jump to navigation

Greater Than March 26, 2013

Posted by Sobek in News.
trackback

I am

greaterthan

Want to know why?  Because I haven’t made it my life’s mission to force my aberrant political and sexual views on the majority of a country by appealing to nine senile tyrants with no conception of personal liberty.

If you have one of those dumb equals signs on your Facebook page, car windshield, or anywhere else, but in your behavior you show yourself willing to violate our Constitution, I’m far better than you.

Comments»

1. Michael - March 27, 2013
2. digitalbrownshirt - March 27, 2013

So is incest, canibalism and pooping in public.

3. sobek - March 27, 2013

Just because I reject the argument doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with it. Plus, everyone knows giraffes are freakin queers, with the exception of evil mecha-giraffes.

4. OBF - March 27, 2013

Anyone up for a little pool on how the SCOTUS will vote on these two cases. I say we throw in large sums of cash (North Korean paper currency) or non-redeemable IOU’s and winner takes all.

5. lauraw - March 28, 2013

Honestly, I don’t care. You can make it a law to call a possum a pussycat but that doesn’t make it so. I know gay married people (in Massachusetts). They adopted a kid. Nice boy. Wonderful couple of guys. Love spending time with them.

They’re not married. Nyoop. Sorry. They are ‘married.’ Sort of. But not like what you and I think of as a marriage.

Now, they’re my friends, so I wouldn’t say that to their faces. If my friends want to kid themselves it’s not my sacred duty to disabuse them. I can disagree with people on an issue without having to break up with them.

Not so sure how well that runs in the other direction…I suspect not too far.

6. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

I think they want to punt on this one (SCOTUS) and are seriously considering the issue of standing in the 9th Circuit case.

I’m with the “don’t care” crowd. Get government out of the marriage business, call it civil unions or whatever the hell you want.

7. geoff - March 28, 2013

Yep – marriage is a religious rite. All the legal implications should be addressed via civil unions.

8. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

Part of my attitude is my reluctance to prohibit two adults from voluntarily entering into a contract, the other part is I’m more interested in what I’m going to have for lunch today that I am in gay marriage.

9. lauraw - March 28, 2013

Yep. But we’re here discussing marriage and not contractual agreements, because it is desired that the actual word ‘marriage’ be appropriated and re-defined.

They want the magic word, and just using the word themselves is not good enough. We need to change the law of the land too.

Because only then can liberals have a reasonable case to take up after the churches. They’re lying right now and saying they won’t attack the churches’ tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex marriages. They most assuredly will. Does anyone seriously doubt this?

This is really my only reason for wanting to oppose SSM. It’s the next increment. Otherwise I don’t give a shit what word games people want to play.

10. Michael - March 28, 2013

^

What she said.

11. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

I’m agreeing with you by describing the other side of the coin. Let the church keep “marriage”, which is a religious concept, and tell the state “you don’t have shit to do with marriage, you validate contracts.”

12. lauraw - March 28, 2013

I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all. That is the most sensible course which causes the least conflict. It is really too bad the discussion is in a totally different place.

13. geoff - March 28, 2013

*Looks hopefully for chance to disagree*

Oh well.

14. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

OH.. I didn’t take it that way, I used that old “I’m talkin about the tails side of the quarter, you’re talkin about the heads side” thing. because, hey, heads. You win.

15. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

Well, that and I was dumb and missed your point bout what we’re talkin about is “marriage” instead of a reasonable way out, cause they don’t want reasonable.

I really shouldn’t try serious at work.

16. osoloco11 - March 28, 2013

I’m proudly LiV. Was it MA that recently introduced the idea that if you let a traditional marriage have a party in your parish hall, you had to allow SSM, the same rights?

17. BrewFan - March 28, 2013

brilliant insight by lauraw. I hadn’t thought about this issue progressing to Uncle Sugar having a reason to go after the church’s tax exempt status but it makes sense.

18. sandy burger - March 28, 2013

I’m with DiT on this, although it’s hard to get there from here given our current tax code.

19. sandy burger - March 28, 2013

Some of the religious arguments against gay marriage would apply equally well to atheistic marriages, or re-marriage after divorce. But that would be a very unpopular position to stake out, as opposed to condemning something which isn’t a temptation to us.

Gay marriage opponents should be careful of what their motivations really are. Many voters are repelled by what they (often correctly) perceive as anti-gay bullying from the right.

