Gay Conservatives Denied ‘Official’ Spot at Texas GOP Convention

From KUT in Austin I heard the following.

The Texas Republican Party has denied the Log Cabin Republicans a space at next week’s state convention. Log Cabin Republicans represent gay conservatives and supporters of marriage equality in the party.

Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Gregory Angelo says the state party denied the group’s application for a booth at the convention because, as homosexuals, they disagree with a plank in the party platform. The plank reads, in part, that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.”

“It was our obligation to let the voters of Texas know and to let members of the Republican Party in Texas know that that language is in the party platform and it is being used to intentionally exclude gay Republicans from formal participation in the state GOP convention,” Angelo says.

A state party is not purely a private club.  We learned that early in the civil rights struggles for black Texans.  In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a 1923 Texas state law that had delegated authority to state conventions of political parties to make rules for their primaries. It ruled that the law violated the protections of the Constitution because the state allowed a discriminatory rule (no “negroes”) to be established by the Democratic Party.  However, homosexuals are not being excluded here per se – in fact, the Log Cabin Rs who were elected delegates will be in attendance and will be voting.  They will not be allowed a “booth”.

My own view of this bolded language in the Texas Republican platform is that it is wrong as a matter of fact and deeply prejudiced as a matter of practice. It is prejudiced as a matter of practice because no individual homosexual could be judged upon her own gifts and graces if her self-identification as a homosexual tears at the fabric of society.

The plank will not scare off any Rs in TX.  Those who disagree with it will think it is a low priority and those who agree with it will strongly approve.  There is a difference of enthusiasm here.

QB noted those of us who don’t think consenting private sexual conduct is a moral issue do so by reason of a libertarian slant.  He made the case that while he did not believe there should be legal consequences for CPA sex, same sex marriage was not itself private conduct.  This plank morally condemns private conduct and, I think, even status.  While codifying this moral condemnation into law is not a requisite, I think it would be a natural result, because it happened historically.

Imagine yourself on the platform committee of the Texas Republican Party.  Do you vote for or against this plank?  Do you argue for or against it, and if you do, do you argue on moral or political grounds?  Do you think it is an important plank or a throwaway?

 

 

 

 

243 Responses

  1. There are a lot of oddly specific statements in that platform. I’m curious about the opposition to a “federal corridor” through the state for a highway as being some sort of assault on the sovereignty of the state.

    There also seems to be a fair amount of religious inspired language in this document including the phrase:

    As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles…

    Must be those Texas mandated textbooks.

    Like

  2. Let them do what the majority wants to do.

    Can you imagine a community wanting to be able to decide what should be in the textbooks their kids read. Christ what rubes.

    Like

  3. Mark:

    This plank morally condemns private conduct and, I think, even status.

    What is wrong with morally condemning private conduct, if one think it is morally condemnable?

    While codifying this moral condemnation into law is not a requisite, I think it would be a natural result, because it happened historically.

    That seems highly unlikely to me. At this point political expressions of opposition to homosexuality almost certainly derive from opposition to the granting of special state recognition (SSM) and protections (see the cake story) of homosexuality, not a desire to impose special restrictions on homosexuals.

    Do you vote for or against this plank?

    I vote against it.

    Do you argue for or against it, and if you do, do you argue on moral or political grounds?

    I argue against it on political grounds.

    Do you think it is an important plank or a throwaway?

    I think it is a distraction from far more important things.

    Like

    • Mark:

      The rest of that particular plank confirms what I said above about what is driving it.

      Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

      BTW, I think we here at ATIM should avoid the politically inspired euphemisms of the left and the false framing that they are intended to convey. You said:

      Log Cabin Republicans represent gay conservatives and supporters of marriage equality in the party.

      They are not supporters of “marriage equality”. They are supporters of re-defining marriage to mean something other than what it has always meant.

      Like

      • Good speech by Mark Steyn. Skip the intro BS and start at the 11 minute mark.

        Like

      • KUT said
        Log Cabin Republicans represent gay conservatives and supporters of marriage equality in the party.

        I merely quoted.

        I don’t typically use the word “gay” as short hand for “homosexual” simply because I am old enough that it means “happy” to me, as in “gay divorcee”. I don’t typically use the phrase “marriage equality” because that connotes the older idea that the married partners are equals, which is part of Texas’ community property system. In short, I am too old for the word play, but I might use it in conversation with another individual who was using it to mean SSM just to facilitate conversation. It would still seem alien to me.
        Scott, beyond the potential that linguistic corruption leads to confusion I think that we all are adult enough to accept that framing is what advocates for a position do, and that we need not be unduly concerned that we haven’t editorialized on every attempt at framing that we read every minute of every day. An occasional reminder of “framing” language is certainly in order, of course.

        Brent, I understand your position loud and clear because it takes no explaining to me.

        I am astonished that anyone would try to compel a bakery to make a cake against its wishes unless that were the only bakery in town, because the other economic fact is that driving more business to a competitor would be the normal way we make effective decisions in a free country.

        QB, do you actually believe that there are no conservative hedonists or perverts? Do you truly believe that political philosophy trumps lack of character? Finally, we again disagree that homosexual acts are necessarily either perverse or hedonistic. A lot of heterosexual acts are kinky as well, but for me only the compelled, the sado-masochistic, the adult-child, the bestial, and perhaps some other none CPA sex acts are perverse, and only the seeking of gratification or release in such immoderation as to cause harm, or with disregard for the feelings or health of the partner rates as immoral hedonism, which I distinguish from the genral philosophy of hedonism, not much of which is what most people are talking about when they use “hedonist” as an insult.

        Which long winded response comes back to Scott: my description of the language as a moral judgment is correct. As you can see, it is not my moral judgment, for the reasons I expressed.

        Like

        • FWIW: I think the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is derived not from biblical or prior enlightenment texts, but from Epicurus, and is essentially Hedonist. It is based on the assumption that pleasure can be pursued without inflicting pain on others and that everyone can do it.

          Is the abuse of the word “hedonist” a framing or a linguistic obfuscation issue, Scott?

          Like

        • Mark:

          I think the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is derived not from biblical or prior enlightenment texts, but from Epicurus, and is essentially Hedonist.

          There is some debate about the derivation of the phrase, but I think most people attribute it to Locke. And it isn’t Hedonist at all. Hedonism argues that pleasure is the only or most important intrinsic good. It takes quite a stretch to think Jefferson’s phrase means that.

          BTW, I believe that Epicurus argued for abstaining from physical desires like sex.

          Is the abuse of the word “hedonist” a framing or a linguistic obfuscation issue, Scott?

          It would depend on the context, obviously.

          Like

        • Hedonism argues that pleasure is the only or most important intrinsic good.

          Grossly oversimplified as “only” and missing the corrollary of minimizing pain as most important.

          You are right about Locke. Who got the idea from Epicurus. Really.

          As I wrote that I was blanking on Locke. My recollection is that Epicurus is one source for the phrase “All Things in Moderation” and that he counseled avoidance of the pursuit of raw sensuality and avoidance of gluttony in much the same terms.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Grossly oversimplified…

          Well, yes. I was writing a blog comment, not a book.

          This was Locke on the pursuit of happiness:

          The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.

          That is not a call to hedonism, at least as the word is commonly used and understood today.

          Like

        • Mark:

          I merely quoted.

          Apologies…I thought they were your words.

          Scott, beyond the potential that linguistic corruption leads to confusion I think that we all are adult enough to accept that framing is what advocates for a position do, and that we need not be unduly concerned that we haven’t editorialized on every attempt at framing that we read every minute of every day.

          In this case, Mark, the framing assumes as a premise the very thing for which it is arguing. That ought to be opposed in any and all arguments about anything, all the time. And given that this is a favorite (and successful) rhetorical strategy of the political left on topic after topic, yes I will point it out every time I see it employed, especially here.

          Which long winded response comes back to Scott: my description of the language as a moral judgment is correct.

          Of course it is a moral judgement. But what you said suggested to me that you objected to the presence of the moral judgement qua moral judgement. I understand where you are coming from if you say “I object to that moral judgment because I think it is wrong.” I do not understand if you say “I object to that moral judgment because it is a moral judgment.”

          Like

  4. I not only deplore and condemn use of the propaganda term “marriage equality” but will no longer use “gay.” I refuse any longer to concede an inch of rhetorical ground to this pernicious movement. I will not allow the radicals and totalitarians of this movement to police my thoughts or language by claiming to be offended by appropriate and factual words.

    There by definition is no such thing as a conservative who aligns with the homosexual normalization movement. They should find or form their own party to promote perversion and hedonism as a philosophy.

    The Texas plank states the truth. In a platform that attempts to comprehensively address important issues of the day, it is completely appropriate. This is one of the most important issues in society today, and there is a compelling need for statements of moral and factual clarity about it. Bravo Texas GOP.

    Neither homosexual behavior nor attraction is a “status” having any constitutional significance. Desires and lusts are not “identity.”

    I don’t presently favor criminalization of the behavior, but the behavior in fact has significant and serious (including mortal) public health impacts. It kills people, including innocents. As I have studied and learned more, I have actually become more aware of this, more aware of the establishment censorship and propaganda effort to conceal it, and more sympathetic to legal responses.

    Let the venting of outrage commence.

    Like

    • qb:

      This is one of the most important issues in society today, and there is a compelling need for statements of moral and factual clarity about it.

      Which issue specifically do you think is one of the most important? The normalization of homosexuality more generally, the redefinition of marriage, or something else?

      I think the re-definition of marriage is actually a very important issue, but mostly because it is the cause of the further corruption of both federalism and the legal system. I think the cultural normalization of homosexuality is less important, primarily because, it not actually being normal, whatever effects it has will be mostly at the margins. I understand the argument that these attempts at normalization, especially in the form of re-defining what marriage means, has negative effects on what has been the basic building block of successful societies forever, namely the family unit. But to whatever extent those arguments are true, I think it is just a continuation of something that is happening due to far greater forces at work, which are more fundamental and deserve much greater attention/opposition.

      Like

  5. I vote against the plank, but that is an easy vote for me since I am a Libtertarian and don’t have any issues with homosexuality or gay marriage. For me, I just don’t care about it either way.

    I do it out of political, not moral considerations. Like I said, I don’t really care about the issue one way or the other, but I recognize the country is becoming accepting of the concept and the left uses it as a club to beat us over the head. Yes, it will piss off social conservatives,but so what? Are they going to vote for democrats who are busily working out the particulars of which bathrooms drag queens get to use?

    To me, it is a throwaway plank, but then again as a Libertarian the issue doesn’t resonate with me one way or the other. I am much more concerned about limited government and economic growth, so my concern with gay marriage etc begins and ends with the question of whether it helps or hurts my side.

    Like

  6. Like

  7. My my my.

    The notion that there is an eternally fixed notion of marriage is risible. Bigamy has ancient roots, so the restriction of marriage to one man and one woman must be a modern federalist urge. Just ask 19th century Mormons (as well as a sizable minority who still practice plural marriage). Utah was prevented from assuming statehood until the official church position eliminated this practice.

    Out of curiosity, since “gay” is no longer a permissible term and “homosexual” is inadequate (lesbians are homosexual), what term would you prefer to use for a male homosexual? I suspect a reference to firewood is a regular part of the vocabulary.

    I’m also curious about this behavior being one that kills people. I presume this is a reference to HIV. In which case, heterosexuality kills people (and innocents). It would be preferable from a public health perspective to limit sexual activity other than for the purposes of procreation to same sex female relationships.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      The notion that there is an eternally fixed notion of marriage is risible.

      What I find risible is the rhetorical deception and pretense that the notion of marriage as understood since the beginning of time doesn’t preclude same sex relationships. It is fine if people want to change the notion of marriage, but they shouldn’t then pretend that that isn’t exactly what they are doing by talking about “marriage equality”.

      Like

  8. I presently know two homosexual couples. My older brother and his partner married last fall (thank you, Minnesota). The most notable thing about their gay lifestyle is that it pretty much mirrors that of several heterosexual couples I know. They have a house in the suburbs, are into computers and computer games, and lead a pretty quiet life. Well, they do like to go on cruises, but so does my heterosexual younger brother.

    Then there is S, a good friend of one of my sons who happens to have two moms. He’s a pretty well adjusted kid, tall and athletic. He and one of my sons share an affinity for mathematics. One of his moms is a seminarian; not sure what the other does. We’ll be going to his Suzuki recital tomorrow afternoon. I’m sure that data point would make Mark Regnerus’s head explode. After all, aren’t half of all lesbians on welfare? Or maybe his sample was a bit skewed.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      The most notable thing about their gay lifestyle is that it pretty much mirrors that of several heterosexual couples I know.

      They planning on producing children together? That would be notable.

      Like

  9. If one is going to argue that homosexuality isn’t protected status because it’s a behavior rather than an innate characteristic, then it seems that adherants of religion aren’t protected, either.

    And religion has killed more people (and more innocents) than homosexuality ever has.

    Like

    • Kelley, how would you have dealt with the matter if you were a member of the Texas Republican platform committee? See the questions at the end of the post.

      BB, how would you have dealt with them?

      How would your presumably more liberal inclination have caused you to deal with the question differently than either Brent or Scott, who have offered their answers? I am probably just about where Brent is on that specific.

      Like

    • Mich:

      If one is going to argue that homosexuality isn’t protected status because it’s a behavior rather than an innate characteristic, then it seems that adherants of religion aren’t protected, either.

      The constitution says that we must all be protected equally. The notion that some people enjoy special “protected status” that others do not, while certainly commonplace, is profoundly unconstitutional.

      Like

  10. I would have voted against it on both moral and political grounds; this is one of those issues where both the liberal and the Libertarian in me agree. I also see it as a completely lost cause and a foolish item to waste any time and effort on. As Brent says, it’s not like the social conservatives are going to turn around and vote for a Democrat if that plank isn’t in the platform.

    Like

  11. Who should not be able to enjoy marraige equality and why?

    Like

    • Who should not be able to enjoy marraige (sic) equality and why?

      The unmarried.

      Do you remember California’s palimony litigation, George? Lee Marvin should have been able to abandon his mistress without compensation, absent any proof of marriage either common law or ceremonial, and absent either a written agreement or a promise that caused his mistress to change her position to her financial detriment. To base those cases on “community property” should have been summary judgment fodder.
      Marvin won after protracted litigation. Bill Maher, much later, won summarily, as did Van Cliburn, if I recall correctly.

      The notion that a mistress has a claim simply by reason of cohabitation is merely legalized prostitution.

      George, this partnership view of marriage has spread from the original community property states to most of the aliens in English property states where the original law was that all the property of the marriage belonged to the man.

      Like

  12. Mark:

    I don’t typically use the word “gay” as short hand for “homosexual” simply because I am old enough that it means “happy” to me, as in “gay divorcee”.

    I do get a chuckle out of this. One of my HS classmates was a young woman whose first name is Gay. Very, very unfortunately her last name was Service. At the beginning of our senior year she started using her middle name, Eugenia. To this day I still often think of her first when I hear the word “gay”.

    Like

  13. So, a father/daughter marriage is ok? If, why?

    Like

    • McWing:

      So, a father/daughter marriage is ok? If, why?

      To be fair to Mark, I think his response was an indication that he doesn’t/wouldn’t use the phrase “marriage equality” in the way it is commonly used by SSM advocates to falsely frame the issue.

      Like

  14. I think Eastwood got nailed re Palimony. Sandra Locke.

    Women. Effin’ gold-diggers.

    Like

  15. Scott,

    I probably didn’t take enough time to be precise and clear. I tend to think of “the issue” in more of a comprehensive way. The redefinition of marriage and attendant and other legal coercions is certainly an area of central concern and due alarm. I have for some time been thinking about what the right terminology is; I sometimes use “normalization” this way, but I am aware of its inadequacy. What I really am thinking of is not just normalization but the equating of hetero- and homosexuality, the erasing of any moral or social distinction. What is the right noun here? I really don’t know.

    I am in fact no longer even satisfied with referring to homosexual acts as “sex,” because, while they involve use of body parts, they have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. In my view, the modern language used gives them inappropriate credence or status.

    I don’t disagree that what is happening regarding marriage and legal assaults on traditional marriage and its defendants is part of something larger, but to me this is reason to be more, not less concerned. It is the cutting edge of a set of ideas now rapidly dismembering our society.

    I am not going to bother responding to FB’s string of “risible” arguments, straw men, and insults. Been there, done that.

    Like

  16. Mark,

    QB, do you actually believe that there are no conservative hedonists or perverts? Do you truly believe that political philosophy trumps lack of character?

    I’m really not sure how to answer these questions. What I said was that there is no such thing as a conservative aligned with this movement (the movement to equate homosexuality with normal sexuality, redefine marriage, etc.). People can maintain all sorts of inconsistencies between various parts of their lives. What no one can do is be a conservative and be an advocate of the movement. The ideas and goals it embraces are antithetical to anything plausible viewed as conservatism. And I don’t care how many soi-disant conservatives line up to deny that.

    Finally, we again disagree that homosexual acts are necessarily either perverse or hedonistic. A lot of heterosexual acts are kinky as well, but for me only the compelled, the sado-masochistic, the adult-child, the bestial, and perhaps some other none CPA sex acts are perverse, and only the seeking of gratification or release in such immoderation as to cause harm, or with disregard for the feelings or health of the partner rates as immoral hedonism, which I distinguish from the genral philosophy of hedonism, not much of which is what most people are talking about when they use “hedonist” as an insult

    I didn’t use hedonism as an insult, but I did use it in the sense of letting pursuit of pleasure be the only real moral guide. I read your statement here to outline essentially what I said previously, that I understand your position (which many people hold) to be a libertarian one, although I am puzzled by several of your qualifiers like sado-masochism and immoderation.

    Like

  17. I think most people today who even have an understanding of “hedonism” are completely unaware of the variant embracing virtue and moderation. In common usage today, it basically means pleasure-seeking as a moral philosophy.

    Like

  18. The Texas platform and many conservative framings of the issue see marriage equality as somehow giving gay and lesbians special rights as if straight people are prohibited from doing what they want. If the right to marry is denied, what other rights are also forbidden to gays simply because of their private conduct? Many states have yet to include sexual orientation as a reason for which people can’t be fired.

    I still can’t quite understand why it is better to marginalize same sex relationships rather than confer on them the same responsibilities that straight couples have to adhere to.

    Like

  19. If one is going to argue that homosexuality isn’t protected status because it’s a behavior rather than an innate characteristic, then it seems that adherants of religion aren’t protected, either

    If one is unwilling or unable to make distinctions, perhaps. But freedom of religion was recognized by the people who founded this country as a paramount human right, and they gave us the First Amendment. Needless to say, homosexual acts received no such protection.

    Like

  20. BTW, I think we here at ATIM should avoid the politically inspired euphemisms of the left and the false framing that they are intended to convey.

    So are you implicitly saying that liberal views have no place in a discussion on ATiM. That seems like a rather large usurpation of the charter. But I had long suspected as much.

    Like

    • yello:

      So are you implicitly saying that liberal views have no place in a discussion on ATiM.

      No. I am explicitly saying that liberal views should be presented and discussed honestly, and not hidden behind euphemisms and false framing like, for example, “marriage quality”. In this case what you and other liberals want is to re-define the notion of marriage, so you should be honest with both yourself and those you are talking to and just say so and drop the question-begging euphemisms.

      That seems like a rather large usurpation of the charter. But I had long suspected as much.

      Lectures on “the charter” don’t mean a whole lot to me coming from someone so dishonest that they would say something like this.

      Like

      • In this case what you and other liberals want is to re-define the notion of marriage, so you should be honest with both yourself and those you are talking to and just say so and drop the question-begging euphemisms.

        Sure. We want the definition of marriage to encompass same sex couples. Happy?

        What’s the argument against allowing that?

        Like

        • Yello:

          What’s the argument against allowing that?

          That there is no compelling argument for the state to do it.

          Like

  21. If the right to marry is denied, what other rights are also forbidden to gays simply because of their private conduct?

    Homosexuals aren’t forbidden to marry, because of their private conduct or any other reason.

    Like

  22. But freedom of religion was recognized by the people who founded this country as a paramount human right, and they gave us the First Amendment. Needless to say, homosexual acts received no such protection.

    Freedom itself, as in freedom from slavery, was not recognized in the original Bill of Rights.

    Like

  23. I am astonished that anyone would try to compel a bakery to make a cake against its wishes unless that were the only bakery in town, because the other economic fact is that driving more business to a competitor would be the normal way we make effective decisions in a free country.

    This issue is the easiest to frame by hypothesizing that the couple were African-American rather than gay or lesbian. That sort of logic was used to discriminate against Jews for decades. Just check out Gentleman’s Agreement.

    I’m glad to see the “If you’re buying, we’re selling” campaign take hold even if some evangelical groups somehow see that as discriminating against them.

    Like

  24. Homosexuals aren’t forbidden to marry, because of their private conduct or any other reason.

    A position supported and endorsed by Marcus and Michele Bachmann.

    Like

  25. I am in fact no longer even satisfied with referring to homosexual acts as “sex,” because, while they involve use of body parts, they have nothing to do with sexual intercourse.

    So then you agree with President Clinton?

    Like

  26. A position supported and endorsed by Marcus and Michele Bachmann.

    So?

    Oooohhhhh, cause he’s supposed to be gay and shit and cons are supposed to freak out and say, “but he loves his mother!” Like they did for Liberace.

    QB, you’ve been burned!

    So are you implicitly saying that liberal views have no place in a discussion on ATiM. That seems like a rather large usurpation of the charter. But I had long suspected as much.

    He cracked the code! If he finds out about my misogyny I’m out for sure!

    Like

  27. If he finds out about my misogyny I’m out for sure!

    How could I miss it? You seem rather proud of it. You should be making videos for YouTube explaining all the myriad ways you hate women, giving reasons and examples.

    Like

  28. I should hunh? To busy posting at Stormfront.

    Like

  29. you should be honest with both yourself and those you are talking to and just say so and drop the question-begging euphemisms.

    You’ve got a fairly unique definition of “euphemism” going on there, Scott. And I don’t think that any of us who are in favor of SSM can be accused of begging the question.

    Like

    • When liberals say something like “marriage equality,” I will just use accurate terms like “perverted, oxymoronic mockery of marriage.”

      Like

    • Mich:

      You’ve got a fairly unique definition of “euphemism” going on there, Scott.

      Wrong.

      And I don’t think that any of us who are in favor of SSM can be accused of begging the question.

      Regardless of what you may think, anyone who advocates for SSM by demanding “marriage equality” is obviously begging the question of what marriage means.

      Like

  30. although I am puzzled by several of your qualifiers like sado-masochism and immoderation.

    I have never conflated my soi disant libertarianism with libertinism.

    Seriously, in my religious upbringing, which I take seriously, restraint and moderation are valued. “Do not do to others what you would not have done to you”.

    Like

    • Mark, if you are saying that there is private, consensual conduct that you find immoral, then I don’t see why your position is different from mine at that level of principal.

      Like

      • Fair point QB. Big “if”, however.

        Your response causes me to rethink the often difficult (for me) lines between “preferred behaviors”, “social controls”, and “morality”. You recall these sorts of issues, of course. Examples abounded in LS.
        Suicide is not a preferred behavior whether it is moral or not, but socially controlling it has never been a function the criminal law could handle. Tentatively I put sado-masochism at that level, in that I find it not preferable even when consent is given because of the potential physical and emotional harm to both parties (and because it is often akin to addiction). To be clear, I would not vote to outlaw it per se as a legislator. Moderation is of course a mere preferred behavior.

        This causes me to ask myself to further define my comfort with proscribing consenting adult sibling or parent and adult child sex – and I would be comfortable with forbidding it, as a symbol, although I do not think the law could socially control it. I am clear that it is not a preferred behavior because it blurs the nature of an existing relationship and burdens it with unnecessary baggage. There are of course unintended negative consequences possible in the appearance of inbred spawn. I am not clear that it is immoral, assuming that there are no other persons whose relationships with the actors who are affected by it, and no offspring result.

        Just thinking aloud here because your comment has dug at something I have not thought through. I appreciate that.

        We have discussed the relationship of “morality”, “values”, and “ethics” before. I am assuming here that we do not have to revisit. Here when I say “preferred behavior” I am recognizing that many behaviors, while not per se “bad”, are more likely to lead to undesirable outcomes. We socially control for these behaviors with manners, or convention, or religious precepts or group ethics, such as the Judicial Code of Conduct that treats the mere appearance of impropriety as an impropriety to be avoided.

        Like

  31. Since I don’t find the subject of homosexual sex offensive or embarassing I’m not using any euphemisms. And, other than Mark referring to an “ick” factor, none of us who are advocating for legal SSM have used a euphemism.

    Like

    • Mich:

      Since I don’t find the subject of homosexual sex offensive or embarassing I’m not using any euphemisms.

      Embarrassment or offensiveness are not the only causes of the use euphemisms. In fact euphemisms are used all the time to place a more positive spin on a subject than exists with plain language. For example, a real estate agent might advertise a house or apartment as being “cozy” instead of being relatively small. That is a euphemism. You might remember back when the term “differently abled” was being pushed as a replacement for “handicapped”. Euphemisms are used in politics all the time, particularly by liberals. There are all kinds of political euphemisms for legalized abortion….”choice”, “reproductive rights”, “women’s health”. All of these are used to introduce a positive connotation that doesn’t exist with plain language.

      In fact “marriage equality” is very much of a piece with “reproductive rights”. Not only are both of them euphemisms, they both beg the question that creates the controversy surrounding the topic they are euphemizing about.

      Like

      • In fact “marriage equality” is very much of a piece with “reproductive rights”. Not only are both of them euphemisms, they both beg the question

        I find “marriage equality” much more succinct and accurate than “same-sex marriage” since the goal is not to create separate and distinct type of marriage for gays to but to give them the same right to marry as straight people do. But feel free to use “redefining marriage” or “tolerating perversion” or whatever phrase you feel comfortable with. Like “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” (now there is a misleading euphemism), we’ll know what you are talking about as well as what your stance is.

        Like

        • YJ, I agree with your underlying sentiment to the extent that I would vote to permit SSM were I a legislator, but I surely do not accept “marriage equality” as a useful descriptor. Beyond placing the parties to a marriage on an equal footing within it – and that was a long fight – using the phrase to mean anything external to the marriage is simply vague and overbroad. We are, in fact, expanding marriage to include a category it did not include. If, as, and when that category is widely accepted, the phrase SSM will disappear from common parlance [see today’s quote from Edmund Burke]. But SSM is the only clear way to currently describe the changing field of marital definitions. “Marriage equality” is an obfuscation in this context, just as “pro-life” is in the other.

          Of course, I will know what you are talking about in the context of the discussion, and will not raise this objection again unless I am actually confused by the propaganda usage.

          Like

        • yello:

          I find “marriage equality” much more succinct and accurate than “same-sex marriage” since the goal is not to create separate and distinct type of marriage for gays to but to give them the same right to marry as straight people do.

          No. Gays already have the same right to marry as straight people do. They just are not inclined to exercise that right. Framing the issue in terms of equal rights is an entirely false framing.

          Again, you are begging the question. When you say “right to marry”, what do you mean by “marry”? Historically to marry has always meant to join in a legal union with someone of the opposite sex. And gays have always had, and continue to have, this right. This is why your framing is false (and, frankly, dishonest.)

          There are, I am sure, various goals, but the immediate one has nothing to do with “equality”. It has to do with altering the concept and significance of marriage from what it has always been to something totally different.

          Like

  32. A euphemism is used by a speaker to avoid a term more unpleasant or offensive to the audience. To deny that “marriage equality” is a euphemism is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous. But it is more than a euphemism. It is propaganda, a lie wrapped in vaguery and sentiment.

    Here is whole fight among prog nihilists over which terms are best for winning the political war they are waging, which are offensive and why.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/22/1210892/-Gay-Marriage-STOP-IT-ALREADY-Marriage-Equality-please#

    Like

  33. “Cozy” is a bad example for your point, Scott; it’s used in lieu of the embarrassing fact that the house is small (whether or not that should be considered embarrassing is another discussion). What you’re objecting to is propaganda rather than euphemism, and I’m pretty sure that we’re all smart enough here to recognize propaganda whichever side of the argument it’s coming from. And the right’s ability to successfully make the term “pro-life” common usage is one of the most stunning examples of propaganda ever. But YMMV.

    Like

    • Mich:

      “Cozy” is a bad example for your point, Scott;

      No it’s not. It is an attempt to put a more positive spin on something than exists with more honest words. Just like “marriage equality”.

      What you’re objecting to is propaganda rather than euphemism, and I’m pretty sure that we’re all smart enough here to recognize propaganda whichever side of the argument it’s coming from.

      I’m not at all sure about that.

      And the right’s ability to successfully make the term “pro-life” common usage is one of the most stunning examples of propaganda ever.

      Most stunning? It is actually a pretty pedestrian example pretty much on par with “pro-choice”. You really should expand your knowledge of instances of propaganda.

      Like

  34. Heh. I see that, if nothing else, QB and I agree on what is propaganda.

    Like

  35. GLAAD is so confused that it repeatedly uses the same terms it condemns in this propaganda piece condemning them.

    http://www.glaad.org/reference/marriage

    GLAAD’s inability to explain its condemnation of terms without using those very terms illustrates the fundamental incoherency of homosexual “marriage” ideology. While they now want no one to put modifiers before “marriage,” they are unable to state any argument without doing so. It puts the lie to any denial that they are changing the definition of marriage.

    Like

    • Do they deny that they [or we, or the states, or the federal courts] are changing the definition of state sponsored marriage? Why should they deny it? Does anyone think this has been the definition of state certificated marriage in the past?

      I wrote to YJ that until SSM is widely accepted it will need its separate descriptor. When it is widely accepted, it will not. See today’s quotation from Burke.

      Like

  36. Do they deny that they [or we, or the states, or the federal courts] are changing the definition of state sponsored marriage? Why should they deny it? Does anyone think this has been the definition of state certificated marriage in the past?

    Yes, implicitly and explicitly. Here is GLADD:
    “Same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry want to join the institution of marriage as it currently exists, defining their relationships not as “gay marriage” but as “marriage.””

    This is the fiction of merely “extending” marriage as it is to a relationship definitionally antithetical to it. To me, it is most accurate to say that legal marriage is being abolished, recalling, for example, CS Lewis’s short work on natural law, The Abolition of Man.

    Also, look at what YJ says. He explicitly denies they are changing marriage. He always has. The argument is a brute, stupid denial of reality.

    Like

  37. Speaking of The Abolition of Man, if you’ve never read it, its prescience grows by the decade.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man

    Lewis described how the modern project of debunking values through “rational” critique is necessarily subjective, arbitrary, and dehumanizing.

    Like

  38. And further speaking of the abolition of man, Kevin Williamson hits another one deep out of the park here.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379188/laverne-cox-not-woman-kevin-d-williamson

    The contemporary bonfire of sex and gender and identity ideologies is, indeed, the ultimate fruition of the abolition of man, to the point of trying in some cases to effect it physically. But biological reality is a resistant medium.

    When you consider that the sex ideologists of the left literally attempt to subordinate biological, physical reality to people’s dysfunctional feelings, to the point of subjecting them to gruesome surgeries and lifetime hormone “therapies,” the full extent of their madness comes into view, as does its connection to occult beliefs and practices. Lewis spied that connection as well. He noted that his novel That Hideous Strength, which involves occult practice among high academia, explores the same themes as The Abolition of Man. In fact, of course, the left today not only promotes grotesque attempts to alter people’s bodies to match their feelings but seeks to compel the rest of us to live by their feelings rather than by their phyical reality.

    Contemporary liberalism is madness, quite literally madness.

    Like

  39. So, a father/daughter marriage is ok? If, why?

    I take it that Troll is unfamiliar with the concept of the age of consent.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      I take it that Troll is unfamiliar with the concept of the age of consent.

      A rather bizarre non-sequitur. What does the age of consent have to do with the notion of father/daughter marriage? Are you under the impression that a daughter ceases to be one upon reaching the age of 18?

      Like

  40. They planning on producing children together? That would be notable.

    You really should catch up on Modern Family, Scott.

    A heterosexual couple that I know has three adopted children. As far as I can tell, their family lifestyle does not significantly differ from that of similar same sex couples with adopted children.

    As it happens, I know three couples who are unable to have children due to endometriosis. I’m sure that would be glad that those there are individuals such as you who would mock them for that.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      You really should catch up on Modern Family, Scott.

      I watch it all the time. You should re-read my question and pay closer attention. I chose my words quite carefully.

      As it happens, I know three couples who are unable to have children due to endometriosis. I’m sure that would be glad that those there are individuals such as you who would mock them for that.

      I know two people who are blind. I am sure they would be glad that there are individuals such as you who would mock them for it.

      Like

  41. I am in fact no longer even satisfied with referring to homosexual acts as “sex,” because, while they involve use of body parts, they have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. In my view, the modern language used gives them inappropriate credence or status.

    Now that was entertaining. Those particular body parts have only two functions–sexual intercourse and elimination. Quarterback should know that any good husband is aware that the tongue is a far more dextrous portion of the anatomy than the penis.

    BB

    Like

  42. Ah, Scott. Always the one to find any way to deliberately misinterpret another’s post. Please feel free to find examples of adult parent-child marriages. The concept is intimately associated with child abuse.

    But to your point, perhaps you are familiar with the word taboo? Feel free to interpret it in any way that you wish.

    BB

    Like

  43. When liberals say something like “marriage equality,” I will just use accurate terms like “perverted, oxymoronic mockery of marriage.”

    That is truly delicious. I’ll make sure to remember it when celebrating the first anniversary of my brother and his husband. What is even more

    As long as we’re talking about the definition of marriage (a legal matter, no?), we can consider age of consent, relationship (cousins OK sometimes, siblings no), and, of course, anti-miscegenation laws.

    One man, one woman now! One man, one woman, forever!

    George Wallace would be proud. Well, would have been, until he was converted to that perversion of interracial marriage.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      As long as we’re talking about the definition of marriage (a legal matter, no?), we can consider age of consent, relationship (cousins OK sometimes, siblings no),…

      We should talk about these things. I think the fact that so many advocates of SSM do not go on to also advocate for incestuous marriages proves that all of the “equality” and “rights” rhetoric is just a smokescreen that they don’t really believe (or, perhaps, don’t quite understand, in any event.)

      …and, of course, anti-miscegenation laws.

      This red herring is often brought up in this context. But of course anti-miscegenation laws made it illegal to perform or be involved in a marriage between a black and a white. That is totally different to the SSM situation. Marriage ceremonies for gays are not outlawed, no priest is going to jail if he performs one, and the couple themselves can live to together and call themselves “married” all they want without fear of being imprisoned. The state simply doesn’t recognize the marriage for purposes of state law. That is entirely different to anti-miscegenation laws.

      In fact, the previous existence of anti-miscegenation laws, along with the complete absence of laws prohibiting SSM, shows quite pointedly why bringing up anti-miscegenation laws as analogous to the current situation with SSM makes no sense, and how the situation of homosexuals is not at all a civil rights issue related to the treatment of blacks. People who were opposed to black/white marriages actually had to pass laws against it, because there is nothing about the concept of marriage itself that excludes such relationships. In the absence of laws, then obviously black/white marriage could actually occur. But no one ever thought to pass laws against homosexuals marrying each other, because it was inconsistent with the very concept and understanding of marriage. Why pass a law saying that 2 people of the same sex can’t get married when the concept/word marriage means the legal union of a man and a woman?

      Like

  44. Ah, Scott. Ever the clueless one. You choose your words carefully and deliberately misinterpret those of others.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      Always the one to find any way to deliberately misinterpret another’s post.

      Quite ironic, coming from someone who just falsely accused me of mocking people with endometriosis.

      Please feel free to find examples of adult parent-child marriages.

      The point is that those who argue for SSM under the guise of “equality” have no principle upon which to object to incestuous marriages between adults. The age of consent is not an issue.

      The concept is intimately associated with child abuse.

      Not here at ATiM. We have routinely brought up the how the alleged “equality” principle behind the advocacy of SSM must also support advocacy for incestuous marriages, but never in the context of children, only in the context of consenting adults.

      But to your point, perhaps you are familiar with the word taboo?

      I am. I am also familiar with the fact that homosexual relationships remain taboo among many, many people. If it is OK for you to oppose certain marriages on taboo grounds, then it is OK for others to do the same. If they are bigots for doing so, then so are you.

      Like

  45. Quite ironic, coming from someone who just falsely accused me of mocking people with endometriosis.

    Time and time and time again you’ve expressed the opinion that families in which the children are not the direct outcome of sexual intercourse between the married couple are not valid. FB made the point much more nicely than I would have.

    I think the fact that so many advocates of SSM do not go on to also advocate for incestuous marriages proves that all of the “equality” and “rights” rhetoric is just a smokescreen

    Perhaps because a marriage between two people who share the same sex chromosome configuration is not at all the same thing as one between two people who have half of their chromosomes in common. I can type slower if it will help you understand.

    Like

    • Mich:

      Time and time and time again you’ve expressed the opinion that families in which the children are not the direct outcome of sexual intercourse between the married couple are not valid.

      Totally untrue. You are making things up. Please link to where I have expressed such an opinion.

      Perhaps because a marriage between two people who share the same sex chromosome configuration is not at all the same thing as one between two people who have half of their chromosomes in common.

      How is it different such that the former should be sanctioned by the state and the latter should be outlawed by the state?

      Alternatively, one could also say that marriage between two people who do not share the same sex chromosome is not at all the same as one between two people who do share the same sex chromosome.

      I can type slower if it will help you understand.

      Ironies abound on ATiM today.

      Like

  46. FB is a low-IQ, terminal adolescent. Perhaps just plain adolescent. What an absolute idiot.

    Like

  47. What an absolute idiot.

    Don’t hold us back. Tell us how you really feel about all of us.

    Like

  48. Perhaps because a marriage between two people who share the same sex chromosome configuration is not at all the same thing as one between two people who have half of their chromosomes in common. I can type slower if it will help you understand.

    Oh, I see, now. Differences that matter to Michi matter, and others don’t. How could we have missed that compelling logic.

    Like

  49. cousins OK sometimes, siblings no

    So, the ick factor. How can you all be so comfortable in your bigotry? Why can’t two consenting adults marry? Give me a reason beside bigotry.

    Like

  50. Don’t hold us back. Tell us how you really feel about all of us.

    If you can explain why FB’s string of malicious, illogical, ignorant comments deserves something different in response, feel free.

    Like

  51. So, the ick factor. How can you all be so comfortable in your bigotry? Why can’t two consenting adults marry? Give me a reason beside bigotry.

    Not to mention, what’s wrong with brother-brother and sister-sister.

    Like

  52. So, the ick factor.

    How do you get that out of FB’s comment? It’s simple genetics.

    Like

    • Mich:

      How do you get that out of FB’s comment? It’s simple genetics.

      Taboos are not “simple genetics”.

      Like

  53. what’s wrong with brother-brother and sister-sister

    i really am going to have to type slower.

    Like

    • BTW, Mich, I am still waiting for you to link to any comment of mine where I “expressed the opinion that families in which the children are not the direct outcome of sexual intercourse between the married couple are not valid.”

      Like

  54. So, should we require genetic testing for all people before marriage? If not, why not?

    Like

  55. I mean there’s all sorts of conditions we could get rid of, no?

    Like

  56. i really am going to have to type slower.

    The speed of your typing is not your problem.

    So, should we require genetic testing for all people before marriage? If not, why not?

    Indeed. Debunking, as Lewis called it, is so easy and yet so impossible to stop once started. When leftists tell us values are just bigotry and prejudice, they leave themselves with nothing else. They explain things away without realizing that they are explaining away everything else as well.

    It’s all in Lewis’s book from 70 years ago. He explained how reason–no, not mere rationalism–was being replaced by sentiment, feeling, imagery, and would leave humanity stripped of what made us human, and in the hands of inhuman masters.

    Think of how homosexuality has been sold to society, following a very deliberate strategy of manipulation of emotions through mass media laid out in the 1980s. In this very thread we have FB telling Scott he needs to watch a propaganda show to understand the issue. Modern Family, that idiotic Macklemore song, filled with bigotry and deception and straw men, its video a montage of manipulative images.

    Lewis called it so clearly 70 years ago. The abolition of marriage is part of the Abolition of Man.

    Like

  57. Ah, QB. You really do need to work a bit on your insults. You used to be pretty good at that, such as referencing pettifoggery. Now claiming a physicist is a low IQ adolescent? Just settle in for the night.

    Meanwhile, I will bask in the thought that most young Republicans have no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting married. You’re simply an antique.

    BB

    Like

  58. Scott – You expressed surprise that a gay couple would have children. When a counter example of a heterosexual couple in a similar situation (unable to conceive, so choosing means that a homosexual couple could use), you claim ignorance. Try a little harder.

    I am happy to report that the recital of S went off smashingly. He is a wonderful kid and has two great mothers. Sad to say that he will have to face quarterbacks in his life, but multiracial children have had to handle that as well.

    BB

    Like

    • FB:

      You expressed surprise that a gay couple would have children.

      No, I expressed doubt that a homosexual couple could produce children. Because they can’t.

      When a counter example of a heterosexual couple in a similar situation (unable to conceive, so choosing means that a homosexual couple could use), you claim ignorance.

      You and Mich a pair. You are making things up again. Please link to or quote from the post in which I “claimed ignorance”.

      Like

  59. More sophisticated insults are wasted on you. I don’t care what or who you claim to be. Your lack of reasoning ability is manifest. I used to think you were ignorant and just not trying. I’ve learned you’re just stupid.

    Like

  60. No, QB. You’ve simply lost the ability to argue and now you simply spew. A college sophomore could recognize that the Regnerus study had a skewed sample. Heck, a high school senior could recognize that any study that claimed half of lesbians are on welfare has a problem with its sample.

    You don’t know what a T-test. is. You don’t understand what a normal distribution (aka Gaussian) is. You think you are making a point by calling a PhD physicist an idiot. The real shame is for your clients.

    BB

    Like

  61. I pretty much know what the response to this is going to be, but I’ll say it anyway:

    QB, you need to take a deep breath, walk away from the computer for a bit, and do something that you enjoy.

    Like

    • Mich:

      Third request. Please link to any comment of mine in which I ““expressed the opinion that families in which the children are not the direct outcome of sexual intercourse between the married couple are not valid.”

      Like

  62. What a walking fallacy machine you are. You obviously either don’t understand the “science” or haven’t bothered to try, because you’re just another left-wing, closed-minded bigot who thinks his dumb reliance on anecdotes is meaningful. Now you’re pathetically appealing to your own authority as a “physicist.” Unfortunately, you can’t sustain a logical argument but are addicted to non sequiturs, unrecognized assumptions, and straw men. I won’t waste another breath hoping that you are a serious and able thinker. You’re an ass and a boor who can’t help proving it every time you show up.

    Like

  63. Any ATiMers boycotting the Harvey Milk stamp?

    http://afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147546163

    They’ve enlisted the postal service in the propaganda campaign to normalize deviant behavior.

    Like

  64. What a surprise, FB also fabricating statements by Scott. Deja vu all over again.

    Like

  65. I am.as well as the Susan B. Anthony coin. Fucking uppity broad.

    Like

  66. Scott:

    I’ve known you long enough to be reasonably certain that you know exactly which statements of yours I mean. I’ve got better things to do with my time than to go back and fish them out so that you can redefine the words you used.

    Like

    • Mich:

      I’ve known you long enough to be reasonably certain that you know exactly which statements of yours I mean. I’ve got better things to do with my time than to go back and fish them out so that you can redefine the words you used.

      A cowardly copout.

      I have no idea what statements you mean, which is why I asked you for a link. What I do know is that I have never said anything even close to what you allege. If you are going to accuse me of saying such things, you should at least have the courtesy of producing what makes you think so, or the intellectual courage and honesty to admit the error. Unfortunately, I have to conclude you are devoid of all three.

      Like

  67. I read through parts of this thread and all I could think of was “The War on Terror”. Talk about a perversion of the truth or use of a “euphemism”. Terror is a feeling generally countered with reassurance and terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. And not only was the fear used to lead us into wars we couldn’t reasonably win it also led us to redefine “waterboarding” as not torture.

    In the grand scheme of using language to fuel conception I think that one trumps “marriage equality”.

    Like

    • So it should have been called the war on terrorists? Or we should have responded to 911 by reassuring ourselves that we were safe? Marriage equality is an entirely different category.

      Like

    • lms:

      I read through parts of this thread and all I could think of was “The War on Terror”. Talk about a perversion of the truth or use of a “euphemism”.

      I was never a fan of the label, but I’m not sure in what way it was a “perversion” of the truth. Yes, terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, but so what?

      And not only was the fear used to lead us into wars we couldn’t reasonably win it also led us to redefine “waterboarding” as not torture.

      The label didn’t lead us into wars. It was applied to a war we were going to engage in in any event. I am not aware of any evidence that public or political support for the effort derived from the label “War on terror”. Nor am I aware of any evidence that the use of waterboarding had any connection to the label at all.

      Like

  68. QB, I agree it is an entirely different category but if we’re going to argue about the use of language to foster a desired outcome it still trumps marriage equality, IMO.

    Like

    • lms:

      QB, I agree it is an entirely different category but if we’re going to argue about the use of language to foster a desired outcome it still trumps marriage equality, IMO.

      What was the desired outcome that the term was designed to foster?

      Like

      • What was the desired outcome that the term was designed to foster?

        The War to Destroy AQ would have had limits in time and scope. The War on Terror was intentionally open ended – the desired outcome was to declare a perpetual, but potentially ever changing, war, in order to permit the expansion of the security state, without a serious bleat from anyone but the ACLU and Ron Paul.

        The astonishing advance of domestic intel gathering was a possibility once the technology existed. But we did not slowly succumb to high tech – we forthwith institutionalized our denuding ourselves for our handlers with a series of broadly constructed laws and a leviathan agency, backed by a “court” that ruled based only upon evidence presented by the security forces.

        At least, that is how it appears to me.

        Like

        • Mark:

          The War to Destroy AQ would have had limits in time and scope. The War on Terror was intentionally open ended…

          I agree with that, but it was hardly an intention subtly hidden in the phrase used to label the effort and inure a skeptical public. It was declared quite openly. In Bush’s “War on Terror” speech from September 20, 2001, he introduced the phrase by saying:

          Our war on terror begins with Al Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated….

          … Americans are asking, how will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command, every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war, to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

          This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo 2 years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

          Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

          The open ended nature of the effort was made quite plain. The wisdom of such an effort might be debateable, but I don’t see how the phrase used to label to the effort was particularly significant.

          …the motive to declaring a perpetual, but potentially ever changing, war was to permit the expansion of the security state without a serious bleat from anyone but the ACLU and Ron Paul.

          That may have been the effect, but I am not sure at all that was the motive. I think the motive was to stop events like 9/11 from happening again.

          Like

        • Scott, I bought it then, it was not a hidden agenda, but it was an agenda that needed to be constantly propagandized as we gradually began to realize that Iraq had no terrorist designs on the US and that the machinery of national security had overwhelmed us. These ends required noble slogans to sell and their sell by date was timed to the fading recollection of September 11, 2001. Only the Afghan incursion and probable intelligence work in the Middle East were actually required for the fight that was before us.

          It seems that way to me now, and I wish I had been as clear on it then, as I do not believe this is entirely hindsight on my part but is in part that I bought the propaganda, and I do believe that the GWB Admin knew better.

          I just read LeCarre’s new novel. Not up to his best, but at 80+ he is still a great writer.

          Addendum: Internal propaganda should go to a new thread. We have identified quite a bit of it on this one, we know it exists, and we know it includes both “euphemisms” and “half-truths”, as well as oversimplified slogans, catch phrases, and images. It would be a great thread on its own. Scott, you should post it.

          Like

    • I think 12 years later people forget what happened.

      Like

  69. Also coverage on Bowe Bergdahl.

    Like

  70. On a completely different note, today is the day that I rejoin the ranks of the gainfully employed (note to self: do not get RIF’d during a recession again). I think Monday will be my favorite day of the week for a while!

    Like

  71. The US Census Bureau is going to be counting “married” gay couples as families whether they have kids or not since that is the same criteria used for straight couples.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-to-change-the-way-it-counts-gay-married-couples/2014/05/26/e6c6edd0-e2a3-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html

    Like

    • yello:

      The US Census Bureau is going to be counting “married” gay couples as families whether they have kids or not since that is the same criteria used for straight couples.

      I guess this means that an unmarried couple raising children together does not count as a “family”.

      Like

      • From the official Census Bureau Report on America’s Families and Living Arrangements (and we know you love precise definitions), a family is defined this way:

        A family household (emphasis in original) has at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is the householder.

        Any household with children is a family household regardless of the marital status of the other residents. Previously, the census bureau had been coding married childless gay couples as a non-family household.

        Like

        • yello:

          Previously, the census bureau had been coding married childless gay couples as a non-family household.

          According to that definition, they must have already coded gay couples (“married” or not) as a family if one of them had adopted a child.

          Whatever the government does for its statistical purposes, it still seems to me that childless couples are, er, couples, and what makes a “family” is the introduction of children. Again, it is part of the very language we use. Starting a family means having children, not getting married.

          Like

        • Starting a family means having children, not getting married.

          Per the census bureau, childless married couples are a subset of families while unmarried couples are a different category. This goes back to your dismissiveness of infertile married couples. To not count people who have made lifetime legal commitments to each other as not being family just because of the reproductive status seems rather callous. And technically inaccurate. But feel free to continue defining words as you see fit.

          Like

        • yello:

          Per the census bureau, childless married couples are a subset of families while unmarried couples are a different category.

          I was specifically not talking about government statistics. That is why I said “Whatever the government does for its statistical purposes…”

          This goes back to your dismissiveness of infertile married couples.

          I see that you are joining FB and Mich in mischaracterizing (ie lying) about what I have said here. No such dismissiveness exists. I suppose you too will refuse to even try to substantiate the false charge, but I guess I have to ask: Please cite the post of mine which leads you to say the above.

          To not count people who have made lifetime legal commitments to each other as not being family just because of the reproductive status seems rather callous.

          Marriages are hardly lifetime legal commitments these days. More accurately they are indefinite legal commitments that can be easily abrogated at the will of either party. And I have not said anything about “reproductive status”, whatever that means. I said that a family comes about with the introduction of children. Whether that occurs through direct reproduction of the couple or some other means (eg adoption) doesn’t much matter. I suppose you might also find it “callous” not to recognize childless couples as “parents”, but their desire to be called parents doesn’t justify doing so.

          And technically inaccurate.

          If one takes the census bureau as the ultimate authority on such matters, perhaps. I don’t, and see no reason to. There are, of course, various definitions of “family”, but one of them is:

          the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family.

          And it is with this definition in mind that I think society might have an interest in promoting “family” through the creation of legal commitments like marriage. In the absence of rearing children, I don’t see any reason at all for society or government to care about two people making what you erroneously call “lifetime legal commitments to each other”.

          Like

  72. Still waiting on an answer about a father/daughter marriage. Unless we’re in some sort of Sanger/Ginsburg agreement that genetic testing should be mandatory between potential marriage partners so we can eliminate those kinds of people.

    Like

    • Still waiting on an answer about a father/daughter marriage.

      Why are you waiting, George? I previously wrote, in a reply to QB, on this easy to follow thread:

      I am clear that it is not a preferred behavior because it blurs the nature of an existing relationship and burdens it with unnecessary baggage. There are of course unintended negative consequences possible in the appearance of inbred spawn. I am not clear that it is immoral, assuming that there are no other persons whose relationships with the actors who are affected by it, and no offspring result.

      I also suggested that I would vote to keep it outlawed as a legislator.

      Like

  73. Wow, i spent the wrong weekend assembling IKEA furniture.

    Like

  74. Still waiting on an answer about a father/daughter marriage.

    Because incest is not the same as homosexuality. But feel free to continue with the false equivalencies. Might I suggest moving on to bestiality or polygamy.

    Is your concern purely academic or are you a member of this consanguinamorous couples website?

    Genetic testing wouldn’t be a bad idea since there have been cases of genetically related people falling in love without knowing their shared history.It’s not line DNA tests are much more expensive than the STD testing many states already require.

    Like

    • yello:

      Because incest is not the same as homosexuality.

      Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. If the mere existence of a difference between incest and homosexuality justifies the exclusion of incestuous couples from marriage, then why doesn’t the mere existence of a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality justify the exclusion of homosexuality?

      Like

      • This would make an interesting poll. So far we have three ATiMers against incest and two in favor of it. Anyone else willing to stake an opinion?

        Like

        • yello:

          This would make an interesting poll. So far we have three ATiMers against incest and two in favor of it.

          Who is in favor of it?

          Like

  75. I was waiting for a non-bigoted reason from Yello, FB and Michi. I appreciate yours. I’m just hoping for a non-bigoted reason.

    Unless they hate love.

    Like

  76. So, yello’s happy with bigotry and is basing his objection on the “ick” factor.

    Hypocrisy much, bigot?

    Like

  77. “markinaustin, on June 2, 2014 at 9:29 am said:

    assembling IKEA furniture.

    …likely story…”

    I stopped by a couple of times, but I didn’t see much new to add to the topic. I think ATiM has covered Gay Marriage quite thoroughly in previous posts (that shouldn’t be construed as criticism of Mark).

    For the record though:

    “Imagine yourself on the platform committee of the Texas Republican Party. Do you vote for or against this plank?”
    Against

    “Do you argue for or against it, and if you do, do you argue on moral or political grounds?”

    Against, political grounds.

    “Do you think it is an important plank or a throwaway?”
    Throwaway.

    I’d be more open to the process argument about “unelected judges making law” but that’s not what’s actually at issue with the specific plank language.

    “markinaustin, on June 2, 2014 at 8:26 am said:

    It seems that way to me now, and I wish I had been as clear on it then, as I do not believe this is entirely hindsight on my part but is in part that I bought the propaganda, and I do believe that the GWB Admin knew better.”

    Based on the reporting at the time, and having seen GWB since, I believe that they actually believed their whole rational. The Bob Woodward books are quite illuminating on the mindset of the Bush administration.

    Like

    • jnc:

      I’d be more open to the process argument about “unelected judges making law” but that’s not what’s actually at issue with the specific plank language.

      Not all of it, but part of it is. Two of the first three lines of the plank address exactly that:

      We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

      Like

  78. And I forgot to mention Yello’s love for Eugenics. A true progressive, congratulation and good luck building the master race.

    Like

  79. What consenting adults do in their bedroom shouldn’t be government’s business as a matter of policy.

    However, it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

    Like

  80. yello, who else should be eliminated in service of your master race?

    Like

    • yello, who else should be eliminated in service of your master race?

      I would suggest misogynists but we’d have to build up a pretty large sperm bank first.

      Like

  81. So, you would ban marriage between people who’s opinion you don’t like?

    Quite a limb you’re out on now.

    Like

    • So, you would ban marriage between people who’s opinion you don’t like?

      Who says I don’t like misogynists? I just want to give them a real reason. This is what life will be like under my Femireich:

      The shadowy figure chuckles as he vapes. “I can see you’ll fit right into the Men’s Underground. But no—they know Greek. They know it too well, studying it in their Ivory Maiden Towers, where they add ever-more rules to the Franchise of Men. The truth is, there are males even lower than the Betas. The Gammas are left chained in the Hirsute Caverns, and shaved of their natural manly hair every day. Their beards are used to stuff pillows for the Prelates of Purity. Their chest hair is woven into slippers for the young Matriarchs.”

      You gasp in horror, imagining the indignity of a smooth-chested man, manfully grimacing as he is shorn against his will.

      “And it gets worse. The Epsilons are forced, on bended knee, to cry into goblets at the feet of the Gynocrat’s Council. They drink deep of that bitter brew, drawing strength from the suffering of men. The Kappas are left locked up in the vast Sperm Fields, where they are harvested for their precious bodily fluids. You can hear your screams on windless days, if you are brave enough to stand atop the Wall of Macroaggression. And the Omegas? They are bound on rigid frames and turned into living furniture for the use of the High Empress herself.”

      http://thehairpin.com/2014/05/a-beta-male-journeys-through-the-femireich

      Like

  82. See Scott, that’s how Progressives roll. If your not actively condemning something you must be in favor of it.

    That which is not forbidden is mandatory.

    Like

  83. So, in your Sanger/Wilson eugenic world view, should the mentally disabled be sterilized? What other political opinions need to be dissed out before two consenting adults can marry? What kind of Federal agency do you have in mind?

    Like

  84. Genetic testing wouldn’t be a bad idea since there have been cases of genetically related people falling in love without knowing their shared history.

    In the six years that I worked on SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) we identified three couples who didn’t know that they were siblings or half-siblings until their first child with SMA was diagnosed and we did the genetic testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis. Being UT/ID this is probably not the norm for the US as a whole [edit: those three couples were 0.955% of our patient population], but nonetheless. . .

    We also identified one child which could not possibly be the husband’s biological child. Luckily, as geneticists, we didn’t have to get into that can of worms.

    Like

  85. Michi, do you agree w/yello on mandatory genetic testing as a determiner of marriage eligibility?

    Like

    • Michi, do you agree w/Troll on mandatory genetic testing as a determiner of marriage eligibility?

      Fixed that for you. I just agreed that you had a good point.

      Like

  86. So, for yello, eugenics and thoughtcrime prosecutions are a go. What other thoughtcrime should require sterilization?

    Like

  87. Do you agree that misogyny is a mental disability?

    Like

  88. I don’t believe in mandatory genetic testing. Quit lying you asshole.

    Michi, of course not v

    Like

  89. Quit lying you asshole.

    Wait! Does that mean you’re not sincerely advocating legalizing adult consensual incest as well?

    Like

  90. I cannot think of a non-bigoted reason to oppose it and I’ve yet to read one here. I thought that the point was that only bigots want to prevent two consenting adults from marrying. Where am I wrong?

    Like

    • Where am I wrong?

      You got me convinced. Now go ahead and bring your mother a bouquet of flowers and a sly smile, you frisky romantic, you. (Or your dad, if you’re so inclined.)

      Like

  91. I keep forgetting that not sending the appropriate tribal signals like you do must mean that I advocate everything the tribe hates.

    Are you at the end of your limb yet? Do far, before one can marry in yello’s Master Race civilization, one must undergo mandatory genetic testing and thoughtcrime examination. Anything else?

    Like

  92. I’ll take up the eugenics argument. I think parents should be able to conduct genetic testing and make their own determination on whether to carry a child to term based on the results and also if possible to engineer their DNA to provide their offspring with an advantage.

    The same applies to single women being able to shop for a sperm donor based on desired characteristics of appearance or intelligence.

    Like

    • Basically the Margret Sanger approach where these choices, even if they do in fact boil down to eugenics, are made by the individuals involved, not the state.

      The only slippery slope to this approach is the ability to determine sex and abort based on that (or some trivial proxy). While I am pro-choice this seems very arbitrary and is potentially a socially destabilizing ability. Just look at the trouble China is having with the unintended consequences of its one-child policy and the resultant gender imbalance.

      Like

    • jnc:

      I largely agree with you, although I think the fundamental question was about mandatory genetic testing.

      edit: I added the “largely” because we probably disagree on aspects of the “terminating” part.

      Like

  93. Agreed Scott. It’s the Federal mandating that yello and potentially others want, along with thoughtcrime interrogation and potential withholding of permission that’s so Orwellian? Or is it pure fascism and State as Omnicient Actor?

    Like

  94. Yellow, women either have the right to chose or they don’t. All you are proposing to do is substitute your choices for theirs, which is what progressives usually rail against in other contexts.

    Like

    • jnc:

      All you are proposing to do is substitute your choices for theirs, which is what progressives usually rail against in other contexts.

      But is what progressives also routinely do in other contexts. I’ve found that appealing to a progressive’s sense of internal consistency is generally a fool’s errand.

      Like

    • Yellow, women either have the right to chose or they don’t. All you are proposing to do is substitute your choices for theirs, which is what progressives usually rail against in other contexts.

      We’ve already established I’m a hypocrite because I won’t let Troll knock up his daughter. I just think sex selection is a terrible reason to have an abortion. I doubt you can end run it even now although India has laws against it. Frankly, I don’t see it being a common practice in western countries where female children aren’t considered such a burden.

      Like

  95. “Just look at the trouble China is having with the unintended consequences of its one-child policy and the resultant gender imbalance.”

    Correct. The problem is due to the government policy of one child. I propose to have no government policy at all other than allowing the individuals involved to decide as they see fit.

    Like

  96. “yellojkt, on June 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm said:

    Basically the Margret Sanger approach where these choices, even if they do in fact boil down to eugenics, are made by the individuals involved, not the state.

    The only slippery slope to this approach is the ability to determine sex and abort based on that (or some trivial proxy). While I am pro-choice this seems very arbitrary and is potentially a socially destabilizing ability. Just look at the trouble China is having with the unintended consequences of its one-child policy and the resultant gender imbalance.”

    I actually took out the Margret Sanger comment because after checking, it wasn’t accurate. She was in favor of mandatory sterilization for undesirables from state.

    Like

  97. “is potentially a socially destabilizing ability.”

    You’ve just conceded QB’s entire argument that the state should have the right to regulate homosexuality and other activities that could be potentially “socially destabilizing”.

    Like

  98. It won’t be in the future, michi. cause once you can abort based on it, it will be a largely moot issue. “the fetus is gay? let’s try again.”

    Like

  99. wait. i’m responding to a comment that disappeared.

    Like

  100. Yello is for mandatory genetic testing and passing said test prior to marriage. Along with thoughtcrime interrogation and evaluation. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn yello also believes in forced sterilization. Regardless, Sanger/Wilson progressivism still applies.

    Like

  101. i’m responding to a comment that disappeared.

    I thought that my knee jerk reaction was off.

    Like

  102. Yello is for mandatory genetic testing and passing said test prior to marriage

    Let’s be clear. I’m only advocating for testing to ensure the two love birds are at least first cousins or further apart on the family tree. No West Virginia winding trellises for me. And of course for latent misogyny once that can be detected.

    Of course, same-sex couples don’t need to pass the genetic test, although any sufficiently attractive lesbian twin sisters (think Doublemint twins, not Tegan and Sara) would have to submit a video demonstrating their sexual compatibility before I approved their license.

    Like

  103. I don’t want to impregnate my daughter you lying, bigoted asshole. I don’t advocate for any state / Fed recognition of marriage at all. I’m fascinated by those that demand state/Fed recognition of gay marriage use the same tactics to denounce other types of marriage they find “icky.” The hypocritical bigotry is fucked up, to say the least.

    Quit you’re lying douchebaggry for fucks sake.

    Like

  104. The problem is due to the government policy of one child.

    The Chinese could have headed off the problem by having a policy that allows couples to have at most one son (or one child of each gender to be non-sexist about it) at the cost of a just slightly higher birth rate.

    Like

  105. Of course, same-sex couples don’t need to pass the genetic test, although any sufficiently attractive lesbian twin sisters (think Doublemint twins, not Tegan and Sara) would have to submit a video demonstrating their sexual compatibility before I approved their license.

    Blatant discrimination and bigotry right there. You obviously hate homosexuals and want them treated differently.

    So, now we have forced genetic testing, thoughtcrime investigation and now discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Jesus yello, how about joining the 21st century.

    Anybody else gonna join yello on the limb he’s saw I g off?

    Like

  106. I don’t want to impregnate my daughter you lying, bigoted asshole.

    Touchy, touchy.

    I don’t advocate for any state / Fed recognition of marriage at all.

    Then why does it bother you if gays and lesbians gets state/federal recognition the same as straight couples? Or is this just all an exercise in reductio ad absurdum (see, I know the name of a fallacy other than strawman)?

    Like

  107. “I just think sex selection is a terrible reason to have an abortion”

    Good thing you don’t have to have one then. Remember, as a male you have no standing in this debate. War on Women and all that.

    Like

  108. “novahockey, on June 2, 2014 at 2:54 pm said:

    It won’t be in the future, michi. cause once you can abort based on it, it will be a largely moot issue. “the fetus is gay? let’s try again.””

    Yep, that’s coming too.

    Like

  109. I’m trying to understand the bigotry inherent in your thinking.

    I’m not the one advocating forced genetic testing, thoughtcrime interrogation and discrimination based on sexual orientation, you hold all those beliefs. You’re the one resorting to ad hominem attacks and flat out lying.

    It’s VERY telling that no one has joined you in your advocacy.

    Like

  110. You’ve just conceded QB’s entire argument that the state should have the right to regulate homosexuality and other activities that could be potentially “socially destabilizing”

    Except that I don’t agree with QB that homosexuality is “socially destabilizing”. Exactly the opposite, I see same-sex marriages as reinforcing existing social constructs and paradigms. I also conceded that sex selection abortion is nearly impossible to regulate if abortion on demand is allowed.

    Like

    • Except that I don’t agree with QB that homosexuality is “socially destabilizing”.

      Thus proving that your claims about equality and rights are complete red herrings.

      Like

      • Thus proving that your claims about equality and rights are complete red herrings.

        Huh? Unpack that if you can.

        Like

        • yello:

          Huh? Unpack that if you can.

          jnc has basically already explained it. If you accept the premise that the government should regulate something on the grounds that it is “socially destabilizing”, then the question of whether or not the government should recognize gay marriage depends not upon any “equality” arguments, but rather upon whether or not it is “socially destabilizing”. If homosexuality in general, and SSM in particular, is “socially destabilizing”, then the government should not allow SSM.

          Like

  111. “Chinese could have headed off the problem”

    central just pulled the wrong lever. They’ll get it right next time. Top men always do.

