Thursday, April 30, 2015

Ancient Romans remind us: gay marriage nothing new



     I listened to as much of Tuesday's Supreme Court oral arguments about gay marriage as I could stand.
     Because if you don't recognize the humanity of gay people, then allowing them to marry seems arbitrary. Thus Justice Samuel Alito wondered why couldn't, oh, four people marry? The implication being, once you open the door to these non-people, anything is possible. I'm surprised he didn't add, "or a person and a chair? Or a person and a tree?" 
     Most maddening was the invocation of tradition, of justices who normally scorn precedent from other countries suddenly groping to Ancient Greece, to tribal societies, as if the collective hatreds of the past add up to fairness now. As if ancient Babylon were now our moral compass.
     "This definition has been with us for millennia," said Justice Kennedy.  "As far as I'm aware, there's never been a nation or a culture that recognizes marriage of the same sex." 
     Umm, if it please the court, au contraire, you ahistorical asshats. I would like to enter into evidence a  column that ran in the paper 10 years ago and is, sadly, as if ripped from the headlines. Plus a link to Juvenal's second satire, which is no big flippin' state secret. The truth is that gay people got married to the degree that whatever repressive society they found themselves in would permit. 

     'I have a ceremony to attend," lisps one of Juvenal's loathed fellow Romans, more than 1,900 years ago. "At dawn tomorrow in the Quirinal valley."
     "What is the occasion?" chirps his dainty pal.
     "No need to ask," says the first. "A friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." And off they trot to the ceremony.
     Like a good many Americans, apparently, Juvenal hated gays—he hated lots of things but had a special hate for homosexuals.
     That is the beauty of the classics. They remind us that the issues we tie ourselves into a knot about, and consider evidence of our own fallen state, are really the evergreen issues of history, only we don't know it because we're too busy trying to shove our religious dogma down strangers' throats.

     A handy people to hate
     Homosexuality was open and tolerated in Rome, and, perhaps for that reason, Juvenal can barely wait to launch into them in his Satires—a quick introduction damning the clatter and corruption of the empire and then, boom, the entire second satire, a rant against gays for their effeminacy, their brazenness, and the very existence of guys such as Gracchus, the former priest of Mars, who has the audacity to actually marry somebody, who "decks himself out in a bridal veil" and weds in a little ceremony.
     Anything familiar here? The similarities are quite stunning. Grumpy old Juvenal -- the patron saint of crusty pundits—ridicules the short crew cuts of these queers, "their hair shorter than their eyebrows," and presciently predicts our exact situation regarding gay marriage.
     "Yes," he writes. "And if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: People will wish to see them reported among the news of the day.''
     I guess we're there now, what with the marriage announcements in the New York Times, and after the Massachusetts court all but ordered the flowers for gay marriages in the Bay State this spring by pointing out that—sorry—there's nothing in our sacred Constitution that specifically permits denying people their civil rights based on sexual orientation.
     That may change. We seem to be gearing up for the vast, expensive and time-gobbling exercise of ripping up our nation's bedrock—our operating code, to use computer language— all so we can protect ... what is it exactly? So we can preserve ... umm ... I guess so that conservatives will feel better.
     Odd. We oppose gays based on our morality, based on our Bible. So did Juvenal. He waved morality and he worshipped Zeus. We point to nature—they can't have kids! So did Juvenal. He was horrified by gays because of what he saw as womanishness, and a violation of nature. Juvenal offers up the monstrous image of women giving birth to calves and lambs and then shudders, "horreres maioraque monstra putares" -- "you may be aghast and consider such men even greater freaks."
     That's saying a lot. The thinking man, rather than plunge into the political maelstrom emerging from Massachusetts, might instead wonder why we as a nation would want to beat ourselves up, in exactly the same way, over exactly the same people, as Juvenal did in 85 A.D. Haven't we made any progress?

     Bigger fish to fry
     And don't say the Roman empire collapsed of decadence. We're about 500 years short of matching their record. The Romans collapsed because they ignored the gathering peril. Which is what we are doing. I don't care half as much about gays tying the knot as I do with our country—and all its problems—somehow avoiding wasting the next five years on picking over this timeless hatred.
     Juvenal was a failure, reduced to living off scraps. I think that's why I like him. He was totally obscure; had no impact whatsoever in his day, a career path I relate to.
     But he was better than gays, in his mind. That's what this is about. Ever since black people joined white society in America, the Bible-thumping haters have looked for another class to feel superior to, and gays, as they have for thousands of years, serve nicely. Though I can't help wondering how a Christian and a pagan—and, for that matter, the Nazis—could find themselves all on the same page about the same people.
   —Originally published in the Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 6, 2004

108 comments:

  1. "Though I can't help wondering how a Christian and a pagan—and, for that matter, the Nazis—could find themselves all on the same page about the same people." But you answered the question right before you wondered about it. Folks looking for others to feel superior to. I don't need to tell you that all three of those groups were largely on the same page with regard to Jews, as well...

    "Thus Justice Samuel Alito wondered why couldn't, oh, four people marry then." Is it refreshingly down-home, or scary, to see that a Supreme Court justice can utilize as lame a hypothetical as a run-of-the-mill internet troll?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Advocate of the Anti-ChristApril 30, 2015 at 3:55 AM

    Actually, though, what really would be wrong about four adult consenting people wanting to marry each other? In the absence of coercion or underage stuff, who exactly would it hurt? Then again, if all men were brothers, would you want one to marry your sister? :)

    Personally, I'd like to be married to ALL other adult people worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AAC-do you belong to a cult?

      Delete
    2. Personally, I'd like a divorce from ALL adult idiots worldwide.

      Delete
    3. you sound jaded and world weary, hope you are good to your spouse , if you have one., bitter

      personally that Miss, Ms stuff is silly, nothing shameful about being a Miss or Mrs., Steinhem went overboard

      Delete
    4. Anti Christ, you said that you want to be married to all adults world wide., so you want to marry your adult sibs too? lol

      Delete
  3. Injustice Alito is a caricature of an intolerant, elitist crazy uncle. Problem is he is dangerous. He is a clown who scares many of us with good reason. Who appointed this guy? How on earth did his nomination pass through the vetting process?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can understand gay civil rights even civil unions to get insurance, etc-but not marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? What's not to understand?

      Delete
    2. I'm not very religious but I am well educated yet traditional-and see marriage as being between a man or woman only. It still doesn't seem normal to me that 2 guys or ladies would marry. Feel free to persuade me, you have on other things in the past. I'm not a Republican but a moderate Dem.

      Later day southern Euro's certainly didn't think like the ancient Romans.

      Delete
    3. What do you mean by "normal"? Gay people have been forming long-term relationships for millennia. Why does it seem abnormal that they would want the same status and benefits afforded everyone else? There was a time when interracial marriage didn't seem normal to many people; does that mean it was right to forbid it?

      Delete
    4. not at all the same as interracial marriage, and no one said not to have gay relationships-you are missing point

      marriage is different

      Delete
    5. Why? Because you say so?

      Delete
    6. I bring up interracial marriage because not all that long ago a large portion of society thought it was unnatural and evil.

      Delete
    7. don't be daft, B.S., not just cause I said so, not that simple

      Delete
    8. Well then please explain it. Take as many words as you need. Because all you've given us so far is your opinion.

      Delete
    9. I'm pretty sure marriage was more "the selling of daughters as property" than the union of a man and a woman, for a long time. Or the marriage of a rich dude to a bunch of ladies.

      Delete
  5. The very same people who can without a doubt understand a virgin giving birth to god and the age of the earth as 5000 years can't for the life of them understand gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't jump to conclusions. Of course the earth isn't 5000 yrs old. I'm not into Genesis but do agree with paleontology and archeology and anthropology ,etc.

