Obama 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reject Appointed To CA Supreme Court

You guys out there on the left coast need to get a hold of your state government. Well, nevermind, I’m sure it’s too far gone already. Maybe, though, you should just get out before fences are constructed, not to keep illegals out, but to keep you serfs in.

Congrats on your new State Supreme Court Justice, Goodwin Liu.

Sacramento — Barely three months after Senate Republicans denounced Goodwin Liu as a left-wing extremist and torpedoed his nomination to a federal appeals court, he was lauded as a brilliant and open-minded legal scholar Wednesday and confirmed to a seat on the California Supreme Court.

The Commission on Judicial Appointments voted 3-0 to endorse Gov. Jerry Brown’s nomination of the 40-year-old Liu to succeed retired Justice Carlos Moreno as the only Democratic appointee on the seven-member court.

Liu will be sworn in to office by Brown today and join the court in time for Tuesday’s critical hearing on Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California. The justices will consider whether California law allows the measure’s sponsors to represent the interests of the state and its voters in appealing a federal judge’s decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

Shwew! Just in the nick of time! The voters spoke and here comes Goodwin Liu on his leftist white horse to make sure their voices are quashed forever, and that the interests of a less than 10% minority are served in place of The People’s through their legal vote.

….
Liu becomes the Supreme Court’s first justice without previous judicial experience since Frank Newman, another UC Berkeley professor appointed by Brown during his first stint as governor in 1977.

No previous judicial experience? That’s as ridiculous as hiring a president with no previous executive experience…..oh wait, nevermind. No, on second thought, don’t nevermind. Obama should give you a good glimpse into what to expect of Liu.

I know the 9th Circus Court of Appeals is by far the most overturned appeals court in the land. Will this addition to the CA Supremes cause that record to be eclipsed in the coming months/years? It can’t bode well for our representative republic form of government being protected or maintained at the State Supreme Court level of CA, that much seems obvious.

But most of his positions are liberal. Liu favors same-sex marriage and affirmative action. He opposed Bush’s Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He formerly chaired the left-leaning American Constitution Society. And he co-authored a 2009 book that said constitutional rights evolve with the times, anathema to “originalists” like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Yeah, my favorite passages of the Constitution are where it talks about how pliable it is, how it should “evolve with the times.” I’d love to know which parts Liu thinks have “evolved away,” made extinct by the meanderings of Berkley leftists wandering in the wilderness that is their minds looking for a cogent thought.
Good luck, California, you’re going to need it.
CC

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    As Yogi said, this is deja vu all over again. Brown’s first stint at this job gave us Rose Bird and all the derision that came with that. Now Brown gives us Goodwin, he should fit right in. And now that he is firmly planted on a state supreme court, his eligibility for a SCOTUS appointment remains intact.

    No one can accuse Liu of nuance, he is an open book.

    “What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

    Also noteworthy is his denunciation of the traditional American principles of “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections”

    Perhaps most striking, in part because Liu presents his position as so modest, is his law-review article “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” which argues that judges (usually in an “interstitial” role) may legitimately invent constitutional rights to a broad range of social “welfare” goods, including education, shelter, subsistence, and health care.

    He wears his liberalism on his sleeve as a badge of honor.

    Even his detractors admit that he is wicked smart, but qualified? Even by the ABA’s minimum standards both in years as a lawyer and trial/courtroom experience he falls short. And his blatant omissions on the committee questionnaire as to his legal writings for the Senate qualifications process gives us some insight on how fast and loose he can play with both rules and facts.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Seattle Outcast

    And yet the libtards just can’t wait to put this piece of shit on the bench. Tells us more about the libtards than it does him….

    Thumb up 1

  3. sahrab

    and that the interests of a less than 10% minority are served in place of The People’s through their legal vote

    The old chestnut “Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner” fits in this case.

    Which speaks to the genius of our Founding Fathers. They put in 3 forms of Government that have equal power, and they instituted a Republic and not a Demoracy. You claim to be a constitutionalist yet your post belies every tenet of protection the consitutuion affords the citizenry.

    The Government, in regards to Gay Marriage, has to show reasonable cause for denying the rights, benefits and priviledges (per the definitions in DOMA) of one set of Tax Payers, that it affords another set of Tax Payers. And it has to do this due to the constraints of the laws that it is to abide by.

    Typical Arguments:
    Gays will weaken the sanctity of Marriage: If marriage is weakend, it wont be due to Homo’s. They cant get married now, yet Divorce among Hetro’s is at or over 50%. Homo’s arent weakening marriage, Hetro’s are. If anything this shows Hetro’s should not be allowed to get married.
    Government recognizes marriage because of the family unit (or some variation of Marriages having kids) If this is the justification then the government have to apply this uniformly, no more federally recognized marriages unless it begats kids
    What about the Children raised by Gays (adoption or articial means) Punishing Gays for the chance that something MIGHT happen, goes against the entire way our system is designed. But Gays have kids now, and they are no more or less screwed than kids rasised by Hetro’s
    God says Homosexuality is a sin Who’s God, Which God? Show a substantive legal basis to outlaw it

    There are rights and benefits with a federally recognized marriage (read DOMA it lists them) these rights are not available to Homos’ and there is no justification for the Government withholding them.

    Thumb up 4

  4. Xetrov

    Which speaks to the genius of our Founding Fathers. They put in 3 forms of Government that have equal power, and they instituted a Republic and not a Demoracy. You claim to be a constitutionalist yet your post belies every tenet of protection the consitutuion affords the citizenry.

    The genius of our Founding Fathers now requires the California Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 by…including it and ruling by it being included in the California Constitution. It’s mighty hard to rule something unconstitutional that is now in the Constitution.

    Opinions of whether or not it should be in the Constitution, or Government should recognize gay marriage or marriage at all is completely separate from that fact.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CzarChasm *

    You claim to be a constitutionalist yet your post belies every tenet of protection the consitutuion affords the citizenry.

    If my post somehow shows my claim of being a constitutionalist as inaccurate or dishonest, then you should have no problem showing us where in the federal Constitution marriage falls under the purview of the federal government at all. Good luck with that.

    Typical Arguments:
    Gays will weaken the sanctity of Marriage:

    Government recognizes marriage because of the family unit (or some variation of Marriages having kids)

    God says Homosexuality is a sin

    All arguments which I neither believe in, implied or even mentioned. I mentioned the potential for a court override of a referendum vote that was passed by a large majority, and that the will of The People in the State of California would unarguably be quashed by such an override.

    I didn’t use any pejorative euphemisms to describe gay people. The only one who has is you, while you assign views to me that I don’t hold. I have absolutely nothing against gay people, and nothing against any state that decides they should fall under the same or similar rules and benefits of marriage as heterosexual folk do. I do have a huge problem with courts overriding the will of The People though, and that is exactly why Brown picked Liu to sit on the highest court in the state, simply because he can be unequivocally counted upon to override The People’s will. If you support that, say it, but don’t get personal and question my constitutionalist bonafides while making up what you imagine out of thin air would be my arguments if I were to state them.

    There are rights and benefits with a federally recognized marriage (read DOMA it lists them) these rights are not available to Homos’ and there is no justification for the Government withholding them.

    When you show us where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to address marriage in any way, shape, manner or form, then you can argue DOMA to me as though I support that legislation. It doesn’t though, and neither do I. Jefferson would spin in his grave at the thought of a “federally recognized marriage.”

    CC

    Thumb up 8

  6. sahrab

    If my post somehow shows my claim of being a constitutionalist as inaccurate or dishonest, then you should have no problem showing us where in the federal Constitution marriage falls under the purview of the federal government at all. Good luck with that.

    But then my post didnt address consitutionality of the Federal Government involvement in Marriage did it?

    My post addressed the unconstituionality of the Federal Government denhing rights, beneifts and priviliedges upon one set of citizens, without just cause.

    Your original post seemed to support the Federal Government involvement in Marriage and the denial of those rights. If you were arguing that the Federal Government should not be in the Marriage business then i apologize and carry on. But since you used the fact that its only a minority thats affected, as support for the continuing denial of the rights, me thinks otherwise.

    Rightly or Wrongly the Federal Government is involved in Marriage. Be that as it may, the Federal Government is offering rights, benefits, and priviledges upon one set of Citizens while denying them to another.

    But lets point out what i was quesitoning in regards to your Constitutionalist

    The voters spoke

    Yes they did, when they elected Brown and who he appoints as judges.

    and here comes Goodwin Liu on his leftist white horse to make sure their voices are quashed forever

    3 equaly powerful branchs of the Government. Goodwin isnt quashing any voices, Goodwin nominated by Brown, who was elected by the people, will be excersing one of the branches of Government (as long as he does it legaly)

    and that the interests of a less than 10% minority are served in place of The People’s through their legal vote

    This is where i question your understanding of our Government. Sure you can post interesting tidbits from the Federalist Papers but you seem to fail to understand we (and California) are not a Democracy. The constitution (even Californias) limits what the Government CAN do to affect the Citizenry, it does not allow the Government to create subsets of Citizens, as the Prop 8 attempted. IT also does not allow the Government to deny rights to Legal Law Abiding Tax Payng Citizens, as the Prop 8 attempted.

    All arguments which I neither believe in, implied or even mentioned.

    My post hit multiple subjects, i never implied that YOU made these arguments. These arguments come up whenever Gay Marriage is discussed as reasons why we should still deny marriage to homos. I was getting them out of the way for everyone else.

    I mentioned the potential for a court override of a referendum vote that was passed by a large majority, and that the will of The People in the State of California would unarguably be quashed by such an override.

    The will of the people is served when Brown, elected by the people, nominated Goodwin.

    and nothing against any state that decides they should fall under the same or similar rules and benefits of marriage as heterosexual folk do.

    Two issues:
    (First) Rightly or Wrongly there is Federal recognition of Marriage. There are rights, benefits and priviledges that go along with that recognition that trickle down to the state level. Is this something the Federal Government should be involved with? Create a post about it and lets discuss. In regards to this thread it is in effect and has to be included in the discussion. State recognition/denial of Gay Marriage does not operate in a vaccum, the Federal Recognition (DOMA) is a rider.
    (Second)EVERY FUCKING PERSON should take serious issue with a Government (Federal or State) that denies rights to anyone based on a subjective basis. Poltical thuggery can not be condoned just because 5 people voted for something and 2 didnt. Unless your claiming you wont have an issue when its decided Catholics cant get married or Blacks cant vote, as long as enough people to vote for it?

    I do have a huge problem with courts overriding the will of The People though, and that is exactly why Brown picked Liu to sit on the highest court in the state,

    Sit down take a breath and try to see the absurdity of that statement. Brown is serving the will of The People. Nothing more or less. We know this very simply, the People elected Brown, which includes those he nominates.

    If you support that, say it,

    I support the republican form of Government, which is in effect even in California.

    but don’t get personal and question my constitutionalist bonafides

    Then start making posts that show you understand how our Government works. California, as fucked up as it may be, is representitive of those that elected the people that are representing them. Same for every other state. Just because you disagree with Browns choice doesnt mean the system in California isnt working.

    Thumb up 3

  7. sahrab

    These arguments come up whenever Gay Marriage is discussed as reasons why we should still deny marriage to homos. I was getting them out of the way for everyone else.

    Forgot one:

    I’m not Gay, never been Gay, and have no interest in being Gay (have no clue how a woman can find a man attractive, let alone a guy). I have no Gay’s in my family (that i know of) nor in my wife’s family. I do know of a couple of Homo’s, but only from work, not really social friends.

    My argument about Gay Marriage has solely to do with the Government denying rights to one set of Citizenry that it affords to another. This decision is based solely on a nebulous social concept that is no longer applicable, and isnt supported by the constitution.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Xetrov

    My argument about Gay Marriage has solely to do with the Government denying rights to one set of Citizenry that it affords to another.

    Technically, the Government doesn’t do this. A gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex, the same as a straight person can.

    Thumb up 6

  9. Rann

    And if gay marriage was legal, straight people could marry someone of the same sex, the same as a gay person could. So the “special privilege” argument doesn’t really fly.

    Thumb up 1

  10. sahrab

    A flavor of this argument was used against interracial marriages, thankfully the Supreme Court already ruled on the Government deciding who you can marry, in Loving vs Virginia.

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival

    Marriage has been recognized by the courts (one of the three equal branches of government) as a civil right. Additionaly the Constituti­on guarantees that rights for a person or group cannot be denied without due process. For example, the freedom to speak cannot be limited by a law saying men can speak only to men.

    The only restrictio­n allowed is for another underlying legal reason, yelling Fire for example. The onus is on the Government to show justification for denying the rights/benefits/priviledges, this has yet to happen.

    Thumb up 0

  11. sahrab

    This is why the argumen against Gay Marriage fails.

    Gay Marriage has nothing to do with Hetero Marriages, Homo’s only want the same rights, benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) afforded them that the Hetero’s recieve.

    Those arguing against Gay Marriages do so solely based on wanting to continue to deny rights to Citizens based on an aspect that has NOTHING whatsofuckingever to do with them.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Xetrov

    A flavor of this argument was used against interracial marriages, thankfully the Supreme Court already ruled on the Government deciding who you can marry, in Loving vs Virginia

    A black straight or gay man can marry a white straight or gay woman, or vice versa. Your argument doesn’t apply.

    The onus is on the Government to show justification for denying the rights/benefits/priviledges, this has yet to happen.

    It has yet to happen because you have failed to show that anyone is being denied their rights to marriage.

    Thumb up 6

  13. sahrab

    The Commonwealth of Virginia used this exact same argument in Loving v. Virginia. Virginia argued that since whites can get married (but not to blacks) and blacks can get married (but not to whites), both groups had equal rights with regards to marriage

    The Supreme Court ruling given in 1967 which declared antimiscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. The Court reasoning is that if you removed bigotry from the equation, there is absolutely no reason to legally prohibit interracial marriage.

    When you apply the same argument to Gay Marriage, there is absolutely no reason to legally prohibit same-sex marriage.

    Thumb up 1

  14. Xetrov

    When you apply the same argument to Gay Marriage, there is absolutely no reason to legally prohibit same-sex marriage.

    Try again. Read the actual ruling of Loving v. Virginia

    Specifically the opening phrase from Chief Justice Warner –

    This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Hmmm. 14th Amendment, specifically the first clause –

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Your argument does not apply because the laws do not prevent any man from marrying any woman…otherwise known as a marriage. A gay man can marry a gay woman all he wants, equal protection under the law.

    Thumb up 4

  15. JimK

    Word games aren’t going to stop gay people from eventually getting the legal right to marry someone of the same gender.

    So, you know…get up on that “moral” soapbox all fucking day if it makes you feel better, but eventually – and within your lifetime – you will lose this fight.

    And when you do? Nothing at all will change. Society will continue to degrade as it already is. It will not decline faster, nor will gay marriage affect one single straight person in these United States.

    Bitch all y’all want. You’re gonna lose, and nothing will happen when you do.

    Thumb up 3

  16. drunkkus

    My argument about Gay Marriage has solely to do with the Government denying rights to one set of Citizenry that it affords to another. This decision is based solely on a nebulous social concept that is no longer applicable, and isnt supported by the constitution.

    Shouldn’t you be arguing instead, then, against the recognition of marriage in all forms by any government?

    Thumb up 4

  17. sahrab

    Thats why i suggested, earlier, to create a different thread for that topic. In regards to the topic on this thread its germain to talk about the Federal ban against same sex marriage.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Mississippi Yankee

    AND I,FOR ONE, WELCOME THE MARRIED, GAY, UNCHALLENGED OVERLORDS!

    JimK… a defeatist? Really?

    Well if your gonna die anyway why’d you lose all that weight? Think of all the grief you could have saved yourself with Micheal Moore if you had just Sumo wrestled instead.

    Also the US gets a little less free and liberties seem to be fleeting too. But I’m not ready to stop that fight either.

    Word games indeed.

    There’s a very old saying in the circus:
    It’s your mouth, I don’t care if you shovel coal with it. Just don’t do it in the street… it scares the horses.

    I think they’re words to live by.

    Thumb up 0

  19. JimK

    Me, defeatist? Only if I was on the wrong side, I suppose. I happen to think you are using US law to in order to restrict the freedoms of a subset of people who simply don’t subscribe to the same religious/socially conservative point of view as you. Personally, I find that antithetical to the concepts of liberty, freedom and the role of government in society.

    Fight on. It’s your right, I suppose. I’m confident in two things; you’re gonna lose, and it won’t affect your life or straight marriage in any way when you do.

    Thumb up 1

  20. sahrab

    Well gosh golly gee willicker i’m glad you like my awesome debate skills.

    Your post added nothing to the discussion, it was merely a rehash of your bullshit “a homo can marry the opposite sex”.

    As was stated at 7:13, the State of Virginia attempted the exact same debate tactic. Because they relied upon bigotry* as a justificaiton, same as you did, the reasoning was defeated.

    Instead of reposting the same thing 5 different times, suggest you respond to the latest post.

    *before getting your panties in a twist about the word bigot, i mean it in the purely dictionary definition.

    Thumb up 0

  21. drunkkus

    Thats why i suggested, earlier, to create a different thread for that topic. In regards to the topic on this thread its germain to talk about the Federal ban against same sex marriage.

    I’m confused. Did you mean it’s not relevant to talk about any same sex marriage bans here?

    You said you were concerned with “the unconstituionality of the Federal Government denhing rights, beneifts and priviliedges upon one set of citizens, without just cause.” I’m concerned with this, too, and I agree that the courts (state Supreme Court or otherwise) are there to protect against tyranny of the majority. The Cali gay marriage ban is a case of tyranny of the majority just the same as a federal ban would be, but Prop 8 was directly in response to a ruling by the California State Supreme Court and in California, state Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by initiative. The appointment of this (non) judge at this time is based solely on his politics (because what else is there to base it on?), and the timing is convenient. It really sounds like it could be the beginning of a way for the California State Supreme Court to get around the initiative rule in California to me. This is especially fishy because everybody and their brother knows the US Supreme Court (as pretty well any other federal court would) will invalidate Prop 8 when it hears it.

    I’m also curious about something else. You seem pretty convinced that expanding marriage to gay couples will solve the equal protection problems of the federal government WRT marriage. Why is that?

    Thumb up 2

  22. CzarChasm *

    For the record, the last thing on my mind when I made this post was to start a debate on gay marriage. The only reason I commented on it at all was that the article I used to bring up the subject of an Obama 9th Circuit nominee who had already been rejected by the .fedgov mentioned that part of Prop 8 was being challenged at the State Supreme Court level concurrent with when Liu would presumably take his seat there. Gay marriage is an issue that Liu can influence, but hardly the only one. He’s not a judicial appointee as much as a political one, and his political philosophy is indistinguishable from his “judicial” philosophy, the latter in quotes because he has no record to draw from, only statements, which as rich pointed out early on, show him to be anything but adherent to the precepts of judicial restraint on any subject.

    Regardless of the consensus on this board about gay marriage, and regardless of whether or not that general consensus agrees with my own personal take on the subject (which, really, is a big ‘I don’t care’), I still say Liu is another nail in the coffin for CA. As feeble as my attempt may have been, that was the intended thrust of my post.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  23. Xetrov

    As was stated at 7:13, the State of Virginia attempted the exact same debate tactic..

    As already outlined in the actual ruling you brought up, it had nothing to do with gay rights, and hence doesn’t apply to your argument.

    Because they relied upon bigotry* as a justificaiton, same as you did, the reasoning was defeated.

    *I* relied on nothing. The ruling was clearly about equal protection, which is afforded to all under current law. You have completely failed to demonstrate how anyone does not have equal protection under current law, nullifying every post you’ve made thus far. I only attempted different points on the same thing because you still fail to understand that simple logic.

    Thumb up 2

  24. Xetrov

    I still say Liu is another nail in the coffin for CA. As feeble as my attempt may have been, that was the intended thrust of my post.

    Agree 100%. On this point –

    But most of his positions are liberal. Liu favors same-sex marriage and affirmative action. He opposed Bush’s Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He formerly chaired the left-leaning American Constitution Society. And he co-authored a 2009 book that said constitutional rights evolve with the times, anathema to “originalists” like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

    If anyone would care to read just how bad it’s going to get with him on the bench, you can read that book in its entirety here (PDF). He most certainly wasn’t talking about the Amendment process when he talks about evolving rights.

    Thumb up 0

  25. drunkkus

    I still say Liu is another nail in the coffin for CA. As feeble as my attempt may have been, that was the intended thrust of my post.

    If it helps any, this seemed clear to me, and I agree. I also think the same nail is in the US coffin. The SCOTUS mostly gets packed with assholes based on politics, too. I think the fact that the SCOTUS ever found that there was a “right” to any kind of marriage in the Constitution at all is proof to that effect. There should have never been a question of who can get married and who cannot any more than there should have been a question of what color horse someone could pull a buggy with. The government should have just stayed out of it. The second that any law was passed by any government to confer any special privilege on anyone, black or white or gay or straight, who is married over an individual who is unmarried was the same second that government overstepped its bounds WRT marriage. The progressives didn’t see it that way and wanted laws to encourage exponential population growth to fund their ponzi schemes and welfare-for-votes programs, so they added a few slots to the SCOTUS and put their buddies in them. After that the SCOTUS somehow magically missed the point with marriage perks and privileges or any other law it thought would encourage breeding. In the same way, I’m sure the CA Supreme Court will eventually forget the initiative rule, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened during the Prop 8 proceedings. Everyone should expect more of this shit at every level of government, too, because it’s going to keep happening.

    Thumb up 3

  26. AlexInCT

    It’s the way to win the war man: have your private army of judges call it in your favor, no matter how wrong or unconstitutional. It’s for the little people! Serfs the lot of them…

    Thumb up 0

  27. Hal_10000

    Yeah, i didn’t want to get into that debate again. Liu seems poorly suited to be a judge, almost a throwback to the Warren era. He was going to be a judge sometime because the Left just adores him for some reason. I guess the CA court is where he can do the least damage.

    Thumb up 0

  28. sahrab

    I’m confused. Did you mean it’s not relevant to talk about any same sex marriage bans here?

    No i meant its not relevant, in this discussion, to “argue instead.. against the recognition of marriage in all forms by any government”

    In the course of this particular discussion the Federal ban on Gay Marriages is in place. My argument is about the Government bestowing rights, benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) to one set of citizens and denying them to another without justification.

    Whether or not the Government should be recognizing Gay Marriage is another topic, but in regards to this particular subject the Government is creating 2 sets of citizenry and people are seemingly ok with it.

    I’m also curious about something else. You seem pretty convinced that expanding marriage to gay couples will solve the equal protection problems of the federal government WRT marriage. Why is that?

    The only thing i am convinced of is Gay Marriage has nothing to do with Hetero Marriages, Homo’s only want the same rights, benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) afforded them that the Hetero’s recieve.

    Those arguing against Gay Marriages do so solely based on wanting to continue to deny rights to Citizens based on an aspect that has NOTHING whatsofuckingever to do with them

    Due to the Constitution it is an all or nothing deal, either the Government recognizes marriages or it doesnt. If it doesnt recognize a type of marriage, it has to have a justifiable reason for not doing so.

    In the case of Gay Marriage there hasnt been justification.

    Thumb up 0

  29. AlexInCT

    If you are going to use the “You are using the laws to restrict the freedoms of a subset of people who simply will not subscribe to whatever” argument Jim, then we better get ready for anarchy as one group after another demands we get rid of all laws they don’t like. Laws in general limit certain behavior societies do not consider to be good, for whatever reason. We do not condone theft, murder, pedophilia, child pornography, incest, and a slew of other things that technically are an infringement on other people’s rights. And using the “it’s not freedom once it affects someone else” argument falls short here too. One can easily make and even defend the argument that many of these behaviors can be engaged in by consent. Assisted suicide? Incest? Shit, even pedophilia.

    In general society has condoned behavior that has a positive outcome and punished those they felt where detrimental. I am not saying this was right in every case, and many things might have even been immoral, but they existed because not having them had proven to cause damage to societies. Unfortunately we have had decades of “experimentation” and fighting against the strict societal structures that one group or another didn’t like, and in general it has all contributed to far more harm and problems than good. You are right that gay marriage will happen. You are also right that society will continue to decline. I think you are very wrong saying that since society is on a declining path anyway, this will not make a difference. I in fact am certain that it will open the door to far worse, as is happening in practically every country where they have normalized gay marriage.

    I see that this movement –those that have fought the old ways and come up with all this new crap that has burdened society with far greater costs and created all these nanny states in the name of that “social justice” nonsense – has brought us will inevitably lead to a societal collapse. Our economies are imploding under the costs of unsustainable programs that not only condone but subsidize all manner of bad behaviors. I guess another dark age will roll all this stuff back, including the ones that where actually good. Things simply can not keep going the way they are, no matter how well intentioned. Anarchy will follow, and then, things will get ugly. Then again, I suspect that’s exactly what a lot of the people that push this stuff ultimately are after. Never let a crisis go to waste and all that.

    Thumb up 0

  30. sahrab

    CzarChasm i apologize to you, i was notified that you are new to the Blogosphere.

    The Gay Marriage topic is forum fodder and typically sparks a large discussion.

    Thumb up 0

  31. JimK

    One can easily make and even defend the argument that many of these behaviors can be engaged in by consent. Assisted suicide? Incest? Shit, even pedophilia.

    BULL – FUCKING – SHIT.

    God dammit do I hate it when people use this stupid line of reasoning. You leap from two consenting adults wanting to legally share their personal and financial lives regardless of sexual orientation to fucking incest and pedophilia?

    That is bone-ignorant and so hyperbolic that it makes me actually want to slap you.

    I in fact am certain that it will open the door to far worse, as is happening in practically every country where they have normalized gay marriage.

    PROVE THIS. Show me specifically, with evidence, not assumption or assertion, the fact that gay marriage has caused “far worse” things to happen in countries where it’s legal.

    Correlation is not causation, remember. So prove your case, Alex. Prove that allowing gay people to be recognized as easily as straight people in the state of marriage causes “far worse.”

    *edited to add* I meant to include this the first time. Alex, you started this sentence by using the word “consent.” Then you compared gay people marrying to pedophilia. By definition – both practically and legally – pedophilia is not a consensual act. Age of consent laws are called that due to the key word – consent. To commit pedophilia, one has sex with a child under the age of consent, thereby making the act non-consensual.

    Thumb up 1

  32. AlexInCT

    BULL – FUCKING – SHIT.

    God dammit do I hate it when people use this stupid line of reasoning. You leap from two consenting adults wanting to legally share their personal and financial lives regardless of sexual orientation to fucking incest and pedophilia?

    Actually Jim, I leapt from consenting adults making a family unit, in order to rear kids up, to easy divorce and government subsidized single parenthood destroying the nuclear family, first, and from there it’s not easy to go to anything else. Gay Marriage isn’t by far the first step in this progression into anarchy. This like of reasoning is only stupid if you ignore the damage already done. You skipped right past some of the other items I pointed out straight to incest and pedophilia too as if that’s not where it is going. Here is another one: polygamy. Ignoring the rational progression makes it easy to say this isn’t going to happen or of importance, but the proof is there because this started with something else. Check how the Dutch are faring with all this stuff. They have serious problems with marriage in general, and with the exception of certain immigrant demographics, children are now considered to be nothing but blasé burdens on people stupid enough to reproduce, and the Dutch are now also facing massive pressure from all those groups you are angry at me for saying will piggy back on this, to normalize their behavior as well.

    That is bone-ignorant and so hyperbolic that it makes me actually want to slap you.

    I often feel the same way about those that forget the fact, on purpose or not, that this movement to change things and normalize behavior society previously felt was destructive, didn’t start with gay marriage, ignore all that other such events have already happened, and advocate that there will be no difference or consequences, because it won’t affect those married now a bit, while ignoring that the real impact isn’t now, but what comes after.

    Frankly I wish that the state had stayed out of the whole marriage business even if I understand that they did it to serve their own interests, because I expected it to lead us precisely down the road we are on today. Take the example of how people treated children out of marriage then and how we now expect them and the irresponsible adults that make them to be supported by tax payers. And we then say that’s all because we care and for their good. After all, why punish the kids for the lack of foresight or irresponsibility of their parent(s)? So now government subsidized destructive behavior. I won’t even bother with divorce, especially when there are kids involved, and what we tell people to do these days.

    There are going to be consequences, foreseen or not, that these changes will bring with them, and to pretend they are not there, inconsequential, or to be ignored out of expediency to the nobility of some cause -even when the correct case is made that they affect no one’s current marital status – especially by attempts to bullying anyone pointing them out into silence, are counter productive. The whole ostrich approach has worked so well for us so far.

    PROVE THIS. Show me specifically, with evidence, not assumption or assertion, the fact that gay marriage has caused “far worse” things to happen in countries where it’s legal.

    Others that are far more prepared and informed than I, brave as hell in the PC society that attacks anyone that deviates from the expressed beliefs of the establishment, have already done so. Many are dismissed and outright blacklisted for daring to point out these failures, but the fact that what they have pointed out is coming to pass is indisputable. How about you Google the Netherlands in combination with marriage, divorce, pedophilia, declining child birth, and so on. The statistics don’t lie. The trend is there.

    What we where told was impossible 5 decades ago became law. Then one by one these other things we where told would never follow, the ones you are calling hyperbole, are doing just that: following. A couple of decades from now, if the muslims don’t take over and institute Sharia in the interim, these things will be normalized for sure. Nobody over there argues that’s not so anymore. Most believe it is a lost fight and not bothering too.

    *edited to add* I meant to include this the first time. Alex, you started this sentence by using the word “consent.” Then you compared gay people marrying to pedophilia. By definition – both practically and legally – pedophilia is not a consensual act

    Why can’t pedophilia not be consensual, Jim? The people in NAMBLA will tell you it sure as hell is when they point out that their catamites have a choice and do it out of love for them. Or are you referring to that arbitrary age that one of those very societal laws I point out was put in place to ban behavior society felt was bad or destructive, says is where the behavior becomes taboo? Cause if you are, you made my point for me.

    Thumb up 2

  33. AlexInCT

    Man let the things flow where they need to. Are we all adults here or not? Don’t worry a bit CzarChasm about where people take your post. Enjoy the ride!

    Thumb up 0

  34. CzarChasm *

    New to the blogoshere, yes, new to trying to discuss things rationally and respectfully, no. I guess I don’t understand the difference between “forum fodder” and discussion fodder, the latter of which is all I attempted to provide. At most, the gay marriage issue was tangential in the article I posted, mentioned only because of timing of the case being heard and Liu taking the Bench. My sarcastic comment (“Shwew! Just in the nick of time!” etc.) was likewise only tangentially in regards to the gay marriage issue, and, I thought anyway, obviously also about the timing. I thought it was rather clear that the gist of the post was what kind of Justice Goodwin Liu might be expected to make, good or bad. Clearly, I think he’ll be horrible for CA, but literally none of that thought is based on gay issues, but rather, only on judicial issues. Obviously I was wrong about how clear that was.

    That said, some of sahrab’s posts raised some interesting questions that might make decent blog-fodder concerning the balance of powers and authorities between the three branches of government, both state and federal. I would’ve likely pursued those subjects if it didn’t seem like it was going to be a pissing contest that I had no interest in indulging, so I left most of it alone after only replying to one post. Just to be clear, my reticence to engage in a pissing match should not be taken as acquiescence to any point asserted, nor as an inability on my part to make a cogent counter argument. I just find that nobody learns or teaches anything in the midst of pissing contests. Being new to the blogosphere has nothing to do with my view in this regard.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  35. JimK

    And all of the sudden, I get CM’s frustration so much more. You offered NOTHING in the way of evidence, make spurious assumptions and then stated things as fact when you have nothing but how you *feel* things should be. And your NAMBLA thing was EXTRA stupid. They’re not the law, which is what I was speaking to. I couldn’t give two fucks what NAMBLA thinks is consensual: I was referring to reality, not some constructed straw-man fantasy in your head where NAMBLA gets to write the laws governing sex with minors.

    Jesus. It’s like asking for coffee, being served motor oil and when you complain, the clerk says “Well they’re both brown liquids, aren’t they?”

    Thumb up 2

  36. Rann

    Hey.

    Hey Alex.

    Gay men are going to have sex with you, Alex.

    They’re lurking in the shadows, just waiting for you to have a single moment of not guarding your asshole. The moment your pucker is vulnerable, POW! Giant throbbing gay dick all up in that thing!

    And then you’ll turn homo, Alex. You’ll be all flouncing around talking about window treatments and shit.

    Don’t let it happen, Alex! Oppress! Oppress! And never forget your iron assplate!

    Thumb up 3

  37. AlexInCT

    OK, so you are not able to use Google on your own and want links I guess Jim.

    Start reading Kurtz. I unfortunately have read a lot of Dutch statistics and articles on the subject, but since I am sure you don’t read Dutch I won’t bother linking those. As for that pedophilia argument, let me point out that the Dutch are the only people with a political party dedicated to nothing but legalizing it. Some claim they disbanded but the movement is stronger than it has ever been. And the Dutch are notorious and are blasé about the whole thing to the extent they protect pedos.

    There is tons more out there. Do you want me to provide links showing how government subsidies to single mothers have resulted in massive growth of single parent births too? Or that the easy divorce laws and a society that finds little value in parental unions have contributed to massive social declines too? I mean everything I have said here is easy to research and find out, so I am not sure why I would have felt compelled to link the obvious. But if you want it I can certainly provide it for you. Your cheap crack about sharing CM’s frustration notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 1

  38. drunkkus

    My argument is about the Government bestowing rights, benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) to one set of citizens and denying them to another without justification.

    Whether or not the Government should be recognizing Gay Marriage is another topic, but in regards to this particular subject the Government is creating 2 sets of citizenry and people are seemingly ok with it.

    Ok, then. I’m still a little confused, I guess. Maybe you’re saying the same thing I am going to, but since you have a problem with the government creating 2 sets of citizenry and bestowing rights, benefits, and privileges to only one set, I’m not sure why your problem is with DOMA in particular as opposed to, say, the Social Security Act.

    No i meant its not relevant, in this discussion, to “argue instead.. against the recognition of marriage in all forms by any government”

    It’s definitely relevant if it’s also germane to talk about how wrong it is for the government to create two sets of citizenry with different rights.

    In the course of this particular discussion the Federal ban on Gay Marriages is in place. My argument is about the Government bestowing rights, benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) to one set of citizens and denying them to another without justification.

    Whether or not the Government should be recognizing Gay Marriage is another topic, but in regards to this particular subject the Government is creating 2 sets of citizenry and people are seemingly ok with it.

    I’ll quit beating around the bush. Once again, forgive me if I’m not understanding your position, but if you’re really concerned about the government bestowing rights, benefits, and privileges to one group and not another, you should also have a problem with all the other laws in which marital status is a factor. Even if the government passed a law that required every gay person to be married and forced marital rights on them, the government would still be bestowing rights on some people (married) that it does not on others (unmarried). I don’t see how someone can claim to care about the rights of a minority and only whine about the poopie-headedness of DOMA and Prop 8.

    The fact is, there is a whole assload of SINGLE OR UNMARRIED adults in the US. How the hell can someone use the “tyranny of the majority is wrong according to the Constitution” argument and forget about 96 million adults (43 percent of all people 18 or over in the US) who are not married? Striking DOMA and Prop 8 and allowing gay marriage doesn’t fix the tyranny of the majority problem. It just makes the majority larger.

    If you’re really serious about it being wrong for the government to create two sets of citizens and give one set special perks, I submit that the only way to reconcile the problem is to stop rewarding anyone for choosing to do a religious or social ceremony. Where’s the justification for denying a single person any right that’s denied to a married person? Maybe I’m as straight as an arrow, in a life-long relationship, and I just don’t fucking want to get wrapped up any further in wishing my rights away by asking the government’s permission to be “married.” Where’s the justification to deny me the same rights that would be afforded a “married” person whether they are gay or they are straight?

    Thumb up 3

  39. Jim

    For good or ill, changing laws always has consequences. Your insistence that “nothing will change” is not born out by history.
    Laws have a moral component to them, that is the nature of laws. When laws are changed, by extension, society sees a moral shift. This shift is sometimes good, it is also sometimes bad.
    When inter-racial marriage was made legal, there was a backlash at first, but children who grew up in a society where it was legal had an easier time viewing it as morally acceptable. There are still exceptions, obviously, but it definitely helped shift opinions. When abortion was made legal, it definitely created a shift in how it was morally viewed; some of the stigma was lifted. As a result, we now witness nearly 1 million abortions a year.
    To ignore the obvious social ramifications of legalizing *anything* is to be intellectually dishonest, whether or not you agree the thing needs to be legalized. Physician assisted suicide is another example. It is more recent and not every state has adopted it but we are already seeing that suicide is becoming more acceptable than it once was.

    By definition – both practically and legally – pedophilia is not a consensual act. Age of consent laws are called that due to the key word – consent. To commit pedophilia, one has sex with a child under the age of consent, thereby making the act non-consensual.

    Practicality has very little to do with it in comparison to legality in this instance. I’ve met mature 12 year olds and immature 18 year olds. The “age of consent” is a social and legal construct, but I guarantee you if the legal definition was changed, the social definition would soon follow. Of course, to some extent, the social definition is changing on its own as is evidenced by the huge numbers of children having sex as compared to years before. But change the legal definition and the behaviour becomes even more “acceptable.”
    It is also disingenuous to ignore that some laws are changed in regards to a logical progression that people push from the outset. Some people here may either be old enough or may have done enough research to know that the original argument for legalizing abortion was that it would be for a *very* narrow set of circumstances, and it would be a rare occurrence. How long did that last? Once the initial hurdle was cleared, the original agenda behind the legalization began to pick up speed. Once it fell into the “unfortunate but acceptable” category, society shifted. Now, we have whole segments of the population who do not see it as unfortunate, it is touted as “empowering” to women. Had abortion remained illegal, this would *not* be the case today.
    Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, your choice. Whether you push for it to be legal or not, your choice. But be intellectually honest about it and acknowledge that history shows us there *will* be consequences involved in changing fundamental laws. If you happen to agree with those consequences, just say so. Don’t hide behind the “this won’t affect *anything* EVAR!” argument.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    When laws are changed, by extension, society sees a moral shift. This shift is sometimes good, it is also sometimes bad.

    I would say it’s far far more common that laws *reflect* a moral shift. The law is changed to reflect that things have changed.

    Thumb up 0

  41. hist_ed

    So, ummm, can I ask a question of all y’all debating weddings for poo punchers?

    Is there anyone out there who thinks that gay marriage is fine and should be legal and that it will happen but who also thinks that it is not a constitutional right? (that’s my take, by the way)

    Thumb up 0

  42. AlexInCT

    I would say it’s far far more common that laws *reflect* a moral shift. The law is changed to reflect that things have changed.

    CM, you actually might be on to something there. I think you are correct to point out that laws shift/change/morph/come/go because attitudes shifted first, but then those changes in the law definitely, as pointed out, result in more change that follows when things have become more relaxed & accepted. And not always for the better, I add. My example of child welfare for example came about when people supposedly became more concerned about the children of single parents and their welfare and the impact of the existing societal bias against making children out of wedlock. But once the stigma was removed and bad people realized they could make money, it became just another way for welfare queens to get money from other people, and the children of these people are now worse of and exist in far greater numbers.

    I guess there are two components to these changes. Most often enough people’s attitudes change – and sometimes they don’t get the chance to even do so as things get pushed on them by the courts – and that leads to new laws. But it is insane to pretend that once these laws come about there are no further changes and oft unforeseen and very negative or positive consequences. The problem is that the ratio of good to bad consequences, to me at least, seems to be horribly skewed in favor of the bad ones.

    Thumb up 0

  43. AlexInCT

    Hey.

    Hey Alex.

    Gay men are going to have sex with you, Alex

    They’re lurking in the shadows, just waiting for you to have a single moment of not guarding your asshole. The moment your pucker is vulnerable, POW! Giant throbbing gay dick all up in that thing!

    And then you’ll turn homo, Alex. You’ll be all flouncing around talking about window treatments and shit.

    Don’t let it happen, Alex! Oppress! Oppress! And never forget your iron assplate!

    .

    Weak isn’t even what this is Rann. I expect this kind of immature taunting from leftists when they lose the argument. At least you didn’t come outright and say I was a closet homo with a complex that hates gays for that or some such nonsense. Frankly I find it insulting to gay men that you think they are lurking in the dark looking for people to walk by to jump too. You sure however left me feeling like you might be having some homoerotic fantasies about me.

    As I have pointed out, more than once, I have more than one gay relative and love them no less for that. I have no problem with people being gay and will defend their right to do their thing. I have had many a long discussion with them and other gay people on the issue, and you would be surprised to find how diverse their range of opinion is too. However, I find it very frustrating when people that claim to be smart then have to resort to this sort of cheap attack simply because I point out that there will be an impact to society when changes occur that favor gay marriage and they don’t like to hear that.

    If anyone is being oppressed here, it is those that seem to feel the need to attack anyone with such cheap tactics for pointing out that their pretense that this is of no consequence, when we have historical proof there will be consequences, is dishonest.

    Seriously, shit like this only makes it more obvious to me that society is doomed.

    Thumb up 1

  44. CM

    …but then those changes in the law definitely, as pointed out, result in more change that follows when things have become more relaxed & accepted.

    Not sure that that is necessarily true. If the mood had shifted to an extent that it was politically acceptable to enact a change in law, then how do you measure the extent to which simply changing the law further shifts the mood?
    You can’t just claim that’s what happens because it suits your argument.

    But once the stigma was removed and bad people realized they could make money, it became just another way for welfare queens to get money from other people, and the children of these people are now worse of and exist in far greater numbers.

    I haven’t seen evidence that sufficient single people have kids to get welfare to the the point where it has then caused a change in society’s attitude. I’m not doubting that it happens, what I’m doubting is that it happens to an extent that it has caused a shift in mood. If anything if it became a noticable problem I would imagine society’s attitude would shift in the OPPOSITE direction (i.e. it would be stigmatized again). I’m sure one of the down-sides of being a single parent is having people assume you did it for the money, and attempt to stigmatize you for it.

    But it is insane to pretend that once these laws come about there are no further changes and oft unforeseen and very negative or positive consequences.

    It’s insane to claim something as fact when it’s far from established fact, and difficult to even see how it could be.

    Anyway I’m sure slave owners saw the abolition of slavery as having negative consequences. And I’m sure white politicians saw nothing but negative consequences when blacks got to vote. Both of those reflect the law changing to meet the times. Very often it depends on your perspective.

    Thumb up 0

  45. CM

    ….simply because I point out that there will be an impact to society when changes occur that favor gay marriage and they don’t like to hear that.

    I think people simply don’t like to hear people claim ‘facts’ that aren’t in evidence.

    As JimK said:

    Show me specifically, with evidence, not assumption or assertion, the fact that gay marriage has caused “far worse” things to happen in countries where it’s legal.

    Thumb up 0

  46. Rann

    I expect this kind of immature taunting

    Oh I’m sorry, I was under the impression we left mature discourse behind when you lumped me in with thieves, murderers, and child rapists, Alex!

    As I have pointed out, more than once, I have more than one gay relative and love them no less for that.

    I wonder how they’d feel about you if they knew you ranked them around the level of a pedophile.

    Seriously, shit like this only makes it more obvious to me that society is doomed.

    It gets a little less doomed every time someone like you dies.

    Thumb up 0

  47. drunkkus

    Is there anyone out there who thinks that gay marriage is fine and should be legal and that it will happen but who also thinks that it is not a constitutional right?

    My thoughts on the subject have evolved over time, and this sums up my thoughts pretty well these days. IMHO two consenting adults should be able to have a wedding where they poo punch and peanut recycle all in one sitting instead of reciting wedding vows if that’s what they want to do or if that’s what their religion calls a wedding ceremony. That is as far as anyone’s constitutional rights should go WRT to marriage. It’s decidedly unconstitutional for the government to give them special status or tax breaks just for having a poo punching party and riding off into the super fabulous sunset. There is no constitutional right that should be conferred upon them together after their social or religious ceremony that shouldn’t be conferred upon them each separately without one.

    Thumb up 2

  48. drunkkus

    And I think I should specify. No one should be able to majority vote away the freedom to have a wedding ceremony complete with poo punching and peanut recycling from gay couples, either.

    Thumb up 1

  49. AlexInCT

    Bringing this out here because I actually think this will be an interesting discussion:

    Not sure that that is necessarily true. If the mood had shifted to an extent that it was politically acceptable to enact a change in law, then how do you measure the extent to which simply changing the law further shifts the mood?

    Maybe the problem is that you are focused on what you term “the mood” and not the consequences of the change as well as the attitude shifts that follow, as I am, CM.

    Take the example I used about children out of wedlock. Society changed their stance on this behavior – children out of wedlock resulted in massive stigma and often even the death of mother & child when resources where scarce and having mouths to feed like this produced horrible stress on the community in general – and as societies became more wealthy and capable of supporting some level of this drain on resources, we got laws and government support programs that originally where put together to address that shift. The stigma was still there, and they believed the programs would not be widely used.

    But then there was an even bigger shift, and unforeseen one with real bad consequences, in attitudes that followed. First, and in a very short time, the stigma went away, often because government pushed to remove it so people would actually use the program, then way too many people began to see this not just as their right, but as just another form of income, and the practice of making babies out of wedlock not only exploded, it became a massive drain and problem for society. Yet, nobody is willing to admit that no matter how good the original intentions where, this was a massive failure as far as policy is concerned, and we continue to have government subsidizing a destructive practice we should all have worked to stop (if we really cared about the children instead of the power of big government to control lives I should add).

    That’s not the only such shift and program. Marriage shifting from a religious thing to a state sanctioned thing, no fault divorce came along, people where told their personal happiness was paramount and far more important than the obligations they took on, militant feminization has made it so most men now avoid any serious commitments, the education system was swamped by new agey thinking and a focus on self esteem instead of hard work, and so on, and on, have all contributed to drastically erode the nuclear family. One can argue this was done on purpose as the state decided it was better suited to rear children, but that’s not a topic I am interested in dealing with right now. And there are many other such examples that all seem to share the same commonality: government involvement or legalization. I can think of many of these but just a single one that produced anything good.

    The fact is that these things have results that people often simply do not grasp or see as they are making the shift, even if totally well intended, and denying that is insane.

    You can’t just claim that’s what happens because it suits your argument.

    I didn’t make any such claim just because it suits my argument CM. There are countless examples out there backing me up, and I even have, for the umpteenth time, dealt with the most obvious one – children out of wedlock. But let’s go on with that.

    I haven’t seen evidence that sufficient single people have kids to get welfare to the the point where it has then caused a change in society’s attitude.

    Really? You are honestly making the case that you do not think that births out of wedlock which result in people needing government assistance is far more prevalent now than it was when government didn’t subsidize that? Maybe what you need is links? How about you check out CATO, which shows the effect of government’s involvement and subsidies in welfare.

    And I will add that I firmly believe that getting the actual numbers on things like this is not as easy as it should be, precisely because it is also taboo to look at these things and point out these programs have actually encouraged the bad behavior they where hoping to somehow curtail. I am surprised I was not accused of being a racist, child hating, grandma over the cliff throwing, heartless bastard – the usual tactic employed to silence anyone criticizing these dumb programs – for daring to point out that they are subsidizing and causing more of the bad behavior.

    I’m not doubting that it happens, what I’m doubting is that it happens to an extent that it has caused a shift in mood.

    Huh? That it is more frequent and people feel no shame doing it doesn’t reflect a shift in mood? I think I need you to define what you think “mood” means. Anyway, do you question that the behavior is far more pervasive and trending in the wrong direction, and if it wasn’t for government also pushing abortion on demand that we would today be swamped by these people that use the system’s pay out for their kids as a meal ticket?

    If anything if it became a noticable problem I would imagine society’s attitude would shift in the OPPOSITE direction (i.e. it would be stigmatized again). I’m sure one of the down-sides of being a single parent is having people assume you did it for the money, and attempt to stigmatize you for it.

    Actually CM, it is shifting in the opposite direction, and doing so fast, here in the US, for sure. What do you think the Tea Party’s beef with big government is about? It’s all the massive burden/cost of these failed programs and laws that claim to be to do good but have far worse consequences, and even worse, that encourage bad behavior and even subsidize it. The usual and tried & true vicious and immediate attacks that anyone daring to point out that these where failed programs, the usual demonization of character tactics, no longer cow enough people into silence.

    Anyway I’m sure slave owners saw the abolition of slavery as having negative consequences. And I’m sure white politicians saw nothing but negative consequences when blacks got to vote. Both of those reflect the law changing to meet the times. Very often it depends on your perspective.

    So you hit the one example where a shift in attitude produced a good result. Unfortunately that was followed by the welfare state that all but destroyed the black family and made blacks in the US slaves of the state yet again, wiping it all out as far as I am concerned. We either agree that too much of these things have been failures and seek a balance, or we will come to a point where when things go really bad society will drastically shift the other way, and then I am afraid, not even good changes will be tolerated. Perspective be damned.

    Thumb up 0

  50. AlexInCT

    Oh I’m sorry, I was under the impression we left mature discourse behind when you lumped me in with thieves, murderers, and child rapists, Alex!

    Actually Rann, you and others with a chip on their shoulder about the subject, are the ones that made that leap. I did no such thing, and am insulted that you pretend I did. I simply pointed out that the argument that there was no consequence and logical progression that would let those other groups piggy back on any changes to marriage, was not just false and dumb, but a recipe for disaster. I understand why though. It is much simpler to dismiss me as a gay hater than to actually discuss the issue when it is not in your favor.

    I wonder how they’d feel about you if they knew you ranked them around the level of a pedophile.

    Unlike you they seemed to have grasped the problem I am pointing out, and didn’t feel the need to basically accuse me, falsely I add, of ranking them in with pedophiles. My uncle actually seemed genuinely worried about the issue too, because he was sure that when that time came where pedophiles demanded the same, that people would blame gays for it.

    It gets a little less doomed every time someone like you dies.

    I could sink to your level, but why bother. Here is some advice though, and it is given in the hopes you give reason a chance. The one with the emotional problem will be staring you back when you look in the mirror.

    Thumb up 2

  51. Rann

    So you’re too gutless to stand by the bigoted bile you actually spewed? What a surprise.

    Yes, Alex, it was pure fantasy on my part that when you said legalizing gay marriage, it was another step on the road leading to legalized theft, murder, and pedophilia, that you were actually lumping these concepts together. Clearly you were not lumping these things together as all immoral and similar, but were…

    Ah, fuck, I can’t even conceive of what sort of excuse you’re trying to use here. You goddamn well know that that’s exactly what you meant, and so does everyone else. Try not to insult me further by expecting me to be so grotesquely stupid that I can’t see exactly what you meant, since you fucking said what you meant.

    It is much simpler to dismiss me as a gay hater than to actually discuss the issue when it is not in your favor.

    Actually I’m dismissing you as a gay hater because you’ve made it perfectly clear that you hate gay people. And frankly I don’t know why you’re even bothering to deny that you do, as you’re not fooling anyone. You’re just using Homophobe Code, which other bigots realize, see, and speak back to you, and that others see for what it is. “It’s not that I hate gay people, but we have to keep them from getting married or the next thing you know, it will be legal to rape four-year-olds in the streets” is such a ridiculous statement to claim as being non-bigoted that I’m surprised that even a borderline retard such as yourself is capable of attempting it.

    But then considering that you insulted me directly throughout your comment, while making indirect insults earlier, then said “I’m not going to sink to your level by insulting you” directly before insulting me again, I suppose that deficient lump of atrophied meat in your head does allow for that level of disconnect, you worthless troglodyte.

    Thumb up 0

  52. AlexInCT

    So you’re too gutless to stand by the bigoted bile you actually spewed? What a surprise.

    Fuck you Rann. How is that for gutless?

    Yes, Alex, it was pure fantasy on my part that when you said legalizing gay marriage, it was another step on the road leading to legalized theft, murder, and pedophilia, that you were actually lumping these concepts together. Clearly you were not lumping these things together as all immoral and similar, but were…

    Since I said no such thing, you are finally correct.

    Ah, fuck, I can’t even conceive of what sort of excuse you’re trying to use here. You goddamn well know that that’s exactly what you meant, and so does everyone else. Try not to insult me further by expecting me to be so grotesquely stupid that I can’t see exactly what you meant, since you fucking said what you meant.

    Refer back to what I said on the first item on this post.

    It is much simpler to dismiss me as a gay hater than to actually discuss the issue when it is not in your favor.

    Of course it is much simpler to do that: then you don’t have to deal with what you don’t like to hear. I see that you are still avoiding what I said though.

    Actually I’m dismissing you as a gay hater because you’ve made it perfectly clear that you hate gay people.

    I am starting to dislike you for sure.

    And frankly I don’t know why you’re even bothering to deny that you do, as you’re not fooling anyone.

    It sure as hell must be a drag on you to deal with us people that are unable to look into other people’s minds and know what they think, huh?

    You’re just using Homophobe Code, which other bigots realize, see, and speak back to you, and that others see for what it is.

    Homophobic code? Oh, man priceless.

    “It’s not that I hate gay people, but we have to keep them from getting married or the next thing you know, it will be legal to rape four-year-olds in the streets” is such a ridiculous statement to claim as being non-bigoted that I’m surprised that even a borderline retard such as yourself is capable of attempting it.

    Since I never said we should keep them from getting married, only acknowledge that when that happens there will be others that ask for the same, and those others might not be so palatable to deal with. But hey, why should I bother pointing this out since you already ignored it more than once so you could call me a homophobe.

    But then considering that you insulted me directly throughout your comment, while making indirect insults earlier, then said “I’m not going to sink to your level by insulting you” directly before insulting me again, I suppose that deficient lump of atrophied meat in your head does allow for that level of disconnect, you worthless troglodyte.

    Refer back to what I said on the first item on this post.

    Now have a nice day. I have wasted enough time with you.

    Thumb up 1

  53. CM

    Since I never said we should keep them from getting married, only acknowledge that when that happens there will be others that ask for the same, and those others might not be so palatable to deal with.

    Ok Alex so give us a specific example. Pick a specific group of people and present the argument they would have if gay people are allowed to marry.

    Thumb up 0

  54. blameme

    My guess is Alex is trying to say that once you change the definition of marriage, what is to stop it from changing again, and again etc?

    This is the slippery slope argument. While I do think that people that want to have marriage consist of more than two people will be next, I don’t know why we should let that, or any other argument get in the way of gay people marrying.

    My utopia would be all government out of religious ceremonies and make any rights granted to couples be via civil union.

    Man and woman, woman and woman, man and man would all be civil unions and equal under the eyes of the law. If you want a religious ceremony, find a church that believes as you do and do the vow thing. But, these activities should be separated.

    Regardless, the slippery slope of “OMG who could get married next” is not a winning argument and should not be used to keep gays from marrying.

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Society changed their stance on this behavior – children out of wedlock resulted in massive stigma and often even the death of mother & child when resources where scarce and having mouths to feed like this produced horrible stress on the community in general

    This suggests that there WASN’T stigma associated with it before – but when was that? When was there not?

    But then there was an even bigger shift, and unforeseen one with real bad consequences, in attitudes that followed. First, and in a very short time, the stigma went away,

    I wouldn’t agree that the stigma went away.

    then way too many people began to see this not just as their right, but as just another form of income, and the practice of making babies out of wedlock not only exploded, it became a massive drain and problem for society.

    I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to be able to agree with that. Is there research to support that, or is it just an ideological narrative?

    Yet, nobody is willing to admit that no matter how good the original intentions where, this was a massive failure as far as policy is concerned, and we continue to have government subsidizing a destructive practice we should all have worked to stop (if we really cared about the children instead of the power of big government to control lives I should add).

    First you’d need to provide evidence that this ‘destructive practice’ is at a meaningful scale. If there is no evidence that it is, people wouldn’t have anything to ‘admit’.

    Marriage shifting from a religious thing to a state sanctioned thing, no fault divorce came along, people where told their personal happiness was paramount and far more important than the obligations they took on,

    I would suggest it’s more that people were provided with greater opportunities to escape from bad situations. In the end it comes down to personal responsibility though doesn’t it. Only the individual in each case knows whether they’re just running away from responsibility, or whether they are taking the opportunity of leaving a destruction relationship that their parents and grandparents could never have left.

    militant feminization has made it so most men now avoid any serious commitments,

    Woah. Now that’s just silly.
    If a man avoids a serious commitment then that is on him. The man shouldn’t be blaming society. He should take personal responsibility. Perhaps he’s just an areshole to women and they’re not putting up with it like they did when his Dad was an arsehole to women.

    and so on, and on, have all contributed to drastically erode the nuclear family.

    I don’t agree. People have more choices now. They don’t have to be trapped in a situation which is destructive to everyone. Different family types are more accepted in general. More and more are able to live in a situation that suits them, not in a situation that they are expected to live in.
    That’s not saying that there are serious issues out there (e.g. deadbeat Dads that discard their responsibilities).

    One can argue this was done on purpose as the state decided it was better suited to rear children….

    WTF?!

    And there are many other such examples that all seem to share the same commonality: government involvement or legalization. I can think of many of these but just a single one that produced anything good.

    I don’t really understand what you mean there.

    The fact is that these things have results that people often simply do not grasp or see as they are making the shift, even if totally well intended, and denying that is insane.

    As usual, I think you’re stuck in an ideological strait-jacket and it’s fucked up how you view everything.

    There are countless examples out there backing me up, and I even have, for the umpteenth time, dealt with the most obvious one – children out of wedlock. But let’s go on with that.

    Well I don’t see any validity in what you’re saying about that one.

    You are honestly making the case that you do not think that births out of wedlock which result in people needing government assistance is far more prevalent now than it was when government didn’t subsidize that?

    I’m not the one ‘making a case’ Alex. You’re claming causation but have provided nothing at all to support that.
    I’ll read what’s at your CATO link, although I would want something independent (i.e. some peer-reviewed journal-published research) not something published under the heading “Downsizing the Federal Government”.

    That it is more frequent and people feel no shame doing it doesn’t reflect a shift in mood? I think I need you to define what you think “mood” means.

    We’re talking about mood shifts in society that lead to laws being changed. You’re suggesting that law changes then lead to (or exacerbate) a mood shift (in society). But with respect to single women with kids and their use of welfare, I do not believe that a sufficient number of single women have kids to get welfare AND that this has shifted society to consider that to be ok.

    Anyway, do you question that the behavior is far more pervasive and trending in the wrong direction, and if it wasn’t for government also pushing abortion on demand that we would today be swamped by these people that use the system’s pay out for their kids as a meal ticket?

    Yes I question that (as well as virtually everything you’ve said about any of this). You’re pushing a standard ideological narrative which I don’t believe is well supported by evidence.

    Actually CM, it is shifting in the opposite direction, and doing so fast, here in the US, for sure. What do you think the Tea Party’s beef with big government is about? It’s all the massive burden/cost of these failed programs and laws that claim to be to do good but have far worse consequences, and even worse, that encourage bad behavior and even subsidize it. The usual and tried & true vicious and immediate attacks that anyone daring to point out that these where failed programs, the usual demonization of character tactics, no longer cow enough people into silence.

    Have you seen recent polls about how unpopular the Tea Party is? 40 percent of respondents said they held an “unfavorable” view of the movement
    And that’s on the way up, not on the way down.
    So not sure you can claim the existence of the Tea Party as evidence of a society mood shift on something so specific as whether the number of single mothers having kids to get welfare is out of control and is a direct result of providing the system itself.

    So you hit the one example where a shift in attitude produced a good result.

    Two examples. And the point wasn’t that the result was good. The point was that there would have been a large proportion of the population that thought it would lead to negative consequences (and probably then decided that it did once it happened).

    Unfortunately that was followed by the welfare state that all but destroyed the black family and made blacks in the US slaves of the state yet again, wiping it all out as far as I am concerned.

    Well that’s you opinion and your perspective.

    We either agree that too much of these things have been failures and seek a balance, or we will come to a point where when things go really bad society will drastically shift the other way, and then I am afraid, not even good changes will be tolerated. Perspective be damned.

    Well no, I’m afraid that’s just your perspective on the issue. I’m pleased that my mother was provided with the ability to leave my physically abusive step-father before things got even more serious. Yes we had to rely on welfare for a couple of years, but there is no doubt that it set us up to have much better lives from that point on. Fucked if I can see the logic of suggesting that we should have stayed and put up with it because a change to the system might mean that in the future an unknown number of women might decide to have kids just to get welfare. But yeah that’s my perspective, so I could be wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  56. AlexInCT

    This suggests that there WASN’T stigma associated with it before – but when was that? When was there not?

    Huh? Society changed part of the stance on it for sure CM, but the stigma didn’t originally go away when they changed at all. Bleeding hearts made the argument that the innocent child suffered, through no fault of their own, from the stigma and the shunning, and that caused the change. As time went bye those that liked the power, and of course votes, that came with these programs worked hard to remove the stigma. Couched in nice prose they told us it was so everyone came to look for help. What they really wanted was the votes. Today there is no stigma at all for being on welfare or for abusing the system.

    I wouldn’t agree that the stigma went away.

    Are you serious CM? If you pointed out these people used their kids as paychecks you got accused of being a racist if they were a minority, or of harboring hate for the poor if they were not. These days there is nothing the people sucking on the government teat are ashamed off. They laugh at anyone that points out what they are doing is wrong. I have seen numerous takes where these people are up in arms because they don’t believe enough is being taken away from others and given to them. They love Obama BTW.

    I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to be able to agree with that. Is there research to support that, or is it just an ideological narrative?

    So you are telling me that you do not see the correlation between the massive rise of single mothers, a demographic that basically all but is guaranteed to need financial assistance, resulting in a higher incidence of this? Is that on purpose?

    And the reason it is so hard to find all the numbers that would make this obvious is because until recently it was taboo to produce anything that made the rampant subsidy of bad behavior look bad. As long as you produced stuff saying how many people where helped it was fine. Dare to do any work to figure out the number of incidences was on the rise and then link it to the subsidies, and watch the media and politicians go apeshit and do everything to destroy you. But you can still find data if you look for it.

    For one, the fact that there are more poor people today on government programs, when economically the country, even with the sad economy it has now, has far more wealth available and in the hands of the average poor person, after over 5 decades of the war on poverty bullshit, should be enough to make even the harshest skeptic do a double take. Welfare equals big power for some politicians. BTW, Obama doubled the money spent on welfare programs in the US when he took over, and it is only getting worse. The numbers are staggering, and that’s because the number of people sucking on the government teat is large and getting larger. This stuff is by far the biggest items in the US budget right now.

    I will work at it and find more data specifically on the subsidy programs that encourage women to make babies for cash.

    First you’d need to provide evidence that this ‘destructive practice’ is at a meaningful scale. If there is no evidence that it is, people wouldn’t have anything to ‘admit’.

    Actually the problem is that no matter how idiotic and destructive the left’s program is, they never, ever, admit it. Want prove? Tomorrow night Obama will yet again propose we spend another $300 billion – without calling it stimulus because that now carries a stigma too – after we blew a cool trillion with nobody but government employees, democrat donors, campaign coffers, special interests, and friends making out. My bet is that no evidence will ever convince you that I am right however, and that’s par for the course with those that believe and push these practices and can not admit they are failures.

    I would suggest it’s more that people were provided with greater opportunities to escape from bad situations. In the end it comes down to personal responsibility though doesn’t it. Only the individual in each case knows whether they’re just running away from responsibility, or whether they are taking the opportunity of leaving a destruction relationship that their parents and grandparents could never have left.

    Thanks for proving my point. Personal responsibility has been replaced with feel good first, and we think it is progress. Actually CM, what should have happened was that marriage needed to be harder to get into, so people don’t go into it thinking they can bail if it just doesn’t work.

    Woah. Now that’s just silly.
    If a man avoids a serious commitment then that is on him. The man shouldn’t be blaming society. He should take personal responsibility. Perhaps he’s just an areshole to women and they’re not putting up with it like they did when his Dad was an arsehole to women.

    Are you this disconnected with what the younger male generation feels society has become? With a very few exceptions the ones I work with all believe marriage is basically a way for women to rip them off. In general the legal system and divorce courts are so anti male, that most young men find it insane to marry. It doesn’t end there. I already have too many links in this post or I would provide you with dozens of links discussing just this, but you can google “why are younger men no longer marrying” and see what that brings back. Here in the US a woman can accuse you of being the father of her child, and you are going to pay for that child even if you can prove he isn’t. Get accused of rape and you are stigmatized for life. There are huge problems here. If I was young and out there today I would be afraid to date, and would never marry

    I don’t agree. People have more choices now.

    Heh, choices. Right!

    They don’t have to be trapped in a situation which is destructive to everyone. Different family types are more accepted in general. More and more are able to live in a situation that suits them, not in a situation that they are expected to live in.
    That’s not saying that there are serious issues out there (e.g. deadbeat Dads that discard their responsibilities).

    Right, because it’s obvious that the majority of divorces don’t simply happen because someone just thinks the grass is greener elsewhere. And more and more of these different family types, as the links above show, are costing us so much money that it is insane. It’s not by accident that too many of these different family types seem to be disproportionately represented among the poor.

    I’m not the one ‘making a case’ Alex. You’re claming causation but have provided nothing at all to support that.
    I’ll read what’s at your CATO link, although I would want something independent (i.e. some peer-reviewed journal-published research) not something published under the heading “Downsizing the Federal Government”.

    As I pointed out: there will never be anything from those you would consider to be “independent” telling the truth, because it is taboo to do so. But that was a nice and brilliant dodge so you can avoid admitting the facts favor me.

    We’re talking about mood shifts in society that lead to laws being changed. You’re suggesting that law changes then lead to (or exacerbate) a mood shift (in society). But with respect to single women with kids and their use of welfare, I do not believe that a sufficient number of single women have kids to get welfare AND that this has shifted society to consider that to be ok.

    Since most of these big laws are being pushed by courts here in the US, often overriding the ballot box, I beg to differ. Our congress has cowardly avoided dealing with these tough issues and left us with a dangerous precedent. From the abolition of slavery, to the integration of the races, to the federalization of abortion, to now gay marriage, the courts are pushing the changes, practically always against the majority which is against it. Right or wrong. But you can keep pretending that’s not the case.

    Yes I question that (as well as virtually everything you’ve said about any of this). You’re pushing a standard ideological narrative which I don’t believe is well supported by evidence.

    Says the guy that because of ideological blinders dismisses everything that doesn’t fit in with what he wants to pretend reality should be. Heh.

    Have you seen recent polls about how unpopular the Tea Party is? 40 percent of respondents said they held an “unfavorable” view of the movement
    And that’s on the way up, not on the way down.

    Actually CM I have seen the polls. And I laughed at them. The people doing the polling have an agenda – you aren’t gong to tell me the lame stream media is heavily anti Tea Party and biased now are you – the questions where specifically tailored to illicit a negative response, the sampling was unrealistic and so heavily left leaning it all but makes the exercise look like what it is: propaganda. Here is news for you: the only polls that matter are the elections. I can rehash the 2010 ones for you, but I recommend yu wait until the 2012 ones to discuss the popularity of the Tea Party.

    Two examples. And the point wasn’t that the result was good. The point was that there would have been a large proportion of the population that thought it would lead to negative consequences (and probably then decided that it did once it happened).

    Two out of hundreds. Check.

    Well that’s you opinion and your perspective.

    No, it is not my opinion. Google “The destruction of the African American community by the welfare state” and with the exception of those links that say the exact opposite of what you are asking Google to look up are put in the top results pushing the nonsense from those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo, you will see that it’s not a matter of perspective That you even say something as stupid as that basically makes it obvious you are not arguing in good faith.

    Well no, I’m afraid that’s just your perspective on the issue.

    Tee hee. Yeah, it is my perspective that the left’s utopia is a miserable failure. The fact that most western societies are imploding and their economies are on the brink after 5 or so decades of progressives and their games, is all someone else’s fault. Priceless.

    I’m pleased that my mother was provided with the ability to leave my physically abusive step-father before things got even more serious. Yes we had to rely on welfare for a couple of years, but there is no doubt that it set us up to have much better lives from that point on.

    While I am sorry for your situation and glad you think welfare helped you, your story is rather the exception than the norm. At least here in the US.

    Fucked if I can see the logic of suggesting that we should have stayed and put up with it because a change to the system might mean that in the future an unknown number of women might decide to have kids just to get welfare. But yeah that’s my perspective, so I could be wrong.

    More of this? Now pointing out divorce became too easy and that it now has driven up the number of divorces because people just walk away from their responsibilities means that I was pushing for people to stay in abusive situations too? Since somewhere around 50% of marriage seem to be ending in divorces – here in the US – are you telling me that at least 50% of men or women that get married are violent? Yeah, I thought so.

    Thanks for the ride CM. You did not disappoint.

    Thumb up 0

  57. AlexInCT

    Actually I already did CM. Go up to the reply I amde to Jim showing the Dutch and their pro-pedophilia party. But you can ignore that yet again and pretend I didn’t if it suits you.

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    Huh? Society changed part of the stance on it for sure CM….

    You said:

    Society changed their stance on this behavior – children out of wedlock resulted in massive stigma and

    When did they “change their stance”? When exactly was this pre-stigma period?

    Couched in nice prose they told us it was so everyone came to look for help. What they really wanted was the votes.

    Narrative. It’s possible for a politician to want to assist people in need based on their basic philosophies.

    Today there is no stigma at all for being on welfare or for abusing the system.

    Horseshit.

    Are you serious CM? If you pointed out these people used their kids as paychecks you got accused of being a racist if they were a minority, or of harboring hate for the poor if they were not.

    You probably only get that reaction because you’re unable to discuss the issue in a rational and objective way. You’re blinded by ideology. There is certainly a certain stigma attached to being a single mother in society in general.

    These days there is nothing the people sucking on the government teat are ashamed off. They laugh at anyone that points out what they are doing is wrong. I have seen numerous takes where these people are up in arms because they don’t believe enough is being taken away from others and given to them.

    Irrelevant to the extent of stigma attached to being a single mother in today’s society.

    They love Obama BTW.

    Completely irrelevant to the argument, which you seem to have lost sight of completely because you’re unable to steer away from blind ideology and the ODS that accompanies it.

    So you are telling me that you do not see the correlation between the massive rise of single mothers, a demographic that basically all but is guaranteed to need financial assistance, resulting in a higher incidence of this? Is that on purpose?

    In order to have a ‘correlation’ you’ve got to have two factors. A “massive rise of single mothers” is apparantly one of your factors, but you’re missing a second one. Additionally, it’s not “correlation” you need to show, it’s “causation”. But then JimK has already told you that. So you’re ignoring it on purpose obviously.

    until recently it was taboo to produce anything that made the rampant subsidy of bad behavior look bad

    Unsupported narrative.

    But you can still find data if you look for it.

    It goes without saying that if the number of people who qualify for assistance increases, it will cost more. DOH. But tells us nothing about causation. That’s what you need to find.

    For one, the fact that there are more poor people today on government programs…

    More now compared to when?
    Your OWN link (CATO) says that “The number of Americans on welfare plunged from 12.6 million in 1996 to 4.2 million individuals by 2009, a dramatic 67-percent decrease” and that cash assistance accounted for 73 percent of welfare spending but this was slashed to just 41%. So the incentive to become an unwed mother for money was cut sharply. From what you’re saying, that should have meant a huge drop in the number of un-wed mothers in subsequent years. And yet you’re saying now the number of unwed mothers has been INCREASING?

    Welfare equals big power for some politicians.

    Yeah I’m not really interested in your narratives. It’s not relevant to the discussion. You’re attempting to argue that laws kick off negative consequences and led to social attitudes changing for the worse. You’re using unwed mothers as an example. You need to demonstrate causation. Don’t get side-tracked by ideological narratives via the Heartland Institute.

    I will work at it and find more data specifically on the subsidy programs that encourage women to make babies for cash.

    Well ok, but you need to do more than that to show causation.

    Actually the problem is that no matter how idiotic and destructive the left’s program is, they never, ever, admit it.

    Again, you seem to have lost track of the actual discussion because you’re wanting to inject irrelevant ideological narratives into this. You’re wasting your time.

    My bet is that no evidence will ever convince you that I am right however, and that’s par for the course with those that believe and push these practices and can not admit they are failures.

    I can be convinced of pretty much anything given the right information.

    Thanks for proving my point. Personal responsibility has been replaced with feel good first, and we think it is progress. Actually CM, what should have happened was that marriage needed to be harder to get into, so people don’t go into it thinking they can bail if it just doesn’t work.

    I’m not proving your point at all. You’re blaming an imagined shift in public opinion about unwed mothers for individual decisions made by people.
    I don’t see why marriage needs to be “harder to get into”. If marriages fail, they’ll fail. It’ll usually be a whole lot of factors. It won’t be that they didn’t fill in enough paperwork, or wait a month. And why do you want to let people off the hook by blaming it on the ease by which they were able to marry? If people want to end their marriages, they’re making a personal decision to do so. They are responsible for the decision.
    I personally don’t know why people get upset by the overall success rates of marriages. Each marriage isn’t affected by an overall rate. The success of my marriage isn’t at all relevant to whether 10% of marriages fail or 90% of marriages fail.

    If I was young and out there today I would be afraid to date, and would never marry

    Good grief.

    Heh, choices. Right!

    Yes, right. It’s indisputable. The fact that you don’t like that because of your hang-ups and rigid ideology/philosophy is entirely irrelevant.

    Right, because it’s obvious that the majority of divorces don’t simply happen because someone just thinks the grass is greener elsewhere.

    Again, we’d need to look at the evidence. Got any?
    As I understand it, the No. 1 problem surrounds money.

    And more and more of these different family types, as the links above show, are costing us so much money that it is insane.

    Where do your links show that?

    It’s not by accident that too many of these different family types seem to be disproportionately represented among the poor.

    Still doesn’t mean that people determine their family depending on much they can get from the government.

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    As I pointed out: there will never be anything from those you would consider to be “independent” telling the truth, because it is taboo to do so. But that was a nice and brilliant dodge so you can avoid admitting the facts favor me.

    Narrative nonsense.

    Since most of these big laws are being pushed by courts here in the US, often overriding the ballot box, I beg to differ. Our congress has cowardly avoided dealing with these tough issues and left us with a dangerous precedent. From the abolition of slavery, to the integration of the races, to the federalization of abortion, to now gay marriage, the courts are pushing the changes, practically always against the majority which is against it. Right or wrong. But you can keep pretending that’s not the case.

    Jesus Christ Alex. Now you’re off on another argument altogether.
    Anyway……I’ll indulge you as I always do……laws being changed by politicians are the result of changes in society, however what role does the general mood of society have in decisions (which effectively set laws) by courts?

    Says the guy that because of ideological blinders dismisses everything that doesn’t fit in with what he wants to pretend reality should be. Heh.

    What have you shown that doesn’t ‘fit’ with what I’ve said?
    You keep coming out with these ideological statements as though you’re reading straight out of a first year textbook and yet you can never seem to support them. It keeps happening in virtually every thread. Even JimK expressed his frustration in this thread about it.

    Actually CM I have seen the polls. And I laughed at them.

    Yes, of course you did.

    The people doing the polling have an agenda – you aren’t gong to tell me the lame stream media is heavily anti Tea Party and biased now are you – the questions where specifically tailored to illicit a negative response, the sampling was unrealistic and so heavily left leaning it all but makes the exercise look like what it is: propaganda. Here is news for you: the only polls that matter are the elections. I can rehash the 2010 ones for you, but I recommend yu wait until the 2012 ones to discuss the popularity of the Tea Party.

    Irrelevant to your unsubstantiated point that the popularity of the Tea Party, at a specific date, reflects a shift in society’s attitudes to unwed mothers and whether the get pregnant in order to get money.

    Two out of hundreds. Check.

    It’s up to you to show causation. You can’t even do it in the one you picked.

    Thumb up 0

  60. AlexInCT

    Narrative nonsense.

    LOL! Yeah sure. The point stands: you refuse to accept facts even when they are given to you when you don’t like them. You refuse to admit that the left has intimidated anyone that dared to point out what they do is in general disastrous because of the same bias that forces the left to keep doing so. The Soviets did much of the same about anyone that pointed out how fucked up communism was, and in the end it did not save them. The progressive movement is coming to the same end. The sad thing is that it will put most of the modern world back a century when it finally implodes.

    Jesus Christ Alex. Now you’re off on another argument altogether.

    Erm, no I am not. You contend that the shifts come as a consequence of shifts in popular opinion, and I gave you evidence that’s not the case. And that’s not for the piddly stuff, that’s for the real ground shaking, earth shattering things. The ones with the biggest impacts, economically and to the fabric of society all had to be pushed by courts here in the US, for better or worse, and came before any shifts.

    Anyway……I’ll indulge you as I always do……laws being changed by politicians are the result of changes in society, however what role does the general mood of society have in decisions (which effectively set laws) by courts?

    I will repeat it: the laws I am talking about, the ones that have caused the most damage to the fabric of society – intended or unintended – all where pushed outside of the legislative branch by courts. Then, when they had no other option, those that write the laws decided to compound on those errors, always claiming they did it to help someone. If you want to refute what I am saying you can simply do so by giving me an example or two that show that “big shift in mood” that was not pushed by the courts but actually just came through the normal law writing process. I am all ready to be proven wrong here.

    What have you shown that doesn’t ‘fit’ with what I’ve said?

    Where have you finally admitted that everyone of those nice projects the left pushes as help for the poor, disenfranchised, and so on has done far more harm than good? Cause if you admitted that, then we are in agreement.

    You keep coming out with these ideological statements as though you’re reading straight out of a first year textbook and yet you can never seem to support them. It keeps happening in virtually every thread. Even JimK expressed his frustration in this thread about it.

    So you ignored the facts yet again after I gave them to you? Please explain how the fact that we are now going into the sixth decade of the war on poverty, have flushed close to $20 trillion, to eradicate it, and have ended up with more poor people and more people making the bad decisions that lead to poverty? Because I sure as hell want to understand how pointing out that what’s been done so far has failed abysmally, then showing you numbers that back that up, is ideological.

    Wow, funny how suddenly JimK’s opinion seems to matter to you, huh? I wonder why you didn’t take it as seriously the countless other times he pointed out your issues? And as far as I am concerned, I addressed JimK by giving him the information he claimed did not exist.

    Yes, of course you did.

    Yes I did. I make it a point to go look at the questions and the sample polled, as well as who is doing the polling, to make sure I understand what really went on. You can pretend that the LSM has not been against the Tea Party from day one because they basically said they had enough of the stupid, and ignore lame polling designed to produce the desired outcome, but I don’t have to. And I will repeat it again. The polls that matter are the elections. Remember 2010? Well watch out for 2012.

    Irrelevant to your unsubstantiated point that the popularity of the Tea Party, at a specific date, reflects a shift in society’s attitudes to unwed mothers and whether the get pregnant in order to get money.

    Really CM? Is that because unwed mothers popping out puppies to get more government cheese isn’t part of the welfare state that’s burdening the productive? Yeah. I thought so.

    It’s up to you to show causation. You can’t even do it in the one you picked.

    Actually I did, but you refuse to see it. Are you disputing the fact that number of unwed mothers making babies has been and continues to trend up? Or that the amount of government cheese going their way is also drastically going up? I linked those up there. Or is it simply that you refuse to look at the facts then logically see that there has to be a relationship between getting cash and the rise of occurrences? Oh wait, I know! You didn’t like the sources because they where not “independent” – that’s collectivist code for progressive or so far left leaning that they might as well be communist – enough for you.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Poosh

    So long as you’re perfectly ok with brothers marrying brothers, and fathers marrying daughters and sons, and mothers marrying daughters, and polygamy, then I wouldn’t oppose someone supporting gay marriage. Because she or he was being consistent in their logic.

    There is not a single valid argument to make between the morality or decency of homosexuality, and all those other things. Every single argument pro-gay marriage people makes EQUALLY applies to all those in the list above. The moment you deny this, is the moment you admit to picking and choosing, which is exactly what you accuse those who oppose gay marriage of doing.

    And to those of you paying attention, gay-marriage is a deliberate and intentional tool to destroying society – as we know it – by cultural marxists. The destruction of the traditional family unit is a vital objective for the hard left. This is what is driving the underlying forces. Destroying the bedrocks of our society are necessary, their objective down the road is to destroy the childbearing family completely and allowing the state to do it (in a post-capitalist state).

    Thumb up 4

  62. Poosh

    You keep coming out with these ideological statements as though you’re reading straight out of a first year textbook and yet you can never seem to support them.

    A lot of his “ideological” statements do not require supporting evidence and many readers here know full well they are facts, or have a high degree of truth, from sources we’ve already read – perhaps even from this blog, in the past. There are many books available, which demonstrate what AlexInCT has said. The Welfare State We’re In, for example.

    Thumb up 2

  63. AlexInCT

    So long as you’re perfectly ok with brothers marrying brothers, and fathers marrying daughters and sons, and mothers marrying daughters, and polygamy, then I wouldn’t oppose someone supporting gay marriage. Because she or he was being consistent in their logic.

    This^^^

    Like I said. If we are going to do it lets be honest about what comes next.

    Thumb up 1

  64. CM

    Are you disputing the fact that number of unwed mothers making babies has been and continues to trend up? Or that the amount of government cheese going their way is also drastically going up? I linked those up there. Or is it simply that you refuse to look at the facts then logically see that there has to be a relationship between getting cash and the rise of occurrences? Oh wait, I know! You didn’t like the sources because they where not “independent” – that’s collectivist code for progressive or so far left leaning that they might as well be communist – enough for you.

    Um no, as I pointed out, YOUR OWN LINKS show that
    (1) Welfare was slashed
    (2) But the number of unwed mothers continued to rise.

    So you’ve proven your own theory wrong. As usual.

    The rest of what you’ve written is just an unsubstantiated ideological narrative. You’ve not even come close to showing causation for your one example.
    Honestly, it would be much quicker and easier to just say “that’s just what I think anyway”.

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    Not much point having a discussion forum then is there, if everyone is required to accept a whole lot of questionable ‘givens’. It’s just a bunch of people lecturing to each other about stuff they already agree on (i.e. a circle jerk). Is that what you’re after Poosh? Sure sounds like it.

    If it’s all so blatantly obvious and easy to support, why can’t he even come close to doing so? Sorry but it’s (obviously) a complete joke to continue to say “I don’t have to show anything, it’s well known”.

    Thumb up 0

  66. hist_ed

    I second CM on that. Slippery slope arguements are mostly bullshit. We get to decide at every point on the slope whether we want to proceed. Just because we made abortion legal doesn’t mean we will ever legalize infanticide.

    Thumb up 0

  67. sahrab

    First if its Consenting Adults then you, I nor the Government has any business in it.

    Second what does Gay Marriage have to do with Society? Gays will still exist, they will still continue to get mud on their dipsticks and love Judy Garland, whether or not they can get married.

    The argument against Gay Marriage is entirely based on intruding into the personal lives of Law Abiding Legal Citizens and using the Government to commit the act.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Poosh

    If you think that I was talking or making any sort of “slippery slope” argument then you have not understood what I wrote, or did not read the full effect of what I wrote. I do not think the slippery slope argument is true with gay-marriage because most homosexuals have the same “bigotry” towards, say incest, as they claim anti-gay marriage folk have towards them. I’m not going to repeat my point as it was clear above.

    unsubstantiated reactionary conspiratorial nutjob nonsense.

    Then you don’t know your history of the Left, do you. Right from the start Engles pointed to the FAMILY as one of the hurdles one needs to get over, in order to bring out equality for all. The state, a socialist state that is, is far better suited to cultivating a consciousnesses necessary for socialism, then the family. This isn’t conspiratorial. If you think Marx and Engles had issues with the family – think about all those post-marxists! The destruction of the family IS one of their goals. The nuclear family unit is a bourgeoisie creation, and needs to be done away with. All those academics and leftist intellectuals eat the same bread and butter. Communal care to bring up children NOT THE FAMILY. Flash forward into the future and you get Freud. What does he say? Your parents fuck you up. Conclusion of Leftists using Freud: state can bring you up better, with less neurosis.

    Am I saying most Democrats believe this stuff? Not the elected politicians, no. But the academics, feminists, and certain intellectuals know full well why the nuclear family must be destroyed. The political/philosophical theorists are ALWAYS the driving forces, from whatever way you look at it (right-wing point of view, who’s the poster-philosopher of the Tea Party? AYN RAND) Many elected, both Democrat and Republican, will have gone to Uni (college in America?) and heard similar Marxist drivel. It would be absurd to think that every single one of them ignored their teachers attempts at indoctrination.

    Is it right to destroy the nuclear family? Is the nuclear family responsible for a great deal of injustice? Up to you, but this is repeated time and time again by Leftist theorists (pick any post-marxist/critical theorists/frankfurt school people), and this is what the Hard Left believe. And just remember, the Hard Left own your higher education, and are to some extent influencing Obama policy as you speak.

    Thumb up 2

  69. Poosh

    Nutjob? Reactionary?

    So the political/philosophical theorists who are the building blocks of the Left mostly advocate the destruction of the nuclear family in the name of equality and progress, and you just think it’s nonsense? Because, what? You just don’t want to hear it?

    I’ll throw you a bone.

    Thumb up 2

  70. CM

    I think it’s utter nonsense that you believe the left (as a whole) is built on a specific building block of destroying the “nuclear family” (like that’s something that was never going to change anyway), and that those trying to do what you suggest have any sort of power and are able to even begin to manipulate everything they’d need to manipulate.

    The moon landing was a fake, 9/11 was an inside job and climate change is a fraud and conspiracy. Sure sure, whatever gets you through the night.

    Thumb up 0

  71. Poosh

    Are you serious? That’s not even what I claimed.

    I can’t even respond because you’re reacting to something I did not claim. You have not carefully read what I have written.

    Thumb up 2

  72. hist_ed

    If you think that I was talking or making any sort of “slippery slope” argument then you have not understood what I wrote, or did not read the full effect of what I wrote.

    So when you wrote this:

    So long as you’re perfectly ok with brothers marrying brothers, and fathers marrying daughters and sons, and mothers marrying daughters, and polygamy, then I wouldn’t oppose someone supporting gay marriage. Because she or he was being consistent in their logic.

    that wasn’t a slippery slop argument? It was just complete idiocy? See, I can make sense of the slippery slope, “If we let the poo punchers marry then next we’ll have to let siblings marry.” I think its bullshit, but it makes sense. If that’s not what you were saying, if you were simply saying that people who are in favor of gay marriage must be in favor of incestual marriage, just because you say to be so is logically consistant, well then, that is just stupid.

    Thumb up 0

  73. Poosh

    Well done, you correctly read what I wrote. Now why is that ‘just stupid’ exactly?

    You’re no doubt immediately incensed or indignant or some such, by my remarks. OMGZ! He compared homosexuality to incest, what a bigot! … Those are emotional responses. Why should I care about feelings? Since when did we base these things on feelings and emotions? Are we not governed by rationality?

    The pro-gay marriage argument is predicated on “we’re no different than heterosexuals” or “what we do behind closed doors is our business”. All fair enough, but it’s not too much to expect logical – and MORAL – consistency from people who are advocating gay marriage, why shouldn’t we demand this one topic fulfill the basic rule of logical consistency? We’re talking about a moral issue sure, but every single argument that supports gay marriage supports all those things YOU think are ‘bad’ above. All I ask is that EVERYONE is treated fairly: real equality. Once you say “heterosexuals should not have a monopoly on marriage” (fair enough you might say) then how is that consistent morally/logically to then determining that other sexual configurations are denied marriage just because YOU have a problem with them? Isn’t that exactly what you claimed heterosexual-marriage was guilty of?

    This is not a slippery slope argument, this is a demand that if you’re going to destroy a cultural institution, and replace it with what you claim to be secular, then you make sure it IS secular, and not just another cultural leftover.

    Give me a single valid logical reason why it’s immoral for a mother to marry a son? Or a father to marry a son? Not interested in any “oh, but inbreeding is bad” arguments, they’re fallacies. So what they? Cause it’s gross? Cause the Bible said it’s bad? YOU might have a negative gut reaction to that idea, you might feel disgust. So? So what? (In Ancient Egypt THIS WAS THE NORM.)

    Why can’t one take on ten wives? Or one take on ten husbands? Or multiple-sex marriages? Or multiple same-sex marriages. There is no moral argument you can throw at me to deny these relationships have just as much right to be enshrined in marriage as any other, once you’ve rejected the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. Who are you to judge or condemn them? Define without any religious or emotional claim, why a daughter should not marry a mother – if they fell in love etc. Describe the ethics behind denying their marriage? Whatever you come up with APPLIES to same-sex marriage.

    Again, this is not a slippery slope argument as the slope implies negativity to the things that will come in the future, as a consequence of one event. I’m denying the negativity and demanding consistency, lest your argument be invalidated.

    Of course, if you want to throw out logic, and go on your emotions then fine. But no one is right or wrong in that case, it’s just a bunch of emotions that can change tomorrow, and we don’t even need to argue about it.

    *obviously, ‘pedophilia’ is NOT included here. That’s incredibly stupid. Such a relationship would not be a free-will relationship, as one of the parties is not of an adult, rational mind.

    ** obviously, if you’re looking at this from a religious point of view, that’s a separate matter, and none of the above will be valid.

    Thumb up 2

  74. AlexInCT

    that wasn’t a slippery slop argument?

    Sorry hist_ed, but I have a far greater problem with people that simply decide to pretend that ignoring the consequences of something is fine than I do with the abuse of the slippery slope argument in general. We are where we are today because those that wanted something bad enough used the bias of some people to justify shutting off those that had a legitimate concern they wanted addressed before they came along on the ride.

    I think gay marriage will happen. I hope it does. However I am certain that if we do it the way it is being done right now, that it will cause far more damage, and a lot of it to gays – as I already pointed out I expect gays to be blamed when other groups use what was done to accommodate them to justify their request for the same, and point out that we lack consistency – than it needs to if done right.

    Frankly I hoped we would first have removed government from marriage and stopped government from subsidizing behavior that’s bad, and then left our society in a far better place than we are now to deal with and allow changes, but we seem hell bent on not only doing it wrong, but doing it in the way we assure the most damage and cost possible to society at large.

    As others pointed out: gay marriage will have zero impact on my marriage, but there sure as hell will be consequences to my kid’s life. And so far, I see very few positive ones.

    Thumb up 0

  75. AlexInCT

    That statement you made is the same as the argument that “We are doing it for the good of [insert your special interest group here]=good” that the left uses constantly to justify whatever expansion and intrusion by collectivist government is is pushing, CM.

    Thumb up 0

  76. sahrab

    Having to pull this out here:

    The pro-gay marriage argument is predicated on “we’re no different than heterosexuals” or “what we do behind closed doors is our business”. All fair enough, but it’s not too much to expect logical – and MORAL – consistency from people who are advocating gay marriage, why shouldn’t we demand this one topic fulfill the basic rule of logical consistency? We’re talking about a moral issue sure, but every single argument that supports gay marriage supports all those things YOU think are ‘bad’ above. All I ask is that EVERYONE is treated fairly: real equality. Once you say “heterosexuals should not have a monopoly on marriage” (fair enough you might say) then how is that consistent morally/logically to then determining that other sexual configurations are denied marriage just because YOU have a problem with them? Isn’t that exactly what you claimed heterosexual-marriage was guilty of?

    My argument has nothing to do with whether Homos should be allowed to get married or not. My argument has solely been about the Federal Government bestowing Rights/Benefits and Priviledges to one set of Citizenry, while denying it to another without justificaiton.

    None of the scenarios in your argument are valid, as Homo’s can and do get married now and there isnt anything anyone can do about it. Broadening Federal Recognition of same sex marriage doesn’t encourage behavior because you are then saying that the current system prevents said behavior. Incest, Pedophilia and Bestiality occur today even without Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage.

    Your slippery slope arguments are nothing more than a dodge as a means to distract from denying same-sex couples the same rights/benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) that hetero couples want to preserve for themselves. In other words its using the Government to deny rights/benefits and priviledges to someone for an aspect of their life that has nothing to do with your own.

    This is a scare tactic. If the argument were true, wouldn’t the scenarios in your Slippery Slope have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years.

    If you are truly worried about the moral decline due Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage, then where is your concern for the child molesters, pedophiles, convicted murders, drug dealers and abusers who can all get married?

    Everything we do leads to the possibility of something else being done. Marriage between a man and a woman itself was a slippery slope leading to same sex marriages. Should we have denied marriages between men and women because of that reasoning?

    Thumb up 0

  77. Xetrov

    My argument has nothing to do with whether Homos should be allowed to get married or not. My argument has solely been about the Federal Government bestowing Rights/Benefits and Priviledges to one set of Citizenry, while denying it to another without justificaiton.

    Which they don’t (at least in this regard), and you’ve failed to prove.

    Thumb up 0

  78. Poosh

    None of that applies to what I’ve said because I’m not making a slippery slope argument. I even said a ‘slippery slope’ would not occur if you legalised gay marriage. I can only guess you missed some of what I wrote (your arguments are counter-arguments to a different sort of argument that I am not arguing, I am not talking about moral-decline, though maybe some are):

    This is not a slippery slope argument, this is a demand that if you’re going to destroy a cultural institution, and replace it with what you claim to be secular, then you make sure it IS secular, and not just another cultural leftover.

    I have difficulty justifying ‘marriage’, or what exactly government has to do with it. Everything can be arranged outside of marriage.

    But why are you putting incest and bestiality in the same boat? Animals have no choice int he matter but two consenting adult humans who happen to be related – what’s that got to do with you? Why are you condemning them? That’s offensive someone could quite rightly argue.

    Thumb up 2

  79. drunkkus

    My argument has solely been about the Federal Government bestowing Rights/Benefits and Priviledges to one set of Citizenry, while denying it to another without justificaiton.

    What argument are you making, exactly? I still haven’t figured it out, because legalizing gay marriage sure as hell will not completely solve this problem. Even if gays are added to the set of citizenry that are afforded the rights/benefits and priviledges, there will still be consenting adults in committed relationships who are denied the same rights/benefits and priviledges by the government without justification.

    Your slippery slope arguments are nothing more than a dodge as a means to distract from denying same-sex couples the same rights/benefits and priviledges (per DOMA) that hetero couples want to preserve for themselves. In other words its using the Government to deny rights/benefits and priviledges to someone for an aspect of their life that has nothing to do with your own.

    So, in other words, everyone is entitled to rights/benefits and priviledges whether they’re gay or straight, and gays shouldn’t be denied the rights/benefits and priviledges for an aspect of their life that has nothing to do with your own. Unless they’re cousins. Because you don’t like it when cousins mind their own business and bone each other or what? What if they don’t think they should have to jump through the hoops, ask permission, and register with the government to have the same rights? What happens if a married man is dies and wanted to leave his condo in Palm Springs to his gay husband, but he also wants his biological children to stay with his ex wife (who’s also their biological mother) without a big bisexual custody/visitation rights battle?

    Someone explain to me why, if the government is going to grant special rights to people because they are committed and they’re married, that it’s right to deny those same priviledges to other people who are committed but chose to skip the wedding and get straight to the fucking? Shouldn’t the “gay marriage because it’s equal rights” people be actually concerned with, you know, equal rights, instead of special priviledges for being married or being gay and being married?

    Thumb up 0

  80. hist_ed

    Poosh: So its not a slippery slope, its kind of a slippery cliff?

    Jesus fucking Christ you are a moron. Let me take your logic and apply to other situations: One who thinks that it is ok to sell advil and coffee without restriction MUST LOGICALLY be in favor of the unregulated sales of crack, heroin, and PCP. If you are against tax rates of 90% you MUST LOGICALLY be against any taxes at all. If you oppose mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws, you MUST LOGICALLY oppose any safety regulation of motor vehicles.

    Jesus, we could do this all day. It’s even a little fun. Here’s the problem. Societies get to make choices. They get to weigh restrictions. We as a sociaety get to say (if we want to) “it’s ok for 2 grown men to marry but it isn’t ok if they are brothers.” You get it? That’s how societies function and have functioned since the dawn of civilization (Hey, if you are in favor of keeping circumcision for boys legal, the you MUST LOGICALLY be in favor of female circumcision and you also have to be in favor of allowing parents to chop off their babies’ fingers and toes too). It’s pretty fucking simple, just like individuals, societies get to make judgements. Those judgements can and will change over time as societies change (Hey Poosh, do you think that private individuals should be able to own field artillery and main battle tanks without regulations? If not, the you MUST LOGICALLY be against them owning fire crackers and BB guns).

    How about this: I’ve given you a number of examples of what I think is equivalent to your “logic.” Please, refute two without refuting your own argument.

    Thumb up 0

  81. hist_ed

    Alex. do you see that you are kinda sorta refuting Poosh there? You are weighing consequences while making judgements and according to Poosh, that is NOT LOGICAL!!

    I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Whiel I am not opposed top gay marriage, I oppose it if it is imposed judicially. Unlike many arguments above, I don’t think the 14 Amendment requires it. Our Western society’s roots go back to the Greeks and the Romans. Whiel the Greeks did a lot of poo punching and pederasty, the Romans were pretty traditional (in our modern sense) about mariage and the Roman Republic and Empire is the basis for the majority of Western values, language, and legal and political structures. So, a 2500 year or so tradition is a prett ysolid basis for continuing something. That said, there are a few other things that were traditional for about that long that we decided to change relatively recently. We made women full citizens. We ended slavery. We stopped having state religions. We applied the scientific method to medicine. That means that we can change other 2500 year old traditions, too. I think we should only do so when a majority of our society decides to do so, not when 9 lawyers vote on it. So, yeah, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage and if it came to a vote here in Washington I would vot in favor. But when we are taking that vote, we should have a clear discussion of consequences (and there will be some negative and some positive) and not try to bludgeon our opponents by dimissing them as illogical.

    Thumb up 0

  82. hist_ed

    The argument against Gay Marriage is entirely based on intruding into the personal lives of Law Abiding Legal Citizens and using the Government to commit the act.

    Nope, sorry. It is about giving society’s approval through legal benefits to that relationship. Not that same thing as just saying it is not our business.

    Thumb up 0

  83. hist_ed

    Broadening Federal Recognition of same sex marriage doesn’t encourage behavior because you are then saying that the current system prevents said behavior

    This is only true if you don’t think that economic incentives change behavior. We incentivize marriage through the tax code, citizenship laws and through benefit policies and laws (among other ways). If you make an activity more lucrative, you will have more of that activity. This is Econ 101 and it applies to marriage just like it applies to apple sales or the labor market.

    Thumb up 2

  84. Poosh

    hist_ed, it just seems to me you don’t understand what I wrote. You’ve missed my point by such an incredible length that I’m just not going to bother. I’m just not getting drawn into discussing something you haven’t taken the time to think about, you don’t even seem to have understood my logic. I’m not interested in responding to your attacks. I’d like to think others understand what I wrote and realise how far off you are.

    Thumb up 1

  85. Kimpost

    Bringing this out here, for clarity. Or something.

    hist_ed, it just seems to me you don’t understand what I wrote. You’ve missed my point by such an incredible length that I’m just not going to bother. I’m just not getting drawn into discussing something you haven’t taken the time to think about, you don’t even seem to have understood my logic. I’m not interested in responding to your attacks. I’d like to think others understand what I wrote and realise how far off you are.

    Actually, Poosh. I’m afraid I don’t get it either. If you want me to understand you need to elaborate further. How is it that you don’t think you are making a slippery slope argument? I mean, seems to me that you clearly are.

    How would you respond to hist_ed’s hypotheticals?

    Thumb up 0

  86. Poosh

    I reject that a slippery slope argument will ever happen because those deemed part of the slippery slope are prejudiced against, in the same manner gay-marriage advocates claim homosexuals are prejudiced against. My original claim was simply that any argument you can make for gay-marriage applies morally to various relationships such as incest and polygamy (relationships between loving, consensual adults).

    The original argument is, remember, that homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexuals because there is no moral difference between them, they are the same: thus they should have the same rights (no privileges for one group). Another argument is simply that the state has no right to say who can get married between two loving parties – of a mature enough age to be deemed rational. Both these arguments morally apply to things that come “with the slippery slope”. My stance is, people should be logically consistent in their morals and beliefs as much as possible which leads us to this: if you are supporting gay marriage, because you believe it is wrong for heterosexual relationships to be deemed the only valid relationship that should be honored by marriage (i.e it’s unfair), then you have granted that all relationships that have moral kinship (can’t think of a better word right now) should have the same respect. My claim was that polygamy has the same moral claim as a homosexual couple. I also stated incest, and pointed to the ancient Egyptians who saw incest as normal. For all these cases, I see no moral/ethical argument that does not reduce itself to ‘emotions/gut feelings/disgust’ < and we must remembered many people oppose gay marriage exactly because they feel an emotional reaction, that is negative, towards gay marriage. If you agree 'your emotions are not a valid reason to reject the marriage of these two" then you're contradicting yourself, morally, (are a hypocrite, no better than then anti-gay marriage lot you condemned). The argument for gay marriage is a secular argument and I am merely pointing out some people are not fulfilling their secular demands consistently – they are picking and choosing. That is what I don't like. A slippery slope argument says X leads to Y, which is, clearly, not what I'm talking about. I'm challenging the authenticity of the 'moral stance' certain people make a claim to, when they bang on about how great and decent they are, that they support gay marriage. Can anyone tell me why, outside the biological problem in regard to offsping (moot now, thanks to contraception and abortion), a brother and sister should not marry? I see not a single valid moral argument. Only "i just don't like that", it disgusts me or the bible/culture says that's wrong < all claims people can happily make about gay marriage (or even heterosexual marriage).

    As for society deciding what is ok and what is not, America is a country that has a constitution THEREFOR it has already agreed there are some things are NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION. If you authentically believed that society 100% creates and binds its own laws, and decides on them, then you would believe in a fixed or mostly fixed constitution. You would be a republican (original definition) and believe the ballot always decides and can always change something). Putting that aside, we create our society on a foundation of reason – logic – which protects us from the chaos of our emotions, and, so far, seem to have created ideas that protect us from mob rule or the emotional whims of the majority. A religious cultural institution has been challenged on these rational grounds, and I am making sure the conclusions of unraveling this heterosexual institution are consistent in their own logic, and their moral claims.

    hist_ed's hypothetical are not relevant to this, clearly, as he is claiming clearly negative issues such as female genital mutilation and coke, as analogous to incest or polygamy, which, as i'm sure you've realised as I've banged on aboot it for ages now, I am saying are not 'negative' or immoral – if one is logically consistent with your ethical claims. Let's look at those two claims, female genital mutilation is taking away one of the most important parts of a woman, against her will, and controlling her lifestyle; hard drugs can destroy your life, they enslave you and support a trade where hundreds die brutally, etc – what negatives (for the analogy to hold) can be said for, say lesbian polygamy? His misstep was in not noticing I was making a moral claim as well. If you claim marriage should be for consenting loving adults – then all relationships between loving adults come under that category; I am denying any meaningful/moral difference between any or each: disagreeing with a 90% tax rate is very different to not believing in any tax rate; yet my claim was (after going through what I said above) always hetrosexual couples, gay couples, incest couples, polygamy, are morally worthy of the exact same kind of respect and rights, if your argument is be logically consistent. Hist_ed may have missed this point. His idea that society should dictate what is kosher and what is not, is the language of tyranny – I prefer Reason, Logic, to be the building blocks of what I can and cannot do, and ethics to be as rational as possible. Societies have in the past grown and he writes, but the Enlightenment advanced (in theory) our way of saying what is ok and what is not, we allowed Reason – as modeled on the scientific method – to take center stage.

    P1: Marriage should be between [two] consenting adults, who love eachother, in a relationship.

    P2: Marriage should be allowed so long as no parties are harmed in any way, because of the relationship

    P3: Emotional feelings, such as disgust, or fleeting cultural/historical/religious ‘norms’ that are irrational, are not a valid logical/rational reason to oppose a marriage.

    P4: Consenting adult homosexuals can love eachother, and enter into a loving relationship; no party is hurt

    P5: Opposition to gay-marriage is based on emotions, cultural norms, religious stances

    C1: Therefore gay marriage

    I think we can agree each premise above is valid, in a secular sense, certainly? The premises lead to the conclusion? This reflects the gay-marriage debate to a good degree? When we modify this, to make it subject-free, we get this:

    P1: Marriage should be between [two] consenting adults, who love eachother, in a relationship.

    P2: Marriage should be allowed so long as no parties are harmed in any way, because of the relationship

    P3: Emotional feelings, such as disgust, or fleeting cultural/historical/religious ‘norms’ that are irrational, are not a valid logical/rational reason to oppose a marriage.

    P4: Consenting X can love eachother, and enter into a loving relationship; no party is hurt.

    P5: Opposition to X-marriage is based on emotions, cultural norms, religious stances

    C1: Therefore X-marriage is acceptable.

    I can place a various things people find abhorrent as X and the, I suggest, the argument holds. There are several things that do not hold, such as pedophilia, child marriage, slave marriage. That is basically what I’m saying. Not a slippery slope. For arguers of gay-marriage to have a leg to stand on, they must accept certain other forms of marriage, otherwise they are inauthentic, have shown their argument for gay-marriage to be invalid (as they refuse to abide by it consistently and rationally), inauthentic, and ethically confused (as they are themselves exerting arguments against ‘incest marriage’ that anti-gay marriage sorts exert on them).

    Thumb up 1

  87. Kimpost

    You are still making the same slippery slope argument, even if you’re kind of trying to back away from it by suggesting that you don’t actually fear the slippery slope, because people’s prejudices against incest etc. will likely remain just as strong within the gay community. I’m sorry but I don’t think that your caveat makes your argument any less slippery slope-ish…

    Anyway, let’s say that you are right. Let’s say that there is no actual reason for not allowing siblings to marry, except for prejudice based on some kind of societal gross-factor. So what? Would not addressing that particular prejudice really be a valid reason for not addressing another? Wouldn’t that be a debate for another day?

    Thumb up 0

  88. AlexInCT

    You are still making the same slippery slope argument,

    This to me is code for “I do not want to hear anyone say there are consequences, play Ostrich as it were, so I can continue to grandstand, and better yet, have the ability to then tell everyone that doesn’t agree with what I want 100%, that they are doing it because they are racist/homophobic/sexist/evil/child hater and so on”. Sorry, but this is not about any kind of “slippery slope” argument, and its invocation smacks of an attempt to silence anyone that might have a legitimate issue. It is pointing out that there are consequences, and just like happened in the past with other such instances where people pointed out there where consequences just to be labeled in an effort to shut them up, we ignore the consequences at our own peril.

    This reminds me of Rick Perry currently being attacked by grievemongerers , both in the republican and democrat party, for making the horrible gaffe during the last debate of saying that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse sooner than later, at a horrible cost to all, as such schemes inevitably do, because every asshole wants to pretend that pointing out that there is a problem with SS is tantamount to saying we should deprive old people of their checks. His crime apparently is that of telling the truth. Instead we much prefer to pretend that we can keep doing what we have been doing, and when the whole house of cards collapses, everybody gets screwed. It’s much better to keep this wealth transfer program – from the young to the old – alive until there simply are not enough people to take money from to keep buying the votes.

    Anyway, let’s say that you are right. Let’s say that there is no actual reason for not allowing siblings to marry, except for prejudice based on some kind of societal gross-factor. So what? Would not addressing that particular prejudice really be a valid reason for not addressing another?

    So you are admitting that, at least when it comes to people like you, the claim that gay people have the same rights as everyone else is basically a farce, since you are fine with limiting the rights of others that might say they too then deserve the same treatment? At least now we can see whom is being honest in the argument, and who is not.

    Thumb up 0

  89. Kimpost

    This to me is code for “I do not want to hear anyone say there are consequences, play Ostrich as it were, so I can continue to grandstand, and better yet, have the ability to then tell everyone that doesn’t agree with what I want 100%, that they are doing it because they are racist/homophobic/sexist/evil/child hater and so on”.

    No, if anything it’s just code for “what the fuck are you talking about?” I haven’t accused Poosh of bigotry. Anyway, lot’s of things have consequences. Some of them are foreseeable, others are not. That shouldn’t stop us from doing what we as a society feel is right at a given situation. Fact is, that you hope homosexuals will get to marry. So do I. With Poosh I’m not sure, but it seems like a no, at the moment.

    In any case I also believe that homosexuals will get that “right”, either through the ballot box or through the courts. Like you I’d prefer if it was handled through the ballot box, but I’m convinced that the right will come either way. My guess is that it will be a mix, where the courts will strike the ultimate blow.

    I didn’t care one iota about Perrys SS gaffe. I don’t think that it is a Ponzi-scheme, mostly because I don’t see the scheming part. The system needs an overhaul, though, so Perrys hyperbole was fine with me. I understood what he meant, and so did everyone else.

    So you are admitting that, at least when it comes to people like you, the claim that gay people have the same rights as everyone else is basically a farce, since you are fine with limiting the rights of others that might say they too then deserve the same treatment? At least now we can see whom is being honest in the argument, and who is not.

    Here’s what I don’t get. You are seemingly upset because I, or people like me, don’t address all possible rights at once. Which is fine, I suppose, but surely you must see the idiocy here? Should homosexuals have to suffer, because I’m not compassionate enough to also fight for the marital rights of siblings? This all or nothing sentiment does not make much sense. Let’s get this gay thing over with. After that I’ll be happy to listen to the pros and cons (if there are any) of incest.

    :)

    Thumb up 0

  90. Poosh

    Kim, I don’t have a view on marriage, I’ve not taken the time to think about, ask what marriage is? Etc. I do believe married couples should only have tax-benefits in relation to children, but that’s about it. I think all other rights should be available to others. But then, I’ve not thought about it that much. I have no idea why you think it is a slippery slope argument, unless I am thinking of a ‘slippery slope’ argument as something else. Other than that, a big ‘yep’ to what else you said.

    Thumb up 1

  91. AlexInCT

    I didn’t care one iota about Perrys SS gaffe. I don’t think that it is a Ponzi-scheme, mostly because I don’t see the scheming part.

    The fact that if I or any other private entity tried to put a system together that did EXACTLY what SS has been doing and does today – collect from the young to pay the old – we would land in jail, proves there is a scheme here. If government can fund retirement – and SS was never supposed to be that BTW – in this manner, why not allow private corporations to do the same? There are laws on the boosk to throw any entity other than the US government in jail for doing this. And they are there because the US government says that it is “protecting” people from abusive schemes that transfer wealth from one group through another, with the middleman spending or keeping a good chunk of it for himself, which it rightly views as horribly wrong. If only it would apply that same law to itself, not just when it acme to SS, but to all these stupid social policies that amount to much of the same, not to really help people, but to make government and the people running it powerful and rich, like the crooks that ran Ponzi schemes. Madoff was abastard for what he did, but Uncle Sam is a nice guy doing much of the same.

    Here’s what I don’t get. You are seemingly upset because I, or people like me, don’t address all possible rights at once. Which is fine, I suppose, but surely you must see the idiocy here?

    Actually my concern isn’t with support for rights, but inconsitency of the logic for that support. You prove my point when you have to twist yourself in this manner to pretend that what we have here isn’t you & people like you suddenly deciding one group needs to be favored/given different or more/new rights, while also pretending others whom society currently simply sees as engaged in abberant and unwanted behavior, by the very logic you defend the group’s request for favored/different status, somehow then can be barred from asking for the same because what they do is wrong. It’s totally arbitrary.

    Should homosexuals have to suffer, because I’m not compassionate enough to also fight for the marital rights of siblings?

    Should society have to suffer because people, no matter how well intended, have pushed for changes that then result in serious problems and a heavy burden on all others, irregardless of their original stance that there would be burdens and a heaft cost, and that they would likely pay for it?

    This all or nothing sentiment does not make much sense.

    Nice strawman. It is not an “all or nothing” sentiment, it is a “Stay consistent on the logic” argument. And so far, I am seeing very little of that from the compassioned people. After all, most of them figure they will let others both deal with the problems and foot the bill, as they have consistenly done with every other such “compasionate and well meaning” change that was never thought out, or worse, which they silenced those pointing out there would be problems by attacking their charater and motives, rather than their valid point.

    Let’s get this gay thing over with. After that I’ll be happy to listen to the pros and cons (if there are any) of incest.

    I am sure you would.

    Thumb up 1

  92. AlexInCT

    That’s because by the very definition of a Ponzi scheme, it is. You transfer wealth from one group to another, and you enrich yourself doing it. Government has been transfering wealth from the working young to the retired old, while spending every penny of any surplus to increase it’s grasp on society at large. The biggest proof that it is a scheme is the fact that doing the same thing as a private entity would land you in jail.

    Thumb up 0

  93. Kimpost

    I already said that I didn’t mind the label much. A “Ponzi-scheme” or an “entitlement that’s not sufficiently funded in its current form”? Big deal. I just don’t see the intent. I think a scheme needs as much. If you see an intent, then fine. It’s mostly a whatever.

    Actually my concern isn’t with support for rights, but inconsitency of the logic for that support.

    And the current situation is logical because of… what exactly? Because marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman? Says who? I’m sorry but I judt don’t see our arbitrary definition as particularly solid. If you disagree, then fine. Put it down as yet another whatever.

    Should society have to suffer because people, no matter how well intended, have pushed for changes that then result in serious problems and a heavy burden on all others, irregardless of their original stance that there would be burdens and a heaft cost, and that they would likely pay for it?

    Heavy burden? A suffering society? Serious problems? Heft cost? All this because of same sex marriage? I’m sorry I just don’t see it…

    Thumb up 0