Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 27, 2011
Breaking News Dan's New Threat to Rick Santorum!
Posted by David Schmader on Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:57 AM
13
I love the fact that you're resorting to cheap, cowardly threats. If he restrains himself, you should redefine his name anyway. He's earned it. (I know I'm overreaching a bit, but... The name "Adolf" used to be perfectly respectable.)
14
I hope you're prepared to follow through on that, Dan. Will it count if he sends another pitiful fundraising email about how the gays are being mean to him?
17
Great work, Dan!
I watched this from joemygod.com and have already forwarded the link to over a dozen people. The response from them has been overwhelmingly a "thumbs up."
Now, I'd love to see what ol' Santorum's response will be - will he "behave" or will he continue his douchebaggery?
I watched this from joemygod.com and have already forwarded the link to over a dozen people. The response from them has been overwhelmingly a "thumbs up."
Now, I'd love to see what ol' Santorum's response will be - will he "behave" or will he continue his douchebaggery?
19
He didn't compare gay sex to pedophilia. He commented on Lawrence v. Texas that A) He didn't believe there was a constitutional "right to privacy" and B) If the government was constitutionally prohibited from regulating things that occur in the privacy of the bedroom, they were constitutionally prohibited from regulating things like "man on dog" sex.
Scalia said something similar in his dissent.
That is not "comparing homosexuality to bestiality" it was simply a challenge to the legal merits of Lawrence v. Texas.
Yeah, mocking him is real mature.
Scalia said something similar in his dissent.
That is not "comparing homosexuality to bestiality" it was simply a challenge to the legal merits of Lawrence v. Texas.
Yeah, mocking him is real mature.
20
@19--Sorry, but what Santorum said was precisely a comparison of homosexuality to bestiality.
It was also the slippery slope argument. After all--if two consenting adults of the same gender are legally allowed to have sex, what's to stop one consenting adult and one consenting cocker spaniel?
It was also the slippery slope argument. After all--if two consenting adults of the same gender are legally allowed to have sex, what's to stop one consenting adult and one consenting cocker spaniel?
22
@21 It annoys me that you had prove the jackass @19 wrong. Your comment @10 should've allowed you to drop the mic and walk off stage.
23
@21 That's still not comparing them, except to say they are both not "one man, one woman" or whatever his definition of marriage is. He's not in any sense saying they are similar, except that they are both different from "the definition of marriage."
27
@17
His response? If he's wise the only response to a depraved and vicious bully like Savage is to ignore him.
Savage clearly showed who and what he is in this video, a man no decent person would have conversation with never mind do business or othewise engage. He's without any sense of what is or isn't appropriate public discourse. He's incapable of differentiating political as opposed to personal differences. He's an overgrown spoiled child rotted by his own filthy sewer passing for a mind. Well, sort of passing for a mind.
Why respond to such a man? Why grant him the legitimacy of such a response?
Parenthetically, where did Savage find men who would sit and listen to his filth for more than a few words? Any sane man would have walked out after a sentence or two.
His response? If he's wise the only response to a depraved and vicious bully like Savage is to ignore him.
Savage clearly showed who and what he is in this video, a man no decent person would have conversation with never mind do business or othewise engage. He's without any sense of what is or isn't appropriate public discourse. He's incapable of differentiating political as opposed to personal differences. He's an overgrown spoiled child rotted by his own filthy sewer passing for a mind. Well, sort of passing for a mind.
Why respond to such a man? Why grant him the legitimacy of such a response?
Parenthetically, where did Savage find men who would sit and listen to his filth for more than a few words? Any sane man would have walked out after a sentence or two.
28
@19
Don't confuse the children with FACTS! They're used to reading Mudede and Constant and Savage and Goldstein.
@25
No. Mr. Santorum said that we don't countenance certain things as marriage, and that case decided that way was decided correctly.
Just because strawberries and flour are both on my grocery list doesn't make them the same, except that they're both things I'd find at a market. Because more than one kind of sexual behavior was on Mr. Santorums list doesn't mean he rates them the same morally or legally.
Don't confuse the children with FACTS! They're used to reading Mudede and Constant and Savage and Goldstein.
@25
No. Mr. Santorum said that we don't countenance certain things as marriage, and that case decided that way was decided correctly.
Just because strawberries and flour are both on my grocery list doesn't make them the same, except that they're both things I'd find at a market. Because more than one kind of sexual behavior was on Mr. Santorums list doesn't mean he rates them the same morally or legally.
30
Unfortunately, since Mr. Santorum is a public figure he has no recourse to libel or slander laws. A nice juicy settlement might have taught Savage the value of decent public speech.
But I doubt it. I don't think his cesspit mind is capable of any better.
But I doubt it. I don't think his cesspit mind is capable of any better.
32
@25 That's a perfectly reasonable point. I'm not arguing the logic, I'm just clarifying what Santorum said.
Let's change the words. Someone wants to call "yogurt" a beverage. Santorum says "Yogurt is not a beverage. Never in this history of the civilized world has yogurt been a beverage. I'm not picking on yogurt. Mashed potatoes, ice cream and cake are also not beverages."
So, is he saying yogurt is like mashed potatoes? Or cake? That any of those have, on their merits, a similar claim to be called a beverage as yogurt does?
Hence my clarification, "he isn't saying they are similar, *except* that they are both different from the "definition of marriage."
Comparison, at least the type that could be offensive, would involve saying things are similar. Saying "Dan Savage and Michele Bachmann are both not Hitler" is not comparing Dan Savage and Michele Bachmann, offensive as that might be.
Let's change the words. Someone wants to call "yogurt" a beverage. Santorum says "Yogurt is not a beverage. Never in this history of the civilized world has yogurt been a beverage. I'm not picking on yogurt. Mashed potatoes, ice cream and cake are also not beverages."
So, is he saying yogurt is like mashed potatoes? Or cake? That any of those have, on their merits, a similar claim to be called a beverage as yogurt does?
Hence my clarification, "he isn't saying they are similar, *except* that they are both different from the "definition of marriage."
Comparison, at least the type that could be offensive, would involve saying things are similar. Saying "Dan Savage and Michele Bachmann are both not Hitler" is not comparing Dan Savage and Michele Bachmann, offensive as that might be.
33
@31
Savage and people like him are decaying my country. They attack anything decent or honorable. They have no beliefs except the pleasure of the moment, no sense of what's owed their fellows in a society. The are barbarians, in the truest sense of the word.
Oddly, this kind of behavior offends me. This is differentiated from what a public figure viciously attacked by Savage ought to do. He or she ought to treat the bully with disdain and ignore him. No contradiction, for a rational mind.
Savage and people like him are decaying my country. They attack anything decent or honorable. They have no beliefs except the pleasure of the moment, no sense of what's owed their fellows in a society. The are barbarians, in the truest sense of the word.
Oddly, this kind of behavior offends me. This is differentiated from what a public figure viciously attacked by Savage ought to do. He or she ought to treat the bully with disdain and ignore him. No contradiction, for a rational mind.
35
@34
com·pare [ kəm pér ]
examine people or things for similarities: to examine two or more people or things in order to discover similarities and differences between them
liken somebody or something to another: to consider or represent somebody or something as similar to another
If he's not saying they are in any way similar, he's not comparing them. Saying they are both "not marriage" is not saying they are similar.
com·pare [ kəm pér ]
examine people or things for similarities: to examine two or more people or things in order to discover similarities and differences between them
liken somebody or something to another: to consider or represent somebody or something as similar to another
If he's not saying they are in any way similar, he's not comparing them. Saying they are both "not marriage" is not saying they are similar.
37
33, So you think responding to Dan on Slog is saving your country? You think you can make Dan see the error of his ways? Is that why you obsess over Dan's every post? Maybe you can make Dan realize that he's not really gay? You can convince him that he's just a straight guy who's sinning?
I say Dan is saving our country from people like you, who are decaying it.
I say Dan is saving our country from people like you, who are decaying it.
38
@36
First, you can keep linking the Santorum google search all you like. Vicious unwarranted attacks on another for having a different opinion ala Mr. Santorums contrived 'google problem' tell much more about the kind of mind creating the definition than anything else.
Second, you can willfully disregard the fact that Mr. Santorum making a list of 'things NOT marriage' isn't the same as comparing them. If you like.
Finally, there are no human rights at issue here. Gay men can marry a woman, same as I can. Lesbian woman can marry a man, same as my wife can. They aren't being denied marriage, just the 'right' to change it to their tastes.
Homosexuals aren't being denied the right to seek love or just sex with anyone, gay or otherwise. They aren't being denied housing or jobs or public accomodation. They're simply being told that they have not got the right to capriciously re-define society for the vast majority of their fellow citizens.
First, you can keep linking the Santorum google search all you like. Vicious unwarranted attacks on another for having a different opinion ala Mr. Santorums contrived 'google problem' tell much more about the kind of mind creating the definition than anything else.
Second, you can willfully disregard the fact that Mr. Santorum making a list of 'things NOT marriage' isn't the same as comparing them. If you like.
Finally, there are no human rights at issue here. Gay men can marry a woman, same as I can. Lesbian woman can marry a man, same as my wife can. They aren't being denied marriage, just the 'right' to change it to their tastes.
Homosexuals aren't being denied the right to seek love or just sex with anyone, gay or otherwise. They aren't being denied housing or jobs or public accomodation. They're simply being told that they have not got the right to capriciously re-define society for the vast majority of their fellow citizens.
39
@Mr. Johsua and Seattle Blues--
How explicit a does a comparison have to get before you recognize it as a comparison?
Santorum was saying if we are not constitutionally allowed to prohibit one disgusting act (like homosexual sex) then we have no constitutional basis for preventing another disgusting act (bestiality).
Not that I think homosexual sex is disgusting. But Santorum clearly does.
Nothing Santorum says takes into account factors that might differentiate homosexual sex from bestiality. Minor factors like...oh, say...informed consent, which an adult human is clearly capable of giving, and which no cocker spaniel, of any age, can give.
How explicit a does a comparison have to get before you recognize it as a comparison?
Santorum was saying if we are not constitutionally allowed to prohibit one disgusting act (like homosexual sex) then we have no constitutional basis for preventing another disgusting act (bestiality).
Not that I think homosexual sex is disgusting. But Santorum clearly does.
Nothing Santorum says takes into account factors that might differentiate homosexual sex from bestiality. Minor factors like...oh, say...informed consent, which an adult human is clearly capable of giving, and which no cocker spaniel, of any age, can give.
40
@37
Lets see-
On my side is the respect for family, a reasonable level of public behavior, retention of key social structures that have served us well for millenia and an understanding that my behavior occurs in the context of others in my community.
On Savages side 'monogamish' nonsense making marriage or fidelity a mockery, sexual morals that would make a tom-cat look positively prudish, and a complete inabitily to advance past the developmental stage of a truculent 12 year old. Coupled, of course, with a missionary zeal to spread his behavior among his fellows, presumably so that it looks a bit less objectionable.
Yeah, I'm going to go with Savage and his ilk as the decaying factor, if it's all the same to you.
Lets see-
On my side is the respect for family, a reasonable level of public behavior, retention of key social structures that have served us well for millenia and an understanding that my behavior occurs in the context of others in my community.
On Savages side 'monogamish' nonsense making marriage or fidelity a mockery, sexual morals that would make a tom-cat look positively prudish, and a complete inabitily to advance past the developmental stage of a truculent 12 year old. Coupled, of course, with a missionary zeal to spread his behavior among his fellows, presumably so that it looks a bit less objectionable.
Yeah, I'm going to go with Savage and his ilk as the decaying factor, if it's all the same to you.
41
38, again, that is comparing them, and so was Santorum.
When interracial marriage was illegal, people said everyone had equal rights because while a black person couldn't marry a white person, a white person couldn't marry a black person. The same laws that prevent a you from marrying a person of the same sex are just as unconstitutional as the laws that prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the same sex.
When interracial marriage was illegal, people said everyone had equal rights because while a black person couldn't marry a white person, a white person couldn't marry a black person. The same laws that prevent a you from marrying a person of the same sex are just as unconstitutional as the laws that prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the same sex.
42
I liked the side-eyes to peoples' teleprompters, thoroughly approve of all lighting/makeup/hair/outfit, loved that the newsreader lady's snap decision to pronounce that word "neo-LOW-gism", adored seeing Rick Fox (oh, "Party Down", how we miss thee!), and a great thread, even with SB pushing out his turtlehead in the usual way.
44
@41
A black person is genetically different from a white one in no significant way. They aren't less intelligent or less human or less anything. They were born with a different skin color, that's all.
A gay person chose the only thing that distinguishes them from others, that in their mind makes them a minority deserving of protection. Again, not less anything thant their fellow citizens, but their difference is choice bases, not one of nature.
We are in the process of fixing manifest injustice in our history of race relations, and should be. We can and should protect gay citizens civil rights in the same way we do heterosexual citizens.
But comparing the very real struggle for civil rights black people, or Asian or Mexican, faced and face with the illusory struggle for invented rights gay citizens do isn't just wrong. It's insulting.
A black person is genetically different from a white one in no significant way. They aren't less intelligent or less human or less anything. They were born with a different skin color, that's all.
A gay person chose the only thing that distinguishes them from others, that in their mind makes them a minority deserving of protection. Again, not less anything thant their fellow citizens, but their difference is choice bases, not one of nature.
We are in the process of fixing manifest injustice in our history of race relations, and should be. We can and should protect gay citizens civil rights in the same way we do heterosexual citizens.
But comparing the very real struggle for civil rights black people, or Asian or Mexican, faced and face with the illusory struggle for invented rights gay citizens do isn't just wrong. It's insulting.
45
40, In your first paragraph, you claim the moral high ground, then in the second paragraph, set out doing what you say you condemn.
46
44, So you only choose to be straight? The only thing holding you back from your same sex attraction is your religious beliefs? Your belief in Jesus is the only thing keeping you from sucking dick?
Gay people didn't choose their sexual orientation, nor did they choose what sex they were born. Gay people have been around from the dawn of man, and we will be around as long as mankind exists.
The laws that prevent you from marrying someone of the same sex are just as unconstitutional as the laws that prevent gay people from doing the same.
Gay people didn't choose their sexual orientation, nor did they choose what sex they were born. Gay people have been around from the dawn of man, and we will be around as long as mankind exists.
The laws that prevent you from marrying someone of the same sex are just as unconstitutional as the laws that prevent gay people from doing the same.
47
Seattle lies, you're the guy who said that there was no increase in global temperatures when, in fact, there were. So you have a real credibility problem because you were caught in a falsehood which you still haven't admitted.
49
Geez, how hard is this?
In defining a thing, I necessarily place everything else outside of the definition. That all those things are 'not' whatever I'm defining doesn't ipso facto make them all the same, or not the same. It just makes them 'not x.'
Savage can throw a years long hissy fit if he likes. It's his right to make a public clown of himself, and one he clearly enjoys exercising. What he can't do, though he seems not to know this, is redefine language and reality as well as marriage for his personal convenience.
In defining a thing, I necessarily place everything else outside of the definition. That all those things are 'not' whatever I'm defining doesn't ipso facto make them all the same, or not the same. It just makes them 'not x.'
Savage can throw a years long hissy fit if he likes. It's his right to make a public clown of himself, and one he clearly enjoys exercising. What he can't do, though he seems not to know this, is redefine language and reality as well as marriage for his personal convenience.
50
49, But your hissy fit over what Dan says are superior, right? You call him a clown, but yet you can't resist patrolling Slog hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, etc.
You enjoy the redefinition of marriage from the 60's Supreme Court decision in Loving vs Virginia so that it now includes biracial sex and marriage. Seems pretty convenient for you.
You enjoy the redefinition of marriage from the 60's Supreme Court decision in Loving vs Virginia so that it now includes biracial sex and marriage. Seems pretty convenient for you.
51
Someday pompous prigs and poltroons like Seattleblues may realize that true indecency is not found in words—sounds bouncing around the valves and chambers of the respiratory tract, someone typing on a blog, or the *bleeeep* of the censor writing them clearly in our minds notwithstanding—but in actual grief and loss inflicted without just cause or mercy.
53
@46
This canard again?
Tell me, how can we condemn a person who acts on bestiality or pedophilia in your philosphy? After all, sexual inclinations are innate. We are the entirely helpless victims of them, yes?
Well, for those of us who realize sexual behavior is in fact chosen, no. We can distinguish between the consensual adult behavior of homosexuals and the innnately victimizing one of pedophilia or bestiality.
We can say that the first, while not our taste is also not our business morally or legally. We can draw the clear moral and legal distinctions between sexual behaviors like homosexuality and bestiality precisely because we know that they are in fact choices.
But you can't, at least with intellectual integrity. Where there is no choice, there can clearly be no crime or moral fault. It's you, not we, who make the child or goat molestor equal to the homosexual with your rhetoric. Sure, we could institutionalize the child molestor as a public danger under your beliefs. But we could never incarcerate them or hold them morally accountable for their actions.
Either all sexual behavior is at some level choice, or none of it is. Either all gays have the choice, or no child molestor does. It really is as simple as that.
This canard again?
Tell me, how can we condemn a person who acts on bestiality or pedophilia in your philosphy? After all, sexual inclinations are innate. We are the entirely helpless victims of them, yes?
Well, for those of us who realize sexual behavior is in fact chosen, no. We can distinguish between the consensual adult behavior of homosexuals and the innnately victimizing one of pedophilia or bestiality.
We can say that the first, while not our taste is also not our business morally or legally. We can draw the clear moral and legal distinctions between sexual behaviors like homosexuality and bestiality precisely because we know that they are in fact choices.
But you can't, at least with intellectual integrity. Where there is no choice, there can clearly be no crime or moral fault. It's you, not we, who make the child or goat molestor equal to the homosexual with your rhetoric. Sure, we could institutionalize the child molestor as a public danger under your beliefs. But we could never incarcerate them or hold them morally accountable for their actions.
Either all sexual behavior is at some level choice, or none of it is. Either all gays have the choice, or no child molestor does. It really is as simple as that.
54
Mr. Joshua and Seattleblues should run away and get married to each other. They're perfectly compatible. Plus, they're each obviously fascinated with gay people and gay sex. Then, maybe we could have some peace while they're away on their honeymoon, screwing each others brains out. And then, after they settle down together to a long and happy life, they would realize they've both found true happiness and wouldn't need to annoy people on blogs to get their jollies anymore.
55
Seattleblues, the definition of marriage has changed over the years. It's a flexible institution that can accept two consenting same-gendered adults. Same old arguments apply. Straights aren't doing such a great job w/ marriage. Denying gays would be basically unfair. Being gay is not a choice, so, why deny two consenting gay adults the right to wed?
And, like I always ask, when did you choose to be straight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
And, like I always ask, when did you choose to be straight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
56
@55 - I had never seen that video. That's awesome. Reminds me of someone on Youtube (I don't remember who, or I'd link to his rant) who said something along the lines of "If homosexuality were a choice, I'd have done it by now. I'm thirty years old, and I've been bored enough times to have given it a go at least once."
58
SB You enjoy being willfully obtuse don't you? In case you really ARE this stupid, then please explain what part of "consenting adults" you do not understand.
"It's you, not we, who make the child or goat molestor equal to the homosexual with your rhetoric." [Citation needed]
"It's you, not we, who make the child or goat molestor equal to the homosexual with your rhetoric." [Citation needed]
59
SeaBlu summary - I'm jealous of Dan Savage and that scares me so I rant about it in text on a blog. Now I'm going to run away and play with my wife/son/dog/business partner because those big meanies keep calling me on my bullshit. IM THE VICTIM HERE!!!
60
53, Legalizing the chosen behaviors of biracial sex and marriage, both of which you practice, didn't lead to sex and marriage with children or animals.
Do you really not know the difference between children, animals, and consenting adults? Children or animals cannot understand adult human sexuality, and cannot really make a knowing choice about it. They cannot defend themselves, thus we have laws protecting them. We are talking about adult human beings here.
Do you really not know the difference between children, animals, and consenting adults? Children or animals cannot understand adult human sexuality, and cannot really make a knowing choice about it. They cannot defend themselves, thus we have laws protecting them. We are talking about adult human beings here.
61
@60 But it did lead to same-sex marriage. A toast to the trailblazing miscegenists! We truly wouldn't be where we are today without them.
62
He didn't say "gay sex is like man on dog sex," he didn't say "we don't allow gay sex and bestiality are banned because they sicken me." You're all just reading that into what he said.
He did say, "this is a redefinition of marriage. Other things would also be a redefinition of marriage. People with pineapples or pinatas, but don't pretend it isn't a redefinition of marriage."
The usual response is (or should be) so what? The current definition is discriminatory, asserting that a homosexual couple is different from a heterosexual couple and denying them the same rights. Also, you can point to previous redefinitions: anti-miscegenation laws (1660s-1940s) and anti-anti-miscegenation (Supreme Court in 1967), no fault divorce and other women's liberation victories. Or you could attempt to show how gay marriage is not different from various historical systems and this isn't a redefinition at all.
On the other hand, if you think these are all weak arguments, you can misrepresent what the arguer said and then call him names.
He did say, "this is a redefinition of marriage. Other things would also be a redefinition of marriage. People with pineapples or pinatas, but don't pretend it isn't a redefinition of marriage."
The usual response is (or should be) so what? The current definition is discriminatory, asserting that a homosexual couple is different from a heterosexual couple and denying them the same rights. Also, you can point to previous redefinitions: anti-miscegenation laws (1660s-1940s) and anti-anti-miscegenation (Supreme Court in 1967), no fault divorce and other women's liberation victories. Or you could attempt to show how gay marriage is not different from various historical systems and this isn't a redefinition at all.
On the other hand, if you think these are all weak arguments, you can misrepresent what the arguer said and then call him names.
63
@60
You're reading selectively, as Savage did with Mr. Santorum.
I don't for a moment believe that all gay men are pedophiles or into bestiality. I don't believe that gays marrying will lead to either perversion. I don't believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality among consenting adults are in any way equivalent to sexual behaviors which require victims to exist.
What I wrote had to do with a logical necessity. Either all sexual behavior is chosen, or none is. The necrophiliac chose to act on his loathsome predilection, as does the child molester. My wife and likewise choose to act on our heterosexual inclinations, as does any gay couple. Because I know the behavior to be a choice, this presents no problems for me.
For you however, with your belief in our helplessness in the face of sexual inclinations, it does. Where there is no choice, there can be no fault at least in the Western moral and legal environment. So we could place those whose sexual behavior victimizes others into institutions, under your beliefs, for the protection of others.
We could not however meaningfully criminally convict a person who had no choice in their behavior. Nor can we rationally assign moral fault for the same reason.
It is, again, precisely those who see sexuality as choiceless that equate all forms of it. Those of us who know it is in fact always a choice can easily draw the distinctions between good or neutral sexual behavior and harmful sexual behavior.
You're reading selectively, as Savage did with Mr. Santorum.
I don't for a moment believe that all gay men are pedophiles or into bestiality. I don't believe that gays marrying will lead to either perversion. I don't believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality among consenting adults are in any way equivalent to sexual behaviors which require victims to exist.
