Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, May 28, 2011
2012 Dog Pee Can't Stop Santorum
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Oh, man. Snapping up www.dogpeecantstopsantorum.com. I wish I'd thought of that, Rachel. (And, for the record, if there's dog pee in your santorum you're doing it wrong. You're doing it really, really wrong.)
1
Pity there isn't more name recognition. It'd be great for santorum to become a mainstream swear word.
2
I watched Maddow's video and saw Santorum with an about-to-cry look on his face as he shook hands with his public. It is an amazing thing to contemplate: how this pathetic dogfart of a man intent on seizing command of our nuclear stockpiles has to instead warily hope that whoever he's meeting isn't thinking about poop and astroglide.
4
Dan must be talking to Rachel in that third sentence. Kind of the new "referring to yourself in the third person". Very nice.
5
The really unfortunate thing is that this man has progeny. Lots of them, if I remember correctly. And I believe he is home-schooling them to make sure they learn “intelligent design” rather than actual scientific facts. Thus we will never really be free of santorum.....
6
You know, I just googled "Santorum" and the spreadingsantorum site doesn't appear until page 14, and it's talking about recipes. But you do see a lot of google results with mentions of the google problem, so I guess that's something? But it seems like your site has mostly been taken out of the search results. What's up with that, Google?
9
He's a pathetic twit in a field of pathetic twits. And his predicament is a warning to other extremist politicians who slander gay people.
11
We should hold a contest to associate everyone in the current GOP field with similarly salacious acts as "Santorum". That way, not only would he not be singled out, but it would make ALL of them equally unsearchable.
12
I'm kind of stunned that spreadingsantorum.com hasn't been updated since 2004. Isn't is time for someone (like the tech-savvy at-risk youth) to start updating it again?
13
@11 you're missing the point which is that he should be singled out. He stood out even in the homophobic GOP as being particularly obnoxious breed of bigot.
The real question is, do we need a special word for dog pee plus santorum? dog GOPee perhaps?
The real question is, do we need a special word for dog pee plus santorum? dog GOPee perhaps?
15
I was glad that during Rachel's coverage she mentioned how Santorum brought this on himself with the "man on dog" comment - and how odd, yet somewhat poetic it is that his stump speech is mentioning "dog on man" peeing incident.
That he's telling that story just reinforces that even dogs have a low opinion of Santorum - and rightfully so.
That he's telling that story just reinforces that even dogs have a low opinion of Santorum - and rightfully so.
18
As much as Rachel Maddow and little Danny Savage are wrong on any point they make, we live in a nation where there disgusting ad hominem vulgarity and personal attacks are protected speech. We live in a country where even fringe lunatic views like theirs are allowed into the market place of ideas.
Whatever I think of these errant nutjobs, I respect their right to display their insanity or depravity publicly. As for why they wish to do so? Boy, that IS a bit of an enigma.
Having said that, all that needs said about the relative merit of their views is said by the unwarranted and vicious personal attacks that replace civilized political discourse in their deranged minds. And of course all those who don't publicly castigate them for their behavior are tarred with the same brush.
Whatever I think of these errant nutjobs, I respect their right to display their insanity or depravity publicly. As for why they wish to do so? Boy, that IS a bit of an enigma.
Having said that, all that needs said about the relative merit of their views is said by the unwarranted and vicious personal attacks that replace civilized political discourse in their deranged minds. And of course all those who don't publicly castigate them for their behavior are tarred with the same brush.
19
I've googled Santorum -- the Wikipedia page about "the neologism" is the one that comes first, and it does the same job (inclusive linking to the original spreadingsantorum site). So no problem -- right?
20
SB, have you seen any of the right's rhetorics these days? They fit your vehemence much better than li'l Danny boy and good ol' Rachie Maddie. (Nobody ever gave you many points for sensitivity either, SB... :-)
21
@15
For your edification-
Rick Santorum did not make this comparison. He pointed out the inevitable logical problems with the view that homosexuality is innate and unavoidable.
It is precisely the Rachel Maddows and Dan Savages of the world that invite the comparison. By insisting that sexuality is innate and choiceless, they logically extend that lack of choice to horrific behaviors like pedophiles molesting kids or bestiality. They have only themselves to blame, not Rick Santorum for pointing out the logically inevitible.
Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that.
No thanks necessary. Clearing up misconceptions is one of my daily acts of kindness.
For your edification-
Rick Santorum did not make this comparison. He pointed out the inevitable logical problems with the view that homosexuality is innate and unavoidable.
It is precisely the Rachel Maddows and Dan Savages of the world that invite the comparison. By insisting that sexuality is innate and choiceless, they logically extend that lack of choice to horrific behaviors like pedophiles molesting kids or bestiality. They have only themselves to blame, not Rick Santorum for pointing out the logically inevitible.
Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that.
No thanks necessary. Clearing up misconceptions is one of my daily acts of kindness.
22
What personal attacks, SeattleBlues? Is coining new words an act of malice? Someone ought to alert Shakespeare!
24
@22
Shakespeare was a playwright who made observations so timeless about human nature and couched them in language so beautiful that he's stood the test of time. Like Dante, we still enjoy his creations since Hamlet could be a bereaved young man whose mother re-married, in his view too soon, in Seattle or Hong Kong. The wonderful lines about Odyseus in the Divine Comedy could be about any charismatic man whose persuasive rhetoric leads others astray from the fall of Troy to now.
Savage is a litttle boy with a disgusting mind. He knows that his arguments have no merit on their own basis, so attacks the people with whom he disagrees. The fact that the left has embraced this tells a great deal about the merit of your views.
Shakespeare was a playwright who made observations so timeless about human nature and couched them in language so beautiful that he's stood the test of time. Like Dante, we still enjoy his creations since Hamlet could be a bereaved young man whose mother re-married, in his view too soon, in Seattle or Hong Kong. The wonderful lines about Odyseus in the Divine Comedy could be about any charismatic man whose persuasive rhetoric leads others astray from the fall of Troy to now.
Savage is a litttle boy with a disgusting mind. He knows that his arguments have no merit on their own basis, so attacks the people with whom he disagrees. The fact that the left has embraced this tells a great deal about the merit of your views.
27
@24: Oh, fer fuck sake, Seattleblues...
HAMLET'S ISSUE WAS NOT THAT HIS WIDOWED MOTHER REMARRIED TOO SOON. HIS ISSUE WAS THAT HIS UNCLE KILLED HIS FATHER. HE WAS NOT SO MUCH BEREAVED AS VENGEFUL.
Did you ever even READ Hamlet? That shit is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the text!
And you don't know jack about the legend of Odysseus either. He didn't lead people astray with his persuasive rhetoric; he offended several divine forces, and all that kept him alive in many places was his quick wit and persuasive rhetoric (as seen on the island of the Cylopses and upon his return to Ithaca, for example). You know what really led his crew astray? Their insistence on directly disobeying his orders as soon as he fell asleep. (First they undid all progress in their journey by opening the bag of winds, and later they slaughtered the oxen of Helios and thus doomed themselves to a man, save of course Odysseus.)
If you're going to lord over us how cultured you are, you may want to actually understand the pieces you reference.
HAMLET'S ISSUE WAS NOT THAT HIS WIDOWED MOTHER REMARRIED TOO SOON. HIS ISSUE WAS THAT HIS UNCLE KILLED HIS FATHER. HE WAS NOT SO MUCH BEREAVED AS VENGEFUL.
Did you ever even READ Hamlet? That shit is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the text!
And you don't know jack about the legend of Odysseus either. He didn't lead people astray with his persuasive rhetoric; he offended several divine forces, and all that kept him alive in many places was his quick wit and persuasive rhetoric (as seen on the island of the Cylopses and upon his return to Ithaca, for example). You know what really led his crew astray? Their insistence on directly disobeying his orders as soon as he fell asleep. (First they undid all progress in their journey by opening the bag of winds, and later they slaughtered the oxen of Helios and thus doomed themselves to a man, save of course Odysseus.)
If you're going to lord over us how cultured you are, you may want to actually understand the pieces you reference.
28
@21: Sorry about that, but I'm the son of a professor of English.
Now our point is not that homosexuality is simply natural and unchosen, but that it is natural, unchosen, and innocuous; that is, it can be expressed without harm to its objects. Pedophiles and zoophiles, along with those stricken with other such paraphiliae, cannot engage in a truly consensual relationship with the objects of their desires. Homoschmexuals can.
Rick Santorum is full of, well, santorum. And so are you if you keep jabbering on about his talking points.
Now our point is not that homosexuality is simply natural and unchosen, but that it is natural, unchosen, and innocuous; that is, it can be expressed without harm to its objects. Pedophiles and zoophiles, along with those stricken with other such paraphiliae, cannot engage in a truly consensual relationship with the objects of their desires. Homoschmexuals can.
Rick Santorum is full of, well, santorum. And so are you if you keep jabbering on about his talking points.
29
But where is the attack? You make a distinction between the Dan and Will's characters, but don't actually say how creating a word that needed to exist is somehow meant to be an attack on someone's character. What exactly is the distinction?
30
@27 Off topic, but English teachers world over need to be smacked for this whole reading Shakespeare issue. When is the last time you read the screen play for Citizen Kane? Shakespeare isn't to be read unless you're acting in it or directing it, it's to be watched as the plays they are.
31
@27
Having seen Hamlet 3 times performed live, and 4 or 5 times in film, together with reading the text a number of times. Thanks awfully anyway, though, old boy. If I need help with reading, I'll be sure to call on you. Or not.
The reference wasn't to the Odyssey or specifically to the Greek legends from which it sprung, but to Canto 26 of the Inferno. And yes, Dante took some liberties with Greek history for his masterwork. To my tastes it detracts not one whit from the brilliance of the Divine Comedy.
With all due respect to your father, you might have picked up a bit more from him before going off half cocked.
Having seen Hamlet 3 times performed live, and 4 or 5 times in film, together with reading the text a number of times. Thanks awfully anyway, though, old boy. If I need help with reading, I'll be sure to call on you. Or not.
The reference wasn't to the Odyssey or specifically to the Greek legends from which it sprung, but to Canto 26 of the Inferno. And yes, Dante took some liberties with Greek history for his masterwork. To my tastes it detracts not one whit from the brilliance of the Divine Comedy.
With all due respect to your father, you might have picked up a bit more from him before going off half cocked.
32
@29
Shakespeare created words that expressed what was poorly expressed already.
Savage attacked another person ad hominem because he knew his political arguments were worthless.
I don't honestly know how to make this more clear.
Shakespeare created words that expressed what was poorly expressed already.
Savage attacked another person ad hominem because he knew his political arguments were worthless.
I don't honestly know how to make this more clear.
33
@31
Not in deference to the locals, but to the mastery of Shakespeare, the first sentence should have read-
"Having seen Hamlet 3 times performed live, and 4 or 5 times in film, together with reading the text a number of times, I don't really need your help." My very humble apologies.
Not in deference to the locals, but to the mastery of Shakespeare, the first sentence should have read-
"Having seen Hamlet 3 times performed live, and 4 or 5 times in film, together with reading the text a number of times, I don't really need your help." My very humble apologies.
34
28
'innocuous'?
Is something that gives 20% of its practitioners HIV really innocuous?
Is something that results in 64% of its practitioners getting other STDs really innocuous?
Is something that drives its practitioners to commit suicide 9X as much as normal people really innocuous?
really?
does your mommy know you're using big words without knowing what they mean?
'innocuous'?
Is something that gives 20% of its practitioners HIV really innocuous?
Is something that results in 64% of its practitioners getting other STDs really innocuous?
Is something that drives its practitioners to commit suicide 9X as much as normal people really innocuous?
really?
does your mommy know you're using big words without knowing what they mean?
35
"...if there's dog pee in your santorum you're doing it wrong."
but if there is SHIT in your santorum that's ok, right Danny?
frothy SHIT is a natural normal byproduct of homosexual "love".
right?
cause NOTHING says Lovin' like SHIT....
but if there is SHIT in your santorum that's ok, right Danny?
frothy SHIT is a natural normal byproduct of homosexual "love".
right?
cause NOTHING says Lovin' like SHIT....
36
Is it poor form to concern-troll a troll? Because I, frankly, am worried about how much time and energy SB spends skulking around Dan Savage's Slog-posts, thinking of insignificant things to say in a pathetic effort to be hurtful. I'm concerned for you, troll, very concerned.
37
Seattleblues, your lifestyle of biracial sex and marriage is a choice that has as much chance of leading to man on dog or child sex as gay sex and marriage.
38
With respect-
@36
I'd return to herding Yaks and leave psychology to those who understand it.
@37
I don't recall saying that the predilection to homosexuality was on the pathway to pedophilia or bestiality. What I did say was that we are none of us the helpless victims of our sexual predilections.
This is my fault for a lack of clarity. Morally, legally or in any other meaningful way pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable. Homosexuality victimizes only the practitioner, while bestiality or pedophiles molesting kids require a non-consenting other to exist. Since I realize that all are choice driven, this presents no problems to me.
To take a hypothetical- The young woman who owns the espresso stand I frequent is a very attractive person physically. Were I to develop a lust for her (blonde, half my age and generally not my type, but hypothetically) and she to return that desire (I'm her fathers age, she is married herself to a very good guy who occasionally works on one of my projects, and she seems to display good taste otherwise, so unlikely) any resulting sexual behavior is still a choice.
Lust or desire or predilection aren't fate. Our sexual tastes may or may not be innate, but how we choose to act is still ours to choose.
@36
I'd return to herding Yaks and leave psychology to those who understand it.
@37
I don't recall saying that the predilection to homosexuality was on the pathway to pedophilia or bestiality. What I did say was that we are none of us the helpless victims of our sexual predilections.
This is my fault for a lack of clarity. Morally, legally or in any other meaningful way pedophilia and homosexuality are not comparable. Homosexuality victimizes only the practitioner, while bestiality or pedophiles molesting kids require a non-consenting other to exist. Since I realize that all are choice driven, this presents no problems to me.
To take a hypothetical- The young woman who owns the espresso stand I frequent is a very attractive person physically. Were I to develop a lust for her (blonde, half my age and generally not my type, but hypothetically) and she to return that desire (I'm her fathers age, she is married herself to a very good guy who occasionally works on one of my projects, and she seems to display good taste otherwise, so unlikely) any resulting sexual behavior is still a choice.
Lust or desire or predilection aren't fate. Our sexual tastes may or may not be innate, but how we choose to act is still ours to choose.
39
But the substance in question was only able to be poorly expressed before Dan coined a term for it. I mean, anytime you can sum up a seven word minimum description in a single and concise word is definitely an improvement of expression. I don't see any difference between Dan or Will's lexication.
Well, I would have to amend that slightly, if only because Dan's poetic sense really isn't nearly as developed as Will's. But Dan recognizes his superior at least, as seen here. Such mastery and beauty...
Well, I would have to amend that slightly, if only because Dan's poetic sense really isn't nearly as developed as Will's. But Dan recognizes his superior at least, as seen here. Such mastery and beauty...
40
SB, the point of defining santorum the way it as been was not only to offend Santorum or to have a new needed definition, or even to make people laugh. That's just the plus sides.
The point was to make sure that nobody would forget what he said, and as its political career advances even more people hear about the story. It's a way to tell people who vote: this is your candidate, this is what is think of a part of the population, and to tell politicians: you can't just insult us and hope that nobody will remember, words matter.
The point was to make sure that nobody would forget what he said, and as its political career advances even more people hear about the story. It's a way to tell people who vote: this is your candidate, this is what is think of a part of the population, and to tell politicians: you can't just insult us and hope that nobody will remember, words matter.
41
@31: Okay, so the problem isn't that you haven't read the play or seen it enacted. Your problem is that you can't comprehend the most basic issues in the work.
And yes, I understood that you were referring to the depiction of Odysseus in "Inferno". For that reason, I looked up the canto in which Odysseus appears...and Dante's text doesn't really support your interpretation either.
@32: "Savage attacked another person ad hominem because he knew his political arguments were worthless."
Are you sure you know what "ad hominem" means? Let's take a look at the definition: "Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain." (Google Dictionary)
Well, let's take a look at Dan Savage's response to Rick Santorum. Mr. Santorum made his offending comments on April 7th, 2003. Dan Savage first addressed them in an April 25 op-ed in the NYT (link). As you can see, Mr. Savage does not attack Mr. Santorum's character, but rather presents an argument to the effect that gays are people too, and that homosexual love can be just as fulfilling and constructive as heterosexual love can be.
What was Mr. Savage's next response? Well, on May 8th of that same year, he mentioned Mr. Santorum's comments in passing in that week's Savage Love column. Did he attack Mr. Santorum's character? Well, no. He pointed out that Texas, a bastion of Republican support, had not illegalized various sexual practices which Mr. Santorum claimed legalization of homosexual relations would lead to legalization of.
But surely Dan's next mention of Mr. Santorum's remarks must have been entirely attacking Mr. Santorum's character, with no mention of the arguments at hand! Well, not really. In his next Savage Love column, he printed a reader's suggestion to associate Mr. Santorum's name with a gay sex act. Mr. Savage proceeded to explain that Mr. Santorum's statements did not stand only for anti-gay sentiment, but opposed every right to privacy that people of any sexuality might have. And then he told his readers to go to work.
See, Dan sponsoring a contest to make "santorum" mean something dirty isn't an ad hominem attack. You know what actually is an ad hominem attack? These:
See, those are all direct attacks on Dan Savage's character, with no inkling of any response to his arguments. THAT is what he call ad hominem. And each and every one of those quotations is directly from your comments on this website.
Seattleblues status:
[X] Told
[ ] Not told
More...
And yes, I understood that you were referring to the depiction of Odysseus in "Inferno". For that reason, I looked up the canto in which Odysseus appears...and Dante's text doesn't really support your interpretation either.
@32: "Savage attacked another person ad hominem because he knew his political arguments were worthless."
Are you sure you know what "ad hominem" means? Let's take a look at the definition: "Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain." (Google Dictionary)
Well, let's take a look at Dan Savage's response to Rick Santorum. Mr. Santorum made his offending comments on April 7th, 2003. Dan Savage first addressed them in an April 25 op-ed in the NYT (link). As you can see, Mr. Savage does not attack Mr. Santorum's character, but rather presents an argument to the effect that gays are people too, and that homosexual love can be just as fulfilling and constructive as heterosexual love can be.
What was Mr. Savage's next response? Well, on May 8th of that same year, he mentioned Mr. Santorum's comments in passing in that week's Savage Love column. Did he attack Mr. Santorum's character? Well, no. He pointed out that Texas, a bastion of Republican support, had not illegalized various sexual practices which Mr. Santorum claimed legalization of homosexual relations would lead to legalization of.
But surely Dan's next mention of Mr. Santorum's remarks must have been entirely attacking Mr. Santorum's character, with no mention of the arguments at hand! Well, not really. In his next Savage Love column, he printed a reader's suggestion to associate Mr. Santorum's name with a gay sex act. Mr. Savage proceeded to explain that Mr. Santorum's statements did not stand only for anti-gay sentiment, but opposed every right to privacy that people of any sexuality might have. And then he told his readers to go to work.
See, Dan sponsoring a contest to make "santorum" mean something dirty isn't an ad hominem attack. You know what actually is an ad hominem attack? These:
Savage is a litttle boy with a disgusting mind.
And that is the source of my abhorrence of the thing that is Dan Savage. He is antithetical to everything that made this nation great and continues to make it the best country on the planet. He is depraved, disgusting and dishonest. He is scum.
Santorum? He's a rare honest broker in politics who actually cares about the long term good of our society. Which is why Savage fears him so much, I suppose. I mean, little Danny takes the opposite position on both those points.
Savage is no such honest actor. He is an entirely destructive element, hence my disdain for the man. His lies, half truths and self serving interpretations have no place in meaningful debate. His malice and viciousness are more appropriate to an adolescent than a mature adult. In all human beings there is divinely created good, but I can't for the life of me see it in this person. He is the leftist equivalent of Beck or Limbaugh.
Savage turn his hypersensitivity down? There's nothing else to the man. He'd just fade away if he wasn't creating his own victimhood all the time.
See, those are all direct attacks on Dan Savage's character, with no inkling of any response to his arguments. THAT is what he call ad hominem. And each and every one of those quotations is directly from your comments on this website.
Seattleblues status:
[X] Told
[ ] Not told
42
@41
So, in your erudite reading Ulysses (or Odyseus) was placed by Dante on the level of false counselors in hell for...what? Jaywalking? Telling off color jokes to children?
If Hamlet weren't a fairly layered story I suspect kids wouldn't be studying it today. Just a guess, since my dad wasn't an English professor, though.
But you're right. Savage embodies everything that's worst in popular culture and destructive to what made this country great. The tendency of the ideas of which is such a zealous proponent would have a negative effect on any society.
But intemperate language and personal attacks aren't any more appropriate from me than directed at Rick Santorum from Savage.
To Mr. Savage- I do apologize. You are of course wrong about nearly everything of importance. But that wrongness is the valid point of argument, not your depravity or missionary zeal to make the rest of the country as bad as you are.
So, in your erudite reading Ulysses (or Odyseus) was placed by Dante on the level of false counselors in hell for...what? Jaywalking? Telling off color jokes to children?
If Hamlet weren't a fairly layered story I suspect kids wouldn't be studying it today. Just a guess, since my dad wasn't an English professor, though.
But you're right. Savage embodies everything that's worst in popular culture and destructive to what made this country great. The tendency of the ideas of which is such a zealous proponent would have a negative effect on any society.
But intemperate language and personal attacks aren't any more appropriate from me than directed at Rick Santorum from Savage.
To Mr. Savage- I do apologize. You are of course wrong about nearly everything of importance. But that wrongness is the valid point of argument, not your depravity or missionary zeal to make the rest of the country as bad as you are.
43
Now with all due respect, I'm taking my wife for a long evening sans children. Have a pleasant Memorial Day weekend.
44
Seattleblues, Biracial sex and marriage are a choice. It was against the law, and thought to be immoral. (Many folks, especially in the south still think it is wrong) It was argued that it hurt the children in such marriages. It was stated by a Judge in the Loving vs. Virginia case that God separated and except for the fact that people interfered with God's plan that races wouldn't, and shouldn't mingle or marry.
You choose to have biracial sex, and marriage. Why should your choices be protected, and forced on the people by the courts?
Is your stance that gay people should force themselves to try to be straight? Would you recommend to your children to marry a gay persons? Should gay people just live a life of solitude because gay people offend you? (Much like biracial sex and marriage offends so many people?)
You choose to have biracial sex, and marriage. Why should your choices be protected, and forced on the people by the courts?
Is your stance that gay people should force themselves to try to be straight? Would you recommend to your children to marry a gay persons? Should gay people just live a life of solitude because gay people offend you? (Much like biracial sex and marriage offends so many people?)
45
Haha, SB gets TOLD by Venomlash and, as usual, skulks off for a "pleasant" whatever it is that has suddenly become important to do right now.
46
Seattleblues, your espresso shop woman analogy fails because you are not going against your heterosexual leanings. Gay people are not attracted to or sexually aroused by the opposite sex. They cannot choose to be.
47
@42: My father isn't an English professor either. My MOTHER is. (My dad's an engineer, and it is to him that I credit my mechanical and technical inclinations.)
Now, sure Hamlet may be a bit chuffed that his mom is getting married too soon, but those doubts pale in comparison to his greater anger at the fact that SHE IS MARRYING HER FIRST HUSBAND'S MURDERER. Your reading of Hamlet is pretty damn faulty.
And Odysseus's depiction in "Inferno" isn't about him leading others astray so much as the conniving methods he used to help win the Trojan War.
Now, sure Hamlet may be a bit chuffed that his mom is getting married too soon, but those doubts pale in comparison to his greater anger at the fact that SHE IS MARRYING HER FIRST HUSBAND'S MURDERER. Your reading of Hamlet is pretty damn faulty.
And Odysseus's depiction in "Inferno" isn't about him leading others astray so much as the conniving methods he used to help win the Trojan War.
48
Seattleblues,
Your opinions are not facts. Your pride is talking again. And, as per your usual behavior, your acting like a hypocrite and a tyrant. When will you learn that you are a lowly human and not some divinely appointed judge that everyone must submit to? Keep your opinions, but stop proclaiming them facts to be agreed upon.
Enjoy your weekend.
Your opinions are not facts. Your pride is talking again. And, as per your usual behavior, your acting like a hypocrite and a tyrant. When will you learn that you are a lowly human and not some divinely appointed judge that everyone must submit to? Keep your opinions, but stop proclaiming them facts to be agreed upon.
Enjoy your weekend.
49
@46
well, why can't they choose to be? After all, SB chose to be straight, which means he can't suck all those cocks he wants to suck.
well, why can't they choose to be? After all, SB chose to be straight, which means he can't suck all those cocks he wants to suck.
51
@ 24/Sb:
While your respect for Shakespeare is admirable, it must also be duly noted that the characters in his plays who were vehemently against the natural expression of human sexuality a la Santorum were always in bad light and never left the stage fully intact. For further readings, see Measure for Measure or Taming of the Shrew or Othello or, or, or... As Dante on hubris - you don't get much more Ancient Greek style tempting of the fates than you do in the right wing of America today.
While your respect for Shakespeare is admirable, it must also be duly noted that the characters in his plays who were vehemently against the natural expression of human sexuality a la Santorum were always in bad light and never left the stage fully intact. For further readings, see Measure for Measure or Taming of the Shrew or Othello or, or, or... As Dante on hubris - you don't get much more Ancient Greek style tempting of the fates than you do in the right wing of America today.
53
And finally because I am an uber Hamlet nerd:
Hamlet's main source of anger is self-loathing for his 5 act pity party that he knows it unwarranted. So uh yeah, I guess the Prince of Denmark is really a lot like a modern day teabagger.
Hamlet's main source of anger is self-loathing for his 5 act pity party that he knows it unwarranted. So uh yeah, I guess the Prince of Denmark is really a lot like a modern day teabagger.
55
I'm just amazed some woman actually married SB. I wonder how she deals with walking four paces behind him every time they go out...
56
SB, it seems your only reason for being here is expressing your anger. I can of course feel sorry for you -- with all this energy, and spending all this time writing all those utterly stupid (despite all the nice quotations and apparent literary knowledge) ad homines that simply express your opinion, not any necessary truths... when you could be going for a walk, enjoying life, or actually doing something useful with your time.
A pity.
But there's one reason to hope. If you do feel angry, and angry enough to come here uninvited to give vent to your less noble instincts, this must mean that things are indeed changing in the world in a way that you don't like -- which means things are indeed improving in this little ship o'fools we call our world.
Which means that, despite your curmudgeonly behavior, you are, after all, a herald of good news, speaking of a better future time, when opinions like yours will evoke surprise and disbelief. And for that, I do sincerely thank you. :-)
A pity.
But there's one reason to hope. If you do feel angry, and angry enough to come here uninvited to give vent to your less noble instincts, this must mean that things are indeed changing in the world in a way that you don't like -- which means things are indeed improving in this little ship o'fools we call our world.
Which means that, despite your curmudgeonly behavior, you are, after all, a herald of good news, speaking of a better future time, when opinions like yours will evoke surprise and disbelief. And for that, I do sincerely thank you. :-)
57
Never has a banquet for a troll been prepared with such intelligence and beauty. Props especially to venomlash, whom I would like to marry, or at least shower in rose petals. I went from dismay (crap, they're feeding the troll again) to pride and amazement. Nothing sexier than intelligence! (and that isn't a choice.)
58
People who insist that homosexuality is a choice for other people seem to also insist that heterosexuality is innate for them personally. Apart from 'ex-gays' I suppose.
59
Is Santorum shocked that he can't rattle his anti-gay mouth off and the entire nation doesn't nod in agreement like producers at Fox News? We do not have to justify nor apologize for the fact that the brilliant and hilarious commentators of the left make clever political satire that happens to be apropos to the ongoing marriage equality debate.
And oh, how I wish the right became oh-so concernstipated about civility before their highest-profile people rattle off how Obama is a Muslim, how he pals around with terrorists, etc.
And oh, how I wish the right became oh-so concernstipated about civility before their highest-profile people rattle off how Obama is a Muslim, how he pals around with terrorists, etc.
60
Given that Santorum is apparently a saint being martyred by his evil assailants Dan and Rachel, I propose one of the artists out there should paint 'The Martyrdom of St Santorum'
Perhaps he could be depicted nailed to a google sign with dildoes while pleasuring a dog? Suggestions?
Perhaps he could be depicted nailed to a google sign with dildoes while pleasuring a dog? Suggestions?
62
If Rick Santorum ever gets elected I intend to declare that he's ineligible to serve. And I'll keep loudly declaring that 'it's not fair' and 'he cheated' for years on end like a toddler who can't get his own way.
Let's show the Republicans that we can be as civil as mature as they are.
Let's show the Republicans that we can be as civil as mature as they are.
63
@62
I'm sorry, are you talking about how the left reacted to the two legal elections of George HW Bush? Or how they called the president of the United States a war criminal for prosecuting a war with the approval of Congress? Or was it the slander and libel of John Roberts with regard to Citizens United? No, it has to be the historical revisionism and smear campaign around one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, right? Though all these are of course very like a toddler throwing a tantrum...
Sorry, what was your point again?
I'm sorry, are you talking about how the left reacted to the two legal elections of George HW Bush? Or how they called the president of the United States a war criminal for prosecuting a war with the approval of Congress? Or was it the slander and libel of John Roberts with regard to Citizens United? No, it has to be the historical revisionism and smear campaign around one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, right? Though all these are of course very like a toddler throwing a tantrum...
Sorry, what was your point again?
64
@56
There is a poem by Cavafy about the coming of the Barbarians. You are the barbarians.
For thousands of years we've struggled in Western civilization to acquire the vestiges of decent and just behavior. We've used religion and philosophy and garden variety common sense combined with tradition to make a Western world half way worth living in.
Then your lot comes along and wants to tear the whole thing down. For what? A few homosexuals who chose their status? A few leftists who hate the people from whom they came, the economic system which makes civilization possible, the political system which for once gave a voice to the common man?
If I'm angry it's because, unlike most of the left, I know what it is you're trying to destroy. It's because I hate watching half educated children go after a finely tuned social system with a sledge-hammer. 'It's not fair! I'm gay/poor/black/female etc etc etc and no-one treats me specially on account of it!' you scream, and start throwing your temper tantrum again.
Dan Savage has the right to be gay, but that doesn't impose obligations on anyone else. A person has a right not to work, or save, or invest or otherwise take care of their financial life. But that doesn't give them the faintest glimmering of a claim to the contents of anyone elses' bank account. The left has the right to act like spoiled petulant children with vile personal attacks on politicians with whom they disagree, but they should be prepared for the reaction they will certainly receive from the adults among us.
There is a poem by Cavafy about the coming of the Barbarians. You are the barbarians.
For thousands of years we've struggled in Western civilization to acquire the vestiges of decent and just behavior. We've used religion and philosophy and garden variety common sense combined with tradition to make a Western world half way worth living in.
Then your lot comes along and wants to tear the whole thing down. For what? A few homosexuals who chose their status? A few leftists who hate the people from whom they came, the economic system which makes civilization possible, the political system which for once gave a voice to the common man?
If I'm angry it's because, unlike most of the left, I know what it is you're trying to destroy. It's because I hate watching half educated children go after a finely tuned social system with a sledge-hammer. 'It's not fair! I'm gay/poor/black/female etc etc etc and no-one treats me specially on account of it!' you scream, and start throwing your temper tantrum again.
Dan Savage has the right to be gay, but that doesn't impose obligations on anyone else. A person has a right not to work, or save, or invest or otherwise take care of their financial life. But that doesn't give them the faintest glimmering of a claim to the contents of anyone elses' bank account. The left has the right to act like spoiled petulant children with vile personal attacks on politicians with whom they disagree, but they should be prepared for the reaction they will certainly receive from the adults among us.
65
@44 and 46
What gay people do in the privacy of their homes is not my business, any more than what heterosexuals do in the privacy of theirs is. Homosexuality is not the province of law, or any other governmental action, for or against.
Legally as a country we owe gays protection from physical violence just as we owe this any citizen. We do not and never will owe them special protections based on their chosen status. Homosexuals make up, at most, 3 or 4 percent of any given population. That minority never has the right to dictate terms for everyone else around them.
What gay people do in the privacy of their homes is not my business, any more than what heterosexuals do in the privacy of theirs is. Homosexuality is not the province of law, or any other governmental action, for or against.
Legally as a country we owe gays protection from physical violence just as we owe this any citizen. We do not and never will owe them special protections based on their chosen status. Homosexuals make up, at most, 3 or 4 percent of any given population. That minority never has the right to dictate terms for everyone else around them.
66
65, Gay people aren't asking for special protections any more than you are for your chosen lifestyle of biracial sex and marriage. The percentage of the population has nothing to do with the application of civil rights.
67
VL
In Canto 26 after Odyseus return home, expulsion of the suitors and re-assumption of his lands, wife and life, Dante invents a final voyage for him. With eloquence and passion Odyseus convinces his sailors to undertake a trip through the Pillars of Hercules whose end is certainly their own destruction. They made "wings of their oars for the mad flight" under his persuasion and died, the mountains of Heaven within their sight.
Dante was sympathetic with many of the condemned. In true tragic form he understood that most people weren't wholly evil or bad, but flawed. Because they let the flaw determine their course rather than their better selves, they suffered damnation. His poem is enduring partly because of this approach. His language with those he admired who were still condemned is often extraordinarily beautiful, but for him the condemnation remained the salient point.
Try reading the Sinclair dual language Dante, whatever you think of my interpretation. The original Italian is next to Sinclairs English translation, together with extensive footnotes explaining some of the more obscure references. It's a wonderful reading experience in a shady park or garden in the summer. It's a little like reading Chaucer in the original archaic English, with all the musical effect that can have.
In Canto 26 after Odyseus return home, expulsion of the suitors and re-assumption of his lands, wife and life, Dante invents a final voyage for him. With eloquence and passion Odyseus convinces his sailors to undertake a trip through the Pillars of Hercules whose end is certainly their own destruction. They made "wings of their oars for the mad flight" under his persuasion and died, the mountains of Heaven within their sight.
Dante was sympathetic with many of the condemned. In true tragic form he understood that most people weren't wholly evil or bad, but flawed. Because they let the flaw determine their course rather than their better selves, they suffered damnation. His poem is enduring partly because of this approach. His language with those he admired who were still condemned is often extraordinarily beautiful, but for him the condemnation remained the salient point.
Try reading the Sinclair dual language Dante, whatever you think of my interpretation. The original Italian is next to Sinclairs English translation, together with extensive footnotes explaining some of the more obscure references. It's a wonderful reading experience in a shady park or garden in the summer. It's a little like reading Chaucer in the original archaic English, with all the musical effect that can have.
68
@64 Regular reader, of the column but not a commenter. Yet, I had to set things right since it involves my heritage.
Mr SB, it is pretty damn obvious you have only read the title of "Waiting for the Barbarians". For everyone else, here is a link of the actual poem
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
Mr SB, it is pretty damn obvious you have only read the title of "Waiting for the Barbarians". For everyone else, here is a link of the actual poem
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
70
@64: The Roman Empire was rotten from within. It crumbled not because of the barbarian invasion, but because its economy was based around a constant stream of income from further conquests. Once they ran out of land to plunder, the whole assemblage collapsed.
@65: The point that we've been making all this while, and that you seem steadfastly determined to ignore, is that homosexuals are not asking for any rights that would not also, under the proposed laws, be accorded to heterosexuals. If you illegalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that stops discrimination against heterosexuals also. If you allow same-sex marriage, you give heterosexuals as well the right to marry the consenting adult unrelated same-sex partner of their choice. How does this give gays special privileges? ANSWER ME THAT.
@68: SLOG prunes the URLS of unregistereds. I did a little snooping and reconstructed your link as follows: http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
Seattleblues, feel free to take note like the nice Greek says.
@65: The point that we've been making all this while, and that you seem steadfastly determined to ignore, is that homosexuals are not asking for any rights that would not also, under the proposed laws, be accorded to heterosexuals. If you illegalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that stops discrimination against heterosexuals also. If you allow same-sex marriage, you give heterosexuals as well the right to marry the consenting adult unrelated same-sex partner of their choice. How does this give gays special privileges? ANSWER ME THAT.
@68: SLOG prunes the URLS of unregistereds. I did a little snooping and reconstructed your link as follows: http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
Seattleblues, feel free to take note like the nice Greek says.
71
@SB: Gay marriages will destroy western society, care to explain that one? All they ask for is the means to fit in this society, by creating - like anyone else is free to do - one of most basic unity of society: a family. Why would you deny them such a thing?
Our society in its whole isn't better that the ones before us. The last century witnessed world wars, genocides, war crimes of a monstrosity rarely seen before (including, amongst so many, the deportation and murder of the homosexuals in camps) Where is the common sense?
In many countries, including yours, being gay is still dangerous. It goes from harassment to murder, including the risk of being thrown out of your house by your parents. Where is the decency?
Is that what you're trying to save? Is the present so perfect that any change can only be for the worst? If you actually are a decent human being, people's lives should matter more to you than books, not matter how great and immortal you consider these stories to be.
It's not about tearing things down. It's about making a not-perfect world a little better by accepting another group of citizens.
If you had lived at another time, I guess you would have said the same thing: why are you trying to destroy society? Don't free the slave! Don't let the women vote!
Gays don't want to take your money nor your job nor your rights.
Our society in its whole isn't better that the ones before us. The last century witnessed world wars, genocides, war crimes of a monstrosity rarely seen before (including, amongst so many, the deportation and murder of the homosexuals in camps) Where is the common sense?
In many countries, including yours, being gay is still dangerous. It goes from harassment to murder, including the risk of being thrown out of your house by your parents. Where is the decency?
Is that what you're trying to save? Is the present so perfect that any change can only be for the worst? If you actually are a decent human being, people's lives should matter more to you than books, not matter how great and immortal you consider these stories to be.
It's not about tearing things down. It's about making a not-perfect world a little better by accepting another group of citizens.
If you had lived at another time, I guess you would have said the same thing: why are you trying to destroy society? Don't free the slave! Don't let the women vote!
Gays don't want to take your money nor your job nor your rights.
72
@70: Oh My God. I followed your link and read the poem, and lo Venomlash, once again, the day belongs to you.
One wonders if the man can actually read at all, judging by how absolutely topsy turvy is his interpretation of that piece.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Seattleblues couldn’t embarrass himself more unless he peed himself in the middle of the grocery store.
One wonders if the man can actually read at all, judging by how absolutely topsy turvy is his interpretation of that piece.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Seattleblues couldn’t embarrass himself more unless he peed himself in the middle of the grocery store.
73
Seattleblues, your choice of biracial sex and marriage has about the same chance of bringing down western civilization as gay sex and marriage.
74
62
didn't you girls already do that after Florida, in 2000?
it was awesome to hear you squealing like stuck bitches forever after-
thanks for the reminder......
didn't you girls already do that after Florida, in 2000?
it was awesome to hear you squealing like stuck bitches forever after-
thanks for the reminder......
75
Seattleblues, it's a good thing that you're worried about barbarians. Indeed you're right: the barbarians are at the gate. Because, as you know, the old Roman empire can no longer hold. The emperor is a joke, a poor little child manipulated by his generals; the empire no longer cares to assimilate that mass of illegal and legal immigrants that it received after Adrianople. The time for Rome is past; Rome is now a ghost. The barbarians are coming; theirs is the future. In that, you are right.
The new age is coming -- and in that, we can all rejoice.
For what is the option? Your anger, Seattleblues? Think about it. You spend time writing messages with the sole purpose of hurting others -- hurting people whose ideals you don't agree with and whom you therefore choose to dehumanize ('barbarians', 'destroyers'...) rather than engaging in dialogue with them.
Does that make you feel righteous, SB? Is this what your god tells you to do -- hurt those who don't agree with you? Kill your principles in order to preserve them? As some of my Christian friends say, do you really think this is what Jesus would do? Or what he wants you to do?
Shouldn't you be talking politely? Giving arguments? Exchanging ideas? Showing your good side? Isn't that a better use of your energies?
Why the anger? Why the ad homines? Why the need to bow to your lower instincts and come to a comment thread only to wield your anger as a weapon, round and round and left and right, to draw blood from those here, to make them suffer -- like, well, the barbarians did in their wars against Rome?
You don't think Jesus would rather you were trying to engage them in dialogue with arguments? (Ah! but it doesn't work! you will say. Well, in this case, why not go for a walk with your wife? What will you gain by drawing the blood of strangers -- other than un-Christian pleasures and immoral satisfactions?
You do your beastliest draw blood from people who simply disagree with your ideals -- and you call them barbarians?
:-)
As before, I take solace in the knowledge that your anger is a harbinger of a better future -- a time in which your opinions will be studied by sociologists and anthropologists who will propose explanations as to why so many people were misled by them. This has happened before, with other similarly curmudgeonly people in history; it will happen with you, too. The cycle of history is not a circle, but a spiral. :-)
More...
The new age is coming -- and in that, we can all rejoice.
For what is the option? Your anger, Seattleblues? Think about it. You spend time writing messages with the sole purpose of hurting others -- hurting people whose ideals you don't agree with and whom you therefore choose to dehumanize ('barbarians', 'destroyers'...) rather than engaging in dialogue with them.
Does that make you feel righteous, SB? Is this what your god tells you to do -- hurt those who don't agree with you? Kill your principles in order to preserve them? As some of my Christian friends say, do you really think this is what Jesus would do? Or what he wants you to do?
Shouldn't you be talking politely? Giving arguments? Exchanging ideas? Showing your good side? Isn't that a better use of your energies?
Why the anger? Why the ad homines? Why the need to bow to your lower instincts and come to a comment thread only to wield your anger as a weapon, round and round and left and right, to draw blood from those here, to make them suffer -- like, well, the barbarians did in their wars against Rome?
You don't think Jesus would rather you were trying to engage them in dialogue with arguments? (Ah! but it doesn't work! you will say. Well, in this case, why not go for a walk with your wife? What will you gain by drawing the blood of strangers -- other than un-Christian pleasures and immoral satisfactions?
You do your beastliest draw blood from people who simply disagree with your ideals -- and you call them barbarians?
:-)
As before, I take solace in the knowledge that your anger is a harbinger of a better future -- a time in which your opinions will be studied by sociologists and anthropologists who will propose explanations as to why so many people were misled by them. This has happened before, with other similarly curmudgeonly people in history; it will happen with you, too. The cycle of history is not a circle, but a spiral. :-)
76
@71 and 73
Clarification-
I do believe that the corrosive effect of the attacks on family, legal and political systems, cultural building blocks like marriage and family and faiths, and the attacks on basic public decorum from the left are dangerous to our society. But the twisting of the definitions of family and marraige to include gay relationships or gays raising kids isn't the whole of that attack, just one flank in the strategy.
@Cavafy
Embarrassed note-
I'm not overfond of Cavafy and haven't read that poem in many years. In it the left would be those lining the streets to welcome the barbarians, not the barbarians themselves. I appreciate the correction, Greek and VL.
Clarification-
I do believe that the corrosive effect of the attacks on family, legal and political systems, cultural building blocks like marriage and family and faiths, and the attacks on basic public decorum from the left are dangerous to our society. But the twisting of the definitions of family and marraige to include gay relationships or gays raising kids isn't the whole of that attack, just one flank in the strategy.
@Cavafy
Embarrassed note-
I'm not overfond of Cavafy and haven't read that poem in many years. In it the left would be those lining the streets to welcome the barbarians, not the barbarians themselves. I appreciate the correction, Greek and VL.
77
I don't even ask you content questions, SB -- Kyrie did that above, and so did others, and you didn't answer.
Because in the end this is not about ideas -- it's all about your anger and your frustration with those darn barbarians who dare to disagree with you... Who dare to think that the way to a better world does not go through the ideas you defend.
How dare they? That's the real offense, isn't it? Same-sex marriage, gays, that's all unimportant; the real problem is, how dare they not agree with your vision of the Ideal World? :-)
And there, of course, I can't help you. That one you'll have to understand by yourself.
Good luck!
Because in the end this is not about ideas -- it's all about your anger and your frustration with those darn barbarians who dare to disagree with you... Who dare to think that the way to a better world does not go through the ideas you defend.
How dare they? That's the real offense, isn't it? Same-sex marriage, gays, that's all unimportant; the real problem is, how dare they not agree with your vision of the Ideal World? :-)
And there, of course, I can't help you. That one you'll have to understand by yourself.
Good luck!
78
As for the barbarians attacking Rome, Seattleblues... Don't forget that the blood of these barbarians flows in the veins of the Founding Fathers of your beloved America, whose demise you now so angrily predict at the hands of the left.
Barbarians are agents of change, and as such they start new phases. Let us hope that the barbarians of today will fulfil their mission. If something like the ideals of America can come from descendants of Germanic barbarians and their ilk, then certainly you can see how today's barbarians may be the beginning of an equally important step forward. At least in principle, as a metaphor, you could see that. Or so I hope.
Again, good luck!
Barbarians are agents of change, and as such they start new phases. Let us hope that the barbarians of today will fulfil their mission. If something like the ideals of America can come from descendants of Germanic barbarians and their ilk, then certainly you can see how today's barbarians may be the beginning of an equally important step forward. At least in principle, as a metaphor, you could see that. Or so I hope.
Again, good luck!
79
76, But you are fine with twisting of the definitions of family and marraige to include biracial relationships or biracial couples raising kids? Many see that as an attack on traditional family values. But it's okay when you are attacking traditional values, right.
80
@76: Tuesday, June 7th. Vermillion, 1508 11th Ave Seattle Wa. Slog Happy.
And, no SB, wrong again. Read, The. Poem. Like, you know, the last lines.
Seriously Seattleblues, why don't you just go cut yourself a switch and hand it to Venomlash since you so enjoy the whuppings he gives you?
And, no SB, wrong again. Read, The. Poem. Like, you know, the last lines.
Seriously Seattleblues, why don't you just go cut yourself a switch and hand it to Venomlash since you so enjoy the whuppings he gives you?
83
@82: Ah! Thank you. I try never to click on unregistered comments any more, so I missed that. So yes, credit where credit is due! To greek, then, do I award my internet laurels.
Well done sir or madam. Well done!
@81: Who was it that was posting all that slash fiction about Seattleblues and Venomlash awhile back? We need her to incorporate my scenario I think. ;)
Well done sir or madam. Well done!
@81: Who was it that was posting all that slash fiction about Seattleblues and Venomlash awhile back? We need her to incorporate my scenario I think. ;)
84
SeattleBlues, gay people already have families. Two-parent, stable, kid-having families. All they/we want is the legal protections that straight families have. Why can we not have that?
In many places and times, inter-racial couples could not legally marry. It was thought that allowing such families would upset the natural order of things. Of course, we all know this was both faulty logic and inhumane--as you and your wife can attest to.
What rational reason do you have for denying legal protection to gay folks who want to marry? How would such marriages harm you?
In many places and times, inter-racial couples could not legally marry. It was thought that allowing such families would upset the natural order of things. Of course, we all know this was both faulty logic and inhumane--as you and your wife can attest to.
What rational reason do you have for denying legal protection to gay folks who want to marry? How would such marriages harm you?
86
@83: There was slash fic? Where? I would love to see that. I don't think I could stomach writing SB, or I'd offer to update whatever fic there was in exchange for getting to read it...
88
Thank you for including "oi varvaroi" by kavafy, i did not read the translated version because i do not think it can as potent and powerful as the original Greek version (which i know and read, I am Greek BTW).
I am just surprised by the level of hate if not self righteousness on this forum, reading SB make me regret one thing... that I did not have the courage to kill myself some decades ago....I will have suffered less from the hatred and the constant bashing of all the SBalike
I am just surprised by the level of hate if not self righteousness on this forum, reading SB make me regret one thing... that I did not have the courage to kill myself some decades ago....I will have suffered less from the hatred and the constant bashing of all the SBalike
89
"Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution. "
Very good poem indeed. But Seattleblues, I really don't see the same thing you do: you are the one waiting for the barbarians, blaming them for everything you think is wrong.
But there are no barbarians coming. For god sake, what rights do they want? To serve in the military, to marry, to have kids. The conservatives should be the one fighting for these rights!
You answered me, but you answer is empty. You repeat gay marriage is an attack on family, but you don't explain how forming a family can be an attack on Family and Marriage.
They want it! They love Marriage and Family just as much as you do! If they didn't care about it, you'd say they're destroying society by refusing marriage anyway.
As for faith, although it is an entire different debate, secular countries did more for religions than religious countries ever did. They protect all religions rights, not just one at the time. And more important, they separate real believers from people who just pretend because it's the law. Unless that's you're great western society, countries where the rules come from one holy book, old of several thousands years old (why not sharia law in that case) and everybody is force to one faith?
And some who have just returned from the border say there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution. "
Very good poem indeed. But Seattleblues, I really don't see the same thing you do: you are the one waiting for the barbarians, blaming them for everything you think is wrong.
But there are no barbarians coming. For god sake, what rights do they want? To serve in the military, to marry, to have kids. The conservatives should be the one fighting for these rights!
You answered me, but you answer is empty. You repeat gay marriage is an attack on family, but you don't explain how forming a family can be an attack on Family and Marriage.
They want it! They love Marriage and Family just as much as you do! If they didn't care about it, you'd say they're destroying society by refusing marriage anyway.
As for faith, although it is an entire different debate, secular countries did more for religions than religious countries ever did. They protect all religions rights, not just one at the time. And more important, they separate real believers from people who just pretend because it's the law. Unless that's you're great western society, countries where the rules come from one holy book, old of several thousands years old (why not sharia law in that case) and everybody is force to one faith?
90
Chaya760,
I'm glad to read you. Glad that you make this world a kinder and gentler place. Fight the seeds of hatred that others try and throw on the soil of your heart, weed them out as they are toxic. I remember that you take "loving your neighbor" very seriously, never forget that you must love yourself inorder to love your neighbors well. Hear me when I say "You are wonderful." Love is the reason, it is the answer, continue in it, and never own the poverty of those who hate.
I look forward to reading you again.
Take care, please.
k
I'm glad to read you. Glad that you make this world a kinder and gentler place. Fight the seeds of hatred that others try and throw on the soil of your heart, weed them out as they are toxic. I remember that you take "loving your neighbor" very seriously, never forget that you must love yourself inorder to love your neighbors well. Hear me when I say "You are wonderful." Love is the reason, it is the answer, continue in it, and never own the poverty of those who hate.
I look forward to reading you again.
Take care, please.
k
91
Seattleblues, I have to respond to your comment @21:
"Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that."
It's really very simple. Sexual orientation is innate. Sexual behavior is a choice.
I don't know about you but all of my attractions to people of either gender have sprung forth unbidden (sorry to be so poetic). Have I had sex with everyone I've been attracted to? Not by a long shot.
"Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that."
It's really very simple. Sexual orientation is innate. Sexual behavior is a choice.
I don't know about you but all of my attractions to people of either gender have sprung forth unbidden (sorry to be so poetic). Have I had sex with everyone I've been attracted to? Not by a long shot.
92
greek here, have registered.
I do not deserve any real credit, Kavafis was a poet who was part of the school curriculum and I enjoyed Modern Lit classes (I started enjoying the Ancient Greek classes more when I figured out that the secret to figuring it out was locating the verb).
Right now, I am wondering if SB is going to mention "Ithaca" as a poem on how good it is to get back home asap.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
And here's another poem (also part of the curriculum) dedicated with lots of love to all the civil rights and equality for all activists across the ages.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
I do not deserve any real credit, Kavafis was a poet who was part of the school curriculum and I enjoyed Modern Lit classes (I started enjoying the Ancient Greek classes more when I figured out that the secret to figuring it out was locating the verb).
Right now, I am wondering if SB is going to mention "Ithaca" as a poem on how good it is to get back home asap.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
And here's another poem (also part of the curriculum) dedicated with lots of love to all the civil rights and equality for all activists across the ages.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
93
Oh, and because I really can't resist, here is a poem by Kavafis that Seattleblues is sure to appreciate.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?…
94
Καλώς ορίστε, somewhereingreece, Chaya760! Δεν είμαι Έλληνας, αλλά μου αρέσει πάρα πολύ η ελληνική γλώσσα. Ευχαριστώ, που ειστε εδώ μαζί μας!
Προφανώς ο Seattleblues δεν γνωρίζει τίποτα για αυτό το θέμα. Θέλει μόνο να βλάψουν άλλους, να εκφράσει το θυμό του, την απογοήτευσή του. Αν ήθελε να μιλήσει, να ανταλλάξουν ιδέες, θα μπορούσαμε να έχουμε μια αξιοπρεπή συνομιλία. Αλλά αυτό δεν είναι αυτό που θέλει. Δυστυχώς, επίσης για τον Seattleblues τον εαυτό του.
Chaya760, συμφωνώ με την Kim in Portland. Είσαι ζωντανός. Αυτό βοηθά τον κόσμο να γίνει ένα ελαφρώς καλύτερη θέση από ό,τι θα ήταν διαφορετικά. Μην το ξεχνάμε αυτό! :-)
More...
Προφανώς ο Seattleblues δεν γνωρίζει τίποτα για αυτό το θέμα. Θέλει μόνο να βλάψουν άλλους, να εκφράσει το θυμό του, την απογοήτευσή του. Αν ήθελε να μιλήσει, να ανταλλάξουν ιδέες, θα μπορούσαμε να έχουμε μια αξιοπρεπή συνομιλία. Αλλά αυτό δεν είναι αυτό που θέλει. Δυστυχώς, επίσης για τον Seattleblues τον εαυτό του.
Chaya760, συμφωνώ με την Kim in Portland. Είσαι ζωντανός. Αυτό βοηθά τον κόσμο να γίνει ένα ελαφρώς καλύτερη θέση από ό,τι θα ήταν διαφορετικά. Μην το ξεχνάμε αυτό! :-)
95
For Seattleblues; a poem by Kavafis (thanks somewhereingreece!)
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς. Και τώρα πια ζητεί
στα χείλη καθενός καινούριου εραστή
τα χείλη τα δικά του· στην ένωσι με κάθε
καινούριον εραστή ζητεί να πλανηθεί
πως είναι ο ίδιος νέος, πως δίδεται σ’ εκείνον.
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς, σαν να μη υπήρχε καν.
Γιατί ήθελε —είπ’ εκείνος— ήθελε να σωθεί
απ’ την στιγματισμένη, την νοσηρά ηδονή·
απ’ την στιγματισμένη, του αίσχους ηδονή.
Ήταν καιρός ακόμη— ως είπε— να σωθεί.
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς, σαν να μη υπήρχε καν.
Aπό την φαντασίαν, από τες παραισθήσεις
στα χείλη άλλων νέων τα χείλη του ζητεί·
γυρεύει να αισθανθεί ξανά τον έρωτά του.
Translation:
He lost him completely. And he now tries to find
his lips in the lips of each new lover,
he tries in the union with each new lover
to convince himself that it’s the same young man,
that it’s to him he gives himself.
He lost him completely, as though he never existed.
He wanted, his lover said, to save himself
from the tainted, unhealthy form of sexual pleasure,
the tainted, shameful form of sexual pleasure.
There was still time, he said, to save himself.
He lost him completely, as though he never existed.
Through fantasy, through hallucination,
he tries to find his lips in the lips of other young men,
he longs to feel his kind of love once more.
More...
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς. Και τώρα πια ζητεί
στα χείλη καθενός καινούριου εραστή
τα χείλη τα δικά του· στην ένωσι με κάθε
καινούριον εραστή ζητεί να πλανηθεί
πως είναι ο ίδιος νέος, πως δίδεται σ’ εκείνον.
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς, σαν να μη υπήρχε καν.
Γιατί ήθελε —είπ’ εκείνος— ήθελε να σωθεί
απ’ την στιγματισμένη, την νοσηρά ηδονή·
απ’ την στιγματισμένη, του αίσχους ηδονή.
Ήταν καιρός ακόμη— ως είπε— να σωθεί.
Τον έχασ’ εντελώς, σαν να μη υπήρχε καν.
Aπό την φαντασίαν, από τες παραισθήσεις
στα χείλη άλλων νέων τα χείλη του ζητεί·
γυρεύει να αισθανθεί ξανά τον έρωτά του.
Translation:
He lost him completely. And he now tries to find
his lips in the lips of each new lover,
he tries in the union with each new lover
to convince himself that it’s the same young man,
that it’s to him he gives himself.
He lost him completely, as though he never existed.
He wanted, his lover said, to save himself
from the tainted, unhealthy form of sexual pleasure,
the tainted, shameful form of sexual pleasure.
There was still time, he said, to save himself.
He lost him completely, as though he never existed.
Through fantasy, through hallucination,
he tries to find his lips in the lips of other young men,
he longs to feel his kind of love once more.
96
SB: You're trying way too hard to sound arch and intellectual. Think with the learned, speak with the vulgar. Reading your posts makes me cringe in sympathetic embarrassment.
98
@21 writes: "Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that."
In the world of logical fallacies, this is known as the false dilemma, bifurcation fallacy, or false dichotomy.
In the world of logical fallacies, this is known as the false dilemma, bifurcation fallacy, or false dichotomy.
99
I just can't resist jumping in late and contributing to the clarification of the Hamlet plot. I hope this helps:
http://www.wesweb.net/audio/hamlet.mp3
Venomlash- I actually passed this on to a prof at the UofC. He said he was going to include it in his course- not sure if he ever did.
=)
http://www.wesweb.net/audio/hamlet.mp3
Venomlash- I actually passed this on to a prof at the UofC. He said he was going to include it in his course- not sure if he ever did.
=)
100
Seattleblues:
"Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that."
This seems obviously wrong. Surely some sexual behaviour can be a choice and some can't?
For example a man might get an erection without wanting to, but rape is a chosen behaviour.
"Either all sexual behavior is choice driven and we can with intellectual consistency condemn certain sexual behaviors, or none of it is, and we can't. It really is as simple as that."
This seems obviously wrong. Surely some sexual behaviour can be a choice and some can't?
For example a man might get an erection without wanting to, but rape is a chosen behaviour.
101
It is fortunate that Santorum refused to accept the elderly voter's offer to dry his pants. It is probably the only energy conservation move, albeit unintentionally, that he will ever make!
Ibn
Simpsonville, SC
Ibn
Simpsonville, SC
104
Ole Ricky the sticky Santorum, getting it from "both ends". Now if we could just get him to shut his pie hole and go away we would'nt have to hear about all these wet and gooey encounters. Go Away........................Rick !!!!!!!!!!!
105
Ole Ricky Sticky Santorum is really getting it from both ends. Now if someone would stuff his nasty pie hole with something interesting maybe it would stop the rederick that continues to shoot out of it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (105) RSS