Pharyngula

Posted by: Sili | October 11, 2009 9:59 AM

Just read Dan Savage on Obama's speech to the HRC.

What the hell is wrong with that man? One'd think he'd have more important things to do than go around expelling honest people wanting to serve their country.

Disgusting.

Posted by: Carlie | October 11, 2009 10:03 AM

This article in the Washington Post today was really powerful. It's about the unintended consequences of Don't Ask Don't Tell - if soldiers/commanders perceive someone as gay, they can abuse that person with impunity, since they can't complain about getting mistreated as a result of being gay.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 11, 2009 11:25 AM

Thanks for the link, Carlie. Don't Ask Don't Tell is simply terrorism of gays.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 11:37 AM

PZ mentioned his family in WA. I, too, have family in WA. My aunts got married in Vancouver, BC a few years ago and now live in Vancouver, WA. A few years back, before they were married, they were in a car accident in Ohio, where their relationship, marital or not, isn't recognized. My aunt almost died. I don't want this to happen to them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiuCHLRLNM

And if Referndum 71 fails, their relationship will again have no legal standing. They will be legal strangers and have to depend on the kindness of strangers. They'll just have to be lucky.

Posted by: cpsmith | October 11, 2009 1:20 PM

I'm not a particularly patriotic person, but when I see this debate raging on in the US and in other countries around the world I cannot help but feel immense pride. Go team Canada!

Posted by: Carlie | October 11, 2009 2:01 PM

True, MAJeff - I just meant that the people writing the bill seemed to have thought it would mean "out of sight, out of mind", and might not have considered that it would give such a huge cover to such blatant abuse. But then, I'm generally too much of a pollyanna.

Posted by: Lynna | October 11, 2009 2:19 PM

Are the Mormons involved in Maine anti-gay politics, or not? They have taken the trouble to put out the word that they are not involved. They even fooled NPR into broadcasting that lie. Someone with more resources than I have needs to dig into this story and out the organizers and the contributors, mormon and non-mormon.

Frank Schubert, who helped the Mormons — and others — pass Prop 8 to eliminate the right of same-sex, California couples to marry last year, is now running the campaign against marriage equality in the State of Maine. Schubert told National Public Radio the Mormon Church will not be involved in the campaign to eliminate marriage equality in Maine. http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2009/09/mormons-booted-out-of-guyana-maine.html

Some speculate that NOM is a front for the Mormon Church – who donated $20 million last year to the Prop 8 campaign. In Maine, the Catholic Church is – despite its share of problems – heavily involved in the “Yes on 1” campaign. But the Mormons have generally stayed out this time, at least not publicly. After taking a lot of heat for their heavy-handed role in California last year, are the Mormons hiding behind this new group to influence Maine? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/2/788934/-Why-Im-Going-to-Maine

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 11, 2009 4:26 PM

that is an epic speech, for sure. and I just finished watching the movie yesterday, too.

Posted by: Lynna | October 11, 2009 7:05 PM

Links to pro-equality-in-marriage videos, currently showing in Maine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kiByvu8R4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWODHVuSYQA&NR=1

Posted by: Lynna | October 11, 2009 7:16 PM

"Follow the Money" article about the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)
http://www.washblade.com/2009/9-18/view/editorial/15199.cfm

Since the group seems to be pioneering the way to circumventing the democratic process, one can only wonder when the federal government will take notice.

Back in April, I personally visited the NOM headquarters in Princeton to request a copy of the 990. Although I visited suite 242 numerous times during normal office hours, no one ever answered the door at the tiny, one-room space. It was surprising that a supposed “national” organization that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in elections around the country and ran multi-million dollar media campaigns did not have even one person at their tiny office to manage this huge effort. If the national headquarters is essentially empty, then who is doing the work and where is all of the money coming from?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 11, 2009 7:35 PM

"Unfortunately, there are people who don't share that dream and want to constrain minority positions, and make non-heterosexuals second class citizens. Equality is not what they want."

Far be it from me to seek to alter the words of the Prophet of Cthulhu, but I think you are being too generous here PZ. These people do not merely 'not share the dream'. These are people who seek to validate their own inadequate lives by demonising anyone who is different from their narrow ideal of what is 'normal' or 'acceptable behaviour'.

These are people who literally cannot get through a day without their fix of 100% proof hatred.

They do not want equality, but it is more than that. They fear equality. They are terrified by any suggestion that there could be any equivilency between themselves and any member of a group they have chosen to hate. It undermines their narcicistic idea of themselves as members of the 'Elect'. It forces them to acknowlege the sexual ambiguity that exists within themselves. I compels them to recognise the fact that skin pigmentation holds no indicator of moral character. It may even require them to accept the nature of humanity as just another species of ape.

Without an easily identified 'other', without the hatred that is the pole star of their existence, the entire architecture of their lives would come crashing down around their ears.

No matter how much evidence you have. No matter how great the logical force of your argument may be, it is next to impossible to convince someone of something that they are afraid to accept.

All you can do is try to limit the harm they seek to do to society and aspire to a better future. I am not an American citizen, so I have no direct say on any of the propositions or campaigns mentioned in this post, but I would like to add my voice to those urging everyone who can vote to go out and make a difference on this issue.

That's my two cents worth. I just wish I had a tenth of the skill at oratory possessed by Harvey Mike.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2009 7:46 PM

Everything in science tells us that people are fundamentally unequal.

examples?

...and cite your support references.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2009 7:50 PM

I'm perfectly happy to say yes, let's bring in more egalitarian programmes so that minorities won't get fed up and start destroying things.

LOL

racist much?

whose successes are more a function of solidarity facilitated through resistance, than anything innately true.

fuck the queers indeed. what a pathetic piece of racist, homophobic trash you are.

frankosaurus is indeed a good moniker for you:

you represent a dying race of peabrains that run around with their arms outstretched, smashing things they're afraid of.

expect to have your ass handed to you if you continue this inanity here.

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | October 11, 2009 7:53 PM

Shorter frankosaurus: fuck the queers..

[perverse]But I like to fuck queers too. :-D[/perverse]

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 8:05 PM

And a post saying that folks shouldn't take relationship rights away from same-sex couples in Maine and Washington is a stench flowing from PZs ass isn't anti-gay because....

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 8:12 PM

I'm still wondering what's so infuriating about a post arguing for equal citizenship rights for sexual minorities.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 8:13 PM

"Many people here are interested in 'Darwinism', if I may use a term thoroughly hijacked by creationists. Social Darwinism, however, is less likely to be accepted since it has this unfortunate history as a justification for oppression, eugenics and the like."

nothing I said is in support of social darwinism.

"Forgive me, Frankosaurus, but that sentence almost sounds as if you are saying that as long as the majority (or, more accurately, the empowered) enjoy sufficient individual liberty then the oppression of a few minority groups is an acceptable loss? The 'price of admission', one might say?"

No, I'm not saying this. I am NOT drawing normative consequences.

"And I though Bush was a past master at the politics of fear."

Fear, who's selling fear? I said I object on consistency and intellectual grounds, not doomsday projections. I guess that makes 3 illiterates.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2009 8:15 PM

nothing I said is in support of social darwinism.

...the point went over your tiny head, apparently.

I am NOT drawing normative consequences.

funny all of us are drawing that conclusion from what you're writing then.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | October 11, 2009 8:19 PM

Look, you don't even need science, but the fact is that some people are more intelligent, taller, stronger, and in everyway better at securing resources and power than others. Your turn, you tell me how everyone is equal.

Apparently the concept of legal equality is foreign to you. I accept that other people are smarter, dumber, taller, shorter, more athletic, less athletic, better looking, more ugly, etc., etc., etc. I do not accept that there are people who are not allowed to marry the people they love because of their sexual orientation.

I'm a straight man, I got married to a woman in Wisconsin, my marriage would be recognized pretty well everywhere in the world. It's certainly recognized by each of the states in the US. My health insurance company covers my wife, no questions asked. A man I work with is Indian, he and his wife got married in India. The American civil authorities recognize his marriage. The health insurance company has no problem with his marriage, since they cover his wife.

However, gays and lesbians cannot get married in Wisconsin. A gay man's partner will not be covered by his health insurance. So a gay man is not equal to me legally since his marriage, however many years it's lasted and even if it was performed in a place, like Canada, where gay marriages are legal.

Everywhere in Western Civilization there is the concept of legal equality. GLBT people in the US are trying to move legal equality from a concept to a reality.

Do you understand now? Or are you too much of a homophobe to accept the concept of legal equality for GLBTs?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 8:23 PM

However, gays and lesbians cannot get married in Wisconsin. A gay man's partner will not be covered by his health insurance. So a gay man is not equal to me legally since his marriage, however many years it's lasted and even if it was performed in a place, like Canada, where gay marriages are legal

And, even with the limited domestic-partnership benefits available in Wisconsin, even if they were able to get spousal insurance it wouldn't be equal. For legally married different-sex couples, such benefits are pre-tax. Even for legally married same-sex couples in places like MA, IA, VT, NH, and CT (and--let's hope--ME), or those with domestic partnerships, such benefits are post tax. Same-sex couples are disadvantaged by law.

But, equal citizenship rights are apparently outrageous because, well, I'm not sure why. I guess it's because I'm not identical to the straight folks who post here or something.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 8:25 PM

oh, you mean like minority uprisings?

Well, if it's uprisings and pacification that are how groups get equal citizenship rights, aybe we need a return to the Queer Nation/ACT-UP days and the theme of "Bash back!"

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 11, 2009 8:35 PM

Frankosaurus;

I was going to respond to your post at 34, but Ichthyic and MAJeff beat me to it and their responses really have expressed the points I wanted to make better than I could.

Ichthyic and MAJeff;

Thanks guys (or girl and guy as the case may be).

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 11, 2009 8:42 PM

"Equality is a secular religion, completely ideological"

I feel that the description of equality as a secular religion is unfair. It is based on an ideology and not in scientific observation of the universe, but I see no problem with aspiring to exist in more than an unreconstructed 'state of nature.'

"I say that it's funny to see scientists qua scientists run to its support."

Surely scientists are allowed to subscribe to a social ideology? I was unaware that the position forbade any view on how society might be run for the betterment of it's citizens?

Posted by: Carlie | October 11, 2009 9:04 PM

Congratulations, Hyperon, you are no longer the most blatantly racist commenter on Pharyngula. Frankosaurus has just edged you out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 11, 2009 9:17 PM

What's the difference between a watchful deity and a watchful ideology?

Posted by: The Duck of Death | October 11, 2009 9:24 PM

Why does my killfile only work on people with Typekey profiles? This is unacceptable.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 9:37 PM

"Because that's what this whole post is about."

it would be different if one characterized extending the marriage right as something not under the banner of "equality." aside from being distributionally untenable while recognizing property rights (the Wilt Chamberlain example in Nozick), it's also really broad and who knows what sneaks in as a result.

In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties.

Posted by: Carlie | October 11, 2009 9:43 PM

How is it not relevant? How is the issue not about denying equal liberties? You sound like you're having your own little conversation entirely separate from anything that anyone else is talking about. Read the post, read the thread. It's about letting one person marry someone they love, just like someone else can marry someone they love. Where do you get off saying it's not, frankosaurus?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 11, 2009 9:57 PM

Libertarianism makes every thread better.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 11, 2009 9:59 PM

Libertarianism makes every thread better.

Oh, christ, now we'll get walton babbling on about something.

Posted by: Bobber | October 11, 2009 10:04 PM

Libertarianism makes every thread better.

I see libertarianism as Henry II saw his sons in "The Lion in Winter."

Queen Eleanor: Your sons are part of you.
King Henry: Like warts and goiters, and I'm having them removed.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 10:08 PM

And failing to make society inclusive is a crime against humanity what good non-authoritarian governments do.

Fixed

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 11, 2009 10:13 PM

In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties.

So explain how gay people have equal liberties already.

Posted by: Diane G. | October 11, 2009 10:23 PM

On a related note, those of you with excess funds lying around could also donate to support the Kalamazoo Anti-discrimination ordinance, which seeks to add sexual orientation to the list of protected statuses (uh..stati?). Website of the supportive group:

http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

Website of those opposed--there's plenty of egregious fodder here, see the "Special Rights" section:

http://responsiblevoters.org/

Terrible of "those people" to demand "special rights," and if a local teen was recently beaten up for being gay, well, that's completely unrelated:

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/09/teen_sentenced_in_beating_of_g.html

And of course, the regional diocese recently announced its opposition (even though the ordinance specifically allows for religious exception from compliance):

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/10/diocese_of_kalamazoo_opposes_g.html

...in a charming declaration that begins:
“Our Catholic faith calls us to reach out in God’s love to all our brothers and sisters and protect the intrinsic dignity of each person."

On the local ballot this November.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 10:23 PM

All right, I can work with this. let me throw the question to you. on what basis do you think liberties should be defined? By virtue of being an individual? By virtue of having certain relationships? Or by virtue of anything the majority or courts say?

Posted by: Stanton | October 11, 2009 10:25 PM

Well, frankosaurus has a point: it's not equality if the power-holding majority is legally obligated to treat everyone equally under the laws of the land.{/snark}

Seriously, I don't understand these sorts of people. I remember I got into this one argument during that Prop 8 debacle where this guy said I was a bigot because I thought that gays and lesbians should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual people.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 11, 2009 10:29 PM

Frank, the source of rights is not even relevant here. We don't need a discussion of metaethics. The fact is that marriage is already a legal right. But the right to marry one's preferred partner is extended to straight people, and denied to gay people. That is not equal treatment under the law.

Posted by: tmaxPA | October 11, 2009 10:40 PM

Objectisuarus wrote:

[I]nstrumentalizing law to achieve social visions is foundationally ideological and insupportable in principle.

And everything you personally like, you exempt as common sense or objectivist principle, and anything you don't personally like is magically "instrumentalizing law to achieve social visions".

He went further:

[O]n what basis do you think liberties should be defined?

None. Liberties should be defined regardless of on what basis you wish to define them. In other words, they exist simply because we want them, not because they 'must' or even 'should' exist.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 10:44 PM

nice dodge, strange gods. But you prove my point about equality not being reasonable if the source of rights is not relevant. Our job is to just make way for its overriding collision course, is what you'd say?

I hope I'm not the one being accused of being a Libertarian. You bring up one Nozick quote, and look what happens.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 10:48 PM

What have I said that is in the least homophobic? Go on, I'm waiting.

Posted by: Enkidu | October 11, 2009 10:52 PM

#2 Sili:

One'd think he'd have more important things to do than go around expelling honest people wanting to serve their country.

Posted by: Bobber | October 11, 2009 10:53 PM

What have I said that is in the least homophobic? Go on, I'm waiting.

Earlier:

Multiculturalism, multi-orientationism, multi-everything is inherently self-contradictory, for to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay. But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with.

And so my questions are:

(a) Who is "us"?
(b) Assuming, as I stated previously, legal equality and Constitutional protections, why would there be "unhappiness"?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 11, 2009 10:57 PM

What have I said that is in the least homophobic? Go on, I'm waiting.

Multiculturalism, multi-orientationism, multi-everything is inherently self-contradictory, for to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay. But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 11:25 PM

"frankosaurus, you've been arguing that there is no basis for claiming that gays should have equal rights to marry as straights because "equality" is something stupid, using weird racist and classist and genetic eugenic arguments to try and back it up. How could anyone not conclude that means that you're equating gays with what you feel to be lesser classes of people?"

no, I'm just arguing against the culture of equality, or that it really is a consistent and sustaining ideology. You haven't been following my argument. I haven't made any eugenic arguments (find them), I haven't been making any racist or classist arguments (find them). Like I said, I believe in equality under the law, but I don't think all sources of law are of equal legitimacy. champion the rule of law, champion legislative supremacy, champion the constitution, but for god's sake don't coerce me into buying into equality as an absolute.

"If you aren't for equal rights, including marriage, for homosexuals, you are effectively homophobic, not matter what the reason."

That's just bullying. I won't be conscripted into your foolish hogwash. Homophobic means I fear/hate homosexuals, which I don't.

"Multiculturalism, multi-orientationism, multi-everything is inherently self-contradictory, for to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay. But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with."

The context of the argument is that equality talk doesn't eliminate minorites, it paradoxically creates new majorities and new minorities, with the assumption that most fighters for equality don't want that (and degrades the function of law as a protector of individual rights in the process). As was said before by someone, the chirpings of "equality" are usually just the hat tippings of the privileged. THey don't really want to see it come about, and I'm laying out the natural extension of why. Though I can be wrong about this, it's worth confronting. So I'd like to hear you say Bobber that changes in demographics don't have a palpable effect on nationhood, or that nationhood is a mere trifle of a matter. Admit that, and I will stand corrected (which I doubt. This whole blog is devoted to state of the nation anti-creationism, that I agree with by the way, so you can't tell me you don't care about the cultural pulse of the country).

"Let me know how you identify politically, so that I can add that label to my thesaurus as a synonym for wingnut"

I don't assign myself into a category, probably like you. I call 'em as I see 'em, but guided by belief in the rule of law and limited government and skepticism in humankind's perfectibility - the premises of my rejection of "the hope of equality"

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 11, 2009 11:33 PM

I don't assign myself into a category, probably like you. I call 'em as I see 'em, but guided by belief in the rule of law and limited government and skepticism in humankind's perfectibility - the premises of my rejection of "the hope of equality"

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 11:42 PM

Icthyic and Nerd. Act like adults (if you are). Disagree if you wish, but don't think it impresses me that you can call me names rather than defend your precious "equality." This was one of my main points, and you are confirming it. Many atheists will rail against superstition and God but feel wounded and vulnerable if their own "equality god" is threatened.

