My retort to stupidity
I’ll admit, I didn’t read the entire post by David Anderson I could sit here all day and marvel at the insanity of the stupid comments line after line… So what I have done is made a nice numbering system that will just pull out the lovely nuggets of imbecilism that we have come to know from FSP.
1. 4 people count more than millions of voters and thousands of years of human wisdom.
Oh were to begin with that one…I’ll pass though there are better nuggets.
2. Word is out that the California Supreme Court has found that it is discriminatory to give civil unions to same sex couples and recognize marriage of only mixed sex couples. That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law.
I had to go an entire space to find this one. I’m one for analogies. I love them, it helps retarded people understand your point. Analogies don’t work though, when retarded people try to sound smart.
3. Forgive me for having to go back to basics.
I have to admit, this isn’t a really dumb statement on it’s own, but if you read the above statements then you know it is leading to a nice thought. I’m sure what will follow is going to be a Thomas Paine moment of “Common Sense”
4. Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way.
what does nature say about this?
Hey that’s great, but, um where in the constitution does any of this become relevant?
5. Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is not open for judicial guessing.
So, read this one and go back to #4, I sort of picture frogs lining up on thousands of lilly pads and some king toad is marrying them all. In another part of the forest, the Tulips are trying to marry the Marigolds and some dandelion judge is saying, sorry, that isn’t natural.
It’s comical up to this point, we’ve gone from Radical judges going agains the public to an arguement any Supreme Court would love. It’s natural, God say’s so. I rest my case your honor.
6. The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people.
I shouldn’t go here, but I will, ummmmmmm Slavery was a basic institution for oh several thousand years too, was it not? Oh wait, that’s different, I forgot slavery isn’t normal in nature, or is it? Um yes, actually there are insects that use other insects as slaves. I digress though, I’d hate to inflame a post and get it wildly off track 🙂
7. I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left
You’d reject air if Hannity told you it was liberal. oh and WTF is a Secular Progressive left? I’ll wait for your definition
8. I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite. I call for a return of a common sense conservatism over a loony liberalism.
As I told my Father, next time you go to court for murder, robbery, beating your wife, just Bring the bible and tell the judge, it’s ok Judgey (insert Curly Fine voice) It’s in the bible, it says it’s ok. Oh, Ok, your free to go David. Can I have that Bible, I think I will rule using that from now on.
9. In the few countries which have tried this brave new world, marriage rates are already declining. The stability of the family has worsen.
worsen? I’ll chalk that up as a misspell. I’m bad at it too, not as bad as Jason, but… Marriage rates are declining b/c of da gays? I blame it on making women equal to men! If those bitches new their place…according to the Bible of course.
10. We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood.
I have an idea to get rid of a few million unwanted babies….
11. If even the tradition of marriage is not sacred, then all others are weakened. A society without tradition is no society at all. It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time.
I’m wondering if David would be fine with marriage just being like some ceremony that the government shouldn’t have any say in…Oh wait, they do. It’s the legal aspect that he has a problem with? I’m lost at this point, but common sense escapes me as a secular progressive liberal I guess.
12. As you can see, the attack on marriage is a threat to civilization.
LMAO, yes, because you have laid out your brilliant thesis above LMAO
                Potential threats to civilization
- Nuclear War
- Ozone Eroding/Global Warming
- Lack of Clean Water
- No more Oil
- Incurable Disease that sweeps across the world like influenza has in the past
10,000,000,000. Marriage to da gays
13. Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization add in civil government, organized religion, and economic exchange (business) then you have a strong society.
I’m still laughing…Marriage is the building block of government? WOW, give an idiot a computer and they think they are James Madison or Jefferson. I wonder if Ceasar would agree with that
14. My critics are going to say that I am claiming gay people are destroying civilization.
No we will say your an idiot. You are an idiot. See, you were wrong there too.
14. I don’t have a problem with gays. I have a problem with those who wish to use gays to advance their radical agenda.
I love black people, I have a few friends. I don’t not like them. I hope they will be able to get along in society the way I think they should.
16. It is time for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
My head is spinning at this point. Based on that arguement it is time to find you, lock you up and take away your computer so you don’t bend your brain into a knot and cause a seizure.
17. The people have spoken time and time again.
I spoke, where’s my voice?
18. This issue will be one of my top 3 casting my vote this year because not much else has as much impact on the future my children will inherit.
Good continue to worry about things that are important. Don’t forget to vote for people that want to ban alcohol sales on sunday, don’t want gambling, and say the world is flat.
Ladies and Gentleman, the 28% that think Bush is doing a good job, the economy is fine and Iraq has WMD’s hiding in Syria
As this is a DV post, let’s examine one quote in a DV way:
“Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way.”
I’ll ignore the obvious, which is that nature doesn’t “say” anything. So let’s look at this conjecture.
Man and woman fit together in a unique say. True, at the level of the obvious. Women have an orifice men don’t have. But they also share two orifices with men (I hope I don’t have to spell this out for Mr. Anderson). So “nature” (“God” to conservatives) provides for men to “fit together” with women in three ways, and with other men in two ways. (Of course, this leaves women zero ways to “fit together” with other women, which is where man as a tool-making animal comes into play, but we’ll leave that aside).
The question is: Would God have made men “fit together” so easily if he didn’t want them to “fit together” at all?
I can’t believe I seriously tried to answer David’s post yesterday. Your Wedding March comment, DV, was the perfect response.
How did you put it? Dumb, dumb, du-dumb.
Loved it!
dumb dumb dedumb
dumb dumb dedumb
I really don’t get it how does marriage between man and man or woman and woman threaten or prevent marriage between a man and a woman??
It seems to me the bigest threat to marriage between a man and a woman is divorce so do we want to outlaw that???
yes!
It has already been suggested that it should be as complicated to get married as it is to get divorced……
That was either the funniest or scariest picture I have ever seen.
At least you tried, unfortunately you failed to address the points 90% of the time.
I will clarify some of your misnomers. Marriage and families are the basic building blocks of civilization not government though naturally, government can not exist long with out the civilizing institution of family. Family is where we learn respect for authority, sharing, community, experience love, and develop our understanding of rules and justice. Undermine the family and you take us backward not forward.
I am not surprised the loony left thinks everything emits from government that is part of the problem.
Nature and Nature’s God overrule judicial tampering. There is a reason marriage is a near universal human institution. It is not a creation of the CA and MA courts therefore they do not have a right to alter or abolish it. That is what the 9th amendment is about; protecting our rights and institutions which predated the government.
Where is the wife beating scripture? I see Ephesians 5 which says don’t harm your wife. I have only read the scriptures through many times in several versions and read many commentaries on them ranging from contemporary authors to the Church Fathers, and studied theology, yet I missed that one .
i’ll stick with my SECULAR beliefs and let the bible stay at home out of my court system…
you want religion in you law system, I suggest you take a look at Sharia law
Like I said Davey, show me the lawyer that brings his bible to court to defend his case.
Moron
David I think the important thing and the point of all faith is live YOUR life well and not to judge how others choose to live. If we mind our own business, live our own life and protect the rights of the people and their liberty I am convinced that things will work out. When we start to legislate morality things do not work out, Kim Jong Il tried that, the Taliban tried that, Saddam tried, the Saudi’s do that and well it does not work too well.
i like the way I said it better 🙂
Ironically, this ruling is not just an affront to traditionalists, it is disrespecting gays and lesbians who are trying to build their own institutions and traditions by saying yours are inferior and therefore you must comply with the heterosexual ideal.
Brian, they brought up scripture. I am glad to engage their misconceptions. The Bible is the basis for our civil law. The founders quoted the Bible in their correspondence more than the next 5 sources combined. It is nothing to ashamed of. It is a great source of ancient wisdom and wisdom is ageless.
My argument was not based upon scripture, it is merely consistent with it and that of every major religion. Every major religion is not wrong. That is a bridge to far.
again David, every major religion talked about slavery being ok…so at what point did religion or MAN come to realize that one or the other was wrong?
history has proven that all types of people are supprewssed and then over time, the “creed”
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ends up winning. Get on board with the winners David your kids will or thier kids willat some point.
Wouldn’t it be better to be the wise person that was able understand a minorities plight then the racist that just bashes them and refuses to accept them as equals…
“The Bible is the basis for our civil law. The founders quoted the Bible in their correspondence more than the next 5 sources combined. ”
David, I’d love to see credible sources for either of these two statements. Ecclesiastical or canon law calved away from secular civil law, even in western Europe, several hundred years ago.
That the founders cited the Bible 5 times more often than the next source depends entirely on
1) Your definition of a Founder and the period in which that person was writing; and
2) Whether such a study has ever been done (not to my knowledge, and this is a field of speciality) or even COULD BE done. The Founder’s papers and correspondence is not something gathered together in one place on the Net or even published.
In point of fact, when discussing political deliberations over civil law and constitutional issues, the primary “founders” of the period, including Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Mason, or John Adams were far more likely to cite English Common Law precedent; the Magna Carta; Black’s Law Dictionary; and various classical Greek/Roman legal treatises.
If anyone needs this verified, the single best source for what the Founders were reading and quoting is Forrest McDonald’s Novus Ordo Seclorum, The Intellectual Orgins of the Constitution.
I don’t have time to critique either your historical arguments (I already did on FSP and you ignored the post) or your Constitutional arguments, which are neither originalist nor particularly persuasive.
“Family is where we learn respect for authority, sharing, community, experience love, and develop our understanding of rules and justice.”
So what about parents who have gay children? They should be at the top of your list of threats against the nation. If gay people are going to end civilization as we know it by getting married, lets start imprisoning and sterilizing the parents of gay people, maybe even set up camps where we could keep them captive and do some research and tests on them.
Steve: Thanks for a brilliant post.
Steve read the letters of the founders. Read their speeches. If you know any of the Bible, you will recognize the quotes and allusions. Catherine Mallard’s Rewriting of American History would be a good place to start because this historian just preserved the original documents and surveyed our monuments. She counted the various quotes. So did David Barton, but you would likely not get by his obvious evangelical stick to see the facts. The great part is the lady is an historian from South Africa so she has no horse in the race.
Newt Gingrich did a great survey of our Capitol in his latest non-fiction book. I am most impressed with the original text information. When Washington said Religion and Morality are indespensible, he was right. Read his farewell address. 95% of the founders were religious people.
David – I am certain that the South African has a horse in the race, just not a political one.
Let me point out that oftentimes in colonial history there was but a single book in a house. That book was the bible. It was readily produced and was a certain best seller. As such, it was an excellent shorthand for allegories and such.
Perhaps, some day, we can all talk about things like good and evil, right and wrong, inherent rights and justice using Harry Potter books, as they are currently in most homes.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all muggles are created equally…
I have a dream… That one day muggles and witches can play together in harmony. That one day a person will be judged by the quality of their character, not the pureness of their magical blood.
I already feel like we have Voldemort running the country.
Funny stuff, DV…..must have been the Scotch!
David,
I read and re-read the Founders probably more than you could imagine; and I am thoroughly familiar with the Bible. There is, however, a dramatic difference between passing literary allusions (which could also be said of Shakespeare or Homer) and conscious references to Biblical concepts or precepts.
As for your idea of a “credible source”–Catherine Mallard is a non-academic who writes Christian-oriented books for home schoolers ( http://www.barbsbooks.com/pramhist.html#Rewriting%20of%20America%92s%20History ) seeking “The Hand of God in American History”; given that there are literally millions of writings by Founders extant, your reliance on this superficial study of a few cherry-picked documents is telling.
New Gingrich’s book is accurate in an architectural sense, but completely misleading in terms of who the people were who created the buildings and monuments really were, and conflates them with the Founders. In most cases the people who built those edifices did not even belong to the same generation.
The statement that 95% of the founders were religious people is meaningless, because it does not make a bit of difference to your case. I am religious. I believe in the rights of any adult American citizen to the civil rights of marriage with any other consenting adult.
Does my belief now mean that your only recourse is to tell me that I’m not properly religious?
For a more complete historical discussion of why your long-term analysis of the institution of marriage is faulty, please see
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/05/few-disturbing-historical-facts-about.html
(All links are dead to insure this gets past geek’s span queue.)
Activated… I gotta figure out how to whitelist people…
I find your analysis completely devoid of the oblivious context of the founders. I doubt that you have read them more than I have, but you may have. The problem is that you ignore much of what they say and chalk it up to meaningless allusions. No quotations or allusions are meaningless. That misses the entire point of them. It is to give understanding or authority to one’s point. You know that very well; you are being disingenuous.
What credentials does she need? She has all of the degrees and is accepted in the Library of Congress as a scholar to read original source documentation. You knock her because she writes textbooks for homeschoolers? That book I referred to was not targeted to homeschoolers, but that validates not invalidates her. It shows that she is a respected author. Home school texts tend to be a lot more accurate than Houghton-Mifflin texts for instance.
I also have a problem with the fact that if you read the Congressional record from the time (which I have since I care about original intent), you see that laws were stopped or crafted to reflect an understanding of scripture. One example is the education in the territories. The Congress made sure to send Bibles to the schools because they were necessary to a moral education. Another example is the fact that the 500 lashes for mutiny was reduced to 40 because the Bible forbade more than that as excessive. Sodomy laws in the district are another example.
The Founders are the people who formed the First Congress, were at the Constitutional Convention, and members of the Continental Congress. There are about 250 such leaders. They gave us all of our founding documents, the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. They were an interesting lot as you know (I can tell that you have studied some of their lives from Del Libertarian). They are complicated and thoughtful people. It is also no doubt that like America they were as a group religious. They did not found a secular nation. They founded one which respected religious diversity, not religious exclusion. The Capitol Building served as a Church on Sundays for years.
Steve has the serious goods here re: the influence of the Bible on the founding docs,but it is very intriging to me that David makes plenty of claims here that he can’t even back up.
But the thing about American Law is that it treats marriage as a form of contract law, which anyone who has been divorced certainly knows. The sacramental and spiritual aspects were always the purview of your preacher and not of the state. And it is way past time that this government stopped trying to have this business both ways.