- Damn, but Amanda is brilliant. Check out her discussion of the politics of the anti-single-motherhood hysteria: “Divorce and electing not to marry are the feminist equivalent of unionizing and going on strike.”
- And while you’re at it, check out Trish’s debunking (for the nth time) of the claim that social science shows that “fatherlessness” means the sky is falling.
- Many more women than men lost their lives in the Tsunami. Now, with some towns having a male-female ratio of 3-1 or more, women are being valued much more highly and treated better than ever, right? Of course not.
Sri Lankan women have reportedly been sexually assaulted in camp toilets and domestic violence is on the rise, the report found. Indian widows are now placed on the lowest rung of society where they can never remarry and must depend on their in-laws to survive. Indonesian women, according to Oxfam and women activists, are being sexually harassed in camps, forced or rushed into marrying much older men and victimized by abusive Indonesian soldiers who reportedly have strip searched them.
- Whiskey Bar discusses why he blogs; what’s the point, when it’s so clear that trying to tell the truth is simply irrelevant to politics? I relate to a lot of what he says; too often blogging feels like trying to turn back a storm by yelling at it. Via Pacific Views.
- Speaking of futile efforts, RadGeek recently attempted to explain to a father’s rights activist that it’s wrong to lie about what feminists say. He was met, of course, with total incomprehension – like trying to explain the appeal of Picasso’s blue period to a shellfish.
- Paid family leave, low infant mortality, decent child care; Egalia thinks that these things are what a real culture of life would include. What a nut!
- Rape-excusing Sleazebags in the army: “After considering all the facts and weighing all the interests at stake, the Acting Secretary found that no administrative action is warranted against those officers identified in those reports as bearing some responsibility for Academy’s sexual assault problems.” Shakespeare’s Sister has the story, via Third Wave Agenda.
- Pacific Views quotes from this fascinating (although very partisan) Harper’s Magazine essay arguing in favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide. Here’s a tiny sample:
You will notice, for example, how the fear of playing God operates exclusively on one side of the medical playground. Thus to help a patient end his or her life “prematurely”? is playing God, while extending it in ways and under conditions that no God lacking horns and a cloven hoof could ever have intended is the mandate of “our Judeo-Christian heritage”? and the Hippocratic oath.
- Homophobes in Ohio are so determined to make sure that no gay person has civil rights, they’re yanking civil rights away from unmarried women too. I’ve commented on this before, but back then it was just a legal theory. Now a judge has made it reality: “Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio’s new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.” Media Girl has the story.
UPDATE: It appears that there have been two contrary Ohio court decisions, so presumably it’ll be up to the Ohio Supreme Court to decide if unmarried couples can be treated like married couples for the purpose of domestic violence law. Stay tuned…
- Lorenzo at Unimpressed discusses how appeals to “rationality” “reasonability” and “objectivity” are often used to mask a total lack of, well, rationality, reason, and objectivity.
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled May 20, 2024If the ICC had issued arrest warrants only against Israeli officials, Biden would scream that it's biased to issue warrants against Israel but not Hamas. But the ICC (rightly) issued warrants against both, and Biden is screaming that to charge both is a false equivalence and outrageous. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 20, 2024#PoliCartoon: SHEEPLE! Sometimes I just feel like drawing a silly cartoon. :-) There’s a related blog post (link in reply) which features a lot of interesting thoughts from Frank Young about coloring my cartoons. (Frank doesn’t color all my cartoons, but he colors a lot of ‘em.)
- Untitled May 19, 2024#PoliCartoon: You're So Brave, I'd Rather Be Dead
- Untitled May 18, 2024The Biggest Crisis A #PoliCartoon by me and Becky Hawkins.
- Untitled May 20, 2024
You flatter me. ;) Thanks for the link.
I think you’d have better luck trying to explain the appeal of Picasso’s blue period to a shellfish than trying to tell a fathers’ rights activist not to lie about what feminists say.
And thanks for the link. Yup, I addressed “fatherlessness” for the nth time. The sky hasn’t fallen all the time those statistics get trotted out.
dude, shellfish totally dig Picasso’s Blue period! and there was substantial discussion & engagment with his Rose period pieces.
i mean, it’s true that they (as a community) mostly lost interest with his subsequent cubist works, but then didn’t we all? c’mon, be fair!
Perhaps, but to be fair, I’m sure they also don’t care for unmarried women. So it all balances out in the end.
I find a dismissive contempt of the importance of the traditional family in your original post. This persistent zeal for dissembling the rhetorically strong and statistically rich arguments of your opposition give evidence of this contempt.
In this environment breed by years of feminist rhetoric calling the traditional family patriarchal and archaic ““ it is small wonder that the vast majority of people find the plea’s for same sex “marriage”? to be yet another Trojan hoarse to deconstruct the crucially important biologically rooted traditional family at the expense of the greater good.
Like previous attempts I its sure to come down on women, children, and the poor.
Fitz, you know what the immportance of “the traditional family” is? It allows conservatives like you a chance to appeal to a vague moral highground instead of, you know, thought. Or grammar.
Ooh.
You know, I can always tell that I’m really pissed off by some commenter when I have an irrepressible urge to correct their grammar. That, and having to delete, “NO, you moron! No, no, NO!” from the beginning of all my responses.
And, hee. “Statistically rich.” Reminds me of an attorney my dad once argued against. He–the other lawyer, not my dad–showed up at a hearing with this briefcase bulging with papers and said, “See this briefcase? This briefcase is loaded–LOADED–with precedents supporting my client’s case. Now, I’m not gonna waste your time by showing them to you. I think the briefcase speaks for itself.”
The “importance of the traditional family” – oh ya – I forgot – just another outdated tabooo!!!!!
The statistical evidence is presented quite nicely In the originall post (& links) You know that growing body of social sciece that only dogmatic feminists still try and refute.
Or maybe even a taboooooo.
But anyway Fitz, if there’s so much evidence can you find at least one social science study that justifies your claim? Or a sociological definition of a “traditional family”? Or are you just another blowhard blaming those eeeeevil feminists for the fact that your homophobia is no longer socially acceptable?
The definition of a traditional family is quite simple, its dictated by nature and biologically rooted (man + women = children) that’s the tradfam! (I’ll call it that)
Add extended heirs and you have the extended trafam!
I have read dozens of studies that document this ““ but you’ll have to do your own research ““ Rutgers University has done some excellent work, and books on the topic abound.
I have no doubt that many university employed sociologists however seek to conflate and dissemble this tradfam (soooo reductionist)
As far as my “homophobia”? goes ““ well I don’t even know what that word means.
Although I did watch the left invent it and then proceed to use it to shut down debate!
If using the original Greek roots ““ then it would mean ““literally “fear of sameness”?
Perhaps it means I’m so afraid of homosexuals that it can be clinically diagnosed as a phobia?
Now, if the movement to stop gay “marriage”? is any indication of what is “socially acceptable”? than this “homophobia”? is so “socially acceptable”? that it represents an unparallel populist movement sweeping across every region of the country.
dems a lota homophobes…
Fitz sidesteps: I have read dozens of studies that document this ““ but you’ll have to do your own research ““ Rutgers University has done some excellent work, and books on the topic abound.
classic! i love folks who seem to think that sourcing their claims is someone else’s responsibility. y’know, Fitz, i read in a book somewhere that tradfams all wear stupid dorky clothes & listen to terrible Christian pop. can’t remember where tho… but i read it, so it must be true!
seriously, i’d be interested to hear more about Rutgers University’s “excellent” work on why tradfams are the one & only bestest thing ever. i’m pretty familiar with their current catalog & can’t think of even one book over the past few years that has advocated tradfams as the path of biologically righteous… or whatever it is you’re saying.
i mean, c’mon Fitz! if the books are out there a-boundin’ surely you can think of just one? even a teeny one?
As far as my “homophobia”? goes ““ well I don’t even know what that word means.
well, that’s pretty obvious. but at least you’re being upfront about your ignorance – which is the first step for dealing with your problem.
If I have to do ALL the work myself…
here is but one small example..
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publicat.htm
But – of coarse the point is a larger one ““ isn’t it?
Do YOU really need studies to confirm that children are better off with their natural parents?
Do YOU really believe that no research has been done on the issue?
That it really is all a silly taboo.
ARE ALL FAMILY FORMS INHEARENTLY EQUALL?
Is this really what you believe?
Yes or No?
Uh, everything at that Rutgers site deals with marrying and marriage, not children. Or at least everything I can see.
And my God, you’re so lazy you don’t even want to support your own arguments? “If I have to do ALL the work myself” indeed.
I don’t need research to know you’re full of shit.
Oh, and I said a sociological definition of a “traditional family”. That means, an actual definition that sociologists actually use. You know, coming up with standard definitions is something people do in academia, so that there’s as little ambiguity as possible. And from all I can tell “traditional family” is a pretty ambiguous term. When I hear it, I think ’50s nuclear family. Husband, wife, boy, girl. Are you saying that families with more or less than 2 kids are inherently worse off than others?
ARE ALL FAMILY FORMS INHEARENTLY EQUALL?
Is this really what you believe?
Yes or No?
there you go, Fitz! i knew that woudn’t be too hard. sorry you had to do ALL the work yourself. ya aren’t too tuckered out, are you? poor chiblin… interesting, though, how Rutgers University Press has never seen fit to publish any of the “excellent” work the NMP has been engaged in….
anyhoo, i did a little work too. here’s some folks who think your Rutgers National Marriage Project is full of doo-doo…
.
Mr. Fitz demands! ARE ALL FAMILY FORMS INHEARENTLY EQUALL? Is this really what you believe? Yes or No?
dude, why are you yelling? first of all “INHEARANTLY” is not a word… but let’s not quibble – in answer to your question: no. for example, a family form that incorporates a dominant male with a subservient female & 2.5 offspring with absolutely equivalent gender distribution & a dog named Spot peeing on a freshly painted picket fence is easily one of the worst & least desirable forms of family. ick!!
also, not all kids are better off with their biological parents – that’s a no-brainer. and, yes, alot of research has been done on this issue… & not even close to all of it supports your “ideas”
.
btw, i would you like to borrow a shovel? y”know, while you’re digging yourself into that hole?
Oooh, he shoots he scores!
Q. – “”?interesting, though, how Rutgers University Press has never seen fit to publish any of the “excellent”? work the NMP has been engaged in….”?”?
A- link
Oh gosh, some deviants set up a web site because the marriage project has had to much success reinforcing what most people know is true.
Here’s some other “information”? on file at your local anti-marriage project
Birds of a feather.
link
Polyamory
Polyamory means different things to different people (check out the links below for a variety of definitions), but it generally involves honest, responsible non-monogamous relationships. This could take the form of an “open” relationship, or a group or three or more adults who are “monogamous” within their group (sometimes called polyfidelity), or a limitless set of other situations. The word polyamory means “many loves.”
Many people who are exploring polyamory also have an interest in alternatives to marriage. Some poly people choose not to marry because they feel marriage comes with an assumption of monogamy. Others can’t marry, either because it’s not legal to marry more than one partner at the same time, or because their partner is the same sex they are. Some poly people are married, but consider their relationship to be an “alternative to marriage.”
Polyamory isn’t right for everyone. Most people in unmarried relationships want to be monogamous. Among unmarried couples who are living together, 95% say they expect monogamy from their partner, and the percentage for married couples is only a few points higher. For those who find polyamory is the best fit for them, or who are interested in learning more about it, we’ve provided some books and links to additional resources.
Oh razor (here’s a little something)
They Shoot ““ They score…Big time!
Hey, thanks Fitz for introducing me to that totally benign and very cool site! Did you even read their very reasonable position (especially the line that goes “The Alternatives to Marriage Project is not against marriage?”) or did all nuance get sifted out by your dogma filter?
Reminds me of those folks in the 80s who used to go on and on about the “obvious” real life demonic spellcasting in Dungeons and Dragons without ever actually having studied the game…
Hey fitz, who the fuck is “razor”? Just because you never passed 10th grade english and don’t know how to spell worth crap doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to spell out the names that are written directly in front of you. Proofreading, try it.
And you still haven’t pointed to one – one – study that confirms that kids do better in a tradfam. Nor given a nonambiguous generally accepted definition of a “traditional family.” Just a bunch of bullshit. “Look homophobes managed to pass a bunch of homophobic laws.” Tell me something, are you going to ever bother arguing anything, or do we have to suffer through this pseudo-intellectual trite of “look, I know stuff, so admit I’m right about everything.” Yeesh.
I think it’s clear that all families cannot be INHEARENTLY equal. For instance, if everyone in your family is hard-of-hearing, that could be an argument against INHEARENT equality.
Fitz, dude, what you been smoking?? cuz i gots to get me some…
so the liberal conspiracy at Rutgers University Press has conspired conspiratorily to produce such radical deviant volumes as
Evangelical Identity & Gendered Family Life
Birthing Fathers
& the ultra sleazy Remaking the Godly Marriage
good lordybeejeezus! it’s like the homosexual agenda… IN PRINT!
.
and, what’s with the polyamory reference? is this supposed to be some shocking sign of dangerous deviance? wouldn’t you expect an organization that critiques one-size-fits all philosophies like those of the NMP to be advocating a variety of possibilities? as DRA points out above, the ATM project isn’t anti-marriage. they’re simply for a diversity of familial & social arrangements (otherwise known as “freedom” – look it up). not all forms of family are inherently equal, but most of them are…
.
btw Raznor, Mr. Fitz has actually provided a definition: a “tradfam” is represented by the formula “(man + women = children)” – given that “man” is in the singuular & “women” is pluralized we can therefore conclude that Mr. Fitz is advocating polygamy as the biologically dictated & statistically rich familial norm.
at least he’s got the Book of Mormon on his side…. ;)
ARE ALL FAMILY FORMS INHEARENTLY EQUALL?
Is this really what you believe?
Yes or No?
God, I love trolls.
All happy families are alike. Every unhappy family is unique in their unhappiness.
Leo Tolstoy, badly paraphrased.
Wow, going all the way back to polygamy. Now that’s tradition!
So we can safely say the Polyamory monement it closely linked to the SSM movement?
Well Raznor keeps insisting that I present a doctorial thesis on the subject of traditional monogamy along with a fully annotated bibliography
If you desire to know more about why marriage law has maintained its traditional meaning within the law- and its practical effects, well do your own research
I already pointed you to Rutgers University (the marriage project)
Scholars like Barbara Defoe Whitehead , Maggie Gallagher, Thomas Sowell and Midge Decker. Excellent work has been done by Stanley Kurtz on the devastating effects civil unions have had on Scandinavia in particular and the Netherlands in general. (along with regional support by local sociologists)
Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority. (if that’s not your bag)
The effects of Divorce, Cohabitation, illegitimacy ““ are as close as next door, or even better, any American inner city.
However most of you seem either ignorant or obtuse (willfully ignorant) as to traditionalists arguments concerning family formation. So I offer this brief synopsis-
“”?campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.
Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,”? for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.”? Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory…sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold. “”?
Now ““ let the snipping begin
Oh ““ and try and keep in mind (is any of this rational?)[that important]
And Raznor ““ calling upwards of 70% of the population “homophobic”? is not really much of an argument.
Good lord, did you even familiarize yourself with this site’s many articles on the subject before wasting your breath Fitz!?
He must have spent an hour dredging up and re-commiting to written word the same distorted old tripe and mythology that’s been proven wrong time and time again on this and many other sites (+ books, articles, reputable scientific sources, etc.). It’s astounding how effortlessly they shrug off the firmest debunkings and robotically sermonize with information and sources that haven’t been credible in years.
What a hit parade, straight out of Jack Chick and the mental hygiene films of the 50s. Gay recruitment conspiracies! Endless disease and misery somehow hushed up! Slippery slopes to incest! Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz and William Bennett!
Get a clue Fitz. WE’VE HEARD THIS SH*T BEFORE! Not only that, we’ve heard it from subtler, more convincing crypto-bigots than you and we still saw right through them. It’s all in the site’s archives, a monument to the staggering unoriginality and ludicrous self deception of fly-weight trolls like you. Give them a browse and come back if you have a real argument after that.
“Fitz said:
And Raznor ““ calling upwards of 70% of the population “homophobic”? is not really much of an argument. ”
Even if that percentage was accurate, keep in mind that a vast chunk of the country was unapologetically racist as little as a few hundred years ago. I guess racism is ok then according to your criterion for justice, eh?
One last thought. I’m sure in all your homophobic questing you’ve come across the well documented statistic that indicates young people are increasingly sympathetic to homosexuality, even among self-declared conservatives, and that this trend will continue to gain momentum.
Send me a postcard from the dustbin of history kid.
“By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life.”
Geez. And all along I thought that I was straight because I was born that way! Does this author sincerely believe that if homosexuality is more acceptable that more people will turn homosexual?!?!?!?!
If this were the case, then the author must believe that there is something awfully alluring about homosexuality- if the only thing keeping straight people straight is the stigma….
The only evidence whatsoever that homosexual marriage causes harm to anyone is in the increased number of damned wedding presents that we will have to buy. All other such “evidence” is full of spurious falsehoods like the ones above.
Sorry, Fitz, but you damned yourself with your own citation.
Do you really believe that more people will become homosexual if gays marry? If so, what is the draw there, Fitz? What are we straights -held -back -by -stigma missing out on? If not, how can you stand by this “evidence”?
(DRA says)
“It’s astounding how effortlessly they shrug off the firmest debunkings and robotically sermonize with information and sources that haven’t been credible in years.”?
Even as the celebrations of gay rights roar on, reality glowers in the corner like an unwanted guest. For the argument that homosexuality is “virtually normal”? is bemoaned as a matter of established fact. By “fact”? I mean by the most secular sources imaginable: social science, medical science, psychological studies, and more…including sources overtly friendly to the normalization of gay rights.
I’m afraid that 30 years of experience with fatherless families, divorce and the effect therein, have led mainstream thought as well as scholarship to be well weary of further manipulations of traditional family forms.
Just because you have dismissed the trend as counter to your agenda, does not cause it to go away. Why did the democratic party not enthusiastically embrace the SSM agenda? Why did the American people overwhelmingly reject it? Why are men of the left already calling it a “debacle”?? It may stroke your ego and feed your narcissism to believe that its all just an irrational animus, pure bigotry and “homophobia”?: but I suspect it is simple a long overdo defense of traditional- biologically rotted ““ family forms.
Then he says:
“well documented statistic that indicates young people are increasingly sympathetic to homosexuality, even among self-declared conservatives, and that this trend will continue to gain momentum.”?
Increased sympathy to homosexuals does not necessarily translate into support for SSM, much less enthusiastic support. Secondly, we all know that polls numbers are often driven by how you phrase the question. Thirdly and most important:
Q. ““ What is the one thing about young people that can be said with certainty?
A. ““ They grow up.
Often adolescent attitudes change as maturity does- especially with the onset of marriage and children.
If your counting on long term trends, that probably because their your only bet.
As far as the allusions to SSM and the black civil rights movement I can only say your comparison strain credulity.
#1. African-Americans themselves strongly reject such comparisons.
#2. Attempts to co-opt that moral authority are tested by the fact that: no one ever made gays chattel slaves. (Who’s your Rev. Martin Luther King? ““Andrew Sullivan?)
#3 Race is not Sex and neither is who you have sex with!
Analogies are analogous precisely because their not direct comparisons.
(Emma said)
“Does this author sincerely believe that if homosexuality is more acceptable that more people will turn homosexual?!?!?!?!”?
And then goes on to ignore the most precinct part of the paragraph.
“Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life.”?
Well the answer to you question Emma is yes ““
Q. -Why would someone seemingly willingly allow themselves to be drawn into the gay lifestyle?
A- Well, loneliness, a sense of belonging, wounded masculinity/femininity, and above all (for young men especially) easy access to sex.
Of coarse one of the most troublesome and underreported reasons is one that emerges from nearly all the literature on the subject, is this: homosexual men are significantly more likely…some researchers would say, much more likely…than heterosexual men to have been sexually abused or exploited as children and adolescents. According to a 1998 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to seven times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who have not been abused.”?
Human sexuality is a delicate thing Emma ““ Your simplistic and naïve dichotomy of “your born straight or your born gay”? cut & dry analysis, bemoans the real life complexity of life in this modern (overly sexed & sexually confused/confusing) world.
The choices individuals make have a lot to do with the overall moral environment they are cast into, and the expectations that engenders.
*Yawn* Once again, nothing new. Been there, heard and debunked that.
If you’re going to come and troll people on a website you’ve never even bothered to read before the least you could do is step out of your wingnut echo chamber. I know it’s scary watching your beliefs and arguments shrivel in the light of day but as long as you’re in there your efforts are futile. Have you come here to argue or to try and strafe us with the informational equivalent of corroded, moldering bombshells dug out of a world war I battlefield?
“Fitz said:…but I suspect it is simple a long overdo defense of traditional- biologically rotted ““ family forms.”
How old are you Fitz? Everyone’s allowed a little mispelling in their posts, but your mistakes are so consistent and funny it makes me wonder. Traditional-biologically “rotted”? almost an interesting freudian slip.
“Fits said: As far as the allusions to SSM and the black civil rights movement I can only say your comparison strain credulity.”
I hope you won’t mind if I copy the way you made argumental ultimatums earlier in this thread:
WAS RACISM OK BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVED IN IT!?
Don’t forget that the “science” and “research” at the time was quite firmly convinced of the inferiority of African Americans.
y’know, i don’t think i’m going to dignify the steaming pile above with any kind of real reply for now. i mean, after all, if Fitz thinks he doesn’t have to do any work to back up his ideas, why should i (or anyone else) make the effort? he must be used to having folks just accept what he says at face value. what a small little world that must be. in any case, instead i thought folks might have some fun following the links below while humming that ol-skool favorite from RunDMC:
`
Maggie Gallagher – Liar / Government Hack
Roger Scruton – Tobacco Industry stooge & Authoritarian
Michael Levin – Apologist for Torture & Overt Racist
Thomas Sowell – Noble Defender of Internment Camps & Racial Profiling
Midge Decter (hint: it helps when you spell your sources names correctly) – Neo-Imperialist & Professional Propagandist
Stanley Kurtz – i know all y’all old timey Alas readers are familiar with the “work” of Mr. Kurtz… & gee, he’s also a neo-imperialist
.
snippy snippy snip-pay!
laters, y’all ;)
oh, i’m a liar… i can’t resist one more snippety snip.
Fitz says that #2 is Attempts to co-opt that moral authority are tested by the fact that: no one ever made gays chattel slaves. (Who’s your Rev. Martin Luther King? ““Andrew Sullivan?)
sweetie, gays have been made chattel slaves in history – both incidentally & intentionally. i would provide you with a link but instead i think i’ll just say “do your own research”… start with the Greeks.
and ick! Andrew Sullivan? please… try Bayard Rustin, MLK’s comrade & good friend.
snap!
What a breath of fresh air! I’ve been tired and down lately, but this really lifted my mood. Fitz, you are one funny person. I can’t tell you how many laughs I’ve gotten from your “typos”. “… biologically rotted…” will have me laughing for some time.
Gosh, it’s like you read through the Alas archives & vomited the foulest nasty phallacies that you could find. You wrote not one thing – NOT ONE THING that we haven’t been through hundreds of times on this very blog.
Here’s my list of favorite all time best Hits by Fritz:
Of coarse one of the… (I, like many others prefer “Of smooth…”)
Your simplistic and naïve dichotomy of “your born straight or your born gay”?… (using the wrong word 3 times in one half sentence!)
Q. ““ What is the one thing about young people that can be said with certainty?
A. ““ They grow up. (“Your” a moron if you don’t move to the right as you get older, ya know!)
Oh gosh, some deviants set up a web site… (If you don’t agree with them, you’re a deviant. And it didn’t take him long to get to that one.)
… (man + women = children) that’s the tradfam! (This one has already been pointed out, but it is one of my faves.)
Fitz is either one of the slower trolls out there (or should I say “out their?”) or one of the most brilliant satirists roaming the net.
Fitz, let me make my point, re definition of traditional family. There is no standard sociological definition of a traditional family!
How can I say this with such abject certainty? Because I know what the fucking point of sociology is. And it’s not just to look at modern American culture, but of any culture, and any historical era. What we today think of as a “traditional family” is vastly different than what 19th century Germans thought of as a “traditional family”. Or would you suggest that many Americans have 6-8 kids to work the farm, and allow only the first two to marry and produce offspring while the rest join a monastery or the army? Maybe it’s that red states really are different?
But I have to add one more Fitz greatest hits to Jake’s list:
Allow me to quote Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka’s second rule on how to win an argument on the internet:
You follow that rule well, Fitz.
Well.
Up to this point, I have received nothing but personal attacks
Nothing of substance in response to my posts above.
From the looks of the responses my adversaries thinks my intellectual heirs and myself are all neo-imperialist, racist, Japanese interning ““government hacks for the Tobacco lobby who can’t spell. (I’ve been called that before)
I also don’t know anything about the institution of slavery (gay or otherwise) & think the families have always had the exact number of children : and somewhere amidst all this, I
claimed to have a degree in sociology (if I don’t have one I’m not permitted to speak I guess?)
Exactly how is any of this dis-positive of my argument?
And Fitz goes from playing the smarter-than-thou intellectual to the martyr.
Fitz, you said that social science has shown the superiority of the traditional family. This however makes no sense, as there’s no standard sociological definition of a “traditional family” for such studies to be based on. You quote a bunch of people of questionable intellectual integrity, and you make your arguments based on their authority. It’s entirely reasonable to counter that by calling into question the authority such people bring.
Tell me, what would be a substantive answer? Or is the fact that we disagree with you a personal attack?
*Snort*
Drama queen.
You seriously undermine the ability to have a conversation when you persistently question the basic terms being used. Obviously the family has taken on a variety of forms in a variety of cultures. I wont allow myself to be pulled into some post-modern reductionist critique about the nature of truth, and everything being a social construct.
(hell I’ve already been to college)
I’m referring to the large and growing body of evidence that has reinforced traditionalist critiques concerning the deleterious effect brought on by the sexual revolution in the 1960″?s.
As you have all stated ““ you’ve heard the arguments before.
I believe you find these mainstream scholars and others to be of questionable intellectual integrity simply because you don’t like the bent of theirwork.
Now ““ please address any point in the posts above in a substantive manner.
I believe I laid out my argument rather clearly.
If all we ever had in the beginning was heteros, and young people model there sexuality on that of their parents, where did the original homosexuals come from?
What makes you certain these changes you describe won’t lead to an increase in homosexuality, but a decrease in closeted “heteros” instead? Certainly gay is gay, and pretending to be straight won’t make one any less gay.
Im not willing to conceded that
“certainly gay is gay, and pretending to be straight won’t make one any less gay”
Apparently you missed the point were I stated.
1. “Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life.”?
Well the answer to you question Emma is yes ““
Q. -Why would someone seemingly willingly allow themselves to be drawn into the gay lifestyle?
A- Well, loneliness, a sense of belonging, wounded masculinity/femininity, and above all (for young men especially) easy access to sex.
Of coarse one of the most troublesome and underreported reasons is one that emerges from nearly all the literature on the subject, is this: homosexual men are significantly more likely…some researchers would say, much more likely…than heterosexual men to have been sexually abused or exploited as children and adolescents. According to a 1998 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to seven times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who have not been abused.”?
Human sexuality is a delicate thing Emma ““ Your simplistic and naïve dichotomy of “your born straight or your born gay”? cut & dry analysis, bemoans the real life complexity of life in this modern (overly sexed & sexually confused/confusing) world.
The choices individuals make have a lot to do with the overall moral environment they are cast into, and the expectations that engenders.
This is an important point of my and goes to your insistence on a Gay vs Straight dichotomy.
My general rule is : every kid should have a fighting chance to be straight.
Wow, Fitz. You know what your problem is? Not enough man-sex.
And this bullshit:
– and why do you think that is? I think you got your cause and effect mixed up. If this is indeed an accurate statistic.
And without definitions, there’s no debate. You use the term “traditional family” and “traditionalist views” without offering any clue as to what you mean by them. Your half-assed definition of family “biological – man + women = children”- that’s not a social definition of a family, that’s just a second-grader’s grasp of reproduction.
And you’re the one claiming that social science is giving more and more evidence for “traditionalist views”. How the hell do you confirm that if you don’t offer any nonambiguous definition of what those “traditionalist views” are?
“Fitz said: From the looks of the responses my adversaries thinks my intellectual heirs and myself are all…”
Your intellectual “HEIRS”!?!?!
Woah, we’d better watch out folks, we’re dealing with none other than the inventor of the traditional family, mentor to the likes of Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz!!! Now I understand where they get all of their…peculiar argumentative quirks and near supernatural endurance for handling cognitive dissonance.
“Fitz said: …all neo-imperialist, racist, Japanese interning ““government hacks for the Tobacco lobby who can’t spell. (I’ve been called that before)
I also don’t know anything about the institution of slavery (gay or otherwise)…”
Notice how he hasn’t actually even tried to prove us wrong about those things.
“Fitz said: I believe you find these mainstream scholars and others to be of questionable intellectual integrity simply because you don’t like the bent of theirwork.”
1. Look who’s talking Mr. Travelling echo chamber. Pot, kettle, black.
2. No, I find your not-as-mainstream-as-you-fervently-wish “scholars” to be of questionable intellectual integrity because I’ve seen their “ideology first, methodology distant tenth” arguments meticulously dismantled over and over by legions of far more reputable researchers. Need examples? Read the archives, follow Amp’s links, do some kind of research so you’re not unarmed when you go trolling.
I have a question for you Fitz. All your arguments imply (sometimes less than subtly) that there is a conspiratorial movement of some sort driving this so called multipronged attack on the traditional family. Could you tell me what you believe is the motivation of this conspiracy? What is “their” end goal? Who are its leaders and what do they want? It can’t just be “shameless, selfish hedonistic pleasure” because you insist the gay “lifestyle” is one filled with inescapable misery.
Reveal these fiends to us oh logical one.
“Human sexuality is a delicate thing Emma ““ Your simplistic and naïve dichotomy of “your born straight or your born gay”? cut & dry analysis, bemoans the real life complexity of life in this modern (overly sexed & sexually confused/confusing) world.”
To set the record straight, I certainly do not believe in what you referred to as a “gay or straight dichotomy”. First of all, there are bisexuals. And I don’t even think that it is a born vs. learned preference dichotomy- I am fine with and/or there.
But really, Fitz. Assuming that you are a straight male, can you tell me with a “straight” face (bad pun intended) that if the stigma were gone, you would EVER be able to become a gay male, favoring sex with other men over sex with women? Can you tell me with a straight face that you know ANY straight person that would become gay, suddenly desiring sexual activity with men instead of with women, merely because the stigma was gone? I don’t think you can. Of course, one could be inspired to experiment, but they would have to have already be amenable to that experimentation (i.e. not 100% straight). Could you truly think of anyone that you know that has desired only one gender that could be persuaded to desire only another gender?
To the best of my (“simplistic and naive”, natch) knowledge, sexuality just doesn’t work that way. What might conceivably happen is that people that ALREADY have desires for sex with others of their same gender might feel more comfortable coming out of the closet. That does NOT translate into more people becoming gay. It means that already gay or bisexual people will be able to be themselves.
I do not believe I will ever have the desire to have sex with another woman, no matter what our social culture. It simply is not sexually appealing for me. My gay friend says that she does not believe that she will ever have the desire to have sex with a man, even though her parents have bribed, blackmailed and begged her to do so. It simply is not sexually appealing to her. My bisexual friend does not believe that she will ever find only one gender sexually appealing. She has had periods in which she has had only male, or only female lovers, but this has nothing to do with her sexuality changing- it has to do with the individuals that she has known at those periods of her life.
Of course, many people have fooled themselves into thinking that they were straight, and then later “became gay”. They only identified themselves as straight because they wanted to avoid the stigma of homosexuality. They were only able to fool themselves for so long; this DESPITE the horrible stigma and the consequences for their coming out.
And frankly, Fitz, I think that this is what the author of your citation really means- that we have a much larger percent of the population that is gay than currently broadcasts (or even fully knows) that fact, and that letting up the stigma against homosexuality would bring more of these people out of the woodwork. And that is what he is truly railing about. I believe he KNOWS that there are far more people that desire sex with people of their same gender than will now admit it (whether to others or themselves), and he just doesn’t want them to ever feel comfortable enough to admit it. And neither do you.
That doesn’t mean that stigma (or the lack of it) can really change people’s sexuality. It does, however, blow away your “Won’t somebody think of the children?” subterfuge, and exposes you as someone who just doesn’t want people to be gay. In my stomping grounds, we call a person like that a bigot.
P.S.: Ampersand- I truly apologize if my last sentence is against the rules, but I think that sentence is truly the crux of the matter-despite the social science citations to the contrary.
Fitz asks “where’s the love?”
Up to this point, I have received nothing but personal attacks. Nothing of substance in response to my posts above.
that’s cuz there was no substance to your posts, hon.
.
From the looks of the responses my adversaries thinks my intellectual heirs and myself are all neo-imperialist, racist, Japanese interning-government hacks for the Tobacco lobby who can’t spell. (I’ve been called that before)
you’ve been called that before? the whole thing? poor thing! still, you might want to take a look in the mirror sometime soon if people are taking the time to call you that ungainly mouthful on a regular basis (actually, working on your spelling might help with that last bit – if nothing else, you’ll be better at Wheel of Fortune!).
heirs….
hee hee hee.
you have been a busy bunny, haven’t you?
.
I also don’t know anything about the institution of slavery (gay or otherwise)
well, that’s obvious. but if you’d rather folks not know that then maybe not making ignorant remarks about the history of slavery would help. (see above: homophobia.)
.
Exactly how is any of this dis-positive of my argument?
sweetie, you don’t have an argument (declarations of “what everyone knows” & ALL CAPS queries notwithstanding, of course)…. btw, “dispositive” doesn’t need to be hyphenated (unless, y’know, hyphenation turns you on).
i think Mr. Raznor’s right: more man-sex for you! really! don’t knock it til you’ve tried it. i’d offer to hook you up, but i’d rather my friends not have meet someone like you…. nothing personal. :)
So conform to the straight majority because conformity is good? Okay…..
no thanks. I think if I want to unncessarily increase my blood pressure, I’ll just look at the yahoo! message boards…that’s sure to piss people off regardless of their own politics.