Fannie's Room
"Now, they can actually take action to better their unions instead of being scared about all the bad things that may or may not happen to families as a result of gay marriage"
genius concept. i loved this article!
truly proactive idea. we need to get the word out!
AWESOME. You're a genius, Fannie.
I am now cackling like a madwoman!
Thank you :D
Cool.
Actually that's pretty deep.
"If it's true that marriage exists solely for procreation and child-rearin', I'm confident that marriage defenders will agree with the following proposal: [list of coercive proposals brazenly designed to make marriage unpalatable for the parties]"
Some of your proposals are simply unconstitutional. Others, as described, are unlikely to make anything better for potential children.
But glad you're having fun with the topic. Let me know if you ever wish to address it seriously.
1st, that other rachel wasn't ME, rachel. as in THE rachel (to you. not the world. i'm not actually at all important)
2nd, i think christian just asked you to meet him in the school yard after school.
p.s. this is the BEST thing you've ever written and THAT'S saying something! FANNIE FOR PREZ!
"christian just asked you to meet him in the school yard after school"
I'm sorry if my open invitation to Fannie for a serious conversation made you feel threatened, Rachel. :P
Christian,
Regarding your "SSM compromise*" proposal I have this to say:
"It is simply unconstitutional" and "unlikely to make anything better for potential children."
I'm glad you are able, at least, to point these features out in other proposals to save The Family.
You clearly miss the point of sarcasm and parody. It's to expose the weaknesses of the position that anti marriage equality advocates espouse, and really, to ridicule such position in a polemic way. As for my proposal being "unconstitutional"- that is open to debate. But that would be missing the point. Oy. Read between the lines and look at what I am ridiculing about anti-SSM arguments.
You all take your marriage defense position rather seriously, which is pathetic and sad. You have severely misplaced priorities and are alarmist about the wrong threats to marriage. THAT is the point of my article. LISTEN UP: IT'S NOT TEH GAYS WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE, IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY MARRIED WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S FATHERS WHO ABANDON THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S SPOUSES WHO ARE ABUSIVE WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S PARENTS WHO ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S ADULTERERS WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE.
DO YOU GET IT YET??
Gay people are approximately, what 10% of the population (to use a generous estimate) and to say that this relatively small minority has the power to ruin an institution that 90% of the population has already fucked up is to place the blame on a blameless group of people. So here's another point of my article: heterosexual married couples need to take responsibility for the decline of marriage- an institution that as been the exclusive domain of heterosexuals forever, as you say.
Until you and Opine Editorials take THOSE threats to marriage more seriously than you currently do, I will not take your position on "SSM as very dangerous marriage threat" seriously.
As for what I take seriously. I do address "SSM" seriously. Satire and humor can be a means to seriously address an issue. And, often, it is more effective than dry articles reciting fact or opinion. I am sort of through addressing it "seriously" with bloggers Opine Editorials, however. Move along now.
*for those not familiar with Christian's position, it is basically this:
give gay couples the same rights and benefts of marriage, yet don't call it "marriage," call it "civil union." Doing so will save the children or families, or something.
And seriously, Christian, irrelevantly taking jabs at me on other people's blogs scores you no points. None. Grow up. I'm not going to resort to responding to such posts out of respect for not wanting to clutter other people's blogs.
That I even let you post here is a privilege, not a right.
You and I have already agreed to disagree about this issue so I don't know what your point is in posting here, other than to pretend or imply that, perhaps, I somehow don't know how to take this issue seriously because of my use of humor. I'm well-versed in that game. So go ahead, point out the constitutional flaws in my proposal parody if it makes you feel smart, serious, and lawyerly. Perhaps ask your former Con Law professor to review it for you, for bonus points.
I, however, grant you no points for missing the purpose of sarcasm and parody.
In conclusion, I suppose this was all a long-winded way of me saying: "let me know if you (and Opine Editorials) ever intend to take marriage defense seriously instead of ignoring the harm that heterosexuals do to marriage and families and easily creating a straw man threat to marriage and families out of an already hated minority group."
Rachel,
So who's the Rachel who is cackling like a madwoman?
hmmm...
I suppose there are multiple Rachels in the world....
No, I don't think the first Rachel (or the second one) is a fuckwad at all. I think she was cackling with delight at your article, like a madwoman. But I don't claim to speak for anyone else, that's just how i interpreted it. 
Lezzy for prezzy!
"Lezzy for prezzy!"
Ohhhh no. All societal and familial hell would surely break loose in the event of a lesbian president!
The thing about Opine that I hate the most is their mob mentality and the way they "kick" gay people when they are already down to justify nearly anything they claim. (like the article they posted about the social worker who was too scared to turn in the gay couple who abused their kids for fear of being labeled homophobic. they construed it into a "see this is yet another reason gay people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" when that wasn't the intent of the original story at all).
isn't a lezzy already running for prezzy?
just kiddin.
"The thing about Opine that I hate the most is their mob mentality"
!!
As far as I've seen, Opine folks aren't the ones yelling everything in synch and then, when we run out of arguments, saying "I can't agree with you because you're not on my team. Opine folks aren't the ones who talk about opponents in one big group whenever one of them shows up. That's some serious groupthink, Jane.
"I somehow don't know how to take this issue seriously because of my use of humor."
Is that really what you got from what I said?
On the contrary, I think you do take the issue seriously. You take it so seriously that you laugh at some frankly rotten jokes, jokes that ammount to little more than "we smart, them dumb and evil, yuk yuk."
I also know that you're intelligent and educated and possessed with a conscience, and that you're fully capable of discussing the issue seriously, which is a very different thing than taking it seriously. I simply said, let me know when you're ready to discuss it seriously. Because this sort of shit is not serious discussion:
"But frankly, I am more interested in hearing what black people, gay people, and gay black people think about the comparison and less interested in what straight white anti-equality activists think about it."
(this mere paragraphs after you said "But again, when did this become a Who's The Most Oppressed contest?")
or this:
"They should be convinced, however, that separate is equal."
(you haven't even explained why it is "separate.")
"During a marriage, divorce will not be permitted. Couples with children who merely "fall out of love" must remain married until all children reach adulthood? In other words, there's no such thing as no-fault divorce."
I refuse to believe that you're unaware of the difference between ending no-fault divorce, and prohibiting divorce completely.
"Since marriage serves the important state interest of rearing children with both a mother and a father, the marriage will be valid up until the final and youngest child turns 18. At this point, all important childrearing duties having been accomplished, the marriage will automatically convert back to a civil union."
Who says that the cultural benefit stops at age 18? They may cease to be minors, but they don't cease to be the children of the marriage. The pain of seeing one's parents marriage end may diminish, but the benefit of the marriage remains there.
Your proposals are at best irrelevant, and often completely opposed to what marriage defense is supposed to secure, i.e. a definition of marriage that maximizes the proportion of kids raised by a father and a mother. The definition of marriage accomplishes these goals without coercion. You're offering something that's less effective than the status quo, and requires more coercion. In short, it's a joke, and a joke that only folks that could only amuse those who have completely given up on the idea of dialog.
Christian,
That you have "rebutted" specific points in my proposal parody shows (a) that you have utterly ignored my last comment to you and/or (b) have utterly missed the point of parody. See, I start with the assumption that people who read my blog are intelligent. That they will grasp parody (especially when it's stated at the beginning of the article). I suppose, however, I was just asking for someone to come here and characterize the article as a "rotten yuk yuk yuk" joke to downplay the entire point of it. (That may or may not have been your purpose, but your comments did exactly that)
May I suggest that you read Jonathan Swift's great parody "A Modest Proposal" (if you haven't already) where he suggests cooking and eating children to ease the economic burden of the Irish. Perhaps, back in Swift's day, you would have been one of Swift's critics who seriously addressed his "proposal" and condemned his "cannibalism."
My article's subject is how anti-marriage equality activists aren't expecting heterosexuals to change THEIR behaviors- they aren't advocating for marriage laws that would affect THEM- they are expecting a small minority to change, and are all about passing laws and amendments that would only affect this small minority while placing no onus on heterosexuals to improve marriage.
I think most readers got that. I didn't expect anti-equality activists to.
So, if your mission truly is "to maximize the proportion of kids raised by both a mother and a father" then allow me to repeat:
"You have severely misplaced priorities and are alarmist about the wrong threats to marriage. THAT is the point of my article. LISTEN UP: IT'S NOT TEH GAYS WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE, IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY MARRIED WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S FATHERS WHO ABANDON THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S SPOUSES WHO ARE ABUSIVE WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S PARENTS WHO ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE. IT'S ADULTERERS WHO ARE RUINING MARRIAGE.
DO YOU GET IT YET??
Gay people are approximately, what 10% of the population (to use a generous estimate) and to say that this relatively small minority has the power to ruin an institution that 90% of the population has already fucked up is to place the blame on a blameless group of people. So here's another point of my article: heterosexual married couples need to take responsibility for the decline of marriage- an institution that as been the exclusive domain of heterosexuals forever, as you say.
Until you and Opine Editorials take THOSE threats to marriage more seriously than you currently do, I will not take your position on "SSM as very dangerous marriage threat" seriously."
And further, shouldn't your goal of "maximizing the proportion of children raised by both a mother and a father" have some qualifications- you know, like maybe it should "maximizing the proportion of children raised by non-abusive mother and fathers who are able to provide for their children"? Any drunken penis and vagina can procreate- yet just because the parents are male/female doesn't automatically = "good parents" out in the real world.
Peruse Renee's latest comment on Opine and tell me how her list of harms that befall children because they are raised by single mothers is caused by gay relationships:
http://opine-
editorials.blogspot...269148127240227
Note: she lists poverty, abuse, crime, behavioral/emotional problems, physical health, and education. These are issues that have everything to do with single parenthood. NOT GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED. Yet, what, 80-90% of Opine posts are in some way, shape, or form related to gay people and with the implication being that gay marriage will exacerbate these social ills. Until I see Opine bloggers address these social ills and their true causes, I cannot and will not take you seriously.
I realize that this was a lot to read and digest so spare us all from selectively cutting and pasting my comment. (As you irrelevantly did with my Black Civil Rights Analogy blog- and no, for the record, I don't care what white heterosexual anti-marriage activists think about the analogy as they mostly deny that there is any analogy in a weak attempt to discredit and minimize the gay rights movement. Thanks for taking a stroll through my archives though!)
"As far as I've seen, Opine folks aren't the ones yelling everything in synch and then, when we run out of arguments, saying "I can't agree with you because you're not on my team. Opine folks aren't the ones who talk about opponents in one big group whenever one of them shows up. That's some serious groupthink, Jane."
Yes, let's talk about this term "groupthink" that you so like to throw around. Let's talk about how Opine Idiotorials is SO concerned with Teh Big Gay Threat To Marriage that they have forgotten about every other threat to marriage because to look at other threats would be to shine the light on what heterosexuals are doing wrong. So yeah, let's continue to blame gay people (and feminists, can't forget them!!) for the fucked-up state of marriage.
Your attempt to categorize my blog as some sort of echo chamber is meant to try to silence me, my friends, and my allies. And frankly, you're pushing it here.
When did anyone ever say "I can't agree with you because you're not on my team"? That's oversimplifying things a bit. I can't speak for everyone, but I disagree with your position. And that is what makes you on a "different team" than me, if you want to frame it like that.
I also (dis)like how you characterize us as having "run out of arguments" and THAT'S WHY we don't want to argue with the Opine Idiots. Nice work!
I think when we've all run out of arguments, or rather, tire of beating a dead horse, we have to agree to disagree. that is VERY DIFFERENT from not agreeing with you because you're not on my team.
that's just how you and culturologist and others like to categorize us. (this goes hand-in-hand with calling us selfish, self-centered, and self-victimizing)
i've actually agreed with several of you on different points. and i'm sure we agree on many different non-SSM issues. but i have realized that some people, myself included, are too stubborn to change their stances on THIS issue.
Further, i feel like to indulge Christian in his arguments "against" this parody would lessen its impact. So i'm gonna refrain.
Christian,
How can you argue with this,
"My article's subject is how anti-marriage equality activists aren't expecting heterosexuals to change THEIR behaviors- they aren't advocating for marriage laws that would affect THEM- they are expecting a small minority to change, and are all about passing laws and amendments that would only affect this small minority while placing no onus on heterosexuals to improve marriage."?
Without an exhaustive discussion about the issues that threaten marriage mentioned by fannie, how can anyone see Opine's (and all other arguments in the same vein) as anything but homophobic propaganda? And it's time to stop accusing people who have become exhausted with their arguments falling on deaf and/or ignorant ears as having nothing to say. we have plenty to say, just not to you ("you", meaning your Opine camp). All attempts at reason, fact, compassion, compromise, etc have been met with an attack on the character of the gay community. FACT: I know me better than you know me. FACT: I love children and am very good with them. that includes caring about their physical and emotional well-being. FACT: I'm a member of the gay community: FACT: It is not illegal for gay couples to have children. FACT: I will have children. FACT: As of now, when the very common question (due to the high divorce rate) of "are your parents married?" is presented to my child they will have to answer with, "actually, no. they are civilly union-ed." I would argue that might make a child feel different than another child whose parents are together. Perhaps, less. FACT: Feelings of being less than others, of inadequacy, are damaging to a child. FACT: Supporting laws that will lead to many children feeling less than/inadequate is NOT looking out for child welfare. Now, a typical Opine rebuttal will include a whole lotta OPINION about the gay community. fire away. Fannie is right on target with a parody challenging “marriage defenders” to re-examine their argument. I REFUSE to believe that you don’t get it.
It is quite powerful though... the point that rachel calls attention to and that Fannie so eloquntly calls out:
"My article's subject is how anti-marriage equality activists aren't expecting heterosexuals to change THEIR behaviors- they aren't advocating for marriage laws that would affect THEM- they are expecting a small minority to change, and are all about passing laws and amendments that would only affect this small minority while placing no onus on heterosexuals to improve marriage."
