Pretty damn sad that the SCOAMF’s solutions for the piss-poor economy he created remind me of jokes from Friends.
A couple months ago, the same joke could have been made while Obama and the Democrats were pushing the ridiculous “war on women” smear.
“Obama’s got a really bad economy, but that’s nothing a little free contraceptives won’t fix!”
First he’ll fix the economy with contraceptives. Now he’ll fix the economy with gay marriage. I wonder what his next “fix” will be. If he even bothers to remember the economy at all…
[Scene: Central Perk, Chandler is reading on the couch while Joey, still suffering from his hernia, is returning with coffee for them both. After a series of grunts and groans he manages to painfully walk back from the counter, sit down, and slide Chandler his coffee.]
Chandler: Hey, will you grab me a cruller? (Joey starts to groan and get up.) Sit down! Will you go to the hospital?!
Joey: Dude! Hernia operations cost like, a lot probably. Besides it’s getting darker and more painful, that means it’s healing.
Chandler: I will loan you the money. Just go to the hospital and let’s just get that thing… pushed back in.
Joey: Thank you, but it would take me forever to pay you that money back and I don’t want that hanging over my head. Okay? Besides, as soon as my insurance kicks in I can get all the free operations I want! Yeah, I’m thinking I’ll probably start with that laser eye surgery too.
Phoebe: What’s going on?
Chandler: Oh Joey’s got a really bad hernia, but that’s nothing a little laser eye surgery won’t fix!
Well whaddaya know. Just as social conservatives stated would happen if the LGBT community pushed to redefine marriage, so it is coming to pass. They are now pushing for polygamy: ‘Sister Wives’ family to challenge Utah bigamy law — Lawyer says state shouldn’t prosecute people for private relations
A polygamous family made famous by the reality TV show “Sister Wives” plans to challenge the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal, a Washington-based attorney said Tuesday.
Any why not, considering every argument the LGBT community has made in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couplings can be made in favor of redefining marriage to include multiple partners.
The LGBT community also stated all along that this was just some radical ‘slippery slope’ scare tactic by social conservatives. Uh huh. Can we say ‘we told you so’ now?
That is the way I interpret this bit of riTARDation from “a leading international gay rights group … the European branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association”:
LONDON — A leading international gay rights group demanded an official apology Tuesday from FIFA following Sepp Blatter’s comment about homosexual fans traveling to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.
The president of the world soccer governing body said Monday that gay fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” during the World Cup in Qatar, where homosexual behavior is illegal.
Juris Lavrikovs, communications director for the European branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, said the comments were “very unfortunate and have left people deeply offended.”
“I think they should come out with a strong statement and not just wash it away,” Lavrikovs told The Associated Press. “We are talking about a very basic human right that is being violated.”
If that is the case, when why don’t ol’ Juris and his so-called “leading international gay rights group” attack Qatar for their law, instead of the FIFA official who simply warned people about the law. Just goes to show that Juris and his “gay rights group” are a bunch of cowards. They criticize this official, but are they following their own advice and coming out with a “strong statement” against the government of Qatar? Of course not, because that would take actual courage and bravery. Instead, they are bullying a FIFA official, who can do nothing.
In addition, talk about a passive-aggressive pansy. “Come out with a strong statement”? Do Juris and the idiots in his group think that is how to change back-asswards ideology in Muslim countries? Talk about ignorant and naive.
“This is not a joke, this is a matter of life and death to people,” Lavrikovs said. “Qatar and more than 70 other countries in the world still criminalize individuals for homosexual relationships, and some countries even punish them by death sentence.
Let me guess, the vast majority — maybe even all — of those 70 countries are Islamic Republics. In other words, the problem is ISLAM. Yet, will you ever hear these so-called “gay rights” organizations have such strong words and complaints about Islam and Muslim countries as they do here about FIFA? Not a chance. Because they are nothing but cowardly bullies. They bully those they know will not kill them and refuse to stand up to those who will. Therefore, the problem, “gay rights” groups, is not with organizations like FIFA, but with YOU.
“We can’t have that from the top of the world governing body — you’ve got to show leadership because you’ve got to influence the standards of behavior required and then you’ve got to enforce it when there’s a failure.”
Oh that’s rich. “Gay rights” groups lecturing the rest of us on “standards of behavior”. When you all can influence the “standards of behavior” in your own community — such as those prancing down the streets flaunting themselves in “gay pride” parades as well as in Folsom Street Fairs — then you can hold the moral high ground.
Absolutely great discussion going on in the comments of this post at Blackfive: Against DADT Repeal
This great comment by Cassandra addresses my stand on the issue better than I ever could (and better than I tried to do in the comments there, as evidenced by the jackass tool calling me a disingenuous liar):
Gryph’s comment, in an odd way, sort of encapsulates the gap between where Grim and I (and others) stand and where Jimbo and Gryph stand on this issue.
To Gryph and Jimbo, the most important consideration seems to be the individual “right to serve”. Jimbo, at least, admits that repealing DADT may have some negative consequences just as allowing women to serve absolutely had some very negative consequences. He dismisses those, rightly or wrongly, by saying in effect, “If you allow women to serve and that caused problems, by what rationale do you prohibit gays from serving openly?”
I happen to think that’s an excellent argument. If you think the support of some individual right to serve is the most important consideration (and here I would note this mysterious “right” isn’t shared by people like my youngest son who played halfback in soccer for years and was in top physical shape, but whose VERY mild asthma disqualified him from serving in the armed forces) then I think you must come down on the side of repeal.
Again, there are many, many broad categories of people who AREN’T allowed to serve, though many of them would cause no more trouble or inconvenience that this change will bring. So… do we do away with all disqualifiers? What about people who are mildly overweight but physically fit? I know a lot of folks like that. What about people who are just too old, but can run marathons? They’re being discriminated against as a class of people too.
If you truly believe that the individual “right to serve” (a right, by the way, found nowhere in our law or Constitution), then all disqualifiers short of disability so severe that it presents an absolute bar to service must be done away with. Otherwise you are privileging gays over other equally capable folks who would, at the individual level add require little marginal effort to include.
If, on the other hand, you believe that efficiency and mission effectiveness are the most important considerations, you should probably oppose repeal.
The fact of the matter is: WE DO NOT ROOM MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER. THEY DO NOT SHARE BATHROOMS, NOR DO THEY SHARE SHOWERS.
We do not keep men and women separate because they are more horny than deranged minks. The vast majority of men and women would probably be able to adjust to sharing rooms, bathrooms, bunks. As I commented on the other post however, the vast majority of human beings don’t rape, murder, or steal. We have laws against rape, murder and theft because of a minority who, for whatever reason, don’t control themselves.
Personally, I have no moral objections whatsoever against homosexuality. We have a family friend who is retired military and gay. I have no idea whether he knows we know he’s gay because we are not in the habit of discussing our sex lives with those in our social circle. We did not know this man when he was still serving, but if his personal habits and life are any indication, he was a fine officer. He is extremely intelligent, attentive to detail, physically fit, and possessed of a fine character.
I come down where I do on this issue because almost uniquely among the professions, the military requires the submersion of individual identity. It requires even heteros to give up many rights (such as conjugal rights) for long periods of time. If you can’t control your sexuality (and the presence of gays in the military proves that the vast majority of gays CAN do so just as the vast majority of heteros do), that’s a problem.
Again, the problem with admitting women wasn’t the majority who control their sexuality, but the minority who don’t. I believe the same will be true if DADT is repealed – the vast majority of gays will go on behaving with integrity and decorum and some minority will not.
The difference is, unlike the minority of heteros (male and female) who can’t control their themselves, there is no way to separate gay servicemembers of the same sex. So we will end up doing something we have not done before – bunking people who are naturally sexually attracted to each other together. Congress will have to repeal the part of the UCMJ that deals with fornication (sex outside marriage) because gays can’t marry in a lot of states. Single heteros can marry if they want to have sex w/out violating the UCMJ. What do we tell single gays? To give up on sex?
That’s nuts. So that’s one reg down.
Believe it or not, the Army doesn’t discharge HIV positive individuals anymore. So we have decided that in addition to all the other dangers of war, we are adding a new danger – the danger of being infected by blood, which we all know is a fact of life in battle. Another stupid regulation – my son can’t serve b/c he has asthma but someone with a communicable disease that raises the cost of health care and can be fatal can serve? Why is that?
I am female. Some females could serve in the combat arms. When I was 23 I could easily pass the MALE Marine pft, but by law I could never serve in combat. Why discriminate against me simple on the basis of my sex?
Answer: because my individual “right” to serve wasn’t the most important consideration. I agree with this, even though it is undoubtedly “discrimination” and undoubtedly “unfair”.
So in the end, it really does come down to this: what is most important? The individual? Or the mission?
Reply December 06, 2010 at 04:13 PM
Good discussion of the importance of marriage in the comments of this post at AoSHQ: Wednesday Stupid: Married Couple In Love With Each Other Getting Divorced Because They’re “Fed Up With The Hetero-Husband-And-Wife Brigade That Is Afforded So Much Status and Privilege”
It also got me thinking about people who blame “marriage” for their own bad marriages. I left this as my status on Facebook:
You know, I don’t get it. Some people act as if “marriage” is to blame for them being involved in bad marriages. Huh? Did “marriage” force you to marry the wrong person? Is “marriage” to blame for YOU making a wrong choice? Is “marriage” to blame for YOU not taking seriously the decision to get married? Marriage is what it is. The fact that people screwed up their marriages doesn’t make marriage itself bad.
Not everyone who is divorced does this, mind you, but many do. Instead of taking personal responsibility for their part of their failed marriage, they blame… “marriage”. Sad.
Here are some of better comments, in my opinion, from the discussion at AoSHQ:
Being married pulls you into a new elite. It lends you an air of stability and reliability that singles and divorcees are denied.
Because being married to someone means you made a lifelong commitment to them. It means you can never again make an even moderately important decision without considering someone else.
It means you’re now accountable to another person for everything you do.
It means someone is depending on you to love and support them for the rest of their lives.
Kind of a big deal. Sorry you don’t get equal credit for bringing home a puppy from the shelter, but that’s life.
Posted by: Warden at November 10, 2010 11:10 AM
Lefties dislike marriage because it can sometimes be difficult. Marriage can sometimes be difficult because it is based on love which is an ACT OF THE WILL.
To love another is to CONSCIOUSLY WILL AND ACT for their good- regardless of how inconvenient or disadvantageous that may be for you.
Being inconvenienced is anathema for the left.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 10, 2010 11:24 AM
Actually, there IS status and privilege and that’s the way it should be. Male and females, in reproductive pairs, make all the new people.
Constraining sexual activity by privileging a legal tie to one partner in wedlock, promotes social order and stability. Children, which may or may not be produced by a given couple in the married state, are as far a possible for the state to encourage, born in wedlock to be supported by the parents instead of the rest of us, or by the state who has taken money from the rest of us to do so.
Bastardy has other ills that attend it – including more poorly socialized individuals.
Encouraging sexual continence and fidelity by privileging the married state is a means to manage the results of human sexual activity.
This is the way it should be and should remain.
Any attempt to lower marriage to some sort of roomate arrangement, easily fungible or dissolved, threatens the stability of our entire society or at the very least, its structure.
This the avowed aim of many – feminists, some gay activists, social revolutionaries, who see the nuclear family as an obstacle to “justice”, who wish to destroy “patriarchy” oppressing women, or eliminate the social unit that gets in the way of the “new man”, and utopia, where family ties are weak, and all are brides of the state.
This means we can spend our own money helping ourselves and our own families to prosper.
Posted by: SarahW at November 10, 2010 11:53 AM
I’ve long argued against not only gay “marriage” (which has little enough to do with any compelling state interest to reduce bastardy and keep order by protecting childbearing women and ensuring orderly transfer of property along bloodlines) but civil unions as well, under the premise that if a “lower tier” sort of roomate relationship is created, that men and women will in heterosexual pairs will demand to have it in the place of marriage, weakening marriage and family stability, with serious, even disastrous, consequences for society.
Posted by: SarahW at November 10, 2010 11:57 AM
I think that liberals are just inherently against order…order of any kind. Of course life without order is chaos, which perfectly suits their style of governing. Up is down and down is up. A tax cut is money ‘given’ you by the overlords of government and reducing the rate of spending is a ‘cut’ in funding. Up is down and down is up.
So they rebel against any form of order in society. God. Marriage. Civic duty. It doesn’t matter if you sit for hours explaining the obvious and horrific stats concerning the fate of children raised without a married mother and father in the home. Their eyes blur over and they repeat their mantra…marriage is oppressive, marriage is oppressive.
They’re just over grown adolescents really. No need to listen to them any more than you are forced to because of sheer proximity.
Posted by: redstatedeb at November 10, 2010 12:12 PM
To love another is to CONSCIOUSLY WILL AND ACT for their good- regardless of how inconvenient or disadvantageous that may be for you.
To hear Hollywood tell it, love just happens to you. That’s an awfully convenient idea for a lot of people because it gives them an excuse to never work hard at their relationships.
But it’s also bullshit.
Love doesn’t happen to you. It’s an affirmative act, not a passive bit of happenstance.
Not every marriage works out — my parents’ marriage didn’t — but a large part of having a successful marriage is deciding that you want your marriage to succeed, then taking the necessary steps to make this happen.
Like not being a selfish, self-centered, uncompromising asshole who lacks the capacity to forgive.
Which is hard for liberals.
Posted by: Warden at November 10, 2010 12:41 PM
Its interesting out here in 50ish single land… how many very Hawt mid 40’s to 50’s women are out there…. who are suddenly newly divorced once the kids are out of the house…
With no intention of ever remarrying. You tolerate a lot during a bad marriage (selfish sex, infidelity, carrying the lions share of the work load, emotional abuse). So when you’re free, the kids are happy adults, why the hell would you ever give up the new found joy of having the remote to yourself, cooking meals you like, sleeping in the middle of the bed, spending money on things you want, having really good sex and not having to endure snoring, being told you’re too fat (when they’re fatter) and becoming Nurse Mom all over again?
Marriage is a needed construct for healthy children and a stable society, but honestly, if you want a happy life afterwards, go for it!
Posted by: EZB at November 10, 2010 12:40 PM
It was meant as a civilization tool, sorta. Why the institution? The above and to ensure children didn’t starve or be killed. It was in a woman’s best interest to ensure the survival of her offspring and to make sure she wasn’t cast out when she was no longer “useful”. This thing where women punch the card for free with no expectations of commitment is counterproductive.
I’m not saying women should be sluts, but I am saying women don’t face misery if they don’t marry. We see it in countries with Sharia law… you’re grateful you’re not starved, beaten or killed. It’s a live or die kind of situation.
Here, because women can earn their own way, pay for their own cars and mortgages, they can also be a little more demanding/discriminating about what they want from marriage and husbands– it’s no longer “if I don’t marry I’ll pereish!” mindset of my mother’s generation. The options were pretty cold blooded when she was a girl- it was pure survival, no romance or affection. Which is why when she and all the ladies in the community became widowed, they became the “Old Widows Club”, ran in a pack and didn’t even look at man— they’d had enough to quote my Granny.
It’s not for everyone. Some components that are pure heaven for some people are pure hell for others. It’s not bad or good, it’s that we are a nation of individuals.
It’s a sign of civiilzation advancing — no longer is marriage a ‘marry or die or watch your children die’ proposition, but a choice for your happy life. If you want children — it’s a must. If you want companionship, lots of company and being alone terrifies you, its a must. If you want to grow old holding someone’s hand, it’s a must. If you don’t , your kids are grown etc…. then it’s an option but not the only or best one.
Posted by: EZB at November 10, 2010 12:53 PM
An attorney explained things very succinctly to me:
Marriage creates wealth.
Divorce destroys wealth.
Marriage. Creates. Wealth.
Wealth creates stability.
Stability creates security.
Security creates happiness.
So, yeah, marriage is better.
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico’s ass since 1836) at November 10, 2010 01:05 PM