Prop 8: Ted Olson Destroys Chris Wallace
One of the interesting things about the Prop 8 trial was that the defenders of Prop 8 were so ill-prepared for their court case. The Prop 8 defenders only called 2 witnesses and one of the witnesses had their testimony completely ignored. The opponents of Prop 8 called many, many witnesses to demolish the “scientific” opposition to same sex marriage – like the myths that same sex couples are bad for children. The trial was a farce from the start because the arguments that the Prop 8 defenders had were 1) will of the people, 2) tradition and 3) religion. However, to win a case you need good lawyers and Ted Olson shows why he’s one of the best:
Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”
When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:
OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.
Here’s some interesting speculation from Pam’s House Blend, is the Prop 8 case actually over? Both the California AG Jerry Brown and California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger have asked Judge Walker to lift the stay on the ruling and allow same sex marriages to proceed:
In a motion filed late yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiff couples and the City of San Francisco argued that marriages should be allowed to begin immediately, rather than be stayed pending appeal. One of their arguments was that an appeal might never happen. They argued this because the governmental defendants – the Governator and the once (and future!) Governor Moonbeam – are not appealing and the Yes on 8 proponents – who were let in at the trial court as intervenors – don’t have standing to appeal.
In a nutshell, from a non-lawyer, it seems that Justice Ginsburg, in the opinion to Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (which was decided on other grounds), expressed “grave doubts” as to whether the proponents of a ballot measure had standing to appeal a federal court ruling in the absence of governmental actors making an appeal. In other words, the Yes on 8 folks might not have the right to appeal Walker’s decision.
This, apparently, is why Imperial County tried to get in on the case in the eleventh hour – the haters realized that without a government entity willing to appeal, they could be shit out of luck. But Walker shut them down, both saying they didn’t have a good reason to be let in and that they waited until after the deadline, so they really are SOL. So unless Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown have a sudden change of heart and decide to appeal the ruling (or Imperial County convinces a higher court that they really should be in on the case) Walker’s ruling could be the final word.
Tags: Fox News, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage
Something struck me while watching the video….. When are we going to stop calling this form of programming “news”? Why aren’t we calling it what it is, “The Murdoch Spin Machine”.
Like gays in this circumstance, he has a Constitutional Right to put much of what he wants on the air. But to refer to it as “news”, is just fundamentally inaccurate. For it to be “news”, it must be “a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment”. Not an opportunity to slant, spin or manipulate a recent event to forward a political or social philosophy in order to lead the ignorant. Chris Wallace didn’t lose the discussion because he’s stupid, he lost because he relayed on the producers to prepare the questions and they couldn’t be more biased.
I really think it’s about time we start referring to this network as “Fox Broadcasting”, because it sure as hell isn’t news.
I personally like to refer to it as “Fox Media Outlet”
The reason the right to marriage is not defined specifically in the constitution regarding sexual orientation, is because no one even considered the possibility of it back then.
The premise of homosexual marriage is proportionately unfair to society. The scales of justice are tipping.
It’s a simple mathematical equation of proportions between the population of homosexuals in society and the disproportionate sweeping change it would effect on society. It all comes down to fairness. I’m surprised that Ted Olson didn’t realize this.
PS. please don’t accuse me of using talking points like you always do. These are my thoughts, and I don’t have anything against homosexuals. Also, don’t bring the civil rights struggle into this. It doesn’t apply.
Yes, it does apply. Your insistence that it does not is of no value or merit.
Please illustrate the change it would have on society. Use examples of the states that currently allow it.
FBH – just to be clear on your rationale, do you find no equation between gay rights and african american rights because you feel homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? I feel like both minority groups are born with their respective characteristics and that’s one of the reasons why I disagree with the discrimination. If I have misunderstood your motives please elaborate.
Also, Geezer – I’d like to point out that despite my aunts’ five year marriage Massachusetts has yet to burn to the ground. At least last time I checked.
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate and the lowest teen pregnancy rate.
Marriage is something that is dealt with Constitutionally, it’s the 14th Amendment which Republicans have suddenly decided they don’t like. Before the 14th amendment African-Americans couldn’t marry each other. The Loving v. Virginia case struck down anti-miscegination laws.
So not only is FBH wrong in his thinking, his arguments are just not factually correct.
“The reason the right to marriage is not defined specifically in the constitution regarding sexual orientation, is because no one even considered the possibility of it back then. ”
there was a time when no one considered black and whites would ever marry…. or that there would not be slavery. … FBH dumb comment number one PWNED.
“The premise of homosexual marriage is proportionately unfair to society. The scales of justice are tipping.”
“WAAAAA THAT ISNT FAIR!!! WAAAAA” explain how it isn’t fair. there are less Jews in America than Christians, show we not get equal rights because there are less of us? seem like the weekend includes BOTH our Sabbaths. … FBH dumb point number 2 PWNED.
It’s a simple mathematical equation of proportions between the population of homosexuals in society and the disproportionate sweeping change it would effect on society. It all comes down to fairness. I’m surprised that Ted Olson didn’t realize this.
“PS. please don’t accuse me of using talking points like you always do. These are my thoughts, and I don’t have anything against homosexuals. Also, don’t bring the civil rights struggle into this. It doesn’t apply.”
… civil rights DO apply. Civil rights and racial rights are NOT one in the same. Racial rights fall under the category of civil rights, but it doesn’t go exclusively the other way…. no matter what TALKING POINT you want to parrot today.
The conservative arguments against marriage are getting very weak judging by today’s Russ Douthat column:
We must forbid same sex marriage because of Western civilization!!!
The “Jewish” part of that formulation is complete bullshit, as anybody who reads the Old Testament knows. My point being that the cultural context of marriage has changed even while the morality at the heart of western society’s holy book has as well.
Hey Ross — lead, follow or get out of the way. In your case, you seem to have chosen C.
a.price, why do you always try and make it look like I’m using talking points pulled from Fox news ? Are you jealous of anyone who has an original thought in his head ?
Come on smart guy. I challenge you to find these TALKING POINTS regarding the proportional inequity of homosexual marriage.
FBH,
“The premise of homosexual marriage is proportionately unfair to society. “
I assume you are a member of society, so tell us why someone else’s homosexual marriage is unfair to you.
I’m beginning to think the only thing holding back FBH and others from marrying a person of the same sex is the law. Allow gay marriage and, obviously, they’ll participate.
“proportional inequity of homosexual marriage.”
How is an indivudal freedom – construed to the group of indivudals who want this freedom – a proportioanl inequity.
Why would it be worng to give a aminority group rights that others have? This doesn’t force homosexual marriage – it simply allows it…
I am convinced that heterosexual male conservatives are:
1) Jealous that gay men get more blow jobs than they do and
2) Worried that their wives will leave them to marry another woman.
Exactly, Independent. As I tell people who are against same sex marriage – if you don’t like same sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Many people say same sex relationships are against their religion. Well, I don’t belong to their religion. Isn’t barring same sex marriage on religious grounds the same as establishing a state religion.
Judge Walker made it very clear in his ruling, the state can’t legislate morality absent any other interest. The state must have some reason to forbid something that is secular in nature.
That’s funny pandora. It’s the same thing you said this past winter when I first started participating in discussions on this blog. We were actually discussing the exact same issue.
3) Really attracted to other men and are relying on rules to keep them from acting on it.
But that’s what you seem to be saying, FBH. How else would gay marriage affect you? You’re the one claiming proportional inequality and citing fairness? Seriously, how would gay marriage lessen, or threaten, your marriage?
didnt stop mark foley, or larry craig, or Rent boy.
FBH, everything you say is basically a script for Sean Hannity. BUt im glad my little jab today landed. You whine about people calling you out for using talking points, i will call you out louder for using talking points.
it’s that simple.
btw, i kinda miss Rhymes with Right. at least they seemed to have a functioning brain.
Matt Yglesias takes apart Douthat:
We already have civil marriages. Churches can turn away divorced couples or members of another denomination if they wish already. That’s guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Marriage is not just something that occurs in a church, it carries certain state & federal benefits that are being denied to some people solely because of sexual orientation.
“But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate.”
I think Douchethat is suggesting that is gays get married, marriage will be seen as “gay” and kids won’t wanna do it. They worry that marriage might become “uncool”.
Couldn’t find the Talking Points could you a.price ?
pandora – My marriage won’t be affected at all, although I may have to start referring to it as a “traditional marriage”.
Geezer said, “Please illustrate the change it would have on society.”
The fact that society will eventually consider it normal seems to be quite a change wouldn’t you say Geezer.
Actually I will still refer to my marriage as a marriage, but I will refer to a homosexual marriage as a homosexual marriage because that’s what it is. I’m also open to calling my marriage a heterosexual marriage if it comes to that.
why can’t you just call both “marriage” FBH? It’s not like we refer to “male adoptions” and “female adoptions.” They’re both just “adoption” 2 subcategories of the legal/civil joining of a parent to a child, just like the legal/civil joining of two people in a marriage will someday have two subcategories.
(also still wondering why you don’t equate gay rights with african american rights, just for better understanding)
why can’t you just call both “marriage” FBH? It’s not like we refer to “male adoptions” and “female adoptions.
Why do you say African Americans instead of just Americans ? See my point ?
“also still wondering why you don’t equate gay rights with african american rights, just for better understanding)”
African Americans were discriminated against.
There is no discrimination against gays. They are afforded the same exact rights as myself or anybody else.
“pandora – My marriage won’t be affected at all, although I may have to start referring to it as a “traditional marriage”.”
Please do. Please call your wife your “traditional wife” and insist she refer to you as her “traditional husband”.
“There is no discrimination against gays. They are afforded the same exact rights as myself or anybody else.”
I hope you waved your fingers over the keyboard before you typed that. “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Move along.”
point taken, but I will point out I was doing that because I think the phrase “civil rights” encompasses a larger group than what you were describing. Women had a civil rights movement too.
They are afforded the same rights, except the marriage thing, and the being protected by the hate crimes bill thing, and not requiring them to be protected against things like workplace discrimination. This argument only works if you feel that they are choosing to be homosexual (and not born that way). I guess under that logic they could choose to be to be afforded the same rights by choosing a hetero lifestyle instead. Black people can’t really choose to be white people, so it’s not fair to discriminate etc.. Is that your thought process here? Basically I feel like I’ll be able to better discuss any gay rights issue with you if I know if you think it’s a choice or a biological characteristic.
V, everyone is protected by hate crimes legislation, they say, and the law says you can’t discriminate based on sexual preference.
As far as the marriage thing goes, the federal government (thanks to Bill Clinton and the DOMA) says that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everyone is subjected to the same law which means there is no discrimination.
“I’ll be able to better discuss any gay rights issue with you if I know if you think it’s a choice or a biological characteristic.”
Honestly I have no idea, maybe both in some cases. maybe completely biological in others. Do you know ?
ooh you’re right, my bad about the hate crimes thing. I forgot Obama signed it last year. I’m cool with admitting when I’m wrong.
And I know you LOVE that it was Clinton that was behind DOMA (and DADT for that matter) but I’m liberal and I’ll say it: Bill Clinton was wrong. I swear no blind allegiance to democrats. And those laws are wrong. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. Now, just more people have noticed how wrong it is.
We have overturned TONS of laws that were unfair (including during the civil rights period you feel this isn’t similar to)so just because the discrimination is backed by a law doesn’t make it ok. It’s wrong, and the law they’re hiding behind is wrong.
I know how I feel, I just wanted to know how you feel.
A Brief History of Marriage in America from This Modern World. <---Click the link
Hopefully FBH understands that African Americans are also Americans, just like homosexual marriages will be marriages.
liberalgeek I don’t use the term African American I just say American.
I have a friend who married an African. I guess you could call her an African American, but she’s white so it tends to get confusing.
Hey geek, is that a picture of Jim lahey from “Trailer Park Boys” ? …. Just kidding.
I have consulted with my Obama shrine (which I actually do have) and after this consultation I have come to realize that states rights should be the rule in the case of homosexual marriage. The Obama shrine has also spoken to me and says that Bill Clinton is a jackass, but that he is right in the case of the DOMA.
FBH,
“The premise of homosexual marriage is proportionately unfair to society. “
Can you tell us why someone else’s homosexual marriage is unfair to you?
LGBT community already have fundamental rights under the Consitution. The right to marry is the only issue. And no, it should not be a state rights thingy, thats why we cant have state immigration laws, or state abortion laws, because we are one country under the Consitution equal protection laws. Federal laws take precedence over state laws, which Supreme Courts have always upheld. Ted Olson and Bois have done a remarkable job and prevailed on the merits of the case under constitutional law. It will be a real task for the bigots on the Supreme Court to undermine and out maneuver what Olson and Bois have put forth. They have looked at every angle which is why the Judge had to rule on Prop 8 in their favor. Its too bad Obama listens to Michele on the gay issue, instead of using the protective cover of the Consitution and existing law to end the debate.
It’s not unfair to me personally, maybe I should say unbalanced instead.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for thousands of years correct ?
All of a sudden changing marriage to include homosexuals would be considered a massive change in societal thinking, would you agree ?
The question is, do you think that the relatively small population of homosexuals who want to get married, compared to the overall population in general, allows for an equitable outcome given the massive change effected by such a small group ?
So it is “unbalanced” to you personally? How so?
Substitute “slave” and “slavery” for “homosexual” and “homosexuality,” respectively
Slavery has been around for thousands of years correct ?
All of a sudden changing free society to include slaves would be considered a massive change in societal thinking, would you agree ?
The question is, do you think that the relatively small population of slaves who want to be free, compared to the overall population in general, allows for an equitable outcome given the massive change effected by such a small group ?
Do you see how utterly dumb your argument is?
A1, FBH has nothing. That’s why he is reduced to incoherent arguments.
FBH, you idiot. It used to be amoral for a christian to marry a jew. It used to be considered taboo for people from different races.
You can replace your exact argument with race or faith and it would be the same right wing hate-monger argument you right wing hate mongers have been using for thousands of years.
you aren’t original, you aren’t new, you are just another teabagger.
LGBT community already have fundamental rights under the Consitution. The right to marry is the only issue.
Everyone already has the same rights, just as everyone will have a new right if the right to marry a person of the same sex is invented by judges who can pull rights out of their own penumbras. Despite incessant comparisons to race the notion of a “LGBT community” is as broad, subjective, situational and relative as sexual desires themselves. Do bisexuals count as two minorities and therefore have more rights then everyone else? Or is it only when they desire the same-sex that they have that right?
Everyone already has the same fundamental rights just as everyone will have a new right to same sex-marriage if one is invented.
On another note, if the logic of defining yourselves as a community or a “minority” based on desires or behaviors holds then the National Association for the Acceptance of Fat People may as well define themselves based on their desires. But how can they get Michelle Obama to stop treating obesity as something undesirable? Perhaps they could argue that fat kids might get beat up in school. Also, I know a fat person who is nice. To anyone thinking that obesity is not the equal of being in shape all you need to do is get to know a fat person to realize their equality. This proves that fat people need to be allowed to serve in the military and that no government funded organization should be allowed to discriminate against being fat. (Etc. etc… you can create your own propaganda for imbeciles. As civilization declines it’s all the material of satire.)
You can’t be serious comparing slavery to the homosexual marriage issue.
Oh, hi there a.price, still haven’t found THE TALKING POINTS I see.
It used to be considered taboo for people from different races.
Race is far from the biological equivalent of sex. Most people realize this basic fact of life, that’s why it’s not treated as an inevitable fact of progress that we must now eliminate opposite sex bathrooms just as we eliminated segregated bathrooms.
You can replace your exact argument with race or faith and it would be the same right wing hate-monger argument you right wing hate mongers have been using for thousands of years.
You can replace your “hate” arguments with any vice. That’s why the National Association for the Acceptance of Fat People exists. Gay propagandists laid out your arguments some time ago and they work for anything. They may as well be the intellectual equivalent of someone on Jerry Springer arguing “Don’t be hatin’!”
They’re the sort of argument typically aimed at imbeciles:
you aren’t original, you aren’t new, you are just another teabagger.
Why are you using sexual perversion as an insult if nothing is really perverse? Apparently even perverts know that perversion exists.
And really, was there anything new in what you said?
“It’s just like racism or somethin’.”
“Don’t be hatin’…”
“I just showed you by calling you a name. Yay!”
What cave did mynym crawl out of. Anyone who is gay or lesbian may be fired from their job, simply for being gay or lesbian, in 19 states and they have no recourse. Now, what do you suppose would happen if someone was fired for being Black, Jewish, or Christian? The person can turn to the courts. I cannot.
So mynym, please explain to me how you interpret life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I was going to call you a fucktard, but, oh hell, you’re a fucktard.
Slaves were not allowed to legally marry, either. Denial of freedom and the accompanying economic benefits by one group of people over another group of people is another form of slavery.
It will be a real task for the bigots on the Supreme Court to undermine and out maneuver what Olson and Bois have put forth.
It will never be bigoted or ignorant to admit to and support the complementarity of the sexes. It is a relatively simple matter of knowledge which even gays and liberals themselves already know. That’s why one of their favorite insults is: “You’re secretly just like me!” Not to mention more objective measures like surveys of homosexuals showing that the majority hope that their children are not gay. If homosexuality was desirable and the equal of heterosexuality then that would not be the case. This is also generally why the framework of the “no choice” argument came about. It seems that everyone already knows that being gay is not desirable, including gays themselves.
They have looked at every angle which is why the Judge had to rule on Prop 8 in their favor.
It would have been odd for a gay judge not to rule in their favor. After all, can’t he define new rights based on self-defining as gay? If I defined myself by an “orientation” (i.e. desires) to have sex with more than one women would that grant me a right to be married to more than one?
Its too bad Obama listens to Michele on the gay issue, instead of using the protective cover of the Consitution and existing law to end the debate.
The Constitution….
“Are you serious? Are you serious?” –Nancy Pelosi
There is no law as civilization declines because the law is language. But at least there is plenty of space for satire.
What cave did mynym crawl out of.
Plato’s…. but now I have come back to you imbeciles to have fun with shadows.
Anyone who is gay or lesbian may be fired from their job, simply for being gay or lesbian, in 19 states and they have no recourse.
Yet surveys show that people who choose to self-define as gay are generally far more wealthy and more likely to have a college degree than the general population. If they need such recourse more than more deserving minorities like fat or ugly people then why is that?
After all, if pretty much every person who has a homosexual desire at work is fired on the spot then it’s not clear how they could be so wealthy, powerful and so on.
On a more serious note, have you ever heard of freedom of association? And does your logic apply only to gays and lesbians or are other “sexual minorities” also included?
Now, what do you suppose would happen if someone was fired for being Black, Jewish, or Christian?
So is being gay like an immutable biological characteristic or is it a religion? If it is a religion it would seem to be a religion of hedonism. It wouldn’t have much history except in the West where the notions of defining people into categories like “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are common. Perhaps it would have been best to make being gay, whatever it may be, into a religion of hedonism because the notion that it is a biological characteristic may lead to attempts to cure it.
The person can turn to the courts. I cannot.
Nor can fat people or ugly people in general and they are far more likely to be discriminated against than gay people. Perhaps we should just do away with freedom of association entirely and have judges make all of our discriminations for us?
Mynym is one of the unexpected pleasures of the blogosphere. Every few months mynym chews through the leather straps and pays us a visit. It is always memorable. But then the men with the butterfly nets come and collect him again, until the next time.
Gays are more wealthy? Please show your facts and these “surveys” – hint – anything from FRC, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, etc, do not count.
And yes, being gay is a biological characteristic. And what does freedom of association have to do with anything? Just another FAILED argument from a neanderthal.
It’s plainly obvious that you’re only pulling your “facts” out of your ass.
Go back to your cave or the rock you live under and leave the rest of us alone. Or do I need to send my flying monkeys after you?
And the ever-elusive mynym returns!!
Gays are more wealthy?
Marketers know it, e.g.Independent studies estimate the gay market at large to be worth $514 billion dollars annually, with average household incomes estimated at $51,624 for gay men and $42,755 for lesbian women, verses a U.S. average of $36,500. By spending $17 billion dollars annually on travel, the gay community is proving to be extremely lucrative to the travel industry at large.
….according to the IGLTA (International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association), the notion that gays and lesbians enjoy an income level higher than the norm is accurate…
This is merely one of the first things that comes up in Google if you know what to look for. I could go on but let’s not pretend that this is about facts, logic and evidence. This is about the psychological dynamics and feelings typical to gays and liberals. The main reason that few organizations have been formed to protect fat or ugly people from discrimination is that they do not share similar psychological dynamics*, it is not because they do not suffer more discrimination. *E.g., as one psychologist studying what they called “sissy boy syndrome” observed: “Tends to cry about nothing.”
Gay propagandists have argued that these are the sorts of dynamics that should be made use of to condition liberals/imbeciles, e.g.:
Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality.
(Kirk and Madsen, “After The Ball” :152-153)
So let’s not pretend that the issue here is actually facts, logic and evidence. It’s about getting whatever you feel you want today. It’s when you do not get what you want that you invoke victimization imagery, not facts and logic.
If this was based on facts, logic and evidence then discrimination against the obese would be outlawed before discrimination against self-defining as gay was. Fat people are more likely to be poor, be bullied, etc. And if gay logic applies in general then Calvin Klein should be forced by the State to hire obese models and pretty much everyone’s freedom of association should be done away with in order to combat the discrimination that fat people suffer. Perhaps federal judges could also decide that gays in the fashion industry have to stop discriminating against women who weigh more. As long as they’re going to be making most of our decisions for us why not just have them make them all?
And yes, being gay is a biological characteristic.
Given that gays themselves apparently believe that being gay is undesirable (e.g. “Why would anyone choose to be this way.” etc.etc.) if there was a way of changing this supposed biological characteristic would you support people who chose to do so? If people desire medical treatments to change that characteristic would you support them? Notice how gay organizations are called LGBT and so support and include transexuals who wish to change a biological characteristic. Would you or they also support those who sought to treat the supposedly biological characteristic of homosexuality?
And what does freedom of association have to do with anything?
It has plenty to do with everything. Once you have given the federal judiciary enough power to make our decisions for us to get whatever it is you want to today you may find that you do not agree with their decisions tomorrow. And you would probably see the importance of freedom of association if a judge decided that a gay organization must accept a Muslim who supports establishing Sharia law. I maintain that people who disagree with each other should not be forced to associate with people that they disagree with. But the good thing about freedom of association and freedom of speech is that they can associate with and disagree with each other if they wish to do so. They are free do so.
Why is it that the first reaction of most conservatives and all libertarians when dealing with people they disagree with is not to seek control over them, yet with liberals it seems that everything always shifts to controlling the “discrimination”/decisions of other people? If someone fires someone for being fat, ugly or gay or even fat, ugly and gay then I may disagree with it but I do not feel the need to support a totalitarian state or do away with all freedom and liberty chasing after all the injustices typical to life. If I do not like it then I say so (freedom of speech), associate with other people (freedom of association), etc. That is all. The answer for libertarians is more freedom, not less. Why does the answer never seem to be freedom for the sort of liberals that post here? Even gays supported the Boy Scout’s freedom of association back in the 90s, yet apparently freedom of association is just too difficult for liberals like the sort posting here to even begin to grasp.
Just another FAILED argument from a neanderthal.
For all you know Neanderthals were more intelligent than most people living today.
And the ever-elusive mynym returns!!
Hi Mike, what do you think about the concept of fat rights? What about a fat pride march? I’m not fat but I know a nice fat person. Besides proving that I do not hate fat people that must mean that I know what any public policy which touches on fat people should be. So fat people should be allowed in the military and so on.
Apparently everyone is falling into the patterns laid out by Kirk and Madsen:
Ugly People Need Not Apply?
Two new polls that show how a job candidate’s good looks — or lack thereof — can affect their job-search process, and the results hardly paint a pretty picture.
by Michael O’Brien
I wonder if an ugly person who hired people because they were ugly (Because it made them more comfortable to associate with people that they felt were equal to them or what have you.) and therefore discriminated against beautiful people would also be guilty of discrimination, i.e. the supposed equivalent of victimization? After all, nothing seems to be out of the question as American civilization declines.
“…as American civilization declines.” I have no doubt that you feel the earth shifting beneath your feet. But, I wonder what “civilization” you’d like America to be more like? There was a time when only white land owning men were thought of as citizens. Is that the golden age, or 1890 or 1965…? What date should we turn the clock back to?
Why so angry, mynym? You’re just like every self-congratulatory superior person — furious with the rest of us. Why throw your pearls before us swine?
Your libertarian paradise sounds nice, but it bears no relation to our world. In our world, flawed people must work with the flawed tools at their disposal to get as close as they can to what they want. They use logic when it suits their purposes, and emotion when that suits their purposes. Just like you. Is that why you’re so angry?
ugly & str8= unemployed & broke
yep. that about sums it up for me
I have no doubt that you feel the earth shifting beneath your feet.
Not at all, I doubt that you and the rest of the Herd are part of a revolution but instead merely the natural course of history. Dumb and dumber….
But, I wonder what “civilization” you’d like America to be more like?
You do not even understand that civilization exists based on self-evident truths that are evident in the self. Americans have a history of admitting to truths that are already known. In contrast, apparently you think that civilization is relative to whatever different groups of people assert that it is at different times or places. So in this case, if a group self-defines as a minority based on their own sexual desires then that is a civilization just like any other. Except that it is evident that it is not. That is why the “community” uses their own desires and behaviors as insults and so on. That is why insults and obscenities are generally universal across cultures. Etc.
There was a time when only white land owning men were thought of as citizens. Is that the golden age, or 1890 or 1965…?
Why do you imagine that progressives are necessarily on the side of progress? Your mythologies of progress led to the eugenics in the past, yet now we generally do not consider such notions progressive. Perhaps I should simply define myself as on the side of progress.
Why so angry, mynym?
Apparently you’re trying to tell me what my feelings are because you have nothing to say based on facts, logic or evidence.
You’re just like every self-congratulatory superior person — furious with the rest of us.
It seems to me that satire may be based on contempt and disdain more than anger. Not that the Herd even realizes what is satire and what is not. What if I merely have the desire to have fun and in order to have fun one has to make fun? Even if I was angry it’s not as if my feelings matter. Although if we’ve come to the point where people are stupid enough to base public policy based on subjective orientations and so on perhaps I should define my identity based on feelings and advocate for the rights of angry people? Did you know that angry people are more likely to be fired? And what recourse do they have? Someone should really pass a law so that angry people are not discriminated against.
Your libertarian paradise sounds nice, but it bears no relation to our world. In our world, flawed people must work with the flawed tools at their disposal to get as close as they can to what they want.
In other words they simply must go to the State to force people to employ or associate with them. Even if that were true in some cases if this case was based on facts and logic then fat people and ugly people are clearly more deserving minorities than gay people.
They use logic when it suits their purposes, and emotion when that suits their purposes. Just like you.
Not at all, those who believe in civilization are limited by logic and language. They do not seek to condition feelings based on victimization propaganda or merely telling other people what they feel and so on.
Is that why you’re so angry?
The irony of anyone trying to tell another person what their feelings are is that it typically says more about the person imagining the feelings. Why are you imagining that I’m angry?
I take your non-response as your surrender.
You do not even understand that civilization exists based on self-evident truths that are evident in the self.
Everybody think about this tonight when you go out to watch the Perseid meteor shower after midnight. Blotter acid optional.
I was correct in my assessment of NYNYM – you’re a fucktard.
OOOOOoooohhhh FUCK TARD
I hate to denigrate, but as long as the window is open:
MMMMMMMMMM, wait a sec, MMMMMMMMMMM yes I got it! COD!
C*nt O’Donnell! Bored on a hump day! Its funny ’cause you (claim) don’t hump! Call Mike! Virginity is a disease and all that.
Neanderthals were more intelligent than most people living today.</I.
And they didn't believe in SkyDad ( damn Jason)