Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Conservative Commentator Guy Benson Comes Out As Gay in a Footnote of His New Book
He's written a new book with Mary Katherine Ham called End of Discussion: How the Liberal Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate.
In a chapter on the gay outrage industry, he notes that he himself is gay, literally in a footnote, which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political identity. In an interview with Buzzfeed, Benson denies the idea that being gay automatically should fit one with a "bedazzled ideological straitjacket," and notes this about the punitive social justice warriors of the gay-marriage-uber-alles left.Many conservatives have argued there must be a legal process for exemption from laws on the basis of religious belief. For his part, Benson argued that exact space between existence and participation is what has helped accelerate acceptance for marriages. The idea that same-sex couples' marriages wouldn't affect straight couples' marriages was "a very effective argument that won over a lot of people," he said. "I'm for civil marriage, I’m for nondiscrimination laws- but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely-held businesses that serve the wedding industry,"he said.Yes, the argument was always made: "Why not agree to this, as this will affect your lives not at all?" But then, the moment the gay left has some momentum, we learn: "Oh yes, we certainly intend that this will affect your lives in all sorts of ways; we in fact demand you rewrite your very religion to re-architect your beliefs to better serve us." Rod Dreher has written about this fundamental dishonesty and promise-breaking on the part of the cultural left, calling it the Law of Merited Impossibility. As Dreher explains it:
"It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they're going to get."
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Corgis called.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (qu1Tl)
2
Never heard of him. Many Republican Senators are knob polishing Americans.
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (g7Ibl)
3
Dos
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (kQBSd)
4
"I'm for civil marriage, I'm for nondiscrimination laws- but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely-held businesses that serve the wedding industry,"he said.
Oh okay, so he's for certain people getting 1st amendment & property rights, but not everyone.
also, who cares?
also, townhall sucks.
Oh okay, so he's for certain people getting 1st amendment & property rights, but not everyone.
also, who cares?
also, townhall sucks.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (AkOaV)
5
Damn
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (kQBSd)
6
Is there anything in America that isn't tangentially ghey anymore?
Posted by: Uncle Busyhands at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (Dwehj)
7
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (g7Ibl)
he posts at townhall, which is owned by the same parent company (salem) as hotair, where Mary Katharine used to / still does. post. Also, why does she need 2 first names?
he posts at townhall, which is owned by the same parent company (salem) as hotair, where Mary Katharine used to / still does. post. Also, why does she need 2 first names?
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (AkOaV)
8
"Guy Benson is gay!"
Look at all of the whoop-de-do's I am not giving. - Mikey NTH
And that really is the difference between Left and Right.
Look at all of the whoop-de-do's I am not giving. - Mikey NTH
And that really is the difference between Left and Right.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet validates insecurities, hang-ups, neuroses, and parking! at May 04, 2015 02:08 PM (hLRSq)
9
Mary Katharine used to / still does. post. Also, why does she need 2 first names?
I have 2 first names and many people call Me both...
I have 2 first names and many people call Me both...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:08 PM (Bn6aD)
Posted by: Dang at May 04, 2015 02:08 PM (FRkJH)
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:09 PM (3ZtZW)
12
I recall a certain cob making that very argument on this site, in fact.
Posted by: @JohnTant` at May 04, 2015 02:09 PM (PFy0L)
13
Counterpoint this with the other hypocrisy of the Left as highlighted in the thread below and its clear that they can't be dealt with. They're fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at May 04, 2015 02:09 PM (oVJmc)
14
Excellent point, I remember well the left (and those socially left leaning on the right) arguing constantly "well how does it hurt you? how does this affect you?" and mocking people about it "yeah Bob and Steve getting married will ruin your marriage!"
Ask the people whose businesses whose and lives ruined for not going along with homosexual marriage. Ask the churches that are going to lose tax exempt status and be fined for refusing to perform homosexual "marriage."
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage, they only attacked people for disagreeing. It was never about convincing anyone, it was about silencing and shaming for not going along. And that's a sure sign of a movement without a moral, rational, and positive cultural basis. If you can't even make an argument for what you believe, you probably don't even believe it.
Ask the people whose businesses whose and lives ruined for not going along with homosexual marriage. Ask the churches that are going to lose tax exempt status and be fined for refusing to perform homosexual "marriage."
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage, they only attacked people for disagreeing. It was never about convincing anyone, it was about silencing and shaming for not going along. And that's a sure sign of a movement without a moral, rational, and positive cultural basis. If you can't even make an argument for what you believe, you probably don't even believe it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (9BRsg)
16
He's a day late and a dollar short there. Show me one country that hasn't gone all "You will praise and support the homosexuals" after making "marriage" legal.
Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (nRvEn)
17
which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality
should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political
identity.
I like that.
Has he been crucified by fascist gays yet for this bit of wrongthink?
should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political
identity.
I like that.
Has he been crucified by fascist gays yet for this bit of wrongthink?
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (ZKzrr)
18
Also, why does she need 2 first names?
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (AkOaV)
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:07 PM (AkOaV)
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Posted by: Country Singer at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (8hctH)
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (Bn6aD)
20
Darth Putin's Soviet Union.
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (g7Ibl)
21
If he was a lefty,Obama would have called him to congratulate him.
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (mGBKM)
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (2TN4k)
23
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:08 PM (Bn6aD)
Hmmm...
I only have one first name.
Guess my parents didn't love me as much as yours and MK's did.
Hmmm...
I only have one first name.
Guess my parents didn't love me as much as yours and MK's did.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (AkOaV)
24
I knew that Benson guy was gay back when he was on 'Soap.'
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (oVJmc)
25
Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (kff5f)
26
It's why they are literally called Gay Nazi's. What they seek is an anathema to individual liberty and the basis of our Constitution.
They don't believe in equality, they believe is superiority of a particular point of view. And their willing to use any coercive or punitive means to achieve it.
They're also willing to attack, undermine and do the most disgusting things to try and destroy people's religion- simply because it expresses a point of view they don't agree with and find uncomfortable.
I never cared what people did amongst themselves as long as it did not affect me in a negative way. But this has gone way beyond an issue of acceptance and to the very essence of freedom and democracy. I don't think they understand that is the core of what people in the nation have fought and died for since its inception.
They think people are just going to, ahem, bend over for this? Think again.
They don't believe in equality, they believe is superiority of a particular point of view. And their willing to use any coercive or punitive means to achieve it.
They're also willing to attack, undermine and do the most disgusting things to try and destroy people's religion- simply because it expresses a point of view they don't agree with and find uncomfortable.
I never cared what people did amongst themselves as long as it did not affect me in a negative way. But this has gone way beyond an issue of acceptance and to the very essence of freedom and democracy. I don't think they understand that is the core of what people in the nation have fought and died for since its inception.
They think people are just going to, ahem, bend over for this? Think again.
Posted by: Marcus T at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (GGCsk)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (kff5f)
28
Incidentally, this is why Hillary wins. All her baggage, all her lousy campaigning, all her drawbacks, all the dishonesty and corruption everyone knows about... none of it matters. She's the most pro-homosexual candidate and that's the cultural trend right now. Its all fag, all the time, and the one that taps into that wave, wins.
I didn't think she'd even run because of how much she plainly hates people and actually working, let alone campaigning. But they figured out a way that she doesn't really even have to campaign at all.
I didn't think she'd even run because of how much she plainly hates people and actually working, let alone campaigning. But they figured out a way that she doesn't really even have to campaign at all.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (39g3+)
29
I'm so old I remember when a 2012 presidential candidate was roundly mocked for pointing out the Left's war on religion.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (9BRsg)
30
>>> Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Like Pearl S. Buck?
Like Pearl S. Buck?
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (2TN4k)
32
Posted by: Country Singer at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (8hctH)
Must be.
I don't know anyone who gets two first names.
Must be.
I don't know anyone who gets two first names.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (AkOaV)
33
Hmmm...
I only have one first name.
Guess my parents didn't love me as much as yours and MK's did.
I'm sure they did....... I just get called by My first and middle name... Like said above a Southern thang...
I only have one first name.
Guess my parents didn't love me as much as yours and MK's did.
I'm sure they did....... I just get called by My first and middle name... Like said above a Southern thang...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (Bn6aD)
34
Wasn't Benson on Cosmic Slop?
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (g7Ibl)
35
If you came here from another planet to live, your initial thought might be that less than 3% of the population are your new overlords.
Posted by: Uncle Busyhands at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (Dwehj)
36
He's a day late and a dollar short there. Show me one country that hasn't gone all "You will praise and support the homosexuals" after making "marriage" legal.
Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (nRvEn)
----------------------------------------
Just for starters: Iran.
Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (nRvEn)
----------------------------------------
Just for starters: Iran.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (/HX7u)
37
I'm sure the LGBT community will welcome Benson with open arms!
An Aunt Tom?
An Uncle Bruce?
I'm sure they call him something.
An Aunt Tom?
An Uncle Bruce?
I'm sure they call him something.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (oVJmc)
38
A footnote? Cool. That's more like it.
This nonsense of opening ones closet door to reveal every toy, ever movie, every kink and
then insisting that everyone wholeheartedly bow down and approve -- not just approve, but bake us a cake, bitch -- is beyond boorish.
Shut up and live your life/lifestyle. You drag me into your battle and you might not like the result.
This nonsense of opening ones closet door to reveal every toy, ever movie, every kink and
then insisting that everyone wholeheartedly bow down and approve -- not just approve, but bake us a cake, bitch -- is beyond boorish.
Shut up and live your life/lifestyle. You drag me into your battle and you might not like the result.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (xQX/f)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (39g3+)
40
1
Corgis called.
May the 4th be with you, always.
http://i.___ur.com/5X0Tx6a.jpg
You know what to do.
Corgis called.
May the 4th be with you, always.
http://i.___ur.com/5X0Tx6a.jpg
You know what to do.
Posted by: flounder at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (ecDRv)
41
Benson argued that exact space between existence and participation is what has helped accelerate acceptance for marriages.
Only among those who weren't paying attention. Most of the rest of us realized that "oh, why should you object? This won't affect *you*" was a lie from the beginning.
Unfortunately, those not paying attention vastly outnumber those of us paying attention.
Only among those who weren't paying attention. Most of the rest of us realized that "oh, why should you object? This won't affect *you*" was a lie from the beginning.
Unfortunately, those not paying attention vastly outnumber those of us paying attention.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (kff5f)
42
The literal footnote is a nice touch.
There's a comment I've seen numerous Hordelings make along the lines of "I was for or didn't care about gay marriage until they..." And they have done some ridiculous stuff, the Mozilla founder, Memories Pizza, GoFundMe, etc.
Now the thing is I still support gay marriage and any other civil rights aspect of the gay things. But the Outrage Industry means that I can't simply be for what they're for, I also have to keep up with their latest outrages and specifically disavow them.
I wish they'd stop.
The literal footnote is a nice touch.
There's a comment I've seen numerous Hordelings make along the lines of "I was for or didn't care about gay marriage until they..." And they have done some ridiculous stuff, the Mozilla founder, Memories Pizza, GoFundMe, etc.
Now the thing is I still support gay marriage and any other civil rights aspect of the gay things. But the Outrage Industry means that I can't simply be for what they're for, I also have to keep up with their latest outrages and specifically disavow them.
I wish they'd stop.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (JtwS4)
43
Counterpoint this with the other hypocrisy of the Left as highlighted in the thread below and its clear that they can't be dealt with. They're fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted.
Which is why I prefer, "Keep your friends close,
and your enemies dead".
Which is why I prefer, "Keep your friends close,
and your enemies dead".
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (qu1Tl)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (5luh1)
45
No free KY no peace.
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (g7Ibl)
46
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (39g3+)
Actually, shes' not.
In fact, shes the only candidate whose stated position was anti gay marriage as of, oh, a year ago.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, others have all said they prefer it be a state issue and if states want to legalize gay marriage, that's their deal. And they've both had that position for their entire political lives.
So in other words, Rand and Ted Cruz were more pro gay marriage in 2010 and 2011 than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was / is, who both claimed to be vehemently opposed, due to their deeply felt religious convictions.
but yeah, it wont matter.
Actually, shes' not.
In fact, shes the only candidate whose stated position was anti gay marriage as of, oh, a year ago.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, others have all said they prefer it be a state issue and if states want to legalize gay marriage, that's their deal. And they've both had that position for their entire political lives.
So in other words, Rand and Ted Cruz were more pro gay marriage in 2010 and 2011 than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was / is, who both claimed to be vehemently opposed, due to their deeply felt religious convictions.
but yeah, it wont matter.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (AkOaV)
47
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point
did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual
marriage
The logical case was the "free shit" case--your wife gets SS benefits after you die even if she never worked a day at a W-2 job, so why can't his boytoy?--but it was really only persuasive for collectivists.
did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual
marriage
The logical case was the "free shit" case--your wife gets SS benefits after you die even if she never worked a day at a W-2 job, so why can't his boytoy?--but it was really only persuasive for collectivists.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (ZKzrr)
48
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Males? Just means you're in a world of trouble.
Males? Just means you're in a world of trouble.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (qu1Tl)
49
Muldoon lopped off that footnote for FILTHY LUCRE
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (3ZtZW)
50
Are there any conservative writers on the internet who aren't gay?
Posted by: jwest at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (9ZZd+)
51
Madonna remains unscathed by the news
Posted by: derit at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (jT+gh)
52
Conservative Commentator Guy Benson Comes Out As Gay in a Footnote of His New Book
Shouldn't that be "self-hating gay," Ace? Since he's on the side of crimethink and all.
Shouldn't that be "self-hating gay," Ace? Since he's on the side of crimethink and all.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (zF6Iw)
53
Dont care what he is. Did read some crazy, nasty comments on HA.
Posted by: Bruce J. at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (iQIUe)
54
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:12 PM (Bn6aD)
The only time I ever heard my middle name was when Severe Trouble was heading my way.
The only time I ever heard my middle name was when Severe Trouble was heading my way.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet validates insecurities, hang-ups, neuroses, and parking! at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (LA7Cm)
56
>>Ask the people whose businesses whose and lives ruined for not going
along with homosexual marriage. Ask the churches that are going to lose
tax exempt status and be fined for refusing to perform homosexual
"marriage."
Not just churches and wedding industry will be affected - any private religious institution, such a the Catholic Charities adoption agency, will be forced to change (or shut down, as this Boston org did).
They'll be going after any religious schools who don't hire openly gay teachers, etc.
I doubt we've seen the worst of their "embrace it or perish" tactics.
along with homosexual marriage. Ask the churches that are going to lose
tax exempt status and be fined for refusing to perform homosexual
"marriage."
Not just churches and wedding industry will be affected - any private religious institution, such a the Catholic Charities adoption agency, will be forced to change (or shut down, as this Boston org did).
They'll be going after any religious schools who don't hire openly gay teachers, etc.
I doubt we've seen the worst of their "embrace it or perish" tactics.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (2TN4k)
57
That explains the '4 - I smoke pole' footnote.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at May 04, 2015 02:15 PM (oVJmc)
58
David Brooks seems more than a little light in the loafers.
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (mGBKM)
59
In fact, shes the only candidate whose stated position was anti gay marriage as of, oh, a year ago.
President Obama proved that changing your position means you're all in for it if you're a Democrat. They won't even mention the past. All that matters is who is perceived as the most pro-homosexual. And the media has made sure that everyone thinks Hillary is that one while no matter what they say, argue, do, or protest, every Republican will be painted as Taliban. But without using that term because it reminds people that Muslims murder homosexuals.
President Obama proved that changing your position means you're all in for it if you're a Democrat. They won't even mention the past. All that matters is who is perceived as the most pro-homosexual. And the media has made sure that everyone thinks Hillary is that one while no matter what they say, argue, do, or protest, every Republican will be painted as Taliban. But without using that term because it reminds people that Muslims murder homosexuals.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (39g3+)
60
The sodomites already enjoy all the rights that normal people have. They want extra rights.
Posted by: Soothsayer
You'll be forced by the government to invite a gay couple to your birthday party in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Posted by: Soothsayer
You'll be forced by the government to invite a gay couple to your birthday party in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Posted by: Dang at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (FRkJH)
61
The only time I ever heard my middle name was when Severe Trouble was heading my way.
This.
And if you got all 3 names, you were lucky to make it out alive.
This.
And if you got all 3 names, you were lucky to make it out alive.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (kff5f)
62
50 Ace!
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (mGBKM)
63
59 In fact, shes the only candidate whose stated position was anti gay marriage as of, oh, a year ago.
Silly. She's "evolved" since then...
Silly. She's "evolved" since then...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (Bn6aD)
64
A footnote in Dreams of my Father had the "author" coming out as a huge asshole.
Posted by: Roy at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (VndSC)
65
They're not Gay Nazis. They're the Hitler Mouth.
Posted by: andycanuck at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (kivUY)
Posted by: Billy Ray at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (FRkJH)
67
Q: When are Quinn and Huma a crime?
A: When they're Aidan and Abedin.
I'm gonna try that one out at Fun Camp.
A: When they're Aidan and Abedin.
I'm gonna try that one out at Fun Camp.
Posted by: Hilarity Clinton at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (xkSSa)
68
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Posted by: Country Singer at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (8hctH)
---------------------------------------
This is true.
Posted by: Country Singer at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (8hctH)
---------------------------------------
This is true.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (/HX7u)
69
which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political identity.
This. All of this. Every single solitary bit of this.
Every little bit.
This. All of this. Every single solitary bit of this.
Every little bit.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (mf5HN)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (FsuaD)
71
(tiptoes into minefield)
This post is one in which I expect our "friend" fromabroad to show up and drop a turd. But you know, I think his biggest failing is in not drawing a distinction between gays in general and the gay fascist Left, commonly known here as "Big Anus", or "gaystapo" or whatever.
This post is one in which I expect our "friend" fromabroad to show up and drop a turd. But you know, I think his biggest failing is in not drawing a distinction between gays in general and the gay fascist Left, commonly known here as "Big Anus", or "gaystapo" or whatever.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (Jh0nR)
72
>>The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point
did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual
marriage
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual
marriage
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (2TN4k)
73
A footnote in Dreams of my Father had the "author" coming out as a huge asshole.
types....
deletes...
types....
deletes...
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (39g3+)
74
And if you got all 3 names, you were lucky to make it out alive.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (kff5f)
Testify, brother Allen!
Can I hear an Amen!?!
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (kff5f)
Testify, brother Allen!
Can I hear an Amen!?!
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet validates insecurities, hang-ups, neuroses, and parking! at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (hLRSq)
75
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, others have all said they prefer it be a state issue and if states want to legalize gay marriage, that's their deal.
--
I think Perry said similar back in 2011.
--
I think Perry said similar back in 2011.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (9BRsg)
76
For the most part, aside from some salacious gossip, I don't give a rat's ass who sleeps with whom and when.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (rDqRv)
77
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
If by "neat trick" you mean "miserable f*cking lie."
If by "neat trick" you mean "miserable f*cking lie."
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (kff5f)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (qu1Tl)
79
A footnote in Dreams of my Father had the "author" coming out as a huge asshole.
That's a stretch...
That's a stretch...
Posted by: Reggie Love at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (FRkJH)
80
I too only heard my middle name when I was in serious trouble. But my aunt is named Sue-Ellen, and always has gone by that like she's from Georgia or something. She was born in Wyoming, and lives in Oregon.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (39g3+)
81
62 50 Ace!
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (mGBKM)
You ever see Ace with a woman?
If you or I had this website, we would be doing internet groupies two at time and posting pictures just to rub it in.
Yeah, sure Ace is straight.
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:16 PM (mGBKM)
You ever see Ace with a woman?
If you or I had this website, we would be doing internet groupies two at time and posting pictures just to rub it in.
Yeah, sure Ace is straight.
Posted by: jwest at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (9ZZd+)
82
The neat trick was making it a civil right
And yet somehow I can't sue any of those men I would have chosen to marry for violating my "civil right" to "marry whom I choose."
Oh, yeah, that's because no such right exists.
And yet somehow I can't sue any of those men I would have chosen to marry for violating my "civil right" to "marry whom I choose."
Oh, yeah, that's because no such right exists.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (ZKzrr)
83
I always admire this kind of person although I don't know quite how to describe it.
Maybe it is people that do not travel the predictable path.
One thing I think the left has tried to kill is debate and the dialectic -they want to shut up those that do not agree with them 100 percent.
Maybe it is people that do not travel the predictable path.
One thing I think the left has tried to kill is debate and the dialectic -they want to shut up those that do not agree with them 100 percent.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (RJMhd)
84
9 >> I have 2 first names and many people call Me both...
Only my mom, and only when I was in deep kimchi. The yell would come, and I had two choices -- Learn to live in the woods subsisting on roots and grubs, or head in and face the music on whatever devilment I had been up to that she had cottoned to.
Only my mom, and only when I was in deep kimchi. The yell would come, and I had two choices -- Learn to live in the woods subsisting on roots and grubs, or head in and face the music on whatever devilment I had been up to that she had cottoned to.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (pbY3m)
85
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:14 PM (ZKzrr)
No, there were good reasons, too.
For example, two gay males sharing a household and living together had to file as "single" on their tax forms, which fucked them over tax wise.
And if they adopted kids, only one could be on the adoption papers and could take the write off.
Plus, they couldnt use of the partners health insurance to cover both people.
And a lot of laws are written to benefit spouses (like, if you die without a will, everything goes to our spouse then children then parents. Well, if the state wont recognize your gay partner as a spouse, you have no children and your parents are dead, who gets your estate? some distant cousin, and not the guy youve shared a home with for 20 years?)
I mean, all minor things that could have been fixed with contract law. But yes, definitely issues.
No, there were good reasons, too.
For example, two gay males sharing a household and living together had to file as "single" on their tax forms, which fucked them over tax wise.
And if they adopted kids, only one could be on the adoption papers and could take the write off.
Plus, they couldnt use of the partners health insurance to cover both people.
And a lot of laws are written to benefit spouses (like, if you die without a will, everything goes to our spouse then children then parents. Well, if the state wont recognize your gay partner as a spouse, you have no children and your parents are dead, who gets your estate? some distant cousin, and not the guy youve shared a home with for 20 years?)
I mean, all minor things that could have been fixed with contract law. But yes, definitely issues.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (AkOaV)
86
81 Bloggers have groupies?
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (mGBKM)
87
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage, they only attacked people for disagreeing. It was never about convincing anyone, it was about silencing and shaming for not going along. And that's a sure sign of a movement without a moral, rational, and positive cultural basis. If you can't even make an argument for what you believe, you probably don't even believe it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (39g3+)
The Catholic blogger Mark Shea put it succinctly:
"Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve."
And, with apologies to the 'rons and 'ronettes here who happen to be gay / lesbian / bi / whatever - I am damned sick and tired of this country's laws being hijacked to satisfy an infinitesimal number of head cases with daddy issues.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (39g3+)
The Catholic blogger Mark Shea put it succinctly:
"Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve."
And, with apologies to the 'rons and 'ronettes here who happen to be gay / lesbian / bi / whatever - I am damned sick and tired of this country's laws being hijacked to satisfy an infinitesimal number of head cases with daddy issues.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (zF6Iw)
88
And if you got all 3 names, you were lucky to make it out alive.
Yea, my wife carries on the tradition from my parents. *hangs head*
Yea, my wife carries on the tradition from my parents. *hangs head*
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (kQBSd)
89
69
which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality
should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political
identity.
This. All of this. Every single solitary bit of this.
Every little bit.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (mf5HN)
I remember getting reamed on the banhammer thread for trying (poorly, apparently) to make this same point.
which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality
should also, metaphorically, but a footnote to someone's political
identity.
This. All of this. Every single solitary bit of this.
Every little bit.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (mf5HN)
I remember getting reamed on the banhammer thread for trying (poorly, apparently) to make this same point.
Posted by: flounder at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (ecDRv)
90
OTOH, my mom and her mom were both named Mary, so they got middle-named at any family function, just so people could be clear about to whom they were speaking.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (kff5f)
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (2TN4k)
92
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that doesn't go over well with them.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that doesn't go over well with them.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (39g3+)
93
And, of course, there are those of us who saw this coming and, hence, are NOT AT ALL surprised by the sudden shift from "this won't affect you" to "OK, now rewrite your religion."
And, of course, we were called all sorts of names (particularly by snotty libertarians, I would like to add) for our ability to see so clearly into the future.
And, of course, we were called all sorts of names (particularly by snotty libertarians, I would like to add) for our ability to see so clearly into the future.
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (IppEL)
94
A footnote in Dreams of my Father had the "author" coming out as a huge asshole.
Who didn't already know Bill Ayers was an asshole?
Who didn't already know Bill Ayers was an asshole?
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet validates insecurities, hang-ups, neuroses, and parking! at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (hLRSq)
96
>>The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
They did this with healthcare too. Everything they want to shove down our throats like not having to produce any identification to vote is a civil right and you're a racist bigot if you don't support it.
They did this with healthcare too. Everything they want to shove down our throats like not having to produce any identification to vote is a civil right and you're a racist bigot if you don't support it.
Posted by: JackStraw at May 04, 2015 02:21 PM (g1DWB)
97
Has he been crucified by fascist gays yet for this bit of wrongthink?
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (ZKzrr)
Read the article closely. He came out before he was outed. Because Tolerance.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (ZKzrr)
Read the article closely. He came out before he was outed. Because Tolerance.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 04, 2015 02:22 PM (mf5HN)
98
They used to call this sort of thing a private life. Militant Homosexual Jihadis.
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:22 PM (g7Ibl)
99
>> I have 2 first names and many people call Me both...
Jean-Luc ?
/sips improbably sweet instant coffee
Jean-Luc ?
/sips improbably sweet instant coffee
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:22 PM (3ZtZW)
100
92
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (39g3+)
There they go getting uppity again.
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:20 PM (39g3+)
There they go getting uppity again.
Posted by: flounder at May 04, 2015 02:22 PM (ecDRv)
101
Ace is definitely NOT GHEY! He had me set up a shower cam when I got coblogging privileges.
Of course, he *did* ask me when my husband normally takes his shower, but I'm sure that was just coincidental!
Of course, he *did* ask me when my husband normally takes his shower, but I'm sure that was just coincidental!
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:22 PM (9BRsg)
102
For example, two gay males sharing a household and living together had
to file as "single" on their tax forms, which fucked them over tax wise.
Getting to keep more of your own money isn't really a form of Free Shit, but let's not pretend that's a good noble reason for all that's gone down.
OTOH, unmarried gays still get treated like shit, just like unmarried straights.
to file as "single" on their tax forms, which fucked them over tax wise.
Getting to keep more of your own money isn't really a form of Free Shit, but let's not pretend that's a good noble reason for all that's gone down.
OTOH, unmarried gays still get treated like shit, just like unmarried straights.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (ZKzrr)
103
And yet somehow I can't sue any of those men I would have chosen to marry for violating my "civil right" to "marry whom I choose."
I used to shut down debate on this on other boards, back when I cared enough to fight, by pointing out all the restrictions everyone is under regarding marriage. Its a pretty long list. Everyone equally is restricted, almost nobody gets to marry exactly who they want to, and nobody gets to without any restrictions at all, in the USA at least.
They had no answer for it.
But it didn't matter, because they weren't on that side out of reason, so reason could not get them to move away from it.
I used to shut down debate on this on other boards, back when I cared enough to fight, by pointing out all the restrictions everyone is under regarding marriage. Its a pretty long list. Everyone equally is restricted, almost nobody gets to marry exactly who they want to, and nobody gets to without any restrictions at all, in the USA at least.
They had no answer for it.
But it didn't matter, because they weren't on that side out of reason, so reason could not get them to move away from it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (39g3+)
104
To paraphrase the prophet Joe Wilson.
"THEY LIED"
And there ain't shit anyone can do about it.
In fact once the SCOTUS gives its imprimatur on gay marriage, control of the definition(s) of marriage will be complety at their discretion.
And so it goes.
"THEY LIED"
And there ain't shit anyone can do about it.
In fact once the SCOTUS gives its imprimatur on gay marriage, control of the definition(s) of marriage will be complety at their discretion.
And so it goes.
Posted by: Kreplach at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (bckL9)
105
Going by two first names (or, more accurately, first and middle names) doesn't have to be southern.
It can also mean there's someone in your immediate social sphere who has your same first name, so you need to differentiate.
It can also mean there's someone in your immediate social sphere who has your same first name, so you need to differentiate.
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (IppEL)
106
You ever see Ace with a woman?
You ever hear what Ace actually verbalized to Pam Geller? Exactly what every cis-heteronormative male thinks to himself.
You ever hear what Ace actually verbalized to Pam Geller? Exactly what every cis-heteronormative male thinks to himself.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (xQX/f)
107
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, others have all said they prefer it be a state issue and if states want to legalize gay marriage, that's their deal. -- I think Perry said similar back in 2011.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (9BRsg)
----------------------------------------
I think the real trouble began when a state without gay marriage wouldn't recognize the neptuals of a state that did. That's when Big Anus stepped in.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:18 PM (9BRsg)
----------------------------------------
I think the real trouble began when a state without gay marriage wouldn't recognize the neptuals of a state that did. That's when Big Anus stepped in.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (/HX7u)
108
NAIROBI - US Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday he was confident Israel would investigate violence against the Ethiopian Jewish community after a wave of angry protests in recent days.
"I'm confident that Israeli leadership will work this through in a way that honors the goals, and aspirations and traditions and values of the people of Israel," Kerry told reporters in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.
He said he believed the matter would be put "thoroughly under investigation."
Who gives a shit what you think and why are you even commenting on the internal politics of another Country you dumb botox laced cock sucker?
"I'm confident that Israeli leadership will work this through in a way that honors the goals, and aspirations and traditions and values of the people of Israel," Kerry told reporters in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.
He said he believed the matter would be put "thoroughly under investigation."
Who gives a shit what you think and why are you even commenting on the internal politics of another Country you dumb botox laced cock sucker?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (rDqRv)
109
which is a very neat manner of highlighting that he thinks sexuality should also, metaphorically, but a footnote
to someone's political identity.
Srsly?
Ok. I guess.
to someone's political identity.
Srsly?
Ok. I guess.
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (qu1Tl)
110
The benefits issue was never the goal of same sex marriage, because the finanical matters could have been handled without a marriage license. The issue was always, and always will be, the attempt to assuage the guilt of their actions.
The benefits issue was never the goal of same sex marriage, because the finanical matters could have been handled without a marriage license. The issue was always, and always will be, the attempt to assuage the guilt of their actions.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (dquK7)
111
The refusal to compromise is one thing that forced the first Civil War.
We had a perfectly workable--equal in all respects but name--compromise: Civil unions.
They lied when they said they would accept civil unions, deceiving us into agreeing.
Which state governor will be the first to stand up and say, "My God and my religion are clear: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court has made their ruling. It has no force or effect in this state."
And let's just see: What weapons will the leftist bring to bear?
We had a perfectly workable--equal in all respects but name--compromise: Civil unions.
They lied when they said they would accept civil unions, deceiving us into agreeing.
Which state governor will be the first to stand up and say, "My God and my religion are clear: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court has made their ruling. It has no force or effect in this state."
And let's just see: What weapons will the leftist bring to bear?
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (ZvKdv)
112
The Green Party in Britain has announced they have no problem with 3 way marriages.
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you.
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (pbY3m)
113
You'll be forced by the government to invite a gay couple to your birthday party in 5, 4, 3, 2...>>>
No problem I usually celebrate my birthday with a Snipe hunt. Hope they remember to bring a compass and a canteen.
No problem I usually celebrate my birthday with a Snipe hunt. Hope they remember to bring a compass and a canteen.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (tf9Ne)
114
112 Who kills the spiders?
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (g7Ibl)
115
Jwest
I don't want to burst your fantasies of ace bubbles but-
Ace could simplely be agoraphobic.
I don't want to burst your fantasies of ace bubbles but-
Ace could simplely be agoraphobic.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:25 PM (RJMhd)
116
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (ZKzrr)
No, not some "greater cause" reason, but uh, I can relate to trying to minimize my tax liability.
No, not some "greater cause" reason, but uh, I can relate to trying to minimize my tax liability.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:25 PM (AkOaV)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 04, 2015 02:25 PM (LA7Cm)
118
>>This enrages black people, by the way.
Yes, as it should - it's apples to oranges.
The LGBT activists avoided calling out black churches for not wanting SSM - they stuck with a less sympathetic target: Mormons and Catholics.
You'd think these people would learn that the Left is only their ally when it's convenient. Use them to gin up race violence and hatred against Republicans? Sure. Don't like SSM? We'll just ignore them as we use their struggle to get what we want..
Yes, as it should - it's apples to oranges.
The LGBT activists avoided calling out black churches for not wanting SSM - they stuck with a less sympathetic target: Mormons and Catholics.
You'd think these people would learn that the Left is only their ally when it's convenient. Use them to gin up race violence and hatred against Republicans? Sure. Don't like SSM? We'll just ignore them as we use their struggle to get what we want..
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (2TN4k)
119
Ask the people whose businesses whose and lives ruined for not going along with homosexual marriage.
=========
They've already moved on to, "Oh, well it's only a few businesses. It's not like EVERY business is getting shut down."
=========
They've already moved on to, "Oh, well it's only a few businesses. It's not like EVERY business is getting shut down."
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (ZvKdv)
120
And let's just see: What weapons will the leftist bring to bear?
Highway funding, matching funds from federal government for education etc, and civil rights lawsuits, to name a few.
Highway funding, matching funds from federal government for education etc, and civil rights lawsuits, to name a few.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (39g3+)
121
Oh, polygamy is coming. No doubt about that.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (9BRsg)
122
"The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages."
Bottomer: That hurts!
Dan Savage: The trick, Mr. Potter, is not minding that it hurts.
Bottomer: That hurts!
Dan Savage: The trick, Mr. Potter, is not minding that it hurts.
Posted by: Peter O's tool at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (xkSSa)
123
Effin autocorrect pfffttt caused me to misspell simply somehow-oy.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (RJMhd)
124
As we speak our aides are drawing up legislation to end the horror of the First Amendment.
Posted by: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (TV9BR)
125
Why is he for narrow carveouts for businesses? Mr. Benson write me an article based on my view now, bigot. And I want a cake too.
We shall see how far left he slides on the scale now that he is out.
Why is he for narrow carveouts for businesses? Mr. Benson write me an article based on my view now, bigot. And I want a cake too.
We shall see how far left he slides on the scale now that he is out.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (ODxAs)
Posted by: Jacob's Step Stool at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (VNgld)
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (3ZtZW)
128
They've already moved on to, "Oh, well it's only a few businesses. It's not like EVERY business is getting shut down."
It was only a FEW Jewish storefronts!
They've already moved on to, "Oh, well it's only a few businesses. It's not like EVERY business is getting shut down."
It was only a FEW Jewish storefronts!
Posted by: Ernst Rohm, Friend of Dorothy at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (oVJmc)
129
His personal life is of less than no interest to me. His political analysis is pretty shallow, dull, and no more than the gossip du jour of the Beltway. His low point (of the little I've heard) was when - in the standard-issue slightly dismissive tone of voice, he let on as how he's "not one who pounds the table on immigration".
OK. Aside from immigration being an entirely separate issue, Einstein, you're breezily declaring that massive, systematic, ruinous lawlessness from all directions, seasoned with race-baiting, is no big deal to you. As you parade your naivete and arrogance, suffused with bubbled ignorance about the disastrous fiscal and social effects,and crowned by dripping contempt for adults living in the real world - you're not "one of those" who "pounds the table" on mass illegal immigration and the associated constitutional/institutional meltdown.
Oh, and for those who say they support marriage redefinition (at least get the basics right), but are feeling dirty about the bizarre SJW excesses and fascistic mob antics going on, it's not just a style question. The absurd judicial tyranny and arrogance involved, already, in deciding these questions is the very essence of our constitutional collapse (it predates and dwarfs in import the executive over-reach and lawlessness now rampaging across the corpse of the republic).
But it's the brownshirt thuggery that bothers you, not the latest (ridiculous) arbitrary conversion of a cultural and freedom question into a "civil rights" issue?
OK. Aside from immigration being an entirely separate issue, Einstein, you're breezily declaring that massive, systematic, ruinous lawlessness from all directions, seasoned with race-baiting, is no big deal to you. As you parade your naivete and arrogance, suffused with bubbled ignorance about the disastrous fiscal and social effects,and crowned by dripping contempt for adults living in the real world - you're not "one of those" who "pounds the table" on mass illegal immigration and the associated constitutional/institutional meltdown.
Oh, and for those who say they support marriage redefinition (at least get the basics right), but are feeling dirty about the bizarre SJW excesses and fascistic mob antics going on, it's not just a style question. The absurd judicial tyranny and arrogance involved, already, in deciding these questions is the very essence of our constitutional collapse (it predates and dwarfs in import the executive over-reach and lawlessness now rampaging across the corpse of the republic).
But it's the brownshirt thuggery that bothers you, not the latest (ridiculous) arbitrary conversion of a cultural and freedom question into a "civil rights" issue?
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (afQnV)
130
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (39g3+)
That's easy. Because they don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage. It's just a cudgel to be used to attack religion, and to the Mauve Mafia that's the ONLY thing that matters.
The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:10 PM (39g3+)
That's easy. Because they don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage. It's just a cudgel to be used to attack religion, and to the Mauve Mafia that's the ONLY thing that matters.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 04, 2015 02:27 PM (Txrlv)
131
You'll be forced by the government to invite a gay couple to your birthday party in 5, 4, 3, 2...>>>
I see mosques becoming birthday party central.......
I see mosques becoming birthday party central.......
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:28 PM (qu1Tl)
132
Most of the "married" gay couples I know in NY are "divorced". So there's that.
Posted by: Marcus T at May 04, 2015 02:28 PM (GGCsk)
133
His low point (of the little I've heard) was when - in the standard-issue slightly dismissive tone of voice, he let on as how he's "not one who pounds the table on immigration".
---
Oh, yeah, I think I remember that.
---
Oh, yeah, I think I remember that.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:28 PM (9BRsg)
134
Oh, polygamy is coming. No doubt about that.
Polygamy and incest seem to be on parallel tracks. After that it's pedophilia (especially since age of consent really *is* a "social construct") and bestiality.
In my lifetime I expect we'll have gone from Full Christianity (well, almost. No-fault divorce happened before I was born I think) to Full Pagan.
Polygamy and incest seem to be on parallel tracks. After that it's pedophilia (especially since age of consent really *is* a "social construct") and bestiality.
In my lifetime I expect we'll have gone from Full Christianity (well, almost. No-fault divorce happened before I was born I think) to Full Pagan.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:28 PM (kff5f)
135
The Green Party in Britain has announced they have no problem with 3 way marriages.
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (pbY3m)
----
Hmmm... Odd. I wonder why they didn't say that a long time ago?
How come all these "basic human rights" come out bit by bit?
Couldn't possibly be incrementalism, could it?
And, as usual, we're haters for asking "Good God, what's NEXT?"
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 02:24 PM (pbY3m)
----
Hmmm... Odd. I wonder why they didn't say that a long time ago?
How come all these "basic human rights" come out bit by bit?
Couldn't possibly be incrementalism, could it?
And, as usual, we're haters for asking "Good God, what's NEXT?"
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (IppEL)
136
Oh, polygamy is coming. No doubt about that.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (9BRsg)
I think it's here already. I believe the case that was being heard in Utah came back as it being legal. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:26 PM (9BRsg)
I think it's here already. I believe the case that was being heard in Utah came back as it being legal. I could be wrong.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (kQBSd)
137
You'd think these people would learn that the Left is only their ally when it's convenient.
I think they know. They've just been raised since birth to view the GOP as being far, far worse. They think all politicians are lousy, but at least the Democrats aren't trying to burn them inside their church while lynching them and putting them in chains to sell to the 1% middle class whites while wearing their Klan robes.
I think they know. They've just been raised since birth to view the GOP as being far, far worse. They think all politicians are lousy, but at least the Democrats aren't trying to burn them inside their church while lynching them and putting them in chains to sell to the 1% middle class whites while wearing their Klan robes.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (39g3+)
138
>>I just get called by My first and middle name... Like said above a Southern thang...
I did but only when I was in trouble
>>I just get called by My first and middle name... Like said above a Southern thang...
I did but only when I was in trouble
Posted by: Lea at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (lIU4e)
139
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 02:23 PM (/HX7u)
Well, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says other states need to recognize proceedings, records, and public acts of every other state.
Thus the (unconstitutional) DOMA shit.
But, yeah, theres really no way around it. Every state needs to recognize legal documents from every other state including drivers licenses, marriage licenses and concealed carry licenses (I love to throw this one in, because the gay activists nod along and agree with me until they get here and go WAIT WHAT?!?!)
Well, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says other states need to recognize proceedings, records, and public acts of every other state.
Thus the (unconstitutional) DOMA shit.
But, yeah, theres really no way around it. Every state needs to recognize legal documents from every other state including drivers licenses, marriage licenses and concealed carry licenses (I love to throw this one in, because the gay activists nod along and agree with me until they get here and go WAIT WHAT?!?!)
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (AkOaV)
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (qu1Tl)
141
If you came here from another planet to live, your initial thought might be that less than 3% of the population are your new overlords.
Posted by: Uncle Busyhands at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (Dwehj)
----
Think of all the anal probes the space aliens have done!
They probably MADE the gay people gay!
Posted by: Uncle Busyhands at May 04, 2015 02:13 PM (Dwehj)
----
Think of all the anal probes the space aliens have done!
They probably MADE the gay people gay!
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (IppEL)
142
Why is he for narrow carveouts for businesses? Mr. Benson write me an article based on my view now, bigot. And I want a cake too.
This.
Again, it begs the question (as in: the logical fallacy)- it assumes the premise that my business should be under state control.
Um... no. No it should not.
This.
Again, it begs the question (as in: the logical fallacy)- it assumes the premise that my business should be under state control.
Um... no. No it should not.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (kff5f)
143
Historically homosexuality was punished by the death penalty and absolutely no one had any qualms with that. So I never understood why the current consensus is that there is no good reason to ban gay marriage when the previous unanimous consensus was that gays should be put to death.
Posted by: CK at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (5QauV)
144
In my lifetime I expect we'll have gone from Full
Christianity (well, almost. No-fault divorce happened before I was born
I think) to Full Pagan.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
Oh just you wait for the monday afternoon father/son sack races down at the local park, those are going to be a hoot.
Christianity (well, almost. No-fault divorce happened before I was born
I think) to Full Pagan.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
Oh just you wait for the monday afternoon father/son sack races down at the local park, those are going to be a hoot.
Posted by: Jacob's Step Stool at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (VNgld)
145
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:29 PM (kQBSd)
Yeah, there is no argument against plural marriage, especially if SCOTUS finds in favor of gay marriage in this session (which is looking likely).
Plus, as you mention, the UT state supreme court overturned their polygamy laws.
Yeah, there is no argument against plural marriage, especially if SCOTUS finds in favor of gay marriage in this session (which is looking likely).
Plus, as you mention, the UT state supreme court overturned their polygamy laws.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (AkOaV)
146
>>Oh, polygamy is coming. No doubt about that.
Been in the works for years - was always part of the plan:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/ Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
From ***2003***
Been in the works for years - was always part of the plan:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/ Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
From ***2003***
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (2TN4k)
147
Think of all the anal probes the space aliens have done!
They probably MADE the gay people gay!
Those damn greys.
They probably MADE the gay people gay!
Those damn greys.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (kQBSd)
148
7 /snips
Also, why does she need 2 first names?
Posted by: mynewhandle
Ya'll ain't from around here are ya.
It's a Southern thing and it isn't limited to women.
Let me introduce you to Billy Bob and Billy Joe, they can show you the error of your Northern Aggression ways.
/sarc ... as if it was needed.
Also, why does she need 2 first names?
Posted by: mynewhandle
Ya'll ain't from around here are ya.
It's a Southern thing and it isn't limited to women.
Let me introduce you to Billy Bob and Billy Joe, they can show you the error of your Northern Aggression ways.
/sarc ... as if it was needed.
Posted by: Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preperation... at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (4CRfK)
149
To be a "good" gay? One is obliged to mock the life choices of "breeders" and "religionists" at all street fairs in SF - especially on Castro or Polk streets.
California Uber Alles
https://youtu.be/-CR2rxRMcTE
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
California Uber Alles
https://youtu.be/-CR2rxRMcTE
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Posted by: 13times at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (WHVu+)
150
And once you get polygamy, then you get gay polygamy!
Let's see all the "cool," "hip," "modern" churches try to draw the line at that! Good luck, fools!
Once you get on the left's crazy train, you are never allowed off!
Let's see all the "cool," "hip," "modern" churches try to draw the line at that! Good luck, fools!
Once you get on the left's crazy train, you are never allowed off!
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:31 PM (IppEL)
151
From the last thread, this is worth repeating:
Last night The Daily Mail was blacking out the art work from the photos. Their rational for doing this supposedly is that they do not want to incite violence but if that's true they did absolutely nothing to block the name of the winner of the contest on the picture of the check for $12,000 that was presented to him.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (RJMhd)
Last night The Daily Mail was blacking out the art work from the photos. Their rational for doing this supposedly is that they do not want to incite violence but if that's true they did absolutely nothing to block the name of the winner of the contest on the picture of the check for $12,000 that was presented to him.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:06 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 02:32 PM (pbY3m)
152
143 Historically homosexuality was punished by the death penalty and absolutely no one had any qualms with that. So I never understood why the current consensus is that there is no good reason to ban gay marriage when the previous unanimous consensus was that gays should be put to death.
----
There has to be one of these on every thread about gay anything, doesn't there?
----
There has to be one of these on every thread about gay anything, doesn't there?
Posted by: Jenny Has Terrible Timing at May 04, 2015 02:32 PM (mB6ez)
153
But, yeah, theres really no way around it.
Every state needs to recognize legal documents from every other state including drivers licenses, marriage licenses and concealed carry licenses (I love to throw this one in, because the gay activists nod along and agree with me until they get here and go WAIT WHAT?!?!)
On the face of the argument, NJ accepts tm Texas DL, they should have to accept my CHL also.
Every state needs to recognize legal documents from every other state including drivers licenses, marriage licenses and concealed carry licenses (I love to throw this one in, because the gay activists nod along and agree with me until they get here and go WAIT WHAT?!?!)
On the face of the argument, NJ accepts tm Texas DL, they should have to accept my CHL also.
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:32 PM (qu1Tl)
154
Polygamy and incest seem to be on parallel tracks. After that it's pedophilia (especially since age of consent really *is* a "social construct") and bestiality.
That's the sequence of events I see as well, and faster than people think. The shift from "its your choice" on homosexual 'marriage' to "you're an evil bigot if you disagree" was so fast my head is still spinning.
That's the sequence of events I see as well, and faster than people think. The shift from "its your choice" on homosexual 'marriage' to "you're an evil bigot if you disagree" was so fast my head is still spinning.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (39g3+)
155
I got a hunski that says the GayKK goes after this guy and gets him fired.
Posted by: Jukin, Former Republican at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (TV9BR)
156
"The Green Party in Britain has announced they have no problem with 3 way marriages.
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you."
All part of the top secret DNC outreach program designed to turn Utah blue.
Coming soon to a Democrat Party near you."
All part of the top secret DNC outreach program designed to turn Utah blue.
Posted by: Jaws at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (WKNX4)
157
>>One caveat: No divorce. Own it.
What, you think we won't have areas with sharia law once polygamy is allowed?
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
Done!
What, you think we won't have areas with sharia law once polygamy is allowed?
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
Done!
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (2TN4k)
158
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:30 PM (kff5f)
Right. Well, this is how everyone over at Salem thinks.
Like leftists.
No, the government doesn't own my business. I should be able to sell to and hire who i want to for whatever reason I want.
If I only want to hire left handed red heads with huge racks, that is my god given right and guy benson doesnt get to change that, ghey or not.
Right. Well, this is how everyone over at Salem thinks.
Like leftists.
No, the government doesn't own my business. I should be able to sell to and hire who i want to for whatever reason I want.
If I only want to hire left handed red heads with huge racks, that is my god given right and guy benson doesnt get to change that, ghey or not.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (AkOaV)
159
I think it's here already. I believe the case that was being heard in Utah came back as it being legal. I could be wrong.
---
I'm too lazy to check, but it was a little more nuanced than that, as I recall. It had to do with the way Utah law was written -- something to do with number of unrelated adults in a home or something, I think.
In my observation, and from talking with my friends and neighbors, the state does not really pursue polygamists or enforce the law. There are open polygamists throughout the state.
Again, too lazy, but several years ago I read up on how the Brits/Euros were coping with their polygamist Muslims. As I recall, they were recognizing the marriages, which was putting a big burden on their welfare state.
And my friends here in Utah tell me that the polygamist families are also a welfare state burden. Anecdotal, but I have no reason not to believe these people.
---
I'm too lazy to check, but it was a little more nuanced than that, as I recall. It had to do with the way Utah law was written -- something to do with number of unrelated adults in a home or something, I think.
In my observation, and from talking with my friends and neighbors, the state does not really pursue polygamists or enforce the law. There are open polygamists throughout the state.
Again, too lazy, but several years ago I read up on how the Brits/Euros were coping with their polygamist Muslims. As I recall, they were recognizing the marriages, which was putting a big burden on their welfare state.
And my friends here in Utah tell me that the polygamist families are also a welfare state burden. Anecdotal, but I have no reason not to believe these people.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (9BRsg)
160
That's when Big Anus stepped in.
Just a little housekeeping here. Our furry proprietor has specifically asked us not to use that phrase. Let's be polite, OK?
That's when Big Anus stepped in.
Just a little housekeeping here. Our furry proprietor has specifically asked us not to use that phrase. Let's be polite, OK?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:34 PM (JtwS4)
161
What, you think we won't have areas with sharia law once polygamy is allowed?
---
I suspect they'll use a quicker method, like the sword.
---
I suspect they'll use a quicker method, like the sword.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:34 PM (9BRsg)
162
The next big thing is single payer, Hillaryland has been plotting for over twenty years to get the power that will come with that.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:34 PM (RJMhd)
163
I hunger...feeeeeeed meeeeee!
Posted by: The Barrel at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (/Ho8c)
164
And my friends here in Utah tell me that the polygamist families are also a welfare state burden. Anecdotal, but I have no reason not to believe these people.
Indeed they are. They pack a home with 6 wives and call them all dependents, along with all the resulting children and pull in serious bank.
Indeed they are. They pack a home with 6 wives and call them all dependents, along with all the resulting children and pull in serious bank.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (39g3+)
165
72 >>The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (2TN4k)
And that last is how they won over so many people. My entire family-by-marriage believes this is a civil rights issue just like race. The crickets and confused stares I get when I explain that no, feelings and behavior are nothing like the melanin content of one's skin and the struggles of each group should not be equated are phenomenal. I actually had one relative argue with me that homosexual people literally cannot control who they have sex with. Because apparently being gay means you have magically lost your ability to decide for yourself what you do both your genitals and who you do it with. When I pointed out that was incredibly insulting to gays, and frankly shows that person views them as less than a thinking, rational human being capable of self-determination I got lots of angry spluttering.
The neat trick was making it a civil right and likening it to laws against interracial marriages.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:17 PM (2TN4k)
And that last is how they won over so many people. My entire family-by-marriage believes this is a civil rights issue just like race. The crickets and confused stares I get when I explain that no, feelings and behavior are nothing like the melanin content of one's skin and the struggles of each group should not be equated are phenomenal. I actually had one relative argue with me that homosexual people literally cannot control who they have sex with. Because apparently being gay means you have magically lost your ability to decide for yourself what you do both your genitals and who you do it with. When I pointed out that was incredibly insulting to gays, and frankly shows that person views them as less than a thinking, rational human being capable of self-determination I got lots of angry spluttering.
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (KkVB6)
166
>>One caveat: No divorce. Own it.
What, you think we won't have areas with sharia law once polygamy is allowed?
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
Done!
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (2TN4k)
Did you throw dog poop on his shoes? That's also a part of the ritual.
/Steve Martin
>>One caveat: No divorce. Own it.
What, you think we won't have areas with sharia law once polygamy is allowed?
I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you
Done!
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:33 PM (2TN4k)
Did you throw dog poop on his shoes? That's also a part of the ritual.
/Steve Martin
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (Txrlv)
167
Funny thing: one argument for gay marriage was workplace benefits.
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (IppEL)
168
In Vermont they said that "civil Unions" were all they wanted. Until they demanded gay marriage. Which they got. Any caterer or photographer better not even contemplate declining their business.
Posted by: deepred at May 04, 2015 02:35 PM (xv5cf)
169
"19
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Yup...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (Bn6aD)"
I lived in Massachusetts for a few years when I was a kid. There were plenty of Mary Elizabeths, usually called Mary Beth, Mary Louises, usually called Mary Lou, Josephine Anns, usually called Jo Ann, Mary Anns and a lot I can't remember.
I had no idea that Boston was part of the South.
Females having (and being called by) both first and middle name is a southern thing.
Yup...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 02:11 PM (Bn6aD)"
I lived in Massachusetts for a few years when I was a kid. There were plenty of Mary Elizabeths, usually called Mary Beth, Mary Louises, usually called Mary Lou, Josephine Anns, usually called Jo Ann, Mary Anns and a lot I can't remember.
I had no idea that Boston was part of the South.
Posted by: Lee Harvey Oswald at May 04, 2015 02:36 PM (KDbAT)
170
In my observation, and from talking with my friends and neighbors, the state does not really pursue polygamists or enforce the law. There are open polygamists throughout the state.
----
What is there to pursue - right now? It doesn't change anything - for now. You can live with 4 women and call them wives all you want - but the law will only recognize one of them - again for now.
----
What is there to pursue - right now? It doesn't change anything - for now. You can live with 4 women and call them wives all you want - but the law will only recognize one of them - again for now.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 02:36 PM (gmeXX)
171
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
Posted by: RKae
Don't worry, Obamacare will cure that problem.
Posted by: RKae
Don't worry, Obamacare will cure that problem.
Posted by: Moderate Salami at May 04, 2015 02:36 PM (/Ho8c)
172
>>And my friends here in Utah tell me that the polygamist families are also a welfare state burden.
See also the UK.
See also the UK.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:36 PM (2TN4k)
173
Our furry proprietor has specifically asked us not to use that phrase.
His place, his rules, and I wouldn't use the term but... seriously?
His place, his rules, and I wouldn't use the term but... seriously?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (39g3+)
174
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
In an environment where they'll face a civil rights suit for not providing abortiofacient birth control? Yes.
In a rational world? No.
In an environment where they'll face a civil rights suit for not providing abortiofacient birth control? Yes.
In a rational world? No.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (kff5f)
175
162 The next big thing is single payer,
Another next big thing is a Federal Police Force. The real end-game of the seemingly endless riots.
More power comes with that Nazi-ish notion than even with single-payer.
Another next big thing is a Federal Police Force. The real end-game of the seemingly endless riots.
More power comes with that Nazi-ish notion than even with single-payer.
Posted by: Citizen X at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (7ObY1)
176
Funny thing: one argument for gay marriage was workplace benefits.
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
404Care killed that. Go take it up with the exchange.
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
404Care killed that. Go take it up with the exchange.
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (qu1Tl)
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:38 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Lauren at May 04, 2015 02:38 PM (MYCIw)
179
And my friends here in Utah tell me that the polygamist families are also a welfare state burden.
So are single mothers. Why is that legal?
So are single mothers. Why is that legal?
Posted by: Ernst Rohm, Friend of Dorothy at May 04, 2015 02:38 PM (oVJmc)
180
>>>The benefits issue was never the goal of same sex marriage,
yes it was. Social Security, estate taxes. a main point of Obamacare was to not have risky homosexual activity actuarially rated. I'll use my 1st amendment freedom of association to not pool my health care expenses with gays.
yes it was. Social Security, estate taxes. a main point of Obamacare was to not have risky homosexual activity actuarially rated. I'll use my 1st amendment freedom of association to not pool my health care expenses with gays.
Posted by: X at May 04, 2015 02:38 PM (n5fTN)
181
His place, his rules, and I wouldn't use the term but... seriously?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (39g3+)
In fairness, he asks us about twice a year to tone it down with the F bombs- and then normally lasts about a month himself before dropping a warehouse full of them in a post.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (39g3+)
In fairness, he asks us about twice a year to tone it down with the F bombs- and then normally lasts about a month himself before dropping a warehouse full of them in a post.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:38 PM (kff5f)
182
167 Funny thing: one argument for gay marriage was workplace benefits.
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
---
Handily enough, those are both arguments for ending the absolutely asinine situation of having employers pay for your health insurance.
Now that's an argument AGAINST polygamy. Is an employer supposed to provide benefits for one worker's 9 wives and 45 children?
---
Handily enough, those are both arguments for ending the absolutely asinine situation of having employers pay for your health insurance.
Posted by: Jenny Has Terrible Timing at May 04, 2015 02:39 PM (mB6ez)
183
AllenG, we won't be able to rescue it in the end, but again I salute your proper use of "beg the question". And again, the loss of that useful phrase to being synonomous with "raise the question" parallels the decline in critical thinking and logic skills (even among the still-functional).
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 02:39 PM (afQnV)
184
I'm sure there are muslims here with multiple wives on the dole.
Posted by: steevy at May 04, 2015 02:39 PM (mGBKM)
185
Another next big thing is a Federal Police Force. The real end-game of the seemingly endless riots.
So we looking at a black spring like the arab spring?
So we looking at a black spring like the arab spring?
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:39 PM (kQBSd)
186
The fact that "It won't affect you or your marriage" won over anyone reminds us that America is on a steady decline.
The positives or negatives, the justification, for public policy can't center around such a premise.
Of course the SSM advocates were lying. Lying is who they are.
The positives or negatives, the justification, for public policy can't center around such a premise.
Of course the SSM advocates were lying. Lying is who they are.
Posted by: Jay in PA at May 04, 2015 02:40 PM (YgwLF)
187
Posted by: Citizen X at May 04, 2015 02:37 PM (7ObY1)
Yeah, federal police force worries me personally more than medicaid for all.
Namely because the rich liberals pushing this shit wouldnt be caught dead on medicaid. So they'll have a carve out for them, and luckily I'm in a financial situation where I can worm myself in to that carve out, need be.
National police? We're all fucked.
Yeah, federal police force worries me personally more than medicaid for all.
Namely because the rich liberals pushing this shit wouldnt be caught dead on medicaid. So they'll have a carve out for them, and luckily I'm in a financial situation where I can worm myself in to that carve out, need be.
National police? We're all fucked.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:40 PM (AkOaV)
188
Citizen X
You are probably correct but single payer will be an easier "sale" for hillaryland to make.
You are probably correct but single payer will be an easier "sale" for hillaryland to make.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Big Enos at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (3ZtZW)
190
>>Another next big thing is a Federal Police Force.
We already have a federal police force, its called the FBI.
We already have a federal police force, its called the FBI.
Posted by: JackStraw at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (g1DWB)
191
Billy Bob
Posted by: Actinide at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (ag46l)
192
I will #StateMyUnpopularOpinion and just say that heterosexuals started the decline of marriage.
Or maybe that's not an unpopular opinion around here.
But it really is true.
So many of those old-fashioned values many of us were raised with had the ancillary benefit of keeping the institution of marriage, and by extension the family, strong.
Now I'm not saying there should have been laws preventing divorce or punishing extramarital sex or anything. But imho we (straights) opened the door wide open when we let our own personal values slip.
Or maybe that's not an unpopular opinion around here.
But it really is true.
So many of those old-fashioned values many of us were raised with had the ancillary benefit of keeping the institution of marriage, and by extension the family, strong.
Now I'm not saying there should have been laws preventing divorce or punishing extramarital sex or anything. But imho we (straights) opened the door wide open when we let our own personal values slip.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (9BRsg)
193
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
=======
Yet, they're still voting for the Democrat.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
=======
Yet, they're still voting for the Democrat.
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 02:42 PM (ZvKdv)
194
This is why it is called... Progressivism...
It progressively gets worse and worse... like a cancer... until it kills the host..
It progressively gets worse and worse... like a cancer... until it kills the host..
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 02:42 PM (qh617)
195
Gay wedding cakes should all be bundt.
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:42 PM (g7Ibl)
Posted by: Driz at May 04, 2015 02:42 PM (3M/7M)
197
The fact that "It won't affect you or your marriage" won over anyone reminds us that America is on a steady decline.
Yeah it was always sinister lies but if the best you can offer for a policy change is "what's the worst that could happen??" especially for such a fundamental, historical portion of human culture... that should never have worked, ever.
Presently, homosexual activists are trying really hard to push the "its love" part of the argument now. That's hard to fight because it requires a long discussion over the nature and meaning of love that almost nobody understands any more.
Yeah it was always sinister lies but if the best you can offer for a policy change is "what's the worst that could happen??" especially for such a fundamental, historical portion of human culture... that should never have worked, ever.
Presently, homosexual activists are trying really hard to push the "its love" part of the argument now. That's hard to fight because it requires a long discussion over the nature and meaning of love that almost nobody understands any more.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:43 PM (39g3+)
198
opened the door wide open when we let our own personal values slip.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (9BRsg)
Yeah... damn those personal values of a supposedly FREE people...
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (9BRsg)
Yeah... damn those personal values of a supposedly FREE people...
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 02:43 PM (qh617)
199
Posted by: JackStraw at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (g1DWB)
Enforcing federal laws and rarely bothering the people.
They want to federalize the LOCAL police who enforce local and state laws and who bother us on a much more consistent basis than the FBI who are too busy tracking militiamen in Idaho and setting up fake child porn sites all over the internet to bother me.
Enforcing federal laws and rarely bothering the people.
They want to federalize the LOCAL police who enforce local and state laws and who bother us on a much more consistent basis than the FBI who are too busy tracking militiamen in Idaho and setting up fake child porn sites all over the internet to bother me.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:43 PM (AkOaV)
200
I mean, all minor things that could have been fixed with contract law. But yes, definitely issues.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (AkOaV)
Bullshit.
These are benefits that are in place to make it more likely that a man and a woman would be able to take care of their offspring. At no time were these benefits available to homosexuals because homosexuals cannot marry. They can cohabitate and have butt secks all they like, but they cannot procreate and they cannot have a marriage.
Allowing that some homosexuals feel that they should be able to marry doesn't mean that we need to reorder society so that they can have a pretend marriage.
Call it what it is, which is bullshit and playacting.
There is no benefit to society from allowing homosexuals to pretend that they are man and wife. None.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:19 PM (AkOaV)
Bullshit.
These are benefits that are in place to make it more likely that a man and a woman would be able to take care of their offspring. At no time were these benefits available to homosexuals because homosexuals cannot marry. They can cohabitate and have butt secks all they like, but they cannot procreate and they cannot have a marriage.
Allowing that some homosexuals feel that they should be able to marry doesn't mean that we need to reorder society so that they can have a pretend marriage.
Call it what it is, which is bullshit and playacting.
There is no benefit to society from allowing homosexuals to pretend that they are man and wife. None.
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:43 PM (+YMhA)
201
The fact that "It won't affect you or your marriage" won over anyone reminds us that America is on a steady decline.
They just wanted liebesraum.
They just wanted liebesraum.
Posted by: Ernst Rohm, Friend of Dorothy at May 04, 2015 02:44 PM (oVJmc)
202
Zoot Suiting "seemed" like a good idea. Keep it the hell up, you'll get the combination right eventually. Won't you be surprised!
Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at May 04, 2015 02:44 PM (vmAFq)
203
The "its love" argument is a precursor for the next push, polygamy. It will be framed in terms of religious freedom as well; Mormons, Muslims, hey who are we to say they can't practice their religion in this manner? And look at the Bible, its full of multiple marriages, you Christers ought to sing on to this, or you're all hateful hypocrites who are in the way of love!
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:44 PM (39g3+)
204
I think I'm done.
I've always been right wing as a starting point. But I've tried very hard to be open minded. Reading leftwing media, viewing all people as equal and legitimate, and cultivating a willingness to change my opinion when a good argument is made.
But now? The left is so full of bullshit I literally cannot stomach reading it. I can't stand to read boldface obvious lies. I can't handle the intellectual dissonance, there is so much ideological corruption and hypocrisy anymore.
I read something I was nodding along to and found out the writer was a democrat, my first thought was 'where the fuck did I go wrong?' Not 'what about his point make sense and might be applicable?'
This new wave gay marriage has been the last straw. I've been pro-marriage and pro-choice because I believe in the freedom of opportunity. Not anymore, I don't care about holding the correct, logical (as I see it) view anymore. Fuck these guys. Let it burn. I'm up for literally anything that will hurt these arrogant cunts, fuck the social justice warrior movement and anyone or thing that they fight for.
I'm incapable of holding a balanced and fair perspective of political issues (FYI everything is now a political issue). I don't care about the best candidate or opinion or vote choice, all I want is for them to suffer. The Islamic terrorists at least have the courtesy to die for their religion. The left are only gonna continue to lie, cheat and steal for theirs.
I've always been right wing as a starting point. But I've tried very hard to be open minded. Reading leftwing media, viewing all people as equal and legitimate, and cultivating a willingness to change my opinion when a good argument is made.
But now? The left is so full of bullshit I literally cannot stomach reading it. I can't stand to read boldface obvious lies. I can't handle the intellectual dissonance, there is so much ideological corruption and hypocrisy anymore.
I read something I was nodding along to and found out the writer was a democrat, my first thought was 'where the fuck did I go wrong?' Not 'what about his point make sense and might be applicable?'
This new wave gay marriage has been the last straw. I've been pro-marriage and pro-choice because I believe in the freedom of opportunity. Not anymore, I don't care about holding the correct, logical (as I see it) view anymore. Fuck these guys. Let it burn. I'm up for literally anything that will hurt these arrogant cunts, fuck the social justice warrior movement and anyone or thing that they fight for.
I'm incapable of holding a balanced and fair perspective of political issues (FYI everything is now a political issue). I don't care about the best candidate or opinion or vote choice, all I want is for them to suffer. The Islamic terrorists at least have the courtesy to die for their religion. The left are only gonna continue to lie, cheat and steal for theirs.
Posted by: maxyp at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (DjLh9)
205
Ace is definitely NOT GHEY!
It used to be common knowledge on this blog that ace was one of the biggest homos in Homo-land. Maybe not the king of Homo-land, but definitely one of the engineers on the Homo-land train.
It used to be common knowledge on this blog that ace was one of the biggest homos in Homo-land. Maybe not the king of Homo-land, but definitely one of the engineers on the Homo-land train.
Posted by: OregonMuse at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (VhO+g)
206
193
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
=======
Yet, they're still voting for the Democrat.
That's because the 'Pubs campaign like pussies.
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with but calling the "plight" of
the wealthy upper middle class gay man working in Hollywood similar to a
black guy getting dogs and fire hoses turned on him... yeah, that
doesn't go over well with them.
=======
Yet, they're still voting for the Democrat.
That's because the 'Pubs campaign like pussies.
Posted by: Jean at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (ztOda)
207
Handily enough, those are both arguments for ending the absolutely asinine situation of having employers pay for your health insurance.
---
I honestly don't understand this, but I know it's become popular on the Right.
Why can't an employer provide benefits packages, including things like health insurance (and a myriad of other things)? They can negotiate cheaper group rates than an individual could. Self-insured employers can have a pool of lower-risk people. I'd much rather be in an insurance risk pool of educated office workers than coal miners or homeless people.
Anyway, a rhetorical question as I'm going to leave the thread. But I really don't get it.
---
I honestly don't understand this, but I know it's become popular on the Right.
Why can't an employer provide benefits packages, including things like health insurance (and a myriad of other things)? They can negotiate cheaper group rates than an individual could. Self-insured employers can have a pool of lower-risk people. I'd much rather be in an insurance risk pool of educated office workers than coal miners or homeless people.
Anyway, a rhetorical question as I'm going to leave the thread. But I really don't get it.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (9BRsg)
208
It's got a certain inverted beauty, really. The "fix" to the "unfairness" of same-sex couples not getting various tax breaks etc. is not to end the (inherently unfair and unequal-before-the-law) breaks for married couples, but to change the definition of marriage. Hilarious, in a dark way.
Oh - and a system that allows (for one nanosecond, anything resembling) affirmative action is puffing itself up about equal treatment under the law?
Again - those who favor marriage redefinition (I'm utterly agnostic on it) but consider themselves supporters of rule of law and a constitutional framework (and words) that mean anything - how do you square your sensible rule-of-law and actual civil rights supporting framework with not just the brownshirt stuff, but the judicial atrocities being committed on behalf of this latest teen craze?
Oh - and a system that allows (for one nanosecond, anything resembling) affirmative action is puffing itself up about equal treatment under the law?
Again - those who favor marriage redefinition (I'm utterly agnostic on it) but consider themselves supporters of rule of law and a constitutional framework (and words) that mean anything - how do you square your sensible rule-of-law and actual civil rights supporting framework with not just the brownshirt stuff, but the judicial atrocities being committed on behalf of this latest teen craze?
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 02:46 PM (5luh1)
210
Now I'm not saying there should have been laws preventing divorce or punishing extramarital sex or anything. But imho we (straights) opened the door wide open when we let our own personal values slip.
------
Humans have been sinning (not living up to values) for a long time. But society had laws to reign in citizen slipping.
It wasn't divorce that caused the problem - but no-fault divorce.
And there used to be consequences to hurting another family unit through adultery.
We did away with those common law rights that had been in place for a long time.
------
Humans have been sinning (not living up to values) for a long time. But society had laws to reign in citizen slipping.
It wasn't divorce that caused the problem - but no-fault divorce.
And there used to be consequences to hurting another family unit through adultery.
We did away with those common law rights that had been in place for a long time.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 02:46 PM (gmeXX)
211
>>> but they cannot procreate and they cannot have a marriage.
Two words: Adoption. Which "marriage" speeds along
Two words: Adoption. Which "marriage" speeds along
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (3ZtZW)
212
I'm already looking forward to rapey Tuesday.
Posted by: Garrett at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (1KAUL)
213
These are benefits that are in place to make it more likely that a man and a woman would be able to take care of their offspring.
Really? Then eliminate marriage benefits for couples without children.
Tax, inheritance, hospital visitation. Nuke it all until they whelp. Because barren couples aren't really "married", right?
These are benefits that are in place to make it more likely that a man and a woman would be able to take care of their offspring.
Really? Then eliminate marriage benefits for couples without children.
Tax, inheritance, hospital visitation. Nuke it all until they whelp. Because barren couples aren't really "married", right?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (JtwS4)
214
A loss of local discretion, like when a cop cannot let you off with a warning, is the federal police issue. When only following orders becomes the s.o.p., it's amazing how quick things "progress" from there on.
Posted by: derit at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (jT+gh)
215
This is why it is called... Progressivism...
Indeed. Progressivism is infinite, it has no point at which they say "we made it!" and stop. Its forever, it keeps pushing the boundaries, without limits.
I mean, all minor things that could have been fixed with contract law.
That's not exactly accurate. None of the things you listed made homosexuals 'second class' or lacking in rights. Single people are in the same boat (and greatly outnumber married people).
What you're listing are ways which we consider some in society to be given superior legal protections in order to benefit children and culture. Not being paid as much as the top paid athlete in America doesn't make you a second class earner, it just means you aren't in the top tier.
Indeed. Progressivism is infinite, it has no point at which they say "we made it!" and stop. Its forever, it keeps pushing the boundaries, without limits.
I mean, all minor things that could have been fixed with contract law.
That's not exactly accurate. None of the things you listed made homosexuals 'second class' or lacking in rights. Single people are in the same boat (and greatly outnumber married people).
What you're listing are ways which we consider some in society to be given superior legal protections in order to benefit children and culture. Not being paid as much as the top paid athlete in America doesn't make you a second class earner, it just means you aren't in the top tier.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (39g3+)
216
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:43 PM (+YMhA)
Okay, well I don't want the government trying to incentivize or disincentivize behavior through the tax code.
If I choose to co habitate with my girlfriend instead of getting a piece of paper from the state, why should I pay a tax penalty for that?
I mean, ideally we'd have a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions, no "single "married, filing separately" or "married filing together" bullshit.
BUT if we insist of having those classifications, then yeah -- fairness and equal protection would seem to say any co habitating couple should get those benefits. Because as SCOTUS is about to rule, the state gets no direct benefit from the current tax regime of treating married straight people differently than not married straight people or married gay people.
Okay, well I don't want the government trying to incentivize or disincentivize behavior through the tax code.
If I choose to co habitate with my girlfriend instead of getting a piece of paper from the state, why should I pay a tax penalty for that?
I mean, ideally we'd have a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions, no "single "married, filing separately" or "married filing together" bullshit.
BUT if we insist of having those classifications, then yeah -- fairness and equal protection would seem to say any co habitating couple should get those benefits. Because as SCOTUS is about to rule, the state gets no direct benefit from the current tax regime of treating married straight people differently than not married straight people or married gay people.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (AkOaV)
217
How exactly does one disengage from society for a bit in order to create a cultural vacuum, wherein militant leftist queers at last meet up with militant Muslim savages, and safely emerge to rebuild a functional Western civilization?
Asking for a friend.
Asking for a friend.
Posted by: Doctor Cynic at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (rzggC)
218
And let's just see: What weapons will the leftist bring to bear?
Highway funding, matching funds from federal government for education etc, and civil rights lawsuits, to name a few.
==============
Let them. And ignore those ruling too.
And pass a law--the law I've been agitating for since Obaaamacare--that says "No state resources shall be used directly or indirectly to enforce _____ federal law."
Yes. I am calling for escalation.
Highway funding, matching funds from federal government for education etc, and civil rights lawsuits, to name a few.
==============
Let them. And ignore those ruling too.
And pass a law--the law I've been agitating for since Obaaamacare--that says "No state resources shall be used directly or indirectly to enforce _____ federal law."
Yes. I am calling for escalation.
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (ZvKdv)
219
Now I'm not saying there should have been laws preventing divorce or punishing extramarital sex or anything. But imho we (straights) opened the door wide open when we let our own personal values slip.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (9BRsg)
By this logic, because someone commits a sin, we should all be allowed to sin all we like, because.... I'm not sure what.
The biggest disaster for marriage has been the laws concerning no-fault divorce. It used to be that marriages that went stale had to be worked out. Now, people can just say "oops, I guess I didn't want to do this after all" and everyone gets screwed. Marriage in this country is no longer about a lifelong commitment, and some barely make it out the doors of the church before all hell breaks loose.
That does not mean that homosexuals should be accorded the same status and benefits that marriage entails. They cannot fulfill the definition of marriage, and therefore they should not be allowed to call their "union" by that title.
Posted by: Y-not at May 04, 2015 02:41 PM (9BRsg)
By this logic, because someone commits a sin, we should all be allowed to sin all we like, because.... I'm not sure what.
The biggest disaster for marriage has been the laws concerning no-fault divorce. It used to be that marriages that went stale had to be worked out. Now, people can just say "oops, I guess I didn't want to do this after all" and everyone gets screwed. Marriage in this country is no longer about a lifelong commitment, and some barely make it out the doors of the church before all hell breaks loose.
That does not mean that homosexuals should be accorded the same status and benefits that marriage entails. They cannot fulfill the definition of marriage, and therefore they should not be allowed to call their "union" by that title.
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (+YMhA)
220
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with
-----
Perhaps no tolerance, but polls show more than 40% (over 50% in some polls) support gay marriage.
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with
-----
Perhaps no tolerance, but polls show more than 40% (over 50% in some polls) support gay marriage.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (NUqwG)
Posted by: Garrett at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (1KAUL)
222
How exactly does one disengage from society for a bit in order to create a cultural vacuum, wherein militant leftist queers at last meet up with militant Muslim savages, and safely emerge to rebuild a functional Western civilization?
Asking for a friend.
Since the sun is blank and quiet again, go heavy on the blankets.
Asking for a friend.
Since the sun is blank and quiet again, go heavy on the blankets.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (659DL)
223
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (39g3+)
Right, single people have the same issues.
And they can all be fixed (except the health insurance and child adoption parts) via contract law.
I can put my significant other down as the beneficiary of my will, for example, which would solve any estate problems.
I could name her on my life insurance. I could fix a lot of the problems via contract law.
Right, single people have the same issues.
And they can all be fixed (except the health insurance and child adoption parts) via contract law.
I can put my significant other down as the beneficiary of my will, for example, which would solve any estate problems.
I could name her on my life insurance. I could fix a lot of the problems via contract law.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (AkOaV)
224
I honestly don't understand this, but I know it's become popular on the Right.
Why can't an employer provide benefits packages, including things like health insurance (and a myriad of other things)? They can negotiate cheaper group rates than an individual could. Self-insured employers can have a pool of lower-risk people. I'd much rather be in an insurance risk pool of educated office workers than coal miners or homeless people.
Anyway, a rhetorical question as I'm going to leave the thread. But I really don't get it.
-----
The question is why should employers receive favorable tax treatment in doing so?
The argument against employers providing is not they should not be able to. But it does create perverse incentives (as well as some good ones).
I have no problem with employers providing - but I would like to be able to get the same tax treatment if I purchase on the open market.
Why can't an employer provide benefits packages, including things like health insurance (and a myriad of other things)? They can negotiate cheaper group rates than an individual could. Self-insured employers can have a pool of lower-risk people. I'd much rather be in an insurance risk pool of educated office workers than coal miners or homeless people.
Anyway, a rhetorical question as I'm going to leave the thread. But I really don't get it.
-----
The question is why should employers receive favorable tax treatment in doing so?
The argument against employers providing is not they should not be able to. But it does create perverse incentives (as well as some good ones).
I have no problem with employers providing - but I would like to be able to get the same tax treatment if I purchase on the open market.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (gmeXX)
225
Oh, and if the current gay marriage squabble current being adjudicated at SCOTUS somehow, by some miracle, goes against Big Pink, they'll just bring another case next year. And then the next. Until they finally get one that wins. Then they'll start hollering that gay marriage is settled law now.
Posted by: OregonMuse at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (VhO+g)
Posted by: Moderate Salami at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (/Ho8c)
227
In other news, Neil Peart is retiring from concert touring after this summer's RUSH tour due to severe tendonitis.
Glad I got my tickets early. I had a feeling this could be the last time around, so I bit the bullet and ponied up.
The band has announced that they still plan to release new music and perhaps do one-off concerts down the line.
Glad I got my tickets early. I had a feeling this could be the last time around, so I bit the bullet and ponied up.
The band has announced that they still plan to release new music and perhaps do one-off concerts down the line.
Posted by: Citizen X at May 04, 2015 02:49 PM (7ObY1)
228
Really? Then eliminate marriage benefits for couples without children.
That's not how the law works. You build laws around generalities and broad topics, not specifics. At least, you're not supposed to. The fact that there are exceptions does not eliminate the rule.
That's not how the law works. You build laws around generalities and broad topics, not specifics. At least, you're not supposed to. The fact that there are exceptions does not eliminate the rule.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:50 PM (39g3+)
229
Posted by: maxyp at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (DjLh9)
I know the feeling. If I had any faith karma would whack them first and foremost I'd feel better about the whole deal, but I know full well they'll use innocents and others to try to take the hit for them--it's how they operate.
Things I want to say, I won't. Not in Ace's house. But I feel ya, buddy.
I know the feeling. If I had any faith karma would whack them first and foremost I'd feel better about the whole deal, but I know full well they'll use innocents and others to try to take the hit for them--it's how they operate.
Things I want to say, I won't. Not in Ace's house. But I feel ya, buddy.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 02:50 PM (DT3rQ)
230
Nadir Soofi identified as second terrorist
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:50 PM (fWAjv)
231
Our turn is coming soon, too. And do we mean coming!
Posted by: NAMBLA at May 04, 2015 02:51 PM (4YUWF)
232
Of course, Christians will suffer things because of the onslaught by gay marriage supporters who are extremists. They already have. Loss of job, loss of income, death threats, churches vandalized, but this shouldn't come as any surprise to people who take the Bible seriously. That's what all that stuff there about taking up your cross means-it just hasn't gotten to that point-yet. And so, following Jesus is supposed to be hard (and light too, but that's the paradox of the Gospel) but he's the pearl of great price and nothing compares to who he is and what he did.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 04, 2015 02:51 PM (MeuoO)
233
Leftism represents and lobbies for the worst of human nature.
Leftism is so so very easy because it is natural.
Conservatism is the hard thing to do because it draws on our better angels, whereas Leftism (so-called Progressivism) taps into something that is intrinsic in our human condition -- the urge to do evil.
That's why Leftism will never go away. It is here to stay like insects and snakes and viruses. We'll always have to live with these things and always fight to keep them at bay.
Leftism represents and lobbies for the worst of human nature.
Leftism is so so very easy because it is natural.
Conservatism is the hard thing to do because it draws on our better angels, whereas Leftism (so-called Progressivism) taps into something that is intrinsic in our human condition -- the urge to do evil.
That's why Leftism will never go away. It is here to stay like insects and snakes and viruses. We'll always have to live with these things and always fight to keep them at bay.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 02:51 PM (5luh1)
234
How do you explain his obsession with 'Friends'?
Much like MASH, the first couple of seasons of Friends was the funny.
Then they emasculated all the male characters and it wasn't.
Much like MASH, the first couple of seasons of Friends was the funny.
Then they emasculated all the male characters and it wasn't.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:51 PM (659DL)
235
Gay marriage is a fait accompli. It doesn't actually matter what SCOTUS says about the subject; they might slow it down but they can't stop it. Right now all I want is a specific, defensible carve-out for religions to refuse to perform gay marriage. That's really all we can hope for. Hell, I'm the world's worst Lutheran and a self-avowed agnostic and I want this -- because if you keep backing people ever further into a corner they will eventually stop and fight.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (RD7QR)
236
>> It will be framed in terms of religious freedom as well; Mormons, Muslims, hey who are we to say they can't practice their religion in this manner?
Maybe - always thought "Big Love" was battlespace prep for normalizing polygamy.
But I think they'll more likely sell it as some kind of hippie/hipster sexual freedom to love more than one person, sort of like their 'I don't love a gender, I love individuals (regardless of what their gender is)' - an open-minded 'why should I only settle down w/one person?' - have a husband and a lesbian lover.
Maybe - always thought "Big Love" was battlespace prep for normalizing polygamy.
But I think they'll more likely sell it as some kind of hippie/hipster sexual freedom to love more than one person, sort of like their 'I don't love a gender, I love individuals (regardless of what their gender is)' - an open-minded 'why should I only settle down w/one person?' - have a husband and a lesbian lover.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (2TN4k)
237
Mary Katherine Ham, who married a hard core lefty, and Guy Benson who thinks that some of us should be able to keep some of our rights of free association under certain circumstances. Can't get more conservative than that!
Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (nFdGS)
238
Nadir Soofi? Wonder if that was the name he was born with or if he's another prison convert. Could even be an overseas fighter come to the U.S. The MSM would NOT like that.
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (2cS/G)
239
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (afQnV)
I agree with the basic premise that the state has to be firmly agnostic in dealing with its citizens. So if we *must* inform the state of who we are sharing a bed with, then they shouldn't get to pick and choose who I get to share a bed with.
Beyond that, the ghey stuff is ridiculous. There's no constitutional right to marriage, let alone gay marriage. And there's no constitutional right to have somebody bake you any cake, let alone a ghey cake.
And putting a gun to a bakers head and forcing him to bake a ghey cake or go out of business is reprehensible.
I agree with the basic premise that the state has to be firmly agnostic in dealing with its citizens. So if we *must* inform the state of who we are sharing a bed with, then they shouldn't get to pick and choose who I get to share a bed with.
Beyond that, the ghey stuff is ridiculous. There's no constitutional right to marriage, let alone gay marriage. And there's no constitutional right to have somebody bake you any cake, let alone a ghey cake.
And putting a gun to a bakers head and forcing him to bake a ghey cake or go out of business is reprehensible.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (AkOaV)
240
Karma is bullpuckey. Its an idiotic pipe dream swiped from the far east. Everyone knows that its nonsense but so many people spout that trash even knowing better because they wish that's how the universe worked.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:52 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 02:53 PM (gmeXX)
242
It used to be common knowledge on this blog that ace
was one of the biggest homos in Homo-land. Maybe not the king of
Homo-land, but definitely one of the engineers on the Homo-land train.
Posted by: OregonMuse at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (VhO+g)
Ace is not only gay, he's so ashamed of himself for it that he has NEVER had sex with a dude, and all the chicks he bangs? He actually enjoys it. A lot.
Talk about self-hating...
was one of the biggest homos in Homo-land. Maybe not the king of
Homo-land, but definitely one of the engineers on the Homo-land train.
Posted by: OregonMuse at May 04, 2015 02:45 PM (VhO+g)
Ace is not only gay, he's so ashamed of himself for it that he has NEVER had sex with a dude, and all the chicks he bangs? He actually enjoys it. A lot.
Talk about self-hating...
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 02:53 PM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:53 PM (659DL)
244
Of course t has gotten to that point for our brothers and sister Christ in the Mideast and they set an example for us-the martyrs who have received the white robe and if you believe in the communion of saints- are praying for us
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 04, 2015 02:53 PM (MeuoO)
245
You're probably already gone, Y-not, but you misstate the question re employers and health insurance.
I'm not "on the Right", which is immaterial anyway, but the point is the various subsidies provided to employer-provided benefits (mostly tax code). Absolutely, employers should be able to provide any level of benefits - from zilch, all the way up to play rooms and jet flight lessons like Google.
The whole link started as a non-wage compensation thing under WWII Office of Price control regs. "Benefits" were not regulated, unlike pay, so .... naturally labor-short contractors started using benefits to compete for people to come rivet the wings in Inglewood and weld the pipes in the shipyards in Richmond.
Companies of any size or status should absolutely be allowed to compete for labor almost any way they want. And the state and federal govts. should not encourage or subsidize, in any way, any of those competitive behaviors.
But even THIS massive artificial problem in health insurance would not matter if the industry just were allowed to let demand and supply interact normally. I wonder if Weirddave has any links to studies trying to estimate what the true real-market cost of health insurance would be for various people (actuarial cost plus profit margin). I'm guessing mine (now so expensive I mostly go w/out insurance for the first time in my life) would be about 1/3 of what I paid *before* the O-care calamity. But that gets us into the insane irrational situation in health care finance (only large sector in which most consumers and producers don't know what anything costs), a much bigger topic.
I'm not "on the Right", which is immaterial anyway, but the point is the various subsidies provided to employer-provided benefits (mostly tax code). Absolutely, employers should be able to provide any level of benefits - from zilch, all the way up to play rooms and jet flight lessons like Google.
The whole link started as a non-wage compensation thing under WWII Office of Price control regs. "Benefits" were not regulated, unlike pay, so .... naturally labor-short contractors started using benefits to compete for people to come rivet the wings in Inglewood and weld the pipes in the shipyards in Richmond.
Companies of any size or status should absolutely be allowed to compete for labor almost any way they want. And the state and federal govts. should not encourage or subsidize, in any way, any of those competitive behaviors.
But even THIS massive artificial problem in health insurance would not matter if the industry just were allowed to let demand and supply interact normally. I wonder if Weirddave has any links to studies trying to estimate what the true real-market cost of health insurance would be for various people (actuarial cost plus profit margin). I'm guessing mine (now so expensive I mostly go w/out insurance for the first time in my life) would be about 1/3 of what I paid *before* the O-care calamity. But that gets us into the insane irrational situation in health care finance (only large sector in which most consumers and producers don't know what anything costs), a much bigger topic.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 02:53 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 02:54 PM (kQBSd)
247
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (+YMhA)
I think one of the major drivers of the increase in the divorce rate, is that we LIVE longer.
I see so many divorces happen right after the kids leave home... because they suddenly realize there is no longer a reason for the partnership...
AND... they are going to have to live in said partnership for DECADES more.
Add in that once the kids are raised, there is no societal reason past religious, that you SHOULD stay together...
And Free people are making the decision that they would be happier elsewhere...
I think one of the major drivers of the increase in the divorce rate, is that we LIVE longer.
I see so many divorces happen right after the kids leave home... because they suddenly realize there is no longer a reason for the partnership...
AND... they are going to have to live in said partnership for DECADES more.
Add in that once the kids are raised, there is no societal reason past religious, that you SHOULD stay together...
And Free people are making the decision that they would be happier elsewhere...
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 02:54 PM (qh617)
248
On the bright side, most of these "marriages" will fall apart in 5 years or less and both partners will get to suffer all the nastiness involved. When there are no kids involved the number will approach 100%. In which case I say all marriage and divorce laws laws regrading property and income, both current and future, must be vigorously enforced as they would for any traditional marriage that fell apart. Especially where partner #1 slaves for years to pay the bills while partner #2 studies then end up making loads of money after dumping partner #1. Can't wait to hear that gay marriage is not like traditional marriage so the laws and precedent don't apply.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (1BQGO)
249
According to his Facebook page, Soofi spent a considerable amount of time with his little brother. He's a graduate of the University of Utah and the International School of Islamabad in Pakistan. His page also shows multiple posts featuring Palestinian and anti-police propaganda. Frequently, he posts the phrase 'Eid Mubarak' meaning celebration to the blessed. Soofi was the owner of Effinity Solutions, a carpet cleaning business in Phoenix. In July 2013, he called himself a 'newbie to the carpet cleaning industry.'
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (fWAjv)
250
Ace might wish to deny this but Jennifer Anniston is his ultimate dream girl.
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (RJMhd)
251
Not the bint from girls?
Posted by: Boss Moss at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (g7Ibl)
252
The Psalms are much more honest than any fool's concept of karma. Why do evil people seem to have it so well? They live long lives, they are rich and fat and happy, they get nookie and have fun, and I suffer trying to do what's right!
Karma is one of those leftist ideas that the world fixes its self and it all will end up right because good is innate in the world and if you do the right things, you'll have a wonderful life. Some fools in churches try to teach this too, and get rich doing it. Its a lie. Doing the right thing almost always has a cost, and sometimes its a terrible cost.
There's no cosmic balance in this world that sets it all right eventually. You can't tip the scales in your direction by "paying it forward" (code for "all of you do nice stuff for other people so I can benefit from it").
Karma is one of those leftist ideas that the world fixes its self and it all will end up right because good is innate in the world and if you do the right things, you'll have a wonderful life. Some fools in churches try to teach this too, and get rich doing it. Its a lie. Doing the right thing almost always has a cost, and sometimes its a terrible cost.
There's no cosmic balance in this world that sets it all right eventually. You can't tip the scales in your direction by "paying it forward" (code for "all of you do nice stuff for other people so I can benefit from it").
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (39g3+)
253
Now Soofi is the owner of worms.
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (0x/TW)
254
Tax, inheritance, hospital visitation. Nuke it all until they whelp. Because barren couples aren't really "married", right?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (JtwS4)
Another bullshit argument. Sorry. But that is just no so.
Being open to procreation, and allowing it to happen or not, implies that the marriage is fruitful. This is part of natural law. Homosexuals cannot be open to procreation, so, not fruitful.
And society has a stake in its members being fruitful and caring for the young. The nuclear family is the bedrock upon which society is built. That there are outliers is a fact of life, but society may not be in the business of producing more outliers and then survive handily. That's not how life works.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (JtwS4)
Another bullshit argument. Sorry. But that is just no so.
Being open to procreation, and allowing it to happen or not, implies that the marriage is fruitful. This is part of natural law. Homosexuals cannot be open to procreation, so, not fruitful.
And society has a stake in its members being fruitful and caring for the young. The nuclear family is the bedrock upon which society is built. That there are outliers is a fact of life, but society may not be in the business of producing more outliers and then survive handily. That's not how life works.
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (+YMhA)
255
The problem with leftism is that it's build upon a foundation of shifting sand which is to say it has no foundation at all.
And they want you to be off balance and society to be in a constant state of agitation, swirl and tumult.
The next two years are gonna be a pip.
And then the SCOAMF goes back to being a professional agitator.
So we have that to look forward to.
And they want you to be off balance and society to be in a constant state of agitation, swirl and tumult.
The next two years are gonna be a pip.
And then the SCOAMF goes back to being a professional agitator.
So we have that to look forward to.
Posted by: Kreplach at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (bckL9)
256
That's why Leftism will never go away. It is here to stay like insects and snakes and viruses. We'll always have to live with these things and always fight to keep them at bay.
Word. I put it in my nic for a reason:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Word. I put it in my nic for a reason:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (DT3rQ)
257
This enrages black people, by the way. Blacks have very little
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with
-----
Perhaps no tolerance, but polls show more than 40% (over 50% in some polls) support gay marriage.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (NUqwG)
Of course no one knows the real numbers, but anecdotally it is assume homosexuality among black men is significantly higher than among whites.
Prolly has nothing to do with the fatherless households. No connection at all, I'm sure.
tolerance for homosexuality to begin with
-----
Perhaps no tolerance, but polls show more than 40% (over 50% in some polls) support gay marriage.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 02:48 PM (NUqwG)
Of course no one knows the real numbers, but anecdotally it is assume homosexuality among black men is significantly higher than among whites.
Prolly has nothing to do with the fatherless households. No connection at all, I'm sure.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (TOk1P)
258
@229
I don't care about the innocents that they use, not anymore. We can't fight back if we do. Everyone who isn't behind me is the enemy. "Neutral" innocents aren't. We need to accept that on the right, or accept the impending progressive dystopia.
There are conservatives/right wing maybe 30% of the population. Swj/supporters 10% "innocents" 60%. More than half of whom are mindless livs who follow blindly behind their leaders. They won't wake up till they burn. Fuck em. Till they join us, fuck em.
I don't care about the innocents that they use, not anymore. We can't fight back if we do. Everyone who isn't behind me is the enemy. "Neutral" innocents aren't. We need to accept that on the right, or accept the impending progressive dystopia.
There are conservatives/right wing maybe 30% of the population. Swj/supporters 10% "innocents" 60%. More than half of whom are mindless livs who follow blindly behind their leaders. They won't wake up till they burn. Fuck em. Till they join us, fuck em.
Posted by: maxyp at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (DjLh9)
259
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 02:51 PM (5luh1)
again, big picture-wise... leftists are just as skeeved by trans sexuals and gheys and everyone else as anyone else is.
They are just looking for wedge issues to drive people apart to foment hate and eventually progress to their socialist revolution and kill the capitalists and become a communist country (which they rule, of course).
If it served their purposes to be against gheys, they would. If it served their purposes to pass jim crow laws and to subjugate blacks, they would (and did!). If it served their purposes to come out as theocratic christians, they would.
again, big picture-wise... leftists are just as skeeved by trans sexuals and gheys and everyone else as anyone else is.
They are just looking for wedge issues to drive people apart to foment hate and eventually progress to their socialist revolution and kill the capitalists and become a communist country (which they rule, of course).
If it served their purposes to be against gheys, they would. If it served their purposes to pass jim crow laws and to subjugate blacks, they would (and did!). If it served their purposes to come out as theocratic christians, they would.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (AkOaV)
260
"The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage, they only attacked people for disagreeing. "
homosexuality has serious grounds to be a mental disease, yet in the 70 everybody had to agree it wasn't.
I do not recall any other proper disease that was removed from the list of mental diseases in the past 40 years and I still wonder why homosexuality was.
This should have been sign n. 1 that there was something rotten in the whole movement and their groupies.
Hollywood and Academia and too many idiots with too much time on their hands did the rest.
Nature abhor vacuums and eventually this mistake will be rectified. I hope by the Chinese and Russians, but in some places it will be rectified by the muslims which would be quite delicious considering how virulently anti-Christians the gheys and their groupies are.
I do not see the advantage of this writer gheyness, surely it will do zero to protect florists, bakers etc. Obviously it will give ammo to big anus.
homosexuality has serious grounds to be a mental disease, yet in the 70 everybody had to agree it wasn't.
I do not recall any other proper disease that was removed from the list of mental diseases in the past 40 years and I still wonder why homosexuality was.
This should have been sign n. 1 that there was something rotten in the whole movement and their groupies.
Hollywood and Academia and too many idiots with too much time on their hands did the rest.
Nature abhor vacuums and eventually this mistake will be rectified. I hope by the Chinese and Russians, but in some places it will be rectified by the muslims which would be quite delicious considering how virulently anti-Christians the gheys and their groupies are.
I do not see the advantage of this writer gheyness, surely it will do zero to protect florists, bakers etc. Obviously it will give ammo to big anus.
Posted by: fromabroad at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (LKY8c)
261
Companies of any size or status should absolutely be allowed to compete for labor almost any way they want. And the state and federal govts. should not encourage or subsidize, in any way, any of those competitive behaviors.
------
I as an employee am encouraged to use the Company's health plan, because I get those benefits tax free. If I wanted to pay for comparable coverage or different coverage on my own - I do not get such tax benefits - and thus I would be paying for coverage with after-tax dollars.
This incentives me to stay with my current employer.
I would argue that this is bad for the individual - because it removes choice, and it is bad for society - because we should encourage more mobile movement between employers.
------
I as an employee am encouraged to use the Company's health plan, because I get those benefits tax free. If I wanted to pay for comparable coverage or different coverage on my own - I do not get such tax benefits - and thus I would be paying for coverage with after-tax dollars.
This incentives me to stay with my current employer.
I would argue that this is bad for the individual - because it removes choice, and it is bad for society - because we should encourage more mobile movement between employers.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (gmeXX)
262
And yeah, if I needed proof karma was a fairy tale, all I'd need to do was open a newspaper. Wishful thinking, and all that.
I'd just settle for cause and effect not to be interrupted.
I'd just settle for cause and effect not to be interrupted.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 02:57 PM (DT3rQ)
263
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 02:47 PM (JtwS4)
This is such a sick worldview, I'm not even sure how to address it.
It is simply *true* that the family unit (a mother, a father, and children) is the basis of civilized society. Without the family unit, society breaks down. Citizens have no means of defense against an encroaching, enslaving social march. Society itself lacks the trust and honesty necessary to function.
All of these things (and more) are extensions of the family unit. I know lying is wrong, and theft is wrong, and about property rights because I first learned about them in the home as a natural part of being part of a family. I can conduct commerce with others (trusting that when I place my order, it will be placed correctly (barring accidents), and the vendor trusting that I will pay for the good/service) because of lessons learned in the home.
Therefore, a society is well behooved to support the family unit (a mother, a father, and children).
However, not all men or women are capable of having children. This is not something that can be known before hand - and even if it could, testing for such raises vast ethical issues. Therefore, a society is *also* well behooved to support the family unit even when that family unit cannot have children.
An accident of biology (male being infertile, or a female being barren) is simply that- an accident of biology. However, a gay couple *cannot ever meet the definition of the family unit.* Men and women are different emotionally, psychologically, and biologically. Both "pieces" are required for a family unit. Two dudes or two women will never be a marriage because it biologically cannot be. Therefore homosexuals not having biological children is not "an accident of biology." It is the *design* of biology.
To even attempt to equate a barren couple (or even a married couple which chooses not to have kids (which: why?)) with a gay couple simply on the grounds of "No Kids!!!!!" is disingenuous. At best.
This is such a sick worldview, I'm not even sure how to address it.
It is simply *true* that the family unit (a mother, a father, and children) is the basis of civilized society. Without the family unit, society breaks down. Citizens have no means of defense against an encroaching, enslaving social march. Society itself lacks the trust and honesty necessary to function.
All of these things (and more) are extensions of the family unit. I know lying is wrong, and theft is wrong, and about property rights because I first learned about them in the home as a natural part of being part of a family. I can conduct commerce with others (trusting that when I place my order, it will be placed correctly (barring accidents), and the vendor trusting that I will pay for the good/service) because of lessons learned in the home.
Therefore, a society is well behooved to support the family unit (a mother, a father, and children).
However, not all men or women are capable of having children. This is not something that can be known before hand - and even if it could, testing for such raises vast ethical issues. Therefore, a society is *also* well behooved to support the family unit even when that family unit cannot have children.
An accident of biology (male being infertile, or a female being barren) is simply that- an accident of biology. However, a gay couple *cannot ever meet the definition of the family unit.* Men and women are different emotionally, psychologically, and biologically. Both "pieces" are required for a family unit. Two dudes or two women will never be a marriage because it biologically cannot be. Therefore homosexuals not having biological children is not "an accident of biology." It is the *design* of biology.
To even attempt to equate a barren couple (or even a married couple which chooses not to have kids (which: why?)) with a gay couple simply on the grounds of "No Kids!!!!!" is disingenuous. At best.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (kff5f)
264
Why can't an employer provide benefits packages, including things like health insurance (and a myriad of other things)? They can negotiate cheaper group rates than an individual could. Self-insured employers can have a pool of lower-risk people. I'd much rather be in an insurance risk pool of educated office workers than coal miners or homeless people.
---
So I should've said "requiring your employer to pay for your health insurance" as is quickly becoming the case.
I support the rights of employers and employees to work out any pay arrangements they like. Wanna get paid in Twinkies and old Motley Crüe T-shirts? Rock on. Want to pay the health insurance costs for only your very best employees? Cool. Want to pay for your employee and only his or her straight partner? That should be fine, too. But O-Care doesn't let you choose whether or not to provide health insurance for your full-time employees and all their kids up to age twenty-freaking-six. That's what galls me. If you want to provide insurance for your best employee's nine kids and four sister wives, or if you want to provide just for your employee, that should be between you and that employee, period.
---
So I should've said "requiring your employer to pay for your health insurance" as is quickly becoming the case.
I support the rights of employers and employees to work out any pay arrangements they like. Wanna get paid in Twinkies and old Motley Crüe T-shirts? Rock on. Want to pay the health insurance costs for only your very best employees? Cool. Want to pay for your employee and only his or her straight partner? That should be fine, too. But O-Care doesn't let you choose whether or not to provide health insurance for your full-time employees and all their kids up to age twenty-freaking-six. That's what galls me. If you want to provide insurance for your best employee's nine kids and four sister wives, or if you want to provide just for your employee, that should be between you and that employee, period.
Posted by: Jenny Has Terrible Timing at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (mB6ez)
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (0x/TW)
266
Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox were amazingly gorgeous in their younger years. That other girl was... not. But neither aged real well despite desperate attempts with the surgeon's scalpel and HGH by the metric ton.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (39g3+)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (659DL)
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 02:59 PM (qu1Tl)
Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 04, 2015 02:59 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Lauren at May 04, 2015 02:59 PM (MYCIw)
271
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (+YMhA)
Except that science is right on the verge of changing that.
We are on the cusp of making it possible for ANY two people to have children...
So... do we change marriage THEN?
Except that science is right on the verge of changing that.
We are on the cusp of making it possible for ANY two people to have children...
So... do we change marriage THEN?
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 03:00 PM (qh617)
Posted by: River Guide at May 04, 2015 03:00 PM (RJMhd)
273
Soofi was the owner of Effinity Solutions, a carpet
cleaning business in Phoenix. In July 2013, he called himself a 'newbie
to the carpet cleaning industry.'
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (fWAjv)
It's a stone bitch getting all the forehead sweat out of the rugs.
cleaning business in Phoenix. In July 2013, he called himself a 'newbie
to the carpet cleaning industry.'
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (fWAjv)
It's a stone bitch getting all the forehead sweat out of the rugs.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at May 04, 2015 03:00 PM (Jh0nR)
274
They won't wake up till they burn. Fuck em. Till they join us, fuck em.
That's a step far. I may conduct a sort of triage in what I protect, but I won't be calloused. And never forget who the real enemy is, or you will just waste your energy and efforts.
Some days I regret ever typing the words "let it burn".
That's a step far. I may conduct a sort of triage in what I protect, but I won't be calloused. And never forget who the real enemy is, or you will just waste your energy and efforts.
Some days I regret ever typing the words "let it burn".
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 03:00 PM (DT3rQ)
275
Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (+YMhA)
Sure. But government can't make those distinctions and must treat us all equally under the law.
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
Sure. But government can't make those distinctions and must treat us all equally under the law.
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 03:00 PM (AkOaV)
276
275 Posted by: tcn in AK at May 04, 2015 02:56 PM (+YMhA)
Sure. But government can't make those distinctions and must treat us all equally under the law.
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
---
Bingo.
Sure. But government can't make those distinctions and must treat us all equally under the law.
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
---
Bingo.
Posted by: Jenny Has Terrible Timing at May 04, 2015 03:01 PM (mB6ez)
277
Link to Effinity Solutions
http://effinitysolutions.com/
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (0x/TW)
Yeah, not letting this dude in my damn house.
http://tinyurl.com/lochl3c
Link to Effinity Solutions
http://effinitysolutions.com/
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (0x/TW)
Yeah, not letting this dude in my damn house.
http://tinyurl.com/lochl3c
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (fWAjv)
278
" Ace might wish to deny this but Jennifer Anniston is his ultimate dream girl."
Yeah, but does she have the ass of a young Kiefer Sutherland...?
Yeah, but does she have the ass of a young Kiefer Sutherland...?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (LA7Cm)
279
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (gmeXX)
280
>>We are on the cusp of making it possible for ANY two people to have children...
So... do we change marriage THEN?
Nuclear family is still the most stable environment to *raise* a child.
Biological tinkering won't change that.
So... do we change marriage THEN?
Nuclear family is still the most stable environment to *raise* a child.
Biological tinkering won't change that.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (2TN4k)
281
"I'm for civil marriage, I'm for nondiscrimination laws- but I think
there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in
particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely-held businesses that serve
the wedding industry,"he said.
---
Why the differentiation for businesses that serve weddings? Freedom of association is freedom of association... you either have it or you don't.
Also, I am a devout Christian but why should I get carve-outs that atheists like Ace do not? Again, freedom is freedom and you either have it or you don't. It shouldn't matter if your objections to taking an action are based on religion of just deeply held personal beliefs.
there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in
particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely-held businesses that serve
the wedding industry,"he said.
---
Why the differentiation for businesses that serve weddings? Freedom of association is freedom of association... you either have it or you don't.
Also, I am a devout Christian but why should I get carve-outs that atheists like Ace do not? Again, freedom is freedom and you either have it or you don't. It shouldn't matter if your objections to taking an action are based on religion of just deeply held personal beliefs.
Posted by: redbanzai at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (OrI3J)
282
Let's boil this down to its essence.
We now live in a world where a man can marry a man. And we're expected to "celebrate" this.
We have to be extremely far along on the "civilizational decline" scale.
We now live in a world where a man can marry a man. And we're expected to "celebrate" this.
We have to be extremely far along on the "civilizational decline" scale.
Posted by: tsj017 at May 04, 2015 03:03 PM (4YUWF)
283
homosexuality has serious grounds to be a mental disease, yet in the 70 everybody had to agree it wasn't.
Objectively, that is, stepping away from the friends you know or how you personally feel, or what context you emotionally react to homosexuality... it is mental illness. The desire to engage in sexual activity with someone other than the opposite sex is mentally deranged. I don't mean you're a lunatic if you're homosexual; there are degrees. But there's damage there, from a strictly objective, scientific, and biological point of view, like being really fixated on cleaning everything around you and adjusting everything to be just so. Its just messed up in the head, and should never have been removed from the list.
I've known people who are crazy. Some of them are wonderful people - likable, friendly, kind, loving, even constructive members of society. Except where their madness intrudes. There's a far too common sense in this culture that if you're a nice guy you can't be wrong. Look how often people say about a serial killer 'he seemed like such a nice guy!" So?
Objectively, that is, stepping away from the friends you know or how you personally feel, or what context you emotionally react to homosexuality... it is mental illness. The desire to engage in sexual activity with someone other than the opposite sex is mentally deranged. I don't mean you're a lunatic if you're homosexual; there are degrees. But there's damage there, from a strictly objective, scientific, and biological point of view, like being really fixated on cleaning everything around you and adjusting everything to be just so. Its just messed up in the head, and should never have been removed from the list.
I've known people who are crazy. Some of them are wonderful people - likable, friendly, kind, loving, even constructive members of society. Except where their madness intrudes. There's a far too common sense in this culture that if you're a nice guy you can't be wrong. Look how often people say about a serial killer 'he seemed like such a nice guy!" So?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 03:03 PM (39g3+)
284
"Nuclear family is still the most stable environment to *raise* a child.
Biological tinkering won't change that. "
According to liberals it's also an unfair privilege.
Biological tinkering won't change that. "
According to liberals it's also an unfair privilege.
Posted by: Lauren at May 04, 2015 03:03 PM (MYCIw)
285
278 " Ace might wish to deny this but Jennifer Anniston is his ultimate dream girl."
---
That bitch!
---
That bitch!
Posted by: Bradley Cooper Does Not Share at May 04, 2015 03:03 PM (mB6ez)
286
Yeti, Nessie, Sasquatch...
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (659DL)
Which is why they walk funny. Everyone knows that.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 02:58 PM (659DL)
Which is why they walk funny. Everyone knows that.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 03:03 PM (TOk1P)
287
Nuclear family is still the most stable environment to *raise* a child.
Biological tinkering won't change that.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (2TN4k)
Having raised two children as a full time single father, I absolutely agree with you... it IS the optimal way to raise children.
But I am not wise enough, or smart enough, to say MY opinion should be forced upon others.
And enshrined into Law, where it will be enforced by Legal Violence (as in the end, all laws are).
Biological tinkering won't change that.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 03:02 PM (2TN4k)
Having raised two children as a full time single father, I absolutely agree with you... it IS the optimal way to raise children.
But I am not wise enough, or smart enough, to say MY opinion should be forced upon others.
And enshrined into Law, where it will be enforced by Legal Violence (as in the end, all laws are).
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 03:05 PM (qh617)
288
Are there girl ewoks? I mean how can you tell?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 03:05 PM (39g3+)
289
279 So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:06 PM (mB6ez)
290
Breaking a rule by even making this comment, as I stay out of almost all social/moral/religious discussions here, but .....
Yes, "society" has an interest in stable productive nuclear families.
And as a rudimentary historical knowledge will confirm, there is no need for "incentives" to promote this happy result.
When did anything amounting to a "tax code" for most Americans even come into existence? When were any social incentives first introduced to it? These are both fairly recent phenomena.
How has that whole stable nuclear family thing gone since "incentives" were introduced, vs. before?
Yes of course stable nuclear families are good to have. And just as obviously you don't need tax incentives to encourage this. Otherwise we'd never even have understood the concept, which has declined precisely in the period where "incentives" for it were invented.
This one has always flummoxed me.
Yes, "society" has an interest in stable productive nuclear families.
And as a rudimentary historical knowledge will confirm, there is no need for "incentives" to promote this happy result.
When did anything amounting to a "tax code" for most Americans even come into existence? When were any social incentives first introduced to it? These are both fairly recent phenomena.
How has that whole stable nuclear family thing gone since "incentives" were introduced, vs. before?
Yes of course stable nuclear families are good to have. And just as obviously you don't need tax incentives to encourage this. Otherwise we'd never even have understood the concept, which has declined precisely in the period where "incentives" for it were invented.
This one has always flummoxed me.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 03:07 PM (afQnV)
291
289 279 So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:06 PM (mB6ez)
We tried that.... didn't work...
---
Bingo.
----
What definition would you use?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:06 PM (mB6ez)
We tried that.... didn't work...
Posted by: Calif Pro p 8 at May 04, 2015 03:07 PM (qh617)
292
I think one of the major drivers of the increase in the divorce rate, is that we LIVE longer.
I see so many divorces happen right after the kids leave home...
because they suddenly realize there is no longer a reason for the
partnership...
AND... they are going to have to live in said partnership for DECADES more.
Add in that once the kids are raised, there is no societal reason past religious, that you SHOULD stay together...
And Free people are making the decision that they would be happier elsewhere...
=============
I'm leaning toward the conclusion that there is no reason to get married unless you plan to have children or adopt some.
I see so many divorces happen right after the kids leave home...
because they suddenly realize there is no longer a reason for the
partnership...
AND... they are going to have to live in said partnership for DECADES more.
Add in that once the kids are raised, there is no societal reason past religious, that you SHOULD stay together...
And Free people are making the decision that they would be happier elsewhere...
=============
I'm leaning toward the conclusion that there is no reason to get married unless you plan to have children or adopt some.
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 03:07 PM (ZvKdv)
293
What definition would you use?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
----
Wait - then what is the issue?
----
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
----
Wait - then what is the issue?
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:07 PM (gmeXX)
294
But I am not wise enough, or smart enough, to say MY opinion should be forced upon others.
And enshrined into Law, where it will be enforced by Legal Violence (as in the end, all laws are).
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 03:05 PM (qh617)
Well somebody's opinions are going to be enforced on us as laws, so it might as well be ours for once. Because they're sure as shit unfit to rule us.
And enshrined into Law, where it will be enforced by Legal Violence (as in the end, all laws are).
Posted by: Societas Draconistarum at May 04, 2015 03:05 PM (qh617)
Well somebody's opinions are going to be enforced on us as laws, so it might as well be ours for once. Because they're sure as shit unfit to rule us.
Posted by: Iblis at May 04, 2015 03:08 PM (9221z)
295
So if they insist on being in the marriage game, then they don't get to use "biblical" definitions.
I've stated this before:
Either marriage is "only" a "Societal Construct" which mankind just made up out of whole cloth OR it is something that pre-exists in our nature (blame God or Darwin as you choose) and around which we have built up rules and rituals.
Both of those concepts have very stark consequences. Choose well which set of consequences you choose to accept/defend.
I've stated this before:
Either marriage is "only" a "Societal Construct" which mankind just made up out of whole cloth OR it is something that pre-exists in our nature (blame God or Darwin as you choose) and around which we have built up rules and rituals.
Both of those concepts have very stark consequences. Choose well which set of consequences you choose to accept/defend.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 03:08 PM (kff5f)
296
The one agreed to by a majority of voters in the state?
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:06 PM (mB6ez)
See my 295.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:06 PM (mB6ez)
See my 295.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 03:09 PM (kff5f)
297
O/T: Well, f***.
