Pharyngula

Hey, California, you could learn something from Virginia’s bad example. Let’s all hope the California Supreme Court can do something right.

People of West Central Minnesota who might be reading this: I’ve heard from Roy Zimmerman that we could get him to swing by Morris ’round about 3 April. I’m in the awkward state of being on sabbatical and also doing a lot of traveling, so it’s difficult for me to arrange a performance, but I can take a shot at it. Is there any interest out there? Write to me and I’ll work on it, and maybe draft you to help.

Comments

  1. #1 Capital Dan
    January 26, 2010

    It says a lot about a country and its people that we have to go through so many tedious hassles where common sense equality is concerned.

    It should be a no-brainer.

  2. #2 truthspeaker
    January 26, 2010

    With all respect to Capital Dan – it isn’t common sense to a lot of people. Millions of people in this country were brought up to think homosexuality was some kind of dirty abomination. Sure, there have been gay rights activists trying to explain the reality of what gay people feel for decades, but it still hasn’t penetrated to a lot of people.

    Once someone understands what homosexuality is, then it becomes common sense equality. But a lot of people haven’t reached that understanding yet. Many refuse to reach it through wilfully disregarding the information that’s out there, and I have as much contempt for them as you do. But there are others for whom it hasn’t sunk in yet, and a sheltered few who really haven’t been exposed to these ideas yet.

    If you’re like me, raised by liberal parents in an affluent suburb in the 1970s and 80s, educated at a liberal arts college in the late 80s and early 90s, you might find it hard to believe that someone could be that sheltered. I know I did. But I’ve come to realize that there really are people out there who are that far out of the loop.

  3. #3 dmfarley
    January 26, 2010

    it IS a no-brainer, CapitalDan. it’s religion.

  4. #4 Brownian, OM
    January 26, 2010

    I agree with truthspeaker. It can take a lot for someone to recognise and excise ingrained bigotry, especially if they heard it at their parents’ knees. I can honestly remember the day as a young lad I realised, with horror, that “catch a nigger by the toe” referred to a certain type of people, and none too nicely.

    Hell, even in the enlightened 80s Sting had to remind us that the Russians loved their children too.

  5. #5 redmjoel
    January 26, 2010

    IANAL, but here’s my lay understanding for what it’s worth.

    The Loving decision doesn’t apply to same sex marriage according to a 1972 decision Baker v. Nelson — essentially a lower court of appeals decided that two male college students from Minnesota could not get a marriage license, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” As far as legal precedence goes, this means that the ruling precedent on same-sex marriage is that there is no such thing, and there is no conflict either way at the federal level.

    The new California case is not covered by the Baker v. Nelson precedent because what is being argued is that the process by which the decision was made (Prop 8) is unconstitutional at the federal level because civil rights cannot be revoked by public vote.

  6. #6 jesse.mandel
    January 26, 2010

    As an atheist, I say if the churches want the word marriage, let them have it. Marriage, at its root, is a religious act. Sure there are also legal rights and tax benefits from the government but that stuff can stay with new legislation. I say abolish marriage out of government and add new legislation so any two people can sign up for the legal parts. Anyone can then have a marriage ceremony in their church or community.

    Get government out of marriage!

    -Supergibbs

  7. #7 truthspeaker
    January 26, 2010

    Posted by: jesse.mandel | January 26, 2010 3:54 PM

    As an atheist, I say if the churches want the word marriage, let them have it. Marriage, at its root, is a religious act.

    History fail. We had marriage first. If they want a separate institution that excludes gay people, let them come up with their own.

    Or alternatively, we can let governments handle civil marriage and let churches set the rules for which marriages they recognize – which is the situation we already have.

  8. #8 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Many people conflate homosexuals with pedophiles. The Mormons, Catholics and evangelicals are telling people “if we let queers marry then they’ll be recruiting your children in schools, ain’t you ever heard of NAMBLA?”* The amount of disinformation put out about homosexuals is frightening.

    *If it hadn’t been for conservative fundamentalists I would never have heard of NAMBLA. It’s conservatives who seem to know the most about this organization.

  9. #9 Walton
    January 26, 2010

    I say abolish marriage out of government and add new legislation so any two people can sign up for the legal parts.

    Why just “any two people”? I don’t see what’s wrong with polygamous marriage. If a group of competent adults all want to marry one another, and they all give free and informed consent to this arrangement, why shouldn’t multi-person marriages be recognised by law?

  10. #10 Berny G
    January 26, 2010

    The name of the game is and has always been fear. The Christian Right fears anything out of the ordinary. At various times this has meant mixed race marriages, mixed religion marriages, working women. voting women, voting Blacks. Now it means equal rights for gays.
    As some have said, in a hundred years, when same-sex marriage has been a fact in the USA for several decades, churches will get amnesia about how hard they fought against it, just like they do now about their fight against equality for African-Americans.

  11. #11 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    As an atheist, I say if the churches want the word marriage, let them have it. Marriage, at its root, is a religious act. Sure there are also legal rights and tax benefits from the government but that stuff can stay with new legislation. I say abolish marriage out of government and add new legislation so any two people can sign up for the legal parts. Anyone can then have a marriage ceremony in their church or community.

    Get government out of marriage by writing new legislation to define an additional form of marriage? And bullshit on the “Marriage, at its root, is a religious act” also. Marriage at its root is a social act that has been usurped by religion.
    “Gay” marriage is not about creating any “new form” of marriage. It is making the law of existing marriage non-sexist. It is not adding a gay male marriage and a lesbian marriage to “straight” marriage. It is making marriage blind to the sexes of the people entering into it.

    And Walton, making marriage open to any number of people is a diferent issue. Don’t be one of those idiots that jump on the “if we allow gays to marry then we have allow every possible variation” fallacy wagon.

  12. #12 v.rosenzweig
    January 26, 2010

    IANAL either, but I thought that if the Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal, that didn’t create a precedent. If they decline an appeal from a federal circuit court, that court’s precedent holds for the circuit in question (which is why it’s possible for their to be a federal precedent in New York but none in California, or vice versa); if they decline a state case, there is no federal precedent at all. Baker v. Nelson was a Minnesota court ruling, not a federal court at any level, so it shouldn’t be a precedent outside Minnesota, just as the rulings by the Massachusetts and Iowa courts on same-sex marriage don’t apply outside those states.

    And sometimes the state courts carefully craft rulings so as to avoid a federal question. The New York Court of Appeals threw out the state’s laws against consensual homosexual behavior, specifically citing the privacy protections in the New York constitution, to avoid the risk of the Supreme Court overruling them. This was well before Lawrence v. Texas, and was probably prudent tactics.

  13. #13 https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
    January 26, 2010

    PZ, while you’re in town, can you walk over to Arnold’s office and beat him senseless for me?

    Thank you.

    I good friend of mine, who will attend the festivities with me tonight, found this tee-shirt way too late to order one. Damitol.

    http://www.zazzle.com/very_gradual_change_we_can_believe_in_tshirt-235487367914303657

    MikeM

  14. #14 truthspeaker
    January 26, 2010

    #8 and #10 – thanks for reminding me that there are people actively spreading lies about homosexuality. I forgot to acknowledge that important fact when I was on the soapbox.

  15. #15 redmjoel
    January 26, 2010

    @12 The Baker v. Nelson precedent is not because they declined to hear the case, but because they declined to hear it on its merits. A subtle difference, but an important one.

  16. #16 Sastra
    January 26, 2010

    jesse.mandel #6 wrote:

    As an atheist, I say if the churches want the word marriage, let them have it. Marriage, at its root, is a religious act.

    This argument always makes me grit my teeth.

    So, the whole concept of marriage is religious, so let’s just give it to them. It’s not a “real” marriage unless you’re making a covenant with God. Right.

    And they also whine about how only religious people can have morals, because there’s no right or wrong without a moral lawgiver. Tell you what, let’s just end that debate and give them morality. That’s right, there is no morality without God. What atheists follow, are “social rules.”

    Love? Love comes from God. We atheists will cede that one over — after all, it’s inherently religious — and call what the non-religious do “affection.”

    And the whole big fuss over God in government? It’s theirs! “IN God We Trust” and “One Nation, Under God.” Only Christians can be “citizens.” The non-judeo-christian are “country participants.” Participants who vote!

    We can have two classes of everything. The Religious Class — and then the Second one.

    It’s only words. Let them have them, admit that yes, it’s all grounded in religion, and they’ll settle down and stop whining as we take our separate but equal status.

    Tch.

  17. #17 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    And to continue on one point that Sastra just made, what about the unions of atheists and agnostic. What category are they to be moved to. What is the new name for these unions, something that has been recognized for years?

  18. #18 Josh Rosenau
    January 26, 2010

    It’s not before the state Supreme Court, but a federal district court judge.

  19. #19 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    I can honestly remember the day as a young lad I realised, with horror, that “catch a nigger by the toe” referred to a certain type of people, and none too nicely.

    Me too, but then in high school (back in the ’70′s) I heard a different interpretation of the rhyme which was very similar to this:

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/18/messages/867.html

    Basically that “eeny meeny miney mo” was a corrupted latin phrase invoking the Devil, (the “black one”, hence the “n” word), and the thing about the toe proves that whatever you caught was not the devil (who has a cloven hoof) so let him go. Anyway, snopes has no entry for this, and wikipedia does not mention this version, so its truth value is indeterminant. Just a random bit of trivia FWIW.

  20. #20 Walton
    January 26, 2010

    And Walton, making marriage open to any number of people is a diferent issue. Don’t be one of those idiots that jump on the “if we allow gays to marry then we have allow every possible variation” fallacy wagon.

    I didn’t say that. I did not claim that legalising gay marriage necessarily entailed allowing polygamous marriage; it obviously doesn’t.

    But I just don’t understand the rationale for banning polygamous marriage. I would argue that consenting adults, provided their consent is free and informed, have the right to make whatever domestic arrangements they want, and that these arrangements should be recognised by law without any discrimination. So why should polygamous marriage be banned? What rational, secular justification is there for restricting marriage to two people only?

    Obviously, free and informed consent is essential; I’m only talking about polygamous marriages between consenting adults of full capacity. But I don’t see why the number of people in a romantic relationship should be any concern of government.

  21. #21 jesse.mandel
    January 26, 2010

    @truthspeaker: I am pretty sure marriage was around long before government, maybe not Christian marriage but it’s been a part of society for a long time. Yes, basically that is what I am proposing; Government handles civil “marriages” and religious orgs handle the religious side of it. This isn’t what we have now, it’s supposed to be but the government is still greatly influenced but the church. If it wasn’t, this wouldn’t be an issue. This is why I say give up on the word and just make it fair.

    @Walton: You are right, change to: “any number of people” :-)

    @SteveM: OK sure, a social act then. Either way, if the gov wants to provide certain rights or benefits to people they should do it in the most fair way possible. I don’t see a problem with renaming marriage for everyone to make it more fair if that what is needed.

    @Sastra: I am in no way trying to give in to the religious pressure. Its more like two kids fighting over something (the work marriage) so the parent says “Fine neither one gets it”. Take the word marriage out of government legislation completely and make single (not separate but equal) civil union that is the same for all.

  22. #22 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    And marriage used to also be a property transfer. Why not go back to that if you are willing to give up on a word because of the old definitions?

    Hint; separate but equal begs for and receives abuse.

  23. #23 Sastra
    January 26, 2010

    jesse mandel #21 wrote:

    Its more like two kids fighting over something (the work marriage) so the parent says “Fine neither one gets it”.

    No, it’s more like two kids fighting over something that one wants to share, and the other wants to keep to themselves, so the parent says “fine – the one who wants to keep it, can keep it.”

    The religious want “marriage” because it has status, not because it’s inherently religious, like a christening or holy communion. If we give it to them, we demote ourselves for no reason.

  24. #24 Sastra
    January 26, 2010

    Walton #20 wrote:

    What rational, secular justification is there for restricting marriage to two people only?

    Here’s a quick link to an article on the subject which I’m too lazy to quote from…

    http://positiveliberty.com/2006/03/krauthammer-on-polygamy.html/trackback/

  25. #25 jesse.mandel
    January 26, 2010

    I completely agree with you the that church is being unreasonable but it’s more important to me to have fair and equal laws. I guess I am just not that attached to the word and we wouldn’t be giving it to them; they can’t own the word. The gov would only give out “civil unions” but any couple who wants to can call themselves married regardless of their faith or lack there of. Of course it will piss the church off still when gay couples have ceremonies and call themselves married but I am fine with that and there is no legal recourse to take :-)

  26. #26 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Of course it will piss the church off still when gay couples have ceremonies and call themselves married but I am fine with that and there is no legal recourse to take :-)

    I am sure there are leaders of different churches that are upset that people can get married outside of a church. One should not give up on a word just because one side thinks they have dominion over the word. And I fear the types of legal discrimination that will follow if marriage becomes a religious matter. And not just because LGBT people would be at the blunt end of this weapon.

  27. #27 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Why do people refuse to recognize that Prop 8 was passed by a solid half a million vote margin! Do we set the voters’ rights aside when you don’t get what you want?

    Why bother voting if my vote is not going to count?

  28. #28 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Aw, is poor perfesser Dendy upsetipoo because it might be possible for fags and queers to get married? Poor little bigoted fundie, his right to deny others their rights could be infringed.

  29. #29 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac sez: tree-fucking okay; buttsex not okay.

  30. #30 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Fine, dendy, use that argument. You have just defended why southern states should have kept their Jim Crow laws.

    And stop fucking calling yourself a professor.

  31. #31 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    jesse.mandel;

    The point is that marriage is a legal definition and a legal union. Ever notice how the priest says “By the power invested in me by the state of …, I now pronounce you (married)”. Forcing the state to create a new “seperate but equal” institution called “civil union” is just ridiculous and inherently unequal. Let the religions create a new name, like maybe one they already have, i.e. “matrimony” that would only have standing in their religion but no legal benefits.

  32. #32 truthspeaker
    January 26, 2010

    Posted by: jesse.mandel | January 26, 2010 5:15 PM

    @truthspeaker: I am pretty sure marriage was around long before government, maybe not Christian marriage but it’s been a part of society for a long time.

    Exactly my point. Part of society, not part of any particular religious practice.

  33. #33 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Why do people refuse to recognize that Prop 8 was passed by a solid half a million vote margin! Do we set the voters’ rights aside when you don’t get what you want?

    Perfessor Dandy, don’t ask stoopid questions. Where is the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. The evidence that also proves that your babble might not be totally a work of myth/fiction, and your aren’t totally a delusional idjit fool? Back to your foolery, where you delete our posts, but notice yours here aren’t being deleted. Who is the censor and not the voice of free speech? You or PZ? That makes you the hypocrite too.

  34. #34 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Okay, why not open it up to allow adults to marry children (as long as the child is willing), brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, fathers to marry daughters, fathers to marry sons… I could keep going…

    Prop 8 is what the people of California want! If I recall, over 79% of registered voters voted!

  35. #35 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    Okay, why not open it up to allow adults to marry children (as long as the child is willing), brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, fathers to marry daughters, fathers to marry sons… I could keep going…

    The stupid flows eternal.

  36. #36 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Dandy, still no evidence for your imaginary deity. You should not post here again until you are willing to put your beliefs on the line here. Starting with your imaginary deity.

  37. #37 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    Janine, Mistress of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM -

    I am sure Dendy wants to bring back sodomy laws.

  38. #38 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    Prop 8 is what the people of California want! If I recall, over 79% of registered voters voted!

    Sometimes the majority is not entitled to get what it wants. The whole concept of rights is intended to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.

    I’m sure you would have no objection to the majority of people voting your sick little religious sect to be illegal, as long as it is the “will of the majority”.

  39. #39 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy is such an idiot. Children can’t consent (they’re not psychologically capable to do so at that age), and incest is a universal taboo.

    But like I said, the bible doesn’t teach that marriage is about consent, and do condone incest anyways.

  40. #40 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy apparently also wonders that since we let women vote why we don’t also let little children and animals.

  41. #41 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy apparently also wonders that since we let women vote why we don’t also let little children and animals.

    If there was the proper intelligence test required before people could vote, Dandy couldn’t even find the room for the test, much less pass it. Pitiful.

  42. #42 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy, you forgot horses.

  43. #43 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac is quietly hoping he’ll be allowed to marry that oak in his backyard – you know, the one with that great knothole?

  44. #44 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    You guys have it wrong. Dendy wants biblical marriage. He wants to be able to kill all the male of a city and marry their women. He wants his father’s concubines. He wants to marry the girl he rapes. He wants to rule his family, tell his wives to shut their mouth and sacrifice his child to Yahweh. He wants Patriarchy Traditional Biblical Marriage.

  45. #45 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    wow… I am so pleased with you guys… you have really cleaned up your language? {scratching head}

  46. #46 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy, it would be nice if you explained your dishonesty about yourself. And what was the point of the picture of a woman showing her ass crack in response to a statement by Pygmy Loris. And, I must add, an act that you were too chicken shit cowardly to post on this blog.

    And I just love your slippery slope argument, asshole. Roll in that or eat it, how ever you want.

  47. #47 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    Ahhh. Dendy takes the moral high ground by avoiding the use of foul language, but doesn’t address anyone’s argument.

    As for scratching his head – a little Head & Shoulders will take care of your dandruff.

  48. #48 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    wow… I am so pleased with you guys… you have really cleaned up your language? {scratching head}

    Go fuck yourself, you useless shit-eating cumstain. You’re a morally deficient coward and a despicable liar incapable of reason; ergo, the only value you have is as an inspiration for creative and entertaining abuse.

    I will own your stupid ass every time I notice you’ve been foolish enough to post here.

  49. #49 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology… what “evidence” do you have to make the statements in comment number 44?

  50. #50 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    #51 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac wrote:

    Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology… what “evidence” do you have to make the statements in comment number 44?

    What “evidence” do you have that you don’t fuck watermelons lubed with bacon grease?

  51. #52 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Qwerty, dendy has no moral high ground. Visit his blog sometime and see the scatological shit. According to dimbulb, we do not understand that accepting evolution as true leads to school shootings, we are fooled by photoshopped pictures of cats and rabbits, Chimpy and I plays with shit and Pygmy Loris shows off her thong wearing ass.

    In other words, dendy is lying scum who does not feel the need to justify himself.

    Asshole will write up yet an other dishonest screed about how his innocent ass was attacked by Pharyngula.

    Asshole.

  52. #53 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    You accept the bible as a true authority, as seen by your rejection of evolution (don’t tell me it’s scientific, it’s not, it’s purely religious.)

    All those things I listed are perfectly accepted in the bible. So if you accept the bible as a true authority you must accept those things to be true.

  53. #54 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Guess I was spoke too soon about the cleaned up language… my bad! :(

  54. #55 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Guess I spoke too soon… Not “Guess I was spoke..” my bad again!

  55. #56 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Dandy, calling you a delusional fool and stoopid is not dirty. It is the truth. Prove otherwise by posting your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity here. It better be equal to an eternally burning bush, or you prove my claim true…

  56. #57 MAJeff, OM
    January 26, 2010

    The religious want “marriage” because it has status, not because it’s inherently religious, like a christening or holy communion. If we give it to them, we demote ourselves for no reason.

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    It’s in this way that the bigots claim that marriage is harmed by allowing gay folks in it. It’s an elevated status demeaned by the presence of us sick, pathological evildoers.

    Or, coming from the “Civil Unions” folks: “marriage is just too damned special for you queers.”

  57. #58 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    Janine, I’ve visited his blog a couple of times. The latest being a few minutes ago while you were posting.

    Anyhow, I was being tongue-in-cheekish about “his high moral ground” as all the “true believers” seem to think they own it.

    I did see the pathetic pictures of the shit Denby claims you and Chimpy wallow in. Yes, for someone who rants against foul language a picture is worth the proverbial thousand words.

    And his creationist rants are typical quote-mining and nonthinking efforts seen from the bible swallowing believers.

    I’ve also heard all the lame arguments against gay marriage which is why I posted the “you forgot horses.”

    In short, I think Denby is your typical know-it-all non-thinking bible-believer with a bad case of high-self esteem conpounded with overwrought self-rightousness. Yes, he’s a slimeball.

  58. #59 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Sorry Wowbagger… hate to burst your bubble. You said, “I will own your stupid a** every time I notice you’ve been foolish enough to post here.”

    But I have already been bought and paid for “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” I Corinthians 6:20. Therefore, you cannot own me!

  59. #60 OurDeadSelves
    January 26, 2010

    Prop 8 is what the people of California want! If I recall, over 79% of registered voters voted!

    So, you’re totally okay with the mormon church* dictating your morality?

    *If I recall correctly, the church of latter day saints out-spent everyone else on the Prop 8 campaign.

  60. #61 MAJeff, OM
    January 26, 2010

    But I have already been bought and paid for “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” I Corinthians 6:20. Therefore, you cannot own me!

    blah blah blah blah blah

  61. #62 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Therefore, you cannot own me!

    *
    He can own slaves of course, and women, and children too. He can’t be owned though because as he said, god loves him enough to save him from his disease, but not the Haitians.

  62. #63 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac wrote:

    Guess I spoke too soon… Not “Guess I was spoke..” my bad again!

    No-one cares what you write, tree-fucker – at least no more than than do for the concerns of the turds they’re flushing. You aren’t worthy of being treated with anything other than contempt.

    You fucking pus-filled pig’s ass.

  63. #64 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Okay, why not open it up to allow adults to marry children (as long as the child is willing), brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, fathers to marry daughters, fathers to marry sons… I could keep going…

    I guess nobody told da perfesser that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Considering his level of argument, he needs to be told was a logical fallacy is.

  64. #65 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Oh the hiearchy of the Pharyngula compound hath spoken!

  65. #66 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Poor widdle dendy, trying to make noise like an alpha chimp yet unable to address the truth about him being a professor.

    Asshole.

    Slide down that slippery slope, fackface.

    ————————————————–

    Sorry, Qwerty, I should not have assumed that you did not follow the links that Blind Squirrel provided.

  66. #67 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy, your lame attempt at making this look like cult is just so damn laughable considering you do exactly the same thing you accuse us of doing in your church.

    Hi Mr. Kettle, my name is Mr. Pot!

  67. #68 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    can’t stay to play anymore… gotta get to work!

    It’s be fun!

  68. #69 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Oh the hiearchy of the Pharyngula compound hath spoken!

    Da perfesser thinks he’s a wit. He’s half right.

  69. #70 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac wrote:

    But I have already been bought and paid for “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” I Corinthians 6:20. Therefore, you cannot own me!

    But the Book of Wowbagger says this: “When the tree-fucker comes, Wowbagger will own his stupid ass”.

    See? I do own you.

  70. #71 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Asshole does not care to defend his lies, like YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING PROFESSOR!

    And remember, dendy has to work in order to support all of you liberal lazy layabouts.

    Asshole.

  71. #72 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    “Oh the hiearchy of the Pharyngula compound hath spoken!”

    Nothing like a little projection. Another trait of the true believer.

    There is no hierarchy here. And for a blogger who posts a word of the day, you either need to learn how to use a dictionary or a spell checker.

    Idiot.

  72. #73 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Oh the hiearchy of the Pharyngula compound hath spoken!

    What Heirarchy? There is PZ, then his ilk. You are just a stoopid idjit without any intelligence, cogency, or relevancy. Try bringing some scientific evidence from the peer reviewed scientific literature. You can find that in the science section of any institution of higher learning. If you can even find the science section…

  73. #74 amphiox
    January 26, 2010

    Sometimes the majority is not entitled to get what it wants. The whole concept of rights is intended to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.

    Protection of minority rights is a foundational principle of democracy, right up there with freedom of expression and association, and right to vote. Absent it, the system is not a democracy, but a majority tyranny, or a mob rule.

    The individual, of course, is the ultimate minority. There is in fact NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between minority and individual rights.

    For pragmatic reasons, certain rights may be limited, but only for very compelling reasons, and only with extensive safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

    So are there any compelling reasons, any at all, to limit homosexuals’ right to marriage? The very best one I have ever encountered is the one regarding the promotion of procreation (it being in every society’s best interest to keep stable or growing population numbers) but even this one has been soundly eviscerated many times already. And it is, I repeat, the very best out there. The other arguments are even weaker.

    For all intents and purposes, from the moment Prop 8 was passed, California (and by extension, the U.S. of which California is a part and has tolerated California’s actions) ceased to be a democracy. It might call itself one, but it isn’t one, and it will not be one until Prop 8 is overturned.

  74. #75 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    can’t stay to play anymore… gotta get to work! It’s be fun!

    That any academic institution on the planet employs a barely literate and demonstrably ignorant pissant like you is a sad indictment on today’s education standards.

    Run, you feculent coward. No doubt you’ll be back to be owned again.

  75. #76 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Hierarchy of Pharyngula:

    PZ- the person who post things and sometimes jails trolls.
    the Commentors- The people who post things and sometimes get people jailed, and often do things against PZ’s will.
    The trolls- The people or computer that posts things and gets jailed but break free and rarely listens to PZ’s will.

    Very hierarchical?

  76. #77 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Before I could even step out of the room, you guys go saying stuff that’s wrong! The United States is not a true democracy… it’s a democratic republic!

    Adios! Oh that means so long in espanol!

  77. #78 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Dandy, still no evidence for your inane beliefs. You must present evidence for us to believe you. You are a know Liar for Jebus?, which means without proper citation you are presumed to be a liar, bearer of false witness, untruthteller, etc.

  78. #79 Jadehawk, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Before I could even step out of the room, you guys go saying stuff that’s wrong! The United States is not a true democracy… it’s a democratic republic!

    this in combination with the whine about how we’re not letting the majority opinion stand is just too fucking hilarious.

    here’s a hint dandy-troll: we’re not letting people vote on human rights precisely BECAUSE this is a democratic republic; and that is why this is being challenged in court.

    you really should know this. it’s very basic.

  79. #80 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    So are there any compelling reasons, any at all, to limit homosexuals’ right to marriage?

    The reasons for denying homosexuals’ right to marriage:

    1. I think what they do in bed is icky!

    b. God thinks what they do in bed is icky!

    III. If homosexuals can marry then I’ll be forced to divorce my wife/husband and marry someone of the same sex.

    (D) If homosexuals can marry then my dog can marry the fire hydrant.

    I can almost respect the folks who use the first reason. At least they’re honest about their bigotry.

  80. #81 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 26, 2010

    I have a very stupid question. Why are the attempts at humor by condescending assholes not just unfunny, it is antifunny. That is, if something funny was placed in it’s presence, it will have will have the humor sucked out in order to maintain equilibrium.

  81. #82 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Dendy thinks he has wit. Ah chakuat lop smanh tah wea chlat nah. Auy te nak kyom jong ga’uat be le mook ah juhn aprei ni’. (Try figuring what language that is.)

  82. #83 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    professordendrophiliac wrote:

    Adios! Oh that means so long in espanol!

    Cobarde patético – that means* ‘pathetic coward’ in Español. Get used to hearing it.

    *At least I hope it does.

  83. #84 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 26, 2010

    The United States is not a true democracy… it’s a democratic republic!

    Conservatives and their alter-egos, the looneytarians, make a big deal about this. If we want to be pedantic they’re wrong. The US is a constitutional representative democratic republic.

    Incidentally, perfesser, the use of ellipses* in place of commas and periods is frowned upon by grammarians.

    *Yes, perfesser, this is the proper plural of ellipsis.

  84. #85 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 26, 2010

    You know, all this spluttering from the perfesser is doubly funny, considering he looks like a left-over from the Village People. Yeah, I’m taking the low road with you, pal.

    Tip: the only people who wear those mustaches anymore are:

    a. Sad gay men who never left the 70s
    b. Midwestern cops
    c. Volunteer firefighters*
    d. Sundry lower-class white men who think Grown-Up Working Man Presentation requires a mustache

    I am Locutus of Gay, and I speak for the Collective.

    *Yes, all praise to their heroic efforts, no doubt. But fashionistas they are not.

  85. #86 Qwerty
    January 26, 2010

    Janine – Apology accepted. And you’ve seemed to chase the dim-witted liar away for a while.

    I am sure he’ll be back to spout his stupidity.

    Josh, I am a gay man with a mustache and I lived through the ’70s. An era in which your predessors began the work of gay liberation.

    If you are the arbiter of current fashion, it makes me wonder if your pants are covering your ass! Either that or you spend tons of money on hair product and the latest iPOD or cell phone or electronic gizmo in order to see if anyone will go out with you this evening.

  86. #87 RickR
    January 26, 2010

    jesse.mandel-
    Opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t about “protecting marriage” or about the “redefinition” of a word. That’s just the bigot’s PR campaign. Don’t buy it.
    The people fighting against same-sex marriage are fighting against anything that gives gays and lesbians equal civil rights. They give lip service to the notion of civil unions, but have voted those down as well when put to referendum (see Florida’s Amendment 2 among others).

    It’s the “equalness” that they’re fighting against. Not the word, or the definition.
    Whether “elevating” gay relationships by extending marriage equality to gays, or “lowering” all relationships by offering only civil unions for everyone, it’s the “treating gays the same as me!!” part that is the objection.
    I can only imagine the hysteria if a movement started to remove the word “marriage” from the civil contract. “They want to take your marriage away!!!!!!!!!11one!!!” would be heard from coast to coast.

  87. #88 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 26, 2010

    Qwerty: I’m a friend, not a foe. I was being an over the top smart ass, and I certainly didn’t mean to sting someone like you. The whole joke of my persona here (to me, there’s no way anyone would know this), is that I loathe gay youth culture (and youth culture in general) with its fashion obsessions and airy smugness. I’m distinctly uninterested in any of that.

    I may be slightly younger than you (I’m 35), but I began public gay activism for AIDS support and the rights of gay teens in public school when I was 16. I’m old enough now to be extremely irritated by 21 year old circuit boys who think nothing mattered, and no one did anything for them, before they were born.

    Again, there’s no way you’d know this, and I would have reacted exactly the way you did, had I been in your shoes. This is a good reminder to me that the Internet gives no context or social cues. It’s all a big snarky joke, Qwerty, nothing more. I apologize for coming off that way.

  88. #89 RickR
    January 26, 2010

    Those dirty homos actually have the nerve to shrug off their God-given self-loathing and stand up and demand equal treatment under the law.

    That kind of misguided hubris, that unmitigated gall, needs to be punished, and punished harshly.

  89. #90 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    Hey Josh, I’m a gay youth (15 years younger than you anyways) but I’m not fashion obsessed. (Well I do like wearing good looking jeans and nice looking shirts but that’s it!)

  90. #91 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 26, 2010

    Gyeong – Oh, dear, it looks like no matter what I say, I’m sticking my foot in my mouth! I’m a very, very bad SpokesGay:)

  91. #92 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    I’m sticking my foot in my mouth!

    That’s okay, your fetish secrets are safe with me.(* braces self for retaliations from Josh)

  92. #93 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 26, 2010

    Now, put that little Pokemon away, Gyeong, you’re making Daddy laugh again. Ewww. I just said “Daddy.”

  93. #94 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    No one has respect for Pikachu these days.
    (If I could find a muscular guy who still likes card games and RPG. . .)

    Ewww. I just said “Daddy.”

    Yes, yes you did.

    I’ll get me coat.

  94. #95 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 26, 2010

    Now, see, there you go, flouncing your youthful self around, salivating over muscular guys. And you want us to believe you’re not a shallow circuit boy?

    Just kidding, my little pocket monster:) It is the prerogative and delight of Teh Old to look scornfully on the young, and to make tart remarks accompanied by clucking noises. Gawd – 35 is only “teh old” in Gay Years, which index to dog years.

    We do have our advantages, though. One of them is to instruct the youth in the canon of cult films necessary to develop as a proper homosexual. From your bafflement at my John Waters Quotation Duel with RickR on the “this comment” thread, it seems you need some remedial instruction. I will be happy to help, little grasshopper.

    No go pika your chu and see if you can catch you a muscly nerd:)

  95. #96 Miki Z
    January 26, 2010

    I just watched an episode of House last night where a woman was psychopathic because of untreated Wilson’s disease.

    Having watched one fictional T.V. show about a topic, I am now more qualified on Wilson’s disease than dendy is on morality. I think he needs some chelation.

    I’ll keep watching House, dendy should keep reading his bible, and we’ll all see which happens first: Me becoming a qualified doctor, or dendy becoming a moral human being.

  96. #97 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Me becoming a qualified doctor, or dendy becoming a moral human being.

    Dandy isn’t bright enough to realize that biblical morality is an oxymoron.

  97. #98 Miki Z
    January 26, 2010

    Dandy isn’t bright enough to realize that biblical morality is an oxymoron.

    This is what makes it a fair contest. If I were taking any steps towards qualification as a physician, that would be unfair.

  98. #99 MAJeff, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Oh, dear, it looks like no matter what I say, I’m sticking my foot in my mouth! I’m a very, very bad SpokesGay:)

    Gargle, rinse, and start over.* Everything will be fine.

    *Good advice for a number of situations.

  99. #100 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    Out of their mouths they think they speweth wisdom… problem is, their thinking is in error… zzzz

  100. #101 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 26, 2010

    No substance from dendy, all (lame) insults. Put up evidence or shut up.

  101. #102 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    Out of their mouths they think they speweth wisdom… problem is, their thinking is in error… zzzz

    There Dandy the Liar for Jebus? talks about himself again. No evidence for his imaginary deity. No evidence the babble is anything other than myth/fiction. And he thinks his thinking is anything other than delusional presupposition in circles? What a fool, who proves it with every post.

  102. #103 professordendy
    January 26, 2010

    You want evidence, evidence that you think you spew wisdom?… look at your dribble, drabble…

  103. #104 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 26, 2010

    You want evidence, evidence that you think you spew wisdom?… look at your dribble, drabble…

    No, I look at your dribble, without any evidence. And evidence is required to convince this real scientist. What’s the matter Dandy? Afraid to put out evidence at a site where your stoopidity will be exposed because you can’t delete refutations? After all, most of us here are more intelligent and well read compared to you. And we aren’t burdened with the false presuppositions of a deity who behaves like an amoral warlord/ganster, and a book bearing very little relationship to historical fact. With very little of it being recorded at the time it speaks of. So, what are you afraid of? Present your evidence, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science.

  104. #105 Miki Z
    January 26, 2010

    `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    “Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!”

    He took his vorpal sword in hand:
    Long time the manxome foe he sought –
    So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
    And stood awhile in thought.

    And, as in uffish thought he stood,
    The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
    Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
    And burbled as it came!

    One, two! One, two! And through and through
    The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back.

    “And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
    Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
    He chortled in his joy.

    `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    just to up the sensibility quotient of the thread after the droppings of the Jubjub bird.

  105. #106 SteveM
    January 26, 2010

    You want evidence, evidence that you think you spew wisdom?… look at your dribble, drabble

    you have yet to write anything but dribble drabble. What is your point? You want to debate? Write something that expresses a complete thought.

  106. #107 WowbaggerOM
    January 26, 2010

    Dandy isn’t bright enough to realize that biblical morality is an oxymoron.

    Dandy isn’t bright enough to realise that most humans beings aren’t as perplexed by the ass vs. elbow: which is which? conundrum as he is.

  107. #108 Pygmy Loris
    January 27, 2010

    To all who have defended me, thank you!

    Dendy Troll,

    The vote on Prop 8 is entirely irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. It’s an equal protection issue. I think it’s necessary to say this loud and often, the rights of the oppressed should never depend on the votes and whims of the oppressors.

    I support same-sex marriage both because it is the right (moral) thing to do and because it follows from an understanding of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Note Dendy Troll, that I am attracted to people of the opposite sex, so my right to marry a romantic/sexual partner of my preferred sex isn’t imperiled by the votes of the majority. However, I am human enough to understand that it would be inhumane to deny someone that right based on nothing more than the sex* of the people involved.

    *I’m specifically using the term sex here because that is what the law relies on. If you throw in gender identities that don’t conform to societal expectations, I think the issue at hand is even more clear. The spectrum of human sex, gender, and sexuality makes these “one woman/one man” marriage laws seem ridiculous. How exactly does one define woman and man? External genitalia? Gender identity? Doctors’ whims?

    Complicated, messy thing that biology. It’s so much easier to simply allow any two consenting adults to enter into the legal arrangement we call marriage than to try to regulate what man and woman mean. See, there’s another reason to support same-sex marriage!

  108. #109 Walton
    January 27, 2010

    Professor Dendy,*

    Yes, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of voters in California. However, in my view, the fact that it’s so easy to amend the California Constitution is a bad thing, not a good thing. In a free society, not everything should be up for a popular vote. Certain individual civil liberties should be constitutionally guaranteed even against a popular vote, because it’s sometimes necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the will of the mob. And sometimes it is necessary, therefore, for the judiciary to override the popular will in order to uphold constitutional rights. The Founding Fathers recognised this, which is why they enshrined certain individual rights in the US Constitution, and why they made it deliberately difficult to amend. Unfortunately, the drafters of certain state constitutions were not so enlightened.

    Obviously, it cannot be denied that the voters of California are legally entitled to amend their state constitution. But whether or not Prop. 8 conflicts with the federal Constitution is a separate issue; the guarantees of individual rights in the US Constitution cannot be overridden by conflicting provisions in state constitutions. That’s why Perry et al v Schwarzenegger is now being argued in a US District Court (and is likely to make it to the Supreme Court in due course): there is an argument to be made that the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states to guarantee to all persons within their jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”, requires states to treat gay couples in the same way as straight married couples. I don’t know if this argument will necessarily succeed before the courts – it’s a broad and controversial reading – but it is, ultimately, for the independent judiciary to make that decision.

    *I reserve judgment on whether Mr Dendy is entitled to call himself “Professor”, since it isn’t relevant here.

  109. #110 Rorschach
    January 27, 2010

    *I reserve judgment on whether Mr Dendy is entitled to call himself “Professor”, since it isn’t relevant here.

    Since dumbo is using this title, and his IQ score, as a means to an argument from authority I do think that it might have some relevance, actually…:-)

  110. #111 Haruhiist
    January 27, 2010

    @Gyeong Hwa Pak: eeeewwwww pokemon? a real nerd plays magic;) (j/k)

    I don’t really have much to add, but you guys really made me laugh with the replies to professor dumbo:)

    @the esteemed professor dumbo: if gay marriage will lead to all those bad things, why hasn’t this happened in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden? (list shamefully grabbed from wikipedia)
    Please give one or more cogent reasons that have nothing to do with feeling icky or insulted.

  111. #112 Richard Eis
    January 27, 2010

    Wow, Dendy is a real pharyngulite lover. He has two blogs almost totally devoted to us. Methinks he doth protest too much.

  112. #113 SEF
    January 27, 2010

    @ SteveM #31:

    By the power invested in me by the state of …

    That sounds an awful lot like an admission from the religious that they don’t own marriage (and officially know that they don’t). Otherwise it would have had to be (and only be) “By the power invested in me by god …”.

    @ Sastra #23:

    The religious want “marriage” because it has status

    @ MAJeff #57:

    It’s an elevated status demeaned by the presence of us …

    That status-holding view is certainly very apparent from some (religious?) people. Hence the existence of polygyny at all (females being mere property that confers and denotes higher status); and also some of the more bizarre posts from individuals, eg Barb trying to claim authority (for herself and her “arguments”) on the basis of being married to a doctor.

    So blacks/slaves and homosexuals can’t possibly be accorded equivalent status with white heterosexual Christian folk – because even suggesting that was the case would necessarily mean the loss of one of the various false god-given superiorities by which the individually meritless stake their claim to be special. They can’t do it on their own (lack of) merit. They have to have the fake version of things.

    Similarly, the suggestion that women are equal to men necessarily demeans all the meritless men who’ve been relying on that false god-given division for fake status (eg in the priesthood).

    They want to be able to regard themselves as superior without actually going to the trouble of genuinely being better people. Fake thought, fake knowledge, fake morals, fake maturity, fake everything.

  113. #114 Anri
    January 27, 2010

    I propose a simple, three-part quiz for Dendy:

    A) Children are allowed, under secular law, to enter into legally binding contracts. (T/F)

    B) Children are allowed, within Christianity, to make binding promises to god – for example, accepting/not accepting Jesus and thus going to heaven or hell. (T/F)

    C) Given your answers above, please select the entity that has a consistant moral basis for preventing children from entering into a binding agreement, such as marriage: (Secular state / Christian Church).

    Grades will be based on internal consistency.

    Oh, and also on being dead flat wrong.

  114. #115 aratina cage of the OM
    January 27, 2010

    Bravo Roy Zimmerman! An amusing film that struck a delicate balance between information content and cheese (the tripod scene was especially brilliant if it was staged).

    I’ve been reading the gist of the Perry v. Governator trial on Prop 8 Trial Tracker and finding the religiobot side very comical (I notice some Pharyngulites in the comments there, too). The last two defense “experts”, Kenneth Miller and David Blankenhorn, conceded important points and almost thoroughly discredited their expert standings. Some of the highlights:

    Boies: You agree that some people will lose jobs due to discrimination?

    Miller: Yes, I believe that is the case.

    Boies: You believe? You have found out that is the case in the course of your investigation?

    Miller: Yes, there is discrimination against gays and lesbians.

    Boies: Have you found out if that number is large or small?

    Miller: I assume it?s a significant number but I have not found out how many.

    ….

    Boies: As a general rule, is imposition of majority view by majority religion good for society?

    Miller: No.

    ….

    Blankenhorn: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    <

    Boies: Reads Blankenhorn?s quotes in which he says that America would be more just if it provides same sex marriage.

    Blankenhorn: I believed when I wrote them and I believe them now.

    Having these people set and affect laws across the nation makes us a true idiocracy.

    No one has respect for Pikachu these days. -The Pikachu of Anthropology

    I traded mine in for a Sninychu ;> Beware of its smugnacity!

  115. #116 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 27, 2010

    Wow, Dendy is a real pharyngulite lover. He has two blogs almost totally devoted to us. Methinks he doth protest too much.

    He’s a blog whore. This is the most traffic he’s ever gotten or ever will.

  116. #117 Carlie
    January 27, 2010

    And he has three blogs altogether, with some cross-posted? Does he not understand the concept of creating categories and tags in a single blog? Reminds me of that guy we had awhile back who started a brand-new blog every time he wanted to make a new post because the old one was “full”.

    Dendy is frighteningly obsessed with Pharyngula and feces, based on what his blogs show, besides being a liar about his position title.

  117. #118 aratina cage of the OM
    January 27, 2010

    Dendy is frighteningly obsessed with Pharyngula and feces…

    Even the image on the cover of his forthcoming book resembles a teetering pile of crap.

  118. #119 Qwerty
    January 27, 2010

    Josh, I was joking too. Okay, maybe I was a little offended.

    Wow, Carlie, Denby has three blogs. Is only one devoted to pharyngulites frolicking in feces?

  119. #120 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 27, 2010

    @Gyeong Hwa Pak: eeeewwwww pokemon? a real nerd plays magic;)

    Yes cause I’m No True Scotsman Nerd. :) lol

  120. #121 SteveM
    January 27, 2010

    That sounds an awful lot like an admission from the religious that they don’t own marriage (and officially know that they don’t). Otherwise it would have had to be (and only be) “By the power invested in me by god …”.

    Busted. I guess I did fib a little. I think the typical phrasing does include “by god” as in, “By the power invested in me by God and the state of …”. But the point remains, that it is only a legal marriage with the sanction of the state and not by religion alone. And anyway, this fight is about the state definition of marriage, not any religion’s. They are free to disallow gay marriages. Religious arguments should not enter into how the law defines marriage.

  121. #122 v.rosenzweig
    January 27, 2010

    There are various “it would be complicated” arguments against egalitarian polygamous marriage, but I suspect the thing the one the slippery-slope people are worried about is that of a woman with two husbands. They can’t cope with the idea of a straight man saying “my husband” because they’re married to the same woman.

    And they can’t cope with the question of who would be in charge, in a family with more than one husband. Or with the real answer, which is some combination of “nobody” and “in charge of what,” just like in most sensible two-person marriages.

    Nobody is asking them to be polyamorous. We’re not forcing them to share, any more than they’d be forced to divorce their wives and marry their closest male friend if they lived in Montreal, Boston, or any of the other places that recognize same-sex marriages.

    I know what they’re afraid of, but fear isn’t a good basis for policy.

  122. #123 Steven Mading
    January 27, 2010

    Posted by: Sastra | January 26, 2010 4:53 PM
    jesse.mandel #6 wrote:

    As an atheist, I say if the churches want the word marriage, let them have it. Marriage, at its root, is a religious act.

    This argument always makes me grit my teeth.
    So, the whole concept of marriage is religious, so let’s just give it to them. It’s not a “real” marriage unless you’re making a covenant with God. Right.

    Your argument doesn’t sway me at all. What DOES sway me, thought, is that Jesse Mandel was factually incorrect. Religion did not start the institution of Marriage. The Nobility did. With their bloodlines and hereditary property and rulership inheritence rules, it became important to document very carefully what had previously been just an informal arrangement when the peasantry did it.

    That’s also why marriage includes the idea of consummation (And originally, it required witnesses in the room (!) while the consummation was carried out – as proof that the child borne later by the Queen was the King’s.)

    Then, to make it look more official, the nobility asked the Church to come up with official religious sanction on the act so it looked like it was blessed by God (i.e. Divine Right of Kings and all that).

    Marriage was NOT invented by the Church.

  123. #124 Steven Mading
    January 27, 2010

    Posted by: ‘Tis Himself, OM | January 26, 2010 7:29 PM
    Okay, why not open it up to allow adults to marry children (as long as the child is willing), brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, fathers to marry daughters, fathers to marry sons… I could keep going…
    I guess nobody told da perfesser that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Considering his level of argument, he needs to be told was a logical fallacy is.

    Careful with what you say there. The Slippery Slope Fallacy is a fallacy, but the Slippery Slope is not necessarily always used in its fallacious form. There are non-fallicious uses of it. Be careful in general saying “X is a fallacy” just because there exists a fallacy called “the X fallacy”. That doesn’t always hold true. Sometimes the phrase “the X fallacy” refers to only to a SUBSET of X’s and not all of them. For example, just because there is a bifurcation fallacy does not mean bifurcation is always a fallacy. (The practice of dividing everything into two possibilities and saying “if it’s not A it has to be B” is not always a fallacy. It only is when the original bifurcation was done incorrectly.)

    Similarly, a slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy just because there is a fallacy called “The slippery slope fallacy”. A slippery slope argument is simply that A is bad because A leads to B, and B is bad. This can be valid in cases where A really DOES lead to B. It’s only a fallacy when A does not really lead to B as was claimed.

    Don’t make the mistake of throwing good arguments out from your toolbox just because there are ways to abuse them and use them incorrectly. You should only throw them out of your toolbox when ALL ways to use them are fallacious, not when merely some are. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  124. #125 aratina cage of the OM
    January 27, 2010

    Epic Prop-8 Defense FAIL:

    Attorney David Boies: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving. [Is that right?]

    “Mawwiage Expert” David Blankenhorn: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.

  125. #126 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 27, 2010

    Steven Mading #124

    First of all, if you’re going to quote me quoting da perfesser, you should differentiate between what I wrote and what da perfesser wrote. You make it look like I’m making the slippery slope argument.

    Second, what da perfesser wrote is a perfect example of a slippery slope. He wrote (and I quote using proper formatting):

    Okay, why not open it up to allow adults to marry children (as long as the child is willing), brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, fathers to marry daughters, fathers to marry sons… I could keep going…

    Notice how da perfesser assumes gay marriage and goes immediately into incest. Does incest have anything to do with homosexuality? No, it doesn’t. Your statement about how slippery slopes can sometimes be a valid argument doesn’t apply in this case.

  126. #127 Steven Mading
    January 27, 2010

    @Tis Himself: Its unfortunate that the quoting got screwed up but it’s not my fault that the software used by scienceblogs sometimes mangles blockquote sections so they come out wrong even when you type them correctly (It’s a well known problem here on Pharyngula , so your adopting a haughty attitude about screwy blockquotes is uncalled for.)

    Secondly, I never said your accusation that he was using a fallacy in this case was incorrect. If had been merely making a statement that his SPECIFIC slippery slope argument was a fallacy, I’d have agreed. My statement DOES apply because you chose to go and make the blanket statement “I guess nobody told da perfesser that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.” Your claim that you were only speaking to this one specific instance of a slippery slope argument and not to the general case of all slippery slope arguments was incorrect because you made that statement. It was THAT statement to which I was replying.

    No, “the slippery slope” is not a logical fallacy. It’s a fallacy only when the slippery slope isn’t as slippery as claimed, which is unfortunately quite often, and is the case here too. But a slippery slope argument does not always contain that flaw, so your statement, “I guess nobody told da perfessor [sic] that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.” is what I objected to.

  127. #128 plien
    January 27, 2010

    He you who has read this far and is in favor of equal rights, please seek this out;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRjroJY8ga4

    &

    http://gayfamilyvalues.blogspot.com/2010/01/fallen-heroes.html

    & help out if you can.

    A police-officer died in the line of duty on X-mas day! and the department wrote the following obituary;

    Survivors include his parents, [blabla bla] and many loving relatives. [including dead granny and aunt]

    depfox; I guess “loving Relatives” was meant to take in his husband of 15 years and son…..yeah right…

    [] are mine

    He was a officer for ten years and a paramedic before that.
    His partner will not recieve benefits, no help from the usual support organisation & and is even excluded from the fucking obituary, please, please help out if you can.

    Thank you

  128. #129 Miki Z
    January 27, 2010

    No, “the slippery slope” is not a logical fallacy.

    It is. It’s not a formal logical fallacy, the way that affirming the consequent is. It is still a logical fallacy.

  129. #130 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 28, 2010

    Its unfortunate that the quoting got screwed up but it’s not my fault that the software used by scienceblogs sometimes mangles blockquote sections so they come out wrong even when you type them correctly (It’s a well known problem here on Pharyngula , so your adopting a haughty attitude about screwy blockquotes is uncalled for.)

    Nice try, asshat. But unfortunately for you the truth is otherwise. Notice the example below:

    Comment

    Nested comment
    Nested comment
    Nested comment

    See how easy that is? I did it as <blockquote>Comment<blockquote>Nested comment<blockquote>Nested comment<blockquote>Nested comment</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

    The “well known problem” isn’t nesting quotes but having two or more paragraphs in the same quote. This is fixed with putting <br> between paragraphs.

    Your apology, while not expected, will be accepted.

  130. #131 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 28, 2010

    Your claim that you were only speaking to this one specific instance of a slippery slope argument and not to the general case of all slippery slope arguments was incorrect because you made that statement. It was THAT statement to which I was replying.

    Even though I said, correctly, that da perfesser’s slippery slope argument was a logical fallacy, you used his example and my comment to show that the slippery slope isn’t always a logical fallacy. That makes real sense, if you’re sloppy at thinking. Or perhaps you’re just a lousy writer. Of course these two attributes are not exclusionary.

  131. #132 AdamK
    January 28, 2010

    It’s “vested,” not “invested.” “By the power vested in me…”

  132. #133 AdamK
    January 28, 2010

    Oh shit, I hit “submit” before apologizing for being a dick.

  133. #134 Nakarti
    January 28, 2010

    I know this comment will fall upon blurry eyes at this point, but anyway:

    One problem with polygamy is inequality. Most polygamous religions diminish the value of women in that one man can have many wives, one woman cannot have many husbands. Besides the other problems caused by our competitive nature.

    People do say homosexuality is not an evolutionary advantage, despite their reason for that being they follow a religion that believes evolution is a lie, but I digress. I say, yes it is: we are facing overpopulation, homosexuality is a biological solution to that problem.

    The power to mary is vested in a judge by the state. The state should not be beholden to the church. See Iran for an excellent example of why.

  134. #135 v.rosenzweig
    January 28, 2010

    In theory, if we’re rewriting the rules—and we’d have to, to allow polygamy within the current U.S., or Canadian, or other Western legal systems—we could make it clear that the law doesn’t specify the genders of the people involved. Might be easier in Canada, which is starting with a gender-neutral marriage law.

    “Problems caused by our competitive nature” sounds like “we can’t let a woman have two husbands, because men aren’t good at sharing.” Many men are bad at sharing, but it’s a learnable skill: it’s just one women are more encouraged to learn. And nobody is suggesting that polygamous marriages, of any gender mix, are going to become the norm; something doesn’t have to be common to be reasonable and acceptable. (Most children are not adopted, but we have laws about adoption.)

    Religions that teach gender inequality don’t stop because the society around them, or the government, limits men to one wife at a time.

    The biology of homosexuality is complicated; whatever is going on there, it’s not limited to humans or even mammals.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!