May as well laugh. Folks living in the 19th Century win one, once in a while.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
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!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Ah_Yea
>>why has the gay community been pushing for
>>gay marriage and not be satisfied with civil
>>unions?
Because they’re not the same thing. If sitting in the back of the bus were the same thing as sitting in the front of the bus, maybe blacks would have been satisfied. It’s not, they weren’t, and now they can sit anywhere they damned well please.
I’m sure if any joining of man/man, woman/woman, or woman/man were considered a “civil unionn”, gays would be satisfied with that also.
Churches are a completely different matter. If a Jew wants to marry an atheist, or divorced Catholics want to get married, they can just join another church, or go to a justice of the peace.
>>Proposition 8 was enacted due to the gay
>>community forcing gay marriage on the
>>religious community that doesn’t want it.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried (did you try?). The gay community didn’t want to “force gay marriage” on anyone. They WANTED IT FOR THEMSELVES. Other than people like Paddy-RAMBO, who is afraid his wife will run off and marry a carpet-muncher, gay marriage has NO effect on ANYONE.
>>It’s so blatently obvious!
No, it’s so blatently stupid, it hardly warrants a reply. I haven’t seen any disgruntled Catholics suing the local priest, or disgruntled goyim suing the nearby synagogue, even though divorced people and non-Jews are LEGALLY free to marry at will.
It’s a church/ state thing.
And if you don’t like the tenets of the church, you can pick another one, or pick none at all.
If marrying the partner of your choice is illegal, well you don’t have an option. Other than to be an activist for civil rights, and hope that the tight-assed nosey parkers of the fundie religions go back where they came from, and leave other people alone in their pursuit of happiness.
Now now, Mr Mustard. It sounds like you have let lose the mustard down your leg again. Take a breath. I do agree with you that it was many Black religious women that supported Prop 8. My point exactly. Care to ponder as to why no anti-prop 8 post are occurring outside the AME churches and Latino dominated east LA catholic houses of worship? It’s not disputable that the additional black and latino vote that came out to support Obama pushed the yes on Prop 8 campaign over the finish line. WE know why the mormons in business suits are being protested but why not the AME and Latino Catholic Churches? hmmmm? WE all know why.
Now now, Mr Mustard. It sounds like you have let lose the mustard down your leg again. Take a breath. I do agree with you that it was many Black religious women that supported Prop 8. My point exactly. Care to ponder as to why no anti-prop 8 protest are occurring outside the AME churches and Latino dominated east LA catholic houses of worship? It’s not disputable that the additional black and latino vote that came out to support Obama pushed the yes on Prop 8 campaign over the finish line. WE know why the mormons in business suits are being protested but why not the AME and Latino Catholic Churches? hmmmm? WE all know why.
#37 – FuckUp
>>Care to ponder … WE all know why
Well, shed some light, won’t you?
Perhaps it’s for the same reason you don’t walk down the streets of Compton or Inglewood or Watts in a tuxedo with $100 bills poking out of your coat. In fact, I’ll bet yoy don’t walk down the streets of Compton or Inglewood or Watts at all. Is that for the same reason as the gays also? Or a different reason?
The solution to this entire problem is easy. Get the government out of the business of certifying marriage. If they must see two people as one for some reason make it under a civil union. If a person wants to get married in a church that is fine, but it would not mean anything to the government unless the couple also went through the procedure for a civil union.
If a gay couple want to create their own church, say the church of guarding your rear, then they could, and get married in said church. Of course it would not mean anything to the government. The couple would still have to get a civil union.
#23 and #31
You both a have great point. If it was up to me, the government needs to get out of the business of human relationships. Unfortunately, the government IS in the business of legislating relationships by virtue of “marriage” so I support a plan B.
Plan B – promote ‘Civil Unions’ as the umbrella designation, period. In this case, marriage is merely a religious, private ceremony after a civil union that has no bearing in the eyes of the state.
If one just wants the basic celebration with wine and cheese, great! If you want the gowns, rice and holy water, great also!
What is there not to like? The Christians keep ‘marriage’ and all it’s wonders and the gay can have the equal access they (we) demand.
#40 – ‘dro
>>And if we follow conFusion’s logic, you’re
>>just looking for right wing nut tail.
Shouldn’t be too hard, right ‘dro? After all, the further to the right they lean, the wider they stance. And if all else fails, there’s always YOU.
>>#34 Because marrying someone from the
>>opposite sex is not the same as marrying
>>someone from the opposite sex.
Hittin’ the agua ardiente pretty hard, are ya? Oh well, I guess it’s after 5 in Havana. Hey look!
http://tinyurl.com/5mpuhk
‘dro is famoso! Que chévere!
#41 – Bob
Sounds like a plan to me. Why not sponsor a proposition??
I think you’d have a hard time finding supporters though….if the homophobes (in public) thought their sacred marriages were going to be downgraded to civil unions in the eyes of the secular government, all of a sudden civil unions wouldn’t be “the same as marriage” any longer. Just like that. *Poof!* The blink of an eye. In that case, they’d be different, and inferior.
#41, Bob and #42, Dallas.
Exactly right, and exactly my point.
Mustard, LOL! It looks like he’s already had his fill…
#41 – ‘dro
>>Hmmm, I think the ones on the extreme left
>>are the ones who like it wide open.
Keep talking like that, ‘dro, and maybe you can convince yourself. You sure won’t convince anybody ELSE.
Not after the Mark Foley scandal, the Larry Craig scandal, the Ted Haggard scandal, the Bob Allen scandal, the Glenn Murphy scandal, the Troy King scandal, the Jeffrey Ray Nielson scandal, the Richard Curtis scandal, and other homo-secksyooal scandals involving far-right fags too numerous to enumerate!
For a more complete listing of the perversions of the wingnuts, see
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
..which includes documentation not only of many hard-right (haha…hard!) extremists smoking pole and wrangling rump, but the the occasional foray of the tightie righties into dalliances with actual WOMEN (other than their wives, of course), and charming tales like the one about Larry Dale Floyd, Republican Constable in Denton County, Texas, who was arrested for crossing state lines to have sex with an 8-year old child and was charged with 7 related offenses. (He was 62 at time of arrest).
And they call ME a dirty old man? Haw!! HAW HAW HAW!!
Thank you Mr Mustard. A tip of the hat to you. You are the first liberal that has ever admitted such and not blathered away about how it was the mormon church this and the mormon church that. A semi-honest liberal. Im in a state of shock….
#48 – FedEx
>>not blathered away about how it was the
>>mormon church this and the mormon church
>>that.
OK, now that we’ve determined that I don’t think the Mormon church was exclusively responsible for the passage of Prop 8, what do you imagine the reason is why the homos aren’t rioting in the ‘hood?
Is it that all those liberal ass bandits blame it on the Mormons?
No, I just wanted to hear a Liberal (I didn’t think that I ever would) admit that the only reason that you don’t see the gay protestors screaming out side AME churches and yelling in the face of little old black ladies on a corner in compton instead of like they do to little old white ladies in Palm Springs is because the ass beating that they would receive would make the battle scenes in the Movie “300” look like a school yard skirmish.
By the way, that’s also why it’s extremely unlikely that you would see any video of the little fat retard Jack Black mocking Muhammad. He knows some devout muslim with a gift certificate to the sword store would get medieval on his ass!
#50 – FedEx
So. In other words, the same reason you don’t walk down the streets of Compton or Watts with $100 bills sticking out of the pockets of your tuxedo, right? Because you know the ass beating you would receive would make the battle scenes in the movie “300” look like a school yard skirmish?
Perhaps the same reason why blacks were hesitant to protest in front of the guys in white sheets at the Klan Klavern, each holding his very own sawed-off 12-ga shotgun?
And it’s not like the protesters are hurting anyone. Unlike the self-proclaimed “heterosexual” guys who tie a homo to their pickup and drag him to death, or tie him to a fence and beat him to a pulp, then leave him there to die. We’re talking peaceful protest here, man.
#23 – Ah Yeah
I agree somewhat on your original position of state needs to be kept seperate from church. In my opinion, the two need entierly seperate spectrums, but that’s beside the point. If church and state are to be seperated, why even support the notion that states recognize marriage at all? Especially given that all marriages are at their most fundamental religious rites. Why not only recongnize civil unions as being “contracts” in a purely legal sense (claiming of ownerships, feduciary responsibilities, awards in case of death and divorce, etc) and leave out all the rest? After all, why should a wedded Hindu couple be treated exactly the same as a wedded Catholic couple in the eyes of the law when they are different in the eyes of their respective lords and religious sects?
#54 – peehead
Yup, trolling again.
Go back to your agua ardiente.
#53 – crimsonfenix
>>Why not only recongnize civil unions as being
>>“contracts” in a purely legal sense (claiming
>>of ownerships, feduciary responsibilities,
>>awards in case of death and divorce, etc) and
>>leave out all the rest?
Yeah why not? I’ll tell you why not. The Prop 8 supporters would never go for it. Not in a million years. Their “marriages” are sanctified and holy, and a Great Amurrican Tradition that needs to be upheld at all costs (their closet homosexuality, divorce, philandering, and pedophilia notwithstanding).
The whole point of having a garbage category of “civil unions” and a separate and distinct glorified tradition called “Marriage” is to marginalize and alienate any non-traditional couples.
If they couldn’t say they were “better” in some way, what would be the point.
You might get a little more support for that idea with “Civil Union I” (man + woman) and “Civil Union II” (all others), as long as it was made perfectly clear that the Civil Union II was inferior to their own union. I’m skeptical though. “Civil Union”, regardless of the grade, sounds too much the other grade.
They want MARRIAGE, and nobody else can have it. It’s sacred, dammit!
If these “actors” would have spent as much time campaigning against prop 8, as they did doing this video, maybe prop 8 wouldn’t have passed.
It just but the heck out of me, when people do nothing to promote something and them whine about loosing.
Bunch of whiney be-otches…
#53 crimsonfenix. I think you’re right!
A religious marriage ceremony would be “under the eyes of God”, an exchange of vows with a religious underpinning.
And when performed with the proper fixings, would also be a legally recognized civil union, and make the civil union the holder of all the legal rights that are currently the prerogative of a marriage.
This moves all the legal aspects of the marriage over to the civil union, and leaves the religious aspects solely to whatever church performed the marriage.
This would provide the benefit that all marriages would be legally the same since they all carry the same weight by virtue of the civil union. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.
While allowing the couple being married the freedom to wed under whatever religion they desire, or none at all, without any loss of legal benefits.
Everybody wins. You could have a Jewish church next to a Catholic church next to an Anglican church next to a Mormon chruch next to a courthouse, and all marriages or unions are legally identical while allowing the couple the freedom to choose which religious code to follow or none at all.
And it perfectly preserves the separation of church and state.
#58 – Ah_Yea
Nice idea, but I still don’t think it’s going to fly with the pro-Prop 8 contingent.
After all, a number of churches ALREADY perform same-sex marriages (where legal).
In those places, a same-sex married/ civilly united couple would be exactly the same as a mixed-sex married/ civilly united couple.
And hetero couples who opted out of a church wedding would be exactly the same as homo folks who opted out of the church wedding.
This goes against the very raison d’être of the pro-Prop 8 group – to marginalize same-sex couples and to set them one rung (or more) below hetero couples. To portray them as nasty, perverted freaks, who will be molesting your children if you take your eye off of them for even a moment.
If Jim and Jake get married in a tolerant UCC and have a legal civil union, what’s to distinguish them from Ken and Barbie getting married in The Holy-Jeebus Evangelical Church who also have a legal civil union??
Nothing.
And that just won’t fly with the hatemongers. Not for one blessed moment. If the fags and the dykes have all the same rights and responsibilities as they do…. well. Then I guess the terrorists will have won. Or so they’d say.
Mustard.
You’re probably right.
Unfortunately.
That was quite entertaining! It was fun picking out familiar faces: John C. Reilly, Margaret Cho, Allison Janney, Sarah Chalke, Andy Richter, Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, one or two others whose faces I recognize but can’t name.
The recent Hollywood writers’ strike sure has been a boon to online content. Felicia Day’s “The Guild” was very popular, and N. P. Harris was great in Joss Whedon’s “Doctor Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” and so on. I look forward to more, just as I look forward to the death of the term (I will _not_ call it a word) “webisode.”
I have never understood how anything having to do with gay rights will “destroy marriage” or “destroy the family” as has been parroted again and again. It’s like some Lewis Black bit or the Underpants Gnomes on South Park: there’s something missing from the middle of the argument.
A: Two same-gender people have sex with each other.
B: (Then something else happens.)
C: Another family destroyed!
I just don’t get the connection. Is it that once gays can marry, everyone will want to do it and all hetero couples will divorce? Or what?
#62, pedro,
Seriously, do you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion. Either for or against, it doesn’t matter. If not, then you are just trolling with your ad hominem attacks on posters with something to say.
Marriage is a religious rite
Not true. Marriage has never been about religion. It has always been a social construct for the pairing of couples and stability of a family. Religious sanctification is purely a ceremonial rite and will not make or break an official marriage. Marriage became religious in the western world when the Church comprised most of the civil functions of society.
Marriage is a Civil Exercise
True. It is in society’s interest for couples and families to be stable. Society is healthier when the people are healthy and happy. Marriage is actually a civil contract between the two people that want to bond for life. To break that contract requires a civil dissolution.
Churches will be forced to marry gays against their will
Not true. As private organizations no church is forced to perform or not perform any specific ceremony. The very few exceptions to that rule include ceremonies that break laws against drugs, criminal assault (sacrifice), or bigamy. No church can be forced to perform a ceremony. Many churches will not allow non-members to rent their church for a marriage. The Catholic Church is most famous for not performing religious rites to those they don’t think are whole or have broken “god’s” laws.
Civil Unions are the equivalent to marriage
No they are not. Until Brown v School Board Separate but Equal was an accepted condition. Since then, however, it is recognized that if we are all equal, then we must all have equal access to and protection of the same rights. Not just some rights.
Everyone has the equal right to marry
To suggest that everyone has the same right to marry a heterosexual partner is just wrong. This has narrowed the field to whom couples that want to bond may select from. So sure, Paddy-O may marry anyone he wants to; so long as they work at Radio Shack. That may work for Paddy-O but not for normal people that don’t frequent Paddy-O’s store.
This same civil restriction can’t apply to marrying someone only of a specific race, religion, nationality, State, number of teeth, political bent, or hair color. To continue that restriction to include two people of the same gender is wrong. Every argument against restricting marriage to specific groups, (race, religion, hair color, etc) can also be used to ALLOW marriage between two same sex people.
Marriage is about having and raising children
Only partly true. While the traditional nuclear family is important, fertility has never been a test or marriage requirement. Why, after having all her “plumbing” removed was my wife’s aunt allowed to marry at 60 something? There is no chance this partnership would have been able to procreate although I’m sure they would still try.
Many same sex couples share the raising of children from a previous heterosexual relationship or adopt. There is no evidence that homosexual parents corrupt, harm, or negatively influence their children’s sexual orientation or life. There is a lot of evidence that loving couples give children a better chance in life.
Also, to those saying “marriage is about the right to procreate”, that’s historically absolutely false.
The concept of marriage was a concept of property and estate law. Marriages were created such that when Person A married into Family B, he could inherit all of the money that Family B had. Children *did* play a role in that, in that they ensured a continuation of Family B, but this was only a secondary function of marriage and not an actual part and parcel of the institution of marriage. This is why marriage was mostly an administrative function in every Western society – and still continues to be largely an administrative function in many Eastern societies. Up until a very short time ago (some 500 – 800 years ago), the people getting married had no choice *at all* as to who they would marry. Your family said “Z” and you married “Z”, no questions asked.
That all changed when concepts of contracts and estate law changed. No longer was a bond to the land or family necessary to ensure the passage of chattel, and so things began to relax across the Western nations. We barely even think about such marriages today, until we (in the West) hear of some arranged marriage in India and think “Oh, gee, does that still go on? How silly.”
So to contend that marriage is for “procreation” is a baseless and futile argument.
(That being said – “Biblical marriage”, as in the marriage that is espoused in the Judeochristian Old Testament and the New Testament, probably *was*, at least in part, motivated less by the need to protect property than it was by the need to protect tribe – a more amorphous concept that does encompass procreation. Although, again, procreation was not its sole function. Just an important one.)
I bring this up only to illustrate that it is precisely this battle that is still being fought by gays today – the right to protect their family interests, not just their right to sleep with whomever they want. Civil unions don’t quite cut it, yet – though they legally could, as Ah_Yeah suggested. (Though I maintain that such a distinction would, societally, never be “equal” to a marriage, and thus would be an inappropriate detente in the matter.)
#65, peehead,
So you acknowledge you’re a troll.
#68, peehead.
Thank you for affirming you realize the obvious nature of your posts.
Now if we could get you to change that annoying habit and contribute something, …
%68 – ‘dro
STFU.
#71 – ‘dro
STFU