Far-left liars endanger us all

Perverted - That's anyone who has a real set of morals, cav.

Yep, or a lack of a thesaurus.

You know everytime I read abt people giving passionate reasons as to why gay people should not be allowed to get married, I burst out laughing. I mean how insecure are these people ?

Next they will say that gay people should not be allowed to breed....hang on..we already cant do that

it's as close as they'll ever get to it....

I dunno...the way they hide things from the public....apparently the information regarding this current terror alert is three years old. I am really starting to disagree with the oh, let's see (what kind of mood am I in for terms...I'll paraphrase swolf) "demunnists" apparent theory that a cover-up has been going on. I don't think there has been one. Kudos to the Conservatives. I am now resigned to the fact that the administration is just lazy and incompetent, something I know Conservatives hate, what with their policy of 'rugged individulasim' and all.

Debra_Law

I've been away for a bit and return to find, happily, a newish member who brings extensive constitutional expertise with respect for care and clarity in her/his writing. I'm sure many others are as pleased as I to have you contributing here.

Gautam

Nice to see you again, you outrageous instance of pervitude.

Some while ago, I linked a wonderful piece from (I think it was) the New York Times on the commonplace observations made by biologists of same sex play evidenced within the animal world. Too, anthropological and historical studies have given us an understanding of the ubiquity of it within our own human cultures, even where attempts to suppress have been severe (clearly, this has rather serious consequence for any argument that such is 'unnatural').

All of which make anti-homosexual sentiment - often quite visceral and at times even mouth-foaming in its manifestations - a very interesting phenomenon. What the hell is this about?

As Setanta and others have well argued, the sort of complaints which foxfyre advances are not coherent. In fact, what fox advances is simply the existing 'party line' out of the Religious Right's PR machine. I suspect she believes what she says, rather than simply repeating it. But repeat it, she does.

But I think we can't understand the political project against gay marriage looking only at the Religious Right, even if they are the main activist muscle behind the project. The neoconservative element, now sitting in significant positions of power in the Republican Party and this administration, are complicit in the endeavor, arising from their notions of the government's responsibility to engender/enforce 'virtue' within the rather dull-minded and unsophisticated population (which is any and all populations excluding only themselves - that philosophical elite at the top. Bill Kristol's comments on sex and virtue make for very interesting reading, no less so than do Bill Bennett's comments on the same (one presumes either fellow is a pretty lousy lay).

This set of neoconservative political notions makes for a most emollient brotherhood with some deep traditional Christian notions on sexuality arising, mainly, from Augustine. Here we see a very interesting binary opposition where sexuality represents the low and base, the animal urges(there's a reason Satan has hooves and horns) which are chaotic and undisciplined (or even undisciplinable). On the other side of the opposition sits the ethereal or non-physical - the notion of Christian agape - charity, love of god, love of loyalty to the destined order of things including (importantly to my point here) the political order. Sexual attraction can make a real mess of existing social structures, which is why it is so commonly controlled and suppressed. It's been very interesting to watch the upheavals within the Catholic and Anglican churches on the subject of homsexuality. The most powerful protestations against sanctifying same sex marriage are coming out of Africa presently, but I haven't done much study on why that might be so. Certain similarities seen in the arab world might suggest that tribal organizations are particularly keen to exert control over sexuality.

But like the rascist sentiments and turmoil within the southern states in the fifties and sixties that many of us grew up near or watching on television (I can see no difference whatsoever between the visceral distaste of a segregationist having to sit beside a black person on a bus, and the distaste of a homophobe in shaking the hand of a gay person) this noise and injustice will slowly find its way into the dustbin.

cav

Take a look at Krugman's column today. There's not much incompentence in Rove's office. Absolutely Machiavellian amorality, sure, but little incompetence.

I will check Krugman's column out blatham.

And did they report on instances of prejudice by straight monkeys against gay monkeys?

Only asking .....before the world collapses on me

I think the issue will resolve itself in only a matter of time by the Supreme Court. There is no reason that they can deny homosexuals the right to marry other than religious ones and so they will have to make it a law that homosexuals can't be denied the right to marry.

I think most of the those folks in congress have accepted that because when it comes right down to it, no one is willing to come right out and officially ban homosexual's from marrying despite all the talk of a marriage being between a man and a woman.

What kind of monkeys are we talking about here Steve? Gibbons mate for life, heterosexually, Chimps are warlike (and technically apes, not monkeys) Gorillas are apes, but generally quite peaceful, despite a predilection for masturbating in front of children when they are are in cages (the gorillas, not the children), or maybe the Bonobos, who have a free love policy, gay and straight in their particular society. As for whether or not there are definitive acts of prejudice by straight monkeys against straight monkeys, I highly doubt it. Oops, sorry, thought I was in the anthropology forum...

In order to get back on track a little, I'll repeat my earlier (unanswered) question to Foxfyre, and throw it open for anyone who wants to answer:



Anyone? I'd love to hear an explanation for this belief by an anti-gay marriage supporter....

Cycloptichorn

steve

Good question! Nothing definitive appears in the literature. But there is an ambiguous observation made by a doctoral candidate working in Gibralter on, by chance, an afternoon when Margaret Thatcher was visiting the field compound and a group of three rhesus male monkeys were slapped about by the alpha male after they broke into a version of "Big Bottom Boys".

There's a cartoon in a recent New Yorker, in which a woman tells her husband she's leaving him because she feels their relationship has been devalued by the phenomenon of gay marriage.

Well Cycloptichorn, if gay people are allowed to marry, then the husband (or a wife) might say - "look, my friend married a man (or a woman), what the f*** I am doing married to you. I want a divorce so that I can marry my boyfriend (or girlfriend)"

Sorry, I should not be so flippant in such a serious discussion !

Please Siddartha Gautama, do be flippant, the drudgery of the right-wing gay bashers here could stand some relief . . .

Good one Blatham!

But are you sure they weren't making a political statement?

Oh, I did say straight monkey violence against straight monkeys. When will this plague end? Dammit, my jokes are getting too elaborate to keep track of.

I'll say.

D'art...that's a lovely gag! Where would we be without NYer cartoons?

Back to fart humour for me.