    Like

  112. Remember, as a male you have no standing in this debate.

    Perzaktly.

    Like

  113. “yellojkt, on June 2, 2014 at 3:31 pm said:

    You’ve just conceded QB’s entire argument that the state should have the right to regulate homosexuality and other activities that could be potentially “socially destabilizing”

    Except that I don’t agree with QB that homosexuality is “socially destabilizing”. Exactly the opposite, I see same-sex marriages as reinforcing existing social constructs and paradigms. I also conceded that sex selection abortion is nearly impossible to regulate if abortion on demand is allowed.”

    Yes, but if “socially destabilizing” is a legitimate basis for a legislative prohibition on an activity, then in a democracy QB’s vote counts just as much as yours does in determining what’s considered “socially destabilizing”.

    Under that criteria his arguments cease to be beyond be pale just because you take the opposite side. You’ve already conceded the framing of the debate.

    Like

    • Yes, but if “socially destabilizing” is a legitimate basis for a legislative prohibition on an activity, then in a democracy QB’s vote counts just as much as yours does in determining what’s considered “socially destabilizing”.

      Subject to a person’s unalienable individual rights. Tyranny of the majority, pursuit of happiness, etc., etc., et.al. Aren’t basically all laws and prohibitions (murder, tax evasion, jay-walking) based on constraining activities which are socially destabilizing?

      Like

  114. “I’m Now Kevin’s Biatch, on June 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm said:

    It’s VERY telling that no one has joined you in your advocacy.”

    I’m pretty sure he’s just trolling you the same way that you troll others with the over the top anti-women posts.

    Like

  115. “Subject to a person’s unalienable individual rights.”

    Such as abortion for the purpose of sex selection.

    Like

  116. sure, but marriage isn’t an inalienably right. it’s a procedural one

    Like

  117. jnc

    I’m pretty sure he’s just trolling you the same way that you troll others with the over the top anti-women posts.

    Finally someone points out the obvious!

    Like

  118. Such as abortion for the purpose of sex selection.

    Sure. Just don’t come crying to me when your son can’t get a prom date. Or chooses to become gay because there aren’t enough cheerleaders to go around.

    Like

  119. it’s a procedural one

    An interesting perspective. If it’s procedural, on what basis should it be denied to people? That’s basically the entire marriage equality debate in a nutshell.

    Like

    • yello:

      If it’s procedural, on what basis should it be denied to people?

      There is no state interest in involving itself is sexual relationships between members of the same sex.

      Like

      • There is no state interest in involving itself is sexual relationships between members of the same sex.

        If I’m understanding your premise correctly (and I’m probably not) as well as your previous definition of family, there’s no reason to issue anyone a marriage license until one partner is pregnant (which if you read anything about the history of matrimony was pretty much standard procedure for anyone of lower social rank than landed gentry for most of time) or adoption papers have been signed.

        Like

        • Yello:

          If I’m understanding your premise correctly (and I’m probably not) as well as your previous definition of family, there’s no reason to issue anyone a marriage license until one partner is pregnant

          I’m inclined to think the state shouldn’t be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Legal marriage no longer serves the primary purpose that it was created to serve, namely to legally obligate the man to the woman who would bear and raise his children and, as a consequence, be financially dependent upon him. But if I am to take the issuance of state marriage licenses as a given, I can see the state having an interest in issuing licenses to couples in anticipation of them bearing and raising children together.

          Not quite Peter in the Garden of Gethsemene but I think my count is right.

          Neither of the first two indicate that you think the exercise of state power to prevent it is an illegitimate exercise of power. But it is interesting to see that you do know how to look back at what past comments actually say, when you think doing so will support your comments. I’ll conclude the obvious, then, about your failure to even try to substantiate your false claims about me from earlier.

          Like

  120. “yellojkt, on June 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm said:

    Thus proving that your claims about equality and rights are complete red herrings.

    Huh? Unpack that if you can.”

    The frequent switching between arguing based on societal considerations and individual rights with no discernible guiding principle on when each applies (such as having the rights specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution).

    Basically Calvinball as Constitutional Law.

    The caveat may be if your comment on restricting sex selection abortion was simply stating a personal preference that if actually enacted you would find to be an illegitimate legislative intrusion into abortion rights.

    But once you concede that a right may be restricted based on any other considerations, there’s no reason your opinion should count any more or less than QB’s in determining public policy.

    Like

    • The caveat may be if you comment on restricting sex selection abortion was simply stating a personal preference that if actually enacted you would find to be an illegitimate legislative intrusion into abortion rights.

      Haven’t I said that three times already?

      Like

  121. You’ve just conceded QB’s entire argument that the state should have the right to regulate homosexuality and other activities that could be potentially “socially destabilizing”

    Excellent. I am winning without even being here!

    I think the discussion shows what I’ve always said: once you debunk marriage laws by claiming that the opposite-sex requirement is arbitrary (or, more precisely, arguing that it can’t be “proved” to be necessary to marriage), you have declared everything about it arbitrary, have no ground on which to stand, and will never be able to draw any lines, make any distinctions, or give any definition of marriage that should be respected. Anything you propose will be arbitrary and based on nothing but your own “prejudices.”

    Like

  122. No.

    I just think sex selection is a terrible reason to have an abortion. I doubt you can end run it even now although India has laws against it. Frankly, I don’t see it being a common practice in western countries where female children aren’t considered such a burden.

    I also conceded that sex selection abortion is nearly impossible to regulate if abortion on demand is allowed.

    Such as abortion for the purpose of sex selection.
    Sure.

    Not quite Peter in the Garden of Gethsemene but I think my count is right.

    Like

  123. Excellent. I am winning without even being here!

    Yes. You have gotten Scott to say that I agree with you.

    Like

  124. jnc (and NoVA):

    Yep, that’s coming too.

    No, it’s not. While there are a couple of genetic markers that have shown to correlate with homosexuality when other things are factored in, there is no “gay gene” or group of genes that you can test for, point to, and say they cause homosexuality. Nor, more than likely, will there ever be such a group of genes found.

    Sexuality of whatever sort is partly genetic, partly hormonal, partly intrauterine environment, and partly neurological (brain development). Until you can control all of those you have no way of influencing whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither.

    And to imply–or outright state–that homosexuality is socially destabilizing is heinous.

    Like

  125. And to imply–or outright state–that homosexuality is socially destabilizing is heinous.

    And to imply-or outright state-that polyamory is socially destabilizing is heinous.

    Like

  126. And to imply–or outright state–that homosexuality is socially destabilizing is heinous.

    That’s offensive and bigoted.

    Like

  127. “While there are a couple of genetic markers that have shown to correlate with homosexuality when other things are factored in”

    You’ve just validated my premise. Those markers will be identified, a test created and decisions made based on the result.

    The fact that it doesn’t rise to the level of the standard of proof that you would find convincing is immaterial to whether or not it will be utilized by the public at large.

    Like

  128. “Michigoose, on June 2, 2014 at 6:52 pm said:

    And to imply–or outright state–that homosexuality is socially destabilizing is heinous.”

    I think it’s actually more likely than not if you look at the social history of the US from say the 1950’s through the current era, especially if you accept the common conceit that the homosexual population is more creative and drawn to the arts than the straight population.

    How important this is depends on where you rank “social stability” in the hierarchy of social values. For myself, it’s way down the list after individual freedom so I don’t have necessarily have a problem with some trait that’s said to destabilize society.

    But that doesn’t automatically mean that the observation is false either.

    Like

  129. I’m pretty sure he’s just trolling you the same way that you troll others with the over the top anti-women posts.

    That seems to be the first time anyone has noted that those posts are over-the top trolling. The attitude of the ATiM community seems to have been that these are perfectly acceptable discourse if not implicitly endorsed.

    Like

    • Yello:

      The attitude of the ATiM community seems to have been that these are perfectly acceptable discourse if not implicitly endorsed.

      Whether over-the-top or not, McWing is deliberately caricaturing himself. Your trolling is of quite a different, and far more malicious, nature. You deliberately misrepresent other people in at least as much, and arguably far more, over-the-top terms. In terms of low level discourse and dishonesty here at ATiM, you are in a league by yourself.

      Like

      • cWing is deliberately caricaturing himself.

        Are we sure of that? Poe’s Law says that it’s impossible to parody the extremes.

        Like

        • Are we sure of that?

          Well, if he’s not then he isn’t actually trolling, and is just honestly presenting himself. Which is still more honest than you have been about other people.

          Like

  130. And to imply-or outright state-that polyamory is socially destabilizing is heinous.

    Whose strawman are you fighting? I’m rather ambivalent about polyamory.

    Like

  131. That’s offensive and bigoted.

    I am very amused with how people opposed to movements like the “If you are buying, we’re selling” movement or advocates of religious exemptions for hate crimes have mastered the rhetoric to portray themselves as the aggrieved party.

    I’d be outraged if it weren’t so transparent and ludicrous.

    Like

  132. Those markers will be identified, a test created and decisions made based on the result.

    You and I both know that correlation is not causality. Currently it doesn’t rise above non-negligible association for one gene (Xq28) (and that’s being kind in interpreting the linkage) and no other genes have been found with even that much correlation.

    Not gonna happen.

    I’ve got a better chance of cloning a yinz for NoVA than identifying genes that are associated with homosexuality.

    Like

  133. And don’t even get me started on epigenetic events, both pre- and postnatally, which “may” have anything to do with homosexuality.

    It’s much, much more than Identifying a marker; there’s penetrance of the gene’s expression, upstream and downstream modification of the transcription product, post-translational modifications of the protein encoded. . . there is very, very rarely a one-to-one relationship between genotype and the manifestation of a phenotype.

    Like

  134. Those markers will be identified, a test created and decisions made based on the result.

    I’m trying to work out the moral calculus here since the group most likely to not want to bring a gay fetus to term are the people most opposed to abortion. I can’t picture Sarah Palin if Trig had been identified as a potential lesbian in utero defending her action one way or another.

    Like

  135. But if I am to take the issuance of state marriage licenses as a given, I can see the state having an interest in issuing licenses to couples in anticipation of them bearing and raising children together.

    I know you’ve probably been asked these before but tracking your hundreds of comments is an arduous task. So to make sure I understand you clearly:

    If the primary purpose of marriage is create a economically and emotionally stable environment for children, should couples have to prove they are fertile before getting married?

    Is there any point in allowing a post-menopausal woman to get married?

    If a gay man or lesbian was in the process of adopting a child, should they be allowed to marry their partner if that partner were to then be financially responsible for the child?

    If the current role of marriage is functionally obsolete, what is the harm in refining it to fit contemporary needs and concerns, largely sharing financial and legal responsibility between two people?

    Is love a sufficient or necessary condition for getting married?

    Like

    • Yello:

      So to make sure I understand you clearly:

      Please let’s not pretend. You’ve made it clear already that you don’t give a shit about whether you understand me clearly. In fact you make quite a show of deliberately misunderstanding me.

      And I will be happy to answer all of your questions when you stop ignoring mine to you.

      Like

    • Actually, the more I think about it, I kind of want to answer these questions for their own sake.

      If the primary purpose of marriage is create a economically and emotionally stable environment for children, should couples have to prove they are fertile before getting married?

      First, the language of “allow” and “disallow” for this subject is not really appropriate. The question isn’t whether a person should be “allowed” to get married. The question is whether the state should recognize a marriage for the purposes of state law. As I pointed out the other day, unlike miscegenation laws, no one is being legally prohibited, under penalty of law, from having a marriage ceremony. It just won’t be recognized as such by the state.

      So with that in mind, there is no reason that a heterosexual couple should prove that they are fertile. Since fertility between two heterosexuals is the norm, it is a reasonable assumption that they will be.

      Is there any point in allowing a post-menopausal woman to get married?

      Again, ignoring the language of “allow” and “disallow”, the proper question is whether the state has an interest in post-menopausal women getting married. The answer is probably not, unless she still has children that she must rear and support.

      If a gay man or lesbian was in the process of adopting a child, should they be allowed to marry their partner if that partner were to then be financially responsible for the child?

      The assumption here is that the state has already established an interest in allowing a single homosexual to adopt a child. If we make that assumption, then the child, and implicitly the state acting on its behalf, may well have an interest in seeing that adoptive parent be in a SSM. Whether the initial assumption is a good one is open to question.

      If the current role of marriage is functionally obsolete, what is the harm in refining it to fit contemporary needs and concerns, largely sharing financial and legal responsibility between two people?

      Apart from making it even more functionally obsolete, not much. Which is why, as I have repeatedly stated, I am more concerned with how SSM comes to be than with that it might come to be.

      Is love a sufficient or necessary condition for getting married?

      Quite obviously it is neither sufficient nor necessary. Plenty of people who love each other both are not and cannot get married. And plenty of marriages have existed not only between people who no longer love each other, but in fact never did.

      Like

  136. Is love a sufficient or necessary condition for getting married?

    Is it for you?

    Like

    • I think it’s a necessary condition, although that has not been historically the case. It’s the one distinguishing characteristic of modern marriage as opposed to any other legal contract.

      I’m not sure it is a sufficient condition. There are lots of people in love with each other who have no business getting married.

      Like

  137. I think it’s a necessary condition, although that has not been historically the case. It’s the one distinguishing characteristic of modern marriage as opposed to any other legal contract

    That’s absurd coming from someone who argues that opposite sexes aren’t necessary to marriage. Many marriages are loveless. Is and ought, two different things.

    Like

  138. I am very amused with how people opposed to movements like the “If you are buying, we’re selling” movement or advocates of religious exemptions for hate crimes have mastered the rhetoric to portray themselves as the aggrieved party.

    I’m not at all amused by totalitarians like you, who imagine there is anything at issue like “religious exemptions for hate crimes.”

    Like

  139. As I pointed out the other day, unlike miscegenation laws, no one is being legally prohibited, under penalty of law, from having a marriage ceremony. It just won’t be recognized as such by the state.

    I think you have a marriage certificate and a wedding ceremony confused. What good would a marriage not recognized by the state be to either party? Being legally married confers a great deal of rights such as power of attorney and inheritance as well as direct and indirect governmental benefits as well as certain responsibilities. Under your rubric, Mormon and Muslim plural marriages are perfectly fine, just not legally recognized.

    The answer is probably not, unless [a post-menopausal woman] still has children that she must rear and support.

    As I noted above, your view of the role of marriage is much too narrow. Children and the support thereof are really just a small part of the role of marriage in society.

    Like

    • yello:

      What good would a marriage not recognized by the state be to either party?

      Interesting that you think the love between two people and the commitment to each other that the love compels is meaningless without a piece of paper with a state stamp on it. Another indication of the left’s deification of the state. And quite ironic given the insistence in other, not entirely different, contexts that the state has no business involving itself in that very same relationship.

      Being legally married confers a great deal of rights such as power of attorney and inheritance…

      All rights which can be obtained even in the absence of a marriage.

      …as well as direct and indirect governmental benefits as well as certain responsibilities.

      I don’t know what responsibilities you have in mind, but the direct and indirect governmental benefits are probably not anything that I support in any event. That aside, any such benefits derive precisely from the government’s interest in promoting marriage, an interest that itself derives from the production and rearing of children. If the government has an interest in promoting the production and rearing of children, giving benefits to two men or two women who have sex with each other would be a strange way of going about it.

      Under your rubric, Mormon and Muslim plural marriages are perfectly fine, just not legally recognized.

      I don’t know exactly what you mean by “fine” (morally, socially, culturally?) but in the context of law, yes, I don’t think the law should prevent a Mormon or a Muslim man from living and having sex with more than one woman, and calling them his “wives” or anything else he desires. That is no reason. of course, for the state to confer official marriage status on that multi-partner relationship.

      As I noted above, your view of the role of marriage is much too narrow. Children and the support thereof are really just a small part of the role of marriage in society.

      You are changing the topic. We have been talking about the interest that the government has in recognizing a relationship as a marriage, not the role that marriage plays in society. The state is not society, a distinction that people on the left seem to have a difficult time recognizing.

      Like

  140. That’s absurd coming from someone who argues that opposite sexes aren’t necessary to marriage

    Can a same sex relationship have the same level of love and commitment as an opposite sex one?

    Like

  141. We have been talking about the interest that the government has in recognizing a relationship as a marriage, not the role that marriage plays in society.

    Then you haven’t been following QB’s argument very closely.

    Like

    • Mich:

      Then you haven’t been following QB’s argument very closely.

      The recent discussion between yello and I has centered around what I think, not what qb thinks.

      Like

  142. We have been talking about the interest that the government has in recognizing a relationship as a marriage, not the role that marriage plays in society.

    That’s what you’re talking about. I’m saying that government recognition of a relationship is the role of marriage in society. Without government recognition it is of no value.

    Like

    • yello:

      That’s what you’re talking about.

      Yup. You have been asking me about my views, have you not? My views on this subject revolve around whether or not the government has an interest in recognizing certain relationships as a marriage.

      I’m saying that government recognition of a relationship is the role of marriage in society. Without government recognition it is of no value.

      So the value in the government recognizing a particular relationship as a marriage is the fact that government recognizes it as a marriage? Obviously you are begging the question.

      Like

  143. All rights which can be obtained even in the absence of a marriage.

    This is a common canard from opponents of marriage equality but it is blatantly false or else there would have been no need for cases like United States vs. Windsor where federal law was not treating a state licensed marriage as valid. By treating the survivor as a non-spouse it was creating an unequal treatment of an inheritance than if it had been by a spouse.

    There are literally hundreds of benefits and rights conferred through a marriage contract, not all of which can be recreated through other legal means.

    Like

    • yello:

      This is a common canard from opponents of marriage equality…

      No one is opposed to “marriage equality”, and you are not advocating for “marriage equality”. Some people are opposed to re-defining/re-conceptualizing marriage into something that it has never been before, and others like you want to do exactly that. Please be more honest.

      …but it is blatantly false or else there would have been no need for cases like United States vs. Windsor

      That involved a government benefit (exemption from an inheritance tax) of the type that you differentiated from rights such as power of attorney. And recall that I said that I probably oppose such benefits in all cases, and in this instance I do. (Or more accurately, I think all inheritance should be exempt from taxation, not just that which goes to a spouse.)

      If you support both an inheritance tax and a spousal exemption from it, then you cannot advocate for SSM on the grounds of “unequal treatment” because you have already admitted that you support unequal treatment in a principle.

      edit: The above should say that “…you cannot sensibly advocate for SSM on the grounds…”

      Like

  144. “While there are a couple of genetic markers that have shown to correlate with homosexuality when other things are factored in”

    you don’t think the technology will advance?

    Like

  145. “I’m trying to work out the moral calculus here since the group most likely to not want to bring a gay fetus to term are the people most opposed to abortion”

    I don’t see how that follows. I think there vast majority of the population is largely indifferent on a broader scale to both abortion and homosexuality. but on a individual one? secretly? particularly once you accept the framing that it’s not a life worthy of protection.

    Like

  146. With regards to the moral calculus question, I think Yellowjkt underestimates the fundamental narcissism of the American yuppie, who are the ones who are primarily interested in this sort of technology in the first place. They would all have little clones of themselves if they could.

    See for example:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magazine/319dad.html?pagewanted=all

    With regards to Michi’s observations I simply restate my earlier point that just because the correlation doesn’t rise to the level of sufficient proof to her (or lets say 99.9% of actual scientists in the field), doesn’t mean that it won’t be accepted as sufficient by a large number of the public at large.

    If you read the article above, there’s a whole list of personality traits that the donors fill out that the customers (i.e. the women looking to conceive) implicitly tie to genetics.

    This of course goes to core issues of scientific ethics regarding questions of should knowledge be pursued if there’s a risk of it’s misuse, etc.

    Like

  147. This comment by Yello really is something.

    I’m trying to work out the moral calculus here since the group most likely to not want to bring a gay fetus to term are the people most opposed to abortion. I can’t picture Sarah Palin if Trig had been identified as a potential lesbian in utero defending her action one way or another.

    I don’t know how to do it but could someone make this the quote of the day?

    Thanks!

    Like

    • Does anyone know whether China encourages SSM? Seems a perfectly good way for an overpopulated nation to find adoptive homes for unwanted excess children, while not encouraging more procreation through the adherence to the proposition of encouraging only marriage between a possibly fertile male and a perhaps fecund female.

      George, I could make it the quote of the day, but I am still basking the warmth of the glow from the current one.

      Like

    • McWing:

      This comment by Yello really is something.

      He says that he can’t picture Palin defending either the choice to abort or not to abort Trig if he was identified in utero as a lesbian (sic). But in fact the very presence of Trig provides the defense that he can’t imagine. The Palins knew that Trig was Down Syndrome before he was born, and still chose not to abort. If yello can imagine a defense of that decision, then he ought to be able to imagine a defense (the same one!) of a decision not to abort a baby somehow identified as a homosexual.

      Like

  148. It’s breathtaking on multiple levels. Deeply revealing as well.

    Like

  149. 86% of Americans are flaming bigots.

    Like

  150. Yello’s moral calculus puzzlement is a perfect example of ideological blindness. The people who would predictably abort babies they fear might turn out homosexual are a large cross-section of the same squishy liberals who support homosexual normalization.

    As for this:

    Can a same sex relationship have the same level of love and commitment as an opposite sex one?

    You, typically, entirey missed the point. Your previous statement (that love is ncessary to marriage) was absurd because loveless marriage has been quite common in society and history, while opposite-sex marriage has been universal, yet you find the former necessary and the latter superfluous. Your position becomes more ludicrous by the day.

    As to your question, it is meaningless to me. It assumes that the two relationships are of the same kind. They aren’t.

    Like

  151. It seems there is more trouble in paradise as GOProud, a rival conservative gay group to the Log Cabin Republicans is disbanding due to internal dissension.

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/06/03/lgbt-republican-group-goproud-going-out-business

    Like

  152. […] also produced a 242 comment post by Mark, Gay Conservatives Denied ‘Official’ Spot at Texas GOP Convention, which placed in the top 5 of most comments in […]

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: