freecounterpoint: feingold on scapegoating

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

feingold on scapegoating

whatever happened to "i wanna be a unita, not a divida'?

11 comments:

The Darkroom said...: anyone care to argue for the admin's contention that affording gays the same rights as others would threaten marriage ?; 6/07/2006 8:44 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: You mean the right to marry? Or is there some other right you think is denied Keanu Reeves but granted to Brad Pitt? Assuming you meant marriage, then may I presume you are an advocate of same sex marriage? [if not, why not?]. Assuming you are in support of gay marriages, are you also in support of polygamy [...amory]? No? Then does that not violate "rights"?? Yes, then what is wrong with La Belle France who, in 1994, banned polygamy? Does Gaul now lack your nuance and sophistication? Concomitantly, what is right with your friends the Saudis and the whole Sharia crowd? Are they now your idea of societies in which prosper Good Family Values?
I contend that whatever tiny percentage of gays do actually wish to get married [1%,2%??] is not the problem. But giving official license to practices, such as polygamy, which have a long trail of being social poison, is a problem.
This is actually a big and serious subject, Pepelew. Are you sure that your usual sneer and run tactics are up to it, this fine preWC evening?; 6/08/2006 12:05 AM
Tecumseh said...: AA, I must confess I lost track of the World Cup - when is it starting? Don't know if it shows on TV, maybe one can watch bits and pieces online? At any rate, any advice would be welcome. By the way, someone told me recently the Czechs are hot -- are they among the favorites?; 6/08/2006 1:09 AM
The Darkroom said...: aa - your self-righteous & acrimonious tone is getting really old. think you can snap out of it for once? we might be able to have a conversation.

i presume the comment about the saudis is somehow related to my anti-war position in a "if you're against us, you're with the terrorists" kind of way, but i assure you that social conservatives are ideologically much closer to the shariah when it comes to social issues than I am.

on topic (ie: not on polygamy, zoophilia , pedophilia, mineral-buggering, etc...) there are 2 issues. one of semantic nature is whether same-sex unions should be labeled marriages. Why anyone would object to that really beats me.

But the important issue is whether samed-sex couples (whether or not dubbed marriage) should be afforded the same rights as others: inheritance, health care, etc...

I do not understand the motivation behind derailing that and why conservatives seem so threatened by the notion.; 6/08/2006 9:25 AM
The Darkroom said...: Again, the healthy perspective; 6/08/2006 9:46 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe Le Pew, it is most funny to have you admonish me for a "self-righteous and acrimonious tone". Infallibility and Disdain are so much your bread and butter, usually without even pretense to the leaven of argument, that one wonders if the sheer monotony of it all is not fuel to your dyspepsia. And all this just for that little last sentence! [unless asking questions to see what you were getting at is considered sufficient cause for marvelous displays of Pewian Ire?]
We can have a conversation under one very simple condition. That what is allowed to you, be allowed to me. That is, if you have free license to snark and insult, without even bothering to see if it is reasonably related to whatever I, or another, or some article, has said. If you have reveled in that license. Then you have no cause for complaint if the return is fired in the same spirit. You wish to load your gloves with lead? Fine, then do not expect the counterblows to keep mindlessly adhering to Marquess of Queensbury.

Now, as to your points.[ Which are, in sad fact, the first time you have ever actually offered an argument, with points, that I've noticed, since the beginning of this blog].
First, in rereading your original question, I admit to not knowing what is the administration's contention. What I did answer to, and find nothing outre' in having done so, is that same question with the words "the admin's" thrown out. I cannot speak for Bush [Bush, it seems, can barely speak for Bush]. I speak for myself.
Second, you did not answer a single one of my questions. But then, why break tradition?
Third, on topic, as you say, the question of polygamy, and other alternative arrangements to plain ol' one man- one woman- one at a time marriage, is very much part of a discussion as to why declaring homosexual unions to be legal marriages is/is not problematic . Within the current challenge to marriage, seen in the papers as exclusively a struggle by gay activists for "equal rights", Muslim groups, for the most part, with offshoots of Mormonism for the second part, have been strong supporters of redefining what "marriage" has historically meant in this country. This is true not just of the USA, but also Canada [where all this is in a much more advanced state of contentation]. The simple point, "hey, why can't Johnny & Brad be officially married if Johnny and Brenda can?" leads to the equally simple point "Why can't then Ahmed be officially married to Lira, Beluga, Tartuga and Houriana?". The gist is that so redefining marriage is not a matter of rights [for Brad has the right to Cohabit with John. Brad and John can sign a legally binding contract with regards to their special relationship..... And institutions and individuals can, and many do of course, grant the full concourse of "spousal benefits" to such as Brad and John. And for those states which still curtail this, legislation can address it without the needing for reshaping what is legal marriage. This to address your "rights" issue], it is a matter of gratuitously taking a severe gamble with giving the law's blessing to forms of family life and social relations that, as I said, have a long and unrelieved trail of being poison. This addresses what you refer to as a mere "semantic" question. Or, rather, it sets out what I would argue for if we ever had a genuine conversation. Although, if it "beats you" as to why one would even quibble about the word, then it is clear that genuine conversations on this issue, with someone who does not agree with you, has not been a habit of yours.
And, by the way, I doubt this point is one favored by most social conservatives [no self-respecting Baptist would have recourse to it, for example. His Bible, after all, would give more than sufficient justification to such]. Unless you consider people like Barney Frank and Mayor Koch to be "social conservatives"!?
As for your averring that no lover, personally, of Sharia ways you be, I have no cause to doubt . I am not worried [I think] about you embracing either Brigham Young or Al-Qtba. What I do think is that you are utterly blind as to both the strength and purpose of Jihad. I think you badly underestimate the intelligence, patience, and understanding of the enemy [us] its leaders have shown the last 70 years. I think you cannot/will not admit how many of the left, whether old communist or variant of New Left, have joined in common cause, directly or as "united front", with Islam Militant. [as have some among conservatives, corporations, and "real"politicos worldwide. Although cannot think of any example from the libertarian right. Can you?] Our difficulties are not with Al-Qaeda, our difficulties are with the ideology of which Bin Laden & co are just a small expression of....Now this, again, is a huge subject, much vaster than the question of gay marriage or polygamy, and far beyond the power of silly euphemisms, such as "War on Terror", to accomodate. And it is one we have not really discussed in this blog. I am ready to do so, and very seriously do so, with full laying out of evidence, of premisses, of the logical skeleton of argument, and much more. It is, I think, although I doubt you think, a mortal question for us all. If, after the WC, you are up for it, then just say so.
Now, on to the World Cup.; 6/08/2006 9:20 PM
The Darkroom said...: aa - i would dispute that you are responding in kind. I like to avoid my comments getting personal but that seems the first order of arguing for you. As to your "sneer and run" comment - is there any reason to answer ad hominem arguments?

that being said, i am glad we can now get on topics in a civilized fashion.
You argue that, if same-sex marriages were permissible, there would is no reason to ban polygamy. Although I understand your point in the absolute, polygamists represent a very small %age of the population, unlike gays. I do not see how, in a democratic setting, we can arbitrarily deny them what they increasingly [thanks in large part to the administration's use of the issue] consider a legitimate right. There is no sizeable demand for theoretically related issues like polygamy, right to marry your daughter/dog/favorite palm tree so I do not buy the pandora's box line of argumentation. Let the goat buggerers step up to the plate when their time comes.

To follow your line of reasonning, I would submit that there are probably as many or more gays as there are mixed-race couples. I think what we are seeing today is a repeat of the same debate pitching libs against conservatives on an issue that conservatives are bound to eventually loose. More to the point, what is the difference there?

You stated that gays are already afforded similar civil rights to same-sex couples - that may be the case but many gays would disagree with that. I have often read in news stories of long time companions denied health care from firms and inheritance being denied or inheritance tax being different than it would be for a "legit" couple. Is that the case everywhere or is it a new version of the state's rights argumentation ?

>>Although, if it "beats you" as to why one would even quibble about the word, then it is clear that genuine conversations on this issue, with someone who does not agree with you, has not been a habit of yours.
I am not sure i follow the logic of the [personal]inference here. I have certainly not been swayed by the administration's line of reasoning, which as you seem to agree, really consists in little more than in agitating a gay boogeyman threat without making any logical argument.

>>I contend that whatever tiny percentage of gays do actually wish to get married [1%,2%??] is not the problem. But giving official license to practices, such as polygamy, which have a long trail of being social poison, is a problem.
The percentage of gays that wish to get married is irrelevant. many don't want to get married because they aren't allowed to. What is the percentage of gays is a better question. Could you be specific and detail what, in the case of same-sex marriages, the poison consists of?

I would certainly enjoy an argument on the reality of the magnitude of the muslim fundamentalist threat after soccer.; 6/09/2006 10:31 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Having just read the first paragraph of your response, one thing is starkly clear. You either did not bother to reread what you have written, recently or throughout this blog experience, or you find honesty with yourself a very difficult challenge. It is precisely sneering and ad hominem you have sought to make an art of, and that is precisely what I long ago lost patience with and decided to "respond in kind". If you find it so difficult to stomach what you would dish out, then why do it? You had sought to avoid argument and simply present a thug's front for months, and now you whine because merde flung out is now slung back? That is rich.....
OK, if you regret the course of point and counterpoint, and wish to start anew with certain rules of forbearance built into the code, that is fine by me. And I would adhere to them precisely as long as you do [ yes, tit for tat is my way]. After the WC, then , it is. And so, for that reason, will hold off on responding to your points until after the WC. But the points are here, and I will answer them.
Just one note, you asked me to justify that estimate of roughly 1% to 2% of gays who actually do want to get married. Take the case of Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been approved for over a year now, and where the claims had been that many tens of thousands of gays, [those who wished to marry, not the number of gays in massachusetts--which as JJ and AI can be witness to are substantially more numerous than a few tens of thousands] were being deprived of their rights to matrimonial bliss...what happened? Just over 500 marriages, and that includes a number of couples who made a point of saying they had now gone/moved to Massachusetts in order to get that marriage.; 6/09/2006 11:48 AM
The Darkroom said...: please point me to three examples of ad hominem arguments that i have initiated.; 6/09/2006 11:59 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>Just one note, you asked me to justify that estimate of roughly 1% to 2% of gays who actually do want to get married.

No no - my point is that it is irrelevant. There may be a majority of mixed race couples who have no intention of getting married but who should have the right to do it. The statistic it would be great to find is what the %age of gays in the overall population is.; 6/09/2006 4:12 PM
Aan Jamhari said...: thank you for the information, interesting post. I hope this content can be benefits for anyone. Cara Mengatasi Telinga Berdengung Sebelah; 3/12/2016 2:05 AM