Amazon.com Widgets

« Immaculate Conception | Main | Malmedy Followup »

Links With Your Coffee - Monday

Avoid waiting for your comments to be approved register using TypeKey

Did you know that if you click on the word Archives at the top of the list of monthly archives you'll see a list of all the posts at onegoodmove. There are two ways to search the site. The search box top right and the Google Search at the bottom of the page.


If You Think This Is Funny, . . . You MIGHT Be A Red Stater


Colbert Tells College Graduates: Get Your Own TV Show

Slipping in and out of his TV personna Stephen Colbert entertained the graduating class of Knox College.


“It’s time for illegal immigrants to go — right after they finish (building) those walls." People keep saying immigrants built America, “but here's the thing, it's built now. I think it was finished in the '70s sometime. From this point it’s only a touch-up and repair job."

He backed English as the official language of the United States — “God wrote (the Bible) in English for a reason: So it could be taught in our public schools.”

Noting the college was founded by abolitionists, Colbert came out against slavery. “I just hope the mainstream media gives me credit for the stand I’ve taken today,” he said.


Convert or Kill a little more of that fundamentalist Christian love now on your PC (tip to Geoff)

Another song parody from Mad Kane and don't miss Don Davis on a conversation Dub has with OnStar.

Bush calls for gay marriage ban

Mr Bush said: "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

A statement that is totally irrelevant. It doesn't follow from his statement that we should ban gay marriage. Thanks for the non sequitur George.


 

Comments

Thanks so much for the mention, Norm!

Bush has made yet another statement that is impossible to prove with facts.

But you know what is proven? any parent is better than none, yet these same "no gays marrying" folks would block gays from adopting. Why do they use their energies to ban? Why not use your life and energy to sow something positive? You believe in the importance of "the children"? Fine, quit picking on queers and do something nice for children with your day instead of just finding ways to say no.

And none of this "I'm saving their soul from going to hell." You worry about your soul, and I'll worry about mine.

What Bush did today was really ugly. And that's saying something.

My parenting skills are not linked to my sexuality.

I'll put my parenting skills up against any sanctimonious evangelist.

Regardless of that: That piece of paper that says you are married is not solely for fecundity. It is a basis for a relationship that brings with it certain benefits which don't exclusively belong to heterosexuals.

That's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was set up to protect. Now, certain people want to amend the intent of this Constitution to alter the phrase: ALL are created equal (except homosexuals).

but you don't understand; bush doesn't know what a non sequitur is......

yeah, the bushies are morons.

How Do You Want Your Abortion?

(perhaps with a side of fries?)

yeah, the bushies are morons!

How Do You Want Your Abortion?

(perhaps with a side of fries?)

Yeah! We should have gay marriage because ...

Because ...

Oh, yeah, that's right. Nobody has come up with a good reason. Just gay people want it, and their buddies think it would be nice.

So it's immediately a 'right' which those poor gay people are being 'denied'. And anyone who's against giving them something for which they don't qualify is just backwards and stupid.

Land of the free, folks.

Why don't they qualify for marriage? They can adopt children either way...

Are they somehow less of a human being for being a homosexual? As a democratic and free-thrinking society we should be able to hold everyone as equals.

Are we as a society beniting from denying them marriage? I don't think, and there's not a whole lot to prove otherwise.

user-pic

Wow, AverageJoe, are you real? If you are, that means there might be more just like you, which means the world is really in a pickle. Makes the mind boggle to imagine what Below-AverageJoe must be like.

user-pic

Gay marriage is not just about marriage - it's about family rights & money. When a gay person's "partner" dies, the living partner has no rights to that person's civilian/military pension, social security, retirement, life insurance, etc. because they were not legally "married". Disapproving parents can even take away a partner's right to see non-biological children, or to have any say in medical decisions or funeral arrangements.

How would you feel if your wife/husband of 40 years died and his/her family decided that you couldn't even come to the funeral or see your children/grandchildren anymore?

Only a religious definition of marriage seems likely to discriminate, in which case I'd agree that it is in no way the business of the state to decide that.

It's not as though they've yet provided a hint of scientific evidence that banning gay marriage would in any way provide a benefit, besides the easily discernable negative effects it will doubtless have.

Yeah, Joe, and nobody has come up with a good reason why gay people are going to be treated as second-class citizens either.

Your marriage (if you are married) is threatened by a couple of guys living next to you becaaaaaaaaause….? (Hand cupped to my ear) I hear only silence.

Your piece of paper that says you’re married is going to be ripped up by some gay guy?

Let’s see how weddings are going to be when the gays refuse to do the flower arrangements…or the hair styles…or the planning at exclusive hetero-only marriages.

Before I get accused of gross stereotyping…I was being sarcastic in my generalization of gays.

One more thing, A. Joe: Would Rosa Parks have to give you a reason for her not wanting to sit at the back of the bus? Just because she “wanted it and it would be nice”.

Sometimes I wonder if you are typing things just to be the resident antagonist?

Land of the Free? Yes. Land of being free to say idiotic things? Yes. Land of being free to demonstrate your bigotry. Yes. Go join that group in Westboro. You fit right in with them. They have plenty of placards for you to hold. I’m sure there is one that is just antagonistic enough for you to hold and get a reaction.

"One more thing, A. Joe: Would Rosa Parks have to give you a reason for her not wanting to sit at the back of the bus? Just because she 'wanted it and it would be nice'."

Yawn. It is nice that you managed to use an analogy other than Nazis and Hitler. But I'm amazed that nobody can actually argue this issue without equating not allowing gay people to marry (which is a byproduct of the nature of the institution, and is just the same as not allowing polygamy or inter-species marriage) to some form of discrimination that is actually harmful or hurtful. Leaping right to racism, while certainly time-conserving, reveals how shallow and ignorant your position is. You really think you're going to silence all opposition by childishly vilifying those who bespeak it?

The problem, really, is that 'discrimination' has become a pejorative term when, in fact, most things in life are discriminatory. For example:

  • It is discriminatory that foreigners cannot become the President
  • It is discriminatory that people under 35 cannot become the President
  • It is discriminatory that people under 15 cannot legally drive a vehicle
  • It is discriminatory that people under 18 cannot legally view 'adult' movies
  • It is discriminatory that a man cannot become Ms. America

Et cetera. So yes, the practice is discriminatory. But - regarding not allowing gay marriage - that discrimination is not 'wrong'. It's the nature of the system. Marriage in our society is the union of a man and a woman. Do you complain if you don't find any cherries in your apple pie?

Do these facts bother you? Then just call me Hitler and pat yourself on the back some more. The triumph of reason, indeed.

And there you have it everyone. If you ever wanted to know how so many people rationalize discriminating against gays, now you know. Joe_Average is their spokesman.

Hey, A. Joe,

Wow! You admit that it is discrimination! Why do the people who are for the Federal Marriage Amendment never speak of this as discrimination. They use rather crafty terms like: this is the Marriage Protection Amendment (which FOX news utilizes in their description of the amendment). It’s never called the anti-gay marriage amendment. You, at least, are willing to call it discrimination.

Before we continue the debate, do you want to disallow civil unions for gays? Are you so for discrimination that you are willing to categorize a segment of society as lower than yourself?

I’ll venture a guess: you don’t care for gays/lesbians and relegate them as deserving second-class status. You probably feel they aren’t your equal so you rationalize your discrimination…err…bigotry.

Those two guys who live together down the street should pity you. Your angst about gays living together is such a threat to your own household that you will go so far as to change the intent of the Constitution to add a discriminatory amendment.

You must not have many gay friends do you?

There is a guy in the next cubicle who loves his partner as strongly as his heterosexual co-worker in the next cubicle loves his wife. He does the same work. He is expected to pay the same taxes but when it comes to company benefits his hetero co-worker gets much more. And, to you, that’s okay to discriminate?

"Wow! You admit that it is discrimination!"

Of course. It's a bit difficult to deny a dictionary definition. However what should be clear is that it is not harmful discrimination.

"Before we continue the debate, do you want to disallow civil unions for gays?"

I would prefer no recognition whatsoever of homosexuality as a valid relationship. So, yes, I would prefer that civil unions not be allowed for homosexuals.

However this is a democratic society, so like everyone else I'm pretty much along for the ride when the majority makes up its mind. I would prefer that the majority make up their mind based on fact, but that is so rarely the case.

"Are you so for discrimination that you are willing to categorize a segment of society as lower than yourself?"

We all do this, every day. You categorize pedophiles as being below you. People who practice bestiality are lower than you. People who practice polygamy (in most states) are lower than you. You categorize drug users as lower than yourself (at least most Americans do, because most Americans are in favor of anti-drug policies). You categorize children as lower than you (they have less rights).

See, the problem is that you look at any form of exclusion as harmful. This is because you are both a reacitionary and a hardliner. You believe an idea so strongly that you don't particularly care about its real-world implications or validity. It's called ideology.

"I’ll venture a guess: you don’t care for gays/lesbians and relegate them as deserving second-class status."

I am completely ambivalent towards gays/lesbians. Of course we don't know each other, and this being a very anonymous form of communication either of us can claim anything. But I have worked with gay people, had gay friends, etc. One can accept that someone does something in their private life of which they might not approve. That is a reasonable amount of tolerance. For example, we can accept that Jehovah's Witnesses exist. They have that right. But we don't want them knocking on our door at 5 in the morning pushing their religion.

There is a difference between tolerating a lifestyle and accepting a political movement and social experiment.

"There is a guy in the next cubicle who loves his partner as strongly as his heterosexual co-worker in the next cubicle loves his wife."

There are many people in prison who believe they love children the same way most people love their wife and husband. They will regale you with stories about it, speak poetically about it, even insist that they will - one day - be as accepted as any other form of 'love'.

That's the problem with subjectivity.

"He is expected to pay the same taxes but when it comes to company benefits his hetero co-worker gets much more. And, to you, that’s okay to discriminate?"

How is this any different from a person living with his girlfriend getting less benefits than a married couple? Or a single person getting less benefits?

Maybe the question there is one of benefits, not one of homosexuality or other perversions?

You're conflating the two to try and bolster a weak position.

Thanks for responding Joe,

I see your points. You equate homosexuals with pedophilia and with criminal behavior. You tolerate gays only because the majority will force you to and not for intrinsic reasons. And you feel benefits for marriage are only for heterosexuals.

Of course we don’t know each other and you don’t know me from a hill of beans. But, I have pretty good idea your ideologies would prevent us from having any sort of tolerable relationship. There are plenty of folk in your arena that have zero tolerance…even beyond what we do in our private lives/bedrooms. How can it be any amount of reasonable tolerance when you want to amend the Constitution and prevent a segment of society from equality?

Oh, and I’m just a social experiment? I am beginning to understand what kind of person you are.

Average_joe does not know what he is talking about with this comment:

"allowing gay people to marry (which is a byproduct of the nature of the institution, and is just the same as not allowing polygamy or inter-species marriage)"

Please don't compare apples to pears and coconuts.

It's not cowboy. Average Joe is the one conflating the three to try and bolster a weak position.

Polygamy is nothing like homosexuality. It is allowed under Islam and no one has ever claimed that it is a mental condition or a biological right.

I am going to use your own words against you:

Leaping right to discrimination, while certainly time-conserving, reveals how shallow and ignorant your position is.

You really think you're going to silence all opposition by childishly vilifying those who bespeak it?

"Marriage in our society is the union of a man and a woman."

Who says so? The Bible? Can you speak for recorded history and other civilisations on earth? You certainly have done so while producing NO proof.

Average_Joe, you have carefully avoided acknowledging what is the basis on your claims against gay marriage. The Bible, right?

Don't use recorded history or other cultures please. I know them well enough to know that they don't support your case.

Right to marriage is a basic human right.

There have never been any recognised limits to it. In certain cultures, people can be married even if they are still in their mother's wombs like in Chinese culture i.e. zhi-fu-wei-hun which is done when the parents of 2 families are very close and wishes to cement their ties.

Avaerage_joe, stop lying please with statements like "I am completely ambivalent towards gays/lesbians."

Your postings totally prove the opposite of this statement with your defense of bigotry against gays.

I have a lot of good friends in the transgender community who are among the most sensitive, tolerant and kind-hearted souls that I know. And I will not let you or any savage deprive them of their basic human right to happiness.

It's not going to happen in my country, which believes in tolerance. And it's not going to happen in yours either because most people there still believes in basic human rights and freedoms.

And if your conviction is indeed based in the Bible, then knows this as Truth and FACT that your faith is not a faith of love or tolerance.

And people who have such faith might want to consider moving to a secluded remote location where they can have babies the way they think everyone should, away from everything in the world that is disagreeable to them.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives