Stealth this, bitches!
From Legal Insurrection:
The meme has taken hold that Kagan is a stealth candidate who has avoided taking positions on important constitutional or other issues throughout her career.
But on one issue of critical importance to the left — the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Kagan has staked out a very clear and unequivocal position: There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In the course of her nomination for Solicitor General, Kagan filled out questionnaires on a variety of issues. While she bobbed and weaved on many issues, with standard invocations of the need to follow precedent and enforce presumptively valid statutes, on the issue of same-sex marriage Kagan was unequivocal.
In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
This doesn’t mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
Which naturally raises the question: why does Obama so hate freedom? And the gays — even when his nominee is pretending not to?
I guess this explains why Greenwald hates her so much.
Answer: They are a small enough niche constituency that they needn’t be pandered to. Especially since the God-bothery, xtianist-taliban, superstitious bitter clingerz will never appeal to them anyway.
No alternative, no pandering.
Unlike the amnesty crew.
That’s a good looking dude right there.
There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a Constitutional right for the failshit federal government to define marriage as just between a man and a woman.
Especially with the U.S. government being gay and all.
thanks for that word Pablo it’s very zeitgeisty
I can’t see a problem in elevating a person with very little experience to one of the highest offices in the land.
I mean, the individual simply has to be better than the person they are replacing, right?
What’s the worst that could happen?
A very handsome woman, she.
Set aside the fact that the broader point of my post is that Kagan surely doesn’t believe her own extremist rhetoric (not that she believes it but is willing to sell her principles away). The Bernard Shaw quip is widely used in political discourse (here’s just one example) to criticize someone for selling out; it obviously doesn’t carry (and in my case certainly wasn’t intended to carry) the particular stigma that a narrowly literal understanding would convey.
Blah blah blah, TL;DR.
Why does he not just say “Suck it, bitches!”
“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a Constitutional right for the failshit federal government to define marriage as just between a man and a woman.”
Actually, doesn’t the fact that the constitution does NOT prohibit something mean that’s fair game for the legislature to define it? That’s pretty much the way the legislative process is supposed to work based on my rather simplistic understanding.
I don’t know scooter that sounds like a legal question
Actually, doesn’t the fact that the constitution does NOT prohibit something mean that’s fair game for the legislature to define it?
I was going to respond to that as well, and say ‘It doesn’t, but they still do’.
What stopped me is there some line of crazy, insane, wacky thinking that claims anything the constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize the Federal government to do, they cannot do, as it is reserved for the states.
And no kidding I just had a bit of a to-do with a colleague at work because she wanted me to read a contract and tell her what it means and I had to tell her that on top of that not being in my job description I am NOT a lawyer. So “grain of salt” and all that.
But I say that at the risk of sounding wishy-washy. If the Constitution (advanced triple-negative alert) doesn’t say something’s not allowed, it’s implicitly allowed (as a focus of legislation) until we amend the constitution to say that it’s not, or vice-versa. Moral objections to same-sex-marriage objections aside, it’s not out-of-bounds legally, which is kinda the point.
But I’m a self-professed idiot, etc. etc.
scooter, the important point is that if the Constitution is silent, the courts can’t be used to end-run the political process at which the pro gay marriage types have proven to suck like a Hoover.
But I say that at the risk of sounding wishy-washy. If the Constitution (advanced triple-negative alert) doesn’t say something’s not allowed, it’s implicitly allowed until we amend the constitution to say that it’s not
Practically speaking? Yeah.. that’s how they play it. But…
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Defining marriage is nether delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor are the States prohibited it by the constitution, so the definition of marriage is reserved to the States or (respectively) the people.
But only in the same manner that 95% of everything the federal government does is in the same boat. The creation of a Postal Service, or Environmental Protection Agency, is not delegated to the United States nor prohibited from the individual States, and so should be reserved for the States, the private sector, or ammendment.
SDN
Great theory, were it not for the penumbras and emanations that sometimes whisper dirty little sweet things in the ears of justices.
I mean, what would happen if you had an amendment, and it was law, and everybody just ignored it?
You’d get arrested in Chicago. Guns are just “different,” somehow.
You’d get arrested in Chicago.
Really? I thought maybe I’d be fined for supporting a candidate.
I think we’d be fooling ourselves if we relied upon Kagan’s response to a questionnaire requisite for her nomination to Solicitor General as if it would estop her from “evolving” on the Court to find just such a right in the text of the United States Constitution.
At the time she gave her answer, have no doubt that it was in view of a likely nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
We’re at the part in Animal Farm where you look up at the barn and the only thing it says there is:
III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
And you’re wondering if it used to seem longer.
Yeah, Makewi, I know, which is why I’m in favor of that recall provision found in the penumbra of the Second Amendment. Of course, that one doesn’t whisper.
Good for Ms. Kagan. I thought she was great opposite Matthew Broderick in The Producers.
Her comedy work with Bud Abbott was good too.
Ms. Myers, met Ms. Kagan… did not anyone learn from Mr. Bush’s Most Awful Legal Adventure?
Maybe we could have a Justice that actually worked and lived in the REAL WORLD for a year or 2???
U of Chicago and Harvard impress me as much as Opies jump shot. NOT.
here’s what your real masters think.
I’m confused…..who do you want to be? A big tent with black, brown, college-educated, young and homosexual and jewish conservatives?
Or a little tent full of angry old white christian conservatives?
Its your choice, lol.
It isn’t that you are trying to stand athwart history hollering stop, Jeff……
its that you are standing athwart cultural and demographic evolution and the second law of thermodynamics hollering stop.
I’m confused…who do you want to be? A big tent with black, brown, college-educated, young and homosexual and jewish conservatives?
Coming from an internet troll who pushes eugenics, that is incredibly ironic.
And Andrew Sullivan? Really? He hasn’t had an original thought since 2004, if then.
If Focus on the Family hates her she can’t be all bad.
It isn’t that you are trying to stand athwart history hollering stop, Jeff……
its that you are standing athwart cultural and demographic evolution and the second law of thermodynamics hollering stop.
And yet you still believe in anthropogenic global warming, the Piltdown Man of the 21st century.
She’s against a right to Ghey Marriage, so I think her sexuality is fair game, no? I mean, that’s the standard, right Nishi?
wow. That is so not America.
Team R needs to distance itself from these American Family Association bigots I think.
Yep, Team R needs a purge.
(that’s sarcasms ICYDK)
that’s not sarcasms it’s troof Thomas… that’s not acceptable what the loony Family people are saying and Team R can’t afford being associated with rank bigotry if it isn’t bent on alienating the non-bigot yoot of America, which is many
This doesn’t mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
lawl, you did’t even read what Jeff wrote…..
yup ‘feets….the GOP and the TPM SAY they aren’t racist homophobes, but they ARE almost pure christian…or judeo-christian…and they will deny that too.
So FotF is tactically the leadership of the New Christian Party of the Confederacy.
Actions speak louder than words.
hf, you seem to be quite certain to lock FF into the Republican party. Well, you and Andrew Sullivan, et al. See anyone here equating the two? See anyone here taking their orders from either of them? But you go ahead and keep sharpening that lance – the windmill will still be waiting for your glorious charge.
I don’t think the Tea Party is anywhere at all near where the Family bigots are on this issue. The Tea Party I doubt could care less if she’s a lesbian and don’t really have any onus to condemn the Family whackjobs cause social issues aren’t part of their portfolio.
But Team R needs to very clearly tell the Family losers to go fuck themselves I think.
Thank God we’ve got Focus on Focus on the Family starting right here at PW. Otherwise, I’d have had no idea whatsoever what they were on about.
Really, I don’t know how I’d survive without having every fucking word uttered by someone from Focus on the Family delivered to me from on high by Focus on Focus on the Family.
However will we thank you lunatics?
Hey, maybe Focus on the Family AND Focus on Focus on the Family can go fuck themselves together and leave us all be!
Lead the way, mah brutha!
Team R can’t condone the evil Christian bigots with their silence I don’t think LTC.
It would be very cowardly.
That was shameful, what the Sarah Palin-endorsed Focus on the Family said. And the American Family Association ones are toxic.
You can’t read – I stated that she was against a “right” to Ghey Marriage, as expressed in the above answer to Questionnaire inquiry. Stating as much makes her a bigot, I am told – correct?
Oh great, now we’re going to have another Sarah Palin griefer session.
Is Focus on the Family going to be taking part in her hearings? Didn’t think so and therefore don’t care. Got any more squeaky toys you’d like to chew on for us, meya?
I stated that she was against a “right” to Ghey Marriage
she is, as Jeff stated, only against a constitutional right for SSM.
She could easily be a strong supporter of SSM as a social compact right, or a political right.
words have meaning.
“Is Focus on the Family going to be taking part in her hearings?”
nah….but every single republican that does is going to be a christian, right?
nah….but every single republican that does is going to be a christian, right?
So what?
you see Pablow….you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to racebait, homobait, and IQbait your base, and then turn around and holler WE ARE NOT RACIST HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS.
idc.
But its pretty obviouso to the demographics you are trying to attract.
How do you know what her belief is? Has she stated what her personal belief is? The questionnaire asked whether there exists a Constitutional right to Ghey Marriage and she answered “no.” Plenty of principled, non-bigoted people hold this view – people such as Jeff, if I recall – and they’ve been called bigots for holding to this position. What makes Elena Kagan different?
