Obviously, by hook or by crook, gay marriage is going to happen in America, because powerful people want it to happen. Sure, last time I checked, gay marriage had gone 0 for 31 when presented to voters on ballots, but how can something so inherently suspect as "majority rule" be allowed to stand in the way of what has been defined as a "minority right?" Indeed, the very fact that gay marriage lost 31 straight elections proves that it must be imposed. I mean, when you stop and think about it, holding elections and abiding by the results is downright anti-democratic, because the contemporary understanding of democracy is victory for The Good People (i.e., those poor, powerless victims holding the bullhorn) by any means necessary.
Will gay marriage turn out in the long run to have unintended consequences? Yeah, probably. Most things do. Has there been a frank, widespread public discussion to try to anticipate some of those unintended consequences? Of course not. That would be insensitive and thus outside the "bounds of public discourse."
Posts
132 comments:
"Obviously, by hook or by crook, this gay marriage thing is going to happen in America, because powerful people want it to happen. How can something so inherently suspect as "majority rule" be allowed to stand in the way of what has been defined as "minority rights?" Holding elections and abiding by the results is downright anti-democratic, because the contemporary understanding of democracy is victory for The Good People (i.e., those holding the bullhorn) by any means necessary."
Sailer, we have been over this innumerable times, but you don't seem to understand this:
MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!
This is THE most cardinal principle of Western Civilization. You obviously have no idea how jurisprudence works, so let me explain this to you. Laws are HIERARCHICAL. At the top are negative laws, that dictate what kinds of positive laws can be passed as legislation.
Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which is(by far!) the most important juridical principle of Western Civilization.
Men or women, gay or straight are not the criteria used to determine the bearer of rights, but INDIVIDUAL adult human beings in the full posession of their mental faculties. If you give a man and a woman, both adults, the right to get married, then you by DEFAULT extend such right to all adults.
If it depended on popular vote, I am sure that there are cities in Mississippi and Alabama that would reinstate segragation. Would you be in favor of that? Like Cicero once said:
"Giving power to the mob is like giving a butcher's knife to a madman or a child."
If it were up to popular vote, large segments of American territory would be religious States where the teaching of evoolution is forbidden, gays would be stoned to death, women would be kept bareffot and pregnant, etc.
The pcinciple that popular vote cannot be used to remove rights from specific groups of people was one of those rare moments when the intellectual elite decided to end the pettiness and barbarity of the little people and civilize them. And we are all better off for it.
Why do you care so much what gays do? It doesen't affect you negatively in any way. Let them be happy and mind your own business!
Over at Volokh, they're analyzing Reinhardt's opinion as if it actually constitutes "reasoning." Get this: according to the high-SAT types there, the "reasoning" is that once a state grants a minority a benefit, it can't later take it away. It's said that this is a kind of intermediate analysis, i.e. something short of actually declaring bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional per se. I guess the idea is to have another round of high-level brief-writing in some later case on which a different group of friends can get paid.
A sticking point for me:
"Gay marraige" doesn't bother anyone that I know of. Gays can marry till the cows come home. The real issue is "same sex" marriage.
The pcinciple that popular vote cannot be used to remove rights from specific groups of people was one of those rare moments when the intellectual elite decided to end the pettiness and barbarity of the little people and civilize them. And we are all better off for it.
America was the greatest and best country in the world before these new intellectual "elite" showed up.
Why do you care so much what gays do? It doesen't affect you negatively in any way. Let them be happy and mind your own business!
It doesn't, except as they kindly remind us, they are different. Exhibitionist, whiny, flamboyant. And promiscuous. Which means we pay for their healthcare, pickup the tab for their very expensive AIDS treatment
As for the rest of your post, you're right, these rights are not to be denied.. or granted. Government has no place legislating over inalienable rights.
Well, they just announced that Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, had been selected as the national public face of the pro-Gay Marriage campaign.
No way Gay Marriage can survive that sort of burden...
'Gay marriage' is the natural fallback for a Left that has tiptoed away from the white working class and all that scary ethnic nationalism stuff. Also, the cognitive disconnect between globalism/open borders and environmental advocacy is getting to be too much to bear.
It's rather pathetic to see the Left pouring so many resources into heeding the whims of a childless, unhygienic 5%, because the future is looking increasingly patriarchal and religious.
If it were up to popular vote, large segments of American territory would be religious States where the teaching of evoolution is forbidden, gays would be stoned to death, women would be kept bareffot and pregnant, etc.
Have you ever heard of free association?
Part of individual rights includes the right of free association and the right of individuals to form agreements, compacts, organizations, communities, etc. As long as individual consent isn't violated there's nothing wrong with this.
Anon @3:18pm
So what can we say about the following forms of marriage?
-incestuous
-consanguineous
-polyamorous
-group marriages
Should we allow these simply on individual rights? No one is harmed, correct? We can eliminate genetic problems through sterilization or artificial insemination. How about non-sexual unions i.e. marriages simply for benefits? What if a son can marry his cancer-stricken mother simply for health benefits?
Anonydroid at 3:18 pm said:
Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which is(by far!) the most important juridical principle of Western Civilization.
Hunsdon replied:
Which is why homosexuals, for thousands of years, lo! for so long as there is recorded history, have raised their voices to the heavens crying out, "Let us marry, for God's sake, let us marry!"
Prediction based on first Anon's bitchfest: libertarianism will become an increasingly homosexual movement.
Like Broadway, the American Kennel Club and the Episcopal Church.
The paradox of marriage is that it is beneficial for the society but often disadvantageous for individual people (in particular men). This is why most societies in history traditionally bestowed benefits on the married people and punished the unmarried. These days the punishments have all but disappeared and the benefits have been greatly diluted; but they still exist. The gays want to partake in these benefits but their "marriages" do not not serve the original purpose of the institution of marriage. All gay "marriage" will do is to dilute those benefits even further. And so it goes, with every year there are fewer and fewer reasons for getting married.
the first commenter opines--
MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!
so by that reasoning, incestuous marriage, polygamy, and child marriage must be rights also. not to mention bestiality.
MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!
You are an idiot. It is precisely by majority vote that individual rights are granted or denied. There is a right to free speech in the US Constitution because that wicked "MAJORITY" said there should be. The Constitution was voted on, and the "MAJORITY" got their way. If you read the amendment process in the Constitution itself it says the same thing. The "MAJORITY" can do essentially anything it wants to do.
This is THE most cardinal principle of Western Civilization.
No, the cardinal principle of Western Civilization is that all power flows from the sovereign people, and that they, through their elected representatives, make all laws. That is the principle which the American Revolution was fought for.
Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
It does no such thing, any more than denying pedophiles the "right" to marry six year old children violates the principle of equality before the law.
If it were up to popular vote, large segments of American territory would be religious States where the teaching of evoolution is forbidden, gays would be stoned to death, women would be kept bareffot and pregnant, etc.
It's lucky for you that stupidity is no bar to being allowed to vote. You reek of ignorant bigotry from every pore.
In a democracy, the will of the people should never trump the wisdom of the elites.
The rich and powerful liberals know what's best for us.
It is not a right to have government recognize your marriage.
Teh gays can marry all they want, and the state won't arrest them. They will just ignore them.
Male-female marriages confer benefits upon society (production of children, raising children, etc.) that same-sex marriage does not.
Get this: according to the high-SAT types there, the "reasoning" is that once a state grants a minority a benefit, it can't later take it away.
By that logic, since the state has granted the right to healthcare to the minority who don't have it (Obamacare) then that "right' can never be rescinded in the future.
The high IQ types at Volokh illustrate the limitations of high IQ. In practice it boils down to coming up with elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do, regardless of the law.
On the whole, gays are highly educated, highly-employed, insular, pay taxes, keep their neighborhoods clean, don't shit out kids, and don't commit crimes (especially violent crimes). What's not to like?
Granted, they often take on the unfortunate postures of the SWPL set, but I'd sure as hell rather raise my kids in West Hollywood than East LA.
I guess I'm just not sure what the big fear is, letting the gays get their way on this one.
But okay, let's have that "frank, widespread public discussion to try to anticipate some of those unintended consequences?"
I'm all ears...
The problem is not gays loving oneanother and living together. Gays should be free to do whatever they want, behind closed doors.
The problem is cheapening the sacred and highly beneficial institution of marrage.
Our society needs to keep heterosexual marrage on its pedistal, because it is highly beneficial for producing future well-rounded citizens.
If it depended on popular vote, I am sure that there are cities in Mississippi and Alabama that would reinstate segragation. Would you be in favor of that? Like Cicero once said:
After seeing the results of our 45 year experiment in mixed living,
voters in states other than Miss. and Alabama might also now vote for segregation. And you do realize it was an experiment, right? The "right" to live unsegregated, which you would pull out of the air, was based on the purported findings of social science (Gunnar Myrdal) that segregation was tantamount to slavery. The only constitutional right is not to live as slaves. But if blacks, by obliterating personal physical safety, make living among them a slavery for everyone else, then they have by choice overturned the reasoning of Brown, and a majority vote to return to segregation is fully justified.
I guess I'm just not sure what the big fear is, letting the gays get their way on this one.
I guess I'm not seeing why you're so casual about letting the will of the people be tossed out the window by a handful of unelected clowns in black robes. At that point you're already said you're cool with oligarchy - don't come crying to us when the oligarchy does something equally illegitimate which you happen to disagree with.
On the whole, gays are highly educated, highly-employed, insular, pay taxes, keep their neighborhoods clean, don't shit out kids, and don't commit crimes (especially violent crimes). What's not to like?
I neither like nor dislike gays. Why am I supposed to care whether they are "highly employed" or not? I strongly dislike people who try to subvert the constitutional basis of this country though.
What distinguishes marital unions from others, such that the state should promote them? One cannot just pronounce that these couples will now count as married; there must be something one means by “being married,” something held in common by all married couples. But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is.
..... In contrast, the conjugal understanding of marriage allows a clear answer to these questions: since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. The promotion of this kind of relationship, for its own sake (because it is a basic good), and for the sake of children generally (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children), makes it in accord with justice to recognize, as marriage, only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.
Polygamy, within 20 years, is a now a given. Gays will eventually go extinct, but polygamy will be their legacy.
according to the high-SAT types there, the "reasoning" is that once a state grants a minority a benefit, it can't later take it away.
So the Eighteenth Amendment should have been struck down by the Supreme Court, because it took away the "benefit" of drinking?
Or maybe the Twenty-first Amendment should have been struck down, because it took away the "benefit" of the Eighteenth.
Lawyers are the dumbest group of professional people in America. We'd be a lot better off if all judges were drawn from the pool of people with medical or engineering degrees.
"Obviously, by hook or by crook, this gay marriage thing is going to happen in America, because powerful people want it to happen."
Just like the Iraq War.
"MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!"
Marriage is NOT an individual right. It is a bio-moral contract requiring certain qualifications. Marriage as biologically and morally defined is the emotional/sexual/legal contract between man and woman bound by love and committed to the raising of the children they produce together.
Since a gay couple don't meet the qualifications, they don't deserve to get married.
Marriage is not about what any individual wants. It is about an agreement he or she enters into. If anything, marriage curtails certain rights and freedoms, because you become duty-bound to the person you marry.
If we define marriage as any kind of right, why not 'friend marriage'? How about two straight guys with separate girlfriends 'marry as friends just to share each other's benefits'?
Or how about incest marriage between father and daughter, mother and son, and father and son? If we're gonna define marriage as whatever anyone wants to do, then it is everything, thus nothing.
Oh, and let's not be incestophobic.
"Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which is(by far!) the most important juridical principle of Western Civilization. "
You know, gay people can get married, just not to people of the same sex.
"Gays will eventually go extinct, but polygamy will be their legacy."
No, there will always be gays cuz some people are born weird.
Patrick Lee presents one of the most cogent arguments of all for Natural Marriage over "'gay''Marriage" at the Witherspoon Institute:
"The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.
The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.
A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.
"Well, they just announced that Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, had been selected as the national public face of the pro-Gay Marriage campaign.No way Gay Marriage can survive that sort of burden..."
Burden? More like great financial boost. And with progressives looking favorably on Goldman Sachs, it means no investigation for its crimes.
Hey, since Blankfein is a 'good guy', let's leave him alone.
Gay marriage can be blocked if conservatives make good arguments. But 1/3 of conservatives are afraid of being called 'homophobe', 1/3 of conservatives(rich ones) are afraid of not being invited to cocktail parties and offending their gay hairdressers, and 1/3 say really dumb stuff like 'God hates fags'.
I also think it's important for people to have the right to marry sidewalks.
What objection could anyone have? The person benefits, with his (or her) dearest wish being fulfilled. Meanwhile, I can't see that the sidewalk is harmed in any manner by the act of marriage. In fact, a devoted spouse would surely clean or repair the beloved sidewalk very regularly, thereby reducing local government expenditures during these difficult economic times.
I strongly suspect that our Founding Fathers fully intended sidewalk-marriage to be one of our basic constitutional rights, but surrendered to the anti-sidewalk bigots, and embedded it implicitly rather than explicitly in our Bill of Rights.
If 'gay marriage' happens, we need a new term for real marriage. It should be called Accordance, a bio-moral contract in accordance with nature, evolution, biology, morality, and good sense.
Gay Marriage is happening because White professional women want it. They want it so they can play "the Help" good-moral-secretly-hot chicks, partake in a cheap/easy "civil rights" movement, score status points, and stick it to beta males which they ... wait for it ... HATE HATE HATE.
[Come on. You knew it was coming!]
Basically, White professional women want Marriage 3.0, consisting of huge big parties for themselves (cue Kim Kardashian, Chelsea Clinton), endless courting (the movie "the Vow" and "Fireproof" and nearly every other chick-flick), endless choice, and open to all sorts.
Already a Federal Judge has ruled that the "Sister Wives" from TLC can challenge Utah's bigamy statute. Polygamy is coming, a plus to most women (who would prefer to share Ashton Kutcher to having all of a Beta Male). Just look at the latest sex-tell-all book, some woman age 69 came out with a "I Slept with JFK" book like it was some great achievement. But she'll make money.
The result of Gay Marriage is redefinition of marriage towards polygamous norms, with the bulk of guys outside it in the Black community norm. Already Murray notes that White working class is moving there steadily.
I'm a gay guy who'd like to marry another gay guy.
I also don't care all that much about sensitivity. So, let's hear your anticipated consequences.
'If it depended on popular vote, I am sure that there are cities in Mississippi and Alabama that would reinstate segragation. Would you be in favor of that?'
I don't know how to break the news to you, but all over the US in the NE, SW and NW a well as the South, people have 'reinstated segregation' by simply voting with their feet - all perfectly legal. Southie in the Boston area used to be 100% white and is now something like 23% white because those who didn't want 'diversity' left.
In fact, one of my main bitches with so many of the multicultural afficionados is that they remove themselves from that incredible 'diversity' by moving as far away from it as possible while simultaneously calling those who lack the means to escape, but who don't like the results of their social engineering, racists and xenophobes. If you aren't willing to participate in all that wonderful 'yeastiness' yourself, then please STFU.
Why do you care so much what gays do?
the question is sweetheart, why do you want to force your mores on everyone? This 'gay marriage' bill has resulted in catholic adaption agencies losing their liscences in Massachusetts because they wont' consider gays.
Mark my word, this law will be used to force gay mores on people - next step, since its normal and legal, X% of all school text books will be required to show gay couples just as we 'have to' (by law) use 'his or her" in business language.
The joke is that about half a dozen gays want to get 'gay married.' The rest of them who actually support it are doing so because they are emotionally juiced up on propaganda and love sticking it to the squares.
A commentator above noted how well educated and clean gays are, and how little trouble they cause. Sounds like a lot of the gays I see on TV, not the ones I actually know and see in the world. Actual male homosexuals generally have a legion of problems - huge numbers are victims or perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse, drug and alcohol abuse are rampant in the gay community - even before considering HIV and other weird STDs and physical ailments they contract. Quite different from the TV view of gays, only some gays can really be considered lifelong homosexuals - many men are introduced into the gay lifestyle via the drug culture and an incredible number have wives and families before deciding they want to live the crazy-party-gay lifestyle. Some are sexually abused as children and can't seem to have normal sexual feelings for women as adults although they want to. I can't believe that people think they are doing a favor to these sad people by encouraging them to live this self-destructive lifestyle.
The right hasn't made the case against gay marriage, which is this: marriage is for the children. Children deserve a mom & dad. Taking a child away from its mom and her nipples and handing it over to Neil Patrick Harris and his lover is bad for the kid, who deserves a mom. And there is no gay marriage without the rights of gays to adopt kids on the exact same footing as straights. Which means lots more kids adopted by gay couples, which frankly isn't a good idea.
By the way, my politically correct relatives had a good laugh at the idea of gay monogamy. Nobody's buying the idea that married gays are going to be celibate. Even Andrew Sullivan isn't trying to sell that fairytale.
"Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which is(by far!) the most important juridical principle of Western Civilization."
Of course. That's why gays already have the right to marry.
"Men or women, gay or straight are not the criteria used to determine the bearer of rights, but INDIVIDUAL adult human beings in the full posession of their mental faculties."
Weird sentence structure but I think we know what you are trying to say and we already know that.
"If you give a man and a woman, both adults, the right to get married, then you by DEFAULT extend such right to all adults."
Of course, which is why all adults in full possession of their mental faculties already have the right to marry.
Apparently you were so busy instructing Steve (and, by implication, the rest of us) on the imperatives of jurisprudence and Western Civilization that you failed to note that nobody here (or elsewhere, that I know of) is attempting to prevent gays from marrying. They already have the right to marry in all 50 states and I feel sure Steve joins me in thinking that's just fine and dandy.
What no adults in full possession of their mental faculties have is the right to marry anyone or anything of their choosing. Marriage in most states is quite reasonably restricted to a contract between one man and one woman. This restriction is an example of equality before the law because it applies across the board to all men and all women.
"Why do you care so much what gays do? It doesen't affect you negatively in any way. Let them be happy and mind your own business!"
Why do you care so much what Steve writes? It doesn't affect you negatively in any way. Let him express his [non-violent, law-abiding]opinions on his blog and if you don't like it, don't read it. In case you were wondering, that's called "freedom of expression".
Marriage is a social institution for the benefit of society, not a right.
The unintended consequences will play out tragically as in other statist social experiments. But one is clear. The continued devaluation of traditional values, marriage and family have 2 consequences, off the top of my head: A lower fertility rate and less parenting of those who survive their gestation.
Moreover absent some pushback, even more outlandish stuff will be advocated and adopted,like the elimination of "ableism", the advocacy of polyandry, the continued assault on free speech and the continued destructive legislating by the judges.
On the whole, gays are highly educated, highly-employed, insular, pay taxes, keep their neighborhoods clean, don't shit out kids, and don't commit crimes (especially violent crimes). What's not to like?
In other words, they're like sterile drones in a eusocial species.
If you don't like the evolutionary direction of human society towards eusociality, then you're not going to like perversions of sexuality such as homosexuality.
Polygamy, within 20 years, is a now a given. Gays will eventually go extinct, but polygamy will be their legacy.
Gay men are not a threat to cosmopolitan elites. Indeed they are a support demography not unlike the eunuchs so well loved by polygynous cultures.
Marriage, at least in the Western sense, is not a "social institution". That is just Marxist, utilitarian hogwash. It is a sacrament. It is a covenant between a man and a women before God. If it were merely a "social institution" it would not have survived as it has over the centuries. Please stop confusing a human state, meaning a spiritual one, with "social arrangements". They are not the same thing at all. We are not a herd of wild horses, you know.
The Left pushes homosexuality not because they care about the "rights" of homosexuals, but they wish to destabilize and demoralize the society of Western Civilization.
So we have two small minorities: The arrogant, nihilistic Marxist-Leninist operatives and their homosexuals clients.
Odds are when this civilization is finally roused it will not go well for either of them. It is rather a larger thing than some spoiled and narcissistic Boomer "progressives" and their catamites.
And to the first commenterzzzz; Homosexual marriage is not a right, and it is not covered by the Bill of Rights. Your whole argument is crudely and blatantly specious. One need merely look at the history of polygamy and the Mormons, or proscriptions against incest or bestiality to see this. If you think that as a whole this nation does not have a right to reject homosexual marriage, you are lost in your Leftist cant and sophism. History and nature--not to mention common sense, decency and sanity-show you quite wrong.
That you think that your bizarre and loony position has moral value, or is even rational, and that your childish, supercilious and self-righteous posturing and pontification has any real moral force, shows just how lost you are.
You are defending the immoral. This makes you immoral. You position amounts to at best moral imbecility.
The West has survived much; it will survive the perversions of the current Democrat Party of America.
Are there really enough gays to impact social spending - a nit on a gnat. That health care spending would be spent on them individually anyway.
More subtle changes are more likely. Are coupled gays really any happier than solo closeted gays - especially men. I'm not sure.
One benefit will be putting the old theory of sublimation to the test. A lot of great creative(gay?)men of the past never had to share their time with someone who didn't have an identical mission in life. Welcome to compromise.
If there is a gay gene, where will that gene end up? Can a trait be maintained for long by sperm and egg donations?
I have an inkling that the unintended consequences will be felt more by the participants than the spectators.
Mr Lomez said...
On the whole, gays ... don't shit out kids. What's not to like?
Survival is the fundamental requirement of a society. Social continuity depends upon each generation making sacrifices to create and properly raise the next generation.
Individuals who have not personally sacrificed by bringing new members into society are free loaders once beyond their working years.
A modest proposal. Any productive member of society can sponsor one retiree who help bear the primary responsibility of raising said working individual.
Children haters like Mr. Lomez above are free to enjoy their hedonistic, nihilistic and childless life as long as they are able to actively work and contribute to society. Once they cannot or chose not to work, Mr. Lomez should be put out to sea on an ice floe.
I'd sure as hell rather raise my kids in West Hollywood than East LA.
You're false dichotomy is stupid. The relevant comparison is between West Hollywood (gay) and Manhattan Beach or Palos Verdes (straight).
You obviously don't have kids or have even put much realistic thought into the prospect of such.
I don't get the problem here, Steve. As someone who laments the breakdown of social structures among the lower orders, shouldn't you be cheering something that helps domesticate and rein in the promiscuity of gay men? Even if it doesn't make them all monogamous (and it's not like marriage keeps straights from straying 100 percent of the time either), it's got to be hugely helpful to institute it as a new social norm among gays.
Anything that helps to kill the toxic and dangerous idea that hyperpromiscuity is central to gay male identity can only be a good thing.
This is not about giving "rights" to gays, but more about demeaning and undermining the institution of marriage and western culture. The Marxist Frankfurt school marches on.
The Left pushes homosexuality...The arrogant, nihilistic Marxist-Leninist operatives and their homosexuals clients.
Those diabolical Marxist-Leninists like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs! I'm sure he and all his NYC bankster billionaire friends are getting their daily instructions from Fidel Castro, via microwave transmissions. Castro was always a clever one, outlawing homosexuality and putting lots of Cuba's gays into concentration camps in order to deflect suspicion from American Marxists, who have always been the true puppet-masters behind the Gay Marriage movement.
I've heard that the bigger hedge fund managers all took a secret trip to North Korea to attend the coronation of its new Marxist God-Emperor, since he's been named Castro's heir as leader of the World Communist Conspiracy. That's probably where they all decided to bribe the New York Republicans into legalizing Gay Marriage in that state.
Isn't funny how judges can think something is a civil right in 2012 that they'd never have thought to be one a decade earlier?
Sadly, there really is nothing an activist legal judge (yes, I used the singular) cannot set in motion where it will be upheld by two (yes, I said 2) cannot get passed into law when the powerful want it to be law.
"The Marxist Frankfurt school marches on."
Something tells me the Frankfurters would not have supported this. Adorno didn't even like rock music and were very critical of the trivialization of culture and politics by consumer-capitalism.
"I don't get the problem here, Steve. As someone who laments the breakdown of social structures among the lower orders, shouldn't you be cheering something that helps domesticate and rein in the promiscuity of gay men?"
If 'gay marriage' will 'domesticate' promiscuous gays, how come marriage doesn't do the magic with blacks?
No, 'gay marriage' or not, crazy gays will continue to act crazy. And even without gay marriage, well-behaved gays will continue to act well-behaved.
This isn't about domesticating gay behavior, and gays are not part of the 'lower orders'. They are elites along with Jews, and they are trying to enslave the rest of us to their radical ideology.
Sure, it doesn't look radical to some people because 'gay marriage' has the image of gays acting 'conservative'. But if 'gay marriage' is real marriage, what in the hell is marriage?
The logic behind 'gay marriage' is like home loans to risky blacks and Hispanics. Many people, especially on the Right, thought blacks and Hispanics would turn more conservative if they had homes--gee, what could be more conservative than owning your own home?--, but by degrading lending standards, it undermined the entire meaning of responsible finance and good credit. It ruined the economy and led to rise of Obama.
Trying to give the appearance of conservative-ness to blacks and Hispanics didn't turn them into conservatives, and it didn't serve the cause of conservatism. The rot just spread throughout the entire economy. (And conservatives got all the blame!)
Similarly, lending the appearance of respectability to something that is ridiculous like gay behavior will not serve the cause of conservatism or sound values. Instead of marriage making decent conservatives out of gays, 'gay marriage' will spread decadent rot throughout the entire institution of marriage, which will be degraded into as 'anything goes'--a playdo for idiots like Lady Gaga.
"Marriage, at least in the Western sense, is not a "social institution". That is just Marxist, utilitarian hogwash. It is a sacrament. It is a covenant between a man and a women before God."
Maybe, but that is a church issue, not a state issue.
"Why do you care so much what gays do? It doesen't affect you negatively in any way. Let them be happy and mind your own business!"
Hey, first Anon, what other "rights" have we not_ yet_ realized that I or you or someone else has, rights that are as yet "undiscovered" in our state or federal constitutions?
I mean, I'd like to know NOW so that I can have them. I understand all it takes is a few powerful people, a judge (yes, one single judge) to get the ball rolling and voila, I can have things that I didn't even know I was entitled to.
"Get this: according to the high-SAT types there, the "reasoning" is that once a state grants a minority'
Yep, but recall it was the high court of CA that granted the "right" for gays to marry, not the citizens.
"MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!"
If EVERYONE has the same right to opposite sex marriage and NO ONE has the right to same-sex marriage then WHO IN THE HELL IS HAVING THEIR "individual" 14th AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
"Truckee Man said...
Marriage is a social institution for the benefit of society, not a right."
Well said.
As to Anonymous # 1's post:
"If you give a man and a woman, both adults, the right to get married, then you by DEFAULT extend such right to all adults."
You seem ignorant of the nature of rights as understood by the framers of the Constitution. Rights are not given by governments, nor by me, nor by you. They are given by God. Certain rights were understood to be the natural order of things. Just as marriage was understood to be between a man and a woman - a part of the natural order, and a social arrangement which predates history itself.
By what right do homosexuals presume to upset that?
"Mr Lomez said...
But okay, let's have that "frank, widespread public discussion to try to anticipate some of those unintended consequences?"
I'm all ears..."
Okay, for starters, the acceptance of gay marriage will necessarily lead to the legalization of polygamy. In fact, the grounds for this next campaign are already being laid. That great propaganda machine known as Hollywood is already subtly attempting to normalize polygamy ("Big Love", for example).
Here's another effect: As homosexual men are wont to play the field, they will redefine marriage to be a much more open affair. How many guys who step out on their wives (or women who step out on their husbands) will point to gay couples and say, "Hey, they do it, and yet stay together as a married couple, so why shouldn't that apply to me too?" Courts may well take notice, and begin to change the definition of what constitutes reasonable marital fidelity, in the interest of "fairness".
What about homosexual pedophiles who get married so that they can adopt sex-slaves, er, I mean sons? I'm sure we'll see a large number of such cases in future, given the prediliction that homosexuals seem to have for pederasty (and no, I'm not saying that most homosexuals are pederasts - I am saying that most pederasts are homosexuals).
'Gay marriage' issue might make conservatives fall into the trap of supporting more immigration. Since people from Mexico and Africa are less likely to support stuff like 'gay marriage', conservatives might approve more immigration as bringing in more 'cultural conservatives' to America. A deadly trap.
"Not giving gays the right to get married violates the PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which is(by far!) the most important juridical principle of Western Civilization."
*********************************
LOL. The caps, the exclamation mark "(by far)".
The punctuation habits of many gay male adults are like those of teeny bopper girls, histrionic to the max.
"So what can we say about the following forms of marriage?
-incestuous
-consanguineous
-polyamorous
-group marriages
Should we allow these simply on individual rights? No one is harmed, correct?"
__________________________________
I certainly agree with you, but gay activists believe they can successfully argue that those arrangements are different--that they harm people. They deny their gay marriages will have any deleterious effects on society.
Of course, since there hasn't been gay marriage anywhere on earth long enough to know if there are harmful effects, I don't know how they know this.
I like your argument about sterilization.
"On the whole, gays are highly educated,..."
Not sure about that. We simply are aware of very celebrated gays. Having taught for many years, I have seen my share of average to below average IQ gays and lesbians.
"But okay, let's have that "frank, widespread public discussion to try to anticipate some of those unintended consequences?"
-----
Okay, try this on for size: I have gay colleagues who are already arguing that when they wed, they've as much "right" to be considered just as good parental models to adopt infants as a man-woman couple. When I ask, "Don't you think it's of benefit to a child to have both a female parent and a male parent?" they say, "Two loving gays can parent as well as a man and a woman."
They used to say, "Of course it's best that a child have both a mother and a father."
No longer do they say that. I think that's a problem.
Gay marriage is going to happen. Younger people hate it less than older people.
Unintended consequenses? Well, lets see how it works out.
iSteve doesn't seem to recognize that the status quo isn't working out so hot for many people now.
Personally, I don't think the govt should be discriminating against polygamy either.
People are going to do what they want, or you can be like Arabia and stone them. There's no real middle ground here, ultimately.
"I guess I'm not seeing why you're so casual about letting the will of the people be tossed out the window by a handful of unelected clowns in black robes. At that point you're already said you're cool with oligarchy - don't come crying to us when the oligarchy does something equally illegitimate which"
So true. WEll put. I don't understand the cavalier attitude about this judicial activism.
What is the next act in the gay saga? Marriage is the exact opposite of edginess.
Yes, gay marriage is immoral (that's why they dig it - for now). Yes, It is being justified, against the will of the people, using one of those penumbra arguments justifying infanticide. Yes, it will ruin their party.
How will gay male life change? The guy comes out to his parents. Big leap. But his parents knew anyway. Now they pressure him to find a guy and settle down. Oh No!!!!!
The wages of normalizing your sin. Face it guys, your not getting out of this without paying some price. You're here, you're queer and gone is the freedom, you hold so dear.
Straights at least try to reach a goal of monogamy. Gay men, even those I know who have married (3 couples I know well) have agreements that they may fool around with others.
So, I'd say that the goals of straights and gays as concerns marriage are very different.
"Okay, try this on for size: I have gay colleagues who are already arguing that when they wed, they've as much "right" to be considered just as good parental models to adopt infants as a man-woman couple."
Okay, but tell him that he must have children through 'gay sex'(since it is the EQUAL of real sex).
Mr. Lopez,
A poster offered, "And for there to be a 'gay family', one of the real parents have to bow out of the life of his or her own kid"
This to me is an important point to offer is the discussion Steve mentions.
For me, the entire same-sex argument boils down to this: its not about morals, or equality, or unalienable rights as citizens - it's about the money. Namely, gay couples getting a shot at the same bennies and tax breaks that hetero couples get.
In fact I find the claims of discrimation by those wronged by Prop 8 in CA to be somewhat oxymoronical ("how DARE the government deny my right to have my personal relationship recognized by the government!!!")
Because, as everyone knows, love isn't really love unless it's sanctioned by the State.
Fondatore said, "The joke is that dozen gays want to get 'gay married.' The rest of them who actually support it are doing so because they are emotionally juiced up on propaganda and love sticking it to the squares."
They call us "breeders," Fondatore. Actually, that is why marriage should stay one man/one woman...because we can and do breed and gays can't.
I do agree with the poster who said that polygamy will prosper one day and gays will be extinct (actually, they'll be almost extinct). The biological origin of homosexuality will be identified. Eventually, there will be a way to prevent it from occurring, and almost all parents will take that opportunity to prevent it.
"Part of individual rights includes the right of free association and the right of individuals to form agreements, compacts, organizations, communities, etc. As long as individual consent isn't violated there's nothing wrong with this."
The following is from the book Democracy The God That Failed:
"The current situation in the US and Western Europe has nothing to do with "free" immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple..Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society..',
"if only towns or villages could and would do what they did well into the 19th century: post signs for entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property."
The author says that our leaders under our democracy should decide on who the immigrants are based on who they would allow into their own homes, which would of course change who we are letting in now. I don't think the Kennedys want to live with a bunch of Somalis. He says ultimately the local people should decide if they want any immigrants at all since there will be no central govt to decide this. under his plan for society. He says any immigrants should be above average and also have our values which would result in a systematic pro-European immigration bias.
Adopting kids will, I guess, be the next act of edginess, and after that? They will relish the ignorant stares of the few remaining citizens with concerns beyond their own families, and in gay friendly cities that number will be small.
With kids in tow, they will have to give up being storm troopers of gentrification. No longer can they live in urban Bohemia. Those kids need to be in schools in neighborhoods where other gays don't live. Damn - another freedom shot down. More expense, more responsibility. So much for the waitering job and the auditions.
But those "statement" kids will probably disown them and bail out as soon as possible - just out of pure embarrassment. It will be sad.
The zeitgeist is with them. They do not really care if the unintended consequences affect society at large - they've always lived outside of it. We have to spell out the consequences for them. Try convincing ghetto kids not to dress like gangstas, because it makes white people feel insecure.
"If there is a gay gene,..."
Sigh, there isn't.
gays .. don't shit out kids
There's your problem - you never learned basic human biology.
That's actually a more forgivable problem than the other possibility, that you hate kids.
I'm a gay guy who'd like to marry another gay guy.
I also don't care all that much about sensitivity. So, let's hear your anticipated consequences.
Anal cancer? That's an anticipated consequence. I think you meant to ask for the unintended consequences.
Let there be same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is nowhere near the top of the list of real problems confronting, or the top of the list of blessings enriching Western Civilization.
