June 19, 2008
Section C Marriages
Evidently, my Anchor Rising shirt with the target on the back ended up in Marc's laundry, yesterday. Perhaps if I make a similar point to his, but stepping outside the boundaries while the garment is in the wash, we'll manage a fruitful discussion.
Although it is without doubt the hope of many who support same-sex marriage that the homosexual community will absorb the traditional ethos of marriage (fidelity, longevity, domestication, and so on), mixed in with the culture's romantic implications for the institution, the manner in which the change arrives is deeply subversive. I'm not talking about the process of legislating via the judiciary as much as the way in which things are phrased, specifically California's new marriage certificates reading "Party A and Party B." Why not just label each blank "husband/wife"?
The reason is that, for many on the leading edge of the movement, the traditional mores of marriage are as key to the change as the removal of the opposite-sex requirement. It isn't sufficient, for them, that a man could marry a man; they require the notion of husbands to be erased.
So I wonder: If the law is such that corporations can become legal entities, for the purposes of organization, liability, taxes, and so on, why couldn't a business owner "marry" his business, if the legal arrangement is a closer fit with his desires?
To be sure, the culture will disallow such subsequent innovations, after same-sex marriage, for a while, based mainly on the very traditional expectations that will have been erased, but plain logic and legal opportunity create their own logic and motivation.
"The reason is that, for many on the leading edge of the movement, the traditional mores of marriage are as key to the change as the removal of the opposite-sex requirement. It isn't sufficient, for them, that a man could marry a man; they require the notion of husbands to be erased."
Based on WHAT? Please cite a SINGLE example.
Posted by: Greg at June 19, 2008 1:59 PMGreg,
You are clueless if you don't think these people have a bigger agenda.
Take a look at this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/tim-gill
Then take a look at ie Bakst's article in today's paper re:Frank Ferri.
Then take a look at this from Frank Ferri's campagin finance report: http://www.ricampaignfinance.com/RIPublic/Reporting/TransactionDetailReport.aspx?Level=S&Site=Public&Type=Contrib&Transactionid=254136
Now, do you still think there is no agenda???
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at June 19, 2008 7:53 PMJUSTIN
"Traditional ethos of MARRIAGE FIDELITY, AND LONGEVITY"
Did you find that phrase, at SERIAL ADULTERER and right-wing HERO, Nute Gingrich's web-page ????
Greg,
That's a silly request to make. Do you really think I couldn't dig up a "single" example? As it happens, I've commented on such examples over the years and need only sift through previous posts here and on Dust in the Light to produce them.
But in the interest of saving time, I'll start by asking: Do you doubt that the leading edge of the gay rights movement is radical, including in its aversion to traditional notions of gender?
Posted by: Justin Katz at June 19, 2008 9:10 PMThe leading edge of the gay rights movement may be radical. I don't personally know them.
I know that I'm on the edge of the immigration debate. I believe you should shoot the f*$&ers at the border. Doesn't mean there's a shot in Hell that my ideas will ever see the light of day.
I fail to see how it affects me either way.
Posted by: Greg at June 20, 2008 8:47 AMGreg,
"I fail to see how it affects me either way"
That is what a lot of people said about Hitler's action in the early days.
Posted by: Cory Hindle at June 20, 2008 11:36 AM It's supposed to rain Sunday.
Guess that's Frank Ferri's fault, eh?
While campaigning for the seat that he presently holds, someone had told me that Frank Ferri had but one goal if elected - to push the homosexual agenda.
However, he was not campaigning on that issue at all, as he wanted to fly under the radar.
At the time it sounded like some conspiracy theory. Not anymore.
I'm sure that his constituents would be interested to know how they were taken by this fraud.
Posted by: Cory Hindle at June 20, 2008 2:05 PMHmm... Which is more of a threat to America?
Gay Marriage
OR
George W. Bush
??
Posted by: Greg at June 20, 2008 3:02 PMNo question about it - it's the homosexual Nazis.
Posted by: Cory Hindle at June 20, 2008 5:15 PMCory, gays are not Nazis.
While I'm at it, to pre-empt any Bush "fans": neither is George Bush.
Posted by: Monique at June 20, 2008 11:15 PMMonique,
The homosexuals feel free to call those who disagree with their perverted lifestyle any name in the book.
I am merely exercising my right to do the same to them.
Cory's right - there are gay Nazis.
Ever heard of Roy Cohn?