Kohn sees gay marriage as the way to destroy marriage
In 2006, as a segment of gay rights organizations began the full-fledged push for marriage equality in America, another set of queer activists, joined by many straight people of color and feminist allies, voiced concern about making gay marriage a goal, let alone the centerpiece of the gay rights movement. Several prominent activists wrote and signed onto a statement called “Beyond Marriage.” In effect, they argued in a perpetual us-versus-them political paradigm, the solution to the systematic “otherization” of the gay community could not be found in joining the ranks of privilege through marriage while reinforcing the continued exclusion of other families. They wrote, “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.” These activists built on the radical traditions of the gay liberation movement — that the path to justice did not run through heteronormativity but through liberation for all.
Just as conservatives now acknowledge the fight to prevent gay marriage may be ending, the fight to prevent marriage as the central gay movement agenda ended some time ago. Those, myself included, who dreamed of a more imaginative gay rights movement — one rooted in transformation, not assimilation — could find encouragement sandwiched between the great intellectual scholarship of the past and the rising generation of more radical queer youth. In the meantime, we all fell in line with or were drowned out by the gay movement chorus calling for marriage rights.
We can ignore thousands of years of experience plus contemporary data that supports traditional marriage as the best possible place for children AND their parents.
But Kohn is a Leftist; so there are no standards of “good” or “better.” She’s of the school that competition is bad, every person should get a trophy for showing up and The State is to be our God/Parent/Spouse.
So marriage must be wiped out by redefining it out of existence.
We must be liberated from our heteronomativity!!!!
she’s stupid gay marriage is fortified with naturally occurring matrimonial enhancers what strengthen the institution of marriage upwards of 400% per application
“she’s stupid gay marriage is fortified with naturally occurring matrimonial enhancers what strengthen the institution of marriage upwards of 400% per application”
No real content, not funny, not clever, only nominally absurdist… have you considered submitting this to Jim Carrey? He might want to make an empty insipid little “parody” song out of it.
” heteronomativity”
Sometimes I fear that the greek and latin word roots will return to our world and wreak a terrible vengeance upon us for our abuses of their legacy.
subretrodispaternalismatosis
you’re more like a big fat meanosaurus cause of how mean you are
You could try writing stuff that sucks a little less. See how that works.
hf, you continue to labor under the delusion that marriage is just a ‘love license’ and concerned only with the emotional aspect of the adults involved.
McGehee has the gist of this “civil rights movement” … it’s to shove everyone into NannyStateChurch where its bureaucracy will micromanage our lives — no other institution allowed or dissent tolerated.
Sally Kohn is a mental midget. On her best day.
I hate to question their good faith, but perhaps this whole thing was not about equality from the first?
I need to do a lexisnexis to find the rest of the article and determine what would be beyond the middle ground.
I really hate these people.
And you’re more like a proggie tapeworm cause of how insidious and burrowing you are.
gay marriage is my favorite Darleen with gay marriage in the rear view mirror Team R can finally join the battle against fascism without pesky distractions as long as nobody suddenly has any novel rape theories
it’s like one of those win win things Tony Robbins is always squackering on about
I posted this on the other thread, but I think it more apropos here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/27/hillary_clinton_harry_reid_when_democrats_swore_they_would_never_back_gay.html
hf
how does one fight statism when one destroys the fundamental institution that produces adults interested in liberty?
You might as well just keep an eye out for The Gods of the Copybook Headings. No sense in trying to outdo Kipling.
you’re overthinking it
why can’t you just trust me on this?
Cupcakes! And anal sex, apparently.
Keep it up and the Two Minute Hate will be all about you.
Inevitable retort: How does gay marriage ruin your hetero marriage?
Short answer: The same way that printing more and more and more and more paper devalues the currency—dilution effect.
this Sally hooch is really hard to read
I think I hate her
pseudo-multitransperadseptualismatics
#MeghanMcCainTVShowNames
In order to fight the facisms, you have to embrace the facisms Darleen.
oh shocker she’s a fug
She’s obnoxious and used to be on Faux Newz quite a bit. She’s a big horsey kind of a gal who dresses like Anderson Cooper, even though she’s much larger than him. She rolls her eyes a lot and taps her fingers on the desktop when others are talking.
plots with this graph
“Gay Marriage” in Ngram: Media Muscle in action
Macrooptivacuisectoid omnibloombergiousness
i read the whole article I don’t see where she wants to destroy marriage
she’s just one of those fiercely dykey grad student types what likes to squacker
so that’s what Slate’s all about these days?
postlapsarian premature anitdisestablishmentarian
That would be:
I’d guess she counts herself as one of the drowned. But then again, lefties do like to march, so who knows.
Hasn’t Dan Savage been all about discussing the antiquated idea of monogamy in marriage lately? At a certain point you have to be a fool or complicit to not see a certain radical, negative thrust from a largish segment of these advocates.
I’d suggest that the rather rare and quiet lesbian couple raising horses together in Iowa disavow such people speaking on their behalf but they’re probably too busy having a life.
My thinking aligns with bh’s; most gay couples are quietly having a life.
I’d have to agree with the two of you.
Seems like somewhere or other some of these activist folk forgot to have a sitdown with themselves over the meaning of justice, and simply replaced that conversation with their fevered imaginations instead. However that happened, they’ve become a danger to themselves, to say nothing about the rest of the world.
I’m waiting for the pamphlet: ” Ok, you’re gay. But are you gay enough? Are you Authentically gay? Are you doing your part to be the sort of gay that is allied with the right side of history? And have you ever thought about the term LBGT? Are those letters really in the right order? How would you arrange them and why? “
And the modern “heteronormative” married couple thinks differently?
Lotta motes in a lotta eyes.
modern = self diminishing, dulled
However you want to define it, the simple fact is the modern hedonistic approach to hetero marriage with its high divorce rates , multiple marriages and broken, single parent homes is doing far greater damage to our culture and society than what a fraction of a percent of queers is ever going to do, but nobody seems to give a fuck about that.
I would also like to hear some ideas about just how conservative we think the tradition ought to be? Do we go back to dowreys and arranged marriages? Do suitors ask the father for permission before the potential bride?
True.
False.
or the potential groom
Is it relevant?
I don’t know why one would conservatively defend things that never even existed during their own lifetimes. Hard to conserve something you’ve never even experienced.
Red herring, dude.
Get a room.
I may as well conservatively defend asexual reproduction. It’s older than all of this new sexual business.
Yet… I don’t feel it necessary. Not even a little.
Its relevant to me in the sense that the idea of marriage is and has always been carved in stone and can’t change with the times.
It was very different not very long ago, some of the changes have been good, some bad, but it has changed just the same.
And everybody says they give a fuck about the breakdown of hetero marriage… then they go right back to raising hell about omg teh gays!
I am just getting really tired of it. We are fiddling while Rome burns.
I suppose I find the speed and mechanism of change to be most relevant from a conservative perspective, BMoe.
Change isn’t anti-conservative, it’s simply not viewed as an unmitigated good. It’s not “progress” necessarily, by default.
You’ll find very few conservative arguments against plows or antibiotics. You’ll probably find a few against miracle products sold by traveling salesmen though.
Rome can’t currently produce enough children to continue, BMoe.
That’s even more existential than the other burnings.
beemoe – you can’t ignore in your analysis the fact that the academic/political forces behind the push for gay marriage were the same that were openly calling for the abolition of marriage in its entirety a few decades ago, while simultaneously tacitly undermining the institution through the regime of family laws. The ineffectiveness of the institution weakened by forces who would see it destroyed as an “archaic institution for the ownership of women” is not an argument to cede further ground to the same forces. The fact that human nature, and human sexual nature is not well constrained and directed by a purposefully weakened institution is, however, an argument to restore it and in favor of its very necessity. Looked at another way, it is easy for women to love and understand women, just as I suppose it is for two men who are, after all, essentially like one another. Loving and understanding the other – as opposed to simply being strongly sexually attracted to the one – across the divide of the sexes is difficult. Is it then any wonder that a strong institution is more necessary to fuse together the unlike but complimentary things than to fuse together things that are essentially the same?
the modern hedonistic approach to hetero marriage with its high divorce rates , multiple marriages and broken, single parent homes is doing far greater damage to our culture and society than what a fraction of a percent of queers is ever going to do
It is true that the idea of marriage being a mere love-pledge began with the heteros.
But your argument is self-contradictory. If SSM is a manifestation of the idea that marriage is just a love pledge, and that such an idea is screwing up culture and society, then it follows that we should not endorse something that is predicated on that bad idea.
It’s not hard to argue that acceptance of SSM is a red-flag indicator that society’s concept of marriage is awfully damaged already, and that if this is where we’re at, we need to hit reverse PDQ and back away from SSM as fast as we can.
As well as backing away from all of the ill-conceived social experimentation of the past half-century, such as no-fault divorce, the welfare state, promiscuity, and most of what came with the sexual revolution.
but nobody seems to give a fuck about that.
Right. There are exactly zero institutes and think-tanks and churches devoted to the preservation of marriage or to society’s need to have a more profound, meaningful, understanding of marriage and human sexuality.
Nope. Not one.
Nobody ever decried the cheapening of human sexuality by the entertainment media, no one has been complaining about the portrayal of bad behavior as good on TV—especially not Dan Quayle—and nobody has been making noises about the need to make divorce harder or to stop making it so easy for single mothers to use their welfare checks as husband substitutes.
I would also like to hear some ideas about just how conservative we think the tradition ought to be? Do we go back to dowreys and arranged marriages? Do suitors ask the father for permission before the potential bride?
Your question assumes that the basis for rejecting SSM is the dead hand of tradition, that we’re looking to “how it’s always been” as the sole reason for wanting to maintain the opposite-sex component of marriage.
Please.
Human societies have added on all kinds of customs and traditions and practices and attitudes to the core component of marriage, which consists of the union of the sexes to form a new household. Polygamy is the only viable alternative to monogamy, but only when there’s one man and many women, not the reverse. Polygamy is actually more “natural” than monogamy, because the instinctive reproductive strategy of the male is to spread his seed far and wide, whereas the instinctive reproductive strategy of the female is to mate with the alpha male.
However, this arrangement leaves a lot of unattached males running around, and they’re nothing but trouble. So monogamy it is.
Do you never stop to wonder why none of the other civilizations—including non-Abrahamic societies and other societies such as the sodomy-friendly Spartans—ever supported (or if they did, it didn’t last long)?
Shouldn’t we find out before moving ahead? First rule of remodeling: never remove a wall until you know why it’s there.
Our society, with its degraded marriage practices and attitudes, is exactly the wrong society to know whether the opposite-sex component can be safely removed.
you worry too much dicentra
but you won’t get an ulcer unless you have special bacterias
it’s science!
I can find one extant example of an a prior attempt at homosexual marriage (on two occasions) before the modern era, and that being the mad Emperor Nero.
Now how many “civil rights” movements can say that they were begun by an insane and murderous Emperor?
you worry too much dicentra
You don’t worry enough.
But then, I value different things than you do. That which I worry about losing may not be something you give even half a rip about.
“you worry too much dicentra”
Shorter feet; Shut up, he said.
“That which I worry about losing may not be something you give even half a rip about.”
He’s not losing anything, you are all on your lonesome.
if human society can evolve marriage for to make society more better it can also evolve gay marriage for to make society more better
which is what it’s doing
i wonder but that some people don’t just have prejudices what make it to where they can’t see what’s in front of their eyeballs
but you know a lot of times me I’m not a big fan of change either
Rome can’t currently produce enough children to continue, BMoe.
That’s even more existential than the other burnings.
– What with heading toward 7 billion souls to feed as things stand now, maybe thats a feature not a bug.
All that positive cultural change feets is always going on about.
http://tinyurl.com/c7sjhr9
We’re number one! WOOT!
Di, I asked this question on the other thread and would like to hear what you have to say:
I heard an interesting point on the radio yesterday that maybe Dicentra can weigh in on. It seems that the SCOTUS has ruled on the definition of marriage before during Utah’s storied history as a haven of polygamists. In order for the territory to become a state, the church had to “reject” polygamy and hew to the official SCOTUS definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
beemoe, gay marriage is the end result of the left’s destruction of the institution of marriage.
“i wonder but that some people don’t just have prejudices what make it to where they can’t see what’s in front of their eyeballs”
Um..that would be you.
“Rome can’t currently produce enough children to continue, BMoe.”
And it is actively attacking and attempting to retard the means by which it feeds itself and is inviting in strangers who have come to pick the bones instead of join the party.
Alec,
Well, Hitler was all about the Nordic race and their place in the world. We got crazy and murderous in Hitler, though, not much call for expanding the influence of the Nordic race these days. Although, Merkel is doing her best to make the EU Germany’s bitch.
“What with heading toward 7 billion souls to feed as things stand now, maybe thats a feature not a bug.”
It’s more about density vs. productivity, storage, and flexibility than it is reaching some Erlichian threshold volume that can magically move down the line a bit once you inconveniently reach it with few if any ill effects.
Another from the guy Alec quoted earlier.
It seems that the SCOTUS has ruled on the definition of marriage before, during Utah’s storied history as a haven of polygamists. In order for the territory to become a state, the church had to “reject” polygamy and hew to the official SCOTUS definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Utah had to include a ban on polygamy in its constitution prior to being admitted to statehood, and that ban had to be written such that it could never be revoked, post-admission. Which leads some to speculate that if polygamy were to be legalized in Utah, Utah would lose its statehood.
Had we not stopped performing plural marriage, the U.S. gubmint would have seized our temples, our assets, our property—all that we had worked so hard to build out of the Godforsaken wilderness that is the Great Basin.
What many people don’t know is that the Book of Mormon clearly states that monogamy is the default commandment:
The plural marriages among the LDS functioned dually as a welfare system and as a rapid-repopulation strategy.
There were lots of single women in the early church—some widowed, some abandoned, some never married—and there was no way for a single woman to support herself in those days. When a man was called to take another wife, he had to first take a widow or divorced woman, along with her children, as the first plural wife. (The first wife always had veto power over the choice.) These “welfare” marriages were often never consummated because they were a care-taking arrangement.
And there’s also the “raise up seed unto myself” angle: Jacob’s twelve sons from four wives formed the basis of the entire covenant Israelite nation. Kinda hard to explode your chosen people without resorting to polygamy, because there are never enough good men to go around.
M. Signorile writes at HuffPo and says this about his quote that Alec posted at 7:29 pm.
He puts up the quote but does not provide any linkage to the entire piece so that the context can be examined in entirety, so there is only his word is all that there is for what the article was actually about.
This is completely out of “left field” but it’s a bit of synthesis from BMoe’s question about the reach of conservative fellow-feeling and the great bit of history I’ve learned from people around here.
Let’s imagine an email from sdferr wherein a particular passage from a non-Republican, pre-Christian (…etc.) rings true in a way that feels vaguely “conservative” and is sometimes framed in a “conservative” manner.
Is this then a conservative notion? I’d argue not in the way I use the term anyway.
To take it up again then would be revolutionary perhaps? (Possibly even in a way that one such as Burke would generally advise against as such notions work to undermine the current aristocratic structures.)
For myself, that’s why I use conservative and progressive in one way for one time period and left and right for others and then “I have no idea for the correct term” and “the other basic viewpoint” for a different time period yet.
There really are so many time periods where I can’t pin their notions with our current terms. Many history writers seem to not have this problem but I can’t really tell if that’s because they’re much more informed than myself (they definitely are) or they like to put things into piles (they definitely do).
“It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
Why does a dog lick his balls?
Answer: Because he can.
Because you can do something is not a cogent reason to do that thing.
The traveling salesmen often did the same with the testimonials they relied upon.
Is this then a conservative notion? I’d argue not in the way I use the term anyway.
In a purely dictionary-definition sense, “conservative” merely means “inclined to conserve or prevent from changing.” Its opposite is “revolutionary” or “radical,” and these two are the opposite ends of the “tolerance for change” continuum.
We are “conservatives” in the sense that we want to conserve the Constitutional Republic that we inherited and/or longstanding Judeo-Christian values.
In their day, the Founders were radicals, whereas the Royalists were conservatives. So if someone asks if I’m a conservative, the logical response is to ask what’s being conserved?
“Liberal” stands in opposition to “monarchist” on the continuum of “who makes the rules?”
The other continuum is degree of government control, which is bounded by “totalitarianism” and “anarchy.”
All this means that “conservative” and “liberal” aren’t actually opposites, because they’re not on the same axis. Political labels are like that: they usually deviate from their dictionary definitions and are meant to be self-flattering rather than accurate.
Oh, h/t Steven den Beste on the continuums.
Dead useful, I’ve found.
Is the indefinite (practically infinite) plastically malleable notion “culture” conservative? Damn thing seems notionally hollow to me it’s so damn ubiquitously slapped now on this, now on that. Maybe somebody can show as much (somehow “culture” conserves), but I get twitchy everytime I see it, nevertheless.
The author Jerry Pournelle developed a similar idea in his polisci PhD dissertation.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Note that he uses “rationalism” in a technical sense.
I’ve always been comfortable with using “conservative” as conserving “liberalism” for our age.*
Been awhile since I’ve read that den Beste post (I think I was in my twenties, living in Chicago and trading commodities at the time; this was over one thousand years ago) but I remember not feeling entirely comfortable with it. Given my advanced age and resulting wisdom — Ha! — I think this came from my aversion to putting “who makes the rules” in terms of the individual or the king. Seems to unnecessarily bracket civil society or things we all remember our moms saying.
We should discuss that post as an exercise in critical thinking at some point. For fun. Because we’re nerds.
*General note: 9 times out of 10 my use of quotes in this form isn’t a scare quote, I’m just referring to the word itself or the “signifier”.
Good historians define their terms, their chronological limits and the reasons for them up front. Bad historians do as well, but the special pleading soon becomes evident.
Great historians make their special pleadings seem like mere common sense.
I used “kultur” once or twice to intentionally emphasize its dead-eyed origins and that (unintentionally) pretty much cured me of the practice.
It might be a fun exercise to figure out just how many dimensions are actually necessary to predict political behavior with some confidence. One dimension (“right/left”) is dead out (as Pournelle points out, that one was obsolete even before the end of the Reign of Terror). Same with “liberal”/”conservative” for the reasons already discussed in this thread.
The den Beste and Pournelle models (and another, the Nolan chart beloved by some libertarians) all use two, but not the same two.
Gut feeling: at least ten.
Gut feeling: at least ten.
Heh. I’ve haven’t laughed that hard in a long time, so thanks be SBP.
I’ll see your ten axes and raise you to ten planes.
It would be nice to have a model that didn’t assume I’m expected to vote for (e.g.) John McCain (which I did, to my eternal shame…never again) just because I’m not so wild about Communism.
Neither the anti-gay extremists nor the Supreme Court itself, whatever it does, can keep back what has truly been a grassroots, people-driven movement for equality.
– Equality of what? I’m convinced the LGBT community will always seek some bogeyman or other, in a never ending frustration, because nature says they are, and always will be, full of crap. Unnatural instincts will remain so in the minds ot the straight regardless of how large the pile of governmental decidedly unequal favoratism legislature grows.
– The Left for their part use the ploy to grow their ranks, and the gay movement doesn’t care that they are cynical opportunists because its better than nothing. They are in fact, simply exchanging one falsehood for another. Apparently the goal is to end the stigmatism and dirision if nothing else.
