Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Gay marriage stand hems in Obama

May 19, 2012

Advertisement

— There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.

No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.

At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until yesterday, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times.

The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position.  

Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage.

Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights — and just as inviolable.

Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.

Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias — “serves no purpose ... other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”

Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand(ing) rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.

Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.

No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.

Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.

He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for U.S. senator and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.

When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.

Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility to proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.

True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 3 months ago

It was a 'good' article until this 'fallacious' point.

"It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction."

It should have read....'He is too 'conceited' to realize he's embraced a logical contradiction."

0

Alyosha 2 years, 3 months ago

Your nonstandard use of quotation marks continues to deprive your comments of the opportunity to be taken seriously.

0

Orwell 2 years, 3 months ago

The usual Krauthammer propaganda.

The difference between Obama's change of position and Romney's laundry list of flip-flops is that Obama can, and does, explain. Romney just lies and denies he's changed positions, or refuses to talk about his reversals at all.

0

Alyosha 2 years, 3 months ago

Perhaps a remedial composition class is in order, given that this comment displays an inability to anticipate and meet an educated reader's needs and expectations.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

@ Alyosha...

This is exactly why it's getting impossible to even READ these threads...I cannot deal with the pomposity of commenters such as yourself, Alyosha. So, anyone who doesn't have your mental dexterity and educated way of writing...you throw them to the gutter. That act is despicable. (NOTICE to the watch dogs...I did NOT call Alyosha despicable, just his ACT, so, am I going to be deleted again within a two-day period when, by the way, there are plenty of other commenters I've noticed you haven't deleted for far worse sins than I've committed on these threads?!!!)

My educational background (and I cherish my blessing of education) in NO WAY condones my not evaluating each person's value in sharing their opinion(s). Each person has his or her own story to tell and should be respected whether they use the correct method of quotation marks or not. I don't find that you, Alyosha, nor jonas_opines, nor many others on this site, having the grace nor the ability to give that one moment in time to someone you all PERCEIVE to be beneath you. Because truth be told, NO ONE is beneath you all here who are so blasted cocky and sure of yourselves. You show your true value as a human being by comments such as the two above, Alyosha. jonas_opines showed his value to me (yet again) on another thread...and it all makes me gag. You CHOSE, at some point in your life, to go that route, Alyosha...you and jonas_opines and all the others who are just as arrogant and narcissistic, holier than thou, in your opinions of others. (Again, watch dogs, I am calling their OPINIONS out). There are but two commenters on this site who, in my opinion, consistently give gracious, sometimes delightful, funny, and insightful tidbits of wisdom...and you, Alyosha, ain't one of them...nor is jonas_opines and many others!!

Who cares about "nonstandard use of quotation marks"...on this site??? You've GOT to be kidding!! You get the gist of each writer's comments, but because it doesn't meet your educational level, you dismiss them like so much garbage.

I've wanted to say just what I'm saying now for SO long...I've had issues with this site almost from the beginning...and I've been around for quite a while. If you watch dogs of this site deem that I should be deleted...PLEASE...delete me completely...for all time and eternity, ok? Not just this one post, but my whole account with LJW. Thank you. I would consider it well worth it. Your inconsistency with your delete button is maddening.

And let the pretense go on...and on...and on...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Wow, all that in defense of FHNC!?! Must be major crush action going here.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

I knew this would be a futile effort...

I'm quite sure FHNC is fully capable of defending himself/herself if he/she feels the urge. My urge to unleash my opinions on the haughtiness of the mainstreamers' opinions around this site just happened to hit at that particular moment. I had been holding those thoughts in for quite a long while. The arrogance of the mainstreamers sickens me.

And you, bozo, remind me of a kid I went to school with in sixth grade.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

"And you, bozo, remind me of a kid I went to school with in sixth grade."

Wow, you can remember all the way back to last year?

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 3 months ago

That's one long post--grammar and spelling are perfect too. Congratulations. Well done. I was going to scold the Grammar Nazi too, but I didn't want to come off as if I were defending the sock-puppet a.k.a. FHNC.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Crazy_Larry...I think sometimes we just have to step up and defend...no matter what we think of the person and his belief system. And this happened to be one of those times for me.

Thank you for the kind words.

0

Corey Williams 2 years, 3 months ago

It's more to do with FHNC's use of buzzwords they hear on Limbaugh and then putting those words in quotation marks, presumably to let people know those words are from someone else. Like the "composite" thing. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/obama-ny-girlfriend-was-composite-character-122272.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/politico-defends-new-york-girlfriend-post/2012/05/02/gIQALbl8wT_blog.html

Also the fact the FHNC is just basically a troll who brings nothing to the conversation and should never be replied to in anyway. But then, maybe I'm just a "mainstreamer".

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 3 months ago

Improper use of quotation marks, a.k.a., troll enhancement technique.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

mancityfooty...perhaps you are...a mainstreamer. I, personally, wouldn't want to be...but that's a decision of the heart. It's all in how one handles being a mainstreamer. (I'm thinking of the commenters who are on here all the time bashing everyone...except the other mainstreamers who think exactly as they do.) Trying to destroy someone's sense of self by bashing and slamming isn't my idea of discussion. Believe me, I've been bashed, slammed, and hammered on this site. I've only been back around for this thread and one other lately. I was away for quite a while...and I agree with what cmmcphee says below.

It doesn't matter to me what FHNC says...or what you say...or what anyone else says because I (or you or others) can always retort. So, FHNC has as much right as you or I to say whatever is on his mind...and if his grammar is not up to par for some...or his punctuation isn't great, so be it. Improper grammar useage is something I almost cannot bear in this life...(just ask my three grown children...who happen to have perfect grammar because of my nagging! ha!)...BUT, that doesn't mean I believe a person with improper grammar and/or improper punctuation should not be able to express his thoughts and views on this, or any other, site.

And, really, who cares that much about grammar and punctuation on a site such as this? We use partial sentences and all sorts of ways of expression...it just isn't important, in the scheme of things, to be oh, so accurate on this site. We should all lighten up...especially the mainstreamers who are oftentimes just plain MEAN.

I'm boycotting the use of " and * because of Alyosha. Arrogance is another issue I cannot tolerate in this life.

0

Charles McPheeters 2 years, 3 months ago

Right on Sunshine. I do not follow these comment pages very often for the very reasons you have outlined. Much commentary but very little wisdom.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

cmmcphee...I haven't been around in quite a while until this thread and one other. And it wasn't the subject matter that drew me in...it was the way people are being treated if they dare to make a comment that differs with the mainstreamers. Time for me to get off of here once again.

You have no idea how much your support is appreciated. Thanks!!

0

progressive_thinker 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually, the key here is that Obama has changed position in a manner that lessens government intrusion into the lives of citizens. The president's position now reflect that the government should not be regulating who can or cannot marry the person of their choice. That should, to all parties, be a good thing.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 3 months ago

Giving someone else"Equal Rights" does not diminish yours.

0

md 2 years, 3 months ago

please tell me of societies that have had same sex unions.

0

verity 2 years, 3 months ago

Thanks, I was going to look up solipsism, but you saved me the effort.

I would argue that we don't know that we exist or who we really are if we do exist.

0

verity 2 years, 3 months ago

tange, have I done something to offend?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes-- I own the copyright on those particular words. But I observe a fair-use policy on my words.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

What bothers Chuck is that Obama has rather successfully charted a middle course on a very tricky issue, and Chuck is struggling mightily to figure out how Republicans can use it as a weapon against him, but as his latest POS column shows, it ain't working.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

"but I missed the course charting."

It would have certainly been interesting to be a fly on the wall of the bridge when they laid this one out.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 3 months ago

A reasonable column by Charles for a Change.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 3 months ago

"Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry."

No it doesn't. Go back to logic school Krauthammer.

You can be a believer in traditional marriage without being a bigot.

It's when start pushing your belief onto others who have a broader view of marriage, in an attempt to exclude them from the same privileges and social recognition that you enjoy, that you exhibit bigotry.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

voevoda 2 years, 3 months ago

No form of marriage is protected by the Constitution, rockchalk1977. So it is equally in keeping with the Constitution to advocate for the constitutional legality of gay marriage as to advocate against it.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

Don't you mean "Romneys 2012"?

If you use the singular, you must specify which Mitt Romney you are supporting.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

Massachusetts Moderate Romney 2012!

Severe Conservative Romney 2012!

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

I wish someone would mount an argument against same sex marriage that didn't involve the fallacious statements that: 1) heterosexual marriage has been the bedrock of all civilizations for thousands of years; and 2) same sex marriage diminishes heterosexual marriage.

Any takers? Why is same sex marriage wrong?

0

riverdrifter 2 years, 3 months ago

Nice cut and paste from old junk.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

Other fallacious assertions against same sex marriage:

1) If two guys can marry, why not three guys, two girls and a guy, a guy and a goat, ad nauseum. -Last I checked, bigamy and bestiality were illegal for heterosexuals. There is no reason they wouldn't be for homosexuals.

2) It goes against natural law. -"You cannot go against nature, because if you do go against nature, that's part of nature too" (Love and Rockets). The natural world is as it exists, and that includes homosexual human beings (and other animals as well).

3) Same sex couples cannot procreate. -If this is the sole reason for marriage, then only those who can produce children can be married (sorry to those who are sterile or old, but still heterosexual).

Anyone have any better arguments against same sex marriage?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

"Anyone have any better arguments against same sex marriage?"

Yes. I do.

I'm of the belief that marriage falls under the 14th Amendment, and if a state recognizes the contract known as "marriage", then the state is required by the 14th amendment to recognize every form of marriage in all the other 49... or was it 56... states. So Massachusetts redefines marriage to include those between homosexuals - since Kansas recognizes "marriage" they are now obliged to honor the marriage contract signed by two dudes in Boston. Equal protection. It's a beautiful thing. [insert rainbow here]

Now you might gloat and just say I made your point, and you are smart and all.

But let's not stop. Those guys in Arizona just passed a law saying polygamy is A-OK. Men can have as many wives as they can support and women can have as many husbands as it takes to support them. (just a joke ladies) So guess what. Kansas is now required by the 14th amendment to recognize polygamy. Equal protection. Whatever floats your boat.

But wait, those fool rednecks in ole nawthin Carolinie just went and made it legal to marry your sister. Fourteenth amendment says Kansas must recognize marriage between siblings. Equal protection... I guess it depends on whether your sister is cute.

Then New York says you can marry your father, or your daughter (if she's of age to consent to the marriage), depending on which one you are. Fourteenth amendment says Kansas must recognize marriage between fatther and daughter. Equal protection... Pretty weird.

I could go on into multidimensional marriage, and make the messiest mess you ever saw.

Gay marriage can't exist until you play by the constitution and force all states that recognize marriage to recognize all marriages from all states. Whats good for gay fellows is good for daddy/daughter. Anything else is unconstitutional.

So, dim dar bigots in ole caroline think gay marriage is wrong and are willing to violate the constitutional rights of two gay men to marry. What can you say?

Here's what you can say: at what point do you say those two or 7 or 200 people can't marry? That Shelly-Lynn can't marry her daddy billy-bob? That some shmuck can't have 3 wives?

At what point are you no different in regarding constitutionally protected marriage than the hillbillies?

Gay marriage - No. Government not dictating who you can marry - Yes.

You didn't guard your left flank well enough. Gay marriage is as unconstitutional as forbidding it.

You are done.

A bone for the right. You can just come up with a new word. Call it "permanent hookup" and remove all laws concerning "marriage" from your books. Now you can recognize guys and gals as whatever you define in the contract, but you aren't forced to recognize any "marriage".

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

It was a kind gesture of tange to honor your existential metaphor, but I wouldn't rely on that the next time you wreck your car in Missouri and are kept away from your mate as they die because you aren't married.

Selling out to pretty words isn't going to get you what you want.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

But your kindness is just as beautiful.

I'm somewhat jealous of your generosity and overall benevolence. I was once like that, but old age and treatment for agoraphobia has left me a cynical old man that would rather argue with people I agree with than slap my buddies on the back for saying what I want to hear.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

"We already have the hospital visitation thing worked out"

In Missouri? Oklahoma? Utah? You might think you have something worked out, but until the federal government forces every god-fearing, gun-toting state full of hangers oners to accept your version of "worked out", you don't.

Unless you are brothers. That would probably work everywhere. Are you married to your brother?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

That's nice that they did that, and I'm glad you have the means to be with your other in their time of need.

But you ask for so little, and you receive so little. You are protected (sort of) by government regulations which are essentially bribes for Medicare money. You should be more concerned about law. The next conservative president will nullify the regulation you are counting on and leave you sitting in the waiting room. Presidents can't nullify law.

Make sure you keep your contract handy in case your mate never regains consciousnesses. Also, you should both try to not die while a conservative is dictating the regulations.

We don't have to worry about that. I'm unconscious, they let my wife in no questions asked. You get to dig thru your legal folder if it wasn't lost in the car accident that put you in the situation.

I suppose second-class is all some people aspire to be.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

"existential"

Disqualified for sillyness. Their is no right to exist in the constitution. Your premise is funny.

No, marriage is indeed a contract. If it weren't, there would be no need for laws against polygamy as a hundred people can sleep in a bed, but only two of them are currently allowed to be part of the marriage contract enforced by law. Legally, it is a contract.

Want out of marriage? Somebody is going to stand in front of a judge and ask him/her to break the contract. Better yet, just tell your wife/husband you aren't married anymore then marry your secretary. Let us know how that works out.

Try something better but keep the comedy rolling.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

Big noses precede the constitution as well. That doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to a big nose.

"And silliness? And funny? And "and"...."

You must be reading HHGTTG. :-)

I wonder where yourwurstnighmare went.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

I think the best way to see her is in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

I will, as soon as you tell me how a marriage between three consenting adults "is going to "radically transform" someone else's (homosexual or) hetero- marriage".

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

I agree with you. Will it "radically transform" your marriage if Billy Ray marries his 20 year old daughter Rolonda Sue?

I say it wouldn't.

Your turn.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

I don't believe that is a biological certainty. Regardless, unrelated married couples also have special needs children. Is one special needs child any different in the eyes of the law than another?

Also, that's a grotesque argument. You are willing to violate a couple's civil rights because they MIGHT have a child that isn't as smart as yours? How do you live with yourself?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

I said I agree with you, assuming you believe it will not. However, I'll spell it out.

No marriage has any effect on another marriage as long all parties consent to the marriage they are in. Period.

You on the other hand tried to dodge specifying the effect someone else's father/daughter marriage will have on yours.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

OK. I'll put you down in the "father/daughter is OK column". Also, I'll repeat this in case you missed it the first time:

"No marriage has any effect on another marriage as long as all parties consent to the marriage they are in. Period."

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

And California voters had the discussion then made gay marriage illegal. Happy?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

Happy it's recognized in Kansas? Not so much.

Mine is recognized in all 50 states. Why are you settling for one?

Also, do you think the currently conservative SCOTUS isn't going to overrule the 9th? It's their version of whack-a-mole.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

This is SO beyond funny...and exactly the type of moment that makes this site bearable. I love moments like this...but, GoodWolf, he's not really all that old... Oh, this is a classic ridiculous remark and the evermore perfect retort. Gotta love it!!! How I adore these moments on LJW! Makes all the bashing and deleting I get well worthwhile... :~)

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Well, he's not so young, either!! But bitter, self-loathing closet queen? Sorry, you still didn't get it...and, yeah, straight is the correct answer. I really hate bursting your big ol' bubble, GoodWolf. At any rate, tange is TOTALLY competent to speak for himself. (As you have witnessed time after time after time...you may as well give up, GoodWolf...)

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

+1000000

These things just happen to me even if I'm minding my own business!! Honest injun!!! (Uh-oh, now the Native Americans will come after me!) I can't win!! It could have to do with my facade of abused innocence... :~)

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

"You folk that can't have what I and Rolanda Sue have. "

Why would anyone else want that? Who's asking for it?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

FHNC wants it. Why are you hades-bent on discriminating against his and his daughter's lifestyle? I'm sure they have a lovely, if not a little creepy, thing going on. At least when he asks her "who's yer daddy?" Rolanda Sue doesn't have to lie about it.

But seriously, Bozo. Do you really think the constitution only protects the rights of people that are "asking for it"? The onus is on the government to protect rights according to the constitution. We shouldn't have to beg for them like dogs that want a treat.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Ewwwwwww....just Ewwwwwww. You've just ruined my delicious lunch!!!

This is all getting tiresome and b-o-r-i-n-g, not to mention disgusting.

Point being, when all of this is said and done, when all the political mess is settled and rules are rules and laws are laws, there will still be the never-ending question of just plain, "Ewwwwww...WHY, WHY, WHY???" It's both sad and disgusting to me...but mostly sad because I know the backgrounds of several homosexuals I have known from childhood...sad, sad situations. (And believe me, I've seen with my own eyes and heart...they are not gay at all...which is why I avoid using that term as much as possible.)

Yep, I know I'm going to get slammed for this post...just remember, people, I have as much freedom to voice my thoughts as YOU do. But some of you simply do not take THAT into consideration, do you??

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Oh, heaven forbid...don't let Alyosha know I didn't place "quotes" around the word, gay...or perhaps I should have used the little star-shaped thingies??? Tsk, tsk, what IS this world coming to when one PURPOSEFULLY leaves off such important punctuation??!! Just call me a rebel WITH a cause...I ADORE irritating the know-it-all mainstreamers on this site. Shame on me!! :~)
HA!!!!

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Then, why, pray tell, are you reading what I have to say??? Ohhhh, I get it. You're upset that I got physically ill when one of the commenters talked about what you and your wife/husband/whatever do together, right? Well, I couldn't care less about what you think of me. Whether you think I'm a brainless idiot or a brilliant shining star...makes no difference at all. I know who I am...and what I am.

Shall we have a degree duel??? Bet I'll win!!! HA!!! How 'bout the IQ??? Wanna go there?? (If that sounds juvenile...oops!! Still bet I would win!!)

You see, the problem with you, GoodWolf, is that you spend ALL your time...ALL your life defending your life-style and sexual goings-on. After a while it makes you start to get all edgy and irritable...you need to have some fun with life. Lighten up and try to enjoy life...it doesn't last long.

0

chalice2 2 years, 3 months ago

If marriage is a civil right? It is a civil right and established law. See Loving v. Virginia.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

The only argument mounted against same sex marriage in response to my query has been "It's a sin".

'Nuff said.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

In a constitutional secular republic like the USA, it is the burden of the religious to mount arguments about social issues that do not rely on religious dogma.

As an atheist and an American, I simply do not accept rationales based on religious dogma, nor do our constitutional or legal systems. Nor should any of us as free Americans.

Sucks for you, but "It's a sin" cuts no ice in a constitutional democracy.

The world has plenty of theocracies you might like better, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

The trouble for you is finding a theocracy that is based on your theology. Good luck with that.

0

Geiiga 2 years, 3 months ago

Could have omitted being an atheist. Hell, I'm not, but as an American I damn well need better reason for our policy than "My sky king thinks it's right."

Friend of mine has a sign that reads "In God we trust. All others must bring data." He's crossed out the first part. That's how policy should be made.

So, to all the anti-marriage equality folks, hit me with some data. How much of what will do what if marriage equality becomes the law of the land? I want numbers, I want citations. Show me the models. And they better not come from universities that were founded by televangelists.

If you can't do that, then your argument's just about being a bigot, and I'll expect some contrition.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually, being an atheist in America is pretty much neutral, at least for ordinary citizens. I appreciate the tolerance shown by people of faith. I try to return the favor and am tolerant of all religions, I just don't believe the god parts.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 3 months ago

Off of message boards, the only people who are likely to care probably put bumper stickers on their cars. Easy to avoid them.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

What you just don't get is that in America, might does not make right.

We are a country based on a Constitution, not a religion. As such, you will be required as a religious person to justify your social positions without referring to your religious dogma.

It does indeed suck to see the America I love to be so wrongly directed by religious dogma. And you are correct. I would not be tolerated in a theocracy.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 3 months ago

"... As such, you will be required as a religious person to justify your social positions without referring to your religious dogma..." Tell that to the advocates of sharia law in America.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

I have and will continue to do so. Sharia law shares its roots in the old testament with fundamentalist christianity. Scary as hell.

I will argue against both.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

"If" god doesn't" "like" me, he "can" certainly smite me "down" "at" any "time".

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 3 months ago

"Thank" you. "I" knew you "would" like "it".

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Hey, has anyone else noticed that big chunks of blog have been completely removed from this thread?? Not disappeardededed, but REMOVED with NO TRACE!! Wow!!! There's no evidence that those comments were ever here. When something is disappearded, you can see the faint print remarking that the comment has been deleted, but not so in this case. Just take a look through this whole thread and you'll realize...a lot of the comments were by GoodWolf...some were made by moi...and a couple of other bloggers.

What's going on?? I called LJW and was told it would be checked on....so, we'll see if the comments show up again. V-E-R-Y, V-E-R-Y INTERESTING, INDEED....hmmmm....

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

It would appear that GoodWolf has been disappeared from the forum, and all comments that were made in response to GoodWolf's comments went with them.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

So true, bozo. I was just checking my comment history and all comments to GoodWolf are gone...as if never sent...no faded out remarks of deletion, you know, as when disappearded...simply GONE. But there were some other comments between that were not including GoodWolf which are gone, also...and they were perfectly innocent and fine comments. I don't get that...

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Evidently...gone. I glimpsed at it as I was running out the door earlier today...but I don't really remember what was said. And another strange thing, I was responding to your request of me (May 17 @ 9:21 p.m.) and as I was typing, my response disappeared!! (That was on "Same-Sex Marriage Is Biologically Impossible.") What I typed disappeared right before my eyes! It's nowhere...vanished into thin air...gone! I checked my comment history...it wasn't there...I didn't really expect it to be because I hadn't even finished typing it yet when it vanished. While checking my comment history, I noticed that my comments to GoodWolf were back...they had not been there earlier today!! I don't know what kind of mess is going on...

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

This is all very confusing...to say the least.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Wait, wait...I just swallowed a gulp of green tea and I'm choking to death right here all by myself!! The halo...oh, my gosh...that's too much!! And jonas in the belly of the beast?? tange, you've gotta quit doin' this to me... You have always been able to make me laugh...I was reading along yesterday at some point, with a mouth full of a fresh sip of water, and there it sprayed...all over the computer screen!! Wasn't enough to get into my keyboard or ruin anything, thank goodness!! (That's NOT the first time, either, through the years.) I don't even remember what it was you had said...but, with my warped sense of humor, it could have been, might have been, funny only to me. I do remember thinking, "How in the world did he think of THAT??" as I was busily wiping my computer with paper towels!!

I think you missed your calling and should have been a stand-up comic. Here I am laughing out loud...no one else around...at jonas in the belly of the beast and that ridiculous halo!! Maybe we both have warped senses of humor...

I do get into a lot of trouble on this site...but you're no choir boy...and I KNEW you would handle the situation with the Wolf perfectly...and you did!!! He was crude and rude...and about as low as one can go on a blog.

Truly, you're a really good man...I'm very impressed by your composure and quick thinking. My feelings, my emotions, always get the upper hand. Wish I could be more cool and calculating...not saying that you ARE...just saying...period. :~) I don't think there's a calculating bone in your body. I'll say no more...just good job, well done! (I'm boycotting " and * because of Alyosha...but that's another story...) :~o

0

Windemere 2 years, 3 months ago

Didn't read each comment above (165 is a big number), but wondering if anyone has made the case that the govt shouldn't even be in the business of defining marriage. How about government only recognizes civil unions between 2 consenting adults (be they gay, straight, black, white, whatever). 'Marriage" would continue to exist as a cultural/religious concept. Most people would still get married (e.g. at a church), but people would also have their relationship designated by the govt as a civil union (which has a bearing on benefits, inheritance, etc.). This makes govt neutral, as it should be.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

WHAT???? Oh, no!!! I don't KNOW what's going on...was it THIS thread???? That's what happened to the comment I was typing to you...just vanished AS I WAS TYPING!!! But that was on "Same-Sex Marriage Is Biologically Impossible"...something is really wrong here. I'll let you deal with it...it's actually scary to me! These are the only two threads I've been on at all...

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Had he written a comment? Please PM me if you must...this is too bizarre. Exactly what did you see??

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

If I see that Wolfman on here at any time, I'm calling the office at LJW!!! I need Whitney or Jon!!!

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 3 months ago

Negotiated BetterWolf?? Oh, your hilarity never ends...thanks for the laugh before I pull the blankies over my head!

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm. . . . looks like another thread with a lot of space devoted to bashing people for bashing bashers.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 3 months ago

Full synchronization in t-minus 5, 4, 3, 3.5, pi . . . .

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.