About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Kosovo Never Attacked Us

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:40:50 PM
How come nobody is complaining about how we're still in Kosovo, and that Kosovo never attacked us to begin with?

Oh, that's right.  "Say No to War!"...unless a Democrat enters us into it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Prop 8 Discussion Continues

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:04:16 AM
Fannie commented on my response to her response to something I wrote.  Got that?  Well, my response to her comment was too long to post a comment, so I’m making it another entry.
“I notice you stand by your statement in which you say that same-sex couples contribute nothing to society except for the spread of disease. Are you at least able to recognize how such a statement could cause people to hate gay men and lesbians?”
I cannot be held responsible for the misuse of my statements.  Nowhere do I advocate the hatred of homosexual people.  Frankly, I don’t understand such hatred.  I can understand finding public displays of affection and some of the more extreme things one may find at a pride parade to be disgusting, though I tend not to be riled up by such things either - AND, we’ve all seen heterosexuals behave inappropriately in public, too, quite often on television.  I stand by my statement because it is true.  If you’ll excuse me getting graphic – none of us would be here if it weren’t for coitus.  Even IVF babies come from an ancestry of coitus – the physical joining together of both sexes.  The same can’t be said of the physical interaction of two men or two women, nor can two women provide a father to a child nor two men a mother to a child.  Society is comprised of both sexes.  Marriage is forming an inclusive microcosm of that society, often for the perpetuation of it.
“Can you recognize that such a statement is offensive?”
I can understand why someone would take offense to it.  People are often offended by the truth.  There are people who think my religious convictions and practice are worthless and contribute nothing good to society, and they say so.  They even make movies saying so and those films get widespread publicity.  I think they are wrong, but I also don’t (without tongue firmly planted in cheek, anyway) accuse them of causing hatred towards me.
"In light of such a statement how can you in good faith claim to care more about the dignity of gay men and lesbians than I do?"
Because while it may be fun for some, I think the kind of physical interaction and social choices involved in homosexual behavior is harmful to the individuals participating, and harming yourself and committing (what I understand to be sin) is not dignified.  I think the same way about heterosexual fornication.  I argue that I care more about the dignity of men when I say men should not fornicate, as fornication hurts the soul as well as increases the risks of disease, making stupid decisions, and conceiving a child out of wedlock, among other reasons.  By the way, I’m not saying all of this as someone who is a prude who has always lived by these ideals.  I’ve sinned big time in my life.  But I will not excuse it by saying it really isn’t sin, nor will I try to get the news media, academia, etc. to give me a stamp of approval for such behavior.

I think that it is sad that there is high incidence (compared to the general population) in homosexual circles of certain diseases, substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence.  I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.  I don’t think those things are dignified.  I do not think that more affirmation or encouragement in homosexual expression is going to make those things go away.  I think they are correlated more to homosexual behavior than to any societal disapproval (notice that these things are still prevalent in the subculture in areas where homosexuality is celebrated and certainly not repressed).  I don’t expect that homosexual people in general are going to throw up their hands and become celibate or enter into heterosexual relationships (though some have done just that).  But that’s my reasoning as to the matter of dignity.
“I urge anyone to peruse my blog archives if they are interested.”
Thank you very much for your comments and feedback and invitations.  I did scroll down a little when I checked out your response to my earlier posting, but I did not click through because I ended up reading it offline.  I always appreciate knowing where some people on the other side of an issue are coming from.  In fact, I just took the time to click through to see your objection to the phrase “neutered marriage” and I stick by the phrase.  It is the best way to describe what is happening when you take something that is inherently about uniting the sexes – the masculine and the feminine – and remove that essence.  That’s what removing “Bride” and “Groom” from a marriage license does, and that’s what removing “man” and “woman” from the law regarding the state recognition of marriage does.  The whole reason anyone uses the term "gay marriage" is that they recognize that it is different from marriage.  (It was just announced late yesterday that "Bride" and "Groom" will be returning as options on California marriage licenses.  While I welcome that, I question the timing of this announcement, as well as the fact that this will supposedly be implemented after the election.  I regard "Bride" and "Groom" being only optional to be like applying for veterans' benefits and having the option of checking a box that says you were never in any of the armed forces.)

Correct me if I don’t have this right, but I gather your position on this is that since the state issues marriage licenses to both-sex couples, it should treat same-sex couples the same and issue marriage licenses to them, too.  However, while I believe individuals should be treated equally under the law, I do not believe that voluntarily associations should be treated the same unless they are identical in composition.  For example, there are certain requirements to be a licensed business or a recognized nonprofit, and a “small business” is often treated differently than larger ones.  There is a real difference between men and women (if they were interchangeable than there wouldn’t be “gay” and “straight to begin with), and so when you have one of each it is a different association than when you have two men or two women.  Since it takes both a man and a woman to make a child (and the child does not choose this relationship), the state has an interest in licensing the marriage of a bride and a groom that is not there with two men or two women.

Nonetheless, the state of California has, through the legislative process, opted to treat same-sex domestic as spouses.  Since that is the case, I’m led to conclude that the opposition or Prop 8 is based on 1) a desire to use the legal term “marriage” for implication of societal acceptance; 2) a desire to use California’s judicial imposition of sexless (neutered) marriage licensing to force other states to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships as marriage.  However, in the first case, if the people of California, who issue those licenses in the first place, agree that marriage can mean two men or two women, why not achieve that through popular vote instead of judicial imposition?  In the second case, why shouldn’t the people of other states be allowed to decide how their marriage licensing will be handled – through direct democracy if they have it, or through the legislative process if they don’t?  It wasn't like there was ever a situation where same-sex couples were getting marriage licenses and the Religious Right came along and manipulated the state into ceasing such licensing, adding "Bride" and "Groom" to the mix.  The state did not create marriage through licensing - it recognized what already existed.  We do not have that same history with same-sex couples, where "marriages" were a recent phenomenon, modeled after (bride-groom) marriage, which has existed for all of human history.

Individuals will have the same access under the law whether or not Proposition 8 passes.  If Proposition 8 passes, same-sex couples will still have domestic partnerships (same rights as married spouses) and other ways of formalizing their relationships.  However, if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, then it will become illegal to give preference in adoptions to homes with both a mother and a father, and, I suspect, children will lose their rights to their mother or father in other ways as well.  Socially, as I’ve pointed out before, I expect an even higher percentage of children to be born out of wedlock, raised out of wedlock, or to have divorced parents, as we will have it in our laws and as official public policy that marriage can’t be about children.  Maybe that doesn't bother you, but most studies show such outcomes will be problematic to children and so society by extension.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Bride" and "Groom" Return?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 06, 2008 8:34:19 PM
Looks like a little good news out of California, as Lisa Leff, Associated Press writer reports.
When same-sex marriage became legal in the state on June 16, new marriage forms were issued with "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.

The new paperwork, which county clerks must start using Nov. 17, will have space for applicants' names next to optional boxes for checking "bride" or "groom."
At least that much is being restored.  It was ridiculous to remove them in the first place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Devaluing Marriage Has Aided Marriage Neutering

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 06, 2008 3:30:38 PM
Meghan Daum starts off her Los Angeles Times column mocking those of us who support marriage, but then goes on to note that our culture is indeed devaluing marriage with a lopsided emphasis on weddings, while our youth aren’t instructed enough in marriage.
A television ad supporting Proposition 8 implies that gay marriage would have to be "taught" in California public schools unless the right of same-sex couples to marry is overturned. It makes me wonder: What exactly do you teach when you teach gay marriage?
The teaching will be that there is no difference between bride-groom marriage and the monosexual unions that the state also licenses as marriage.  And students who say otherwise will likely be pegged with a hate crime or some violation of the school code.  Bride-groom marriage will not be allowed to be portrayed as the ideal.
As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood."
Do you really believe that there won’t be an imposition of neutered marriage into every area of curriculum, including reading selections and problem examples?  History tells us otherwise.
Moreover, it's only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.
I see.  So I shouldn’t be concerned because after I’ve paid my taxes, it will be up to my local school board whether or not they want to get any of that money back?  So much for the insistence on “fairness”.
Granted, if gay marriage remains legal…
Again with the imprecise language.  It hasn’t been illegal for two men or two women to have a marriage ceremony, and it won’t be if Prop 8 passes.  State-issued marriage licenses would be reserved for bride-groom unions.  They could be heterosexual people or homosexual people.  So enough with saying that Prop 8 would make “gay marriage illegal”.

Here is something where we agree:
As inundated as young people are with superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about sex, they're barraged with equally superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about marriage.
Definitely true, and it is one reason they don’t see the big deal about judges imposing a neutering of marriage on all of us.
As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning.
Right again.  Make no mistake about it, though – it is this flippant attitude towards marriage that has aided the push to neuter it.  However, same-sex couples can already have their lavish ceremonies and their lives together, and still well be able to if Prop 8 passes, if that is what they want.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Saw 'An American Carol'

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 06, 2008 12:28:38 PM
You should, too.  I have been a paid movie reviewer, but this isn’t going to be quite like my other reviews, because this is an openly political movie and I’m an openly political blogger.

People go to the movies to have an emotional experience.  That was what I saw an expert on screenwriting demonstrate when he went over the list of history’s top grossing films.  They weren’t all masterpieces in cinema, but the audience had an emotional experience while watching those films in the theater.

"An American Carol" is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it certainly did deliver an emotional experience.  I – like the rest of the audience – was laughing throughout the picture.  I was laughing so hard at times I was crying,

Then there was a sequence that brought tears to my eyes for another reason.  Jon Voight’s poignant and dead-serious portrayal of President George Washington led into a moment I did not expect.  It was a powerful and solemn moment in a movie that usually gets it point across with over-the-top silliness and slapstick.  Sometimes the film tickles, sometimes it delivers a noogie, and sometimes it swings and connects with a baseball bat.

As you probably know by now, the film plays on A Christmas Carol by having a character spoofing Michael Moore (Michael Malone, as played very well by Kevin Farley) visited first by JFK, then General Patton (Kelsey Grammer doing a bang-up performance through much of the film), President Washington, and the Angel of Death (country music star/Celebrity Apprentice stand-out Trace Adkins).  Through these encounters, Malone learns to appreciate America the need, at times, to go to war, including warring against Islamofascist terrorists.

Not only are we treated to a thorough slapdown (literally) of Moore, but a blistering portrayal of intolerant Leftist college professors, a derisive mocking of mindless mob protestors, a silly send-up of ACLU lawyers, and, of course, a poke to the eyes of terrorists.  Rosie O’Donnell even gets the kick in the rear, as does former President Jimmy Carter.  More importantly, though, our men and women in the military are portrayed as heroic.

I’ve always been a fan of good parody and satire, and David Zucker is one of the kings of bringing that to cinema, usually with a thorough dose of slapstick.  Zucker is in a good position to deliver this film.  Having long been part of the Hollywood game, he’s been steeped in the ideology and tactics of the Left.  However, his villains have often been Soviet Communists, Nazis, and Islamofascist terrorists, and over the years, seeing how the Left has treated Israel and has responded to 9/11, and how the Left has responded to his concerns, he was finally driven to make this film.

Zucker had already opened himself up to vitriol from the Left.  But the various other people part of this project are opening themselves up to all sorts of trouble from their Hollywood peers, and probably a few secretive “way to go!” encouragements from closeted Hollywood patriots.  Lord only knows the grief the extremely talented David Alan Grier is getting for his biting portrayal of a slave in the war-between-the-states-never-happened alternate reality.  Notice that the film is not playing on all that many screens, and was distributed by Vivendi (a minority owner of NBC Universal) instead of one of the major Hollywood studios.

Which brings me back to my suggestion that you go see this film in the theater.  Not only will it enhance your experience to hear strangers laughing along with you, but your dollar-vote will send a message to Hollywood.

Like I said, the film is not a masterpiece.  Some things could have been done better, but that’s true for most films.  I found some of the crude language unnecessary, but it wasn’t pervasive.  I would pay to see this film again, if for no other reason to catch some of the things I must have missed the first time around.  As is typical with Zucker, you have to keep your eyes open for quick sight gags that are often in the background, and the same goes for keeping your ears open for some of the auditory humor.  For example… listen closely for what the goosestepping Nazi soldiers are reciting.

"An American Carol" will not get good reviews from Leftists, who make up most of the Hollywood community.  But it is definitely worth seeing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Check Out This Site

Posted by Playful Walrus on Sunday, October 05, 2008 3:21:51 PM
The Opine Editorials is a great place to go for mental stimulation, especially if you are looking for in-depth consideration of the marriage/Proposition 8 question. I extend my thanks to them for linking to several entries here.

I have no doubt that they are helping to keep The Playful Walrus in the KRLA Top 10.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Responding to My Critic on Prop 8

Posted by Playful Walrus on Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:32:01 AM
I’ve touched a nerve with some folks out there.  This blog entry takes exception to some of my comments regarding Proposition 8.  This is going to be a long one.  It is times like this when I think of Rush Limbaugh’s quote that a “bigot” is someone who wins an argument with a liberal.  Uh oh.  I cited Limbaugh.  That’s really going to rile them up.
It's good to know where some people really stand when it comes to lesbians and gay men.
That’s how she starts off.  Where do I stand?  Same place I stand when it comes to anyone else.  I believe God has granted every human being rights that ought not be infringed upon by government or criminals – regardless of their sexual orientation.  Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and self-determination.  But notice that she makes someone’s thoughts about someone else’s feelings and/or sexual practices a criteria for judgment the way some people would say, “What do you think of Christ?”  Whether or not I’m a good person has to do with what I think of what two men do with each other in private. Go figure.
Even though some leaders of the Proposition 8 movement claim that the movement "isn't a referendum on gay people" and that Proposition 8 supporters do not hate gay people, we all know that those claims whitewash reality.
I certainly won’t deny that there are people out there who hate homosexual people and are voting for Proposition 8.  However, one need not hate homosexual people or even disapprove of homosexual behavior to be in favor of Proposition 8.  They could even be in favor of neutering marriage, but think it is NOT the place of the judiciary to usurp the authority of the voters to do so.  It's interesting that she claims to know the hearts of all who support Prop 8.

Let’s turn this around, though.  There are also people out there who hate homosexual people in practice, if not intent, because they refuse to tell them the truth.  There are people who are voting against Prop 8 simply because they hate the people who are in favor of Prop 8.
Wait, haven't we heard that odd, scary phrase "marriage neutering" before?
Yet she does nothing to discount the phrase.  Here is the fact: When you change the marriage licensing requirement from “a man and a woman” to “two people”, you are neutering it because you are removing sex (gender) from the formula.  When you change the paperwork/licenses/certificates from “Bride” and “Groom” to “Party A” and “Party B”, you are neutering it.  A man and a woman can no longer get those things in a way that honors them.  They are now known simply as “Party A” and “Party B”.  And yet I haven’t seen greeting card companies scrambling to say, “I know you’ll make a lovely Party B.”  I wonder why?
Walrus says that Mr. Overturf "lives... with a guy he apparently got a 'marriage' license with..." as though Mr. Overturf sort of just willy-nilly picked some guy off the street to go get a marriage license with.
Sorry, I do not think a man can be a husband without a bride.  That was my point.
Then, of course, there's those trusty old scare quotes encapsulating the "marriage" of Mr. Overturf and his spouse.
Yes, because I don’t think that is marriage, any more than if the government started calling bottled tap water milk to appease lactose intolerant people who felt like they were being treated like second class citizens.  I would call that “milk”.
Those indicate scorn, sarcasm, and disagreement with word usage.
I definitely disagree with the word usage.  I bet she would disagree if I called a march by Fred Phelps (who I dispise) a gay pride parade simply because he were to call it one.
It indicates that Mr. Walrus doesn't view Mr. Overturf's marriage as a legitimate one even though the marriage is, actually, legal and therefore legitimate.
Considering she is a lawyer, I’m not surprised she thinks legality equals legitimacy.  The Dred Scott decision was “legal”, too.  But I bet she doesn’t think it was legitimate (nor do I).  In some countries, it is legal to slaughter people for being homosexuals.  Does the legality make such actions legitimate?  I believe in a higher authority when it comes to legitimacy.

There would definitely be more legitimacy if marriage licensing had been changed by a vote of the people, since we are the ones issuing those licenses.  But that’s not what happened.
But worse than that, which I could maybe agree to disagree about, let's also notice the scare quotes surrounding the phrase: "'their' two children." Those scare quotes indicate that the children Mr. Overturf and his partner are raising are not really their children.

Many anti-gays are fixated on the fact that same-sex couples cannot produce children together. Because that is the only distinguishing factor between many same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, they invariably use it as reason to deny same-sex couples equal rights.
Not all voluntary associations are treated equally under the law.  We have rules for business licenses, nonprofits, etc. – even though all of those associations are formed by consenting adults.  In California, domestic partners are treated as spouses.  But no, I do not think the state has the same interest in a social association that excludes one of the sexes and one that includes both.  The state has more of an interest in the only kind of pairing that can produce children.  Finally, I doubt that she thinks that is the only distinguishing factor between same-sex couples and both-sex couples, unless she is a completely neutral bisexual.
Logically, he is denigrating all parents, straight or gay, who raise non-biological children.
No, I’m not.  A man and a woman are the kind of couple that produce children.  That some can’t or don’t for whatever reason and instead adopt is a surrogacy that still provides that child with a mother and a father.  Adoptive parents, in that case, do not create a child to be deprived of a mother or a father.  No same-sex couple has ever produced their own children.  They bring children into their household entirely by intent and choice knowing that the child will not have both a mother and father.  It does not happen by accident or naturally.  Ever.  What I’m not saying here is that if a child is left parentless through crime or accident or disease, that her homosexual uncle and his partner should refuse custody if they are in the best position to be good guardians.  But that should not force us to reorder all of society.
How would Mr. Walrus feel if someone referred to his wife as "some lady he has a marriage license with," his marriage as a "marriage" as though his marriage were not real, and his children as "his" children as if his children weren't really his?
You see, that is the apparent difference between me and people like her.  I do not rest my self-worth on what she thinks of me.  I’ve written before – I do not think there is a right to a state-issued license, including a marriage license.  Yes, the people of the state of California chose to issue one to us.  But if you’re relying on the state to give meaning to your voluntarily personal relationships, then something is wrong with you.  I am thankful I got a real marriage license, and not one referring to Party A and Party B.  I would be saddened if I had to get a marriage license now.
But in the process, I wish Proposition 8 supporters could do so without simultaneously denigrating our families.
The fact of the matter is – two women can’t give a child a father, and two men can’t give a child a mother.  The ideal is a wife and a husband.  I do not think that a child without a mother or a father in her life is any less worthy.  On the contrary, I wish she wasn’t placed in that position in the first place.
For instance, after stating that man-woman couplings contribute to society by producing children, in bold-faced type Mr. Walrus makes this claim:

"...same-sex couplings have not produced anything for society, except for the spread of disease."
She doesn’t refute this.
Frighteningly, it is logical to assume that if one truly believes that same-sex couplings have no societal value, then one might also believe that same-sex couplings should not exist.
Okay, let’s be really precise here.  I do not believe that just because something does not produce something tangible for society, that it should be illegal.  If she thinks that way, than that is really scary.  However, I do believe that sex is for marriage (and that marriage unites the sexes).  As such, I disapprove of any “sexual” behavior outside of that relationship.  Does that mean I think such behavior should be outlawed and prosecuted, and same-sex couples broken up by force of law?  Absolutely not.  I would prefer it if people voluntary reserved sex for marriage.  Yet I’m well aware of the large percentages of individuals of all sexual orientations who do not live that way nor see a reason to.  In  reality, I do not so much as wince or cringe or have any reaction to my male friends who kiss each other in front of me.  It’s their bodies and their lives.  (However, it is a different matter if they turn to me and demand, under the force of a judge, that I give them a marriage license – that is not allowing me my own choices.)
In any event, are relationships really only valuable to society insofar as they are capable of reproduction?
Reproduction is the reason the state is involved in the first place.  Otherwise, the state should stay out of voluntarily personal relationships.
Frankly, I can't believe that this man has put us in the position of actually having to defend our right to exist in society as same-sex couples.
I do no such thing.  Notice that she equates a state-issued license as equivalent to a right to exist - as if without that license, there wouldn't be existence.
Same-sex couples may not be able to produce children together, but we often adopt and raise children when other people are unwilling or unable to do so.
But that has nothing to do with what you do with each other’s genitals.  You could do that in a platonic relationship.  You still have not refuted my point.  Homosexual individuals have contributed much to society, but same-sex couples have not – in the sense that they could have contributed the same things just being friends and roommates.
Now, if couples are only valuable insofar as they are able to procreate, I suppose heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to breed are just as value-less to society as gay couples are.
But that’s not what I said.  I said the reason the state is involved is reproduction.  I do not believe the state should know a couple’s ability or intention to procreate.  But since the state knows sex, the state can make the distinction between something exclusionary (same-sex couples) and something inclusive (both sexes) that is the kind of relationship that can produce children.
I wonder why Mr. Walrus doesn't explicitly offend them the way that he has offended same-sex couples.
They aren’t demanding I go along with a judicially-imposed usurpation of my vote and a reordering of all society that will result in more children born and raised outside of marriage with both a mother and a father.  If childless couples start demanding through the courts that I treat their pets as human children, then you’ll see me speaking out about it.
Maybe that's because, in his eyes, the dignity of heterosexuals matter, unlike the dignity of gay people.
You obviously don’t know me.  I would argue that I care more about the dignity of homosexual people than you do.
After reading the article, I noticed that there is a little button that lets readers "Flag as Offensive" certain articles. I didn't press it.
How tolerant of you.
Even though this mean-spirited article rudely offends many of us, we already know that our feelings don't matter to this crowd.
And what our about feelings, hmmmm?  You don’t seem so concerned about ours.  The law should not be based on feelings.  That is one of my main points.
When things offend the sensibilities of the "family values" crowd, they get to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Like I’ve said before, of course there is discrimination in the Constitution, and should be.  If you believe in limiting marriage licensing to two people, you are for discrimination, too.
But I keep trying and part of that means knowing that living by the Golden Rule means acting out of love, rather than hatred.
I am acting out of love and not hatred.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
It’s a very good verse.  But there is a context.  Love does not mean abandoning our principles.  It does not mean mocking marriage, masculinity, and femininity.

Then there are comments.  “ZRAinSWVA” wrote:
He also states, in his twisted article, that "Society’s interest is in promoting the model in which microcosms of society (via one man and one woman) perpetuate society by producing children". I guess love has nothing to do with it.
How does the state know - and why should it care - whether you are in or out of love?  Marriage has not always been about love.  It has always been about uniting the sexes.
I wonder if he knows that, according to many forecasting models, we're already at the tipping point for population on this little world of ours?
We are if we use socialism and communism, perhaps.  But if we actually use our resources well, we can accommodate many more times our current population.  Even if we were overpopulated, that doesn’t change what the state’s interest in licensing marriage is.

Fannie chimes in with:
Yeah, about that microcosm of society bit- I don't think Mr. Walrus does a very good job of distinguishing humans from animals.
Hmmm.  I wonder if she is a philosophical naturalist or an animal rights activist along the lines of PETA?  As a follower of Christ, I do believe there is a distinction between humans and other animals.
We humans form partnerships with people for purposes other than or more than procreation and child-rearing.
Right.  But the state should not be involved in all of them.
These people always act like the human race will die out if gay people are allowed to marry- as though opposite-sex couples will stop having sex and stop raising children together.
I’m not saying that.  I’m saying that marriage will be devalued and more children will be raised without a mother or a father or out of wedlock.  We’ve seen this correlation in Europe.  If marriage isn’t about children, why should people wait until they marry to have kids, or marry because of a pregnancy, or stay married if they have minor children?

Well, there you have it.  They attack you as a bigot more than they ever address your arguments.  And if you say you’re not a bigot, they use that as proof that you are.  There’s nothing you can say to show them otherwise.  Hey, how loving is it to call me a bigot, anyway?  That's so... judgmental.

Don't get caught up in their charges of hatred and bigotry.  They are trying to obscure the fact that they use judges to circumvent your vote and to force neutered marriage licensing on us.  The real questions here are about the state's involvement in licensing marriages in the first place, and how changes to licensing should be accomplished.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Their Chickens, Their Choice

Posted by Playful Walrus on Friday, October 03, 2008 3:16:36 PM
That's what we should say to any pro-choicer who tells us to vote for California Proposition 2.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bigotry and Marriage Licensing

Posted by Playful Walrus on Friday, October 03, 2008 3:10:18 PM
So, if I'm a bigot, as some have said, for thinking that state-issued marriage licenses should be for bride-groom combos, then doesn't that make Bill Clinton, Biden, and Obama bigots, too?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rush to Judgment

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:35:29 PM
The Los Angeles Times printed an opinion piece by Zev Chafets on Rush Limbaugh’s relationship with the GOP, and of course that caused gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth on the part of the usual suspects, three of whom had their letters printed by the paper.  Here are two of them.

Andrew Wright of Claremont wrote:
I was disappointed to read this complimentary article on Rush Limbaugh.
Heaven forbid the paper run an opinion piece that has anything positive to say about someone who has been enormously successful and pioneering.
Limbaugh, along with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Karl Rove, are some of the main reasons our country is so divided.
Yes, you see, without those people, you and I and all of the other people who impede “progress” would mindlessly follow the Left.  The only reason we aren’t Leftists, you see, is because we read Ann Coulter columns.
They spew forth lies, half-truths and anything that will promote their self-serving cause that they are right -- really right -- and that anyone who disagrees with them is unpatriotic and un-American.
You are unpatriotic and un-American if you hate this country and hate the Constitution and want to silence anyone who isn’t on the Left.
These so-called spokespeople for the right wing and the Republican Party have ruined the party of Abraham Lincoln, and in my case caused me to change my registration from being a lifelong Republican to Democrat this year.
Ah-ha!  A seminar letter-writer.

Linda Browne of Granada Hills wrote:
When the thrice-divorced, recovering drug addict and blowhard of monumental proportions Limbaugh is a moral authority and themost influential voice in the Republican Party, we have seen the beginning of the end of the United States.
You see, only perfect people are allowed to talk on the radio.  All of the non-conservative hosts are perfect.  And being a addict, which we’re told is a disease, is suddenly a character flaw to this person.  Somehow, Limbaugh was supposed to know ahead of time that he’d get addicted to his medication.  I will not defend Limbaugh’s divorces - I have no idea if he should have married any of those women in the first place.  But Limbaugh does not go on the radio to give marital or medical advice.  This letter does nothing to counter Limbaugh’s arguments – it only attacks him personally.
That so many millions of Americans actually take him seriously and think that his ideas are in their best interest is very sad indeed.
This is another example showing that the Left fails to understand that we are already patriotic conservatives who know that limited government is in our best interest.  We like Limbaugh because he doesn’t insult our intelligence, nor mock our convictions.  We enjoy him, in part, because he thinks like us.  He didn’t brainwash us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Videos on Marriage Neutering Hit YouTube

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:30:02 PM
Videos made by people outside the official campaigns for and against Proposition 8 are hitting the online video sites, and Los Angeles Times staff writer Jessica Garrison has a piece about this trend, which of course has been going on with Presidential campaigns on a wider scale.  I have not seen any of the videos discussed in this piece.
Another homemade commercial features a self-described Jewish Mother, Molly Pier, talking about her late son, a gay doctor whose partner she still considers family. She urges voters to oppose Proposition 8.
You can consider him part of your family if you want.  What should that have to do with the rest of us?
The phenomenon poses both positives and negatives for campaigns. The videos may reach voters who aren't seeing traditional commercials, but the campaigns can't control the messages being delivered.
Good points.  People should vote for or against something based on its merits, not based on what someone who isn’t even with that campaign likes or doesn’t like about it.  In this case, if you think marriage requires a bride and a groom, or if you think that state licensing of marriage should reflect that, or if you simply do not like four of seven judges usurping your authority and countering the public vote, you should vote for Proposition 8 – even if you disagree with why someone else is voting for Prop 8.
Kevin Briancesco, a 26-year-old graduate student in theater arts at Arizona State University, posted a manic anti-Proposition 8 video, "Vote No You Idiot," that included a satirical segue into the "mind of a gay man."

"I have a lot of friends and family that are homosexual," Briancesco said. He said he made three videos -- shot in his bedroom using the camera on his computer -- because he wanted to support gay friends and lobby other friends and family to vote against the measure.
I have friends who have divorced or are leaning towards divorce.  Should I support divorce to “support  my divorced friends”?
The sarcasm in his video is evident: "I don't know about you," Briancesco says, "but I'm totally OK with having a tiered system of rights for people based on things they can't change about themselves.”
This is a red herring.  Granting that people can’t change their sexual attractions, marriage through most of history in most places has not been about sexual attraction.  They have been arranged.  It has always been about uniting the sexes.  Marriage is not mandatory.  If you don’t like it, you don’t have to do it.  But you do not have the right to force a change on everyone else.  There is no right to a state-issued license.  That is why we have ID cards for people who don't obtain driver's licenses.
In one ad, made by a comedy group in Boston, a man and a woman face the camera and, stone-faced, declare that they understand why people are upset about gay people getting married.

"It's the sex, isn't it?" the man asks.

The woman agrees, then suggests that the solution might be to let gays marry.

The man looks at the camera: "They'll be lucky if they're having sex once a month."
I’ve written this before, but the Left constantly denigrates marriage, says it ruins sex, says “it is just a piece of paper”, or says it is oppressive.  And yet here they are, spending a lot of time, money, and energy to manipulate the courts and influence elections so that they can extend state marriage licensing to same-sex couples.  You can’t have it both ways.  Does the Left secretly hate homosexual people?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Six Lessons Republican Politicians and Pundits Need to Learn

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:01:14 PM
1. You must stand up and fight for your positions and for yourself, or nobody else will because nobody else will be able to.

2. Those around you, such as your peers and journalists, may be your personal friends, but chances are, they aren’t trying to get you elected or make you look good.

3. You will never outpromise Democrats when it comes to government assistance.  It is better to promise more freedom through less government intervention.  Stick to promising that you’ll do what the Constitution authorizes you to do.  Don’t be afraid to say, “That’s not the jurisdiction of the President/Congress/federal government.”

4. It’s good to condemn, censure, call for the resignation of, or prosecute other Republicans if they do something inappropriate, unethical, significantly immoral, or illegal, but you must publicly insist that Democrats hold other Democrats to the same standard, and help them to do it.

5. The time to push for your ideal candidate and criticize the others is during a primary season or before, not during the general campaign.

6. Once you have been sworn into office, it is up to you to act like a Republican.  The Democrats will act like Democrats.  If you are in the majority, don’t squander your authority or cower in the face of criticism.  The Democrats work to advance their agenda when they are in power.  The best time to advance yours is when you are in power.
Tags: GOP   Campaign  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All The News That’s Fit For Palin

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:45:02 AM
Is it a problem Palin won’t reveal which newspapers she reads?  Well this make come as a surprise to the old folks (many of whom are probably too old to know how to find this blog in the first place), but people in their 40s and younger don’t get their news the way you used to.  They don’t read the Big City Newspaper in the morning and watch the CBS, NBC, or ABC network half-hour nightly newscast and read the major weekly news magazine – all dominated by Left-leaning types.  We have cable news channels, and news websites, and feeds, and Google Alerts and, as Governor Schwarzenegger would say, “all deez things.”  At least those of us who are serious do that.  Others in our generation get their “news” from E!, TMZ, nighttime talk shows - and that's why a lot of them vote for Obama.

Plus, someone in Palin’s position (Governor of Alaska) probably has someone working underneath her or a contractor who daily collects news stories that are relevant to governing Alaska and they provide them to her in a bundle.

If you were to ask me what newspaper I read, I would say “None.”  However, I do check out daily such websites as LATimes.com, OCRegister.com, Yahoo News, Google, and many, many others.  I get news, opinion, and analysis from a wide variety of sources.

I guarantee you that if Palin were to name a newspaper, reports would come out that “she’s not on the subscriber list!”  Well neither am I.  Yet I like to think I keep myself very well informed on what it happening.

There's a reason why the subscription rates to paper newspapers and the viewership of the nightly network news broadcasts has been dropping.  People like me and people like Palin have better things to do with our time.
Tags: Palin   msm  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin’s a Mother, Public Servant, and Prays; Oh, the Horror!

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:30:58 PM
Hey, Evangelicals!  Palin is not being “submissive”, so allow Obama/Biden to get elected because things will be so much better then!  That’s what the Los Angeles Times wants us believe.  Further down, I will discuss the attempt to paint her as a religious whacko.  Here’s the article written by staff writer Teresa Watanabe.  Fortunately, there is some balance in the article.
And many, like Ennis, see no conflict between Palin's candidacy and biblical teachings on women's roles.

Many say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.
Exactly.

Women do not need to stay at home if they are wives and mothers to be Biblically correct.  The important thing is that the parents are raising the kids (not strangers), and how she respects and treats her husband.  If that is all fine, there is nothing wrong with her being in public service.
Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics.
Okay, you go vote for the perfect evangelical.  Good luck.  Meanwhile, you’ll have deal with an Obama/Biden administration.
Palin may have taken center stage at the moment, but the evangelical Christian world has been buffeted for years by growing tensions between those who support egalitarian roles for men and women and those who promote "complementarianism." That's the view that God values men and women equally but granted them distinctly different roles.
It’s entirely possible to believe we have distinctly different roles, especially in marriage, and still have a wife/mother in public service.

A few days ago, the paper had an article by staff writer Stephen Braun talking about Palin’s “fundamentalists beliefs” in relation to her public policy.

First, they ascribe a belief in young-earth creationism to her.  I’m not aware of how that would matter one way or another in breaking tie votes in the Senate.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
So he asked her.  It wasn’t like she ran up to him and said “And I’m going to see to it that it is mandatory in the law that everyone agrees with me!”  But the way – he’s a liberal blogger.
She has harnessed the political muscle of social conservatives and antiabortion groups, yet she did not push hard for a special legislative session on abortion, and she did not challenge a court ruling that allowed health insurance for same-sex partners of state workers.
So clearly she does not “cram her faith down the throats” of anyone else.
Palin has attended a number of prayer sessions with pastors and has quietly sought their guidance, but she is often mum on matters of faith in high-profile public forums.
Aren’t we told that Obama has done the same things?  Yet I don’t hear this fear that Obama will mix his faith with his public policy.

We get it.  We know there are people out there afraid of people who actually believe in God and that God is not unconcerned with our behavior.  Only socialist women who are fine with slaughtering babies are acceptable to them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin Envy

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:07:48 PM
There are always pundits who lean Right or generally support the GOP who heavily and publicly criticize the non-incumbent GOP VP nominee, particularly if that nominee isn’t part of the D.C. establishment.  I’m not sure why, but perhaps it has something to do with their favorite choice not getting picked, especially if they wanted that person to win the Presidential nomination to begin with.

So now we're enduring a little Palin Envy.

Let’s look at the facts:
  • McCain is not going to drop Palin
  • Our choice in this election is McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden.
  • OB will in no way be better for the conservative or libertarian causes than MP.
  • Publicly criticizing Palin will only help OB.
  • Sitting on your hands instead of voting will only help OB.
So how about we focus on the positives of McCain/Palin and the negatives of Obama/Biden?  Please?

The perfect ticket simply does not exist.  No candidate is perfect.  No candidate is going to always do exactly what you would.

We will be better off with McCain signing or vetoing legislation, nominating judges, enforcing the law, issuing Executive Orders, and as Commander-in-Chief and with Palin breaking tie votes in the Senate than we would with Obama/Biden.

So let’s get McCain/Palin elected, let’s give them as many good Governors, Senators, and Representatives as we can, and then we can pressure them to make the right decisions.  We are much more likely to have their attention than OB’s.  While an Obama/Biden administration may spur conservatives to try harder next time, we’re still likely to get saddled with new socialist bureaucracies that will never ever go away, even if we get another Ronald Reagan.  Stellar conservative Presidents last eight years at most.  The socialist programs started by liberal Presidents never go away, and the harmful decisions of activist Supreme Courts endure.

We're better off with McCain/Palin than we would be with Obama/Biden.  Bottom line.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…899091929394959697…148149Next »