– But at the end of the day “unnatural” is defined by nature, which ignores feelings and “feel good” politics. Of course in the paper mache Unicorns and wombats worldview of the Progressives, perception is all that matters, until it isn’t.
– I wish thwm well, but it doesn’t look like a happy ending.
A Den Beste piece on political axes.
Great historians make their special pleadings seem like mere common sense.
– Which that right there makes them emminently eligible to run for public office.
That is why I have come to despise the two party system, and probably the reason I have become increasingly ornery as I get older. It gets really fucking tiresome never having a chance to vote for someone you like who fourth or fifth party candidates with no chance at all of getting elected.
The system is profoundly corrupt, it is not going to be changed by noncatastrophic means, so what is the point of modern politics?
Short for time. What this guy said:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Gay-Marriage-Fight-that-Should-Unify-the-Right
“These people are so lame they’re quoting me verbatim.”
Same-sex marriage is itself a means to an end, and ultimately meant to become meaningless as well. This is an all-out war on everything that is not absolutely controlled by government.
It is not enough to have it defined and regulated by government, it must be controlled and administered, bestowed or denied, by duly sworn bureaucrats — the ordained priests of the Established, Infallible Church of the Infinitely Jealous New God of the Red Tape.
I am interested in learning about these cultures where the problem of increasingly dysfunctional and dying marriages was ameliorated by introducing SS marriage.
That guy said “Let’s just surrender and work on losing more better.”
What this guy said:
Freaking the Straights on Gay Marriage
beemoe
CA gave gays civil unions. For the rainbow mafia, it wasn’t enough.
For statists, it is never enough because they don’t want tolerance from people who disagree, they want capitulation and then annihilation.
HF bleated some blather about human society “evolving” marriage.
That there’s the problem. What we’re currently witnessing is not the result of some impersonal force called “evolution” working its magic on marriage. It’s the result of ENTROPY working its magic on ALL SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS. (Plus a heaping helping of them that wants to give entropy a little assistance.)
Marriage, like every other “institution” in human society is not the product of evolution. It is a created thing. All created things are subject to entropy, decay, breakdown; thus, marriage (like all created things) requires constant work in the form of maintenance, repair, and protection if it is to flourish.
Saying you want marriage to “evolve” is just another way of saying you’re going to stand by and watch it die.
His objection isn’t really that his words were taken seriously, his objection is that they are in the record and available to scrutiny to those outside of his little cabal of like minds in a closed strategy session. In 1993, he was probably secure in the thought that he “norms” weren’t reading OUT Magazine, and he probably couldn’t imagine what the internet would eventually become in terms of archiving and searching for texts.
What could “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” possibly mean other than what its plain language says? Am I to believe that he meant “myth” that he deems in need of “debunking” as a good thing, something to be supported and promoted? Does he mean “archaic institution” in a positive sense? Am I to ignore the fact that his comment is consonant with the thinking of “second wave” feminists who used similar or identical language in support of the proposition that marriage ought to be abolished in its entirety? Do I now really need to be so credulous as to believe that his advocacy for legalized homosexual marriage is made in good faith and not for the purpose of destroying the “archaic institution” by “radically alter[ing]” it out of existence, in spite of his own words?
On the bright side, it’s hard to be disappointed by someone you already suspect.
Why all the hate, homophobe? You’re actually queer, aren’t you?
Utah had to include a ban on polygamy in its constitution prior to being admitted to statehood, and that ban had to be written such that it could never be revoked, post-admission. Which leads some to speculate that if polygamy were to be legalized in Utah, Utah would lose its statehood.
Had we not stopped performing plural marriage, the U.S. gubmint would have seized our temples, our assets, our property—all that we had worked so hard to build out of the Godforsaken wilderness that is the Great Basin.
Thanks for that, Di.
Our friend happy would do well to look into that Law of Unintended Consequences that always rears its ugly head when do-gooders ram legislation through the courts.
