Morning Update: The Breakfast of Chumpions

NutsAndFlakesThumbby Brad Nelson
Kevin Williamson has a sprightly article up this morning titled Delusions of Gender. I was a bit surprised because Williamson often lets his libertarian side give the benefit of the doubt to some of these nuts and flakes.

Not this time. Kevin tears the transgendered crowd a new one (as if they needed one). I would even say that this is a manly article by him as he puts common sense and good judgment above the usual sloppy “feelings” or mindless “respect” that so infect people’s attitudes these days, often of conservative as well.

Again, not this time. Kevin is giving no quarter to the nuts-and-flakes of the “I feel like a woman in a man’s body” crowd. He suggests that we call this what it is: mental illness. I couldn’t agree more, although I hold out the theoretical possibility that developmental issues during the embryonic state could have played a trick on some people and shot their brains full of female hormones even though they have the Y chromosome of a male.

That said, this “gender” BS has always been a social or cultural phenomenon for the most part, not a biological one. It’s all ultimately wrapped up in the Utopian/wuss vision which states that everyone is a victim and that it is cruel to just tell people “deal with it.” We’re all now conceived to be such fragile and precious snowflakes that the very idea of bucking up and dealing with one’s inadequacies is unheard of. It may be true that “We’re now all socialists” as some proclaim. But without a doubt it is true that “We all are now girly-men.”

A splendid accompaniment to Kevin’s article is the one by Charles Cooke: The Subtlest Racism. Charles has fun looking at the nuts and flakes who invent instances of racism or sexism out of thin air when they can’t find any in real life.

His whole article struck me as supporting the idea of Michael Savage that liberalism is a mental disorder. Savage says a lot of intentionally outrageous things (he is, to my mind, somewhat of the P.T. Barnum of commentators), but I think he’s right about that.

Picture all these truly pathetic yutes (and more than a few adults) who gain their life’s meaning from savaging America. Like the spoiled lunatics that they are, they gain for themselves the superficial glow of sainthood by trashing others, even if they have to make up the trash.

At some point I hope businesses all bond together and simply refuse to hire these college-age nitwits, although Obama and his statist policies are doing a fine job of that already.

You see from these liberal nitwits that the price you pay for Utopia is first and foremost self-respect. These people are pathetic. If only more people would get in their face (as Cooke has) and tell them so. • (2879 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Morning Update: The Breakfast of Chumpions

  1. Monsieur Voltaire says:

    Yes, you get a lot of this “gender is a cultural imposition” claptrap; it is often accompanied by “it’s a sexist society, and women didn’t make the rules.” This way, Leftist women happily deny their own free will (present and past) so that they fit the victim’s role more snugly while exculpating their whole gender from any responsibility for the dynamics of society.

    But we all know this, no? We men have gathered in secret meetings throughout history, where we agreed to strong-arm women into bare-footedness, pregnancy and kitchens–while they instead dreamed of being single working moms with the state as a sugar daddy, a culture that tells them they can have it all (including aborting a 9-month-old “fetus”) and a medicine-cabinet full of Prozac just in case it all doesn’t pan out the way it was supposed to. We pigs have kept them down the whole way, with our innate penchant for violence, rape, abuse, insensitivity and brutishness. Never once in history did a woman use her own sex’s darker side like seduction, guile, malice, volubility, moodiness, gossip and ability for in-home psychological terrorism to keep down and mortify the various galoots in their lives–kids included. No. Victimhood is always a one-way street, and it seems to lead to a quite cushy cul-de-sac.

    Bottom line: dependence and entitled victimhood seem to become preferable to (and culturally nobler than!) the uncertainty of free will, just like getting welfare is becoming preferable to getting an average-paying job.

    And before anyone reads too much into what I said: I L-O-V-E women. Only, real ones and ones without a permanent chip on their shoulder. So, Mabel Manning (or whatever that creep calls himself these days) and Gloria Steinem types can go pound sand, along with their mangled body parts, burnt bras, idiotic “he or she” grammatical usurpations or poor-me attitudes toward history. And fortunately, the world is still full of real ladies, as it is of true gentlemen.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto. And I seemed to have missed the secret meeting. Please ring me up when they’re holding another. 😀

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      Isn’t it interesting how the people who have made a religion out of evolution, deny it is applicable when it conflicts with their gender ideology?

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That is hard to keep track of. Let’s see:

        + People are just born gay. They don’t choose it.

        or is it

        + People should be free to choose their own gender.

        You get both from the low-information voters of the Left. And, historically, the Left freaks out at the idea that we have any kind of genetic determinism. They believe in what’s called “the blank slate,” that there is no inherent human nature. It is the founding view behind all modern “soft” social sciences such as psychology and anthropology.

        And the belief that humans are infinitely malleable is absolutely central to the Left’s plans to create Utopia. If there actually was a human nature, and people had desires and behavior born of something other than societal programming, then the dreams of an Enlightened Elite programming us all according to their perfect vision would be ruined.

        And maybe the Left has made a religion of genetics. They certainly have of environmentalism. But I doubt that one in a thousand liberals has even a remote knowledge of genetics.

        That reminds me of another terrific book that I’ve read which is Matt Ridley’s “Nature Via Nurture.” The premise of the book is not nature *or* nurture as an explanation for human behavior. It tells, instead, what I think is a more accurate and complex story. It’s the one being very much dependent upon the other. They do not live in isolation from each other.

        That’s one reason genetics makes for a very poor religion. Genes don’t tend to be decisive. Yes, we’ve all ready about how one gene can cause a disease. But that is the relatively rare case. More usually it is a gene, or a collection of genes, that interact with the environment that is the story.

        And this story is fuzzy and open-ended. There’s isn’t a “gene” for Shakespeare. But there are genes for the creation of a mind and senses that are capable of reading and understanding Shakespeare. But was the purpose of these genes to read Shakespeare? Such questions either are unknowable or don’t apply.

        I think Ridley does a terrific job in his book in giving a fair and balanced view regarding what genetics is, what it is not, and why “nature or nurture” is a false dichotomy. But let me put this in Ridley’s own words:

        The first and most general moral is that genes are enablers, not constrainers. They create new possibilities for the organism; they do not reduce its options. Oxytocin receptor genes allow pair-bonding; without them the prairie vole would not have the option of forming a pair bond. CREB genes allow memory; without those genes, it would be impossible to learn and recall. BDNF allows the calibration of binocular vision through experience; without it, you could not so easily judge depth and see the world as three-dimensional. FOXP2 mysteriously allows human beings to acquire the language of their people; without it, you cannot learn to speak. And so on. These new possibilities are open to experience, not scripted in advance. Genes no more constrain human nature than extra programs constrain a computer. A computer with Word, Powerpoint, Acrobat, Internet Explorer, Photoshop, and the like not only can do more than a computer without these programs but can also get more from the outside world. It can open more files, find more Websites, and accept more e-mail.

        An outgrowth of this is to understand that man being comprised of instincts (or skills) does not take away his ability to interact with his environment and make choices. It’s analogous to a multiplex knife having an advantage over one with a single blade. The old (and outdated…at least among those who still do not hold to Leftist dogma) is that man’s brain is comprised mostly of an all-purpose CPU-type of “general intelligence.” But we find out that we have built-in skills for language, for spatial imagination, for math, and a whole lot of other things. We’re a multiplex knife (along with a module for “general intelligence” as well).

        And for the Left (and soft social scientists), this was something that they often denied because it conflicted with the idea that man could be anything that he set his mind too (or the elite set their “visions” to). The idea of hard-wired genes had the sound (to their small minds) of being restrictive. And if there is any one thing guiding the Left, it is that they should not be restricted. Utopia demands it.

        Anyway, I find this to be an interesting subject and I do recommend Ridley’s book.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          People are either born gay or people chose to be gay. On the one side, it is a genetic mutation which does not occur as often as one would think given the recent media push for same sex marriage. On the other side it is a personal choice.

          I don’t think we should be making public policy on basis of either. Especially, as their is no biological reason for a community to promote marriage between people of the same sex.

          As to societal reasons to allow it, I believe the main societal objective which the proponents of same sex marriage wish to achieve is the destruction of traditional mores as another step in the destruction of historical institutions which hold society together.

          Again, evolution doesn’t have a lot to do with the leftist agenda when it points against their ideology.

        • ladykrystyna says:

          “That reminds me of another terrific book that I’ve read which is Matt Ridley’s “Nature Via Nurture.” The premise of the book is not nature *or* nurture as an explanation for human behavior. It tells, instead, what I think is a more accurate and complex story. It’s the one being very much dependent upon the other. They do not live in isolation from each other.”

          It’s funny that you say that because I was actually going to comment that I think that we do a bit of both – nature and nuture.

          And you are also correct – if we are not blank slates that the Left can fill up with their propaganda and utopian ideals, they are sunk.

          Leftism is really a sickness. I think of it as the patients running the asylum. Any kooky idea whatsoever is entertained and pushed as long as that means they can gain control over the rest of us.

          It’s like a really bad dream.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Ridley’s got several good books. I’ve also read his The Origin of Virtue. which I thought was good, but he certainly sees the subject in a highly materialist way. Nevertheless, we are also material beings at the very least, so this dimension does come into play.

            No, we’re not blank slates. And we can be very grateful for that. All of the traits that we have are like another tool in our utility belt. It’s disconcerting to many people to think of a trait as being hard-wired. Anyone who has ever been to college in the last thirty years will likely be repelled by this idea. The idea of the blank slate tends to be what is taught. After all, you can’t have Utopia (personal or otherwise) if you have restrictions.

            This goes right to the heart of Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” where you have the Utopianists on one side (with their unconstrained vision) and the Conservatives on the other (with their constrained vision of humanity….improvable but not perfectible).

            In the end, we we do well to abide by Dirty Harry’s warning: A man’s got to know his limitations.

            Of course, many of those limitations are phantoms — they’re all in the mind, so one perhaps can’t know immediately just what one’s limitations are. But eventually we must or we will drive ourselves crazy, forever hitting our heads against the same wall.

            But hard-wired doesn’t mean limited. Thank god our ability for language is hard-wired. Language is like the wings of an airplane. They may be hard-wired onto the fuselage but they allow the airplane to go wherever it wishes. The same thing with our innate ability for language.

            It’s our multiplicity of talents and instincts that gives us great power of choice. It’s not the reverse.

            • ladykrystyna says:

              “It’s disconcerting to many people to think of a trait as being hard-wired. Anyone who has ever been to college in the last thirty years will likely be repelled by this idea.”

              Especially when it has to do with men and women. The very thought that men are hardwired for some things and women are hardwired for others (with, of course, exceptions to the rule) freaks people out.

              And it makes me laugh because the Left calls us “anti-science” and make fun of those on the Right who don’t believe in evolution, and yet they deny biology and evolution at every turn, especially when it fits their narrative to do so.

              “Thank god our ability for language is hard-wired.”

              That is the amazing thing about having kids – watching them pick up language. And knowing that the kid will pick up whatever language someone is speaking to him or her. You can take a black baby and drop them off in China and it will learn Chinese. It’s just hard wired for language no matter what.

              I remember my older daughter talking back to me when she was less just around a year old. I told her stop mushing her green beans all over the high chair. She looked at me, put her hands up and said something in “baby talk” but with the inflection of an adult like she was actually saying something that I would understand. That’s the best way to describe it without actually showing it to you.

              I laughed my butt off.

        • faba calculo says:

          “+ People are just born gay. They don’t choose it.
          or is it
          + People should be free to choose their own gender.”

          Or is it,
          + People are born gay/transgendered and should allow to live accordingly?

          In short, there’s no contradiction.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’m talking about the political dogma that is used to justify gay marriage and the acceptance of gayness. It’s a mixed bag of contradictions…in case anyone care to keep track of their illogic. And most don’t.

            But which is it? Are people just born that way or is it a matter of choice? The former is often used as way to paint victims of people. The latter is used to justify people choosing their “gender identity.”

            Also, I don’t acknowledge “transgender” as a legitimate distinction, or even that of “gay.” These are man-made categories more to fit a political agenda rather than a scientific one.

            • faba calculo says:

              I’ve never heard anyone from the pro-trans crowd say that they thought that someone just sat down one day and decided to be of the opposite sex. The issues of “choice” get brought up only in terms of what someone is going to legally identify as, which, being determined solely by what action someone takes, IS a choice.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            “Or is it,
            + People are born gay/transgendered and should allow to live accordingly?

            In short, there’s no contradiction.”

            Again, another straw man. You have intentionally misrepresented what was said. Taking things out of or giving no context is a particular leftist ploy.

            The contradiction is is not about how people live. It was about how the leftists, such as yourself, although you claim not to be a leftist, use contradictory arguments depending on the particular ideological point they are arguing at any given time. In other words, such arguments may or may not be sincere, but most often they appear to be sincerely unreasoned or insincere and intellectually dishonest.

            As to letting people live how they want, people are born with all sorts of predisposions, genetic traits, tendencies, talents and faults and society survives on determining which manifestations of these are acceptable and which are not. Maybe you think things really are as simple as you have written. But your statement really is on about the same level as Rodney King’s “why can’t we just get along?” Unfortunately, life is a little more complicated than that. Actions and beliefs have a way of effecting all sorts of other things.

            • faba calculo says:

              “You have intentionally misrepresented what was said.”

              You are wrong. While I may have made a mistake in interpreting the question, there was no intentional misrepresentation.

              “It was about how the leftists, such as yourself, although you claim not to be a leftist”

              And, therefore, you are wrong again. I believe I know my own politics better than you.

              “It was about how the leftists…use contradictory arguments depending on the particular ideological point they are arguing at any given time. ”

              Can y0u show me some examples of leftists saying that ones gender is determined via conscious choice? If not, well, you’re wrong here as well.

              Again, they say that people should be allowed to choose whether or not to DECLARE themselves to be of the gender they internally identify, just as gays should be allowed to choose how to live their lives. But the left doesn’t see either of these things as generally originating in a choice.

              “In other words, such arguments may or may not be sincere, but most often they appear to be sincerely unreasoned or insincere and intellectually dishonest. ”

              Ah, irony!

              “Maybe you think things really are as simple as you have written.”

              In what specific way are they more complex? What’s an example of how letting people live as I indicated would endanger society?

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                “And, therefore, you are wrong again. I believe I know my own politics better than you.”

                You may know your own politics better than I, but you certainly express yourself like and use the methods of leftist argument.

                “It was about how the leftists…use contradictory arguments depending on the particular ideological point they are arguing at any given time. ”

                Can y0u show me some examples of leftists saying that ones gender is determined via conscious choice? If not, well, you’re wrong here as well.”

                Reread my sentence. This was a general sentence about the leftist method of argument. It was not specifically about homosexuality. But I will think about your question and see if I can recall one or have ever read one.

                As to an example of leftist argument. Yes I will give you an example.

                On the one hand leftists are all for abortion at anytime and any age. It is a fact, that in many cities, States, municipalities of this country, an under-aged girl doesn’t need to have parental approval for abortion nor does the school she attends have to advise the parents of the situation. But the same girl has to have permission to get an aspirin at school. Both policies spring from leftist desires. One urge is to weaken parental control, and the other is to increase institutional control. But the contradiction does not bother the left as it suits their avowed goals.

                Another instance is the when trying a young person the left often rolls out the point that human brains are not developed until the early to mid twenties so people below this age are not fully responsible for what they do. The abortion example applies here as well. Too young to be guilty, but old enough to decide on life and death.

                And as to your statement

                “What’s an example of how letting people live as I indicated would endanger society?”

                Let me refer you to your question rhetorical or otherwise, regarding polygamy. I have replied to that at length elsewhere.

                If you have proof positive that destruction of age old traditions, and allowing homosexual marriage and polygamy will be better for society we would be happy for you to tell us, on balance, why.

                And that is not irony.

    • ladykrystyna says:

      “We men have gathered in secret meetings throughout history, where we agreed to strong-arm women into bare-footedness, pregnancy and kitchens–”

      Damn it! I knew it! Sexist pigs!!!!

      ;-D

  2. CCWriter CCWriter says:

    If someone wants to declare himself to be from the planet Orlon and try to get a surgeon to install an eye in the back of his head, that’s his business and his problem. But he doesn’t have the right to expect my support in any form, whether it be approval, subsidy, compromising my personal privacy, interfering with my freedom of association, or directing my use of vocabulary.

    • Monsieur Voltaire says:

      Ditto for my support for calling any pretend-marriage “marriage.” Otherwise, anything is up for grabs, and I could posthumously marry Marie Antoinette, Nannerl Mozart, Madame Pompadour and Molly Pitcher all at once (don’t I have a right to love whomever I want?). That would also give me the right to bring a defamation suit against anyone writing mean things about my wives, especially #1 on the list. Woo-hoo for civil rights!

      To paraphrase a line from Seinfeld, it doesn’t offend me as a straight Conservative man–it offends me as a linguist.

    • faba calculo says:

      Hear, hear! Especially on the issue of right of association.

      If you don’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding, you shouldn’t have to. If you don’t want to make a cake for an interracial marriage, that’s your right as well.

      P.S. I’m going to shoot the next person who tells me that cake baking in one city for delivery in the same city is an example of “interstate commerce”. It isn’t. What they really don’t like is the fact that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to a fairly short list of regulatory powers, and there’s just so many things they want to do that aren’t on that list. Of course, they could go for an amendment, but getting judges to agree with you is just soooo much easier.

  3. the krell says:

    Yutes! Channeling your inner Pesci are we Brad.

    Anyway, last year (fall 2012) the poli sci department where I am going to school had people enrolled in poli sci classes participate in an anonymous survey regarding the department’s performance and the particular class you were in. Well, poli sci left the room and it became sci fi because in the area regarding your personal demographics was the gender question; the choices? Male Female Other. I was so stunned that I stupidly filled out the survey instead of trashing it like I should have.

  4. the krell says:

    Regarding the issue you raised about problems occuring inutero regarding sex development, I remember reading a number of years back (I have never researched to confirm) that even though at conception your sex genes are set problems can occur a couple months in that can effect aspects of your sex identity after you are born.

    I am generally a tabula rasa type, but there is something to be said regarding abnormal hormonal imbalances especially during gestation when everything is still developing. Like I said I have never done any follow-up but I did find the idea interesting.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I am generally a tabula rasa type…

      Krell, I think Steven Pinker in “The Blank Slate” does a very convincing job of defending the idea of an innate human nature. I’ll post a review of the book if I find the time.

      I’ll admit that these issues matter little in the mind of the public if only because the distinctions to be made between the fine points of nature vs. nurture count for little compared to what the demagogues and cliche-makers dredge up on a moment’s notice. It’s a case where a lie is traveling halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its pants on. The ins and out of genetics, as well as the philosophy and metaphysics surrounding the various implications, are just not digestible by the typical low-information voter or nitwit politician for these and other reasons.

      But otherwise, I find this to be an interesting topic. I’ve found that there is often a healthy American knee-jerk reaction against any kind of idea of genetic hard-wiring or determinism. The normal and healthy American believes in the idea that a man can grow up to be anything he can imagine.

      And that’s all well and good. But you probably have noticed that the Left has taken this to an extreme. And it’s not just a personal statement (which is all well and good, and very definitely American). They’ve made the idea of the blank slate a political and social necessity. So now we get these truly stupid situations where some kid says he feels like a little girl inside and so there are idiot grownups who say that perhaps he should be able to use the girl’s restroom. The entire idea of male and female are rejected, which reflects the typical Leftist desire for that blank slate.

      And I really don’t know any other language than “stupid” and “idiot” to talk about this stuff. There are some things that rise far above the level of a simple difference of opinion.

      Given all that can happen in utero (which isn’t a bad album, by the way), it’s a wonder that we make it to adulthood at all. There’s a potential via genetics, in utero or otherwise, for an enormous about of mixing and matching to happen. I have no problem with the idea of a man being sort of trapped in a woman’s body (mind). And we do see people who are born as queer as a three dollar bill. I certainly don’t ascribe all, or even most, gay people to mere choice by the person or having an overbearing mother.

      We don’t yet know what’s going on with homosexuality. It’s fine to call it a perversion or a sin, but we still just don’t really know. We don’t (at least last I’ve heard) have much of a clue what causes schizophrenia either. Some of these diseases or abnormalities defy easy diagnosis because it appears to be caused by a whole cascade of genes — and sometime entirely different cascades of genes.

      In the end, as conservative we know that we must perceive the human being as a moral creature capable of making choices. The idea of never assigning blame to someone by defining everything as a “disease” is not practical and is, in fact, quite harmful — even though there are cases where it is better to understand some behavior as the result of, say, schizophrenia rather than demon possession.

  5. ladykrystyna says:

    “although I hold out the theoretical possibility that developmental issues during the embryonic state could have played a trick on some people and shot their brains full of female hormones even though they have the Y chromosome of a male.”

    I would only say that I would think that such a thing should probably show up if you are doing tests, but then I’m no medical expert.

    Because I agree – if you are born a hermaphrodite or if there is some other imbalance, I could understand the problem. But then for the former, I would more support someone having to choose a sex change to match whatever is going on in their body, despite its outward appearance. For the latter, I would say that medicine, therapy etc. would be the better route.

    And for anyone else, it’s a plain old mental problem that should be handled accordingly.

    If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and thought I was Napoleon and demanded everyone call me “Emperor”, could I start suing everybody because they refused to do as I demanded?

    Very likely not – I would be committed.

    • Monsieur Voltaire says:

      Krystyna, your analogy is a lot less hyperbolic than you think. So, we’ve decided that sex can be a matter of choice? OK, so why not individuality, as in your example of Napoleon? Or specie? Or even being animate Vs. inanimate? Why can’t I be a golden retriever, so I can go pee on my neighbor’s lawn? Or indeed the Chesapeake Bay bridge trapped in a man’s body, and demand that everyone pay $12 every time they cross me?

      People are already “marrying” all these things. Let’s see what’s next in our descent into the absurd.

      • ladykrystyna says:

        Exactly! Same with ‘same sex marriage’ – if you agree with that, how can you not also argue for polygamous marriages? What is the limit? I can marry my dog, my son, my daughter?

        And that’s where conservatism and libertarianism diverge, IMHO.

        Libertarians have an idealistic worldview – that humans will always choose to make the right decisions so the limitations should be even less than what conservatives would call for. And for some reason they think it will have no ill effect on society. Yes, they do believe in more personal responsibility than the leftist libertines, but still, I think they put too much faith in humankind.

        Whereas conservatives know there are limitations. That men are not angels and still need some constraint – an ordered liberty.

        And while I do hold somewhat to Jefferson’s belief that “whether a man believe in many gods or one God neither picks my pocket nor does me harm”. One does have to look deep into the picking of pockets and the doing of harm before concluding that a particular action does neither.

        • faba calculo says:

          “if you agree with that, how can you not also argue for polygamous marriages?”

          What’s the argument against polygamy if you DON’T believe in gay marriage? Certainly not the linguistic argument, as polygamy has been a part of marriage for a looooong time. Not the Biblical argument, for pretty much the same reason.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            “What’s the argument against polygamy if you DON’T believe in gay marriage? Certainly not the linguistic argument, as polygamy has been a part of marriage for a looooong time. Not the Biblical argument, for pretty much the same reason.”

            Have you ever lived in a country where polygamy is practiced? I have and have associated with numerous people from these unions, so let me give you some of the arguments against it:

            1. Woman are treated poorly by men.
            2. Envy, jealousy and hatred between the various families.
            3. Multiple children who see their father only occasionally i.e. an absent father figure.
            4. Poverty because it is expensive to support many families.
            5. Deserted families because it is expensive to maintain them and with so many families the bonds are not often as strong as the bonds in monogamy.
            6. Lack of wives for single men.
            7. Young girls being married to old men.

            And please don’t say that some of the same things happen in the West. The differences are large and I have seen them.

            Please give me examples, other than the Mormons, where polygamy has been practiced in the West. There is a reason for this. Have a look into Joseph Campbell and the age of chivalry. Even if he is not 100% correct, the Western view toward women is completely different from that in Asia.

            If you want to have Asia in the United States, just go ahead and allow polygamy here. Also, if you want millions more depending on social services go ahead with polygamy. We already have an analogue in the USA. It is called a 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community, about 50% for Latinos, about 25% for whites and about 37% overall.

            Theoretical social engineering, such as you seem to favor, is the bane of mankind. In this case, womankind.

            I really wish one of you “libertarians” would write a reasoned article why your “beliefs” should be taken seriously and on what factual grounds you base them. “Because I feel like it” doesn’t fall under the umbrella of a reasoned article.

            • faba calculo says:

              Groovy.

              I hereby accept your list as reason to not allow polygamy.

              And, as none of them apply to gay marriage, we have answered Lady K’s question about how someone who favors gay marriage can still oppose polygamy.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                http://nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors

                The above is a link to a good article refuting those who want to legalize homosexual marriage. There are more such reasoned arguments if people want to look for them.

                In addition to the points made in the article, I would add a couple more.

                Proponents of homosexual marriage chatter about expanding “freedom” and “equality”.

                In fact, the right of homosexuals to marry will effectively reduce freedom and equality throughout the country. According to Gallup, there are less than 1% of homosexual households in the USA. On the flip side, what percentage of households have religious objections to homosexual marriage? I don’t have any numbers, but does anybody doubt the number is more than 1%?

                The members of these households will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of homosexual marriage. If you don’t believe this, look at the last finding by the New Mexico Supreme Court finding against a family owned business that didn’t want to take photos of a lesbian marriage ceremony of some sort. Even though the photo business told the lesbians they were happy to take photos of the lesbians in the photo shop, and the photo business owners found another photographer to take photos of the ceremony at a lower cost, the lesbians took the photo shop owners to court.

                This sums up the real agenda behind the proponents of homosexual marriage and the left in general.

                ” We are going to force you to bend to our will no matter your religious believes. They come second to our capricious desires”.

                And the fact that less than 1% of American households are homosexual simply confirms my previous comments that marriage or even the thought of marriage has never been a significant part of homosexual culture. Like I said, even the ancient Greeks had the sense to know that marriage was about children.

                So my question is why should the accumulated history of mankind be thrown out the window for such a small number of radicals who push this rubbish?

                I have often thought that many homosexuals combined a strange mixture of nihilism, narcissism and resentment.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Mr. Kung, here is that post that you wrote that you wanted transferred into this discussion. I hope it is okay to do so:

              “What’s the argument against polygamy if you DON’T believe in gay marriage? Certainly not the linguistic argument, as polygamy has been a part of marriage for a looooong time. Not the Biblical argument, for pretty much the same reason.”

              Have you ever lived in a country where polygamy is practiced? I have and have associated with numerous people from these unions, so let me give you some of the arguments against it:

              1. Woman are treated poorly by men.
              2. Envy, jealousy and hatred between the various families.
              3. Multiple children who see their father only occasionally i.e. an absent father figure.
              4. Poverty because it is expensive to support many families.
              5. Deserted families because it is expensive to maintain them and with so many families the bonds are not often as strong as the bonds in monogamy.
              6. Lack of wives for single men.
              7. Young girls being married to old men.

              And please don’t say that some of the same things happen in the West. The differences are large and I have seen them.

              Please give me examples, other than the Mormons, where polygamy has been practiced in the West. There is a reason for this. Have a look into Joseph Campbell and the age of chivalry. Even if he is not 100% correct, the Western view toward women is completely different from that in Asia.

              If you want to have Asia in the United States, just go ahead and allow polygamy here. Also, if you want millions more depending on social services go ahead with polygamy. We already have an analogue in the USA. It is called a 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community, about 50% for Latinos, about 25% for whites and about 37% overall.

              Theoretical social engineering, such as you seem to favor, is the bane of mankind. In this case, womankind.

              I really wish one of you “libertarians” would write a reasoned article why your “beliefs” should be taken seriously and on what factual grounds you base them. “Because I feel like it” doesn’t fall under the umbrella of a reasoned article.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                Thanks Brad. The post against homosexual marriage was later than this one. It had a link to an NRO article rebutting the whole idea.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Or indeed the Chesapeake Bay bridge trapped in a man’s body, and demand that everyone pay $12 every time they cross me?

        LOL, MV. That is suitably absurd, as is the idea of gays getting married. That’s like asking a bull to give milk. It’s a non sequitur. I wasn’t always of this opinion. But then I saw that the issue wasn’t about marriage. It was about the further destruction of essential values just for the nihilistic joy of doing so. As we saw in some of the mob-like intimidation of those who didn’t support gay marriage in California, the entire thrust of this venture was the equivalent of some child in a highchair throwing his strained pees onto the wall in a fit of temper.

        This is why I remain disappointed with Jonah Goldberg and his truly lame excuse for gay marriage, “the pursuit of happiness.” He saw none of the real context of this movement (including the socialistic chant of “equality”) and instead — incredibly — turned one of our most noble notions (the pursuit of happiness) into a cliché. And this from the man who wrote a book on the subject.

        Not a peep out of him on how gay marriage had become the cause célèbre as another instrument to wage a war on masculinity, families, limited government, and just normal decency. And that is when I lost a great deal of respect for the man. And not because of a disagreement. But because his reasons for disagreeing were so shallow and disingenuous that it was obvious that there was some other motivation for this change.

        I harbor no ill will to gay people, although I absolutely despise the gay movement — just as I harbor no ill will for black people, but despise the NAACP as merely a caustic Leftist organization. But it makes no more sense for me, a single guy, to stump for “single equality” and to have the rights of privileges of being married if I don’t actually get married. And the same with gays. Yes, perhaps it sucks (no pun intended) to be born that way. But we all have to make due with what we’ve got and who we are.

        Let’s not destroy Western Civilization because we are so nihilistic, narcissistic, and spoiled that we have to pretend that ass-f**king is the same thing as being a married couple. Excuse my French, but I think we must take a non-blinkered look at this from time to time.

        • faba calculo says:

          ” wasn’t always of this opinion. But then I saw that the issue wasn’t about marriage. It was about the further destruction of essential values just for the nihilistic joy of doing so.”

          That is, in fact, NOT the reason, by and in large, those of us who back gay marriage do so. You have a caricature view here.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I was thinking of you as more of a Josephine, but I see your point…and agree with it.

      Mental health issues certainly must intersect some of this transgender stuff. But consider the possibility that some people are lopping off their dicks merely because it has become a socially-acceptable way to respond to generic life problems and stresses. You actually open up this avenue of thought to gullible or desperate minds that “gender identity” is one’s problem and not something more mundane and probable.

      • ladykrystyna says:

        “I was thinking of you as more of a Josephine, but I see your point…and agree with it.”

        Hey, man! You’re oppressing me! I’m a man trapped in a woman’s body and my name is Napoleon! Kneel before me!

        😀

        Sorry, got carried away.

        “But consider the possibility that some people are lopping off their dicks merely because it has become a socially-acceptable way to respond to generic life problems and stresses.”

        Very true. I find it very disturbing that so-called professionals in the mental field would actually think that is a good idea.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          LadyK, the only upside for me in this whole idiotic “gender” thing is the addition of a new word to the lexicon, and one that I find hilarious: addadictome, defined as the operation it takes to go from female to male.

  6. faba calculo says:

    “You may know your own politics better than I, but you certainly express yourself like and use the methods of leftist argument.”

    I do nothing of the sort, though you are making liberal use of wild accusation, a tactic I’ve seen used by ideologues on both sides. An examples was given (i.e., homosexuality NOT being choice while transgendered status being one). Regardless of whether or not there was also a general principle, there WAS an example given, and it was incorrect. Without it, your general principle was just an accusation without support.

    “It is a fact, that in many cities, States, municipalities of this country, an under-aged girl doesn’t need to have parental approval for abortion nor does the school she attends have to advise the parents of the situation. But the same girl has to have permission to get an aspirin at school. Both policies spring from leftist desires. One urge is to weaken parental control, and the other is to increase institutional control. But the contradiction does not bother the left as it suits their avowed goals.”

    Two things. First, here you are on stronger ground. The provision of an abortion to a child, especially sans parental involvement is, indeed, outrageous. But with very few exceptions, this is generally not done by the schools. As for the schools not giving out aspirin, your interpretation of motives is cynical to the point of ridiculousness. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the schools are just afraid of being sued?

    “Another instance is the when trying a young person the left often rolls out the point that human brains are not developed until the early to mid twenties so people below this age are not fully responsible for what they do.”

    Uh, it ain’t just the left. In case you haven’t noticed, NO ONE defends the idea of not having separate punishments for children and adults. True, sometimes children are still tried as an adult, but, typically, children are actually tried as…children.

    “The abortion example applies here as well. Too young to be guilty, but old enough to decide on life and death.”

    Again, not disagreeing with you that the left is stupid on abortion.

    “And as to your statement

    ‘What’s an example of how letting people live as I indicated would endanger society?’

    Let me refer you to your question rhetorical or otherwise, regarding polygamy. I have replied to that at length elsewhere.”

    Problem: my original quote, to which you responded, and to which, in turn, I responded with the above quote, had NOTHING to do with polygamy. It was clearly addressed to letting gays and the transgendered live according to how they saw their gender/sexual identity. Unlike you, I was claiming no general principle. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law is not something I’ve ever backed.

    “If you have proof positive that destruction of age old traditions, and allowing homosexual marriage and polygamy will be better for society we would be happy for you to tell us, on balance, why.”

    Such a high degree of proof isn’t available for either side, but what data is available shows the spook stories of opponents of gay marriage not coming true in those area where gay marriage is allowed. Now I will inevitably be told that maybe they just haven’t happened yet. Hyper-skepticism indeed knows no bounds.

  7. Kung Fu Zu says:

    The first material under quote 1 below is faba’s “Groovy” reply to my thoughts on polygamy. It is now quoted in full because the discussion has moved back to the original “Breakfast of Chumpions” string, and I don’t have the technical problem of trying to move faba’s total response to the “Atheistic Fundamentalists” string. . I hope your feelings are no longer hurt faba.

    The second material in quote 2 is my original response to faba’s “Groovy” post

    Quote 1:
    Groovy.

    I hereby accept your list as reason to not allow polygamy.

    And, as none of them apply to gay marriage, we have answered Lady K’s question about how someone who favors gay marriage can still oppose polygamy.

    Unquote 1

    Quote 2

    http://nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors

    The above is a link to a good article refuting those who want to legalize homosexual marriage. There are more such reasoned arguments if people want to look for them.

    In addition to the points made in the article, I would add a couple more.

    Proponents of homosexual marriage chatter about expanding “freedom” and “equality”.

    In fact, the right of homosexuals to marry will effectively reduce freedom and equality throughout the country. According to Gallup, there are less than 1% of homosexual households in the USA. On the flip side, what percentage of households have religious objections to homosexual marriage? I don’t have any numbers, but does anybody doubt the number is more than 1%?

    The members of these households will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of homosexual marriage. If you don’t believe this, look at the last finding by the New Mexico Supreme Court finding against a family owned business that didn’t want to take photos of a lesbian marriage ceremony of some sort. Even though the photo business told the lesbians they were happy to take photos of the lesbians in the photo shop, and the photo business owners found another photographer to take photos of the ceremony at a lower cost, the lesbians took the photo shop owners to court.

    This sums up the real agenda behind the proponents of homosexual marriage and the left in general.

    ” We are going to force you to bend to our will no matter your religious believes. They come second to our capricious desires”.

    And the fact that less than 1% of American households are homosexual simply confirms my previous comments that marriage or even the thought of marriage has never been a significant part of homosexual culture. Like I said, even the ancient Greeks had the sense to know that marriage was about children.

    So my question is why should the accumulated history of mankind be thrown out the window for such a small number of radicals who push this rubbish?

    I have often thought that many homosexuals combined a strange mixture of nihilism, narcissism and resentment.

    Unquote 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *