When I learned that advocates of gay marriage in the Golden State were intent on rhyming the ballot number (8) of the proposition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman with “hate” in their campaign against the measure, it reminded me (yet again) of the alacrity of all too many on the left (particularly the gay left) to label their ideologically adversaries as hatemongers.
Recall, the slogan which sprung up in 1992, “Hate is not a Family Value,” (then, given Pat Buchanan’s rant at the Republican National Convention, not without justification).
Note the irony: how eager some leftists are to accuse conservatives of being haters or purveyors of hate (or some such), yet how much hatred they harbor for conservatives. No sooner did John McCain secure the GOP nomination, then they turned their ire against him. Just as Obama seems to be some kind of savior they “need” to worship, McCain is rapidly assuming the role George W. Bush has long had for them, the demon they “need” to vilify.
(With W on his way out, the author of the The Bush – Haters Handbook has published The GOP-Hater’s Handbook.)
Just look at their treatment of certain Bush Administration officials. They define them not as public servants with a different political viewpoint than they, but as villains eager to shred the constitution.
To be sure, this attitude does not define all those on the left, but a significant — and ever-growing — number.
What explains this obsession with hate? They define us as hate-mongers (or self-hating) while eager to label their own selves as haters of leading Republicans.
Dr. Freud? Dr. Jung?
The hate is going to backfire on the haters when they control the White House and Congress. They are going to have to turn the hate on themselves and their own folks. It will be interesting to see what happens when Obama doesn’t get us out of Iraq in a short time after his coronation or when he decides to extend the Bush tax cuts to keep the economy from going over the edge. If I didn’t think an all DEM scenario was so dangerous, it might even be fun to watch.
“If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain” ~ Winston Churchill
The answer is, because liberals don’t think.
Seriously. Liberalism is politics via hormones. No reason, no logic — policy is guided entirely through emotion. Liberals “feel” strongly about things. They “care”! They “care” about the environment, they “care” about the poor, they “care” about minorities, yadda yadda blah blah blah
And because they “care” so deeply, then anyone who opposes them must, they conclude, not care! They are “good” because they “care”, and obviousy anyone who opposes “good” has to be evil.
Its why they can’t engage in reasoned debate, but instead practice demagoguery and the politics of personal destruction — an emotional ideology requires emotional tactics. It’s also why outcomes dont matter to liberals, only intentions. Sure, they “care”, but not enough to follow up and see if their preferred policies actually work. It’s the politics of good intentions.
Of course we know where the road paved with good intentions lead…
So it is only natural that people who “care” the most, who approach the issues not with reason and logic, but with emotion, are also the people who hate the most.
Dan, hatred comes from fear. Liberals fear conservatives. Why? Maybe it’s because we don’t waffle on our positions, we expect to be treated as adults and we execute our decisions based upon logic rather than emotion.
Liberals remind me of 4-year-olds at a birthday party. It’s always about ME, ME, ME. They cry when they don’t get their way. And after they have all their fun and games, the grownups have to clean up the mess they left behind.
Regards,
Peter H.
And to cover up their core selfishness, they bleat about caring about “the common good.” Well, who gets to decide “the common good”? The government?
It’s a distraction from their own racism, homophobia, anti-semitism bigotry etc. and they consider the masses stupid enough to buy it. They constantly insult everyone’s intelligence and people like Piko, Kevin, RIW etc. eat it up believing that the insult is actually intellectual honesty.
Sad, really.
#3
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering?
Ready you are, young skywalker.
Honestly, I’m not sure that since Dec. 12, 2000 I’ve encountered (in person, via comments here, or via email) any liberal who isn’t in a purple-rage and spouting hate.
All I know is — I’m going to live longer. Happiness is healthier than Angry Liberalism.
Leftists can’t win an intellectual argument. However, by ascribing all of the motives of their opponents to hatred or bigotry, they take intellectual argument off the table.
More like Drs. Howard, Fine and Howard.
Whoops! Forgot the link for those who don’t get the above reference:
http://www.threestooges.com/bios/
#2: American Elephant–Perfect, brilliant, reads like a double helix strand of liberal dna. Should be adopted by Webster’s as the new definition of “liberal.” Well done!
#6 – And may the Force be with you, AE.
Regards,
Peter H.
“Note the irony: how eager some leftists are to accuse conservatives of being haters or purveyors of hate (or some such), yet how much hatred they harbor for conservatives.”
I don’t hate conservatives. I strongly dislike those who believe I should be treated as a second class citizen because of my sexuality.
#12 – “I don’t hate conservatives. I strongly dislike those who believe I should be treated as a second class citizen because of my sexuality.”
Then you should be hoppin’ mad at Bill and Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, Rev. Wright and B. Hussein Obama for intimating that you are not worthy of being a first-class citizen.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
“I don’t hate conservatives. I strongly dislike those who believe I should be treated as a second class citizen because of my sexuality.â€
But you’re okay with liberals who treat everyone who doesn’t live in a coastal metropolitan area as third-class citizens.
Peter Hughes: Are you “hoppin’ mad” at ALL of the vocal conservatives who don’t believe that LGBT persons should be treated as equals?
To V the K who responded: “But you’re okay with liberals who treat everyone who doesn’t live in a coastal metropolitan area as third-class citizens.” Whew! Where did that come from?
#15 – I’m not hoppin’ mad at anyone in the GOP because people like Fred Phelps (a registered DEMOCRAT) and Pat Buchanan (a REFORM Party member – remember Ross Perot?) are outside the GOP framework.
Please provide proof of your statements that a Republican in office has made anti-gay remarks, otherwise I call bullturds. Frankly, I have found that I have gotten better acceptance as a gay man in the GOP than I have as a conservative in a Montrose gay bar.
Regards,
Peter H.
#12: “I strongly dislike those who believe I should be treated as a second class citizen because of my sexuality.”
Well, I can certainly understand that. The government-sponsored bigotry, oppression and discrimination suffered by gay men in NYC is positively draconian.
And Jon, I have to ask, what is your opinion about what should be done about Iran, if anything?
Conservatives entrust the individual with the right to decide from himself how to spend his hard-earned money, what health care to purchase, what vehicle to drive, what food to eat, where he travels, whom he chooses to do business with, and what media he reads or listens to. Conservatives would like to empower the individual with the choice of what school to send his children and what investments to make for his retirement planning. All of these freedoms are left alone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Liberals want to substitute the freedom of the individual to decide for himself with state-mandated requirements determined by a handful of urban elites.
Worse, all too many are willing to trade their freedoms for a piece of paper from the government that somehow legitimizes their relationship in a way mere love and commitment does not.
Now, which side treats citizens like equals, and which side divides them into elites and proles?
GayPatriot likes to imagine that there are lots of principled opponents of gay marriage out there whose views are rooted in some kind of pure, neutral conservatism that has nothing to do with ignorance, fear, or hatred of gay people.
Sorry, but that’s just naive.
Check out protectmarriage.com, the “official website for the California Marriage Protection Act.” There, you will learn that same-sex marriage must be banned becasue “children need to grow up understanding the proper human relationships between a man and woman, a mother and father, and a husband and wife.” The not-at-all subtle implications of this are that homosexual relationships are not “proper” and that children’s sense of sexual propriety will become perverted if they are raised by gay parents. Is this a non-hateful basis for opposing gay marriage? Maybe Senator McCain, who agrees, can enlighten me.
The “official website for the California Marriage Protection Act” also provides hepful links to Focus on the Family’s “debate-tested sound bites” against same-sex marriage, where you will find this gem: “Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless. And I will never allow my children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium.” Lovely. No hatred there.
Now I think “hatred” is a strong word and I wouldn’t use it to describe every kind of lukewarm disapproval. But as a gay person, I find it absolutely incensing when I am told that there is something wrong, something inferior, about being gay. It’s like being told that there is something wrong, something not quite right, something not quite as good, about being black, or being Jewish, or being Muslim. But that’s exactly the message being peddled on the “official website for the California Marriage Protection Act.” (And that’s just what they say on the website! I can only imagine what they say when the rest of us aren’t listening, and when they aren’t trying to wring votes out of people who might be put off by Maybe Senator McCain can tell me).
I agree that a lot of liberal disdain for Republicans is overheated and hyperbolic. I don’t hate Republicans and I would never accuse gay Republicans of hating themselves. (I think it’s much more likely that most gay Republicans simply hate the suggestion that their sexual orientation must dictate their politics). But I do think gay Republicans have to go a considerable distance to ignore or excuse the fact that a lot of people in their party simply hate gays (or fear them, or are ignorant about them), and that their party as an insitution exploits these feelings for partisan advantage by denigrating and scapegoating gays at every turn.
The not-at-all subtle implications of this are that homosexual relationships are not “proper†and that children’s sense of sexual propriety will become perverted if they are raised by gay parents.
One wonders why they would think that.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off………
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Ok guys, I’m sure you will agree with Jim that I am a hate filled person since I happen to agree with this statement
Here’s the thing Jim, I live in a world where equality isn’t celebrated – excellence is – but not equality.
As a woman married 30 years to a man and having raised three very successful young men – I can assure you – there is a world of difference between men and women, mothers and fathers. Can two men or two women raise healthy children! Yes, but guess what, it is going to be harder and they have to make a very conscious effort- above and beyond what a loving hetero couple have to do. Does that mean that Gays will never be entitled to marriage? No – its’ just they have a long way to go in convincing society at large that they are willing to take on the task. Many are – but many more, like you feel that you are entitled to this ‘right’ without any recognition on their part that with this right come a lot of responsibilities.
Here’s the deal, maintaining a stable honorable society is a very hard thing to do. You can develop a Western society, where freedom and yes equality are the norm. But in order to do so you need bedrock institutions that support and perpetrate those ideals. Traditional marriage is one such institution – sure in the last 40 years we have eroded and chipped away at it until it is almost gone. There are those who feel that ‘gay marriage- because it’s my right!” will be the final nail in the coffin.
You might call that hateful, but here’s the thing, if we let all social institutions go – because it feels good – then Islam will march in the door and fill in the void. Then lets’ see you complain about “hate”.
Jim, do you even read my posts? In this one, published just last week, I criticized the very site you referenced in your comment.
In my post, I linked a post on the principled opponents of gay marriage.
I agree that there are many in my party who remain ignorant about gays, but don’t see the GOP denigrating or scapegoating gays at every turn, as you claim.
Next up.
But as a gay person, I find it absolutely incensing when I am told that there is something wrong, something inferior, about being gay. It’s like being told that there is something wrong, something not quite right, something not quite as good, about being black, or being Jewish, or being Muslim.
That would be logical if the differences in biology, in social impact, and other factors were as drastic and obvious between black, Jewish, or Muslim couples as they were between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
But they aren’t.
Meanwhile, Jim, the problem is this; you have confused “different” with being “inferior”. What is wrong with “children need to grow up understanding the proper human relationships between a man and woman, a mother and father, and a husband and wife” — especially since, for 97% of them, that is and will be the reality?
Ok guys, I’m sure you will agree with Jim that I am a hate filled person since I happen to agree with this statement
No, Leah, I don’t agree that you are a hate-filled person.
That would be saying that you “hate” because you recognize a basic fact and underpinning of biology and society: men and women are different.
And you are right.
For comment 18: Spot on Jim!
Here’s the thing Jim, I live in a world where equality isn’t celebrated – excellence is – but not equality.
Leah, that is an amazing way of putting it.
This whole argument is not about what’s best for society as a whole; it’s about making sure that everyone in society is “equal”, regardless of what that does to society’s performance. It’s like a teacher who gives the same grade to all students regardless of their individual performance; ultimately, once the students figure out there is no need to work to get grades, they won’t.
We appreciate the work you’re doing to defeat Proposition 8, Dan.
Gee, thanks for the carrot. Maybe your perception isn’t reality?
Your argument here is the equivalent of saying: Don’t call me a b*tch, you c*nt.
#19
I am gay, I suspect I have a more accurate understanding of the “gay community” than you, I have found that, like most gay conservatives, I love and accept myself more than most gay liberals, and I oppose gay marriage.
Leah is right, the quote you provided from the website is right — and no, there is nothing hateful about recognizing that men and women are not interchangeable. Its recognizing reality — something the vast majority of gay marriage proponents refuse to do.
Hey Erik, when’s the last time you read about group of right-wingers setting up a warehouse of bodily fluids to assault police with?
V – groups like that are anarchists. They’re no more part of the mainstream discourse than skinheads or neo-nazis. Such extremes do share one commonality though. They each hate both political parties.
Now, some will tell you that such extremes are becoming more common. They’re not. The difference today is that such groups needn’t pass out fliers in shadowy coffee shops or bikers joints to organize. They congregate online and anyone with a search engine can find them. It doesn’t make ’em more widespread. It just makes ’em easier to encounter. That sort of easy access then misshapes our perception.
Similarly, online decorum is atrocious. Individuals who don’t even subscribe to such fringe elements in real life with say things online they’d never say in person. This also misshapes our perception. I think Dan, as a blogger, is probably very susceptible to this.
People, left and right, are a lot nicer in real life.
OR
The later being the right’s political caricature of the left. And a sentiment that is routinely expressed here. Which is why this entire blog entry is a bit like saying “Don’t call me a b*tch, you c*nt.”
Neither side is innocent when it comes to dirty politics.
In a way, Erik, you concede my point. You simply don’t see social-conservatives behaving the way “anarchists” behave, nor do you see “anarchists” showing up to support right-wing causes. But, go to any anti-War, anti-Bush, anti-America rally and there they are. Out in force.
#32: Excellent point, V the K. There are insane anti-American traitors at the rallies standing right alongside those upstanding Democrats, but what you don’t necessarily see is significant too. I’m talking about the fact that the anti-Iraq War protests are not planned and sponsored by ordinary patriotic Americans who just don’t like the direction the country is headed in. They are sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition and Troops Out Now which are both associated with the communist World Workers Party. They aren’t holding the rallies because they have a specific opposition to the War in Iraq–they do it because they are opposed to everything America stands for and they use the rallies to distribute their sick propaganda and increase their numbers (mostly naive college kids who are already wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, of course). Easy pickens’.
unpatriotic villains who hate America AND want to shred the constitution. And in all too many cases, it isn’t a caricature. 🙂 You can claim to love America all day long, but if, in the end, you want to make America less like what our founders intended and more into a big central government socialist super nanny, you really do hate America no matter what you may say.
Hate expressed in words, in either direction, is far more desirable than the “compassion” expressed by actions, namely passage of the Defense of Marriage Act and and campaigning for Proposition 8. Such things are what prevent me from living with my life partner, a foreign national, in the U.S., my home. Even if we married legally in CA, she could be barred from returning to the U.S. for years, because I am not allowed to sponsor her for citizenship due to the Defense of Marriage Act. Because I am in the Service, we have had to be apart for months at a time and it is very difficult but we love each other very much and are persevering despite the “compassion” of society. So, in response to an earlier comment, no, I don’t need legal recognition for my relationship to be meaningful. I have learned to be more loving and let things go because hate really does make life miserable. However, if given the opportunity, I would be inclined (in my Mr. Hyde state) to accept a duel from a representative of the “protectors” of marriage, if victory meant that I could marry my love and take her home with me. But if that were still an acceptable outlet to settle disputes, something tells me that “protecting” marriage would suddenly be no longer worth fighting for. Who would want to fight, if not for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in one’s own homeland?
Good point, AE. I mean, if a man claimed he loved his wife (or boyfriend, considering the forum) but all he ever did was b!tch about what was wrong with her, and constantly talk about how he was going to change her into someone completely different, and cheer when she lost … you’d begin to suspect that he really didn’t love her that much.
Leah –
I don’t know whether you are a hate-filled person and don’t really care. All I know about you is what you say here. And what you said here is that, all other things being equal (which they never are and never could be), same sex parents are intrinsically inferior to opposite-sex parents. (You also suggested that gay marriage could somehow result in an Islamic takeover of Western civilization, but I didn’t really follow your reasoning there so I won’t address it).
I disagree with your evaluation of same-sex parenting, but thank you for informing me, based on your experience as a woman married to a man and the mother of three sons, that “there is a world of difference between men and women, mothers and fathers.” As a man partnered to a man, I was not aware of that. You think I would have picked up on it by now, given that I was raised by a man and woman, who were and are married to each other, and that I have lived on the planet Earth for twenty-eight years, where there are lots of men and women about, but I seem to have missed that particular boat.
I must correct you, though, when you say that I feel entitled to the right to marry “without any recognition on [my] part that with this right come a lot of responsibilities.” I can’t imagine why you would presume that I don’t already know this. Is it because I’m gay? In fact, I do recognize that marriage comes with a lot of responsibilities. I came to recognize this fact in a number of ways, including by observing my own parents. But mainly I learned it by being partnered to the same person (faithfully, not that it’s your business) for five years, and that has taken a lot of work and involved a lot of responsibility, for both of us. We haven’t yet had the privilege of adopting children (we’ve been too busy being successful, like your three sons), but we will some day, and I assure you we are aware that raising children comes with a lot of responsibilities, too.
Jim, good luck to you and your partner. And if one of these days you are able to adopt children I hope that you raise them to understand that there are differences between the sexes. Men and women are different. I hope that gay parents raising children are aware of that. I hope they have the good common sense to raise their children recognizing the differences!
Because if you think that there are no differences between men and women, then why are you partnered with a man? Why do you call yourself gay? If we are exactly alike than why are there heterosexuals? Why are there gays?
Get over yourself – being gay is a minority, I’m sorry but it’s true. You have to prove yourself to society at large. I am so sick and tired of every minority group demanding that the majority change to suit them.
I am far from anti gay, I would love to see Gays being mainstreamed – but here’s the thing – it’s the gays that need to make the changes and prove that “Gay culture’ as we see it in media and all around us is the aberation – and that in reality most gays want to be better than the worst of straight society.
Don’t come back at me that straights divorce, cheat and are horrible people. You don’t need marriage to live that life style. You want marriage- prove to me you want more than just rights.
As for my sons being successful – I was talking about the honorable human beings they are – not the financial success of their lives.
V – No, you don’t see social conservatives acting in that way, but that’s because social conservatives aren’t the same ideological equivalent. The right’s ideological equivalent to leftist anarchists are white supremacists and skinheads. I did allude to that in my first post, but perhaps it wasn’t clear.
AE – And those on the left would say the same thing about the caricature Dan so decries here and relates to a “caucus of hate.” That’s why this blog post is so silly. It’s all perception.
Dan decries the left’s label of the right as hateful, then proceeds to label the left as hateful himself. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. It’s ridiculous.
The right’s ideological equivalent to leftist anarchists are white supremacists and skinheads.
Do white supremacists and skinheads show up at Pro-Life rallies? No. Do white supremacists and skinheads show up at the Gathering of Eagles? No. They don’t show up because they are not welcome.
Are extreme America-hating leftist groups welcome at anti-war and anti-Bush rallies… you bet your sweet a$$ they are.
#24 – Attention Jon in NYC: I offered you a challenge in comment #16 to back up your remarks, and so far you have ignored it. Am I to assume then that I am correct and that you are WRONG?
If you can’t take the heat, stay off the blog.
Regards,
Peter H.
They should try rhyming 8 with str8. 😉
Leah –
Regarding my success, I was also referring to the efforts I have been making toward becoming a more honorable human being. Why did you assume I was referring to material success? Is it because I’m gay?