Look, most of Europe's states have had same-sex marriage for some years now, and those countries have not descended into chaos because two guys wed or because two girls wed. Those countries are in deep doo-doo because they adopted the Euro and underwrote ludicrous socialist handout programs, and because they've allowed the immigration of millions of followers of Mohammed who hate gays and women, put gays to death for just being gay and put women to death for their "crime" of being raped, and detest the very host states and populations who allowed them to immigrate.
I'd say socialism - state theft on behalf of those who demand wealth redistribution and lunatic schemes to reverse "anthropgenic global warming" - and Moslem and Third World immigration (both the legal and the illegal sorts) are the two most pressing problems the West is confronted with. Compared with those two doozies, same-sex marriage doesn't even nudge the seismograph needle.
One more thing: it is an utter nonsense to claim that marriage is only, or all, about procreation and child-rearing. If that were actually true then heterosexuals who are impotent and barren would not be allowed to wed, and heterosexuals beyond child-bearing age would also not be allowed to wed. And marriage need have nothing at all to do with church or faith or the Deity, since millions of heterosexeuals wed in secular state ceremonies - and I've never heard a peep about that from all the same-sex marriage opponents who claim that marriage is somehow always about a "covenant with God." In secular state ceremonies the presiding official does not say "By the power vested in me by Almighty God," he says instead, "By the power vested in me by the State of...." So how does the State justify its having and exercising the power to wed exclusively heterosexual couples?
Also, in all the countries in which same-sex marriage has been legal for some years now, there's been no mad mass rush to add state sanction of polygamous, consanguineous, bestial, or paedophilic marriages or civil unions - which lets all the gas out of the balloon of nonsense that same-sex marriage "will lead to" those other forms. Neither have any of those countries' militaries - which have long allowed gays to serve openly - collapsed for want of unit cohesion (those countries' militaries are unimpressive because those states spend so little on funding, equipping, and training their armed forces - mostly because Uncle Sucker has long garrisoned and defended those countries instead of skedaddling and forcing those countries to spend fitting sums for their own defense).
I'm a gay guy who'd like to marry another gay guy.
I'm a guy who'd like to marry his car. When oh when will the societal discrimination against people like me STOP!?!?
"MAJORITY VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO GRANT OR REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! This is THE most cardinal principle of Western Civilization."
Yes it can, by amending the Constitution. Which is what the voters of California did.
And what the judges of the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circus did was to pull a right out of the ether that has never been known to exist. Hell, for most of this country's history even sodomy was not assumed to be legal, let alone the right of two sodomites to marry.
"Judicial review" is a f-cking crock. Why should one presume that judges aren't every bit as likely as kings, emperors, dictators, generals, congressmen, presidents, clerics, CEOs, or anyone else to abuse their power?
The truth is that gays will never marry in any large numbers, and when they do marry generally won't remain married for long. Monogamy does not come naturally, and it comes less naturally when a couple isn't raising their mutual biological offspring.
I've heard quotes recently on the numbers of gay married couples in California and New Hampshire, and in each case after gay marriage was legalized no more than 1 in 10 gays - and perhaps as few as 1 in 20 - has bothered to marry. The same holds true in foreign countries where gay marriage is legal.
Gay marriage is no pressing matter. A lot of today's college kids (and their profs) seem to think that gay marriage is their version of the civil rights movement. It ain't.
I'm not really opposed to gay marriage. What I'm opposed to is the manner of its imposition. F-ck the judges.
The irony is this:
From what I know about gays, is that they simply couldn't give a damn about any societal convention or societal 'norm'.Basically, all they want is the freedom to do what the hell they wnat with no censure, if this means having 20 partners a night, then so be it.
So why the hell are they pushing for something as conservative and controlling as marriage?
Re Volokh participants:
"Over at Volokh, they're analyzing Reinhardt's opinion as if it actually constitutes "reasoning"
I agree I think high SAT types and high IQ types have an ability to manipulate abstracts quicker than me but they do not have wisdom. They sorely lack commonsense and motherwit. They have little life experience. But since the Intellectuals have taken Over(Gerlernter, Commentary,1997) we have, as a country, mysteriously ceded Wisdom to them merely because of their high SATs.
"You got 800 on the SAT...Oh you must know more about real Life"
But really the high SAT types are all Bubble Boys who live in SuperZips. They would not know someone is 'high on the boat(PCP)' until they were punched them in the face.
Lawyers are rhetoricians. The main point of the argument be damned. It is all about thrust and parry, tort and retort. They do not shave with Occam's razor.
I read all the Volokh comments on the post about the Charles Murray "Are you a Bubble Boy?" quiz and it seemed to me 95% of them spent their time dancing around the issue, discussing the quality of the quiz instead of the main point of the quiz. Even commenting on a blog they could not escape their rhetorician's prison and address the main issue.
Law students have high SATs, they become lawyers, then a few become judges and with their greater life experience and wisdom they tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
"Auntie Analogue said...
Look, most of Europe's states have had same-sex marriage for some years now,...."
Some years now? Yeah, like five or ten years. You make it sound like eons. Five or ten years is nothing in the life of a nation, and not nearly long enough to determine whether or not gay marriage is a problem.
Those diabolical Marxist-Leninists like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs!
It's one of the great paradoxes of the modern world that the goals of communists and capitalists overlap.
Outsourcing and illegal immigration redistributes wealth from 1st world to the 3rd and at the same time increases profit margins.
It's like somebody on this blog, I believe, once said: "mexicans are cheap labor for republicans and cheap votes for democrats"
If a majority of Californians want to legalize gay marriage (they don't, but stay with me), but other states don't want to recognize it--is it REQUIRED that there be a national standard? No, but that's not what Ginsberg's going to say.
We lost control of the rule of law as soon as the GOP lost the balls to impeach judges. Tea Party is now owned by the same wussy GOP. Ergo, we are screwed.
And I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords! I remind them they'll need good writers to implement their anthill-building policies, and I'm anxious to assist!
"I'm not really opposed to gay marriage. What I'm opposed to is the manner of its imposition. F-ck the judges."
There's more than a trend going on; there's an assumption on the part of a great part of the country (they call themselves "progressives") that any changes they can't achieve at the ballot box can be achieved through judicial power, and yes, it's something worth fighting against, since it's clear that it's a quick way to tyranny.
If gay marriage is inevitable, I'd have rather it was achieved through the vote. That which occurs with the will of the people leaves a society content with itself.
The high IQ types at Volokh illustrate the limitations of high IQ. In practice it boils down to coming up with elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do, regardless of the law.
This isn't an illustration of "the limitations of high IQ" so much as it's a description of the natural end of any "de-cultured" legal system. Jurisprudence has always been about rationally deriving decisions via precedent and from "first principles", but those principles are themselves not abstract and "rational". Rather, they are based on long, implicit cultural consensus about the way things are 'sposed to be.
E.g., the Mormons weren't brought to heel about polygamy because legal thinkers in those days just weren't bright enough to see all the logical implications of "equal protection". That's a whiggish delusion. They could reason just fine. What they didn't do was follow chains of legal reasoning that led outside the bounds set by the prevailing culture. "Why? Because we don't do polygamy. It's not who we are. Duh. Next question?" (This MO isn't peculiar to "conservatives" either. Whigs are no more likely than anybody else to dispassionately follow a chain of legal reasoning to somewhere they don't want to go.)
Once you've decided that the implicit boundaries are just so much historical detritus, and start thinking that your law is about nothing but logical derivations from grand, bloodless abstractions, then there's really nothing left but "elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do". There is no "regardless of the law" in a radically de-cultured nation. We're through the looking glass.
I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education and make your opinions, value-judgements and biases the axiomatic pilars of your "thinking", and use ad hominem invective and ad populum arguments as your resort to "debate". So sad to see adults acting like emotional toddlers. I could give a detailed point-by-point answer to all of you, but your arguments are so intellectually sophomoric that it isn't worthy of my time. It truly isn't.
If you think "marriage" will domesticate gays, watch Dan Savage's interview with Stephen Colbert where the "married" Savage talks about having a threesome.
It was so outrageously pervy that Colbert momentarily broke character in genuine revulsion.
Have married men ever bragged about having threesomes involving their wife and another woman?
I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education
So says the ignorant bigot who writes like a hyper-emotional teenager in high-school.
This isn't an illustration of "the limitations of high IQ" so much as it's a description of the natural end of any "de-cultured" legal system. urisprudence has always been about rationally deriving decisions via precedent and from "first principles", but those principles are themselves not abstract and "rational". Rather, they are based on long, implicit cultural consensus about the way things are 'sposed to be.
Given that a great many people in HBD-land seem to think that "IQ is all you need", then your appeal to cultural consensus is an admission of the limitations of high IQ.
High IQ people can, have, and do arrive at all sorts of fantastically bad conclusions. They seem to be more prone to this sort of thing than middle-IQ people.
"The biological origin of homosexuality will be identified. Eventually, there will be a way to prevent it from occurring, and almost all parents will take that opportunity to prevent it." - Anon
Talk about unintended consequences. Any genes leading to homosexuality that have survived for so long and at a relatively high rate(evolutionarily speaking) are likely to have some redeeming characteristic. I'm guessing some sort of hybrid vigor for living in dense populations.
John
Look, most of Europe's states have had same-sex marriage for some years now, and those countries have not descended into chaos because two guys wed or because two girls wed. Those countries are in deep doo-doo because they adopted the Euro and underwrote ludicrous socialist handout programs, and because they've allowed the immigration of millions of followers of Mohammed who hate gays and women, put gays to death for just being gay and put women to death for their "crime" of being raped, and detest the very host states and populations who allowed them to immigrate.
I'd say socialism - state theft on behalf of those who demand wealth redistribution and lunatic schemes to reverse "anthropgenic global warming" - and Moslem and Third World immigration (both the legal and the illegal sorts) are the two most pressing problems the West is confronted with. Compared with those two doozies, same-sex marriage doesn't even nudge the seismograph needle.
It's just remarkable how libertarians never, ever "get it". A libertarian is like a more stupid form of liberal.
The various problems mentioned above are not discrete, They are not separate and disconnected from one another. The exact same people concocting a right to "gay marriage" and forcing it on everyone else are also the ones concocting a right to illegal immigration and right to "free" government health care and a right to other peoples money. They're the exact same people who pressed for the Euro and underwrote ludicrous socialist handout programs and so on.
Libertarians embrace the concept of a tiny unelected group of people telling everyone else what to do, because the core of their belief is that "democracy is bad". They don't then get to reject the consequences of that concept.
One more thing: it is an utter nonsense to claim that marriage is only, or all, about procreation and child-rearing. If that were actually true then heterosexuals who are impotent and barren would not be allowed to wed, and heterosexuals beyond child-bearing age would also not be allowed to wed. And marriage need have nothing at all to do with church or faith or the Deity, since millions of heterosexeuals wed in secular state ceremonies - and I've never heard a peep about that from all the same-sex marriage opponents who claim that marriage is somehow always about a "covenant with God." In secular state ceremonies the presiding official does not say "By the power vested in me by Almighty God," he says instead, "By the power vested in me by the State of...." So how does the State justify its having and exercising the power to wed exclusively heterosexual couples?
Whenever I read a libertarian making arguments, I'm reminded of myself as a militant atheist at the age of 18 making what I thought were brilliant points.
I was quite a high IQ person at 18, but I was also as dumb as a box of hammers. In some respects I was dumber than my lower IQ contemporaries, because they just accepted what they were told and of course I never did.
Speaking from the minority view. Two points:
1) I agree that judges shouldn't be overturning law to suit their ideological preferences. That's regrettable in this case. On the other hand, the power of those "unelected clowns in black robes" is written into the very same constitution you decry them for neglecting. It's absurd to argue that the courts are acting in bad faith here, whether you agree with the decision or not.
2) As to the relevant question--the unintended consequences of gay marriage--the answers seem to pretty much boil down to, if you allow gays to marry then it's only a matter of time before we have polygamy. Maybe. Maybe not. If in the near future the cultural pendulum swings that way, so be it. The Constituion has nothing to say on the matter. I'm not encouraging polygamy, not particularly thrilled with the idea, but again, so long as we're dealing with consenting adults, so what?
I'm not sure how polygamy or gay marriage or marrying the sidewalk (though, for the time being, I think we can restrict our worries to the whims of consenting adults) will lead to some large scale cultural anomy. Promiscuity? The break down of the nuclear family? Please. Our straight culture has been sending us down that path for 40 years. You ever watched MTv? You can't blame the gays--or the specter of gay marriage--for our cultural decline.
Given that a great many people in HBD-land seem to think that "IQ is all you need", then your appeal to cultural consensus is an admission of the limitations of high IQ.
I'm not seeing the logical connection between the second clause of your sentence and the first, but sure, I freely admit that there are limitations to high IQ. Nor seeing why you infer otherwise from what I wrote.
Don't know what you think I'm invoking cultural consensus to "appeal to", either, but, whatever...(While I'm sure we can agree that the ability of high IQ people "come up with elaborate rationalizations" is far from an unmitigated blessing, basic logic is your friend.)
Children haters like Mr. Lomez above are free to enjoy their hedonistic, nihilistic and childless life as long as they are able to actively work and contribute to society.
Who are the real child-haters?
The "selfish bastards" who refuse to pump out more kids because they are concerned with their ability to parent them, love them, make them feel wanted, and provide for their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs?
The "breeders" who think they are such heroes by having so many kids - often for a "higher purpose", such as religion or patriotism - yet are hypocritically unable to provide for their "useless eaters" (their term not mine), and who constantly abuse them, and expect them to be goose-stepping kamikaze robots?
I also include the Abortion Is Murder arch-hypocrites who will use force to make sure a fetus comes to term, then as soon as much an individual is born, kick him/her out onto the street to fend for him/her-self.
I'm not encouraging polygamy, not particularly thrilled with the idea, but again, so long as we're dealing with consenting adults, so what?
As long as we're enjoying a Two Minute Hate on libertarian thinking....
What is it about the libertarian/utilitarian mind that makes it incapable of avoiding question-begging? Seriously, even if your only exposure to anti-liberal thinking was us idiots in the Steve-o-sphere, I would still think it should be bleedin' obvious that the "consenting adults" doctrine does not have the axiomatic juju powers over those of the reactionary persuasion that it holds over libertarians. So saying "so long as we're dealing with consenting adults, so what?" is pretty much on par with "but the Bible says...".
Please. Our straight culture has been sending us down that path for 40 years. You ever watched MTv? You can't blame the gays--or the specter of gay marriage--for our cultural decline.
If I can blame certain straights for contributing to this or that aspect of our cultural decline (and I do), then I sure as hell can blame the gays responsible for whatever aspects of our cultural decline they've contributed to.
I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education and make your opinions, value-judgements and biases the axiomatic pilars of your "thinking", and use ad hominem invective and ad populum arguments as your resort to "debate". So sad to see adults acting like emotional toddlers. I could give a detailed point-by-point answer to all of you, but your arguments are so intellectually sophomoric that it isn't worthy of my time. It truly isn't.
Libertarianism is a suicide pact.
I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education .....and use ad hominem invective and ad populum arguments as your resort to "debate".
So sad to see adults acting like emotional toddlers. I could give a detailed point-by-point answer to all of you, but your arguments are so intellectually sophomoric that it isn't worthy of my time..
But... it was worth your time to write this, you couldn't just refute one point? But spend several lines saying that you could.. and contradict yourself - by accusing us being stupid, then complaining about ad-hominems?
If it were up to popular vote, large segments of American territory would be religious States where the teaching of evoolution is forbidden, gays would be stoned to death, women would be kept bareffot and pregnant, etc.
can you show me where gays were stoned to death in the western world?
The pcinciple that popular vote cannot be used to remove rights from specific groups of people
really, tell that to catholic adoption agencies who can no longer operate because they refuse to consider gay couples.
States where the teaching of evoolution is forbidden
but teaching Christianity is forbidden and prayer in schools banned, but that's not even enough, now carols, even choral music is banned if it is Christian (and let's be serious here, sweetheart, it only applies to Christians - the Hasidim, for example, get their own school districts)
"I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education and make your opinions, value-judgements and biases the axiomatic pilars of your "thinking", and use ad hominem invective and ad populum arguments as your resort to "debate". So sad to see adults acting like emotional toddlers. I could give a detailed point-by-point answer to all of you, but your arguments are so intellectually sophomoric that it isn't worthy of my time. It truly isn't."
Oooh, you're an intellectual, I can tell! Look at those big words! "Value judgments," "biases," "ad hominem invective," oh, my! "Intellectually sophomoric" --oh, Baby! Give it to me! "Ad populum arguments"! Oh, yeah! Harder!
"Axiomatic pilars!" OMG I'm gonna....wait. What?
You misspelled "pillars."
Well, that was disappointing.
@"Difference Maker"
"America was the greatest and best country in the world before these new intellectual "elite" showed up.
It doesn't, except as they kindly remind us, they are different. Exhibitionist, whiny, flamboyant. And promiscuous. Which means we pay for their healthcare, pickup the tab for their very expensive AIDS treatment
As for the rest of your post, you're right, these rights are not to be denied.. or granted. Government has no place legislating over inalienable rights."
It was the best country for whom? Maybe for white heterosexual males. It was definitely not the best country for blacks, or gays, or even for heterosexual white women, who were excluded from many public as well as provate jobs and educational opportunities simply for being female.
As for gays being flamboyant, first of all, this doesen't apply to all. Secondly, their flamboyance doesen't affect you negatively in any way. If you don't like it, then stay away from them.
As for taxes, you really don't get libertarianism. No libertarian is arguing that you should pay the medical bills of gay men with AIDS. I say gay men can have sex with as many partners as they want, but if they become sick, they should pay their medical treatment themselves. Absolute freedom, but with absolute responsability.
And gay men are at the top earning braket in America and pay FAR more taxes than the typical Sarah Palin conservative. It is rednecks such as YOU who get their medical bills taken care of by gay men and not the other way around. So stop using this stupid argument.
I also include the Abortion Is Murder arch-hypocrites who will use force to make sure a fetus comes to term, then as soon as much an individual is born, kick him/her out onto the street to fend for him/her-self.
Do you actually know even a single person like this, or is it just a bogy-man you scare yourself with at night? Do you really know perople who, as soon as a baby is born, kick it out on the street to fend for itself when only one hour old? Really? REALLY?
Your description of the world is that of a person who knows nothing about it.
@Anonymous 4:03 PM
"Have you ever heard of free association?
Part of individual rights includes the right of free association and the right of individuals to form agreements, compacts, organizations, communities, etc. As long as individual consent isn't violated there's nothing wrong with this."
Freedom of association cannot be used to remove individual rights. You show your ignorance of jurisprudence with this uneducated argument.
Freedom of association applies to the PRIVATE sphere, and not to the public sphere. That is, if you want to found a club that only accepts white members, you should have the right to do so, as despicable as you would be to my eyes. However, the STATE cannnot dicriminate against certain groups of people because it violates the principle of equality before the law.
The Supreme Court made the right decision to desegregate public schools and governmennt jobs in the 1950s because those were public schools and the State does not discriminates as the principle of equality before the law demands that. As for private schools and private jobs, I actually agree that they should have the right to discriminate in favor of whoever they want, just like clubs do, but discriminating on the basis on race is so callous and odious that I cannot blame the Supreme Court for having made that decision. I don't agree with that decision in particular, but I am not strongly against it because discriminating on race is truly odious and violates the dignity of the human being.
Seriously, Sailer's conservative readers think they are being clever with these "objections", but they are the kind of objections that any first year law or philosophy student could easily rebute. These are sophomoric objections that were the kind of things debated by jurists at the time of Hugo Grotius and settled centuries ago. Only to Sailer's readers are these stupid objections regarded as clever.
Don't know what you think I'm invoking cultural consensus to "appeal to", either
You're the one who invoked it at some length, so I'd have assumed you would know. Let me remind you:
Jurisprudence has always been about rationally deriving decisions via precedent and from "first principles", but those principles are themselves not abstract and "rational". Rather, they are based on long, implicit cultural consensus about the way things are 'sposed to be.
Once you've decided that the implicit boundaries are just so much historical detritus, and start thinking that your law is about nothing but logical derivations from grand, bloodless abstractions, then there's really nothing left but "elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do". There is no "regardless of the law" in a radically de-cultured nation. We're through the looking glass.
Nothing to disagree with there, but "cultural consensus" and "high IQ" are different and unrelated things.
basic logic is your friend
Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. As far as "cultural consensus" is concerned, basic logic is nearly worthless. Logic can help you get what you want. It cannot tell you what you should want. Basic logic cannot tell us whether it is better to live in a multicultural place rather than in a monocultural one, for instance. Logic cannot make value judgements.
@Anonymous 4:04 PM
"So what can we say about the following forms of marriage?
-incestuous
-consanguineous
-polyamorous
-group marriages
Should we allow these simply on individual rights? No one is harmed, correct? We can eliminate genetic problems through sterilization or artificial insemination. How about non-sexual unions i.e. marriages simply for benefits? What if a son can marry his cancer-stricken mother simply for health benefits?"
You show a profound ignorance of libertarianism.
The guiding principle of libertarianism is CONSENT between HUMAN ADULTS.
Going by this, both polygamy and polyandry are acceptable, as long as they are VOLUNTARILLY engaged in. A bunch of women can all marry the same man if all the people involved consent to it. The same for polyandry.
As for bestiality, an animal is an a non-entity and thus cannot be the bearer of rights or consent to anything. Not only does an animal posess no more than a fraction of the brain power of a human, but the animal, but animals lack a theory of mind: they cannot conceive of themselves as separate entities from reality unlike humans. Thus, obviously, marriage between a human and an animal is not allowed to by libertarism as it violates the basic premise of libertarianism - consent between human adults.
The same goes for marriage between an adult and a child: a child has about a quarter of the brain power of an adult and far less emotional maturity and resilience. Thus, marriage between adults and children are not allowed.
Marriage between close relatives is murkier. Close relatives can give birth to severely genetically flawed children, so in my view they shouldn't be allowed to have children. But in my view, a brother and sister who are in love should be allowed to get married and have sex, but shouldn't reproduce.
Unlike you guys, I apply rational criteria in my thinking, and I don't base my political views on what I, on a personal level, find "icky".
@John Cunningham
"so by that reasoning, incestuous marriage, polygamy, and child marriage must be rights also. not to mention bestiality."
the same stupid objection I have already addressed. Please refer to my previous reply.
@Anonymous 5:01 PM
"Marriage is NOT an individual right. It is a bio-moral contract requiring certain qualifications. Marriage as biologically and morally defined is the emotional/sexual/legal contract between man and woman bound by love and committed to the raising of the children they produce together.
Since a gay couple don't meet the qualifications, they don't deserve to get married.
Marriage is not about what any individual wants. It is about an agreement he or she enters into. If anything, marriage curtails certain rights and freedoms, because you become duty-bound to the person you marry.
If we define marriage as any kind of right, why not 'friend marriage'? How about two straight guys with separate girlfriends 'marry as friends just to share each other's benefits'?
Or how about incest marriage between father and daughter, mother and son, and father and son? If we're gonna define marriage as whatever anyone wants to do, then it is everything, thus nothing."
It is a biolgical fact that only a man and a woman can bear children through regular sexual intercourse; it is your OPINION that marriage should be about a man and a woman coming together to form families with children.
To me, marriage is about two consenting adults who want to join their life as a couple having the right to do so and being recognized as such.
There is no intrinsec value in having children or not. Lots of married straight people don't have kids anyway.
Now, marriage with children, whether straight or gay, involve FURTHER obligations than marriages without children, for obvious reasons. For instace, a childless marriage can result in divorce without any further links between the former spouses, but a marriage with children cannot be completely disolved because the children must be taken care of by the parents until they are 18.
The argument that straight people should have greater rights to marry because it involves the survival of the species is a specious argument at best. The "species" is not a valid juridical entity and as such is not the bearer of rights. Only people are bearers of rights. Also, with reproductive technologies reproduction is no longer dependent on heterosexual relations. Then, there are 7 billion people in the World, which represents a 300% increase from a mere century ago. Do we really need more people?
@Anonymous 4:27 PM
"The problem is not gays loving oneanother and living together. Gays should be free to do whatever they want, behind closed doors.
The problem is cheapening the sacred and highly beneficial institution of marrage.
Our society needs to keep heterosexual marrage on its pedistal, because it is highly beneficial for producing future well-rounded citizens."
Another specious argument. What you define as "well rounded citizens" is a value-judgement. Gays for the most part earn more money, are better educated and have much lower homicide rates than straight people. How are they less "well rounded"? Because they are attracted to their own gender?
You and I can have all kinds of prejudices and make all kinds of value-judgements, which is why we should make no judgements on people besides this: are they, with their behavior, violating the rights of others? Gays do not kill or rape nearly at the same rate as straight men, so how is their behavior more objectionable? Because YOU find gay sex disgusting? So what, they are not doing it to you! Why do you care? And there is no support to the notion that children raised by gay parents grow up to be any less or more well rounded than those raised by straight couples.
@Kylie
"What no adults in full possession of their mental faculties have is the right to marry anyone or anything of their choosing. Marriage in most states is quite reasonably restricted to a contract between one man and one woman. This restriction is an example of equality before the law because it applies across the board to all men and all women."
Wrong. Equality before the law means equality of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. By allowing a man and a woman to get married but denying it to two men who, for reasons of individual constitution, find it as unappealing to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual finds marrying someone of the same sex, you are disenfranchising their INDIVIDUAL rights compared to that of heterosexuals. As far as equality before the law, you either grant all adults the right to marry any other adult they want or you forbid straight marriage as well.
@Anonymous 11:53 AM
"So says the ignorant bigot who writes like a hyper-emotional teenager in high-school."
Yes, I am a BIGOT because I want a tolerant society where individual differences are respected and people are allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Yes, that makes me a BIGOT!
Wow, what a bunch of geniuses Sailer's readers are! Some of the brightest people ever.
Keep arguing guys, and I will keep owning you again and again, for the simple reason that I am more intelligent than pretty much all of you. I shoot down all of your stupid "arguments" so easily that it is pathetic. At least you guys are good for a laugh. Just like the people you vote for, like Sarah Palin.
Another specious argument. What you define as "well rounded citizens" is a value-judgement.
God forbid we should have those...
I don't think you really mean this, I think you mean the 'wrong' kind of values.. kind of like when Bush went' on and on about the Palestinian need to have 'democratic elections' until they elected the 'wrong' people.. and bush said..wait, I didn't mean THAT kind of democracy...
"Isn't funny how judges can think something is a civil right in 2012 that they'd never have thought to be one a decade earlier?"
this is what gets me about most liberal arguments. for instance if obamacare is ok...why didn't a democrat president and democrat congress institute it decades ago? why suddenly, now? what? previous democrat presidents were REALLY not as smart as obama? they NEVER thought about this?
what actually happens is that liberals dream up stuff, then tell us something is now a right, is constitutional, and that anybody who objects is a bigot or racist, who will be looked down upon by future generations, as slaving is looked down upon today - but back in the real world, not everybody agreed with slaving DURING the years of slaving. but almost everybody agrees they don't want to change the definition of marriage.
i like to see a liberal's brain meltdown when africans and mestizos speak out against gays. they're more conservative than europeans, and are strongly against gay marriage. and the "You would probably be happy if women could not vote and blacks and whites could not to marry, racist" argument doesn't work on them.
now EVERYBODY is supposed to agree that men marrying men and women marrying women is a clear cut civil right. again, if it was, why didn't a democrat president enshrine this in US law DECADES ago?
meanwhile, an actual right written into the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, is something most liberals think should be striken. make up random new rights which aren't even there, strike down stuff which actually is there. it's their modus operandi. supreme court justice bader's recent comments about the US constitution display here true feelings on the matter.
The Anti-Gnostic said
>Prediction based on first Anon's bitchfest: libertarianism will become an increasingly homosexual movement.<
Although I disagree with his politics generally, Bob Wallace has some interesting thoughts on this. The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual.
"Anonymous said...
I am the guy who made the first post...reading the responses, it is pretty obvious that most of you barely have a high school education....."
Actually, I have a PhD. So, f**k you. F**k you very much, sir. Why don't you try answering the quite reasonable points that have been brought up here? Or do you think your reasoning is infallible, and your arguments so obvious as to require no defence?
"Mr Lomez said...
As to the relevant question--the unintended consequences of gay marriage--the answers seem to pretty much boil down to, if you allow gays to marry then it's only a matter of time before we have polygamy. Maybe. Maybe not."
No, not maybe, but definitely. What argument would YOU employ to say: this far (gay marriage), but no further (polygamy). There are none. And what about incest? Hey, as long as it's between consenting siblings, who can object?
"Promiscuity? The break down of the nuclear family? Please. Our straight culture has been sending us down that path for 40 years. You ever watched MTv? You can't blame the gays--or the specter of gay marriage--for our cultural decline."
And how many of the cultural arbiters who lead us down that path were themselves gays or sexual deviants of some kind? Quite a few, actually. Perhaps that was what they sought - to remake the world into a place where they did not feel quite so deviant. Or perhaps they just did it out of jealousy and spite.
"Anonymous said...
@John Cunningham
""so by that reasoning, incestuous marriage, polygamy, and child marriage must be rights also. not to mention bestiality.""
the same stupid objection I have already addressed. Please refer to my previous reply."
Nonsense, you have done no such thing. Unless this is you (as you can't be bothered to choose even an anonymous screen name, it's difficult to tell):
"I certainly agree with you, but gay activists believe they can successfully argue that those arrangements are different--that they harm people."
Why would incestuous or group marriage arrangements be any more harmful than homosexual marriage? Assuming we're talking about consenting adults, what difference is there? What objection can anyone raise to two adult siblings
wishing to marry one another? That it's unnatural? That it just isn't done? That's exactly what we're saying about homosexual marriage.
I am the one who made the first post here...
I posted seven replies to specific readers, but Sailer only posted two of them.
What an epic waste of my time. I would re-write them all because my repplies were BRUTAL ownings of you guys, but there would be no point to it since Sailer simply doesen't post them.
I didn't use foul language or insult anyone, which leads me to believe Sailer simply likes ot leave his posters unchallenged and only posts comments that agree with him.
From: The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual
My experience with a fair amount of homosexuals is that they can’t comprehend that straight guys can’t be turned. Some seem to think if you catch them as kids, they can be raised gay. Sorry, they can’t. It’s so strongly genetic it can’t be overcome, contrary to the hallucinations of the NAMBLA crowd.
Actually it's the holy roller homophobes who believe that straight guys can be turned, and even seem to believe that young boys will somehow NATURALLY be gay (or at least effiminate) unless masculinized by force!
It's these same types that love same-sex boarding schools so much because they believe that instead from preparing them for a heterosexual life, social contact between pre-teen boys and girls will somehow make them less sexually pure.
I am not addressing Anonymous, who is a loon. For everyone else, I recommend this article. Too bad the Jewish avant-garde has reversed itself in the past 100 years, at least in regard to gentile societies.
Freedom of association cannot be used to remove individual rights. You show your ignorance of jurisprudence with this uneducated argument.
So i can't run a business where I hire only whites (and again, lets be serious here sweetheart, anti-discrimination laws only apply to whites)
what about affirmative action -the state now discriminates AGAINST white white males, darling.
I would re-write them all because my repplies were BRUTAL ownings of you guys,
well since you said so, sweetheart, case closed you win!
Yes, I am a BIGOT because I want a tolerant society
no sunshine, he called you a bigot for your ad-hominem attack (which of course was in the same paragraph where you complained about "use ad hominem invective"
But nice straw man, is that part of your objectivist jedi training?
"Anonymous said...
I would re-write them all because my repplies were BRUTAL ownings of you guys, but there would be no point to it since Sailer simply doesen't post them."
You are a pathetic nitwit.
repeating myself: Don't know what you think I'm invoking cultural consensus to "appeal to", either.
You're the one who invoked it at some length, so I'd have assumed you would know. Let me remind you:
I don't think you're quite clear on what "appealing to" something means in an argument. You would appeal to other stuff in support of your initial claims about IQ, as I would need to appeal to other stuff in support of my assertions about "cultural consensus". (That is, if you were to actually dispute that premise, which you don't.) Your (or my) initial claim is not an appeal.
Nothing to disagree with there, but "cultural consensus" and "high IQ" are different and unrelated things.
Very good. Maybe if you go back now and read my original comment my (quite simple) point might sink in.
Perhaps a bullet-point rephrasing might help:
You: The problem here is high IQ. High IQs can allow people to just come up with "elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do, regardless of the law".
Me: No, the problem goes deeper than that. High IQ or no, once the underlying cultural consensus is gone, there is nothing left but "coming up with elaborate rationalizations for doing whatever you want to do", at which point "regardless of the law" is neither here nor there. That high IQ people can exploit this better than others is secondary to that.
As far as "cultural consensus" is concerned, basic logic is nearly worthless. Logic can help you get what you want.
Criminy. See above. There is no appeal to "basic logic" re "cultural consensus" in anything I wrote. I was making a simple, straightforward claim about your lack of facility with the former. (About which there may be a "cultural consensus", albeit not in the sense employed heretofore.)
jody: what actually happens is that liberals dream up stuff, then tell us something is now a right, is constitutional, and that anybody who objects is a bigot or racist...
Yeah, it's getting really tiresome, isn't it?
But the best part is being screeched at for being paranoid wingnuts for warning X is going to happen if Y is allowed, and then 10 years later being screeched at for being hateful hating haters for not accepting X.
But I think the time lag between "oh, X will never happen, you paranoid wingnut" and "X is obviously a basic human right, you hateful hating hater", is shrinking.
The guiding principle of libertarianism is CONSENT between HUMAN ADULTS.
Your ageism and a speciesism are revolting!
It's sad that you guys can't reply to anything I write as far as logical arguments are concerned, so all you do is call me names and attack my character and beat your chests like silverback gorillas, and pretend like you are "winning". So sad. You guys should just admit that you are less intelligent and that your arguments are idiotic and be done with it.
@ 2/9/12 12:38 PM
you can't be serious sweetheart.. oh wait, yes you are..
1st Anonymous: The Dunning-Kruger effect personified.
"Anonymous said...
It's sad that you guys can't reply to anything I write as far as logical arguments are concerned,...."
We did, idiot, at length. It is you who have not bothered to reply to what we wrote. Why don't you stick to arguing with your dorm-room buddies or the other brainwashed 19 year-olds in your intro to philosophy class.
Wow - what a train-wreck of a comments thread.
And all over so small an issue.
Same-sex marriage will have few consequences of any kind - unintended or otherwise - for the simple reason that very, very few gay men, once allowed to do so, will choose to get married. They may love SSM in theory, but they hate it in practice.
Post a Comment