Thursday, March 28, 2013



HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Points You May Not Have Pondered

Democracy at work –– or Mob Rule taking over?


Does no one see the incredible irony of congress –– the supposed representatives of the CITIZENRY as a WHOLE ––- having abdicated their responsibility and handed over their decision making authority to a de facto oligarchy of NINE quasi-dictators in black robes?

Your right to pursue happiness –– my right to pursue happiness –– and the rights of any and all minorities to pursue happiness are now defined, determined, restricted and controlled by loose consensus among NINE little people each of whom steps into his trousers or her panties one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

Often it works out that FIVE highly-politcized little people in black robes determines the fate of a nation comprising more than THREE-HUNDRED MILLION souls.

Whether these de facto oligarchs do the "right thing" according to your understanding, or my understanding, or not is not –– nor should it be –– our main concern.

If we abandon the concept of Separation of Powers and permit any one of the three branches of government to assume dictatorial control over the others, we are in grave danger of losing our Representative Republic –– and thus losing any measure of control we, as citizens, have over the powers that govern us.

We may love this phenomenon when it appears to work in "our" favor, but in abandoning Principle in favor of Sentiment –– even the noblest, most generous, most merciful, most high-minded sentiment –– we also abandon our Liberty.

This Gay Marriage issue might purport to be about achieving "equality" for a misunderstood, traditionally despised minority –– and I'm sure for many ill-informed individuals, who do not care about anything that does not appear to affect their little lives directly that is true –– but regardless of anyone's personal feelings and fondest wishes, the movement is rooted NOT in a passion for "Social Justice," but in a fiendish desire to assume DICTATORIAL POWER and thus the ability to push perceived ideological enemies around at will.

THREE RELEVANT QUOTATIONS from DISTINGUISHED SAGES:


"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."

~ Socrates (470-399 B. C.)

"We can never be sure that the opinion we wish to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

"The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power. The prize of the General is not a bigger tent, but command."

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought –– not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."

~ Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)


And finally an observation from Alexis de Tocqueville that ought to pique our interest and spur deeper thinking and more sober conversation:

"Democratic nations care little for what has been but are haunted by visions of what will be . . . Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever on himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him to the solitude of his own heart."

~ Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

~ FreeThinke

40 comments:

  1. I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.

    -Euripides, "Hecuba"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Activist agendas hurt the entire country. If this issue of gay marriage is settled in favor of gay marriage, another activist cause will pop up.

    What next?

    THERE MUST BE AGITATION.

    I'm sick of it.

    As for the SCOTUS, this band of men serves as one dictator. There is no recourse one these men from "on high" have rendered their decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your right to pursue happiness –– my right to pursue happiness

    How will "the right to happiness" next be defined?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is ridiculous to argue over. I feel that it's completely OK for religious people to oppose gay marriage...but its NOT ok for them to expect their beliefs to be codified into laws that everyone must follow. Demanding that other people have the same beliefs as you is wrong. The bottom line is live and let live. In other words, who cares? They are certainly not hurting anyone. Why not let them have the same happiness as everyone else? As an example, look at Hillary Clinton, she seems to be very Happy. Bill goes his way and she goes her way!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Radical Redneck, You are a Pig headed bigoted arrogant redneck rebel, do you know how dum you sound like really like before you tlk shit think first let me tell you some thin tke a good look at your own self also bitch just think abt this, Hillary had a child didn’t she's you bigoted dum ass... Dont be hatin on Hillary she has fan's all around world gay,straight an whatever, everyone love's her...grow the fuck up 4real cause you said sound's dumm...In fact you are a dum bitch and let me tell u some thin, I was raise with a straight family and they love me we are born in this earth and grow up to be whatever we wanna be...im gettin so sick n tried of all these people talkin shit about gay people what happen to DO NOT JUDGE anyone by there sex or color skin...You people make me sick with talkin shit about Hillary Clinton. Thats just plain nasty. Get your facts straight before spinning bullshit you moron.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where we have gone wrong is in failing to teach our children basic respect for the humanity and liberty of others.

    What is the difference between shouting at "fags' who want to get married, and penetrating a girl and pissing on her because she's drunk and you're a football star with a penchant for raping teenage girls (Steubenville)?

    We are off the chain. Jesus saves, but too many of us have rejected him, and anyway, we are a constitutional rebublic, not a theocracy. The next best thing is libertarianism. It is the only thing that can save us.

    Progressives can blather on about bullying protected groups they herd onto their reservations for vote harvesting, but until we get to the root: That all human beings are worthy of respect, and that we all have the God-given right to enjoy our personal liberties however we see fit, we will continue lacerating one another.

    Granting that others have the freedom to do what they wish with their lives does not mean you condone what they do with their liberties.

    That is where the progressive agendists err. They restrict liberties in too many ways, while demanding we condone the actions of others that disgust us or go against our morals and religios beliefs.

    I expect this little missive to sail completely over the heads of progressive readers

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would insist that virtually ALL our irritation, agitation and vituperation stems from the unfortunate human tendency to want to MIND OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

    It doesn't matter whether you attack an issue from the left or the right. The problem at the foundation of all this untoward social unrest and polarization is the urge one individual, or one pressure group has to FORCE THEIR will on someone ELSE.

    Radical Redneck said it simply and clearly:

    "Demanding that other people have the same beliefs as you is wrong. The bottom line is live and let live. ...

    There is no sin worse than that of SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS -- other than murder, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Activist agendas hurt the entire country. If this issue of gay marriage is settled in favor of gay marriage, another activist cause will pop up.


    The issue of "gay marriage" is equal protection under the law.

    Shouldn't all Americans be for this country's foundational principle "...that all men are created equal...?"

    The law cannot say that heterosexual legally married couples are entitled to certain tax benefits and other benefits and same-sex legally married couples are not.






    "As for the SCOTUS, this band of men serves as one dictator. There is no recourse one these men from "on high" have rendered their decision."

    There are instances of the SCOTUS's bad law. Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson come to mind.

    Both of those decisions were rendered unconstitutional through the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment and the 13th amendment, which outlawed slavery.

    It is hardly "dictatorial" or just "activism" when Americans expect to be treated equally under the law.

    That is Americanism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. FT,
    I would insist that virtually ALL our irritation, agitation and vituperation stems from the unfortunate human tendency to want to MIND OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

    Absolutely!

    In too many ways, activism is nothing more and nothing less than butting into other people's business.

    ----------------

    Bit of personal news now....I'm headed out the door to get a relaxation massage, a delayed birthday present and a real luxury. I need pampering AND therapeutic massage after last Friday's mishap here in the AOW household.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Where was everyone when Obama was appointing a Lesbian to the Supreme Court?
    It’s worth highlighting that Kagan has also taken actions in her SG capacity that operate to undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
    Whenever you have any one pushing their agendas and lifestyles upon the people or the United States, it is our business. She will be pushing Gay agendas from the supreme court. That is our business. I think we have had enough break down of the family already. Do we need a supreme court to further its downfall?
    If she was gay, and never pushed it in her issues and debates in the public, there would be no issue. But she is a avid pro gay supporter and endorser.
    Obama’s controversial appointments, not only to the federal bench, but to key cabinet positions, as well as to the unaccountable (and probably unconstitutional) “Czar” positions. So much of the criticism has been on the Obama administration’s lack of vetting when filling these rolls—but that’s not the issue today, is it. I don’t believe in Gay Marriage and I am shocked that our president would support this at all.
    All of a sudden this gaggle is concerned about the Constitution . . . where were they when Obamacare was shoved up our backsides?
    I feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Obama is weak and only governs from the polls. In the eyes of God marriage is sacred and sacred it shall remain forever.
    I have nothing against gay people but I AM not a fan of gay marriage. As for President Obama, he doesn’t speak for all Americans, he only speaks for himself and the poor misled souls who elected him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Shaw: "The law cannot say that heterosexual legally married couples are entitled to certain tax benefits and other benefits and same-sex legally married couples are not."

    I am with you on the liberty and equal protection argument, but the answer to your statement is "Oh yes it can."

    And that is based upon a narrow, definitional view of marriage.

    You can't just go redefining terms to fit your agenda, and that is what the pro-gay marriage advocates are doing.

    As most of you know, I am for allowing gays to marry, if for no other reason than the majority now supports it, and legitimate law flows from the people.

    I was originally for granting gay couples all the same things hetero couples have, but not calling it marriage, but the train has already left the station.

    I am just pointing out that the case is not as cut and dried as some make it out to be.

    This is not about "banning gay marriage." Rather, it is about which individuals receive special status and advantages from the federal government. Equal protection is shaky ground.

    Right now, married couples receive advantages from the federal government that unmarried ones do not, and nobody is arguing over it in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Right now, married couples receive advantages from the federal government that unmarried ones do not, and nobody is arguing over it in a court of law."

    And homeowners get a break on their federal and state taxes [by deducting their mortgages] that renters do not.

    Also an advantage.

    I'm for getting rid of both advantages.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm with you. I would like to see our tax code radically simplified.

    A flat consumption tax, with basic food staples exempted, would be my ideal.

    I am for some kind of reward for having children, since the progressive ponzi scheme collapses without a future generation to pile the incontinent debt upon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'The issue of "gay marriage" is equal protection under the law.'

    I'm sure you honestly believe that, Ms Shaw, and also like most leftists -- and religious zealots too -- honestly believe the ends justify whatever means are needed to accomplish them. However, the agitators who insist on defining and portraying every matter large or small that someone -- or some splinter faction -- finds objectionable as a Compelling Moral Issue demanding Draconian ACTION on the part of of government in ways that disturb and alienate hundreds of millions of people os much more about acquiring DICTATORIAL POWER than it is about "helping" anyone achieve fairness.

    In the name of "Social Justice" (a code word for the embrace of Marxism) vociferous, ill-intentioned intellectual aggressors and the hordes of malcontents, immoralists and members of the lunatic fringe they easily conscript into their Army of Useful Idiots eagerly add to the clamor and din that besets the nation, foment confusion, spark destructive passion that drowns out reasoned debate.

    I am neither for nor against Homosexual Marriage. I merely despise and reject the tactics used by the left to make a stink about a largely spurious concern that few are equipped to understand and fewer would care about one way or the other if left to their own devices.

    Foisting the leftist brand of bigotry and intolerance on the land is REGRESSIVE. It succeeds only in widening the chasms dividing various population groups generating greater and greater amounts of hatred, intolerance and misunderstanding.

    If leftists causes were honestly motivated, they wouldn't produce the fractiousness and vindictiveness they obviously have.

    If its any comfort to you, Ms Shaw, I feel EXACTLY the same way about the bone-headed, self-righteous belligerence that possesses religious extremists on this issue and their fatuous insistence that their ardent embrace of outmoded, discredited superstition should be equated with the Love of the schizophrenic construct of God they choose to worship.

    Life is in many ways paradox -- absurd, but true -- impossible, yet at the same time all too real -- wonderful and terrible at once -- something that just should not be, but it exists, etc.

    I think it's supposed to be that way, and while there could be nothing wrong with doing our utmost to make the best of it, there is everything wrong with the arrogance assuming you know better than every one else what's good for all of us.

    Homosexual marriage EXISTS -- and has existed no doubt since time immemorial, just as homosexual men have always served honorably, often with distinction, in the military -- I believe, however, that it is not only wrong and counterproductive -- but downright STUPID -- to try to make SEXUAL IDENTITY and PRACTICE an issue of concern in any context whatsoever OUTSIDE the BEDROOM.

    That said, I would be willing to march in the streets, shout provocative slogans, generally make an ass of myself, and spend a few nights in jail to protest and make every attempt to neutralize any move on the part of government -- or employers -- to monitor, restrict, supervise or pass judgment of any kind on the PRIVATE activities that may or may not occur between consenting human beings. In other words if the only way you can achieve orgasm is by using peanut butter or used crankcase oil as a lubricant, it's perfectly all right with me -- as long as I am not required either to witness or participate in your personal activities. ;-)

    As for CONDONING, CONDEMNING -- or even APPROVING -- of OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, I do not regard it as my right and certainly not my DUTY as a citizen.

    The Mrs. Grundys if this world along with Peeping Toms, Tattletales, Blackmailers -- and Little Miss Fixits (i.e. Activists) -- are the source of far more evil than any they profess to want to combat.

    I hope I have made myself clear?

    CHEERIO!

    ReplyDelete
  16. What I find interesting or should I say Shocking is that, unlike the fight for racial equality which actually involved the fight for fundamental human rights - the right to vote, the right to eat in a restaurant, etc. - the fight for marriage equality appears to me to be all about receiving government benefits like social security and tax benefits. The government should not be involved in the problem or the the business of who can marry who. The argument over gay marriage in America is not a new one, but it is certainly gaining momentum as it bulldozes its way to the forefront of today's media and now into the Supreme Court.I think it is important to remind my fellow Americans that the Black community have been fighting for their civel rights for over 200 years and still find this issue to be on the “back burner” The bigotry in America is far from over.
    Although I agree that the gay rights movement is a liking to the civil rights, the Gays have much more power in Washington than the African Americans do. With a Black man in the President chair one would think it would be the other way around, but if you ask any Black man, he’d tell you that it is not. You're entitled to your opinions, but I suggest that you do some research. There is a difference between gays and minorities fighting for rights, but it's far from day and night. Today, it’s far more easy to get a job is you are Gay then if you are Black.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Little Miss Fixits (i.e. Activists) -- are the source of far more evil than any they profess to want to combat."

    You mean like the Little Miss Fixits who, along with their Little Mister Fixits, fought to abolish slavery?

    Or the Little Miss Fixits who marched for women's suffrage?

    How about the men and women "fixits" who marched for Civil Rights?

    Without those activists, do you believe those injustices would just fix themselves? Magically?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Silverfiddle said: Right now, married couples receive advantages from the federal government that unmarried ones do not, and nobody is arguing over it in a court of law.

    Aha! That might well be the next activist cause!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shaw,
    Little Miss Fixits who, along with their Little Mister Fixits, fought to abolish slavery?

    Or the Little Miss Fixits who marched for women's suffrage?


    A few questions for you:

    1. Did they see and call themselves activists or reformers?

    2. How "extreme" were their public displays?

    3. What did the Temperance Movement folks call themselves? Activists? And was the outcome a good idea in actual practicality?

    ReplyDelete
  20. AOW: "1. Did they see and call themselves activists or reformers?"

    They probably called themselves reformers. Today we call them activists. One and the same, I think.



    AOW: "2. How "extreme" were their public displays?"

    William Lloyd Garrison was very active and passionate about abolition. Frederick Douglass as well. How about John Brown? Pretty "extreme," I'd say.

    AOW: "3. What did the Temperance Movement folks call themselves? Activists? And was the outcome a good idea in actual practicality?"

    I don't see how what people who work for change call themselves is a concern. The Temperance Movement folks were a minority who imposed their distaste for alcohol on the entire country.

    A majority of American citizens support marriage equality.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Egads, the signage in that photo has the distinct odor of fascism. Are we to assume from that picture that these are your garden variety of conservative portrayed by the braying jackasses of MSNBC on a daily basis as being "republican" or "conservative"? The same braying jackasses that constantly refer to any opposing point of view as being from "Faux News"?

    It almost seems to perfect. The contrived photos that offer "proof" that conservatives are fascists, but the progressive solution seems to be to stifle any opposition to their tyrannical state power to control the opposing views.

    Maybe both are diversionary tactics which allow the larger agenda to slide by unnoticed and unchallenged. The bigger agenda leading to the ultimate end of de-industrialization and depopulation of the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As GBS famously said: “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?

    “If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight [garbled], if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

    Shavian Fascism seems to be the ruling ideology of both political parties.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good insight into the real GBS from a Canadian blog:

    "Something I don’t appreciate is the adoration of George Bernard Shaw. In Ontario, every summer and fall we have the Shaw Festival

    I was subjected to studying his “Pygmalion” play in school and I never could relate to its soul-destroying content. It makes me think of death.

    And unfortunately, I have to say, I get the sense that a lot of our culture in Canada and elsewhere is contaminated with the rationalist stink of formaldehyde emanating from Fabian ideology.

    The forces of Shaw’s Fabian socialism – people like Blair and Brown and their American counterparts – are still running the world today and have gradually sucked the life out of our world, out of humanity.

    They run the human soul into the ground, oh-so-gradually-and-slowly destroying everything life-giving about our cultures, purifying them of all the things they disapprove of, all the ‘political incorrectness’ they can root out.

    Surrounding us with their universal tomb of total control, all their massive web of laws that negate our property rights, control our lifestyles, invade our homes, invade our families, invade our financial transactions, invade our minds, destroying eventually all remaining freedoms and all individuality, and all independence – if they could.

    And they’re just one side of the pyramid that is crushing humanity. On the other sides are big governments and big corporations who loot tax-payers to fund technology used for total surveillance and total destruction.

    And you are going to keep commemorating this man? ..."

    http://canadianliberty.com/?p=696

    ReplyDelete
  24. NOTICE from FreeThinke:

    There will be NO MORE NEW POSTS from FreeThinke for the foreseeable future.

    I've been kicked off my own blog and cannot get back in.

    TECHNOLOGY is really a PAIN in the ASS.


    Farewell! It's been interesting, if not particularly rewarding.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  25. Google sites are interconnected. If you're set up with a gmail or youtube account, try logging in there, open a new browser window, go to the blog and hit sign in. If they're linked to the same email account it should open the dashboard on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Shaw,
    A majority of American citizens support marriage equality.

    So it appears.

    But let us remember that for a long time the majority supported slavery too. Might does not make right.

    I predict that the SCOTUS will disallow the DOMA but punt the issue of gay marriage back to the states because (1) marriage licenses are a states' rights issue and (2) marriage between heteros has a long tradition.

    However, I do note that the SCOTUS overturned states' statutes against miscegenation.

    What most concerns me about gay marriage is the possibility of the government's ordering churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

    Here is the solution I propose: every couple wishing to marry must have a civil "ceremony." That is, a ceremony in a religious institution (church, mosque, synagogue) becomes a religious ceremony ONLY and is not recognized as marriage under the rule of civil law. To be legally married, the couple would have to file their own papers with the state.

    What do you think of that idea?

    ReplyDelete
  27. NOTICE from FreeThinke:

    There will be NO MORE NEW POSTS from FreeThinke for the foreseeable future.
    I've been kicked off my own blog and cannot get back in.


    These is nothing that these damn progressives want to to silence a Conservative!
    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare
    It's socialism I tell you, it's pure and simple socialism. Our problem lies in corruption of our government, the media and the misguided extremist's who put this Radical Psychotic Dictator in power.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry, this cell-phone that is supposed to be a "Smart Phone" has a mind of it's own.

    What I meant to say was: "There is nothing that these damn progressives won't do to silence a Conservative!"

    ReplyDelete
  29. FT,
    I got locked out of all my blogs recently. I complied with the parameters of the security message for the security measure and got back in.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I found that the security questions they ask are much to sensitive to give to strangers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Waylon,
    From the link that you left, citing the following words from George Bernard Shaw:

    “If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight [garbled], if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

    I wonder what he meant by "organizations of our society." Would he have meant charitable organizations too?

    ReplyDelete
  32. FT,
    Yes, personal information is requested in the name of security.

    But you know what? I think that the authorities and others already have that information.

    Privacy in the Information Age is an illusion, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  33. AOW: "But let us remember that for a long time the majority supported slavery too. Might does not make right."

    Actually, if I remember my American history correctly, slavery in the United States existed as a legal institution from the early years of the colonial period; it was firmly established by the time the United States sought independence from Great Britain in 1776. However, by 1804, all states north of the Mason and Dixon Line had either abolished slavery outright or passed laws for the gradual abolition of slavery.

    So I'm not sure as a country, not a colony, that a majority approved of slavery. A majority of southern/slave-owning states, of course, did.

    AOW: "I predict that the SCOTUS will disallow the DOMA but punt the issue of gay marriage back to the states because (1) marriage licenses are a states' rights issue and (2) marriage between heteros has a long tradition."

    I agree with that prediction.

    AOW: "However, I do note that the SCOTUS overturned states' statutes against miscegenation."

    Yes. And no harm has come to us as a result.

    AOW: "What most concerns me about gay marriage is the possibility of the government's ordering churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples."

    The government CANNOT by law interfere with any religion's right to adhere to its own tenets [with the exception of those religions that are abusive to children--like withholding medicine from a child that would save his/her life or beating a child as corporal punishment.]

    AOW: "Here is the solution I propose: every couple wishing to marry must have a civil "ceremony." That is, a ceremony in a religious institution (church, mosque, synagogue) becomes a religious ceremony ONLY and is not recognized as marriage under the rule of civil law. To be legally married, the couple would have to file their own papers with the state."

    This is how it is handled in Europe--at least in the countries I've visited and where I have life-long friends.

    I've always said this is how it should be done. Actually in some cases it is. A Justice of the Peace marriage is not a religious rite, but it is acknowledged by law as a legal marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Google knows everything about you, and if the government want to, it can also.

    Internet security and anonymity is a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shaw,
    AOW: "However, I do note that the SCOTUS overturned states' statutes against miscegenation."

    Yes. And no harm has come to us as a result.


    I won't argue that point.

    But my point was this: many churches "back in the day" had religious objections to miscegenation. I'm wondering if those churches were legally forced to perform marriage ceremonies for couples of mixed races.

    Regardless of what's legally correct, churches have always imposed certain restrictions on their facilities and their members.

    I personally know of no church right now that has race-based restrictions on membership and the like. As you likely know, I live in Northern Virginia. But I'm guessing that churches with race-based restrictions do indeed exist in certain areas of the United States.

    Here in Northern Virginia, there was a big to-do at The Falls Church. Something about gays in the priesthood, I think. There was a huge dispute about who would control the church and its real estate property. I know a few people who were "disenfranchised" by the settlement, and they are still stewing over the matter as their family had long belonged to that historic church, which, if I recall correctly, had an excellent pipe organ (which many churches do not have).

    ReplyDelete
  36. AOW, I don't know if he would have meant charitable organizations. The investigation into how charitable organizations in America by congress in 1952 would have occurred after he said that. My guess in the context of his other comments about using a humane way to get rid of those people such as a toxic gas also occurred after he said that. The toxic gas being used in the death camps of WWII being Zyklon B. I believe he was sympathetic with any totalitarian system ... and it's easy to see just in his manner (i.e. a sort of bantam rooster of narcissism and condescension) from many of his assertions recorded for posterity thanks to YouTube.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The issue of "gay marriage" is equal protection under the law.

    It is? Then why, Shaw, is polygamy and polygany ilegalized?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "It is? Then why, Shaw, is polygamy and polygany ilegalized?"

    "Beats me. I have no problem with it. Ask the US government why it cares how adult men and women arrange their marital lives. polygamy is practiced in other countries (Muslim and African).

    Over a century ago, citizens of the self-governing territory of what is present-day Utah were forced by the United States federal government to abandon the practice of polygamy through the vigorous enforcement of several Acts of Congress. They eventually complied.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formally abolished the practice in 1890, in a document labeled 'The Manifesto'. Among American Muslims, a small minority of around 50,000 to 100,000 people are currently in illegal polygamous relationships."

    Let those who wish their polygamous and polyandrous marriages to be legal do the work of addressing it. Libertarians should have no problem with this, since it concerns private lives.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Seems to me that it is the laws against polygamy and polyandry which "define marriage" (in the legal sense) as one man + one woman.

    So, aren't gays really trying to reform anti-polygamy laws while keeping polygamy illegal?

    And if so, doesn't this negate their faux libertarian argument?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Unless you want to have a sexual relationship with a person, why would you care about that person's sexual orientation? It could only matter if you're a heterosexual male in love with a lesbian, or vice versa, etc. Otherwise you're just trying to meddle in affairs that don't properly concern you.

    ----------> Katharine Heartburn

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.