Does this mean that Tom Green (I think that was his name) gets a get out of jail free card if gay marriage is okey-doky? He only has five or six wives and a bunch of children. Who are those gays to judge? There are several incestuous couples in Wisconsin that are locked up, as well. They could get sprung and get their brothers/sisters/children back from the foster care system.
Clearly, the notion of “equality” isn’t.
It gets better leigh. It was in one (or “the” –can’t say I remember anymore) of the Mormon polygamy cases (which case? can’t remember) that the Supreme Court first ruled that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause only protects “belief,” not action (e.g. you’re free to believe that God wants you to have seventy wives or that the gods demand a constant stream of still beating hearts offered up for their consumption or they’ll throw a tantrum and destroy the universe, but you can’t marry seventy women or start cutting hearts out of people ––or ingest peyote). So it’s not entirely fear mongering that has critics of state imposed gay marriage arguing that churches will be forced to perform these ceremonies, will they or no.
Not fear mongering, of course. It’s just following a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, a conclusion that those who wish to make sweeping changes to thousands of years of tradition and the laws that uphold them wish to wave away as “ridiculous”.
*usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us*
Translation : Fuck society, its all about me.
All of you Debbie Downers need to start looking on the bright side: with the collapse of the State, all of these efforts to destroy everything outside of the State will be undone. When we’re reduced to small, squabbling communities of quasi-civilization, there will be a whole new appreciation for traditional marriage, families, private charity, voluntary association, self-reliance — the whole shebang!
We’re long overdue for a stretch of Heinleinian “Bad Luck.” We should console ourselves in the knowledge that our luck will be less bad than everyone else’s.
Awesome. I’ve always wondered what it would be like to live in a feudal society.
Dibs on the Rathskeller.
The Left statists hate competition with the state. The natural/nuclear family stands as a mediating institution between the state and individuals, and by means of mutual support and resource pooling mitigates the need for government services and benefits, guides the education and rearing of children, and transmits culture and religion to the next generation.
For this reason, the family must be destroyed. Individuals unmoored to such an institution are much easier to control.
BBL, gang. I need to take care of some bidness.
What squid said. I don’t think it’s debatable that we are in the decline and fall stage of the American empire. It’s only a question of where we are on that continuum. The rapidity of events of the last few years makes me think we’ve left the decline stage.
How much more abuse can the system take? What magnitude of event will push us over edge?
Inquiring minds are getting twitchy. No minds like electric hamsters are into bread and circuses.
It may be irrelevent, or a function of my notions of honor and old-fashioned gentlemanly bearing, but I, in fact, did ask permission of my wife’s parents before I proposed to her.
And I was waaaaaaaay past 21, as the Muddy Waters song goes :)
My regards to all
Scribe of, err, McGehee..erm..whatever your name is…
better to describe homosexual marriage as part of the “equality of outcome” game progressives have been running for the last 100 years or so?
Truthfully, those of us who view marriage as being only between a man and a woman, for whatever reason, need to stick to secular arguments only regardless of how devout one is personally. The religious ones can’t pass Constitutional muster in a logical sense.
And, perhaps as importantly, we must also get behind legislation that will ensure that same sex couples be afforded the same legal protection as hetero-normative ones; with respect to financial, property, and next-of-kin legal rights.
Not only will that defuse the oft-advance charge of gay-hate, but it may also take a lot of the low information, emotion voters out of play politically speaking.
Just my two cents.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sally+kohn&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eYxUUdq2GtDTqQHz7YD4CQ&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=616
dang photo on the left of the dude, looks like a failed lounge singer doing Wayne Newton impressions in a bowling alley in Toledo.. or maybe Ernst Rohm’s boy toy singing Pirate Jennie” in a beerhall in Munich in 1930
*Not only will that defuse the oft-advance charge of gay-hate*
Sorry Bob, nothing and I mean nothing, is going to diffuse the so called gay-hate. This entire gay movement is built on the false notion that anyone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle and/or gay marriage “hates” gays. “Hate” allows them to rally the troops and like the race hustlers, the entire movement feeds off this so called hate being directed to them.
Personally, I’ve been called a hater and bigot so many times by gays for opposing gay marriage, that there is no way I’ll ever cave on the issue. Fuck the gays and their strident douchebag advocates – I’ll dig my heels in, be it secular or religious heels. The gays should get some better advocates, who aren’t denigrating me at every turn, instead of making an argument to change my mind. Until then, they can suck it. Phrasing!
Also, this seems very much like the how civil rights has been perverted by the race hustlers and those making money off the race machine. Does anybody think race relations have gotten better in the last 20 years? And I don’t mean the PC, scared to bring race up, must never talk about it persona we all have to portray but the deep seeded thoughts you have every time you hear Jessie Jackson calling somebody racist or you hear about a 5 year old kid in a stroller hit by some asshole black gangbangers bullet. Or you think about the fact that an unqualified socialist douchebag occupies the White House, for no other reason than the (half) color of his skin.
Nope, I don’t have much hope for so called”race relations” anymore than I have for “gay rights”. Force something on a society by governmental fiat and the resentment soars.
So it’s not entirely fear mongering that has critics of state-imposed gay marriage arguing that churches will be forced to perform these ceremonies, will they or no.
They (we) won’t be forced to perform these ceremonies.
We’ll just be sanctioned and berated and taxed and persecuted and humiliated and shunned and attacked until we decide of our own free will and choice to comply.
Sorry Bob, nothing and I mean nothing, is going to diffuse the so called gay-hate.
True dat.
The accusations of H8 are a weapon to be wielded against one’s enemies. Because the accusations are not motivated by the actual perception of hatred but rather by the desire to destroy, there’s nothing you can do short of full capitulation, surrender, or self-annihilation to fend off the accusations.
So if they’re going to call you a H8r no matter what, you might as well do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.
I’m kind of at the point where it makes sense to embrace the H8. Experience shows that when they’re burning off all of their energy avoiding getting “bashed” and “queer-smeared,” they’re less likely to be harassing pious old ladies saying their rosary novenas.
Jesus said we’d be persecuted for our faith. The spell of not being persecuted was unusual, not the norm.
So if they’re going to call you a H8r no matter what, you might as well do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.
Got that right. I think most of us have been awfully patient with the rainbow mafia, but they have crossed the line by calling anyone who disagrees with them or even asks questions is labeled a “bigot” while refusing to take responsibility for their own bigotry toward those who say “no thanks”.
Doing the right thing isn’t the easy way, it’s the right way.
Heteronormative must be a lesbian word. I used the homonormative conversationally with a gay activist-type friend (didn’t last), rather a fierce bandwagoner, living the a dream married life yet not interested at all in marriage yet ferociously engaged in gay marriage as a centerpiece issue, and so the most important in the world right now, which turns out to mean everyone is a hateful bigot, so that it really does appear an excuse to exercise his id much the same way I used to exercise my German Shepard, and he goes, “what does that mean? It sounded self-explanatory given he speaks modern day Italian and I snapped impatiently “Ask your Suri.”
nonono
they don’t perforce need me hateful bigots at all
but if people up and advocate the exclusion of wee small historically-despised minorities from social institutions like marriage, you have at the least a light case of the bigotries afoot what might could use some timely vaccinations
don’t believe me ask my friend history
this is him to my left
need *be* hateful bigots I mean
I hitted the wrong key on accident
I was going to marry my computer, because porn, but there’s the tax penalty and I’d just have to divorce and re-marry in a few years, and then I’d end up maintaining them both forever…
Maybe if I adopted it.
The funniest part is people who are already saying something is “over.” It’s never over, no one who ever even heard of history should use that phrase in connection with politics or other human activities.
“It’s over,” pfffff…
Yes, people just up and excluded same sex couples from that which has always been, by definition, the union of an opposite sex couple. Just like they up and excluded me from pregnancy and up and excluded me from my bar mitzvah. That’s precisely what happened, pinhead.
How dare you deny my stompy feet, bigot?!