Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

If the biggest issue you have to worry about is a Chicken Sandwich, then you aren’t oppressed.

Secondly the idea that if you don’t support Gay Marriage makes you “anti-gay” is nonsense. Under that definition the entire country and world was Anti-gay from almost the start of recorded history till a 4-3 supreme court ruling in Massachusetts.

Thirdly when Gay people are slaughtered in Islamic countries for their simple existence might I suggest that you have your priorities mixed up.

Fourthly as Gay marriage has lost at the ballot box in even California and Maine (why do you think advocates have worked so hard to block a vote in Massachusetts) you apparently think the entire country is by your definition “anti-gay bigots”. The only exception being the media.

The only point I’ll give you is this. the Gawker guy is right about one thing, the Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Sandwich is THE best chicken sandwich out there, but Chick-fil-A is pretty good (I’ve only had one during my Atlanta Trip last year).

Get a life, if you don’t want to eat at Chick-fil-A, eat somewhere else.

Oh and there are a lot more Christians than non-Christians in the country. If you choose to boycott a Christian company for supporting Christian positions, I suspect quite a few companies that support your view can be targeted in reverse with a whole lot more fervor.

Update: Speaking of things the Gay Right’s community might focus on instead:

The new imam at the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed.

Abdallah Adhami’s remarks on homosexuals, religious freedom and other topics have brought renewed criticism of the proposed community center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, which purports to be an inclusive organization.

Adhami, in a lecture on the Web site of his nonprofit, Sakeenah, says being gay is a “painful trial” caused by past trauma.

I’m sure we will see the Gay Left go after this with the same furor that they go after Chick-fil-A.

Way back in the early days of the Blog I talked about Gay Marriage and Richard Cohen’s self=righteous hit piece:

Personally on a religious level I can’t support gay marriage but this is not a valid argument for a non-religious person. On a non-religious level it seems to me you can not rationally say that gay marriage is ok and should be legal without also allowing either polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Both have a longer and more accepted cultural history worldwide.

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago. It is particularly galling when gay people are subject to state sponsored murder in places like Iran and ick is invoked beside Islam.

Via Glenn we have Eugene Volokh being a lawyer with some interesting items in the news has expanded on this bigtime:

(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?

(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre–Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners?

Go and read his whole point but let me say that a Judge named Antonin Gregory Scalia saw this coming a mile away as did an awful lot of us. When I made the argument saying that you can’t logically ban polygamy while allowing gay marriage in a discussion on Center of Mass podcast this year my host insisted that it was totally different.

I’ve talked about the ick factor in the past. And let me quote myself one more time:

This is a republic. If the people who support gay marriage can move enough of the public in the individual states or on a national level to support it in an actual vote then the more power to them. That is how a republic works. With the media’s help they are well on their way to doing so, but let the people vote for it and if you win, you win. If your argument holds water it should be capable of doing so and you should be able to make that argument stick.

Take out the word gay marriage and enter anything you want instead and the argument holds. The fact that a respected lawyer is actually making the case tells me this is already coming down the pike. And let me leave you with some John Nolte in terms of changing the culture with the help of the media:

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure

None of this is a bug. It’s a feature.

As I was leaving the 9/11 marches there was a large event on the mall, it was the Black Family Reunion an annual local DC event that I was not familiar with.

I’ve always wondered why black Americans who are so religious are so loyal to the democratic party.

to make them accountable to the people?

Conservative activists are trying to oust three judges on the state Supreme Court whose unanimous ruling last year legalized same-sex unions. Their decision stunned opponents nationwide and delighted advocates who were eager for a victory in the heartland.

Why are supporters of Gay Marriage worried about this? It’s explained after the jump:

Gay rights groups have been less successful in the voting booth; in every state where the issue has been put on the ballot, voters have agreed to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. emphasis mine

One can legitimately disagree on having elected vs appointed judges, both systems have advantages and disadvantages, but to get all in a huff because an elected official is being held accountable for actions in an elected office is just nonsense and highlights the disrespect and disdain the elites have with the voters in general and apparently our republican system in particular

Memeorandum thread here