Image from CafePress
Wow. Just wow. I've done a lot of punishing reading of right-wing sites regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In fact, going back perhaps 15 or more years, I have participated in online arguments on the subject. I've encountered astonishing stupidity and/or ignorance on the subject. I've been assaulted with religious condemnation. I've seen the ridiculously juvenile "junior high school"-level insults and "humor." I've been insulted by being compared to animals, pedophiles and all manner of 'philes.
Through it all, the single most amazing thing is, these supposed heterosexuals are allegedly more knowledgeable about all things "gay" than me, an actual gay person. After all of that, you'd think I'd have seen everything. Not so. The following collection of reasons against same-sex marriage is as impressive for its originality as it is for its jaw-dropping stupidity and general ickiness.
[Excerpt]
The Weekly Standard On Opposition To Gay Marriage
In the annals of idiotic reasons for opposing gay marriage, is this cream of the crap explanation from The Weekly Standard -- it's not because they think homosexuality is icky or because the Bible tells them so, but believe it or not, by the end of the article you'll wish it was. . .
Read on, and be amazed at: DailyKos
James- Those aren't right wing sites, they are religious dictators. The old and tired 'right' 'left' labels have long since lost their meanings.
ReplyDeleteIt's Liberty, OR it's the state telling you what you can and cannot do.
Choose Liberty.
Sic Semper Tyrannis = Death to Tyrannts !
.
The Weekly Standard isn't a "real" right wing site? What is?
ReplyDeleteThere are RINOs and there are religious fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteWhat does 'the right' mean? A group that wanted to accumulate power in the federal government so they could tell others what to do.
By outdated lables, the 'right' wanted to do it slowly and live within budgets, the 'left' wanted to do it quickly and without budgetary realities. Both sought to accumulate power to tell people what to do.
Well F them both. Those are two wings of the same party.
America is neither left nor right.
We are America.
(which is why elections haven't been making sense to people who sick to outdated labels, as the electorate swings from side to side. the labels have been outdated for quite a while. the country is looking for liberty, not a group of elites to follow.)
***
The 'weekly standard' reflected the broken statist paradigm that wasn't working, that killed the elephant dead dead dead, that got us where we are.
RINOs want big government.
Religious statists want fed.gov to dictate.
The RINOs and statists-- They are being pushed out of the GOP. Much to the chagrin of the old guard, many 'Tea Party' folks displaced old timers in primaries.
Liberty. Done comprimising. Done begging.
Our individual rights are granted by God, not some tyrannical bureacrat. We constituted this government, they are OUR servants.
Marriage is what it is. Why is the state licensing religious behavior? Time to fix that.
The state doesn't license "religious behavior" when it grants a marriage license. It's called a civil marriage, and it is separate from a religious ceremony. If there are to be benefits and legal obligations arising from the state of matrimony, then the state is obligated. Otherwise, anyone could just "say" they are married and be granted those rights and obligations.
ReplyDeleteThe most exasperating thing in arguing with religious people on the topic of same-sex marriage is their refusal to see a distinction between civil and religious marriage. I want nothing to do with their church, their god, or their traditions. I merely want a legal, civil marriage. God can refuse to recognize it all he wants, I don't give a flying flip.
But back to you're "what is the right" bit. Does any organization or group, any publication or web site live up to your conservative ideals? Aside from your own blog, exactly who embodies Sofa's idea of conservatism?
Me "conservative"? lol
ReplyDeleteCalling me names doesn't work: It just reveals that my points are unassailable. My 'ideals' are aligned with Jefferson and Adams, and Heinlein and Tolkien, Locke, Bastiat, Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises. I am a 'classic Liberal' of western civilization; the traditional foundation of society.My ideals can be summed up with the Virginia State motto: "Sic Semper Tyrannis".
***
Back on this topic:
Marriage is a religious thing.
Civil unions are some made up crap, so the gov gets a record and a 'license' fee. If the state blesses a union between sheep and arabs, does it matter? Point being, the state has no business injecting itself into the people's business. The state has grown beyond it's role, to the GREAT detriment of the people.
Just saw the following posted as a comment from 'brad' at
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2010/11/time-that-is-given-us.html
Tolkien was a wise and good man.
In a 1943 letter to his son, he wrote,
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! [Note to the literal: he is joking about executing them.] If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to ‘King George’s council, Winston and his gang,’ it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.
Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop …
Well, cheers and all that to you dearest son. We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not know, or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water. Also we have still small swords to use. ‘I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.’ Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenaeddran (war-adders), biting darts – but make sure of the mark, before shooting.”
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=4129
***
My 'ideals' are Life, Liberty, Property, and the inalienable rights of individuals. State is a chain upon the people.
Here's another guy who "gets it":
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-guy-would-make-far-better-american.html
Calling you a conservative is "calling names?" Err, okay. Sorry. So basically, on the political spectrum, you are so far from the middle and the ends that you're what--on the flip side of it?
ReplyDeleteMarriage ISN'T only a religious thing. My folks were married at City Hall. So was I--to a DUDE!--in Palm Springs. Your position would bar atheists, agnostics and many couples of mixed religions from getting married. If such a change were made (and wouldn't it have to be made by GOVERNMENT?), you are taking away something that has been available to couples for centuries. This is your "liberty," your "freedom?"
My opinion: Do whatever you want, but don't effect the rest of us. You want a 'civil union', then make up any civil arrangements you'd like.
ReplyDeleteJust don't lie and try to call it a 'marriage'. Marriage is a religious arrangement between a man and a women. It's what the meaning of is, is. Perverting the language does effect the rest of us, so that crosses a line.
***
Regarding "political labels": Here's a short quiz, 20 questions
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Me? 100-100 Libertarian.
Like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington.
As "American" as it gets.
.
I would suggest that political labels are not 1 dimensional, 'left' middle 'right'.
ReplyDeleteThe quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
provides a 2-dimensional model for political thought.
Matt Bracken has proposed a 3D model for political identification.
http://cliffsofinsanity2010.blogspot.com/2010/09/lone-voice-in-wilderness.html
and
http://cliffsofinsanity2010.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-musing-on-cw2-cube.html
The 3D model may be closest to what we see; but more dimensions are likely needed.
Food for thought.
better link on the "CW2 cube" along with an article by Matt Bracken describing it
ReplyDeletehttp://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2010/07/bracken-cw2-cube-mapping-meta-terrain.html
(soory, should have provided this original link and not the derivative others)
.
Sofa, you don't get it. I don't CARE if you consider my marriage valid. I just want it to be treated exactly the same under the law as any other tax paying couple. I'm not religious, to say the least. I don't have the slightest care what the Pope, James Dobson or Sofa think of my relationship.
ReplyDeletejames- I get what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteAnd my opinion is "ok, whatever"- right up until it effects me.
I'm also saying that the state has no role in marriage. The state does civil unions because they want records to correlate other tax info, etc, and to collect fees and taxes, and they do it because the state needs to always exercise control over the lives of their serfs.
I don't think the state has any legitimate role in these matters; not in one night stands, pair bonding, co-habitation, or reproduction. Who the hell do they think they are!? My mother has a role in this, because I acknowledge her position in certain matters. But the state has taken this role upon itself, and maintains it through the use/threat of overwhelming force.
It begs the question: Why do you want the state involved in your personal life?
The 'benefits' the state denies- are owed all human beings, not just those which the state decides to bless. The problem is the state's self declared authority in picking who to favor and who to deny basic liberties.
Life, Liberty, Property, Persuit of Happiness.
I'm sofa king tired of the state telling us what we may or may not do, and who 'benefits' and who is punished. Who the hell do they think they are!?
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-guy-would-make-far-better-american.html