« The "Double Agent" and the Yemen | Main | The Conservation of Enemies - by Basilisk »

10 May 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

Col. Lang:

You have stated:

"I am libertarian by instinct if not by party. I don't care who you have sex with and then call it "marriage." I am about as neutral on this "issue" as one can be."

That is fine as it is.

But those who support "gay marriage" should have the decency to support - publicly - polyandry, polygamy, consentual incestual unions, and bestilaity.

He and his sheep are a couple (or couples), they are just practicing a different life-style in "pursuit of happiness".

Byron Raum

It is very doubtful that Obama (and his team) have not thought this thing through. I would be very surprised if they had not done a state-by-state analysis of how a for/against position would help or hurt Obama's chances.


Obama had a fund raiser with Hollywood, so I'm sure his buddies on the Left Coast holding a gun to his head had more than a little bit to do with this.

Homosexuals are roughly 5% of the population, but the cultural influence they wield through infesting Hollywood and New York in gatekeeper positions is ridiculous.

AFAIK, every state that has legalized gay marriage has done so through an end run around the electorate. It is interesting how the chips are falling with a decadent elite attempting to shove their views down the throat of anyone who disagrees with them, followed by villification in the previously mentioned media.

Hard Hearted Empath

Well said.

I believe the following to be true.

1) Election is now Romney's and Republicans' to lose. BHO just did the one thing for Romney that Romney could not do for himself: Energize the Republican base, including all the evangelicals and flyovers who opted for Santorum. Additionally, the ethnic rust belt Demos and the southern dems, the Nixon and Reagan Dems, white male union worker types, Catholics, etc. are now much more in play.

2) Republicans should keep in mind Lee Attwater's dicctum about never attacking an enemy who is in the process of destroying (or undermining or defeating) himself. Last thing the right needs is to overlplay its hand, have people like Rush Limbaugh popping off about Adam and Steve. The issue will then switch (the media will switch it) from Obama and Democratic Party values vs. Main Street values, to "Democratic compassion and tolerance vs. Christian Sharia and Right Wing Privacy Invading Sex Police Who Would Ban Rock Music Even as They Thump Their Bibles To It, Those Hypocrites!" Republicans are very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in this way.

3) Main Street wants mainstram values but not a culture war over them. This is not because Main Street really favors the liberal elite position, but because it grasps that NOT publicly following the liberal position is "status lowering." A lot of issues are deciced this way -- e.g., Main Street doesn't have any brief for or against Israel, really, but if opposing Israeli Policy X can be painted as "anti-Semitic," people will go along to get along and avoid that label. In a similar way, I see the liberal lifestyle stuff being adopted by the flyovers, but not because they believe in it; just because it is easier to "play the game." Also, if it's a question of gay strings attached to "free federal money" vs. "raising my propety taxes to keep marriage a straight thing," I think that most Americans in these hard pressed times would choose or vote their pocketbooks.

So the the Repubs are not out of the woods here and the Dem strategy must be closely watched. Seems that this was just at thing where Biden couldn't zip it, thus forcing Obama's hand. Good for Obama for saying what he believes and going down as captain of his own ship, if that is what happens. Even small integrities created in lifeboat situations can be heartening in a world that seems so short of them.


The federal government could harass the state governments with "strings" attached to federal money,

IIUC this is exactly what is happening right now, except the other way round. Massachusetts cannot provide full benefits to same-sex spouses due to the fact that Congress actually decided to legislate the definition of marriage, and federal funds might be at risk.


Bill H

North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008. I have no position on gay marriage and do not know the answers to the following questions. Given their recent Proposition 1 and this step by Obama, do you think Obama will will carry NC in 2012? Had he lost the state already? Is his position not going to affect his election?


Col: BHO's epiphany came from his donors. See http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

"It may very well be true that Obama took this step not out of any genuine conviction, but because he perceives that high levels of enthusiasm among the Democratic base generally and gay donors specifically are necessary for his re-election, or because Biden’s comments forced his hand, or any number of other tactical reasons."



I understand. IMO, if we are going to have legalized gay marriage then any form of human congess that does not involve children before puberty should be legal. Is not a desire to marry one's sister at least as valid as a desire to marry another man? The whole "gay rights movement rests on the claim that gay people are "born that way." Well, some probably are, especially on the male side, but most Americans believe that for most it is a choice. Having been raised to think in terms of the "natural law" I would exclude relationships with animals and dead people from the list of allowed unions. It's only logical. pl

Charles I

oh Babak, why not just execute 'em as you would have drug addicts many many posts ago. I'm sure even a queer can discriminate between "polyandry, polygamy, consentual incestual unions, and bestilaity." You should too. Just as most hetero adults leave the kids and goats alone, at least in my neighbourhood where the mind boggling conundrum of animal rights laws commingle with gay marriage rights

That is fine as it is. Is where you shouldda stopped

Charles I

just like integration and war, hmm

Charles I

Biblical prescription is not the only human source of discernment, revulsion and self control, just as it is not the source of all the evils in the world. You said it yourself, natural law, and up here natural law does include generally accepted revulsions against child abuse, animal abuse and incest, as well as Animal planet documented animal homosexuality

The desire to marry one's sister may be as "valid" as that of marrying a same sex stranger, but natural law and society, long before the bible was writ down, have provided royal examplars that sound the tocsin against close incest so loud as that most accept prescribes it. So the legislation perforce spells out consanguinity relationships. Most gays aren't hurting anybody any more than us hetreo's shriven and unshriven alike.

There are not many examples of natural xenosexuality - though I believe the Bible might be full of 'em - aside, I've heard, from dolphin's aggressively frottaging the tourists.

gonna take a few generations for that, or sister love to fly, good luck with that.

I find the thin-edge-of-the-hindquarters argument Cheneyesque and sad grounds to deny our brothers and sisters, er, metaphorically speaking, wedded bliss. People of the persuasions enumerated by Babak above generally have little truck with civil laws in any event be they inerrant polygamists or ardent dogf***ers.


The evangelists of The Cult of Queer are reliable and useful idiots.


"Today, the media generally, and gay journalists in particular are busy interviewing gay politicians and are absorbed in telling each other that President Obama's epiphany on gay marriage will not be a factor in deciding the November election"
This election was supposed to be about the economy and Obamacare; instead we are having discussions about the Church and contraception, a war on women, spiking the football, marijuana and now, gay marriage. Nothing of serious consequence to this country.
This goes to show the brilliance of Obama as a politician, and his ability to control the narrative from now until November should definitely be of concern for Mitt and the Republicans.
I don't see this as a close election, especially if Obama can continue keep the public occupied with insignificant issues. He will win with at least the same margin as he did in 2008.


I'm not a lawyer but can one state really void a marriage contract made in a different state?


This issue is going to have zero influence on the election. I've yet to come across anyone who said that gay marriage was their number one issue. Those who think it's a big deal were never going to vote for Obama in the first place. Come November it's going to be about who the American people see as being best able to run the country through some perilous economic times for the next four years. Do we want to stay with the basics of what Obama is doing to try ot get us out of this mess or do we want to go back to the supply side idiocy that brought us to this point in the first place?

Babak Makkinejad

There was a custom in China to marry a dead person; for a variety of reasons.

It was practiced in Taiwan at least until 1980s; I think.


Marrying one's sibling brings with it a higher risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Marrying a same sex spouse does not.

In prospect portions of the public have been brainwashed to believe that recognizing same sex marriages will damage their own marriages. In practice, this is not the case. Thus while there were dire threats of political repercussions for the Massachusetts politicians, in practice it was a non-issue.


Addendum: We really have reached the point where almost all political decisions can be reduced to fundraising. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-obamas-top-fundraisers-are-gay/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html

I don't care about the issue. I do care about cash-register policy-making.



This is a society that has legitmized aborthion of healthy fetuses on demand for any reason a woman wishes to have one. In other words a woman is free to kill unborn children if she wishes to and it is convenient to her, and you talk to me of "a higher genetic risk" involved in such an act of self fulfillment as marrying a loved sib. Come now. What is the the social benefit of men living in wedded bless for a lifetime of buggery? pl



IMO you are wrong if you think that the gay marriage thing will not "bite" Obama in some states. Yes. States can refuse to recognize out of state gay marriages or incestuous marriages. pl



"This election was supposed to be about the economy and Obamacare" Who decided that? You and the media? Just because you think something does not mean that the populatin as a whole thinks the same thing. pl

Babak Makkinejad

If understand you correctly, so as long as the incest unions do not produce children they must be permitted, yes?

Babak Makkinejad

It is actually worse than that which you write.

In the United States, a woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy and the male counter-part (if any or if known) has no legal basis to challenge that decision.

Yest, in the United States, the same said female can carry a pregnancy to term in opposition to the male counterpart (if any or if known) and then slap the man with Child Support.

If the man is not available, the State is there to do so.

Praying with Jesus in the morning and supping with Pilate in the evening.



I am merely arguing within the logic of the present madness in American society, a madness that wishes to establish homosexual behavior as equally meritorious with heterosexual behavior. My reductio ad absurdam argument is that at least adult heterosexual incest is natural to the biology of humanity and therefore more natural than homosexual behavior. The argument that homosexual behavior is equally good and normal rests on supposed scientific "proof" that such desire is inherent in some people. Show me the proof! What are the citations for the studies? I do not consider that the behavior of animals in humping each other is proof of anything unless we think we are dogs or lemurs. Is it possible that some individuals have suffered a developmental accident in utero that results in a desire for their own sex? Yes, bur let us acknowledge that it is a defect not a normal human variant. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Well, OK.

So Bestilaity and incest are out by polyandry and polygamy are in - as well as Group Marriage.

All understood to be implici and intrinsic rights of a human being in natural state.

But in fact, outside of the Scripture there is no morality as you suggest.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad