A Matter of Opinion
by Burt PrelutskyAccording to my wife, I have a tendency to state my opinion as fact. She suggests that I begin my sentences by saying “It’s only my opinion, but…” and go on from there. It’s my opinion, however, that people already understand that it’s my opinion and that they share it if they’re smart, or don’t, if they’re not. Furthermore, I don’t see my main function as a communicator to convince liberals, who are notoriously as blind as bats, to see the light, but to provide my fellow conservatives with ammunition to use against left-wingers and, whenever possible, to amuse.
Gloria Steinem
In any case, in the spirit of compromise, let us pretend that each of the following paragraphs begins “It’s only my opinion, but…”
When Gloria Steinem, who had been lionized by the ladies of NOW for her rather dumb remark about women needing men like fish needed bicycles, finally got married at the age of 66, I thought people should have sent her greeting cards complimenting her on having belatedly grown gills.
In recent weeks, Canadians caught Somali pirates who had attacked a Norwegian tanker, but released them because they were unable to prosecute them under Canadian law. In another case, Dutch commandos captured and then released Somali pirates who had attacked a Portuguese ship. It seems to me that until the day comes that these Somali punks command battleships or destroyers, the most logical way to deal with them is to blow them and their little speedboats to Kingdom Come.
About a month ago, I looked up George Soros at Wikipedia and read about his helping the Nazis confiscate the property of his fellow Hungarian Jews when he was a teenager. At the same time and place, I read that in response to a Steve Croft question on “60 Minutes,” Soros claimed that he had never regretted doing it or felt any shame or remorse afterwards because, as he explained, if he hadn’t done it, someone else would have. The other day, I re-visited the site and the entire episode had vanished. There still remained the mention of his having been convicted by a French court of insider trading. I am now wondering if billionaire Soros will make certain that it, too, disappears.
As much as I disapprove of Obama’s policies, what I truly find distasteful is the way he travels around the world apologizing for America, even to the likes of Hugo Chavez and the Castros. He bows to King Abdullah, cozies up to Ahmadinejad and tells the French — the French! — that America is arrogant.
When, by the way, do we stop apologizing for slavery? For one thing, most of our ancestors didn’t even arrive in this country until 40 or 50 years after 600,000 Americans died in a war that put an end to it. For another, most of the African slaves didn’t come to the United States; many more were delivered to the Caribbean and South America, courtesy of France, Germany, Spain, England, Sweden, Holland and Portugal. And lest we forget, it was the Arabs and their fellow blacks who rounded them up for the slave traders in the first place. Which makes it sadly ironic that so many American blacks, including Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, assumed Arabic names. Finally, one of the only places, aside from Communist nations, the Middle East and Thailand, where slavery still endures is in Africa!
Finally, it occurs to me that perhaps I’ve been wrong in opposing same-sex marriages. I regard it as a dumb idea, sort of like one of those silly sketches they perform on “Saturday Night Live.” Still, although no one who has chewed me out for my position has ever bothered to explain why if homosexuals are allowed to get married, on what possible moral or legal basis anyone could then object to incestuous or polygamous marriages, I am considering changing my mind. After all, why should we straights discriminate against those in the gay community? Why should we deny them the boundless delight that so many of us have experienced over the years dealing with divorce lawyers, engaging in custody battles and paying alimony to able-bodied adults?
But, heck, that’s only my opinion.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
96 Comments
Legalize It (polygamy)! what possible arguement can be used against it that isn't overcome by the gay marriage people?
We sould also learn Esperanto, it just makes sense. I mean whay wast our time learning an actual language
Do as I say not as I do. This is simple evolution Burt of the high minded amongst us the pied pipers of the mindless leftist myrmidons, fool herders. In my opinion.
Many subscribe to the theory of "All my beliefs can be completely substantiated by my opinions" I do as well except when i am burdoned with having to communicate with others.
We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.
I prefer Nerf Hearding myself
Watching these simpering idiots like Musto and Perez Hilton attack Carrie Prejean shows how poorly they have grasped the new manifesto of the Obama administration and de boyz from Chicago. Saul Alinsky probably didn't have a beauty queen who went to church in mind when he wrote about identifying ,isolating, and polarizing your critics. After all, she could melt steel with that smile. ( But Rosie O'Donnell would argue that steel can't be melted)
In my opinion,<<<fact< this article makes too much sense to have an impact on the libs.
If today's south had their way, slavery would still exist. The confederacy never died, it just went underground.
you generate feelings in me i can't explain. why are you so wonderful? please teach us how to be as great as you. Everything in my life has been wrong before you blessed me with with your words.
I have a tendency to state my opinion as fact.
Yeah, I get that a lot. But what's the good of having an opinion if you don't truly feel that if you ran the world it would be a better place? I just can't believe no one has asked me to be in charge yet.
Thread hijack attempt. Remember: if you feed a troll it grows, if you starve it, it dies.
I usually don't comment on bad grammar, but those two sentences certainly show a liberal education.
well, children- Auntie's back with more bombs and bromides… slavery exists in the world the liberal/left covers up for- sub-Saharan Africa, and sections of Islamic Indonesia. Not to mention the world wide trafficking in white slavery, mostly abducted children sold into brothels.
THAT slavery. Of course, it's the oppressive white power structure that made them do it. Or, more appropriately, as the late great Flip Wilson would say 'the Devil made me do it"…
The fact that the south is predominately conservative hacks off these losers no end; after all who would like hard working, honest, gun-toting land owning God-fearing folk? Certainly not our resident trolls…
Auntie, I recommend you wear a helmet when you leave the house.
"lest we forget, it was the Arabs and their fellow blacks who rounded them up for the slave traders in the first place. Which makes it sadly ironic that so many American blacks, including Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, assumed Arabic names."
That stunning ignorance about their own history has always baffled me too! Slavery is STILL practiced in the Arab world TODAY, although nobody ever dares mention that fact. Once in a while there will be a brief passing reference to it in reports about the (Muslim-caused) genocide in Sudan, or Somalia, etc. But most folks are absolutely clueless as to the STILL CURRENT Arab/Muslim Koran-sanctioned practice of slavery; and the fact that so many American blacks proudly assume Arabic names is literally BEYOND irony!
What is wrong with this guy? Can someone get him back on his meds?
Yes, slavery and racism turned Detroit into the Hell Hole that it is. Ah, I don't think so.
What about the branding trend in Black fraternaties?
The solution to the gay marriage/slippery slope argument is simple. Define marriage as the union of two consenting adults. Period. This cuts off the arguments that it would lead to incest, polygamy, or whatever, while preserving the rights of consenting adults to form a lasting union that promotes the creation of families.
I was totally unaware of that (never heard of it!).
Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction…
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want to ruin this great thread. A bunch of conservatives patting themselves on the back for slavery.
I am glad you have come around to a factless society. Tangible facts no longer apply in this empathy based hope change world. I thought you might have to be sent to summer camp this year to expand your mind. Now you may only need a few weekend classes at a good transcendental center to clear your mind. Good Job Burt.
I request coconut creme when you get around to making that pie…
I am so hot for you right now. I would drink your bath water.
You are my hero
Slavery, like the Jim Crowe laws, were the Democrat's purview. Lincoln was a Republican.
(I assume they didn't teach that in your Madrassah.)
why not families of multiple wives? or husbands? why should they be excluded? really what is the problem?
I hate it when people give me the "that's just your opinion" rejoinder. Of course it's my opinion. I am neither God nor William F. Buckley. Scoring points off the obvious like that is juvenile.
If you ever see the big raised scars in the shape of Greek letters on blacks, those would be branding scars. One of the hurdlers on the track team when I was in college had one on his upper arm.
You aren't all wrong. The city council is mostly black, and there was a recent incident where they were hearing a petition to perhaps bring back some vitality to part of the city. The problem was that the businessmen involved were white, and the Council told them that "whitey wasn't welcome" or something very similar. Needless to say, the petition was not granted.
-or- remove government from the marriage business entirely. Government decides what legal rights and privileges it will extend to a commited couple and can license a couple, but government can do no more than call a couple a civil union, even a heterosexual couple. This removes the idea that government can arbitrarily redefine a word and trample on the first amendment right of freedom of religion. If any couple wishes to be married, they must seek marriage through religion.
Antifascist is an internet troll with loads of time on his hands. He wears that warning sign like a badge of honor. We'd all do well to ignore him – like the punk on the playground – and he'll probably get bored and go disturb someone else's sandbox.
(If we're lucky, France's.)
If you change what marriage means , it can mean anything. Does anyone really think that people will stop with same-sex? That said apart from the religious arguements i have never heard an argument against polygamy that made any sense. If you try to use the perpetuation of the family arguement that falls flat, have you seen howmany kids those guys have? Don't try the child bride thing, we already have laws against that. also no lame Mormon jokes, they are about 100 years old.
I'd love to hear the arguements.
Yawn. You've been on autopilot for weeks now. C'mon, say something original, it might be fun.
"In recent weeks, Canadians caught Somali pirates who had attacked a Norwegian tanker, but released them because they were unable to prosecute them under Canadian law. In another case, Dutch commandos captured and then released Somali pirates who had attacked a Portuguese ship."
And piracy will be an issue until these clowns take it seriously. But hopefully, for now, at least there will be some hesitancy before trying to take an American ship.
Better to be thought rude and trigger happy than an easy mark.
Amazing (to me at least)!
I wonder if alcohol plays a role…?
Thus you prove the point. You live off the attention of others, and align your actions with your true political ideology: that of a parasite.
That's what is happening in Canada. Polygamists are citing gay marriage as case law precedent for legalizing polygamy. It's all downhill from there. Although, why anyone would want multiple spouses is a mystery to me. The one I have sends me around the bend often enough, I can't imagine having to try and deal with more.
I am sure that somewhere a pig just sprouted wings and I am surprised that I am posting this – I agree with you. That's right I know you may actually be surprised by this but you are absolutely correct antifascist. The slavers from the confederacy never died. So therefore what your idea of the confederacy is never did die. It did go underground. It became the democratic party and the chains became socialized medicine, welfare, food stamps, and was epitomized by Mao and Marx.
To make apologies for slavery, the whole world would have to apologize. Slavery wasn't an uniquely American institution; the pyramids weren't built by union labor, that's for sure (they'd be dust by now if they had).
And as Burt pointed out, "it was the Arabs and their fellow blacks who rounded them up for the slave traders in the first place." Would the genocides of Rwanda or Darfur be as bloody if slavery were still alive in American? In my opinion, the victims would probably have been shipped over here and not hatcheted. And no, I don't mean to excuse the practice of slavery, then or now, I'm just sayin'….
Ascribing a Wikipedia alteration to the machinations of "billionaire Soros" is a little dense. You can see the argument over the 60 Minutes interview on the talk page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Soros
I like Burt, so I say this advisedly. If Burt would read Big Hollywood rather than just post on it, he would know that we have had at least three major discussions about gay marriage on this site, including multiple thoughtful arguments opposing it. Of course, none of the arguments were conclusive on the subject, but many oppose it rigorously for sound legal reasons which have nothing to do with "hating gays" or wanting to "take away their civil rights." Burt's article was just a bit too flippant for my tastes.
IMHO, common sense threatens the liberal's world view. His world view is only what he choses to see as defined by his value system. He lives in an 'ideological' bubble. Looking at the facts without bias is anathema to the liberal. Burt, apparently has a larger view of the world and history. Thanks Burt!!
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
Another great one from Prelutsky. Soros reminds me of the axiom that goes "if you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people he gives it to." Soros should have his head shaved liked the French women who collaborated with the Nazis. Burt you are a treasure.
Thanks to all, but especially Dom_Colangelo, for the kind words.
Sojourner: It seems you missed my point. When I spoke about incestuous couples, I was referring to mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, who might wish to get married. In other words, two consenting adults. If homosexual couples were allowed to get married, my question was, on what possible legal or moral grounds, could you then deny the same right to incestuous or polygamous couples? So even if you limited marriage to two consenting adults, you've only eliminated polygamy. And if you believe that incestuous couples wouldn't start lining up, you're merely being naive. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that people would have pooh-poohed the notion that gays would be demanding same-sex marriage as a civil right.
Regards, Burt Prelutsky
Burt could have played the Brando character in Apocalypse Now.
Burt, you rock. In my opinion.
My grandmother was a DAR and her great uncles fought and died for the Union. Were they oppressors because they were white? There are still a percentage of Americans whose family trees go back to the 17th century and fought for the Revolution and the Union.
stop it, you are just the greatest person who ever lived, and you are making me weak in the knees.
i must have you.
p.s. I hate to say my family background as this is fodder for antifascist's assumptions about who is conservative.
I read that paragraph as Burt—in perhaps a flippant way—saying that gay marriage is simply a contradiction in terms. And the argument that marriage could then be extended even further seems valid to me.
My main objection to polygamy is that when you look throughout the world and throughout history, you find that polygamists live in huts.
I know that's a correlation, not necessarily causation. But why take the chance?
pause still before changing on gay marriage. Probably this is a small thing to a wealthy Republican type such as yourself, Burt, but every entitlement program tax and insurance benefit premium you have ever paid was very likely based, in part, on the foundational principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think we all know the financial precipice at which all such programs now teeter. Remember your Lady Galadriel, "Stray but a little and [they] will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while all the Company is true"
I enjoyed this very much, Mr. Prelutsky.
It reads like it was written by a smart Larry King!
although my ancestors came to Boston in 1634, none have ever owned slaves. My great grandfather was wounded fighting for the union in 1964. Apologizing for slavery is all about politics; trying to paint Republicans and conservatives as racists. Anybody who would need a government resolution on the subject in order to feel good about themselves is beyond hope.
You know, I followed your link and it seems that the reason the "helping the Nazis" section was taken down was that the Wikipedia community don't recognize 60 Minutes as a reliable source.
I don't disagree with them, but I wonder if that decision only applies to the article on Soros.
That's not how I'd put it – the source is not disputed, but the interview's just clunky and the other text says what he was doing in Hungary anyway. Still, Burt's paranoia about the influence of billionaires is pretty silly compared to the nuts and bolts of how Wikipedia actually works.
I don’t think it’s his money that sways the Wikipedia folks. It’s who he gives it to.
Yes where's the pie Auntie.
In a world of postmodern skepticism and subjectivism, all you can truly know are your own opinions, and thus "authenticity" is the only virtue that matters.
Oh, and of course justice, since we all know "you have a 'right' to your opinion." I suppose if I were to take away your opinion somehow, that would be wrong of me. But that's just my opinion. Clearly, since I only know my own solipsistic manifestations, that's just my opinion. So I don't even know why I bother to share it.
Wow, hypocrisy is more fun when it's of the ironic leftist variety.
Wish I had an "applause" smiley. Of the same opinion but not nearly as clever in delivery, I would be inclined to think your opinion is indeed, fact. Enjoyed the content as well as the presentation. Kudos.
Dear No no no no: One, I am not a wealthy Republican. Two, I guess you didn't notice my tongue wedged into my cheek.
Mike Kriskey: Thanks for the compliment, but "a smart Larry King"? The very idea sets my head to reeling. If ever I have heard an oxymoron, this is it.
Best wishes, Burt
Talk about your Uncle Toms.
Exactly. This is what I've been saying for years. If we allow gays to marry why not allow the 1st amendment to be in effect and allow freedom of religion and then allow polygamous marriages. And why is bestiality only legal in 22 states? And why can't a bestial (hey, it's their choice) marry their dog? They're having sex with them anyway. Maybe if we legalized these things then there won't such a oppression that exists in these subcultures.
wow… and if the North had it's way then the blacks would all still be living in the South and never have been able to come North… :/ The North had slaves too not to mention Blacks owning their own Black slaves… :/
Doobie Wah … Lincoln was a Republican .., so was Martin Luther King.
As a Texan I disagree. You are an embarrasment.
Did you wear an onion on your belt back in the day, Bart?
Or rather, Uncle Achmads or Uncle Mohammads…; – )
The George Soros/Nazi connection always gets me. The Pope was FORCED into the Hitler Youth as a kid, hated it, refused to attend meetings, and then deserted when he was drafted into the German army. The Left considers him a Nazi on the level of Heinrich Himmler. Soros openly, proudly collaborated with the Nazis and he's to be forgiven because he donates huge sums of money to the Democrat Party and liberal causes.
Didn't America fight a war to end slavery, and win? How about some thanks?
A smart Larry King? You just blew my mind!
This is too easy…so can you explain why some of the worst slums are in Yankeeland? (Chicago, Harlem, Watts anyone?)
Well, when you get a conspiracy that does not require the intercession of a conspirator you get a non-conspiracy.
No, no conspiracy. It’s probably not even a conscious bias.
Once you establish a right to marry whatever sex you choose, then it's discrimination and a violation of human rights to force a bisexual to choose one or the other, they should get both (3 total). If either of those wedded is also bisexual, they shouldn't be discriminated against (4), if the other one selected… Just keeps adding up. And to be a true "union" all partners are treated equally under the law. You could end up with a "marriage" of 50 people or more, they'd just have to say they're bi when joining, and if they "change their mind" later the marriage is to the group, you couldn't force the bond to be broken.
Which might be interesting, avoids inheritance taxes and all sorts of legal issues, with a wide variety of "partners" you could pick who you usually wanted to be with thus far less reasons for divorce, wealth could be gathered together and protected and not dependent on spouses staying alive, there'd also be social benefits from being part of a large respected union…
Hmm, makes you wonder how the Andrew Price marriage circle would be doing a hundred years from now…
Burt Prelutsky said: "When, by the way, do we stop apologizing for slavery?"
Burt, maybe I wasn't paying full attention…I BEG YOUR PARDON. Can you please remind me: When have you or anyone that you are a party to EVER apologized for slavery?
I seemed to have missed that bit.
Are you sure you're not abe simpson. blarty blarcklebart will be upset if you are posing as him.
Actually, Spain invented the trans-Atlantic slave trade, hundreds of years before the first English and Dutch settlers set foot on the soil of what would become the US. They were seeking to replace the native peoples they had slaughtered. They got the idea from their Arab trading partners, who along with Africans, were in control of the African slave trade. Spain, alone, brought over 8 million African slaves to what is now called Mexico, Central and South America, and most of them, were worked to death. Spain brought African slaves to the southeastern portion of what is now the US. They also attempted to slaughter the native peoples of these lands in the southeast and southwest.
As a woman who is partly of indigenous ancestry, I often wonder why we're not asking why Spain, Portugal, the Mexicans, and the rest of the Hispanic and Portuguese peoples who make up the populations of the lands south of the border, to apologize for their role as the founders of the slavery the American people have laid at their door.
On slavery appologism: I have a friend whose ancestry is Slavic and his family didn't come over until after WWI. He had to take a class in college where the teacher was slamming everyone over the head with the need to pay reparations to the slaves (by a 2nd generation black citizen wearing a $2,000 suit and who drove a BMW sports car to and from his condo that makes my "white oppressor" parent's house look like a shack; and who, of course, wanted to be included in any potential reparation payout). My buddy asked him where the American slaves were to be paid. When the answer was they're all dead, pay their descendants, my buddy said he'll support those reparations when he gets some for his own ancestors having been considered such good forced labor material by the Middle East and Western Europe that the very term slavery is named after his ethnic group.
Of course he was branded as racist and told that Slav and slave have no etemological relationship; despite dictionaries even supporting his case.
Ah, the joys of unmarried life. No sentence suggestions. I can even sleep in. I don’t have to watch Oprah. I am man hear me roar.
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want to ruin this great thread.
Hence your frantic distraction attempts.
Just wait till you see your tax bill over the Obama term dcase……..
you'll know what its like to be a slave them………………
It's Plato…….
Are you a lover of opinion or a lover of knowledge………………………… because evidently one can't be both…..
but that's just their opinion
Actually it was not an American ship. It was just crewed by Americans
The real story should be that MAersk still keeps American crews abord vessels. In the 1990's subsidies by the Dutch government forced American shipping companies to sell off to foreigners. I know of two that went to Dutch companies. Sealand and Crowley's South American Liner service.
I know of little Americqan shipping left that is not Jones Act.
I think it was Lincoln…………
Since we were the abolitionists to end slavery however WE don't have to apologize…..
You however being the party of the KKK do
Acorn had a guy in Nevada who was doing something wrong… his Supervisor tried to stop him … but the NAtional Organization has a strict ethical policies……
Acorn just has bad employees in 15 different states…………….. Why can't we just understand …… AEEEEGHHH
I am watching Glen Beck interview the ACORN and I think my head is going to explode…………..
and they don't have one Republican that they have backed but they are all about Bipartinship in voting…………….
that is if we still have an income stream… in order to fund what he has already proposed (it's only been 100 days!) they either have to inflate the currency or raise tax rates over 20%… and that's just federal. States will raise rates 10-20%. So, if we understand economics at all, it reads like this- deflation (we now are in a mild deflationary cycle) followed by hyper-inflation when the funny money hits the streets next year, followed by a forced recession. Yikes… if they aren't thrown out in '12, world socialism is inevitable…
Gotta say, Mr. Prelutsky, you lost me the minute I saw that Gloria Steinem pic. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmnn!!! Okay I'll read the article now.
Not entirely true, k8blujay. Yes, there were northern states that had slaves (I think New Jersey was the last northern state to formally abolish slavery), but there were northern states who welcomed slaves also. In fact, the Fugitive Slave laws of 1793 and 1850 were enacted, by the Federal Government, to try to force certain northern states to return escaped slaves to the south. Many northern states fought back by passing what they called 'personal liberty' laws, which set up legal roadblocks to deporting slaves back south.
Mark Levin, 'Liberty and Tyranny.' Read it and love it…well, at least read it.
Stereotyping is so very Progressive.
Once again, slavery and Jim Crowe belong to the Dems. The fact that you "know" history doesn't allow you to rewrite it.
LOL……love it. They do indeed try to re-write history , especially this one. I do believe he even labors under the false assumption that the little annoying german guy was to the right & not a socialists. At least he is fond of posting that. He really needs to try and read more than the public school book in order to get at history. BTW, if he is supposedly anti-facist why does he support the progressives & socialists, [historically] the only facists.
The reason the Wikipedia entry claiming Soros helped the Nazis was removed is because it is not true. Here is the truth: As a 13-year-old boy in occupied Budapest, Soros was hidden by his father with a government official. Soros’s father had helped obtain false papers for the official’s Jewish wife, as he did for many others. On one occasion, Soros accompanied the official to inventory the estate of a Jewish family who had fled Hungary. As for “60 Minutes”, where Soros allegedly “admits” to helping the Nazis, if you actually watch the video, it is clear that he is not intending to agree with Kroft’s false statement. Here is an excerpt from Michael Kaufman’s 2002 bio of Soros (The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire) that explains the facts:
“…The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewed, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George’s father had “bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson,” and added that this survival strategy “carried a heavy price tag.” For, he continued, “as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.” Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft’s point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.
This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his “godson” behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld’s staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee.”
Funny, I thought the solution to the gay marriage/slippery slope argument was to just define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Period. That cuts off arguments that it would lead to gay marriage, incest, polygamy, or whatever.
See how well that argument has worked for the traditional marriage folks.
The reason it won't "cut off argument" is that people who want it will make the EXACT SAME arguments used to jam gay marriage down society's throat this time. Just calling it something obviously doesn't cut off debate.
How, exactly, do you remove government from determining alimony, palimony, child custody, division of property, etc. The courts (you know, one of the branches of GOVERNMENT) must be used to make such decisions. State definition of marriage is useful to define which people can come to court and ask for whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they have any right to it. For example, lets say two people are a couple for a few years, staying over occasionally and generally being together, and then they break up. Should we allow them to use court resources in determining who gets the sofa one bought for the other for whatever reason?
Let me try to keep you on this side of the fence in the whole gay marriage thing. First, I don't really care if two people want to be gay and live together – none of my business.
However, study after study shows that the single most significant risk to a child becoming (insert any socially undesirable thing here) is the lack of their father in the home. The reason that the State has an duty to protect and encourage man/woman marriage is that our society needs children that will likely grow up to be contributing members of society. Step-father doesn't work, mommy's girlfriend doesn't work, daddy's husband doesn't work, etc., to reverse the terrible statistical disadvantage of children reared in non-traditional families. (don't take my word for it, the first book I know of that shows this problem is "Fatherless America" by Blankenhorn in about 1995. Others have followed).
Also, why insist on calling gay unions "marriage" if all of the rights are offered?
Finally, there is no legal equal protection argument because all capable adults have exactly the same rights, we can all marry one person who consents that is the opposite sex and not closely related to you. Gay men are just as free to marry a woman as any heteromale is. The fact that they don't want to marry a woman doesn't change that their rights aren't any different. Many people choose to never marry for any number of reasons.
You must be logged in to post a comment.