Today on Blogcritics
Home » Obama’s Inaugural Pick Exposes Hole in Liberal Tolerance Ethic

Obama’s Inaugural Pick Exposes Hole in Liberal Tolerance Ethic

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

If you want some real insight into how much gays and liberals respect the concept of tolerance, which they're always preaching about, you need look no further than the latest "controversy" surrounding our President-elect.

Gay-rights advocates, the homosexual community and most liberals are in a huff over Mr. Obama's decision to allow California pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his presidential inauguration. Warren is an outspoken advocate not only of pro-life issues but also of traditional marriage.

The Human Rights Campaign wrote a letter to Obama in which they angrily assert that they "feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination." The editor of the gay newspaper The Washington Blade opined, "This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality … [t]he election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise."

Three salient points here:

(1) Messiah Man campaigned on a promise to give a hearing to both sides, to conservatives and liberals alike. The move to include Rev. Warren, whose church Obama visited during the campaign.  To have Warren speak on faith issues, in the inauguration ceremony is a fig-leaf to conservative Christians and is, thusly, a classic Obama tactic.

(2) Mr. Obama and Rev. Warren share many thoughts on social justice. Like the President-elect, pastor Warren has not embraced fiscal conservatism and is an advocate for a government-led war on poverty.

(3) Mr. Obama opposes same-sex marriage, and this fact was public knowledge during his campaign. While his presidency will no doubt be the gay-friendliest to date, Messiah Man will not likely back down on the issue of gay marriage. Unfortunately, for most gay advocates, that is not good enough. (This common knowledge of Obama's stance on gay marriage must surely be the reason why he received fewer votes from gay voters in 2008 than did John Kerry in 2004.)

It's understandable — and entirely predictable — that the gay community would react in this way. The gay rights movement, after all, is reeling from the Proposition 8 vote in California which seeks to end the legality of gay marriage in that state.  In response they are looking to flex some serious muscle.

Obama's pick of Rev. Warren to deliver the invocation speech was just the fight the gay community was looking for. Liberals, who largely showed restraint over criticism of Mr. Obama's conservative cabinet selections, are now boiling over with disappointed rage at the Warren issue as well.

Mr. Obama asserts that dialogue is what his campaign was about, as well as his upcoming presidency.

"We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans," Obama said in response to the furor over the Rev. Warren debate.

In other words, by selecting the Rev. Warren to be part of his inauguration ceremony, Obama was demonstrating tolerance — true tolerance. But that's not what the gay community and its liberal supporters desire.

In fact, the lesson to be learned from this debacle is not what liberals expected from Obama, but from what Obama expected from his liberal supporters. Mr. Obama wants debate and tolerance; the majority of liberals demand nothing less than total militancy over the issues dear to them.

I feel kind of sorry for the President-elect already. The poor man may only just now realize the hornet's nest he's walking into.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Les Slater

    “Obama was demonstrating tolerance — true tolerance”

    Of bigotry.

  • zingzing

    obama’s going to stand face-to-face with this man as he is inaugurated as president. what kind of spit in the eye is that? unfortunately, the more crazy portion of the gay-rights and liberal crowd is unhappy about this wonderful opportunity to rub the stupid conservative face in the mud. i guess they don’t realize that irony is a wonderful thing.

  • Tilden

    There is a difference between tolerance and appeasement. Perhaps you should ask some of your neighbors over in Britain about it. How would they feel about having an outspoken supporter of Mosley-style anti-semitism give the benediction at the next Coronation? Inclusive, no?

    Rick Warren has vocally opposed the fundamental human rights of gay and lesbian Americans and actively worked to diminish the rights they already have. Would it be “tolerance” to have a White Supremicist at the Inauguration? How about someone (and again, millions believe it) who works hard to strip woman of their rights to vote or own property because that woman are property of their father or husbands?

    How about adding some at-least at-par reasoning to that “superior” writing?

  • Zedd

    “Would it be “tolerance” to have a White Supremicist at the Inauguration?”

    Its not the same thing. Stop the over dramatization. It diminishes your position.

    Mark,

    The picture looks good. You looked sorta under the influence before.

  • bmorejoe

    I posted this on the Obama site. Rick Warren is the intolerance meister, I am just defending myself and my kin.

    “Rick Warren literally snatched away my daughters’ and their moms’ right to a legal marriage. Without his efforts, Prop 8 would have failed. How can inviting him to bless Obama’s presidency possibly be justified? Would Obama have invited someone opposed to interracial marriage to officiate? There are many ways to reach out to the right without selling out your own people. Obama chose a different way, one that discounts and marginalizes and delegitimizes millions of people. This is a really really bad sign. It indicates that he does not see gay and lesbian folks as real people with real rights that are being violated.

    I am a straight white 60 year old male. Like millions of others I have been more excited by this campaign and by Obama than by any other campaign and candidate in my lifetime. Until now, I am sorry to say. To all you folks who are saying “oh get over it, let’s move on” – sorry, it does not work that way – can’t move on if you cannot even see us as people. I say “us” because what Obama may not realize yet is that GLBT folk are NOT isolated. They have friends and families. However many GLBT there are, multiply that by ten to get an idea of the community. So no, this conversation is not going away.”

  • Greg

    Your logic makes no sense. Expecting tolerance from a group of Americans whom you do not treat as equal is an absurd notion. Tolerance is a lot like respect, a two-way street.

  • Les Slater

    “Expecting tolerance from a group of Americans whom you do not treat as equal is an absurd notion.”

    But the group that Obama belongs to gets more than their share of respect. Skin color is not what defines Obama, it is his social/economic position.

    “Tolerance is a lot like respect, a two-way street.”

    And you believe Obama respects the majority of people in the U.S.?

  • Linguist

    Others have already expressed my sentiments rather elegantly. But let me try my hand at it as well.

    It has become fashionable, it seems, to proclaim that those defending their lives and their loves are “intolerant” of those who wish to harm them.

    That isn’t “intolerance”. It’s self-defense. Would you expect a Jew to “tolerate” someone who worked hard to enforce the Nurenburg laws in the 1930s, or a a Black man to “tolerate” someone who prevented him from voting?

    This is about people’s LIVES. It’s not about a political position. It’s about disinterested parties voting to prevent innocent people whom they generally do not even know from protecting their most precious relationships. That’s vicious, it’s cruel, and it’s intensely, intensely immoral.

    I not only expect gay people to fight for their rights. I expect ALL who truly care about morality to fight for the least of us, including our gay family members, friends and neighbors.

    It makes a mockery of the word “tolerance” to suggest that fighting for one’s rights shows one’s “intolerance” of ‘the other side of the argument’.

    There IS no “other side of the argument” when it comes to one’s rights.

  • Karl

    No on has to tolerate writing discrimination into the constitution for any issue or any group of people.

  • Zedd

    Could a gay person explain why an acceptance of civil unions and not marriage for gays that means you are intolerant?

    Explain by defining the meaning of marriages vs a civil union.

  • Les Slater

    The state should have absolutely nothing to do with sanctioning any marriage, however if a state does sanction marriage, and 50 of them do, then we should demand that no discrimination be applied to that sanction regarding the sex, same or opposite, of the partners.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Zedd: “Could a gay person explain why an acceptance of civil unions and not marriage for gays that means you are intolerant?”

    For once, I agree with Zedd. I too would love to hear this explanation.

    I think their position is probably a case of “it’s not good enough; by refusing to call our unions marriage, they are making us equal but separate.”

    Fair enough, but the whole concept of gay marriage is going to make me announce to people that I’m “heterosexually married.” If marriage no longer means solely the union of man and woman, then I will feel the need to clarify my own marriage.

    It really is interesting watching the fault line in liberal ideology crack and widen here. Liberals are forced to take sides now: side with the black community or side with the gay community? Interesting times for sure.

    Zedd: “The picture looks good. You looked sorta under the influence before.”

    Thank you for saying so. I was not “under the influence” in the last picture, but I was getting mighty tired of hearing so.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Tilden, there is a great deal of difference between a pastor who opposes gay marriage and an anti-Semitic Islamofascist who thinks gays should be stoned. The latter is who former London mayor Ken Livingstone invited to share the podium with during one press conference a few years ago.

    Sure, Ken was being inclusive but horribly stupid. The man he shared the stage with was a true bigot and ultra-religious fanatic.

    Obama is reaching out to social conservatives who are a force in the U.S., regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. By inviting Rick Warren to be part of the inauguration celebration, Obama is showing he’s serious about dialogue with all factions in America, displaying some clever political skills, and I think it’s an encouraging sign.

  • Zedd

    Les,

    “however if a state does sanction marriage, and 50 of them do, then we should demand that no discrimination be applied to that sanction regarding the sex, same or opposite, of the partners.”

    I am going to respond and you are going to take this wrong but you have to slow down and think first before assuming that it is a bigoted statement.

    It’s not discrimination if you choose not to participate. If marriage is a union between man and woman and you choose not to marry a man or a woman, it is not discrimination. Many have done it and don’t like it (fathered children and all) and still proclaimed that they wanted to be with someone of the same gender. Many don’t ever want to do it because they know they don’t like it.

    It would be discrimination if short people couldn’t get married to tall people. If you come out of the closet and you choose to live as a gay person, that is constitutionally protected. You should be able to make a legal bond with whomever you want but you are not a man and a women so its not marriage. It’s whatever else that we or you will call it.

  • Mark Eden

    But Zedd, the definition is what is in question. Nothing never changes; even the meanings of words.

    Mark

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Zedd and Mark –

    “Could a gay person explain why an acceptance of civil unions and not marriage for gays that means you are intolerant?”

    I’m not gay, but the answer is quite simple. ‘Civil unions’ strongly smacks of ‘separate but equal’, the excuse used back in the days of whites-only this or that here in America, and apartheid in South Africa.

    For all – Obama did schedule Warren for the invocation…but he scheduled a PRO-gay-marriage Methodist minister for the benediction. So okay, he is being even-handed about things. Give the guy a break, willya?

  • Zedd

    Les,

    When you use examples that are too extreme you diminish your points. Your examples don’t match the situation. Not marrying a person of the opposite gender is choice. There is nothing other than not wanting to that prevents someone from doing so, so there are no civil rights being affected.

    It’s like saying, I don’t like peanut butter so please make it with fruit but still call it peanut butter or else I will feel discriminated against. Even if you have a peanut allergy the request is still ridiculous. You want your wish granted just to be able to say you eat peanut butter even though it completely ignores that peanut butter is not made of fruit.

    We have different restrooms for different genders but we abolished restrooms that have a race designation. So yes somethings will have to be separate but equal. That it itself isn’t a bad thing if it has relevance. In this case YES gender configurations in unions make us very different. Men and women make humans. Men and men don’t and can’t regardless of the ridiculous story of the woman with the beard who claims she is a pregnant man. Men and women unions have different dynamics because of a multitude of reasons (biological, social, etc.) that are very DIFFERENT than same gender unions. It is what it is.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I used to get into this argument over marriage. But it really does seem silly to fight over a word.

    It’s my understanding of the word, that it can be used when you join two things together, like putting a nut and a bolt together, marrying a nut and a bolt, but it doesn’t work if you try to join two bolts together so obviously, it’s not gonna work when you try to join to nuts together either! They’re not meant to be joined together!

    Honestly, I could care less what it’s called. Maybe there just needs to be a rule that you have to wear your wedding ring on a different finger if your in a gay marriage…I mean, how really really stupid can we make the argument?

    Think about it, if they let every gay and lesbian couple that wanted to get married do it, there’d still be less gay marriages than divorces. Half the time marriages don’t last anyway, so let’s allow them in on the fun of divorce too!

  • Mark Eden

    Feed a hungry lawyer…best argument for gay marriage that I’ve heard so far.

  • Zedd

    Again, the word has a meaning. Like peanut butter means something or an airplane is different from an automobile. You know we have these fury creatures that live in our homes, that we love. It’s sort of relevant that we label them accurately. Is it a dog or a cat. They are different and their biology is different and they have different habits because of their biology, etc.

    And not half of the marriages with children end up in divorce. That is the important thing that people who make this argument leave out. Since the institution was initially established for the sake of providing a place for humans to be cultivated and for the species to expand, it’s important to note that divorce among people with kids is small relatively speaking. So marriage still works.

    This is really silly.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Regardless of the numbers, there’d still be more divorces than gay marriages, even more divorces among couples with children!

    Let’s be real here, how many gay marriages do you really think there’d be if it was legal?

    I just think that like abortion and other issues that don’t really directly affect me, I don’t have any business messing with it.

    Why does anyone that’s not gay or lesbian even really care? If the state you live in decides to legalize gay marriage how on earth is it possibly gonna affect you personally, unless you’re gay or lesbian?

    What, you might have to qualify your statement? I’m married, to a woman! You might have to explain to your children why that man is in that hospital room consoling his partner…don’t worry, lie to them, tell him or her that those two men are brothers or something stupid like that…

    Yeah the word has meaning, but look at peanut butter, Skippy is peanut butter, Jiff tastes like shit! They’re both supposed to be peanut butter, but one sure doesn’t taste like what I think peanut butter should taste like. So, because it doesn’t appear to be what I think peanut butter is supposed to be, I’m gonna call it something else…

    I just don’t get it man!!!

  • Zedd

    “Let’s be real here, how many gay marriages do you really think there’d be if it was legal?”

    I have never heard anyone say that this is the contention. The number of marriages.

    Its just that marriage is what it is. It’s very important, regardless of the flippant comments about it. It is the most important institution. It is already in trouble….

    Saying since marriage as it is, is in trouble, lets diminish the importance of having a mom and dad raise you. Let’s say it’s not all that important and make it willy nilly. That is the most 7th grade response if there ever was one.

    Let’s see…. Since the environment is already a mess and all, lets introduce other elements which change the ecosystem in all sorts of ways even though we don’t know how they will affect the future of our planet.

    Silly.

  • Les Slater

    “Since the institution was initially established for the sake of providing a place for humans to be cultivated and for the species to expand…”

    Pure nonsense! It was instituted as a means of determination of ownership and inheritance. In the early phases of the institution of the family, wife and slave were both property.

  • Zedd

    Les,

    Inheritance for what purpose numbskull. It was about babies. You know, the species. Making humans.

    Early stages? Are you talking about when we started walking upright? I am assuming you are refering to Europe. Even then, most people didn’t have anything to pass down. Bless you. You did a bad Wiki search didn’t you.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    So, because you never heard it means it’s not valid?

    You really are full of it ain’t ya???

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Could someone explain why, if there is a separation of religion and state, there is any kind of preacher involved at all?

  • Clavos

    Les is right.

    The basic concept of marriage is rooted in economics and property rights.

    Marriage is not necessary to procreate.

  • Ken S

    I’m curious: those droning on that the word “Marriage” must mean a man and a woman because of biology– because “it takes a man and a woman to procreate” and that therefore a man/woman union is special and deserves “protection”– do you also advocate against marriages for the sterile, the infertile and the post-menopausal? Because if the ability to make a baby is what makes marriage so especially special and sacrosanct, then intellectual honesty demands that every married man and woman be able and willing to crank at least one out. Otherwise, marriage is merely an arrangement between consenting adults and considerations of biology– including gender– should be no impediment to parties wanting to marry.

    As for the argument from religion, in the West legal marriage was the domain of the state before the dark ages when civil society collapsed and religious institutions (temporarily) took over the practice. But the marriage ‘right’ that same-sex couples are fighting for now is once again a civil matter, the purview of the state, which is required to serve all of its citizens equally without preferentially catering to any one choice of religion. And that– choice– is what makes deference to religionists even more egregious; because religious believers choose their belief and ignorantly deride homosexuality as a “lifestyle,” when in fact sexual orientation (whether gay or straight) is the inherent, inborn trait(not chosen) but gets judged and minorities get disadvantaged and oppressed according to the elective beliefs of those choosing a superstitious ‘lifestyle.’

    Then there’s the naive argument that “Marriage” shouldn’t be changed because, like one of Plato’s forms, marriage is an unchanging idea. But that doesn’t hold water because, whether ignorantly or wilfully, it disabuses history. Historically, at one time or another, it’s been taken for granted that forbidding divorce was normal and would never change, that financially- or diplomatically-expedient marriages arranged between children was normal and would never change, that prohibiting interracial marriages was normal and would never change, that disallowing marriage between religious denominations was normal and would never change. But they all changed, and somehow life continues.

    And we can’t forget those shrilling that changing “Marriage” will somehow harm their own marriages, requiring them to qualify the hetero-ness of their own union (lest there be any– gasp– doubt about their orientation!) when they tell anyone else that they’re married. We can’t forget about them, but we *can* discount their concerns as mere insecurity and selfish with no regard for fairness or the equality of their neighbours. And we can resolve that the law of the land should be *just* and ethical, rather than reduced to merely alleviating childish insecurities and legitimizing the kind of poor moral education that perpetuates selfishness.

    So… other than the biological argument, the religous exclusivity argument, the argument from pedantic historical ignorance, and the insecure/selfish argument, what compelling case is left for denying your fellow citizens the civically-conferred right of forming a marriage contract?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Fair enough, but the whole concept of gay marriage is going to make me announce to people that I’m “heterosexually married.” If marriage no longer means solely the union of man and woman, then I will feel the need to clarify my own marriage.

    I don’t know, Mark. If same-sex marriages do gain legal recognition and you tell me you’re married, I’m not going to assume your spouse is female. And I don’t think it fundamentally matters.

    And it shouldn’t to you, either. Do you still, for instance, feel the need to clarify constantly that you’ve no intention of your marriage being a forum for procreation? And why?

    (Sorry if that seems like a low blow, but it is a point I’d like clarified.)

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Dr. D, it matters to me whether or not you think my spouse is female or not. It matters a lot. Because I’m not gay. Comprende?

    And, yes I do currently clarify to people that my wife and I are childless and that that’s the way we want it and intend on keeping it. I don’t see the sense in procreating simply for the sake of it, just because “it’s the done thing,” if one’s heart ain’t in it. And believe you me, neither of our hearts are.

    I do agree with Zedd that, from a religious perspective, marriage was about procreation, but I’m not defending marriage as man-and-woman only from a religious perspective, just from a traditionalist point of view.

    I would very much approve if Obama set things up so that civil unions were recognized federally. That way, if a U.S. citizen fell in love with a member of the same sex overseas, he or she could bring them to the U.S. and they would be recognized as a legitimate couple, with the gay spouse having immigration rights similar to those of a hetero fiance. No problem there.

    That way, there can be no complaints about America stamping on the “love rights” of gays. I don’t even mind trumping states’ rights in this case to have a federal law that announces civil union rights for gays and lesbians.

    But what I, and so many others, are asking for is that the word “marriage” be reserved for hetero couples because it is tradition, because it is the way the dictionary defines marriage: man and woman. I don’t agree with stomping on the sensitivities of those who defend traditional marriage, and clearly Mr. Obama doesn’t either.

    Words do matter in this instance, I believe. And, again, if gay marriage becomes standard practice, I will feel the need to clarify my position.

  • Mark Eden

    Mark, another dictionary meaning given for ‘marriage’ is ‘intimate union’ without gender reference. Somehow, ‘civil union’ just doesn’t communicate this. What word for their relationships do you propose for gay couples that would convey this sense of intimacy?

    Mark

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Butt buddies???

    I’m kidding! Relax already!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Somehow when I hear the words ‘civil union’ it brings to mind a political treaty, not a personal contract.

    Tradition is often a fine thing. But really, if that’s the only objection you have to same-sex unions not being called marriages, then traditionalism is a piss-poor argument.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    That’s what I was thinking…

    …it’s a word…you know…sticks and stones and all that???

  • zingzing

    why don’t you just call her your wife? that would clear up any gender confusion, wouldn’t it? if not, meh. what are you going to do then?

    i think most of you who would deny absolute equal rights to homosexuals have figured out that you’re losing the battle. you’ve clung to a word as some ultimate divider, maybe out of bitterness, maybe out of some misplaced respect for words over people.

    the word is unimportant. i think that homosexuals are missing the main point by demanding nothing short of the word, but at least they have a point. the word to them means equality.

    those denying them this equality and spending oodles of cash convincing others to protect a word… well, that’s just stupid. it doesn’t mean equality to you, it means some sort of nebulous difference. a difference you yourselves note as being legally arbitrary… but what do you do? you make laws about it. it makes no sense.

    this is a legal issue. and what you want to do goes against the ultimate laws of our land and the ultimate legal truths we wish to stand for. “all men are created equal.”

    you know what “marriage” means right now? it’s just “discrimination” to a large group of people. so stop being discriminatory bigots over a damn word. it’s unsightly.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Mr. Manning has stated his position clearly. He seeks to deny a group of people a right because we traditionally have done so.

    As for his “position,” I agree that he should “clarify” it when gay marriage becomes common. This will surely persuade the 10 percent of people who don’t already think he’s gay.

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    “Les is right.

    The basic concept of marriage is rooted in economics and property rights.

    Marriage is not necessary to procreate.”

    Not all societies since human “conception” have had properties to pass along. People became families for the sake of supporting one another. Marriages seal that structure. That structure protects the progeny and therefore the generations to come.

    You cant look at obscure and isolated groups and claim knowledge on the subject matter. Also looking at the Greeks (who are mythologized) is not good enough. Not everyone in Greece was having orgies and homosexual sex. It’s like us looking at the tabloids a thousand years from now and determining that that is how life was in the early 21st century.

    We also know that power (money) played (plays) a role in keeping a man attractive. Men have always sought power so that they can be the hottest guy around. From an evolutionary stand point, that is largely about procreating, spreading the seed.

  • Les Slater

    “Not all societies since human ‘conception’ have had properties to pass along.”

    Nor did they have marriage.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Mark Manning –

    But what I, and so many others, are asking for is that the word “marriage” be reserved for hetero couples because it is tradition, because it is the way the dictionary defines marriage: man and woman.

    “You can have this version but you can’t have OUR version”. Just like the “separate but equal” excuses for Jim Crow and Apartheid.

  • Ginger’s Dad

    Can someone explain why the right delights in calling Obama the “Messiah” or in Mark’s case, “Messiah Man?” Nobody NOT on the right calls him that.

  • zingzing

    because they are jackasses.

  • Clavos

    Actually, it was an extreme left-winger, Louis Farrakhan, who first applied the sobriquet to BHO.

    Right-wingers just like the irony of it.

  • Zedd

    Clav,

    I wouldn’t categorize Louis Farrakhan as an extreme left winger, Clav. I wouldn’t categorize him as a left winger at all. Looks like you’ve never actually listened to the guy. I’m guessing you took the Black thing + microphone and got extreme left wing. Listen to him. You’d be very surprised. He has extremely conservative ideas.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    No…he has extremely bigoted ideas! He’s a fucking racist!

  • pablo

    Clavy calling Farrakhan a lefty, now that is funny, where did you get that idea Clavy? You sure have some s t r a n g e ideas buddy.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    “Tradition is often a fine thing. But really, if that’s the only objection you have to same-sex unions not being called marriages, then traditionalism is a piss-poor argument.”

    No the argument is not because of tradition. It’s not about a word its about a name. As a writer or as a thinking person, you know that words have meaning. They are a code which unseals multitudes of data.

    Going back to my peanut butter analogy. If I don’t like pb, I can’t decide to change the name of jelly and call it peanut butter. Pb has its own unique list of properties that make it distinct. There are many reasons why it should be distinguished including some serious health related reasons for its clear distinction. You are agreeing so far right?

    Sure peanut butter is a word. But it names something. We are still in agreement, no?

    A union between a man and a woman has a name. We call it “marriage”. There are (as you well know) some very specific things that are distinct to that sort of union. It simply is what it is. We had to name it something and that is what it is. Pretending like this type of union is not unique only to make some people feel like part of the gang is silly. Regardless, there will have to be a distinct name for this type of union between a man and a woman cause we humans name stuff, we gotta in order to communicate.

    Now the question is, will gays chase after every name that is used to describe a union between man and women?

    Kinda silly isn’t it…. common admit it.

    However, you stated that you don’t like the FEEL of “civil union”. Aren’t those just words? Huuuug or QED… take your pick! NEXT

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    This include Rick Warren means Barack Obama is a traitor mentality has my knickers in a knot. Look, I have a male partner. While I would love to be able to legally “marry” him some day in any state in this land, it is not my priority. And, remind you, I live in a state where marriage is not defined by the “natural” conjoining of genitalia. We have each other’s health care proxy. If one dies, the other is provided for. We live a respectable, productive life and do nothing to infringe on the so-called basic civil rights of our neighbors. As long as no one stops him from having those basic civil rights that I GAVE HIM to handle my affairs, why complain? There are more important things for us to worry about at present. The gay marriage issue is part of the Far Right’s conspiracy to take our collective eye off the prize. And my LGBT friends along with their well-meaning liberal side show buddies, have fallen deep into the Rightist trap.

  • Brunelleschi

    Manning’s article was just stupid.

    Some people saw through it right away and rightly called “BS.” You can’t expect tolerance from people you choose to not tolerate yourself.

    It’s the “Godman Right,” that is intolerant, not the activists that are simply reacting to Obama’s pick. Reacting is not the same thing as intolerance.

    The GLBT community is organizing FOR something, equal treatment under the law. They are not organizing against straight marriage, straight people etc, but they are going to naturally react to a group that treats them as inferior because of what their Godman they pledged to says to do.

    The right has a funny way of seeing hate in the other side when it’s not there. But hate groups are known as “right-wing hate groups,” and daytime radio is “right-wing hate radio” and the right feeds off of it. The right is becoming synonymous with hate, so when a rightie starts talking “intolerance” you see twisted thinking like you find at the top of the page.

    It’s like criticizing a slave for being intolerant of slave owner’s.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd, Mark M’s argument is about tradition (or at least it appears to be, unless he’s not expressing himself very well).

    Your peanut butter analogy is false. Jelly has a specific set of physical properties which preclude it from being peanut butter – the most significant of which is that it does not include any of the same ingredients as peanut butter. Peanut brittle, on the other hand, is also not peanut butter but can conceivably be turned into it with just a few small adjustments.

    Marriage thus far in history has been an arrangement involving a certain number of humans (usually, but not always, two). Changing the gender of those humans does not make it any less a marriage than changing the numbers involved.

    And saying that two people of the same sex can’t be married because the word ‘marriage’ was originally applied to a male-female partnership is just silly. You might as well say that Wyoming can’t be a state because its name originally belonged to a valley in Pennsylvania.

    And it wasn’t me who said they didn’t like the ‘feel’ of the term civil union – it was Mark E. Take that up with him.

  • Brunelleschi

    Marriage (and attempts at enforcing monogomy) from the beginning existed to solve the problem of inheritance of property, and defining transfer of power from the male of one generation to the next.

    Religion co-opted it for it’s own reasons. Religion doesn’t “own” it, as much as they like to think they do. Atheists get married too.

    Today married people live together, pool their income, and get legal benefits from it.

    Any two people that choose to become legally married to get those benefits should be able to. Why would anyone have a problem with how someone else chooses to do it?

    If gays can’t get married, then pull all laws from the books about it and see what happens. Make it a church only thing, something the state doesn’t recognize. You want a divorce? Go ask church, no lawyers, no settlements, no way to divide the property except the will of the guy in charge of your church. No legal protection either way.

    A lot of married people would jump up and say, “wait! Don’t take that stuff away…well, sure I got married for love, but I need that protection in case of….” So those people have something and think someone else can’t have the same rights. Amazing.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Fair enough, but the whole concept of gay marriage is going to make me announce to people that I’m ‘heterosexually married.'”

    So, people wouldn’t be able to tell by looking at your wife? What it really sounds like is that you concerned that people might think you were gay if you say you are married. If you take that as an insult, you have bigger personal issues you should be working on than other people getting married.

    “Going back to my peanut butter analogy.”

    which is flawed as the rest of your reasoning. Definitions change all the time. Pluto used to be a planet. Now it isn’t. And yet the universe appears to moving along just fine. The good news is your way of “thinking” is trending towards being a minority voice on the matter in less than a generation.

  • Zedd

    Brunelleshi,

    “Marriage (and attempts at enforcing monogomy) from the beginning existed to solve the problem of inheritance of property, and defining transfer of power from the male of one generation to the next.”

    I think you keep thinking that marriage is a new, Western concept. There are matrilineal cultures. Perhaps a better understanding of family structures over human history will help.

  • Brunelleschi

    Well Excuuuuseee meee, Mr Literate!

    I didn’t think I had to qualify my short work of art with qualifications about what era and culture I was referencing!

    We all take a bow to the matrilineal cultures and all that….

    Back to today….messing with someone else’s choice about it today makes no sense.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I think what you are missing is that males and females are the physical combination that is different. Perhaps the most evident and glaring difference in our human history. Boys and girls. We pick that one up innately sorta early. And PLEASE don’t dilute the dialogue by conjuring up false indignation based on early feminist rhetoric which has since been tossed aside BY WOMEN. We are different and its awesome!

    Let’s take a look at chemistry…. If you combine two different elements, the combination will possess different qualities than one element in doubled quantities. Ergo, you don’t call the two different compositions by the same name because they are not the same.

    Back to words. We use them to describe different things, places, etc. If we used “America” to define every place in the US without having a specific name for each place, it would be silly. Hence we have Dallas, Phoenix, Jackson, etc. Well Doc, we have a name for the topic at hand, its called “relationships” but there are different types of relationships, one is marriage. A new type of union is going to be recognized and we will come up with a new name for it.

    I’m confounded as to why this is problematic for you. However, I think that this is the type of absurdity that makes people exhausted with the left. You exchange your empathy for reason. You don’t have to choose one over the other. You can be compassionate and rational at once. You waist a lot of the public’s time, money and resources arguing over emotional matters that are not based on anything but “feelings”. Your turn up to bat.

  • zingzing

    zedd… how you you, a woman, a black woman, not understand that when people want equality, they deserve equality? they aren’t asking for anything you don’t already have, and by denying them this you are being the worst kind of hypocrite.

    it’s just a word. it doesn’t undermine your understanding of that word. it doesn’t do anything to the actual institution of marriage. it just makes it more inclusive, and it gives people that deserve rights the rights they deserve.

    doing anything to deny these rights to someone else is just despicable, cruel and evil. there’s just no way around it, and i think the history of the last century should clue you in to that. especially you.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “how you…not understand that when people want equality, they deserve equality?”

    because it’s not her group this time.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    Please explain how my being of African decent correlates with this discussion?

    Please explain how the right to be enslaved or vote and to be allowed in public has to do with this topic?

    Please explain how this is a civil rights issue when civil unions provide those rights?

  • Zedd

    Brunelleschi,

    I am female and you got off topic.

    “messing with someone else’s choice about it today makes no sense”

    What choice?

    If I want to be tall because I think tall people get the goodies in our culture, could I declare myself tall even though I am not? Is my “choice being messed with if my request to call myself tall is declined?

    Convince me that you’ve got a point and quit playing fellow. Take your Wheaties and get back with me. ttfn.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Please explain how this is a civil rights issue when civil unions provide those rights?

    “Separate but equal” ring any bells, Zedd?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd,

    If I want to be tall because I think tall people get the goodies in our culture, could I declare myself tall even though I am not? Is my “choice being messed with if my request to call myself tall is declined?

    Imagine yourself transported back about 50 years, substitute the word ‘tall’ in your comment with ‘white’, and you may begin to see where your logic falls down.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “Please explain how this is a civil rights issue when civil unions provide those rights?”

    because they don’t provide those rights. look at it. they flat out don’t. even if they did, which they don’t, it still smacks of “separate but equal,” which, as we know, is not true equality.

    were african americans happy under jim crow? nope. so do you think homosexuals will be happy under these less than equal “civil unions?” nope. they want true equality. it should be theirs.

    and if you can see a direct correlation between the civil rights of homosexuals and the civil rights of african americans, despite the differences, well then, you’re willfully ignoring it.

    this is the civil institution of marriage we are talking about. and “all men are created equal” in our civil society. legally, laws like prop 8 are against the constitution. and i know you know that. they are pure discrimination written into our laws.

    as i said earlier, it’s obvious this is the last grasping at straws for all the bigots out there. in 10 years time, they will look back in shame or denial.

  • Zedd

    El B,

    I am for equality. No problem with the rights at all. It’s unimaginable to decline rights for anyone.

    I think its silly to pretend that same gender unions are same as heterosexual unions. They are not. You know that and we all know that. Where is the problem? I issue is that people who have same gender unions want to be called the same thing as male and female unions. Its odd and doesn’t make sense. They are not the same. Period. Nothing mean about it. It just is. They can’t be the same.

    Rights? By all means. Get the civil unions and love, bond, separate, get back together, get inheritance, etc. No problem with rights.

    Now where is the issue?

  • Clavos

    Rights? By all means. Get the civil unions and love, bond, separate, get back together, get inheritance, etc. No problem with rights.

    Now where is the issue?

    One more time, Zedd:

    “Separate but equal.”

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “I am for equality.”

    That is a falsehood based on all your other comments on the issue.

    “It’s unimaginable to decline rights for anyone.”

    Yet, you want to do just that.

    “Its odd and doesn’t make sense.”

    To you, and so what? An amazing amount of hubris to think that others should have to live their lives based on the limitations of your comprehension of the world. There’s plenty of people who find nothing odd about it.

    As I stated previously, they will be in the majority eventually, leaving you and like-minded individuals behind like those who found it odd and didn’t see the sense of granting women the right to vote or African Americans the remaining 2/5ths of personhood.

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    What was wrong with “separate but equal” was not a name it was access to the same things.

    In this case civil unions give access to the same exact things.

    Now what? Bring it hombre!!

  • http://obamabidenforchange.com Sue Debocrod

    How ironic. Let’s celebrate the administration’s incompetence with the video “A day without Republicans” by Obamabidenforchange.com. You can see it on Myspace.

  • Zedd

    El B

    If you can not answer the question then say so. Don’t just jabber on about stuff that has nothing to do with my post.

    Your being dramatic and veering away from the point that I made doesn’t make your position make any more sense.

    If you have to think about what I said, say so and come back with a lucid argument later. But don’t give a come back of that high school girl emotional gibberish and expect that your lack of real assessment about this subject matter will be disguised.

    Read my post again and at least try to answer my questions or walk away man! Live to fight another day (with your dignity)

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    “Imagine yourself transported back about 50 years, substitute the word ‘tall’ in your comment with ‘white’, and you may begin to see where your logic falls down.”

    I still couldn’t declare myself White. I could change laws to grant me what Whites have full ACCESS to but I am not and cant be white. Civil rights wasn’t about being called White. It was about people who looked like me not being kept from having access to the same experiences.

    Civil unions would (should) provide those same (not separate) benefits. Like other civil rights.

    The law can’t make two men a man and a woman. It is what it is. It’s even more crucial than the race thing because the distinction between the genders is more relevant.

    Slightly but not totally irrelevant side note: What’s interesting is that for gays, gender matters or else they could be with the opposite sex. However when making the argument for “marriage”, many say, gender doesn’t matter.

    No comprende.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    Civil unions should give full rights.

    Problem solved.

  • zingzing

    they should, but they don’t.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Zedd, I dealt with your post. If you are unable to see that, it would have been better not to embarrass yourself by pointing the fact out to others, but it does explain why you don’t understand what the issues at hand are and why you lash out with condescension.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd if it doesn’t matter what word is used because they’re both equal, you’ve sabataged your own argument point.

    If they’re both equal, why not call them both civil unions gay and straight.

    And before anyone diggs up one man and one woman again…

    Just how many wives do most of our heroes have in the bible?

    after all,

    “The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals
    and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.
    That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals.
    It’s just that they need more supervision.”
    Lynn Lavner

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd,

    I still couldn’t declare myself White. I could change laws to grant me what Whites have full ACCESS to but I am not and cant be white…

    I get the distinct feeling that we’re going round in circles here, but how ’bout you go back to the sentence above and substitute the word ‘White’ with ‘straight’?

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    “Can someone explain why the right delights in calling Obama the ‘Messiah’ or in Mark’s case, ‘Messiah Man?’ Nobody NOT on the right calls him that.”

    Wrong. Everybody not on the right may have not called him that, but they sure treated him like that.

    The majority of his voters were maniacally devoted to the guy in the manner of the Apostles.

    People were swooning and quite ready to kiss his feet (if not another part of his anatomy).

    That’s why I use the term “Messiah Man,” because that’s exactly how he was treated along the campaign trail.

    It has turned into a different story now, of course. The all-night parties/orgies of Nov. 6 already seem like ancient history …

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    “but how ’bout you go back to the sentence above and substitute the word ‘White’ with ‘straight”

    On my drivers license it says how tall I am not what my gender preference is, partner wise. It’s a bit problematic because there is no way to actually tell if someone is straight or isn’t other than their declaration. So they can declare themselves straight and it wouldn’t be a matter to contest. So yes I could call myself straight or not straight. I have that right. It exists. I can’t call myself tall. I’m not.

    The marriage thing involves a combination of two individuals. It is that combination which is so crucial. It just is, two boys are not the same as a girl and a boy. Just not. It’s a not a value judgement. It just is. Two apples are different than an apple and orange. Just are. No value judgement. They may be both called fruit salads but they are two different fruit salads. Just like both unions are called relationships or even unions but they are different types of relationships. The commitment may be the same or the purpose may be the same but they are different. Just like the two salads may have the same function (to be eaten) but they are still different.

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    “Zedd if it doesn’t matter what word is used because they’re both equal, you’ve sabataged your own argument point.”

    You missed it.

    It does matter what word is used because they are different.

  • Zedd

    El B,

    You can’t throw out something like that and expect anything other than condescension.

    I’ve read your posts where you rip into Clav over a multitude of topics but you can’t take an unequivocal request for you to stay on topic if you want to dialogue? Man up.

    You got emotional and got off topic. I could either bring your attention to that fact and hope that you come back with a dialogue that I can engage in or ignore you. I can’t reply to your post because it has nothing to do with anything. Its just you being mad about something.

  • Brunelleschi

    Zedd-

    #58- How is it I got off topic? I don’t understand that at all. Maybe my short post was too long for you. :)

    The choice I was talking about was a choice to get married to one’s significant other. My point is people have a right to choose who they want to hook up with legally.

    I really don’t understand anyone putting political time into opposing what someone wants to do if it doesn’t affect them in any way.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Folks, there is never much point debating with Zedd as she has her own magical way of thinking that transcends normal language and logic.

  • Mark Eden

    Zedd, as Hegel would say, A is A (identity) and -A (negation) are but moments in the movement of the phenomenological world and thought. Your formalisms are fetishes.

    xxoo

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    … and people still wonder why I’m gay

  • Cindy D

    RE #8

    Linguist,

    I expect ALL who truly care about morality to fight for the least of us…

    That is the most important idea I have seen expressed anywhere.

    The time has come to fight every day.

    DON’T JUST VOTE!

    (CrimethInc. 2004)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    In an earlier article dealing with the California Supreme Court decision of 15 May 2008 holding unconstitutional (under the California Constitution) a statute declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman, I pointed out a perhaps fanciful, perhaps real, problem with the decision. Abrogation of the recently adopted Proposition 8 definition of marriage might (or might not) raise a similar problem.

    The California court noted that the identical substantive legal rights and obligations of those in heterosexual marriages pertain in California to those in civilly recognized same-sex unions. The basic premise of the decision was that nevertheless, people who are married are accorded a different social status than people in civil unions. Much the same difficulty has been raised, directly or indirectly, with the recently adopted marriage definition which arguably stigmatizes those in civil unions in ways which those who are married do not experience; see, e.g., Comments # 11, 16, 35, 39, 48, 55, 61, 63 and 64. Parenthetically, I don’t buy this argument. It seems likely that those who stigmatize homosexual couples in civil unions would similarly stigmatize homosexual couples who are married; indeed, those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman might well do so to an even greater extent, believing that their marriage is a mockery of the concept.

    The only potentially serious legal problem I foresaw with the California court’s decision was that a non-frivolous argument could be made that churches with religious strictures against homosexual marriages could be required either to perform such marriages or to forfeit their advantageous status as churches. While possibly far-fetched, this is not completely so. A similar (but not identical) problem has been raised in another context:

    The Connecticut state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday April 25 that would require all hospitals — including the four Catholic facilities — to provide the Plan B emergency contraceptive to rape victims. The abortifacient drug is also known as the morning after pill.

    “This bill is a violation of the separation of Church and State,” wrote Bishops Henry Mansell of Hartford and William Lori of Bridgeport in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday. “The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut are responsible for establishing and determining what moral guidelines Catholic institutions should follow; not the Connecticut General Assembly.”

    The Freedom of Choice Act, which President Elect Obama promised to sign promptly after assuming office, has been said to raise similar but graver concerns:

    the FOCA bill “forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this [abortion] right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.'”

    “For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women,” the Catholic official explained. . . . [I]f abortion is a fundamental right that can’t ever be infringed, then every hospital and medical center must do abortions — including Catholic and other religious or private hospitals that object . . . them.

    Would abrogation of the recently adopted California marriage definition (or, perhaps, a Federal statute declaring civil unions to be “marriages”) give rise to similar problems? I don’t know, but non-frivolous arguments could be made that it should, and an appropriate factual context for the presentation of such an argument could easily arise. Perhaps Mark Eden has it right in Comment # 19, Feed a hungry lawyer…best argument for gay marriage that I’ve heard so far. I do think that this largely unforeseen possibility should be considered and avoided, by making clear that although marriage licenses must be granted regardless of the sex of those to be married, no church or clergyman may be required to conduct a marriage ceremony prohibited by church doctrine, and that no church may be deprived of its privileges as a church by virtue of such refusal. My personal view is that such privileges are a bad idea, but if they are to be eliminated I think that it would be better were it to happen expressly and with forethought, rather than by implication and as an unforeseen consequence of something else.

    Dan(Miller)

  • bliffle

    How sad that churches might have to give up their advantageous situation.

    How sad that hospitals would have to obey the laws instead of following their whims.

    I can hardly cease weeping for the poor things.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The marriage thing involves a combination of two individuals. It is that combination which is so crucial.

    If it’s so crucial, then why do the people of Tibet practice polyandry and why do numerous African societies, notably the Nuer of Sudan, have forms of same-sex marriage?

    And there are many other examples of marriage that do not fit the ‘one man, one woman’ definition you are so insistent on. It seems your fruit salad (or was it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?) is a lot less bland than you think!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    bliffle, re comment #84

    I agree with your first sentence, but please see the last sentence of my comment.

    Would you object to a slight modification of your second sentence, as follows How sad that hospitals would have to obey the laws or shut down and cease to provide useful medical services instead of following their whims ?

    It is interesting that the ideological and religious beliefs of others are mere “whims,” while yours and mine are doubtless far more substantial than that.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    The issue is not whether humans have ever had such a law. The African references are funny and rubbish as one would expect. Its always easy to claim things about Africa because it seems so remote and because Africa posses some of the least developed people, it is often referenced to prove the innateness of whatever thing that is being peddled. The references are embarrassing. I would suggest that you not quote them to anyone again. Just one among the pile of garbage about Africans. I studied Social Anthropology and Sociology. In my Marriage and Sexual Lifestyles course, we learned of a tribe in West Africa that allowed for men to have sex with boys until they were married. While they were going through their long initiation process (away from their society for years), the incoming boys would be molested by the senior boys. The practice was allowed to release tension. I guess like they do in jail. It was thought that some men when they returned and married would still sneak to have sex with “their boys”. Don’t know anything about a socially promoted marriage (couples making a home). But it does seem as though there were temporary unions. If if there were, I am CERTAIN that they had a name. They would have to. I’m certain that the ceremonies would have been different to.

    Polyandry still requires the union of a man and a woman. The two get into this deal. The woman agrees with each of her partners. Wiki ref:polyandry with shared parental care is more likely in very difficult environments, where the efforts of more than two parents are needed to give a reasonable chance of rearing young successfully. This marriage thing has a lot to do with making, rais’n and protect’n them younguns Doc. Without it, we may not have made it as a species.

    I’m guessing you are tired. I’m getting there. Thanks for bringing really good arguments to the fore and not getting personal. Twas fun.

  • Zedd

    Christopher Rose,

    You posted just to attack? Don’t do that.

    1. Its against the rules.

    2. As a member of BC staff your disregarding the rules diminishes their relevance.

    3. I don’t want to be embarrassed for participating on this site. Your ill considered post without even reading what the discussion was about makes this site seem to be incapable of handling really thoughtful dialogue. It appears as if the only conversation that is considered worthwhile on BC are poorly considered, predictable, emotional rants that are littered with jabs and insults; where the greatest literary accomplishment is getting through a post without a spelling error.

    I’ve seen really smart people come in, take a look and leave or diminish their capabilities in order to engage here on BC. If the goal is to promote a Bubba site, then you did well by BC.

    I think its funny that you believe that just because you don’t get something that its the other person who is lacking. I wonder if its your White male status that is to blame for that? Ever occurred that you may need to sharpen up a bit? Just a thought.

  • Zedd

    Dan (Miller)

    “people who are married are accorded a different social status than people in civil unions.”

    This we know has to do with the notion of “fornication” and the potential for babies being born out of wedlock. Since homosexuality is not a christian institution, fornication is not a concern and off course no one will get pregos in a same sex union. The argument regarding a different social status is mute.

    “churches with religious strictures against homosexual marriages could be required either to perform such marriages or to forfeit their advantageous status as churches.”

    As it stands right now, churches and ministers may refuse to marry a couple who’s marriage they don’t support. Some churches don’t marry people who have been divorced unless their divorce falls under the guidelines of the bible, else they would be committing adultery.

    The solution would be to come up with a name for a gay marriage. It would have a different status than shacking up AND married people wouldn’t feel like gays are playing at marriage, pretending to be the impossible and possibly making a mockery of their unique union.

    Christopher,

    D i d y o u un…deeer….stand that?

  • Zedd

    Brunelleschi,

    I agree with you. People do have the right to choose who they want to share the rest of their lives with.

    To be petty, people can and do hook up with anyone they want. I am sure you are talking about having kinship rights. I’m being unnecessary picky I know. I am worn out :o)

    I don’t see how having civil unions that provide those rights is not providing that choice. No one addresses that at all and I’m not sure why (actually I do know why but I don’t want to open up another hornets nest).

    Well we’ve all proven once more that boys are dumb. Night night fellows!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd, if Mr. Rose chooses to make a statement of personal opinion that has a fair amount of fact behind it, I’d hardly call it a personal attack.

    If Christopher says a bathroom reeks of shit, it’s a personal opinion, others might think it reeks of used tampons.

    Only if he states that the bathroom reeks of one or your old tampons, would it be considered a personal attack and not a statement of opinion.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The African references are funny and rubbish as one would expect. Its always easy to claim things about Africa because it seems so remote and because Africa posses some of the least developed people, it is often referenced to prove the innateness of whatever thing that is being peddled. The references are embarrassing. I would suggest that you not quote them to anyone again.

    So your idea of debate is to just ignore and dismiss any evidence which works against your point of view, is it?

    My examples of same-sex marriage are anthropologically documented and, your hissy fit notwithstanding, happened to come from Africa. I do not consider Africa to be ‘undeveloped’ – in fact that’s a Western-centric value judgement – as you would know if you had cared to update your anthropological education recently.

    I did not cite them to prove the innateness of anything, but to counter your absurd claim that marriage could only be defined in terms of 1F+1M.

    This marriage thing has a lot to do with making, rais’n and protect’n them younguns Doc.

    Indeed. Why do you assume that such is not the intent of same-sex partners in the US?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Doc, does that mean that God created me for the expressed purpose of sabotaging the sanctity of marriage?

    That’s an awesome responsibility

  • Cindy D

    No Jet, you were created for the express purpose of sabotaging the sanctimoniousness of idjits.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Oh……..well…… that’s a relief

  • STM

    No need to go to Africa.

    My ex was an ardent believer and practitioner of polyandry. She pursued it with a vigour and a commitment the likes of which many (yes, many :) will never see again.

    At least she brought smiles to lots of faces, indeed much joy to the masses, and plenty to herself.

    She remains a free spirit, and she was honest about it … which is more than you can say for a lot of blokes who sneak around hoping they won’t be caught.

    I must say, though, I’m glad the free love thing’s over.

    There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Sorry, I meant love.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    What evidence? An article about Zulus who have practice homosexual marriage between women? Wonder what expertise I’d have about that topic? I did mention that my field is Social Anthropology and Sociology. That’s the field that studies this stuff. If you find more evidence on what you posted, I’d love to take a look at it. That piece had a goal and wasn’t anywhere near credible. Give me something with more teeth. I’ll gladly read it.

    It is more than true about the African myths. Any outlying thing is automatically attributed to Africa. We laugh about it. It’s believable because people don’t know much about Africa. Off course Zulus being one of the few tribes that have a recognizable name(from that movie), they get lumped into the most ridiculous big fish tales known do man. I was just letting you know. You can believe the article or keep propagating the sensationalized stories if you like. Your a big boy. Do what you like. I was not saying that YOU were spreading falsehoods about Africa. You didn’t write the article. I was saying it was ridiculous just as an FYI.

    I don’t remember us talking about 1man and 1woman. Not sure why that is an issue here. We were talking about marriage being between a man and a woman. Each marriage in a polygamist marriage is a marriage. Not that it matters….

    This marriage thing has a lot to do with making, rais’n and protect’n them younguns Doc

    Indeed. Why do you assume that such is not the intent of same-sex partners in the US?.

    The making babies thing was sorta settled a while back. Its not an assumption. Now please stop reaching. Are you drunk or just arguing for the sake of arguing? I’ll catch you on the next discussion. Hope you are sober.

    Told you that you go nuts when this topic comes up.

  • bliffle

    STM,

    You poor thing! It must have been very hard on you!

    (Can I get her number?)

  • STM

    What, bliff, you don’t already have it?

    You and the others could form a club and hold your annual meetings in a phone box.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Dear God Zedd, am I going to have to resort to writing that article about gay penguins in European zoos?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd,

    When did I say anything about Zulus? The Nuer, as I said, live in Sudan – which, unless they’ve developed a really expansionist philosophy lately, is a considerable distance from Zululand.

    And if the linked article had an agenda – so what? Gosh, never heard of anything like that before… I don’t suppose you noticed that the article had properly cited sources?

    Still – if invoking Africa is to be taboo, how about closer to home? The berdache tradition among numerous Native American tribes (notably the Navajo and the Kwakiutl), whereby a person might adopt his or her opposite gender role and even marry someone of the same sex?

    And Zedd, you can’t just go around accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being nuts or stupid. It isn’t classy and besides, Jet might really follow through on the penguin thing if we’re not careful.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Yes, Zedd, you’re absolutely right, it’s clearly my fault as a White male that I don’t understand your incredibly thoughtful and incisive observations. It is also obvious that I just aren’t as smart as you and will do my best to sharpen up. Anything else would be “mute”.

    Naah, sorry, just can’t do it. You do actually make very little sense at all and regularly brutalise logic and reason, beating them into the warped world view you so devotedly espouse. I just hope it is a masculine view you are married to, else we’ll have to downgrade your relationship to the truth to that of a mere civil union.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Folks, there is never much point debating with Zedd as she has her own magical way of thinking that transcends normal language and logic.

    This from the comments editor who deleted one of Pablo’s comments, saying he should stick to issues and not personalities.

    At least your imperfections show in full bloom here, Chris….

    As for the original issue at hand – frankly, for me, it is a non-issue…. Which idiot Obama chooses to bless his “presidency” is as important as which incompetent sits in the White House.

    And make no mistake about it – Obama is an incompetent.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    IT IS MY OPINION, that Ruvy was conscripted into the regular Israeli army some unknown time ago, and an impostor, either a fundamentalist Rabbi or a Palestinian spy (or both) has been posting in his place with the express purpose of alienating anyone in the U.S. who cares anything about him or Isreal.

    When “Ruvy” moved from Jerusalem and changed his I.P. it appears either he left part (or all) of his brain behind… along with most of his diplomatic skills.

    This is tragic, considering how much I used to like and respect the man.

    The best of you seems to have somehow vanished Ruvy and I consider it a great tragedy… No one is accusing you of being some U.S. ass-kissing lap dog, but clearly something has happened to you that has given you Tourette Syndrome towards anything American.

    Tragic, as I miss the old you.

    Of course that’s only My opinion…

  • Cindy D

    I just hope it is a masculine view you are married to, else we’ll have to downgrade your relationship to the truth to that of a mere civil union.

    ROFLOL!!!!! HA!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It’s amazing to me. Back in the day, when I first found BC I can remember getting in this same argument. I was all over the civil union thing, thought it was a great idea. Anything but the word I thought, let them have anything but the word.

    Of course I was pummelled here at BC and rightly so. It took me a while, but I did finally realize what an idiot I was for arguing over a word. It’s like arguing over whether it’s partly sunny or partly cloudy. Basically, who gives a shit?

    I think what amazes me the most is that the one person here who should really be able to grasp the concept of “seperate but equal” and how truly fucked up that concept is, just doesn’t seem to be getting it at all! How can that be?

    I mean come on! Can it really be as simple as it was stated before…that it’s not her group, so it’s not the same thing? Or is it, like I think it is, just plain old ignorance?

    And just to let you know…I’m really looking forward to the penguin article!!!

  • Mark Eden

    Andy, you of all folks should know how important the immutable meanings of words are to people of the book.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I should, but I’m trying that tolerance thing…it’s not working real well for me!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Plus…I gotta figure that if I can change then anyone should be able to change.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Andy, it’s quite natural, when weaning oneself away from intolerance, to be intolerant of the intolerant… but it is but one step along the path!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Never thought about it that way Doc…intolerant of the intolerant…am I still allowed to be intolerant of stupidity? Or am I gonna be required to tolerate everything…because if that’s the case, I may have to rethink the whole thing!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I think I’ve figured it out, it’s not that I’m not capable of making a conversational point worthy of any article on this website, it’s just that they keep coming out looking like this and people actually don’t see them.

    I guess I’ll just have to write that damned article on penguins after all…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It looks really good if you click and drag over it though Jet! I wonder if it’s the “drag” part that makes it look so good?!??!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    This is tragic, considering how much I used to like and respect the man.

    The best of you seems to have somehow vanished Ruvy and I consider it a great tragedy… No one is accusing you of being some U.S. ass-kissing lap dog, but clearly something has happened to you that has given you Tourette Syndrome towards anything American.

    Tragic, as I miss the old you.

    The old me hasn’t gone anywhere, Jet. It would be nice if I were in the IDF or even the Israel Police, much as I despise both. At least there would be a paycheck coming in to pay the bills.

    And that has been hard – very hard.

    Maybe some of the bitterness of sitting in a cold house not knowing when the phone, or cell phone will get cut off is coming out; or maybe it is the white knuckled fear of not knowing where the next shekel will come to pay the rent or taxes; maybe it is the anger at not being able to put sufficient food on the table to feed my wife who MUST eat (I don’t give as damn – I can get by on coffee and pure nerve, fatso that I am), seeing as she has diabetes and must control her sugar and not succumb to diabetic shock. Maybe it is the anger of sitting in a freezing house without electricity (for non-payment) for a few days. Maybe it is my anger at the pathetic way the Israeli bureaucracy functions here.

    I’m not sure.

    What I’ve gone through is nothing like the bitter cup of gall you have drunk over these last few years, nothing like the threats to your life you’ve faced and faced down. But it has not been pleasant at all. And it gets less pleasant by the day. And there is no refuge for us in a country like the United States, which is collapsing as I speak. Besides, I’d be a total idiot to turn my back on the G-d of Israel over something so small as a shekel.

    I could go on – but why should I bore you. All of us have troubles and they are all hard.

    Don’t judge me by my opinions, Jet, little as you may like them. I’m being proven right, and it is no fun at all; the proof is the source of only further worry and pain. You seem to forget. My family and my wife’s family lives in America.

    If you have lost respect for me, it is your loss, not mine. I pity you.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Makes what look so good Andy?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Ruvy, I’m not “judging” you by your opinions, I’m taking issue with the way you’ve expressed them lately

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    That reminds me I still owe Doc an article on my desk…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jet, does your article expose the real reason why male emperor penguins spend all that time huddled closely together during the long Antarctic winter?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Yes

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    that gray lettering of yours Jet…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jet and Ruvy’s latest spat reminds me of a little factoid I’ve learned recently while listening to the radio over the holiday period.

    I’ve always thought that the state of Israel was a republic. It turns out that not only is Israel a constitutional monarchy but also that its current monarch is, for some reason, Swedish.

    I’m surprised no-one else has heard about this – it’s been all over the airwaves:

    “Bjorn is the King of Israel”.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I went to the article that you cited.

    Lets move on.

  • Zedd

    Folks, Jet, et al

    Don’t delude yourselves into thinking that my posts on this topic are about religion, they are not.

    My posts are not about gay rights, so don’t claim bigotry either. I am for gay rights.

    Expanding the definition of marriage could have far reaching consequences. We need marriage. If it is in trouble we need as a society work to support it and find ways to make it successful instead of throwing out hands up. Our children are our only future. Much like our concern about global warming and sensitivity to how our choices have impacted the ecosystem, a fundamental structure for the sustenance of our planet, marriage is crucial in sustaining our species. It has to be revered by everyone gay or not gay. We all come from males and females no matter how we view or sexual proclivity and a lot of our challenges come from how those males and females related (or didn’t relate) to us and each other. Plain and simple. Let’s stop trying to be right for the sake of being right. Lets stop trying to be good lefties by supporting everything that SOUNDS like a left issue.

    Yes support a fair legislation that allows all adults to configure the relationships that they choose to have in the way that they choose, period. Some people may not even choose to have a romantic relationship ever but may need to have a partner for economic reasons and support purposes. Two single parents may choose to join assets for the purpose of raising their children….

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    The discussion about the penguins has already taken place here. We never determined that they got married or that the hetero ones were married either. I think they were all shaking up.

    I know Christopher Rose will blow a gasket, but the penguins are irrelevant to this discussion. There I said it. I would explain how they are not relevant in this discussion but I don’t want his little mind to explode. I’m sure his brain is swimming with confusion and disillusionment. There there Chris. The Queen is on TV, explaining the world to you as I type. I’m sure you’ll feel better and more enlightened. She is spending your pounds well.

    Some apes throw dung at each other. SO!

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I read a lot of meanness from you fellows. You guys really get on each other. There is a lot of cursing and bathroom references simply because someone has a different opinion.

    If I recall, the kindest and most expected thing that should be stated when one is having a dialogue or arguing a point is that their point isn’t well reasoned. Help me out with this. You gents would rather that I curse at you and make erroneous claims about your affiliations in order to argue my point. It to me is pointless and gets off the subject. I enjoy learning, especially from people that I disagree with. I ask Dan(M) questions because he seems to enjoy reason and really like answers. We disagree on a few things but if he had a point, I would be thrilled by that AND feel as if I have grown and learned something. But if you spew garbage and think that by being yappy and rude it makes your point meaningful, that off course is silly and since we are in a dialogue, it should be said so the person can pull themselves together, regroup and come up with some real points.

    I know your a liberal so no one is stupid. They just need a hug.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    My posts are not about gay rights, so don’t claim bigotry either. I am for gay rights.

    I know that, Zedd. I’m with you so far – much as some here see you as a hater. But…

    Expanding the definition of marriage could have far reaching consequences.

    So could the election of Barack Obama to the United States presidency. So could the buying and selling decisions of any given Wall Street trader. So could my deciding to get out of bed this morning and go to work. Well?

    We need marriage. If it is in trouble we need as a society work to support it and find ways to make it successful instead of throwing out hands up.

    So expanding it to encompass people who are currently denied it but might be able to make a go of it isn’t a good idea why?

    Our children are our only future. […] marriage is crucial in sustaining our species.

    Absolutely and demonstrably wrong, as numerous young people I know who were born out of wedlock can tell you. Do grasshoppers, geese and chipmunks get married? But I do applaud your passion for the subject.

    Yes support a fair legislation that allows all adults to configure the relationships that they choose to have in the way that they choose, period. Some people may not even choose to have a romantic relationship ever but may need to have a partner for economic reasons and support purposes. Two single parents may choose to join assets for the purpose of raising their children….

    You drift close to the crucial point here, and to recognizing the fluid nature of ‘marriage’. You’re steadfast in your insistence that by definition, gays can’t form a marriage… but what IS marriage? History shows us that it’s many things. It’s not always the sealing of a romantic attraction, as just about anyone who did the deed prior to about 1830 could testify. It’s not always about assets: neither of the people I have tied the knot with had a square inch of property to their names. It’s not always about the raising of children: millions of childless couples and the aforementioned berdache marriages testify to that.

    And it’s not always about two people who mechanically can’t reproduce pledging a lifelong bond. So why can’t it ever be about that?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    BTW, I can’t believe no-one has said anything yet about my #121. Not even a single measly piece of rotten fruit. And that was one of my best ones as well…

    [shuffles off into corner to sulk]

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Is someone hinting he needs a tender hug?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Re:124 Fine, you don’t want me to write about the penguins, I won’t write about the penguins, I know when you want me to stop talking about dumb penquins, I’m no fool-fine everyone can whine at you for ruining my article about the penguins because they were interested and then you ruined it. (snif) I don’t have anything to do for Christmas now thanks to you, but if you don’t want me to write about penguins and that you think it’s bold news, heaven forbid that you should get bored. Gad’s there’s nothing in this world that’s more dangersous than a bored woman. I can write about something else, I can take a hint, you don’t want penguins, you don’t get penguins, but all those poor people that were looking forward to the article about the penguins will have you to blame. you don’t want me to write about the penguins, I won’t write about the penguins, I know when you want me to stop talking about dumb penquins, I’m no fool-fine everyone can whine at you for ruining my article about the penguins because they were interested and then you ruined it. (snif) I don’t have anything to do for Christmas now thanks to you, but if you don’t want me to write about penguins and that you think it’s bold news, heaven forbid that you should get bored. Gad’s there’s nothing in this world that’s more dangersous than a bored woman. I can write about something else, I can take a hint, you don’t want penguins, you don’t get penguins, but all those poor people that were looking forward to the article about the penguins will have you to blame.you don’t want me to write about the penguins, I won’t write about the penguins, I know when you want me to stop talking about dumb penquins, I’m no fool-fine everyone can whine at you for ruining my article about the penguins because they were interested and then you ruined it. (snif) I don’t have anything to do for Christmas now thanks to you, but if you don’t want me to write about penguins and that you think it’s bold news, heaven forbid that you should get bored. Gad’s there’s nothing in this world that’s more dangersous than a bored woman. I can write about something else, I can take a hint, you don’t want penguins, you don’t get penguins, but all those poor people that were looking forward to the article about the penguins will have you to blame.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    A gay penguin couple at Polar Land in Harbin, China, were so desperate for kids that they stole eggs from other penguins until zookeepers eventually gave the couple some eggs. Not only did the handsome couple succesfully hatch the eggs, they actually turned out to be the best parents in the entire zoo.

    “We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they’ve turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo,” said one of the keepers. “It’s very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination.”

    Wildlife experts at the park explain that despite being gay the three-year-old male birds are still driven by an urge to be fathers. “One of the responsibilities of being a male adult is looking after the eggs. Despite the fact that they can’t have eggs naturally, it does not take away their biological drive to be a parent,” said one of the experts.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I think some of you are in rebellion mode against your own parents and think that by saying up yours to marriage it some how shows them something. The perpetual adolescence of the Boomers has done a number on our society. J…K…

    As to animals…. all creatures have their distinct structures. It’s those structures (cultures) that sustain them. For us for instance, all shrinks will want to talk to you about your parenting. Your relationship with your bio parents even if you are adopted. They understand how that relationship or lack thereof shapes us. We can pretend that single parenting is fine and that since its been done that its okay for us to make it a norm; that its okay for us to get some guy to donate his sperm so that two moms can parent a child and if they divorce they can have other steps who may be of another gender or the same. WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? Having kids is not like buying a new toy. You don’t get to have one because you would like to take a whack at having one of those. You have to create a world that is the best for nurturing that person. For us to legislate towards a world where the parental structure for kids WILL be willy nilly, what roll of a dice are we making? We have absolutely no way of calculating the subsequent effects to humanity because of these decisions. We are a selfish generation and we feel that if we want it, we should have it even if its not for us. We love to pose. We love to fit into a picture as if we will be more substantiated once we look like a certain picture. Kids are the accessory to this picture. Being married is the backdrop to the photo. We refuse to accept that somethings are just NO if you make certain choices. As a result we divorce, we over spend, we over eat because we don’t accept “NO that’s not for you, period”.

    You see the marriage thing for gays has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with gays wanting to be accepted. Unfortunately there is no law that is going to provide that acceptance. Gays want to be THOUGHT of as the same as heteros. Here goes, they are not. People don’t want to play at this. It’s crazy. Two guys are two guys. You can never get past that. People don’t want to appease just for the sake of people feeling good. I’m guessing that some of the anger against this has to do with the ridiculousness of this request and claiming that those who don’t go along mindlessly are bigoted. I would love it if everyone called me tall. I am not. Yes tall people are thought to be sexier and get more attention or have more authority. I cant be a brat and call for the abolishment of the term tall or the neutralization of that word. I’m not tall. Too bad! I’ve got to love my short cute figure and wear high heels a lot, which I do. Luckily I don’t look short so no one ever knows until I tell them my height… but enough about me….

    If someone feels gay and they feel as though they can’t marry, then WONDERFUL. They have exercised their freedom and made a choice not to marry. The one thing that stops them from marrying is their not wanting to. They prefer not to. That’s it. The freedom exists and democracy works.

    Like everything that is available out there, I don’t participate because I choose not to. It ain’t for me. It’s not my thing. I can’t say because its not my thing that the definition of it must be change so that its definition includes something that I’m into. Rubbish!

    If they want to build a life with a person of the same gender, then YEAH, do so. Get all of the kinship rights and live YOUR life. Don’t try to force people to like you or accept you by using the government. Get your rights then suck it up like every other minority and wait for people to accept you or stuff them if you like. Making society to scrap marriage and turn it into something else in order to make you feel like part of the gang is similar to what spoiled brats do.

    People who use wheelchairs have gotten laws past to make buildings wheelchair accessible. They did not force society to call ramps stairs. They are not.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    You and I know that when I couple gets married EVEN NOW, people ask how many kids they want to have and if you say none, people give you an “oh”.

    Lets not pretend as if we live in another reality. Perhaps your world and family configuration is different and yes mine is to (its not traditional by any means) but we know the norms of our greater society. Lets not fain ignorance just to make a point.

    Barren couples in history were always pitied. Women were often abandoned if they couldn’t produce. Marriage and kids has and does go hand in hand Doc.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Marriage and kids has and does go hand in hand Doc.

    OK, one more time:

    1. Not always.
    2. Gay couples can and do raise children.

    Merry Christmas, Zedd.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I have no dog in this race. I’m married, have been for twenty years, we have two boys, thank G-d, and I wish we could have had more kids. But we didn’t. I live in a country where economic rights do not append to married couples, which is the real issue here.

    But you in America DO! And that is the problem. The solution to the problem is to take the economic privileges and rights out of marriages and append them to civil unions, and then get the government the hell out of the marriage business!

    Any couple of consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union. If that couple wants to go to a religious pastor of one variety or another to have that civil union called “marriage” – fine. That is their business. If two gay men want to go to a church and have the pastor call it “marriage”, let them organize such a church if one doesn’t already exist. I believe someone here on this list has done that already.

    But Zedd has driven the point home in her arguments here. Marriage is not the pre-requisite to having children, but it is an institution that can provide for the safety and well-being of those children once born. That is why it has had the special status it has had for millennia. That is why economic privilege appends to it in the United States.

    This does not say that gay people cannot be good parents. This does not say that they might not well be better parents. That is not the issue here. In Jet’s example of the gay penguins, the gay penguins had to steal the eggs of others. They could not produce them on their own. And that is the point! In marriage, hetero-sexual couples produce children!! In the end, after everyone is done with the selfish bullshit about how sex is not for reproduction, but pleasure, the bottom line is this: sex is fun because that is the only way people will consent to the royal pain in the ass that it is to bear, feed, clothe, educate and raise kids! It’s the sweetener on a rough deal that only pays off in twenty years or so – if done right.

    That’s biology.

    It’s basic biology. That anyone should have to explain this to adults shows how stupid that pack of adults is.

    And now, I’m off the soap-box.

    Merry Christmas!

    And a short note to Zedd. Some guys prefer shorter women.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Well, I guess I’ve seen the true colors of a lot of people here tonight, just by laying back and being silent for a change.

    What a Christmas present.

    Merry Christmas to all…

  • STM

    doc: “Bjorn is the King of Israel”.

    Lol. How Swede it is.

    Some of your best work there Doc, even better than the early stuff.

    Is-ray-il? Is he what! Couldn’t hold his head up yesterday, poor bugger.

  • Brunelleschi

    Zedd – “Marriage and kids has and does go hand in hand Doc.”

    Not for everyone. I was married once and we didn’t have kids and don’t have a problem with it. We had a friendly divorce and have become better friends “FWBs.” :)

    It works for us. I never understood anyone else trying to define our relationship or judge it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Zedd – “Marriage and kids has and does go hand in hand Doc.”

    Not for everyone. I was married once and we didn’t have kids and don’t have a problem with it. We had a friendly divorce and have become better friends “FWBs.” :)

    True – not for everyone, Brunelleschi. My first marriage was childless and I’m terribly grateful for that fact. Looking back, I would have been a lousy, selfish and stupid father, and my ex would have been an awful mother.

    We’re not friends. In fact, the farther my ex is from me, the more I like it. One day she invited me out to lunch to give me some kind of news – and after I reacted to the news, we wound up having the same stupid kinds of arguments we used to as man and wife.

    Unlike some, I am not on a crusade to get every couple to have kids either. But generally, I think it is better for a couple to have kids than not, if only for the reason that when you get old, you can look at this kid – now an adult – and hope he doesn’t screw up the way you did. Also, it keeps you young, having to have treats for little tykes screaming, “grampa, look, I can ride the bike with no hands!” (as the bike promptly tips over).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Ruvy,

    I may be tardy, but Happy Hanukkah anyway!

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    I have been in a monogamous relationship for 37 years. Before that, the woman and I lived together with no legal standing, for 4 years, for a total of 41 years of living monogamously.

    Why have I described my marriage that way? Because, according to the way Zedd wants to define gay marriages, I am not, and never have been, married. We were “married” by a notary public (legal in Florida), without benefit of a judge or magistrate, and certainly without benefit of a church or its god, in which neither of us believes.

    By choice, we have no children, so we have none of the criteria Zedd maintains define a marriage (except for being a man and a woman), ergo we’re not married, yet the state and everyone who knows us refers to us as “married.”

    My point (finally!) is that we ARE married, because the state says so; there is NO valid reason put forth by anyone why gays should not be afforded the same status; inability to procreate notwithstanding.

    Nothing is lost by granting the status. Everything is lost (in terms of equality and justice) by not granting it.

  • Cindy D

    Jet!

    I loved your news about the gay penguins. Last night our movie was “Happy Feet”, do you know it? It was so serendipitous.

    Merry Christmas Jet :-)

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Thanks Cindy, robin williams, merry christmas to you too.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Clavos, it terrifies me when I agree with you…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Clav,

    I’ve been married twice and have no kids from either union. And both my marriages were solemnized by religious services. Terrible, terrible.

    As I recall, one of the lines in the Church of England marriage service (under which my first one took place) says something like, “It is given that they may have children” [my emphasis]. May. It’s a choice. There’s no compulsion about it, never mind how ‘expected’ it may be.

    Stan,

    Thanks for the compliment. Also, did you know that not only is the King of Israel Swedish, his prime minister is an Aussie sheila.

    “The First Noelle…”

    OK, that one was a bit more of a stretch. Nevertheless, due to Australia’s uncanny ability to time travel, I hope you’re having a great Boxing Day!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Doc “It is given that they may have children” could be misinterpreted as the omnipotent church giving permission to have kids too.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    Off course not always and not for everyone.

    We are talking about human history and the “norms” (not a value judgement) in our society in general.

    Gays cant HAVE kids. They configure kids for their relationships.

    I really have enjoyed the discussion. Thanks. I hope to do this another on another topic. I think as you’ve said, we are going around in circles now. No new points or revelations are being brought to the fore.

  • Zedd

    Happy Hanukkah

    Merry Christmas

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd, you’re getting suspiciously close to Anita Bryant’s statement that gays are so dangerous because since they can’t have kids, they recruit and kidnap them from playgrounds etc.

    Gays can and do have biological kids. I’ve posted it so many times some here must have it memorized by now.

    A gay couple and a lesbian couple mix their collected sperm and eggs together in a clinic. the lesbians are artificially inseminated. A legal contract is signed that one lesbian will be the mother for “their” children and the other will turn her child over to the gay couple. As the eggs and sperm are mixed, and the clinic agrees not to reveal who’s went where, the children are loved and raised as their own biological children… which they are. This is done as many times as the two couples want, producing a family as viable as any straight’s.

    To go to these lengths a couple must be incredibly sure they love each other and are willing to make a long term commitment. Something straights don’t usually do to that extent.

    The resulting children are adopted by the gay and lesbian parents. this is why so many states are trying to prevent gays from legally adopting their own children.

    An even scarier proceedure to straights are adult gay couples adopting each other for the purpose of permanately establishing estates, inheritances and relationships.

    That’s going to one hell of an extreem, since you can divorce your spouce, out you can’t “unadopt” him/her.

  • Zedd

    Clav,

    If you are willing…. We are about to elevate our dialogue. Please be patient and “hear” me out.

    Your long, monogamous marriage actually supports/ adds significance to this blending of genders which is the cradle of all human existence. Even if you don’t have children, by you remaining together, it sends a signal that this thing that two opposite genders engage has meaning. That this thing which has the power of making humans is very important. So you are inadvertently supporting marriages that do have children and therefore supporting this yin and yang structure which creates, supports and sustains human life physically, psychologically and socially.

    You see, it is no surprise that all relationships are special. They are all relevant and have significance. But this particular type of relationship is most powerful. It creates us and sustains us. So it is the type of relationship that gets the elevated status not what goes on within it.

    As you’ve mentioned before, marriage was not for love in the past, it was for it’s own sake. If a gay person wants to have this relationship they can. They have for centuries. Gays have married and had children. They even loved their wives (husbands) and may have even been soul mates but they preferred the opposite gender. They can partake in this unique relationship. Because society has opened up, they have a choice not to.

    People who are asexual have and do participate in this special relationship. They have a choice not to however. Yes it has status, but it is their choice to gain that status or to pursue other things that have other types of status.

    Many women (mostly) who raise kids choose not to pursue careers and not gain the status of being a high powered, respected professional. They choose not to engage knowing that their job is more important but that it ain’t gonna get you any glory, not even from your kids. They can’t request legislation to change the title of “Stay at Home Mom” to “Doctor” because they have chosen to engage in what they love, which has a lower status in our society.

    Marriage is a status position because it is powerful. It is tough but it gets you certain props in probably all societies. However just because I want that status, I cant ask for it to be changed to accommodate me because I don’t want to engage in it as it is.

    I don’t want to re-marry, however I feel a tinge when I have to check single. Especially because I’m raising my kids. I think people with think I’m “one of those Black women”…. My story is very unique and how I became a single mom is certainly very unique but, I am. Now I could complain that it makes me feel bad that I don’t have the status of a married woman and try to force society to reconfigure its institutions to accommodate my self consciousness. It would be silly. My hubby passed and left me two lovely children who I raise and love intensely as if they came out of my very own tummy. Too bad for me. It just is.

  • Cindy D

    Zedd,

    I have news for you. You are “one of those Black women”.

    “My story is very unique…”

    Zedd, whose story is not unique?

    Zedd this is disappointing. It makes me sad to hear you say those things. I hope this is a protective attitude. I hope you have not actually internalized those stereotypes. They disparage women.

    Merry Christmas Zedd.

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    I think we are all aware that anyone who is “fertile” can have a kid. Please help! Christopher Rose doesn’t want me to say that you are off topic or that your contribution is base and adds nothing to the dialogue at hand so I wont. You sir have offered a nugget of major import. You have enlightened the whole of the world. We now know that a woman can get pregnant even if she is not married. We now know that all of those gay people with kids did not make them as a couple. Thanks Jet!

    Your fantasy about my hating gays will remain just that, your fantasy. If you need it to make your life more meaningful then languish in it. Replay it over and over again. I just wish you didn’t feel that way. Is it based on reality? No. But if that tidbit of fact is irrelevant to you then weeeee, away you go to your fantasy of mistreatment, disdain and demonetization. I just wish you wouldn’t feel that way. But I’m guessing you like it a little. The drama serves you in some way. So curtains up….

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd you’re so full of BS-explain you remark-“Gays cant HAVE kids. They configure kids for their relationships.”

    That’s one of the most base and bullshit remarks I’ve read so far, and for me not to answer it would be irresponsible.

    DON’T PUT YOUR STUPID AND ILL-ADVISED LABELS ON ME. Or so help me I’ll throw a few back at you that’ll stick.

  • STM

    Doc: “The First Noelle…”

    Lol. What a classic. I don’t think our yank friends will get that one, though.

    Yes … it is Boxing Day here already. I am just about to go to work, contemplating going the back way down freeway and through the tunnel because the harbour bridge will be packed with gibberers watching the start of the Sydney-Hobart yacht race.

    Hope you guys have all had a great Chrissie.

  • Cindy D

    …to say that you are off topic or that your contribution is base and adds nothing to the dialogue at hand so I wont.

    Sounds just like LSW. Maybe it’s a club.

  • Zedd

    Cindy D,

    I am not sure why you are disappointed You don’t know my entire story but it is VERY unique. Why that fact should bother you is a mystery. It is quite different from the norm. The fact that it is unique is MY challenge to live with and not your experience to decide its worthiness of relevance or whether it gives you joy or disappointment. I am confused by your offense. I hate what makes my experience different but it is, VERY different. Too bad for me but I suck it up and move on. What you have to do with it is bizarre. I think you have read much too much into what I said.

    You obviously don’t know what I meant by “one of those Black women”. I meant that there are stereotypical images of welfare single moms who have several babies’ daddies. Cindy, the stereotype etched as part of our culture. You know and we all know it. You are not Black so you don’t understand having to always prove that you are not like those images on TV so my rationale escaped you. Sorry it offends you that we HAVE to live like this and we have to think about such things but it is just the way it is. Every Black person has the burden of convincing society that they are not the stereotype. Again, I’m sorry that disappoints you, but it’s not about you.

    I envy the benefit of your naivety about my challenges but I am not complaining cause it just too bad, for me. It’s life. It’s my journey, my challenge and nothing is promised to me so I move on. We all do.

    It would have been better if you had asked me what I meant by my statement instead of taking it to be YOUR personal offense.

    I hope you didn’t start ticking because i am not spouting the standard liberal line. Cindy I wont do that. I’m hoping egg nog is to blame some how. We care about the polar bears and the melting ice caps but we don’t care about something as fundamental as marriage, having no idea what will happen to our society as a result.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd should self-righteously judge not, lest she be judged herself as a name-calling hypocrit.

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    If you weren’t so precious I would go off on you. But you are so adorable and blond. You don’t get anything that I am saying. You never got what Ruvy was saying all along and you are just now being shocked. Its precious.

    I have nothing against you or gays. You can stop with the attacks. They don’t fit the situation or the discussion.

    By the way, just curious, I saw your pic on your site. Are you Native American or Asian or what exactly?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I’m neither precious nor blond, which goes to prove how you’re guilty of the very crimes you accuse me of, ergo judging someone without the slightest idea of whom your judging.

    As a matter of fact I’m 3/4 white, 1/8 black and 1/8 Iroquois Indian, none of which is all that important to me as I consider myself a man first, and don’t have to now, nor will I ever have to justify myself to you.

    unlike you, I don’t feel the need to hide behind my skin.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    And just to clarify further, I’m not a white American, nor a native american, nor an afro-American…

    If anything I consider myself an American-Gay, because unlike you I consider myself an American first.

  • Cindy D

    Zedd,

    I meant that there are stereotypical images of welfare single moms who have several babies’ daddies. Cindy, the stereotype etched as part of our culture.

    It is indoctrinated into our culture.

    You know and we all know it.

    Of course I know it Zedd. That was my point. You obviously buy it. As hard as it is for me to believe, you think you are above them, those other single moms who don’t have your “special”, “unique” history.

    You are not Black so you don’t understand having to always prove that you are not like those images on TV…

    Zedd, no I’m not black. But I do understand what it’s like to have been young and damaged by not fitting in. I went to 14 different schools by H.S. graduation. Being new and timid all the time in the hostile world schools can be isn’t much fun at that age. Most of us have had some sort of experience with painful judgment by others as children and teens.

    Some people deal with it by growing up and learning to say, “FUCK YOU!” to the people who seem to demand “proof” of one’s value as human beings. Some people uplift those others whose have been unjustly damaged by such brutal, ignorant attitudes. And maybe some people internalize those stereotypes. Maybe they have never gotten over the damage those stereotypes can do to one’s psyche. Maybe they come to believe them.

    I am not offended Zedd. Disappointed and saddened is not offended. Maybe I am even annoyed or pissed off or maybe I might understand. I’m not criticizing your own journey. I’m just wondering why you would leave that label intact on other women–why you can’t realize that maybe “they” who are stereotyped don’t necessarily fit the stereotype either. Every person has a story Zedd. There are no illegitimate people.

    And by the way, if you put it out there, I have a right to judge it.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Cindy, a brick wall is still a brick wall, no matter if it’s pretty new brick, or has been painted black a bunch of times to hide and distract the imperfections on the surface.

    All in all, you’re still talking to a brick wall.

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    I’m sorry you had those experiences.

    “As hard as it is for me to believe, you think you are above them, those other single moms who don’t have your “special”, “unique” history.”

    You got it all wrong. I have not internalized anything. We all want to be seen as who we are and not some stereotype which doesn’t fit us in any way. For us (Black folk) there are a lot of them and we duck them regularly. It’s not because we have internalized anything. It’s just a way of life. Me not wanting to be perceived as someone I am not is not a bad thing. I am not that thing. AND YES CINDY it is bad to go around having babies with different men. While most Black women don’t go around doing that, many single parents who are Black are perceived to be those women. I am in no solidarity with everyone who is Black and making poor life choices and especially being irresponsible to their children. I don’t think I am better then them but I sure as heck am not like them and see no reason why I should want to claim their lifestyle.

    It’s like me chastising you for not wanting people to think you are a thief, when you are not a thief.

    I forgot to say Merry Christmas earlier.

    Merry Christmas Cindy D

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    Bless you. What to say….?

    Okay whatever you say Jet.

  • Zedd

    Cindy D

    If you knew the work that I do you would understand that I live my life uplifting those who have been injured by society, especially in that way. I never, ever think children are illegitimate. I love and have loved children who are labeled as such for over 20yrs.

    Looks like you made some assumptions about me that were wrong.

    You know its difficult to pick up tone and inflection from these posts and sometimes those clues can change how we perceived what is being said.

  • Cindy D

    You’re right Jet. That why I hesitated to get into the gay thing with Zedd this round.

    When someone is stuck on justifying, sometimes they’re just stuck.

  • Cindy D

    Zedd,

    I was talking about illegitimate people in general, not illegitimate children.

    I am in no solidarity with everyone who is Black and making poor life choices and especially being irresponsible to their children. I don’t think I am better then them but I sure as heck am not like them and see no reason why I should want to claim their lifestyle.

    So you only judge women you personally know? I mean whose circumstances and life history you know? That is the way you know they are irresponsible and making bad choices for their children? How many women do you personally know like that?

  • Cindy D

    For us (Black folk) there are a lot of them and we duck them regularly. It’s not because we have internalized anything.

    Nothing at all?

    It’s just a way of life.

    This need to justify oneself to the judgment of others is just a sort of spontaneous way of life that developed out of thin air?

    Me not wanting to be perceived as someone I am not is not a bad thing.

    If you are not a thing. Then you are not a thing. You know who you are. Perceived by whom?

  • Zedd

    Cindy D,

    “When someone is stuck on justifying, sometimes they’re just stuck.”

    I’m hoping you haven’t been reading the dialogue because “justifying” doesn’t suite what the conversation has been taking place, at least not on my end. There is nothing to justify. Its a strange request, if we look at it soberly, without “the supposed to” lense. This topic is just as ridiculous and potentially harmful if not more than the rights’s deregulation of financial industry and their infusion of religion into politics. They thought their fantasy shangri la about market forces, untested, SHOULD work. Some of us thought, what about human nature and greed? What about history? We are now reaping the consequences and there is nothing that anyone can do to reverse what’s happened. The right is moving on like they did nothing, pointing fingers in every direction, and people are loosing their homes and jobs left right and center.

    In this case people are going blindly because they think it SHOULD work out. It sounds nice, a Shangri La of love (off course being the left). We are completely ignoring some very fundamental things about the role of the institution in our sustenance as a species (a tiny thing). We will see the impact. Being liberal does not make one immune from advocating stupid, ill considered ideas. We will have our turn at the dunce seat.

  • Zedd

    Cindy D,

    Your advice on how I should cope in our racist world is sweet. I would have to write an article if not a book to give you an idea of what I was saying and why I was saying it, since it didn’t come across when you first read my post.

    I will assume that much of the “confusion” or “disappointment” has to do with your frustration about my position on gay marriage. You don’t like it and you are exasperated.

    I stayed away from this topic for a year and I have chosen to engage with Doc because he has been engaging, fair and thoughtful. We were able to have a good dialogue. I actually understand the other side’s argument better, even though I think it has no weight. Responding back and forth to statements about whether I think gays can give birth to children or if I believe in or understand love or that penguins in a European zoo copulate… is deflating and exhausting.

    —————————————————————
    Repost of #168
    Cindy D,

    “When someone is stuck on justifying, sometimes they’re just stuck.”

    I’m hoping you haven’t been reading the dialogue because “justifying” doesn’t suite the conversation has been taking place, at least not on my end. There is nothing to justify. The request for people of the same gender to be considered in the same type of relationship as a male and female in marriage is a strange request, if we look at it soberly, without “the supposed to” lense. This topic is just as ridiculous and potentially harmful if not more than the rights’s deregulation of financial industry and their infusion of religion into politics. They thought their fantasy Shangri La about market forces, untested, SHOULD work. Some of us thought, what about human nature and greed? What about history? We are now reaping the consequences and there is nothing that anyone can do to reverse what’s happened. The right is moving on like they did nothing, pointing fingers in every direction, and people are loosing their homes and jobs left right and center.

    In this case people are going blindly because they think it SHOULD work out. It sounds nice, a Shangri La of love (off course being the left). We are completely ignoring some very fundamental things about the role of the institution in our sustenance as a species (a tiny thing). We will see the impact. Being liberal does not make one immune from advocating stupid, ill considered ideas. We will have our turn at the dunce seat.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    The comical part is she actually believes that people are reading those illadvised and inaccurate sermons.

    I wonder if she actually uses the speaker part of her phone? Obviously she doesn’t care what anyone else thinks or says, as long as she gets her opinion out, we all just stop… and don’t dare breath until she’s done Proselytizing.

  • Zedd

    Jet,

    What the hell are you talking about now?

    We are all posting what we think. That is the idea. Look this is not the black top and trying to make the kids at recess jump on one kid doesn’t suite an adult setting.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I think she’s lecturing on the proper way to post comments on this website, I’m not sure I didn’t get past the 2nd paragraph before I went on to more interesting stuff.

    She is cute though isn’t she? the way she just passes judgment on everything and everyone assuming we’ve given her the right to do so.

    Judge Judy may have competition!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    “jump on one kid doesn’t suite an adult setting.”
    ????????????

  • Cindy D

    Zedd,

    I stayed away from this topic for a year…

    You’re kidding Zedd, have I been here that long?

    I don’t remember when I came here. I feel like one of those characters on that Twilight Zone Episode. The one where they wake up in a box and there’s nothing else around. A soldier, a ballerina, etc.

    Anyone remember that one?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    By Rebecca Sinderbrand
    CNN

    (CNN) — A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas — which included a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — was clearly intended as a joke.

    The title of the song about President-elect Barack Obama was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column.

    “I think most people recognize political satire when they see it,” Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. “I think RNC members understand that.”

    The song, set to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon,” was first played on conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in 2007

  • Cindy D

    Zedd,

    It must be tough to be an oppressor. You must be exhausted.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    From Zedds comment #168 “and their infusion of religion into politics

    Isn’t denying gays the right to marry the same thing? Infusing religion into politics? I mean, let’s be real here, what is marriage, but a sacrament of the church?

    Most if not all of the people I know who are against same sex marriage are against it on moral grounds and those moral grounds are based on religious teachings.

    Zedd is the ONLY liberal I’ve ever met that’s against same sex marriage! Not a very liberal or progressive point of view IMO.

    Does it hurt to be so personally contradictory Zedd?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Andy: Zedd is the ONLY liberal I’ve ever met that’s against same sex marriage!

    Oh, I know several. But you’re right: those ‘liberals’ I know who are against it are invariably opposed on religious grounds.

    Zedd’s a curiosity. She is, I believe, a person of faith, but her opposition to gay marriage doesn’t seem to arise from that so much as ‘pick a position, stick with it no matter what’. So off-the-wall are her arguments that I’m not even sure if it really is her true position or just the one she’s been assigned to defend on the forensics team.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zedd’s back has to be sore from kissing her own ass