And Nerd, what kind of hard evidence do you think supports abstract conceptualizations like "equality." You really are a bumbler, aren't you.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 11, 2009 11:50 PM

strange gods, do you actually argue, or just put arguments in boxes and on shelves. Nice selective editing of my quotes too.

No, I'm not libertarian. But you're blind if you haven't picked up I'm politically right.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 11, 2009 11:58 PM

frankosaurus,

Multiculturalism, multi-orientationism, multi-everything is inherently self-contradictory, for to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay. But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with.

For the record, I'm a straight, white woman, and I'm insulted by your insinuation that I would be unhappy living in a country where I was the minority. Racists and homophobes like you cannot understand that other people do not share their fear of the "Other." You clearly fear the poor, huddled masses yearning to breath free. Is your own position so precarious that you advocate support for the entrenched subordinate status of other human beings through legally sanctioned discrimination based on factors outside their control?

So I can see where you're thinking, that because I am questioning "equality" I am thus not pro-gay and thus anti-gay.

That would be exactly it. If you do not support equality under the law i.e. equal rights, you're anti-gay. It's that simple. If you were standing around in the 1950s and 60s saying Blacks shouldn't be able to vote, and talking against the Voting Rights act and such, that would make you a racist. Do you see the parallel here?

The context of the argument is that equality talk doesn't eliminate minorites, it paradoxically creates new majorities and new minorities, with the assumption that most fighters for equality don't want that (and degrades the function of law as a protector of individual rights in the process).

I have no idea what you're saying here. I think legal equality is inherently necessary for a fully functioning democracy. Abridging the rights of a particular group of people based on inherent traits that pose no danger to others is legally and ethically indefensible.

How does equality create new minorities and majorities? Why does this matter? I have no problem with new minorities or majorities, so long as everyone has equal rights and opportunities.

Simply put, you don't make any sense, you're a racist and a homophobe, and probably prejudiced against other minorities because of your fear of them.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 11, 2009 11:59 PM

strange gods, do you actually argue, or just put arguments in boxes and on shelves.

If you're going to be an idiot and refuse to actually engage with any argument, then I'm content to note that you are spouting banal white nationalism.

Nice selective editing of my quotes too.

Where?

No, I'm not libertarian. But you're blind if you haven't picked up I'm politically right.

Yes it was obvious that you are a right wing nut. I was asking you if you pretend to be beyond right and left.

So you're a conservative who claims to be opposed to authoritarianism. I'm sure.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 12, 2009 12:01 AM

The context of the argument is that equality talk doesn't eliminate minorites, it paradoxically creates new majorities and new minorities,

What?

see?

others have also noticed you make no fucking sense.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 12:07 AM

Frank, please explain how gay people have equal liberties already.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 12:09 AM

America's ascendancy during the 20th century was less to do with its domestic "inclusiveness" than the fact that every other challenger except for the Soviet Bloc was annihilated in two world wars.

Wow, ignorant of history too! Which country lost the most people during WW 2? Do you have any idea how the war decimated the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc?

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | October 12, 2009 12:17 AM

No, I'm not libertarian.

Yes you are, in all of the worst interpretations of said term. Just because you have no idea of what the term means does not allow you to disassociate from it.

Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you do and are flat-out lying. Pick.

But you're blind if you haven't picked up I'm politically right.

"Politically right"? Wowie. Paging Dr. Freud...

Okay, here's another multiple choice, hot shot.

You are either:

1. Feeling superior, and disseminating The Truth(TM)
2. A clueless neo-con who is embarrassed by the fundies in the Republican party
3. A true Family fresh-off-the-prayer-cell drone here to spread The Idea
4. An Ayn Rand acolyte
5. A dyslexic

Pick. You've been too much of a douchebag to not be on this list.

If you don't, well, that'll be sufficient information.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 12:23 AM

"Wow, ignorant of history too! Which country lost the most people during WW 2? Do you have any idea how the war decimated the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc?"

Yes, they lost quite a lot. Is this contradicting the point that US asendancy was not a result of a melting pot? No. But point taken. Quantity of losses is not a necessary explanation of how things shook out, thought I didn't claim it did.

"Why does this matter? I have no problem with new minorities or majorities, so long as everyone has equal rights and opportunities."

Forgive me, but I don't measure the virtues of an ideology just because you do or do not happen to quarrel with it. Just like I'm not scared off of advocating against creationism just because a student doesn't mind learning about it.

strange gods and Icthyic, please don't confuse my not replying to you as some sort of victory over me, or that you have somehow stumped me. Say something worth responding to and I will respond to it.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | October 12, 2009 12:32 AM

America's ascendancy during the 20th century was less to do with its domestic "inclusiveness" than the fact that every other challenger except for the Soviet Bloc was annihilated in two world wars.

Fuck me, you are too stupid to live. I truly suggest you visit the great Gazoogle and inquire about WWII casualties.

I'll grant you abolishing slavery was a mighty fine thing to do, but you are seriously overlooking the extent to which the government has been going to keep everything together.

You really, really, really might want to re-think that. Either that, or tattoo a Confederate flag on your forehead.

THe present culture war shows just how divided the country is.

Which has NOTHING to do with fundamentalists poisoning the well and yanking at the Overton window for half a century, of course.

And I bet you can't name something that was an American strength that resulted from its diverse ethnic makeup.

WWII productivity? I could go on, but hey, start with that, funyuns.

I'm not saying this to advance any spurious argument that people will no doubt try to impute to me anyway, but to discredit yours.

Pro-tip: if you say explicitly "I'm not really doing this", people are going to assume that you are. And you are. Fuck, you are new at this, aren't you?

America's ascendancy during the 20th century was less to do with its domestic "inclusiveness"

Franky, there is this new invention. It's called a "map". It tells people where countries are. It also tells people where things called "oceans" are. Here's a hint: if New York would be were London is, how would the second world war have played out?

Discuss.

every other challenger except for the Soviet Bloc was annihilated in two world wars.

You sir, are a fucking moron. For starters, there WAS no Soviet Bloc until well after WWII. For another, no country was annihalited in WWII. For another...

Oh fuck, why bother. You're a fucking moron.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 12:34 AM

Forgive me, but I don't measure the virtues of an ideology just because you do or do not happen to quarrel with it.

You still failed to explain what you meant. There's no reason to suspect that equal rights for homosexuals would change the demographic make up of this country. Nor have you offered any evidence that such a demographic change would be or would have a negative effect on the country.

What you do have are racist, homophobic, and apparently xenophobic issues that color your perception of the world and how people should be treated under the law.

strange gods and Icthyic, please don't confuse my not replying to you as some sort of victory over me, or that you have somehow stumped me. Say something worth responding to and I will respond to it.

They have. It is your inane bullshit that is unworthy of response, but allowing those who speak blatant prejudice to go unanswered is something we don't support 'round these parts.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 12:38 AM

Okay, I understated the slavery abolition. Really really great thing to do.

"due in part to the influx of millions of laborers from other lands"

right, no argument here that the US didn't hugely grow because of the huge growth in population.

"A nation's strength is not found only in armies and machines of war, but also in its cultural vibrancy, richness, and diversity. The United States would be a poorer country if it were monochromatic."

circular argument. there is strength in diversity because diversity is a strength.

"The government, in many instances and depending on who is in charge, has gone to great lengths to keep us divided."

talking about segregated schools? I think you have to see that as an aspect of keeping the country together. If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence. Which isn't to say it's a good idea for every situation. of course not. but there were practical reasons on top of the blatant callousness.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 12:44 AM

If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence. Which isn't to say it's a good idea for every situation. of course not. but there were practical reasons on top of the blatant callousness.

Did you really just type that in and press post? You know one big thing that serves to prevent inter-group violence? Not treating a group of people like shit because of the color of their skin. Nevermind that we still had racial violence. It was just that the oppressors perpetrated violent acts on the oppressed. You're clearly a deluded person who gets their history from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 12:49 AM

talking about segregated schools? I think you have to see that as an aspect of keeping the country together. If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence. Which isn't to say it's a good idea for every situation. of course not. but there were practical reasons on top of the blatant callousness.

Can we have him plonked now?

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 12:56 AM

If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence.

If only those uppity negros just kept to their clearly designated places, there would have been no reason for those white folks to lynch them.

Frankosaurus, you are a fucking moral monster.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 12:56 AM

"Is it just me, or is frankosaurus arguing that segregation, ala the "Jim Crow Laws," was a good thing?"

No, don't be silly. Practical reasons are almost always never good.

"Hi. Frankie, that loud whooshing sound is the actual point flying WAY, WAY over your head."

what's the point I'm missing? I've been trying to keep it on point from where this weird tangent originated.

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 1:02 AM

Frankosaurus, you're arguing that minorities, be they different in whatever way, should remain oppressed for "practical reasons." Then you claim that "practical reasons are almost always never good." Uh, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Essentially, you are talking like a racist, bigoted homophobe: if you are not actually a racist, a bigot and or a homophobe, then, in your babblings, you have stuck your foot so far down your own mouth that you are farting toes.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 1:07 AM

"Frankosaurus, you're arguing that minorities, be they different in whatever way, should remain oppressed for "practical reasons." Then you claim that "practical reasons are almost always never good."

no, you're not following the argument. The initial assertion is that the government has been trying hard over the years to keep the country united. I don't think this is inaccurate. Then it was said that the government has tried to keep the nation divided, from which I thought referred specifically to Jim Crow. I countered by saying there was an aspect of this that had to do with keeping the country united, in the form of assuaging southern prejudice.

so you're way off about what I'm "claiming"

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 1:10 AM

Well, you're doing an absolutely crappy job of explaining how segregating whites from blacks, as well as denying blacks basic liberties, including the ability to vote in elections "united the country."

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 1:11 AM

Frankosaurus, you fucking moral monster and ignorant asshole, segregation of blacks in the US was done primarily through racial violence against black people. In other words, segregation was the result of racial violence. Segregation did not suppress racial violence.

Please, whine more about how you are being libeled and slandered. My fucking pitch black heart aches for you.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 12, 2009 1:16 AM

OK, my head exploded reading frankosaurus. You know who else made a significant difference in the U.S.A. during WWII? Lesbians. For a brief moment in time, women were encouraged to break free of the stifling patriarchy and wear the pants, and they succeeded in shoving the glass ceiling upwards. So don't fucking tell me that equality of sexual orientations is in any way harmful to democracy, to freedom, or to the U.S. as a nation. You should be thankful to lesbians and gays among others that you're not currently segregated in some death camp based on your biological traits.

This is complete libel. -frankosaurus

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 1:20 AM

Perhaps Frankosaurus would care to explain how summarily whisking the entire Japanese-American community off in internment camps, without any trials, partly on the assumption that some, if not all Japanese Americans may be traitors, and partly on the idea that they could potentially be ransomed back to the Japanese government helped the unity of the US?

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 1:27 AM

"Well, you're doing an absolutely crappy job of explaining how segregating whites from blacks, as well as denying blacks basic liberties, including the ability to vote in elections "united the country.""

Not saying it did. Saying that uniting the country has always been a concern and very tenuous indeed. If you see from where this part originated, all I've done is just rebut a simplistic claim, to much fury I might add.

"And afterall, you did assert that equality is unreasonable (to you), which means you side with inequality"

No, and that's probably the grossest misunderstanding that's come out of all this. I even said at the beginning I wasn't anti-equality. It's like when we explain to Christians that we reject God, we aren't rejecting things that have been associated with it in their minds like love, morality, etc. I don't think domestic policy should be driven by abstract designs and singled-out values. This is what I consider dogmatic, and ironically so for a site like this.

No, I don't think there is anything in homosexual relationships that are especially rights-granting anymore than I think there is anything in heterosexual relationships. Equal individual protection -- without a doubt. This is due to what I see as the meaning of the constitution. If people want to encourage families, as we have seen in laws that encourage man-and-woman marriages, then they are free to pass them. If they want to extend that to homosexual relationships, free to pass laws on them too. but don't tell me it's in the constitution, or that judges can find them in defiance of the democratic process. And don't tell me I have to take my marching orders from "equality" and that it is somehow an unquestionable higher authority.

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 1:37 AM

If you claim that you aren't anti-equality, then you shouldn't make statements that suggest that you support the disenfranchisement of minorities, i.e., claiming that "segregation prevented racial violence."

Furthermore, your saying that the idea that making sure that all groups are given the same rights and privileges shouldn't be enshrined in the Constitution because it's wrong and or somehow infringes upon your own legal rights and or privileges contradicts your claim that you aren't anti-equality.

Either you're a racist homophobe, or you've stuck your foot down your mouth so frequently that you fart toes.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 12, 2009 1:48 AM

And don't tell me I have to take my marching orders from "equality" and that it is somehow an unquestionable higher authority.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 1:51 AM

"If you claim that you aren't anti-equality, then you shouldn't make statements that suggest that you support the disenfranchisement of minorities, i.e., claiming that "segregation prevented racial violence."

You can't tell me this was done out of the blue, that there weren't high tensions going on. It was also enforced with violence too. Perhaps I didn't nuance it enough, but I don't avoid truth just because it makes me uncomfortable.

"contradicts your claim that you aren't anti-equality."

not really. Being anti-equality would be to take grievance at everything that put me on an equal plane with others. this is just absurd contrarianism. I think I'd be more along the lines of a-equality (if I can call it that) in that I don't believe it has absolutist fundamental pulls on how society should be organized on its own, and certainly not to the extent that it is thrown around by the liberal left. Of course you have to see this as big E Equality, as an abstract design that charts a moral course. Neither do most people, I hold, when we really put it under the microscope.

"Either you're a racist homophobe, or you've stuck your foot down your mouth so frequently that you fart toes."

Or maybe people were more interested to swarm on a dissenting voice than actually thinking about things seriously.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 12, 2009 1:56 AM

Or maybe people were more interested to swarm on a dissenting voice than actually thinking about things seriously.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 2:16 AM

"One day soon we humans will change the law and you will just have to deal with "equality"."

compare this with what I first observed

"successes are more a function of solidarity facilitated through resistance, than anything innately true."

I consider this confirmation.

---

"Great! So you would have no problem if spouses can no longer see their partner in the hospital. And that spouses are no longer covered by their partner's insurance. All every other benefit that heteo sexual partner have."

I would have a problem with that, but not for constitutional reasons, or because I thought it was a "rights" issue.

"Someone set this thread aside to point at those whiny religious types that atheists are in lock step with each other. Frankosaurus is as bad as the Hoax"

This is not a question of atheism. I don't see anything from the non-existence of god that lends any more support to your beliefs than mine.

"Yeah, my status as a second class citizen in the United States is such a fucking lark."

What makes you a second-class citizen?

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 2:26 AM

Whiny asshole, you are a fucking piece of work.

First you state this:

I would have a problem with that, but not for constitutional reasons, or because I thought it was a "rights" issue.

And you follow it with this:

What makes you a second-class citizen?

You do not want your fucking privileges lost yet you fucking wondering why I may want it. You fucking shithead!

Oh! Wait! I guess this is to prevent GLBT violence!

Posted by: aratina cage | October 12, 2009 2:33 AM

"successes are more a function of solidarity facilitated through resistance, than anything innately true."
I consider this confirmation. -frankosaurus

Equality does entail its own guarded cultural vision, which we lose sight of when we attach ourselves to the sport of minority viewpoints (atheism, feminism, liberationism, queer theory) whose successes are more a function of solidarity facilitated through resistance, than anything innately true.

Your conservatism is nothing but a veiled theocratic vision based not on rationality but irrationality and appeal to a belief in a totalitarian dictator in the sky. I can't believe you have the audacity to call yourself an atheist. Well, actually you are smug enough to take the label I suppose.

Posted by: Nathan | October 12, 2009 2:59 AM

Frankie – you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You seem incapable of sticking to the point (do you think people should be able to marry any ONE they want or not), and incapable of forming a coherent thought.

Life is struggle, not blissful utopia, and anyone who is HOPING for egalitarian paradise really has no sense of history or politics.

Translation: things have always been hard and always should be hard (no pun intended). Using this logic, nothing would ever get done EVER.

They've just let their wish-fulfillment runs the roost.

Who is “They”? The queers? Blacks? Asians? Feminists? Paraplegics? Liberals? This makes no sense. Who are you talking about here?

People need to be confronted with what equality entails.

Weren’t we just talking about life being a struggle, and then equality being a form of wish fulfillment? I’m confused. I’m still not clear on these “they” people either. But, okay. I’m ready. Hit me, baby!

First that it has an inverse relationship with individual liberty (for how are you going to establish permanent equality, in the face of nature I might add, without taxing heavily, or providing barriers to scaling too high).

I’m sorry – what? Equality “has an inverse relationship with individual liberty”? That makes no sense. You can’t even be bothered to provide an example. The best you could come up with after hours of gentle prodding by several commenters is some tripe about segregation “preventing civil violence.” How do black people sharing schools with white people, women voting, and queers marrying infringe on anyone’s individual liberty? How EXACTLY do any of these things affect anyone’s personal liberty who is not black, female, or queer? And, before you get started, no points for getting into that nonsense about marriage being all about producing offspring. I know lots of straight couples with exactly zero children, and no plans of acquiring any anytime soon. By this logic, you also rule out marriage rights for infertile couples. Should that be a qualification to get married then?

Also, what’s with this “in the face of nature” nonsense? This is the same language the religious zealots use to describe the homos. Nature has absolutely nothing to say about what one decides to do with their genitalia; this is the sort of nonsense that comes out of someone’s holy book.

And again with the lack of examples. Taxes? High barriers for everybody else? I thought we were talking about marriage!

And secondly, notice just how perniciously grounded our sense of equality is.

I can’t even begin to fathom what this means. I thought you were going to confront me with what equality entails.

Multiculturalism, multi-orientationism, multi-everything is inherently self-contradictory, for to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay.

And this really makes no fucking sense. Remember the bit about you telling us what equality entails? How does the ethnic makeup of the US have anything to do with your opener about life being a struggle, and then you telling us what equality entails?

But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with.

For the record, that 60% Latino / 30% black / 50% gay US sounds pretty hot. Any porno directors out there? This is solid gold here!

Equality does entail its own guarded cultural vision, which we lose sight of when we attach ourselves to the sport of minority viewpoints (atheism, feminism, liberationism, queer theory) whose successes are more a function of solidarity facilitated through resistance, than anything innately true.

Ooh! “Equality does entail…” Wait a sec, I want to copy this down – we’ve been waiting for this!

“Equality does entail its own guarded cultural vision…” Nope, my mistake, this is complete and utter crap. What do you mean? I’m going to take a stab and guess that you think equality under the law (you really don’t mention that part at all) is just a popularity contest, as opposed to a group of people wanting the same rights and privileges that other people have.

You have already called several posters illiterate. Okay. Can you please spell it out for us?

Should the homos be able to get married?

Are minority rights just a popularity contest? Yes or no. Please provide an example. Keep it simple.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 12, 2009 3:10 AM

just because one is an atheist does not mean one is immune to inhumane ideas. And Frankosaurus is is inhumane.

Frankosaurus clings to the dictatorial laws handed down by the enormous monkey-daddy in the sky (so very very rational) while playing dumb to how the conservative legal ideology that flows from sky monkey daddy's laws has always been a tool of inhumane men. Somehow in his mind, sky monkey daddy's laws are superior to modern rational legal thinking. Somehow he can be an atheist while believing wholeheartedly in sky monkey daddy's laws.

What a way to end National Coming Out Day. I'm too tired to go on anymore about this, but it sure shook me up. Honestly, if the readers of this blog did not swarm fuckheads like frankosaurus, I wouldn't bother coming back here at all. So thank you all, and goodnight!

Posted by: Malcolm | October 12, 2009 3:12 AM

Mr T @151 re Frankosaurus,

Could it be possible for you to play any more stupid?

Having read his comments to date, I don't think he's playing.

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 3:20 AM

So frankie:

If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence.

1920's: Jim Crow laws: check. Lynchings: epidemic

1990's: Jim Crow laws: uncheck. Lynchings: episodic

Huh, Frankie, from my turd-burgling analysis is looks like integration PREVENTS racial violence. Wingnuttery: I must be doin' it wrong...

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 3:23 AM

fwankie wobbled:

I countered by saying there was an aspect of this that had to do with keeping the country united, in the form of assuaging southern prejudice.

Aww, the poor babies. Article IV of the Constitution deeply offends them. Then they soil their diaper and mommy has to powder their bottom. Waaah. Waaah.

Posted by: Mr T | October 12, 2009 3:31 AM

Having read his comments to date, I don't think he's playing.

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 3:36 AM

Btw, 50% homo would be faaaaabulous, and 60% latino, 30% black (wow, I guess Guaneans are forecast to immigrate in droves next year? sexy accents they have there) ought to inject enough working copies of SLC24A5 into the breeding population to vastly reduce in coming decades the numbers of that eye-burning leather-skin breed who infest gated golf communities in the Sun Belt. (Phoenix, I'm looking at you.)

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 3:44 AM

@166

I should clarify that post in so far as my copy of that gene is pretty useless (SLC24A5 -- Extreme Celtic Edition!) and I live in the Sun Belt (F*cking Florida, it's 98% humidity, high 90F in OCTOBER), I am very well aware that I will be one of the lizard people in a few decades, complete with wattle, I'm sure.

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 3:48 AM

Damn this thread, look at the time. I was so going to go to bed early at 2AM tonight.

Frankie, here's a thought experiment: imagine you take some people out to a nice restaurant and when it comes time to pay the waiter tells you they don't take American Express. Okay, now that you've got that nice mix of embarrassment and impotence in mind, imagine your spouse is in the hospital and the nursing staff won't let you in the room because they've restricted her to family only.

Posted by: the-very-reverend-battleaxe-of-knowledge.myopenid.com | October 12, 2009 4:21 AM

Frankosaurus @41:

No, the idea of legal equality isn't foreign to me. the rule of law is that the law is applied equally to everyone. Equality, as we have been talking about it, is an extra-legal policy objective. Extra-legal because to the extent that law's legitimate function is defining and protecting rights of negative liberty, equality is counter to this precisely because it subordinates the prior rights protected (like protections of property).

You could all have stopped reading this shitweasel's screeds at this point. This is the dead giveaway. It's what it always comes down to with these assholes. Nothing about rights to Life, or Liberty, or "the Pursuit of Happiness." No, the only right is the one Thomas Jefferson deliberately and after much consideration left out, because he knew it would encourage the growth of propertarian arguments like this.

People accumulate property because they are more intelligent or have better ideas than other people...maybe .1% of the time. 99.9% of the time it's because of pure unadulterated luck. Being in the right place at the right time, having the right parents, knowing the right people...winning the Lotto of life, in other words. And to ignorant, stupid propertarians like Frankenweasel, this simply proves that the great unwashed who didn't win the Lotto of life are not equal to the Übermenschen who did, and any attempt to level the playing field is subverting the very nature of the human species.

You'll notice that one of the few differences between the Constitution of the United States of America and that of the Confederate States of America was that the Confederate Constitution prominently enshrined that inalienable "Right to Property" that Jefferson so wisely left out.

Really, the first time the word "property" enters the discussion, you can quit paying attention. You're not going to hear anything but Libertarian bullshit.

Posted by: Walton | October 12, 2009 4:34 AM

Dammit. Once again my line breaks failed. The poem actually runs:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emphasis added.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 5:13 AM

well Rev Battleax, a couple points. First you're wrong that an omission of "Right to Property" is anything of real consequence, as property rights are highly controlled, as we are all well aware. you also have to factor in Jefferson's well-known opposition to widespread industrialization when you factor in his "motivations" for omitting that.

But all this is just illustration. The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into. But you remind me of another point I didn't mention, and that relates to enforced equality diminishing the value we assign to equality in our moral relationships. It's not a moral virtue to treat others equally if you are compelled to do it.

None of this, I imagine, is shocking news to anyone. The whole point is how dominant "equality" or "hope" is in grounding other beliefs, and thus ironic how it should figure so heavily on empiricist/skeptic blog. I don't know how many readers there are of CS Peirce, but "the method of tenacity" I think is an apt descriptor (from his essay "The Fixation of Belief").

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 12, 2009 5:34 AM

The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into.

But you remind me of another point I didn't mention, and that relates to enforced equality diminishing the value we assign to equality in our moral relationships. It's not a moral virtue to treat others equally if you are compelled to do it.

Posted by: Walton | October 12, 2009 5:49 AM

frankosaurus,

The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into.

That's a very broad statement. What exactly do you mean by "equality"? I certainly do not argue that we should live in a society where everyone has absolutely equal access to wealth and resources. Some people have more economically-valuable skills than others, and this is, and should be, reflected in their wealth and standard of living. As the regulars on this site will tell you, I am not an advocate of socialism.

But, at the same time, what we do need to strive for is a society where people are not disadvantaged on the basis of irrelevant factors - such as race, gender and sexual orientation - and where everyone has fair access to opportunities. In order to achieve this, we need to guarantee everyone certain fundamental rights, so that the majority cannot oppress minority groups for reasons of irrational prejudice. This means, at times, that the democratic will can and should be overridden. Everyone should be treated equally before the law; this means, for instance, that same-sex couples in committed relationships should have access to the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. I think that, on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment - which forbids a state to deny to any persons within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" - the federal courts ought to mandate that states must extend such protection to same-sex couples, since they have no rational justification for doing otherwise. DOMA also ought to be struck down, both as a discriminatory law and as an unlawful extension of federal authority.

Posted by: Anri | October 12, 2009 8:26 AM

frankosaurus sez (in part):

But all this is just illustration. The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into.

Ok, frank, you've made it clear that you believe that 'equality' is anathema to liberty. You have also said that this does not refer to legal equality, but to something you refer to as 'cultural equality'. I'm not certain what you mean by this, so can you give us a few specific examples?

But you remind me of another point I didn't mention, and that relates to enforced equality diminishing the value we assign to equality in our moral relationships. It's not a moral virtue to treat others equally if you are compelled to do it.

Would you consider it a moral virtue to obey a law arrived at through just means, even if you yourself disagree with it?
And if, in answering this, you wish to bring up a question of what constitutes 'just means', that fine - so long as you answer the questions first. If you don't want to answer the question, please don't expect me to read your answer - just let me know and I won't expect it.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Deen | October 12, 2009 8:36 AM

Frankosaurus wrote:

The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into.

But you remind me of another point I didn't mention, and that relates to enforced equality diminishing the value we assign to equality in our moral relationships. It's not a moral virtue to treat others equally if you are compelled to do it.

Any idea how ridiculous you keep sounding?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 12, 2009 8:38 AM

I suspect what frankosaurus means by "equality is antithetical to liberty" is that stopping discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, age and sexuality limits the opportunities for bigots to put their prejudice into practice.

It is a piss poor argument, not least because one person's liberty should not be bought at the expense of another person's.

Posted by: Carlie | October 12, 2009 8:49 AM

But it's fun to debate, take a side and see where it goes.

Not to toot my own horn, but I nailed that one right before I went to bed for the night. "For a nicely privileged person at the top of the heap, it's quite entertaining and amusing to throw about hypothetical arguments regarding philosophies of rights, and to banter about "equality" as if it is simply some sort of rhetorical exercise. You have the privilege of it being an entirely intellectual debate. Other people don't have that luxury; it's about their actual lives."

It's not a fun debate for someone who has had to stand by and watch the love of their life die from outside the closed hospital room door, you ass. It's not a fun debate for someone who has been tossed in jail for "inciting" a bar fight simply by dressing as their internal gender rather than their external, you pompous buffoon. It's not a fun debate for someone who has had their child removed from them because they've been deemed to be a pernicious influence on minors, you self-centered ignorant misanthrope.

By your last comment at 176, you're making less and less sense. Please try to figure out how to explain what you're trying to say, or the only thing we have left to do is come up with more creative ways to call you an ignorant eugenic bigot, as that's all you've indicated you are so far.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 12, 2009 9:30 AM

Harvey Milk wrote to President Carter:

Rev. [Jim] Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness ...

Are you feeling it now?

Posted by: Anri | October 12, 2009 9:48 AM

Pilty's news flash (#190):

Rev. Jim Jones fooled people.

Some of them did stupid things as a result.

Film at 11.

Thanks for the update, Pilty.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 12, 2009 10:04 AM

Late to the party as i am i would love to know what possible reason Franky could give for why he would be against same sex marriage that wasn't based on bigotry and privelage.

Since apparently he implied he could. Although given his lack of coherence, reasoning and evidence...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 12, 2009 10:05 AM

Oh come on Pilty, even for you that is a LAME argument.

Not really.

But you know, Pilty does want that kid in Des Moines or San Antonio dead. Better than queer after all.

Posted by: Anri | October 12, 2009 11:09 AM

Pilty, trivia question:

Of the following people, which heads/headed the organization most successful at implementing an official policy of hiding, defending, and protecting the largest number of child molesters, (heterosexual and homosexual), in the largest number of countries, for the longest time?

Think carefully, take your time, show your work.

A) Harvey Milk
B) Rev. Jim Jones
C) Joseph Ratzinger

The lesson: be just as careful in who you champion as who you villify.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 12, 2009 11:24 AM

Of the following people, which heads/headed the organization most successful at implementing an official policy of hiding, defending, and protecting the largest number of child molesters, (heterosexual and homosexual), in the largest number of countries, for the longest time?

You forgot, "continued to provide child molesters with access to more children."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 12, 2009 12:23 PM

I see poor Frankie never could present a coherent definition of what he meant, and avoided any real dialog. Of course, all he has is he bigotry, and he is very disappointed that we don't want to join him. Loathsome creature.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 12:43 PM

If you know the history of your country, segregation prevented racial violence.

This is not racial violence.

This is not racial violence.

In order to claim that segregation prevented racial violence, we must fail to count the black victims of violent segregation. A white supremacist would agree that they do not count.

I even said at the beginning I wasn't anti-equality.

You asserted it, but you contradicted yourself:

People need to be confronted with what equality entails. First that it has an inverse relationship with individual liberty (for how are you going to establish permanent equality, in the face of nature I might add, without taxing heavily, or providing barriers to scaling too high). ... And failing to make society inclusive is what good non-authoritarian governments do.

You are quite explicitly opposed to equality and inclusion.

No, I don't think there is anything in homosexual relationships that are especially rights-granting anymore than I think there is anything in heterosexual relationships. Equal individual protection -- without a doubt. This is due to what I see as the meaning of the constitution. If people want to encourage families, as we have seen in laws that encourage man-and-woman marriages, then they are free to pass them. If they want to extend that to homosexual relationships, free to pass laws on them too. but don't tell me it's in the constitution, or that judges can find them in defiance of the democratic process. And don't tell me I have to take my marching orders from "equality" and that it is somehow an unquestionable higher authority.

It is in the Constitution that all people's legal rights have to be protected equally. Since straight people are being given rights that are denied to gay people, this is unconstitutional. Above, at #141, gyeong-hwa made this obvious, and you dishonestly ignored the point.

Haven't I always been maintaining there should be moral and legal equality?

You have said quite the opposite. When I brought this up at #76, you called it a "nice dodge." Also, you have said:

In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties.

Please explain how gay people have equal liberties already. I have asked you to do this at least three times, and you keep pretending that you don't have to answer.

You do have to answer. You do not get to claim that you are in favor of legal equality without explaining how you figure that gay people have equal liberties already.

They obviously do not. The fact is that marriage is already a legal right. But the right to marry one's preferred partner is extended to straight people, and denied to gay people. That is not equal treatment under the law.

"If, on the other hand, you're arguing that it should not be the one and only basis ("thrown around by the liberal left"), then keep on battering that strawman, you sick fuck."

I am moved by your words to be as moral as you are showing yourself to be. Bravo.

What is immoral about calling you a sick fuck? Please explain. And why did you ignore the point that you are attacking a strawman?

But all this is just illustration. The point is that equality is antithetical to liberty, as equality isn't often voluntarily entered into. But you remind me of another point I didn't mention, and that relates to enforced equality diminishing the value we assign to equality in our moral relationships. It's not a moral virtue to treat others equally if you are compelled to do it.

Similarly, we can't know whether your family tolerates you out of compassion or fear of prison.

Carlie is correct. You are having fun at the expense of real people and real families who are being unconscionably discriminated against. PZ asked you not to derail the thread. Instead, you chose to make these consequences and these people into your playthings.

I hope this isn't "plonkable" behaviour, but we will see whether the administrator really thinks lines have been crossed in this free exchange.

Now you're practically begging for it.

Posted by: shatfat | October 12, 2009 12:46 PM

People accumulate property because they are more intelligent or have better ideas than other people...maybe .1% of the time. 99.9% of the time it's because of pure unadulterated luck. Being in the right place at the right time, having the right parents, knowing the right people...winning the Lotto of life, in other words. And to ignorant, stupid propertarians like Frankenweasel, this simply proves that the great unwashed who didn't win the Lotto of life are not equal to the Übermenschen who did, and any attempt to level the playing field is subverting the very nature of the human species.

I wonder if maybe the fact that Jefferson inherited not only land but human beings influenced him on this point. Although he certainly went ahead and enjoyed both, evidence enough that it did suggest to him that property rights are really not absolute.

I will add that I've noticed that people who are obsessed with acquiring money think that anyone who is not is an asshole and deserves to get stomped all over. For example, smart people who pursue higher education rather than get into finance or big business and set their mind to screw the other guy as much as possible. An apologist once told me (of NY society) "most of them aren't sociopaths, they just act like sociopaths [to get ahead] ... [they rationalize it by saying] they do what they have to do for their families."

Your family doesn't want a loving spouse and parent ... they want someone who's never there who will provide them the high life. After all, it's so painful to compare one's spending to others and come up wanting. (Real NYT article 2-3 years ago.)

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 12:49 PM

Here is the Hoax's argument, Harvey Milk was a flaming faggot who turned against the big sky daddy. Thus blinded by his own self centeredness, Harvey Milk could not recognize a murderous cult. (All non catholic religious groups are murderous cults.)

If only Harvey Milk turned his back on men and accepted the manly embrace of the Vatican approved Jesus, he would have known that Jim Jones would murder over nine hundred people.

Hoax, frankosaurus is an atheist. Here is your new project, convert him to catholicism. He already has the race, gender and class privileges to fit in.

Posted by: rwtwm | October 12, 2009 1:01 PM

I know I'm very late to the party, but beading the above, it seems that Frankosaurus has made a post outlining an interesting philosophical thought experiment in a wholly inappropriate place.
I read post #21 looking at someone who while quite clearly overstating their point (minor trolling perhaps) actually brought up a decent question about how equality is a departure from Darwinism.
I believe wholeheartedly in equal opportunities for everyone (and am completely in favour with PZ's initial post), however I'm not sure if once given the opportunities everyone should be considered equal. It's what you make of your opportunities that defines you, that sort of thing.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 1:05 PM

I know I'm very late to the party, but beading the above, it seems that Frankosaurus has made a post outlining an interesting philosophical thought experiment in a wholly inappropriate place.

Frank's point is that gay people should not have equal treatment under the law. How is that interesting?

