song “Skinny" available now: kaleo.lnk.toFrom the upcoming album Surface Sounds out 4/23: kaleo.lnk.to What makes you feel good?What makes you angry inside? Why don’t you love me?You want to fuck me or ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 575 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
Hania Rani - Live From Studio S2 Listen to 'Live from Studio S2': hania-rani.lnk.to The full live set video was premiered on the evening before the annual Piano Day worldwide celebrations (March 29th). The motivation to make the recording of the live performances which became the ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 552 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Billy F Gibbons - West Coast Junkie “West Coast Junkie” the new music video by Billy F Gibbons from his forthcoming album ‘Hardware’, available on June 4th on Concord Records. Pre-order ‘Hardware’: found.eeGet signed and exclusive bundles: found.ee Directed by: Harry ReeseProduced by: Matt Sorum Listen ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 1,248 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Morcheeba - the Moon (Official Music Video) Listen to 'The Moon' streaming now: morcheeba.lnk.toWritten by I. Žilić/S. Edwards - Directed by Martin J. Pickering for Big Head MediaPre-order 'Blackest Blue', released May 14th: morcheeba.lnk.to Connect with Morcheeba: morcheeba.ukFacebook: facebook.comInstagram: instagram.comTwitter: @morcheebaband ---------- Credits Production Company: Big ...
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 1,015 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210328Wednesday we built a small frame for the low voltage disconnect moduleWired it up and put it in line between battery and pumps.Turns them off at 8 volts so the battery doesn't over discharge down to zero.Then it waits for ...
Dangerman
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 796 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 •