dagblog - Comments for "Freedom to Defend..."

Yeah, back in the late '80s,

Verified Atheist — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:21:09 +0000

In reply to You taught ballroom??? Wow. I

Yeah, back in the late '80s, I taught ballroom dance as a way to help pay for college. Note that they were desperate for male dance instructors. I'm not claiming that I was all that good.

Actually, I was referring to

Verified Atheist — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:19:13 +0000

In reply to I think it's a cartoon ref,

Actually, I was referring to George Bush's tendency to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was a joke, as I was not suggesting you actually are Bush.

I think it's a cartoon ref,

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:01:58 +0000

In reply to You taught ballroom??? Wow. I

I think it's a cartoon ref, "which way did he go, George, which way did he go?"

You taught ballroom??? Wow. I

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:15:24 +0000

In reply to I'm not saying those people

You taught ballroom???

Wow. I was a fanatic for a while.

My teacher, an Estonian, even got me to compete...once.

I only really bombed in the...wait for it...swing. I also banged into her knees during the waltz, but, pro that she was, she pulled us out of the ditch and "I" won.

I was excellent at cha-cha and tango and foxtrot and pretty good at waltz.

Really, really liked it, but it was a bit of a racket.

Then moved into Argentine tango with great passion. Susan and I did it, but we ended up fighting a lot over the usual--who was doing what to whom--and we decided that our marriage was more important than dancing and might not survive it.

However...

We.will.be.back!

Peracles's name is George?

I'm not saying those people

Verified Atheist — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:57:27 +0000

In reply to It's just my memory of 1 day

I'm not saying those people didn't exist, any more than you would deny the existence of extreme radical Muslims. I will say that I've known many homosexuals in my life (I used to teach ballroom dance back in the day, and was the only straight male instructor for a while), and none of them wore leather outfits, at least not in public. (I have met a few drag queens, but can't say I've known any personally.)

What I am asking for is some of that vaunted liberal consistency that you seem to be advocating. Let's treat homosexuals with some respect, and not imagine that they all "look alike".

Live in Charlottesville, for

Verified Atheist — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:49:15 +0000

In reply to Iraq had 90% support. I left

Live in Charlottesville, for one thing. Also, Iraq is not Afghanistan, George, and being in favor of getting rid of bin Laden (in Afghanistan) is not the same as advocating for drone attacks. Whose putting words in other mouths now?

"However, your long decline,

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:33:14 +0000

In reply to "However, your long decline,

"However, your long decline, despite the way that sounds, is a slow decline," - I don't think dropping from 80 per 1000 in 1970 (90 per 1000 in 1960) to 30 per 1000 today is a particularly slow decline, but we can argue about this ad nauseum.

PS: Well, if it's still a "common event" as you assert elsewhere, how fast could it be?

"then we should welcome with open arms a whole new group of people who have never done it and now want to do it" - so let's welcome child marriage, bigamy, polyamory, etc. if the only criteria is "the more the marrier" (sic).

PS: As I've said elsewhere, we may evolve in this way. Who knows? But dropping one barrier doesn't commit you to dropping all barriers. Importantly here, society has evolved into an acceptance of the rightness of gay marriage. It hasn't simply been dropped on society by SCOTUS. There were gays who tried to, as it were, "auto-marry" back in the 1970s and perhaps before--but it didn't take.

Look, I'm sure for some it's a great thing of a lifetime, for others it's a trend, for some religious folks it's fine, for others it's an affront, etc.

PS: Yes, just as for straights. But when you've lived a good long while within certain parameters, it can also take a while to readjust. IOW, a straight guy deciding he's finally ready to get married doesn't go through the same process as a gay guy deciding he's finally ready to get married. For the former, it's always been a legal option; for the latter, it's been out of the question, legally.

But you guys act like I invented say leather fetishes when much of gay self-promotion has been imagery like this, not of "hey, we're 2 policy wonks in DC who have to get to sleep early because we work ridiculous hours on the Hill" and other possible messages. And then it's my fault if supposedly they want to change image (do they?) to be the boring conservative duo downstairs just waiting to exchange rings?

PS: No one has suggested that (you really think we are?). However, I'd wager that most gay people are not leather fetishists or drag queens. But you know, most parades involve people dressing up in costume that they don't wear every day-:) But to take you seriously for a moment, plenty of gay people have presented themselves as ordinary folks. Barney Frank wore a suit and tie. Steve Clemons is as straight arrow as you can get. Frank Bruni or Andrew Sullivan don't strike me as flamers--do they to you? But beyond this, it's a little hard for any group of people to corral all its members and get them to toe the party line as promulgated by a leadership.

If you're going to talk to me about adoption, I'm not for amyl-hacking gay night prowlers or drunk coke-snorting straight meat-club hoppers adopting kids. I'm not concerned about gay scoutmasters, but I'm not going to send my kids off with irresponsible perve partiers for camping of whatever persuasion, just like I wouldn't send them to meet Ted Nugent or other asshole backstage. So what image are they presenting? Or am I supposed to pretend that nothing ever matters, you can't tell a greasy dick by sight, trust everybody, people are all the same?

PS: As I understand it, ALL couples who want to adopt are "inspected" to ensure they lead an appropriate life style and are likely to provide a good home for the child. Heck, they even do that with pet adoptions. But the Boy Scouts is a good recent example. If the BSA aren't going to allow gay scoutmasters, then how are gay people supposed to portray themselves as scoutmasters? And so on.

"No way to test this, but I

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:17:09 +0000

In reply to "No way to test this, but I

"No way to test this, but I think it's a good bet." - I'd say unjustified.

PS: I guarantee that if it were suddenly announced that no single woman could get married, there would be rivers of women protesting in the streets of D.C.

You contend the shrinking numbers don't matter, then oops, the increasing numbers do!

PS: No, just pointing out that IF, as you DO, think that increasing numbers matter, then there are ways and ways to look at numbers. Just going the extra mile to work through your thesis.

"but the number of gay people getting married since it's been legalized in various states has increased 100%" - uh, no, by definition it's increased by infinite %, since no gays got legally married before it was legal - X/0 = infinity

PS: So much the worse for your argument, then.

And it's well-documented that percentage increase over rare events is often much much higher that increases on common events. Try getting 50% iPhone growth now that the market is saturated.

PS: Then that must mean there are still a WHOLE LOT OF women getting married. A "common event." At least one, perhaps, for every iPhone?

And you seem to miss that marriage is still important to many religious people - but their opinion never matters - ban marriage for religious straights along with non-religious straights because non-religious straights don't care? then force gay marriage onto their definition? wonder how else we can infuriate or humiliate them...

PS: Simply doing a thought experiment based on your assertion that decreasing or increasing numbers matter. I said upfront that they do not. As you know, I've been arguing for gays and straights getting married IF they want to. You've been arguing that the former getting married is a trendy, suspect phenomenon that shouldn't be taken seriously because some people dress up as women. Or something.

Just to jump to a different subculture that evolved in shunned separation...I'm sure that the great blues guitarists and early jazz masters set standards for technique that wouldn't have passed muster at the great conservatories in Europe. Gillespie's ballooned out cheeks? A big no-no for most trumpet players.

What is your point? A shunned

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:04:38 +0000

In reply to It's just my memory of 1 day

What is your point?

A shunned subculture frequently develops rituals, norms, music, etc., that is at odds or is very different from the mainstream culture.

The people in that subculture do what they do and do what they can do and are allowed to do.

Had gay people been allowed to marry all these many years, maybe they would have. But they didn't have a choice.

Gay Pride Day is an expression of pride in what this group HAS done, and that includes what they've been ALLOWED to do.

"However, your long decline,

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:58:59 +0000

In reply to "Gays getting married is

Look, I'm sure for some it's a great thing of a lifetime, for others it's a trend, for some religious folks it's fine, for others it's an affront, etc.