patrick.net

Philistine says

I would classify pornography and stripping as "popular culture" genres, which are activities that have no issue finding funding.

Ah, but what makes your classification superior to other people's? At least my classification of pornography as a functional subset of art is indisputably true coming from the very definitions of the terms.

Furthermore, why should "unpopular" culture be privileged by the government and "popular", i.e. democratically approved, culture not? In fact, there are far more "unpopular" cultures that do not receive funding than those that do. When was the last time the government rewarded tax-exempted status to a role-playing games club?

Philistine says

Who wants to watch a porno made in the '80s?

I would image quite a few.

Philistine says

Or, rather, what value does it have that a newly made porno doesn't have?

Women had pubic hair back then? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that there are millions of people in the world that have very strong opinions on why 80s pornos are more valuable and culturally significant than recent pornos.

Philistine says

If there is a reason to look at pornography from 100 years ago, it is not usually for sexual titillation, and it is not the average individual that is interested.

You are assuming that sexual titillation is not one of the functions of art. Empirically it has always been. Even the most ancient art is erotic. The oldest known piece of art, now called the Venus of Willendorf, was created with the very purpose of sexual titillation.

Again, not everyone buys into the premise that sex is bad, sex is dirty, sex has no place in culture. And why should the government be able to force that empirically unpopular sentiment onto the entire population?

Philistine says

While I find Shakespeare challenging to my attention span... perhaps it will turn out Spiderman was just pop culture entertainment "of the times".

And I would completely agree with that opinion. However, who are you and I to force our opinion onto others, which is essentially what we would be doing by forcing a person to pay taxes to support one rather than the other.

Finally, I simply do not trust a government that is willing to torture and assassinate to exercise control over culture in a benevolent way. Government should be culture agnostic. One can even argue that subsidies for the arts is racist as Western, European, white art will always get far more subsidies than African or Asian art. The government should not even be in the position to make such discriminations in the first place.

You are assuming that sexual titillation is not one of the functions of art. Empirically it has always been. Even the most ancient art is erotic. The oldest known piece of art, now called the Venus of Willendorf, was created with the very purpose of sexual titillation.

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

Dan8267 says

KarlRoveIsScum says

Oh, Dan, You obviously prefer Tea Party politics than polite conversation.

Karl, please argue with the douche-bag Meccos over whether I'm a commie leftist or a right wing Tea Partier. It is logically impossible to be both! I will gladly debate the winner and demonstrate why he is wrong, but first you two have to duke it out.

Meccos says

You constantly only point out the right because your views are consistent with the left. If you were a true independent, im sure you would find things on the left to bash as well...but you dont.

The left calls me the right. The right calls me the left. In reality, I'm perpendicular to the batshit crazy left-right line.

Throwdown between Meccos and KarlRoveIsScum.

New Renter says

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

The idea of putting a bag over a woman's head before having sex with her is ancient, too. Perhaps that's why bags were originally invented. Maybe they predate beer.

As for gluttony, the sculptor could be a chubby chaser. There certainly would have been an evolutionary advantage during a time when food was scarce.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Wow! Baby got back! I especially like the bag over the head.

You sure that's sculpture isn't an ancient public service message against gluttony?

The idea of putting a bag over a woman's head before having sex with her is ancient, too. Perhaps that's why bags were originally invented. Maybe they predate beer.

As for gluttony, the sculptor could be a chubby chaser. There certainly would have been an evolutionary advantage during a time when food was scarce.

Could be? I think its pretty clear he (or she) chased the chubbies. Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

KarlRoveIsScum says

A) you are very far right of being an independent thinker, by your own admission you are no Republican or Dem.

1. Limit this discussion to one threads, not two. We're already discussing your false accusations on http://patrick.net/?p=1222838

2. Being neither a republican or a democrat does not make me Libertarian.

KarlRoveIsScum says

b) You display many liberation views in your 6800 posts

I'm a liberal, so I believe in equality under the law and that adults should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not infringing upon other people's rights. There's an overlap on social issues between Libertarian and Liberals, but my economic philosophy are utterly incompatible with Libertarians. I'm more of a Georgist.

