AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Merry Christmas, My Friends — Soldier’s Silent Night

This is from Matt over at Blackfive. I am simply reposting his entry in full. Wonderful poem. Merry Christmas, everyone, especially to those who are away from their families this holiday, serving their country so that you and I may safely and peacefully enjoy Christmas with our families:

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Note: This is an annual post to share one of the most powerful military Christmas poems that is also usually attributed incorrectly or changed from the original. Enjoy. Merry Christmas, my friends!

Most of you proably have read “Merry Christmas, My Friend” before, but have you heard it with the backdrop of Silent Night?

Here is the link to the MP3 audio version (3.5MB) of “Merry Christmas, My Friend”, titled “Soldier’s Silent Night” – you can either stream it or right click and save as. It’s courtesy of WLIT’s Melissa Forman (thanks to Sara B. for the link). Below is the credit from WLIT:

Written by former Marine Corporal James M. Schmidt, in 1987 when stationed in Washington D.C., it was pounded out on a typewriter while awaiting the commading officer’s Christmas holiday decoration inspection. It was originally title “Merry Christmas, My Friend”, and was an instant success that reportedly brought tears to the eyes of the barrracks Commander who ordered it distributed to everyone he knew. It appeared in the barracks publication Pass in Review in December 1987 and Leatherneck Magazine in December 1991.

The poem was recorded as a tribute by Father Ted Berndt, a former Marine and Purple Heart recipient during World War II, currently residing in Dousman, Wisconsin for his daughter Ellen Stout, a Clear Channel radio personality.

Here’s the original poem:


‘Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one-bedroom house made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live.

As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I�d seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.

I’d heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I’d just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.

Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
“Santa, don’t cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps.”

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn’t control it, I continued to weep.

I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night’s chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.

I didn’t want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said “Carry on, Santa, it�s Christmas Day, all secure.”
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.

Copyright circa 1991 by James M. Schmidt
(As printers in the December 1991 issue of the USMC magazine, Leatherneck)

Thanks to Bill Faith of Small Town Veteran for the poem link and correct attribution/origin of the poem!

Merry Christmas!

[Note: As the poem was written by a Marine about a Marine and the recording was made by a Marine, I’m not sure why the recording was titled “Soldier’s Silent Night”. It might be because “soldier” can be used to describe anyone in the Armed Forces (capital S “Soldier” means Army). Or it just might be a mistake.]

December 24, 2009 , 11:33PM Posted by | Christianity, Christmas, Military | Comments Off on Merry Christmas, My Friends — Soldier’s Silent Night

The Dark Side of Christmas

Via Amy Wellborn: A Sword Will Pierce Your Heart

An excerpt:

We might forget, we might wrap up Christmas in good cheer, but Christian tradition doesn’t. It’s striking that the next day — the very next day — after Christmas, the Church remembers not glad tidings, angels, and shepherd boys, but a bloody death by stoning. St. Stephen it is, the first Christian martyr.

St. Stephen is followed by St. John on December 27th, who may not have met a violent death, but who, the tradition tells us, died in a prison of sorts, in exile for his faith, far away from the “civilized” powers that had sent him there.

December 28th brings us back to babies, but with no relief — it is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remembering the children Herod ordered slaughtered, according to Matthew’s gospel, in his rabid fear of the rival king.

The message is clear and hard: Following this baby, as he reaches to us from the resin manger, looking out at us with the soft-eyed cattle and docile sheep, comes at a price.

There is an edge to Christmas, a harshness, and a different kind of promise than that implied by the easy words of peace and glad tidings. It is a mystery, all of it. The Word made flesh indeed, but into a world that was from the beginning set against it, that sought with every bit of strength at hand to stay in the darkness.

December 24, 2009 , 11:29PM Posted by | Christianity, Christmas | Comments Off on The Dark Side of Christmas

All Americans Should Not Have to Pay for Some Americans’ Misdeeds, Bad Habits or Stupid Choices

Good post by “zombie” regarding the debate over whether or not America should implement universal, single-payer health care: Why America Hates Universal Health Care: The Real Reason

An excerpt:

A built-in false assumption with the health-care debate is that sickness is always no-fault sickness. It’s never socially acceptable to assign blame for people’s medical problems — especially blame on the patient.

But I’m not afraid to confess that I’m a judgmental person. And I’m pretty confident that most Americans who oppose socialized medicine share this same judgment: that some people are partly or entirely to blame for their unwellness.

I’m perfectly willing to provide subsidized health care to people who are suffering due to no fault of their own. But in those cases — which, unfortunately, constitute perhaps a majority of all cases — where the unwellness is a consequence of the patient’s own misdeeds, bad habits, or stupid choices, I feel a deep-seated resentment that the rest of us should pick up the tab to fix medical problems that never should have happened in the first place.

I’m speaking specifically of medical problems caused by:

• Obesity
• Cigarette smoking
• Alcohol abuse
• Reckless behavior
• Criminal activity
• Unprotected promiscuous sex
• Use of illicit drugs
• Cultural traditions
• Bad diets

Now, I really don’t care if you overeat, smoke like a chimney, hump like a bunny or forget to lock the safety mechanism on your pistol as you jam it in your waistband. Fine by me. And as a laissez-faire social-libertarian live-and-let-live kind of person, I would never under normal circumstances condemn anyone for any of the behaviors listed above. That is: Until the bill for your stupidity shows up in my mailbox. Then suddenly, I’m forced to care about what you do, because I’m being forced to pay for the consequences.

What I don’t like about the very concept of universal health care is that it compels me to become my brother’s keeper and insert myself into the moral decisions of his life. I’d rather grant each person maximum freedom. I’d prefer to let people make whatever choices they want, however stupid or dangerous I may deem those choices to be. Just so long as you take responsibility for your actions, and you reap the consequences and pay for them yourself — hey, be as foolish or hedonistic or selfish or thoughtless as you like. Not my business.

But if the bill for your foolishness shows up in the form of higher taxes on me, then I unwillingly start to care what you do. And, trust me on this, you don’t want me turning my heartless judgmental eye on your foolish lifestyle. Because I’d have no qualms criticizing half the stuff you do.

Do you want that? No. Do I want that? No. And that’s the point. [ … ]

Also, a good comment left in the comments section:

stuiec on Dec 15, 2009 at 3:57 pm:

Hmmm. Isn’t your doctor supposed to tell you frankly about how you can improve your present health and avoid future disease? I prefer having my doctor tell me to lose weight than to have my city ban trans-fats or tax soft drinks: I can take or leave my doctor’s advice based on my own judgment but the actions of my city (or state, or national) government reduce my freedom.

One of the related problems our society has is the inability to accept any bad outcome, regardless of cause or fault. For example, I would be fine with a law that said that ambulance crews have the right to refuse treatment to motorcyclists who are injured while riding without a helmet – but apparently either I am in a tiny minority or my elected representatives think that I am, and so every motorcyclist has to relinquish the freedom to choose to go without a helmet.

If you prohibit someone from doing something stupid that they really want to do, even though you do it for “their own good,” they aren’t going to thank you for saving them from something that might never happen – they’ll resent you for not letting them make their own damn mistakes.

This also applies to seat-belt laws. Instead of allowing people to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a seat belt — and then deal with any consequences which come from that decision — we are (1) forced by law to wear a seat-belt and (2) punished by law with a ticket and fine of ~$100 (depending on the laws of the locality) for not wearing one.

Another good point made by “zombie”: universal single-payer health care leads to fascism:

[ … ] As above, under normal circumstances I would sigh in mystification and let other people go their merry way, killing themselves with bad food. Yet once I start to ponder the overwhelming society-wide medical costs of keeping millions of unhealthy people alive for decades and decades, my anger grows. I want to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on TV. I want to outlaw donuts. I want to tax McDonald’s to cover the full environmental cost of their products. I want to do all sorts of quasi-fascistic things that normally I would never advocate.

Because that’s what socialized medicine does: it turns each of us into a little fascist. A nagging nanny who tells other people what to do and how to live.

Do we want that kind of society? I don’t. If you look at other countries with socialized medicine, Great Britain being the most glaring example, these invasive and oppressive government dictates have already started to circumscribe people’s freedom, with every kind of potentially dangerous activity or unhealthy comestible being declared forbidden — for the good of society as a whole.

We call it “socialized medicine,” but in the end it pushes us toward fascism.

Yep. And if you don’t believe that these fascistic law would be next in line after Obama and the Democrats implement universal single-payer healthcare, you haven’t been paying attention. Just look at one example of what they are doing as a result of their believe in the AGW hoax: giving energy companies control over people’s thermostats. You can be damn sure there will be more where that came from.

Another great comment. And a principle which I do not think most proponents of Obamacare even understand: you lose your freedom when someone else owns you. And that is exactly what happens under Obamacare: others are paying your bill, thus, they own you and your lifestyle choices. It basically becomes a parent-child relationship. Think of the “so long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules” rant of a parent to a rebellious child. The same principle applies here. In this analogy, all Americans are the parents and every other American are the children. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of simply cutting off our children’s allowance or kicking them out of the house if they refuse to follow our rules. Universal single-payer health care basically mandates that we are parents-for-life, whether we want to be or not.

Mike T on Dec 17, 2009 at 10:31 am:

That said, I agree with you about the busybody ramifications here. I personally applaud the British NHS for having the integrity to start telling the public that if the chavs want their healthcare paid for by the tax payers, the NHS will be moral-bound to start regulating their pleasures so that it can control costs. Once you make others foot your bills, you lose your right of self-determination.

December 18, 2009 , 3:14PM Posted by | Conservatism, Fascism, Healthcare, Liberalism, Socialism | 2 Comments

Not One Thing about Not Redefining Marriage Restricts the Liberty of Homosexuals

Great discussion in the comments here regarding (1) a homosexual advocacy group wanting to be a sponsor of the 2010 CPAC and (2) the principle of the GLBT movement to redefine marriage and our culture.


“We are constantly talking about less government and more individual liberty, except when it comes to those damn gays.”

Last I heard, no one is proposing barring gays from doing anything limited to themselves. No one’s weeping about the loss of laws prohibiting sodomy. If they want to shack up and bugger all night, they’ve got every liberty in the world to do so.

But marriage isn’t just about what the gay couple want to do. It’s also about what the rest of society does. There’s a reason that most weddings see every person who knows the couple invited, and where all the guests are asked to -witness- the marriage. Marriage is about all of society recognizing the couple and effectively treating them as a single unit.

Not one thing about being denied marriage restricts the liberty of gays. It means they don’t have the -right- to approval of society at large – an approval underwritten by government. When you demand that gays get marriage rights, you’re asking the government to step in and enforce their union. Gay marriage means MORE government, not less. It amazes me how those who support gay marriage can’t grasp this very simple point.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:34 AM


The Governments involvement in marriage is due to the Government’s interest in a healthy (genetic diversity) and sustainable (replacement ratio) society. The intrusion of Government into that aspect of our private lives is not a benefit, if the gay community feels there is an overwhelming Government Interest in managing their personal relationships then they should define it. It has nothing to do with privacy or equality. The only material issue is the Government’s extension of tax advantages to encourage sustainable families – which is primarily an economic interest. If the gays want a similar advantageous provision in the tax law then they are welcome to try and get it, good luck.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 10:37 AM


“*7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.”


Rogue judges are overwriting the constitution with their personal preferences all over the damn place. -That- is an attack on the Constitution that needs defending. If the left were instead getting their changes to the Constitution via the legal, constitutional amendment process, no one on the right would be worrying about “defending our constitution”.

But this group seems to not care about the constitution being rewritten by judges, no, they care about opposing what would be a perfectly legal, constitutional amendment.

This group’s priorities aren’t conservative.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:39 AM


As soon as you say “Oh look at me, I’m a conservative and I’m black/gay/asian/whatever…” you miss the entire point of the conservative agenda. Nobody cares. It’s not an issue until a homosexual brings it up. GOProud? What a joke.

Posted by: Posted by at December 17, 2009 10:08 AM

Agreed. We are just not into identity politics. And any group that is explicitly formed to fight DoMA is not what CPAC needs. As far as the Birchers, they were excised by Buckley and I guess we have to do it again. With communism gone, I’m guessing that all they have left is the anti-Semitism.

This is the one point my gay friend keeps coming back to when we discuss his drooling hatred of the right that I have a hard time countering. We are constantly talking about less government and more individual liberty, except when it comes to those damn gays.

Here’s the thing: Marriage licenses are a subsidy. The state recognizes marriage in part because of tradition but that tradition arises because of issues of inheritance and child-rearing. (Most of our wedding traditions are not Christian or Jewish, they’re Roman.) A same-sex couple cannot produce children on their own nor would that union have ever produced children (well, maybe some lawyers, the science isn’t settled on that).

There’s no ban on gay marriage. You can have a ceremony, invite friends and family, have anyone preside who’s willing, have it at any place that is willing, wear a dress, wear a tux, wear a dress made of a tux, have a flower girl, have a flower shemale, get it catered, have a reception, have an orgy, whatever you want. You just don’t get a license from the state.

And… and this is important… you cannot force a church to perform your ceremony or have your ceremony on its premises. Let’s face it, most of those pushing for same-sex marriage have as their next step to force churches to do it. They are very explicit. It’s already been done in Canada.
I guess your friend has to wrestle with the following: Would you rather ally yourself with a party who doesn’t like what you do but whose manifestation of that dislike extends to not granting licenses. (Honestly, why doesn’t that make gays happy? Do you really want your lover to start hectoring you to “settle down”? Seriously, you’re welcome.) Or would you rather ally yourself with a party who will say they love you and your campaign money but eventually decide that your kind tends to have an expensive disease that is just not worth treating?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 10:41 AM


First, there is no such beast as “gay marriage”. The lavender mafia is trying to force same-sex pseudo-marriage on the U.S. The people don’t want it. It is is no way, shape, or form conservative to attack the foundation of our civilization against our will.

Is that too complicated for you to understand, Gabe?

Posted by: Gerry at December 17, 2009 10:44 AM


DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

If lefty judges were not imposing “gay marriage” from on high by judicial tyranny, such an amendment would not be necessary. But they *are*, and so it *is*.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 17, 2009 10:46 AM


“people are people, who gives a shit what they do in their own bedrooms.”

No one does. But as far as I know, marriages don’t take place in bedrooms.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:54 AM


After your post about Sheriff Joe and now this over the top anger because some group does not like homosexual activity, and to even group yourself around a sexual orientation is all about agenda. I suspect like most Americans I don’t stick my nose into your bedroom practices, but woe to you if you push your sexual life in front of my face.

This is a never ending slide into deviancy. If it is OK and acceptable to be homosexual, next it will be OK to be a pedophile, or be homosexual parents that adopt a kid, and what sort of personality forming is going to happen to that kid? I guess for people like you Gabriel we should just all shut up and as long as a behavior is currently fashionable everyone else can be defined as a bigot if they do not accept that behavior. You are not a conservative, certainly I am not detecting a moral foundation upon which conservatism must be based, so what is your conservatism based upon…it seems like a good idea? Your dad or mom was conservative? Two posts now from you that follow the politically correct line, and elitist fashionable thinking.

Posted by: jehu at December 17, 2009 10:54 AM


Your personal opinion regarding gays, blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, Scandis, etc. is just that, yours.

Which of these things is not like the other? A behavior is not an immutable characteristic like a race or ethnicity is. (Religion isn’t immutable either, but we have a basic secular governmental framework that already addresses that)

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 17, 2009 10:57 AM


Personally I think, given the times, the Republicans need to become a 100% fical conservative parties. Sure we can cater to some social issues, but america is going broke, we’re are losing freedom supposedly protected by the constitution, companies are being nationalized, government is growing at the fastest rate since the Great Society. Honestly, let’s focus on the financial future of our country.

We need a Reagan, not a George Bush. Keep in mind, to all the social cons, did George Bush actually come through on any of the social conservative things he promised? Did he even attempt to push through a Marriage Amendment to the constitution? Do any of the Social Con presidents ever come through on their promises? Do you think Huckabee will? I’m not saying it really even matters if we ideologically agree on social issues, because no president has ever really come through on the social issues they promised during the campaigns.

I don’t know if you guys remember, but Reagan was Libertarian on gay issues, he single handedly killed the Briggs Amendment in California that would have prevented gays from being teahers. Hell his son Ron is a flamingly gay.

I think opinions on homosexuality are personal ones. If you are a conservative you want less government, why in the world would you want to get it involved in policy related to sex. I don’t want the government involved in marriage at all. It is a religious issue, not a governmental one.

Posted by: Ben at December 17, 2009 10:59 AM


Second, per my 124, you go tell DICK CHENEY he’s out of the movement. Good luck coming back alive.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 10:46 AM

Sure, I have no problem telling him that Drew. So what. Tell me how we go about legalizing marriage in one state and not have it recognized everywhere?

I also don’t think I’ll catch “teh ghey” from anyone but that doesn’t mean I want them sponsoring any event I’m attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:00 AM


When you demand that gays get marriage rights, you’re asking the government to step in and enforce their union. Gay marriage means MORE government, not less. It amazes me how those who support gay marriage can’t grasp this very simple point.

Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:34 AM

That’s what I’ve been saying, and is why civil unions are no different from marriage. It’s government endorsement of something I don’t endorse. I don’t want the government to interfere in their private behavior, but neither do I want the government endorsing it.

Posted by: Socrates H. Obummer at December 17, 2009 11:02 AM


“Who decides who has the “right to approval?” Whether you, as a person, approve or not is meaningless.”

You’re confusing approval with tolerance. If gays want to be gays, go and be gay. Yay for you. No one’s stopping you.

But society actively -approves- of, not just tolerates but seeks to encourage and affirm, heterosexual marriage. Why? Because statistically it is the best platform for creating and raising the next generations of society. It is about the kids. Gays have nothing to do with that, and it isn’t because if evil right winger policies. It’s simple biology. And no, turkey basters are not the great equalizer here.

Marriage as currently enacted is an act of government power. Society agrees on giving government this power because it sees marriage as an overall good for the purpose of creating the next generation of humanity. There is no equivalent reason for giving government this power when it comes to gays, and in fact, it serves to damage it by effectively redefining marriage as being about “love” rather than about kids.

“Basic human and conservative values mean that everyone, including gays, has the right to approval of society.”

Conservatives see people as individuals, not as groups. You’re attempting to extend conservative principles toward the supremacy of the individual, and extending it to a couple, and to a group at large. Doesn’t work. In fact, it’s a pretty damn leftist idea.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 11:02 AM


This is funny….workable institution? Tell that to 50% of the people who take the vows and then head to divorce court.

Posted by: rightzilla at December 17, 2009 10:54 AM

Making the perfect the enemy of the good isn’t really an argument. It’s a logical fallacy.

Using your standard I can say that if 50% of marriages end in divorce then the other 50% of marriages end in death. Moral: Marriage never ends well. Let’s totally do away with it!

Divorce (or more properly, no-fault divorce) is not the ideal. However, the arguments against no-fault divorce mirrored somewhat the same arguments against gay marriage, in that it trivializes the institution. When it’s trivialized then people don’t take it seriously and unwanted things tend to happen to society at large. For instance, demographics tend to shift because without marriage people tend to have fewer (or no) children, and those children that are raised in a single-parent household tend to have some disadvantages. Again, not the ideal. Europe has an interesting demographic experiment going on right now what with the number of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries coming in and building minarets. Interestingly, marriage rates in Europe are, according to Mark Steyn’s research, less than robust. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not…but I’m not willing to chance it.

Posted by: JohnTant at December 17, 2009 11:04 AM


Peter LaBarbera writes: “there is nothing ‘conservative’ about — as Barber inimitably puts it — ‘one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’'” Well, sure. There’s also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman’s coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that “rape.”

Ok, I don’t care about the gay marriage thing, seriously, I think the government should be out of the marriage business entirely, but I have to take exception to the above statement. It’s just odd.

Rape is not consensual and I don’t know too many conservatives that think it’s conservative.

Posted by: pajama momma at December 17, 2009 11:04 AM


195 Folks, one thing I want to point out:

Marriage, in today’s society, is not between two people. It’s between two people and everybody else.

The rights around marriage are all rights accorded by other people, whether it’s in accommodation, access, finance, insurance, taxation, etc. Those aren’t one person giving to the other person, it’s recognition and accommodation given by third parties to the two people in the union.

That’s my biggest bone with gay marriage: Institute it, and we’re all bound to acknowledge and accommodate it whether we agree with it or not, or face more government sanction when we’re sued for discrimination.

Personally, I think people have the right to discriminate with their own property and services, whether they’re right or wrong when they do it.

Posted by: nickless at December 17, 2009 11:09 AM


It is interesteing how those of us who simply oppose gay marriage –and wish that sexual matters are left behind closed doors — are considered bigots. But the nastiness conveyed by gay advocates to those who oppose it is just fine, I guess.

And funny how the majority of those of us who believe gay marriage is morally wrong are usually of the Christian persuasion and part of the “religious right” who, by the way, make up a large chunk of the consevatives in this country.

So Gabriel, and the rest of you who believe in anti-conservative identity politics, you’ve just called a majority of conservatives bigots.

But nothing to see here…. organized gay advocates are NO threat to conservativsm or organized conservative groups…. NOT.

And for those of you calling bigots those of us who oppose organized gay groups into CPAC…. it is not the fact that gay people are conservative and want to attend the conference…. that’s fine. We’re a party of many people. But to condone a group specifically advocating principles and behavior that are anathema to conservatism is the problem. A person who is gay and keeps it behind closed doors and attends CPAC with an otherwise conservative agenda is just like everyone else there. But a group advocating for a huge societal change (called gay marriage and acceptance) forced by law upon the very people in the CPAC room, not to mention the entire country, is not conservative AT ALL.

Seems to me that Gabriel and others have sipped of the punch that is political correctness gone mad.

Posted by: sharprightturn at December 17, 2009 11:15 AM


NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

The comparison between being gay and a pedohile is idiotic. What part of “consenting adults” don’t you get?

Straight marriage is acceptable. Does that mean we also accept grown men having sex with 8 year old girls, simply because it’s not gay?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 11:12 AM

A mere stroke of the pen. Mexico has an age of consent of 12-years-old. Is that young enough for you?

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:16 AM


224 Remove the government privileges surrounding marriage and the problem goes away.

Divorce is handled according to the entity that performed the marriage. If a church chooses to marry gays, divorce is handled according to the rules of that church, as long as the inalienable rights aren’t infringed upon. As soon as they are, *then* government has the right to get involved.

Joint property is either divided in a reasoned, cooperative fashion, or it’s all liquidated and the cash is split evenly. Child custody is handled cooperatively, but if a state agency has to get involved to protect the rights of minors, that is an acceptable function of government.

As far as the government is concerned, there should be no gay, straight, married, single, divorced, black, while, latino, asian, male, female. There should be American. Period. Any law that differentiates between groups for any reason is wrong.

Posted by: grognard at December 17, 2009 11:17 AM


On a policy standpoint, there is a better argument for restricting the State’s approval of the marriages we have now, on the grounds that too many of them don’t work, than for expanding it to a population statistically known to be more promiscuous than the average woman (i.e., men).

On to politics, redefining marriage is not a conservative standpoint. It could be a Republican standpoint but if & when that happens, the Republicans cease to be a conservative party.

So if you want to drive conservatives away from the GOP, and make the remainer the equivalent of the Canadian Tories during the 1990s, then by all means go for it. (I’m not exactly a conservative myself, but I think I’m pretty good at guessing how conservatives think, and I don’t think they’re bluffing on that threat.)

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 11:17 AM


251 Well, sure. There’s also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman’s coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that “rape.” Way to miss the point, bigots. (Yes, I called the Barber-types “bigots.” No, I didn’t say anything about all social cons, the vast majority of whom disagree with Barber.)

No, we don’t call that rape Gabe, we call that a good hard fuck and women enjoy it immensely. No,the vast majority of so-cons do not disagree with Barber. No, he is not a bigot, and no, you do not belong at a conservative blog.

No, opposing the radical gay agenda does not make one “anti-gay”; for example, over 80% of Americans do not support gay adoption. You consider them all bigots.

Here’s the thing: let’s suppose that Barber hates gays, as is his right. That means he hates 5% of the population, and that 5% isn’t very popular with a lot of people to begin with.

You hate 80% of the population right off the bat, and if we add race and religious issues into the equation it’s probably closer to 95%. You’re the hater, guy. You literally hate America, or at least 95% of it. Socons like Barber merely hate the ~5% who want to harm America and who hate most Americans to begin with.

One of the points of GOProud’s agenda if you read it closely is that they think America should invade countries which aren’t sufficiently friendly to the radical gay agenda. They want American soldiers to fight and die in scores of countries which do not embrace their views, views not shared by the vast majority of Americans. That’s not conservative. At all.

As another commenter mentioned identity politics is anathema to conservatives. As GOProud if they support the “hate crime” law recently passed which gives gays special status. Ask them if they support free speech i.e. the right to call a fag a fag. They don’t.

These guys would have Ace arrested, or at least fined by a human rights commission, for using words like cocksucker and queerbait. They want one set of laws for gays and another for everyone else. They favour tax cuts? Big deal, who doesn’t? It doesn’t make them conservative. There is a metric pantload of data showing that there is no such thing as a social liberal fiscal conservative in congress, that the Barney Franks inevitably are the biggest spendthrifts.

The catty, effette tone of this post (Sqwaaaaaaawk! The hillbillies are afraid of teh gays! Hurrrrr.) is fairly typical of gay radicals and part of the reason they are so disliked. They never make logical, manly arguments, preferring instead to make strawman arguments depicting their opponents as hicks, and constructing logical fallacies, such as deliberately misinterpreting a good hard fuck as rape.

Besides, what do these guys bring to the table? They are a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction and not a terribly trustworthy one at that. Andrew Sullivan is a perfect example; they’ll stab you in the back in a hysterical fury over something or other, every time.

The Dalai Lama (and hundreds of millions of Buddhists who’ve never read the bible) opposes homosexuality and considers it sexual misconduct: is he a bigot too Gabe? I want to see you type those words, come on tough guy! The Sikh think the same thing, so does the vast majority of the “macho” twelve million illegal immigrants that you think are a good idea to have in a country with high unemployment in a budget crisis. 31 out of 31 states have voted down gay marriage: are they bigots? Is California bigoted?

A conservative is, I say somewhat tongue in cheek, someone who opposes pretty much any initiative that has been suggested or implemented since 1964, one of which being removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental illness. I can’t stand my gay co-workers, and it has nothing to do with their sex lives and everything to do with the way they act. Yeah, I think they’re nuts, and so did the medical community and pretty much everyone else until they got steamrolled by the radical left.

Ace, is Gabe really necessary for you to run your blog? He’s a really, really left wing dude, as this post demonstrates. He wants to throw you in jail for saying mean things about gays and he’s not shy about labelling large swaths of the population and your readership as “bigots”. I don’t think I’ve ever felt the need to call anyone a bigot in my life and conservatives typically don’t use this word for people who disagree with them. America is a big country and surely you can find a more appropriate co-blogger.

Posted by: Guess Who? at December 17, 2009 11:26 AM


I look forward to “Conservatives for Cap and Trade”, “Conservatives for Fragging Officers”, “Conservatives for Public Option”, “Conservatives for Ahmadinejad”, etc.

Oops, I forgot. It’s only social conseratives that are treated worse than shit by the GOP for the past twenty years. First Poppy Bush made the party give up advocating for a Human Life Amendment, then W bailed on the Marriage Amendment and didn’t lift a finger against the execrable Lawrence v. Texas decision (citing foreign law to prohibit states and localities from enacting and enforcing their own criminal laws), now opposition to a basic conservative belief is given privileged status by the party. I seriously doubt that this country is worth it anymore.

Posted by: DenverGregg at December 17, 2009 11:26 AM


Ok here’s the thing:

Several hundred years ago this country was founded on Christian Principals in defense of Religious Freedom. NOT in defense of anyones’ right to sexual freedom. Religious Freedom. Prior to that for thousands of years virtually every major religion (Jew, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, Budhist, Druids, ad nauseum….) recognized a Religious Sacrement called Marriage. Then our State made a significant error when it started LICENSING that same religious sacrement. (Now THAT’S an inappropriate violation of Church and State!) So when it comes to the concept of Gay Marriage and equality I have to first recognize any single religious group’s right to their sacrement of Marriage. IE: if there’s an anti-gay bigoted group….say The Black Southern Baptists Church (I’m just throwing out an example here, I have no idea what they would say)….that object to gay marriage, THEY’VE GOT A RIGHT to that opinion and frankly their religious sacrament trumps the state’s right to license the institution. So if you license gay marriage you’re essentially guaranteeing another “abortion” issue where different groups have different opinions and each side forces the other to live with the results no matter what their religion says. Do we really need another Liberals v. Conservative issue to divide the country? I don’t think so!!!!

An alternative? SIMPLE. Convert the state’s license of marriage into a civil contract. If you want to get married you have to have that done by an appropriate religious body. Thus Episcopalians can have gay marriage but Black Southern Baptists can pass on the issue. The state however issues a civil contract underwhich everyone is equal and gays can get the same legal treatment as hetero’s no matter the religion. All prior marriages are retro-qualified as automatically licensed under the new Civil Contract Law. Thus Rosie Odonnel can have her “gay marriage” provided she can find someone to take her fat ass in a civil contract and a religious institution that will perform the sacrament ceremony. She’s equal under the law and yet it still respects other’s right to NOT recognize the religious sacrament of marriage for homosexuals within their religion. Now THAT’S a proposition that 95% of the country can accept and live with!

Last but not least…. allowing gay marriage is guaranteed to increase the divorce industry. I’ve seen gay couples before and they go through more drama than 10 of their heterosexual counterparts. I’d expect a 3 fold increase in divorces within the first 5 years of the enactment of gay marriage. I think gay’s have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The only remaining question for the courts to decide is if the guy on bottom has all the same rights that women in a hetrosexual marriage have to 1/2 their former partners assets and income. I mean if they really wanna be equal…..

Posted by: Just a Cynic…. at December 17, 2009 11:29 AM


“Yet you want to deny the same basic freedoms you and I enjoy to other people because they are a member of a group called “Gay.” Okay.”


Marriage isn’t a “basic freedom”, it is a non-random institution that is -explicitly endorsed- because it provides the statistically best method for creating the next generation of civilization, via the raising of children by their biological parents in a stable monogamous relationship. Gays exclude -themselves- from the reason why marriage is endorsed and subsidized by the state.

“And I have yet to see how what two consenting individuals do with each other behind closed doors has any bearing on their political ideology, unless we “normies” make it an issue.”

This gets so f’ing old. How many times do we have to answer this? No one gives a bloody crap what you’re doing “behind closed doors”. Marriages don’t take place “behind closed doors” or “in the bedroom”. If they are endorsing gay marriage, that’s a political statement, and -they- made it the issue via their own political advocay, not us. If GOProud didn’t have “support gay marriage” as part of their platform, I suspect the opposition to their sponsorship would drop 95%.

But let’s measure that. HEY EVERYBODY WHO OPPOSES GOProud’s SPONSORHIP! If GOProud did not support gay marriage, would you still oppose them? If you are opposed now but would stop being opposed if they dropped the whole “Defending the constitution = supporting gay marriage” shtick, raise your hand.

*raises hand*


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 11:30 AM


Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:19 AM

Why would I bother calling you a bigot? You’re doing a fine job of it with your own words.

If you don’t understand the difference between consensual sex between adults and child rape, the problem isn’t that you are a bigot. It’s that you are stupid.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:24 AM

Fuck off Drew. What I was trying to point out was your magical age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary point in space too. You can crank that age down to anything you want, but does that make it OK?

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:31 AM


If you don’t understand the difference between consensual sex between adults and child rape, the problem isn’t that you are a bigot. It’s that you are stupid.

Yeah, but adulthood is a societal construct itself in the same way marriage is.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 17, 2009 11:33 AM


True as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

People only bring NAMBLA up when they want to be scary.

This is an argument about the political agenda of a gay and anti-gay conservative groups. WTF does NAMBLA or age of consent have to do with it?

People bring NAMBLA up because they want to smear gays, plain and simple.

Not really irrelevant. You’re calling folks bigoted because they don’t adhere to your levels of tolerance. But others undoubtedly would view you as bigoted for not favoring a lowered age of consent. Or multiple partners. Or whatever the cause de’jure may be.

My point is, why insult a group of people that were already on your side simply to curry favor with a group of folks playing identity politics that you want to join you..

Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 17, 2009 11:43 AM


The issue is more to the fact that the group insists on identifying itself as a “Gay” group. Many people besides conservatives, take issue with the idea that people must acknowledge other people’s sexual practices.

A lot of people take the attitude, keep it private, keep it in your bedroom, don’t stick it in our faces by talking about what you do in your bedroom.

Suppose there was a GSOP group. (Golden Showers Old Party) Or a GSCTOP group. ( Go Scat old party)

People would be rightly saying “Shut the fuck up!” “Nobody wants to hear about your shit!”

Same thing. As long as a group insists on identifying itself as a particular sexual fetish, it ought not be accepted in an organization championing responsibility and morality.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 11:46 AM


310 Hmmm, alright, I gotta change my mind – yes, I would still have a problem with GOProud if they dropped the support for gay marriage – though still, a lot LESS of a problem – simply due to their attempt to play identity politics.

I have to agree with Diogenes and all the rest making this point. Simply playing the identity politics card, wherever they stand on the actual issues, is problematic.

But the fact that they play identity politics AND stand diametrically opposed to a policy position of the group they’re attempting to infiltrate is even worse.

I have no problem at all with -individual- gay conservatives who oppose gay marriage – hell, I would -never- stand between the GOP and alexthechick (unless that might induce her to bring out her stompy boots, in which case, all bets are off). But when they start to claim their identity group as more important than their politics, bleah, that’s when they cross the line to showing their true leftist colors.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 11:51 AM


There’s also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman’s coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that “rape.”

Sorry, you lost me here. Often?

There is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about sexual orientation. The politics come in when someone’s sexual orientation leaves the bedroom.

Posted by: Y-not at December 17, 2009 11:56 AM


A lot of people here are confusing “conservative” with “libertarian”, and confusing both with any given alliance of the Right (like the GOP).

It happens that those positions are in existential conflict on an array of issues. One of them is marriage: conservatives say it is a traditional institution of Western culture, and libertarians say it is a contract.

CPAC claims to be a conservative organisation; but when they allow a pro-contract group in as a sponsor, then they aren’t. It is a conflict of interest for an anti-conservative group to sponsor a conservative group.

This site, Ace of Spades, is an alliance of the Right, more or less parallel to the GOP. Like the GOP we have conservatives and libertarians here. We also have some who aren’t either one, like myself – but people like us aren’t given top posting privileges like Gabriel.

Gabriel’s key comment was this: “It seems that a small group of social conservatives led by anti-gay Matt Barber and Liberty Counsel is threatening to boycott CPAC if GOProud isn’t kicked off the co-sponsors list. I say let them boycott if they’re so worried about being in the same room as teh gays.”

Here’s the point: Barber may be a jerk and a bigot, but he is still an authentic conservative. GOProud is anti-conservative. To say that CPAC has to kick out conservatives to let in an anti-conservative is to subvert CPAC; inductively, it is to destroy conservative associations as conservative.

Gabriel Malor’s post here does not further the alliance of the Right. He is trying to save the village by setting fire to the part of it he doesn’t like.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 12:00 PM


“Would you also be against civil unions then? Wouldn’t that be, as far as the state is concerned, also to the benefit of society and the state?”

Um, why? In what way does the government subsidizing “civil unions” benefit society or the state? It does nothing to encourage a stable platform for the raising of children by their biological parents.

“What I think gets lost is this whole discussion is that while marriage between a man and a woman may considered be the best thing for perpetuatuting the species, it is not the only reason people get married.”

No, but it is the explicit reason the government got involved. The government has no stake in any of the other reasons.

“The state gives numerous basic priviledges to married couples that non-married couples are denied, such as inheritance rights and visitation rights. If society only does this to promote the cultivation of the next generation, should those couples who personally decide to not have children be denied those same rights?”

It would require a pretty intrusive government to weed those few people out. The government would then have to investigate -why- the couple doesn’t have children, etc. Hardly worth it, especially when they’re a minority and their refusal to reproduce doesn’t redefine the institution in a real, binding sense. There is no intrusion required in recognizing that gays -categorically- cannot produce or raise their biological children.

But that said, if it’s a -forced choice- between redefining marriage to be about something other than the kids, and not allowing those who don’t wish to have kids to marry, then I’d go with the latter. I know, that’d be a dickish move, and I’d feel especially bad for those couples who -couldn’t- have kids due to infertility, but you know what? I’m not the one -forcing- the choice just to prevent gay marriage advocates from beating the slippery slope drum.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:00 PM


NAMBLA and Jennings are relevant until the gay community violently rejects them. A few gay conservatives, like GayPatriot, do not represent the gay community. What prominent gay organization has gone to Pelosi and demanded Jennings’ head? When will I see gay bikers trashing a NAMBLA meeting with bats and chains? It is up to them (the gay community) to make NAMBLA slurs irrelevant, and to do so in a very public and searing manner so that the rest of us don’t forget, and then periodically reinforce that image. If they want to sit at the big table, then they need to take out the garbage first.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 12:10 PM


Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children. Every person I know, both straight and gay, totally condemns child sex.

Your argument is out of place, incoherent, wrong and insulting.

Um, I guess you have -entirely- missed the entire “Fistinggate” scandal, and the fact that pretty much everyone on the left side of the spectrum seems to be defending it.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:11 PM


I mean, hell, I actually saw a defense of Fistinggate that boiled down to: “Those evil right wingers are claiming this particular book endorsed fisting among children, when it doesn’t at all! It in fact only encourages children to use dental dams, which help prevent children engaging in oral sex from catching diseases!”

Read that a few times, and see if you can grok that they actually think that exonerates them.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:13 PM


Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children.

That was the point of the GLSEN reading list. Yes, they would officially deny it, they are not as honest as NAMBLA, but the stories were explicitly meant to normalize relations between children and adults.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 12:14 PM


DrewM, I know you’re not directing that at me (because I was arguing from the standpoint that GOProud an anti-conservative group; I didn’t care about the gay or identity part of it), but try this on anyway:

I argue that “conservative” is a political identity. CPAC should allow identity groups which follow conservative principles. Christians are okay. Gay groups are okay if they don’t argue for the redefinition of marriage. GOProud, not okay.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 12:22 PM


Listen, CPAC should include anybody they want but they should be Conservative first and foremost. The argument here is that GOProud is conservative, maybe they are nominally but they are first and foremost a GAY group. The argument is that most of their agenda is conservative and that’s BS.

Most of their agenda is Gay. It’s at the heart of almost every point of their agenda.

GOProud’s Conservative Agenda

The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Hate crime laws are worthy goals? They are an insult to any idea of freedom of thought. Employment protections? For who? Especially Gays and lesbians.

Christians are pro-life. Are they against abortions especially for Christians?

Conservatives are against especially for anybody. Nobody’s special.

1- TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code

Provide equity for Gays and lesbians. Again, are black conservatives in favor of changing to the tax code to provide equity for blacks? What is conservative about carving out special changes in the tax code for your Especial Group?

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

Expanding access means telling private companies what the hell they have to do.
Preventing discriminatory practices mean business owners have to pay for the health benefits of domestic partners again telling them what they have to do regardless of how they feel about it. How the hell is this Conservative?

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM- Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Is anyone even pretending this is Conservative?

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

You have got to be friggin kiddin’ me right? American Foreign Policy is supposed to be seriously effected by the idea that Kenyans want a law against homosexuals?

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

It’s anti-gay….not pro marriage, get the wording here. It’s not codifying how the federal government has always defined marriage it’s anti-gay. That’s Conservative?

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

In the Gay community. The Especial people. Gee I wonder if they will be for a package which helps out the community of small business owners who want that anti-gay marriage ammendment. I’m thinking that’s a big NO.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

Urban reforms? What the hell does the federal government have to do with city government? Tax Preservation Credits? I’m not really seeing much conservative here except for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

2nd amendment rights aren’t about protecting any damn community. It’s an individual right. This sounds like they see the 2nd amendment as a Militia only thing. That isn’t Conservative.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 12:23 PM


Purple Avenger, I see you’re not done making own goals. Far be it from me to get in your way.

A “conservative” group is an ideological group. If you don’t like it, don’t join; above all don’t be like Gabriel Malor and tell conservatives good riddance. Join a Republican group instead and make the argument there. Duh.

In your analogy, Roosevelt in fact did think of Stalin as more of an ally than he was; and he made far too many concessions to the international Left, including allowing several Communists into his government. The result was Stalin and Mao taking over much of the world, the loss of nuclear secrets, and the disaster of the Korean War. Roosevelt would have done better to have kept his distance.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 12:57 PM


“In what way is it obvious? There are two points which touch on gay issues”


Dude. Read it again. Six of them directly frame the points as gay issues. Explicitly. The only ones that don’t explicitly do so are 3, 5, 9 and 10. And number 5 is the only one either not painted in a leftist framing or clearly aimed at advancing the gay agenda specifically (or do you really think their point 3 is about anything other than letting gays specifically inherit SS from their partners?).

Your claim that only 2 of those 10 points “touch on gay issues” makes me really start to doubt that you’re arguing in good faith. It’s -explicit- in -six- of them.

The -only- point that is unobjectionable in that list is point 5.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:57 PM


“Everybody needs to get over the gay issue. Social cons want the government out of all things except when they want the Fed’s to enfore their moral views. Talk about hypocrisy. “

And this has been debunked how many times now? Being for government subsidizing of gay marriage is the -bigger government- position.

We’ve said this a thousand times. The pro-gay-marriage crowd simply doesn’t listen to anything. They’ve made up their minds about the motives of the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and it’s like talking to a wall.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:59 PM


See, this is why I don’t bother commenting here much anymore: why bother accusing you of running a crypto-leftist blog Ace when Gabe, Drew, and the Purple guy do such a splendid job of proving my point for me?

These guys genuinely believe and openly admit that they think people who oppose the inclusion of a radical gay – which is to say explicitly anti-conservative – lobby in a conservative movement…are bigots. The equation can be shortened to conservative=bigot, that’s what they are arguing here.

Oh, I just caught this:

I’m uncomfortable with the whole notion of marriage being legally enshrined and have been for many years.

Is the Purple Avenger more radically Marxist than the Communist Party of Cuba? Let’s roll the tape:

Article 35: The state protects the family, motherhood and matrimony.

The state recognizes the family as the main nucleus of society and attributes to it the important responsibilities and functions in the education and formation of the new generations.

Article 36: Marriage is the voluntarily established union between a man and a woman, who are legally fit to marry, in order to live together. It is based on full equality of rights and duties for the partners, who must see to the support of the home and the integral education of their children through a joint effort compatible with the social activities of both.
The law regulates the formalization, recognition and dissolution of marriage and the rights and obligations deriving from such acts.

Sauce: the Cuban Constitution

Conclusion: yes, Purple Guy is significantly more radical than even the constitution of the last remaining Marxist country on the planet. And people wonder why I call this joint a crypto blog.

