Certain demented individuals can pretend they're married all they want, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to play pretend with them or dictate that civilized society codify their derangement. Seldom has such a vehement tantrum of hate been publicly displayed as that now being exhibited by self indulgents who fail to convince yet still seek to impose their depravity on the people.
Posted by onar at November 16, 2008 10:48 AMCertain demented individuals can pretend they're married all they want...
Exactly! Why, just the other day I was talking to my second ex-wife's third husband about the sanctity of marriage. Our conversation then strayed to the Republican party getting the shit sued out of it in Kentucky. Just another liberal insult on the fine Republicans of the South.
Seldom has such a vehement tantrum of hate been publicly displayed as that now being exhibited by self indulgents who fail to convince yet still seek to impose their depravity on the people.
Ditto! And by god, you and I both know this kinda stuff will lead to another Great War of Northern Aggression and something just like the last Great War of Northern Aggression when Sherman tried to force white women to marry niggras!
Posted by Dumb as a Stump (so I'm Onar's equal) at November 16, 2008 11:43 AMI think the two above posts explains why it did not pass.
Tell me something Dumb, how many white women in the history books did the North force to marry niggras? Surely you have a link for this.
Dumb Southerners.
I don't have too much belief in the morality of the left blogisphere but I usually have regard for "Left Coaster".
Therefore I am making an exception and responding to your post.
You have a lovely quote from Hannah Arendt about marriage.
But within the context you have given are you suggesting that she was writing about gay marriages?
In 1959??? Or is she writing about marriages between blacks and whites?
I suggest that she is writing about the latter. Now you have every right to quote her and extend her thoughts into another realm. But it is of questionable intellectual honesty to suggest that she was writing about the right of gay couples to call their union a "marriage".
Furthermore, your attempts to suggest that that labeling of the gay unions as a "right"is some natural right is also a "fast one".
I am indeed in favor of extending this defination of marriage to include gay couples. But I understand that is an extension and new interpretation of a right. Not as you suggest giving a group a right previously denied
The battle over the word "marriage" aside, the Mormon Church delivered California to the Republicans for only $20 million....
Posted by wilson rivers at November 16, 2008 01:14 PMplschwartz, your point is probably valid as I did not research the context of the Arendt quote. As I tried to make clear, I found it on Andrew Sullivan's site as his quote for the day on the day of protests and found it touching.
However, the main point that I think has to be considered is how who is and is not included in our definition of normal society is predicated on our meeting and knowing people who were formally outside the norm and realizing how very normal and how very much like the rest of us they are. They are not the strangers or the other, but another reflection on ourselves.
When we see women as competent and self-actualizing individuals, the barriers to seeing them as strong and inspiring leaders drop.
When we mingle and work with people of different races, we appreciate and value them as individuals with all their various talents and deficiencies. In other words we judge them on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. And we don't fear or demonize mixed race marriages because they have proven to be good and bad, just like non-mixed marriages.
And I think that we see the same when we know and appreciate people who are gay - their families are just as healthy (or not) as the families of other Americans. There doesn't seem to be any reason except bigotry to not accord their relations as valid marriages. And when they are raising their children, they should be allowed to have the same level of support from the society as other parents.
None of this was imaginable in the mid-1900's but today, this is reality. And our country is better for that.
Posted by Mary at November 16, 2008 02:15 PMJudith, I'd lay odds that the "dumb" guy is p-dip making fun of the dumb guy onar, who makes one wonder - if teh ghey secks is so fookin' baddy bad, why the Sam Hill can't the fundie idjits stop talking about it and thinking about it in such lingering, technicolor detail?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 16, 2008 02:28 PMBut within the context you have given are you suggesting that she was writing about gay marriages?
In 1959??? Or is she writing about marriages between blacks and whites?
I suggest that she is writing about the latter. Now you have every right to quote her and extend her thoughts into another realm. But it is of questionable intellectual honesty to suggest that she was writing about the right of gay couples to call their union a "marriage".
This is a perfect example of missing the point. The post isn't about gay marriage specifically, the point and context of the quote speak to other examples of a minority group's rights being infringed upon, unjustly, by society at large.
Extending the thought to suppose whether or not Arendt thought of gay marriage is completely nonsensical and has no bearing on the discussion.
I don't have too much belief in the morality of the left blogisphere
Huh? What the hell are you talking about, care to expand or provide some support for this statement?
The continuing meme that conservatives are the defacto flag bearers morality is simply asinine.
Iamcoyote, your right. It's gotta be Phidipides making fun. Sounds like him, doesn't it.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2008 04:00 PMI don't have too much belief in the morality of the left blogisphere
Huh? What the hell are you talking about, care to expand or provide some support for this statement?
The continuing meme that conservatives are the defacto flag bearers morality is simply asinine.
Simp
Thanks for proving my point.:)
If you read my words carefully I think you will fail to find mention of the conservatives or their morality. The fact that you are without any basis willing to attribute to me a position which I did not espouse suggests your possible inability to see me as an independent entity.
I refer you to Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development for a more detailed discussion of the relation of this to adult morality.
Really great post, Mary.
The backlash against P8 is to me more interesting than even Prez Obama.
Posted by Sharkbabe at November 16, 2008 07:46 PMThere is the intriguing question of commitment. In the cave dwellers days, (oh dear, now I'll offend the flat earthers) procreation was not random but was an outcome of the strongest of the tribe choosing to breed as their offspring would have the best chance of survival and therein was a respected rite.
Today our technology has replaced the necessity for choosing the healthiest partners. Instead, today, commitment may be even more important to the health of our society than ever before. We are weakened as a nation when we turn a blind eye to another's commitment. Admittedly, I have a hard time with the man made religious part of this as my God simply gave me a brain and told me to "think damnit"
Posted by mainsailset at November 16, 2008 07:50 PMtoo bad the concern troll plschwartz wasn't around in 1860 to tell those niggers to stay in their place
and when can I vote on YOUR marriage?
Posted by gay veteran at November 18, 2008 12:31 PM