The Very Definition Of Bullshit Rhetoric
07.14.04 (1:47 pm) [edit]Here is the most amazingly bizarre thing I've read so far during this ludicrous debate over same-sex marriage:
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" - Sen. Rick Santorum
My humble message to Senator Santorum - May your shit come to life, and kiss you.
Love,
Dougie
posted by: dave (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (12:57 pm)
Actually, may his *santorum* come to life and kiss him.
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (4:23 pm)
The government should not be in the religion business. When the government starts telling priests and rabbis what sort of marriages they can perform, they are going way beyond what the founding fathers had in mind. In a word, they are being unAmerican.
The problem is that government never got to define marriage in the first place. It was up to people to get married as they saw fit. The government merely got to recognize it. But if government recognition is merely a way for our government to decide who gets what benefits, then deciding which marriages to recognize is merely a way of discriminating against some people.
If Kerry truly believes in domestic partnerships, then he should recognize that ALL marriages are domestic partnerships from the government's perspective. All the rituals and ceremonies simply have no legal relevance, and whether couples decide to have children or not, or have sex or not, or even stay together is not part of the deal any more. So it all boils down to recognizing that two people live together, and may have sex, but everything they do together as a married couple is legal whether they are married or not. So the ONLY thing that marriage confers on people is legal benefits such as the right to inherit property, have custody of children, and hospital visitations and so forth. If Kerry believes in those things, then it makes no difference what you call it. Let's just call them all domestic partnerships with the understanding that it's the legal aspect of marriage, and leave the rest to people's religious or cultural beliefs.
Get the government out of the marriage business completely.
posted by: almsthvn (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (6:36 pm)
So the Senator is saying I'm on the same level as a terrorist because I'm a divorcee? What about single people... are they against the security or our nation since they're not in a marriage? Are Nuns evil, too? All of them, not just the ones with rulers?
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (7:47 pm)
Reply to: mblog
One of my other favorite things was something Bush said along the lines of "activist judges are using arbitrary definitions of marriage." As if HIS definition isn't arbitrary. You're right, the government should have nothing whatsover to do with marriage. It's none of their business. These assholes who talk so much about "freedom" haven't got the first clue what freedom is, unless of course they're the ones who get to do the fucking.
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (7:48 pm)
Reply to: dave
I'm so glad you brought that up. Read it, kids! It's fun!
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (7:52 pm)
Reply to: almsthvn
Well, of course you're a horrible person. You married ME, didn't you? :)
The idea that society is somehow based on marriage is ridiculous. Our society is based on white men fucking over everybody else, other white men included. Anyone with a fifth-grade education should be able to figure that one out. Marriage is not even in the top ten list.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.15.04 (4:14 am)
Yeah, and educational programming such as 'Who Wants to Marry a Millionare' and 'Trading Spouses, Meet Your New Mommy', brought to you by the rightous network Fox, are holding the sanctity of marriage in the highest regard. Yup. That's right. It's those damn gays that are degenerating our culture.
posted by: misskendy (reply)
post date: 07.15.04 (5:57 am)
You know what? If my parents marraige is defending this country we are all FUCKED!!!!!
posted by: rickysantorum2008 (reply)
post date: 07.15.04 (8:07 am)
Just remember. Procreation not recreation! Hetrosexual couples make babies (sometimes) and babies grow up to pay taxes. Now all of you go find a mate and make America great!
posted by: JT (reply)
post date: 07.15.04 (10:23 am)
I'm straight and have always been straight. I'm not at all attracted to women, even ones I think are attractive.
However, does that give me the right to tell other people that they can or cannot get married to someone else? Unless you are one of my sons (in which case, stop reading Dougie's blog), hell NO!
I don't want those idiots in Washington telling anyone they can't do anything, until they can unmake the mess they've made over the past few years.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (12:49 pm)
What I love is when people refuse to look at an issue like this at face value, and instead make up some ridiculous extreme example to scare people out of it (a.k.a. the "Next Thing You Know" rationale.) I read a pamphlet put out by a Christian lobbyist group about same-sex marriage, and it said something like "If same-sex marriage is legalized, then it won't be long until the liberals will take it one step further and try to legalize marriage with animals, or even marriage with infants." Whatever.
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (1:25 pm)
Reply to: newbie
Now, I'd fuck an animal, but marrying it? That would just be WRONG.
posted by: dave (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (8:50 pm)
Reply to: eraserhead667
Who do you think you are, Trent Resnor?
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.18.04 (2:31 pm)
Reply to: dave
Well, I did get a letter from the Devil recently, informing me that he wants to fuck me in the back of his car...
posted by: dave (reply)
post date: 07.18.04 (4:40 pm)
Reply to: eraserhead667
Did he say in the back of my Volkwagon, or did he say in an uncomfortable place? I guess in your case, it doesn't make much difference. Nevermind.
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.19.04 (11:06 am)
Reply to: dave
It does indeed make very much difference, sir. My Ass is a temple to The Most High God. And what may come out of it, or what objects I shall insert into it (be they organic, plastic, or dairy in nature) is a matter of deep personal and spiritual significance. You, vile heretic, obviously do not know of the wisdom that I speak of. Your poo is an abomination to my dear and very brown Lord. We live in the end times, of course, and you who know not the Way Of The Lord shall not find the kernel of truth (which is translated as "corn" in the ancient texts) that lies withn the asses of men. No, you'll just flush that motherfucker away. I pity you, sinner. Now excuse me while I go sit upon the Receptacle Of The Most Holy and read the entire book of Genesis.
posted by: FoolishHeart (reply)
post date: 07.20.04 (2:37 am)
Hey!! Lol. Hello
posted by: eraserhead667 (reply)
post date: 07.20.04 (6:56 pm)
Reply to: FoolishHeart
Hi!
posted by: antal (reply)
post date: 07.22.04 (2:03 pm)
Reply to: mblog
"Get the government out of the marriage business completely"
afaik, marriage is the only legal contract to have consequences for third parties. therefor government has a role in this.
"The government should not be in the religion business."
i think it's the other way around.
(but i'm from the netherlands, so you may think i'm full of doodoo)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (8:25 am)
Reply to: antal
When I say get the government out of the marriage business, I do not mean that they should not administer the legal contract part. That should be their sole role. But that's not the marriage.
The government does not tell adults of legal age what other contracts they can enter into with each other, or add artificial restrictions such as race or sexual preference or gender, but the US has a history of all of this.
They should allow married people (or unmarried people for that matter) to enter into domestic partnerships to get the legal recognition, but it should have nothing to do with marriage, per se.
I don't know how things work in the Netherlands, but the US has a constitution that guarantees separation of religion and state, and the current marriage laws cross that line.
Does your government tell you what religion you must follow?
posted by: antal (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (1:47 pm)
Reply to: mblog
in the netherlands religion and government/the law are very seperated. we have same sex-marriages for a couple of years now.
over here marriage has nothing to do with religion. it is about two (adult) people who love eachother and who want to put their longtime relationship into a legal framework. and when they are religious and desire to "marry before god" the couple will also have a "church" wedding.
i can't think of a single reason why two people of the same gender shouldn't be given the same rights and obligations. denying a big group of people these basic equal rights because of what a religious group says is not right.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (4:37 pm)
Reply to: antal
Then your view is the same as mine. In the US, there are some people, particularly Republicans, who think that marriage from the government's perspective should mirror what it is from the perspective of their religion. I think that the two are completely separate things and the fact that they have the same name is unfortunate because it leads to this problem.
posted by: Dougie (reply)
post date: 07.27.04 (4:33 am)
Reply to: antal
You damn foreigners and your weird ideas that actually make sense!