Friday, May 2, 2014

Friday Spotlight postponement again consolation

Last week I had school finishing up. This week I randomly met a good freind from undergraduate at a confrence. We're gonna be out celebrating tomorrow.

But then, there will be Dead Corpse's nihilistic murder wishes and cats.

Everyone hates the gays edition:
Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.

It’s inevitable.

Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs.

Marriage is many things, but it is also this. And ‘this’ can never be removed from it, no matter the direction of the political winds, or the motion of the shifting sands of public opinion.

Marriage and the family are dimensions of the same whole. They cannot be detached from one another. They, as a whole, as an institution, can only be weakened — not erased or redefined. And so the campaign to protect and strengthen the institution was and is designed to do just that. It was never about ‘legislating love’ or imposing intolerance or ‘discriminating against gay people,’ or any other silly bumper sticker platitude.

You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been.

Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. Me, I love in many ways and in many directions. I love my wife, yes, and I also love my parents, and my country, and football, and hamburgers. These are all different kinds and degrees of love, yet still love.

But, alas, only one of these loves can (or should) result in the creation of a biological family. Thus, this love carries with it a certain distinction and a certain responsibility.

Bigotry? There is nothing bigoted about it. This is mere science. You see, bigotry only enters into the conversation when you try to destroy a man’s life just for participating in the conversation.

You are the agents of bigotry, my friends. You. You are what you say we are.

I don’t know much about Brendan Eich, and neither do you. I know that he is a revolutionary mind in his field and he became the CEO of Mozilla because of his professional merits. That’s all the information I would have ever seen as relevant or important. But none of that matters to you. You decided to cast all of that aside because you took a peek at the names of Prop 8 donors — names that were only publicized in order to punish and shame those who supported the measure — and determined that everyone listed must be punished.

You fancy yourselves the ideological descendants of civil rights pioneers, but these tactics put you in the same vein as book burners and Puritan witch hunters. When your story is ultimately told, it’ll read more like The Crucible than the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that’s why you’ll lose.

You might have fooled society forever if you’d just kept singing about love and kindness, and never started bombarding Christians with your bitter hate and hostility. You might have gained some lasting ground if you hoisted your banner of free love, and never used it to diminish free speech.

But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. You’ve been made.

Because of your own behavior, when people like myself tell the world about the vicious death wishes and vulgar hate mail we receive from your kind on a DAILY basis, everyone will believe us. It’s no secret anymore. Without question and without exaggeration, the ‘gay rights movement’ is the angriest, most ruthless, most controlling, most intolerant of all the ideological enterprises in the country. Now, everyone knows it.

So you’ll lose. People are starting to see that you are the pigs on this Animal Farm, and the equality of which you preach is a very unequal equality indeed.

Let other conservatives write the ‘woe is me’ posts. In truth, woe is you. One way or another.

You’ll lose. You’ll lose for these reasons, and this:

With each passing day, it gets harder and harder for you to control the conversation.

Eich’s greatest contribution to combating gay rights militants didn’t come in the form of a paltry donation to Prop 8 — it came through his work developing the medium that makes censorship nearly impossible. I’m not saying that was his motivation, but it’s the result. You can boycott Reality TV shows and fast food restaurants all you want, but you can’t shutdown the internet.

For all its downside, the internet still gives voice to people who would be otherwise silenced by oppressors like yourselves. Take yours truly, for example. I’m just one dude — insignificant and unimportant — but there are many like me. I’m not employed by any major corporation. I’m not employed at all, in fact. You can’t get me fired; I work for myself.

You can’t muzzle me, or anyone else out here in the wild wilderness of cyberspace. You can keep sending us mean emails and telling us to kill ourselves (thanks for the helpful suggestion!), but that only emboldens us.

In the meantime, in honor of Mozilla and the gay rights fascists, I’ve talked with my wife and we’ve decided to donate a portion of our monthly ad revenue to the fight to protect the sanctity of life and marriage. So thank you for reading this — you are directly contributing to the ‘anti-gay rights’ cause!

See, you can’t win.

Victimize one guy and you simply succeed in creating a thousand others who are sufficiently fed up with your garbage.

You still lose.

The truth prevails.

Always.

Regards,

Matt Walsh
Empty triumphalism brought to you by Unam Sanctam

96 comments:

  1. Dear right-wingers,

    Your life would be a lot happier if you didn't care whether or not two homosexuals want to use the word "marriage" when talking about their union. Just focus on your own marriage and live it how you believe it should.

    Also, people are allowed to have whatever beliefs they choose but be aware that voicing or acting on those beliefs will have repercussions. If someone expresses intolerance, discrimination or hate toward another group, the people of the US will not be happy. Individuals are identified not only by their intellectual ability and business-sense but also by their personality and their beliefs. Just because someone is "smart" or can make a lot of money for a business doesn't give them a free pass to be a horrible, hateful person. If someone's beliefs are made public and don't agree with those of the group they are associated then they may be asked to leave. The US is moving toward more progressive social policies and is becoming an even more diverse pool of ethnicities, cultures and ideas. The era of intolerance, bigotry and exclusion is thankfully coming to a close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The era of intolerance, bigotry and exclusion is thankfully coming to a close."

      Thankfully - yes. However, it will return, if you follow the cyclical theory of history. It's more of a pendulum than a cycle - from one extreme to the other, though much of the time it's more or less in the middle.

      Delete
    2. " Just because someone is "smart" or can make a lot of money for a business doesn't give them a free pass to be a horrible, hateful person."

      Correct. It is the First Amendment that gives you a pass to be horrible/hateful. As a liberal (which doesn't mean a Democrat) I find conspiracies designed to deprive people of their guaranteed constitutional rights via the back door deeply suspect. Attempting to abridge the right to oppose Homosexual Marriage and publically advocate such opposition is no different to a Jim Crow law.

      Mr. Eich (whose position I personally disagree with) should have been protected by both the 1st. and 14th. amendments. "Equal protection" means that a virulent opponent of homosexuality has exactly the same right to freedom from discrimination as a practicing homosexual does.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous above:
      The constitution of the United States only applies to governments. Specifically the Federal government and in some cases, the states. This is not a first amendment issue, nor is it a civil rights issue. It would only be a constitutional issue if a government was trying to suppress his speech.
      In this case, it was the free market (boycott) and his employer that caused Eich to lose his position. Many make this mistake but it has to be corrected.

      Delete
    4. @AnonymousMay 2, 2014 at 11:00 AM

      My point was that Mr. Eich's opinions are protected by the 1st and his right to Equal Protection under anti-discrimination law is protected by the 14th. Any law that prohibits discrimination against homosexual advocacy automatically confers the same protection upon opponents of homosexuality.

      The internet campaign is not the issue (that is obviously protected by the 1st.), the issue is whether his employers provided the same level of support for Mr. Eich that they would have done had his position been reversed. If they didn't then there is a probable breach of Californian Employment Law and as soon as "Law" comes into play then so does the Constitution, regardless of whether the government is a direct party to the action or not.

      Delete
    5. @myself

      As an aside, I also cite NOW v. Scheidler, 1994. A campaign pursuant to a political (as opposed to purely economic) objective that uses protests, boycotts and other such means to achieve it's aims via inflicting economic damage on another entity can fall foul of RICO via the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The 1st. Amendment is not a "get out of jail free" card if your actions are otherwise unconstitutional. This again requires no direct government involvement in the matter.

      Delete
    6. As an actual California lawyer with decades of experience in employment law, I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm too lazy to bother walking you through employment law 101, and it wouldn't change your mind anyway, but I'm laughing at your fundamental misunderstandings of these issue.

      Delete
    7. Anon 5:08

      Seriously. Would you mind expanding? A guy likes to learn.

      I'll trade you with experience of Court Martials and how to lie to a senior officer with a straight face if that helps!

      Delete
    8. The Era of Intolerance is coming to a close?

      You must smoke a LOT of pot, because its just beginning.

      Remember douchebag, CLASS WAR is a two way street.

      The right is getting ready to start stringing you communist faggots up from traffic signals

      Disenfranchising the parasite class is also high on the agenda.

      Keep pushing, your communist degenerate sex pervert bullshit on us and see what happens when we get the power .

      Delete
    9. I'm betting that soon, that is, within ten years, same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states and there will not be thing one you can do about it. The majority of Americans are on our side and that number is increasing, not decreasing. Welcome to the trash heap of history.

      Delete
    10. Do you know how to speak in any other language other than cliche?

      The Federal Judicial Tyranny that has dictated faggot marriage against the will of the people of the states is going to be decimated by the right wing as soon as we are in a position to do so.

      People are sick and tired of homos throwing sissy fits every ten seconds and fucking with our way of life.

      I'm betting that in ten years all of the commie faggots running around now all high and mighty will be forced back under the rocks they crawled out from.

      -Have a nice fucking day


      Delete
    11. Do you know how to speak in any other language other than "You kids get off my lawn!"?

      The people are voting for "faggot marriage" in larger and larger numbers each election cycle. The only thing people are sick of is you angry old reactionaries trying to hang on to the past. And unless we somehow turn into an authoritarian dictatorship within the next ten years, your fantasies will not be coming true.

      Toodles!

      Delete
  2. Ozy why the delay? Two weeks in a row? Heavy flow?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Boy, these religious nuts are going to go ballistic when biotechnology is able to make sperm and egg cells from human stem cells; that is, lesbian and gay couples will be able to make their own sperm and eggs and have their own biological children. Where will their specious "only a man and a woman can make a baby" arguments be then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already possible, as is ex-vitro gestation. Just VERY under reported, probably for the very reason you cite.

      Delete
    2. And society will see the net effect decade later with wacked out kids. Boys and girls need a mom and father.

      Delete
    3. You don't need two sets of DNA to create a viable embryo in mammal. Dolly the Sheep proved that years ago. Take out the legislative obstacles and the technology is good to go already. Easier for lesbians, but also practical for men with an artificially engineered ectopic pregnancy (immune system rejection is a non-issue with clones).

      Delete
    4. 2 sets is better though. Increases genetic diversity.

      Any clone of mine will have astigmatism, an intense allergy to crab (talking stopping breathing levels) and the ability to heal incredibly rapidly. None of them desirable traits.

      I do foresee designer babies in the future - slowly weeding out negative traits in the genome. I also think that will be a huge mistake.

      Delete
    5. "I do foresee designer babies in the future - slowly weeding out negative traits in the genome. I also think that will be a huge mistake."
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      If homosexuality is caused by gene or some other biological factor (which I believe it is in most cases)people will abort or weed it out as you will.

      Delete
    6. Two sets is better overall for the species but at the individual level it is a coin toss. With a clone (subject to random transcription errors) you know what you are going to get.

      As for "designer babies", it has been going on since the beginning of time, it is just that the technology available ("Am I attracted to this person?") is crude and subject to scientifically irrelevant biases (like "Am I attracted to this person?"). Great Dane vs. Toy Poodle proves how much genetic engineering you can do simply by controlled breeding; no test tubes needed.

      As for artifically meddling with a genome, it is no different in principle than creating chemical compounds or alloying metals. It is a lot more complex (particularly with a genome like a higher mammal) but the complexity is finite and can therefore be resolved mathematically. The fact that we can't do the math in 2014 doesn't mean it is impossible any more than the limitations of Alchemy in the 15th century meant modern Biotechnology was impossible. Clarke's First Law.

      Delete
    7. "If homosexuality is caused by gene or some other biological factor (which I believe it is in most cases)people will abort or weed it out as you will."

      And that would be a huge mistake.

      There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that homosexuality and high creativity go together.
      I know - a conservative arguing FOR homosexuality.. Sue me :P

      Delete
    8. "There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that homosexuality and high creativity go together."
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Agree 100%..in gay men though..don't see the creativity gene in lesbians. Knew plenty of gay males who were architects, musicians-as in writing music, graphic designers etc.

      Delete
    9. Seriously anon1, that is the hill you are going to die on? That dykes aren't creative? You really think that lesbians are lacking some sort of creativity? Damn you are stupid beyond stupid.

      Delete
    10. "Seriously anon1, that is the hill you are going to die on? That dykes aren't creative? You really think that lesbians are lacking some sort of creativity? Damn you are stupid beyond stupid."
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I did not say they were creative..just not any more creative than the average woman. Gay men I have found are more creative than average guys in many areas..design (architecture/graphic design) etc

      Delete
    11. Should read: "I did not say they were not creative"

      Delete
    12. @anon1 - now you mention it - that is fucking odd.

      Probably know more lesbians than homosexual men personally, but yeah - their creativity is more retail than wholesale.

      It's not just design areas though - best damned mechanic I had were gay. He and his partner kept my girl flying well past what should have been possible!

      Wonder why? It's a bit of a puzzle.

      Delete
    13. HGTV is all gay men..no lesbians. All the fashion shows are gay men, no lesbians. Can't think of a single show on TV portraying artistry/design/fashion/cooking that has lesbians involved but numerous gay men.

      Delete
    14. You base your knowledge of gays' and lesbians' creativity on cable TV? Do you have any idea how many lesbians are musicians, painters, writers, and interior decorators, and how many gay men are mechanical engineers and jocks? I think your notions would be a little less skewed if you had more actual gay friends. There's no doubt that cable likes to tout the gay male creative types, but that's far from the full picture.

      Delete
    15. Straight people like their gay men to be non-threatening, sophisticated artistes, and their lesbians to be sex objects. That's why HGTV is full of sexless twinks for the stay-at-home mommies, and why The L Word is on Showtime. TV just reflects what straight people want to see.

      Delete
  4. Young voters turning away from liberalism and obamo and a greater amount classify themselves as conservative. Great job obammy.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/29/young_voters_are_disillusioned_with_politics_and_won_t_be_voting_in_the.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So What? Your golden boy is failing and is going to give the Senate back to the Republicans. The economy is a mess..nearly 92 million Americans out of a job, the health care law is a failure..rates are going up and people are getting their group and individual plans coming back with higher premiums and deductibles...won;t even bring up the foreign policy failure.

      Delete
    2. You really, really want that to be true, don't you? The economy is actually fine, the 92 million out of a job includes people who aren't looking and even those who don't want to work (like those housewives you claim to love so much), the healthcare law is a rousing success, and the only foreign policy failure is in the imaginations of RWNJs.

      Delete
    3. "You really, really want that to be true, don't you? The economy is actually fine, the 92 million out of a job includes people who aren't looking and even those who don't want to work (like those housewives you claim to love so much), the healthcare law is a rousing success, and the only foreign policy failure is in the imaginations of RWNJs.'
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      What are you? A liberal ideologue or someone who just wants to play devils advocate against a conservative if I say the sky is blue you will say it's red.

      Everyone knows the economy sucks,, a good bulk of those 92 million are people who have just given up looking for a job. What about the article the other day stating record amount of people in their 50's and 60's are moving back in with their 70+ age parents because they have no jobs and have spent all their retirement money
      Massive amounts of underemployment, most of the new jobs created are P/T, people working 2-3 p/t jobs, wages stangant, college graduates working at Starbucks etc etc etc. if the economy was fine there would not be a call to raise the minimum wage as the jobs would be outpacing the number of hires and wages would increase.

      6.1% unemployment rate..if you really believe that I have some swamp land for you.

      http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/report-more-than-92-million-americans-remain-out-of-labor-force/

      Delete
    4. Here's what's funny: Libertarians who think that the sky's the limit for CEO pay, because they "earned" it. Those same CEOs and those like them use their unlimited money and influence to install just the kind of business-friendly bureaucrats they like in government. Then when those CEOs go on to outsource American labor for 30+ year, cut workers' rights, wages, and benefits, libertarians complain about the exact kind of cozy government-business corrupt environment that their wealthy heroes helped to create. And blame their opponents for unemployment. Their disconnect with reality is simply staggering.

      Delete
    5. Liberal Huffington Post Title ==="75% of jobs created this year were p/t due to weak economy and obamacare concerns"

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part-time-job-creation_n_3788365.html

      Delete
    6. I'll admit that the unemployment rate isn't as good as it could be, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be, either. Why do you care, anyway? You seem pretty gleeful about this. Is it because you think it hurts Obama? You don't seem like the type who actually cares about the unemployed. But maybe I'm wrong. How do you feel about the extension of unemployment benefits? I ask because your side has done everything possible to block them, even though they would be a big boost to the economy.

      Despite the mediocre job numbers, the economy is doing fine. The stock market is higher than it ever was under Bush. But wait! Haven't you conservatives been telling us that the more money the "job creators" have the more jobs they'd create? If so, where are all the new jobs? Could that just be another line of bullshit?

      Also, I notice you didn't answer me on healthcare or foreign policy. I'll assume you're conceding those arguments.

      Delete
    7. "Great job obammy"

      Obammy? Can you spell?

      Oh, wait, I get it! "mammy" is one of the words used by racists to degrade black people, and Obama is black, so by calling him "Obammy" you're trying to evoke the racist stereotype of black people as submissive, unintelligent, and generally inferior! Subtle.

      Delete
    8. "Also, I notice you didn't answer me on healthcare or foreign policy. I'll assume you're conceding those arguments"
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Girly men as yourself can't take too much bad news at one time or you will go off into a big cry and hissy fit. Everyone knows the HC law has been a failure..only 8 million sign ups(out of 52 million uninsured) and many of those 8 million are the 4-5 million people who lost their coverage. when their insurance was termionated. Article came out a few days ago that out of those 8 million 30% have yet to pay their premium.. the sign up fiasco with computer problems, the employer mandate pushed back another year and peoples premium going up with double or triple of their deductibles. My premium went from 175 to 338 and my deductible went from 1250.00 to 2500 and before i had no coinsurance after the deducible i do now to 6300 out of pocket..wait until the rest of America starts receiving their renewal notices this year. .

      Young, healthy people are not taking out the coverage only the sick and older so wait until those premiums explode next year..health insurance co's are saying when this happens they will need a gov't bailout


      http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/two-months-in-obamacare-promises-more-failures-delays-and-uncertainty/

      Delete
    9. Euph if Obama is doing so great why are the young people abandoning him in droves? Face it your boy has been a failure in almost every area except your gay rights schtick..to you and all your sissy boys that;s all that matters I guess.

      https://www.google.com/#q=young+people+moving+away+from+obama

      Delete
    10. Everyone knows the HC law has been a failure

      Oh yes, the scientific measure "everyone knows". Unfortunately for you, reality does not comply with your fantasies.

      only 8 million sign ups(out of 52 million uninsured)

      I'd call that a damn good start for the first 5 months, especially when they were only expecting 6-7 million. Plus, that's only the people who got insurance through the exchanges. It doesn't count people who are now insured through Medicaid expansion.

      and many of those 8 million are the 4-5 million people who lost their coverage. when their insurance was termionated.

      [citation needed]

      Article came out a few days ago that out of those 8 million 30% have yet to pay their premium

      So what?

      the sign up fiasco with computer problems

      ...was fixed within the first couple of months, and it still exceeded all expectations.

      the employer mandate pushed back another year

      Again, so what?

      and peoples premium going up with double or triple of their deductibles. My premium went from 175 to 338 and my deductible went from 1250.00 to 2500 and before i had no coinsurance after the deducible i do now to 6300 out of pocket..wait until the rest of America starts receiving their renewal notices this year. .

      The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

      Young, healthy people are not taking out the coverage only the sick and older

      Your citation is from February, and is a Republican hit job opinion article. No credibility.

      Euph if Obama is doing so great why are the young people abandoning him in droves?

      Because he's not liberal enough. On most things, he's governing like a Republican.

      Delete
    11. "I'd call that a damn good start for the first 5 months, especially when they were only expecting 6-7 million"
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      You are totally ignorant and don't even know how the program works. The enrollment period is over until Open Enrollment at the end of this year. If you don;t have insurance right now and want to get it you have to wait until October to sign up with a January 1st effective date.
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      the employer mandate pushed back another year

      Again, so what?

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      So what? if the plan was working as it should it would have not been pushed back.

      And young people are not leaving Obama because he is not liberal enough but he is too big gov't liberal and young people are becoming more liberterian and want big gov't out of their lives..read the liberal Huff Post article doofus...they explain the change with young people..the ones who are going to be paying for all this big gov't crap.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Your citation is from February, and is a Republican hit job opinion article. No credibility.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Because that was when the open enrollment period was going on and the insurers noted young people were not signing up.

      Delete
    12. Article came out a few days ago that out of those 8 million 30% have yet to pay their premium

      "So what?"
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      So what? That means out of those 8 million people 2.4 million did not pay for their insurance that means they are not covered. if you send in an application for life insurance but do not pay the premium are you covered.? You seriously need to get out of that gay band and get out in the real world.

      Delete
    13. Wow, you really are living in a fantasy world. You really, really wish that everything you said is true. Maybe you should get into a gay band so that you can join reality. Again, enrollment exceeded expectations. That's not failure. And there are many people who signed up at the last minute, which means some people may not have gotten their bill yet, so of course some people haven't paid yet. And your citation still has no credibility because it didn't include the March rush. Seriously, come join the real world for a change instead of twisting yourself into knots trying to find fault with everything Obama does.

      Also, I notice you gave up on the economy, job numbers and foreign policy, so I'm assuming you're conceding those, too. It's just as well, since going by your healthcare arguments, those would be completely supported only by your fantasies, too.

      Delete
    14. "Also, I notice you gave up on the economy, job numbers and foreign policy, so I'm assuming you're conceding those, too. It's just as well, since going by your healthcare arguments, those would be completely supported only by your fantasies, too."
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I gave links to the economy yesterday and the American people know the economy is soft and jobs are scare and don;t pay much..what world are you living in?\

      His foreign policy? Laughing.. Yeah Putin is real scared, how is Syria working out? The gov't Obama sided with in Egypt is out the the military is in.

      Iraq and Afghanistan?? LOL

      Delete
    15. The economy is not good for the middle class because the rich are keeping all the money for themselves. Where are those jobs your side promised if the rich people got all the money?

      You just don't like his foreign policy because he won't declare war on Russia or Syria and got us out of Iraq like he promised. Like I said, your arguments are based solely on fantasy.

      Delete
  5. Gays, women, people of other races, etc are all fighting for one thing: to be treated the same as everyone else.

    These people are fighting to treat anyone they don't like worse than everyone else.

    News flash to them: it's not intolerance to fight for equal treatment, it's intolerance to fight against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they are fighting to overturn objective reality with political dogma. It is analagous to the 'transgender' argument. The definition of 'male' in Homo Sapiens is possession of at least one 'Y' chromosome. Psychological self-identity is irrelevant. Surgical modifications are irrelevant. Conjuring bogus 'third genders' out of the ether is irrelevant. That does not constitute discrimination against people with gender dysphoria, it is simply recognition of the scientific fact that gender is immutable with current technology.

      This being the case, the definition of 'married couple' as an XX+XY composite genetic entity is equally valid. Otherwise you are arguing that self-identification trumps objective fact - in which case I self-identify as POTUS, The Pope, a Grand Ayatollah of Shia Islam - and a squirrel. Hmmm ... nothing changed! I wonder why? Maybe because such states are conferred either by scientific facts and/or the views of society as a whole. Self-identification is not just AN irrelevant factor, it is THE single most irrelevant factor.

      Delete
    2. It's not "objective reality" to say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage has changed many times over the centuries, and only relatively recently has it actually been anything other than a system to trade women. And for a while after that, it was only allowed to be between people of the same race. There is no scientific definition of marriage like there is for gender.

      By the way, I'm curious. A female to male transgender wants to marry a man. Both of them have the outward appearance of a man. Do you object to them getting married? Why or why not?

      Delete
    3. Marriage is the term applied to the social contract that represents breeding arrangements common to all dual gender species. The number of partners, degree of genetic relationship, ages, permanance or otherwise of the relationship have all varied over time but the (potential) reproductive dimension never has. Even societies with institutionalized same sex relations (Greeks, Romans) never thought to call the arrangement a marriage. Polygamy, Polyandry and marrying your sister all have far stronger claims to validity if one looks to history for guidance.

      As for your second point, of course I have no objection. I already stated that self identification is irrelevant (I my view) and cosmetic surgery definitely is otherwise (to be logically consistent) breast implants or steroid fuelled moobs would be barriers as well. Hermaphrodites and poly-chromosome disorders have a clear answer as well. Chimeras are the only gray area I can see and even they always have a quantifiable primary gender.

      Delete
    4. So no more senior marriages. Because, no babies. Only limp attempts at such. They have no right to legalize their relationship with the state.

      Delete
    5. Marriage is the term applied to the social contract that represents breeding arrangements common to all dual gender species.

      Wrong. Marriage began as a social contract between two families, one that would sell their daughter like a commodity. And it certainly doesn't occur in any species other than humans. Other species may be monogamous, but they don't have a social contract. That domain is exclusive to humans. Besides, if, as you say, it is a contract, then there is no reason to not extend it to same-sex couples. The government has no business discriminating due to gender. That's where this issue is headed, and that's why same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, likely within the next 10 years.

      As for your second point, of course I have no objection.

      But if, as you say, marriage is a social contract that represents breeding arrangements, then why allow two people to marry that can never breed? And by the way, your spouse must have loved your proposal: "Will you be my breeding arrangement partner?"

      Delete
    6. As I noted below, age is demonstrably irrelevant. As for the 'state' issue, I don't personally believe the state has any business giving marriage any sort of special treatment over any other form of formal personal partnership arrangement. The state also has no business enquiring into what sort of consensual sex life people do or do not have. Homosexual partners, married couples, civil partners and brothers and sisters who choose formal cohabitation arrangements should all have the same inheritance, pension and other such rights.

      Delete
    7. Then what is your problem with same-sex marriage? That they're calling it marriage? Sorry, but "separate but equal" has been deemed unconstitutional a long time ago.

      Delete
    8. "Then what is your problem with same-sex marriage? That they're calling it marriage?"

      To be blunt - yes. It just bugs me.

      Delete
    9. Gross overstatement of reality. Separate but equal is not unconstitutional per se. Hence the existence of separate male and female rest rooms in federal buildings.

      Delete
    10. @euph

      As for your other points, you have no more idea how marriage started as a concept than I do becsuse it pre-dates historical records. Best guess would be it probably started as a sort of fluid Polygamy, as with Gorillas etc. Whether other pair bond for life species have a social contract as we understand it is similarly unknowable. We can only observe actions, not read their minds.

      The fact that in recorded history daughters were sold as commodities is reprehensible but irrelevant to the point at hand. I could probably trawl up some cases of the genders being reversed. I know for a fact that some traditional Nepali marriages took the form of one woman marrying all of the brothers in a family. Lots of countries still have Polygamy. You don't seem to have a problem with the state refusing any recognition of these arrangements, let alone denying them recognition as marriages?

      As for the other 'contract' issue, I'm not arguing that couples other than unrelated, monogamous heterosexuals should be unable to form a contract or be denied equal status. You appear to be though - special pleading for homosexuality aside.

      Delete
    11. @EC,
      Well, a lot of things bug me, too. But unfortunately, personal discomfort shouldn't be the basis for laws.

      @Anonymous,
      Separate but equal is absolutely the issue here. You want to make separate institutions for different types of relationships. And seriously? You're trying to compare restrooms to marriage? So using your argument, let's just go back to drinking fountains labeled "for whites only". After all, separate but equal is A-OK for men and women, why not for whites and blacks?

      As for your ridiculous claim that I'm making "special pleading" for homosexuality, I'm just arguing that same-sex relationships should be treated the same, including given the same name, as opposite-sex relationships. No special pleading needed. Next time, please look up a term so that you know what it means before using it.

      Delete
    12. "As for your other points, you have no more idea how marriage started as a concept than I do becsuse it pre-dates historical records." Well, that sure isn't the biblical argument that gets repeated ad nauseam. So, can we do away with that "divinely inspired by God" thing already? Because the Old Testament was divinely inspired by God and distinctly creepy as to what men could do with their wives, daughters, slaves, and other unrelated women. Sorry, but I live in the 21st century and I'd prefer not to live in the stone age.

      Delete
    13. Anon at 5:40 said:

      "it is simply recognition of the scientific fact that gender is immutable with current technology. "

      Which is patently ridiculous since gender is a social construct.

      Delete
    14. If you're trying to divide humans into two groups according to gender or sex, then science is not your friend. Those gosh-darn biologists just keep on finding more and more subtle variations in human physiology and psychology that won't fit neatly into one of two boxes. Want a genetic definition of sex? Then what shall we do with the XXY's? How about one based on reproductive capacity? Or genital appearance? Only works if you pretend that intersex people are somehow not part of objective reality. There's always going to be a significant number of people that are left out of any binary categorization scheme.

      It's almost as if human sexuality could be better described as a multi-dimensional continuum. You know, the way scientists do.

      Delete
    15. Gender is a genetic construct revolving around the existence of one or more Y chromosomes. It is not a social invention like race. People with multiple chromosome conditions change nothing since they all either do or do not have Y chromosomes (one or more). Physical appearance, genital or otherwise, is irrelevant since that is a purely social issue like 'race'.

      Yes, I am comparing marriages to rest rooms. Also to the existence of separate Oscars, Olympic Medals and so forth for different genders. If you have a Y chromosome then you are ineligible to compete in women's athletics. That is not a social construct, it is a genetic one and it exists because of the unfair advantage a surgically and hormone therapy modified, self-identified 'female' would have over a genuine genetic female. This is yet another example of perfectly acceptable "separate but equal" incidentally.

      As for special pleading, I know what it means. You are engaging in it because you are repeatedly avoiding addressing all other relationships not regarded as valid marriages and making a special case exception about homosexuality. You also persist in dragging in irrelevant social constructs like race as if they have some bearing on factual distinctions like gender.

      "Separate but Equal" has never been found to be unconstitutional as a principle, only in so far as it was used in order to subvert the intent of the 14th. amendment. Throwing the term around like an evil omen that implicitly damns any issue it is associated with is not a logical argument. Hence Rest Rooms.

      Delete
    16. Stop talking as if you know science, because it is patently obvious you do not. You also have no idea about "separate but equal" or "special pleading". It is not "special pleading" just because I won't address all of your ridiculous comparisons. You're trying to make a scientific case that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and you are failing spectacularly, because you only have tradition, i.e., "we've always done it that way," to back you up. The only other thing you've brought up is procreation, which we've already established that infertile people can get married. So all you have left is to flail around and babble about chromosomes and accuse others of "special pleading" when it's obvious you don't know a thing about either one. As far as "separate but equal," can you guarantee that same-sex couples will be equal to opposite-sex couples in the eyes of the law and everywhere else? If not, your argument is invalid.

      Delete
    17. @ euph - Sorry. RL time intervention.

      1) Your first point is pure ad hominem and you are usually better than that. Since you push the issue, I have a BSc in Biotechnology and an LLB (never attempted to take bar exams though - not relevant to my career - just a hobby).

      2) It is "special pleading" the instant that you raise the matter of expanding the definition of "marriage" and then focus the debate exclusively on active homosexuals. Given that we agree that actual reproduction is incidental then I am puzzled why you are not agitating on behalf of Polygamists or Cosanguinous marriage? Maybe you do support such unions, in which case your special pleading is simply dismissive of others, or maybe you don't. Which is it?



      If infertility was a criterion then I could marry a carrot. This is a silly analogy. Try again: "Mixed Doubles" = form of Lawn Tennis defined as one Male and one Female player on each side. You have a problem with that?

      Logically you should do. Logically you want it abolished and the competition to de facto become mens doubles. Partnerships that demand gender distinctions are oppressive and intolerant- correct?

      One can't have "Mens Doubles", "Womens Doubles" and "Mixed Doubles". That is "separate but equal"!!

      PS: Please don't go off on a Plessy vs. Ferguson lecture. I know that, I understand that and it changes nothing in this context.

      Delete
    18. 1) So do you think that Anonymous knows what they're talking about when it comes to science, or are you just complaining about me not expanding my argument?

      2) No, it is not special pleading. I never focused exclusively on active homosexuals, as I support the right of any two adults, no matter the gender, to get married. They can be hetero, homo, or anything in between. And not necessarily active. As far as polygamists, I would support that as long as the women aren't treated like chattel like in the FLDS. With consanguineous marriage, I find it rather pointless, as marriage creates a legal kinship between two people, which consanguineous couples obviously already have without marriage.

      You can't compare a sports competition, one that lasts a few hours at most, to a lifetime commitment to one person for the rest of your life. Plus, the same men and women can choose to compete in both men's/women's doubles and mixed doubles. So your tennis analogy is not much better than your carrot analogy.

      Delete
  6. Anon at 5:40pm,

    We get it, you believe there is no such thing as LGBT people. It's you're "sincerely held belief" that they are all mentally disturbed perverts.

    But, as reprehensible as most find your beliefs, you are free to hold them. The issue is, when you fight to treat people differently based on those beliefs. You don't get to take away or deny rights to others based on your beliefs.

    So, I'll say it again - and this time think about it:
    It's not intolerance to fight for equal treatment, it's intolerance to fight against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said nothing of the sort. Gender dysphoria is demonstrably real, as is same sex attraction. The point is that psychologically self-identifying as female doesn't make it objectively true any more than Anorexia makes someone objectively obese.

      As for "perversion", that is your word, not mine.

      What is intolerant is blindly denying factual reality because it conflicts with political ideology. For a case study take a look at Lysenkoism under Stalin. Mendellian genetics was regarded as regarded as conflicting with Marxist dogma so they set Soviet agriculture back decades by cooking up a politically correct (but genetically bogus) alternative.

      If and when we have the technology to rewrite the genetic code in every cell of a living organism transgenderism may be possible. Until then it is not, other than in the case of chimeras who are partially both genders at once.

      Delete
    2. So what "objective reality" is being ignored in relation to same-sex marriage? That same-sex couples can't bear children? Neither could my step-grandmother, but she still married my grandfather when she was in her 60s.

      Delete
    3. Again - you have some belief (backed with pseudo science) that justifies your desire to deny the rights of others. And again, the issue isn't your belief. Many people believe silly things. The issue is, you want to use those beliefs to justify denying those people rights that others have.

      If you weren't trying to hold back the rights of LGBT people, you would be a funny little kook, just like flat earthers and believers in bigfoot. But you are trying to deny basic equality to others, and that's intolerant. For the last time: It's not intolerance to fight for equal treatment, it's intolerance to fight against it.

      Delete
    4. @euph

      Age is irrelevant. Men can potentially have children at any age and the record for a woman is 74 (known record - not maxium theoretical limit - because there isn't one).

      Delete
    5. @anon

      So, by your logic and in the name of equality you will perform liposuction and administer anti-obesity drugs to a Anorexic because he/she self-identifies as obese and it would be intolerant to deny equal treatment cf. people with actual obesity?

      Delete
    6. But my grandfather and step-grandmother had no intention of having any children, nor does any couple have to sign anything that says they will have children. Otherwise, marriages would all be annulled if no children were produced during a certain period of time. Your argument is sounding more and more ridiculous and lacks any logical sense and you've been reduced to making silly arguments about liposuction.

      Delete
    7. Their intentions are as irrelevant as the self-identification arguments. Accidental pregnancies happen all the time. You can now of course reach even further into the corner cases and bring up hysterectomy perhaps?

      Your position amounts to claiming that the "Best Actress" Oscar is intolerant discrimination because it isn't open to men. It doesn't need to be because there is an exactly equivalent award with a different name for the men. So should it be for all personal relationship agreements of this nature. Exact same rights - different name.

      Delete
    8. So if intentions are irrelevant, then marriage is only about procreation or the possibility of procreation. So any type of birth control should be illegal. If marriage is only about procreation, then it should be a part of the marriage contract.

      And please stop with the ridiculous comparisons. You're only making your argument look sillier.

      Delete
    9. anonymous 9:26, their intentions aren't irrelevant at all. Gays aren't the ones asserting that only marriages that can result in offspring should be recognized. People like you are asserting that. Now you want to have it both ways.

      Delete
    10. Birth control should be illegal? What?

      Public ladies rest rooms are for women to urinate in so urinating anywhere else should be illegal?! The Best Actress Oscar is for female performers so male performers should be illegal?

      I never said that the exclusive *purpose* of marriage was reproduction, I said that the hypothetical possibility of it has been part of the definition of it as long as the term has existed.

      You are engaging the the same false dichotomy that says the the right to abortion constitutes obligation to abort. All I am saying is that to invoke the right to an abortion one has to first be factually pregnant!

      Delete
    11. I never said that the exclusive *purpose* of marriage was reproduction, I said that the hypothetical possibility of it has been part of the definition of it as long as the term has existed.

      [citation needed]

      You are engaging the the same false dichotomy that says the the right to abortion constitutes obligation to abort. All I am saying is that to invoke the right to an abortion one has to first be factually pregnant!

      I'm starting to think you're just a troll who is trying to make the anti-same-sex marriage side look bad. What facts am I denying when I say that same-sex couples should be able to enter into the same contract that opposite-sex couples are?

      Delete
    12. Not worried about gay marriage. The divorce lawyers are spooling up..majority of gay men are incapable of staying in a long term monogamous marriage to begin with...

      Delete
    13. Divorce rates are not a valid reason to deny marriage rights to any group of people.

      Delete
    14. Divorce rates are not a valid reason to deny marriage rights to any group of people.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I agree have no problem with gay marriage...gonna love it though when the divorces start happening..talk bout hissy fits and drama. Getting my popcorn out.

      Delete
    15. Oh, that's right, you think that all gays everywhere are just like the ones you see on cable TV.

      Delete
    16. "Oh, that's right, you think that all gays everywhere are just like the ones you see on cable TV."
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Actually gays are worse in real life..lesbians on TV are pretty while we know what they look like in reality. Gay men on TV are different from reality also..diseased, filthy, perverted, having sex at roadside rest stops, 50-300 different sex partners per year, drama queens incapable of having along term monogamous relationship.

      Does that about cover it?

      Delete
    17. @ euph
      [citation needed]
      Code of Hammurabi

      >>I'm starting to think you're just a troll who is trying >>to make the anti-same-sex marriage side look >>bad.

      I'm saying you need to set aside your USA-centric obsession with conflating gender, race and sexual orientation and look at the question objectively.

      Gay couples can't be married any more that they could compete in the mixed doubles at Wimbledon. Every combination is covered. Two men, two women, woman and a man. Whether they have sex (let alone children) is incidental. Different gender combinations, different titles awarded. Why have you got no problem with this?

      Delete
    18. Code of Hammurabi

      Sorry, but I was actually asking for a citation for "the hypothetical possibility of [reproduction] has been part of the definition of it as long as the term has existed." And obviously, it hasn't. There have been same-sex marriages in the past, and even now, many different countries and several U.S. states have same-sex marriage. So reproduction has not always been a part of the definition of marriage.

      I'm saying you need to set aside your USA-centric obsession with conflating gender, race and sexual orientation and look at the question objectively.

      What, exactly, does that even mean? Are Americans really known for "conflating gender, race and sexual orientation"? I just want everyone to be equal. You seem to think there's something wrong with that. Why don't you look at this objectively?

      As for your comparison to Wimbledon, see my response above.

      Delete
  7. [citation needed]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gay men don't have much higher rates of STD's than normal men?


    http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads17/lesbians+aint+like+the+movies1268505418.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you focused only on one small part of your argument and ignored all others, plus you failed to provide a citation. Thanks for conceding the argument once again.

      Delete
    2. So why are you worried about it? What's it got to do with you? Frankly, men are more promiscuous, period. But that doesn't seem to bother you.

      Delete
    3. Lol, you linked to a citation on the forums of the place I buy my BMW parts from. That's hilarious!
      I have no other point to make, other than to state that my opinion is that anon1 is a total douche.
      That is all.

      Delete
  8. "I see you focused only on one small part of your argument and ignored all others, plus you failed to provide a citation. Thanks for conceding the argument once again."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here we go again..What argument of mine is wrong?

    Here is Slate about gays and monogomy...titled "Most gay coupes are not monogamous"


    YOU prove to me gay men do;t have the highest rates of STD's and HIV of every sector, YOU prove to me gay men don;t have the highest rate of sex partners and YOU prove to me more than an average amount of lesbians are pretty.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, see, you made the claim, so you back it up. Besides, none of what you say even matters, because none of it has any bearing on whether or not any group of people should have the right to get married. If two married people are fine with the other one getting some on the side, what business is it of ours? Your arguments are, as Shakespeare would say, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      Delete
    2. If you're going to argue that people who aren't pretty shouldn't get married, I've got a whole lot of straight wedding photos to show you. What, exactly, is your friggin point?

      Delete
    3. And while we're at it, anon1, let's see YOUR head shot. Yeah, that's what I thought. You're probably a total goblin with a muffin top. LOL.

      Delete
  9. AnonymousMay 3, 2014 at 6:25 PM

    If you're going to argue that people who aren't pretty shouldn't get married, I've got a whole lot of straight wedding photos to show you. What, exactly, is your friggin point?



    THISVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    euphgeekMay 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    Oh, that's right, you think that all gays everywhere are just like the ones you see on cable TV.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My point was the lesbians in real life don't looks like the beauties on TV or the movies. The whole gay thing on tv is not real life...fake fake fake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So again...what is your point? That non-beautiful people shouldn't get married? That because gays are not all exactly like the ones you see on cable TV, that's enough to deny them equal rights? Or are you going to admit that there will be no more "hissy fits and drama" with gay divorces than there are with straight ones?

      Delete
  10. This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
    Poker Strategy

    ReplyDelete