Friday, March 8, 2013

An Open Challenge to Anti-Gay Marriage People

C'mon, you're telling me that THIS is a bad thing?
The Supreme Court plans on hearing arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on March 25th.  So why not stir the pot and ruffle some feathers?  Please explain to me the constitutional basis supporting either of the two things:

a) A federal ban on gay marriage

b) The Defense of Marriage Act (which is essentially a federal ban on gay marriage)

Please explain to me how the federal government has any power whatsoever to regulate this.  Now if you recognize that the federal government does not have the authority to rule on this, and that DOMA is actually unconstitutional, think long and hard before you enter in the states' rights argument and go all "Reserved Powers," on me.

Marriage is a social institution.  It has legal recognition because of all of the benefits and legal crap that goes along with it.  But marriage was not created by the state.  It is not a government institution.  So why is it that some people feel that a state government has the authority to decide which kinds of marriage are to be recognized?

Please explain to me how it is legal for the state to say "Catholic marriage is okay, because it's always between a man and a woman, but Episcopalian marriage is only sometimes okay because sometimes it can be between a man and a man"?

It seems to me that if the state chooses to legally recognize something, that it ought to recognize it across the board.  About 60 years ago, mixed-race marriages were illegal in some states.  What I find funny about that is that the same type of argument was used to support those bans: they said it was "immoral" for blacks and whites to marry.  And when those who said that were shown to be fucntionally retarded for believing such baseless drivel--when they were shown that there is no moral basis behind their argument--they said it was simply "not right" for blacks and whites to marry.

So if you try to argue this from a moral basis, consider this: some codes of morality think homosexuality is perfectly morally permissible.  For example, I believe that the Episcopalians don't regard homosexuality as a sin.  So how can a state choose between one religion's moral code and another's?  And please, don't give me the "well what if Episcopalians thought baby rape was okay," argument.  Same-sex marriage does not violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property.

And please explain to me how a gay marriage ban doesn't violate the 14th amendment.  Race does not make people second-class citizens, and neither does sexual orientation.

Step up to the plate, people.


Anonymous said...

uhh as a libertarian I think the federal government should not have any sway in this whatsoever.

Making it up to the states, essentially what we have now for the most part, is about the best way to approach this situation.

You are 100% correct about some places it was illegal to have mixed-raced marriage. Look how slapdick that turned out to be.

My current theory of everything has homosexuals playing an integral part in the regulation of our species. My only concern with it lies in the fact that many LBGT advocates are quick to identify with gay pride in a manner which vilifies heterosexuals. Perhaps as a way of striking back at the mass supression of that lifestyle for decades, perhaps to make themselves out to be victims.

Celebrating what is different is fine, celebrating an imagined superiority of conscience is not.

Just as heterosexuality doesn't grant the moral high ground, homosexuality shouldn't either. Those who operate under either paradigm are missing the big picture I believe.

This reminds me I should probably draft up a 101 part series on Feminism for you Jackie. I can drone on about that specific evil for eons.

Jersey McJones said...

Feminism is evil???


Anonymous said...


The entire premise is based on a huge logical flaw and their message is thinly veiled under the guise of equality, when in reality it is just hate speech.

If what they say is true, males dominated all areas of humanity and women were never allowed to show their superiority. How did they make the transition? Either something is absolute or it is not.

Equality means the situation works in reverse. equations are the same value on either side of the equal sign.

If I were a malevolent little girl, I could ruin your life.

Also if you become a fly shit inspector and put on your Politically Correct goggles and then see the world with the perception of men also being marginalized you quite easily notice dozens of things in the modern day that go unnoticed because it happens to men and is largely ignored. if it is women in the same situation, its seen as bad and is taken seriously.

Guy gets his junk cut off and thrown in the garbage disposal. that's hilarious. Everyone laughs. Sharon Osbourne says it's wonderful.

So by that logic if I for instance took a 1/2 inch electric drill with say, a 4 inch cylinder bore hone on it and went to town on a woman's junk, that would be funny?

Could I get away with clucking with my pals about that being hilarious on national TV?

Jersey McJones said...

You're a loony. Feminism, like any other social movement, has it's ups and downs and in-betweens, but to call it evil is cartoonishly silly.


Anonymous said...

You seem to have that choice word for me quite often. "Silly"

I do not agree with you on several things, however I try to combat your ideas as much as possible.

It is evil in the sense of what it has done to most people and the influence it has over our culture.

Anonymous said...

You know I always SUSPECTED the Statue of Liberty was gay, but I assumed it was a man in drag. It never occurred to me that it could be a LESBIAN.

Thanks for jogging my thinking into a different track. I was obviously in a rut.

Klitoria Van Klimachs

Anonymous said...

I agree about the Feminazis by the way. They all have a huge case of penis envy. They hate being women and wish they were men.

Now me. I enjoy being a girl, and unlike most women I enjoy other women as much as I enjoy men. How could that be bad?

Klitoria Van Klimax

Anonymous said...

I am not sure if the message is they want to be men as much as they want the supposedly better male privileges.

A problem with authority at any capacity is it comes with a price, typically in the form of responsibility and accountability.

In the case of our federally elected politicians, it seems they operate above this fundamental law of authority.

On the other hand, if Michelle Obama convinced her husband to support a policy or push for a certain stance and it backfired, Barack would be the one in hot water not her.

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you for stopping by Klitoria (snicker--sorry, can't help myself).

The thing about it is that sexual preference is no different than types of sexual activity that one may enjoy. I think dude on dude action is gross, but just because I think it's gross doesn't make it morally wrong.

Just like I think a Cleveland Steamer is really disgusting--and weird. But God isn't going to send someone to hell simply because they like someone taking a dump on their chest.

Now, the ultimate hotness would be to get Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis to dress up as Lady Liberty and Lady Justice.

Anonymous said...

Well Jackie they already are in the process of de-robing lady liberty and putting her in solitary confinement, and lady justice is not only blind but she is apparently going deaf as well as acquiring early onset alzheimers with dementia.

Hell of a scene you are invoking.

Jersey McJones said...

I'm sorry Anon, but "evil" and "feminazi" pretty much rule out rational discourse with you on this. It would be like arguing with a "dining room table."


Anonymous said...

There are two anons here. perhaps I should start ending every post with AHB.

Feminazi is an appropriate title for some of the more vocal feminists I have encountered.

It is evil when you consider a major benefactor of the women's lib movement was big business. I can think of no better word for it.
Perhaps "Immoral" is more to your liking or "Malevolently Deceptive."

If you wont even consider my point of view regardless how eloquently I spell it out, how does that promote rational discourse?

If you have a legit argument other than shooting the messenger and going after me for my choice of words, then by all means share it.

What feminism has done "for" women pales in comparison to what both men and women have lost as a result of it.

The idea that you can have equality by focusing on the problems and grievances of only 1 of the 2 parties involved is asinine at it's very core.

The imprinting essentially is women are important just because they are women, and for no other tangible reason. Meanwhile men are disposable, and are only important if they have status, wealth, skills, or have earned merit through their actions.

Harrison said...

I think the Government should get out of marriage altogether however marriage does grant certain legal rights so, in this way, the state is involved.

Silverfiddle said...

Wise words from AHB:

"Just as heterosexuality doesn't grant the moral high ground, homosexuality shouldn't either. Those who operate under either paradigm are missing the big picture I believe."

I expect the politically correct, doctrine-compliant Jersey to bluster in frustrated opposition.

AHB is an obviously mature man who observes the world as George Orwell did, facing reality whatever it brings.

Jersey is still in his intellectual adolescence, afraid to let go of mama's hand.

Silverfiddle said...

And to answer Jack's challenge.

I don't like them calling it "marriage," so mine is a definitional opposition.

I do agree completely that the state has no business regulating it.

Jersey McJones said...


You are one weird judge of character.

Gays do not assert they have some moral high ground just because they are gay. The moral high ground here lies under all those who would let them be free and happy to live their lives as they choose. The rest, like AHB, are just deeply insecure little people.


Silverfiddle said...


Jump in your clown car and go take it up with AHB. I was quoting him.

He was speaking specifically of activists, not all gay beople. Put you glasses on and go read it again.

Unlike you and your goose-stepping statist fellow travelers, I am for leaving people alone to pursue their own happiness.

Yeah, I know, liberals say they are, but there are too many asterisks after your version of "liberal."

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you to everyone for your participation.


I find something you said interesting. You said to Silver, "You are one weird judge of character."

Not but a breath afterward, you then go on to make a character judgment about AHB, calling him "deeply insecure."

I find that to be a fairly weird judge of character, especially considering you've never even MET the guy.

All AHB is saying is that homosexuality will never gain acceptance in society so long as it is placed on a pedestal. The day that Gay Pride parades stop, and being gay is treated the same as being straight--as it should be--that will be the day that homosexuality is accepted in society.

Is it wrong to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation? Yes. But what about blue eyes? What if some employer never hires people with blue eyes because he hates blue-eyed people? Do they get special protection status?

Jersey McJones said...

Oh, c'mon Jack. The guy was talking about "feminazis." Am I supposed to think he's a pillar of mature thought?

No one is placing homosexuality on a pedestal. The very accusation is a classic sign of insecurity. It's a subconscious bait and switch: we imagine we are victims of the victimized. It excuses us from guilt. It's as old as demagoguery itself.

And nobody wants "special status" (again, insecurity). The law has anciently long recognized classes of aggravation and mitigation. It does so to prevent the very class victimization you guys pretend to suffer. Meanwhile, you whine about a parade, they get beaten on the street. Oh, poor you.


Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: "Am I supposed to think he's a pillar of mature thought?"

Another blunderbuss of ignorance from Jersey.

Jersey: I have been reading both AHB's posts and your for years. There is no comparison.

Your babblings are predictable. A doctrinaire nutlog of gooey feel-ggod pap on the inside, sprinkled liberally with crunchy, nutty insults to those who disagree with your lockstep leftwing propaganda on the outside.

You should shut up every now and then and listen to Mr. Beale. You might learn something about how to glean information and evalutate it using the light of reason.

Jack Camwell said...

So "mature thought" is based on whatever ideas YOU think are rational?

If you deem an idea to be crazy, or whatever you want to call it, then that's it? There's no reason to discuss it because YOU think it's not even worth discussing?

Jersey, that is precisely the problem in American society today. The real issues are never legitimately discussed because calling your opposition "crazy" or "immature" has replaced all rational discussion.

As to your other point, what if I decided to hold a "White Pride" parade? How about a "Straight Pride," parade? Of course, those ideas are asinine. I would be ridiculed and denounced as a racist if I ever held a white pride parade.

The hidden message behind that is that although black people are encouraged to be proud of their race, I should not be proud of mine because I'm white. In fact, it sounds an awful lot to me like I should be ASHAMED of my race.

People who participate in gay pride parades are hailed as being brave. But those who would hold a straight pride parade would be denounced as "insecure."

The key to all of this is DOUBLE STANDARD. These groups of people want to be treated like equals, but they can't be treated like equals unless they're treated like everyone else.

When it is socially acceptable for me to be proud of being a straight, white male, THEN the groups asking for equality will truly have it. But for now, me and others like me have to be ashamed of who we are, because having pride in who we are is considered bigotry.

But then again, having pride in the things I can't control, i.e. my race, gender, and sexual orientation, is a foreign idea for me. I am what I was born, and there's nothing inherently special about that.

Anonymous said...

Read it again Jersey, I made one comment in my initial post about feminism, and I was using "Feminazi" to respond to the other anon.

I am advocating that people are treated equally. If supporting Men's rights and "straight rights" isn't in the cards, then nothing else should be.

I am all for people being free to do as they wish insofar as they do not interfere with the liberty of another.

I cannot see how I am being insecure and immature when I would do battle in the arena of thoughts and ideas and you refuse to do the same, calling me crazy, looney, attacking my character instead of my concepts.

If they want a gay pride parade, they should get it. I am not for taking away their right to express themselves however they wish.

I am suggesting that some advocates and oftentimes not even necessarily members of the LBGT community are using a brush and labeling those of us who are not homosexual as being judgmental and bigoted. For every person like myself who is out there that would just let these people be free to do as they wish, there is another who is still in the "it's a crime against god" crowd.

Sadly, the only voices heard are the ones who talk the loudest on these subjects, and those people usually are the ones who feel compelled to raise their voice above the masses.

You yourself said there are ups and downs in every social movement, and I am using different words to express the same thing.

Tell me, why is my stance on these issues wrong?

Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, I said this isn't a case for the federal government and it should be up the the states (local) authority. There are states which already validate gay marriage, so clearly the system works better for freedom when the federal government shoves off.

I would not be in favor of any ban of any sort on gay marriage at a federal level, not only does it fall beyond the scope of what the federal government does control, it would fly in the face of it's own directives.

No, leaving this matter up to the states (and that is states like ohio is a state, like michigan is a state, like vermont is a state, not the "state" being the United States) themselves to determine the best course of action benefits ALL involved.

Vermont and California have usurped the federal government in favor of more freedom. Although same-sex marriage has different legal meanings in California than it does in say... New Jersey.

Now. Let's talk about DOMA and Bill Clinton? Or is that a sore subject and also a fabrication?

Jersey McJones said...

So, rights should be left up to the states, huh? Interesting.

And, gays just assume all straight people hate them, huh?

And, feminists are evil?

I'm sorry, but these are not serious thoughts. You need to get out (or come out!) some more.


Anonymous said...

Same sex marriage should be left up to the states. They cant even pass a budget in washington and you want them handling liberty? You seriously want these people to suffer more by that logic.

Also, when did I ever say all gays assume people hate them?! show me one instance where I said that!

feminis(m) is evil, yes.

I don't think YOU have serious thoughts if you have to put words in my mouth constantly and shape my argument around simple statements that vastly misrepresent my argument.

It must be so tiresome to debate with people when all you do is ask more questions and never answer them yourself.

I can do the same exact thing to you if you wish.

So rights should be left up to the UN?

And all heterosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions should be burned at the stake for insecurity?

Feminists are the only people with correct thoughts about equality?

Jack Camwell said...

Here's the difference between you and me, Jersey.

Me: Gay marriage should be legal everywhere because the federal government has no constitutional basis to ban gay marriage, and since some states legally recognize gay marriage, under the 14th amendment, all states should be required to legally recognize gay marriage.

You: Gay marriage should be legal.

Me: Equal rights movements, as they exist today, are inherently flawed because they generally demand protection status for the minorities which automatically makes them unequal to those who are not protected. They say that being proud of one's minority status is a good thing, but anyone who is proud of being in the majority (i.e. the straight, white male) is considered to be a bigot.

You: Feminism is not evil!

Me: It's incredibly hypocritical that you start out by attacking people's character--people you've never, ever met in your life--but then tell SilverFiddle that he is a "weird judge of character." Not to mention that you are judging people I know personally, and your assessments of their character are always catigorically wrong. Somehow, you always manage to make these discussions personal when myself and AHB do our best to keep the discussion non-personal and avoid ad hominem.

You: You're just a narrow-minded conservative who clings to your guns and your religion, and has a mountain of psychological insecurities.

HOPEFULLY, you see the difference between how I approach discussion and how you approach it.

Even if you THINK something is completely irrational, it's still worth it to have an actual discussion with the person rather than insult them and call them crazy. Who knows, through reasoned debate you might actually prove your point to someone and *gasp* change a mind.

Anonymous said...

Jackie You are summarily insane.

What does NASA have to do with same sex marriage?

Equality should only exist in Las Cruces, NM?

Why would you cite Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for tips on debating?

What a loon this guy.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, I've heard too many silly arguments about feminism and homosexuality over the years (and race and immigration as well). I just don't have patience for it anymore. It should not be encouraged. It should be simply be ridiculed. It's time to get one with serious issues.

Meanwhile... The other day a co-worker of mine told me that they'd had written a paper in law school that asserted 80% of illegal immigrants committed "heinous crimes," or perhaps 80% percent of heinous crime was committed by illegals, she couldn't quite recall.

What do you say to someone like that? I said, "That's crazy. You'd be talking about millions of heinous crimes or at least most heinous crimes, committed by about 3% of the population."

What else can you say?

Feminism is a huge and complex subject and I couldn't imagine getting into it here, and I really don't see what it has to do with gay marriage. To say feminism is evil, is just silly at best. A little weird if you ask me.

I'm always willing to make a good debate, but I won't argue with a dining room table.


Anonymous said...

Just to clarify,

Freedom and true equality is not a serious issue.

You are incapable of a simple google search which cites the FBI reports in which they conclude 80% of crime is committed by gang members, many of whom are illegal immigrants. I forgot you would rather take my guns away. I also forgot that gang violence is exactly the problem with same-sex marraige.

Notice I didn't just dismiss it straight away like a member of Jonestown. I actually looked it up to see if there were any credible sources of information.

So there seems there is a bit of truth in what you call "crazy." Yet you are not gleaning the nugget of truth from this encounter. You would rather just dismiss what is uncomfortable.

"Feminism is a huge and complex subject"... I believe I alluded to this earlier with my "101 part series" comment in my initial post.

However, it's impossible that equality has anything to do with equality. Per you. I can twist words as well you see.

Feminism is evil, not feminists. If you tear off the mask of what you think happened and replace it of what actually happened any rational person would agree with me.

What Feminism wants you to think happened was women were oppressed for centuries and treated like absolute shit. What actually happened is they were protected and provided for, as evidenced by our existence today.

In the past, the majority of the high risk endeavors were undertaken by men. Those who survived earned the right to rule and were respected.

Clearly, it was unequal treatment, but it was also unequal responsibility and accountability. If women had to go off and fight wars, had to do all the hunting and what not, there would be a lot less of us around.

As a just a single point to consider, while young women were trying to secure the ability to drive a bus or some such in the late 60's, young men were being sent to their death by the droves in an illegal war we shouldn't have been involved in.

That is just the tip of the iceberg that ties into today, and what we are experiencing.

You are willing to have a good debate, until it is something you don't agree with. Then you can just safely dismiss it without a second thought until you need to re-affirm to yourself that it's crazy.

I cannot operate like that. I have read countless articles, countless forums, countless blogs. I have listened to hours and hours of podcasts, audiobooks, world wide shortwave radio programs. I have watched a lifetime's worth of information on youtube. I have spent at least a cumulative year on internet relay chat since the late 80's Beulletin Board era talking with people from every facet of life. I have spent years in online gaming communities talking and interacting with people from almost every culture.

Knowledge itself is my teacher, and to ignore truth in any quantity would stunt my ability to continue to learn.

Jackie and I have known each other a long time, I support him when it's possible and call him out when I think he is in error, he does the same for me.

I value you Jersey, I value your insight. I value your experiences during your time spent on this little blue orb. I have read a lot more of what you post than you probably realize and the same goes for silverfiddle.

I respect that you do not agree with me, I am just trying to determine why. It goes beyond republican or liberal fanaticism, and beyond the relative anonymity that the internet provides.

Behind these keyboards everyone sits at lies a wealth of life experiences from unique viewpoints. If I can take even a fraction of that and apply it to something I am searching for it enriches my life.

Silverfiddle said...

"It goes beyond republican or liberal fanaticism, and beyond the relative anonymity that the internet provides."

This is why I respect AHB. I sometimes disagree with him, but I always respect his opinion, because he has arrived at it not through ideology, but rather a survey of information available to him, which he then processed using logic, reason and his lifetime of experience.

I find it maddening to deal with Jersey for just the opposite: He is an inflexible, doctrinaire, very illiberal progressive, entrenched in his thought and mired in politically-correct ideology.

I am an ideological person to a certain extent, so I cannot claim the intellectual freedom of AHB, but unlike Jersey, at least I recognize and acknowledge it.

Quite frankly, this is the reason for my increasingly caustic tone towards such leftwing propagandists. I engaged them in good faith, but all I got in return was vituperation an intellectual dishonesty. You can see it in spades in Jersey's response to AHB's comments.

Jersey McJones said...

I'm not the idiot who said feminism was evil, Silver, and it is a really stupid thing to say.


Silverfiddle said...

"...and it is a really stupid thing to say."

I rest my case.

Jack Camwell said...

"I'm not the idiot who said feminism was evil . . ."

No, you're just the idiot who didn't bother to ask "why," and resorts to insults and childishness instead of engaging in the discussion.

The life of the mind requires that you entertain *everything*, even if at first it appears to be outlandishly foolish.

Use Plato's Apology as an example. Socrates engaged in the discussion even knowing that he would never reach them and avoid his sentence.

But, such assertions like his are just too offensive to even entertain, right? Because that's what we've become: a nation of pussies who are too afraid to ask, let alone answer, the hard questions.

Jersey McJones said...

Wait a minute, Jack. You want me to use "Plato's Apology as an example" to glean the incite of "feminism is evil?" Really?

I see no reasoned argument above regarding the "evil' of feminism, so puh-leez.


Jack Camwell said...

You *completely* missed the point.

Socrates knew that his accusers would see him take the hemlock no matter what, but he STILL engaged in his usual process of discussion and fully explicated his position regardless of how ridiculous he believed their argument to be.

You see no reasoned argument simply because you refuse to see.

Anonymous said...

A short list of pros and cons to support a "reasonable" argument. This by no means a complete list, I will just highlight the big ticket items.

Pros to Feminism.

Women are more politically powerful now even after they got "the vote." Since the majority of people are women, they have a bigger vote and more say, even if they don't hold the office.

Women have more choice, this is a good thing all around.

Women have a positive identity that if they chose to embrace it, is empowering.

Women's issues are taken seriously.


The widespread destruction of the basic family unit, flying in the face of thousands of years of evolution, biology, and crippling our young people, male and female alike.

Women get away with far too much social abuse that isn't given a second glance.

Women are able to deploy their natural weapons against anyone without fear of penalty. This instills a sense of invincibility and inherent righteousness that is restricted by nothing.

Americans are becoming more feminine, more easily influenced by feminine ideals, and therefore we are easier to control and deceive in general.

Some women get preferential treatment that is largely based on their physical attractiveness and by no other merit.

Women now feel compelled to work, and to "Prove Themselves" which only benefits employers and big business at large, and by extension, the ever increasing federal government.

America now shames men at large for no other reason than they are men, especially in the media. Who is the female equivalent to Homer Simpson? Peter Griffin? Ray Romano? Pay attention the next time a commercial comes on making fun of somebody, 99 out of 100 times they are making fun of a man.

Men are being marginalized for not being women. A simple example is affirmative action.

Young Women are being bombarded by mixed messages. Little girls now want to grow up to be snooki or kim kardashian, who project an image of selling their souls for fame. This confuses women and sets them up for failure.

Women have great legal leverage over men and the system itself. which I have experienced first hand, and countless times second hand. it is real. There is nothing balanced about this. If anything it sends the message that women cannot solve their own troubles or that they lack the power to act, they have to get big brother to step in.

Females are being programmed to look/act/dress a certain way for social acceptance and for conformance, oft times to their own discredit.

Males are being programmed to override their primal instincts.

Men are expected to "suck it up" and "take it like a man" whenever they voice a concern.

Young boys are being shunned in childhood in favor of young women. When is the last time you saw a boy play in a youth softball league or a girl's basketball league? No stories about a young man clipping onto a female dominated sport/activity such as cheerleading. Yet the danica patrick's of the world are reaping benefits from the opposing side of the aisle.

In conclusion: we all lose. Feminism is not about equality, it is about covert social engineering.
We are being manipulated to think in the way society wants us to think.

There are some bullet items to think about. I shall one day write my whole general theory but for now, this will suffice.

FreeThinke said...

I hate to tell you this, because I like you guys, but every tie I've dropped in here to see what was going on I feel more and more like Alice in Wonderland.

After decades and decades of living, observing and trying to make sense of it all I have come to realize we are not rational creatures. Oh we have the capacity to reason, and as a species we have discovered and made marvelous use of our powers of observation, and the exercise concentration that have led to much ingenious innovation, BUT after thousands of years we remain MORAL IMBECILES -- instinctual creatures who use their ability to reason primarily to justify the appeasement and satisfaction of our predilections and personal desires.

We also have -- a possibly fatal -- penchant for falling prey to GroupThink -- mob psychology.

This makes us a grave danger to ourselves and to each other.

Without inculcating and cultivating respect for and fear of Governing Principle motivated by Charity, we are little better than wild animals in a jungle, DESPITE our scientific and technological sophistication.

In arguments of the sort you guys have been conducting it seems apparent to an outside observer that the true interest is not what it appears to be. The problems of being homosexual in a society that has long been acculturated into believing that only heterosexuality is "normal," and that sex, itself, exists much more for the purpose of procreation than recreation are not what concern you so much as trying to get the better of each other in an argument.

The most powerful, closely reasoned intellectual construct will never prove a sufficient means to change anyone's mind about deeply rooted, long held prejudices.

Oh we may be able to shout each other down and bully each other into temporary submission, but the suppressed FEELINGS will never, EVER go away.

Ergo, the best way to adjust to reality in any given society is to accept it on the terms presented, and do your best to work around it, if it doesn't suit your personal preferences.

Education rears disciples, imitators, and routinists, not pioneers of new ideas and creative geniuses. The schools are not nurseries of progress and improvement, but conservatories of tradition and unvarying modes of thought.

- Ludwig von Mises

Jack Camwell said...

I appreciate the sentiment FT, but the purpose of this discussion was not to talk about the morality/normalness of homosexuality, but rather to discuss the constitutional basis of gay marriage bans.

I honestly don't give a shit about making myself feel good about my beliefs. With this particular topic, my only aim is to promote the freedom of others.

Anonymous said...

Morality is by definition a double edged sword. For an action to be considered good it has to defy an action considered to be bad.

Welfare comes to mind. Sure lets give these poor people some money to get by and get back on their feet.

Sounds like the morally correct thing to do... right?

Until you realize that in the vast majority of cases it only prolongs the inevitable. Sure there will be those people who get the wake-up call when they take the welfare money, and stop buying air jordans, knick-knacks from fingerhut, and spending 100 bucks a week on cigarettes and booze.

The emphasis of our society and culture is comfort, not productivity. All the phantom cents you could type out on a computer screen wont help that situation.

I agree with you FT that most people, myself included, fall into the mental trap of intellectual hypocrisy. I would be a fool to not recognize I do this as well from time to time, however being honest about it and confronting it gives me a chance to see it. Ignoring it and just pretending I am right all the time no matter what is surefire stagnation.

I don't have all the answers, but I can tell you that there is something very flawed with the foundation of things today. It's like we built a 2 mile high skyscraper out of 4130 chromoly and we pat ourselves on the back and pump our fist at our marvelous creation and no one notices the foundation is made out of oreo creme filling. Then when the structure is blown over by the wind everyone blames the chromoly steel.

FreeThinke said...


You don't seem to realize that everything known and yet-to-be-discovered is connected and organic-- part of the whole we call the Universe. It's impossible to separate one particular problem or moral issue and treat it as though it had no bearing on anything else. The stars are part of us and we are part of them. Few see that, which is why we never seem to get very far in solving the basic problems that have plagued human interrelationship since time immemorial.

Your nameless friend has the right idea with his example of the fallen skyscraper. Yes! Everyone "blames the steel," when in fact the flaw was in the poorly built foundation.

Fundamental governing PRINCIPLES are what we need to confront -- not myriad, pettifogging details that never get anywhere near the heart of the matter.

Thoreau understood the problem very well.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

"Men will lie on their backs, talking about the fall of man, and never make an effort to get up."

~ Thoreau (1817-1862)

I like an anecdote I heard the other day concerning Gilbert K. Chesterton. It goes something like this:

When asked what he thought was to blame for the discouraging state of the world, Chesterton replied with out hesitation. "I am to blame," was all he said.

What do you think he meant? It might profit us to give that some thought.

The Smoking Man said...

"I see no reasoned argument above regarding the "evil' of feminism, so puh-leez."

Hello, Jersey.

It must be great to be so sure of yourself and your stance on something that you need not even bother refute other peoples arguments. After all, you are the pinnacle of reason. Anyone who disagrees with you is therefor not only wrong, but downright crazy! There is of course no need to engage in a logical discussion with crazy people (how marvelously convenient for you!)

Oh, but wait a second. This sounds a lot like what Jack has been saying in his articles. That the problem with America today is it's unwillingness to discuss anything it finds to be uncomfortable. It seems to me then, that you may be the poster child of modern American culture.


Mindy B. said...

Where was everyone when Obama was appointing a Lesbian to the Supreme Court?
It’s worth highlighting that Kagan has also taken actions in her SG capacity that operate to undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Whenever you have any one pushing their agendas and lifestyles upon the people or the United States, it is our business. She will be pushing Gay agendas from the supreme court. That is our business. I think we have had enough break down of the family already. Do we need a supreme court to further its downfall?
If she was gay, and never pushed it in her issues and debates in the public, there would be no issue. But she is a avid pro gay supporter and endorser.
Obama’s controversial appointments, not only to the federal bench, but to key cabinet positions, as well as to the unaccountable (and probably unconstitutional) “Czar” positions. So much of the criticism has been on the Obama administration’s lack of vetting when filling these rolls—but that’s not the issue today, is it. I don’t believe in Gay Marriage and I am shocked that our president would support this at all.
All of a sudden this gaggle is concerned about the Constitution . . . where were they when Obamacare was shoved up our backsides?
I feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Obama is weak and only governs from the polls. In the eyes of God marriage is sacred and sacred it shall remain forever.
I have nothing against gay people but I AM not a fan of gay marriage. As for President Obama, he doesn’t speak for all Americans, he only speaks for himself and the poor misled souls who elected him.