20. Michael - March 28, 2013

I’m proudly LiV.

What is “LiV”?

21. Michael - March 28, 2013

Living in Vice?

22. Michael - March 28, 2013

Lost in Vernon (Texas)?

23. Michael - March 28, 2013

Last into Volkswagen?

24. Michael - March 28, 2013

Likes it Voluptuous?

25. Michael - March 28, 2013

Left it Virgin?

26. Michael - March 28, 2013

*scratches head*

Oso, help a guy out.

27. sobek - March 28, 2013

I was wondering about LiV, too. I saw that somewhere else, recently.

Liberace’s Insightful Vice-Admiral?

28. sobek - March 28, 2013

Liberian Immigration Vector?

29. Michael - March 28, 2013

OH OH OH … I got it!

Lutheranism is Victorious!!!

30. geoff - March 28, 2013

Ah – Low Information Voter.

31. daveintexas - March 28, 2013

bingo

32. Michael - March 29, 2013

I’m sticking with #29. Sorry Rush.

33. Mark in NJ - March 29, 2013

FWIW, I’m G’s BiL, my age is LIV and I agree with DiT

34. Michael - March 29, 2013

Mark, your age is really LIV? That’s almost an adult. You should be smarter by now.

35. OBF - March 29, 2013

The institution of marriage has not been doing too well lately. Too many divorces. Too easy to leave a spouse. Too easy to walk away from the kids.

One side of this debate makes the issue appear that it is a question of equal-protection. I don’t buy that and I think the leaders of the movement are not so truthful. I think the younger generation might think that is all about equal protection and may have that view as a result of limited life experiences.

It appears that the left is totally going for sexual freedom…no restrictions and a forced acceptance by the rest of the world into some pretty hedonistic activities.One of the SSM advocates ,a dude named Michaelangelo Signorile stated, “…fight for same sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

If the courts rule in such a way as to legalize SSM and to redefine marriage it is not the end, not even the end of the begining.

Like the one guy living in Pompeii said, “Hey Tony, why is there smoke coming out of that mountain?”

36. Mark in NJ - March 29, 2013

37. BrewFan - March 29, 2013

Some of the religious arguments against gay marriage would apply equally well to atheistic marriages, or re-marriage after divorce. But that would be a very unpopular position to stake out, as opposed to condemning something which isn’t a temptation to us.

Thanks Sandy for not saying I’m a homophobe or hate gay people. Being called a hypocrite is much easier to take.

38. sandy burger - March 29, 2013

Well, I certainly did not call you a hypocrite. The word “some” is important in that sentence. And in this sentence, which I didn’t say but clearly implied: some Christians are hypocrites on this issue.

Another similar hypocricy (which doesn’t involve homosexuality) is the difference between how some Christians talk about infidelity and prostitution, versus their silence on the subject of internet pornography. Many churches offer pre-marriage counseling, yet few of these programs dare to bring up internet porn. It effects many if not most modern marriages, and thus the topic is too tough to discuss, as opposed to full-on infidelity or prostitution which is a lot easier to condemn, in large part because it’s a lot easier to avoid. Porn makes us uncomfortable, partly because so many married Christian men are at least somewhat guilty.

39. Pupster - March 29, 2013

Wait…theres porn on the Internet?

40. lauraw - March 29, 2013

Sandy, it is not ‘bullying’ to retain the original word-definition of a biological and religious institution that has existed for thousands of years. It is what it is.

It *is* bullying to change it on a current cultural whim or fashion, and to accuse all those opposed of changing it, of being inhuman assholes.

For fuck’s sake, man. Who is pushing whom, here? Can you even identify who the real bullies are anymore?

41. sandy burger - March 29, 2013

Sandy, it is not ‘bullying’ to retain the original word-definition of a biological and religious institution that has existed for thousands of years.

I never said or thought that it was.

And obviously a lot of gay marriage activists are bullies (even going so far as making death threats against the Mormon church). I never said or thought that they weren’t.

Can you even identify who the real bullies are anymore?

I hope so.

I would also point out that I have never in my life met anybody who was beaten up just for being heterosexual. The perception of gays as victims of bullying isn’t some random made-up thing, and some people even do it even under the guise of Christianity.

42. lauraw - March 29, 2013

1) Some gays are bullied by some people.
.
.
.
.
5) The definition of marriage must change for everyone.

Please fill in the sequence for me.

I’d like to point out, not that it matters, that I have never gay-bashed, and I don’t think I know anyone who has, and that even if I had, it still wouldn’t give gays the right to redefine an ancient biological pact.

43. sandy burger - March 29, 2013

Please fill in the sequence for me.

Well…

11. daveintexas:
Let the church keep “marriage”, which is a religious concept, and tell the state “you don’t have shit to do with marriage, you validate contracts.”

18. sandy burger:
I’m with DiT on this, although it’s hard to get there from here given our current tax code.

Maybe you’re having too many discussions at the same time? Close some browser tabs!

44. daveintexas - March 29, 2013

>> I would also point out that I have never in my life met anybody who was beaten up just for being heterosexual. The perception of gays as victims of bullying isn’t some random made-up thing, and some people even do it even under the guise of Christianity.

Goodness, you went from LauraW’s argument about “this is an attack on 501(c) status” to “she’s stomping homos with a hob-nailed boot?

Bit of a reach there.my friend. Bridge too far. Non sequitor. Straw-fuckin-man.

I like the Crusades thing too. It’s, lame, but.. ok it’s just lame.

45. sandy burger - March 30, 2013

Goodness, you went from LauraW’s argument about “this is an attack on 501(c) status” to “she’s stomping homos with a hob-nailed boot?

Yeesh, I said or thought no such thing. This thread has gotten kinduv freaky.

Non sequitor. Straw-fuckin-man.

Yeah, you can say that again.

Anyhow, Happy Easter.

46. Michael - March 30, 2013

My pastor does not hesitate to warn against porn in a Sunday morning sermon, but Sandy is probably right that porn is a topic which Christians normally avoid because the porn epidemic affects so many us, whereas the exact legal and/or semantic treatment of gay unions does not really affect most of us, and so it is easy to stand foursquare for traditional values regarding marriage.

Which, btw, if you follow the traditional definition back far enough in your Bible, involves plural marriages and concubinage (e.g., Abraham). The Song of Solomon is, in the first instance, a paen to some member of Soloman’s harem used allegorically to describe God’s relationship with His people. See also the story of Ruth, and Boaz as her kinsman-redeemer, for a glimpse into how much the marriage tradition has changed.

she’s stomping homos with a hob-nailed boot

That’s just a typo. Laura stomps hobos with a hob-nailed boot.

And Happy Easter to you all as well.

47. daveintexas - March 30, 2013

Solomon had 700 wives and concubines… exact numbers of which are not known, but his “wisdom” in either regard comes into question.

Sandy, I don’t think I misunderstood your remarks, You are elevating the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks in the 19th century, which I don’t buy (“rights” is used as a tool now). You’re the one who brought up “I don’t know anybody who got beat up because they were heterosexual” thing bullshit.

I still resist the confluence of the original argument with a pornography argument, hypocracy, religion et.al. It’s not the same thing.

Anyway, I’ll stick with my original argument. The word “marriage” needs to be stricken from law.

48. Michael - March 30, 2013

[Laura, I think both of my waterlilies are alive. I have one lilypad that reached the surface today, and the other plant looks like it is trying to send one up.]

49. Michael - March 30, 2013

Agreed Dave, marriage (the creation of “one flesh”) is fundamentally a religious concept, as opposed to a contract.

However, just to be a prick, I will point out that the enforcement and administration of contracts used to be a religious idea as well. Remember that it was God who ordained the year of jubilee in order to restrain the obligation of debts, sort of like a proto-bankruptcy law.

God was also a lot more strict about dietary practices than Mayor Bloomberg.

50. Michael - March 30, 2013

In fact, for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, correct eating is a matter fraught with religious significance. Christians are unusually profligate on this subject. We’ll stuff darn near anything into our mouth, including pigs, cattle, fish, shellfish and the “five pungent spices” (garlic, onion, etc.) which are abhorred by millions who practice other faiths.

51. daveintexas - March 30, 2013

That’s not prickish counselor. It’s an acknowledgement that we’ve woven religious law into governmental contract law.. and it’s time to separate them.

LauraW, who is an atheist if I recall correctly, I don’t want to put words to her, knows this is an assault on religion. That is the purpose of this nonsense, and no legal resolution short of that will satisfy.

52. geoff - March 30, 2013

My pastor does not hesitate to warn against porn in a Sunday morning sermon

My wife’s church had a seminar on it, and I think they offered some sort of program for it.

**************

The huge upside of the same-sex marriage thing is that once they’re in, maybe there will be some tax reform and social security reform to eliminate marriage penalties. They’re really substantial.

53. Michael - March 30, 2013

The only dietary custom that seems to be pervasive (but not universal) amongst Christians is that we use unleavened bread, i.e., a cracker, for Holy Communion.

I’m OK with that, given the ancient tradition of the seder meal used by Jesus to institute the eucharistic sacrament, and the scriputural use of yeast as a symbol for sin.

However, if it were up to me, we would get a handful of Nacho Cheese Doritos rather than the tasteless little wafer that is normally served. But that’s just me.

54. Michael - March 30, 2013

And the wine should be red, given that it either represents a blood sacrifice, or it *is* blood (by means of transubstantiation or consubstantiation), depending on your particular brand of christianity.

But don’t get me started on communion wine. Puhleeze. You can buy an OK inexpensive screw-top bottle of Shiraz from Australia that’s better than 99% of the stuff they actually use.

55. geoff - March 30, 2013

My wife’s church had a seminar on it, and I think they offered some sort of program for it.

…and I don’t think the churches’ tepid response to the problem is much different than society’s.

56. Michael - March 30, 2013

I recall reading somewhere that the astonishingly low fertility rate in Japan, and the nation’s now inevitable demographic suicide, is in part attributable to internet porn. A lot of listless young Japanese males, having grown up in a stagnant economy bereft of opportunity, just don’t think females are necessary.

57. sobek - March 30, 2013

A long time back there was a religion argument around here, not sure of the details, but I found myself in the odd position of defending Amish against something even when I totally disagreed with him on the merits. If I recall correctly, I thought he was being unfairly attacked.

(I know for a fact this was not the thread where Amish said something offensive about pedophiliac Popes, and when called out on it he left the blog forever).

I mention this because it looks like Sandy vs. Dave/Michael/LauraW are talking past each other, and even though I disagree with Sandy on the merits, it still looks to me like he’s being misinterpreted and unfairly attacked.

58. sobek - March 30, 2013

On a totally unrelated point, I’ve noticed that when Hotair puts up a gay marriage thread, you’re guaranteed to get at least five people complaining about yet another gay marriage thread!!! And yet those threads always fill up with comments. It sure does seem like that’s something people want to talk about, whether they complain or not. And here we’ve managed almost sixty comments on this pining-for-the-fjords blog.

I should note well. Gun post, anyone?

59. daveintexas - March 30, 2013

sobek, I do think we were talking past one another.

the limitations of a comment thread.

60. lauraw - March 30, 2013

It looked to me like Sandy was alluding to gaybashing. Which is outside the scope of this discussion, and seemed like a bit of dirty pool to me. If that was not the case, I do apologize for misinterpreting his intent and responding angrily under this misapprehension.

[Michael, sounds like those waterlilies need to be dug up, divided, and replanted. Wear nose plugs, that job reeks.]

61. Pupster - March 30, 2013

Sandy, please don’t leave forever.

Michael - March 30, 2013

[Michael, sounds like those waterlilies need to be dug up, divided, and replanted. Wear nose plugs, that job reeks.]

[If God wanted waterlilies to be treated in such a coarse, violent and unseemly manner, he would have invented a duck to do it.]

62. lauraw - March 31, 2013

[and wear gloves, the root exudate sometimes can dye your fingers purple]

I was thinking about that family-swapping reality show where they made the religious couple look like kooks while making the polyamory trio look like nice normal people. That slippery slope (toward marriage being so open that the term becomes utterly meaningless) that we always get derided for bringing up? Yeah, it’s happening.

I feel really sorry for the children of the future. They’re going to all be raised by goats and random assortments of genital-focused hipsters who view kids as just a fun side project.

63. Dex - March 31, 2013

“My wife’s church had a seminar on it, and I think they offered some sort of program for it.”

Firefox? Chrome?

64. Retired Geezer - April 1, 2013

I was thinking about that family-swapping reality show where they made the religious couple look like kooks while making the polyamory trio look like nice normal people.

Yep.

In other news, my tuber has sent forth a lily pad, searching for the sunlight.
I just hooked up my up-filter and the water looks clean enough for Michael to drink.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: