Those who demand tolerance from traditional America reveal themselves to be wholly intolerant of any opposing viewpoint.
It may seem odd that the profundity of Martin Niemoller could find a fitting application in the unlikely venue of a beauty pageant. But such is the depths to which America has descended as prominent members of its counterculture exercise ever-greater influence on society.
Niemoller, the German clergyman who warned of the consequences of passivity in the face of evil, lamented that he had done nothing while Hitler's Reich attacked and oppressed one target group after another within the overall population. Eventually, he became a target, but by then nobody was left to intervene for him. So it is that every concerned citizen must take note of the abominable proceedings of last week's "Miss USA" pageant, and rally to the support of Carrie Prejean, the intended victim.
Americans have not regarded beauty contests with any real seriousness for decades, usually dismissing them with wry cynicism. Noble sounding purposes notwithstanding, contestants are subjected to mass ogling, often clad in the material equivalent of a couple of handkerchiefs. And of course each will offer the customary hopes for world peace along with the necessity of feeding hungry children.
Claims that they are judged on their "character" and "poise" when rendering such platitudes are recognized by even the casual viewer as euphemisms for the requirement that they maintain seemingly perfect smiles throughout the ordeal, without showing any outward sign of the facial cramping that is surely taking place.
Yet something very different happened at this year's "Miss USA" affair. Mario Lavandeira, a homosexual activist pageant "judge" who goes by the pseudonym of "Perez Hilton," asked Carrie Prejean, Miss California, a direct question about her views on same-sex "marriage." She returned an equally direct and honest answer that was well thought out and expressed, but not "politically correct," explaining that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In response, he vindictively scored her with a zero, thereby costing her the competition. Since that time, all of the hounds of liberal Hell have been loosed upon her. The people of traditional America had better wake up to the sobering ramifications of this sorry episode. For unless such atrocious actions are confronted and rebuffed, even in so trivial a pursuit as a "beauty contest," her plight will eventually become our own.
For starters, consider the outright fraud and condescending sanctimony with which the news and entertainment media monolithically reported the incident. Headlines and "news" accounts invariably characterized Prejean's answer as a "stumble," "gaffe," or "mistake," insinuating that her response was wholly and inherently wrong. In this manner, the media Mafia once again inserted its jaundiced liberal opinions in place of accurate reporting. The only "details" considered newsworthy focused strictly on those homosexual activists who claimed to be "offended" and outraged by her comments, portraying Lavandeira and his minions at the event as innocent and virtuous victims, rather than victimizers.
As is typical of the counterculture, the truth stands in stark contrast to all of this. Lavandeira has subsequently hurled profane verbal attacks against Prejean, and posted obscenely doctored pictures of her on his website. Even a brief look at his blog reveals an offensive and belligerent mindset, hardly the picture of alternative "family values" that he and his kind claim to be normalizing in America. Certainly his thinking would not be conducive to a healthy environment in which to rear the next generation of children.
Though outrageous, dishonest, and intellectually indefensible, none of this ghastly circus comes as a surprise to the groups of sincere family advocates who in recent years have endeavored to preserve the culture of the country. Though the media steadfastly refuse to report them, accounts are numerous of citizens throughout the country who, while attending legislatures to lobby in defense of traditional marriage, have been subjected to similar assaults, insults, and intimidation, both in legislative chambers and from protestors out on the street.
Those who demand tolerance from traditional America reveal themselves to be wholly intolerant of any opposing viewpoint. And as they hysterically decry as "hate" even the mildest form of disapproval on the grounds that it supposedly denies them their "right" to engage in every form of aberrant activity, it is they who employ hostile and hateful behavior to cow all opposition and thereby advance their agenda.
Clearly Lavandeira's atrocious conduct, and more significantly the total lack of outrage or even embarrassment among the rest of the movement in response to his abominable attacks against Prejean, reveal the unbridled malice that motivates such individuals. Lavandeira and his supporters will not be content to silence all opposition. The goal is not merely to ensure the allowance or even the tacit approval of their chosen lifestyle. Their ultimate demand is for complete validation and even praise. And any "heretic" who dares to deviate from the party line can expect to share the intended fate of Carrie Prejean.
In this they are abetted by a biased liberal media that maintains a deliberate propaganda front on behalf of the "gay" activists, suppresses any negative reporting, and studiously maintains their facade of meekness and affability.
Admittedly, among their own media/pop culture circles, this strategy has often met with success. In the immediate aftermath of the Prejean controversy, Kristen Dalton, the contestant from North Carolina who took the Miss USA crown, dutifully drank the rancid Kool-Aid during a television interview by asserting her support for same-sex "marriage."
Such monumental theologians as Heidi Montag (a noted MTV personality) and Miley Cyrus (the latest "Lindsay Lohan in waiting") have loudly decried Prejean for involving the arcane notions of Biblical right and wrong in the discussion of what it means to be a modern "Christian." For this they castigate Prejean as "judgmental."
Since that time, a host of other mental giants of the entertainment industry have weighed in, concurring with earlier demeaning "news" stories of Carrie Prejean in an effort to marginalize everyone who espouses support for traditional marriage. In their minds, they maintain the philosophical and populist "high ground," despite the fact that the people of America and even California, the very state in which she resides, stood with her when they voted decisively in favor of protecting the institution of marriage last November.
Total success for the counterculture might have been assured, were it not for one problematic point. It turns out that Carrie Prejean is hardly the empty-headed "pretty face" that typifies so much of the pop culture. Rather, in the midst of this ugly controversy, she has proven herself to be intelligent, articulate, principled, and courageous.
She did not crumble, recant, or beg for forgiveness. But on every occasion in which she has been confronted with her beliefs, she has reasserted them with conviction and confidence. As a result, many of her detractors were subsequently forced to back-peddle and soften their criticism of her. Thus she has demonstrated the true character of a worthy role model. It is to the shame of so many Americans, from members of the clergy to those supposedly conservative politicians, that their own examples fall so far short of hers.
The effort of Carrie Prejean's critics has been to drag her down to where the Miss USA pageant has sunk, and where it will probably remain indefinitely. Instead, because she remained true to her faith, she has risen far above it. America needs to decide now to rise with her, not only in recognition of her own plight, but also from the necessity to effectively engage the enemy in this ongoing battle for the soul of America.
The alternative is unthinkable. In the end, Pastor Niemoller was left with the regret of something far more terrible and tragic than the loss of a beauty contest.
Perez Hilton is a gossip columnist, first and foremost. He makes his living slinging mud and DOES not represent the typical LGBT person or their interests except as the occasional mouthpiece who speaks for himself. Regardless of how ill advised it may have been by the pageant committee, Lavandiera was invited to be a judge and the question was cleared by the pageant committee. Questions regarding current events are the norm. Was he spiteful in giving her a zero? Yes, but the score from other judges were pretty low as well. Any statement that includes “No offense” in the interview portion in a pageant is a loser only slightly above Miss South Carolina’s inability to answer a question on modern public education. Miss California is no Conservative hero though, and going on every morning show that will have you doesn’t change that. C’mon, her christian faith taught her that gay marriage is wrong but she somehow didn’t pick up any lessons on modesty, chastity, pride, and vanity? She also lied to the California pageant committee about her prior modeling and they’re probably going to ask for their boobs back any day.
In Summary :
Perez Hilton is a shallow, small minded, fame-whore who is being held up by the Right as a voice for the Left.
Carrie Prejean is a shallow, small minded, fame-whore who is being held up by the Right AND the Left as a voice for the Right.
Where do you see the consensus?
Last night Bill O’Reilly called those of us who support marriage equality for Gay couples “bigots.” Today Intellectual Conservative called us “intolerant.”
Perhaps you’d forgotten, but it isn’t Gay Americans who are telling Straight Americans they aren’t allowed to get married. Nor have Straight Americans ever had to worry about loosing their jobs, their homes, or being subjected to hate crimes because of THEIR sexual orientation.
And you think WE’RE being intolerant?
Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Let me reassure Carrie Prejean: When marriage equality for Gay couples finally becomes a reality (and it eventually will), I can promise you with 100% certainty that it will not affect your life, your marriage, your church, or your children ONE BIT. You will never have to worry about being denied a job or your love because of YOUR sexual orientation. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples.
But then again, it’s not the church that provides the 1,400 federal and state benefits and responsibilities that go along with marriage. And the fact remains that there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples equal protection under the law. Pointing this out does not make us “intolerant.”
PolishBear,
Bad behavior by your enemies does not justify bad behavior by your friends. Many gays ARE intolerant, period. It doesn’t matter if other people are also intolerant. Get it?