The only thing that’s obvious is that Nishi is a bigoted, eugenicist, atheist pseudo-sufi.
#42 stands as a perfect illustration of the point Jeff has been trying to make for many moons now. I shan’t spoil it by any other commentary than that…
hocus pocus focus focus
Clearly what the GOP needs to do is dump Sarah Palin and nominate Conor Friedersdorf.
#44 – Aiiee! Don’t say that name out loud…you’ll set the rant off!
Oops, I did it again! Sorry, LTC John.
david frum 2012
Speaking of Gay rights, one of America’s top anti-gay spokesmen, Baptist Minister George Rekers was caught returning from a 10 day European vacation with a gay prostitute. Rekers, founding member of the Christian conservative anti-gay Family Research Council, was paid $60,900 for anti-gay testimony in an adoption case by Bill McCollum Republican AG of FL and candidate for FL governor.
You would think this would be a big political story as we approach the elections, but you may have missed this story that was plastered throughout the media — that is if you watch Fox News — not one single mention of this case by the news outlet, and this story is over a week old.
Howsoever the question may be posed, I think that the American people have a right to know about this woman before she is seated. By this I mean that rumors of her sexuality are emanating not only from the right, but also from the left, making the speculation somewhat credible. If the Golden Urkel wants to be the first to nominate a Justice who will go on to become the first openly ghey Justice, then let him be honest about it, and let the people have their input now, rather than in a year or so when “surprise I’m a Lesbian.”
I’m sure Obama will find the Kagan stuff to be a welcome distraction from his usual displays of executive incompetency.
People who are willing to pimp divisive arguments are only serving his interests.
Funny how you’ve never heard of these people until they get caught and proggies get all self-righteous.
Baptist Minister George Rekers
Never heard of him. What is he running for?
America’s top anti-gay spokesmen,
Uh… is there a primary for that?
Or is this something determined on the basis of ranking? Like he’s the Top Go-To Antigay Guy because he’s gone 15-0-3 in cage matches with homosexuals?
Team R can’t condone the evil Christian bigots with their silence I don’t think LTC.
…..
Yeah sure whatever.
Correction on the Rekers story.
Rekers is not just anyone. He is THE nationally reputed leader of the anti-gay movement who has authored books and campaigned vigorously that homosexuality can be cured. His foundation of gay-conversion – National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) – mailed notices to 14,000 school districts offering gay-conversion services. This mailing went out just weeks before Rekers embarked on the vacation with the gay prostitute.
Republican Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum actually paid him almost $120,000 of taxpayer money to be a star witness for the State of Florida in the legal case seeking to defend state statutes banning gay adoption.
Now the groups that Rekers was closely involved with – the FRC and NARTH – are issuing statements that are essentially lies – “George, we hardly knew ye…”
Yea right.
I’m pretty sure Reverend Rekers won because Reverend Billy Ray Collins had to default, on account of him being too much of a cartoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJFRGpm5p5o
Worse than I thought…. $120,000 of FL’s taxpayers money to testify against gays, by Reker – the employer of a gay prostitute, who found his boy at a website called ‘rentboy.com’.
Not just any conservative christian… Rekers is a national leader in the anti-gay movement, a Southern Baptist Minister, Founding Member of the Family Research Council – a regular presence on Fox News and conservative lobbying fronts, etc..
If I had a nickel for every christian conservative hypocrite.
I’m thinking a Colin Powell/Frum ticket.
Another moronic convergence of nishit, meya, and whatever FYI is calling itself these days. Good Allah. I guess we can be thankful they are not reproducing. Go fuck yourself, nishit.
FYI is posting under multiple names again. Who exactly gives a flying fuck what this clown did? Show of hands. Who knew who he was prior to this fucking troll got the vapors over teh ghey? Show of hands. In short, FYI and karen, take your dishonest homophobic asses somewhere else. Those strawpeople will not slaughter themselves.
calypso louis could be “America’s top anti-gay spokesmen”
link
Why is that every time the “theo-cons” come up in discussion I NEVER recognize any of their names or their organizations?
I express my Do Not Want with Do Not Care.
frumpster/hackabee 2012 feel the energy
No one demands that the Left account for the Phelps clan, so everyone demanding that I account for Focus on the Family every time they give us their interpretation of religious doctrine as it relates to some progressive pet cause can kindly go and fuck themselves. Seriously. The double standard is tiring.
How does it feel to be Meghan McCain feets?
*If I had a nickel for every christian conservative hypocrite.*
If I had a dime for every lie told by a liberal…
Btw, me and the gays are standing over here snarkily critiquing my fashion decisions. They told me I didn’t have to pay attention to any goofballs unless they’re a judge on Top Chef.
You don’t have to be Meghan McCain to be put off by the hatey Focus on the Family American Family Association wingnut Cristian perverts Makewi.
I meant Christian with an h
everywhere…. but Fox News
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/08/1619272/rentboy-escort-i-gave-sexual-massages.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/05/rekers-gate_hits_fla_govs_race.php
Like it’s some kind of wacky fringe view that Supreme Court nominees shouldn’t have to be interrogated about their sexual preference.
See, that’s apparently not how it works feets. Now you have to account for McCain because you are now making the same arguments. Your rules buddy.
how about cupcakes
Can someone tell me why this FYI troll has such a hard-on for some dude no one’s ever heard of?
And happyfeet, silence does not equal “condoning.” It’s just silence. I mean, if I don’t proclaim every day that I hate Chinese food because it looks like a big pile of crap and tastes worse, does that really mean I condone it?
Focus on Meghan McCain!
If I have to make a buttload of proclamations every day, it’s gonna be noon before I get anything useful done.
Like the GOP has to account for every action by every member of every group that the left (or you happy) finds it useful to try to tie them to. Do you and Meghan, like, share clothes and stuff now that you are BFF?
Meghan is Meghan. She’s a fat self-promoting loser and I doubt she’s among those what think the upcoming hearings need to focus on who this homely woman may or may not sleep with, but she’s not relevant to a discussion of the Kagan vetting process I don’t think.
If you want to adduce her views into the conversation that is your prerogative.
No Jim… it’s condoning. And I bet you hear a lot of Team R distance themselves from these hatey freaks and their Carrie’s mom approach to politics.
For the record I AM AGAINST PEDOPHILIA and that fucking GOP better announce they are as well or I AM SO OUT OF HERE!
That, of course, is how the Dems play. With their hateyness.
On the other hand, if one of the Reps brings Kagan’s orientation up during the confirmation hearings I’ll be extremely surprised.
I would think if this guy Rekers gets paid $120,000 of FL taxpayer money by the Republican candidate for Governor for anti-gay testimony, and then gets caught with a gay prostitute, that should be something the taxpayers should know, don’t you think?
You love her happyfeet. It’s OK you can admit it. You share the same script, so it’s almost like you are the same person. Is she nice in person?
She also loves the GOP so much that she can’t be bothered to say a positive word about them, like, ever. That’s how you know it’s true love. At least that’s what all the wife beaters say. Yep, a big old club of wife beaters, Meghan McCain and happyfeet just proving how much they love by constantly abusing the object of that love. It’s very sweet really.
please is she really just bob costasin drag?
Well, it is when teh Ghey issues may well be decided in the Courts. How can we be sure that a Justice Kagan wouldn’t let her desire to exhume and marry Bea Arthur influence how she rules in Ghey cases?
ask bwarney fwrank
Like the GOP has to account for every action by every member of every group that the left (or you happy) finds it useful to try to tie them to.
Apparently so.
Nah, ignoring isn’t condoning. You’re setting up an impossible standard. Especially since it ever only works in one direction.
The reason I don’t like the denunciations is because it implies the object of the denunciation has anything to do with me. Or that I harbor some secret thoughts that need purging. They don’t and I don’t.
Can someone tell me why this FYI troll has such a hard-on for some dude no one’s ever heard of?
Because now that it’s been established the dude is gay, he has the allure of attainability.
Fair or not, the way she looks will not help her sail smoothly to confirmation. Part of why the Bork nomination was scuttled was that strange little beard he wore, In my view.
I meant Christian with an h
You said Cristian. If you meant it with an ‘h’ you should have said it that way.
We must interpret it as any reasonable person would, you’re clearly homobaiting Charlie Crist.
@FYI: Florida taxpayers should be pissed that anyone was paid $120,000 to testify on anything.
Yep.
Me, I could give a shit how the Florida AG spends his state’s money.
For the record, please add to my #104:
“As long as it doesn’t affect my supply of tasty and healthful ruby red grapefruit juice.”
ok so that was that then
As long as it doesn’t affect Jim in KC’s supply of ‘rentboys’
kagan’s cupcakes. bob costas approves.
Barack Obama got caught with a lesbian. Does that count?
I thought more of the ruby red came from Texas than Florida but I could be wrong about that.
As long as it doesn’t affect Jim in KC’s supply of ‘rentboys’
See how that works? He lashes out at the only person to take him remotely seriously and address his bullshit fairly.
He lashes out at the only person to take him remotely seriously and address his bullshit fairly.
Even better, he uses the idea of being gay as a slur on Jim’s character. Some members of the left seem highly confused about the whole homosexuality friend or foe thing.
baracky is a lesbian but you have to look closey
Come to think of it happyfeet does that a lot too doesn’t he? Whats up with that happyfeet?
“I thought more of the ruby red came from Texas than Florida but I could be wrong about that.”
I think that’s right.
Althouse seems to have some sense that Kagan being a smoker has something to do with Barry’s choice. Maybe Barry’s been bumming smokes off her for twenty years now and this is his idea of payback?
She’s Kevin James in drag.
H/T: Count Vikula at TOM.
Smoker–is that some new trick Lesbians do? Do tell?
Oh wait, you mean smoking tobacco? Eeeeeewwwwwww!
Cool, I’m golden, then. Unpaved roads from the Floridian groves due to the AGs spendthrift ways will not be my ruby red undoing.
@FYI: Thanks so much for your concern, I’m touched.
There’s gay as in gay and there is gay as in lame. (There is also gay as in Harley rider.)
I don’t read ‘feets as gay-baiting. I read it as lame-baiting.
*, related.
Things what are gay are include Avatar, trillion-dollar deficits, the government paying you monies to help you buy “energy star” appliances, and the new Captain Kirk.
Kagan on free speach:
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kagan-Speech-is-free-if-government-decides-it-has–93309159.html#ixzz0nZPKe5bj
no not kirk
societal™ costs
Right bh, and rappers tried to make nigger mean something else too. How’d that work out?
Andi Sullivan says she’s teh Ghey. And you know how those people hang out and all know each other.
did randy andy check her uterus?
Well, all I can tell you, Makewi, is that it’s an extremely common use of gay or fag.
I’ve used it that way since I was a kid and have never been referring to dudes what like dudes.
Just be be annoying, I’d argue that they were successful.
Fine, fine. Using homo or gay or fag as a slur towards something not actually related to same sex sexy times is not actually a slur against those to whom that word is also applied. It’s a neat trick really.
I assume not. His conclusion seems to be based upon the fact that her relationship was an “open secret” sort of thing at Harvard.
Just be be annoying, I’d argue that they were successful.
I’d say that they made it into a situation in which a certain segment of the general public gets to determine when it is a slur and when it is not. I wonder which part of the public holds that power?
It still means what it means, only now some folks are allowed an exemption to show they are the right sort.
It’s not a trick. Think about it in intentionalist terms and you’ll see what I mean immediately.
There’s a hypo about this involving a dog, a little boy and an old gay dude, btw.
When I say it works, I mean people successfully use “nigger” as a word that doesn’t connote “inferior human” every single day. If a guy uses it as “friend close enough to be transgressive with” and another guy immediately decodes it that way, it worked.
No, Pablo, O! would have got caught dating across species, except that across species can’t reproduce…..
Since it’s bonderunchious, let’s transgress together, like so: Babies don’t know jack about gay.
bh
I’ll have to ruminate on that for a while. I understand the intent between say, you and I, but wonder if it starts to fall apart when the group gets larger and the accepted definition for the sign is that of “an inferior human”.
She banned military recruiters at Harvard because even though all the students knew about “don’t ask, don’t tell” they had an unfair recruiting advantage with those fabulous uniforms.
there’s ghey babies crying out there. i hear the beagle bugger all the time.
the armed forces should get some village people tracks when selling at the progg league universities
What religion are those mullahs that kill gays and whores over in the Middle East?
Every single one of them worships the same fucking psycho you do, Nishfong.
Agreed. In the very same way I’d agree if the larger group spoke French or Hindi rather than in-group slang.
Except in your example you are removing the common language element. In mine, all are aware of both meanings of the word.
So she didn’t have any trouble serving under the lying sack of serial misogyny that was responsible for the program, but she later used it as a political cudgel to demagogue people who had nothing to do with it.
All while she refuses to come out of the closet herself.
Impeccable character, I can see why the Proggtards love her.
FYI, FYI, I checked Craigslist. My supply of rentboys does not seem to have been affected by the shocking state of affairs you have been so kind as to bring to our attention.
(Oh, and thanks for playing Poke-A-Troll.)
That’s true, Makewi. I was just trying to highlight the issue of shared or not shared conventions.
It’s the way these Christian groups are asking the question that so rankles. Like they actually care about the answer, because it matters to their ideas about faith.
To do it right, just kinda toss it off like Kerry and Edwards did about Cheney’s daughter, not because you care but because you think it might embarrass enemies and win you votes.
THAT’S to be respected.
Personally, I don’t much care what her preferences are. I care that she seems to think the job of a SCOTUS justice is to act as a philosopher king handing out rulings that help the “despised” fight the Man; and that she thinks free speech is not so much a right as it is a privilege that can be constrained if too much of it causes a strain on the social fabric as she’s like to see that fabric maintained.
Don’t ask, don’t tell.
yea we did’t want racist in 1800 controlling the nation with illegal aliens and we don’t want racists in 2010 controlling the nation with illegal aliens.
demonrats were the party of slavery, jim crow, segregation and the kkk ask bobby byrd
This little secprogg troolie cam armed with all the leftists inane talking points. FYI, for your information, we laugh at mendoucheous twatwaffles such as yourself. Take you bigoted self-lefteous ass somewhere else. Maybe Bawney Frank’s condo.
OK, are you really that stupid or are you that shameless? Can you tell us anything about the counting itself or why 3/5 was arrived at?
I vote stupid, Pablo.
It won’t get good. The only possible drama will be the left screaming that she isn’t progressive enough. The right will make noises all the while avoiding the clearly laid out third rails, get called bigots for their troubles, and then roll over and show their bellies.
i vote progg which is stupid with immoral indignation
I don’t think it should be a choice. I vote stupid AND shameless.
Tell us Pablo why the constitution was correct for counting blacks as 3/5 human, and while you’re at it, I need to see your ID. I think you need to demonstrate your English proficiency before we allow you to drive, or comment here.
no it is not the way these pseudo-Christian freaks are “asking the question” … it’s their bald, evil, assertion that lesbians can’t be entrusted with responsibility…
This is bigotry, not faith, and Jesus would pimp-slap the shit out of these pseudo-Christian pieces of shit I think.
which, I guess there would be nothing left then
Unless someone here is advocating that line of questioning, I suggest you take it up with them.
so you racists wouldn’t be able to take control from day 1
darwin would have problem with the ghey agenda. science !!!!
Someone is defending that line of questioning, JD.
These nasty pseudo-Christian fucks’ ideas about faith are very like Hitler’s ideas about Jews I think.
‘feets, you think that’s a good faith interpretation?
Of Jeff. Not the ChristoNazitlers.
progg = stupid + immoral indignation
I read it as them being entitleed to their vastly illiberal beliefs.
And I don’t read any condemnation of this bullshit faith that is every bit and more illiberal than any beliefs Kagan might hold.
I didn’t say you had to agree with their faith. And I certainly don’t agree with them. But it’s what they believe, and their questions come from that fact.
Whereas why is, for instance, FYI trolling here dropping info about some douche I’ve never heard of — as if said douche represents me? Is it to save me? Or do you think he has a different agenda?
And how is that agenda empowered? What makes it work — not on me, but on all those who will run around denouncing things they never once believed anyway?
Think on it, happy. It’ll come to you.
Is that what it does? Tell me, where does it talk about the blacks? Cite that for me, won’t you? Then you can cite me saying anything like what you just tried to put in my mouth. And then, if you’ve still got any brain power left, you can answer both questions in my #155.
Oh, and the proprietor is already familiar with my credentials. You may go fuck yourself, FYI.
I condemn its illiberalism from my secular perspective; but that they might believe it as an article of their faith certainly explains why they’d ask the questions.
I apologize it’s just the Family Association ones are uncommon evil and it’s not acceptable to me at all but not everybody has to be superindiginant about it I just thought it was sort of omg I can’t believe they think that’s acceptable out loud
Is that what you think it is?
Meya – when we want your opinion, I will go kick a cat.
the ghey pride parades in sf have that effect
They aren’t evil. They just have opinions which you disagree with. You believe that the Jesus would have embraced homosexuals unreservedly, whereas they seem more of the opinion that the Jesus would have wanted to keep the homos off the bench. The secular bench, mind.
I think you are both wrong. But not evil.
The idea that the 3/5 clause somehow makes the Constitution (and its framers) more racist for it’s inclusion is an argument that stupid people make. Because they are stupid. Not fully stupid, more like 3/5 stupid.
I’m sorry, how does that evil manifest itself? As soon as they nominate one of these tools for SCOTUS, I’ll sign right up for the Focus on Focus on the Family’s newsletter. Promise.
They are not America Makewi… Their America elides equality of opportunity as an ideal… It’s not unevil.
If it were your kid you would know that it’s not unevil.
It’s opinion. They believe, wrongly I suspect, that homosexuality is always an immoral choice (note please choice) and that as such no one who is homosexual should be put in a leadership position. I believe there are several things wrong with this thinking, but I don’t believe that being incorrect or making a logically flawed argument is evil.
They are America, because in America everyone gets to have an opinion.
Look, it’s a rerun.
I’d suggest that holding gays and lesbians as unworthy of public office is distinctly anti-egalitarian. Which puts that specific opinion at odds with a basic Enlightenment principle.
So, in my book, not cool. Render that shit unto Caesar already.
homos are bad for darwinian science !!!!!
with its societal™ costs.
I can never tell when you’re joking with me. That’s a skill.
yes i said it islam is evil!!!!!
bh
I don’t agree with them, but you should notice that they coach it in terms of immoral choices. That is, this choice would make them more likely to make other immoral choices. So anti egalitarianism is evaded because they are phrasing it in terms of the character of the choice.
Meya is back to answering questions not asked of it, and being an overall twatwaffle.
Was coach intended to be couch Makewi?
I heard a little of the NPR in the car. Here is what I heard. I heard that NPR really really wants to talk up the idea of a possible filibuster. I think the narrative they want really bad is to an everybody does it sort of thing they can point to when the dirty socialists do it again.
Heh, and you even said “(note please choice)”. And I still missed it. If it wasn’t evening I’d drink some coffee.
That would indeed evade the charge of anti-egalitarianism.
Like you, I disagree with it. Gay brains and all.
yes.
“some are urging”
They can couch it up their evil asses I think.
If I had a gay kid, I’d prefer his advocates brought up things like egalitarianism and gay brains rather than screechy statements more likely to harden opinions against him/her.
I am staying far far away from my Hot Air friends today.
Very a lot far.
YMMV.
That’s always a good idea, I’d say. About the Hot Air.
did you hear of demonrats filibustering during the last 9 years. taxpayers want to know?
no bh there are times when screechings are called for… there was precious little condemnationings of the Family ones today, and I think there needed to be robust condemnationings.
There is no hardening these ones’ opinions I don’t think, and for them shame is something what is exclusively for other people, namely homos.
What are the grounds of the presumed immorality of homosexual sexual practices though, other than where resort is held to scriptural assertions as written? That is, are we supposed to imagine some sort of secular argument that establishes consensual sexual behaviors as immoral in themselves somehow, and how would that go or what the f would it look like?
allahpundit: yea whatever ck though is the real unreal go woody
anti darwinist: science !!!!
social™ science rules ask algore
and watch your carbon footprint you immoral bastard
It’s just a way of dividing people for so these ones are the good ones and these ones are the bad ones.
That’s what I think.
It’s very tedious but there’s great joy in it for these Family ones. It’s affirmational.
me: live free or die; but i can do progg “logic” also
I don’t know, ‘feets. Some people’s minds won’t change but plenty of other’s might be if given positive arguments.
Don’t know the answer to that, sdferr. Never even heard an argument that way to tell the truth.
because all pedros are “good” senors. those “bad” pedros never mind. no “discrimination” people unless its O!’s argulalalala salad
y’know what has always given me wonder? That Louis Farrakhan is so very fond of the violin and a damned good player of the thing. He digs it.
ever heard of “over population”, one child policy, year zero, abortion? these heterosexual things are frond upon in progg circles. ask ms kagan about her children?
that’s what the dirty socialists say about the terrorists
cause you fucking asshole demonrats are into slavery, jim crow, kkk, segregation. demonrats: the story of racism in this country
fuck you progg liar
She banned the military recruiters, that’s enough for me to ban her…Of course, if I don’t continually say that then I fear my silence may accidentally put me in league with others who’s opinions I don’t necessarily agree.
Don’t ask, don’t tell…
That’s not what I asked. How she justified it is not the question. Showing that there have been certain prior restraints on speech that are (mostly) limited in scope doesn’t make it proper to add to that list of restraints.
So. I’ll ask again, is that what you think it is?
I’m all for the regulation of speech that I think can be damaging to the democratic process. There are important things that need doing, and we cannot be sidetracked by issues that are not relevant.
She banned the military recruiters, that’s enough for me to ban her
This is very true. It’s for her noxious dirty socialisms what she should be opposed.
Y’know, happyfeet, you should move to Arizona and go to work for McCain’s campaign staff. You have fully internalized his political philosophy — i.e., there is no hill that it’s appropriate to die on; one mildly expresses one’s mild distaste for [policy or legislation X] then gives in and votes for it, to maintain “collegiality” and friendly relations. Right?
As for the other — Republicans need to absolululutely decry and denounce anybody who’s religious and takes it seriously, everybody who objects to unrestricted immigration, everybody who doesn’t think gay marriage should be mandatory at puberty; that is, everybody who isn’t a Democrat. But Democrats already have their own party. Why would they join the Republicans?
Regards,
Ric
The left is committed to making this into a fight, one that Obama can win.
Because our loserman pezzydent needs one in the V column something desperate.
He’s desperate enough that he’s willing to be seen winning a taking-candy-from-a-baby-fight ThomasD? Damn, he’s in worse shape than I’d figured then.
die for grampa
die for grampa too you moosehunter
Call it what you well, but rest assured his media sycophants will portray Kagan’s confirmation like MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines.
my friends i protect the border with your “goddamned fence” just vote johnny mac this time
Call it what you will…
It was sdferr, thanks.
Yes, quite right as to how it will be made to seem I think, but we only have to look at the composition of the 49 to know it isn’t the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy that lies vanquished on this field of battle. Misses Snowe, Collins and Graham alone could dissuade us that error. Add in a half dozen others (all where Barry and Elena will likely need only 1 or 2), and well, you get the picture.
the non-bigot yoot of America, which is many
Yoot? Non-bigoted?
Hardly. They just choose different things to hate than their parents.
no Ric you are exaggerating. I do not have a political philosophy like that of the cowardly Mr. McCain.
My philosophy is I think almost the whole of Team R is unconcerned with first principles. I think they lollygag about on silly second and third-order issues like the gay marriage and the abortion and the immigration and other panderings.
They are a very unserious party, Team R is, but that’s another conversation. What’s important today is these Jesustard whackjobs what think lesbians aren’t fit to serve in our piece of shit gay-assed government are about as Christian as someone what is shockingly un-Christian, and Team R doesn’t want to be bothered condemning them, or they want to mock the ones who do, and then they’ll whine whine whine like little bitches when someone calls them hatey.
It’s getting old.
Besides McCain was Team R’s nominee. He’s the heart and soul of today’s Team R. He will have a very important speaking role at the next convention.
I don’t think that’s where I stand.
outside of cupcakes and tacos, what are the “happyfeet” firster principles?
I’m more of a hate the sin love the sinner sort of person, and even more of one in which the sort of sin we are talking about here is one between the sinner and her creator. In any case, it seems unlikely that she will be getting down and dirty same sex style while hearing oral arguments. I tend to find arguments that assume homosexuals are acting in ways described as immoral while not actually performing said acts to be a stretch. If I stub my toe and yell God d***it!, how long am I to be considered immoral? Forever?
67. Comment by FYI on 5/10 @ 2:29 pm #
Worse than I thought…. $120,000 of FL’s taxpayers money to testify against gays, by Reker – the employer of a gay prostitute, who found his boy at a website called ‘rentboy.com’.
Oh, look. We have a teabagger. The other kind.
thanks for asking.
First principles are liberty and justice for all. First principles is the Constitution. First principles is like you said already.
Live free or die.
First principles are not ohnoes the faggots got that marryin’ look in their eye.
“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (sermon)
Read more: http://bumpshack.com/2008/03/18/pastor-jeremiah-wright-controversy-quotes/#ixzz0naQoPi2x
plus also cupcakes and tacos
I’m still puzzled how we’re to arrive at a conclusion of imputed immorality on the sex acts themselves, outside some scriptural guidance in the matter? Is there any such, to your knowledge Makewi?
Of course, the follow on, if there aren’t, is how the presumed scriptural guidance insinuates itself into law on grounds of moral teaching? And there’s the rub-a-dub-dub.
nice anti darwin? do you believe in the sky g_d? (for our jewish friends).
so you marry to do what exactly “rentboy” or pedro or whatever progg thing you’re “jiving”
I remember that one nutter at CPAC had an answer sdferr. He had a natural law based bigotry with just a dollop of Jesus on top. I read it at the Hot Air. I will google.
a follower of darwinism would find homo actions self defeating if not amoral
“…his media sycophants will portray Kagan’s confirmation like MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines.”
I’d love to see that photoshopped :)
Calling serr8d, Enoch Root, Darleen Click…
here I think it’s the first one
Jill, honey, baby, snookums, you sure you want to go down the road of saying that it should have been “1” not “3/5th”? That was the position of the people owning the slaves. The anti-slavery people wanted “0”, zero, nah-dah, zip.
There are reasons why you are considered rather retarded you know, or perhaps you don’t, not being smart enough to know how dumb you are.
That guy got hooted down if I recall.
The CPAC guy.
is darwin a bigot about the gheys? ask randy andy leave the beagle alone.
yes he got asked to not speak
“a follower of darwinism would find homo actions self defeating if not amoral”
So, the follower of Darwin is going to start throwing Onanists in the clinker for violating an imagined injunction not to be wasting the seed? heh
I am not aware of any outside of religion sdferr. That said, I see no problem with individuals or associations of individuals using whatever source pleases them when making arguments, and if such an argument both wins the day and confines itself to Constitutional limitations, then so be it.
As to the details of this case, and apart from the problems with a sort of homo litmus test for public service, I would want more proof that a) homosexuality was a choice in THIS case and b) proof that this has led to other immoral choices in this candidate, all choices strictly limited to the boundaries of Constitutional law, of course, since we aren’t a theocracy.
I think their argument sucks, as you can probably tell.
“That said, I see no problem with individuals or associations of individuals using whatever source pleases them when making arguments, and if such an argument both wins the day and confines itself to Constitutional limitations, then so be it.”
Just so we’re clear, I’ve not only no problem with anyone making arguments, I’m downright glad when they do, if only so everyone gets the idea. Put ’em out there, I say, and let’s have a look.
“Besides McCain was Team R’s nominee. He’s the heart and soul of today’s Team R.”
BITE YOUR TONGUE! Nominee, yes, an unfortunate matter of fact, but heart and sould of team R?
Negative.
a follower of darwinism would find homo actions self defeating if not amoral
Self defeating sure, but since all adaptations are merely individual aberrations until such a time as they result in a higher degree of gene passing, and since not all will, homosexuality could then be seen as a likely result of the natural world.
That’s not important. The screechings are important, otherwise Democrats won’t vote for Tear R which totally sucks anyway. Does anyone know what that nasty Pat Buchanan is up to today? We haven’t yelled at him lately and nishi might be watching.
pfar
Are you forgetting that it was 3/5 or nothing?
no the types that don’t reproduce don’t reproduce. it ain’t hard this darwin theory.
“I’m more of a hate the sin love the sinner sort of person, and even more of one in which the sort of sin we are talking about here is one between the sinner and her creator.”
Amen, Makewi.
tell that to rabbits
or mice
or cock roaches
That Sorba guy didn’t have an argument so far as I could tell. He seemed to be a known quantity to his audience though, since many of them were booing him before he’d said word one.
“no the types that don’t reproduce don’t reproduce. it ain’t hard this darwin theory.”
don’t be a moron. Homosexuals reproduce heterosexually just like heterosexuals do.
homo is part of the progg religion. its one of the priesthoods along with the gaiabishop algore
My sister had lesbian rabbits. They might not have been lesbians had their been a male present, but absent one they did what rabbits are wont to do anyway.
Oh, okay. pfar is RD.
That explains why when I thought I was having a conversation with someone hostility toward me personally began creeping int.
Sure. It also got into my head that the Court rejected that thinking; and that it seemed to match with other positions Kagen has taken with respect to free speech.
Has it gotten into your head that I don’t want you around here — under any name?
so there is a white faggot population boom in san fran’s future?
Now I have to go through and delete a bunch of comments. Great.
man progg stupid
yea sure whatever got some photos and info to prove that?
No, happyfeet. I’m not sure how to communicate this, but the basic notion is this: *YOU* are John McCain. You might as well volunteer and get it over with.
Expansion, a single example: immigration. Are there people who oppose immigration because they despise stinky brown people? Damn straight there are, but there’s an important fact: they vote. There are also a multitude of people who rather like stinky brown people (I’m one of them) but nevertheless don’t think unrestricted immigration is a good idea. We would like to end or reduce unrestricted immigration, and we need votes to do that. So what I’m supposed to do is vociferously denounce people who don’t like stinky brown people, tell them in fact not to vote for an end to unrestricted immigration. Therefore I get fewer votes, and unrestricted immigration doesn’t end.
That’s what Kate wants. That’s what Democrats want. The Reagan Coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives won in a landslide, and they’ve been trying for the last thirty years to bust it up — and they’re succeeding, as witness yourself.
Notice that they don’t have any problem coming at it from the other way. There are reasonable, thoughtful people who think there should be “safety nets” and assistance for the unfortunate. There are also a whole host of cynical greedy buttheads whose only interest is “gimme some money!” The gimmeists are not only thoroughly unadmirable, they are disruptive to the process — but Democrats have no trouble whatever not merely accepting them, but recruiting them for the Cause. People who game the system for “disability” benefits or support of “too big to fail” enterprises reduce the ability to support the genuinely unfortunate, and corrupt the system from top to bottom in the same way the Gablers and others corrupt support for freedom of religion and speech — but the Leftoids are happy to accept their support because it means support for the programs they want.
If you’re going to drum everybody out of the club who supports its policies for disagreeable reasons, you aren’t going to need a very big tent. Ringmasters in big tents have to be thoroughgoing cynics who know that lions eat people and clowns aren’t very nice folk, but they have to be there for the show.
Regards,
Ric
i hope i was not the prob
Well at the time I was a young boy and unaware that lesbian was something worthy of a picture, and in any case they were, you know, rabbits. So no, sorry.
On the plus side, I’m pretty sure rule 34 of the internet is still in effect.
quit saying salt your intent i think is bisexual
I’ll take care of my own intent without any help from you, if that’s all right newrouter.
I am not as wise as you though I just know that the Team R coalition is gay and is not helping America.
There is precious little time left I think to salvage very much at all in our once-great little country, and so if I seem more McCainish these days maybe that’s why.
Team R needs to focus and get their game on and they don’t just need a mandate they need a very exactingly particular one or there’s no point to it at all.
We are at a crux.
That’s my sense of it anyway.
Hopefully I’m just a big stupidhead.
If all bisexuals looked like 13 on House, bisexuality would not only be accepted, it might be mandatory. Just my opinion of course.
oh there is lots of time. each day O! touches more things that turn to poop.
shit heads uber alles doesn’t sell.
‘feets has mentioned the mandate before. And, arguments about lots of specific aside, I agree with that.
I’m afraid that we’ll take the House but won’t have accomplished the necessary task of convincing a large enough number of people that the big, big, big issue is getting our fiscal house in order. So, come Jan 2011 even if the Reps are serious about defunding program after program, they might still end up rolling over through a lack of popular support.
you meant what? no rabbits please
but it’s not ephemeral poop he’s corrupting and poisoning everything he can and he’s not slowing down
It’s the reason I think the Tea Party movement is so vital. Less government is their/our big rallying cry. We’ll need that popular support once the noise machine starts talking about how we want to start starving babies and making poor people eat one another.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
I don’t expect it to be, well, comfortable.
Regards,
Ric
what bh said that’s what I think … that’s very well said… and I think the immigration and the ohnoes she’s a dyke aren’t getting us where we need to be.
the speaker of the house is the 3rd ranking person in line. the speaker can set an agenda for the next 2 years. mr. O! will have to respond.
the Tea Party is what’s left of America and it’s a little spark and we have to kindle it and there’s not much time…
this is why our goodly nemesis nishi gives the “TPM” such a hard time I think.
The question of a mandate gets at the strange nexus of the Representatives following the wishes of the people on the one hand and shaping the wishes of the people through leadership on the other. At this point, there isn’t any leadership (well, save a few hearty souls like Rep Ryan) coming from the Reps out to the peeps. Which, if the peeps wishes were to grow sufficiently on their own, that is to such an extent that it were to generate a mandate to undo the gory impositions of progressivism, that would be a sort of best case scenario in terms of “self-rule”, would it not?
that was downright Yeatsian Mr. Ric
Kiplingesque, rather.
Regards,
Ric
The Tea Party movement is vital. It is also still a minority. If it rejects support from people it doesn’t like for other reasons, while the Leftoids continue to not only accept but try to attract support from the gimmeists, it will fail as if it had never existed. That’s why Kate is so gleefully scornful. Nasty homophobic Xtianists vote, and if Republicans cast them out they’ll stay home or vote for Democrats, with the second being the ideal for “nishizono”. Republicans (and Tea Partiers, not even close to being the identity set) lose. End of game.
Regards,
Ric
I agree with that, Ric. It’s why I bend over backwards to try and be accommodating to the whole coalition. It’s the diverse goals that come from diverse support that makes it all so tricky.
Well, trickier than I can navigate with any grace anyways.
this is fascinating
read that. Can you imagine how anxiously the little president man’s dirty socialist White House is reading that??
It’s well-written too.
Goodnight, people.
Weight of 1 US Gallon of water = approx. 8.35 lb
a gallon of salt water weighs 8.556 lbs.
google is your friend when confronting j’school grads
maybe water weighs less underwater
14.3/2 = 7.15
7.8 is “nearly” something go columbia u. math majors hehaaaaaaaaaaaa
you too could be a “journalist”
it could be like kittycats
homos and darwin and the weight of water you go proggs. make it up always
I hope that someone has figured out a counter to what happened when the “class of ’94” tried this against old “Slickster Bill”. Gingrich could give them pointers on all that doesn’t work. Barack has done every other Clinton move so this one is only to be expected and he is in closer with the Government unions too.
fuckin’ cupcakes like the “intellectual” firepower of proggs are an O! dime a dozen(O! rip you off with inflation)
at this point you say no. start deconstructing the gov’t. why do we need epa?
This is what it sounds like when I’m thinking about 284 and 297.
Thank you for that link ‘feets. This could be quite important. Why would BP do this well in an unusual manner? Has this reversal of procedure been done successfully before and why would it be advantageous if it is at all? Why did the MMS sign-off on this? Lots of questions to be asked.
the article doesn’t speculate much does it?
I’ll wonder if just watching what Transocean stock does tomorrow will tell us anything
Watch Cameron (CAM) as well then.
Y’all see this? Any other follow-on stories on it?
That’s one of those stories I’m ignoring because I want it to be true.
just this from a trusted source, sdferr.
“Take you bigoted self-lefteous ass somewhere else.”
Had to skip ahead a little to nominate this one for the JD comment hall of fame ;^)
“What are the grounds of the presumed immorality of homosexual sexual practices though, other than where resort is held to scriptural assertions as written?”
sdferr,
Natural law? Somewhere I read that the expected lifespan of a male homosexual was about 1/3 less than his heterosexual counterpart.
I suppose one could also call the lack of reproduction a failure to provide a support life-line for your declining years.
Why should I be responsible for your lack of planning? Why should I be responsible for the ramifications including higher healthcare costs your lifestyle will inevitably require.
I know if we did not have live in a welfare state I would not be responsible, unfortunately we don’t have that luxury.
sdferr
I should have substituted their for your above. My questions were meant to be rhetorical not of a personal nature.
Forgive the poorly signaled intention.
So…what part of The Constitution gives the government the power to license and regulate marriage, to begin with?
Actually, sdferr, Danger, like most taboos, this one has a dual basis. One, it demonstrates that by refraining from a given behavior, you are obeying God’s will. Second, it ensures a real-world purpose by making sure that every reproduction possibility is captured. Likewise, the Jewish dietary laws: they add a worship component to a daily activity, and also enhance the health of the community by helping to prevent the spread of disease. The Christian Apostles gave up the dietary laws because they couldn’t quantify the disease inhibiting aspects and requiring their potential Gentile converts to keep them was a hindrance to recruitment. It probably isn’t a coincidence that the rise of less strictly observant sects of Judaism coincided with improvements in medicine and knowledge of how diseases were transmitted so that observance became more of a ritual than a practical necessity.
Priestly celibacy is another example, which also shows how a taboo based more on political factors (celibates didn’t have heirs who could inherit Church property) dies out faster than one which enhances survival possibilities.
Taboos that don’t serve both purposes usually fade away. One of the reasons Heinlein could postulate the abandonment of the incest taboo in his later books was that an improved knowledge of genetics enabled avoidance of defective babies even in circumstances that were known to increase the chances of conceiving them. And he explicitly says that.
Good points SDN,
Christ also commented on the dietary items (paraphrasing) that what came out of someone’s mouth was much more important that what went into it. Jesus the pragmatist, who knew;^)
I tend to view Natural Law and God’s law as being the same. The commandments, beattitudes and other guidance found in the Bible are meant for our benefit not restriction. If we follow this guidance we are almost certain to live a healthier, happier, and more purposeful life. While the commandments do have a worship aspect I think we need to follow this guidance much more that God needs our obedience.
I also agree with Makewai’s otulook of hating the sin and loving the sinner. I have my struggles and wouldn’t dream of passing judment over someone else who stumbles. Where I am strong I will offer support and encouragement to someone that is weak. I hope the same relationship works in reverse.
“If it rejects support from people it doesn’t like for other reasons, while the Leftoids continue to not only accept but try to attract support from the gimmeists, it will fail as if it had never existed.”
Ric Locke scores.
you have to embrace Alex Jones and Stormfront and Dobson and Warren or you are simply DOA.
As long you designate non-whites as gimmiests and embrace your racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, anti-intellectual fringe jews, hispanics, gheys,and african-americans will avoid you like the plague. and the result of supporting bigots and racists and homophobes is that the youth demographic and college-educated and scientists and academe and hollywood will also avoid you like the plague.
And Jeff will continue to throw chaff and try to pretend that a good chunk of the TPM are not racists, homophobes, anti-semites, christofascists, pre-tribs, and assorted nutjobs.
They are fuckin’ carrying signs on tv! You can’t cover that up.
here’s an idea…..how about you EDUCATE your base?
tell them that racism and homophobia and anti-semitism are WRONG and will btw cause the conservative side to lose FOREVAH.
lawl.
“I also agree with Makewai’s otulook of hating the sin and loving the sinner. I have my struggles and wouldn’t dream of passing judment over someone else who stumbles. Where I am strong I will offer support and encouragement to someone that is weak. I hope the same relationship works in reverse.”
Amen, brother.
Or as Christ also said, “I came that ye might have life, and have it more abundantly.”
Here’s a clue nishi,
A large percentage of the Latinos and Black folks you coo about being so loyal to the cause are in actuality hompphobic christofascist xtianist pre-trib nutjobs-as you put it. So so me a favor and keep slinging poo like that, because those folks won’t truck with that kind of talk too long.
They’ve been taught that it’s OK to get in other people’s faces when their worldview is different…
nishams, your expertise is obviously in WoW. Why are you troubling your small little head with things you can’t ever hope to comprehend?
Shorter Nishi: “I know you are, but what am I.”
Fellas, it seems to me that a reach for a presumed failure at reproduction as the first move in an attempt to account for the asserted immorality of a sex act (or actually an entire set of sex acts, taken up to be considered one after another) is going to prove fatal to the effort ab initio, except of course where, as I said before, resort is had to scriptural injunction. Whereupon, however, it seems to me, no further rationalization is necessary for the faithful and in point of fact, may be dangerously misguided from a strictly theological point of view (the argument goes something like: “Will we tell God what he should think? Will we tell Him what His intentions are? Or when He commands, will we obey?”). The problem with that explanation, though, is that while it stands well with the faithful, it has no standing in a secular society of many faiths or of no faith at all (not to mention that as rationale, it doesn’t point to any near and necessary immorality to begin with, while simultaneously condemning common sexual practices of nearly everyone).
sdferr, that’s true, but likewise in a secular society no one should be able to tell us we have to renounce our faith in order to vote, receive meals (bought with our stolen taxes) as seniors, exercise free speech, etc. The Left doesn’t want a secular society, they want a society based on their “State as God” religion.
This is precisely why having a smaller government is something people of faith should embrace: it will have to leave us alone.
adferr – there exists several centuries of Natural Law that needn’t be recited here and which are readily available to the inquiring mind; by the use of the term Natural Law, I mean to say a school of philosophy not informed by divine revelation. A species of Natural Law forms the basis of what is today International Law.
I suppose I would respond to your critique with a series of questions – do you believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral order? Do you believe that ethics is a legitimate field of philosophy? Do you believe that human behavior ought to conform to an ethical standard arrived at through reason? Further, do you believe that it is permissible for such ethical standards to form the basis of law and policy?
Deflection and handwaving won’t do. That there may be some argument which purports to demonstrate the immorality of a sex act when committed by two homosexuals yet leaves untouched the same sex act when committed by two heterosexuals isn’t the question, but what that argument is, is the question. Got theory? Recite away.
Being – as we are – amongst friends, I think it is sufficient to point you to the sources that are not in hiding. You – acting in good faith, of course – may do the reading if you wish to discover that there is, indeed, a basis in reason and a long history in the Western Tradition for the proposition that homosexual behavior is inherently disordered. You put it to me to demonstrate that such a thing exists, which I have done.
Your acceptance of the Leftist frame – that homosexual is an identity – demonstrates that you are not open to the argument in the first place, and therefore making it explicitly in this forum is not a productive use of my time.
You attribute to me things of which you cannot possibly be cognizant Alec, though your foolishness in so doing is yet your right to do. So make up whatever story about me that assuages your ignorance and I’ll go merrily along awaiting an argument to which to be open. How else you spend your time is your business.
I attributed nothing to you but what can be read from your use of the terms “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” as if they are two distinct and separate kinds of human. I do also recall from other interaction your gleeful willingness to accept that someone like Chastity Bono is a “man,” because it is a “nice” thing to do, and so impolite to state a plain, objective fact. How many other truths will you not speak in order to be so polite?
As I remember that exchange, I made a relative statement, that I’d sooner do such and such than do some other thing, which wouldn’t commit me to “accept that someone like Chastity Bono is a ‘man’ ” because that’s the “nice” thing or otherwise. But as I said, go right ahead with your stories Alec, as you seem to enjoy the making of them.
You know, it was not my intention to be abrasive with you in this thread, but apparently you’ve chosen to interpret my words in that vein.
Having said this, I believe that you now make a distinction without a difference – do you care to recount what that “other thing” was?
Just as soon as you should care to make an argument that demonstrates the immorality of a sex act not pendant on scripture Alec. Have at it.
You know, I’m really confused – do you want one (if so, you can find it yourself rather easily), or are you again being coy and proposing that the fact that I am short of time to teach an Introductory course in Natural Law to you today is evidence that none such argument exists? Is that your position – that no such argument exists?
Natural Law is a powerful argument against the homos.
It’s not something you wield carelessly unless you’re prepared to accept the consequences.
“Is that your position – that no such argument exists?”
So little time that you’ve failed to see the questions?
You state “that there may be” as if it is some obscure footnote in a long forgotten tome that I’ve mentioned in passing, rather than a significant and influential branch of philosophy in the West with a millennial provenance. It is no different that you challenging me to prove that a branch of inquiry exists which concerns itself with the movement of matter through space and time and which can explain why an apple falls down from its bough, and claiming that the answer “physics” is incomplete and evasive. “Tolle Lege.”
It’s interesting what this transparently misleading H. Josef Hebert article for the little president man’s dirty socialist Associated Press elides from this article.
The only one what’s cited falling for the fatuous “blame game” narrative it seems is of course a Team R cocksucker.
Namely one John Barrasso from Wyoming.
If the Barrasso homo ever wants to see Wyoming’s energy developed he needs to get his head out of his ass I think.
If your aim is to cite authority Alec, no-one is standing in your way. Yet, so far as I can tell, you’ve not even done that, save to handwave at a “millennial provenance” that may, for all we know, embrace manifold contradictory statements pro and con vis a vis the immorality of homosexual sex acts. It’s a hard thing to pin down, these millienia. Rather than exhort that I should read, why not assume that I already have done, and in so doing, have encountered many different arguments to many different conclusions?
On the other hand, if this were a simple question with an obvious and straightforward answer, that would be a simple thing to set out and examine, would it not?
sdferr, it is you and yours who propose to turn a culture on its ear. I think the burdens of proof and production are for you in this discussion. The very fact that you’re being so cryptic about what you may have read, and won’t admit or deny that the Natural Law tradition proposes a basis in reason alone for its conclusion regarding homosexuality is telling. For someone that is supposed to be an ally, you’re making a great effort to make sure that we can’t come to some agreement. I really don’t understand the destructive glee that you employ to drive a wedge through our political coalition, and at times you sound nothing more than a happyfeet who has abandoned the usual juvenile diction.
It is simply undeniable that a reasonable basis exists, which ought to satisfy you, but doesn’t for reasons that are your own. I quite simply have no interest in engaging you in a substantive philosophical discussion today. If you ask in good faith, you can find the answer yourself. It seems to me now that you do not ask in good faith, but as a rhetorical tactic in response to which I simply will not give you satisfaction.
“sdferr, it is you and yours who propose to turn a culture on its ear.”
There you go with your fantastic stories again Alec. It must be awfully fun I reckon. I can’t endorse your product, however, since it doesn’t even vaguely resemble the truth of the matter. And though you may accuse me of bad faith, you’ll still be telling a lie. But again, as before, that remains your right to do.
Yes, sdferr – you were born anew on PW this very morning. You’re on the record about abolishing marriage by ‘getting the government out of it’ or some like gibberish which you believe is a too clever device to maintain your Libertarian cred while accommodating the demands of the Ghey lobby. You’re proposing the change, regardless of your reasons, so the burdens are yours – not mine.
“You’re on the record about abolishing marriage…” “…maintain your Libertarian cred…” “…accommodating the demands of the Ghey lobby…”
More stories Alec? Does the lying establish your credibility somehow, do you think? But setting out an argument, one which you apparently advocate though one no-one has seen in this thread, would somehow undo your credibility? By all means then, continue as you see fit.
Around the maypole you go – remaining defiantly and willfully ignorant. One might even say you take your ignorance as a point of pride in this regard. To date, you’re the only interlocutor making the request – one might think it would be for you to do the reading and abolish your own ignorance.
Re: #302: Cameron (CAM, manufacturer of the blowout preventer) is up almost 5% on heavy volume. Transocean (RIG) is up a bit too.
Again with the reading Alec? It’s your argument to make if you choose to make it.
As to my ignorance, I’ll gladly accede to the fact, though what it is that I’m ignorant of (a vast deal of matter, let me assure you) remains as yet unstipulated in this context. But that no argument has been set out as yet here, of this I’m fairly certain.
Well, this is where you go so terribly wrong. It’s not my argument, though I am an advocate. The philosophy is there to be read, should you care to do so. Now, I do believe that it was your position that your friends on the right were doing a great disservice by having ideas and opinions about Ghey issues, which you concluded were really only scriptural in basis. Out of deference to them, and without regard to me you might want to do the work. All the more so because it seems plain that you believe that some opinions held by persons with religious commitments may have no place in the public square. Perhaps before you propose to deny them your political allegiance, you might want to make the effort.
bh, about that mandate and the prospects of a generalized revolt, this fella Jesse Walker points back at Lilla’s article seen in the light of an earlier article by Gillespie and Welch. It’s an interesting take on the thing anyhow.
“…it seems plain that you believe that some opinions held by persons with religious commitments may have no place in the public square.”
Still with the fevered imagination Alec, busily stuffing words into my mouth that I have not used nor hold? And still with imagining what I have read and what I have not read? Ha.
My my, how coy. Why don’t you condescend to tell us what you really think right here in this lowly thread and dispel all of my awful lies about you?
Thanks, sdferr. In the Gillespie/Welch article they present politics as a lagging indicator. Which is encouraging in terms of your argument.
CAM is now up 6%, which is many.
I’ve said what I think right along as long as I’ve been commenting here Alec. And contrary to your assertion that I’ve been “cryptic about what [I] may have read” I’ve been fairly forthright I think, indeed, to such an extent that I’ve often wondered whether I’ve imposed on the good will of the rest of the folks here with my frequent links to one document or another, one theorist’s efforts or another.
So, coy? Nope, I don’t think so.
Now I can see the possibility that you’ve heretofore made a habit of not clicking on those links, whether consciously or not, whether out of a press for time or not, and so in consequence you may not have any certainty as to where it is I’m disposed to stand. But then I think, if that’s the case, where, I wonder, do you come by this knowledge of my reading or not reading you seem to have, where, by this knowledge of my intent to “turn a culture on its ear”, and so on? It’s a puzzlement.
Strongly outperforming broader markets and sector.
There were four tests of $35 but I’d still read this as news driven.
I’ve come across people who will tell you what your argument is, despite what you think. Mostly because they have a killer counterargument or put-down that they’ll use even if they have to gin up a counterfeit opposing argument.
Apropos of nothing at all, really.
Perhaps you can tell us what sdferr’s killer argument was, in essence?
3rd test of $38. Up down from $35 to $38, three days in a row.
Okay, thus ends the stock talk.
QED
QED doesn’t mean what you think it means, wiseass. Thanks for piping up though, Jr.
Catamite!
QED^2!
I was just wondering to myself who would provide us with entertainment now that nishi has left in a huff, and I see that the Lord has provided.
More wonderful substantive content, I see. Hopefully, sdferr can “reach” and repay your favor.
Self-referentialism is the new black, apparently.
sdferr,
Here is a discussion that captures the costs many of the consequences of the issue.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
His concluding paragraph:
“It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.”
You might disagree with his conclusions but I did find several articles that found that a male homosexual/bisexual has a life expectancy of 20 years less than exclusively heterosexual males.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Should we ignore these issues or talk about them honestly especially given the ever growing impact on society?
Whether you use God’s law as your source or the Natural law of Plato you come to the same conclusion about the issue.
At least that’s my take on it.
Those ideas are soiled by the very fact that people of faith hold them, even if they are not explicitly founded in scripture. QED.
It seems to me that mixing the idea of “morality” into the natural world is one that presents certain inescapable problems, namely that morality is a construct that doesn’t really fit into the natural world. A failure to propagate the species isn’t immoral as far as the natural world is concerned as that is something that occurs on a regular basis in individuals and who has sex with who is a something that is wildly varied in nature.
I suppose if you are stretching the natural world to include the idea of natural rights it could work, but even then we would be primarily concerned with individual liberty and how its enjoyment might infringe on others. In which case whatever 2 consenting adults do is their own business.
Danger, I wonder how you feel about public health advocates making similar arguments about obesity or smoking? Would you consider those roughly equivalent to gay sex when thought of in this manner? That is, choices that can lead to negative consequences?
Pure good faith questions, btw. Insert smiling emoticon here.
“I suppose if you are stretching the natural world to include the idea of natural rights it could work, but even then we would be primarily concerned with individual liberty and how its enjoyment might infringe on others. In which case whatever 2 consenting adults do is their own business.”
Makewi
Agreed in principle but we shouldn’t be forced to take on the liability of someone else’s behavior (through higher insurance premiums) . Do you think it is possible to create an exemption? And would you extend the consenting adult allowance to same sex marriage.
sdferr’s original question:
“I’m still puzzled how we’re to arrive at a conclusion of imputed immorality on the sex acts themselves, outside some scriptural guidance in the matter? Is there any such, to your knowledge Makewi?”
If I understand the question correctly sdferr is asking there is any authoritive source (outside of spiritual guidance) that finds specific sex acts as immoral. My answer was yes.
“In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural””
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
bh,
What do you mean by similar arguements?
It is (politically) much easier to place a health or life insurance premium on an individual that is obese or smokes.
I am not interested in government dictating behavior whether it is accomplished through taxes or criminal charges (with the exception of behavior that is harmful to someone else).
I just don’t want to be responsible for someone else’s bad choices.
Capturing costs is a worthy endeavor, I suppose, and not something to be lightly cast aside. But capturing some costs while excluding others isn’t going to be terribly persuasive to the targets of our sketches of the moral.
bh’s question aims at the totalizing follow-on to such a path. Or, to put it another way, is our depiction of the moral thing going to rest ultimately on a species of consequentialism or utilitarianism? Indeed, it may, to the extent that our very morality rests as Jeff’s cited article of yesterday points in the direction of our notions of right being writ right into our genes.
What to do with Plato, however, is a much different problem as I see him and his works. A pull quote from the dialogues, in other words, is one hairy fraught bitch.
So when people decide not to abort tards and other diseased useless ones, they should probably have to pay for that themselves?
sdferr,
Being aware of the consequences and encouraging the behavior that leads to better consequences seems a noble endevour, No?
“What to do with Plato, however, is a much different problem as I see him and his works. A pull quote from the dialogues, in other words, is one hairy fraught bitch.”
Perhaps,
But the better argument is to provide evidence that counters. Ante up amigo;^)
Agreed in principle but we shouldn’t be forced to take on the liability of someone else’s behavior (through higher insurance premiums).
I would say risk must be measured based on individual circumstance, but we quickly get into tricky territory when we pick and choose which risks are worth measuring and which are not. In the case of homosexuality you have the extra problem of trying to figure out whether the behavior is a choice or not.
Thanks, Danger. I understand what you’re saying. And sdferr rightly saw my questions as going towards the question of utilitarianism as a moral basis.
‘feets, dude, you’re just poisoning the well with that rhetoric. You could make your point just as easily by simply pointing out that lots of babies don’t fair so well under utilitarian measures. But instead you just hucked a grenade.
“…provide evidence that counters…”
Evidence that counters what exactly Danger? It seems to me that the article’s own citation of Plato’s having written different things in different places (“In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus“) would stand on its own as caution enough.
tards? Really, hf?
More to the point: Plato argues by assertion, there. Probably elsewhere, too. And his assertion is provably incorrect: homosexuality does occur in nature. That remains true even if you disregard that Man is part of Nature.
I’m guessing they didn’t have a list of logical fallacies built up yet, back then.
And would you extend the consenting adult allowance to same sex marriage.
I think the right compromise is to allow the legal pairing of any 2 consenting adults for whatever reason pleases them. Why mess around? A coupling forms a strong economic and social base than an individual does, and so it seems in societies interest to increase that pool size.
I believe that the word marriage does not need to be changed to accommodate this, but that the likely outcome would be for it to be happen in its own course anyway, like ‘will you xerox this?’ or ‘will you pass me the kleenex?’
Why should have to subsidize the perverted tard-bearing Christian lifestyle?
*I* have to subsidize I mean the guy is here switching the vents around for summer
I kind of wish feets would fuck off for a while, until he stops acting acting like a twelve-year-old.
What to make of judgey bullshit Christians what don’t want faggots to marry but then bitch and moan that they’re promiscuous?
It’s a conundrum.
Being human is inherent risky and often contains instances of ‘but for the grace of God go I’, so I would almost rather see incentives towards good healthy behavior than penalties for identified risk. This would require everyone pay more as a baseline, so I’m sure it won’t be popular.
judgey.
Ironically encased in a spittle-flecked word-salad of judgeyness.
It’s a funny day, all right.
What to make of judgey bullshit Christians what don’t want faggots to marry but then bitch and moan that they’re promiscuous?
It’s a conundrum.
I think the real conundrum is when you got to be such a tard pretending he’s interested in discussing the facts instead of just screaming like a petulant child who isn’t getting his way.
First you assign this judgey behavior to Christians, likely because at heart you are just a can’t-help-himself bigot. Second, you pretend that there isn’t a general consensus that a marriage by another name is fine. Last, you pretend that the promiscuity necessarily has anything to do with some legal status.
Look man, if you want to run off and be an angry leftist just do it. Stop trying to manufacture reasons where there aren’t any. Own it.
hmmmph
“So when people decide not to abort tards and other diseased useless ones, they should probably have to pay for that themselves?”
In large respect they do Feets. Anyone that has a Downs syndrome baby is facing a much more difficult path in raising them and is very likely committed to remain their guardians for their entire life. This however does not elimanate all of the rewards inherant in parenting.
http://themusicalmonk.blogspot.com/2007/11/god-bless-last-ones_17.html
I’m happy to help them it was just an analogy. You mad me mad with your suggestion about throwing the homos out of the risk pool. I don’t understand the callousness. And I also don’t understand the idea that homos are just fallen and can’t get up. Without marriage how do you think your average random male person would fare longevity-wise and would they be promiscuouser you think? There’s lots of studies on that I think.
*made* me mad I mean
“In the case of homosexuality you have the extra problem of trying to figure out whether the behavior is a choice or not.”
Being obese (as bh suggested) or alcoholic has genetic arguements as well.
I’m not pretending to have all the answers but I think we should assess the evidence that’s available and when it shows that a behavior is destructive isn’t it worthwhile to encourage a change to the behavior or at the very least not be enablers of it.
sdferr,
You suggested that I failed to capture Plato’s views because I only qouted one line in isolation. I agreed to the possibility but:
“a much harsher line” is not a contradictory line.
If you are aware of a contradictory line from Plato or anyone else of note please share it.
Danger
Certainly encouraging a change of behavior when increased risk is involved is in order. We advise alcoholics to stop drinking and hang out with others in the same boat, because that has shown a certain degree of success. We tell obese to diet and exercise and to take medications when it is called for. What advice to we give gay folks, assuming choice is not an option, stop having sex? The best advice is probably to form committed monogamous relationships and to practice safe sex. Would that be enabling?
I don’t have all the answers either. Perhaps I don’t really have any of them.
It isn’t, for my part, Danger, so much a matter of the potential of discovering contradiction (though that too is a possibility) as that I’ve found, as I’ve learned to read Plato’s dialogues, that we haven’t got Plato speaking “thus and such a thing”, but someone else, as, say Socrates, or the Athenian Stranger, and not just speaking to anyone at random when he speaks, but to someone in particular, say Glaucon or Cleinias the Cretan. So what is said, and what is meant by what is said, is always attached to the context in which it was said and by whom and to whom and with whom sitting to the side (like us, for instance) listening and pondering. More like that, than not. And in that context I urged caution, and will keep to that sense myself.
“I’m happy to help them it was just an analogy. You mad me mad with your suggestion about throwing the homos out of the risk pool.”
I made no such suggestion. I merely said that the same premiums that apply to other risky behaviors like smoking or skydiving should apply to people that engage in risky sexual practices.
“And I also don’t understand the idea that homos are just fallen and can’t get up.”
We have ALL fallen and can’t get up Feets. Not on our own any way.
Without marriage how do you think your average random male person would fare longevity-wise and would they be promiscuouser you think? There’s lots of studies on that I think.
Well you are pretty handy with the google so if you find one that shows single heterosexual males life expectancy is only 2/3 of his married counterpart then Ante up.
There used to be a bigger gap in healthyness between single and not-single men but it’s been narrowing.
But what you’re suggesting is not America. It’s horrifying, really. Creating a financial incentive for gay men to hide their gay and lie about it is not the future.
There is a financial incentive to lie about smoking. Is that America?
“What to make of judgey bullshit Christians what don’t want faggots to marry but then bitch and moan that they’re promiscuous?”
Are you sure it’s only the lack of marriage option leading to promiscuosness that leads to the unhealthyness.
FTA I cited earlier (graphic content alert):
“Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:
“Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.”20
Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent”
Feets,
If you have evidence that counters these findings that bring it on. I’m perfectly capable of compartmentalizing my “judgeyness” and I’ll consider it.
omg I’m not reading about the penile and the anal.
Are you sure it’s only the lack of marriage option leading to promiscuousness that leads to the unhealthyness?
No I’m not. But I don’t think it’s fair to impute the whorishness tendencies of a group to individuals within that group.
All smokers smoke but all homos are not (graphic content alert) I don’t think.
You’re a patient man, Danger.
No I’m not. But I don’t think it’s fair to impute the whorishness tendencies of a group to individuals within that group.
Unfortunately that’s the way it works when computing risk. It’s about the odds and percentages.
“But what you’re suggesting is not America. It’s horrifying, really. Creating a financial incentive for gay men to hide their gay and lie about it is not the future”
I am more concerned that they are probably dying 20 years too early and often suffering from painful diseases leading up to it.
Doesn’t that bother you?
“You’re a patient man, Danger.”
Thanks Cranky, Hopefully happyfeet will appreciate the effort and quit assigning undeserved motives to me along with the others here that disagree with him.
…which is pretty much everyone.
The ones having bad motives being assigned, not the disagreeing-with.
OT: “Jawa Exclusive: Capture Of Mullah Omar Confirmed”*
Fingers crossed.
But, *.
“omg I’m not reading about the penile and the anal.”
To be honest I don’t like thinking about it either. Unfortunately there are some bizzare things occuring out there and judgey christians are not the cause of (most of) it.
Sometimes ya gotta offer some tough love. Takes a lot more courage and compassion than keeping your head in the sand.
“The ones having bad motives being assigned, not the disagreeing-with”
Slart,
I don’t claim to be the authority on this or any other subject. I see disturbing evidence that suggests we need to reassess how we view homosexual relationships but I’m open to other views and if there is evidence that is contrary I’d like to see it.
Happyfeet could be right about the issues he is passionate about but passion is no shortcut for persuasion in my book.
I appreciate the effort and I am sorry I got screechy.
I appreciate that Feets 8^)
I know you intend well you just seem to get carried away sometimes. Although the discussions here are often about important issues try to remember we are not doing brain surgery here.
Everyone makes mistakes, everyone mispeaks sometimes and everyone has room to grow and learn.
Have a great night!
you have a good night too Mr. Danger
Hit it, Elvis.
Improved on that for you; hope you don’t mind.
Congrats to the Blackhawks for winning the right to get their aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass kicked by the Sharks.
Improved on that for you; hope you don’t mind.
Not at all,
I’d go a step further and say passion is no substitute for providing evidence to effect persuasion.
But that would not fit on a bumper sticker ;^)
Ladies Winter Garden Sandal Clogs Case Pack 48…
Their combined experience of more than 60 years as sports writers means they have the sources to get the inside information not available to others on the Senators and the NHL….