Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!!

That pretty much says it all...

Hope you spend it with those who love you. (Thankfully, I am.)

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

In Reply: "Let marriage be marriage, but don't base US law on a religious rite."

In reply to "American Power: Gay is the New Black?"


As I said in the Wingnuts and Moonbats post, "My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage," as well as the link Nero Dr Douglas provided above, where I respond to his "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right" post ("Wingnuts and Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?"), I agree that the suffering of blacks under slavery & Jim Crow is far worse than the suffering of Gays in 2008 (or ever). This is a straw man, in that few if anyone is saying otherwise...

But that gays suffer less does not mean that gays do not suffer, and the same inalienable rights cover both groups.

I don't even know that many gays want to redefine marriage, if by "marriage" you mean the religious rite presided over by a celebrant of your chosen faith, and blessed by the God you worship. I have heard little of homosexuals demanding that a particular church marry them. So I don't really think it's about marriage, at all...

It's about rights & privileges under US law, which are currently bestowed on the basis of the word "marriage," but not necessarily the religious rite of marriage.

To the extent that domestic partners or folks civilly united receive the same rights & privileges as married people, I have no objection, & I don't really think many others on my side of the issue do, either. To the extent that they laws that oversee each are different, "marriage," the word, makes all the difference. Add "or domestic partnership" to every law that gives a legal right to marriage, and most--the vast majority, I'd guess--will stop pushing for gay marriage.

It isn't about redefining the religious rite of marriage, or what homosexual folks call their united bliss or significant other, but about treating citizens as equals under the law. Whether homosexuals get the rights by calling their unions marriages, or by changing the law, so that marriage remains marriage, but civil union or domestic partnership affords a couple all of the same rights & privileges as marriage, those citizens should be granted those rights.

As I've said before, I'd like to see the word "marriage"--a religious rite, performed by a religious celebrant--stricken from every local, state, & federal law, and replaced by the words "civil union"--a legal agreement between two people in love, officiated over by any individual recognized by the state, including clergy, judges, ship captains, etc.... Let marriage be marriage, but don't base US law on this or any other religious rite. Doing so tarnishes both the religiosity of "marriage" and the freedom of religious belief, embodied in the separation of church & state as espoused by several of our founders, inherent in America.
---

Posted 11/19/2008 04:07 PM (American Power Blog time)
---

Relevant Links:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Is Gay the New Black?
Anna Quindlen: The Loving Decision - The Daily Beast

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "There is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate."

In reply to the following two comments at the American Power blog post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":
---
'Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree.'
"All well and good ... until someone starts turning ideology into policy.

Then, the particulars do matter ... as well as the intellectual honesty of those making the decisions.

If the decision-makers do not have the intellectual honesty to recognize their own errors in the light of history and reason (or hide them behind popular acceptance of their position ... hey, even slavery was popular in some places once), then place both their own error and that of their political opponents in actual historical perspective, then their credibility as decision-makers is compromised.

It's not like I have seen this game before, repsac ... and you need to remember that intellectual honesty is inherently in short supply among the morally relative that dominate ONLY ONE side of this debate.

While you might have a stash of that ... many of your fellow-travelers, some of whom are now decision-makers, threw theirs in the 7-11 trash receptacles a long time ago."

---
'Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy.'
"Acutally, that conventional wisdom has only been applicable for the last 60 years or so ... before that, we usually decisively engaged our enemies and defeated them as expeditiously as possible, and did not engage in the perpetual paralysis-by-analysis/vacillation/navel-gazing/self-flagellation that is now the Left's stock-in-trade.

And it has also been in those last 60 years that technology, commerce, and (yes) freedom have combined to produce a highly-interconnected planet ... a place where a few dozen can stealthily leverage the above to wreak havoc on a scale that previously took years and armies -- both highly visible to the defenders of life and liberty before their use -- to perpetrate.

The game has changed ... so the conventional wisdom of the last century does NOT apply ... as if it ever did."

---
@ Rich: I don't suppose I need to mention that you're drifting off topic, again...

Yes, there are conversations & circumstances where the particulars you brought up do matter. This isn't one of 'em.

No, popularity does not equate with correctness. Most good ideas are opposed by the masses, at first, and many bad ones have come to be widely supported.

There really is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate. That you believe otherwise, and are willing to spread such a sweeping generalization over so much of the left, in big bold capital letters, no less, calls your own intellectual honesty into question.
---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "Disagree. Don't demean & demonize."

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":
repsac, when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water.

Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer.

Not upon the wisdom embodied by those who founded this nation ... who declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", then acted accordingly.

And not in an intellectually-honest manner, but instead a manner that simultaneously called for "nuance" while swinging the broadest brush over the principles of human interaction ... even as they were demonstrated by events like the Awakenings.

What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview.

Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue.

And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard.

---
It's a good speech, Rich, but it's ultimately non-responsive to the topic.
"when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water."
Yes, some folks on the left have a narrow view of things. The same is true on the right. Both have people who could open up, a bit. Narrow ideology, or being "fair & balanced" has nothing to do with respect for other people, though.
"Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer."
We've been over this & over this... Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy. I'm not saying you're not welcome to have & hold them, but the vast majority of the American people do not appear to agree with you. To the best of my recollection, no one here at this blog has backed you, even. They all just remain politely quiet when you post your "20th century thinking for a 21st century world" spiel...

And again, whether you're ultimately right or wrong in your foreign policy views, it has nothing to do with respect for others.
"What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview."
Everyone on every side ultimately seeks capitulation by everyone else to "their" worldview, one way or another, but for some of us--many of us, thankfully--dialog is the way to get there... The people on 52/48 are trying to say respect for the other side and "hashing it out," is the way to go... It's not about giving in, but letting go of the bullshit hate and the labels that become meaningless through overuse, & TALKING to one another.
"Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue."
Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree. Don't demean & demonize.
"And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard."
The price of civility is civility. It's not about what either side believes, or how narrow one's mind is, but about remembering that it's likely you have a close friend or family member on the opposing team, and that when you toss out the "moonbat" or "wingnut" labels & all the meaning you attach to them, you're talking about that friend or family member, too... It's about treating the wingnuts/moonbats you don't know as well as you treat the ones you do know, just because people--even people who don't share your politics--deserve respect. (If someone hits, by all means, hit back... But don't throw the first punch, just because the person's not in your "tribe," and may hit you, maybe...)

---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "Seeing people left & right as individuals, rather than as groups that speak & act as one."

Apparently, Donnie thinks I fear you folks...

Not so much, actually....

No one at the 52/48 site--be they from the left or from the right (& yes, you folks do seem to ignore all the contributions from folks on the right, there)--is suggesting that you give up your principles, like Obama any better than you ever have, or adopt any other political philosophy... It's suggesting that you (& we) stop demonizing anyone & everyone who doesn't agree with you (or "us")...

That anyone would consider me any kind of Obama cultist is kinda funny. No Democrat, no Obama materials, & didn't even vote for the guy...

Jason has the right idea in his comment: "I suggest accurate, factual, but tough and firm criticism."

Sure, you can look to the way Bush was treated by some on the left (which many of you railed about incesently) & vow to to the same to Obama & Democrats (or "almost the same, except respectfully" in a sorry effort to appear less of a hypocrite than the vow itself evidences, given all that whining), but many Americans are tired of the whole thing, and will reject anyone on any side who goes that way...

@Griper:
repsac,
you ought to read your quotes of others with understanding and present them in that way before using them to promote yourself.
Promote myself? What in hell are you talking about, Griper? (What are the chances you'll actually answer?)

I copied what the man said... It's what the site is about. It's what many Americans are about. Not compromise, but respect & understanding for those with whom you differ. Yes, folks on the left need to be more respectful, too. Of course they do... We all do.

@Tom the Redhunter:
So what does "repsac" thing [sic] our reaction should be?
Respect for other Americans. Argument, based on the merits. Less divisive namecalling & appeals to worn out labels. Seeing people left & right as individuals, rather than as groups that speak & act as one.
I took a trip to his blog, where his last post is an attack on anyone who is not happy that Obama won. Conveniently, he doesn't say what our reaction should be, or what his would have been had McCain won.
My last post was about this same 52/48 site. It isn't an attack on those who aren't happy Obama won, but an "attack" on those who prefer divisiveness to respect. It wasn't about Obama, or anyone's reaction to the election results, at all... EXCEPT... I did post two RIGHTWING bloggers reactions to the election, as examples of folks who had the right idea as regards respect for others. (So much for Tom's "wingnut" theory...)

((Any of you folks who thought the fair professor was dead wrong about McCain from the start, and only voted for the runner up in the "Worst Republican Candidate (running) in the World" contest (I know... For most of you, Ron Paul was the "worst") because you had no other choice, you'll probably like Patrick M's "Sane Political Discourse" blog, one of the two I mention... Disagreement, without being disagreeable... (unless you throw the first punch... Then all bets are off, there...))
---

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 9:00 AM? (AmPow blog time)

In Reply: John McCain Sings Kumbaya...but some partisans refuse to join in

In Reply to: "Post-Partisan Obama Cult," a post discussing a website where Republicans and Democrats support coming together as one America after the election. (The author was not in favor, obviously.)
---
"I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." - John McCain
---

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:00 AM (his blog time)

Sunday, November 09, 2008

In Reply: "Like marriage, sin is up to the church, not the state, to define & otherwise deal with."

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right:
Philip ... you are more honest than most. As an engineer, I am also quite aware of the sometimes-brutal honesty of mathematics.

And I won't say that I know what you went through on 11 September 2001.

But in my opinion, you have learned the wrong lessons from that act of war ... could it be because your antipathy for organized religion colors your view of the President who broke Leftist "tradition" and precedent, and acted to defend life and liberty?

We have seen it, time and time again in history ... without freedom and the respect for it, peace is just an illusion.

That abject lack of respect for freedom ... using Islam as justification ... is what drove those nineteen thugs to attack you.

And the most prudent defense was to go on the offense against them ... and others who were known to be of like mind and equal -- if not more -- capability, like Saddam & Sons.

Let's be honest here ... what really chafes y'all about Mr. Bush's approach to civil liberties is the lack of transparency. (Otherwise, you'd condemn Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus, instead of honoring him for emancipation ... and BTW the typical Leftist definition of "torture" is anything rougher than 3-hots-and-a-cot, much less something our own men are put through during SERE training.) But there is a reason for that ... for far too long, we allowed a very cunning and manipulative set of enemies to see what we were planning for them, in the event we went to war with them, in the name of "transparency".

And I am also aware of the religious roots of apartheid, and the use of religion to justify atrocity ... but I am also aware that the founding citizens of this nation believed that life and liberty were endowed to them by their Creator .... and therefore were not subject to even a majority vote for denial. Not a few of them wanted to abolish slavery in those early years, as well.

I am also aware of the believers who kept pushing against slavery, until it was eradicated ... and I would wager that other believers did similar yeoman work against apartheid.

And you need to be aware of the independent nature of the evangelicals that make up the vast majority of the Religious Right ... and how their independence is a powerful defense against the very theocracy you abhor.

Your brush is a little too broad, IMO, when it comes to condemning organized religion.

But that doesn't change the facts on the ground ... there are other ways to secure the blessings of liberty for those in GLBT relationships, that do not involve the codification of these relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage by force of law.

You ask, how does that affect me as a straight?

What it does is effectively close the public debate on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle ... and my, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my fellow believers -- along with others who oppose the practices on other grounds -- ability to publicly dissent from your viewpoint and have that dissent taken with even a pinch of seriousness.

In other words, in the eyes of the law, the question will be settled -- exclusively in your favor -- simply because you want it to be settled.

It is one more step towards making the secular fundamentalist worldview the ONLY acceptable view in our public discourse.

Again, we are not talking about immutable characteristics like skin color here ... we are talking about actions and choices.

Even as a believer, there are legal proscriptions against some actions I might take ... like say, handling venomous snakes in my Long Island church (not that I need/want/perform that kind of litmus test of my faith!).

What the gay community is asking for, is protection for behavior that goes beyond even the Constitutional protections for religious beliefs.

---
Reply:
"There are other ways to secure the blessings of liberty for those in GLBT relationships, that do not involve the codification of these relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage by force of law."
Separate but equal accommodation has been tried before... and found to not comport with American values. US morality is an evolving standard in the first place, and for many--including many who do not share your faith, as well as many who do--the morality of what is essentially a secular contract is not at issue, or within your balliwick to judge.
"What it does is effectively close the public debate on the morality of the homosexual lifestyle ... and my, my children's, my grandchildren's, and my fellow believers -- along with others who oppose the practices on other grounds -- ability to publicly dissent from your viewpoint and have that dissent taken with even a pinch of seriousness.

In other words, in the eyes of the law, the question will be settled -- exclusively in your favor -- simply because you want it to be settled."
Nonsense. You can still teach your children as you see fit. You can still discuss & debate your opposition to gay marriage anytime & in any setting you wish.

Right now, the issue is settled largely in your favor. When it is settled as Phillip & I believe it should be, it will be because the masses have evolved, or because the courts have recognized that the rights are already written into constitutions in various states. It will be settled because rights are not given to you by the state, but are granted to you at birth (or conception, if you prefer), and cannot be taken away by law or statute.
"It is one more step towards making the secular fundamentalist worldview the ONLY acceptable view in our public discourse."
In an effort to create religious freedom, as well as freedom from religion for those who wish it, America is a secular & religion-neutral society. While your particular faith & denomination is the one true path for you, we allow the shinto buddhist, the hassidic jew, and the non-believer to also believe that their religious path--or lack of it--is the way to everlasting light & harmony, as well. In an effort to do so, we do not enshrine the morals & values of your religion, my religion, or any other religion into law.

There are many sins in this world, but relatively few are discouraged or criminalized by law, anymore. Like marriage, sin is up to the church, not the state, to define & otherwise deal with. (Do you really want the state defining such religious matters?) To do otherwise would be to impose one religious institution's set of morals on all Americans, including those who do not share that (& in some cases, any) faith.

We were born on the idea that the Puritans could do their thing, and the Penn Dutch could do theirs, and neither had to convert to & assume the faith of the other... Nothing's changed...
---

Posted November 9, 2008, 11:00 PM

In Reply: "...religious beliefs should not be the basis for US law..."

In reply to various comments (noted below) at the post Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
---

Response to the original post: Wingnuts and Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?

Paco has it right. One's religious beliefs should not be the basis for US law.

bluespapa asks a good question about polygamy, in light of the two gentlemen's (& by implication of his quote, Nero's) citing of "thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice".

@ Nikki "A few months ago I did a post on whether or not gay marriage advocates would be willing to extend their argument to include polygamy...not one would give it the same importance as gay marriage."

Of course they didn't. Very few people are asking for any such thing, and reducing an argument to the absurd does nothing to speak to the issue at hand. Should folks wish for & want polygamy, respond to it then... In the meantime, it's no better than counting the angels one imagines can dance on pinpoints....

@ That guy: "Proposition 8 takes away no rights from gay Californians. It simply overturns the rule of 4 state judges, and returns the law to the majority position as it had been prior, with a state constitutional amendment."

You say that as though you have no respect for our American system of justice and law. Those four state judges read the state Constitution before them as written, saw that there was no basis to deny equal protection to gay couples wishing to marry, and ruled that it was against the CA Constitution to do so.

"The majority of Americans agree with "these views," so why should they be beaten into submission by a crazed radical minority, many of whom are Godless and detest the very traditions that are the strength of this country?"

First off, if you're not gay, nothing will change for you. You're not being beaten into submission to anything.

Second, belief in God has little bearing on American rights & law. The Godless deserve as much protection under US law as the faithful.

Traditions are nice, but they are subject to change over time, as are the one's folks view as "the strength of this country"... Just ask those blacks who're descended from slaves (once viewed as the backbone of this country, and impossible to do without...), or the women who once had no right to vote, own property, ... Things change.

I believe Phillip Chandler has your number, dude. Please reply to him with the same thought he offered in his comment, as to do less would only increase the offense your post is offering him.
---

Posted November 9, 2008, 12:16 AM

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)