dagblog - Comments for "Dr. Boyce Watkins on Gay Rights"

Rabbits are not asking for

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:46:18 +0000

In reply to Peracles, First you asked why

Rabbits are not asking for additional rights, only EQUAL rights. Here I'm leading you down the rabbit hole - but don't worry, we're all virgins in some areas.

Marriage has been traditionally between man and women. Gays are asking to extend the definition to 2 men or 2 women. Polygamists/polyamorists would be asking to extend it to more than 2 partners - a right during many periods of human history, now frowned upon.

The restrictions on familial marriage are somewhat arbitrary. Are 2nd cousins okay? 1st cousins? Half-brothers? Was their something wrong with Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter (no genetic relation). What makes the marriage age of 18 now proper, vs. 16 in years gone by or younger (15? 13? arranged marriages at 6 or 8?)

Miscegenation laws obviously restricted marriage and reproducing based on race - a right or redefinition of marriage? and it wasn't long ago that marrying a Catholic in the south meant to be outcast.

Nikola Tesla, a brilliant man, had a kind of fetish and love towards pigeons. Bestiality (sexual encounters with animals) is a common enough phenomenon. At least in this case, there's a clear distinction of species when restricting marriage or sexual relations between humans and other species.

You challenge their ability to think because you're either not very creative in applying logic, or it's a rhetorical tool where all your analogies are apples-to-apples and theirs are apples-to-oranges, and presto-magico, you can disappear their argument.

In either case, you do it in a frequently insulting manner. Including to Sitting Bull / all native Americans below.

Wow, take a heartless jab at

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:39:49 +0000

In reply to Qnonymous, I don't know

Wow, take a heartless jab at Sitting Bull while you're at it. Yeah, he should have acquiesced, just let the government put his people on reservations, and put in some slot machines to draw tourists. Martin Luther King should have just accepted those shoe shining jobs - better some employment than none, no? With or without Little Big Horn the whites would have killed off the Indians, finished stealing their land breaking all agreements successively along the way, and made them irrelevant. But with Little Big Horn, they at least went out with a memorable fight for self-respect. Custer will forever be a symbol of cruel, foolish-head arrogance.

The taboos against gay marriage are similar to taboos against incest / marrying your sister. Much backed by biblical lore, etc. And Quinn explained the don't care part - both because the black community has bigger fish to fry, and perhaps as a heterosexual he doesn't actually care (which emotional reaction could run the gamut from disgust to enthusiasm I suppose)

RELIGIOUS FRAUDS JOHN

Wattree — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:31:23 +0000

In reply to Watkins notes the anger a

RELIGIOUS FRAUDS

JOHN ADAMS, ONE OF THIS NATION’S FOUNDING FATHERS, SPEAKS ON HOW RELIGIOUS FRAUDS USE CHRISTIANITY:

“Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years? . . . The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

IT SEEMS THAT VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED, WITH EITHER THE FRAUDS, OR THE GULLIBLE.

RM, I completely agree. The

Wattree — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:26:58 +0000

In reply to If Watkins' argument is that

RM,

I completely agree. The most potent weapon of ultraconservative ideologues is divide and conquer, and that's what's so amazingly myopic about Watkin's comments. He said that while he supports the right of gays to marry, he really didn't care one way or the other, and then went on to argue against it. That was insincere at best, and grossly hypocritical at worst. If he "really doesn't care" about the equal rights of ALL, he needs to get out of the advocacy business.

I've always wondered what

kyle flynn — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:22:18 +0000

In reply to Qnonymous, I don't know

I've always wondered what became of the Lakota. Thanks for sorting that out for me.

Qnonymous, I don't know

Wattree — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:15:37 +0000

In reply to Wattree. I dislike the way

Qnonymous,

I don't know anything about the video you referenced. I quoted a remark that Watkins made on Facebook. And he quotation didn't require context. He said what he said. How much context do you need when a guy who presents himself as a public intellectual and civil rights advocate says, "I support gay marriage, but it's mainly because I just don't care one way or the other," and then goes to equate gay marriage to his marrying his sister?

And I don't hate Boyce Watkins. I used to write for him, but as I told him at the time, while I felt that his heart was in the right place, so was Sitting Bull's, but he led his people over a cliff nevertheless. So read my writings, it may seem like I hate Watkins, but that's not the case at all. It's just that I like the Black community more, and I feel that he's infecting them with grossly inefficient thinking, so I say so.

I'm a writer, so I would be remiss to give my feelings about any one individual priority over the people who depend on me to tell them the truth.

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2008/07/journalists-first-responsibility_04.html

Peracles, First you asked why

Wattree — Wed, 23 May 2012 03:14:01 +0000

In reply to I don't know why you act like

Peracles,

First you asked why I challenge person's ability to think just because they disagree with my point of view. Then you go one to say the following:

"If a man can marry a man, why can't I marry two women I love? Why can't I marry my sister? Why can't I marry my underage sister. Or my underage son? Or a rabbit? Or a rock? Or a photon?"

In making the above statement you answered your own question. You're comparing apples to oranges. I didn't challenged Watkin's ability to think simply because he disagreed with me. I challenged his ability to think because he made the very same logical flaw that you just did.

Gay's are not asking for additional rights, as your questions suggests; they're asking for EQUAL rights. After all, no one can marry their son or daughter, or a rabbit. But YOU do have the right to marry the one you love, as should they - and, without getting YOUR approval.

Thus, your thinking is flawed. It would only be valid if they were demanding the right to marry a rabbit.

Weren't Sodomites the ones

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:38:40 +0000

In reply to By Sodomites, I assume you

Weren't Sodomites the ones who supported Hussein after Gulf War I? Republican Guard and all?

By Sodomites, I assume you

Verified Atheist — Thu, 17 May 2012 10:23:29 +0000

In reply to Sodomites always view these

By Sodomites, I assume you mean those not taking care of the poor, right?

(P.S. I was playing devil's advocate, but in reality I doubt that these really refer to a homosexual relationship. Given modern sensibilities and the Bible's tendency to code things dealing with sex, however, it is understandable that people find it … interesting.)

Sodomites always view these

Resistance — Thu, 17 May 2012 05:17:16 +0000

In reply to Some choice excerpts from the

Sodomites always view these verses in a light most favorable for that position.