      Delete
    2. And I detest born again fanatics and most southerners. I'm fiscally liberal, socially conservative.

      Delete
    3. "Marriage is different" isn't an argument. It's a definition. Maybe this will help you understand. My religion frowns on gays too, but rather than focus on marriage, I'm focusing on the children that "married" gays often adopt. I want to deny them the right to call their parents "dad" or "mom," since they have two, and that's wrong. You can't have two moms. Motherhood is different. Do you see that explaining to that child that they don't have a right to call their parent "mom" -- that they need to use your term, "civil female parent," or whatever makes you less uncomfortable--do you see that this would be cruel? A little? Okay, now shift that awareness over to marriage, cause it's the same thing.

      Delete
    4. I think I get the what you are saying

      Delete
  6. The error I see here is that many ultra libs, assume those not favoring gay marriage must be evangelical, high school dropout conserve. hicks. Not so.

    One's ethnic background, even if Amer. born, and how raised by immigrant parents must be taken into account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I think even "ultra libs" have acknowledged it goes beyond that - African-Americans received a lot of the blame in California on Proposition 8 (I do think that gay marriage advocates sometimes are tone-deaf in the *way* they make valid analogies to the Civil Rights movement). Try following the position of the Conservative branch of Judaism on gay marriage over the last decade or so and you'll strain your neck from all the head spinning, But my guess is if we looked at the polls, we would find very strong support for gay marriage among non-evangelical college graduates.

      Delete
    2. Yes, lets hope Mr. Urborg reads this.

      Delete
    3. "Ultra libs" is a meaningless term, and ascribing nonsensical beliefs to the non-existent extremists you imagine isn't a very strong argument.

      Delete
    4. I don't care for right wing extremists either.

      Delete
    5. There are different places on the pol. spectrum for liberal or conserve. Some a bit more center, some more left or right-not all the same, NS.

      Delete
    6. As for abortions, I don't care for them to be tax payer funded or too late in the pregnancy. But I believe in them for rape, mother's health or if fetus is in bad shape or too many of them due to fert. treatments. But not because someone too lazy to use birth control. But if they can pay for them themselves.....

      some right wing repubs and evangels are misogynists

      Delete
    7. NS, did you ever wish for a daughter? hope so

      why do so many men who claim to be liberal today, even younger ones obsess over having a son and aren't so excited over a girl being born? glad my spouse not like that

      Delete
    8. I took a logic class in college, so there.

      NS maybe you and a few others here, should have been lawyers.

      Delete
  7. It seems like some of these quick and recent changes have been shoved down our throats, as long as I don't live the lifestyle. I'm not an atheist but not fanatically religious.

    As for the bakery, I say bake the damn cake and take the money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what way has this been "shoved down your throat," or, indeed, affected you or your life in any way?

      Delete
    2. Just seems too much too soon, not so much my life but my views and nation affected.

      Delete
    3. its like traditional or moderate views didn't count anymore

      Delete
    4. Are tradition and moderation more important than justice? As with any social change, while this seems rapid to you, I'm sure it has seemed quite slow to the actual human beings affected.

      Delete
    5. well no one is saying give no civil rights to gays

      an opinion isn't wrong or bad just cause it doesn't agree with yours or what the new pc opinion is-I know I'm not alone in my thoughts

      some things are unnatural

      Delete
    6. The "too soon" argument reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon where a businessman says into the phone, "How about never? Does never work for you?" When wouldn't be too soon? Gay marriage is legal in 36 states.

      Delete
    7. It doesn't seem right and I'm not citing religion at all.

      Delete
    8. "Some things are unnatural." Which means what, in this case? Homosexual behavior is found widely in the animal kingdom. While it would be unnatural for you (or I) to form a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex, for some it's the most natural thing in the world.

      I didn't say you were wrong or bad, BTW.

      Delete
    9. The other day 2 ducks flew into my yard. One green mallard the male, the other the brown female. I said look, to myself, spouse and family, they have more sense then some humans. And no, I don't think homosexual behavior is WIDE in the animal kingdom. Study some zoology and not just Animal planet tv please.

      Again, no one is saying that these groups of humans don't deserve civil rights, but it's gone too far now with marriage.

      Delete
    10. Homosexual behavior is found in many species of animals. That is simply a fact. It is not the predominant behavior, but it exists. I still don't understand your objection to same sex marriage. What is the aspect of it that you believe should not be extended to people with a sexual orientation different from yours?

      Delete
  8. I only wish there was this much railing against the NFL, those infernal Sabbath breakers. After all, that's in the Commandments, it's like a felony compared to a misdemeanor. Is anyone picketing Draft Town today?

    Seriously though, it's interesting that much of the pro-gray-rights movement was, up until fairly recently, insistent that gay marriage/civil unions WAS a state's rights issue, championing principles of federalism like they were Barry Goldwater (or George Wallace). That was when the national landscape was different and they didn't want the majority to squelch gains made at the local level. Yes, it was easy for pundits (and armchair pundits like myself) to take the intellectually consistent position that gay marriage bans violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution (under Bush v. Gore, nearly any disparate treatment of a legal right does, but those justices put a footnote in saying their strangely-liberal-for-conservative-justices can't be used as precedence for anything else - i.e., "we admit it, we're whores") but I honestly think that some real damage is done when we treat the law like a ball of wax. More of that damage has been done by conservatives, but only-in-opposition arguing knows no ideological or party bounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George Wallace....yikes.

      Delete
  9. And no, I'm not a senior citizen but in my 50's

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good for Mary Mitchell. See her column in ST today. She wailed on her kid too when he needed it. Few things re worse than those rich, suburbs spoiled white kids, who's parents think a tap is child abuse. They let the kids talk to them any old way and spoil them materialistically. Time out is bull.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have had the "privilege" of listening to many anti-gay marriage rants in this overly religious area I'm in. My favorite thing is to start asking why a lot. The reasons just get crazier and crazier. When I've had my fill of stupid, I start asking them personal questions about their marriage or sex life. When they get upset, I explain that if they are so concerned w other people's lives why can't it be reversed. Stay out of my bedroom and I stay out of yours. It's simple. As long as there's no actual harm done, uncomfortable feelings don't count, then why bother.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If I went to a conserve. forum, I'd be chewed out too. Must one be 100% repub or dem?

    How about 80/20 in favor of dems? Where is the Dem party that just worried about labor, racial or women's rights-and keeping eye on Wall St? no I'm not old

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not being "chewed out". You're being schooled.

      Delete
  13. I see Justice Kennedy's point. That doesn't make him an "asshat."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nicely done Neil. Reaching back a couple of millennia to efficiently nail down a contemporary point that there's nothing new under the sun. Quintus Horacious Flaccus, known to us as Horace, would have approved. He wrote "What grace may be added to commonplace matters by the power of order and connection."

    Tom Evans

    ReplyDelete
  15. go to this web site, ultra conserve religious Jews and Christians following Koch brothers and that loon Tom Cotton, who may have accepted money that is conflict of interest

    check out this liberal site

    https://www.facebook.com/ken.humphrey.96?fref=ts

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neil, what do you think of the Koch Brothers and Cotton's letter to Iran?

    be nice to hear your views on some other matters

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tom, I had a course in Roman History and Medieval History but find Modern History more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In my opinion, anyone who cites "the fall of Rome" to justify opposition to gay marriage, or any other reactionary policy, should be beaten over the head with a copy of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

    Or forced to read it--whichever is more painful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd be surprised: Gibbon was a fine writer, if a bit loquacious, and quite funny at times.

      John

      Delete
    2. Meh. I mostly remember him leaching the humor and interest out of every incident and anecdote he recounted.

      Delete
  19. good one, Scribe

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who are we to re-define marriage after all this time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who were they to define marriage for all time everlasting? Why are they better than you or I? In demonstratable ways, I'd argue they were worse.

      Delete
    2. We've always been re-defining marriage. It used to be primarily a property rights issue, with women seen as subservient to men.

      I don't know why you'd want to crystallize one particular point in time, but it seems to make more sense to me to have laws that fit the society that we live in, not the imagined paradise of the past.

      Delete
  21. Yes, why ever redefine marriage? It was fine when women were essentially property to be exchanged between families to improve status and financial position. Ah, the good old days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are twisting words, of course not okay when women were property

      not the same

      but little by little we evolve, the extreme left wins, sometime for the better sometimes not

      I guess next we can have sibling marriage or marry your dog. After all, don't incestuous people deserve rights too? As long as it doesn't affect your household.

      Delete
    2. I'm not so much twisting words as pointing out that marriage has been redefined many times over the years to conform to society's changing positions on a number of issues.

      Delete
  22. I don't know how many Anonymous's are commenting on this thread, or if it's just one. But all that's been offered in opposition to gay marriage here is the usual "it's not normal" "marriage is different" "it doesn't seem right" "who are we to redefine marriage after all this time" remarks. They're not so much arguments as they are pleas. Can't we please just leave well enough (for me, that is) alone?

    Here's the thing, Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous, you (or one of you) say above that you're in your 50's. Me too! I, as with many of the commenters here, grew up in largely the same world as you did. Many had the same reaction that you still have when we first heard the idea of gay marriage being advocated however many years ago, because it was certainly something that most of us hadn't considered. The difference between us and you appears to me to be that we looked at the matter objectively. We didn't give a whole lot of extra weight to "Tradition!" And we found, for ourselves, that the theoretical line of reasoning referred to above didn't really stand up to scrutiny when juxtaposed against the real, here-and-now, lives of real same-sex couples who wished to enjoy the same benefits and recognition for their committed relationships as heterosexuals have for lo, these millennia that Justice Kennedy refers to. Me thinking "it doesn't seem right" shouldn't really outweigh other people's opportunities for more fulfilling lives, especially when their marriage won't affect mine at all, should it?

    This is a done deal, eventually, whatever the Supreme Court decides, because of the opinions of younger people with regard to the matter. They're supportive. They're not growing up in the same world, with quite the same level of prejudice, that you and I did. But the thing to note is that, currently, I think it's about half of the people in YOUR age bracket support gay marriage. Think about that, if you don't like listening to Neil and the rest of us on this blog. Lots of folks grew up with pretty much the same attitudes that you've expressed here, because they'd never really thought about the issue. But, somehow, half of them have been rapidly convinced that gays deserve the right to marry as much as anybody else. And it ain't because it's been "shoved down our throats", because such a small, historically stigmatized minority was not in a position to dictate their views to this society at large.

    Regardless of all that, what's the downside? People that used to be reviled for their promiscuous lifestyles are now being reviled because they want to have their commitments recognized in order to create families. Why? You'd think they'd be encouraged. And what, possibly, does it have to do with the state of other people's marriages? As for "redefining marriage", if you can look at "marriage" in this country and suggest that committed same-sex couples participating in it is more of an abomination than 2 previous strangers getting drunk and then getting married by Elvis in Las Vegas, well, that's just sad.

    IMHO, of course, and apologies to all for the length and tediousness of this comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beautifully put. And I, too, am in my 50s.

      Delete
    2. Ditto.

      One thing that encourages me is the acceptance of gay high school students by their peers. I went to a boarding school where we constantly called each other "faggots" and the concept of an out gay student would have been literally unthinkable. I suspect that was the norm in American high schools. So I'm heartened to see things like gay prom couples.

      Delete
    3. gay prob couples, ridic, and of course that lefty aclu will go sue schools if others don't back down, so another words the law and suits might force compliance, but can't change thoughts- only doing it cause forced and no, not worthy like racial civil rights

      Delete
    4. No Jackash, you didn't grow up as some here, with strict immig. parents from So. Europe and traditions and you give me a headache when you "talk" so much. Even as adults, some kept the trad. thoughts. And we were a labor union household so no, not repubs.

      This isn't the Cleaver household, maybe yours was.

      Anyhow, on a diff. subject, so that lady who rightfully smacked her kid had 6 kids and no hub? then they wonder why the kids in the hood going crazy?

      Delete
    5. no hippies in my household

      I see some of your points but 2 drunks in vegas still seem a bit better, not much than the same sex way, but who am I to say no?

      I presume you must be gay, from some of your comments.

      The ACLU has shoved things down our throat, same wth the ultra libs but as you say, it doesn't affect me, especially if I'm not super rel.

      Delete
    6. Yes, promiscuous live styles indeed. Extreme feminists pushed for it and it's the single mom who got used, that gets screwed and left holding the bag in more ways then one.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous of 1:33 and 1:39, or both if you're not the same person:

      I suppose it makes no sense for me to respond, but if you read my comment and your conclusion is that I had "hippy" parents or am gay, you've missed the whole point. Not that there's anything wrong with it! ; ) And you may feel that your assumption gives you the justification to ignore it, which I suppose is what you're looking for, and which is up to you, of course. But, for what it's worth, I only dreamed of being one of the Cleavers! I had a strict Catholic, blue-collar upbringing and my youngest parent was born during the Wilson administration. My parents would no sooner have imagined, or approved of, gay people getting married than Ward and June Cleaver would have sat out on their stoop smoking a joint with Wally and Beave!

      And, sure, that all-powerful ACLU is the hidden hand that really runs everything in this country. The Republican governors and legislatures all over the place, not to mention a Supreme Court featuring 6 Catholics, 5 of them conservative, have all really been sitting on their hands...

      Delete
    8. Last summer I saw a hippie having a hard time swimming at Oak Park Beach. I pointed this out to the lifeguard but he refused to dive in the water. "He's too far out, man."

      Delete
    9. (Did I really say Oak Park Beach. OK, I'm signing off for the day...)

      Delete
    10. I'm also in my 50s. I think it comes down to whether you are inward or outward looking. People against gay marriage speak of THEIR discomfort, THEIR faith, THEIR whatever. The gay people who want to get married and live lives and have children are notional at best. Once you look outward, beyond yourself, at the reality that gay people exist and form relationships whether you countenance it or not, in the harshest regimes, in Saudi Arabia, then clarity is easy. There is no factual argument against gay marriage. It's all hypotheses and religious dogma and prejudice with a bow slapped on it.

      Delete
    11. okay, that helps, I must look outward

      no, I don't like the Saudi regime style

      Delete
    12. lol, good one A/N/A

      Delete
    13. Jackash, we have much in common, though my parents were born in the Hoover and FDRoosev. admins but in a diff. nation. All 3 of their kids went to college, one a teacher, another a surgeon, etc. Dad was a factory worker. In those days you can live reasonably with mom at home. Now women have to much on plate expected to juggle too much. No , not saying they should not work but not if have a hub and young babies, or just work pt. I see too many having sitters raise their kids or doing it alone. Born in 1959.

      Too many take the U.S for granted, especially some recent immig.

      Delete
    14. I myself worked pt only when kids are small and made sure that I had hub to help. So I didn't buy the latest cars, gadgets or 20 pairs of fancy shoes. Sad when I see a neighbor with hub working ft, dragging her child out to a sitter at 6:15, not as single mom but so she can buy $500 shoes. Work pt till kid a bit older. Sorry if that's traditional.

      Delete
  23. No apologies needed Jakash. Very eloquent. And true.

    Tom Evans

    ReplyDelete
  24. boarding school, bitter scribe? you must come from a rich family, prob spoiled, no wonder you are arrogant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the ever-persuasive ad hominem attack.

      Delete
    2. My father was an autoworker. I may have been spoiled, but I assure you, I am not and never have been rich. Sorry if you think I'm arrogant.

      Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all.

      Delete
    3. How can an autoworker afford to send you to boarding school? or those UAW union wages must be damn good-if so -I applaud him, go Union!!!

      power to the proletariat but not lenin-stalin-mao style

      may I ask what you do? B.S.?

      Delete
    4. Yes, Jack, like Seinfeld said, Not that there is anything wrong with that- as you pointed out. I love Seinfeld, esp. the episode about the rabbi who was going to do a nasty bris. sp?

      Delete
  25. You have a point , Jack. Just cause someone doesn't think it's right doesn't mean it shouldn't be. And it's not affecting their household any or not much unless some relative.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ray said, "hit the road , Jack. and don't you come back no mo, no mo, no mo," lol.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What was that that Tevye said about "tradition " in Fiddler on the roof? So tradition shouldn't be kept against minorities and women, just gays? If trad. hurts women or blacks, then it's bad?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wow, lots of posts today.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cisco kid, was a friend of mine.

    These anon posters have certainly energized things.

    ReplyDelete
  30. One doesn't have to follow the latest trend, like sheep.

    Look at Jenner, he has too much time and $ on hands. Most people avoid docs unless nec., not for bull. If he had my HMO he wouldn't be doing that, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  31. NS and Jackash, Why bother with that goon or goons-let them think what they want.

    Im trying to figure the smartest guest posters here.I'd think Tom Evans, Jackash, Bitter and ANA are in the top, perhaps Tate too.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Can't wait to vote for Bernie S. in the dem primary.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is this about inferiority to the "ruling" class, be they Bible thumpers, males or any other demographic in control of making and enforcing the rules? It seems so, as power to enforce restrictions over slaves, women, foreigners, religious sects still exists in many parts of the world with these individuals still fighting for equal representation. Justice Kennedy is wrong. The definitions concerning these other demographics have changed regarding their rights to marry, vote, own property and other former restrictions. Gays aren't any different in asking for equal rights.

    ReplyDelete
  34. My father in law is from TX, but moved north as a teen. He was born in the 20's. He said if you were known to be gay in TX, not that he was, just saying what he saw-you'd disappear. He still doesn't agree with them today, but doesn't want them harmed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. whoo, maybe we'll hit 100 posts today

    ReplyDelete
  36. No, Jackash, that cant possibly be all one person writing all those anon posts.

    ReplyDelete
  37. funny, my conserve acquaintances think I'm too lib and my lib acquaint. think I'm too conserve. that must be I'm the happy medium, that's the best thing

    ReplyDelete
  38. I can't wait until one of the Duggar kids comes out as gay or marries a black person. Let's see how nice they are then.

    I don't like Fox or Msnbc, CNN seems more moderate. That Rachel M.on Msnbc seems too pushy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Freddie Gray sure had a long rap sheet. Maybe he was fighting the officers when he got hurt.

    Neil how about your thoughts on Baltimore happenings of recent days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly? I don't have a lot of sympathy with rioters. It's mindless. Sure, there are reasons. But the rioting helps nothing, draws momentary attention, and nothing changes. Is there anything more to say?

      Delete
  40. great song by War

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYODVTHC2I


    great disc. here today, boys and girls

    ReplyDelete
  41. I generally read here in the morning, so I don't see the comments made throughout the day. Is the quantity of off-topic remarks and trolling/baiting today typical, or was this an anomaly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Coey -- I read this blog every day, and you're right: A lot more off topic comments and conversations lately -- with a bit of trolling thrown in as well. It kind of makes my head swirl, and at times it's bewildering. But it's never dull :) Kudos to NS for holding it together.

      Delete
  42. Jackash & NS said it just right.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. As soon as I vet your remarks, they'll be posted, assuming they aren't, you know, mean and crazy.