What I wrote had to do with a logical necessity. Either all sexual behavior is chosen, or none is. The necrophiliac chose to act on his loathsome predilection, as does the child molester. My wife and likewise choose to act on our heterosexual inclinations, as does any gay couple. Because I know the behavior to be a choice, this presents no problems for me.
For you however, with your belief in our helplessness in the face of sexual inclinations, it does. Where there is no choice, there can be no fault at least in the Western moral and legal environment. So we could place those whose sexual behavior victimizes others into institutions, under your beliefs, for the protection of others.
We could not however meaningfully criminally convict a person who had no choice in their behavior. Nor can we rationally assign moral fault for the same reason.
It is, again, precisely those who see sexuality as choiceless that equate all forms of it. Those of us who know it is in fact always a choice can easily draw the distinctions between good or neutral sexual behavior and harmful sexual behavior.
66
@63 Willfully obtuse it is!
"Either all sexual behavior is chosen, or none is."
False dichotomy, idiot.
"So we could place those whose sexual behavior victimizes others into institutions, under your beliefs, for the protection of others."
We already do, dumbass. It's called prison.
"We could not however meaningfully criminally convict a person who had no choice in their behavior. Nor can we rationally assign moral fault for the same reason."
Insanity defense/civil commitment. Happens all the time.
But again, none of your points demonstrate that you understand the concept of 'consent'. You still cannot show how same-sex marriage harms your bi-racial marriage (pearl-clutching about 'moral decay' doesn't cut it).
What does your wife think of your twisted concept of civil rights? Is she even allowed her own opinion in Chez Blah?
"Either all sexual behavior is chosen, or none is."
False dichotomy, idiot.
"So we could place those whose sexual behavior victimizes others into institutions, under your beliefs, for the protection of others."
We already do, dumbass. It's called prison.
"We could not however meaningfully criminally convict a person who had no choice in their behavior. Nor can we rationally assign moral fault for the same reason."
Insanity defense/civil commitment. Happens all the time.
But again, none of your points demonstrate that you understand the concept of 'consent'. You still cannot show how same-sex marriage harms your bi-racial marriage (pearl-clutching about 'moral decay' doesn't cut it).
What does your wife think of your twisted concept of civil rights? Is she even allowed her own opinion in Chez Blah?
68
@65
We don't.
Seriously this isn't that difficult. Homosexual tendencies may or may not be part of a person. Whatever the case, sexual behavior (as opposed to inclination) is always chosen, or someone is being raped. There isn't a third option.
We don't.
Seriously this isn't that difficult. Homosexual tendencies may or may not be part of a person. Whatever the case, sexual behavior (as opposed to inclination) is always chosen, or someone is being raped. There isn't a third option.
69
@ 68, it's difficult because you're contradicting yourself. "We don't [choose who to be attracted to]" is not compatible with "Homosexual tendencies may or may not be part of a person." "We don't" is certain, "may or may not" is not certain.
So... Let's drop the "homo" from "homosexuality" and ask: Are sexual tendencies part of a person? Yes, no, or we don't know?
So... Let's drop the "homo" from "homosexuality" and ask: Are sexual tendencies part of a person? Yes, no, or we don't know?
70
Speaking of willfully obtuse-
Please explain how the false dichotomy applies.
Prison is where we send those who made criminal choices knowingly and now must suffer the consequences.
Know why civil comittment or the insanity defense exist? That would be because we do not hold criminally accountable those lacking choice or cognizance of it. But we recognize that some people on the streets will hurt themselves or others whether they understand that this is what they're doing or not, and must be institutionalized.
And there's a reason for this. Our criminal laws are basically the codified expression of the predominant social mores in our culture. That is, over time some concepts of morality become so ingrained in a culture that they're just accepted as right and wrong without question.
'Don't hurt other people', we say. Or 'don't take their stuff.' Or 'don't create disorder so that others can't enjoy public places.'
Which is what I was saying, only you didn't understand it.
This is shown by your failure to understand that 'consent' underlies everything I've written.
Please explain how the false dichotomy applies.
Prison is where we send those who made criminal choices knowingly and now must suffer the consequences.
Know why civil comittment or the insanity defense exist? That would be because we do not hold criminally accountable those lacking choice or cognizance of it. But we recognize that some people on the streets will hurt themselves or others whether they understand that this is what they're doing or not, and must be institutionalized.
And there's a reason for this. Our criminal laws are basically the codified expression of the predominant social mores in our culture. That is, over time some concepts of morality become so ingrained in a culture that they're just accepted as right and wrong without question.
'Don't hurt other people', we say. Or 'don't take their stuff.' Or 'don't create disorder so that others can't enjoy public places.'
Which is what I was saying, only you didn't understand it.
This is shown by your failure to understand that 'consent' underlies everything I've written.
71
Children, children! Please, please stop bickering and stay on topic.
Look, I'm a fan of Dan Savage. I don't have much beef with the initial Santorum campaign, though I do think it got out of hand. But this crossed a big fat line. Blackmail is NOT okay, regardless of how horrible the views you're trying to suppress might be. Am I seriously the only one who sees something wrong with threatening someone with personal (and permanent) damage if he should run on some platform or other? Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"?
Santorum isn't guilty of hate speech. He's actually pretty mild, as far as the gay bashers go. At most, he's kind of a ridiculous fool, but I don't think he's vile. Picking on him *again*, when he has virtually no prospects of winning the nomination, makes it look like Dan is just enjoying the power trip.
Look, I'm a fan of Dan Savage. I don't have much beef with the initial Santorum campaign, though I do think it got out of hand. But this crossed a big fat line. Blackmail is NOT okay, regardless of how horrible the views you're trying to suppress might be. Am I seriously the only one who sees something wrong with threatening someone with personal (and permanent) damage if he should run on some platform or other? Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"?
Santorum isn't guilty of hate speech. He's actually pretty mild, as far as the gay bashers go. At most, he's kind of a ridiculous fool, but I don't think he's vile. Picking on him *again*, when he has virtually no prospects of winning the nomination, makes it look like Dan is just enjoying the power trip.
72
@69
"Yes, no, or we don't know?" I certainly don't know with any certainty.
For instance, am I attracted to dark haired slender women because of some childhood experiences or genetic inclination or some combination of the two? Hell, I don't know. I just know that I am. So should I have sex with every willing dark haired slender woman I can? Should I treat them as meaningless outlets for sexual arousal? Should I hurt and dishonoring my wife? Should I give my kids a lousy example of how a father and husband behaves rather than respectfully and lovingly to those who rely on him? Absolutely not.
Where the inclination derives isn't the mark of character for me. What we choose to do with it is.
"Yes, no, or we don't know?" I certainly don't know with any certainty.
For instance, am I attracted to dark haired slender women because of some childhood experiences or genetic inclination or some combination of the two? Hell, I don't know. I just know that I am. So should I have sex with every willing dark haired slender woman I can? Should I treat them as meaningless outlets for sexual arousal? Should I hurt and dishonoring my wife? Should I give my kids a lousy example of how a father and husband behaves rather than respectfully and lovingly to those who rely on him? Absolutely not.
Where the inclination derives isn't the mark of character for me. What we choose to do with it is.
73
@68, Matt from Denver is not asking how one chooses to have sex with another person, but how one chooses their desire for another person. Sex is chosen, sexuality is not. Pedophiles and zoophiles have an ingrained sexuality the same way heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc... have an ingrained sexuality. The difference is that while a pedophile or zoophile cannot choose the objects of their desire, they cannot choose to act on their sexual desire without becoming a rapist. We do not lock up pedophiles for their attraction to children, we lock them up for raping children or acting as accessories to the sexual abuse and rape of children. Acknowledging that sexuality is ingrained is not the same at all as affirming sex with children or dogs. Letting same-sex couples marry is not the same as opening marriage up for pedophilic relationships or zoophilic relationships. That change to marriage could only occur if marriage were redefined to include non-consensual relationships which is fundamentally different from marriage as we know it today, which is a contract which can be entered only with the consent of both parties and exited freely if that consent is withdrawn.
74
@72, You should have sex with as many consenting dark-haired slender women as you feel is comfortable. Your relationships with others (such as the one with your wife) may make you comfortable only having one sexual partner. No one here is suggesting that having a sexuality, whether ingrained genetically or environmentally, means that you must screw everyone you find sexually attractive.
75
@33- It's not YOUR country. It's OUR country. And you're a shitty-ass country-mate. You're like a vegan roommate who keeps throwing out your other roommate's butter. I'm not making you eat it, don't touch it. If it tempts you so damn much, maybe you're just not meant to be vegan.
In case you missed it, I'm implying you want to have sex with men.
In case you missed it, I'm implying you want to have sex with men.
76
@75
Fair point about 'our' country.
But wait...
Vegans don't eat butter? How do they stand on cheese?
Meat I kind of get in a vague way, though I'm not interested in foregoing my steaks or lamb chops personally. But butter? Dairy cows hurt when you don't milk them, not when you do.
Oh, kudos for the highly original 'you must be gaaaay' insult. Haven't heard that more than a couple dozen times here.
Fair point about 'our' country.
But wait...
Vegans don't eat butter? How do they stand on cheese?
Meat I kind of get in a vague way, though I'm not interested in foregoing my steaks or lamb chops personally. But butter? Dairy cows hurt when you don't milk them, not when you do.
Oh, kudos for the highly original 'you must be gaaaay' insult. Haven't heard that more than a couple dozen times here.
78
@ 72, you keep taking these things beyond the point. "I don't know" will suffice, as will your attraction to women. (Body type and hair color constitute changeable tastes.)
So, we know that you don't know why you, personally, are attracted to women instead of men. Fair enough - I don't know why I am, either.
As samktg points out, there's a distinction here between sexuality and sexual intercourse. As samktg and others have pointed out, here and on many other threads, sexual intercourse is beside the point, because it isn't the sexual intercourse that makes one hetero or homosexual; and sex isn't what defines the lifelong relationship of a loving couple.
So, we know that you don't know why you, personally, are attracted to women instead of men. Fair enough - I don't know why I am, either.
As samktg points out, there's a distinction here between sexuality and sexual intercourse. As samktg and others have pointed out, here and on many other threads, sexual intercourse is beside the point, because it isn't the sexual intercourse that makes one hetero or homosexual; and sex isn't what defines the lifelong relationship of a loving couple.
79
@76- It's not an insult. It's just something that you need to come to terms with. You'll probably stop being as much of an asshole once you do.
Or maybe you're not gay. In which case I don't know what will make you stop being an asshole, but I hope for everyone's sake you figure something out.
Or maybe you're not gay. In which case I don't know what will make you stop being an asshole, but I hope for everyone's sake you figure something out.
81
@20
@21
wow- that Rick is sure a tool.
and Obama?
even worse!
of course Danny went ballistic when the Democrap President he had endorsed compared homosexuality to incest and marrying children.
Right?
of COURSE he did.....
"President Obama’s Justice Department filed legal papers late Thursday to dismiss the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court.
But many arguments being made by the Obama administration are meeting with some outrage by supporters of same sex marriage –
Writing at Americablog John Aravosis cited a passage saying that “the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy…And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.”
The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, and re Mortenson's Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
“Holy cow,” wrote Aravosis. “Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.”"
@21
wow- that Rick is sure a tool.
and Obama?
even worse!
of course Danny went ballistic when the Democrap President he had endorsed compared homosexuality to incest and marrying children.
Right?
of COURSE he did.....
"President Obama’s Justice Department filed legal papers late Thursday to dismiss the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court.
But many arguments being made by the Obama administration are meeting with some outrage by supporters of same sex marriage –
Writing at Americablog John Aravosis cited a passage saying that “the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy…And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.”
The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, and re Mortenson's Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
“Holy cow,” wrote Aravosis. “Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.”"
82
@20
@21
professors, please parce this brief by Obama's "Justice" Dept with particular care to the meaning of the word 'compare';
as in
"Sorry, but what the Obama Justice Dept said was precisely a comparison of homosexuality to Incest and Child Rape."
and
"Wrong, the Obama Justice Dept directly compared them.(homosexuality to Incest and Child Rape)"
thanx! you're a peach!!
>Obama Justice Department defends DOMA in federal court.
>Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget.
>Invokes INCEST and MARRYING CHILDREN and CHILD RAPE.
by John Aravosis
UPDATE: Obama spokesman caught lying to Politico.
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government’s brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we’ve written about previously, it’s another in California.
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).
He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional
More...
@21
professors, please parce this brief by Obama's "Justice" Dept with particular care to the meaning of the word 'compare';
as in
"Sorry, but what the Obama Justice Dept said was precisely a comparison of homosexuality to Incest and Child Rape."
and
"Wrong, the Obama Justice Dept directly compared them.(homosexuality to Incest and Child Rape)"
thanx! you're a peach!!
>Obama Justice Department defends DOMA in federal court.
>Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget.
>Invokes INCEST and MARRYING CHILDREN and CHILD RAPE.
by John Aravosis
UPDATE: Obama spokesman caught lying to Politico.
Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government’s brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we’ve written about previously, it’s another in California.
We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).
He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional
83
Danny,
we realize your love for Terri is very Very Special
(well- except for the nine times (so far!....) you've cheated, you hound dog!!)
in fact,
just as Special as heterosexual married-by-the-preacher love....
but we wondered;
do you,
like the Obama Justice Dept,
feel that sex with Terri is just like Raping a Child?
and when this Child Rape occurs who is the child?
is any crying or whimpering involved?
any videos?
will we be seeing any Danny-Terri Homosexual Sex=Child Rape videos on YouTube?
perhaps a IGB-like project where all of The Gay
can post their Our Homosexual Sex=Child Rape videos?
perhaps Obama (or someone from his Justice Dept) could host it?
(please don't forget Swedish subtitles.....)
.
Remember, Danny-
Everytime Terri "loves" your ass a Child is Raped.......
we realize your love for Terri is very Very Special
(well- except for the nine times (so far!....) you've cheated, you hound dog!!)
in fact,
just as Special as heterosexual married-by-the-preacher love....
but we wondered;
do you,
like the Obama Justice Dept,
feel that sex with Terri is just like Raping a Child?
and when this Child Rape occurs who is the child?
is any crying or whimpering involved?
any videos?
will we be seeing any Danny-Terri Homosexual Sex=Child Rape videos on YouTube?
perhaps a IGB-like project where all of The Gay
can post their Our Homosexual Sex=Child Rape videos?
perhaps Obama (or someone from his Justice Dept) could host it?
(please don't forget Swedish subtitles.....)
.
Remember, Danny-
Everytime Terri "loves" your ass a Child is Raped.......
84
Even if homosexuality is a choice, it should be protected. We protect people on religious grounds and there is no question that religious affiliation is something we choose.
Homophobics are on the wrong side of history -- just as they were vis-a-vis the Civil Rights Movement.
Homophobics are on the wrong side of history -- just as they were vis-a-vis the Civil Rights Movement.
85
Aw, come on, Dan. Richard is such a common name - think of all the collateral damage! And they've already lost one formerly-respectable nickname.
86
@1 is right- it IS HILARIOUS!!
but in a sad "I've stalked Rick for years but it is obvious I'll never actually get to pump any Santorum INTO Santorum and now I've thrown all caution to the wind" sort of way....
our poor poor Danny....
unrequited sexual obsessions are a bitch.....
but don't despair, Danny.
There are Sen. Santorum halloween masks out there-
but one (hell- buy a case!...)
have Terri wear it. put on some of your favorite Cspan clips of Rick. have at it.....
if Terri objects? (does GGG have limits?) well, you could wear it on your hand.....
(please feel free to use this idea in a podcast, btw....)
.
oh yeah, have you heard from CNN since your boffo knocked'em dead performance on Maher?
no?!
bitch........
well, don't despair- maybe they make Joy Behar halloween masks.......
.
here's a famous quotation for you- guess who said it
(you have to squint your eyes and wag your finger as you say it...
"I've never had sex with that boy- Mr Santorum....not once....."
(AND ITS KILLING ME ! ba-da-bum!!!)
but in a sad "I've stalked Rick for years but it is obvious I'll never actually get to pump any Santorum INTO Santorum and now I've thrown all caution to the wind" sort of way....
our poor poor Danny....
unrequited sexual obsessions are a bitch.....
but don't despair, Danny.
There are Sen. Santorum halloween masks out there-
but one (hell- buy a case!...)
have Terri wear it. put on some of your favorite Cspan clips of Rick. have at it.....
if Terri objects? (does GGG have limits?) well, you could wear it on your hand.....
(please feel free to use this idea in a podcast, btw....)
.
oh yeah, have you heard from CNN since your boffo knocked'em dead performance on Maher?
no?!
bitch........
well, don't despair- maybe they make Joy Behar halloween masks.......
.
here's a famous quotation for you- guess who said it
(you have to squint your eyes and wag your finger as you say it...
"I've never had sex with that boy- Mr Santorum....not once....."
(AND ITS KILLING ME ! ba-da-bum!!!)
87
63,
You chose to marry and have sex with someone of another race, and you expect your choice to be protected by law, Allowing people to choose miscegenation didn't lead to allowing people to choose pedophilia or bestiality, because we are talking about human adults here.
You're starting with a false premise. Some sexual behavior may be a choice within one's sexual orientation, (I.E., your choice of miscegenation) but people's sexual orientation isn't a choice. A straight man cannot choose to be attracted to another man, nor can a gay man choose to be attracted to a woman. Gay people have existed as long as there have been people. We are a part of human kind, and always will be. We don't victimize children or animals for our sexual pleasure. We can differentiate the two. It is not a logical conclusion that one will lead to the other.
"Either all sexual behavior is chosen, or none is."
You chose to marry and have sex with someone of another race, and you expect your choice to be protected by law, Allowing people to choose miscegenation didn't lead to allowing people to choose pedophilia or bestiality, because we are talking about human adults here.
You're starting with a false premise. Some sexual behavior may be a choice within one's sexual orientation, (I.E., your choice of miscegenation) but people's sexual orientation isn't a choice. A straight man cannot choose to be attracted to another man, nor can a gay man choose to be attracted to a woman. Gay people have existed as long as there have been people. We are a part of human kind, and always will be. We don't victimize children or animals for our sexual pleasure. We can differentiate the two. It is not a logical conclusion that one will lead to the other.
88
@87 I don't know that sexual orientation is quite that cut and dried. Straight men in prison do things they normally wouldn't do and Marcus Bachmann seems to have managed to make Michelle pregnant a time or two. Then there is lesbianism which is way complicated . . .
89
88, Straight men in prison are not attracted to other men. Straight men who rape or have sex with other men in prison are doing as an act of violence or domination, not sexual attraction. The vast majority of straight men in prison do not have sex with other men. Marcus Bachmann may or may not be gay. There are effeminate straight men.
90
89, Also, some women do have a tendency towards bisexualism, more so than men, but a true lesbian is not sexually attracted to men.
93
Rob,
You keep equating the blatant injustice of racism with the perceived injustice of not allowing homosexual marriage.
With all due respect, such comparisons are insulting to those who had and have a real struggle to gain equal rights in this nation. 50 years ago a black man or woman couldn't sit at the same restaurant table with a white person in some parts of the country. They couldn't work at some jobs, or buy homes in some neighborhoods. While they had the right to vote, procedural roadblocks or outright intimidation often disenfranchised them. Today there are real disparities in income and opportunity between black or hispanic populations and their fellow citizens.
So far as I can tell the whole gay rights movement revolves around repealing DADT and DOMA. Hardly material for sit-ins and singing 'We Shall Overcome.' Particularly since all the rights of marriage can be obtained by a gay couple with a bit of adroit legal work and planning, and DADT is in the process of becoming history.
BTW, inter-racial marriage being recognized doesn't alter marriage. It just recognized justice within the established definition. In no society anywhere has marriage meant 2 men or 2 women joining in matrimony. In every society with marriage it has always meant a man and woman doing so.
You keep equating the blatant injustice of racism with the perceived injustice of not allowing homosexual marriage.
With all due respect, such comparisons are insulting to those who had and have a real struggle to gain equal rights in this nation. 50 years ago a black man or woman couldn't sit at the same restaurant table with a white person in some parts of the country. They couldn't work at some jobs, or buy homes in some neighborhoods. While they had the right to vote, procedural roadblocks or outright intimidation often disenfranchised them. Today there are real disparities in income and opportunity between black or hispanic populations and their fellow citizens.
So far as I can tell the whole gay rights movement revolves around repealing DADT and DOMA. Hardly material for sit-ins and singing 'We Shall Overcome.' Particularly since all the rights of marriage can be obtained by a gay couple with a bit of adroit legal work and planning, and DADT is in the process of becoming history.
BTW, inter-racial marriage being recognized doesn't alter marriage. It just recognized justice within the established definition. In no society anywhere has marriage meant 2 men or 2 women joining in matrimony. In every society with marriage it has always meant a man and woman doing so.
94
93, Again, you're starting with a false premise. It's not just marriage and DADT. In many states someone can be fired or denied employment or housing because they are gay. Gay people have been beaten and killed. An openly gay person still cannot sit in many places, especially in the south without getting threats of violence. You find the comparison insulting because you hate gay people, and don't like being compared to them.
The allowing the chosen behavior and lifestyle of miscegenation did alter marriage. Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Marriage was redefined to allow such behaviors in the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia.
The allowing the chosen behavior and lifestyle of miscegenation did alter marriage. Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Marriage was redefined to allow such behaviors in the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia.
95
@84
We have a Constitutional protection of expression, explicitly including that of faith. This choice is protected because property rights and free expression underlie all other liberties.
We give up our unfettered personal freedom in part to protect our property. (That is, I give up to my society the right to take anything I like from others or inflict harm on them. In exchange, that society establishes rules that mean others can't take anything they like from me or harm me.) We in the US made a bit better deal. We added notions of justice and innate human rights. (All in the assumption that these were God given or God created, I might add, but that's another discussion.) In detail, we protect personal expression of ideas or faith, and other basic liberties we think fundamental to a free people. We did this in part by severely limiting what government could or should do.
This concept is far better explained in 'The Social Contract' and other writings, though. I'm just a wood-worker, not a political philosopher, I'm afraid.
I would imagine even the most liberal of attorneys would do some over-reaching to portray homosexuality in the same light as freedom of the press or freedom of religion as a key element of the social contract within our Constitution.
We have a Constitutional protection of expression, explicitly including that of faith. This choice is protected because property rights and free expression underlie all other liberties.
We give up our unfettered personal freedom in part to protect our property. (That is, I give up to my society the right to take anything I like from others or inflict harm on them. In exchange, that society establishes rules that mean others can't take anything they like from me or harm me.) We in the US made a bit better deal. We added notions of justice and innate human rights. (All in the assumption that these were God given or God created, I might add, but that's another discussion.) In detail, we protect personal expression of ideas or faith, and other basic liberties we think fundamental to a free people. We did this in part by severely limiting what government could or should do.
This concept is far better explained in 'The Social Contract' and other writings, though. I'm just a wood-worker, not a political philosopher, I'm afraid.
I would imagine even the most liberal of attorneys would do some over-reaching to portray homosexuality in the same light as freedom of the press or freedom of religion as a key element of the social contract within our Constitution.
96
@93, You are incredibly ignorant of history if you believe the comparison of institutionalized homophobia to institutionalized racism is an insult. Up until quite recently, being LGBT was a criminal offense, with some states only recently doffing their sodomy laws. Still, people are harassed, assaulted and murdered for being LGBT. In most of the US, it is still perfectly legal to fire someone for being LGBT. Being LGBT puts one at a greater risk to be forced to live on the street. Being LGBT, until quite recently, meant one could not openly serve in the military, the same way all of their fellow straight soldiers could. In most of the country, being LGBT means you cannot marry the consenting adult of your choice, and cannot accrue the same legal protections of such a union without money and a willingness to jump through legal hoops. If you cannot see the parallels to the injustice of racism, you are blind.
BTW, same-sex marriage being recognized doesn't alter marriage. It would simply recognize justice within the established definition. In our society, marriage has meant for the last century two consenting adults joining in matrimony for whatever reason they see fit. Prior to that, opposite sex marriage was an exchange of property, no consent required of both partners. In many parts of the world today, same-sex couples can marry in the same way opposite sex couples can marry without the worth or significance of either form of marriage being debased. Furthermore, this is not without historical precedent. Barring examples from the ancient world, within West and Central Europe there existed for many centuries the practice of affrèrement, as it was known in France, in which two men enjoyed all the rights of marriage.
BTW, same-sex marriage being recognized doesn't alter marriage. It would simply recognize justice within the established definition. In our society, marriage has meant for the last century two consenting adults joining in matrimony for whatever reason they see fit. Prior to that, opposite sex marriage was an exchange of property, no consent required of both partners. In many parts of the world today, same-sex couples can marry in the same way opposite sex couples can marry without the worth or significance of either form of marriage being debased. Furthermore, this is not without historical precedent. Barring examples from the ancient world, within West and Central Europe there existed for many centuries the practice of affrèrement, as it was known in France, in which two men enjoyed all the rights of marriage.
97
There is a FACT that overrides all of Seattleblues prolific but lame counters...
...HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE. One either is or is not. Bisexuality may be a choice, but homosexuality not...any more than race or gender.
So mr. Seattleblues, stop pretending to not understand this to support your bigotry. I get that you are not homosexual. I get that you are repulsed by the idea of same sex intercourse. You'd be the guy who railed against interracial marriage in the 50's. Protest all you want, btw...but the depth of your loathing of same-sex coupling betrays you. Too bad Jim Crow is gone, huh?
This religionist bullshit is just that. MADE UP shit. No empirical evidence exists that any of it is real. I get that you have "faith". Yay. Have fun with that. It in no way though excuses your irrational hatred of those different than you.
You are just dead fucking flat wrong, sir.
...HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE. One either is or is not. Bisexuality may be a choice, but homosexuality not...any more than race or gender.
So mr. Seattleblues, stop pretending to not understand this to support your bigotry. I get that you are not homosexual. I get that you are repulsed by the idea of same sex intercourse. You'd be the guy who railed against interracial marriage in the 50's. Protest all you want, btw...but the depth of your loathing of same-sex coupling betrays you. Too bad Jim Crow is gone, huh?
This religionist bullshit is just that. MADE UP shit. No empirical evidence exists that any of it is real. I get that you have "faith". Yay. Have fun with that. It in no way though excuses your irrational hatred of those different than you.
You are just dead fucking flat wrong, sir.
98
It has been my experience that committed homosexual relationships provide many of the same benefits, to the people involved and to society in general, as committed heterosexual relationships. Hence committed homosexual relationships deserve the same legal status as committed heterosexual relationships. Seattleblues doesn't see things my way because up in his neck of the woods gay people don't come out for fear folks will think they are democrats.
99
@95, Right, so calling for the assassination of our President is apparently in step with key elements of the social contract within our Constitution but acting in such a way that is clearly personal expression that harms no one is not? Okay.
100
This is a passage written by Mrs. Loving, a black woman who married a white man and had to fight to be legally married:
When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married...
...My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/fil…
101
100
The Obama Justice Dept argued that 'Loving...' isn't germane to homosexual marriage.
When they compared homosexuality to incest and child rape.
The Obama Justice Dept argued that 'Loving...' isn't germane to homosexual marriage.
When they compared homosexuality to incest and child rape.
102
97
...HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE?
that's hysterical!
omg! stop!! you're killing us!!!
you should take that act on the road!...
Is our Danny a 'homosexual'?
Before you answer, remember that he has had sex with girls. Ick!
Perhaps homosexual does not mean what you think it does...
Are prison inmates gay?
They'd cut your throat if you suggested it.
But they buttfuck like little faggot bunnies while in lockup.
Bisexuality IS a choice but homosexuality is not?
Really?
That's a slippery slope.....
This homosexual bullshit is just that. MADE UP shit. No empirical evidence exists that any of it is real. I get that you have "orientation". Yay. Have fun with that. It in no way though excuses your irrational hatred of those different than you.
You are just dead fucking flat wrong, miss.
...HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE?
that's hysterical!
omg! stop!! you're killing us!!!
you should take that act on the road!...
Is our Danny a 'homosexual'?
Before you answer, remember that he has had sex with girls. Ick!
Perhaps homosexual does not mean what you think it does...
Are prison inmates gay?
They'd cut your throat if you suggested it.
But they buttfuck like little faggot bunnies while in lockup.
Bisexuality IS a choice but homosexuality is not?
Really?
That's a slippery slope.....
This homosexual bullshit is just that. MADE UP shit. No empirical evidence exists that any of it is real. I get that you have "orientation". Yay. Have fun with that. It in no way though excuses your irrational hatred of those different than you.
You are just dead fucking flat wrong, miss.
104
@97/102-
Seriously, y'all are both missing the point. It doesn't matter. Do we stop Jews from marrying Catholics? Do we stop Libertarians from marrying Anglophiles?
My sister could marry Johnny Depp and I can't. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or if I was born to marry Johnny Depp, it's not right to stand in my way.
Seriously, y'all are both missing the point. It doesn't matter. Do we stop Jews from marrying Catholics? Do we stop Libertarians from marrying Anglophiles?
My sister could marry Johnny Depp and I can't. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or if I was born to marry Johnny Depp, it's not right to stand in my way.
105
@101/102, You're a fucking idiot. Also, empirical, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
106
Seattleblues is clearly obsessed with Dan Savage in a very unhealthy way. Look at the sheer amount of posts and the mind-boggling amount of time he dedicates to troll this board. One of his two or three reoccurring themes is the mistaken notion that sexual orientation is merely a whim and choice. Who exactly is trying to convince with this hobbled and disproven thesis? Us? Or himself? Must be himself. It's liturgy he must recite over and over. To keep the demons that plague him away. Normal people don't do this.
The internet is rife with these lonely and confused souls who reflexively and masochistically haunt partisan boards as contrarian whipping posts. An inordinate number pose as the disenting ghettoized right-wing troll-martyrs like SB. It's a guarantee of attention and in political threads you don't ever have to prove what you say just how much you believe what you say. So it's easy.
It's not about convincing anybody. They will certainly never change their minds. It's about signaling to themselves and reinforcing a very tenuous and strained worldview. A provably invalid worldview that is addicted to the illusion of validity. So it requires a empty anonymous challenge.
Man. It's kind of pathetic isn't it?
The internet is rife with these lonely and confused souls who reflexively and masochistically haunt partisan boards as contrarian whipping posts. An inordinate number pose as the disenting ghettoized right-wing troll-martyrs like SB. It's a guarantee of attention and in political threads you don't ever have to prove what you say just how much you believe what you say. So it's easy.
It's not about convincing anybody. They will certainly never change their minds. It's about signaling to themselves and reinforcing a very tenuous and strained worldview. A provably invalid worldview that is addicted to the illusion of validity. So it requires a empty anonymous challenge.
Man. It's kind of pathetic isn't it?
108
107
But Obama's administration DID compare homosexuality to Incest and
Obama's administration DID compare homosexuality to Child Rape.
Why did't Danny come up with a disgusting moniker for "Obama"?
But Obama's administration DID compare homosexuality to Incest and
Obama's administration DID compare homosexuality to Child Rape.
Why did't Danny come up with a disgusting moniker for "Obama"?
109
108, Obama didn't say any such thing. Some lawyer, who didn't consult with anyone at the White House, put together the case. Dan, and others have said plenty about Obama on this subject, and it got through. His administration has stopped defending DOMA.
112
110/111, Dan and others effectively got the administration to see they were wrong in their original stance, and they changed. Obama doesn't hire or fire lawyers at the Justice Department.
113
Hate to interrupt this ongoing argument, but can anyone summarize this clip for the audio impaired? It's not captioned and I haven't found a transcript. It's long enough I don't ask for one, but what exactly is the "threat"?
114
102
97
...HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE?
that's hysterical!
omg! stop!! you're killing us!!!
you should take that act on the road!...
Is our Danny a 'homosexual'?
Before you answer, remember that he has had sex with girls. Ick!
Perhaps homosexual does not mean what you think it does...
Are prison inmates gay?
They'd cut your throat if you suggested it.
But they buttfuck like little faggot bunnies while in lockup.
Bisexuality IS a choice but homosexuality is not?
Really?
That's a slippery slope.....
This homosexual bullshit is just that. MADE UP shit. No empirical evidence exists that any of it is real. I get that you have "orientation". Yay. Have fun with that. It in no way though excuses your irrational hatred of those different than you.
You are just dead fucking flat wrong, miss.
Posted by did your pet monkey write that post for you? on July 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM
Thank you, oh brave anonymous commenter for illustrating just what a REAL jackass looks and sounds like. Not a fake one...no...a real live 24 carat piece of shit. Good for you.
117
@BEG, I had a little free time, I hope it's clear.
Dan- Hey Senator Rick Santorum, Dan Savage here. You're probably still mad at me about what happened in 2003.
Reporter- Santorum made a reference to gay sex and compared it to pedophilia and bestiality. After that, gay sex columnist Dan Savage started a campaign to rename the word santorum; now the first two hits you get are about the filthiest sexual neologism possible.
Dan- And now you're out there running for president with what folks are calling a "Google problem". I know you think I came down pretty hard on you Rick...
Santorum- There are vile people out there who do horrible things, it's unfortunate that, uh, some people thought it would be a big joke to, uh, to make fun of my name.
Dan- But I think I displayed remarkable restraint, I only redefined your last name. I could have redefined your first name too. I still could. But tell you what, I won't redefine Rick if you don't attack gay people during your campaign. Now I've already come up with a new definition for Rick, just in case you don't behave yourself.
I had a few Ricks come to my office so I could run the new definition by them, here's how it went...
I apologize in advance, Rick, alright? Here we go. Rick: noun, when a man and a woman have both their genitals fully stimulated and /censored/ and have that kind of milkiness that comes from day-old sweat and /censored/ and their in a position where she can't get her /censored/ back out, unless his inner sphincters relax and /censored/ without crying, and if there's blood, then he needs to /censored/censored/ with a piece of turkey jerky, which will still /censored/, and smell like burning hair and /censored/censored/ and eating dolphin meat off the back of a cat that keeps /censored/ and scooping out, just anus-loads of /censored/ while a couple next to them /censored/.
Look Rick, you don't need another Google problem. If you can get all the way through this campaign without man-on-dogging us, I will tear this definition up. If you can't bring yourself to do it for me Rick, do it for all the other Ricks out there.
Rick Fox- Please, don't make Dan Savage mad, because I know a thing about dribbling balls. I-It's what I did for a living, but I don't want dribbling balls to be a part of the definition of my name.
Rick Dee- I own the website Rick.com, I don't want people showing up there after googling /censored/.
Ricki Lake- I know that you are having a lot of trouble raising money for your campaign, but please, don't ruin the name Rick, it affects all of us, even us lady Ricks.
Andy Richter- I know my name isn't Rick, but, the new definition is so disgusting that even just having the sound "Rick" in the first half of my last name is scary enough.
Dee- Senator Santorum
Lake- Please, don't make Dan Savage mad.
Richter- And don't make your campaign be about being anti-gay.
Dan- So the ball's in your court, Richard John Santorum. Leave us gays alone, or I change the definition of Rick, and it's not like you can start going by Dick Santorum, is it.
More...
Dan- Hey Senator Rick Santorum, Dan Savage here. You're probably still mad at me about what happened in 2003.
Reporter- Santorum made a reference to gay sex and compared it to pedophilia and bestiality. After that, gay sex columnist Dan Savage started a campaign to rename the word santorum; now the first two hits you get are about the filthiest sexual neologism possible.
Dan- And now you're out there running for president with what folks are calling a "Google problem". I know you think I came down pretty hard on you Rick...
Santorum- There are vile people out there who do horrible things, it's unfortunate that, uh, some people thought it would be a big joke to, uh, to make fun of my name.
Dan- But I think I displayed remarkable restraint, I only redefined your last name. I could have redefined your first name too. I still could. But tell you what, I won't redefine Rick if you don't attack gay people during your campaign. Now I've already come up with a new definition for Rick, just in case you don't behave yourself.
I had a few Ricks come to my office so I could run the new definition by them, here's how it went...
I apologize in advance, Rick, alright? Here we go. Rick: noun, when a man and a woman have both their genitals fully stimulated and /censored/ and have that kind of milkiness that comes from day-old sweat and /censored/ and their in a position where she can't get her /censored/ back out, unless his inner sphincters relax and /censored/ without crying, and if there's blood, then he needs to /censored/censored/ with a piece of turkey jerky, which will still /censored/, and smell like burning hair and /censored/censored/ and eating dolphin meat off the back of a cat that keeps /censored/ and scooping out, just anus-loads of /censored/ while a couple next to them /censored/.
Look Rick, you don't need another Google problem. If you can get all the way through this campaign without man-on-dogging us, I will tear this definition up. If you can't bring yourself to do it for me Rick, do it for all the other Ricks out there.
Rick Fox- Please, don't make Dan Savage mad, because I know a thing about dribbling balls. I-It's what I did for a living, but I don't want dribbling balls to be a part of the definition of my name.
Rick Dee- I own the website Rick.com, I don't want people showing up there after googling /censored/.
Ricki Lake- I know that you are having a lot of trouble raising money for your campaign, but please, don't ruin the name Rick, it affects all of us, even us lady Ricks.
Andy Richter- I know my name isn't Rick, but, the new definition is so disgusting that even just having the sound "Rick" in the first half of my last name is scary enough.
Dee- Senator Santorum
Lake- Please, don't make Dan Savage mad.
Richter- And don't make your campaign be about being anti-gay.
Dan- So the ball's in your court, Richard John Santorum. Leave us gays alone, or I change the definition of Rick, and it's not like you can start going by Dick Santorum, is it.
118
@117 Wow thank you! And OMG! I had not a clue what it was saying (other than that I caught Ricki's bit about trouble raising money. Wow... *shakes head* Way too funny. Is this what the GOP is denouncing Savage for? Even tho the GOP has more important things on their plate that they'd rather postpone??
119
118
"Is this what the GOP is denouncing Savage for?"
no, dickwad. that's a different post.
please quit clogging the slog up with your dumb questions......
"Is this what the GOP is denouncing Savage for?"
no, dickwad. that's a different post.
please quit clogging the slog up with your dumb questions......
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 (119) RSS