Funny how its the group of people who actually cannot legally marry who bare the brunt of blame from "family values" camp for the crumbling state of the family (ie divorce rates, single-parent househoulds, etc.) Is the idea that maybe those who are married should do a better job in their own families all that novel?
And how twisted is it that having or advocating for "family values" somehow equates to degrading families that are different from status quo? Who hijacked that term and how can we get it back?
"And how twisted is it that having or advocating for "family values" somehow equates to degrading families that are different from status quo? Who hijacked that term and how can we get it back?"
That is a great point, and exactly what we must figure out.
my theory is that homophobes hijacked the term and are using "family values" in their thinly-veiled attempt to not "let the gays take over the world." they are scared of mass acceptance and tolerance of gay people, whether they will ever admit it or not. i don't care what any anti-SSM person says. people who oppose it are ignorant of the facts and statistics on homosexuality, gay relationships, and gay parenting. otherwise, they wouldn't feel so threatened by it.
While we are lobbying for new laws to make sure all babies have a mommy and a daddy, we need to make domestic violence legal. If one parent is convicted of domestic violence, he or she will be removed from the home and placed in a jail cell. Obviously, this is very bad for the children of the marriage because they will no longer have both a mommy and a daddy raising them.
Also, as a heterosexual, married male, I am completely unable to see how allowing gay people to be married is supposed to weaken my marriage, or affect it in anyway at all. The logic that allowing more loving couples to marry will somehow lead to the decay of marriage is lost on me.
Oh, good addition, Episcopus!
I know this is going back a bit, but just so you know -- I'm not a fuckwad!
Come and see my blog, I rant in a similar vein to you sometimes 
and yes, I was cackling like a madwoman because I fully appreciated the parody!
xxxx
Rachel,
ha ha, thanks for the clarification.... i will check out your blog...
Rachel
"My article's subject is how anti-marriage equality activists aren't expecting heterosexuals to change THEIR behaviors- they aren't advocating for marriage laws that would affect THEM- they are expecting a small minority to change, and are all about passing laws and amendments that would only affect this small minority while placing no onus on heterosexuals to improve marriage."?
The fact of the matter is that marriage activists have been advocating both legislation and political action for years concerning family breakdown. We have consistetly held that intact natural families are the gold standard. We are agianst fornication, pornography, divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, fatherlessness, neglect and abuse.
Every time we speak out we get branded msyoginistic, patriarchal, archaic, throwback puritians who should get out of peoples bedrooms & personal lives!!!
What rock have you been living under for 40 years????
I have to go by Rachel M. now because it appears that another rachel has shown up. i don't want her blamed for my big mouth (fingers...typing, and all).
Fitz,
Show me. show me an opine blog that talks about saving marriage, but doesn't talk about ssm. In fact, show me a few, b/c even if you had A posting, it would certainly be outweighed by opine's gay-bashing posts. Further, i would suspect it would be a calculated post so that it can be said you don't ALWAYS mention the gays when defending marriage.
oh, and "...msyoginistic, patriarchal, archaic, throwback puritians who should get out of peoples bedrooms & personal lives!!!" If the shoe fits...
"Every time we speak out we get branded msyoginistic, patriarchal, archaic, throwback puritians who should get out of peoples bedrooms & personal lives!!!"
I can't imagine why anyone would think THAT!
"The fact of the matter is that marriage activists have been advocating both legislation and political action for years concerning family breakdown. We have consistetly held that intact natural families are the gold standard. We are agianst fornication, pornography, divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, fatherlessness, neglect and abuse."
When you say "we" do you mean Opine bloggers or conservative "marriage activists" in general? If it's the former, I haven't, actually, been living under a rock. Rather, the conservative movement has made "no SSM" their primary legislative/policy goal. If you don't remember "the gay issue" was a major issue in the last presidential election- an issue that some say cost the Democrats the election.
Conservatives branded gay people as the great enemy/threat to marriage- and that was easier for Middle America "values voters" to digest than to ask them to look at their own problems and issues and how these related to the breakdown of the family. Values voters want to believe that the alleged breakdown of marriage/family/civilization is someone else's fault. Some "other's" fault. Many states passed constitutional amendments defining marriage to prohibit gays from receiving marital benefits. How many amendments were voted on that would have actually affected straight people?? None. The gay marriage amendments were symbolic, irrelevant measures that will do nothing to improve the state of marriage for straight people and will only harm families in the end (you know, the gay ones. They ARE families too, contrary to popular belief).
Opine is a great example of the so-called marriage defenders' obsession with gay families... Because, like I said before and as Rachel M points out, the overwhelming majority of Opine's blogs relate in some way, shape, or form to SSM and/or gay people. (Or how feminism is somehow ruining everything!). It is hard to take your mission of defending marriage seriously when you seem to care more about what gay people are doing wrong than what married (or unmarried) heterosexuals are doing wrong. As heterosexuals are the ones who are married in the US, shouldn't you be a bit more focused on what THEY are doing wrong in marriage?
That you are consistently labeled misogynistic, patriarchal, archaic, etc. is a WHOLE other can of worms that perhaps I will address in another blog. If anyone else wants to, feel free....
Fannie & Co.
#1. You don
’t want to know what I do on a daily basis to help rebuild the family.
#2. We were minding our own business, trying to get our message heard about family breakdown - when YOUR advocates tried redefining marriage on the whole country. You started this.
#3. We can’t defend what we can’t define.
Fitz,
#1- Now that you mention it, I am sorta curious...
#2- Minding your own business, eh? As long as they married who you said to marry, had sex with who you said they could have sex with, had sex when you said they could have sex, had sex how you said they could have sex, got divorced when you say they can get divorced, looked at the magazines you said they could look at, hard babies you made them have..... but yeah, I suppose all that is your business... or society's business... or something...
#3- I agree. But I, and many others, disagree with your definitions.
"You started this."
And we intend to finish it.
I am disappointed at how slowly the "redefinition of marriage" is going in the United States, but it is inevitable.
We are going to win; just look at the attitudes of the younger generation. The kids are alright.
We are going to win.
Yeah, John's right, we are going to win. Eventually.
Fitz,
Having read your posts elsewhere, I am inclined to comment because I found the discussion interesting.
Your "beehive" over at Opine and other morally conservative groups--regardless of whether you classify yourselves as conservative--are the ones who expect everyone else to adhere to your niched beehive for "the greater good" of a beehive that most people don't really belong to.
Our values (individual freedoms in a diverse society) vs. your values (a rigid, immutable beehive that works together for the greater good of the beehive) are completely different. And that is where the bulk of all of our disagreements on the SSM issue arise.
Yet, we let you exist in your little beehive, with no expectations for you to change to our standards. It is unfair and unrealistic of you and others to expect everyone to adhere to your strict definitions of "family."
The rest of us in the contractual society will keep adapting as civilization and needs of individuals adapt.
John
"I am disappointed at how slowly the "redefinition of marriage" is going in the United States, but it is inevitable."
John - absent the second coming, I don’t know anything that is "inevitable".
Jane Know.
I'm glad you read (or at least glimpsed that post) Mr. Haights thesis is a useful one. It really does get the conversation down to a level of assessable understanding.
I hope you have read (and read again) the International Human Rights language I quote verbatim.
I'm sure you can see the obvious & glaring inconsistency that modern "contractual society" adherents arrived at under this limited worldview.
When I say that they are cannibalistic - I think I make my point well.
Please feel free to comment over at Opine..
I know we can be rough but I don’t want to seem hostile
"I don't want to seem hostile"
Who feels like they've been sniffing glue?
- Fitz
"absent the second coming, I don't know anything else that is inevitable"
Death. Death is inevitable.
Also, common sense winning the battle against idiocy. That's inevitable. Happens every time the two clash.
"absent the second coming, I don't know anything else that is inevitable"
Ah, the second coming. So that's what this is REALLY about.
Mmm-hmmmm.
ps- Aren't taxes also inevitable?
And that the Cubs WILL blow it. Inevitable.
true. and then blame it on a curse or a fan or a goat or something....
Goat? I sort of want a pet goat.
I'd also sort of like to someday marry my pet goat.
I would love to form some kind of polygamist goat-loving community. That would be ideal, actually.
I have my heart set on this one goat, but she's already married to her sister goat. So now I'm thinking I might marry this prostitute goat I saw hanging around the courthouse a few days back. She made me pay her in ummm...goat food.
careful, someone's bound to come here, cut and paste your words and write an article about how you engage in bestiality.
but seriously, all this talk of marrying animals gives new meaning to the phrase "neutered marriage."
Rachel M. - thanks, because I've been trying to avoid giving anything like my full name, and now I don't need to - yay!
Fitz - The second coming is only innevitable if you are Christian, you fool. And many, many people are not, so I don't think that you can really argue that one. On the other hand, I second Episcopus -- "Death. Death is innevitable".
Also.... "we were minding our own business, TRYING TO GET OUR MESSAGE HEARD" [emphasis mine].
Doesn't that sound a little odd to you? I don't believe you can "mind your own business" and simultaneously say "you must believe this". Doesn't work.
Anyway. Enough said, I feel.
Grace - I did an entire presentation once on why my school's pet rabbit should really be a goat - I'm with you on this one!
The original post at the top is a self-parody of the SSM campaign.
The opening line proves that point:
"The sole purpose of marriage is for procreation and child-rearing."
Heh.
That line unblinkingly captures the SSM campaign's shadow-boxing. The rest of the post is more misrepresentation and self-parody.
Good job.
*trumpets blaring*
HERE COMES THE IDIOT BRIGADE!!!
Chairm,
I truly, truly take it as the highest compliment when your rebuttal consists of turning my own article against me.
Woop woop, I'm so smart I just rebutted myself!
Rachel,
good point, pointing out this contradictory statement:
"we were minding our own business, TRYING TO GET OUR MESSAGE HEARD" [emphasis mine].
I know, they were TOTALLY minding their own business, trying to get everyone to follow their moral code and then other people just wanted to follow their own moral code thereby imposing their moral code on everyone else.
Or something.
Fannie is this now to be considered an article to which you'd accept a rebuttal?
I thought it was just a stab at sarcasm. Just har-har-har stuff.
Okay, so your intend your opening line to be taken at face value.
And, as such, it remains a misrepresentation.
I enjoyed how you trumpeted yourself as the bearer of the flag for your Idiot Brigade.
Your self-depricating humor is a marvel.
Chairm,
See how I'm not threatened by you. See how I don't feel the need to delete your irrelevant comments the way those from your blog delete what I write.
Thanks for the complimentary "I'm rubber and you're glue" non-argument.
Peace.
Fanny, the problem with your proposal is that it sets up childless sham marriages called "civil unions" that act like marriages except in name.
In addition, there's plenty in Leviticus to help you:
If a man rapes a woman, and she's in the city and no one hears her cry, they shall both be put to death. If someone hears her cry, or if it happened outside the city, they have to get marries.
If a man dies leaving his widow childless, his brother must marry her and make her pregnant.
Prostitutes are sinful women, but men who patronize them are not sinners, and not adulterers. Adultery is only when a man has sex with a woman who is married to another man.
Oh! Now I get it! I've been so ignorant all this time!
Chairm, perhaps it's because I speak English, and not "American English", but I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
Please, either say it properly, or don't say anything.
Cindi and Rachel M., if I, as a woman, patronise a prostitute, am I sinful because I'm also a woman, or not sinful because I'm not the one giving it up for money? Just askin'!
Rachel:
It doesn't really count. There's no Levitical prohibition of female-female relations, and the one scripture in Romans is vague "gave up natural use for that which is unnatural".
Remember that women were considered empty vessels for incubating the male's seed. Anything between two women could not really be considered sex, because there was no seed involved.
In short - it would be a waste of money, because you'd be paying for nothing.
That has happened to me in a dyke bar on occasion.
Thanks for the analysis. Since I have not been having "sex" all these years , I guess technically I'm not living in sin after all.
Amen sister.
So, really, I'm doing a good deed by being a lesbian visiting a prostitute, because I'm taking her away from sin!
hallelujah!!!!
"That has happened to me in a dyke bar on occasion" hawhawhaw! (me too)
fannie, can i say "turkey tits" on your blog and have it not be deleted? as in "Chairm is a dicknoseturkeytitsinternetfuckwad?" just checkin. because that makes about as much sense as his made-up Homobigot language that is DEFINITELY not American English or English English.
By virtue of my English-English status I would like to point out that the Opine Editorials are quoting The DAILY MAIL as fact and, as such, there is officially no point in reasoning with these people.
The Daily Mail is the paper of your common or garden bigot. It appeals to those people with a reading age of over 10 (anybody lower than that reads the Sun or the Daily Star) but lower than that of a grown adult (a fully adult bigot reads the Telegraph).
I'm no longer wondering why Chairm makes no sense. The newspaper he has quoted from don't make any sense either.
(by the way, I don't normally identify as English; I normally say I'm a Londoner. There is a difference, dammit!)
Rachel,
Good to know a Londoner's perspective. Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have ever engaged him.
You 'n me both, Jane.
How 'bout "boner", fannie? is "boner" ok on your blog? as in, "fitz is a total boner"...or...whatever?
Fannie, your comment section follows the example set by your blogposts and so profanity is par for the course here. It is not so at Opine.
That difference aside, comments that include profanity are deleted but with the invitation to re-comment minus the profanity.
Since you seem very capable of commenting on substance at Opine without the profanity, and have done so of late, there is no cause for you to misrepresent Opine's comment policy here at your own blog.
As for your sarcasm and parody, it was you who trumpeted your own comment by (seemingly) to announce your own arrival as that of the Idiot Brigade.
Lighten up if you are not merely hiding behind so-called sarcasm and parody.
Likewise with the bizarre remark about feeling threatened. It was you and Jane Know who, at Opine's comment section, declared that you felt bullied by basic questions on the substantive disagreement.
If you did not genuinely feel bullied, then, it seems odd for you to have declared that you had felt so before, and now, here, delcare that correct do not feel threatened.
The upshot: I doubt you felt bullied at all and so, as you now pose here, you did not feel threatened at the time you declared the contrary. The claim of victimhood was phoney then and it is now.
"Please, either say it properly, or don't say anything."
Rachel, please read with care. If you something is unclear, just ask for a clarification.
Typos might occur too-frequently with my comments since I have some trouble typing accurately due to a disability.
Rachel said, "The newspaper [The Daily Mail] he [Chairm] has quoted from don't make any sense either."
What quote and what comment are you attributing to me? Thanks.
Fannie, for clarity, what is the actual topic of this thread and of your original post?
I have never read anything at Opine than made any sense.
Chairm.
For clarity, this is the comment that I do not understand.
---------
"The original post at the top is a self-parody of the SSM campaign.
The opening line proves that point:
"The sole purpose of marriage is for procreation and child-rearing."
Heh.
That line unblinkingly captures the SSM campaign's shadow-boxing. The rest of the post is more misrepresentation and self-parody."
-------
I would like you to explain this, as it does not make any sense to me. I have reread it several times, but it seems equally nonsensical every time. But it seems to be mercifully free from typos, unless you can make a typo of a whole sentence...
The post that I am attributing to you (since it has your name on it!) is entitled Polygamy in the UK.
I am sure you were quoting accurately from your source. I merely wished to point out that only idiots in the UK actually READ this source, and I'm sure you don't want to be branded stupid now, do you?
Chairm,
"Fannie, your comment section follows the example set by your blogposts and so profanity is par for the course here. It is not so at Opine. "
(a) Back up the gravy train, "Chairm"- par for the course? Really?
(b) Although your hateful blog supposedly doesn't allow profanity, you do allow your commenters and bloggers to call gay people absurd, perverted, sick, self-centered, selfish, narcissistic, sexist, discriminatory, and unnatural... among other things. Comparisons to pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy are also highly encouraged.
That, to many, is profane. But perhaps your little fringe group doesn't consider it as such.
You play this holier-than-thou "logical" game. But like most religious zealouts, you are hypocrites.
Christ.
"Since you seem very capable of commenting on substance at Opine without the profanity, AND HAVE DONE SO AS OF LATE, there is no cause for you to misrepresent Opine's comment policy here at your own blog." [my emphasis]
Again, why the continual portrayal of me as someone who comes to your hateful site writing strings of profanity. I have NEVER written a swear word on Opine that I remember. Once, I wrote "Christ" and power-trippy Op-Ed deleted the entire comment I wrote with a comment saying "Please refrain from writing profanity" making it appear as though I said something realy horrible. He continues to delete my very relevant comments accusing him of dishonesty and misrepresenting other people's comments. His MO is to cut, paste, and then distort what his opponent says. Pointing out such dishonest tactics are highly, highly, relevant to a debate. This is especially true considering the point of the post I was commenting on accused SSMers of dishonest tactics in our arguments. None of these comments contained profanity.
Deleting such comments, to me, is dishonest. And it makes a mockery of your comment policy, and of your entire site.
And so, while yes, I do allow my friends to call you "boners" that is a relevant personal attack only attacking you. That is a far cry from allowing and condoning hateful stereotypes of gay people on your blog.
"As for your sarcasm and parody, it was you who trumpeted your own comment by (seemingly) to announce your own arrival as that of the Idiot Brigade."
But your joke, like the others you attempt, do not work. For, how could I trumpet my arrival if I'm already here? This is MY blog remember? And, I had already been commenting on this thread. It was a trumpeting of your arrival and the usual Opine Idiot Brigade that usually follows the arrival of one of you. And, I don't think anyone really thinks it's funny or particularly witty when your "humor" consists of turning my own humor against me. It's sad, actually.
"Lighten up if you are not merely hiding behind so-called sarcasm and parody."
I love that some of the most humorless people on the internet are telling ME to lighten up. Bravo-jolly good joke, Chairm! Now, that is funny.
"The upshot: I doubt you felt bullied at all and so, as you now pose here, you did not feel threatened at the time you declared the contrary. The claim of victimhood was phoney then and it is now."
Oh, so now you're telling ME how I feel. You know what this gets you: ladies ANNNNND gentlemen.... let me introduce CHAIRM (chairm chairm chairm), able to read the mind and just know how someone is feeling on the inside!!!! Ladies and gentlemen, the wonderful, magnificent, CHAIRM!!!!
"Fannie, for clarity, what is the actual topic of this thread and of your original post?"
Please peruse my comments to Christian for the answer to this. On my blog, I write and reply on my own terms and I'm not going to keep repeating myself for anti-SSMers who are too lazy to read the entire thread yet come on here and demand repetitive answers.
Frankly, as your entire comment shows, you are irrelevant to anything I have posted on my site. You guys try to come on to other people's blogs, hijack the post, and demand answers to your "SSM" questions that are off-topic of what a person even blogged about.
In a nutshell, none of you are welcome here. And, you're lucky I'm showing you more hospitality than some of your fellow bloggers ever show my allies and me.
But Fannie,
Chairm, et al. are the Very Important (authoritarian) Business of telling everyone how to be a proper family (in their eyes).
I pity them, really. They see themselves as saviours in a "very immoral world," when they are actually causing more harm than good.
And you're right, authoritarians are usually the most hypocritical of them all.
They must live sad, boring lives.
And as far as whether or not we " really feel victimized," on your blog, you tell me Mr. Know-It-All (Chairm).
Has anyone ever called you "faggot" on the playground? Or on the street? At work? Or told you you were living in sin due to your relationship? Have you had to constantly hide your relationships from your co-workers, bosses, friends, and family? Have you had to constantly hide every single sign of affection towards your significant other (if you have one) to make people "feel more comfortable?" Have you been forced on meaningless dates with people whom you are not at all attracted to just to hide your sexuality? Have you ever felt like someone may hurt or kill you because of your sexual orientation? Have you ever been threatened with physical violence due to your sexual orientation?
No?
Then don't tell gay people they don't feel victimized on a substantially hostile, homophobic blog as you sit in your male heterosexually privileged world and spout your hate to the rest of the world from your armchair.
That is internet fuckwaddery.
Rachel, I didn't get that Chairm comment either.
But I guess we lesbos just aren't smart enough for his male "logic."
Chairm,
When is the last time you have read an article with a headline that read, "STRAIGHT-BASHING IN WICKER PARK*"? You really should shut the f*** up when inclined to comment on fear and bullying. My good nature and humor has kept me from becoming frequently involved in discussion with Opine idiots, but I am losing my patience with you. The fight for ssm goes far beyond the thing itself. Social Justice and Human Dignity are at the core of it all. You should stop pretending that you know what it's like to be fearful that some drunk-a@@, mother-fu**** wants to "fuck you straight." Every step toward normalizing same-sex families, in both practice and LANGUAGE, is a step toward safety under the protection of the law. I'd bet you do know what is it to feel fear and isolation. We've all felt it at some point or another. It's a human being thing. The sad part is your lack of empathy. Mankind's salvation lies in empathy (not in your ((Chairm/Opine)) authoritarianism). One does not have to UNDERSTAND the specifics of another human being's suffering to validate their struggle. One needs only to decide to contribute to their comfort. So Cane (Chairm/Opine), are you your brother’s keeper?
*insert neighborhood/area
Well said, Jane and Rachel....
to sum it up:
Opine's lack of empathy for other human beings, while acting under the guise of saving civilzation, is really causing more harm in the world than good.
On a related note, Jane asked Jose from Opine this question recently:
"Jose, why are gays and lesbians really so difficult for you to accept?"
Because he could be a self-loathing secret gay.
There is evidence for that in his various comments.
This is relevant because that's what it comes down to for some anti-gay people. They hate this part of themselves so much that, when they see it in other people, they must hate it. They must seek to destroy it and call it out as perverted, sick, unnatural, and icky. They must declare these opinions to the world and make sure that everyone knows they think gay people are grody. Because if you think a gay person is grody then surely YOU cannot be gay!
I feel sad for him.
I tend to find that heterosexual men on "our" pro-gay side of things tend to be men who are at ease with their sexualities, who don't see sex in general as immoral behavior, and aren't grossed out by gay sex- probably because they don't spend much time thinking about it.
It's the "straighties" obsessed with gay sex who we have to worry about. Because they just can't get past the idea that two people of the same genders have the same privates and ohmigod what happens during sex and how does that work and hmmm now that I mention it......
Fannie--re: Jose. Hahaha. Touche.
Also, "I tend to find that heterosexual men on "our" pro-gay side of things tend to be men who are at ease with their sexualities, who don't see sex in general as immoral behavior, and aren't grossed out by gay sex- probably because they don't spend much time thinking about it."
True. Because they realize that accepting gay people doesn't mean you are secretly gay.
Even if they have thought about once in awhile.
Maybe we could also add to the Bonus Steps part that the only extra- or pre-marital sex allowed by law is that which will definitely NOT lead to procreation, which includes masturbation and homosexual sex (as well as sex with post-menopausal women). Yeah!!
(Great article.)
Ooh, good ones!
Commenting by HaloScan
