Oliver engages in a little fringebaiting with this post, but over all, he is right- these comments are unacceptable:
“This is great that Massachusett’s gay judges did this. Let all the fudgepackers move there and be clients of the Dickem and Dunkem (Ted Kennedy) law firm.”
“Born Gay” is Marxist propaganda. They’re vile perverts, nothing more.
In the past, they were confined to mental institutions to protect the innocent. Some touchie feelie let them out. They thought they could be rehabilitated and placed back into society. They were wrong. It’s too bad they can’t see the damage they’ve done to society by their ignorant mistake.”“The reason for that stat is that male queers are ungodly horny pigs. I used to be an inner city bartender and when one of these trouser pilots came into the bar they practically dropped their drawers around any male in the place. they’re sick sob’s.”
Now while Oliver would like for you to think that this represents the mainstream of conservative thought, I can assure you it is not. These disgusting comments do not represent any sort of position that can be derived from conservative ideology or from the philosophical underpinnings of conservative ideology. There is, however, a name for it. Bigotry.
It really is that simple, this is bigotry in its ugliest form. I simply have no tolerance for it, and no patience for people who think like this. People like this should just crawl into a hole and leave the rest of decent society alone- and they can take Derbyshire with them. That guy has been the “thinking man’s” homophobe for too god damn long, and it is time he stops providing cover for the bigots and homophobes who use his arguments to mask their hate and cotempt.
Jadegold
Of course it is the mainstream of conservative thought. Perhaps your party doesn’t use the pejorative terminology–in public– but the message is the same.
When you hear GOP front groups claiming the recent MA civil unions ruling means people can marry their dogs or their brothers–it’s really no different than the views expressed by Freepers.
And take a look at the TX GOP platform WRT gays.
Slartibartfast
Shorter JadeGold:
Yes, it is.
Oliver
No, its not the mainstream of conservative thought. BUT, this sort of thinking is represented in established right-friendly groups (Falwell, Robertson, etc) that the national party associates with. Regularly.
Slartibartfast
Yes, I have tea with them daily.
I’m not sure how you can scoff at lefty connections with organizations like ANSWER, and yet turn right around and do the exact same sort of thing you were ridiculing. Maybe logical consistency isn’t very important to you?
Justin Katz
As a point of fact, Jadegold, the argument of the Mass. ruling makes the legality of consensual incestuous marriage almost a logical necessity. To be sure, because there has never been such a thing as gay marriage, none of the precedent for consanguinity rules mention same-sex relationships.
As for the pet line, well, that’s obviously overstated, but whether for rhetorical or psychological reasons, or made in the context of a heated argument, would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
harry
Screw Derb. NRO should hire you, John. Seriously.
Of course, I don’t know if you have the sexy youth hipster appeal of Jonah. But, that you actually take the time to spell out your arguments (even when I mostly disagree) should count for something.
Jadegold
No, its not the mainstream of conservative thought. BUT, this sort of thinking is represented in established right-friendly groups (Falwell, Robertson, etc) that the national party associates with. Regularly.
Baloney.
What’s the difference? And how do you explain the TX GOP platform WRT homosexuality?
John Cole
Jadegold-
I understand that reliance on binary constructs is one of the hobgoblins of small minds, but I will attempt to explain this to you anyway. I am sure I will fail to penetrate the bony mass that is your cranium, particularly since you have had your head up your ass since I first met you. But try, I will.
There are two parties in the United States that really matter. One is the Republicans. One is the Democrats. Both have principled positions on gay marriage, not based on bigotry or homophobia. The Republicans, for the most part, are against homosexual marriage for a myriad of reasons. The Democrats, for the most part, are in favor of some sort of gay marriage.
Now, if you were a biogt and a homophobe, which party position would you feel more comfortable with? Of course you would favor the Republican positin over the Democratic position- but that does not mean that the Republican position is wrong, or homophobic.
IN much the same way, there are Democrats who have a principled opposition to the war in Iraq. Why- Howard Dean comes to mind. Now, there are a lot of really scummy people out there on the far left who are against the war in Iraq, and who have staged vomit ins, erected Bush=Hitler signs, and openly written on DU forums that they wish more American soldiers would die.
If you had to guess which of the two parties these people would belong to, you would probably say that they feel more comfortable with Dean’s position than Bush’s.
Comprende?
Jadegold
Wow, John. That was deep.
Let’s see; if I’m a bigot–I’d be more welcome in the GOP. And the GOP would be happy to have me; even to the point where they’d court me and my fellow bigots.
And you’re saying this isn’t wrong or a bad thing.
Thanks, John. But I knew that all along.
John Cole
My god Jadegold. You are dumb beyond my wildest imagination. Anyone else care to try to explain this to our favorite troll?
Justin Katz
Sorry, John.
Although Jadegold seems uninclined to engage in substantive debate, and although he seems to have mistaken Oliver’s comment above as one in support of the GOP, I find I have to score him a couple points in opposition to you.
When you dragged Derbyshire into this as the “‘thinking man’s’ homophobe,” you lost a lot of the ground that you’re trying to put between a principled position and bigotry. After all, your argument with respect to the GOP is that its “principled position” is “providing cover for the bigots and homophobes.” Your mention of Derbyshire, who is at worst somewhere between (although I’m not so willing to dismiss his principles), pulls the border that much closer.
Now, I happen to agree with you about your central distinction. I also happen to believe that one must take the principled position even if there’s a risk that others with less noble intent will rally behind it. Unfortunately, many people are willing to take a few supports out of their thinking for no reason but to distance themselves from bigots, a problem that this issue has made prominent.
John Cole
Now, I happen to agree with you about your central distinction. I also happen to believe that one must take the principled position even if there’s a risk that others with less noble intent will rally behind it. Unfortunately, many people are willing to take a few supports out of their thinking for no reason but to distance themselves from bigots, a problem that this issue has made prominent.
Ding ding!
Personally, I think many of Derbyshire’s arguments are pretty weak…
Kimmitt
“No, its not the mainstream of conservative thought.”
Forgive me, but I do not agree. I do not believe you to be in the mainstream of conservative thought on this issue, and opinion polls are quite clear on this.
Ken Hahn
A liberal’s view is that mainstream conservative thought is bigoted jingoistic evil. Conservatives consider mainstream liberal thought as cowardly socialistic ignorance. No ammount of facts will seriously modify these views. There are principled people on both sides and there are crooks and haters. If Jadie is so worried about the Texas Republicans, let her move to Texas and register GOP. Then she can persuade them to change their position.
I am sure if all I had to do was peruse the platforms of the State Democratic Parties, I could find an equal offensive position. Like most Republicans, however I have a job. Guess I’ll have to leave it to Jadie to reseach obscure strawmen.
Jadegold
The TX GOP platform is illustrative; after all, these are, presumably, not a bunch of trailerpark trash sitting around a bottle of Old Grandad, trashing gays.
They represent the top leadership of the GOP. They were led by your president.
From the GOP Platform: “The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country
Pauly
It’s daytime Jadegold, head to your cave before you turn to stone!
Why bother with thoughtful replies when you know they are just going to be ignored? That’s my theory.
Inspector Callahan
Jadegold,
I read that entire chunk of the platform above, and I don’t see hatred or discrimination of gays anywhere.
In other words, how is that position above not a principled position? You may strongly disagree with it – as is your right. That doesn’t make it full of hate or discrimination.
In your eyes, I must be blind.
TV (Harry)
JadeGold
Inspector:
Portraying gays as disease carriers whose ‘unacceptable’ lifestyle run contrary to a singular interpretation of some God’s ‘teachings’ is hardly a principled position. Portraying gays as unworthy or incapable of being families or caring for children or not entitled to equivalent civil rights (not ‘special rights)is certainly hateful and discriminatory. As is the misguided belief gays (via a specific sexual act) are destroying society and families. To top it all off, the TX GOP believes it’s more important to protect those who would discriminate against gays than to portect what limited rights that would afford to gays.
arty
“The reason for that stat is that male queers are ungodly horny pigs. I used to be an inner city bartender and when one of these trouser pilots came into the bar they practically dropped their drawers around any male in the place. they’re sick sob’s.”
I agree with this. I stopped submittinging my real email address in comments after I recieved three homo solicitations via email. They culled my address from comments I made to posts that had nothing to do with homosexuality (all were libertarian sites). Anybody else had this happen? These people have infested every institution, religious, legal, educational, media, and political in the western world and are using their gains for lobbying to have the age of sexual consent lowered (as another commenter pointed out) to get access to children. The spread of homosexuality is a big part of the reason why Islam is so revolted by democracy and freedom. You can hit me with the bigot stick all you want John, I don’t care anymore. We won’t be the first civilization these people bring down but we may be the last.
Kathy K
I’d say that attitude goes with what I’d call “paleocon” rather than conservatives in general (whether or not they express it in that sort of language). The “neocon” crowd does not, in general, seem to have that attitude. Nor do GOP moderates.
And I wouldn’t be too surprised if some who vote Democrat had the same attitudes. Bigotry crosses political boundaries.
Justin Katz
JadeGold,
Okay, let’s try the principle of rational discussion:
What if it’s true that children tend to develop in a more healthy manner in families with parents of both sexes?
I expect you’ll be inclined to reject the question rather than answer it, in which case, I’ll want some solid proof. But that isn’t the point: the point is that blanket dismissal of beliefs about society based on your conviction that they are “misguided” is a dangerous way to progress one that has already done too much damage to the U.S.
Ricky
This is the part where Oliver goes beserk when someone notices anti-war marchers marching in an ANSWR sponsored march & screams how ludicrous it would be for anyone to draw a correlation.
The hobgoblin of little minds, indeed.
Hey, OW, how about something different—- like a “the Democrats need to fight, fight, fight, fight and they’ll win” entry? :)
Jadegold
What if it’s true that children tend to develop in a more healthy manner in families with parents of both sexes?
Let’s assume, for a moment, this is true.
Do we then subject single parents to the same level of discrimination and hatred in order to discourage divorce/separation/out-of-wedlock births?
Do we condemn orphans to childhoods as wards of the state rather than the possibility of being part of a loving family consisting of either a single parent or same-sex parents?
Of course, I reject the notion children tend to develop better in families with parentss of both sexes–simply because there is insufficient data to support such a contention.
Justin Katz
“Do we then subject single parents to the same level of discrimination and hatred in order to discourage divorce/separation/out-of-wedlock births?”
– No. Single parents are welcome to get married. And if they are able to sodomize themselves, I suspect legislators will be sufficiently impressed as to leave them alone.
“Do we condemn orphans to childhoods as wards of the state rather than the possibility of being part of a loving family consisting of either a single parent or same-sex parents?”
– Well, I guess that depends on what the local society’s assessment is about what is better for children. Personally, I’d tend to fall toward the side that allows vetted gay couples to adopt; of course, heterosexual couples ought to be vetted before adopting, too, which points to a major difference from marriage: case-by-case decision capability. At any rate, if the above assumption were, in fact, true, then one could come to varying conclusions without its being bigotry. It also must be noted that gay adoption helped to pave the way for the Mass. court’s ruling, which would speak against it retrospectively, in my opinion.
“Of course, I reject the notion children tend to develop better in families with parentss of both sexes–simply because there is insufficient data to support such a contention.”
– But do you have sufficient data to support the opposite contention? Or is the default policy guideline minority opinion? (Personally, finding it obvious that men and women are not identical, I find it self evident that being raised experiencing close, parent-child relationships with one of each would be healthier in social terms.)
Jadegold
Personally, finding it obvious that men and women are not identical, I find it self evident that being raised experiencing close, parent-child relationships with one of each would be healthier in social terms.
Self-evident is lazy thinking, JK. It’s another way of saying “I have absolutely no evidence to believe as I do.’
In fact, it’s a rather old debater’s trick; saying something is ‘self evident’ is the equivalent of saying, ‘it’s true because..it’s true.’
Remember, JK, it’s up to you to show discrimination –even hatred–of gays can be based upon a ‘principled position.’
Justin Katz
No, Jade, it’s you as the person claiming that no principled opposition can exist who bears the burden of substantiating your outright objection of the aforesaid notion. I don’t claim that everybody who supports gay marriage is a short-sighted ignoramus. You are asserting an offensive claim about motivation, not policies, and it is therefore incumbent upon you to prove that your statement is not itself an instance of bigotry… or else justify being written off as others above have written you off.
Choosing to address a parenthetical in which I offered a side comment does not absolve you of the responsibility of responding to direct questions, which were:
“But do you have sufficient data to support the opposite contention? Or is the default policy guideline minority opinion?”
More broadly, it is up to your side which is the one proposing to change the definition of a word that has been constant throughout human history as involving opposite-sex arrangements to prove that your professedly insignificant change is, in fact, insignificant.
Justin Katz
Make that “outright rejection of the aforesaid notion.”
Ricky
Damn, I was halfway joking/mocking….I didn’t realize we’d be treated to our daily “the Democrats need to fight, fight, fight, fight” post from Oliver so soon after my comment.
Not that it’s become a broken record or anything.
Jadegold
Done, JK. We have seen the comments of the Freepers. I’d add most rightwing bloggers hold similar views. I’ve also provided the TX GOP’s view of things which, while not as pejorative, is deeply offensive and bigoted.
The plain fact is there exists no ‘principled position’ in a public policy issue which deliberately excludes a segment of the population based on sexual orientation.
The only objections you’ve attempted to raise are based upon religious beliefs. Should we punish those who eat shellfish? Should we, as a society, condone the killing of unruly children by their parents? Should we test fiances in the temple per the instructions in Numbers?
Essentially, the fact remains that conservatives pander to anti-gay bigots. There are votes to be had.
Justin Katz
Darn, Jade. I’m extremely disappointed. I actually enjoyed pondering, as I walked the dog this evening, the many directions in which this argument could go, and you’ve apparently forgotten what the discussion is about.
Oh well. That being the case, I’ve no additional time to waste. Let me just give you some thoughts to consider, if you’re inclined to prove to yourself that you do, in fact, have the open mind that you undoubtedly consider yourself to have. You write:
“The plain fact is there exists no ‘principled position’ in a public policy issue which deliberately excludes a segment of the population based on sexual orientation.”
Its being a “plain fact,” and with your believing that appeals to the “self-evident” are “an old debate trick,” surely you can explain why the fact that I disagree with you proves, of itself, that I’m a bigot. Maybe you can even explain why sexual orientation ought never be the basis for exclusion. It’s so obvious that it ought to be easy to explain, no? And maybe you can explain to me where I’ve made a single appeal to religious belief.
Well, I, for one, will hope (and pray) that you and others like you find some way to begin questioning the myopic dogma of your reactionary liberalism, with its central faith of selfish individualism. Because this isn’t playtime in the college classroom anymore. We’re picking at the foundations of society, here, and the long-term effects could be catastrophic.
Come to think of it, that ought to be the first question you address in your thinking: what if those who take my position are right? What if you’re wrong? And what makes you so damn sure that you’re right that you’re willing to hand HUGE social issues to a handful of lawyers in robes?
Jadegold
The thing that militates against your desire for ‘my side’ to consider your views are right is the fact that so often your side uses arguments that are flat-out lies. For example, it doesn’t demean, damage, or otherwise harm my marriage in the least.
We can play ‘what if my side is right’ games all day but to this point you’ve failed to show what possible damage or negative consequences could occur.
You can’t possibly claim to hold a ‘principled position’ when you cannot even articulate what that position might be.
Justin Katz
Yup, there it is: “selfish individualism.”
This isn’t about YOUR marriage, Jadegold, or MY marriage. What is it that you don’t get about the concepts “society” and “long term”?
Jadegold
Understood, JK. But until you’re willing to share what those very specific and very ‘principled’ long-term dangers or negative impacts to society are–then you and Kathleen Parker really haven’t a leg to stand on.
Frankly, many of the arguments you (and Ms. Parker) make are quite similar to ones made in opposition to ending segregation or those opposed to women getting the vote. In those issues, we saw the same ‘principled positions’ which seemed to consist of dark and veiled warnings of harm to society and culture and the family accompanied by virtually nothing in the way of facts to support such concerns.
I’ve an open mind, JK. Enlighten me as to what is ‘principled’ about denying basic civil liberties to people based on sexual orientation.
Justin Katz
Okay, let’s find the extent of your “open mind.”
“share what those very specific and very ‘principled’ long-term dangers or negative impacts to society are”
The specific, long-term danger is the essential dissolution of the central social institution of marriage, which is already reeling from decades of experimentation.
“Frankly, many of the arguments you (and Ms. Parker) make are quite similar to ones made in opposition to ending segregation or those opposed to women getting the vote.”
Okay… I was tempted to curse at you, but instead, I’ll simply request: please enlighten me, oh ye of the hateful stereotypes, as to the specific arguments that I have made and the specific anti-segregation/suffrage arguments to which they relate. Frankly, I don’t think you’ve paid close enough attention to what I have stated above (and/or elsewhere) to make such a comment. But I guess when you’re arguing online anonymously, you’re free to say anything about anybody without fear of repercussion, particularly if you lack the scruples to chastise yourself.
“Enlighten me as to what is ‘principled’ about denying basic civil liberties to people based on sexual orientation.”
I deny nothing. Marriage has always been defined as a relationship between people of different genders. Homosexuals are perfectly free to pursue such relationships. As I’ve tried to explain before: it is the necessity and societal safety of the innovation of gay marriage that must be sufficiently supported by argument and evidence.
Let me add a question that requires merely a yes or no response: Are men and women at all different in ways that affect their behavior, personalities, and (generally) worldviews?
If you continue your strategy of picking only one point to address, please make it the yes or no question.
Jadegold
>>The specific, long-term danger is the essential dissolution of the central social institution of marriage, which is already reeling from decades of experimentation.
Let’s assume this is true (It’s not completely accurate; nor is it particulaly germane). How will permitting gay marriages impact a heterosexual individual’s desire to marry, stay married, or not to marry?
>>please enlighten me, oh ye of the hateful stereotypes, as to the specific arguments that I have made and the specific anti-segregation/suffrage arguments to which they relate
You misunderstood. Many people ‘claimed’ to oppose desegregation not out of some belief that blacks were inferior to whites or racial hatred but on the very shaky grounds it would destroy cultures or societal norms.
Personally, my belief is that those who oppose gay civil unions do so out of homophobia, first and foremost.
>>Are men and women at all different in ways that affect their behavior, personalities, and (generally) worldviews?
Yes.
Are all men different in ways that affect their behavior, personalities, and (generally) worldviews?
Are all women different in ways that affect their behavior, personalities, and (generally) worldviews?
Justin Katz
“How will permitting gay marriages impact a heterosexual individual’s desire to marry, stay married, or not to marry?”
1) Leading to further expansions of its definition, as other groups seek to employ the same arguments (e.g., polygamists and others) for inclusion.
2) Leading to the potential for marriage’s use, now entirely severed from the presumption of procreation, explicitly to gain benefits, even among those who aren’t romantically involved.
3) Helping, mostly through homosexuals’ dramatically disproportionate influence on the culture, to reshape the ethos that surrounds the relationship.
There are more.
“Many people ‘claimed’ to oppose desegregation not out of some belief that blacks were inferior to whites or racial hatred but on the very shaky grounds it would destroy cultures or societal norms.”
And NAMBLA supports gay causes because it believes they further its own. Does that mean homosexuals don’t have legitimate arguments untainted by pedophilia?
“my belief is that those who oppose gay civil unions do so out of homophobia”
I’ve always thought that “homophobia” word was meaningless and stupid. Oh well, too late on that one. But anyway, I thought we were talking about “gay marriage”? Where did “civil unions” come from?
“Are all men different in ways that affect their behavior, personalities, and (generally) worldviews?”
You’re being obtuse (deliberately, I hope). But so we can move on: you’re admitting that men and women, AS GROUPS, are different in significant ways? In other words, that men have something in common with each other, but not with women, and vice versa?
JadeGold
>> Leading to further expansions of its definition, as other groups seek to employ the same arguments (e.g., polygamists and others) for inclusion.
That’s the Rick Santorum argument. But among rational people that line of reasoning has no traction. Again, the idea of two same sex individuals forming a civil union does not lead to 3,4, 5, etc. in a civil union.
>>Leading to the potential for marriage’s use, now entirely severed from the presumption of procreation, explicitly to gain benefits, even among those who aren’t romantically involved.
That happens currently. Has happened probably since the first recorded marriage.
>>Helping, mostly through homosexuals’ dramatically disproportionate influence on the culture, to reshape the ethos that surrounds the relationship
Being a bit dramatic, are we?
>>And NAMBLA supports gay causes because it believes they further its own. Does that mean homosexuals don’t have legitimate arguments untainted by pedophilia?
If you really wish to trot out that old chestnut–one could easily show most instances of pedophilia involve different sexes.
>> But so we can move on: you’re admitting that men and women, AS GROUPS, are different in significant ways? In other words, that men have something in common with each other, but not with women, and vice versa?
Don’t get too far afield; you asked a question to which you specified a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. I offered a ‘yes’ answer that comes with numerous caveats. Within each group (men or women) there is a spectrum of differing views. Some views may overlap or coincide with the other’s group.
Justin Katz
JadeGold,
You’re not engaging in sequential argument. Your response to my NAMBLA point, for example, is entirely irrelevant. See if you can figure out why.
JadeGold
JK,
I’m still awaiting a ‘principled position’ in opposition to gay civil unions.
As I’ve noted all along, I don’t believe there is one. BTW, there’s an amusing article in Slate on the subject.
Vigilante'
JadeGold (and others)
I hesitated to comment on this thread, but I guess I’ll sink my teeth into the “meat”.
The not-so-elusive “pricipled position” to same-sex unions is, in deed, right in front of your eyes. If you believe for one second that the progressive degradation of our society (social moral fiber) hasn’t been affected by feminism, homosexual liberties, japanese sub-conscious infestation of anime, etc, etc, etc, then you will NEVER see the light. The truth IS out there!
In an earlier post, you stated “whatever god” and equal civil rights, but regardless of how effective the “machine’s” mental processing by-product has been on your collective ethical/social/moral barometer, these things have, in fact, destroyed our society. Someone stated it better than I can just earlier… ad lib “[these groups have destoyed earlier cultures and ours may be the last…]”
The problem with this country that I love enough to give what I have for is that the desensitized, herd-mentality mainstream has bought into the rhetoric that men and women are equal in all things; that “God” is just an adjective or a place-holder at best; that homosexuality is not a perversion of normal human nature/drive; and black and white and brown and yellow and red people are all exactly the same inside. That’s total pacifist, feel-good bullsh-t. We’re different. We’re supposed to be different, and until we collectively accept that (which we never will) then we can never get to the root of the real problems.
I have a sure-fire WIN-WIN solution for all of this crap. I say it’s time for a few beheadings here in America. And if that doesn’t make them notice, then I’m all for turning the Middle East into a charred parking lot for all of OUR oil companies’ employees(slaves) who have just completed our newly adopted national homo-diversifi-culturalethic-moral-cleansing program.
Of course, we can’t just pull the rug out from under all of you numb-skulls, so you’ll still be able to pay for the program with your FOOD STAMPS and WIC cards… right before we plop your asses on the next Hercules Air Freighter to the new Exxon-Shell-Conoco-Phillips training facility in New Bagdad!!! Or if you’re really stupid, we’ll send you to the Special Ed department in New Paris, USA/Europe.
Julio
Queers are totally sick people and need to be put in institutions. I don’t like them and I don’t want any of them near me!!