[Industrialblog,
October 27, 2006]
Mo Cultural Wars
Volokh links to this by Minn. Law Prof. Jim Chen [btw, Loving v. Virginia is the decision that declared anti-irracial marriages illegal]:
'Cept no one's talking about homosexual love ... we're talking about the redefinition of marriage so that it makes no sense, and then imposing that impossibility on the rest of us.
Those with same-sex attraction can already love anyone they want.
And they can already get married anywhere they want.
They just can't impose their decisions on the rest of us — that is, force us to recognize a logical impossibility.
As far as his direct channel to God, I would gently remind Prof. Chen that according to Dante, the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who pervert reason. But it sure is cute how he got all prophetic and sanctimonious like that.
But I'm a nice guy, and I've been willing to compromise on this issue lately. Not civil unions. Not calling it "same sex marriage." Simply a change in the nomenclature. Call it "Royal Marriage." Someone is identified on the "Royal Marriage" certificate as "King" and someone as "Queen". We thus save the terms bride, groom, husband, wife and marriage from abuse.
And one last thing, about this nonsensical, incredibly racist concept that somehow homosexual sex is analogous to interracial sex ... just think about the difference between someone asking you whether you've slept with someone of another race and whether you've slept with someone of the same gender. Did that feel like the same fundamental question to you?
Let me put it perhaps more crudely from a white male perspective. If Playboy's Miss November is black with perfect C cups, you'd feel one way. If Miss November is white but has a pair of big hairy balls, you'd feel another way. Really not analogous, is it?
Do they even teach logic in college anymore?
I despair. No wonder we can't count the votes in elections anymore. We can't even figure out how to define marriage, which comes with the source code.
When this generation shall have passed from this earth, God and/or posterity will judge us as severely for our unwillingness to confess the legitimacy of homosexual love as we today judge those who resist the rightness — legal, moral, and spiritual — of Loving v. Virginia. Yesterday Massachusetts, today New Jersey, tomorrow America from sea to shining sea.
'Cept no one's talking about homosexual love ... we're talking about the redefinition of marriage so that it makes no sense, and then imposing that impossibility on the rest of us.
Those with same-sex attraction can already love anyone they want.
And they can already get married anywhere they want.
They just can't impose their decisions on the rest of us — that is, force us to recognize a logical impossibility.
As far as his direct channel to God, I would gently remind Prof. Chen that according to Dante, the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who pervert reason. But it sure is cute how he got all prophetic and sanctimonious like that.
But I'm a nice guy, and I've been willing to compromise on this issue lately. Not civil unions. Not calling it "same sex marriage." Simply a change in the nomenclature. Call it "Royal Marriage." Someone is identified on the "Royal Marriage" certificate as "King" and someone as "Queen". We thus save the terms bride, groom, husband, wife and marriage from abuse.
And one last thing, about this nonsensical, incredibly racist concept that somehow homosexual sex is analogous to interracial sex ... just think about the difference between someone asking you whether you've slept with someone of another race and whether you've slept with someone of the same gender. Did that feel like the same fundamental question to you?
Let me put it perhaps more crudely from a white male perspective. If Playboy's Miss November is black with perfect C cups, you'd feel one way. If Miss November is white but has a pair of big hairy balls, you'd feel another way. Really not analogous, is it?
Do they even teach logic in college anymore?
I despair. No wonder we can't count the votes in elections anymore. We can't even figure out how to define marriage, which comes with the source code.
Oh heavens no.
You know, it's going to be really funny when polygamy is being legally recognized. There are a lot of people who'll be absolutely shocked.
(No, it wouldn't change anything if he/she/it shaved his/her/its balls. Please!)
Did they ever?
Actually, I don't mean to be too inflammatory. This blog is interesting to me as you are reasonable, not a personal acquaintance, and yet I still manage to disagree with almost all of your opinions.
Rob: Readers are readers, Rob, and glad to have you hear. I recall you've commented before. Welcome back.
Seriously, though, with our culture's emphasis on gender equality (a good thing, of course), I can't imagine how polygamy could be managed. In patriarchal cultures, the patriarch marries wives as he sees fit.
But in our culture, we'd never allow just one male to determine who may join the union. Which means the first male may select a second wife, at which point the first wife may select a second husband, and you figure out the legal implications. At which point, the seconds decide they want thirds, and pretty soon, there's not so much a culture as one big marriage.
Particularly interesting will be when Wife No.1 wants to divorce Husband No. 1, but not Husband No.2.
....not to kick hornets' nests - but 2 thoughts.
1) If the theory holds true that same-sex marraige causes societal disintegration/beastiality/polygamy/resurgence of disco/the Apocalypse! - we should start seeing these problems before too long in Denmark (legal since '89), Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Spain, Germany and Canada.
BBC story link HERE.
If we don't insanity and calamity in these countries a reasonable timeframe - you'll need to amend your arguments to explain why.
Get a head start now. I would suggest using the angle of:"It's Europe and Canada! Godless Socialists! It was already so messed up, no one noticed!"
2)How serious is the GOP _really_ about this issue? One has to wonder. First off - let's consider closetted gay republicans. There are apparently more than a few of them in Congress or serving on the staff of GOP officials. A couple of news stories have ran in the wake of the Foley scandal addressing this issue in regards to the failure of the Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marraige - with the jist that GOP officials told their gay staff members: "Don't worry about it, it's just politics."
Couple this with the recent revelations from Kuo's book about the disdain the senior GOP leadership has for religious conservative and evangelicals - - - and it seems increasingly plausible/likely that they're not so concerned with "protecting marraige" as they are with turning this into another Flag Burning Amendment: a bloody shirt to drag out and wave in election years - something to get the "base" riled up, something Republicans only vote for because they're sure it won't pass and they can blame it on the Democrats.
They are already seeing problems, exactly as predicted. SSM-proponents are of course trying to deconstruct the data, of course. But liberals have never been good at owning up to their social-policy errors. BTW, as I've said from the beginning, IMAO, SSM was never about SSM; it was about validation and social control and a radical agenda. See Stanley Kurtz' two-part articles "the confession" in NRO.
As for the GOP and SSM, fair enough, though I really don't care what the GOP thinks of it. I'd rather the Dems embrace family values, instead of sneering at "so-called family values."
All this belies a more fundamental question: Can the Baby Boomers actually run this country and this civilization, now that the generation born in the 1930s and early 40s have retired?
I think the answer's most likely "No." Previous generations of Americans were far more united in values than the Baby Boomers. Now that the adults have retired, and we've got a bunch of kids in charge. Can they manage elections? Can they pass on values. Remember, Baby Boomers are the first generation of Americans not to baptize their kids, meaning many are growing up as heathens. Any wonder hey walk around with bones through their noses, tattooing their faces and worshipping Baal?! Plus, they can't seem to spell to save their lives.
The resurgence of disco? Disco didn't really go away; it just morphed into hip-hop.
Rant over.
I'll let the disco remark pass, because you're probably to old to know any better :) (kidding.....)
I also heard Blondie invented it :)
(grumbles - I hate typose---grumbles)