Not that there's anything horrific about Libertarians. The right is not Libertarian by any means. Libertarians abhor torture and the military industrial complex. Do you disagree with those objections?

KarlRoveIsScum says

They are lunatics on the fringe, you are not.

So you want me to ask you questions or cut and paste your answers from your own posts?

here you go:

Please tell us in your own words how affirmative action has helped blacks in America deal with racism and post slavery ?

Stop cross-posting like a newb. Go to the other thread.

KarlRoveIsScum says

No these are liberation, racist and bigoted views.

How the fuck are any of those positions racist or bigoted. Making such a claim without explaining it just makes you look like a nut job. I'm really trying to get you to save face, but you are making it damn difficult.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Dan:

"Please tell us in your own words how affirmative action has helped blacks in America deal with racism and post slavery"

http://patrick.net/?p=1222838&c=943596#comment-943596

New Renter says

Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

Or it may just be that pubic hair is really hard to chisel with stone age tools.

Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton getting a blow job from a fat chick in the Oval Office does not in any way harm women or Clinton's stellar record -- in comparison of all the presidents twenty years around him.

I simply find it odd that Democrats in general say that they are for respect and equality of women, then support, and as you are doing, excuse, behavior such as Clinton's. Excuse it to the point of obfuscating the difference between the behavior in question and committing perjury and obstruction of justice by lying under oath (your attribution of this just being a GOP witch hunt is irrelevant personal opinion).

Dan8267 says

I blame Newt for being a hypocrite who tried to ruin a president and a country for personal political gain by creating a sex scandal when he himself was the truly scandalous one.

Again, all it takes is reading the actual articles of impeachment to see that Gingrich was not a hypocrite in this case. I do NOT argue that he was not a hypocrite vis-à-vis Clinton and morals. I simply argue that the impeachment was not about Clinton's immoral behavior - it was about his illegal behavior during a court proceeding.

Of course Dan8267 says

Monica Lewinsky was not the victim of sexual harassment.

Monica Lewinsky was not the subject of the case for which Clinton was being questioned. It was the Paula Jones case. Monica Lewinsky was not being asked under oath about her previous behavior - Bill Clinton was being asked about his behavior. Dan8267 says

By the same token, it is inappropriate to ask someone accused of sexual harassment about consensual sexual relationships and to imply that if he had any extra-marital sexual relationships he must be a sexual harasser.

I'm not so sure that it is inappropriate - I'm not a lawyer, and apparently neither are you. In any case, your if/then is simplistic. Either you are unfamiliar with the basics of the case, or you are intentionally throwing out red herrings.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, the line of questioning was not intended to expose a past of sexual harassment, but rather to entrap the president for political gain...

Simply your opinion, because like most who blindly supported Clinton, you admit that Clinton was a womanizer, but ALL of those women, like Paula Jones, who were covered while he was president, were entrapment bait by Republicans. Clinton was a womanizer, except for all of them - in those cases, he was the victim and they were the victimizers, right? That seems to be your argument.

Meanwhile, why not just read the articles of impeachment? You can still call Gingrich a hypocrite all day long with complete validity and relative objectivity. But he is NOT a hypocrite for impeaching Clinton, even if he was personally a hypocrite on the same issues of morality and infidelity.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Dan, it's not a throwdown

A) you are very far right of being an independent thinker, by your own admission you are no Republican or Dem.

b) You display many liberation views in your 6800 posts

That's called being a Tea Partier

and C) RT NEWS IS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

I bet you would vote for Ron Paul! Wouldn't you?

I've only had a couple of exchanges with Dan and they were as acerbic as many others he's been involved with. But what is your point here? Your line of questioning shows more about you than it does about Dan. It should be clear to anyone who has participated or lurked in these threads that on some issues, Dan has expressed views that fall firmly on the left, and some views that fall firmly on the right, and sometimes the details within some of his views would fall either way.

Someone who would make it an issue of how far Dan is one side or the other obviously is pretty extreme on their side. You must be very, very far to the left to a) think that Dan is far to the right of independent and moreover b) to make it an issue in a thread.

Why don't you be happy that he appears to hate Republicans much more than he may dislike Democrats (and it's not so clear he does dislike them, though the former is very clear). Or do you expect everyone to follow a certain script?

FortWayne says

Portman is a weak man who cannot stand on principles. He shouldn't be in the party.

Oh no. He's in the right party alright. I think that's in the platform.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Real Republicans would jail all women of child bearing age and feed them slaughtered homosexuals.

...and let the "real men" shoot each other until there's only one left, who will then mate with all the jailed women and produce a new Master Race.

Meanwhile, real Democrats(tm) would require all men and kids to consume Homefool's pills, while requiring daily mammograms for all womyn over age 9.

Obviously, Kang and Kodos have different platforms, so enjoy your Choice(tm) American voters of earth!

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Given the lack of pubic hair the artist if alive today may also have been a fan of honey booboo and/or arrested as a pedophile.

Or it may just be that pubic hair is really hard to chisel with stone age tools.

Funny, I was thinking something along those lines as to why Venus was unlikely to have been modeled from an adult. It would have taken a brave woman to shave with a stone axe, especially one big enough to have had to do it sight unseen.

Unless she had help of course.

Given the aparent skill of the artist I don't think the tools would have been the limiting factor.

Paralithodes says

I simply find it odd that Democrats in general say that they are for respect and equality of women, then support, and as you are doing, excuse, behavior such as Clinton's

It's really quite simple. I can't speak for Democrats, but I can for people with common sense who believe in equality under law, you know, liberals. Equality under law means that every person has the same rights, no person has any privileges, and people are treated the same by the law and the courts. It means women have the right to vote, own property, serve in the military, and enter into any contract that men can.

Equality under law has nothing to do with long-term or short-term mating strategies of men and women. Equality under law has nothing to do with cultural preferences, social standing, "respect", or sexual promiscuity of individuals. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the law and are no business of the government.

Paralithodes says

committing perjury and obstruction of justice by lying under oath

"Committing perjury" and "obstruction of justice by lying under oath" would be the same thing.

And neither applies to Clinton. There was no obstruction of justice. There was no harm done. And Clinton did not lie, plain and simple. As I said, Clinton answered the question actually asked, not the question Republicans should have asked. I.e., the Republicans fucked up.

And think about it this way... The worst thing Republican voters can complain about Clinton to this day is him getting a blow job and not telling the whole world. The worst things that we liberals complain about Bush and Obama are

- torture
- indefinite detention without habeas corpus
- kidnapping the middle of the night
- assassination of innocent people including American citizens on soil and children
- illegal wiretapping
- rape scanners at airports
- the Second Great Depression
- the fall of our credit rating
- a $16 trillion bailout of the banks that caused the collapse of our economy

How do you compare those things to Clinton not volunteering information about his private sex life to the whole world? That's a pretty thin stretch for calling Clinton a criminal, especially given the crimes against humanity committed by both of his successors. Hell, the warrantless wiretapping alone is a far greater offense than what you are accusing Clinton of, and those crimes actually happened.

And since I'm more than willing to say that Obama has committed crimes against humanity, that hardly makes me someone covering up for the Democrats.

Paralithodes says

Gingrich was not a hypocrite in this case.

Hypocrisy has to do with intentions not technicalities.

Paralithodes says

Monica Lewinsky was not the subject of the case for which Clinton was being questioned. It was the Paula Jones case.

Which is exactly why it was an inappropriate question. Consensual sexual relationships have no barring on a sexual harassment case any more than on a rape case. And that goes for both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator.

Paralithodes says

Dan8267 says

By the same token, it is inappropriate to ask someone accused of sexual harassment about consensual sexual relationships and to imply that if he had any extra-marital sexual relationships he must be a sexual harasser.

I'm not so sure that it is inappropriate - I'm not a lawyer, and apparently neither are you. In any case, your if/then is simplistic. Either you are unfamiliar with the basics of the case, or you are intentionally throwing out red herrings.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the defense cannot make the case that a woman is a slut who has slept around in a rape trial. It is common sense that the defendant's consensual sexual relationships are also off limits in such a trial.

And yes, every single citizen should have a basic understanding of the law and right and wrong. After all, you might serve on a jury.

As for me intentionally throwing out red herrings, that's a pretty lame argument and not one anyone who have read my previous posts would believe.

Paralithodes says

Simply your opinion, because like most who blindly supported Clinton

The fact that you assert that I blindly support Clinton indicates that like most Americans today you fall into the trap of thinking that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say must be your polar opposite. During the Clinton administration I had no strong opinions of his administration. I thought he was an average, typical politician, nothing to write home about. Of course, the next two administrations have been so monstrously fucked up that they make Clinton look like an Olympian god.

Besides, how can I be a blind Clinton supporter when that ass KarlRoveIsScum has revealed that I'm actually a racist Tea Party member. You see, left-wing nut jobs think I'm a right winger and right-wing nut jobs think I'm a left winger. Don't fall into that trap as well.

Paralithodes says

Clinton was a womanizer, except for all of them - in those cases, he was the victim and they were the victimizers, right? That seems to be your argument.

I never said Clinton wasn't a womanizer. I stated that the attempt to impeach him had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics, and that should not be tolerated in the courts. The courts are playthings for politicians. If someone tried the same thing to Bush or Obama, they'd be thrown in Gitmo without trial and would not survive interrogation. Get your priorities in order.

Paralithodes says

KarlRoveIsScum says

Yeah, you take on this left-wing nutjob. I still hold the belief that either the number of right-wing nutjobs is greater than the number of left-wing nutjobs or the right-wing ones are more vocal, but KarlRoveIsScum certainly is a fine example of a left-wing nutjob. And I'll gladly oppose them when I find them.

Dan8267 says

And neither applies to Clinton. There was no obstruction of justice. There was no harm done. And Clinton did not lie, plain and simple.

Plain and simple? Then why was his law license temporarily suspended? Why did he resign his bar to the Supreme Court in lieu of risk of having it revoked? Why the financial penalties on him for obstruction of justice, etc.?

Also plain and simple ... the actual words in the articles of impeachment.

Despite considering myself conservative, I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich, especially after seeing him use some of the same rhetorical tricks that President Obama uses during the debates. I agree Gingrich is a moral hypocrite in general. If as you say above, that Clinton was impeached not for justice but only for politics is true (I don't necessarily dispute that), then you undermine your argument that the impeachment was an example of moral hypocrisy. However, Clinton lied under oath. Motive on the other side or appropriateness of the questions do not change, explain away, or excuse that Clinton lied under oath. The facts (the actual text of the articles of impeachment, the findings and penalties after the case), beyond your interpretations of them, show that Gingrich didn't impeach Clinton for 'doing the same thing he did,' unless you can show that Gingrich lied under oath in a case somewhere. And even that would not excuse someone else from lying under oath.

Paralithodes says

Plain and simple? Then why was his law license temporarily suspended? Why did he resign his bar to the Supreme Court in lieu of risk of having it revoked? Why the financial penalties on him for obstruction of justice, etc.?

Politics, plain and simple.

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."? I can point to over a million victims, including children, of George Bush saying "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.".

To have a stick up your ass about Clinton not offering himself up as a sacrifice to the Republicans says more about you than Clinton. It says you always hated Clinton and never wanted him to be president because he works for the other team.

Given the vast amounts of pure evil implemented by the Bush administration, what exactly have you said condemning that administration?

Here's how you tell the difference between someone making a genuine argument against politicians and someone who ridicules only one side for political gain... The guy making the genuine argument will say bad things about both parties, most often when they do the same thing. I meet that criteria, you don't.

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury.

do you really believe Billy Bob didnt have sexual relationship with Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Gennifer Flowers. He denied it of course.. late admitted he actual did have sexual relationship.

Vicente says

Meccos says

However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished?

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. If any court has ruled he did so, you'd be able to provide the ruling.

Vicente, would you argue that OJ did not commit murder? If he had, one would be able to provide a ruling showing that he did? Do you understand the difference between "committed" and "convicted?" Did you ever read the articles of impeachment? And why was Clinton's law license suspended/why did he resign his bar from the Supreme Court.

Dan8267 says

To have a stick up your ass about Clinton not offering himself up as a sacrifice to the Republicans says more about you than Clinton. It says you always hated Clinton and never wanted him to be president because he works for the other team.

Given the vast amounts of pure evil implemented by the Bush administration, what exactly have you said condemning that administration?

This is silly, and given your logical approach to fallacies commited by KarlRoveIsScum, beneath you. Whether one condemns or not anything with Bush neither explains, nor excuses, anything with Clinton. Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc. I voted for Clinton, twice. I don't expect you to believe that, but your claim that I hated him is just as unprovable. You seem to have missed the wider point that I am not even really condemning Clinton that much. I don't even dispute with you that Gingrich's actions may have been due to "politics." There should be zero doubt in the mind of anyone with a shred of objectivity about Clinton that good or bad, generally able to overlook due to other qualities or not, Clinton did not tell the truth under oath - AND paid professional and financial penalties for them. But that does not mean they did not happen (for Vicente: and just because he wasn't convicted by a jury doesn't mean they didn't happen, either - it is very odd of you, or ideological perhaps, to take such a technical approach for one aspect, while ignoring all of the other technicalities - certainly doesn't sound like someone who was once a "staunch" republican).

My only real contention is your claim that Gingrich impeached Clinton for doing the same thing he did (e.g., cheating on his wife, having an affair, etc.). It is a false analogy. The articles of impeachment themselves show that. Perhaps you should read them. You can attack Gingrich for so much real, unexagerated, un-false analogies, that using this one is unnecessary.

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

Dan8267 says

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Can you point to one victim of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I would argue that as the commander in chief, perjury victimizes a whole nation.

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Agreed. You can't just take arbitrary questions unrelated to the presidents job and put the president under oath for it like"Mr. president, tell us, how many shits did you take this morning?" and then impeach him for giving the wrong answer. I am no expert, maybe there is a law that you cannot get blown by a govt employee in the white house and that is somehow grounds for impeachment, but personally I could care less about him getting a little personal stress-relief. Now if you excuse me, I have to take a brief hike in the Appalachian mountains.

FortWayne says

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

I also do not agree with Portman. His choice just shows lack of conviction.

I agree that we have far more important issues and I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the government has always had the right to favor certain lifestyles over others, even though I don't agree with it. So I think the only fair solution is for government to get out of marriage completely and not favor any lifestyle and let it be a purely spiritual/religious affair backed by a church of your choice. For anything related to rights/financial status in their state couples should separately go on the record for a civil union, but there should be no federal implications.

Meccos says

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/williamjclinton/

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

Bill Clinton was asked an irrelevant question for the sole purpose of creating a political scandal to end his career and help republicans in the next election. That question should have been thrown out and would have if not for the pure political bullshit that the monkey trial impeachment was.

Nevertheless, Clinton correctly and truthfully answered the actual question asked. What he did not do was answer the question the Republicans meant to ask. He was under no obligation to do so, and the Fifth Amendment gives all persons, including the president, the right not to testify against himself. And even if Bill Clinton had shouted, "I got a blow job from that fatie Lewinsky!", it would have been completely irrelevant to the trial or to his job performance as president.

Only hypocritical republicans wanted Clinton's blow job proclaimed on the stand so they could trump up a sex scandal. And yes, those republicans were hypocrites because they all had their own sex scandals and they all proclaimed that in an age of terrorism, the president should not be questioned because national security is on the line. Image if we hadn't wasted time and resources on this monkey trial and instead spent that time and those resources on capturing Osama bid Laden before 9/11 happened.

Image, not only the thousands of American lives saved, but also the million of Iraqi lives saved, and the decline of terrorism in the world. But no, republicans always put their own political careers ahead of national interests. And that is exactly what makes them hypocrites.

Paralithodes says

Clinton is not excused for ethical lapses BECAUSE of things that Bush did, etc.

Whether or not Clinton behaved unethically or immorally is an entirely different question. The argument that Meccos made was that Bill Clinton committed perjury and should have been jailed for it.

I have no doubt that Clinton had many sexual escapades while married. I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

But you know what, it says a lot when the only thing people can say bad about the Clinton administration years later is he got a blow job in the Oval Office and didn't tell everyone.

I wish we had a president and senators who were so good that the only thing we could complain about was their sex lives. The economy was great. There were no wars, no torture, no war on terror. Hell, I'd give the blow jobs to go back to those days.

Dan8267 says

I don't even care that Newt had many sexual escapades while married except for the hypocrisy of attacking Clinton for the same thing and passing "family values" legislation.

Well, we're at an impasse... My major disagreement was your argument above - that Gingrich impeached Clinton for the "same thing." I still disagree but in the scheme of things it's not that important I guess, as I do not disagree that Gingrich was a hypocrite in general. Have a nice day.

FortWayne says

Gay Rights are just a distraction from real issues and just nothing more than political pandering to a few homosexuals around San Francisco.

It's funny how you have that completely backwards. Opposition to legal equality (or, if you prefer, Gay Rights) is a distraction to drive Pat Robertson's minions into voting against their own interests. Republicans sell war all over the world and ruinous deficits by saying they agree with your preacher. It's a Santorum stain on the Republican party.

mell says

I agree that we have far more important issues and I don't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the government has always had the right to favor certain lifestyles over others, even though I don't agree with it.

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

The importance is asymmetrical: the "divide and misrule" pattern starts out with division, "vote for us and we'll discriminate against people who aren't exactly like you," and they keep saying that to each group. As MLK Jr observed, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. For those whose power depends on division and misrule (e.g. warmongers etc.), the importance is the power to manipulate FortWayne's fear and Bop69's self-loathing, and turn them into votes against everyone's interest. For everyone else, the importance is the opposite, i.e. not being divided and misruled and manipulated.

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

That is not discrimination. Society created a concept of marriage for procreation and identification of a father. It was to create a stable environment for families and for raising children.

But this is America so every single pervert out there thinks he has the right to jump into every single thing he/she wishes. Homosexuals, polygamists, zoophiliacs, etc... these people are not part of that and they should not be. You have to be normal to get married. If you are not normal you should get medical help, you shouldn't marry.

Marriage is simple (one man and one woman), simple rule, happens to work, and is easy to understand, leave it alone. Everything else does not apply.

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy. Favoring the marriages of opposite-sex couples, while denying the equal protection of the same laws to same-sex couples, is a civil rights issue, and nothing is gained by perpetuating that discrimination.

I beg to differ - marriage has always been an incentive by the government given out for those who match specific criteria. If ones religion forbids one to marry but one has a life partner they will be still "discriminated against" in your terms. Or, if one simply cannot find somebody who will marry them, they are being discriminated against as they lose out on those rights and benefits. Don't get me wrong, I think gays should have the right to become married but it
a) is not a civil rights issue
b) will not change anything in the unfairness you perceive, it just lets another group/form of partnership jump on the bandwagon of the governments family incentives
True fairness would be the government to not provide any incentives to people depending on their status, desire and ability to get married and have people create their own contracts honored by the courts and - if needed - the church of their choice. By your demands you'd have to honor polygamist marriages, e.g. of mormon or muslim faith and give out the same benefits. Personally I think none of that should be illegal, but if the government must incentivize it has to draw a line somewhere and that does not make it a civil rights issue.

FortWayne says

Society created a concept of marriage for procreation and identification of a father. It was to create a stable environment for families and for raising children.

Yet we allow menopausal women to get married. We allow infertile couples to get married. We allow couples that do not want to have children and agreed not to, to get married. None of these should be allowed if marriage is only for procreation.

Furthermore, recognizing homosexual marriage as equal under law does not in any way, shape, or form prevent marriage from fulfilling the cultural roles you claim are so damn important.

Finally, if marriage is just about one man and one woman having children, then there should be no marriage laws regarding:
- tax status
- social security benefits
- health care benefits
- hospital visitation rights
- power of attorney
- and the million of other things that you get from marriage

None of the above things have anything to do with impregnating a woman. Yet, they are included in marriage laws. To say that same-sex couples should not get any of the above legal statuses is discrimination, plain and simple. The argument that it's all about children does not apply to any of the above legal statuses.

FortWayne says

But this is America so every single pervert out there thinks he has the right to jump into every single thing he/she wishes. Homosexuals, polygamists, zoophiliacs, etc... these people are not part of that and they should not be. You have to be normal to get married. If you are not normal you should get medical help, you shouldn't marry.

The fact that you call homosexuals and polygamists "perverts" and abnormal indicates clear prejudices and is exactly why your arguments should carry no weight. The very term "pervert" is a subjective and arbitrary judgement call and has no place in the law.

Oh, and marriage has most certainly been defined as things other than one man and one woman. Many cultures throughout history and today have been polygamous. To argue that yours is superior without reason is simply cultural bias.

A mere two generations ago, marriage was defined as "one man and one woman of the same race". The arguments against same-sex marriage are no different than the arguments against interracial marriage. And you know what, it's the same people arguing against equality under law in both cases.

As for basing marriage on what your religion says... Here's what the Bible says marriage is:

curious2 says

Whether the government should continue to favor couples who choose to get married over people who choose not to get married is a policy issue, and there is a lot to be said for ending that policy.

The "government" - if you mean the Federal government - could provide equal benefits, equal tax status, etc., almost simply by changing a spot on tax forms to "spouse/partner" without making the person filling out the form choose which. It therefore enact policy while staying out of the issue that is the crux of the California case: whether a gay union or marriage is specifically referred to by the government as a "union" or a "marriage" despite no other practical difference in any respect whatsoever.

It may certainly be a "civil rights" issue as to whether same-sex partners receive the same rights, benefits, etc. It is not a "civil rights issue" when there is zero distinction between how a state treats gay and straight "marriages" in any respects other than simply whether one is called "marriage" or something else.

I prefer that the Federal government stay out of the social/cultural labeling issue of defining "marriage." I don't support it re-defining marriage, nor do I support it defining what traditional marriage. It could easily enact "equal" policy without venturing into the cultural fight.

One more thing... I really don't give a rat's ass what some Bronze Age culture defined marriage as. The Bronze Age sucked donkey balls. It was a vicious and cruel time full of tribalism, superstition, slavery, rape and pillage, and countless injustices.

There is absolutely no reason why the modern world should arrange its laws around Bronze Age values. We are morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to the Bronze Age. If we weren't, we'd all have died in a nuclear holocaust already.

Fuck the Bronze Age. The vast majority of things commonly practiced in that time are now illegal including: slavery, human sex trafficking, waring against the next village and raping their women and children, child brides, burning people alive, torture, forced starvation of prisoners, etc. Why would we base any laws on this culture?

Dan8267 says

The fact that you call homosexuals and polygamists "perverts" and abnormal indicates clear prejudices and is exactly why your arguments should carry no weight. The very term "pervert" is a subjective and arbitrary judgement call and has no place in the law.

But laws are made based on judgement. This is why we call certain people "judges". It is society made for the people, and people judge. We judge behavior, and if some of it we judge to be bad for society we don't allow it. Criminals we judge as people who should be in prison. Homosexuals we judge as people who should not marry.

Prejudices are not always bad things. Prejudices are survival traits we learned through evolution of mankind.

Dan8267 says

Fuck the Bronze Age. The vast majority of things commonly practiced in that time are now illegal including: slavery, human sex trafficking, waring against the next village and raping their women and children, child brides, burning people alive, torture, forced starvation of prisoners, etc. Why would we base any laws on this culture?

If we allow homosexuality type of lawlessness where everyone thinks they have a right to do as they please and you just might see sex trafficking return to legality. They were born this way! They have rights to sex traffic! Rapists were born that way too they can say, why discriminate on people who really want to share their love with everyone else!

FortWayne says

But laws are made based on judgement.

Judgement is not "prejudice". The word prejudice literally means to "pre-judge" as oppose to judging. What you are doing is pre-judging based on personal and completely arbitrary biases rather than judging evidence.

And yes, prejudice in the law is always a bad thing. Snap judgements might protect people in dangerous situations like encountering a hunter in the Stone Age, but snap judgements do not protect us from bad laws in the modern age.

FortWayne says

Criminals we judge as people who should be in prison.

In order to sentence a person to prison, the law requires a trial by jury to evaluate evidence. That's entirely different than saying "every black person must go to jail" or "every homosexual must not marry". The entire trial is specific to one particular individual, not to a blanket group.

FortWayne says

Homosexuals we judge as people who should not marry.

Homosexuals are people, you think should not be allowed to marry. I think they should. What makes your thought correct?

What makes my thought correct is the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. That carries a lot more weight than, "I find the idea of gay marriage icky and I'm afraid heterosexual couples won't value their marriage as much if gay people can get married".

Ultimately, this is about rights and equality under the law. As such, arbitrary personal opinions carry no weight no matter how strongly a person feels about those opinions. Remember, there are plenty of people, even today, who strongly feel that two people of different races or different religions should not be allowed to marry. Why would I give the anti-gay-marriage feelings any more weight than those feelings?

FortWayne says

If we allow homosexuality type of lawlessness where everyone thinks they have a right to do as they please and you just might see sex trafficking return to legality. They were born this way! They have rights to sex traffic! Rapists were born that way too they can say, why discriminate on people who really want to share their love with everyone else!

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

1. Homosexuality is not lawlessness by any criteria.

2. No one is making the argument that any person can do anything they want. We are making the argument that gender-specific laws are a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and such discrimination has no place in the modern world.

3. The argument "If we allow gay marriage, then we'll be opening the gates to bestiality, rape, and human trafficking" makes as much sense as the argument "If we allow interracial marriage, then we'll be opening the gates to bestiality, rape, and human trafficking". In fact, that argument was made back in the 1960s by racists. The argument was stupid and wrong then, and it's stupid and wrong now for the exact same reasons.

4. Rapist don't "share their love", they violently force their wills onto others. Two consenting adult men in a marriage aren't violently forcing their wills onto others.

Can you see how none of your arguments even remotely addresses reality or the real argument of the same-sex marriage movement, equality under law?

If equality under law, the single most important principle in our society, wasn't reason enough to support same-sex marriages, there's also this reason. All opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious and cultural preferences that some people want to force onto everybody else. We should never, ever tolerate letting anyone use the law to force religion and culture onto the entire nation. Would any of the anti-gay-marriage people like it if Islamic culture and Sharia Law were forced onto them?

Dan8267 says

Judgement is not "prejudice". The word prejudice literally means to "pre-judge" as oppose to judging. What you are doing is pre-judging based on personal and completely arbitrary biases rather than judging evidence.

And yes, prejudice in the law is always a bad thing. Snap judgements might protect people in dangerous situations like encountering a hunter in the Stone Age, but snap judgements do not protect us from bad laws in the modern age.

Well Dan, my judgement or prejudging as you call comes from me knowing that we all make our choices in life. If these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them. And that type of behavior by me and many who feel the same way about the issue, feel is inappropriate and should be discouraged through law.

And 52% of voters agreed on prop 8. So I'm not in the minority.

Dan8267 says

1. Homosexuality is not lawlessness by any criteria.

2. No one is making the argument that any person can do anything they want. We are making the argument that gender-specific laws are a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and such discrimination has no place in the modern world.

I know what you are saying Dan. However, knowing how we humans tend to be I feel this is a slippery slope to anarchy. Today we allow homosexuality, tomorrow it will be polygamy or something worse. It's why I don't want that line moving, because that line will move more toward lawlessness and victimization. It's how Rome fell.