You don’t need to apologize for pointing out that gay people are a minority. In my experience, gay people don’t get all worked up about this obvious fact because, well, because it’s obvious. Just like it’s obvious that there are differences between men and women. Indeed, one of the reasons I’m comfortable with the idea of same-sex parenting is that the differences between men and women are so glaringly obvious that I doubt this fact will elude children raised by gay parents.
Which brings up another point – what EXACTLY are you afraid may happen to the children of same sex parents? I gather you are worried that they will end up screwed up in some way, but can you get a little more specific? Is it that they may end up gay? Since you’re citing this as a reason not to allow gay marriage or parenting, I think you have an obligation to put some meat on the bones.
I’m sorry that you’re “sick and tired of every minority group demanding that the majority change to suit them,” but I don’t really think that’s what gay people are doing when they demand that their marriages and families be acknowledged for what they are (let’s not forget that gay marriages, even if not recognized as such at law, and gay parents already exist). If we gay people are demanding some kind of “change” by the straight majority, it is simply that you stop discriminating against us. Certainly we aren’t demanding that you change your own relationships or even your own opinions. All we ask is that you stop subjecting us to de jure discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Is that really so much?
You keep demanding that I “prove” to you that I am ready to marry and raise children. Are you addressing me specifically or gay people in general? What “proof” would satisfy you? I already told you that I have been faithfully partnered to the same person for five years; does that prove I’m ready to be married? Do I need to remain with him for another five years? What if I cheated on him, like lots of straight people do to their partners? Would that disqualify me? I confess I have never raised or even helped to raise a child, so I may be unable to muster any satisfactory proof on that score. I take good care of my dog. Does that count?
More to the point, what proof do you demand of unmarried straight people that they are ready to marry and raise children? Why should I have to prove that I’m ready to do it if they don’t? Is it because I’m gay?
Dear Jim,
Leah is afraid that some Liberal Nazi Commie Pinko is going to dress their kids up and take them to a gay sex fair, feed them organic foods and make them read Das Kapital and one day overthrow the institution of straight marriage (which is oh, so scared!) and have a bunch of gays ruin the military.
More or less.
Well, as I referenced in post #19 above, gay parents ARE taking children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experience”.
Of course, to Pinky Bear, that behavior is normal, as it is for the vast majority of gay liberals and leftists; indeed, they argue that anyone who would be against that is “close-minded” and needs to be more tolerant of gay “expression”.
OK. I have a rule that I never call gay Republicans self-hating. I checked, though, and I do not have any rule that would prevent me from calling NorthDallasThirty a complete raving lunatic.
I guess North Dallas must be way, way cooler than I’ve been led to believe . . .
Let’s see. I present a fact, a referenced and documented fact, hyperlink and all, that gay and lesbian parents are taking two-year-old children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experienceâ€, and claiming that those who oppose their doing so are “close-minded”; for that, I get called a “complete raving lunatic”.
Leah, I think the point is made; Jim’s interest is not in changing bad gay and lesbian behavior; it is in forcing others to accept it via namecalling and insults.
LOL….and note how Jim berates and namecalls, not the gays who are taking children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experienceâ€, and who call anyone who opposes their doing so “close-minded”…..but the person who points it out and makes clear that this behavior is wrong.
And, Leah, to your point, notice how Jim’s response is to call “self-loathing” a gay person who is incensed by these gay parents’ behavior, who denounces it completely, and who demands that the gay community be held responsible for refusing to punish and ostracize these individuals.
Last I looked heterosexuals weren’t required to shield and make excuses for child abusers because they were also heterosexual. But if you don’t do that in the gay community, you’re branded as “self-loathing” and a “lunatic”.
Jim and Pinko, I love how you guys read things into what I wrote.
6000 years of human tradition have proven that One man one woman is the best way to raise children and provide for the weak in our society through the family structure. Families take care of their own better than government ever will.
In the last 40 years a lot of changes have happened, one of them is that Gays have moved out of the shadows into mainstream life. Here in America gays can live openly together, own property and even raise children. This is a good thing, problem is, as this is happening, the ‘Gay Agenda – or Gay spokesmen’ have been selling a very different story.
It’s all about being a victim, demanding total acceptance from society. Calling any person who may have the slightest discomfort with gays – homophobes.
So here comes the subject of Gay marriage – a drastic change in social structure. And it’s being sold as rights – rights – rights. Overturning 6000 years of tradition in the name of rights is pretty selfish – especially since there are many people who are willing to give it a try – but under another name. Who knows, if after 20 years of Domestic Partnership, society at large says, we don’t care – just call it marriage – fine so be it.
Problem is you want it all now, you aren’t willing for change to happen incrementally. As to how you can prove to the rest of us that you deserve marriage. Being monogamous in your own life is a start – but it’s not enough, for you to change society’s mind – you need to be out there demanding that the Gay groups acknowlegde that this is important. Sorry guys, you have a lot of work to do.
As to, straights do it all the time – I’m sorry that divorce laws were so relaxed that at the drop of a pin anyone can get one. There is a lot to be said about a time when marriage meant something – if only because it was hard to dissolve it.
Dear North Dallas Forty,
And where is this allegedly taking place?
Pinky
Dear Leah,
Considering that there is domestic abuse in straight marriages, 50% of Straight Marriages end in divorce, there are straight men molesting their female and male children; why do straights deserve marriage? Divorce has been going on for 6000 years, too.
6000 years of human tradition explains very little or validates your argument. The world changes. I have been married to my man for 19 years and we have been faithful to each other. I know some straight folks who are on their third marriages by now. Prove to me that Straights take marriage seriously.
Also, how ignorant of you to say there is a Gay Agenda. There is no National Gay Leader and you can see from this blog, there are Gays of many stripes and colors who don’t always agree on the same central doctrine.
Go back to the 1800’s, Leah.
Pinky
I did googling about Weather Underground and found there was a docu made about it about 5 years ago.
I just started to watch it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1847524043861152897&q=The+Weather+Underground+&ei=WRGJSL65O4Om4QKh_c3tCw
I was born in 74.. I have no memory of such a group.
I had no clue about it. About it’s sincerty.
I think I have watched about 3 minutes of it and I’m absolutely enraged.
This motherfucker Obama is friends with these people.. FRIENDS.
North Dallas Thirty, I never called you self-loathing. (I never call anyone self-loathing because I have no way of knowing how a people feel about themselves). I called you a “complete raving lunatic” based on the objective evidence, which is your repeated insistence that gay parents routinely dress two year-old children as sex slaves and take them to “sex fairs” where they watch gay people have sex. If you think that’s true, you need to get back on your meds. And if I don’t spend a lot of time denouncing this kind of behavior (to the degree it actually occurs, which I seriously doubt), I guess it’s because I don’t usually go after the low-hanging fruit. Criticizing child abuse doesn’t exactly require a lot of chutzpa. I don’t know what else to say.
Leah, how on earth can you conclude that “6000 years of human tradition have proven that one man/one woman is the best way to raise children?” What other arrangements have been tried, and where is the evidence that they were not superior to one man/one woman households? What about all hopelessly screwed up one man/one woman households out there? Why must gay parents be perfect and straight parents only OK in order to qualify? And if your grounds for opposing gay parenting is that it is not the “best way to raise children,” why not outlaw all the other “inferior” ways of raising children, such by a single mother, or in an orphanage?
And I completely reject your insistence that I and other monogamous gay people have “a lot of work to do” reforming the behavior of other gay people. Why the hell should I be held responsible for what they do? Why are straight people judged as individuals but gay people as a class? If I’m going to be judged based on the actions of a bunch of adult strangers over whom I have no control, if I am going to be treated as a second class citizen under the law because of their actions, then I’m afraid you must be responsible for every middle aged housewife who fools around with the poolboy.
And why why why should I wait twenty years simply to be treated equally under the law? I still haven’t heard a good reason from you.
#45: “Leah is afraid that some Liberal Nazi Commie Pinko is going to dress their kids up and take them to a gay sex fair, feed them organic foods and make them read Das Kapital and one day overthrow the institution of straight marriage (which is oh, so scared!) and have a bunch of gays ruin the military.”
Or, what Good Riddance calls, “Thursday.”
Sean A — “Or, what Good Riddance calls, “Thursday.â€
L’MAO
#54: “I called you a “complete raving lunatic†based on the objective evidence, which is your repeated insistence that gay parents routinely dress two year-old children as sex slaves and take them to “sex fairs†where they watch gay people have sex. If you think that’s true, you need to get back on your meds.”
Ahhhh, but it is true, Jim. So I think you owe ND30 an apology. Please click on the following link to a story titled, “Parents have mixed feelings about bringing their children to this year’s bondage fest.” Yeah. “Mixed feelings.” Who knew that taking kids to the Folsom Street Fair could present such a challenging conundrum for the parents of two year olds? Well, come to think of it, the two sickening fu*ks who are unfortunately raising Zola and Veronica saw no moral dilemma whatsoever. In fact, the indignant narcissism exhibited by the girls’ “parents” is positively stomach-churning: “Every parent has to decide for themselves what is right for them. And I respect that. And we decided that this is right for our children.” GAG.
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html
Oh. I forgot. Jim, as long as YOU aren’t taking children to outdoor orgies decked out in tiny dog collars, then I guess there’s no reason not to completely redefine the stable foundations and traditions of our society for all gays.
“You don’t need to apologize for pointing out that gay people are a minority. In my experience, gay people don’t get all worked up about this obvious fact because, well, because it’s obvious.”
Forgive me, Jim, but it’s the “obvious” that eludes gays the most. Gay marriage is discussed and debated around the clock from coast to coast by every politician, journalist, clergyman, activist, celebrity, executive, worker, student, teacher, etc. as though it is the most important, era-defining issue that has ever challenged our society. If the proverbial aliens came down to Earth and visited for a couple of weeks, they would have no choice but to conclude that 30-40% of Americans are gay. The fact is, only about 3% of our population is gay, and people like you just can’t seem to understand why the entire nation isn’t falling all over itself to give you these “rights” simply because a very LOUD (and annoying) minority has decided that they want them. You keep referring to it as “discrimination” as if something that is yours is being withheld from you, but you have every right to marry a woman (just like every other adult male in this country). You are not being deprived of anything that you are entitled to–just something that is completely different from heterosexual marriage that the MAJORITY has every right to support or not, depending on whether they believe it is best for our nation. And BTW, our society is gradually deciding that gay unions are just fine without state supreme courts getting involved (since I believe 20 states have a DP framework, at last count). But, of course, the identical rights just don’t make you FEEL good enough about yourselves. So California gays marched right up to the Cal Supreme Court and DEMANDED IT from a handful of elites, and got exactly what they asked for (we’ll see how long they can hold onto it).
“Why are straight people judged as individuals but gay people as a class?”
Is this a joke? Is this question intended to be sarcastic? If not, here’s the short answer: because gay people (and liberals) have spent decades bricking themselves and everyone else into tidy little identity groups and protected classes. The “gay community” doesn’t tolerate diversity of thought or true individuality among its own, yet you expect to be judged by the other 97% of the population as an individual?! Well, come to think of it, that’s not so surprising–the gays want it ALL: unrestrained and celebrated promiscuity and bad behavior in public, yet they cry foul when the majority of society (the ones who SHOULD determine whether same-sex unions are a good idea instead of the Supreme Court) judges gays as a group based upon EXACTLY what gays put out there to communicate to the rest of the world who they are and what they believe in. Jim, if gays want same-sex marriage SO BADLY and have no desire to redefine (destroy) traditional marriage, they why did tens of thousands of them spend last weekend in my city (San Diego) relentlessly promoting an image of hostility toward the type of relationships that are necessary to ensure the survival of our culture?
And no, Jim. No one is saying that ALL GAYS are useless, disease-spreading party boys. In fact, most of them are terrific people. But you have no right to demand that our society completely redefine its cultural traditions and change its laws simply because you and your partner “aren’t like that.”
V – The percentage of the left that has attended an anti-war rally is likely still relatively small. I consider myself liberal, politically active and have never attended an anti-war protest. The percentage of attendees who are anarchists are likely smaller still.
If you wish to project the actions of a few thousand radicals onto the millions of Americans that call themselves Democrats, fine. But you’re doing exactly what Dan so decries in this post. You’re demonizing the left simply because you disagree with them.
“I called you a “complete raving lunatic†based on the objective evidence, which is your repeated insistence that gay parents routinely dress two year-old children as sex slaves and take them to “sex fairs†where they watch gay people have sex. If you think that’s true, you need to get back on your meds.”
Notice how Jim’s belief that something never happened counts as “objective evidence” — but actual, referenced facts do not ( http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html). Also notice how Jim insists that people who criticize bad gay behavior need to be put on mind-altering drugs. It’s not that gays need to change their behavior; it’s that people need to be drugged so that they will tolerate such behavior.
“And if I don’t spend a lot of time denouncing this kind of behavior (to the degree it actually occurs, which I seriously doubt), I guess it’s because I don’t usually go after the low-hanging fruit. Criticizing child abuse doesn’t exactly require a lot of chutzpa.”
Which makes even more pathetic Jim’s refusal to do it when presented with evidence of gay and lesbian parents abusing their children.
And that leads us to this:
“Why are straight people judged as individuals but gay people as a class?”
Mainly because straight people have demonstrated that they can act as individuals when it comes to such things as criticizing promiscuity or punishing parents who sexually abuse their children. Oddly enough, one doesn’t see straight people arguing that they shouldn’t have to criticize child abuse because it doesn’t take enough “chutzpah” or making excuses about it being “low-hanging fruit”; they just do it, quite unlike gay and lesbian people.
No, actually, Erik, its the difference between rhetoric and evidence.
Dan makes very clear, several times in fact, that he is only talking about “some on the left,” and even goes so far as to say, “To be sure, this attitude does not define all those on the left, but a significant — and ever-growing — number.” as do I when I said, “in all too many cases”
And both of our arguments are entirely supported by the facts.
To turn a phrase, everyone is entitled to their own perception, they are not, however, entitled to their own facts.
Unfortunately for your attempt to argue otherwise, Jim, I provided a linked and referenceable source in post #19 here that shows clearly gay and lesbian parents dressing up their children as sexual slaves, complete with dog collars, and taking them to sex fairs where naked and seminaked people masturbate and have sex in public — and claiming that their doing so was an “educational experience”, while anyone who opposed their doing it was “close-minded”.
I must say that I am amused by your attempt to argue that my opposition to this and condemnation of it is a sign that I need to be on mind-altering drugs. Obviously you believe that if I were a “normal” gay like you, I would spin and make excuses for these gay and lesbian parents who sexually abuse their children.
Do you really wonder why you’re not treated as an individual — when you make it clear that your individual morals are overridden by and subject to the dictate of protecting other gays and lesbians at all costs, even when they engage in sexual abuse of children?
Please don’t call them liberals. That is an insult to anyone who loves liberty.
There is nothing about them or their ideas that promotes liberty in any way.
They are not liberals, they are leftists. The term liberal is one that they have misappropriated, and letting them choose the language by which they are named and described is to hand them victory.
They act the way they do because they are under the influence of and in thrall to evil itself.
Sorta like progressive which implies they favor any kind of progress whatsoever.
Erik, the Democrats just nominated, as their presidential candidate, a guy who hangs out with radical, anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn). How can you say it’s only a fringe of the party that’s radical?
Watch the documentary I linked to in comment 53 about the Underground.
It’s outrageous that Obama can associate with these people and run for President of this country.
Problem is you want it all now, you aren’t willing for change to happen incrementally. As to how you can prove to the rest of us that you deserve marriage.
In principal, Leah, I disagree with your point here. When women wanted the right to vote, I don’t think it was unfair for them to want it all right away, instead of having it incrementally. Like, allowing them to vote for dog catcher first, then maybe the board of education and city council, etc., and see if they’ve “proven” themselves worthy of the vote. And if so, then 20 years down the line, they could also vote for governor, Congress, and president (actually, nobody except the silly electoral college has that power yet, but I digress). I wouldn’t say the women who opposed these incremental steps were selfish despite a long standing tradition of disenfranchising women. And I don’t believe that women bought the argument that because they are biologically (or otherwise) different than men, that it was okay to ban them from the vote. Or maybe we could have had a separate category of voting under the guise that “it’s not superior or inferior than men voting, but just different, so that makes it all okay.”
And you have stated what you believe are problems in marriage, yet when you got married, you “want[ed] it all now.” You didn’t first live together, and then five years down the road get a domestic partnership, and then another five years, a civil union with only state and no federal recognition, and then after ten more years finally get married. You didn’t need to prove you were worthy, and wait to all the other heterosexuals got in line decrying and changing the divorce laws, decreasing their infidelities, and decreases in divorces. You didn’t say that you didn’t need a piece of paper validating your relationship (although I’m guessing your parents would have insisted on it if you thought about living together with your husband without getting married).
So when someone says they want it all now, I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable.
However, as a practical matter, I do agree with you. It looks like for same sex marriage, it is best that it is done in increments. It appears that New Jersey will have same sex marriage in the near future, and it appears that having domestic partnerships and civil unions first has hastened that process, and will forestall amendments being brought up banning same sex marriage.
Can you imagine John McCain hanging out with Eric Rudolph?
Can you imagine Eric Rudolph being offered a professorship at any university?
There is definitely a difference in the way far-left radical terrorists are treated.
LOL….and note how Jim berates and namecalls, not the gays who are taking children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experienceâ€,
NDT, I think the namecalling is wrong, but I believe it’s unfair to say or suggest that Jim or anyone else is okay with taking children to sex fairs because they don’t automatically condemn the obvious. Would it have been better if they instead said, “the parents just want the best for their children,” which was your response, when pressed, to condemn the behavior of parents who excoriate their children simply for being gay? But we see that Jim did condemn the obvious bad behavior, and in case you’ve forgetten that I’ve condemned it about ten or so times already, I’ll repeat my condemnation of it.
I mean, Erik can try and make moral equivalence between the Weathermen and the KKK all he wants. But the fact is, hanging out with unrepentant racists would be the end of any Republican candidacy. (Only Democrats from West Virginia can get away with that.) But not only is The Obamassiah’s relationship with Bill Ayers no big deal, it’s actually considered kind of edgy, kind of cool, in left-wing circles.
#66 – Something about being judged by the company you keep, V da K.
Regards,
Peter H.
Would it have been better if they instead said, “the parents just want the best for their children,†which was your response, when pressed, to condemn the behavior of parents who excoriate their children simply for being gay?
Question, Pat; if you were a parent, would you want your child involved in a culture and community that is taking children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experienceâ€, and who call anyone who opposes their doing so “close-mindedâ€?
NDT, it’s nice and all that people like Pat personally feel that what goes on at Folsom Street is inappropriate, and that they feel that some of the promiscuity and depravity that goes on isn’t something they ‘personally’ disapprove of… but where in the gay community is there any real social pressure to change the culture away from one that celebrates sexual expression and toward one that upholds commitment and fidelity?
NDT and V the K – What, exactly, is it you’re talking about when you refer to “gay culture”? I’m gay, NDT has aid he’s gay, a bunch of people who post to this blog are gay, and none of us seems to feel as though the Folsom Street Fair represents any kind of cutlure to which we belong. Judging gay people as a class based on what goes on at Folsom is like judging straight people as a whole based on what goes on at key parties, the Playboy mansion, Girls Gone Wild sets, etc. No one is demanding that Leah make excuses for “Debbie Does Dallas.” Why the hell should we be burdened with the Folsom Street Fair?
I keep coming back to the same point: Why should we gay people be judged, and why should we judge one another, as a class rather than as individuals? And if we must be judged as a class, why must we be measured by the worst behavior of certain fringe elements of that class?
V the K asks where in the “gay community” (whatever that is) is the pressure to change the culture away from the Folsom Street Fair and toward the values of commitment and fidelity. The answer there is pretty obvious: It’s coming from those of us who are fighting for the right to marry!
But more importantly, I am not the keeper of my gay brothers (and sisters). I am not responsible for what they due, cannot be blamed for what they do, and, except where they lapse into criminal behavior, really have no right to prevent them from doing what they want to do. What business is it of mine if consenting adults want to dress in leather and screw? The answer is that it’s none of my business whatsoever.
NDT – I stand by my original assessment of your mental health.
Not if marriage doesn’t entail commitment and fidelity, which you admit it does not to you. You have said you should be entitled to the benefits and status, but you have states that couples should get to make up their own rules about what marriage means.
Just because the two perverts parading their leather-clad toddlers in front of the public masturbaters happen to be wearing wedding rings does not make them decent people.
If they do it behind closed doors, it’s no one’s business. If they do it in a public street, they are sick perverts and need to be arrested… not applauded by on-lookers as happens at Folsom Street.
No one is demanding that Leah make excuses for “Debbie Does Dallas.â€
Leah doesn’t have to be prompted to condemn such activities; she already has, on multiple occasions. You, on the other hand, can’t even be bothered to condemn gay parents who dress up their children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, since that’s “none of your business” and you never have any right to “prevent them from doing what they want to do” on public streets and in the name of the gay community.
I keep coming back to the same point: Why should we gay people be judged, and why should we judge one another, as a class rather than as individuals? And if we must be judged as a class, why must we be measured by the worst behavior of certain fringe elements of that class?
Because you have yet to demonstrate that you can act as an individual. Heterosexuals like Leah don’t have any problem condemning child abusers, promiscuous people, and those who break their marriage vows who are heterosexuals, but you seem quite unable to condemn child abusers, promiscuous people, and those who break their commitments who are homosexual, insisting that that’s “none of your business” and you never have any right to “prevent them from doing what they want to do”.
Just because the two perverts parading their leather-clad toddlers in front of the public masturbaters happen to be wearing wedding rings does not make them decent people.
Spot-on, V the K. Jim and his fellow gay liberals are under the belief that, if they get gay marriage, people will suddenly start treating their shenanigans like this with respect and dignity. They don’t want to change this behavior; they want society to change its definitions to accept this sort of promiscuity and child sexual abuse as normal for “married” people.
I note that Folsom Street Fair organizers estimate annual attendance at 400,000 people. And this is supposed to be just a fringe activity that few gays support?
I mean, I just visited a county fair in my hometown that gets similar attendance figures. And if you look at the activities that go on there… 4-H club exhibits, drag races, livestock shows… it’s a fairly accurate representation of the culture I come from.
“I keep coming back to the same point: Why should we gay people be judged, and why should we judge one another, as a class rather than as individuals? And if we must be judged as a class, why must we be measured by the worst behavior of certain fringe elements of that class?”
This is an excellent point. If a class is judged, then the opinions and actions of ALL individuals that make up that class must be considered, not just that of a few. This naturally results in judging individuals. Of course, it is impractical and wrong to grant rights to some individuals within a law-abiding group but not others, which is why the right to marry is not just granted to a select group of heterosexuals who have passed Big Brother’s (or your favorite ideological group’s) litmus test for marriage.
It is noble to exercise our freedom of speech, so that we may, for example, criticize those who we feel should take a bigger stand in condemning certain behaviors. But to strip that law abiding person of their right to marry, which also strips that right from those (gays) who do fit “the criteria” is shameful and un-American. Who’s going to determine this “criteria” anyway? The compassionate conservatives 4 big gov’t should campaign for a new bureau to help out with this – how about the Department of Marriage Security?
It takes a big ego for a fellow citizen to think they are entitled to deny the right to marry to gay people who may or may not pass their marriage “test,” but would never lobby Congress to pass a law denying that right to straight people who fail it miserably.
But marriage isn’t a right, it is a social contract. As such, it is not absolute, but subject to societal and legal definition. And that is what the battle is being fought over; not over a right, but over the definition of marriage: Does it mean adherence to social mores that benefit society generally, or is it whatever two (or five, or however many) people decide it means. Is it about commitment and fidelity… or is it about getting benefits and assuaging the precious feelings of those who whine that not having it makes them feel like “second class citizens.”
At this point, I refuse to condemn the (fictitious) parents of the (fictitious) leather-clad two year-old toddler simply because NDT and V the K keep demanding that I do so. I will never accept that I am responsible for the behavior of adult strangers over whom I have no control or that I am obligated ostentatiously to condemn the worst behavior of other gay people simply because I’m gay. There are lots of people in the world who do lots of bad things. I hereby demand that you all condemn, denounce, and reject the oppressive government of Myanmar. Until you do, I will consider you unfit to vote.
More to the point, everyone who says that gay people have something to prove are, haha, wrong. Gay people have made their case, and in California at least, they have persuaded a very comfortable majority (51% to 42% in the latest poll) that they are deserving of and ready for the right to marry.
#78: “At this point, I refuse to condemn the (fictitious) parents of the (fictitious) leather-clad two year-old toddler simply because NDT and V the K keep demanding that I do so.”
Jim, no one is expecting you to condemn the actions of leather queens putting dog collars on their children and taking them to the Folsom Street Fair. That’s exactly NDT’s point and you’ve just proved him to be correct. But you should at least admit that the story is not “fictitious”:
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html
One of the most shocking aspects of the story is its subtitle: “Parents have mixed feelings about bringing their children to this year’s bondage fest.” Yeah. “Mixed feelings.” Unbelievable.
OK. I was incorrect to describe it as fictitious. Shows what I know about the Folsom Street Fair.
Any gay person who feels obligated to go around condemning the behavior of other gay people simply because he is gay is a slave and a panderer to homophobes’ inclination to paint all gay people with one brush. Count me out.
Jeez, what a drama queen. What connection do any of us have with the government of Myanmar?
And by refusing to condemn any behavior by any gay people, what does that make you, exactly?
I think this is the really demented part of Jim’s mindset. He seems to think condemning some gay people for bad behavior is somehow equal to condemning all gay people for all gay behavior.
That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why it is so hard for gay people to condemn behave that is so obviously depraved and disgusting, and say ‘Not in our name.’
If the organizers of the FSF want to do their thing, why can’t they go to some remote, private area and do it? Why does it have to be on a public street? And why do gay community organizations and publications have to cheer for it?
LOL…and notice how Jim again refuses to condemn sexual abuse of children by gay parents because his doing so would be being a “slave and a panderer to homophobes”.
Or, put differently, Jim thinks it’s more important not to “pander to homophobes” than to criticize, condemn, and stop children from being sexually abused.
Meanwhile, Jim already knew the story wasn’t fictitious from comment #19 in this very thread, where I posted that very link. He was just engaging in the usual behavior of gay liberals — deny, deceive, and then try to explain themselves by insisting that condemning irresponsible and criminal behavior by gay people is “pandering to homophobes”. Sort of like how gay Democrat and liberal Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that the investigation that found her to have sexually harassed numerous people, punished her subordinates and withheld promotions for refusing to have sex with her, and openly discriminating against non-lesbians and straight men was nothing but “homophobia and sexism”.
LOL…and notice how Jim again refuses to condemn sexual abuse of children by gay parents because his doing so would be being a “slave and a panderer to homophobes”.
Or, put differently, Jim thinks it’s more important not to “pander to homophobes” than to criticize, condemn, and stop children from being sexually abused.
As to the government of Myanmar, I have zero problem condemning, criticizing, rejecting, and denouncing them for several reasons; they took power illegally, they have imprisoned thousands of people unjustly, they have tortured and beaten tens of thousands of people unjustly, and they left hundreds of thousands of people to die of injuries, disease, and starvation after the recent typhoon simply because allowing people in to help would have led to bad publicity. It would be ludicrous to say that criticizing these things, which are universally recognized as wrong, indicates some sort of animosity towards Myanmar.
However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds” — which evidently means that, to normal gay and lesbian people, these actions are not in the least bit wrong.
As to the government of Myanmar, I have zero problem condemning, criticizing, rejecting, and denouncing them for several reasons; they took power illegally, they have imprisoned thousands of people unjustly, they have tortured and beaten tens of thousands of people unjustly, and they left hundreds of thousands of people to die of injuries, disease, and starvation after the recent typhoon simply because allowing people in to help would have led to bad publicity. It would be ludicrous to say that criticizing these things, which are universally recognized as wrong, indicates some sort of animosity towards Myanmar.
However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds”.
As to the government of Myanmar, I have zero problem condemning, criticizing, rejecting, and denouncing them for several reasons. They took power illegally, they have imprisoned thousands of people unjustly, they have tortured and beaten tens of thousands of people unjustly, and they left hundreds of thousands of people to die of injuries, disease, and starvation after the recent typhoon simply because allowing people in to help would have led to bad publicity. It would be ludicrous to say that criticizing these things, which are universally recognized as wrong, indicates some sort of animosity towards Myanmar.
However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds”.
As to the government of Myanmar, I have zero problem condemning, criticizing, rejecting, and denouncing them for several reasons. They took power illegally, they have imprisoned thousands of people unjustly, they have tortured and beaten tens of thousands of people unjustly, and they left hundreds of thousands of people to die of injuries, disease, and starvation after the recent typhoon simply because allowing people in to help would have led to bad publicity. It would be ludicrous to say that criticizing these things, which are universally recognized as wrong, indicates some sort of animosity towards Myanmar.
Contrast that with Jim’s denunciation of those who criticize gay parents who sexually abuse their children as “slaves and pandering to homophobes”.
NDT, I answered your question yesterday, but it looks like it got lost forever in moderation land. So I’ll try again. I’ll use a block quote and see if that works better.
“But marriage isn’t a right, it is a social contract. ”
With that logic, we would not have had interracial marriage overturned as “early” as June 12, 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.” -Loving v. Virginia
Oops. Apparently I forgot to close the block quote properly.
Unlike socialists, I don’t trust in the infallibility of the courts. There are plenty of judges out there who would, given the chance, rule that “health care” is a basic right, that housing is a basic right, that “not being offended by someone else’s speech” is a right. But that does not make it son.
89, V the K, I wouldn’t trust in the infallibility of any other institution as well.
Yes, Pat, but the other institutions are accountable to the citizenry. The courts are not. The systems of checks and balances seems to have failed.
I’m not sure I agree with that, V the K. For example, the people of California are challenging their supreme court’s decision re same sex marriage. With a simple majority vote, they can overturn the court’s decision. The people in Massachusetts also had the same opportunity, but failed to get even 1/4 of the legislature to consider the decision to be put up to the voters. So any failure there to check the courts now falls to the accountability of the legislature. And despite the cries of judicial activism in the New Jersey case that led to civil unions, only one state legislator (a right wing crackpot) started proceedings to impeach the seven NJ justices. In Georgia, a judge sentenced a 17-year-old for ten years for a crime that should have landed him probation or one year at most. After an outcry of the people of Georgia, who saw the sentence as asinine (including the prosecutor of the case) had the sentence reduced.
If this accountability isn’t enough, I think it’s because of what I am starting to suspect of the courts. The decisions, for the most part, seem to reflect what the constituents want, or at the worst a large minority. So this may be judicial activism. So what is a citizenry going to do about it? Rail against the courts for decisions they agree with? If a majority of citizens believe that health care is a right, we’ll probably see the courts follow suit. Sure, there are people who will say, “I personally believe in policy X, but the courts should interpret the law properly and vote against it.” The problem with that is that there seems to be a wide disparity of the interpretation of laws and the relevant constitutions. If it’s a question of judges’ poor or selective interpretations, then perhaps the U.S. Constitution should have specifically said that the courts be filled only by qualified linguistics experts. But even if that happened, I think we would still see interpretations of the Second Amendment that are exact opposites of each other.
The issue of the courts does come up each election. But instead of advocating more accountability, it’s more that people will support a candidate that will appoints judges that agree with their positions or general philosophy, as opposed to someone who will correctly interpret the laws and constitutions. Sure, I hear people say they want judges will correctly interpret the laws, but my sometimes cynical self instead hears the person saying they want judges interpret the laws the way they would interpret them.
So I don’t think it’s the case the courts are not accountable. If anything, the citizenry abrogated the responsibility. A good argument could be made for that. I see other institutions pull some lulus, and I shake my head when I see others let them get away with it, and not even speak out against the institution.