- comment
Vivian J. Paige - body
- He said "outdated and biogted notions about families" not marriages.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I don't think he's talking about the kids in those families...
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So you are suggesting that Dean was talking about, say, outdated and bigoted homosexuals?
I didn't think so either...
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- You can't argue seriously that the traditional family is outdated or bigoted.
That - in an of itself - is an outdated and bigoted form of mentality, am I right?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I do, but I wonder if Howard Dean does (or cares)...
- comment Charles
- body
- I suppose, in order to build up support for these "alternate" family units, one must claim that those who think the traditional family is good enough must be called bigoted and outdated.
I suppose that, strictly speaking, this is NOT the same as saying that traditional marriage is outdated or bigoted.
What he DID say is that anybody who thinks that the traditional family is in any way, shape, or form superior to other arrangements must be outdated and bigoted.
This is necessary -- in order to provide acceptance to those who want to feel good about putting children in nontraditional roles, we must ensure them that their choices are at least equal to, if not superior to, those made by the "traditionalists".
This is an important step -- just as in abortion, an important step was to argue that those who aborted their babies were not simply making a choice, they were actually making a superior choice for their unborn children than those who would "force" those children to be born into families that wouldn't love them.
Go to a classroom, and listen. You will find that ANY suggestion that having a mother and a father conceiving children that they then raise as their biological offspring is in any way superior will be quashed.
First it was simply that you made children with other arrangements "feel bad". Now we are entering the "it's actually better for them" phase. Just like so many divorcee's argue that splitting up from a "loveless" relationship was BETTER for the children, even when evidence shows that the only thing worse for the children was if the parents were too childish to care for each other even without "love".
The day-care mothers also took this root, moving from "don't make our children feel bad" to "studies show it is BETTER for the children".
Unfortunately, we have protected marriage so poorly in the last 50 years (because so many people liked the idea of "choice" meaning they could get out of commitments for any or no reason at all), that much of the magic has been lost, and we have a battle on our hands.
And our opponents know it -- I have yet to have a discussion of the marriage amendment that didn't almost IMMEDIATELY jump to the divorce problem in "traditional marriages".
Fortunately, at this point a majority of the people still understand that traditional marriage, biological parents raising their own offspring, is the superior arrangement -- and they are ready to fight those who falsely claim that it is discrimination to deny special government treatment to any and all other conceivably arrangements.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Well said Charles. Hooah.
Shaun: David Weintraub is one of the homosexual advocates commenting on my blog entry over at Bearing Drift - where I'm one of the contributors. I think he came up with this classic line - now get this - the idea that mothers are women and fathers are men is 'AN ABSTRACT MODEL OF GENDER BIPOLARITY'.
On the contrary, it's all of human history and biology. Among mammals - the mothers are women (they give birth) and the fathers are men (they fertilize the egg in the woman).
- comment Mike
- body
- Since Howard Dean was speaking in regards to the NY Supreme Court of Appeals decision to uphold the notion of a traditional marriage as being defined as between a man and a woman, it is clear that he was de facto calling traditional, man-woman marriage "outdated and bigoted".
Isn't Howard Dean the product of an "outdated and bigoted" (traditional man-woman) marriage?
Isn't Howard Dean currently engaging in something "outdated and bigoted" by being married to a woman?
Here again outlines the major problem of multicultural society ... Laws will ALWAYS be based upon morality (immorality and amorality dictate laws just as much as the multitudinous codes of morality do), and as such, someone's moral, immoral, or amoral code will be trampled. Law CANNOT defend all three simultaneously because acceptance and tolerance of immorality automatically offends certain moral codes.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- David, when you describe marriage as "AN ABSTRACT MODEL OF GENDER BIPOLARITY", I think it's pretty clear who is being juvenile.
Dean has tried to have it both ways on this issue, that much is clear, plus he has a propensity for silly and stupid remarks.
I don't think it takes away one iota from either argument to recognize Dean's comment was offensive and silly -- do you?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- But you don't find what he said offensive, or even distasteful...
THAT'S the problem!!!!
- comment Mountain Dragon
- body
- Being that Shaun is the Campaign Manager for Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (you might need some transparency on this issue Shaun), it stands to no surprise that any stance on same-sex marriage will be quickly shot down by him and attacked vehemently.
While as I've said before that I believe in the right to blog on any general topic in the political arena, I'm going to have to bring your paid political position into light regarding Musgrave's well known notoriety regarding her spending her entire political career on banning same-sex marriage in not only Colorado, but in the United States as well.
Frankly any time you blog in an anti-same-sex marriage stance you're just furthering your candidate's campaign, especially this candidate.
And that's what you're paid to do.
Mike
The Musgrave Watch
- comment Mike
- body
- Michael,
I don't know if I've known Shaun longer than you, but I can say with absolute certainty that his position on same-sex marriage pre-dates his political career. The fact that what he believes in happens to coincide with a job that he is getting paid to do is a nice perk and something many don't have the opportunity to enjoy.
It's pretty ridiculious to point a finger at Shaun for supporting a view he already held because he is now getting paid to hold the same view.
What's your point?
- comment Mike
- body
- David,
Why don't we quit beating around the bush? Howard Dean called Traditional man-woman marriages outdated and bigoted. The retort? So-called homosexual "marriages" are beastial, immoral, abominable, and scandalous to children.
If the Traditional notions of families are "outdated", then nature itself must be outdated for homosexual marriages are NECESSARILY fruitless. There will be NO CHILDREN produced as a result of a homosexual union (a testimony in and of itself to the unnaturalness of homosexuality) without the aid of unnatural processes that (what do you know) STILL requires a man and a woman to complete.
What you're afraid to contend with is the fact that there are absolutes in the realm of morality, which is why you libs refuse to debate the issue on that level.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Well done, Mike. The Liberals have to attack the messenger.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- RE: "You really don't have the right to demand that everyone's family look just like yours or that everyone share your beliefs."
Another great Lib talking point. But, you do have the right to vote for what is the best model family for the Commonwealth and the children. Which is precisely what we will do in November.
The children procured by homosexuals to have a 'family' are a modern aberration - that you have no right forcing on children in future generations or opening pandora's box to every other sexual special interest group re-definition of marriage and family.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So in short David, you *agree* with Dean that notions of marriage that include one father and one mother are indeed "outdated and bigoted" as Dean described?
Let's flip your statement, just to be sure you understand what you are saying:
David,
I can certainly see why you find (sic) the marriage amendment offensive - it's your notions of marriage and family that are being criticized, after all. I don't share your notions, however, as they exclude my family.
There is no shortage of individuals who say much more offensive and hurtful things about straight people and straight families - conveniently enough, right here on this blog. I see no indication that you find that offensive or even distasteful, so you'll have to forgive me if I can't join you in your offendedness.
I would not use the word "bigoted" to describe the notions of family I have seen you enunciate, but I would say that they are narrow and exclusionary. You really don't have the right to demand that everyone's family look just like yours or that everyone share your beliefs.
So in essence, your argument boils down to the following:
(1) Dean's comment was out of line,
(2) But people don't like, in fact hate gays,
(3) So that makes Dean's ridiculous commentary okay, even if he used the word 'bigoted' instead of 'narrow and exclusionary' as you put it.
Yet the opposite argument does not hold true for you:
(1) Dean's ridiculous commentary was out of line,
(2) And some people don't, in fact hate traditional families,
(3) So that makes and equally extreme defense of family okay.
Now I haven't read anywhere in the comments section here where anyone has crossed the line. In fact, the tone has been rather respectful -- with both sides challenging notions on the other side.
Challenging ideas isn't the same as being hateful, prejudiced, etc. There is a respectful and disrespectful way of doing so -- I agree -- but no one has crossed that line here.
What I have noticed though is a willingness to condone Dean's comments by you, David. I argue otherwise -- Dean's comments were unacceptable and implied something hateful in and of itself, and should be swiftly condemned by all parties.
You disagree for political reasons, and I can somewhat understand why (give an inch, see an opening, etc).
But I am absolutely stunned that you cannot condemn Dean's comments for what they were, only sidestep them as a poor choice of words, but altogether a correct (!?!) sentiment?
Am I getting the correct idea from you? Or are you saying something else that I am missing?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Mike was alluding to an equitable (if inflammatory) response to Dean's comments.
Your response? Dean was right, but that an equitable response would be... the word you used was "hateful", yes? Nothing wrong with what Dean was saying, but if someone responded in kind, oh boy...
So yes, we are missing something here.
The hate speech you inflame by calling traditional marriages outdated, bigoted, or in your own words "narrow and exclusionary" only make Mike's comments an equitable retort (which is what he was arguing, and a point you clearly missed).
Unless you have the courage to condemn Dean's hateful and disgusting commentary, then you only encourage the same. That was Mike's point -- and a very precient one at that.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I was two hours behind -- sleep is for the weak!
In any event, I don't think anyone is going to budge here. If we can agree that bad speech no matter who it comes from should be castigated by all sides, then I think we're at some common ground.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So you agree with Dean's sentiment, but disagree with how he said it?
Wow... for some reason, if feel entirely disappointed. Can't explain why, but still...
- comment Mountain Dragon
- body
- Wow...came back to check any response to my comment and it's like twelve deep already (not my comment necessarily but just more on this post). Sheesh...
Ok...Mike I'm more than certain that you've known Shaun longer than I have (I've only had the pleasure of knowing him for a few weeks myself...and unfortunately not in person yet). I don't doubt whatsoever that Shaun's views on same-sex marriage have existed for much, much longer than Musgrave probably has even been on the political scene. But I think my point was lost there (Hence the "What's your point?" comment).
I'm not "pointing my finger" at Shaun necessarily for his views on same-sex marriage...I'm pointing it on his transparency here. As Shaun is a paid campaign manager for Marilyn Musgrave, unfortunately for him in this case it now lends to his credibility. Any discussion of an anti-same sex marriage stance by his part furthers his candidate's career...something he is paid to do. On this issue...Musgrave is the most notoriously well-known political figure in the nation, and she is arguably in some dire straights come this November (this is recognized by her own party, and well may be the reason Shaun is currently in Colorado to begin with).
Having Shaun Kenney (currently) discuss same-sex marriage as a political blogger without clearly and definitely stating his position as the Campaign Manager for Marilyn Musgrave is like someone blogging about the lack of a need for disclosure of steriod use in baseball without telling them that you're Barry Bond's agent.
I guess that's my point...
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I really don't see how what I said in my last comment translates to this.
I would not use the word "bigoted" to describe the notions of family I have seen you enunciate, but I would say that they are narrow and exclusionary.
C'mon David... you gotta try harder than that...
- comment NotNotJayHughes
- body
- Hey Guys:
I think we all need to have a Cosmo, throw Pure Disco I (kerioke version, of course) into the player and just relax for a moment, ok? :-)
- comment Mike
- body
- Personally, I have no problem with having my views of marriage described as narrow and exclusionary (the only difference between saying "narrow and exclusionary" and saying "bigoted" is that the word "bigot" implies blind acceptance of some belief, whereas "narrow and exclusionary" merely implies shortsightedness). I will freely admit that my views of marriage are narrow and exclusionary the same way that mathematical principles are narrow and exclusionary. If 2+2=4, then it does NOT equal any other number narrow and exclusionary).
As for my comments being inflamitory, Shaun beat me to the punch ... I was outlining how Dean's comments elicit an equal and opposite response, only the equal and opposite response is unacceptable to libs, whereas they have no problem with what Dean said.
23 Comments:
I didn't think so either...
That - in an of itself - is an outdated and bigoted form of mentality, am I right?
I suppose that, strictly speaking, this is NOT the same as saying that traditional marriage is outdated or bigoted.
What he DID say is that anybody who thinks that the traditional family is in any way, shape, or form superior to other arrangements must be outdated and bigoted.
This is necessary -- in order to provide acceptance to those who want to feel good about putting children in nontraditional roles, we must ensure them that their choices are at least equal to, if not superior to, those made by the "traditionalists".
This is an important step -- just as in abortion, an important step was to argue that those who aborted their babies were not simply making a choice, they were actually making a superior choice for their unborn children than those who would "force" those children to be born into families that wouldn't love them.
Go to a classroom, and listen. You will find that ANY suggestion that having a mother and a father conceiving children that they then raise as their biological offspring is in any way superior will be quashed.
First it was simply that you made children with other arrangements "feel bad". Now we are entering the "it's actually better for them" phase. Just like so many divorcee's argue that splitting up from a "loveless" relationship was BETTER for the children, even when evidence shows that the only thing worse for the children was if the parents were too childish to care for each other even without "love".
The day-care mothers also took this root, moving from "don't make our children feel bad" to "studies show it is BETTER for the children".
Unfortunately, we have protected marriage so poorly in the last 50 years (because so many people liked the idea of "choice" meaning they could get out of commitments for any or no reason at all), that much of the magic has been lost, and we have a battle on our hands.
And our opponents know it -- I have yet to have a discussion of the marriage amendment that didn't almost IMMEDIATELY jump to the divorce problem in "traditional marriages".
Fortunately, at this point a majority of the people still understand that traditional marriage, biological parents raising their own offspring, is the superior arrangement -- and they are ready to fight those who falsely claim that it is discrimination to deny special government treatment to any and all other conceivably arrangements.
Shaun: David Weintraub is one of the homosexual advocates commenting on my blog entry over at Bearing Drift - where I'm one of the contributors. I think he came up with this classic line - now get this - the idea that mothers are women and fathers are men is 'AN ABSTRACT MODEL OF GENDER BIPOLARITY'.
On the contrary, it's all of human history and biology. Among mammals - the mothers are women (they give birth) and the fathers are men (they fertilize the egg in the woman).
Isn't Howard Dean the product of an "outdated and bigoted" (traditional man-woman) marriage?
Isn't Howard Dean currently engaging in something "outdated and bigoted" by being married to a woman?
Here again outlines the major problem of multicultural society ... Laws will ALWAYS be based upon morality (immorality and amorality dictate laws just as much as the multitudinous codes of morality do), and as such, someone's moral, immoral, or amoral code will be trampled. Law CANNOT defend all three simultaneously because acceptance and tolerance of immorality automatically offends certain moral codes.
Dean has tried to have it both ways on this issue, that much is clear, plus he has a propensity for silly and stupid remarks.
I don't think it takes away one iota from either argument to recognize Dean's comment was offensive and silly -- do you?
THAT'S the problem!!!!
While as I've said before that I believe in the right to blog on any general topic in the political arena, I'm going to have to bring your paid political position into light regarding Musgrave's well known notoriety regarding her spending her entire political career on banning same-sex marriage in not only Colorado, but in the United States as well.
Frankly any time you blog in an anti-same-sex marriage stance you're just furthering your candidate's campaign, especially this candidate.
And that's what you're paid to do.
Mike
The Musgrave Watch
I don't know if I've known Shaun longer than you, but I can say with absolute certainty that his position on same-sex marriage pre-dates his political career. The fact that what he believes in happens to coincide with a job that he is getting paid to do is a nice perk and something many don't have the opportunity to enjoy.
It's pretty ridiculious to point a finger at Shaun for supporting a view he already held because he is now getting paid to hold the same view.
What's your point?
Why don't we quit beating around the bush? Howard Dean called Traditional man-woman marriages outdated and bigoted. The retort? So-called homosexual "marriages" are beastial, immoral, abominable, and scandalous to children.
If the Traditional notions of families are "outdated", then nature itself must be outdated for homosexual marriages are NECESSARILY fruitless. There will be NO CHILDREN produced as a result of a homosexual union (a testimony in and of itself to the unnaturalness of homosexuality) without the aid of unnatural processes that (what do you know) STILL requires a man and a woman to complete.
What you're afraid to contend with is the fact that there are absolutes in the realm of morality, which is why you libs refuse to debate the issue on that level.
Another great Lib talking point. But, you do have the right to vote for what is the best model family for the Commonwealth and the children. Which is precisely what we will do in November.
The children procured by homosexuals to have a 'family' are a modern aberration - that you have no right forcing on children in future generations or opening pandora's box to every other sexual special interest group re-definition of marriage and family.
Let's flip your statement, just to be sure you understand what you are saying:
David,
I can certainly see why you find (sic) the marriage amendment offensive - it's your notions of marriage and family that are being criticized, after all. I don't share your notions, however, as they exclude my family.
There is no shortage of individuals who say much more offensive and hurtful things about straight people and straight families - conveniently enough, right here on this blog. I see no indication that you find that offensive or even distasteful, so you'll have to forgive me if I can't join you in your offendedness.
I would not use the word "bigoted" to describe the notions of family I have seen you enunciate, but I would say that they are narrow and exclusionary. You really don't have the right to demand that everyone's family look just like yours or that everyone share your beliefs.
So in essence, your argument boils down to the following:
(1) Dean's comment was out of line,
(2) But people don't like, in fact hate gays,
(3) So that makes Dean's ridiculous commentary okay, even if he used the word 'bigoted' instead of 'narrow and exclusionary' as you put it.
Yet the opposite argument does not hold true for you:
(1) Dean's ridiculous commentary was out of line,
(2) And some people don't, in fact hate traditional families,
(3) So that makes and equally extreme defense of family okay.
Now I haven't read anywhere in the comments section here where anyone has crossed the line. In fact, the tone has been rather respectful -- with both sides challenging notions on the other side.
Challenging ideas isn't the same as being hateful, prejudiced, etc. There is a respectful and disrespectful way of doing so -- I agree -- but no one has crossed that line here.
What I have noticed though is a willingness to condone Dean's comments by you, David. I argue otherwise -- Dean's comments were unacceptable and implied something hateful in and of itself, and should be swiftly condemned by all parties.
You disagree for political reasons, and I can somewhat understand why (give an inch, see an opening, etc).
But I am absolutely stunned that you cannot condemn Dean's comments for what they were, only sidestep them as a poor choice of words, but altogether a correct (!?!) sentiment?
Am I getting the correct idea from you? Or are you saying something else that I am missing?
Your response? Dean was right, but that an equitable response would be... the word you used was "hateful", yes? Nothing wrong with what Dean was saying, but if someone responded in kind, oh boy...
So yes, we are missing something here.
The hate speech you inflame by calling traditional marriages outdated, bigoted, or in your own words "narrow and exclusionary" only make Mike's comments an equitable retort (which is what he was arguing, and a point you clearly missed).
Unless you have the courage to condemn Dean's hateful and disgusting commentary, then you only encourage the same. That was Mike's point -- and a very precient one at that.
In any event, I don't think anyone is going to budge here. If we can agree that bad speech no matter who it comes from should be castigated by all sides, then I think we're at some common ground.
Wow... for some reason, if feel entirely disappointed. Can't explain why, but still...
Ok...Mike I'm more than certain that you've known Shaun longer than I have (I've only had the pleasure of knowing him for a few weeks myself...and unfortunately not in person yet). I don't doubt whatsoever that Shaun's views on same-sex marriage have existed for much, much longer than Musgrave probably has even been on the political scene. But I think my point was lost there (Hence the "What's your point?" comment).
I'm not "pointing my finger" at Shaun necessarily for his views on same-sex marriage...I'm pointing it on his transparency here. As Shaun is a paid campaign manager for Marilyn Musgrave, unfortunately for him in this case it now lends to his credibility. Any discussion of an anti-same sex marriage stance by his part furthers his candidate's career...something he is paid to do. On this issue...Musgrave is the most notoriously well-known political figure in the nation, and she is arguably in some dire straights come this November (this is recognized by her own party, and well may be the reason Shaun is currently in Colorado to begin with).
Having Shaun Kenney (currently) discuss same-sex marriage as a political blogger without clearly and definitely stating his position as the Campaign Manager for Marilyn Musgrave is like someone blogging about the lack of a need for disclosure of steriod use in baseball without telling them that you're Barry Bond's agent.
I guess that's my point...
I would not use the word "bigoted" to describe the notions of family I have seen you enunciate, but I would say that they are narrow and exclusionary.
C'mon David... you gotta try harder than that...
I think we all need to have a Cosmo, throw Pure Disco I (kerioke version, of course) into the player and just relax for a moment, ok? :-)
As for my comments being inflamitory, Shaun beat me to the punch ... I was outlining how Dean's comments elicit an equal and opposite response, only the equal and opposite response is unacceptable to libs, whereas they have no problem with what Dean said.
Post a Comment
Home