Posted by: Bobber | October 12, 2009 1:20 PM

Janine, if you read from Frank's first statement:

I'm perfectly happy to say yes, let's bring in more egalitarian programmes so that minorities won't get fed up and start destroying things. Maintain a balance of appeasement.

it's easy to see that he believes minorities need to be controlled and suppressed, lest they go on violent rampages, overturning the cars and destroying the property of the Normal People. Segregation was good because it kept the barbarian hordes in their proper place; hence, no violence (against the Normal People, who are the only ones that count).

Posted by: Bobber | October 12, 2009 1:33 PM

Janine, oh yes... I am familiar with the "drug addled gasbag's" (props to Stephanie Miller and crew) consistent racism. That second quote alone should be enough to cause his advertisers to flee. I hope he does buy the Rams. And I hope he has a productive meeting with some of the players. After all, wouldn't Rush make a GREAT tackling dummy?

"Talent on loan from God." That's for sure; he shares his deity's views on human rights and race relations.

Posted by: Josh | October 12, 2009 1:42 PM

One must wonder if Limbaugh knows this.

One must predict that he does not. Or at least didn't prior to Rachel's show.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 1:44 PM

Pygmy Loris, the drug addled gasbag is from Missouri. He is buying his local team.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 1:58 PM

(though I underestimated how threatened they actually would be to have their equality god questioned)

Funny how the whiny asshole slips into fundy talk, that certain ideas becomes out GOD. Also funny how, instead of explaining his charges, the whiny asshole complains about being attacked. I guess I am expecting too much, hoping that the whiny asshole would explain how segregation and Jim Crow kept racial violence down.

Posted by: crushdmb.myopenid.com | October 12, 2009 2:06 PM

Perhaps if some new blood comes in, frankosaurus will answer questions he's been asked several times and yet has ignored completely.

-Are you for against LGBQT people having equal rights under the law?

-Are you for or against same-sex marriage?

-Do you think LGBQT people have equal rights under the law *already* and if so, can you please explain why you think this?

So Frankie, are you going to answer these questions?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 2:16 PM

Janine,

Having live in Cape Girardeau, where there is a street named for his father, I am well aware of Missouri's great shame :)

Seriously, why couldn't he buy the Chiefs? They're a Missouri team, too.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 12, 2009 2:26 PM

And what does the Darwin's theory of evolution have to do with public policy? The thrust of Frank's point seems to be that equality is not "natural", and thus not "rational" - but the one does not follow from the other. Eradication of smallpox is not natural, but how is not rational? The human species as a whole benefits from our overturning the historically natural state of things. The same with inequality - inequality creates widespread suffering in the human species. Why is not rational to want to remove the source of so much suffering? What Frank is suggesting, despite his protestations to the contrary, is that Social Darwinism is preferable to "enforced equality."

To paraphrase Dawkins, what makes us human is out ability to overcome the tyrannical self-replicators.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Pygmy Loris, I am so sorry.

Funny, your comment about the street named for the gasbag's father brought this song to mind.

Posted by: sdh | October 12, 2009 3:23 PM

Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart.
-Confucius

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 3:33 PM

Aw, thanks, Janine. Cape isn't that bad for a red area of Missouri.

I've never heard that song before, but I think I like it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 12, 2009 3:40 PM

I don't see how taking down creationists relates to being disempowered.

it doesn't.

franky has been marching a long string of irrelevant inanities through this thread, and continues to choose to call them "arguments" which we MUST address.

phht.

I'm not sorry to say, Franky is a complete idiot.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 3:43 PM

Speak clearly or shut up, sdh.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 3:51 PM

Icthyic, did you set a kakapo (Head raping parrot) on sdh? It seems that sdh does not like you.

Bwahahahahaha!

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 4:06 PM

This quote from Master Kung is very appropriate for sdh:

巧言令色、鮮矣仁。

* Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue.
* (Alternatively) Someone who is a clever speaker and maintains a 'too-smiley' face is seldom considered a humane person.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 12, 2009 4:24 PM

Janine @ 208:

Here is the Hoax's argument, Harvey Milk was a flaming faggot who turned against the big sky daddy. Thus blinded by his own self centeredness, Harvey Milk could not recognize a murderous cult. (All non catholic religious groups are murderous cults.) If only Harvey Milk turned his back on men and accepted the manly embrace of the Vatican approved Jesus, he would have known that Jim Jones would murder over nine hundred people.

Actually, Janine, that's not too far from the truth. Leftist politicians and ideologues of the time loved Jones for his revolutionary socialism and all-around radical progressiveness. As Jones said: "Nobody's going to come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to have heaven down here!"

Jones in turn put his followers at the disposal of liberal politicians like Harvey Milk. After attending a rally at the "People's Temple", Milk wrote to Jones:

Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave.

Ever since Lucifer (to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his manual of subversion Rules for Radicals), revolutionaries of all stripes have raged against God and the created order. Much good does it do them.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 4:52 PM

I see sdh still has said nothing of substance.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 12, 2009 5:06 PM

Leftist politicians and ideologues of the time loved Jones for his revolutionary socialism and all-around radical progressiveness.

Much like Jesus attracted zealots, and the early Christians were radical communists?

But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

Ever since Lucifer (to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his manual of subversion Rules for Radicals), revolutionaries of all stripes have raged against God and the created order.

I see you're still avoiding following the logic of God being responsible for the creation of the devil who is subordinate to God's will....

Much good does it do them.

Says the apologist for the Inquisition.

Posted by: MrFire | October 12, 2009 5:07 PM

Ever since Lucifer (to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his manual of subversion Rules for Radicals), revolutionaries of all stripes have raged against God and the created order. Much good does it do them.

Not so fast, tiger - speaking for myself, I don't rage against God at all. I rage against man-made institutions that claim he exists, and that preach a panoply of inconsistencies, untruths and bigotry on his behalf.

Your association of Lucifer with Harvey Milk is not very subtle. BTW, where does my old Mother Church stand on his identity nowadays? Mostly sputtering inanities through the Catechism, last I checked.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 12, 2009 5:18 PM

Piltdown Man, #244:

Actually, I think that this Harvey Milk/Jim Jones thing points out how politicians should be very wary of the support of these nutty cults like the Jim Jones, Scientologists, Moonies, Baptists, and the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 12, 2009 5:24 PM

And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost.

And wasn't that convenient for the Christians who wanted all of the money? And his wife dying as well a few verses later?

I wonder what the 1st-century equivalent of Kool-Aid was?

But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

What were they putting into that chalice?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 5:31 PM

I believe the reasoning is that God's word is reason enough. Orthodoxy is self-justifying. Not because witches are real, it is better for heretics to die, because they are heretics.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 5:36 PM

What does that even mean?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 12, 2009 5:43 PM

sdh -> killfile for insipidy.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 5:55 PM

Wow. Pilty, do you honestly believe that the devil can make people into werewolves? (I'm presuming that's the devil at work; correct me if I'm wrong.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 12, 2009 6:03 PM

Wow. Pilty, do you honestly believe that the devil can make people into werewolves? (I'm presuming that's the devil at work; correct me if I'm wrong.)

Actually, pilty does have a sense of humor. It's rare but he does show it occasionally.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 12, 2009 6:05 PM

Pilt has always been evasive about who he thinks needs killing and why. Attempts to get him to clarify trail off into silence, or, as above, inanity.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 12, 2009 6:25 PM

Dear sgb-mom,

Brother Pilty KNOWS Satan can make people into werewolves.

When the moon is full and atheist sinners cower in their beds, fighting the atavistic urge to rip, rend or root something, Pilty strides the night, armed with the full panoply of Godly weapons. He is a warrior 'gainst the demonic and deformed forces of evil that seek to overwhelm we True Christians, hide our television remotes, steal our matched socks, and probe their bottoms with our toothbrushes.

Without brother Pilty and his oaken stakes, sipper-bottles of Holy Water, garlands of garlic, crosses (wood, silver, gold, blessed by the virgin, and one on a bun), revolver with silver bullets, shuriken-shaped communion wafers, and his Heavenly patronus, civilization as we know it would not exist.

And who are the werewolves, you ask? Why, we Christians see them every day and we are not fooled! Lambs in reasonable guise they seem, but they stalk our dreams, and from their slavering jaws no mind nor heart is safe. The werewolves Pilty stalks are evolution-loving liberals: the foul pelt of reason and rationality cloaks their deformed limbs; venomous fangs of science lock onto the necks of good Christian men, women and children and suck the faith out of them, leaving behind hell-bound human husks; and with their claws they tear at our beliefs, wounding Christ yet again as he writhes once more on the cross, a Pure Prometheus wracked for our wickedness. And worse than all that, these foul atheist werewolves drink beer, enjoy bacon, and are nice to each other without the Bible commanding it. Sick fucks!

Beware, atheists! Beware, I say! Beware the full moon, for on that dread eve Pilty is about, and with his godly weapons he will fuck you up!

Amen

Posted by: Lynna | October 12, 2009 6:34 PM

wounding Christ yet again as he writhes once more on the cross

Nice touch, Smoggy. It seems to me that you are sharpening your emotional blackmail skillz on the the hidebound atheists. You're getting ever better at it. I may have to grant Mormon-level emotional blackmail skillz if you keep this up.

Posted by: Kyorosuke | October 12, 2009 6:49 PM

@Janine, 215:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020389.php

Your prediction is right on target, plenty of NFL players are not at all happy with the idea of playing for a team owned in part by a racist.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 12, 2009 6:54 PM

strange gods before me @ 262:

Pilty, do you honestly believe that the devil can make people into werewolves? (I'm presuming that's the devil at work; correct me if I'm wrong.)

IIRC, a black-clad rider or riders would typically approach a peasant lad and offer wealth and power in return for a rejection of Christianity. Once these terms had been accepted, the hooded rider would provide a wolf's pelt and mysterious ointment which, when rubbed onto the body, would induce a frenzied state in which the youth believed himself to be transformed into a wolf and would proceeded to commit sundry atrocities.

No praeternatural agencies required. : )

Posted by: rwtwm | October 12, 2009 7:15 PM

And what does the Darwin's theory of evolution have to do with public policy? The thrust of Frank's point seems to be that equality is not "natural", and thus not "rational" - but the one does not follow from the other. Eradication of smallpox is not natural, but how is not rational? The human species as a whole benefits from our overturning the historically natural state of things. The same with inequality - inequality creates widespread suffering in the human species. Why is not rational to want to remove the source of so much suffering?

I agree with pretty much all you say (though I stand by my assumption that Frankosaurus' troll got the better of him). I agree that darwinism has little to do with ideal public policy, but even disregarding specific races or sexualities inequality is prevalent everywhere.
In the UK we have a lot in the news at the moment about our MP's 'fiddling' their expenses, something for which they will most likely be able to apologise and get a slap on the wrist for. In some cases we are talking many thousands of pounds. At the other end of the scale, if someone that is on Jobseekers Allowance is caught earning an insubstantial sum (say £100) without declaring it, they can be dragged through the courts for it.
The socially irresponsible gamblers that brought about the banking meltdown still have jobs or at least gold plated pensions, while those on the breadline lose their jobs as a result of their actions.
I was provoked to think by #21 about these things, and these are a consequence of our evolutionary nature. Yes it is idealistic and right to rail against it, but the fact we do have to rail against it made me stop and think.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 12, 2009 8:14 PM

"Or maybe people were more interested to swarm on a dissenting voice than actually thinking about things seriously."

Frankosaurus sounds so much like Hyperon it is quite unreal.

Excuse me, but I have to go now. It is far past the time I should metamorphose into a monstrous, lupine were-beast and dismember and consume a few creo-bots/homophobes/racists. If only I had been bitten by a vampire. So much more civilised. And you get the cool clothes *sigh*.

My 'five-a-day' is a little different from most people's . . .

Either that or I have to go to sleep. Decide which scenario to believe based on your grasp of reality.

Err, Pilty? Do me a favour and stay indoors tonight. You see, despite the fact we often disagree, I rather like you as a person and I would prefer not be picking bits of you out of my teeth for the next week. ;p

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 8:58 PM

The thrust of Frank's point seems to be that equality is not "natural", and thus not "rational""

Not quite. More like equality has never shown itself to be self-evident and it takes some fancy footwork to put it on a pedestal - rationalism doesn't go all the way down on this one.

I would also say that while i've been persistent, and obviously annoyed, i wouldn't describe this as having my "trolling" get away with me. Just more in the observation that truth is solidarity to a good degree, as i first noted (and the reason why these conversations really don't get anywhere beyond "so who's side are you on"). I can admit to being wrong, but I won't out of bullying.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 9:08 PM

In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties.

Please explain how gay people have equal liberties already. I have asked you to do this at least three times, and you keep pretending that you don't have to answer.

You do have to answer. You do not get to claim that you are in favor of legal equality without explaining how you figure that gay people have equal liberties already.

They obviously do not. The fact is that marriage is already a legal right. But the right to marry one's preferred partner is extended to straight people, and denied to gay people. That is not equal treatment under the law.

You are a troll if you keep refusing to answer these simple questions.

Posted by: Stanton | October 12, 2009 9:34 PM

Pilty, do you honestly believe that the devil can make people into werewolves? (I'm presuming that's the devil at work; correct me if I'm wrong.)

IIRC, a black-clad rider or riders would typically approach a peasant lad and offer wealth and power in return for a rejection of Christianity. Once these terms had been accepted, the hooded rider would provide a wolf's pelt and mysterious ointment which, when rubbed onto the body, would induce a frenzied state in which the youth believed himself to be transformed into a wolf and would proceeded to commit sundry atrocities.

No praeternatural agencies required. : )

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 12, 2009 9:49 PM

IIR - the lies spread by the church in order to justify the persecution of people, argued as justified because they were seen as either threatening to the church's rule or a good source of income - C, a black-clad rider or riders would typically approach a peasant lad and offer wealth and power in return for a rejection of Christianity. Once these terms had been accepted, the hooded rider would provide a wolf's pelt and mysterious ointment which, when rubbed onto the body, would induce a frenzied state in which the youth believed himself to be transformed into a wolf and would proceeded to commit sundry atrocities.

Fixed it for you. But while we're on it, have you anything resembling evidence to support this claim?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 12, 2009 9:57 PM

For example, I have to pay higher insurance on my car than women my age because I'm male. Discriminatory? yes. Breach of rights? no.

Good grief, analogy fail.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 12, 2009 10:07 PM

prove me wrong.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 12, 2009 10:16 PM

"Good grief, analogy fail."

point out where it fails and we'll see if I agree.

"Shorter Frankosurus: Equality is not natural and has a toll on society but do not ask me to give up the privileges that I was lucky enough to be born into."

Someone say something earlier about a "lottery mentality"?

"Please explain how segregation reduced racial violence."

1) that's not what I claimed, that they in practice reduced racial violence. I said they were partly enacted with growing tensions in mind. 2) I'm no historian, so I have little to contribute. Furthermore, I'm no speculative historian, so I have less to offer about what things would have been otherwise. 3) bear in mind the context of the argument. The point was raised in rebuttal to a counterargument against my claim that the government has passed laws in the interests of abating civil strife. I wasn't giving it a lot of weight.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 10:24 PM

2) I'm no historian, so I have little to contribute.

Well, at least you've finally admitted it. Seriously, Jim Crow was not instituted because of fears of racial violence, but because of fears of "uppity Negroes" thinking they were the social and legal equals of white people.

Seriously, you've apparently bought the Southern line about reconstruction and the mentality of black people.

I'm not monstrous enough to say that I think hospitals should be denying visitation rights specifically to homosexuals for sport, but I'm also not so ideological to see this as an event that penetrates to the heart of injustice (though I will be cautious here too as "justice" is another one of those co-opted terms).

You have never been in the hospital when someone you loved was dying in ICU, have you? When you can't hold your loved one's hand because you're not considered family from a legal perspective, then you can judge the relative injustice that LGBT people live with every, single day.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 12, 2009 10:41 PM

frankosaurus #287

but I'm also not so ideological to see this as an event that penetrates to the heart of injustice

frankosaurua #295

I'm not judging LGBT injustice,

Funny thing about commenting on this blog, when you claim you didn't say something, I can just go back and check.

Posted by: Anri | October 12, 2009 10:47 PM

Hey there, frank. I have a bad feeling I'm going to get old(er) waiting on your response to my questions waaaay back more than a hundred posts ago. ('Round #182)

But that's ok.

Maybe they're just bad questions.
Or something.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 10:58 PM

does anyone else get the sense that franky considers racialized slavery a benevolent institution?

The southerners were not ready for blacks to life autonomous lives. Therefore, in order to reduce racial violence, blacks had to be kept enslaved. It was partially for their own protection.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 11:08 PM

2.Yes. Supporter of civil unions (marriage is a term to be regulated by churches, not laws, and laws should not direct churches in their theology).

This is false, and you are therefore a gay-hating bigot.

Marriage is a civil contract, regulated by the state. The state has never told churches what ceremonies they can perform or for whom.

If you were correct, then atheists could not get married. And yet they do, every day. Atheists often go to the county clerk and apply for a certificate of marriage. There is not necessarily any involvement with any church, but there is always necessarily the involvement of the state, because marriage is a secular matter of the state, not a matter of the church.

3.They certainly share what i consider to be the fundamental rights,

Of course your opinion does not matter. Marriage is one of the fundamental and basic civil rights protected under US law, cf Skinner v Oklahoma.

But even if it were not held to be a fundamental and basic civil right, even if marriage were trivial, the Fourteenth Amendment would require that any legal right granted to any group (like straight people) must be equally granted to other groups (like gay people) unless the government can show some compelling reason why it must not be equally protected.

Again:

In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties.

Please explain how gay people have equal liberties already. I have asked you to do this at least five times, and you keep pretending that you don't have to answer.

You do have to answer. You do not get to claim that you are in favor of legal equality without explaining how you figure that gay people have equal liberties already.

They obviously do not. The fact is that marriage is already a legal right. But the right to marry one's preferred partner is extended to straight people, and denied to gay people. That is not equal treatment under the law.

You are a troll if you keep refusing to answer these simple questions.

prediction: you won't like what I wrote.

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." -- John 15:18-19

prediction: you won't even make an effort to convince me otherwise, but just caricature my statements and call me names.

I've done plenty to engage with your arguments, and you ignored it all. You are not interested in rational discussion, and you certainly are not open to being convinced of anything.

prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong by deciding to "like what you wrote" or by deciding that you aren't a gay-hating bigot? No. Did you think that was a clever trick?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 12, 2009 11:19 PM

I think Frankie-sore-eye sees rights as a zero sum game. Any rights given to other people, diminish his rights. Ergo, he has tried to sound like he isn't a bigot, because he knows it isn't widely accepted in present day society, much less this blog. Most of us look beyond the words to the effect of the words. Here Frankie-sore-eye shows his real grubby inner self.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 11:28 PM

cultural equality = culture of equality. I think culture should steer government, not government steer culture.

So you do believe that the government should not have ended racial segregation in the South. Thanks for clarifying.

Would you consider it altruistic to help a person in distress if you could be imprisioned for not helping? That's the contradiction I'm getting at.

There's no contradiction, because none of us care whether people are motivated by altruism or self-interest, as long as the outcome is that they treat other people in accordance with basic human decency.

Jadehawk explained this to you. Deen explained this to you. You think this is a game, so you ignored them.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 12, 2009 11:36 PM

Would you consider it altruistic to help a person in distress if you could be imprisioned for not helping? That's the contradiction I'm getting at.

Why, yes, I see where your hypothetical situation implies that allowing GLBT people rights that straight people take for granted does not mean that everyone done not approve of us. My black and empty heart breaks because the plight of the homophobes who have to treat us as equals.

Be nice to people who are inferior to you.

Wait! I change my mind! I will allow myself to be treat like shit until people like Fred Phelps can accept me.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 12, 2009 11:48 PM

I'm not describing a state of affairs as they exist, but a state of affairs I support. I don't want the term "married" for me as an atheist, and I support not having it pinned to me. I don't know how you can say this is "false."

Marriage is not an arrangement to be regulated by churches. It is and always has been the purview of government. You do not get to take marriage away from the gay and atheist couples who already have it.

"Of course your opinion does not matter"

perfectly all right to disagree.

No, it's a fact that your opinion does not matter. Marriage is one of the fundamental and basic civil rights protected under US law. I notice you ignored all the facts I just presented on this matter.

This is what I mean when I say you haven't been engaging with me. when i say "In any case, no I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties" I'm talking about my take, which motivated my responses, that the clip was unduly stressing a conflation of HOPE (TM) and EQUALITY (TM) as an ideological and legitimizing force.

To disagree that it is a matter of equal liberties, you have to hold that gay people are not being denied equal liberties. If you agree that they are being denied equal liberties, then you agree that the issue is about denying equal liberties.

You cannot simultaneously say "I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties" and believe that gay people are currently not receiving equal protection of their rights under law.

You are quite obviously contradicting yourself, and are apparently a very stupid person, since you then ask:

Why don't you explain it?

I have explained it several times now.

The fact is that marriage is already a legal right. But the right to marry one's preferred partner is extended to straight people, and denied to gay people. That is not equal treatment under the law.

This is fun.

Because you are a gay-hating troll.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 12:38 AM

"Marriage is not an arrangement to be regulated by churches. It is and always has been the purview of government."

Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

"Marriage is one of the fundamental and basic civil rights protected under US law"

Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. Show me where it is listed as such. not in the 14th. Doesn't say marriage at all. Unless you're talking about the right to enter contracts. I agree with that, and have said I support the idea of civil unions, haven't I?

"To disagree that it is a matter of equal liberties, you have to hold that gay people are not being denied equal liberties. If you agree that they are being denied equal liberties, then you agree that the issue is about denying equal liberties."

When I say matter or issue, it means the one I'm addressing. If my stance centred on what I thought about denying or granting liberties, then you'd be right. But what I'm saying doesn't centre on that, and I'm annoyed you keep trying to wedge your agenda in. I'm sure you have more enlivening conversations about that with others.

"The fact is that marriage is already a legal right"

A right? again, since when.

"You cannot simultaneously say "I don't agree the issue is about denying equal liberties" and believe that gay people are currently not receiving equal protection of their rights under law."

depends how reckless one is with the term "rights."

"Because you are a gay-hating troll."

no, because you're comments are so easily disposed of.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 12:57 AM

Also, I note that Janine caught you in a lie, which you have dishonestly ignored.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 1:49 AM

couldn't we get someone to close this thread, as this is just not going to stop by the looks of it

Posted by: Kyorosuke | October 13, 2009 2:10 AM

Walking away with the shame of your bigotry exposed for all to see would be one way to end the discussion. Imagine, wouldn't it be better to just go away now, rather than being forced? 'Cause, I believe you said that being forced to do something altruistic makes it less so. So, by your own admission, you should stop posting here.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 2:19 AM

Kyorosuke wins an internet.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 2:30 AM

Again, if you do not agree that marriage is a civil right, then you must believe that laws against interracial marriage were not denying anyone their rights.

This would not be surprising in light of your defense of segregation, Frank.

Posted by: Stu | October 13, 2009 2:45 AM

(Please pardon the South Park reference)

I think Frankie just got some sand in his vagina.

Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2009 4:13 AM

strange gods, why would you rather talk to frankosaurus than me? You may think I'm a cold heartless dogmatic libertarian nutcase, but at least I do advocate equal rights for gay people and ethnic minorities, unlike frankosaurus... yet I get ignored and he gets all the attention. :-)

Posted by: Deen | October 13, 2009 4:57 AM

Would you consider it altruistic to help a person in distress if you could be imprisioned for not helping? That's the contradiction I'm getting at.

Posted by: Deen | October 13, 2009 5:16 AM

That's not bigoted. Think of it this way, if most of the people on this blog were like me, you'd probably not like that.

Yes, that is bigoted. You assume that a country with mostly colored people and gays would be bad for you and other white, straight people, without any real reason to believe this. That pretty much follows the textbook definition of bigotry. And if more people were bigoted like you, of course they wouldn't like such a country either. So what?

At least this white straight male would much rather live in a country full of people who are wildly different from me in every single way, but who all believe in treating people equally, than in a society where people like you call the shots.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 7:33 AM

This is where we've been disagreeing, and I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, freedom to do things like marry is a right, though there is no "right of marriage" (and if you oppose polygamy like I do, rightly so). and in this sense you will admit that gays are free to marry, so long as it isn't to someone of the same sex. That goes to the nature of the institution, not the nature of the right. To condense George, Loving v Virginia and Gay Marriage = analogy fail.

Wow, to get that after reading Loving. After all, whites and blacks were free to marry, so long as it wasn't someone of a different race.

frankie is sounding an awful lot like the christian right today, isn't he.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 7:44 AM

frankie is sounding an awful lot like the christian right today, isn't he.

Posted by: Stanton | October 13, 2009 9:03 AM

couldn't we get someone to close this thread, as this is just not going to stop by the looks of it

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 9:47 AM

how lynching someone on the basis of the color of their skin... are not examples of racial violence?

How else you going to keep those black teens from talking to white women?

Posted by: crushdmb.myopenid.com | October 13, 2009 10:52 AM

1.yes. rights should not be granted in accordance with sexual orientation / identification. Not only that, but law should be applied equally. Of course, what I'm saying is that "equality" shouldn't be a source of rights either, and these are the grounds I've been objecting.

Are you for fucking serious? You are "against equality" yet "laws should be applied equally." THAT IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE FUCKING POST WAS ABOUT.

You are either a complete and utter dumbass or a troll. Which is it?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 11:35 AM

frankie,

I don't think it's a lie to say the reconstruction period was very violent among races. Preventing violence wasn't the laws' only end. Never said it was. Never said it worked. Not enough of an historian to make overly bold claims, but when the obvious ones are overlooked, then I speak up.

Then stop making claims about history. You don't know what you're talking about. The violence during Reconstruction was almost exclusively white on black, not black on white. The purpose of the violence was to make sure that former slaves (who outnumbered whites in a couple of states) didn't exercise such rights as voting or moving where they wanted. This violence continued under Jim Crow. Substantial reductions in white on black violence didn't occur until the Civil Rights Movement and the pressure it created on the federal government to force Southern states to extend equal rights to blacks.

What you see here is that violence is necessary on the part of those in power to deny the civil rights of a group. This was not out of fear of racial violence, but because the wealthy whites wanted to keep their disproportionate power. You keep admitting that you know nothing about history, so quit trying to make shit up to support your racism and bigotry.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 1:53 PM

"They continued by saying 'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man""

They said " freedom to marry is a civil right."

"An explicitly gay-hating argument. You believe that the right to marry one's preferred partner should be extended to straight people, and denied to gay people."

I said it goes to the nature of the institution, not the right. Nothing gay-hating about it. The institution also excludes children, polygamists, and people in love with objects or animals.

"How did you not notice that your argument was exactly the same argument as the white supremacist state of Virginia put forth against interracial marriage?"

Because it wasn't the same.

"It was the nature of the institution that black people could not marry white people."

I don't agree with the trial judge's characterization of the institution. But as how I have reference the "nature of the institution" vis a vis Robert George, you will find that interracial marriage is not a violator.

"You assume that a country with mostly colored people and gays would be bad for you and other white, straight people, without any real reason to believe this. That pretty much follows the textbook definition of bigotry."

This misses the point. I'm talking about a tipping point where your own personal values are grossly outnumbered. Can be for whatever reason, talking about different colours, races, or orientations is just illustrative.

"And if more people were bigoted like you, of course they wouldn't like such a country either. So what?"

I deny bigotry. But this is my point. Equality has no regard to personal values. So change the scenario to say 80% "me" running around. It's the same thing.

"Frankosaurus, if you are not sourcing your rights from the shared human experience and the inherent inequities of life, then you are basing rights on irrationality via authority or whim, or you are rejecting the conception of rights in total."

false. I think rights should be sourced in human nature, that is true. Not human equality, which is not human nature. These are not radical suggestions. I am not the first to suggest the left is overly fond of equality.

"frankie is sounding an awful lot like the christian right today, isn't he."

Nothing I've said requires a god.

"as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, "The right to marry means very little if it doesn't include the right to choose whom to marry.""

From that same case...

"Marriage is a vital social institution."

True, true. Now the quote I'm guessing you're after is "It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil
marriage has long been termed a "civil right." I obviously disagree, and that sentence cites court decisions (some that I have questioned whether they have really said that) rather than statutes or the constitution, so I'm not convinced it is as enshrined as you say it is. And of course their idea of marriage is different from mine. They say "it
is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of
children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage." This doesn't mesh with the Robert George piece, here again for your reading pleasure: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html. Part of my disagreement with active judiciaries isn't because of just usurping the legislative function, but also because they pull stuff out of the air often.

"I'm certain that the governmental prosecution of Alan Truing fit prefectly well with the culture at that time and place. Do you feel it was justified because of this?"

so how was the law overturned? through the legislatures or the courts?

"You are "against equality" yet "laws should be applied equally." THAT IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE FUCKING POST WAS ABOUT."

I'm against equality as "happy consciousness", exemplified by its conflation with hope. That's my main position, which happens to be a conservative position. And of course, saying laws should be applied equally means I believe in the rule of law.

"The violence during Reconstruction was almost exclusively white on black, not black on white."

I agree. I haven't said otherwise. Though further research has shown me how alarming the extent of this violence was.

"What you see here is that violence is necessary on the part of those in power to deny the civil rights of a group. This was not out of fear of racial violence, but because the wealthy whites wanted to keep their disproportionate power."

If the issue is denial of civil rights, then obviously its abhorrent, I never held anything to the opposite. But if it is a question of government trying to tear the nation apart (the context of the comment), then that's disputable. If you are saying that it was about appeasing the economic, power-laden, bigoted interests of the white ruling class, then we are in full agreement. The further move I make is to say that appeasing these classed interests was done out of regard for improved stability. Obviously stability is not what occurred, and we can balk at that being considered "stability" (much like the "jewish question" in Germany had its aspirations in a twisted form of stability). I really do think it's unfortunate how distorted my comment has been. If it is unsatisfying that it shows itself to be pretty bland, it's not because I have retracted anything, but because of the context where it was placed. To say the government has been trying to tear the nation apart is not accurate. I agree it has done so, and has continued to do so (like in questions that relate to this debate, for instance), but not that its intentions were so. It's not in the interests of government to put itself out of business. I'm not libertarian, but I think the size of government is a problem. To the extent that "equality" fuels welfare liberalism, I see more injustices created as more and more is externally regulated. Where I depart from libertarianism and law and economics is the idolatry of the free market.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 2:13 PM

The further move I make is to say that appeasing these classed interests was done out of regard for improved stability.

No, it was to maintain their power. That's it.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 2:20 PM

The further move I make is to say that appeasing these classed interests [White supremacy] was done out of regard for improved stability. Obviously stability is not what occurred, and we can balk at that being considered "stability" (much like the "jewish question" in Germany had its aspirations in a twisted form of stability). -frankosaurus

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 2:29 PM

Or, shorter franky:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_god_had_wanted_me_to_be

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 2:31 PM

If my lighthaerted banter offended you, I am sorry. It was not my intention.

Gregory, I was not offended at all. I am sorry I gave that impression. I knew it was meant to be lighthearted. I do not expect a semi rational person to seriously claim to be a werewolf.

But if you were actually a werewolf, you could hardly choose to be a vegan werewolf.

Even a man who is pure at heart/And says his prayers by night/May become a wolf when the wolf-bane blooms/And the moon is full and bright

You will be a murderous beast even when you in your more calm and rational phase, you despise meat.

As for the Hoax trying to recreate feudal society, I am sure that many people involved in the Society For Creative Anachronism avoid being cheerleaders for murderers. Yes, I do think that the Hoax is malicious. I am grateful that the schmuck is powerless to do what he wants to do.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 2:37 PM

Frankie, nothing but bad sophistry to explain your bigotry. Lots of laughs looking at your inane, irresponsible, and contradictory opinions. And your avoidance of admiting the truth about yourself. Tap dancing that is almost Heddle worthy.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 2:40 PM

Nothing gay-hating about it. The institution also excludes children, polygamists, and people in love with objects or animals

Wrong. Wrong! WRONG! Child marriage has been common in the past and remain common in many societies. Polygamy, the same. Once more, you show your appalling lack of history. Yet you base your argument on bad facts.

I will cut to the fucking chase, why do you deserve to have the rights you have? And why must I be denied those same rights. No appeals to the Constitution. No definitions. (Which you cannot even get right.) By what means of human nature do you deserve preferential treatment and I deserve less?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 13, 2009 2:44 PM

Janine @ 352;

I am glad that no offence was caused. In my more lucid moments, I sometimes scale the heights of semi-rationalism. It is nice that someone noticed this.

"But if you were actually a werewolf, you could hardly choose to be a vegan werewolf.

Even a man who is pure at heart/And says his prayers by night/May become a wolf when the wolf-bane blooms/And the moon is full and bright

You will be a murderous beast even when you in your more calm and rational phase, you despise meat."

I just want to point out, discrimination against shapeshifters is a serious problem in our society. I blame those awful 'bristler' genre movies. Everyone assumes that when you shift, you have to go on a bloodthirsty rampage.

Damned Hollywood never shows a werewolf in a smoking jacket with Dickens in one claw and an asparagus spear in the other, while the strains of Vivaldi drift about the room.

It's sub-species profiling I tell you!

(Yes, I am being ironic here. I do not actually suffer from psychological lycanthropy. In case anyone on the thread is a sufferer, I do not wish to make light of what can be a very serious condition. I should also state that in actuality I am not a vegan , or even a vegitarian.)

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 2:46 PM

What's theistic about it? The worst you can say is that I'm being traditionalist.

Women as property was traditional.

Polygamy was traditional.

Slavery was traditional.

Lynching was traditional.

European from central and south Europe being subhumans was traditional.

Voting rights and office holding rights based on the ownership of property was traditional.

I am very fucking grateful that traditions can change.

Damn but you are still a whiny asshole.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 2:55 PM

"Is", "are"; is(are) there really a difference?

I need a boot to the head.

Posted by: RickR | October 13, 2009 3:01 PM

"I just want to point out, discrimination against shapeshifters is a serious problem in our society."

I blame John Landis.

And frankosaurus, you're an asshole.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 3:05 PM

No their isn't much of a difference. Its more of a tradition. :P

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Damn but I have tears!

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 3:07 PM

Oh no, frankosaurus. Now you pull out the "censoring free speech" canard. Your sell-by date has expired. Gross.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 3:10 PM

I see that the whiny asshole will not tell me why he deserves the rights that are denied to me?

I have a song from Fiddler on the Roof running through my head as an answer, for some reason.

Posted by: kopd | October 13, 2009 3:21 PM

Wait a minute! Going on about free speech (in a really contrived way that made no sense) after requesting the thread be closed? Hypocrite much?

Posted by: kopd | October 13, 2009 3:27 PM

Nerd, you're being too kind. The argument didn't even make that much sense. In context:

Gregory said:
Is it not about time that the venerable institution be updated to better reflect modern cultural mores and protect the rights of homosexuals? If this is not done, what is to stop bigots from hiding behind the semantics of the definition of marriage to perpetuate the position of homosexuals as second class citizens?

Franky said:
well now you're not talking about removing freedom of speech, are you? let the bigots say what they want. Nothing about "marriage" as I have described it lends itself to other institutional advantages.

A little bit of reading comprehension is all it takes to see that Gregory was talking about knocking out an argument, not taking away the opposition's ability to speak. That was, frankly, ridiculous.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 3:33 PM

"A little bit of reading comprehension is all it takes to see that Gregory was talking about knocking out an argument, not taking away the opposition's ability to speak. That was, frankly, ridiculous."

A little bit of reading comprehension shows I rejected the argument because without institutional advantages all there is is people saying nasty things, which they can do, as long as they don't cross the line like incite riots and the like.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 3:44 PM

I've been maintaining that marriage is institutional, rather than rights-based. -frankosaurus

Human nature suggests that people thrive under conditions conducive to autonomy. To the extent we endorse policies that efface natural differences, this interferes with autonomy. That's not social darwinism, that's just classical liberalism. -frankosaurus

Religion's not for me, but I don't think the law should deny it for others. It's not theistic to say religious institutions shouldn't be destroyed, any more than its theistic to say I don't think we should be bulldozing churches. -frankosaurus

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 3:51 PM

here's the logic.

the claim: "what is to stop bigots from hiding behind the semantics of the definition of marriage to perpetuate the position of homosexuals as second class citizens?""

My response: nothing in the institution of marriage perpetuates the position of homosexuals as second class citizens. No structural or institutional advantages above civil unions that is related to status of citizenry. So the concern (I imagine) is whether people would be shooting off their mouths, to which I say let them.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 4:01 PM

nothing in the institution of marriage [which is forbidden to homosexuals] perpetuates the position of homosexuals as second class citizens [except that they cannot form legal families while heterosexuals can and bisexuals can in some cases].

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 4:07 PM

"Why should loving be a right? Why should breathing be a right?"

life is a right. With the reciprocal duty that the government protects it through police, military, and judiciary. So breathing, as necessary to life, would fall within it. Is loving a right? hardly. What would be the duty? Government matchmaking?

"You are arguing for the solidifying or bolstering of what you see as natural by legal means. That is Social Darwinism. You first have to decide what was "meant" to be. The only way you can do that is to personify evolution or believe in a creator with intention."

I don't think any reasonable person would think that is what I meant.

"What I meant was, if you pull the religious argument out of the anti-same-sex marriage position, out goes all that tradition against people of the same-sex wedding that you have come to have misplaced faith in."

Oh, in that case then, right I agree. A religious institution has religious reasons for it. I'm not troubled by this.

"Like, do you think gays have the same rights you do?"

As it stands, I don't think so. I think many states do give substantial institutional advantages to marriage. But the solution isn't to make marriage more inclusive, but to make access to other material advantages than derive specifically from it. For example, in Canada we have things called Adult Interdependant Partnerships that give the same benefits flowing from marriage in intestacy and the like to cohabitating partners. Works nicely, I think.

But it's obviously a loaded question. what rights are or should be is what is in dispute. my "equivocating" is really an avoidance of assuming such loaded premises. My contrarian responses are defences from mischaracterization. I haven't been contradicting myself, though I have been adding to and thinking about what I've said as we have progressed.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 4:11 PM

"I say we cut the legs out from under bigots (metaphorically, of course) and take away the curtains so their words can be seen for what they are - vacuous crap."

I completely agree. I also think that casting the term "bigotry" around can be its own form of bigotry, the smug moral superiority kind. Throw it around too much, too hastily, and without enough reflection, and it risks indicating that we've stopped listening to others.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 4:20 PM

"Wrong. Wrong! WRONG! Child marriage has been common in the past and remain common in many societies. Polygamy, the same. Once more, you show your appalling lack of history. Yet you base your argument on bad facts."

you approve of child marriages and polygamy? THere have also been marriages to animals sanctioned. You're really drifting here.

And you fucking whine about reading compression. I did not say that I approved, just that those have been part of the institution of marriage. You have nothing but fucking drift.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"True that, Jadehawk. As long as multiple marriages is not based on the old patriarchal model, I have no problem with it."

Well I disagree. I think polygamous marriages are inherently patriarchal and oppressive. Your hysterics are getting the best of you, I'm afraid.

Guess what, whiny asshole, I agree with you there. But look at what I said, multiple marriage, not polygamy. This can mean two men and two women. It could mean one man and two women. It could mean two men and one woman. It could mean two men and three women. It could mean three women. It could mean three men. Your stupidity is getting the best of you, I'm afraid.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"By what means of human nature do you deserve preferential treatment and I deserve less?"

None. I have never maintained this. You're getting into knots over false accusations. I've been maintaining that marriage is institutional, rather than rights-based. why do you pay less for car insurance that I do? By what means of human nature are you getting preferential treatment? Your argument is silly.

The only way this makes sense is is you ignore reality. I will not be marrying a man. I will not get the privileges that come from being part of a married partnership. You are hiding behinds word and saying that it is my problem.

FUCK YOU!

And then you compare this to insurance rates? Sorry, that is not right based. Insurance rates are the function of a profits seeking company. That is a very different thing than rights.

How is it justified that you have more privileges than I do? No fucking hiding behind weasel words. No hiding behind, it is not part of the institution of the word. THE MEANING OF THAT FUCKING WORD HAS CHANGED OVER THE MILLENNIUM. Of what use to society is it that I remain a second class citizen?

For everybody else, are my questions too difficult to understand?

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 4:24 PM

Is loving a right? hardly. What would be the duty? Government matchmaking? -frankosaurus

I don't think any reasonable person would think that is what I meant. -frankosaurus

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 4:29 PM

Frankie, marriage is secular. There may be a religious ceremony, but the rights and responsibilities are secular, defined and enforce by the state, not a religious intitution. You appear to be trying to define your way out of your deep doo doo, but that isn't going to work with this crowd.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 4:29 PM

I also think that casting the term "bigotry" around can be its own form of bigotry, the smug moral superiority kind. Throw it around too much, too hastily, and without enough reflection, and it risks indicating that we've stopped listening to others.

Posted by: crushdmb.myopenid.com | October 13, 2009 4:32 PM

So would you be happy with keeping "marriage" a religious term with no additional state-sanctioned privileges? What interests do you really want that require "marriage" to lose religious connotation. This is why many Christians are peeved with what they see as an unjustifiable attack against faith and tradition. You respect religion only to the extent that everyone is secular when it comes to balancing interests?

Marriage has religious AND state-sanctioned implications that are completely separate. That is why I, as an atheist, can still get married to someone of the opposite sex.

I respect religion only to the extent that they can choose whom to marry in their churches and they can choose how to define marriage within their own churches. If a catholic church doesn't want to marry two gay Jews, I don't give a fuck.

But marriage is not just about religion, and you fucking know that.

Our secular government certainly doesn't just recognize religious marriages, now do they?

If we made a move that ALL marriage was, in the eyes of the law, seen as and legally called civil unions, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But we don't. That's not how our laws work. Legal marriage is still called marriage. Legal marriage is different from religious marriage. This is why I can go to a clerk and get married, with no religion involved whatsoever.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 4:39 PM

This is why many Christians are peeved with what they see as an unjustifiable attack against faith and tradition. You respect religion only to the extent that everyone is secular when it comes to balancing interests? -frankosaurus

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 13, 2009 4:42 PM

"Insurance rates are the function of a profits seeking company."

No, insurance companies don't profit from premiums, by and large. They profit...blah, blah, blah, fucking blah...

'facepalm'

The whiny asshole cannot give a direct answer to a direct question. The whiny asshole veers off on pointless tangents instead.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 4:47 PM

What's even more amazing about franky's railing against the "hope video" above is that he's railing against Harvey Milk saying, "You've got to give that gay kid in Des Moines or San Antonio hope that life as a gay person is worth living."

Wow, what an awful thing to inspire.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 5:16 PM

"I cherish and value the ideal of a society where people are not denied fundamental rights based upon an aspect of themselves that does no demonstrable harm to others, and that they cannot control. Such as their sexual orientation or race."

So you value your utopian vision. I agree it is in agreement with your utopian egalitarianism. This is not saying much. I may be jumping the gun to head straight for "nihilism" but as you can see, I'm skeptical of people who see equality as the only value.

"It is true that, unlike Piltdown Man, I have no desire to return to a pre-Enlightenment society. Feudalism in particular is not for me."

So you're a progressivist? Want to be clear about this. As for feudalism, I would direct you to a book like Berman's "Law and Revolution" to destablize the centrality of feudalism, thus destabilizing much of the progressive myth.

And in terms of "dignity", where does it come from? I'd like to see how you ground it that is neither question-begging nor ideological. This is important, as it goes to the foundations of supporting equality, in my view

Posted by: Deen | October 13, 2009 5:21 PM

This misses the point. I'm talking about a tipping point where your own personal values are grossly outnumbered. Can be for whatever reason, talking about different colours, races, or orientations is just illustrative.

I deny bigotry.

But this is my point. Equality has no regard to personal values. So change the scenario to say 80% "me" running around. It's the same thing.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 5:36 PM

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/equality.html

Posted by: crushdmb.myopenid.com | October 13, 2009 5:39 PM

I'm dissociating contractual commitment from marriage, and saying that government should not regulate love (unless it's criminal, like pederasty).

So you want to abolish marriage period? That's what I'm reading here.

Posted by: Deen | October 13, 2009 5:47 PM

Janine said:

For everybody else, are my questions too difficult to understand?

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 5:51 PM

But frankosaurus, the government already allows lovers to obtain legal recognition of their marriages if they are heterosexual or in some cases bisexual. The argument for equality is that they should not be discriminating against homosexuals and bisexuals in some cases. If you want to abolish marriage altogether, fine, piss all over our parade all you want. The movement isn't to abolish marriage, though, it is to equalize marriage.

The link to Against Equality is ridiculous, by the way. Nobody is arguing that people should be thought of as the same person, we are arguing that people should be treated in a non-discriminatory manner by the law. That paper does all it can to miscomprehend English.

Posted by: Deen | October 13, 2009 6:12 PM

So you value your utopian vision. I agree it is in agreement with your utopian egalitarianism. This is not saying much. I may be jumping the gun to head straight for "nihilism" but as you can see, I'm skeptical of people who see equality as the only value.

Maybe true equality is indeed impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for the most equality possible, or at the very least try to increase the equality over what we have now whenever we can. Just like it's a worthwhile endeavor to increase the accuracy of scientific knowledge, even though scientific knowledge may never be complete.

And as for "people who see equality as the only value", does it feel good to keep beating that straw man?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 6:35 PM

please try to understand why I took such offense to your joke about my sexuality.

That would require compassion, empathy, and basic human decency. Something traditionalists and orthodox catholics are notoriously short of (no, no overlap among 'em, none whatsoever)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 7:33 PM

Atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

However, I felt then and feel now that you are frequently hysterically self-righteous in your denunciations of anyone who does not share your particular view of sexual morality.

Posted by: John Morales | October 13, 2009 7:43 PM

What Nerd and TheBlackCat said.

PS Paganism.

I can't help thinking this is the Piltdown in true troll mode.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 7:53 PM

"And as for "people who see equality as the only value", does it feel good to keep beating that straw man?"

I recognize it's strawman-ish, but I also recognize that people aren't overly forthcoming about their values because they may clash with egalitarianism. But I can take one from a hat. Science. Knowledge. You can't tell me that PZ isn't driven by prestige. Nor can you say that by the way "stupid" is thrown around that people don't feel intellectual ability is something to be honoured and aspired toward. People are only egalitarian when they resent not having something. If this sounds like thrasymachus, so be it. But it's true. If I were a creationist, I would be pretty upset about how this blog demeans me for my beliefs, and denies my "theory" from being taught in schools and legitimized, or at least "de-stigmatized". Analogy fail? lets see...

-Creationism is demonstrably false
-schools are about imparting knowledge
-There is nothing about creationism that imparts knowledge, so it should not be in schools.

We have consensus so far (I hope). Now

-Homosexual coupling is a non-procreative relationship.
-Marriage is, inter alia, a procreation-centred institution.
-So Homosexuals shouldn't be married.

Now we say, let's change the meaning of marriage so that it's not so exclusive. Why is it exclusive? Because people who don't get married have their feelings hurt (which isn't to belittle it, 99% of life is feelings. And I think we've established that "rights" are often too abstract a concept to be working with when we talk about love, etc.). Okay, open it up. Everyone can get married, lets say.

But how is this different from saying that the exclusion of subject matter in schools demeans or belittles some students. Why does science class have to be about knowledge, anyway? Well, cuz that's what it is by definition.

You see where I'm going with this. Why is one definition yanked open while another isn't. Equality is contradictory, so long as you can use it to get what you want it's good. When it's not so good, it's bad.

Undoubtedly this comparison is going to be torn apart, but the perceptive among you really do, I think, know that much of equality isn't self-evident, and that it is an oppositional thesis. Always has been, always will be.

"Maybe true equality is indeed impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for the most equality possible, or at the very least try to increase the equality over what we have now whenever we can. Just like it's a worthwhile endeavor [sic] to increase the accuracy of scientific knowledge, even though scientific knowledge may never be complete."

There you have it. The linkage between equality and science is wish-fulfillment. Are we empiricists or Freudians? This is the question raised in my first post (#21).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 7:59 PM

There is nothing about creationism that imparts knowledge, so it should not be in schools.

Marriage is, inter alia, a procreation-centred institution.

Your inane and insane definitions are irrelevant. You are a known bigot. I wouldn't trust you to empty a cat litter box, much less anything requiring thinking power.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 8:05 PM

For what it's worth I am sorry I hurt your feelings and have no desire to see you burnt at the stake.

Liar.

Marriage is, inter alia, a procreation-centred institution.

Nope. It's fundamentally a property relationship.

Posted by: Carlie | October 13, 2009 8:08 PM

Now
-Homosexual coupling is a non-procreative relationship.
-Marriage is, inter alia, a procreation-centred institution.
-So Homosexuals shouldn't be married.

No, wait.

So old people shouldn't be married.

No, that's not right.

So infertile people shouldn't be married.

That doesn't sound right yet.

So people on birth control shouldn't be married.

That doesn't sound right either.

So people who think marriage is about procreation shouldn't be taken seriously when they talk about marriage rights.

There, that's better.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 8:15 PM

-Homosexual coupling is a non-procreative relationship.

-Marriage is, inter alia, a procreation-centred institution.

-So Homosexuals shouldn't be married.

Marriage is not about procreation. If it was, then women past menopause would not be allowed to be married. Men who have been found sterile would not be allowed to be married.

You are a gay-hating, racist bigot, and you keep inventing fake rationales to hide your hatred, but they keep failing.

You are driven by fantasy and wish fulfillment, Frank. You hate gay people and wish for them to suffer. So you make up excuses for why they should suffer.

And I think we've established that "rights" are often too abstract a concept to be working with when we talk about love, etc.

We have established exactly the opposite. Again, from Zablocki v. Redhail:

Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.

On the merits, the three-judge panel analyzed the challenged statute under the Equal Protection Clause and concluded that "strict scrutiny" was required because the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry.

Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 8:26 PM

"here is nothing to prevent it being taught in a comparative religion class, mythology class, or a philosophy class"

Creationism, not Christianity, is a metaphysicial explanation. If it is taught (rather than taught about) it would be in a science class.

"That would mean older people who are beyond child bearing age who want to marry can't."

No dispute with this point, if we're talking principle, as we talk principle about science class. But good eye. Though I would add that procreation, as I have described it, would hover near the instrumental view of marriage, which is to be avoided, if we are principled definers, that is. Luckily I have my "inter alia" escape clause.

"It would also mean married people who choose to be childless aren't truly married."

Knowing infertility in advance negates "marriage" as I have described it. If they chose to remain childless by not having sex, that would also annul it. If they had protected sex, it probably wouldn't be marriage either, I'm not sure. In any case, it's not a definition of marriage I just cooked up. The real point is in equality. For the purposes of illustration between the examples, I could just define marriage as heterosexual. Maybe that removes all doubt.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 8:29 PM

Knowing infertility in advance negates "marriage" as I have described it. If they chose to remain childless by not having sex, that would also annul it. If they had protected sex, it probably wouldn't be marriage either, I'm not sure.

You are a disgusting person.

For the purposes of illustration between the examples, I could just define marriage as heterosexual.

And a gay-hating bigot.

Why don't you crawl back to your hole now?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 8:40 PM

The difference between creationism and gay marriage (I can't believe Frank is so stupid that I have to spell it out) is that creationism purports to have empirical facts about the world.

We tested these empirical claims, and found that they were false. Creationism is objectively, factually wrong. Therefore we do not teach it in any class that aims to teach empirical facts.

Gay marriage is only a question about normative values. Do you hate gay people? Then you are against gay marriage. Do you like gay people, and/or are you in favor of equal protection of the law? Then you are for gay marriage.

There is no rational secular reason to be opposed to gay marriage. There is a rational secular reason to be for gay marriage: because no one should be denied equal protection of the law.

Posted by: Carlie | October 13, 2009 8:43 PM

Marriages are about consensual relationships, you idiot.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 8:44 PM

"There is no rational secular reason to be opposed to gay marriage."

Yes, there is, because there is a rational secular reason to be opposed to marriage - that it's a religious institution.

Oh, I'm one step ahead, all right

Posted by: Carlie | October 13, 2009 8:47 PM

Yes, there is, because there is a rational secular reason to be opposed to marriage - that it's a religious institution.

What makes you think that religion holds the reins on what marriage is? People were engaging in marriage relationships a long time before religion made rules about it, and manage to engage in it without the benefit of religion whatsoever.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 8:51 PM

What it keeps coming back to is this:

fuck the queers; faggots and dykes ain't shit.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 8:56 PM

"What makes you think that religion holds the reins on what marriage is?"

It doesn't / hasn't. I don't think law should be regulating marriage. I've said this before.

But back to equality...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 8:59 PM

Frankie, if two gay guys get married, how does that hurt you in the slightest?

The law will no longer tell him he's special and superior.

Posted by: Kel | October 13, 2009 9:00 PM

Yes, there is, because there is a rational secular reason to be opposed to marriage - that it's a religious institution.

So can you explain to me how it's a religious institution I'm entering? Because the whole process seems perfectly secular to me, that is religion is optional but not necessary to the process.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 9:03 PM

What it keeps coming back to is this:
fuck the queers; faggots and dykes ain't shit.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 9:11 PM

Why do you hate gay people, Frank? Why do you hate Latino and black people?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 9:19 PM

It's been secularized.

This is blatantly false. In reality, you know that place where the rest of us live, marriage has always been a secular institution. All the religious crap is just window dressing for an economic relationship between two people. That's the actual basis of marriage, economics. You have repeatedly admitted and demonstrated your ignorance of history. You're also woefully underinformed as to the variety of relationships that have been under the umbrella of marriage in different cultures at different times.

You're dishonest, fearful and bigoted, frankie. Though you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, you keep repeating the same crap. Equality before the law is a legal concept that ensures all humans are treated the same by the government and enjoy the same rights. One of the rights recognized by the government is marriage. Disallowing LGBT people from marrying their preferred partner while heterosexuals can is unlawful because it violates the basis for our democracy, equality under the law.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 9:20 PM

If you're trying to tell me that much of the argument is emotionally based, I agree. I've said that all along.

You've also made clear that you are glad gay people are getting hurt in this society, because you hate them.

Decent people care about others' emotions. You just hate.

Courts try to take emotional consideration into account during divorce proceedings, for instance. Even though parents may despise each other, arrangements are made for children to have time with both parents, in part because the children's emotional well-being depends on a relationship with each parent.

Emotions are important to human life, so it is rational for the legislature and the judiciary to take emotions into account.

But it does tell me that the foundations for gay marriage aren't equality, but non-harm? That would be a different discussion.

No, as has been clear to everyone since the beginning, gay marriage is about equal protection of the law.

I can't. It's been secularized. People are upset how secularized it's become even before we start adding varying orientations to the mix.

Even most religious people have no problem with the idea that non-religious people can go to the county clerk and get married. You are obviously lying again, making up motives that people do not actually share, in order to make up yet another excuse for you to hate gay people.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 9:24 PM

"Why do you hate gay people, Frank? Why do you hate Latino and black people?"

I don't. Lots of gay friends from when I studied literature, and many other friends of different ethnicities. I just poke holes in lefty arguments. Obviously it appears that attacking one thing, like equality, is an affront to everything about human decency. Not true, which is why I have been rebuffing your accusations. You can't seriously think that me thinking equality is ideological, that marriage is a religious institution, and that political conservatism ALL means hate, do you? There's been far less vitriol coming from my corner. The worst I've called someone is "illiterate" if I recall, or turned around "bigotry" on others, but you be sure to tell me where the scale tips in terms of personal offences hurled, and what the score is on "hate" in this thread.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 9:29 PM

Lots of gay friends from when I studied literature,

I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black!

Dude, really bad defense there.

I hope your gay friends know you're a bigot.

Posted by: Carlie | October 13, 2009 9:30 PM

frank, you're saying that gay people and Latino people and black people aren't equal to you in terms of some undefined sense of "natural" order. That's kind of the very definition of bigotry, right there.

He said he has "lots of gay friends". Drink!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 13, 2009 9:31 PM

well, took frankie long enough to turn into a tone-troll as well

here's a hint, you idiot: insulting you is far less hateful than arguing in favor of discrimination. we could call you the worst possible things, and still not be as hateful as you are being. content matters more than form.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 9:32 PM

I don't. Lots of gay friends from when I studied literature, and many other friends of different ethnicities.

If any gay people were really your friends, you wouldn't try to stop them from being married. If any people of color were really your friends, you wouldn't say things like

to the extent that "equality" is a value above all else, we recognize that the US would be quite the same country as if it were 60% latino, 30% black, and 50% gay. But of course it would be an enormously different country that most of us would be unhappy with.

If you did not hate these people, you would not act so clearly as if you hate them.

The worst I've called someone is "illiterate" if I recall, or turned around "bigotry" on others, but you be sure to tell me where the scale tips in terms of personal offences hurled, and what the score is on "hate" in this thread.

I don't know for sure if anyone here hates you, but if they do, there's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with hate per se.

You are opposed to equal treatment under the law for gay people. You are a racist homophobe. You are actively trying to work to make the world a worse place. If anyone here hates you, they have good reason for it.

There is no good reason for your hatred of gay people and people of color, though. Irrational, unjustified hatred is wrong.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 9:45 PM

'Profane' works within the religious conception of marriage, how they would see it.

Judiciary should be about application and principle when it comes to interpretting law.

I'm not lying. I'm not talking about motives. That's psychology (unless i'm speaking about confirmation bias that rages in these discussions).

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 9:51 PM

"frank, you're saying that gay people and Latino people and black people aren't equal to you in terms of some undefined sense of "natural" order. That's kind of the very definition of bigotry, right there."

Who said that? I said equality wasn't natural. I didn't say I pulled the high card in life.

"Dude, really bad defense there."

I was defending that I hated gay people. If I have gay friends, then I don't. If you want to make your definition of "hate" = says things you don't like, then I guess you're right. I would only say I don't accept this definition.

"You are opposed to equal treatment under the law for gay people."

oh, you're way off. I'm opposed to the cult of equality in general. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

"You are actively trying to work to make the world a worse place."

By poking holes in arguments? I would say sharpening thinking is a good thing.

"There's nothing wrong with hate per se."

There's nothing wrong with equality, per se.

"Irrational, unjustified hatred is wrong."

I agree.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 13, 2009 9:52 PM

The idea of "marriage" is something to be maintained within the private sphere.

Economics being the thing that is separate from politics...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 13, 2009 9:55 PM

I was defending that I hated gay people. If I have gay friends, then I don't.

so there are no misogynists with girlfriends? what?

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 9:59 PM

"That is all we ask, but that requires you to acknowledge that every citizen of this country has equal rights to you. Are you man enough to acknowledge that truth?"

yes.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 10:03 PM

"I was defending that I hated gay people. "

That's what you call a Freudian slit

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 13, 2009 10:06 PM

I have gay friends, and straight friends, and bi friends and more--
I have black friends and white friends, and colors galore!
I have Libras, Aquarians, Cancers, and Taurus--
But, oddly enough... not one frankosaurus.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 10:07 PM

Why on earth should the religious control anything?

Fiddler on the Roof popping into my head again...

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 10:15 PM

I was defending that I hated gay people. If I have gay friends, then I don't.

If you cared about these gay people you claim as friends, you would stop trying to hurt them by taking away their right to marry.

If you cared about these people of color you claim as friends, you would stop trying to hurt them by "talking about a tipping point where your own personal values are grossly outnumbered."

You obviously do not care about them.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 10:17 PM

I've just spent 2 to 300 thousand dollars to make myself look like an overweight Gwen Stefani, and now, I realize it's all for nothing.

Well, if you weren't a hollaback girl you might have a chance....

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 10:20 PM

"That is all we ask, but that requires you to acknowledge that every citizen of this country has equal rights to you. Are you man enough to acknowledge that truth?"

yes.

He says it, but he doesn't mean it. He still claims that there is no right to marriage, even though the Supreme Court recognizes it explicitly. He does not care that this right to marriage is not extended to gay people.

Or, alternatively, he does not believe that gay people are real citizens.

(PS: Cuttlefish, you are awesome.)

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 10:30 PM

If Frank is accustomed to treating all his friends so badly, I suspect there is no one in the world who would call him a friend.
Well, no one but Jesus.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 13, 2009 10:39 PM

"frank, you're saying that gay people and Latino people and black people aren't equal to you in terms of some undefined sense of "natural" order. That's kind of the very definition of bigotry, right there."

Who said that? I said equality wasn't natural. I didn't say I pulled the high card in life.

You did say that "too many" black and Latino and gay people would be "a tipping point where your own personal values are grossly outnumbered."

"You are opposed to equal treatment under the law for gay people."

oh, you're way off. I'm opposed to the cult of equality in general. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

You are explicitly opposed to equal treatment under the law for gay people. You hate gay people, and consequently are opposed to gay marriage. You have ignored the fact that marriage is a basic, fundamental civil right United States, and you have tried to deny the equal protection of this right to gay people.

"You are actively trying to work to make the world a worse place."

By poking holes in arguments? I would say sharpening thinking is a good thing.

You are actively working to hurt gay people by denying them their rights, and you are actively working to hurt people of color by spreading lies about their values.

I recognize the separation of spheres, public and private. The state should honour contracts, the religious should control the private. The idea of "marriage" is something to be maintained within the private sphere.

You are wrong. Regardless of the terms of the contract that two people choose between themselves, the state has an interest in ensuring that if the contract dissolves, a dependent spouse or children are provided for. This has always been the secular state's legitimate interest in marriage. You'd know that if you knew your history.

The state also can have an interest in encouraging cohabitation and pooling of resources, as stable small groups of people highly interested in each other's welfare can be an important part of the safety net in a healthy community. Providing incentives toward the formation of these groups, over and above recognition of contracts, can be a state interest.

"You are obviously lying again, making up motives that people do not actually share, in order to make up yet another excuse for you to hate gay people."

I'm not lying. I'm not talking about motives. That's psychology (unless i'm speaking about confirmation bias that rages in these discussions).

You are lying yet again. You were talking about motives when you said "People are upset how secularized it's become even before we start adding varying orientations to the mix."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 10:45 PM

I agree that everyone should have the same rights. I admit that. I was wrong, and am sorry to have caused offence.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 10:50 PM

*sputter*

Posted by: John Morales | October 13, 2009 10:51 PM

frankosaurus, you accept gays should have a right to marry same-sex partners, right?

They already have the right to marry opposite-sex partners... ;)

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 10:57 PM

People should marry who they want. It's irrational fear to say otherwise

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 11:00 PM

oh please

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 11:11 PM

MAJeff,

You're right.

frankie,

It's irrational fear bigotry to say otherwise

fixed that for you

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 13, 2009 11:32 PM

you mean the argument aside from the one that my girlfriend just found out what I've been writing? ;)

okay, so here's the deal. I needed to be able to push the thinking I've been taught, to see what it can or cannot uncover. And it has uncovered a lot. So much better arriving somewhere through argument than just accepting one through sympathy. But in the end, there is just no defensible ground, in the abstract, why a heterosexual relationship should be granted different status than a homosexual one. It might be possible to say that certain communities can give their own interpretation to what the marriage means, like what the religious think it signifies in their communities, but so long as the political entitlements flowing from an exclusive monogamous relationship remain in the grips of centralized authority, it is inconsistent with liberal democratic values to say these should be denied to people purely on the grounds that they were born liking the "wrong" sex. So I don't think I can oppose it.

can I keep my other grudges against the left?

Posted by: Walton | October 14, 2009 4:38 AM

can I keep my other grudges against the left?

Yes, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose the left. If you read my blog, or some of my previous posts, you will see that I frequently criticise left-wing economic views, and advocate more market-oriented and capitalist policies. When it comes to economic policy, rational and reasonable people can legitimately disagree with one another.

By contrast, I would argue that socially-conservative views - like opposing gay marriage - cannot be rationally maintained from a secular perspective. Hence why those views are held, almost exclusively, by people with irrational conservative religious beliefs.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 14, 2009 5:10 AM

"By contrast, I would argue that socially-conservative views - like opposing gay marriage - cannot be rationally maintained from a secular perspective."

Well I obviously think you're wrong there about socially conservative views in general, and if conservatism has any meaning, it is social or cultural conservatism. This is the conservatism of Burke, Kirk, Eliot, et al, and not irrational. Well, not irrational in the sense of being intellectually defensible, but the tradition does stand in that Humean vein against "rationalism."

Admittedly, this is harder to grapple with from a secular viewpoint. I don't know how I balance them. I suppose if harder pressed, I may see a deep inconsistency. Mainly the problem is that most people don't speak the language of social conservatism, or are aware of the tradition. For those, "The Conservative Mind" by Kirk is a good primer. Start speaking about conservative principles and values and you are more likely to be aligned with bigotry than anything else. Nature of ideology, though, for any claim to human nature or morality in support of politics to be greeted with oppositional scorn. The case of social conservatism, though, is that it has very little positive to return. Nothing sunny about humanity or its future -- it's not "attractive" -- which is one of the reasons I think people choose to pass it over without serious engagement. But it's not for the weak. What's the old saying? If you're in you're 20s and not a liberal you have no heart, If you're in your 30s and not a conservative you have no brain. More to this than economics.

"And you'll also need to apologize for playing intellectual games for your own pleasure over the backs of people who are directly affected by bigotry every day."

I'm sorry to have caused offence. It wasn't pleasure.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 14, 2009 6:41 AM

fun to debate. Not pleasurable to cause offence. Both true.

"how race, ethnicity and sexual orientation are "personal values" that are incompatible with your personal values. "

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1312&loc=r

shorter answer, we assess our values by looking to the past. The sharper the change in values, the less of a past to look to. So the argument would be that a massive influx in immigration, or drastic overhaul in demography that was not linked to organic growth would constitute a rupture in traditional values (that we all rely on, though some are more hesitant to admit than others) that would be displeasing. It is, in the end, a critique of the superstitious nature of inalienable rights, glossed in that article about Hume, and further found in his and others writings I have alluded to. It sounds complex, but it shouldn't be. It's mainly "common sense" (and there is a history of suspicion toward intellectuals in the conservative ranks). It means I like Christmas, God written on my money, literary canonization, the Queen, and yes even Churches though I may not darken their doors. I don't like progressivism, deconstruction, postmodernism, or effaced differences in the name of radical philosophies (though I will be sympathetic to notions of equality surviving from traditional notions, like rule of law, and moral equality under christianity).

not your typical atheistic credentials. But atheism, as we know, allows for disparity in its implications. I only wonder now if I've answered a question, or opened a new can of worms.

Posted by: Carlie | October 14, 2009 8:31 AM

What's the old saying? If you're in you're 20s and not a liberal you have no heart, If you're in your 30s and not a conservative you have no brain.

That only applies if you're the group that is in power, and are directly benefiting from the policies already in place, and if you don't realize that societies in which all people are allowed to thrive are more economically and socially successful than those in which a small group holds all the cookies and won't let go.

Posted by: Carlie | October 14, 2009 9:12 AM

...and of course there should be another NOT in my previous sentence.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 14, 2009 10:22 AM

Frankosaurus's girlosaur friend is gone I see, so it is safe for him to get back into the game.

Start speaking about conservative principles and values and you are more likely to be aligned with bigotry than anything else.

It means I like Christmas, God written on my money, literary canonization, the Queen, and yes even Churches though I may not darken their doors.

I don't like progressivism, deconstruction, postmodernism, or effaced differences in the name of radical philosophies (though I will be sympathetic to notions of equality surviving from traditional notions, like rule of law, and moral equality under christianity).

It's mainly "common sense" (and there is a history of suspicion toward intellectuals in the conservative ranks).

a critique of the superstitious nature of inalienable rights, glossed in that article about Hume, and further found in his and others writings I have alluded to.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 14, 2009 10:40 AM

No matter what side the whiny asshole may be arguing and if he believes it or not, he gets to get away with it because of his sense of entitlement. These things that many of us have to live through every is just a fucking game for him. I do not accept his apology and in the future, I will not know (nor care) if he says what he means.

Walton may be an insufferable and self centered pain in the ass but he appears to be sincere in what he does, even if he is a callous cad.

Frankosaurus, if you could truly have empathy for other people, you would not pull this shit. Not pleasurable, my ass.

Posted by: Deen | October 14, 2009 10:47 AM

aratina cage:

Frankosaurus's girlosaur friend is gone I see, so it is safe for him to get back into the game.

Posted by: Bobber | October 14, 2009 11:17 AM

Janine said:

Frankosaurus, if you could truly have empathy for other people, you would not pull this shit. Not pleasurable, my ass.

Exactly. He's coming from a position of not having to deal with the negative consequences of what he was trying to argue for, and so this is just an amusing intellectual exercise for him. But real people with real lives in the real world have to deal with the results of such ideological conflicts every single day. It's not limited to the intellectual realm, it's not amusing, it's often deadly serious.

Somewhat to his credit, he didn't fly off into a defensive rant as he was being pelted with (justifiably) angry responses; all that does, though, is again show that he doesn't reed the flames for the sake of his mental explorations; I hope he understands why it was he got burned.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 14, 2009 12:19 PM

But real people with real lives in the real world have to deal with the results of such ideological conflicts every single day. It's not limited to the intellectual realm, it's not amusing, it's often deadly serious.

Not to be a downer, but isn't this rhetorical strategy similar to the grandmother gambit issue that was just posted? Don't say controversial things because they might rattle sensitive people?

Maybe distinctions can be drawn, but it seems obvious that the moral superiority card isn't going to work with this guy. I'm sure if he keeps up these views in public, then life will end of getting the better of him.

BTW. WTF?

"Then gays should have a right to marry?

yes"

vs

"It is, in the end, a critique of the superstitious nature of inalienable rights"

vs

#21 "Maintain a balance of appeasement"

Has he conceded a point, or is he displaying his masterful maneuvering over us rabble?

Posted by: Bobber | October 14, 2009 1:39 PM

Aratina:

I was typing up my own response, but yours is better. You nailed it right on the head. Cheers!

Posted by: Walton | October 14, 2009 2:45 PM

frankosaurus,

I think you're conflating different issues here (which is perhaps my own fault, for using the term "social conservatism" too broadly). I have some sympathy with the Burkean conservative perspective; where established social and political institutions work well, we shouldn't abolish them merely for the sake of ideological purity. Hence why I support the British monarchy, for instance: I can't offer any a priori rational justification for monarchy in general, but I think the constitutional order in Britain (and other successful constitutional monarchies, such as Sweden and Bhutan) is as good in practice as any other available political system, and worth maintaining.

But that isn't a justification for maintaining established traditions where those traditions are actively hurting people, and actively restricting individual freedom, for no rationally defensible reason. In a free society, individuals ought to be allowed as much autonomy as reasonably possible. That includes allowing same-sex couples to marry, unless you can come up with some rational and persuasive reason why this shouldn't be allowed. I note that no one, so far, has ever made any sort of reasonable or compelling secular argument for opposing gay marriage; most opponents of gay marriage are motivated by irrational religious prejudice, and attempt to cover this by fallacious appeals to tradition and history.

I have no problem with maintaining traditional institutions where they're harmless, such as preserving the monarchy or celebrating Christmas. I do have a problem, however, with those who, under the guise of "traditional values", seek to impose their beliefs on everyone and to deny basic individual liberties to their fellow citizens. The fact that something is traditional doesn't give it any intrinsic authority or legitimacy; where a tradition is irrational and harmful, we can and should abolish it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 14, 2009 3:12 PM

I don't think conservatism is a function of "privilege" (many if not most conservatives are indeed not privileged)

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 14, 2009 4:00 PM

"you don't know what "privilege" means, do you. hint: it doesn't have (much of) anything to do with money."

I give up. You make it sound so very exoteric. Though my experience shows that conservatism comes in all wanks of life.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 14, 2009 4:11 PM

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 14, 2009 12:19 PM

Not to be a downer, but isn't this rhetorical strategy similar to the grandmother gambit issue that was just posted? Don't say controversial things because they might rattle sensitive people?

Thank you, Sean 3:16 for setting up an example in which I can only use. The case of the grandma gambit is that one should not say something that would upset (and possibly kill) one's (nonexistant) overly sensitive and close to death grandmother. As the response to that thread, it is clear that it is ridiculous to paint an old woman as such. (As well as being patronizing as well.)

We were arguing with a dishonest asshole, one who could not get his historical facts straight and one who misquoted other people's meaning. All the while, he was arguing that people experience meant nothing in the face of keeping a society where he had privileges. There was no claim that the real people that the fool was arguing with were oh so sensitive. There was the claim that the fool was cavalier towards other people's rights and live. That is the difference.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 14, 2009 4:18 PM

Though my experience shows that conservatism comes in all wanks of life.

Finally, the whiny asshole says something truthful, even if he did not mean it that way.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 14, 2009 4:33 PM

Deen & Bobber, thanks. Your comments have been much appreciated by me, too. I like the free-for-all style of commenting here as well as the pile-ons.

I would say its the worst tyrants who have upset the conservative political order. -frankosaurus

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 14, 2009 5:14 PM

aside from gay marriage, I would consider those all conservative values in the US.

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 15, 2009 2:35 AM

The US is evil. Not the majority, that would be ridiculous

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 15, 2009 5:37 PM

Janine @ 423:

Atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

From what orifice did you pull that from? Speaking only from myself, I have no more interest in paganism than I am in your religion.

TheBlackCat @ 421:

Atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism. That brief moment between the exhalation of Christianity and the inhalation of satanism. The manure from which sprout the rank weeds of ... you get the idea.

Wait, what? There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. Ignoring that fact that atheist do not generally then become pagans

I was speaking in terms of culture rather than individuals. Certain individuals may be satisfied with atheism but atheism will always be the preserve of the eccentric. Normal folk need some kind of spirituality, however inchoately that need may be expressed. If a society is not claimed for one of the higher religions, it will inevitably devolve into a primitive paganism. Disraeli spoke the truth: "Man is a being born to believe. And if no church comes forward with its title-deeds of truth to guide him, he will find altars and idols in his own heart and his own imagination."

If a traveller from the future were to inform an 18th- or 19th-century rationalist that the influence of the Church had drastically withered in the 20th and 21st centuries, he would have given a satisfied nod. But if the time-traveller had added that the future would also see a resurgence of goddess-worship and Odin-worship, that a teenage girl could walk into a bookshop and buy a manual on spell-casting ... would the rationalist have laughed or wept?

there is the bizarre ideas that paganism is not a "true religion"

A religion must be true or not, surely?

that satanism and paganism are the same (by definition they aren't, pagans are polytheistic while satanism is monotheistic)

They're not the same but there is an overlap. And few modern satanists could be called monotheistic -- they're usually avowed atheists who see Satan and/or Lucifer as an appropriate symbolic figurehead for their twisted morality.

and that only Christians can become atheists.

Yeh, but if a Christian becomes an atheist it matters.

sgbm @ 435:

Atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

From what orifice did you pull that from? Speaking only from myself, I have no more interest in paganism than I am in your religion.

This one is fun. Here's how it works.
If people stop believing that Jesus is going to come back Real Soon Now, then they'll start thinking they need to ensure a safe and livable world for future generations.
If they start trying to protect national forests, wildlife, and ecosystems, then they are elevating the importance of nature above the importance of Jesus. Caring about anything more than Jesus is idolatry. In this case, specifically, it's paganism.
Thus, atheism leads to paganism.

You do talk some frightful tosh at times, sgbm.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 15, 2009 5:42 PM

sgbm @ 443:

Marriage is a civil contract, regulated by the state. If you were correct, then atheists could not get married. And yet they do, every day. Atheists often go to the county clerk and apply for a certificate of marriage. There is not necessarily any involvement with any church, but there is always necessarily the involvement of the state, because marriage is a secular matter of the state, not a matter of the church.

Kel @ 454:

Except that it's mandated by secular goverments all around the world. No church is mandating my future union, and both myself and my partner aren't religious, there's no mention of God in the ceremony, it's done by a secular celebrant, and it's validated in the eyes of a government that have freedom of religion written into the constitution.
So can you explain to me how it's a religious institution I'm entering? Because the whole process seems perfectly secular to me, that is religion is optional but not necessary to the process.

It's a religious institution because God instituted it on His terms. If the state tries to arrogate this divine institution to itself, it is just indulging in magical thinking. Calling secular concubinage "marriage" doesn't make it so.

frankosaurus @ 512:

But in the end, there is just no defensible ground, in the abstract, why a heterosexual relationship should be granted different status than a homosexual one. ... so long as the political entitlements flowing from an exclusive monogamous relationship remain in the grips of centralized authority, it is inconsistent with liberal democratic values to say these should be denied to people purely on the grounds that they were born liking the "wrong" sex. So I don't think I can oppose it.

So the only defensible position is the liberal democratic one?

Walton @ 514:

I would argue that socially-conservative views - like opposing gay marriage - cannot be rationally maintained from a secular perspective.

Here's an attempt I made at making a secular case for traditional sexual morality. It's relevance to homosexuality should be obvious:

- Human life is essentially social; man requires a social context in which to flourish.
- To a certain extent social life requires individuals sacrifice immediate personal gratification for the greater good. Sometimes these sacrifices are particularly onerous - for example in wartime.
- For this reason, society has a legitimate interest in curbing hedonistic excesses: a widespread obsession with personal gratification imperils the culture of communal self-sacrifice necessary to keep society afloat.
- Sex brings this tension between gratification and sacrifice into particularly sharp relief: sex is intensely pleasurable yet its consequences - children - demand considerable sacrifices on the part of individuals.
- Modern man thinks he has resolved this dilemma through contraceptive technology; contraception removes the burdonsome consequences of sex, allowing its pleasurable aspects to be freely indulged.
- Those who hold the traditional position point out that this "uncoupling" removes a desirable check on socially corrosive hedonism.
- Moreover, society has a legitimate interest in privileging the procreative aspect of sex; it supplies the next generation of the community.

Hence why those views are held, almost exclusively, by people with irrational conservative religious beliefs.

Conservative religious beliefs are only "irrational" if held unthinkingly. I'm sure many religious conservatives do hold their beliefs unthinkingly, just as many liberal atheists hold their beliefs unthinkingly. But many religious conservatives have reasons for their beliefs. You might question the soundness of their reasoning but you cannot thereby call them irrational, just misguided or ill-informed or wrong.

frankosaurus @ 518:

we assess our values by looking to the past. The sharper the change in values, the less of a past to look to. So the argument would be that a massive influx in immigration, or drastic overhaul in demography that was not linked to organic growth would constitute a rupture in traditional values (that we all rely on, though some are more hesitant to admit than others) that would be displeasing. It is, in the end, a critique of the superstitious nature of inalienable rights, glossed in that article about Hume, and further found in his and others writings I have alluded to. It sounds complex, but it shouldn't be. It's mainly "common sense" (and there is a history of suspicion toward intellectuals in the conservative ranks). It means I like Christmas, God written on my money, literary canonization, the Queen, and yes even Churches though I may not darken their doors. I don't like progressivism, deconstruction, postmodernism, or effaced differences in the name of radical philosophies (though I will be sympathetic to notions of equality surviving from traditional notions, like rule of law, and moral equality under christianity).

If I understand your position correctly (assuming it is your position and you're not just playing silly buggers again), you're arguing for a kind of pragmatic conservatism in which traditions are valued for the social cohesiveness they provide. Radical cultural change disorientates and demoralises the populace. It's like a soft version of the French royalist Charles Maurras' traditionalism -- Maurras supported the Catholic Church not because he accepted the truth-claims of the Church (he was an atheist) but because he saw Catholicism as an inextricable component of French civilization whose privileged position could not be assailed without causing ruinous damage to France.

But if you defend "Christmas, God written on my money, literary canonization, the Queen, and yes even Churches" on these grounds, why not traditional sexual morality?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 15, 2009 5:55 PM

"I told him if I do, I'll resign," Bardwell said. "I have rights too. I'm not obligated to do that just because I'm a justice of the peace."

So, he's not obligated to follow the fucking law? In MA, when same-sex marriages were just about to first occur, EVEN THE FUCKING ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION told J.O.P.s that if they were going to refuse to follow the law, they had to resign.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 15, 2009 6:06 PM

I see Pilty is still as irrelevant to a sane discussion as ever.

Or a humane one.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 15, 2009 6:21 PM

Piltdown wrote:

Certain individuals may be satisfied with atheism but atheism will always be the preserve of the eccentric.

If a society is not claimed for one of the higher religions, it will inevitably devolve into a primitive paganism.

A religion must be true or not, surely?

They're not the same but there is an overlap. And few modern satanists could be called monotheistic -- they're usually avowed atheists who see Satan and/or Lucifer as an appropriate symbolic figurehead for their twisted morality.

Yeh, but if a Christian becomes an atheist it matters.

You do talk some frightful tosh at times, sgbm.

Why would I lie?

It's a religious institution because God instituted it on His terms.

Calling secular concubinage "marriage" doesn't make it so.

Conservative religious beliefs are only "irrational" if held unthinkingly.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 15, 2009 6:34 PM

Owlmirror @ 539:

Obviously we're dealing with an underground satanist or pagan cult.

Obviously we're dealing with something entirely made up.

And you know this how?

If homicidal satanic cults can exist today why not in the Middle Ages?

The use of a psychotropic unguent to trigger the lycanthropic hallucinations & associated killing frenzy has obvious parallels with the 'witches' ointment' that caused sensations of flight.

Like the drugs put into the Eucharists of the Early Christians?

Sounds like you've been taking a few drugs yourself.

And the killing frenzy of the Catholic Crusader mobs?

A mob or ill-disciplined army is a terrible thing. It is not the same thing as a cult deliberately devoted to murder and subversion.

The purpose would be human sacrifice with the added bonus of spreading socially destabilising mayhem.

Every human killed by your church for no greater reason than thoughtcrime or nonconformity was a human sacrifice.

"There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. ... It was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it."

As Christianity's social influence wanes, resurgent paganism is once again holding up wild animals as spiritual exemplars

Like you hold up a man who explicitly said that he came to bring a sword as a spiritual exemplar.

A sword is a good thing if it is used to slay evildoers. Wild animals are not so discerning.

It's a fair bet that atheistic Darwinism and ecological holism both played a role in encouraging this debased mindset.

Because people are incapable of coming up with stupid ideas on their own?

Few things are as dangerous as a stupid idea robed in the mantle of science.

(I'm not suggesting Harvey Milk was a werewolf, by the way. He was something much, much worse.)

Ah, so this guy was a horror out of Satan's worst nightmares, I suppose.

He's not a clown, just a regular guy in clown make-up.

Atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

Atheism is the simple recognition that all religions are false, you special-pleading dingbat.

Sociologically speaking, atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

Even you admitted that you might be wrong and Zeus -- a pagan God -- might be the one in charge.

Yes, but I don't believe he is. It's a hypothetical thought-experiment. I'm sure you would admit that you could be mistaken in your atheism -- but that doesn't stop you being an atheist.

And if you mean that all false religions come from Satan, well, then all false religions ultimately come from the creator of Satan...

He permits them to arise but doesn't approve of it one little bit.

Christianity is the manure from which sprout the rank weeds of torturing people to death and genocide.

Does that mean democratic capitalism is the manure from which sprout the rank weeds of Dresden and Hiroshima? With some anguish the intelligent liberal critic Clive James wrote of such atrocities that "our barbarism was right because theirs was wrong". Fewer liberals than in former years would defend the use of incendiary and atomic bombs, but fewer still would deny that the Allies should have fought and defeated the Axis in WWII. Excesses committed in defence of the cause do not invalidate the cause.

It was a crass quip on my part, written when foul temper had impaired my better judgement.

A foul temper with murderous impulses that not even an omnipotent God can remove.

"Murderous impulses"?

Have you considered antidepressants?

Unrighteous doctors dealing drugs that'll never cure your ills ...

Posted by: Sastra | October 15, 2009 7:02 PM

Piltdown Man #554 wrote:

It's a religious institution because God instituted it on His terms. If the state tries to arrogate this divine institution to itself, it is just indulging in magical thinking. Calling secular concubinage "marriage" doesn't make it so.

Using this sort of reasoning, every secular value, arrangement, government, etc., is really "religious" because God created it, allowed it, instituted it, or permitted it. I think the term you want isn't 'marriage,' but 'holy matrimony.' Marriage didn't start out as a covenant with God, but as a social contract between people. This isn't a good argument.

Here's an attempt I made at making a secular case for traditional sexual morality. It's relevance to homosexuality should be obvious:

- Human life is essentially social; man requires a social context in which to flourish.
- To a certain extent social life requires individuals sacrifice immediate personal gratification for the greater good. Sometimes these sacrifices are particularly onerous - for example in wartime.
- For this reason, society has a legitimate interest in curbing hedonistic excesses: a widespread obsession with personal gratification imperils the culture of communal self-sacrifice necessary to keep society afloat.
- Sex brings this tension between gratification and sacrifice into particularly sharp relief: sex is intensely pleasurable yet its consequences - children - demand considerable sacrifices on the part of individuals.
- Modern man thinks he has resolved this dilemma through contraceptive technology; contraception removes the burdonsome consequences of sex, allowing its pleasurable aspects to be freely indulged.
- Those who hold the traditional position point out that this "uncoupling" removes a desirable check on socially corrosive hedonism.
- Moreover, society has a legitimate interest in privileging the procreative aspect of sex; it supplies the next generation of the community.

I'm afraid this isn't a good argument either, because you're divorcing human happiness from human harm, when you sneak in the term "hedonistic excesses" -- and granting the state (or the society) too much authority over the individual.

To see some of the problems with this line of reasoning, consider that it could be used to argue against people being allowed to practice a religion. After all, one could make a case that "faith" is a form of self-indulgent gratification that weakens the moral character of the individual, an sloppy epistemic dishonesty that can be socially corrosive. The needs of the many, then, outweigh the wants of the few, who wish to abandon reasonable restrictions. Society has a legitimate interest in curbing the excessive enthusiasms of religion.

That's not an argument I'd make. Instead, I would argue that this 'secular' case abandons the authority of God, for the authority of the Collective, at the expense of the individual. Unless there is direct harm, one should be very cautious about invoking the law to curb 'excessive' thought and behavior. Meaning, you shouldn't use this argument. What's excessive and corrosive is too firmly fixed in the eye of the beholder.

Besides -- even following your own line of thought here, homosexuals would be urged to curb their hedonistic tendencies by restricting their sexual activities to the person their married to -- and gay couples would be pressured to increase their responsibilities by adopting. It would lead to a defense of gay marriage, because, absent a religious rationale, there's no reason to place them in a category that's any more hedonistic than 'heterosexual.'

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 15, 2009 7:11 PM

"Sociologically speaking, atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism."

This sociologist calls bullshit.

Posted by: Sastra | October 15, 2009 7:30 PM

Few things are as dangerous as a stupid idea robed in the mantle of science.

In other words, what's dangerous is pseudoscience and pseudoscientific religious apologetics (whether we're dealing with the creationism of the Abrahamic religions, or the 'quantum consciousness' of the neo-pagan ones.) Or, you could just say that stupid ideas cloaked in the superficial mantle of reason become more dangerous. Sure.

The problem isn't with the fields of science or reason: it started out in the 'stupid idea.'

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 15, 2009 7:38 PM

"Sociologically speaking, atheism is the transitional phase between true religion and paganism.

Ok, put down the bong.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 15, 2009 7:50 PM

Christianity is that from which sprang the idea of universal moral equality. The idea never existed before it. This must be remembered.

Frankly, that is hilarious.

I'm torn on what mixture of troll, poe and prankster you really are.