It used to be that gays were in the closet. Now it seems that people who voted yes on California Proposition 8 are the ones in the closet. If you admit that you voted yes on 8 to define marriage as heterosexual only, then you are labeled a bigot and a hater. So you can’t tell your friends you voted yes on 8 because they won’t talk to you anymore. And there’s no having a civil conversation with gay marriage supporters to address legitimate reasons why someone might vote yes on 8.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5026 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#87, overturning a Supreme Court case when they are out of bounds is OK regardless of the issue.
As for your question, compare it to French fries at McDonald’s. They cost $1.79. Can you name one customer who would stop buying those fries if the price is raised to $1.80? Yet we know that sales wold drop if the price is raised.
Change happens on the margin, and the devaluation of marriage does have an effect. Not just from so-called ‘gay marriage’, but even more so from divorce and adultery.
# 97 QB said, “#96 Wow, you must be fun on dates”
For those with an IQ above that of a turnip it’s a blast.
#98 MikeN
Change happens on the margin, and the devaluation of marriage does have an effect. Not just from so-called ‘gay marriage’, but even more so from divorce and adultery.
I’m not the first to say this, but I’d believe the “Save Marriage” folks really wanted to save marriage and not just make a statement against icky gays, if they spent millions trying to ban divorce. Which is a far greater threat to “marriage”. You know, trying to stop people from leaving the institution would help more than stopping people who want to get into it.
At least the Catholics are ideologically consistent — they’re against gay marriage and divorce. But the protestant fundies who froth at the mouth so much about gay marriage are perfectly fine with divorce. (So much for biblical accuracy, oh well.)
So this all makes me think it’s not about saving marriage per se, it’s just that these “marriage saving” people don’t like those icky gay people. But don’t want to admit it.
So if you aren’t willing to do everything, you should do nothing?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to devalue marriage even more with a redefinition like this.
And of course, any such redefiniton is the business of the legislature, not the courts.
#94 – Ben
>>Can someone explain to me what happened to
>>state’s rights?
The same thing that happened to states “rights” when it came to slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, women’s suffrage, child labor, handicap access, etc.
One role of the federal government is to ensure equal and fair rights for all its citizens. Just because some podunk state thinks it’s OK to work second-graders double shifts in a coal mine, or it’s OK to keep dem dar bluegums on a chain out back except when dey cleanin’ massa’s house, that’s no reason to give states the “right” to run roughshod over people’s civil liberties.
#101 MikeN
So if you aren’t willing to do everything, you should do nothing?
Mike, Mike, Mike… how many millions of people get divorced every year? Versus how many thousands of gay people would get married if it was legalized?
Don’t strain out gnats while swallowing camels, buddy. (Matt. 23:23-24) If you really want to save “marriage”, put your efforts where they will do the most good. Gay marriage is the least of your worries. Work on banning divorce and adultery. Or people will suspect that it’s really not about saving marriage, but bashing gay people.
Hmmm… which makes me wonder… how many of these pious “marriage defenders” have been divorced themselves…
#102 pedro
#100 Banning divorce a bigger threat to marriage? No wonder you don’t have your ideas straight.
Gee, then why don’t you explain it to me, smart guy. Explain why a couple thousand gay people getting married is more of a threat to “marriage” than millions of straight people getting divorced.
Explain to me why gay marriage is more of a threat to “marriage” than divorce. Explain why right-wing wackos are willing to spend millions to stop a few thousand gay marriage but nothing to stop millions of divorces. I’m all ears.
Or are you a troll just like Paddy-O?
#104 – Phydeau
>>Or people will suspect that it’s really not
>>about saving marriage, but bashing gay
>>people.
Gee, ya think?
I’ve never met a single person with a good reason for banning gay marriage (and I’ve looked). What they would REALLY like to do is ban gays, but that ship has already sailed. So their second-best way to stick it to the man (or the woman) is to relegate them to second-class citizenship.
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why the Saviors of Marriage aren’t agitating for jail time for adulterers, and a ban on divorce.
Unless they’re all full of shit.
#102
> Then why did gays went on and vote?
They did. In droves. They voted against it. However, they were overwhelmed by the fearful religious folks. If there was ever a vindication for the vilification that the Founding Fathers gave Democracies and thus devised a Republic, Prop 8 is it.
#3 – Marc Perkel,
That equality can be had by removing marriage from non-reproducing str8 people.
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Do you have a clue? Will you only allow marriage when the bride is pregnant? Will you annul any marriage that fails to produce children within some specified time?
#99, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath,
# 97 QB said, “#96 Wow, you must be fun on dates”
For those with an IQ above that of a turnip it’s a blast.
No wonder you remain single. No one will have you.
# 109 Mr. Fusion said, “No wonder you remain single.”
Single? Really?
I admit, I would have never dated a guy as I’m not genetically defective like some others on this blog.
# 99 Paddy-O said
“For those with an IQ above that of a turnip it’s a blast.”
OK, I draw the line rutabaga sex, and tubers in general.
# 111 QB said, “OK, I draw the line rutabaga sex, and tubers in general.”
I thought rutabaga’s had a higher IQ than turnips…
#6 “the most intolerant hate filled types are those who are for gay marriages and against prop 8.”
I whole heartily agree with you on these statement. These stems more from couples than singles however. Thank God my single gay friends can appreciate that I, myself, like women and I shouldn’t be hated or bashed for it.
#112, QB,
Cow-Paddy prefers to fornicate with vegetables. If you get them fresh you can almost be assured you’re the first. AND, vegies don’t talk.
In six months, when there are no jobs to be found, and the only meat to be found is Spam, and your children are malnourished, you’ll wonder why you wasted so much time protecting the sanctity of your marriage when you should have been protecting your wallet from the rapacious pirates in charge of our financial system.
Aww, shucks, who am I kidding? They’ll probably blame the fags for that too.
DBO
God did make them gay. Just as he made me straight.
I never chose to be straight. I liked girls starting at 4. I had no choice they were cool and even today I will take 100 women over any one man. Even for conversation and companionship, men are shit, especially the beer guzzling, sports obsessed, truck salivating smegheads.
I never had a choice in what I liked. So too gays have NO CHOICE.
The sin of homosexuality, in context with the scripture, is sex akin to adultery. Sex for sex’s sake. A personal defilement due to people being on four legs and not two. There is no difference in vilification between the homosexuals acting out and heterosexuals acting out. But that is the natural state of humans scriptureally speaking. It is on the same level as being drunk, gossip and uncontrolled gambling. It hurts the person and others as well.
It is not about being gay or straight. It is taking eithet to an extreme that is harmful and dangerous. Just because some fools do not know how to translate hebrew well, does not mean that it is set in stone or vellum.
Hebrew is a contextual language and is often poorly translated. Take the Earth was covered with the flood. The Earth in hebrew has many meanings. One of which is REGION. Another classic is that the devil is called a light bringer, and so too is Jesus. So is Jesus the devil? All poor interpretation based on a word and not ist context.
What is worse is the context must be read not just by a passage or by a chapter or a book, but by the whole of scripture to get what is really being said. If you don’t go through it cover to cover you will always screw it up.
So please, stop trying teach faulty knowledge that you gleaned from someone else who was also gleaning it from some other slob who had no clue of what he was citing verbatim from yet another fool.
Tradition is not truth. Truth is truth. Stop listening to heretical levite wannabees in chrisendom.
Cursor_
#117 – ‘dro
>>It is a choice. It is called sexual
>>preference, not sexual karma
Huh. Interesting. So what you’re saying, ‘dro, is that if you chose to do so, you could be whipped into a frenzy of wanton sexual desire by the sight of a naked man and his throbbing unit.
Who knew?
#117 pedro
#116 It is a choice. It is called sexual preference, not sexual karma
Have you ever spoken to a real, live, gay person, pedro? And the ones pretending not to be gay don’t count. Every single gay person I’ve talked to knew their “preference” as far back as they could remember, as very young children.
Educate yourself, pedro.
Hey Mister Mustard, I was going to say that exact same thing. 🙂 The thought occurred to me… maybe the people who think sexuality is a “choice” are closeted or unknowing bisexuals. Maybe they could go both ways but choose to stay hetero because of their religion, and think everyone could make that choice!
hmmmmm….
That’s not a bad train of thought; bisexuals have a choice, and thus the people who think that gay people have a choice are most likely bisexual, as a person’s belief tends to follow their experience.
# 117 pedro said “It is a choice. It is called sexual preference, not sexual karma”
Try being gay for a while and see how that works out for you.
# 119 Phydeau said, ” Every single gay person I’ve talked to knew their “preference” as far back as they could remember, as very young children.”
That jibe with it being a genetic defect.
#122 Paddy-O’Troll
That jibe with it being a genetic defect.
(It is only with the most morbid of curiosity that I converse with the troll.)
So what if it’s a genetic defect? What does that have to do with anything? Some bit flipped the wrong way when the fetus was growing, and the sexual orientation got messed up. It happens all the time. See the book Biological Exuberance for many examples in other animals.
So explain how this matters — not that you’ve expressed a coherent viewpoint on this issue.
>That jibe with it being a genetic defect.
Of course.
How else would you explain a member of any species that is hardwired to not pass on its genes?
There will be a cure for this someday. Just like any other gene-therapy, a shot in the arm and all will be well.
But in the meantime, if they want to call themselves “married” and pack fudge behind closed doors, power to them. Just don’t force the rest of the population to agree to change their definition of it. Go down to the courthouse and get a civil union contract drawn up.
#123 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>That jibe with it being a genetic defect.
You mean like having red hair, or a body like Michael Phelps?
# 126 Mister Mustard said, “You mean like having red hair, …”
No, defect as in evolutionary dead end…
#127 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>No, defect as in evolutionary dead end…
Oh, for chrissakes, Paddy-RAMBO. What is it with you and your insistence that nobody hook up unless it’s to procreate? We have too many breeders working their mischief already.
You should be thankful for that evolutionary dead end in any case. Soon, there will be no homos.
And I’m still waiting to see you circulate the petition to annul the marriages of childless (hetero) couples. They’re dead ends too.
# 128 Mister Mustard said, “Oh, for chrissakes, Paddy-RAMBO. What is it with you and your insistence that nobody hook up unless it’s to procreate?”
And this has to do with homosexuality being a genetic defect how?