"Baltimore police shot a man Monday in the same area where massive riots broke out last week over the death of Freddie Gray. "
http://tinyurl.com/n7q2rl4
"Baltimore police shot a man Monday in the same area where massive riots broke out last week over the death of Freddie Gray. "
http://tinyurl.com/n7q2rl4
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 03:09 PM (DT3rQ)
298
I'm leaning toward the conclusion that there is no reason to get married unless you plan to have children or adopt some.
Congratulations, you've discovered the Roman Catholic Church's stance!
Congratulations, you've discovered the Roman Catholic Church's stance!
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 03:10 PM (DT3rQ)
299
@274
I really don't want to seem brutal. But what's option or solution?
Our only Hail Mary pass is a non-rubio/bush ticket in 2 years, PLUS a massive replacement of Republican Congress with conservatives. We need to replace at least 20 seats before the end of our next presidents first term. We have 6 years to change course or its over. There is nothing that can avert the enevitable after that first term.
I really don't want to seem brutal. But what's option or solution?
Our only Hail Mary pass is a non-rubio/bush ticket in 2 years, PLUS a massive replacement of Republican Congress with conservatives. We need to replace at least 20 seats before the end of our next presidents first term. We have 6 years to change course or its over. There is nothing that can avert the enevitable after that first term.
Posted by: maxyp at May 04, 2015 03:10 PM (DjLh9)
300
you guys are doing just GREAT!
Posted by: Zombie Caesar Nero at May 04, 2015 03:11 PM (NUCTk)
301
The issue is why. "Let the states decide" is a decent argument. I may not always like the outcome, but I respect the process. "Never redefine marriage because Bible" is not a decent argument.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:11 PM (mB6ez)
302
nood.
Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 04, 2015 03:11 PM (qu1Tl)
303
I agree with the concept, Jenny, but Cali already tried to do the decidin' for their state. Didn't work out.
Posted by: Moderate Salami at May 04, 2015 03:12 PM (/Ho8c)
304
The issue is why. "Let the states decide" is a decent argument. I may not always like the outcome, but I respect the process. "Never redefine marriage because Bible" is not a decent argument.
-----
If only the courts respected the process.
But I would say we should not redefine marriage lightly - which is what we are doing.
-----
If only the courts respected the process.
But I would say we should not redefine marriage lightly - which is what we are doing.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:13 PM (gmeXX)
305
"Baltimore police shot a man Monday in the same area where massive riots broke out last week over the death of Freddie Gray. "
If you're some gang banging scumbag crook in Baltimore, pushing the cops to where they have to shoot probably seems like a winner: "whatcha gonna do pig, shoot and start up riots and get thrown in jail or let me do what I want?"
We have 6 years to change course or its over. There is nothing that can avert the enevitable after that first term.
We already passed that point. We can argue about when, but not if. We're done as a republic. Its just a matter of how it plays out from here on out.
If you're some gang banging scumbag crook in Baltimore, pushing the cops to where they have to shoot probably seems like a winner: "whatcha gonna do pig, shoot and start up riots and get thrown in jail or let me do what I want?"
We have 6 years to change course or its over. There is nothing that can avert the enevitable after that first term.
We already passed that point. We can argue about when, but not if. We're done as a republic. Its just a matter of how it plays out from here on out.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 03:13 PM (39g3+)
306
...almost there...
Posted by: NAMBLA at May 04, 2015 03:13 PM (NUCTk)
307
My own feeling, of course, is that any couple who wants to be legally tied together re: taxes, property, assumption of shared parenting rights/obligations should get a civil union. Marriage should be a spiritual/religious construct that no one should ever be forced to participate in.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:13 PM (mB6ez)
308
Make no mistake - marriage is being redefined.
That may be acceptable - but if you cannot admit it - you are being disingenuous.
That may be acceptable - but if you cannot admit it - you are being disingenuous.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:14 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at May 04, 2015 03:14 PM (7Txj/)
310
>>Having raised two children as a full time single father, I absolutely agree with you... it IS the optimal way to raise children.
Oh! I meant no disrespect to any non-nuclear family. I was responding to a person asking if we can make a baby out of two people in the lab, should this trigger a change to the definition of marriage.
I say: tinkering in the lab to create a baby shouldn't have bearing on how a family is structured.
Oh! I meant no disrespect to any non-nuclear family. I was responding to a person asking if we can make a baby out of two people in the lab, should this trigger a change to the definition of marriage.
I say: tinkering in the lab to create a baby shouldn't have bearing on how a family is structured.
Posted by: Lizzy at May 04, 2015 03:14 PM (2TN4k)
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:15 PM (gmeXX)
312
@305
I personally think it's over, there isn't enough social pressure to avert. Obama is hovering around 50% approval. LIVs will be LIVs and they make up half the population. But if we have any chance, a snowball in hell even. It's my hail Mary scenario. There is nothing else.
I personally think it's over, there isn't enough social pressure to avert. Obama is hovering around 50% approval. LIVs will be LIVs and they make up half the population. But if we have any chance, a snowball in hell even. It's my hail Mary scenario. There is nothing else.
Posted by: maxyp at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (DjLh9)
313
Real marriage is supposed to be the seat of stable family formation and the venue for the bearing and raising of children, with the man and woman ideally remaining together for life.
Government has an interest in this, because children are future citizens, and sane societies should take care that their citizens are sourced from a good environment and are productive people. (Note: We no longer live in a sane society.) The family also provides an environment where people are made to behave in socially agreed-upon ways without the need for a constant police presence. As a result, government granted certain tax and other benefits to encourage this mode of stable, family formation and maintenance.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like this. From what I have heard, it can best be described as "nasty, brutish, and short" to coin a phrase. The state has no interest in the existence of such a situation.
Now, "marriage" is moving in the direction of "any number of people who want to have sex on a semi-regular basis deserve government benefits!"
No. That's not how it works. The state has no interest in encouraging this. It benefits no one outside of the arrangement, and ultimately not even them.
Finally, real marriage is degraded by equating it with homosexual arrangements. People working hard to maintain stable, honest, monogamous relationships and raise good, healthy children are told that they are no different from people in transient sexual liaisons made solely for the purpose of sucking money from the government. The comparison is odious.
Government has an interest in this, because children are future citizens, and sane societies should take care that their citizens are sourced from a good environment and are productive people. (Note: We no longer live in a sane society.) The family also provides an environment where people are made to behave in socially agreed-upon ways without the need for a constant police presence. As a result, government granted certain tax and other benefits to encourage this mode of stable, family formation and maintenance.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like this. From what I have heard, it can best be described as "nasty, brutish, and short" to coin a phrase. The state has no interest in the existence of such a situation.
Now, "marriage" is moving in the direction of "any number of people who want to have sex on a semi-regular basis deserve government benefits!"
No. That's not how it works. The state has no interest in encouraging this. It benefits no one outside of the arrangement, and ultimately not even them.
Finally, real marriage is degraded by equating it with homosexual arrangements. People working hard to maintain stable, honest, monogamous relationships and raise good, healthy children are told that they are no different from people in transient sexual liaisons made solely for the purpose of sucking money from the government. The comparison is odious.
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (J6suc)
314
"Congratulations, you've discovered the Roman Catholic Church's stance!"
--------
Not quite. The Catholic Church is not indifferent to the idea of procreation. It's enthusiastic about it. The Church thinks you really should get married and have children.
--------
Not quite. The Catholic Church is not indifferent to the idea of procreation. It's enthusiastic about it. The Church thinks you really should get married and have children.
Posted by: Kensington at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (7Kbxu)
315
We always get locked up into this idea that court decisions are permanent. That these things are inevitable and irreversible. That's crap. Laws (and constitutions for that matter) are made by men, and can be changed by men. That's even more true for judicial fiats. We don't have to accept them. We can change them and tell the men in black robes to fuck off. We just haven't had the guts to do it lately.
Posted by: Iblis at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Christian Bakers at May 04, 2015 03:17 PM (NUCTk)
317
Not quite. The Catholic Church is not indifferent to the idea of procreation. It's enthusiastic about it. The Church thinks you really should get married and have children.
Posted by: Kensington at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (7Kbxu)
They're actually very pro-sex, provided its responsible sex. JPII was quite the romantic at heart.
Posted by: Kensington at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (7Kbxu)
They're actually very pro-sex, provided its responsible sex. JPII was quite the romantic at heart.
Posted by: Iblis at May 04, 2015 03:19 PM (9221z)
318
Who was forced to participate?
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:21 PM (dMT1T)
319
Who was forced to participate?
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
----
I misread the tone of your post. I thought you were saying people were being forced into marriage just for the alleged benefits of marriage.
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
----
I misread the tone of your post. I thought you were saying people were being forced into marriage just for the alleged benefits of marriage.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 03:23 PM (gmeXX)
320
In July 2013, he called himself a 'newbie to the carpet cleaning industry.'
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (fWAjv)
He's graduated to being a newbie in the lead poisoning industry.
Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 04, 2015 02:55 PM (fWAjv)
He's graduated to being a newbie in the lead poisoning industry.
Posted by: Hawkins1701 at May 04, 2015 03:24 PM (fbBPX)
321
"I think his biggest failing is in not drawing a distinction between gays in general and the gay fascist Left"
There is no substantial difference.
According to polls only 20% or less of gheys is conservative and not all of them are against ghey marriage and ghey adoption, so the number of gheys in favour of ghey marriage rule no matter the consequences for freedom of conscience and speech is close to 100%.
Did some ghey entrepreneur hire Brendan Eich to make a point?
No.
As I said before the 'moderate' ghey if it exist is like the elusive 'moderate' muslim we keep on hearing about but never materializes probably sitting on the fence, knowing that brutal force will prevail and the barbarians are from his same tribe. Same for the 'moderate' gheys, they are not doing much, as far as I can see.
There is no substantial difference.
According to polls only 20% or less of gheys is conservative and not all of them are against ghey marriage and ghey adoption, so the number of gheys in favour of ghey marriage rule no matter the consequences for freedom of conscience and speech is close to 100%.
Did some ghey entrepreneur hire Brendan Eich to make a point?
No.
As I said before the 'moderate' ghey if it exist is like the elusive 'moderate' muslim we keep on hearing about but never materializes probably sitting on the fence, knowing that brutal force will prevail and the barbarians are from his same tribe. Same for the 'moderate' gheys, they are not doing much, as far as I can see.
Posted by: fromabroad at May 04, 2015 03:25 PM (LKY8c)
322
319 Who was forced to participate?
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
----
I misread the tone of your post. I thought you were saying people were being forced into marriage just for the alleged benefits of marriage.
---
Ah, no worries then. I wish more (straight) people would actually get married for the benefits to their kids, but of course no one is forced to.
---
Cake bakers? Florists? Other such folks?
Is this a serious question?
----
I misread the tone of your post. I thought you were saying people were being forced into marriage just for the alleged benefits of marriage.
---
Ah, no worries then. I wish more (straight) people would actually get married for the benefits to their kids, but of course no one is forced to.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at May 04, 2015 03:26 PM (dMT1T)
323
"The frustrating thing to me from the very beginning is that at no point did anyone make a rational, logical, persuasive case for homosexual marriage, they only"
They only pushed in on us illegally through the illegal courts. Nobody acquiesced, they just have homosexual judges, leftist judges, Rinos and Rinos afraid of their homosexual children.
They only pushed in on us illegally through the illegal courts. Nobody acquiesced, they just have homosexual judges, leftist judges, Rinos and Rinos afraid of their homosexual children.
Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at May 04, 2015 03:33 PM (7Txj/)
Posted by: Arlene Stutzman at May 04, 2015 03:35 PM (VhO+g)
325
"Objectively, that is, stepping away from the friends you know or how you personally feel, or what context you emotionally react to homosexuality... it is mental illness."
Exactly, during the greeks and the romans homosexuality was used to get sexual pleasure when you did not have access to women. It was a temporary practice and not an identity, it was also a great escape for men who had serious psychological problems with the female body. It should have remained as such and it should have been kept behind closed doors and away from ghey pride parades (proud about what? they are the media darlings).
I seriously think that all the ghey groupies secretly and/or subconsciously pity ghey people, that's why they are all so protective. They really think they cannot function in real society because they are weak (too much emotionalism, drama etc) so they need extra protections.
there are thousands of kids taking their life in school, mostly for personal problems, low grades, low self esteem, and just a small portion is homosexual, yet you hear nothing of the former and everything of the latter because they can use it like a hammer blaming Christians and conservatives.
Exactly, during the greeks and the romans homosexuality was used to get sexual pleasure when you did not have access to women. It was a temporary practice and not an identity, it was also a great escape for men who had serious psychological problems with the female body. It should have remained as such and it should have been kept behind closed doors and away from ghey pride parades (proud about what? they are the media darlings).
I seriously think that all the ghey groupies secretly and/or subconsciously pity ghey people, that's why they are all so protective. They really think they cannot function in real society because they are weak (too much emotionalism, drama etc) so they need extra protections.
there are thousands of kids taking their life in school, mostly for personal problems, low grades, low self esteem, and just a small portion is homosexual, yet you hear nothing of the former and everything of the latter because they can use it like a hammer blaming Christians and conservatives.
Posted by: fromabroad at May 04, 2015 03:39 PM (LKY8c)
326
I told the story before of playing chess with one of my friends who was a big defender of gay marriage and always dismissed the argument that marriage was always defined as between a man and woman and to change that definition now was Orwellian .
Anyway in the middle of the game which looked like I was going to lose I moved my Bishop horizontally across the board and took his Queen. He of course said what the hell and I told him I was redefining the rules of chess. I said even though the rules have been the same forever I didn't deserve to lose so I was changing them. The look on his face when he realized what I was getting at was priceless.
Anyway in the middle of the game which looked like I was going to lose I moved my Bishop horizontally across the board and took his Queen. He of course said what the hell and I told him I was redefining the rules of chess. I said even though the rules have been the same forever I didn't deserve to lose so I was changing them. The look on his face when he realized what I was getting at was priceless.
Posted by: Cruzinator at May 04, 2015 03:45 PM (mt2jL)
327
313:
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (J6suc)
----
Excellent comment!
I know many gays in "committed" relationships... where they, of course, "party" with other gays on the weekend.
It's not so much a committed relationship as it is a joint checking account.
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 03:16 PM (J6suc)
----
Excellent comment!
I know many gays in "committed" relationships... where they, of course, "party" with other gays on the weekend.
It's not so much a committed relationship as it is a joint checking account.
Posted by: RKae at May 04, 2015 04:38 PM (IppEL)
328
Absolutely FABULOUS ideological jackets here, for sale! Get your Totally Hawt FABULOUS IDEOLOGICAL JACKETS, here!
We have all types, teddy-bears, francophone, YMCAers, and knuckle-busters, and all must go! Mention you're from the Ace O' Spades blog today, and get 10% off!
(and if you have to ask what they are, just don't....)
We have all types, teddy-bears, francophone, YMCAers, and knuckle-busters, and all must go! Mention you're from the Ace O' Spades blog today, and get 10% off!
(and if you have to ask what they are, just don't....)
Posted by: Hugo like a Boss at May 04, 2015 04:49 PM (QGpIE)
329
"But I am not wise enough, or smart enough, to say MY opinion should be forced upon others. And enshrined into Law, where it will be enforced by Legal Violence (as in the end, all laws are)."
Bullshit!!!
It's been enshrined into law in all functional civilizations since the beginning of functional civilizations. Not to mention physical laws of nature.
Bullshit!!!
It's been enshrined into law in all functional civilizations since the beginning of functional civilizations. Not to mention physical laws of nature.
Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at May 04, 2015 06:02 PM (7Txj/)
330
This explains a lot about Benson's disparagement of traditionalist Tea Party types while he was at Townhall. I suspected him of being a plant then and he proves it now. Watch him steadily move leftward from here.
Posted by: teapartydoc at May 04, 2015 07:35 PM (hWHqx)
331
Have had a lot of gay male friends in my day. Most of them were Republicans or Libertarians. Funny thing is, when ya got two male professionals nesting together that work hard and have lots of disposable income, yeah, they kind of don't like it when they get hit with high income and property taxes. There are plenty of homosexuals that lean to the right. Just look at the Cato Institute!
Posted by: Mistress Overdone at May 04, 2015 08:16 PM (2/oBD)
332
If individual liberty is the issue, then classical liberalism is the natural home for gays seeking individual liberty.
Their acceptance often delineates the difference between 'C'onservatives and classical liberals....
Their acceptance often delineates the difference between 'C'onservatives and classical liberals....
Posted by: Tracy Coyle at May 05, 2015 10:34 PM (llSSe)
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0507 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0194 seconds, 341 records returned.
Page size 197 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat