Because- Look Over There! Is Not a Valid Argument

First of all, I can't see what's wrong with this picture. I'm fairly certain that legally, you can get married in a clown costume if you want to. I'm not sure what that has to do with equality. I also think a man can legally get married while wearing a dress or sporting a mohawk. I'm fairly certain a woman can get married while dressed like an extra in a Wagner production, too. As for the dog, I've seen pictures of weddings in which dogs performed the role of best man and ringbearer, so yeah . . . I dunno.

As for Simple Dollar: Who Do You Love, I would like to start with WHOM! WHOM do you love. "Who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. In the sentence "Whom do you love?", the subject is "you", you are the person doing the loving, therefore it is "whom", not "who". Grammar, people!

You see, when a reader asks me if marriage is about love, then why can't they marry the person they love? The answer is simple, marriage is about who is most deserving of that love -- who you are most responsible to -- then who you most conveniently love, or who you figure might give you the kind of romance you want most expediently. When you focus on your responsibilities, the love grows between you naturally. And as the love grows, so does your ability to recognize your responsibilities. It all ties back to the man and the woman.

That is an entire paragraph of wharrgarbl followed by "because- look over there!" That is not a valid argument. That last sentence has nothing to do with the preceding four. On Lawn may as well as have written four oddly constructed sentences on the proper way to prepare hummus* and then tacked on "it all ties back to the man and the woman". It would have made exactly as much sense.

If On Lawn is going to wharrgarbl his way through some bigotry, he could at least do me the great favor of doing it grammatically. Honestly.

*A blender, a lot chick peas, some garlic and some olive oil. Anything else you'd like to add is up to you.

Traditional Gender Roles Foster Sexual Abuse

While writing yesterday afternoon's post, I came across a fascinating study about traditional gender roles/Judeo-Christian culture and sexual abuse. I didn't have time then to really read it, but now that I have, wow. (It's actually a summation of 100 different reports. Um, meta study?)

More than 100 reports in the scientific and professional literature, involving more than 35,000

subjects, indicate that rapists, child molesters, incestuous parents, and sexually motivated

murderers are typically very conservative in their sexual and social values and sometimes more

religious than average—suggesting that in many cases traditional sexual morality is a

contributing factor in sexual abuse rather than a deterrent.

Alford, Jane, C. James Kasper, and Roger C. Baumann. 1984. “Diagnostic Classification of

Sexual Child Offenders.” Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology

Methods and Therapy 30: 2–12.

This study of 50 incarcerated child sexual offenders found that, while growing up, 65% attended

church daily, 33% attended church weekly, and only 2% attended church rarely. The offenders

found no conflict between religious devotion and sex with children.

Apparently, somebody needs to stop preaching John 3:16 and start explaining that sex with kids is bad.

Alford, Jane, Mary Grey, and C. James Kasper. 1988. “Child Molesters: Areas for Further

Research.” Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and

Therapy 34: 1–5.

This study identified three factors of child sexual abuse as having their roots in the use or misuse

of Judeo/Christian tradition: (1) patriarchalism places the man as head of the family and the

owner of his wife and childred; (2) boundaries between various sexual activities become

confused because all sex is considered sinful; (3) sexual activity within families is hidden behind

a curtain of secrecy.

That's a good point. In traditional gender roles, women are not in charge of their own bodies, their husbands or fathers are. It's not hard to see how easily that can become license to anything you wish, especially if consensual sex is viewed as bad.

This study quantitatively synthesized the results of 72 studies of rape attitudes, which included a

total of 19,944 subjects. Factors that predicted rape acceptance included traditional gender role

beliefs, adversarial sexual beliefs, needs for power and dominance, and conservative political

beliefs

.

Again, I'm not shocked.

Finkelhor, David. 1979. Sexually Victimized Children. New York: Free Press.

One of the findings in this study of 530 female and 266 male college students was that girls

whose mothers punished them for asking questions about sex or for exploring their own bodies

were 75 percent more vulnerable to sexual abuse than other girls in the study.

It is a common tactic among fundys to prevent, sometimes violently, children from masturbating. (Children masturbate. It's totally normal. The only thing you need to do about it explain that there is a time and a place.) And, in the larger culture, it's surprisingly common for women to have never gotten out a mirror and take a look at their own genitals, to have no idea what various structures are, and to consider the entire area gross.

Gebhard, Paul H., J. H. Gagnon, W. B. Pomeroy, and C. V. Christenson. 1965. Sex Offenders:

An Analysis of Types. New York: Harper & Row.

This study included 1,356 convicted male sex offenders, 888 non-sex-offender prisoners, and 477

controls. The incarcerated sex offenders, like prisoners in general, tended to be less religiously

devout than the control group. However, 40 percent of the incest offenders against adult

daughters were devout. Moral inhibitions, fear, and lack of opportunity had deterred many sex

offenders from engaging in premarital sex. Heterosexual offenders against children (noncoercive)

were generally moralistic and conservative, holding to the double standard and good

girl/bad girl concept. Most opposed premarital sex. Incest offenders against adult daughters were conservative, moralistic, sexually restrained, religiously devout, and traditional. Heterosexual aggressors against children (who used force or threats) had a Victorian attitude: their sexual activity with their wives was constrained, with minimal foreplay; they often used prostitutes; they held to the double standard and the good girl/bad girl concept. Some rapists used the good girl/bad girl concept to their advantage: any girl who can be picked up easily can legitimately be forced to have sex. Repeat offenders had more prepubertal sex play than incidental offenders. But after puberty, repeat offenders had more inhibitions and worries about sex: they worried more about masturbation and had less premarital sex because of moral considerations and fear of disclosure. Perhaps because of this restraint, they developed more responsiveness to the sight and thought of females and became preoccupied with unconventional sexual activities.

I think we need more of this Liberal Agenda everyone keeps bleating about. The next time someone starts talking about traditional marriage and how it "protects women", you might want to point out that it does not.

Universal Healthcare = Universal Divorce

"Obama gave me healthcare and now I'm leaving your ass!"

I really have to wonder about the state of other people's marriages. I also really have to wonder if some people just don't realize how much of themselves they reveal when they predict/complain about certain things.





Take, for example, The Playful Walrus' latest screed on same sex marriage and healthcare reform:

Advocates for neutering state marriage licensing have argued that it is
necessary so someone can be added to their same-sex partner's health insurance
and for hospital visitation.

However, it is now being established by federal
legislation that 1. the federal government can dictate the smalled details of
health care, and 2. everyone will have health insurance.

So now a neutered
marriage license is not necessary to obtain those things health insurance or
hospital visitation.

Of course, there will now be less incentive for people
in general to marry or work out conflicts and stay married, or care about
keeping their jobs, for that matter.

The government continues to become a
parent/spouse/pastor, to the detriment of the family.

Now I have to wonder, is The Playful Walrus fully aware that his wife is only sticking around for the health care and is now free to run!, run like the wind!, or is this just a vague suspicion in the back of his mind?

Not a Family

bigotry, gay, marriage, traditional, same sex,
"Traditional marriage" advocates keep running into the same problem: how to define "family/marriage" in a way that excludes gays, but doesn't piss off childless heteros, like me. See, you don't want to get into the issue of "well, families only include children", because then you have to field questions like, "okay then, should we test people's fertility before allowing them to marry? what about older married couples in which the wife is menopausal and can no longer have children- should we force them to divorce? not allow older people to marry at all?"

Eventually, if you start arguing that family=children, but don't exclude infertile or deliberately childless hetero marriages, you have to admit that you just don't like gay people. Thusly:

The family is not easy to define, but I define it as group that includes dependents, children.

So, my family is not a family, as it does not include children. However, looking at the above, we could easily define a gay commune that includes children as a family.

Ah well, it's not like clear thinking is a desirable trait amongst bigots. Oh, Opine Editorials, you never fail to amuse.

An Affront to Democracy

fail, democracy, free speech, same sex, marriage, gay, traditional, mccain,

Good Sense Politics is deeply concerned about the state of democracy. Yes, democracy itself. Apparently, if Cindy McCain supports same sex marriage, democracy just disappears. Possibly leaving a hole in the very fabric of space time itself, though (s)he didn't specify.

Cindy and Meghan McCain have been published in ads supporting the overthrow of California's democratically approved proposition 8. Not only is this an affront on traditional marriage, but on the very foundations of democracy and free speech.

Apparently, rich people supporting same sex marriage will . . . um, yeah, I dunno. I mean, if challenging established laws is an affront to democracy, well, then . . . it's not actually democracy. That's how democracy works. The people have the right to change existing laws. That is, in fact, the very basis of democracy.

As for free speech, I'm not sure how the McCains' use of their right to free speech is an affront to free speech. I keep rereading the First Amendment, and there's nothing in there about it being limited to speech that agrees with anyone in particular. So, fail and fail.

Does anyone get the impression that most of the people bleating about protecting democracy and free speech don't actually like democracy and free speech?

Emboldened

marriage, traditional, gay, kern, christian,

I knew two things about Prop 8* passing in California: (1) antigay bigotry was going to get a huge boost, and (2) the Religious Right would be emboldened by their victory, and that would mean nothing good for the rest of us, gay or straight or whatever.

And lo, behold I am become a prophet . . . which is really going to crimp the whole atheism thing.

An Oklahoma state legislator plans to introduce an act that would make some divorces illegal.

Scheduled for introduction in the 2010 legislative session by state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, House Bill 2279 would restrict the "use of incompatibility as a ground for divorce" in Oklahoma.

The bill would not allow for divorce on the basis of incompatibility if:

There are living minor children of the marriage
The parties have been married 10 years or longer
Either party files a written objection to the granting of a divorce

They are feeling their oats, now aren't they? I'm not really sure why this bastion of marriage protection would limit herself this way. The 10 years or longer rule is particularly weird. And that last bit will result in bitter spouses maintaining a marriage they have no particular interest in purely to prevent other spouse from remarrying, which I'm pretty sure is not protecting marriage in any substantive way.

Hey, we allowed them to tell us who could marry, and now they've moved on to who can divorce. You do indeed reap what you sow.


*Prop 8 banned gay marriage in California. It was passed in 2008.

The Kids Are Alright

children, gay, marriage, traditional, same sex,
For all the traditional marriage advocates' hysterical shrieking about The Children, it turns out the children of gay couples end up the same as the children of hetero couples. Much ado about nothing, as usual.

In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay.

Reality: infinity, Traditional Marriage Advocates: 0

Reaping What Others Sow

hatred, bigotry, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, dna, ufi,

Since the beginning, traditional marriage advocates have claimed that preventing gays from marrying has nothing to do with bigotry against gays. "We like the gays! They're our friends! We just don't think they should get to marry."

Bullshit.

Now that bigotry is law in Maine, the true face of traditional marriage has come out into the open. It's not pretty.

goinbroke of kingfield, ME

Nov 11, 2009 9:37 AM

Does anyone know where we can get window stickers that indicate that this particular business is not homosexual friendly? think of it as an anti-rainbow flag. It's about time we "came out" and let the homosexuals from away know how Mainers feel about seeing their sick side show act in our cities and towns.

See above, goinbroke. We did that for many years in this country, to blacks, hispanics, and the irish to name a few. It's something we used to be ashamed of. We still should be ashamed.

Chinook of portland, ME

Nov 8, 2009 9:41 PM
goinbroke of kingfield, ME Nov 8, 2009 8:51 PM

Bob, ... ...Also the next time you are in a business or a resturant and are waited on by some flaming gay guy or lesbian, ask for another server. Simple enough as the customer has the right to be "uncomfortable" as they say. Nothing personal just go away. Mainers can vote with their pocketbook and the homosexuals will get the message and leave. This happens all the time in San Francisco.----------

(What does a "flaming lesbian" look like? I'm unable to picture that.) So, people in San Francisco leave restaurants when the waiter is gay? All the time? Nobody eats out in San Fran, I guess. Also, if you ask for another server in that situation, I sincerely hope the cook wipes his ass with your food, because spitting in your food doesn't quite seem enough.

I very much fear that gays in Maine will soon be reaping what people like the DNA, UFI, the Catholic Church, the Mormons, et al. have sown: hatred. The bigots have won, and now they feel free to put up "No Gays Allowed" posters and refuse to interact with them in public. We can all guess what happens next, and I will be holding each and every one of you bigots personally responsible.

UPDATE: Are you missing valuable opportunities to express your bigotry while barbecuing, walking your dog or just breathing? Then buy one of these lovely MAN + WOMAN ONLY tshirts, aprons or doggy shirts!

Somebody keep me away from the internet before I do myself harm.

Think of the Children!!!one!!!

bigotry, racism, homophobia, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional,
A Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to issue a marriage license for an interracial couple because of the children- doesn't that argument sound familiar? And yes, this did happen in 2009.

HAMMOND, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

So, "the children" and "[such] marriages do not last long". Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah, you hear them all the time in relationship to same sex marriages. I just didn't expect to hear this about (what I thought was) the settled issue of interracial marriage.

Justice Bardwell's beliefs are based entirely on anecdotal evidence- sound familiar?

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Then we get the same odd notion of equality you'll hear from "traditional marriage" advocates:

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

So tell me, how is this any different? How are the arguments against same sex marriage any different?

There'll Be Polygamy in the Streets

gay, marriage, traditional, polygamy, mormon, lds, fundamentalist,

About every other post from a "traditional marriage" blogger invokes the scare tactic of polygamy, and it didn't strike me why until last night, while I was doing the dishes. My reaction to this scare tactic has always been "and? how many people even want to do that, anyway?"

Then it hit me. A lot of the most "traditional marriage" bloggers are mormon, and like all religions, the LDS has skeletons in its closets and embarassing family members that show up at the most inconvenient of times. LDS's biggest skeleton is the polygamy practiced by the religion's founders, and still practiced today by fundamentalist splinter groups*.

I think the mormons fear that as soon as same sex marriage becomes legal nationwide, their spiritual cousins will come crawling out of the woodwork to demand that polygamy be made legal, which would be quite an embarrassing scene, indeed. It's like holding a family reunion, planning for a year to make everything perfect, and then Uncle Norman shows up, punches Grandpa Fred, pukes in the potato salad and passes out. Although in this particular analogy, Uncle Norman shows up with his 6 wives, the youngest his 14-year-old niece/cousin/half-sister.

I suggest that the next time a "traditional marriage" blogger invokes polygamy as a natural consequence of same sex marriage, you should ask them why they think that, and then end with "oh, yeah, mormons were into that at the beginning. I get it."

*LDS does not currently support polygamy, and has not for quite some time. By no means am I suggesting that mainstream mormons engage in polygamy, nor are they responsible for the abuses of fundamentalist splinter groups.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Confused

discrimination, mlk, playful, walrus, opine, editorials, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional, stupid, asshat,

Or so says The Playful Walrus of the Opine Editorials in his latest exercise in sophistry.

The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.

It's almost like Walrus just now realized that words frequently have more than one meaning. Or that he thinks we haven't realized this yet.

The definition of "discriminate" that Walrus is using is a valid one. It's the second definition of the word: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

However, we all, including Walrus, know damn well that this second definition is not the definition in play when discussing same sex marriage. That would a use of the first definition of discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

If we accept Walrus' use of the second definition of discriminate in this context, then we also have to argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was confused. Apparently, the entire civil rights movement was based on Mr. King's inability to grasp that discrimination is a good thing, without which society would grind to a halt, and possibly explode. I doubt even The Playful Walrus is enough of an idiot to make that assertion, but I have surprised by his level of asshattery before, so don't count on it.

We'll All Be Gay!

gay, homosexual, opine, editorials, stupid, homophobia, marriage, same sex, traditional,
Homophobes can be amusing, especially when they whip out that most disturbing of "arguments" against gay marriage/gay people in general: if we let gay people just be gay everywhere then we'll all be gay!

This "argument" hinges on one of the oddest ideas I've ever heard: heterosexuality is an act. No one is really heterosexual, we're all just pretending due to cultural norms. Therefore, if being gay were completely societally acceptable, like wearing jeans or drinking coffee, we'd all throw off the shackles of heteroconformity and dance gayly through the streets, waving rainbow flags, wearing nothing but lavender feather boas and kissing members of our own sex with wild abandon.

No offense to my gay friends, but I don't care how normative homosexuality becomes, I'm heterosexual. In fact, were I to be transported to Opposite Universe, where heterosexuality is treated the way homosexuality is in this universe, I'd still be hetero.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, people. It goes both ways. Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals and heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexuals. We are what we are. Roberto, of the Opine Editorials tmi's the world with his differing opinion.

When people will be taught from an early age that gay is acceptable, gay is good, there is nothing wrong or bad about it, even how pleasurable and fun it can be…… allow me to explain. Roberto is pissed off that some people want to teach children about homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality. as soon as we start teaching children the joys of hetero sex, you let me know. how many of them, when reaching sexual maturity, might not be tempted to experiment with homosexuality? and? i just don't care, to be honest. what's the difference between experimenting with homosexual sex and experimenting with heterosexual sex? besides, the fact is, very few people that aren't inclined that way are going to give it a try. asshat.

After all, why not? because if you're hetero, you're just not into that.No educator or public instance will have ever taught them that there is anything wrong, bad, or immoral about this because there isn't. once this is a policy approved and imposed by government. SOCIALIST FACIST KENYANS WILL MAKE YOUR KIDS GAY! In fact, it will probably be just the opposite! okay, pronouns are good and all, but you need to restate the original noun occasionally for clarity.

And what effect will this have on the time-honored ideal of the sexual relationship as the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power? is this the basis of a comic book? seriously, wtf are you talking about?

It will utterly corrupt this ideal! It will desecrate it! you used the same pronoun twice in one sentence to mean two different things. English fail. It will make impossible any ideal of the the sexual relationship once it is divorced from procreation and leave a gaping hole that will invite sexual anarchy. And sexual anarchy is simply anarchy! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! oh, that was awesome. i'm definitely going to have to give some serious thought to joining the anarchist movement. i had no idea it would be so fun.

The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force! and you are an appallingly ignorant little man, but you don't see me complaining.

Roberto, that closet has a door. Use it.

Teh Gai, Now Bad for Wimminz, too!

homophobia, homosexual, marriage, rome, berman, gay, same sex, traditional,
Joshua Berman believes that if homosexuality gains widespread accepted in society, men will no longer have sex with women and WE'RE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!1!!!eleventy!!!

Just a clue, Mr. Berman, if you prefer to have sex with men, and don't really find women sexually exciting at all, you're homosexual. That's it. I could have sex with women. I don't, because women don't do it for me. No matter how acceptable homosexuality becomes, women aren't going to be any more sexually attractive to me.

In other words, Mr. Berman, it's not society, it's you.

Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.

The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:

"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures."

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union.

. . .

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Is there anything to say about the above other than, "That closet has a door, Mr. Berman, open it."?

The Arguments, They're Getting Weird

homophobia, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, stupid, dna,
It's almost like the antigay (traditional) marriage crowd has run out of vaguely logical arguments and debunked science, and have been forced to choose between two courses of action: really weird arguments or yelling FAG! at the top of their lungs.

From Euripides we have Some Guy in a 3,000 Year Old Poem Said Stuff:

I was reading Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath's book Who Killed Homer? and found this gem. Odysseus, the hero of the Odyssey encounters a young woman, Nausicaa, on the beach. In speaking with her, he gives a speech about the values of married life:

Nothing is better, he suggests, than when a husband and wife share a house and their hearts, "a great pain to their enemies [the ill-minded ones] and a joy to their friends [the well-minded ones], and they themselves are highly esteemed" (p. 191).

I haven't read the Oddysey in a while, but how many times did Oddyseus cheat on his wife? I can think of Calypso and Circe right off the top of my head. Beyond that, marriage among the ancient Greeks had about as much to do with modern US marriage as a firefly has to do with nuclear power.

From PomegranateApple we get Marriage Fills Chairs (and we wouldn't want empty chairs, now would we?):

My friends always laugh when they walk into the house where I live. There are so many chairs. (You can’t see the rest of the room. There are more chairs.) Way more chairs than we need in the house. I mean, it’s funny.

It normal to me, because growing up, whenever I visited my grandparents’ house: they were never enough chairs.

Ummmm . . . marriage doesn't fill chairs, people do. I guess gay people can't get a roomful of people together to fill up chairs?

The every amusing Opine Editorials gives us a title and a link. When Young Men Are Scarce, They're More Likely to Play the Field Than to Propose. In other news, if the only ice cream available is vanilla, I'll take vanilla. If there are 31 flavors available, I'll probably pick something else.

The good here is that these arguments make for amusing reading. The bad is, soon they'll be left with nothing but yelling FAG!

Oh, C'mon, You Knew I'd Mock Her Eventually, Right?

carrie prejean, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, homophobia, california,

Carrie Prejean's open letter on Big Hollywood:

Let me begin by saying I treasure the opportunity I’ve had to represent the great State of California, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the thousands of Californians except the gay ones, and other Americans, I have met and who have stood with me through this controversial firestorm um, the firestorm was controversial?. One of the many enduring enduring? as in "lasts a long time"? sure you weren't thinking of "endearing"? things about being Miss California USA as opposed to Miss California Russia? was the opportunity to get to meet and know so many wonderful people not the gay ones. i don't understand why they were so mean to me. I would not be the strong, courageous woman bwahahahahaha what courage? your courage in getting breast implants or your strength in parading around half naked? I am today without your support, and prayers.

I would like to thank Mr. Donald Trump and his organization for his support uh, he fired you and defending me HE FIRED YOU through the most challenging time of my life what are you, like 20? come talk to me after becoming homeless or developing a life threatening illness, you spoiled brat. I am so grateful for him "to"?, and the opportunity I’ve had to get to know him. I admire, and respect him. you know he fired you, right? they did tell you that? I wish Tami Farrell the best; I know she will do a great job.

I hope Americans watching this story unfold, take away the most important lesson I have learned through all of this when your 15 minutes of fame come up, you jump on them like a starving dog on a rib roast: nothing is more important than standing up for what you believe in if you can figure out what that is, no matter what the cost may be. you know, like anne frank. I’ve done my best under the difficult circumstances of being paid lots of money to spout hate and wear clothes to handle the vicious attacks with integrity and show respect to others except gay others, even those who don’t agree with me.

I worked in good faith to meet my responsibilities as Miss California USA. I have met every scheduled appearance, and responsibility, as recently as May 31st. 11 days ago I have followed the proper protocol requested of me except for accepting work from outside organizations and haven’t made any appearances or speaking engagements without the consent or approval from the Miss California USA or Miss Universe Organizations. as recently as 11 days ago I have not signed with any book publisher or taken on any business proposals. after may 31 As of today, June 11, 2009, I have done everything possible to honor my contract. except, you know, fulfill it.

I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. no, we all get the opportunity, every minute of every day. you don't need a microphone and fuckme pumps for it to count as freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. if you get my drift. I am proud to be the strong woman God and plastic surgeons has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, that i'd be a bigot if i could figure out exactly what it is i think respectfully, and never back down.

Thank you and God Bless,

Carrie Prejean

I'm gonna miss Carrie. She's been so much fun.

Majority Rules

traditional, marriage, prop 8, gay, same sex,
Like the idea of the majority rule? Well, the Gundersons did, too. (Hat tip to the Super Jesus.)

NOM and Same Same Sex Marraige

nom, same sex, marriage, traditional, homosexual, gathering storm, prejean, marraige,

I'm starting to get the impression that NOM is some sort of fifth column liberal organization determined to thwart bigotry by making it look as stupid as possible.

How else does one explain the above? First we had The Gathering Storm ("the homo storm- it got me!"), then we had Carrie Prejean ("I got breast implants for Jesus!"), followed by Confused Children ("If things were different, they wouldn't be the same!") and now "please to call your Senator to let them know you oppose same same sex marraige", whatever that is.

C'mon now, NOM, how am I supposed to mock you if you won't stop mocking yourselves?

Stop Destroying the World

marriage, pseudogamy, esolen, traditional, christan, jesus, divorce, stupid,
On the one hand, I'm happy to finally see a "traditional marriage supporter" do something other than bash gays, on the other hand, somebody needs to stop worrying so very much about what others do. (Oh, and an award for the weirdest use of the word "addled" ever.)

Pseudogamy 101
Anthony Esolen

I've written in a post below that the real social problem we in America face is the number of people who are not married who behave as if they were. I'd like to revise that claim. Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words, in the fundamental form of pseudogamy, we don't have people who are not married behaving as if they were, but people who are married (or who present themselves as having been married) behaving as if they were not.

Basically, if you get divorced, you were never married in the first place. Not really. It's a No True Scotsman, and it's no more valid in this instance than that particular logical fallacy ever is. It also reminds me of Ray Comfort's obsession with "false converts": if you used to be christian, but now you are not, then you never were a christian. It doesn't matter how sincere your belief was, it wasn't, and Ray is capable of determining that- even if he never met you. Mr. Esolen is capable, it appears, of determining who was really, truly married, and who was not. Yeesh.

Mr. Esolen seems to have predicted my response to "pseudogamy": who cares?

Why should anyone care about the private mental reservations entertained by the couple next door? The obvious answer is that those reservations are not really private. They will inevitably be talked about, urged upon others, or acted upon, if not by the couple next door, then by the couple two doors down, and then their problems are also ours.

Divorce is catching? We must "inevitably" gossip about others, try to talk our neighbors into divorcing, and . . . wtf? That's Teh Stoopid. You have to gossip about your neighbors. You don't have to get divorced because the Jones did, and anyone who does is just as stupid. We should encourage them to play in traffic.

We must live with their divorce. why? i have no idea which of my neighbors are married, cohabiting, divorced, whatever. i like my neighbors, but it's none of my business. We must try to teach their addled children. addled: confused or unable to think clearly. it's generally used to describe the mentally ill or drunk. i know children of divorce, and while they do tend to have some issues, they're not "addled" or unteachable. We must get along in neighborhoods blasted by the instability and the chaos. um, what, do you live in a war zone? i would imagine a certain percentage of my neighbors are divorced, my neighborhood is neither "blasted", "unstable" nor "chaotic" We must help feed the sharks in the divorce industry. who is this "we"? when did i start having to pay divorce lawyers for other people? We must suffer the now greater probability that other couples near us will follow their example. the horror! A culture in which divorce is common is a different thing from one in which it stands under severe disapproval; and everyone, divorced or not, must breathe the same cultural air. i for one, and glad that i live in a culture that allows abused women a way out, instead of "severe disapproval" for leaving their tormentor. Mr. Esolen is a little too into the severe disapproval.

jesus, jesus, jesus, god, god, god.

I know full well that men and women are sinners. dirty sinners in need of severe disapproval I'm a sinner, after all. shocked! i'm shocked! But even a poor marriage, when husband and wife do their duty by one another, stands as an example of the ideal, and in one way a more powerful example of it than will the good marriage, i think he means "loveless". a really bad marriage is not an a powerful example of anything other than pain. just as the man who stands by his post in defeat is a greater hero than one who does so in victory. marriage as war? we need to have a little talk about analogies, mr. esolen. And of course, just as the determination to stand by your post helps your comrades to victory even when all seems bleak, so the determination not to revoke your complete gift of self in a poor marriage may turn that marriage itself around and help others navigate through the storms. sorry, i'm not wasting the only life i'm getting in a loveless or abusive marriage just to make other people, what?, determined to stay in their own bad marriages? no, thanks. But in a nation of pseudogamy, the only place to turn to for the noble call for complete gift of self will be the military -- a call which few of us will even hear. mr. esolen is a little too into the sacrificing.

then we get a whole lot of words about self, and retaining your sense of self and how dare you retain your individuality instead of . . . yeah, i don't fucking know. i'm gonna go somewhere and sin. and introduce chaos to the world!

Gender and Sex are not the Same

sex, gender, transsexual, transgender, society, stereotype, same sex, marriage, traditional, gay,
emissary (of confusion) wrote something that is either the height of ignorance or the very definition of disingenuous.

Are The Different Sexes Really Different?

Short answer: duh. The problem here is that the DNAers, and others like them, can't seem to understand the difference between sex (not the activity) and gender. I can't decide if they're really that ignorant, or if they're just being disingenuous.

Sex is physically what you are. I am a woman. I have the XX pairing, a vagina, a uterus, ovaries, the works. Men have the XY pairing, a penis, testicles, etc. That's a serious oversimplification, though. Sex, as physical as it is, is complicated. There are people born with both penises and vaginas, or some combination thereof. There are people with just one X, three Xs, XXY, XYY. Then there are the transgendered: they are physically all one thing, but feel entirely the opposite.

Gender, while related to sex, isn't the same thing. Gender is society's expectations for the sexes. Essentially, gender is a mass delusion. Obey the rules of your society, go to another, and you're doing it wrong. It's arbitrary. Why am I supposed to love cooking and sewing and babies? Why is the hubby supposed to be the one fixing things? Is he not a man because he's useless with power tools? Am I not a woman because I'd rather go shoot a few rounds at the range than bake a cake?

I guess it depends on whom you're talking to. If you're talking to the general readership of this blog, no, he's no less a man and I am no less a woman. If you're talking to DNAers, we're destroying the very fabric of the nation. Possibly the entire spacetime continuum.

I'm puzzled by something of a conundrum. Hopefully, someone has a good explanation that will help to clarify the issue in my mind. hey, look, she wants me to do this! if she's actually puzzled, she's puzzled by her own ignorance.

The problem is that the GLBT group seems to hold conflicting ideas regarding whether or not biological sexual differences are inherent and important. no, the problem is you don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between sex and gender. do i need to use smaller words?

On one end of the spectrum is the idea that sexual differences don't matter. sexual differences or gender differences? I've often heard the comment that, "The only difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is the way they make love." what the fuck would that have to do with gender or sex differ- oh, that's right, if you're not sticking slot A in tab B, you're doing it wrong. guess you don't want to know what I was doing last night. That implies that biological differences in the sexes are not important to marriage, nor should they be valued in society. why would sex differences be important in a marriage? why should they be valued in society? they just are. it is what it is. that's like valuing our specific visual light spectrum. "I'm so glad we're not bees!" The argument holds that homosexual couples can be just as good of parents as heterosexual because sex doesn't matter. umm, yeah. Insisting that there are inherent differences is a matter of stereotype and societal roles. when it comes to gender differences, it is stereotype and societal roles. inherent sex differences are what they are. so what? The difference really lies in various personalities. basically, yes.

On the other end, there's the transgender group. These individuals feel very strongly that they are not the correct sex. then they're not. how can you argue someone's experience with them? that's like telling me i really, really like country music. no, i don't. To them, the biological sexual differences are really, really important. because gender and sex are different things. They feel trapped in the wrong body. They feel there's something inherently male or female within them that doesn't match the body they were given. They go through therapy, take hormones, and some even have expensive and painful surgery to change their biological sexual organs. all surgeries are painful, asshat. and, so what? what does the transgender experience change about the difference between sex and gender? (you do know another word for transgender is "transsexual", right?)

But if there really aren't substantive differences between the sexes, why can't they just change their personalities? Why go through all of the fuss and pain to change their physical appearance when, ultimately, there is no difference between the sexes? see above.

If anyone can shed light on this, I would really appreciate it. I bet she totally does not appreciate this, at all.

Maine Says "Ayuh" to Same Sex Marriage

maine, baldacci, gay, marriage, same sex, homosexual, traditional,
It's all up to Maine's Governor, John Baldacci, now. Maine's same sex marriage bill has passed the House 89-58.

After over three thousand voters attended a public forum, the gay marriage bill was passed in the senate last week, and quickly moved to the house. The bill moves to the Senate to reconcile both bills then to Governor John Baldacci’s desk. The governor, although publicly opposed to same-sex marriage, has been said to be keeping an open mind.

It's a good start, Maine, keep it up!