Posted by: Adriana Lima at December 17, 2009 01:03 PM


That was the point of the GLSEN reading list. Yes, they would officially deny it, they are not as honest as NAMBLA, but the stories were explicitly meant to normalize relations between children and adults.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 12:14 PM

“Even though Tom was older, almost twice Dan’s age (15), Dan felt unthreatened by him. Dan admits Tom was a “troll” in every sense of the word—an older closeted gay man seeking sex with a man much younger. But Dan says he was not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages. “He kind of had me in a corner in that he knew I didn’t have access to anything I wanted.” says Dan. “But everything was consensual.””

– exerpt from Passages of Pride (fGLSEN reading list for grades 7-12)

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 17, 2009 01:04 PM


There are two points which touch on gay issues,

Such a beautiful wooden horse! What a gift! We’ll look to see if there’s anything inside it….In the morning….It’s probably full of hard candies and they’ll keep overnight.

one of which (opposition to the FMA) is not exactly something a lot of folks agree on (See: Cheney, Dick; Olson, Ted to name two that come to mind).

Actually, I recall that when the whole marriage issue emerged that the view from the right advocating it most strongly and the one most often cited was Andrew Sullivan. David Frum I seem to recall quoting him very favorably on NRO.

It isn’t a matter of dissent on an issue, but it’s a matter of sponsorship. I’m much more concerned with the Birchers. Those people are odious even though I probably agree with most of what they put in their brochures. It seems to be that both groups just want to get attention for themselves and their narrow agenda, rather than being a part of a larger coalition.

They are pooping in the punchbowl.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 01:07 PM


There’s also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman’s coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that “rape.”

Interesting; this assumes that only ‘hetero’ rapes and further, assumes rape is about about sex rather than about power.

Might want to re-phrase the analogy.

That said; after I had paid for fund raiser ticket for my (now-former) friend I knew for well over a decade and who is Gay, to help a military mom who lost her son establish a memorial I had to tolerate his horrid ‘jokes’ about how those uptight puritanical blue-hairs don’t know how to pole-dance.

At the fcuking table of a fundraiser to raise money for memorial for a woman who lost her son to war and my Gay ‘friend’ thought is was fcuking hysterically funny to mock the sexual behavior of a woman who lost her son.

So after that night, when he brought up the ‘blue-haired’ joke again during another dinner party I then asked my Gay friend the question-What does ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’ mean?

My friend of well over a decade responds by calling me a ‘homophobe’ and at this point I retorted that he is a heterophobe and ended the friendship.

I spent two decades in NYC theater and I have many more experiences just like that.

I end with this: I am fed-up with the Gay and their ‘female-facing’. Take your ancestral ‘blacking-facing’ entertainment and get off the stage.

Posted by: Command and Control at December 17, 2009 01:15 PM


Purple Avenger, it’s not my group. There are several subsubgroups of the Conservative subgroup I can’t stand. (You may not be familiar with some of my other flamewars.)

I’m just stating what conservatives are – an ideological group, “vanguard” one might say – and asserting that they have a right to remain that way. They would then take their 10-15% (which is actually more like 35% by my estimate, but hey), go to the Republicans, and do their compromising there.

But inside their own conservative group, no, they don’t have to compromise their principles to please existential enemies, and they shouldn’t have to.

Gabriel’s whole aim was is to call that 10-15%, which again is really 35%, a bunch of assholes that Republicans are better off without. I’ve been calling him out on it; that he is at war with conservatives, trying to weaken them from within.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 01:21 PM


How is Federal DOMA legislation the smaller government position?

The full faith and credit clause of the constitution. A federal judge will declare that every state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, in the same way that one state can have a lower age of consent to marry than others but every state must recognize that marriage regardless.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 01:49 PM


Really, Gabe? You think your side is listening to the arguments? Count how many times in this thread people have called us “hypocrites” for being for smaller government but then wanting government -in- the “anti-gay marriage” arena, as if having the government NOT subsidize something is for wanting BIGGER government.

It’s utterly retarded. It’s pointed out over and over again how ridiculous it is. It doesn’t even begin to make sense to brand “government shall not subsidize gay marriage” as the bigger government position. And yet, we point that out over and over and FUCKING over again, and no one -ever- has an actual substantive rebuttal, they just KEEP MAKING THE SAME DUMBASS ARGUMENT.

The fact that other people doubt the real motives behind the gay marriage movement isn’t the same. They’re basically saying you’re being disingenuous. This is not the same as constantly repeating an obviously idiotic argument . No, it’s not just “disagreement”, it’s ABSURD to say that we achieve smaller government by making the government subsidize gay marriage and force people to treat them the same as any other marriage – no matter how often

But we’ll hear the same idiotic claim made another dozen times in this thread. Just watch.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:02 PM


How is Federal DOMA legislation the smaller government position? Many Republicans and social conservatives are happy that the Federal Government implements legilslation defining marriage. I am sorry, this is a big government, nanny state, anti-10th amendment states rights position. It is just that in this case, it suits your world view.

It’s not the smaller government position. It’s not the larger one either. The Federal government has always had a definition of marriage. It simply wasn’t codified. The Federal government doesn’t have a codified definition of what gold is. If people, and states, suddenly decided copper was gold and wanted to pay their taxes with copper, insisting it has the same value as gold, would the fed’s decision they need to codify the definition to prevent that be some big government position?

You want DOMA repealed, fine. But don’t give me this BS that the feds are somehow interfering in state’s rights when there isn’t one thing in DOMA which restricts a state.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 02:03 PM


See what I mean? Post 436 is just another example of the “gay marriage = small government” idiocy. “Gay marriage = Liberty!” What a fucking crock. Marriage isn’t a freedom or liberty issue, and having the government install huge new subsidies for gay marriage isn’t an example of individual rights. In fact, there isn’t a SINGLE “individual right” that applies to more than, crazy, I know, ONE PERSON.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:12 PM


Ya know what the “gay marriage = liberty” issue reminds me of? The judge who says that ACORN had their rights violated because Congress isn’t shoveling money at them anymore. As if ACORN has a constitutional right to taxpayer funding. Same thing. Gays are claiming they have a right to government subsidizing, even though they cannot participate in the purpose for which the original government subsidies for marriage – a stable platform for the raising of children – are indended.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:14 PM


“Marriage and family are state issues and have always been state issues. Never prior to DOMA had the national government refused to honor a state government’s pronouncement of what is or isn’t a lawful marriage.”

*cough* Utah. Polygamy. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln. Try again.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:22 PM


Oh, and the Edmunds Act in 1882 in which the Federal Congress reiterated that polygamy was a felony. NATION-WIDE.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:25 PM


“Where specifically in the Constitution does it state the Government has the absolute power to exercise arbitrary authority over the citizenry’s pair bonding practices?”

It ain’t arbitrary. The government sponsors marriage because it leads to the most stable platform ever devised for the creation of the next generation of children. (How many more times does this have to be said?)

Government subsidies of marriage are a boon. A benefit. An encouragement. Not a “liberty” or a “right”. The vast majority of these United States have endorsed the government’s role in encouraging marriage for that reason – the rearing of children. Gay couples cannot participate in this, they cannot produce children. That wasn’t some nasty social con’s decision, it’s simple biology.

And those benefits are generally granted by the states, not the federal government. The fed gets involved in terms of things like transferring social security payments, but if you want to argue “where in the constitution do they get this right”, you’ll have to start with where in the constitution it says the federal government can impose Social Security taxation in the first place.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:29 PM


“”Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan (…and reason number 436 why Reagan wouldn’t get elected to any position in today’s Republican Party. Ah, the delicious irony)”

WTF? This doesn’t even make sense. Talk about missing the point.

The point is that all “individual rights” affect an individual. As soon as you add a second person – you know, the second person that is required for something called a “marriage” – it isn’t an INDIVIDUAL right anymore. Now you’re trying to create a right that applies to -groups- of people. In this case, a right of 2 people to have their chosen lifestyle affirmed, endorsed and subsidized by the state. I’m pretty sure that isn’t what Reagan was talking about when he talked about “rights of the individual”.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 02:32 PM


We are all sinners.

Promiscuous straights are just as guilty.

I find the anti-gay bigotry on the right to be disgusting. It’s anti-Christian, anti-conservative and anti-liberty.

Liberty – look it up.

Posted by: ethos at December 17, 2009 11:05 AM

Yes my friend, we ARE all sinners. I am ashamed of my sins. However, I dont wear them like the red badge of courage, yelling at everyone that they should accept and celebrate me because of them. I find the pro-gay, fuck you if you dont like it, if you disagree you are a bigot, bullshit from the left (and some here, apparently) to be equally disgusting.

Posted by: The Drizzle at December 17, 2009 02:43 PM


The real problem is that good folks who call themselves social cons–because that’s what they are; they have socially conservative ideas–get slimed because of the Matt Barbers of the world. (And it also kinda sucks to be pigeonholed into one identity group–social cons. Many social cons are also fiscal cons, but if they feel the social con thing is being attacked, may be less interested in standing with their fiscal con brothers and sisters.)

Gabriel, This is exactly the logic employed by Charles Johnson: “I must alter my behavior and standing and principles because a radicalized version of ME might make be look guilty via association.” Johnson carried this to the extreme and has turned his blog into KOS lite.”

This attitude is essentially the inability to stand upon recognizable principles or a worldview. If you will not defend your worldview because it may associate you with somebody that is more strident and maybe even in error because you are afraid you will be tarred by the same brush, then you never had those convictions, yours is a synthetic philosophy of life.

It is actually based on convenience, not MORALS. If republicanism is not based on the morality of the people as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith, then you will devolve to a popular democracy or better known to us now as servitude to political correctness.

I don’t think reasonable people would seek to exclude homosexuals from a political organization, however this group makes sure you have to swallow that bitter pill, they are not about a political expression or philosophy, but they are about themselves and the lust for others to declare their behavior the norm.

I will not be blackmailed to accept behavior, or sanction that behavior whether that person is in agreement with me on other issues or not. I will still hold myself and others accountable for sin, morality is nothing if it is not an absolute, otherwise how can we ever measure human behaviors? Today murder is bad, tomorrow not so bad if the earth has too much CO2.

Yesterday an infant in the womb was a baby, today it is but a fetus.

Posted by: jehu at December 17, 2009 02:51 PM


Bullshit. Marriage and family are state issues and have always been state issues. Never prior to DOMA had the national government refused to honor a state government’s pronouncement of what is or isn’t a lawful marriage.

DOMA changed that. DOMA says that the national government will no longer honor state determination of what is a lawful marriage. DOMA usurped that state role and trenched upon an area of traditional state control.

That’s an abrogation of the principle of federalism.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 02:15 PM

As stated Gabe, polygamy laws. Not only did the feds define it as one man/one woman, they did it the very first instance there was a serious attempt to change that definition. You can argue the polygamy laws are as unconstitutional as all get out but it’s ridiculous to say the federal government hasn’t had a definition of marriage. DOMA wouldn’t even have been needed if people weren’t sure some judge somewhere would think it’s his right to change the definition of a universally defined word.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 03:05 PM


Oh, and the Edmunds Act in 1882 in which the Federal Congress reiterated that polyga

Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

Utah Territory would *never* have become a state unless it changed as a result of these laws. Try again.

That said, I don’t mind if a gay GOP group wants to participate, just as long as it understands that they are the tail and the rest of us are the dog, and they aren’t going to wag us.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 17, 2009 03:09 PM


Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

If something is a federal felony, doesn’t that by definition override state authority? Also wasn’t Edmunds upheld by the SCOTUS?

Posted by: JohnTant at December 17, 2009 03:14 PM


I was WAITING for Loving v. Virginia to make an appearance. needless to say you have the decision wrong. This is the hazard of getting cut ‘n’ paste arguments from activist websites instead of actually reading the decision yourself.

You write:

And “Marriage=Liberty” is not an incorrect characterization; gay or otherwise. Loving v. Virginia basically stated the decision to marry or not marry cannot be infringed by the state. Unless the state has a reasonable justification for denying such a union (i.e., marriage between an adult and child, etc).

That’s not what Loving said. The case had to do with a law that forbade interracial marriages. The defense of the law was that it didn’t run afoul of equal protection considerations because it applied equally to blacks as it did to whites. SCOTUS said that, as has historically been the case, racial issues require the strict scrutiny standard when a Constitutional question is raised, and in Loving the law, even though it applied to everyone, still violated the equal protection clause because it relied on race as a vital component. You embroidered on that and are attempting to apply it to a gay issue. But as has been pointed out EARLIER in the thread (again…try to catch up before you waste people’s time…), gay issues are not entitled to the strict scrutiny standard, rendering Loving irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Hell…even GENDER issues don’t rise to strict scrutiny.

Posted by: JohnTant at December 17, 2009 03:23 PM



How is not wanting to go to an event simply because it is co-sponsored by a self identified gay group (1 of like 100 or so such groups) not bigoted?

Maybe I’m nuts but that sounds bigoted to me.

You define Jim’s behavior as bigoted because he still has the freedom to pick his associations? Is a church bigoted if it will not marry a gay couple? You don’t get to both define what is a bigot and then label those you disagree with a bigot. It may be un-tasteful to you but one of the foundations of this country is the right to freely associate with whomever you please.

The Left is usually the side that employs social scorn and ridicule to make everyone march in lock step. Seems to me it is this GOProud group that is demanding everyone declare their sexual behavior normal, otherwise they are labeled a bigot and you and Gabe seem to be willing accomplices.

This only became a problem as CPAC is a political organization with a known philosophy, yet this group wants to attach itself and demands everyone kiss their ass and they explicitly make it about their sexual orientation.

If they actually cared FIRST about a conservative agenda they would just join CPAC without all the drama queen antics and posturing, and a name that might as well be Conservatives go fuck yourself if you don’t like us and accept and even DECLARE our lifestyle NORMAL! I think most of us can still smell an agenda no matter how much cologne is used to cover the stink of the actual agenda of these individuals.

Tolerance is not defined that I must abandon my principles and deeply held beliefs to embrace yours! Tolerance is that I will live in this society without attacking others even if I find their behavior abhorrent. Yet it is you and this side that becomes intolerant if I do not rush to drop my deeply held beliefs and convictions and declare what I believe to be sin, to not be sin.

If this behavior was not deviant then why such a obsession that all of society declare you normal, ok, worthy of praise? Why should they or you care what I think? Live your life as you see fit, just don’t break the law, or bring personal behaviors out into the light and then like breathless children await my judgment, then when I do not approve stomp off in disgust and name calling. I do not treat myself this way, I do not have sin and bad behaviors that I pretend are OK, if my wife just accepts my viewing porn then everything would be groovy. Sin is sin…we all have this fight, I no more sanction homosexuality than I sanction adultery, it is us as human beings that must hold ourselves up to an objective standard, how could we even derive laws, if there was no standard by which we measure what is a crime?

Do not try to alter the wisdom of thousands of years of human experience and revealed morality by your claims of what is just. Can you tell me how a great societal national experiment with millions of children raised in homosexual homes will turn out? Beware that you think you have more wisdom than the history of the human race or morality that is tested and tried by thousands of years.

Psychologists will tell you if you tamper with the sexual identity of the very young, you are playing with dynamite. And this acceptance of the gay lifestyle and marriage will ultimately lead to children raised in gay homes. Don’t point to the rare story about a well adjusted child coming out of such a home, we do not have the numbers yet to make any empirical judgment, certainly you do not accept the wisdom of those that have gone before, so society has to then experiment with producing sexually confused people? I have not met any homosexuals that are naturally happy people, they always have an agenda and a grievance.

Posted by: jehu at December 17, 2009 03:34 PM


Ah, okay, you found my response.

Your response now is predicated on the assumption that marriage is a “fundamental individual right”, which as we have argued -many- times (see, you -still- aren’t listening), we don’t agree that it is. It’s a -boon-, a -benefit-, a -carrot-, an inducement, agreed upon by our legislature and the common will, to encourage that platform.

“Exactly how much control are we willing to give over to the government just so homosexuals don’t marry? People are willing to completely piss away a fundamental individual right because they wanna control, what, a whopping 3% of the entire country? You can’t tell me that isn’t fucked up.”

I’m -not-. I -don’t- want to give the government that kind of control. It’s absurd that we even have to discuss it. But if YOU are going to use the fact that we’re basically compassionate human beings and we don’t want to further punish those who are infertile, so that you can use it as a prybar to redefine the entire institution to your liking, then we don’t have a choice, do we? You’re being the dicks forcing the issue, not us. You’re basically screaming “Letting infertile people marry is UNFAIR!”. You’re being the whining, disingenous asshat because you don’t really mind the exception, nor do we, but we have to discuss it anyway cause -you’re- being an asshole.

Gays -categorically- cannot have children. We don’t need even a single ounce of government intrusion upon individuals in order to stop it. Letting the very rare infertile couple marry doesn’t redefine marriage (after all, there’s -plenty- of medical cases where people who believed they couldn’t get pregnant wind up doing so, hell, my ex wife is one of them), but introducing an entire group that -categorically- cannot have kids is an active redefining of the institution. Who are you kidding that it wouldn’t be?

Let’s just cut to the chase here: are you seriously arguing that marriage was NOT given exceptional status as an institution because of its benefits to children? Or are you quibbling about compassionate exceptions just to be a flaming dick?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 03:34 PM


“So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what’s their reasonable justification?”


But yeah, you’re all listening, I can tell.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 03:50 PM


So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what’s their reasonable justification?

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 03:40 PM

How about the protection of the moral and social fabric of the nation. Of course some will wonder what’s so important about about that. *cough* Roman Empire *cough*

Posted by: teej at December 17, 2009 04:06 PM


DodoGuru #70 (very late) – I like I’ve commented over there a few times. But I view them as a patriotic community, and not otherwise a conservative one. They shouldn’t have got involved with CPAC other than to attend the thing as individuals.

As for DrewM., he proved himself dishonest with this comment: “because they let teh gheys in as a sponsor”. This is so full of straw you can’t light up a cigarette within 40 feet of it. The point isn’t “teh gheys” but GOProud and its demand for “marriage equality”, which is not conservative. Since we’ve told him that over and over again, but he repeats it at #425 anyway, I’m declaring him to be full of something else brown and flammable. He can hang out with Purple Avenger in the “done with HIM” section.

“Guess Who?” may be crazy, but so far his position has had impressive results. There is, indeed, a slight tang of lizard around here. I’m guessing that fairly shortly Gabriel, Drew, and P.A. are going to chat with Ace for an exciting new direction for this blog.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 17, 2009 04:12 PM


“Legal citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong should be subject to the will of the government and denied any choice to determine the course of their own lives simply due to a biological kink.”

Who’s denying them anything? They want to shack up, let them. They want to create a “Rainbow Church” and have gay priests and “marry” gay people, they’re perfectly entitled. No one will beat down their doors to stop them.

But it’s not the sort of union that got marriage approved by society, and then recognized and subsidized by the state. By taxpayer funding. Gays who want to shack up aren’t -entitled- to taxpayer funding, nor are they being “subjected” to any will of the government, nor “denied any choice” by not having marriage benefits meant to accrue to normal marriage. Exactly what choice are they being denied?

Let’s make this point again: Not getting government goodies is not being denied a “choice”, unless you think government is -obligated- to give people goodies, in which case you’re not a conservative.

Yes, there is “discrimination” here. Normal marriage which produces the most stable platform for the raising of biological children is actively preferred, and thus it gets subsidies, because pretty much everyone except extremist social liberals thinks it should.

And I see that you found the single instance in the dozens of times I’ve repeated the point where I did not actively put the “biological” tag on children. It is SO FUCKING TIRING that I have to keep putting that qualifier in so that you can’t leap on it like, well, like a gay on George Clooney’s ass. You can’t have missed that point being made a thousand times, of course, so it’s just more general disingenuousness.

Yes, single people can have kids. This is not the ideal platform for raising children. Yes, people can adopt. This is not the ideal platform for raising children. Yes, people can impregnate themselves with turkey basters and semen from a complete stranger. This is not the ideal platform for raising children.

Let me anticipate: “Who are you to say what the ‘ideal’ platform is! I can show you an adopted child who is happier than a kid with biological parents, therefore, you have no case!”

Which is just so fucking stupid on so many levels that I can’t bring myself to respond to it without being forced to, but if you’re -really- so stupid that you need it explained, fine, ask and I’ll provide.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 04:20 PM


DremM said: I never denied he has the right to pick his associations. But if you are simply unwilling to go to an event because one of a hundred or so groups involved in it has teh gheys, yeah, I’d say that’s pretty bigoted.

Are you going to fall back on exacting literal interpretations of what you said? You call him a bigot because he does not want to associate with a group, because of their CHOSEN behavior. Now if you refuse to associate with someone because of their race that is bigotry, they had no choice! Once again you do not get to define a term and then apply it to others when it carries with it a societal scorn and is weighted with political correctness, that makes you your own moral enforcer does it not? Except you just made up your own list of sins, peculiarly it will be a list to which you never find yourself doing what is on that list, welcome to religion for the morally relative, or to modern secular humanism.

At most he is choosing to NOT associate with a group whose morals he disagrees with, if that is bigotry then we can no longer hold to any standards, at least not any objective moral standards, it will just be whatever the next moral outrage invented by the Left, and apparently some bloggers here declare as approved behavior. Welcome to San Francisco where they are now so deranged they are arguing that the transgendered can use both men and womens public restrooms.

Most of the Churches I know may deny certain sacraments to gays but don’t ban them as members. Actually, that’s not even the case. As far as I know, most Churches don’t care if you are gay or not for their sacraments. They just have a list of qualifications for each. In most Churches, one of the qualifications for the sacrament of marriage is a man and woman. That’s there call.

Any church worth its salt accepts anybody though the door, but they will not condone lifestyles that are in variance to New Testament teaching. That includes everything from shacking up, to homosexual behaviors, to drunkenness, stealing, being lazy and using others, to even effeminate mannerisms. If you go to a church that does not confront you sinful state without condemnation, but with the truth, you are wasting your time, that church cares nothing for your eternal welfare, it preaches a social gospel at best, and is just another way-station to hell at worst. If your preacher does not make you mad from time to time, he is not doing his job, if you are confronted with your sinful nature and do not repent, you are not doing your job.

What both you and Gabe are doing is to use a Leftist tactic of declaring someone a sinner who simply does not agree with you definition of either tolerance or bigotry, thereby obscuring the fact that GOProud is an organization that is diametrically opposed to CPAC on a fundamental level, who is the problem here?

If they were not testing the tolerance of CPAC members then why the openly GAY name for their organization? How would this be any different if I tried to join with the name Bible-Beliver? The only difference is that the vitriol against me would make this thread appear like a bunch of chummy-buddies.

To summarize, groups like this have an over-arching agenda, no matter what the initial declared focus, and that is to force others to abandon their morality and principles and accept them as NORMAL, everything else is squid-ink. They also find proxies to defend their right to make us abandon our principles all they while decrying us as bigots and intolerant. You have done your jobs well.

Posted by: jehu at December 17, 2009 04:23 PM


Why is “endorsing” and “subsidizing” marriage a governmental activity in the first place?


For starters, because how the future inhabitants of any nation are raised has important ramifications for a nation. Here is where I part company with the “libertarians”–they don’t seem to understand that actions have consequences and people don’t live in societal vacuums.

Where specifically in the Constitution does it say it’s the government’s job to “endorse” and “subsidize” marriage?

In any nation that wants to have a future, that goes without saying.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 17, 2009 04:25 PM


519 Drew, that was not the totality of my argument. I first wanted to know if you’d argue that the source of the preference is somehow different. You don’t appear to be going there. Good. Now to the point:

The basis for calling people opposed to homosexuality “bigoted” is that homosexuality is inborn. It’s just like race. Someone’s -born- that way, they can’t -help- it, and judging them on that basis is pure bigotry and evil.

But when it comes to someone with a sexual preference for children, where’s the compassion?

Imagine a guy who views child porn (off the internet, so he doesn’t even pay for it). He hasn’t had sex with a child. He hasn’t done anything against anyone’s consent. But he is sexually attracted to children, and that’s what gets him off, and he views child porn, and he fantasizes about doing his neighbor’s 7 year old daughter, but he doesn’t act on it. Pretty much everyone STILL considers this guy to be scum. Don’t you?

The POINT is: it doesn’t matter if homosexuality is “inborn” or not, because just being an “inborn” behavior doesn’t render it morally licit. But your side keeps insisting that it is and does, and that being “bigoted” against gay people is exactly like being bigoted against blacks. It’s a crock. They’re not remotely the same.

That doesn’t mean homosexuality is morally illicit – people certainly have differing opinions on that, and my personal views aren’t the point. The point is that it -is- a valid point of contention, and dismissing it as “bigotry” is a freaking crock.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:00 PM


Look a lot of people think alchoholism is baked into the genetic cake. Does that mean they get a pass on DUIs or Vehicular Manslaughter? Of course not.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 04:47 PM

They don’t get honored or subsidized either, the Safe Schools Czar would get canned for promoting “doin’ shots” and nobody calls someone a bigot for not wanting to be around the Valu-RitePround group. Also, there is a hell of a lot more evidence for a genetic basis for addiction than there is for homosexuality, which has none.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 05:01 PM


“Except that, again, you want to relate pedophilia to homosexuality as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person.”

The same argument could be made using Drew’s example of alcoholism as an inborn trait. Is therefore someone who disapproves of alcoholism a “bigot”?

What I am doing is attacking the use of the term “bigot” to silence dissent regarding homosexuality. It’s a crock. It is nothing like being bigoted against someone’s skin melanin content, which is the common understanding of the term. Having dark skin doesn’t dictate a person’s -thoughts- at all, being gay or being a pedophile -does-, and an antipathy toward a race is -not- the same as antipathy toward a preference. Yet you keep grouping the two as if they’re exactly equivalent.

You don’t like that I’m “relat(ing) pedophilia to homosexuality as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person.”? Then stop relating homosexuality to racism as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:12 PM


“Two adults can give consent, hence the term “consenting adults.” Whether it is in-born or a lifestyle choice is meaningless.”

It is -extremely- different in terms of whether the term “bigot” is applicable. And it is you guys using the term.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:20 PM


“But when you try to deny the individual rights and liberties of another group of free, consenting adults merely because you do not like them or what they do, you are starting to get away from the basic tenets of conservatism.”

Absurd on so many levels. By this logic, the entire criminal justice system is “not conservative”. Yes, it is absolutely perfectly conservative to judge people based on what they do. It is entirely liberal to try to separate a person’s actions from their consequences or from any “judgment”.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:27 PM


“Do you really think that level of animus doesn’t rise to the level of bigotry?”

I really don’t. It may be distasteful, but it’s not bigotry, because we’re not talking about something that doesn’t tell you anything about a person’s state of mind or behavior. It -does-. Being bigoted against someone because they have black skin is intellectually indefensible – nothing about their skin color tells us -anything- about them as a person. It is completely, utterly immaterial. There is not one single personality trait or behavior that can be gleaned from just that information. But knowing that someone is gay, you DO know something about them.

You may say “bigotry is an acceptable term for both”. If you do say that, I say “fuck you”. Don’t even pretend it’s not a direct attempt to smear those who don’t approve of homosexual behavior with racists.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:31 PM


I have a question for those who think homosexuality is inborn.

Do you similarly believe that pedophilia is inborn?

Again, what part of “consenting adults” don’t you get?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 04:40 PM

I believe the human psych is dynamically reprogrammable within certain limits. I believe people’s sexual proclivities are mostly genetic, but subject to the influence of experiences. Some people have foot fetishes, some people have hair fetishes, etc. People can train their brain to find sexual arousal in all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

For example. High heeled shoes. Why are high heeled shoes sexy ? It’s because people who are aroused by sexy women have long noted that such women will often wear High Heeled shoes when they are trying to be their sexiest. As a result, men will instantly associate high heeled shoes with being sexy, and as a result become aroused.

The same sort of mental training occurs with other things. Bondage fetishes are probably the result of an mental association between Sex and Domination. (The male urge to Dominate, and the female urge to be dominated.)

There is a strong correlation between the instinct that something is “Bad” and therefore sexual. This is no doubt due to the long persistent occurrence of danger regarding sexual liaisons, and some people expand on the feeling that being “bad” is sexual. Taboo (incest, interracial, or otherwise forbidden) is a very powerful arousal tool. Strippers and Prostitutes often put on a little girl show just to stimulate forbidden arousal. Women are often attracted to “Bad” boys, even to the point of finding criminality arousing.

To sum up my point, the firmware for certain proclivities is stronger or weaker in each individual, but the subsequent experiences either degrade or reinforce the instinct.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 05:34 PM


“So, now being gay is a crime? “

I -knew- you’d go there. It was a point of -principle-. You argued that judging a person based on what they do was illicit. That’s a crock. It’s self-evidently ridiculous.

“Again, why is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom of any concern to you whatsoever? “

As I have stated dozens of times, I don’t give a shit what they do in their bedroom. I’ve yet to see a wedding take place in a bedroom. Or social security benefits get transferred in a bedroom. Or gay pride parades in a bedroom. Or a group coming to CPAC advocating all of the above as normal and healthy in the bedroom.

Seriously, the words “in the privacy of their own bedroom” need to be utterly banished from this debate. You guys spew it every third sentence. We’re not arguing Lawrence vs. Texas, for fuck’s sake.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:38 PM


This isn’t about “denying individual rights and liberties.”

It’s about redefining an institution – one that is absolutely fundamental to Western Civilization – after thousands of years, against the will of the majority of the people, in order to benefit 5% of the population. A population, incidentally, that was considered to be a bunch of mentally ill sex perverts as recently as the 1970s.

I don’t care what consenting homosexual adults do in their bedrooms. (Or their bathrooms. Or wherever.) And I actually support Civil Unions that are the legal equivalent of marriages (which makes me LEFT OF CENTER on the issue, according to public opinion polls).

But I do not, and will not, support redefining marriage after literally millennia for the benefit of a mob of shrieking left-wing homosexual activists.

Not. Going. To. Fucking. Happen.

And by the way, if you believe that “gay marriage,” if granted to them, will be their final demand, then you have learned nothing from the last 50 years or so. There will be additional demands; there always are.

Reparation payments for all those years of “oppression” at the hands of the monstrous breeders? “Affirmative Action” for homosexuals? “Hate speech” laws that make reading Leviticus out loud a felony? All that, and likely more.

Posted by: RJ at December 17, 2009 05:38 PM


“Some form of the gay agenda is going to become reality. If you had the sense you were born with, you’d realize the smart thing to do would be to take the issue away from the liberals. Control the debate and frame a reasonable bit of legality that everybody can live with.”

Right. Flush principle down the toilet for the sake of political expediency. Awesome.

In the process, of course, we will lose millions of Christian social conservative voters to a third party, or apathy.

But, hey, the homosexuals and the leftists will get a big win, and maybe they’ll be kind enough to stop calling us “homophobic hate-mongering bigots” for a week or two… until they begin making additional demands that conflict with basic conservative principles. Such as reparation payments for all those years of “oppression” at the hands of the monstrous breeders, “Affirmative Action” for homosexuals, “hate speech” laws that make reading Leviticus out loud a felony, and likely more.

Posted by: RJ at December 17, 2009 05:50 PM


“So you are saying a confused citizenry would forget how to have sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government.

Um, yeah, I’m gonna have to disagree with that. I believe people are more than capable of having sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government.”

Wow, you are -genius-. How many more times do I have to say “providing the most stable platform known for the raising of children” before you conclude that it’s not just about -making- children? Marriage isn’t about getting people to -screw more-, genius.

You know, if you can be so inutterably stupid as to legitimately miss that obvious point, or conversely if you can be so disingenous as to pretend you missed it, either way, you’re not really worth discussing anything with.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 05:53 PM


Wait a minute, okay, I think I get where you’re tying my points about marriage to population, re: the population implosion Steyn points out. What threw me was your ridiculous assertion that it’s about the government being needed so that people would be “capable of having sex”. *eyeroll*

People will have sex regardless. But when will they actually -have- the kid, and raise it? When will they make the conscious decision to stop using contraception and actually -have kids-? They’re far far more likely to when they’re in a stable marriage. Outside of it, they’re far more likely to say things like “I’m not ready” and “I want a career first”.

I think that’s a pretty obvious point, but apparently you can’t make the leap from “government sponsoring having sex” and “government sponsoring the conditions that make people want to have children”.

Actually, government sponsors -children- having sex (see: Fistinggate). Government has never sponsored people having sex (throwing around condoms, funding abortion) etc. as it does now. And the population implosion continues apace. I cannot imagine that their grasp of reality exceeds yours.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 06:04 PM


Again, why is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom of any concern to you whatsoever?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 05:30 PM

This idea presumes these hypothetical adults are capable of consent. Suppose one is infected with AIDS, but the other adult doesn’t know this. The other adult might consent to sex, but can they unknowingly consent to AIDS ?

It likewise overlooks the idea that Legally for most of this country’s existance, Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, and therefore, Homosexuals were not capable of consent. (In the legal concept.)

So here’s a question for you. Do you have a problem with two people transferring AIDS in their bedroom ? Should this be just between them ? Or does society have a vested interest in preventing this ?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 06:08 PM


“You see, what we do know is that children can’t make wise decisions about themselves or their future. They don’t have the mental or physical capacity to defend themselves against predators. They haven’t the means to deal with the consequences of their decisions if they prove disastrous.

Consenting adults have all of those abilities, so your foolish equation is actually an inequality.”

Posted by: Jewstin at December 17, 2009 05:41 PM

You give adults far too much credit. Everywhere I look I see an immense number of “adults” making fucked up decisions in their lives, and bemoaning the fucked up consequences of their fucked up previous decisions. (Mostly Democrats, or non-affiliates.)

I see cretinous adults everywhere. Many of them end up working for the Government, mainly because they are too stupid to survive in Private industry.

What *I* see, are a lot of adults with mental decision making (and coping) capacities not as good as some children. What you are left with is a legal argument that some magical age number turns someone into a “mature” adult. While this is the method that the legal system uses, it is like much else in the legal system. Totally fucked up.

Also, if you accept the long standing (till the 70s) legal principal that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and people with mental disorders are unable to give consent, where does that leave this discussion vis a vis the “Consenting adults” argument ?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 06:19 PM


“Bullshit. Many gays are indifferent to the poltics related to their sexuality. Some even oppose gay marriage (e.g. Charles Winecoff over at Big Government). That some particular subset of gays are into politics does not mean that all gays are.”

Um, Gabe, the question was in the context of “why would someone refuse to attend CPAC just because of one group out of a hundred other than bigotry?”. The bullet points I listed are entirely congruent with that. Someone refusing to attend CPAC because of that group -does- know that that group is making a political agenda out of it.

“First of all, I’m not even sure that’s even true.”

It’s true. I have to wonder, do you still buy the claim that AIDS is “a straight disease” just as much as a gay one? If so, may I suggest Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias”, specifically the chapter “Epidemic of Fear”.

“Second — assuming that it is true — you’ve broken the fallacy of averages. Just because the average gay has a characteristic, it does not follow that all do.”

So you think that the percentage of gays who refuse to engage in sodomy is significant? The result of the behavior may only occur to a percentage, but the behavior itself is pretty universal in that group, isn’t it?

Let’s speak frankly: sodomy, whether gay or straight, is objectively filthy. It simply is. It is by far the most efficient possible means of transmitting disease outside of directly injecting your blood into other people. Is this even remotely controversial? This isn’t about prudery, this is about simple reality.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 06:19 PM


“And you believe the solution to this “population implosion” is to…um, clamp down on gay marriage because, uh, homosexuals are responsible for people not having children?”

The problem is because of the -global- perception of marriage and its purpose in life. It used to be that the vast majority of people considered having lots and lots of healthy kids to be the single biggest identifier of success in life. It was, effectively, “the meaning of life”. Getting married, -more- than 1.2 kids, all that, wasn’t just “the American Dream, it was pretty much a global dream.

Communists saw marriage, children and the traditional family unit as an obstacle to their utopian plans, and have been ranting against it and trying to overturn it ever since anyone heard of Karl Marx. This is explicitly in the Communist Manifesto. Most people ignored that for a long time, but they found a means to transmit it into the popular culture via the entire ’60’s subculture, and a distaste and antipathy towards the family as the central unit of civilization has been hammered into the culture for decades. I could name hundreds of movies that seek to mock and deride and delegitimize the concept of the nuclear family in the 1950’s sense. Never mind the leftist barrage of encouraging contraception and abortion, or the execrable bullcrap that is Erlich’s “Population Bomb” meme.

THAT, the move from thinking of marriage and kids as the meaning of life, and replacing it with soul-crushing leftist dogmas, is what has brought the population implosion about. We -need- to reverse it. We need to get back to where marriage and bigger families are considered, well, the point of it all. It is a step in the -wrong- direction to further divorce marriage from that concept by welcoming an entire category of people into the institution that are incapable of taking part in its primary purpose.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 06:38 PM


Really? Gays don’t think there’s an emotional component of love. They define it strictly in the physical sense? Me thinks you are getting information from some funny sources.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 06:15 PM

Years ago I researched homosexuality for a debate I was having. Extreme promiscuity is the norm. Stable monogamous relationships are the exception.

Various accounts relating the numbers of sexual encounters that gay men would have in San Fransisco bathhouses put the numbers at approximately 11 per night. (This was before they closed all the bathhouses due to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic. )

This is not to say that there are not men who develop a monogamous long term co-dependent relationship, but they are the exception to the rule. Kinda like Ryan White (the child who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion) was the exception to the rule (but was needed as the hood ornament for the Cure AIDS campaign) as opposed to Homosexual males, interveinous drug users, and nowadays black males.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 06:40 PM


Tres clever, Drew, but way off point.

Consent, that slim reed that you are so proudly using to beat folks about the head and shoulders, has a specific definition tied to a specific legal framework in a specific time. As does the word adult. As does the word marriage. Now, given that the definitions of each of those words has been changed by some legal jurisdiction at some time or another within the short 50 years of my lifespan, I think that your unspoken assertion that there is some objective definition for any of those three words that we can be assured will be operative 50 years from now is unsupportable to the point of being ludicrous.

When I was a teenager, the idea that two homosexuals could enter into a marriage, as marriage was then defined, was an absolutely ludicrous notion. Yet 35 years later, here we are. The word “adult” was redefined within my lifetime as well, by the 26th Amendment. And, as anyone who’s had to observe accusations of sexual harassment or date rape can attest, consent has had its share of transitory definitions for the purpose of temporary legal advantage as well.

Now, given that the linguistic context of this debate seems to be all about the outrage and not so much about the enlightenment, I’d appreciate it if you’d answer the question I asked in the post you snarked back. I mean, I know it’s edgy cool to be teh great pro-gay crusader and all, but running off at the mouth like you do when you get a head of steam on just shows which head you really think with. Loosen up your belt, fool — you’re gonna give yourself a stroke.

Personally, I fall in the “get government benefits untied from marriage” camp, not the “stone the queers” camp, but when somebody makes an assertion that deviant sexuality is inborn, I feel like they ought to have show some evidence. And before you go off on another bit of firebreathing, I use the term deviant in an evolutionary biology sense. One thing that homosexuality and prepubescent pedophilia have in common is that, adhered to exclusively, both would result in the mutation being extraordinarily difficult to propagate to the next generation.

Posted by: trfogey at December 17, 2009 06:42 PM


To seriously answer your question, in my opinion the best way for the government to provide “the most stable platform known for the raising of children” is this: Leave me the fuck alone. I’ve seen the kind of “stable platforms” the government provides. I neither want your help nor need it.

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 06:15 PM

I agree with this point. We have the Government to thank (Democrat LBJ specifically ) for the war on poverty, and the associated mass of unwed mothers sucking on the government teat. The government subsidized out of wedlock births, and made the father unnecessary for survival, thus removing the social onus for forcing these men into doing the right thing.

It also removed the social onus for females being sluts. Yeah, that was good for society.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 06:44 PM


And I totally agree with 571 regarding your link, Drew. The whole “oh no, ‘homophobes’ are using the facts in an inconvenity way” routine is in fact indistinguishable from how the global warming fraudsters operate. Note that they didn’t actually retract even a single data point, they just said “you can’t use our data that way”. Uh huh. Why not? “Sexual preferences can’t determine life expectancy”… why the hell not? Do they explain how higher promiscuity rates and universal sodomy with attendant disease transmission rates -cannot- impact life expectancy? No. They just say “you can’t use our facts that way”. BS.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 06:52 PM


“Tell you what, if you don’t like what those guys wrote, why don’t you link to the proof you have about the 20 year less life expectancy?”

Your own link suffices. The authors acknowledge that their conslusions show that gays have a lower life expectancy, they just insist that it’s, uh, a coincidence I guess, since their sexual activity simply cannot possibly have any bearing on their life expectancy, because that would be homophobic.

I really can’t believe that you actually consider that legitimate. It’s so blindingly, obviously nothing but a surrender to political correctness.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 06:59 PM


“No, they argue it was a limited sample”

One look at the CDC’s AIDS data – which encompasses the -entire- data set of -all- deaths from AIDS in the US, among the entire population – which reveals that homosexuals are -at least- 100 times more likely than a straight person to contract AIDS – should be enough to dismiss the entire notion that it’s flawed due to being a “limited sample”.

“and doesn’t account for advances in treatments or changes in behavior.”

What does this even mean? How does that change the data of the study? Our entire point is, yes, the different behavior exhibited by gay men is extremely high-risk and results in early death. The author’s rebuttal is, look, just because these people are gay doesn’t mean their sexual behavior is any different, which is patently ridiculous.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:08 PM


“No, now you’re wiggling. You said you could tell those things about a gay person simply by reason of the fact that he’s gay. Now you’re getting squirelly, saying you’re talking about something else. Typical.”

Oh, screw you, Gabe. It’s obvious that was the context I was speaking in because what I said makes no sense in the context you’re trying to reframe it as. This -entire conversation- I was having with Drew was in the context of people not willing to go to CPAC because of GOProud. He’s insisting those people are bigots. And I was arguing that that is bullshit, because they know a lot more about the people they don’t want to associate with than the color of their skin or some other attribute that tells you literally nothing, like skin color. And that includes the knowledge that GOProud is, as their name indicates, actively proud of their sexual preferences and quite in-your-face about it.

Personally? I think the idea of being -proud- of your sexual preference is ludicrous. I’m not “proud” of being straight. How the hell can someone be -proud- of a sexual preference? Necrophiliac pride! Midget Fetishists RULE! I think right there, the notion of being -proud- of something that is so utterly effortless, is enough to legitimize not wanting anything to do with someone. And to scream about it through a metaphorical (and sometimes literal) megaphone is just gross and tasteless. I know that they are, in fact, attention whores. If you’re so adamant that people shouldn’t care what you do in “the privacy of your bedroom”, then keep it in your freaking bedroom. But don’t constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY tell me about your sexual activities and then tell me I’m invading your privacy if I don’t care about them or think society owes you a special congratulatory cookie and government subsidies for them, FFS.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:21 PM


Here, a more concise way to make (one of) my points:

The eternal refrain from the gay marriage crowd is “why do you care what people are doing in their bedroom”? If it doesn’t produce anything substantive like, you know, more human beings, I -don’t- care. Why do -you- insist that all of society recognize, elevate and subsidize what gays are doing in their bedroom? It’s -you- guys that are obsessed with what’s going on in bedrooms, not us, we just wish you’d shut the f*ck up about it.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:25 PM


“*does Google search on for any references by Gabe as to his sexual activities……..”

*sigh* That was a general “you”, not Gabe specifically. Gabe has informed us that he’s gay, but it’s not the only thing he talks about, and I don’t have a problem with it except where it informs his policy decisions. alexthechick, who doesn’t even support gay marriage and for the right reasons, hell, I’d date her if she’d have me. She’s made it clear that it doesn’t define her and she doesn’t -want- it to define her.

But if I’m going to meet a whole gaggle of people who’ve joined an organization called “GOProud” that is, by definition, -proud- of something as silly as a sexual preference (man, talk about a low bar for accomplishment), I can expect that that’s pretty much all they’ll talk about. They’re making sure, before I even meet them, that I know about their sexual preferences. That’s enough for me to say, no, thanks.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:31 PM


“CONCLUSION: The idea of gay marriage is making people who aren’t ready to have children yet focus on their careers, thus dooming every man, woman and child to a post-apocalyptic holocaust where regressive hunter/gatherer skills are honed by scouring dilapidated Walmarts for canned dog food and tattered Twinkies.”

If you hadn’t proved it already, this does, yes, prove you to be an irredeemable idiot.

Drew himself is arguing that, without gays in the picture, marriage already has a sucking chest wound caused by shifting cultural perceptions and devaluation of marriage. I agree with that. To enact gay marriage is to -go further down that same road-, and in a way that would be really hard to reverse because, what, we’re going to -annul- all those gay marriages? That would be so -mean-! What you’re looking to do is culturally -lock in- the problems that have, in recent decades, decimated marriage. Gay marriage didn’t create the problem, but it would pretty much be the final nail in the coffin of what we -need- marriage to be again.

We need to get back to marriage being thought of as a very -desirable- institution to be in, because having kids is a -good- thing and marriage is a stable platform in which to have them. You’re not going to do that without decoupling marriage from the modern notion that marriage is just and only about “love” and “finding your soul mate” and about “what goes on in the bedroom”. Without those notions, gay marriage doesn’t make any sense at all.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:47 PM


“I can expect that that’s pretty much all they’ll talk about.

Really? I’ve met Gabe. He never once, nor did I, discuss our sexuality or preferences. I know quite a few gay people, in fact, and as surprising as it seems, they do not only talk about sex. Shocking, I know.”

Was I talking about Gabe? No, I was talking about GOProud, which is -obviously- “proud” of being gay – stop being so goddamn disingenuous.

If Gabe joins an organization trumpeting his gayness, playing the tired old leftist identity politics game, then yes, I’d expect that if I meet him in a CPAC-style convention hall, his primary agenda in that political convention is going to be to advance the gay agenda, which means I have to keep hearing about his sexual preferences. Is this really that controversial? Is there -any- statement someone can make that you guys won’t try to distort into bigotry? If they don’t want people to expect them to advance such an agenda, then don’t play the stupid bullshit leftist identity politics game. How hard is that? And why am I a bad person for despising that game?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 07:54 PM


No, the law was struck down as a violation of both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process. In fact, the exact wording reads thusly: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Simply put, according to the principles found in the 14th Amendment, the government had no reason to deny a marriage license to a white man and a black woman. Other than, “that’s the way it’s always been”. Or “I don’t like black people”. Or “whatever”.

So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what’s their reasonable justification?

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 03:40 PM

First, to the thread… sorry for dredging this up but I didn’t see it addressed.

Now then. Jester, you continue to misread Loving. Yes, the law was overturned on equal protection grounds, but what you’re missing is the WHY it was overturned. And a big hint…it has nothing to do with your reinvention of the 14A.

So, we might as well start at the beginning. This is long and I doubt you’ll make it all the way through because it directly refutes your base assumptions, but I offer it anyway to the casual reader who might otherwise be distracted by your attempt at sleight-of-hand.

The 14A was created and ratified as part of that whole “Reconstruction” thing you may remember having read about in middle school history. It is part of an effort that redefined how the Federal Government related to states…prior to Reconstruction, Federal power was understood to apply only to Federal institutions, and State to state. However, after the Civil War and in dealing with the situation of thousands of freed slaves entering society, Congress (and We The People) decided to protect their rights against existing statutory limitations. In other words, the very genesis of the 14A is grounded in race.

The 14A was considered to be necessary because it wasn’t clear that the Congress could overturn State statutes dealing with race. They tried with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but the enabling authority to enact that law was unclear. Indeed, that Act listed “race and color” as the defining characteristic. The 14A helps grant that authority and it’s under that context the Court starts with its reading of the 14A.

The case you cite is a prime example. To be painfully blunt, opinions are not written for your benefit or to your attention. They are written to future judges, to lawyers and lawmakers and the like who are familiar with the law and its many concepts. As such the opinions assume a certain degree of familiarity with the legal history of the concepts being discussed. Opinions won’t spell them out, especially if they are as commonplace and well understood (by the target audience, that is) as this one is. For instance, in Loving there is the following:

…we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

These are more than just words. They speak directly to the circumstances of the ratification and original purpose of the 14A, as supported by the history and contemporary scholarship of its drafting. They also say something else, quite clear to those familiar with the law but apparently beyond your knowledge. That would be a little concept we like to call Strict Scrutiny.

Equal Protection Scrutiny has a number of levels in the law. Strict Scrutiny is the highest level. I’ll use Heller as an example. The reason so many words and so much time was spent in that case arguing a pro/con individual right interpretation is because that would determine the level of scrutiny the Court would apply to the 2A. To put it simply, under Strict Scrutiny a law that creates a category based on race *OR* infringes upon a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional UNLESS that law is narrowly tailored AND serves a fundamental government interest. PLUS, it must be the ONLY option available.

It’s clear that Loving is applying Strict Scrutiny to the law in question. Further, it’s clear that race is the reason for the Court to apply Strict Scrutiny…nowhere in the opinion is marriage defined as a fundamental right, and for that matter to my knowledge no such opinion exists.

Now, the legal hurdle you must clear is to argue that sexual orientation, a behavioral trait, is on a par with race (a physical trait) and is deserving of the Strict Scrutiny standard. However, and likely unknown to you, that argument has been tried and found wanting by the Court. To put it plainly, no Court has EVER elevated sexual orientation as deserving of Strict Scrutiny protection. Indeed, even a person’s gender doesn’t rise to Strict Scrutiny standards, instead falling under the lesser Intermediate Scrutiny. Under this standard, a law using sex as a determining factor is presumed unconstitutional ONLY IF the law in question is not substantially related to an important government interest. For example, there is a law that requires men to register with Selective Service. That law cannot be challenged on Equal Protection grounds because the Selective Service system is an important government interest. Unfortunately for you, sexual orientation is not the same as challenging a law based on gender, so your argument fails even this standard.

However, a law prohibiting two men from marrying each other categorizes on the basis of sexual orientation. This is not a sufficient standard to claim Strict Scrutiny or Intermediate Scrutiny. Instead the Court uses what is called the Rational Basis test. That means the law is presumed proper assuming it’s reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

Without doubt, marriage is a legitimate government interest. It speaks directly to the demographics of the nation, the very makeup of We The People and the survival of the country and therefore the government. Government has a vested interest in ensuring the validity of marriage.

Of interest is a recent case I’m sure you’ve heard about in your source forums…that of Lawrence v. Texas. In that the Court struck down a law prohibiting gay men from buggering each other (not to put too fine a point on it). The opinion of O’Connor makes it quite clear that the law fails on the rational basis test (and therefore equal protection grounds) only because it didn’t include heterosexual sodomy. In other words, had the law created a blanket ban on sodomy, instead of just that between two men, there would not be an equal protection case.

So, the applicability of Loving is simply not there. It’s applying a strict scrutiny test to a situation that is not analogous to gay marriage, since gays are not a “suspect class” like those of a given race. Because you’re trying to impose a level of scrutiny that is not called for, in addition to using strict literalism to support ad hoc reasoning in ignorance of the reasoning behind the ratification of the 14A, your cite fails on several levels. This is why you arguing for your preferred outcome based on an equal protection argument is stupid…because the legal standard isn’t there to support such an argument.

You suffer another fatal flaw in that your case applies the standard to a situation where race is the ONLY determining factor. In other words, the law is prohibiting a person from entering a construction under which he would be otherwise eligible were it not for his race. This is not the situation at play here. Even if sexual orientation were not in play, a person would STILL be ineligible to enter into the situation…the proscription of which is precisely because it serves a legitimate government interest. You have twisted the plain meaning of the words and opinions in play to support your preferred and predetermined outcome, while simultaneously agitating for the abandonment of long-held stare decisis put in place by contemporaries of the very writing you seek to redefine…the very definition of living document interpretation and something very odd for a guy who, IIRC, complained about us not being .”real” conservatives.

To sum up… you are rewriting the 14A in order to meet a predetermined political end. You are invited to stop making a fool of yourself with your reinterpretations of the 14A and attempts to forcefit an irrelevant case.

Posted by: JohnTant at December 17, 2009 08:01 PM


Anyway, did you know that smoking can cut 20 years off of your life expectancy?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 07:51 PM

Pretty sure he knows that. That’s probably why he’s trying to quit. Cigarettes have the unfortunate consequence of forming narcotic like addiction in some people. (most people, in fact.) Some are susceptible to Alcohol, others, various narcotics.

The various drugs works on the nervous system and endocrine systems of the human body. The reason various drugs work is because they are so similar chemically to natural occurring hormones that the body normally creates and uses to regulate itself.

The fact that these chemicals cause damage is widely known and understood by people who never the less have extreme difficulty in refraining from using them. Are you asserting that something similar is going on with Homosexual activity ?

Is the corollary that they should quit ?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 08:02 PM


“As conservatives, they are rejected by the social cons and religious right within the movement they embrace.”

Because they’re not conservative. I haven’t seen one person here even remotely “reject” alexthechick. Because she’s genuinely conservative. If GOProud was clearly conservative, and opposed gay marriage based on conservative precepts, I doubt there’d be nearly as much opposition. I know I wouldn’t have nearly as much of a problem with them (the only remaining problem would be their adherence to identity politics, even those I agree with, I think they are totally unnecessary and quite destructive).

“As gays, they are anathema to most of those with whom they share a sexual preference.”

Because they think gays must all think alike. But only we are the bigots, eh?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 08:06 PM


Say, here’s a crazy idea — Stop blaming other people for your failures. If you believe a 50% divorce rate is unacceptable, then lay blame at the people who are actually to blame; namely, the people getting divorced. Gay marriage is a Red Herring, since (in reality) it has absolutely no bearing on the marriage/procreation habits of rational people.

But more importantly, don’t look to the government for salvation. That alone is what bothers me most about this entire conversation.

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 08:14 PM

The problem with the divorce rate is the result of women giving men sex too easily outside of marriage. Said women do not respect the sanctity of marriage, and are perfectly willing to have sex with a married or unmarried man. This completely sucks the air out of the room for a married relationship. If women were more stingy before marriage, the incentive would be to get and stay married.

Where did this damaging notion come from ? Spoiled rotten children from the baby boom generation, and the studious attention of liberal college educators. Add in a government subsidy for unmarried women to bear and feed children, and you have what you see around you today. Abortion is merely icing on the cake, for it gets rid of the inconvenience of responsible sex, and further damaging the need for marriage.

Thank you Liberal government, for fucking up society.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 08:37 PM



Oh, -thank you- for being so willing to -reason- with a retard like me -one last time-. Cause, you know, your incredibly incisive mockery of my post-signing habits was an amazing appeal to logic and reason, but my retardedness just wasn’t able to handle the wit and cogent analysis of it all. Oh, that and your jokes about grabbing Gabe’s ass. Yes, it’s amazing you haven’t won us all over with your sagacity. We’re just such stubborn retards.

“GOProud is not your type of conservative because of one issue.”

BS. There’s a ton of reasons. As Rock illustrated very well in his post 365, they consider hate crime laws “a worthy goal”, they are for special government dispensations toward identity groups (specifically, theirs), a foreign policy specifically aimed at saving gays around the world, phrasing the 2nd amendment as a “collective” right, etc. Only one of their ten points – a cap on spending – was not problematic from a conservative perspective. Ron Paul is a hell of a lot more conservative than these guys seem to be, and I think he’s pretty well worth shunning too, and guess what? Mostly over “one issue”. Do you disagree?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 08:37 PM


Drew, Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it incohent. It’s just means you don’t understand it. Like usual, you were too busy swinging your peepee in its widest possible arc to do anything mental. Let me boil it down to a couple of bullet points.

1) Legal terms can change meanings, literally, overnight. Basing any argument on the premise that a legal term will mean the same thing next week, much less five or ten years from now, as it does now is simply asking to get bitch-slapped.

2) Before we determine that homosexuals are being denied some unspecified right by being forbidden to marry persons of their own gender, is it too much to ask that we figure out what right it is we’re talking about? Gabriel has the same right to marry that I do — all he needs is a woman who’s willing to speak the vows and sign the marriage license. They don’t have to live together or have sexual relations, but they’ll be considered just as married as my wife and I are, with all of the same benefits. What other qualification does Gabriel want that isn’t included and why is it relevant to the discussion?

3) Shucks, once we’ve determined what that elusive right is, we might just be able to craft only the most direct and narrowest relief required, instead of slapping some vague words on paper and leaving their meaning to unelected judges to interpret (and reinterpret over multiple iterations” to mean something totally different than what the drafters of the legislation meant. We might even find that it is unnecessary to change the definition of marriage to achieve the relief required. I think that might be something that every reasonable person could support.

Posted by: trfogey at December 17, 2009 08:49 PM


“Ah. Forgive me, then. I didn’t realize that allowing gay marriage would mean that gays would be allowed, nay, forced to have sex in front of you in your living room if they wanted to.”

First – fuck you. That’s really all your idiotic straw men deserve.

Once gay marriage is enacted, -everyone- will be forced to “accept” it as exactly equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman. You think churches won’t be forced to marry gays, or at least have to spend millions defending themselves against lawsuits? Of course they will. Already happening in a Canada and Europe near you. You think a florist that doesn’t want to do the floral arrangements for a gay wedding will be allowed to refuse? Say goodbye to that freedom of association, and good luck paying the legal bills for not lockstep obeying the government-mandated level of tolerance (but you’re the small government guy!). What happens to parents who object to kids being taken on a “field trip” to a gay wedding like recently happened in California? Hereti— I mean, bigots! And because gay people are transferring their social security benefits, that’ll drain that already doomed “lockbox” to insolvency that much quicker. And then there’s FistingGate, which is pretty solid evidence IMHO that the gay agenda isn’t just about tolerance, it’s about recruitment. But after gay marriage, gay recruitment will, of course, be considered a protected activity. After all, there’s tons of kid’s literature that promotes regular marriage, so if there’s not an equal amount of kid’s literature promoting gay marriage, BIGOTRY!

Marriage isn’t a private thing. It is explictly -public-, and it is about societal recognition. It has never been about what goes on in the bedroom outside of procreation, as I have pointed out eleventybillion times, but it’s funny how you still can’t get that out of your head, and you take my analogy to mean that it’s about “having sex” in other people’s homes. Yet -we’re- the ones obsessed with the sex aspect, hmm?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 08:53 PM


Yet you are more worried about not letting same sex marriages ‘lock in attitudes’.
Which is more important?

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 08:26 PM

I look at this issue as simply drilling another hole in the hull of the USS Marriage. Your assertion that there are other holes, and therefore “what’s one more hole gonna do ? ” is simply not recognizing that the ship has a pronounced list already.

One more hole isn’t going to cause it to sink suddenly, but it will speed up the eventual sinking.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 08:53 PM


“No, you gave me ‘yes under one definition, no under another’. Which is your choice? I gather it’s no since you reject the first definition but I want to be sure.”

I would -like- to accept either definition, but I can’t, because it supports a bullshit equivalency that I can’t abide. Rejecting someone because of skin color is not the same as rejecting someone because of a belief, preference or behavior. It just isn’t, and it’s pernicious as hell to say it is.

“As for locking in attitudes towards marriage….again, that’s putting the paper cut ahead of the sucking chest wound.”

Then let me redo the analogy a bit, because “paper cut” and “sucking chest wound” are basically totally unrelated, and these aren’t. Instead of “paper cut”, think “instead of stitching up the wound, let’s just cut away all the ragged flesh around the wound so that there isn’t enough left to sew the wound back up”.

“Traditional marriages numerically overwhelm same sex ones. If you did something concrete about traditional ones you make a real change overnight to protect marriage as an institution.”

Like what? Are you asking me to agitate for some big-government solution? I’m not going to do that. The change that is needed is cultural, and that can only be achieved through communication and persuasion. And pretty much every conservative I know -is- trying to argue the case, but it’s kinda hard when all you get in return is “BIGOT!!!!!!!11111!11!11!”

“Yet you are more worried about not letting same sex marriages ‘lock in attitudes’.”

Um, well, yes, because once it gets locked in, no communication or persuasion in the world is gonna work. Look at TCJester2’s arguments at me in this thread: he refuses to accept child-raising as the true purpose of marriage because we don’t actively test for and prune out the occasional infertile married couple. How the -hell- are we going to get anyone to accept it when we have them -and- gay marriage which completely divorces marriage from child-raising?

“Which is more important?”

It’s not a matter of what we consider a priority. It’s a matter of what’s being attacked right here and now. You act like social cons picked this battle.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 09:01 PM


“No, the corrollary [sic] is that, since a smoker’s behavior has been scientifically proven to reduce their’s [sic] life expectancy, I guess it’s okay to shun them with extreme malice, right?”

Isn’t that pretty much what the anti-smoking leftists have done?

But anyway, to get back to the subject, I don’t think anyone here wants to “shun” all homosexuals with “extreme malice.” Some of us just don’t want to fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage for the benefit of 5% of the population, and we don’t particularly want a homosexual identity politics group that supports homosexual marriage sponsoring a major conservative political gathering.

Posted by: RJ at December 17, 2009 09:10 PM


Here’s something I find amazing:

Even just 7 years ago, back in 2002, the idea of -actually- legalizing gay marriage was thought of as pretty ridiculous by most people. Totally fringe. Then came Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. And during that debate, some conservatives pointed out that a decision to overturn would be used as a wedge to usher in gay marriage.

Was the primary rebuttal “but there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage”? No. The primary rebuttal was “you conservatives are paranoid! That’s ridiculous! No one’s even thinking of suggesting that! Fear mongers!”

And here we are.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 09:15 PM


“And although in your opinion (an opinion which holds a tremendous amount of weight I might add) adoption is not an “ideal” situation, I believe it’s a perfectly acceptable alternative.”

A perfectly acceptable alternative to leaving kids in orphanages? Of course it is. A perfectly laudable recourse for those who can’t conceive on their own? Absolutely. On equal standing to a kid getting love and care from both of his biological parents? In individual cases, I’m sure some feel that it is, but in a general sense, sorry, I disagree. I think every kid should have both of his parents present and active in their lives -wherever possible-. That it is not always possible, and therefore adoption is necessary, does not lessen the profound benefits that all studies show traditional parenting statistically has for children. Adoption can be a good in the sense that it prevents some serious evils, but it is simply not, in the general sense, -the ideal- that society should strive to make as universal as possible.

“It’s your position that I should be punished because you’re looking to punish someone else?”

No one is punishing gays. They are choosing not to enter procreative relationships wherein the children can be raised by both parents. That’s their problem. I -don’t- choose to punish infertile couples because they -didn’t- make that choice. You’re the only one insisting on “equal protection”. You’re the one insisting that that isn’t a reasonable distinction. You’re the only one who is making any sort of argument that infertile couples and gays -must- be treated the same.

“but gosh darn it those filthy homosexuals are boxing you into a corner, now aren’t they?”

Uh, no, you’re the one creating that box. You’re the one using infertile couples as a wedge to legitimize gay marriage. And now you wanna cry about it? How about you -not- try to use them as a wedge? Then you won’t be in any trouble at all. No one raised the issue but you.


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 09:41 PM


“Marriage as we used to know it is dead.”

Is it really? It survived in generally the present form for roughly six millenia, but because it’s been in trouble for about 40 years, it’s now “dead”, and presumably can never return? That’s amazingly omniscient of you. And amazingly respectful of the supremacy of leftist dogma.

Cause, you see, you seem to think that the problems of marriage lie in laxer divorce laws. I don’t think that has anything whatsoever to do with it – a symptom, at most. The true culprit here is leftist dogma. Specifically, the kind of Gaia-woshipping dogma that arose from things like Paul Ehrlich’s fraudulent “The Population Bomb” whose bullshit has permeated the conventional wisdom. Shitloads of people still believe it, and it’s complete and utter bullshit. It certainly suffuces the entire Green movement, with it’s anti-humanist “the whole world should have a one-child policy” BS.

This is what I consider to be the single most fundamental distinction between the left-wing and right-wing worldviews. In general, the Left sees people as liabilities, the Right sees people as assets. It is that leftist anti-human worldview that is the real culprit here, that is the real root cause for the decline in population and the growing contempt for the traditional family. That its roots like in Marxism and Frankfurt-School sponsored politically correct dogma used as a propaganda tool just reinforces how imperative, and how eminently possible, it is that it be reversed.

But if your attitude is, hey, the Marxists won the propaganda war, so we might as well accept that their bullshit is truth from here on in, you know what? You’re obviously not gonna be much help, but could you at least get out of the fucking way of those of us who want to try?


Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 09:51 PM


Okay, still catching up but:

To sum up my point, the firmware for certain proclivities is stronger or weaker in each individual, but the subsequent experiences either degrade or reinforce the instinct.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 17, 2009 05:34 PM

There’s enough evidence to suggest that sexuality (including pedophilia) is rather more biological than developmental. Nobody has yet been smart enough to really answer that question, but it doesn’t matter.

You see, what we do know is that children can’t make wise decisions about themselves or their future. They don’t have the mental or physical capacity to defend themselves against predators. They haven’t the means to deal with the consequences of their decisions if they prove disastrous.

Consenting adults have all of those abilities, so your foolish equation is actually an inequality.

You and all the other Chicken Littles screaming about the gays ruining conservatism have all the wit and foresight of an eel fucking a piece of rope.

Some form of the gay agenda is going to become reality. If you had the sense you were born with, you’d realize the smart thing to do would be to take the issue away from the liberals. Control the debate and frame a reasonable bit of legality that everybody can live with.

That’s not going to happen though, is it? You’re going to dither and cry and wait for the ACLU and the HRC to ass-rape you with a corncob soaked in turpentine.

Posted by: Jewstin at December 17, 2009 05:41 PM

What? There is zip, zilch, nada, absolutely NO evidence that sexual proclivity is genetic. The only thing genetic about sex is a desire for it. 99.9% of people don’t love chocolate because their genes tell them too, they’re hungry and it tastes good. Billions of people lived their entire lives on this Earth without so much as seeing a cocoa bean. 10s of thousands of men don’t screw each other every day in prison because they are gay. If you took a bunch of baby boys and raised them without women on an island and somehow managed to avoid every having to explain procreation to them they would be humping each other left and right. Some of them might have some inner demon which didn’t like the idea of crap on his dick but sooner or later he’d give in and start humping. Gays are no more born gay than Striaghts are born straight. Most people are straight because they do have a genetic desire to procreate and guess what? You need the opposite sex for that.

Some of the gay agenda is going to become reality so we should seize the issue? Yeah, that’s how you ended up with every friggin heinous liberal crap that every came down the pike. How did that Great Society work out for ya? Just as much Big Government crap came down the pike with Nixon as it did with Johnson. Hell, Nixon was ready to sign a universal heath care bill. If embracing and honoring an agenda which nature, religion, history, science and common fucking sense says is wrong is your idea of a winning politcal agenda you can have it. Just don’t call it conservative, because it isn’t.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 09:55 PM


I agree, we just come to different conclusions as to what’s next.

Marriage as we used to know it is dead. Keeping gays from getting on board this carcass isn’t about protecting marriage, it’s about “punishing” gays.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 09:37 PM

The 50% of marriages “end in divorce /marriage is dead” argument. More garbage. What are the numbers after 5 years? 10? How many are due to the inability to conceive? This is like arguing the need for driver’s education and testing is useless because 50% of people get into accidents. Of course if you throw new drivers out the numbers change radically but don’t let that get in your way.

The 50% number is a total farce. Not only has the total percentage never reached that it has steadily dropped from 47% in 1991 to around 40% today. And the large majority of those are for younger people. The fact that younger people enter into and exit marriage at vastly higher numbers than they did in the past doesn’t suggest there is some fundamental problem with marriage. Rather that the institution of no fault divorce has raised the number of ill conceived marriages considerably.

Posted by: Rocks at December 17, 2009 10:23 PM



#530 has nothing to with my latest — correct. Why you’ve decided to go back to it now — I don’t know. I’m still just waiting for a smart-ass explanation as to why you jumped on that with a bunch of irrelevant BS.

Might the laws of consent change? Um, sure I guess. Right now other than a bunch of nut jobs that are widely reviled, no one is arguing for this.

30 years ago, the utterly reviled nuts talking about changes in the marriage laws were, most likely, homosexuals inspired by the Loving decision.

And even if there were some remote chance they would get their way (which there’s not) in some undefined and remote future, what’s that got to do with anything right now?

The speculative legal arguments of today often reappear in the landmark rulings of the future. I imagine that litigants in the Connecticut birth-control case of the early ’60’s (Griswold, I believe) have been quite surprised to see how far the “right to privacy” that they argued has been stretched.

Do you think same sex marriage is the first step to lowering the age of consent? I don’t see how they are linked.

I am only concerned about a lowering of the age of consent in one respect: religiously based child marriage, especially that practiced by Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons. Pile First Amendment freedom of religion together with the “It’s none of your business who I want to marry” attitude and you have a civil rights lawyer’s buffet. By way of analogy, if a 13 year old girl is deemed able to give informed consent for an abortion, by what reasoning do you determine that she is not capable of consenting to sexual relations or marriage? Doesn’t her right to privacy concerning the abortion decision extend to her decision about having sexual relations? Similarly, if the same right to privacy underpins both the decision to have an abortion and the right to use birth control paraphernalia in the marriage bed, shouldn’t the person who has the right to make one of those decisions (the 13 year-old pondering abortion) have, in theory at least, the right to make the other (use of birth control in the marital bed)?

I believe that gay marriage will provide the necessary “nose under the tent” for both child marriage and plural marriage. By severing the concept of marriage from its traditional roots, we open a potential for semantic mischief unimaginable up until now. Both child marriage and plural marriage have been a part of the human experience since earliest recorded history. How do we justify fabricating a veneer of respectability for gay marriage, while ignoring the historicity of the other two?

While I agree with the gay community that tying so many governmental actions and benefits to marital status privileges heterosexuals above homosexuals, I do not agree that extending marriage to homosexuals is the right answer. It is the quickest to implement and the path of least resistance, but until the reasoning is more thoroughly fleshed out and the objections answered with fact and logic instead of shouts of “Bigot”, I’m not there yet.

Posted by: trfogey at December 17, 2009 10:50 PM

December 18, 2009 , 2:08PM Posted by | Conservatism, GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism, Marriage | Comments Off on Not One Thing about Not Redefining Marriage Restricts the Liberty of Homosexuals

What “Pristine” Planet?

The earth-worshiping Left likes to think of the earth as some “pristine” utopia were it not for we evil humans destroying it. The fact is that the earth is a violently unstable entity. There is nothing remotely “pristine” about it. This comment below was left in response to radical Lefty James Cameron’s nonsensical justification for his America-hating, U.S. military-hating, pro-AGW cult-worshiping flick Avatar.

VIEIRA: Yeah there’s a love story and also there’s a message about, you know, greed and when people want a lot of things, imperialism. All of that.

CAMERON: And how that tends to destroy the environment and so on. And here they are doing the same thing on another pristine planet that we’ve done here on earth. So it’s a way, sort of looking back at ourselves from this other world and seeing what we’re doing here.

Hmmm, let’s see, we have a pristine planet in this flick, eh? So, Cameron, tell me, when a large volcano decides to blow its top and spew plumes of toxic gases and megatons of dirt and grit into the air on this make-believe planet, is it still pristine? How about when there is a great undersea earthquake and the resulting tsunami wipes out hundreds of thousands of acres of ‘pristine’ forests and meadows and critters? Shall I even bother to mention asteroids, lightning strikes, hurricanes, meteors, floods, droughts, etc.?

Yep, and tornadoes and earthquakes and snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures and…

Some ‘pristine’ planet.

December 17, 2009 , 11:52PM Posted by | Global Warming, Hollywood, Liberalism | Comments Off on What “Pristine” Planet?