Tell us, why are monogamy and commitment good things? Those are value judgments, as you said. Value judgments carry implicit approvals and disapprovals, don’t they? So I wonder how you feel free to make value judgments about monogomy, but somehow traditionalists cannot make their own judgments about what consitutes marriage?
“I can promise you with 100% certainty that it will not affect your life, your marriage, your church, or your children ONE BIT.” Oh, really? You can guarantee that for us, can you? On what basis? People on your side already call traditionalists ugly names, pursue them with lawsuits, picket their businesses, subject them to harrasment at their homes, and yet you say that it won’t affect them?
Newsflash for you: Marriage is not a constitutional issue. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is exclusive. It is defined by law. 12 year olds cannot get married, and that is not discrimination. 5 people cannot get married, and it still isn’t discrimination. I cannot marry my sister, my dog, or my 67 Camaro. That is not discrimination.
When the parameters that define a legal relationship are set forth, those who do not qualify have not experienced discrimination.
Mountain Man, There is wrong on both sides but seriously? 12 year olds are not consenting adults, neither are your dog or your 67 Camaro. Polygamy is problematic because it is not founded on the equality of all concerned parties. If you want to marry your sister and she is of age and consents to the relationship knock yourselves out.
Gay marriage will happen. Churches will be allowed to not approve and not perform same sex marriages. They will NOT be allowed to rent public facilities and deny its use to same sex couples. Church members will be able to teach their children that homosexuality is frowned upon biblically. No heterosexual couple or individual will lose a single right. Not even the right to discriminate in their hearts and their homes.
Let’s put this thing in context. Lavandaria had planned the whole thing as a media event from the start. He used the homophile cast and crew of the pageant as complicit agents.
What I don’t get is how Lavandaria could possibly have advanced such a false argument without the media taking note. OK< actually I do get it – the media is obsessed with positions not content.
Lavandaria speciously argued that Miss America is supposed to represent the constituents of the pageant and therefore by answering personally as Carrie Prejean, the constestant disqualified herself as Miss America.
But the fact is that she did represent the people, did not Californians just vote to support Proposition 8 in an effort to prevent homosexual marriage? Did Californians not previously support heterosexual marriage yet were overturned by a tiny group of judges?
Polls show that this country does not support homosexual marriage, and Prejean was valid not only personally but as speaking for the majority of Americans … yet Lavandaria managed to claim the opposite with no apparent criticism.
I stopped supporting homosexual “rights” when I realized that it’s all a con game – using a host of manipulative tactics to dupe an unsuspecting public. Portraying themselves as victims is the essence of their Big Lie. At 52 years old there is no time in my life that homosexuals have been victimized on any level beyond that of the general population.
Polish Bear:
Re: “Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing?”
Because when you imagine two men in bed sodomizing each other, you find it difficult to trust them [see below that deception is necessary]. And no one likes to be subjected to mind control.
Re: “When marriage equality for Gay couples finally becomes a reality (and it eventually will), I can promise you with 100% certainty that it will not affect your life, your marriage, your church, or your children ONE BIT. You will never have to worry about being denied a job or your love because of YOUR sexual orientation. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples.”
I can’t believe this! Here we have a contestant who was denied a title because of her beliefs regarding sodomy, and you’re promising us our lives will not be affected???
“Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo’s [Bookstore], success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time.” – Ronald G. Lee, “The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement” New Oxford Review, February 2006
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
Lee also shoots down the argument that sodomite monogamy is possible.
When sodomites first started their movement 40 years ago, I remember that they said that all they wanted was to be left alone. Well, apparently, that wasn’t all they wanted. Now you’re telling us you won’t force churches to “marry” same-sex couples? Why do I have trouble believing you? What kind of fools do you think we are?
“Democracy, in practice, degrades to tyranny by dedicated minorities.” – Unknown
Groo,
I appreciate you addressing a part of my post, but I did make other points. Your answer?
You say, “12 year olds are not consenting adults…” We are talking about matters of law, aren’t we? Gays want the law changed, right? Your use of the term “consenting adults” is a concept founded on law, and the law can be changed. I am asking for the logic you would use that would allow gays to marry but not other parties.
Especially since you have couched in it terms of violating peoples’ rights.
This is what I was able to find out from Wikipedia [nothing about rules or judging is on the official Miss America website]:
Judging
1) Personal Interview. In the Personal Interview portion of the competition each contestant converses with the judges on a variety of topics, from frivolous trivia to serious political and social issues. The contestant is awarded points for being well spoken, polite, articulate, and confident. This competition is less known by the general public than other aspects of the pageant, since unlike the other three, it does not take place on a theater stage, nor is it usually televised. The Personal Interview counts for 25 percent of the contestant’s overall score.
2) Talent. In the Talent portion of the competition the contestant performs on stage before the judges and an audience. The most common talents are singing or dancing, but a variety of other talents may be exhibited at the contestant’s choosing; some have demonstrated juggling, playing musical instruments, ventriloquism, quick-draw painting; one even chose to demonstrate the proper way to pack a suitcase[citation needed]. The Talent portion of the competition counts for 35% of the contestant’s overall score.
3) Lifestyle & Fitness in Swimsuit. In the Swimsuit portion of the competition contestants walk on the stage in swimsuits and high-heeled shoes. The Miss America pageant regulates certain minimum standards of modesty the swimwear must comply with. Judging for this portion of the competition focuses on overall physical fitness, poise and posture. Until recently, the contestants were required to wear identical, somewhat dated, one-piece suits. Recently, the organization has allowed contestants to choose their own more revealing two-piece suits, bikinis, or more modern one-piece suits. In 1996 the pageant held a phone-in poll asking the public to weigh in on whether or not the Swimsuit competition should be continued. A staggering 87% voted to retain the swimsuit portion. The Swimsuit competition counts for 15% of the contestant’s overall score.
4) Evening Wear. In the Evening Wear portion of the competition, the contestants are judged on poise and bearing as they walk across the stage. The Evening Wear portion of the competition counts for 20% of the contestant’s overall score.
5) Onstage Question. During the Evening Wear competition the contestants are asked a random question from a pre-determined list that they must then answer onstage with no preparation. Questions are topical and usually involve current events. The questions require the contestant to have knowledge of the event and provide an opinion. The Onstage Question counts for 5% of the contestant’s total score.
You will notice that all that is required for the Onstage Question is that the contestant 1) be knowledgeable about the issue and 2) provide an opinion, which Prejean did. Having opinions that coincide with academia’s [or any other’s] current cause célèbre is not a requirement for a contestant, nor is it one of the judging criteria. If there is a hidden requirement, there might be some fraud going on. In any event, since it’s not in the rules that a contestant’s opinion has to conform to the judges’ or some favored group’s, all of Lavandeira’s scores should be thrown out, including those for other contestants and categories.
You’re absolutely right about a twelve year old being a child under the law. Hell, in biblical times a twelve year old girl would be considered extremely marriageable; in undeveloped countries this might still be true. I think that as a society we now have a much better understanding of the required maturity to consent. Twelve isn’t it by any contemporary standard.
Aren’t laws mainly intended to protect our rights as citizens? And aren’t gay people citizens?
I don’t know that homosexuals are being deprived of any rights, furthermore since homosexuality is a choice, people should learn to live with the consequences of their choices.
Ok, lets pretend it’s a choice for a second (really? you still believe that with all the evidence to the contrary. when did you choose to not be gay I wonder? that must have been an interesting day in your development but i digress), lets CHOOSE to let people CHOOSE to enter into marriage and lets CHOOSE to mind our own business.
Groo,
What may have been deemed an appropriate relationship in some other culture or time is irrelevant. We are talking about how the law today defines marriage in our society.
And you are still talking about the “required maturity to consent,” which is a LEGAL concept. Laws can be changed. That’s the point, which you have somewhat artlessly evaded or don’t understand. If one part of the law can be changed to accomodate gay marriage, then why not another? Why not other kinds and varieties of relationships? I’m asking for your rationale that would allow one accomodation and not another, since the same criteria applies.
Once again you are arguing rights, but there is no right to marry. Please re-read what I wrote in the 4th paragraph of post #4.
I am not deliberately evading your point; I’m not certain why we’re disagreeing on this point. Yes, laws can and should be changed to extend and protect people’s rights. I would emphatically support changing a law if 12 year olds suddenly found themselves considered ‘adults’ with the correlating responsibilities placed on them. I’m not certain why you equate the decision making abilities of two adults who happen to be of the same sex to those of a child? If you believe that the age of consent should be dramatically lowered I hear NAMBLA is accepting donation for their lobbying efforts.
Marriage in and of itself may not be a ‘right’ but it does fall somewhere into the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness categories. Preying on children does not.
There is no real evidence to the contrary, only the political position of the homosexual movements trying to capitalize on legal requirements and public sentiment.
I’m all for allowing people to choose marriage, as long as it’s between a man and a woman. That’s best for society. My position is not based on religious belief, I have none. The notion that homosexual marriage has no impact fails to consider the wide and long range social implications.
I’m fairly certain that homosexual marriage is just another step in the homosexual agenda. Back when I was supporting homosexual issues in the 70′s, which demanded the right to teach in schools, we laughed at those who claimed there was a homosexual agenda. Today even the homosexuals I know are not shy about admitting to an agenda.
Because of the highly manipulative methods of the homosexual movements, I have become quite suspicious of their goals … I don’t trust them. Homosexual marriage hardly serves homosexuals, it doesn’t serve society, and for many it’s just another issue to undermine traditional beliefs without understanding the consequences.
highlama:
Re: “The notion that homosexual marriage has no impact fails to consider the wide and long range social implications.”
This is why Groo’s appeal, “…lets [sic] CHOOSE to mind our own business” is another deception. The dictionary defines “society” thus:
–noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
Therefore, society is not just a group of individuals who live in a common geographical area, but one in which there is close interaction for “protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members.”
I don’t believe the definition of marriage should be changed to amend the age of consent. I don’t believe the definition of marriage should be changed to allow gay marriage. You, however, are still shucking and jiving. I am still waiting for your rationale that justifies changing the law for one thing and not others.
“Preying on children” is a moral judgment. Opposing gay marriage is a moral judgment. And the difference is…?
Guys and Gals, This is exactly why there is intolerance on both sides. Circular arguments, sophistry, strawmen, and disingenuity. The voices are getting louder, the battles are becoming more public, and opinions are becoming more entrenched.
Gay people 50 years ago could barely hope to have relationships without being ostracized in various ways. As a society, we’ve come a very long way. Gay people now see a very real possibility of actually being able to marry, have families, and enjoy the same benefits and pitfalls that come with those responsibilities.
Gay couples and families already exist and they haven’t ruined society yet.
“I don’t believe the definition of marriage should be changed to amend the age of consent. I don’t believe the definition of marriage should be changed to allow gay marriage.”
Ah. You’re right, absolutely – it should not have been necessary. People have seen fit to change the law, or made serious efforts to do so, defining marriage as one man, one woman. Changing it yet again to include LGBT citizens is simply the response.
…and Dude, you’re sort of squicking me out with your fixation on children.
Re: My post #9.
I was waiting to see if anyone caught my error. It was not the Miss America contest but the Miss USA. But that’s OK because it’s even better. Here are the rules:
Miss USA:
http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/info/faq
Quote:
HOW ARE THE SEMI-FINALISTS CHOSEN?
In 1997, a dual-paneled judging system was introduced. One panel judges the preliminary rounds; the other panel judges the live telecast. All contestants are judged in three areas of preliminary competition which are not always televised due to time constraints:
1. Interviews – Judges spend time with each delegate to learn about her successes, goals and ambitions.
2. Swimsuit Competition – Each delegate wears one of a variety of swimsuit styles provided by a sponsor.
3. Evening Gown Competition – Each delegate wears a gown she has chosen for herself.
All scores are tallied in each of the three categories. The contestants with the highest aggregate scores are named the semi-finalists. The competition is narrowed twice more to produce the winner.
HOW ARE THE TITLEHOLDERS AND RUNNERS-UP SELECTED?
Once the finalists are named, their scores are discarded, and they begin competing anew. In the final competition, the same three areas (Interview, Swimsuit, and Evening Gown) are judged. The judges’ scores in these categories are tallied and the winners are named live on the air.
Unquote.
But my question still stands. Where did the requirement for the on-stage question come from? And if there is such a rule, does it state that judging will be according to how much the answer conforms to Leftist political thought? Absent a requirement that a contestant’s answer/opinion must to conform to the judges’ or some favored group’s cause célèbre, all of Lavandeira’s scores should be thrown out, including his scores for other contestants and categories.
So you bag all the opposing arguments into the irrelevant category based on a sweeping ad hominem and then go on to tell us that it really doesn’t matter what we say or think.
Sounds rather fascist to me.
Sedonaman;
There’s no question that Lavanderia was out of line, why his contrivance wasn’t an issue reflects poorly on the media. You’ll notice that in the weeks since, two states have normalized homosexual marriage. A coincidence? I don’t think so. The homosexual activists are working closely with their Liberal allies to undermine the social fabric of this nation.
highlama, perhaps Sedonamna will copy and paste the definintion of fascism for you…because I don’t think it means what you intend. LOL.
No one is going to force you, personally, into a gay marriage. You don’t have to attend the weeding or even send a gift. The Gay is not contagious. I’d actually be willing to wager that you would see and hear less of gay people if they weren’t actively being legislated against and just left alone to live their lives.
Typos
Sedonamna=Sedonaman
weeding=wedding
Groo:
Re: “Gay people now see a very real possibility of actually being able to marry, have families, and enjoy the same benefits and pitfalls that come with those responsibilities. … Gay couples and families already exist and they haven’t ruined society yet.”
Forty years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the homosexual liberation movement. During that time, they have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sex partners. What normal person would even venture into those spaces?
Since then, and realizing that they had to have the support of the general public, homosexuals have hidden their agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs behind smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” But now Corvino http://www.365gay.com/features/082908-corvino tells us what they really want: moral approval, IOW, they want my heart and soul. It’s not enough just to be tolerant.
So, I’d say they are fairly well along in the ruination of society.
Groo,
If you can’t approach the issue with some sort of intellectual integrity, then stop posting. If you can’t follow a logical argument to its conclusion, go back to high school.
It is a non sequitur to suggest that I have some sort of sexual fixation when I have clearly opposed giving those fixations a legal stamp of approval. It was you who came here and demanded everyone embrace your idea of committed monogamous relationships.
Highlama is correct, your statements have ventured into ad hominem, the last refuge of those who cannot argue an issue on its merits.
I have been respectfully asking you to defend your positions on a logical basis, and you respond with diversion and tangents. In return you impugn me.
Put up or shut up.
Groo;
Your comment to Mountain Man was unwarranted on many levels. I’ve seen this sneaky tactic before, and it’s intended to silence people not advance understanding.
Before it was publicly discovered, NAMBLA was a cherished member of the larger homosexual community. To make comparisons to homosexuality and pedophilia is no stretch at all. Did you discover your homosexuality when you were a child at the hands of an adult?
Furthermore, the Dutch, having normalized homosexuality a generation ago already have a pedophiliacs political party.
The “slippery slope” argument made by Mountain Man is undoubtedly accurate. Homosexuality is the gateway do sexual deviance … this has been established again and again. Society has the right and obligation to draw a line.
That you fail to recognize the value in this argument suggests that you are not open minded at all and at best choose to see your opponents as equally narrow minded rather than concerned for the larger public welfare.
That you could be blind to those motivated by public welfare suggests that you lack such an inclination.
I actually have addressed your concerns. Was I snarky about it? Absolutely, but my dial goes to 11.
I think where we seem to be narrowing the debate to is the word morality. We agree that predatory behavior is immoral as it infringes on the rights of another individual. I’m really glad we agree on that.
I think the concept of morality as commonly applied to same sex relationships is what’s completely off base. It would be more accurately termed a personal distaste, disgust even. Some people find drinking or dancing abhorrent. I am disgusted by cigarettes and poor hygiene. None of these are decried as ‘immoral’ in the rule of law.
The ball is in motion, laws are changing whether we like it or not. The choice comes down to expanding the rights of LGBT citizens or writing discrimination into law.
Groo
Do you maintain homosexual marriage is and has been permitted since the equal protection clause?
And if equal protection guarantees homosexual marriage, does it also guarantee marriage between multiple partners? Brother and sister? Father and son? If not, why not?
Keep in mind regarding the equality issue, every man and woman of legal age has the same (equal) marriage privilege, leaving only parity issues.
Given that, please explain why a man who says only marriage to aother man will make him happy and included in society is any different than a man who says only marriage to two other men (and his sister, just for kicks) makes him a happy member of society.
The debate has not been about morality. It has been about law. You have been asked direct questions several times, but you obfuscate.
Once again. If the legal definition of marriage is changed to allow gay marriage, why cannot it be changed to allow other committed, monogamous relationships? What is the legal basis that allows discrimination in favor of gays, but against other relationships?
Addressing the moral position for a moment, why should advocates of gay marriage be allowed to force their morality on others?
Do you have an answer, or will you prattle on about your moral superiority?
“If the legal definition of marriage is changed to allow gay marriage, why cannot it be changed to allow other committed, monogamous relationships? What is the legal basis that allows discrimination in favor of gays, but against other relationships?”
It can as long as both or all parties are making informed consent as far as I’m concerned. As I recall, you are the one who suggested that emotionally, psychologically, and physically immature persons would be fair game; along with pets, and vintage automobiles.
If you believe that I equivocated in some way, I’ll state it plainly. Children are not tax paying consenting adults. If you and your sister don’t want your genes mixing with outsiders, you’re meant for each other. Your dog cannot enter into a contractual union. Your 67 Camaro isn’t…wait, y’know what – I’ll give you this one. Go ahead. Film it. It would be good for the economy. There’s a market for everything. Maybe it will even revive the ailing American automobile market if you can get your own automobilephilia fetish subculture going. It makes as much sense as midgets and clowns does to me. Finally, I may be mistaken, but I believe you were also the one who brought up value judgments. I answer, you move the goalposts, lather, rinse, repeat.
Mountain man, thank you. I can’t remember the last time I had so much fun sitting in airports all damn day.
Groo
You’ve made it clear you favor allowing marriage to multiple partners and siblings, parents wedding their offspring, etc. You are quite the libertarian.
The argument that consenting adults should be able to do most anything they want is an old one. We all understand the appeal to those who want it all, but what do you expect the appeal to be to a society that knows all too well how such free-wheeling morality has played out in societies through the ages?
You might fancy yourself sitting upon wisdom and enlightenment, but your promise is one history proves has no value, and puts you in the company of lots of “dummies” who either do not know their history, or have no respect for its lessons.
A couple of years ago, there was a news story, complete with video, about a woman who married herself in Canada. Apparently it’s legal there. The video showed her all dressed up like a bride … alone of course. She even said she was going on a honeymoon “to get in touch with herself.”
I leave up to you to determine what she meant by that comment.
I think groo has been clear enough, he believes he’s part of a growing movement that will sweep the nation and force everyone into compliance. Those who voice any disagreement will be held up for public ridicule or worse, and that’s ok, because disagreeing is evidence of poor character.
Yes, it’s exciting to laugh at all the poor fools who aren’t joining the new movement which will sweep away it’s enemies in a maelstrom of justice and power that will last for 1,000 years.
Yes, groo – we’re all very happy for you.
Groo,
I gave some examples, and you seized upon the 12 year olds. Perhaps I should engage in the same kind of armchair psychology that you did with me and suggest you have some sort of repressed feelings?
There, how did that feel?
Ok, so you’re saying that anyone who wants to enter into a committed, monogamous (your value judgments) relationship ought to be able to be married, hm? Let’s make a list, Groo, and you can copy and paste it in your response, putting checks next to each one you would allow to marry.
1) Adult brothers and sisters
2) 3 men and two women
3) unusually mature 12 year olds, already sexually active with each other, with demonstrated competency to give consent
4) mother/daughter
5) friends who are the same sex but not gay
6) a man who wants 6 wives (fundamentalist Morman sect)
7) a 50 year old man who wants to marry a 15 year old woman (age of consent in some states)
8) a college professor who simply wants to have consensual sex with random students
9) A gynocologist and his patients
10) A priest with a alter boy who is old enough to give consent
11) a high school teacher and her 17 year old math student
12) A man and woman who do not want to be committed or monogamous
Ok, Groo, draw your own line in the dirt for these, and then tell us you are not intolerant or bigoted against those who do not make the cut.
Marriage isn’t the purview of the federal government or the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. If it were, states charging couples a fee to license their marriage contract would be equivalent to poll taxes and in violation of the 24th amendment. You have no constitutional right as an American citizen to get married – whether you are gay, straight, a “dumb bitch”, or anything else. So the entire argument of marriage “rights” is a ridiculous red herring. Marriage is a privilege that is licensed by each state – the same as driving a vehicle or incorporating a business. That some people aren’t allowed to drive cars, or incorporate businesses, or serve liquor, or take wagers is discrimination in the same sense that some people aren’t allowed to get married – people who are both the same gender, certain people who are incarcerated, people who can’t pay the licensing fee. And even that is more involvement than the government should have in relationshios among two individuals. Marriage is a religious institution, performed to consecrate a couple’s relationship before their religious organization and the god it represents. Why people who are hostile to the very religious traditions from which marriage is derived (since the “Big 3″ of the world’s religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all prohibit homosexuality. Yes, Virginia, them Jews and A-Rabs hate homos too!) would want to participate in the instituation at all is quite baffling.
Patrick
Nothing baffling when you consider that from the activist’s standpoint, marriage is not something desirable for what it is and what it offers, but what it can be changed to be and to mean when modified to their tastes.
Changing the marriage definition would be a thing of beauty because it not only provides a moral and practical victory, but is a sharp stick in the eye of a conservative and traditionalist America that is losing its will to fight.
Homosexual marriage advocates who turn up their noses at civil unions that provide the same legal benefits show their hand when they continue to push for marriage. They don’t want the same candy bar everyone else it chomping on – they want the same candy bar and an apology.
The dynamic is not a lot different from leftist who claim to love this country, but in actuality mean they love their vision and hopes for it once it is “remade” and redefined (Michelle Obama claimed to be someone who loves her country, but slipped that she revealed she never was proud of her country until her husband was nominated).
To the leftist activist, traditions, standards and beliefs considered wholesome and important, capitalism, vestiges of religion and morality all stand in the way of a better country and better social institutions, such as marriage.
The irony is that those who want to draw the line at gay marriage don’t seem to understand they are not battling the disease, but the symptom. The threat isn’t gay marriage; it’s the lack of social responsibility and the loss of the will to stand up to the offensive of secular progressivism that permits a minority to impose its will over the majority.
With the help of the media, courts and constant intimidation and scoldings from a left that brand opposition as bigoted haters, we decide standing our ground is not worth the energy and opt to get on with out lives, despite that the handwriting on the wall for our culture and society indicates that our idea of “our lives” is in dander of extinction.
History tells us where we are headed.
Mountain Man:
13) Two businessmen who want to marry for business reasons.
sedonaman,
Good one. Why should marriage participants be expected to engage in sex? That means we could dispense with ideas like corporations, and call them marriages instead!
Why, the possibilities are endless. Sports teams, political parties, fraternal organizations, labor unions… why not call them all marriage?
Now I have to apologize for being so narrow-minded and intolerant. This is a stroke of genius!
Mountain Man
Guy weds his buddy and accomplice in crime. Neither can be forced to testify against the other if caught.
So if a man married his mom, would mom be an aunt to any children?
Hmm, maybe she would be a grandmother to them.
MM: I’m my own grandpa!
>Why should marriage participants be expected to engage in sex?
*** That was an exact quote from my wife last night.
***That was an exact quote from my wife last night.
It wasn’t for me yesterday morning. Cha-Ching!
Seems like this has reached an impasse. Those on the odd side of the street believe that no one else is allowed an opinion or the ability to state that opinion. Relevant review of issues and facts have been swept aside.
Well, in the spirit of this thread let’s sing that old folk song that seems appropriate: I’m my own Grandpa.
Oh, I’m my own grandpa!
CHORUS
I’m my own grandpa
I’m my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know, but it really is so
Oh, I’m my own grandpa.
Now many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a (widder) who was pretty as can be
This (widder) had a grown up daughter who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her and soon they two were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
My daughter was my mother for she was my father’s wife
To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle then that also made him brother
Of the (widder’s) grown up daughter who of course was my step-mother.
CHORUS
Father’s wife then had a son who kept him on the run
And he became my grandchild for he was my daughter’s son
My wife is now my mother’s mother and it makes me blue
Because although she is my wife, she’s my grandmother too.
CHORUS
Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I’m her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa.
CHORUS
With apologies to the original author Ray Stevens
Hillarious!!
[...] Here is great article by Christopher Adamo, at Intellectual Conservatism. Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture [...]
[...] Another fellow blogger placed an observative post today on Miss USA And The Ugly CountercultureHere’s a quick excerptThose who demand tolerance from traditional America reveal themselves to be wholly intolerant of any opposing viewpoint. [...]