Don’t-mess-with Joe on Meet the Press
As more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it’s a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love?
Takes “simple” to a who new level.
Don’t-mess-with Joe on Meet the Press
As more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it’s a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love?
Takes “simple” to a who new level.
Joe Biden is a gift that keeps on giving.
Or a gaff that keeps on gaffing.
Important link.
Damn, Lee! I was just about to say that I walked 47 miles of barbed wire and I’ve got a Cobra snake for a necktie as well as a brand new house by the roadside, made out of rattlesnake hide.
For us older ones.
Biden shouldn’t get any credit just for not being a bigot I don’t think …. he’s still an economy-raping socialist in the service of an administration remarkable primarily for food stamps and disability checks
What is funny, is following this line of logic, marriage is basically just a license to fuck, which you only need if you think adultry is a sin.
I love me some irony, should I try to marry it?
And for those of us older still.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPCDgfJyQ7g
he seems to be saying that marriage is more about commitment Mr. Moe I don’t get how this leads to this idea of marriage being a fuck license …
but then, as noted intentionalist scholar Darleen Click points out, he also doesn’t seem to be saying that he approves of incestuous and polygamous marriages… here is the key part to unlocking a more complete understanding of Mr. Biden’s views on the gay marriage:
So, clearly, Mr. Biden is not talking about people marrying their mother or brother, nor is he talking about people having more than one spouse (“And will you be loyal to the person you love?” – note he chose to use “person” as a singular here, so as to clarify that he’s not supporting plural marriages of any kind) … nor is he talking about people marrying ironies or such things.
Let’s return to the text:
There we go. No matter how you parse the above blockquoted phrase, it’s clear to the astute reader that Mr. Biden’s intention is to express approval of marriages amongst the following and only the following:
a.) lesbians
b.) gay men
c.) heterosexuals
You realize that Biden’s an idiot, right?
But what if I love more than one person? Are you going to force me to discriminate and only pick one? And what about when I don’t love them any more?
The only commitment in modern marriage is to one’s own inner whims and desires.
yes Biden is a simpleton non pareil
Joe doesn’t seem to be limiting it to two people. Which is only fair–who’s to say one’s heart is limited to loving only one person at at time? He’s come this far–why not just a little farther?
The polyamorists say different, and reject bigoted numerism. Love is not subject to the tyranny of numerals.
Mr. Moe that is a deeply cynical conclusion.
well Mr. Price we can definitely go back and ask Mr. Biden if he supports bringing back Mormon-style polygamy, but I think a close reading of the text suggests that Mr. Biden is employing a rhetorical device of directing his statements towards the subject about which he was expressly asked… here is the context the reporter at the link gives for so the reader can better interpret Mr. Biden’s answer…
Thank you. I try.
Biden’s intelligence questioned? But he is a humble man.
Just a heartbeat away from the presidency.
It’s amazing that I get any sleep at all.
Of course Spongejoe Hairplugs isn’t limiting it to two people. Once you embrace SSM there’s no logic to limiting a marriage to only two parties.
ITYS.
There’s nothing in Joe’s logic [sic] that indicates he has a problem with polygamy, nor is there a limiting principle in his simple proposition.
Again, what kind of judgmental numerist bigot limits marriage to two persons?
Polyamorists and Muslims (no need to play the LDS card) resent your judgment on their love.
It’s a simple proposition. Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Biden/Thorogood 2016.
he also doesn’t seem to be saying that he approves of incestuous and polygamous marriages…
He said it was “simple”, the only important thing is who you love?
Let go of your h8t, hf, of the polyamorous and consanguinity.
Mr. Biden if he supports bringing back Mormon-style polygamy,
Mormons stopped polygamy many moons ago in order to join the United States.
Polygamy is still legal in Muslim countries.
Now why would you use Mormons in your example, hf?
I think it’s a testament to what a half wit the yellow muppet is that he couldn’t even swat this one out of the park.
I guess it’s still okay to discriminate against bestialists, since a “who” is not a “what.”
Why do haters hate people with plenty of love to go around?
Hey, Ernst… what if?
a) two sisters;
b) two brothers;
c) sister and brother.
Me, I think I love the traffic and fill-in sports girl for my local NBC affiliate. Why am I being deprived of this marriage?
I’m sick of the nation discussing this matter. It’s not important in this time of crushing debt and feckless leadership.
Feelgood legislation is pap. 2% of the population demanding that the other 98% kowtow to their desires like a bunch of tantruming two year old is nonsense. I say send the 2% to the time out chair and let’s get back to the business of getting our economy up and running.
If Will & Grace has taught us anything, it is that teh gheys are the most sassy, compassionate, and stylish people there are. Too bad that they all live in multi-million dollar lofts in Manhattan and can’t spread their fabulous all over the country.
End numerist hate!
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
What is funny (sad funny, not funny haha) is that they said during the push to eradicate anti-Sodomy statutes that it wasn’t part of teh ghey marriage agenda. Then they get Lawrence v. Texas, and like the very next day they demand ghey marriage.
Riddle me this, Batmen and Women: what is the benefit that “marriage” is going to bestow on the ranks of gays yearning to be married that is not already granted under domestic partnership agreements and civil partnerships?
Married people today enjoy:
1. The liabity for each other’s debt.
2. Marriage penalty when filing their taxes.
3. Wage attachment if the partner makes a bad investment/financial decision that ends in judgement against the partner by a plaintiff.
4. Fantastically expensive alimony and child support payments in the event of divorce.
If they want to live on love, why get married and take on all that responsibility? At least that’s the argument I hazily rememeber from the 70s.
…what is the benefit…that is not already granted under domestic partnership agreements and civil partnerships?
The benefit of rubbing the squares’ faces in it. “Take that, Dad! Who’s the boss now?”
Hey now, the new world can’t rise from the ashes of the old until we burn it down.
Forward!
Sure, leigh, burden the world with more bastard poo-babies.
Just the other day I saw a poor corn-studded medium-brown scamp at the school bus stop, crying because the other legitimate children of the union of man and woman denied him when he wanted to play their legitimate human children games just because he was different. And a bastard.
There is no logically consistent way for the State to redefine marriage to include same sex marriage without allowing parent-child marriage (think elderly care-giving, not NAMBLA). The Progs demand that marriage no longer be about reproduction. It can’t be about having sex, it can’t even be about being in love (death panels, sex panels, love panels?). If marriage is now just a State sanctioned economic party of two, who are teh gays to exclude who can be in that unit?
The benefit of rubbing the squares’ faces in it. “Take that, Dad! Who’s the boss now?”
Precisely. I propose (pun intended) that all gays now in domestic partnerships who live in states in which gay marriage is legal MUST marry in order to qualify for their spouses insurance benefits or be dropped and made to purchase their own insurances. That includes car, home and life insurances, as well.
For the fairness, I further propose that all straight couples who are living together be granted domestic partnership benefits that they are currently excluded from.
Alec Leamas, heh.
The state’s interest in marriage has exactly zilch-ought-zip to do with love and loyalty. The state has no interest in formalizing love pledges between starry-eyed couples (or trios, or quartets, or mobs).
The state just wants to make sure children have claim on their parents resources.
Tell ya what. I’ll be cool with gay marriage as long as they don’t reproduce, and as long as single peeps can’t artificially inseminate to create kids, either. (If they want to rescue orphans from Cambodia, that’s different, on account of the kids being already born and parentless.)
Don’t miss out on other #BidenSitcomLaws
From watching Will & Grace, I believe not that gheys are “equal,” but rather that they are superior – perhaps the next stage in human evolution. They have a god-like ability to empathize and render compassion without reservation.
Even though the h8er Bible doesn’t say so, isn’t it possible that these lighter-than-air, ethereal beings are really Angels come to earth to earn their wings?
I think so.
Shit. I had confused “Ned and Stacey” with “Will and Grace” all this time.
I have never watched Will & Grace or Glee. I plan to keep it that way.
Coca-cola classic the red white and you equality will still win out over bigotry even in this most pitiful and dissolute of americas I think
New Marriage(tm), from the electric hamsters who brought you New Coke(tm)!
You really need to start attempting to communicate in some form of standardized written language. English preferred.
I don’t like this tossing around of the word “bigotry”, happy.
And Pepsi is superior to Coke.
Alec, it’s a combination of old jingles and copy-speak. If you’ve ever worked in a field that uses a lot of jargon, just run it through that filter.
I don’t know what else for to call it leigh I know what equality is and I know what bigotry is and I know what my mom and dad taught me
Did they teach you what marriage is?
OT, but I literally ROFL’d:
http://networkedblogs.com/xo0IW
Yes they were married for many many years and took good care of each other right up to the end
Lil help:
Equality DNE Same, and Bigotry DNE discrimination between things which are different in a meaningful way.
Now, re-do it.
From an editorial on an editorial in the Paper of Record re: Gay Marriage
Bold mine.
leigh:
Got linkage?
An appeal to intellect instead of emotion?
To the pikachu?
Hades give Sisyphus the day off or something?
Yup. It’s a Christianist paper so I’m guessing it’s an auto-fail for some.
I have the day off, Ernst. Let’s give it a shot, shall we?
All this talk about gay marriage is simply unfruitful.
Eventually gays will be able to marry in all 50 states.
But that day hasn’t come. And it won’t come for a while.
What is sad is odds are civil union recognition could have been a done deal when Clinton was in office. But no… some people decided they wanted to go around redefining words.
And that sad fact has nothing to do with bigotry, hate and other terms that are misused, overused and misapplied.
Some say they were taught the meaning of equality when they were young. Surprise that definition has changed also. All you need to do is go up thread and read about Ms. Warren and the equal plus designation she received by checking that one little box on a job application.
I think I’d rather have my liver pecked out by crows
Silly wolf! Surely you must know that
Some Animals are MORE Equal.
I don’t know why you’re accepting the Marxist frame of political history as an inevitable tilt leftward. Actual history – which is to say events that have happened – has proved it wrong. The Berlin Wall is down.
I suppose the question that should be asked but never is asked is in a democracy, doesn’t the losing side have to accept “no” as an answer? Doesn’t it stop being a democratic process when one side has to muster a greater than 50% majority ad infinitum?
This ghey shit is so maddening. It’s like in Europe when the assholes in Belgium keep putting a referendum issue on a country’s ballot, it loses repeatedly, and after the one time they get 51% for, it is a “settled matter” that can’t be voted on again.
I say fuck. that. In the states where they have it, it should go back on the ballot every time we can get it there.
If the polling holds out, NC will be the 32nd state to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The trend is distinctly not toward same sex marriage.
Over 50% of the people in the UK are anti the ghey marriage, as well. Must be all those Muslims.
Understood. I’m saying that we should accord as much respect to the democratic process as they do.
Put it on the ballot in the states where they have it now and make them defend it every few cycles. If nothing else, it will keep them occupied enough so they won’t go fucking around in the deep South.
Whenever possible, yeah. If it goes on the ballot, it loses, every time. It has never been put into law in the US by a vote of the people.
I wish I wcould remember where I read a real soft-soap of an article about one of the judges in Iowa who voted for the Gay Marriage Amendment or to uphold it, I forget which. It was such a panderfest.
They’re all about the fairness in Iowa. And ethenol subsidies.
Children of the Corn Subsidies.
I’m not accepting someone else’s frame on the march of history. I came up with this observation all by my lonesome. The fact is that this country has a reputation of bestowing more freedoms, not less, even though i don’t think that is entirely true (see homeland security).
And sure 32 states have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and all it will take is five folks on the Supreme Court to change that.
Personally i believe the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Where did happy go? Of getting tasty Thai food or summat?
Now that judge is all about retirement.
Judicial activism can do that to you.
That’s interesting, since just about every leftist discussing the issue says they are “on the right side of history” and everything that they want but especially this is “inevitable.”
Why would something so overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate be “inevitable,” SCOTUS aside?
Will the government get out of the “making people pay child support business” as well? How about the “dividing your property when you choose not to live together business?” You don’t get to check out of this issue with your lame deus ex libertaria unless and until abolishing civil marriage is on the ballot and up for discussion.
Given the zero-sum nature of the issue actually being discussed, I surmise that you are pro ghey marriage. Thanks for your comment.
equality will still win out over bigotry
Bigotry means that you treat gays poorly on account of they’re icky and gay and stuff. Bigotry is based on a desire to exclude people for the sake of excluding people, because it feels good to make sure that good people such as oneself are on the inside and those icky people are on the outside.
Recognizing that men cannot be mothers and women cannot be fathers and that children need one of each to learn how to relate to the two types of people on the planet is not bigotry. It is based on observation of plain fact, including brain scans (men and women have very different brains) and observing what happens to kids what are raised without a mom or a dad or both. It’s also based on a much different understanding of human sexuality than you or most of the country possesses.
That’s me having a different priority and worldview than you, ‘feets. I privilege the psychological welfare of children over “being fair” to adults. It would be bigotry if I opposed gay marriage because I thought it was icky.
Furthermore, I oppose single women like myself using artificial insemination to conceive fatherless children. In the covenant I’ve entered, sex is OK only inside the bonds of marriage, and if you cannot (or do not wish to) marry, you stay celibate. It doesn’t matter why you don’t marry, because there are many, many reasons outside one’s control that prevent marriage, homosexuality being one and mental and emotional and physical disabilities being others.
I’m walking the same walk I propose for others, so don’t be accusing me of bigotry so that you can feel smug and warm and holy. You may not be bigoted against gays, but you’re also pretty blind to my perspective and that of others.
Here we find one of the worst legacies of racial bigotry: now that we’ve recognized that We Were Wrong when we thought Africans were subhuman, anyone at all can compare a current boundary or prohibition to Jim Crow and call it The Same Thing, and before you know it everyone crumbles because they don’t want to be like the bigots who opposed Civil Rights and were On The Wrong Side Of History, a Marxist concept if ever there was one.
To be precise I am pro-civil union. I don’t believe the definition of marriage needs changing. Hope that helps to clarify my position for you.
BTW correct me if I am wrong, but two adults can enter into a contract without the state involved. The state only comes into play when one party doesn’t not fulfill their part of the agreement.
Don’t see why a pre-nuptial contract could not be written to spell out the duties of both parties when the contract is defaulted upon.
I walked 47 miles of barbed wire,
Used a cobra snake for a neck tie.
Got a brand new house on the roadside,
Made out of rattlesnake hide.
I got a brand new chimney up on top,
Made out of human skulls.
Now come on darling let’s take a little walk, tell me,
Who do you love?
— Bo Diddley
Di, I actually got a pro gay marriage guy (he, himself is not gay) to back off of the Jim Crow argument the other day and to admit that being gay and being black are not remotely the same.
A small victory, but a start.
To be precise I am pro-civil union.
That always sounds like a nice compromise, but it won’t be long before gays protest that they’re being treated like second-class citizens if they can’t go the whole Monty. I seem to recall hearing that it’s already started in the Bay Area.
but two adults can enter into a contract without the state involved.
That’s fine with me. It could be like Sheldon and Leonard’s roommate agreement.
I actually got a pro gay marriage guy … to back off of the Jim Crow argument the other day
SCORE!
Heh. I felt like yelling GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL!!
I’m quite sure some folks won’t be happy with the compromise. But after careful thought and consideration, that is the best I can do.
Good stuff, Pablo. If I’m awake enough later, it may be time to bring Billy Jack out of retirement. I just need a nice Liz Warren photo — preferably one in which she’s holding a scalp.
dicentra says May 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm
To which hf will reply: bigot.
If gay marriage proponents start conceding that any opponents are operating in good faith and from non-hateful rationales, they forfeit absolute moral authority, and that will not do. The deck must be stacked with demonization cards, and he’ll deal, thank you very much.
email jdw. He can whip one up for you.
I wonder if there are any minority set-asides available for my kids? Surely Pennsylvania Dutch is an endangered species.
Incidentally, Mass. is outlawing bake sales in public schools, but hey, they’re not bigots when it comes to the gays getting to redefine marriage so that they can include themselves in it without having to suffer the indignity of being required to actually engage in the behavior that defines it.
Kind of like how Elizabeth Warren became an Indian!
Maine Governor speaks truth to couch potatoes.
Good think ‘feets doesn’t live in Massachusetts. The Gays vs Cupcakes thing would probably make his widdow head expwode.
Maine Governor speaks truth to couch potatoes.
Cue smug Bruce Hornsby lyrics.
One of these should provide a suitable base for a P’shop.
I’ve honestly never thought about it like that before. Yeah, if people should learn to ignore things they don’t like from the Bible why not just ignore adultery and save everyone the big headache over gay marriage?
For the record, I still have my same opinion on the matter. Di spells it out somewhere above. Marriage is about kids.
Wait, I guess that should be fornication technically.
The Sisters always told us little sinners that we were supposed to remain chaste until marriage or spend eternity in Purgatory working off our sins. So, I’ll see you guys there and we can take turns on Rosary duty.
As long as I can still legally watch robots hump each other on youtube Joe Biden is okay with me.
Can’t play too fast and loose with fornication, leigh. Mortal sins take away your Purgatory card. These are things you need to hit the confessional for before you get hit by a bus or an asteroid falls on your head.
I’m saving them up for Extreme Unction.
The problem with that is unexpected death.
Rats. It’s a good thing I ‘fessed up years ago.
That’s always the smart play.
PETA and ALF probably have had their lawyers already work on how to frame this in order to get full “human rights” for those higher beings we call animals.
Now, about the Altar Boy Wine-Smuggling Club?
what is the benefit that “marriage” is going to bestow on the ranks of gays yearning to be married that is not already granted under domestic partnership agreements and civil partnerships?
I’m late to the party, leigh, but I’ll take a stab at it: It is not for any benefits that gays want marriage. It is intended to make the other 98% accept, embrace and celebrate their lifestyle as “marriage”.
It’s what Jeff is always hammering – language has specific meaning. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. They want us to change the definition and by so doing, give approval of what they are doing.
If the gays leave the definition of marriage alone, I’m all well and good with coming up with a definition to describe all other relationships. How about “fuck-partners for life or until death or divorce do us part”? No limits to numerosity, consanguinity, genus, species, etc. And you get the same legal benefits and burdens as marriage. You just can’t call it marriage because it isn’t.
Hi, Red.
It was more of a rhetorical question and I agree with what you’ve said. I also say they can take their rainbow flags and get out of here.
Which is dangerouser, pastry, or receptive anal sex? In moderation, I mean?
Sorry had to go to walnut somewheres now I’m in Berkeley I never been before… It’s beautiful!
Sort of a general feel of decay… Kinda powerful feel of decay really especially round the school
Kinda powerful feel of decay really especially round the school
That’s the occupied farm returning back to nature.
Berkeley is Santa Cruz
without the charm
And Santa Cruz is like an elephant graveyard
for hippies
There’s a good burger dive in Hayward if you have the time. Val’s on B Street i think.
Berkeley was a perfectly beautiful little town until the Socialists got ahold of it.
Di, I thought that farm that was ruined by the OWSers was at UCDavis?
Ick. Hayward is Fresno by the bay.
Wasn’t so bad when i lived there. The Mexican neighbors were third generation. I was back there about 10 years ago. Went by my grammar school and my sisters 8th grade class picture was hung in the hallway along with all the graduating classes before and since. We moved east in the spring of 64. The biggest change i saw was all the towns flowed together, no farms or ranches like i remembered. But Val’s was just as good then as it was when we went there after little league games. Thus the recommendation.
I was in Tulare a couple of summers ago to visit my mother’s side of the family and I couldn’t believe how all the towns had grown together. In Los Angeles, sure, but the San Joaquin Valley?
Nope, ’tis in Berzerkeley.
Davis got ruined long before #Occupy.
Thanks, McGehee. I read a really long piece by Zombie a while back about it, but I was thinking it was Davis. Davis is probably too far out in the country for those dopes.
I hope those doctoral students find out who all those guys are and sue the pants off them or, more likely, their parents for ruining all of their research.
North Carolina voters approve state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
California Takes BT’s optimism(“Eventually gays will be able to marry in all 50 states”) up a notch:
Resistance is futile. You WILL be absorbed.
Somewhere, an electric hamster is verklempt.
Also, I love Bo Diddly, but Hansom George was better. Also, in the intro to the video I linked, the song request was like Gregory making a request that Biden give us his new(and by “new” I mean opposite of what he said before) take on LGBT marriage.
And David danced and danced…
Also, too many alsos.
Not only did NC slam the door on the gay marriage, they undid domestic partnerships.
We’ll hear wailing and gnashing of teeth on the news all day tomorrow.
Gee, maybe SSM was a bridge too far in NC.
Can you racist, xenophobic, bigots out there do pushback? I think you can….
If everyone promises to keep it a secret I’ll admit that I voted for the state amendment on male/female marriage in Wisco. Passed 60-40 back in 2006.
As a point of reference, Obama won here by almost 14% only two years later. There’s a reason why he won’t be honest on the topic. It’s the same reason they never pushed amnesty back when they could.
They have lots and lots of losing positions we should consider exploiting. I mean, they’re trying to destroy the nation after all. This tends to focus the mind.
On the plus side (if you’re David Axelrod), now you have an excuse to get your convention the hell out of North Carolina, before that blows up in your face as well.
Here’s what passed for The Right Opinion® about teh marriages a few decades ago, at least according to the wise wise singer/songwriter set as represented by Miss Joni Mitchell
My old man
He’s a singer in the park
He’s a walker in the rain
He’s a dancer in the dark
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my blues
He’s my sunshine in the morning
He’s my fireworks at the end of the day
He’s the warmest chord I ever heard
Play that warm chord, play and stay baby
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
My old man
Keeping away my blues
But when he’s gone
Me and them lonesome blues collide
The bed’s too big
The frying pan’s too wide
Then he comes home
And he takes me in his loving arms
And he tells me all his troubles
And he tells me all my charms
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my blues
now you have an excuse to get your convention the hell out of North Carolina
Didn’t they book their venue and block out their Security already? I think they’re stuck there.
Good times.