tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post346100762333725480..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: DignityBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-82970266965029189152015-08-28T13:24:05.512-07:002015-08-28T13:24:05.512-07:00[Harry:] We are being asked to use government forc...<i>[Harry:] We are being asked to use government force to impose traditional marriage, but you are unwilling to consider what is traditional.<br /><br />[Hey Skipper:] By whom? Where? Please be precise.</i><br /><br />First things first. Stand and deliver, or stop your trafficking in bovine excreta.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36628996036662650922015-08-28T13:19:45.706-07:002015-08-28T13:19:45.706-07:00Even the Catholic church recognized non-economic r...Even the Catholic church recognized non-economic reasons for marriage, Skipper. I sat through many tedious hours of instruction on the subject at Cardinal Gibbons High School.<br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-8846420914549936972015-08-26T09:29:47.145-07:002015-08-26T09:29:47.145-07:00Skipper, I must not be making my position clear. ...Skipper, I must not be making my position clear. <br /><br />In the aftermath of the Second World War, nobody was pushing anything. Things were evolving on their own because the hot war and the war effort here in the U.S. forced people to work and live together allowing many/most of them to realize that some of the old ways needed to be re-evaluated.<br /><br />This was true both for women and for colored* people and in IMO because this was really working, I was there remember, radical draconian measures had to be put into place to forestall it and put the narrative front and center. That's why Kennedy was killed. Cui Bono from that despicable act? Only the lefties in the form of Soviet let idiots here who jumped into the act and got things through congress that would have been unheard of even in the New Deal like dictating what citizens can do with their property ...<br /><br /><i>*Pace</i> Harry. Colored was the preferred word then. It's even in the name of the premiere Negro association -- NAACP which you may have noticed, hasn't been political corrected.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-34898689406555864572015-08-26T08:04:26.788-07:002015-08-26T08:04:26.788-07:00erp, it certainly wasn't conservatives who wer...erp, it certainly wasn't conservatives who were pushing civil rights in the 60s. <br /><br />Getting rid of Jim Crow (and the manifold legal restrictions on women) were victorys for individualism, and against collectivism.<br /><br />If they had stopped there, progressives could have rested on well earned laurels. Instead, they fed their own collectivist beast with forced integration, and hideous excresences like Title IX.<br /><br />Also, I think we bought the black riots all on our own; no need to point the blame anywhere else. <br /><br />As for Vietnam? I'm appalled at the Left's moral myopia on this. The US is roundly condemned, yet the North, backed by China and Russia, gets no so much as a glowering look for invading another country and wiping if off the map.<br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-52723746841328206772015-08-26T08:04:26.271-07:002015-08-26T08:04:26.271-07:00erp, it certainly wasn't conservatives who wer...erp, it certainly wasn't conservatives who were pushing civil rights in the 60s. <br /><br />Getting rid of Jim Crow (and the manifold legal restrictions on women) were victorys for individualism, and against collectivism.<br /><br />If they had stopped there, progressives could have rested on well earned laurels. Instead, they fed their own collectivist beast with forced integration, and hideous excresences like Title IX.<br /><br />Also, I think we bought the black riots all on our own; no need to point the blame anywhere else. <br /><br />As for Vietnam? I'm appalled at the Left's moral myopia on this. The US is roundly condemned, yet the North, backed by China and Russia, gets no so much as a glowering look for invading another country and wiping if off the map.<br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36422584059247509462015-08-24T11:36:41.445-07:002015-08-24T11:36:41.445-07:00Skipper, I must, as I have in the past, disagree. ...Skipper, I must, as I have in the past, disagree. The progs had nothing to do with the changes in attitudes between blacks and whites or women's change of attitude towards work outside the home.<br /><br />Everything changed in the aftermath of the Second World War and would have continued to change in an orderly manner leading the way to a fully integrated society for all of us long before now. Instead, we are more fragmented now than we ever were.<br /><br />In fact is was so much so, that it was necessary to have a martyred president, so the VP could push through the predictably divisive CRA amendments before the problem it was solving, solved itself.<br /><br />Progs, mostly Moscow led commies at that time, led and financed the black riots and the anti-war riots, and also the leaders of the militant feminists.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-66638459733917043412015-08-24T11:06:48.575-07:002015-08-24T11:06:48.575-07:00erp, I don't think that was the goal.
After a...erp, I don't think that was the goal.<br /><br />After all, too many things happened that were outside anyone's control, or even anticipation. The Pill, all by itself, caused many of the changes. No one could have planned on that.<br /><br />Ironically, when progressives get themselves into a lather over individual rights, they often have a point that, in retrospect, is impossible to deny: treating blacks and women as full-fledged human beings seems obvious now, but it wasn't before progressives made that their mission.<br /><br />Good thing, too.<br /><br />It's a shame they can't shuck all the collectivist claptrap.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-37524965681796975852015-08-24T10:13:18.078-07:002015-08-24T10:13:18.078-07:00Traditionally we all had an interest in family val...Traditionally we all had an interest in family values for the reasons you state, but that had to be changed so as to allow the devaluation of us as We, the People and the U.S. as the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.<br /><br />I'd say Mission Accomplished now.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-8445126727628575882015-08-24T08:36:52.874-07:002015-08-24T08:36:52.874-07:00[Harry:] We are being asked to use government forc...<i>[Harry:] We are being asked to use government force to impose traditional marriage, but you are unwilling to consider what is traditional.</i><br /><br />By whom? Where? Please be precise.<br /><br />If memory serves, and I think it does, my point was that the SCOTUS decision amounted to florid hand-waving, and that it completely failed to consider what interest the state has in traditional marriage. And by traditional, I don't mean any variety of your pettifoggery. I mean, and this has a great deal of precedence in the West (the only tradition I care about in this discussion) that marriage is (sorry, was) the smallest number of people that could, without outside assistance, create life.<br /><br />That definition, until very recently, was so taken for granted -- how's that for a tradition? -- that writing down the definition would have been the a completely pointless exercise.<br /><br />The State has no interest in gay marriage, because gay marriages, in and of themselves, produce nothing of interest to the state.<br /><br />In contrast, heterosexuality does: new citizens.<br /><br />So the state has an interest in heterosexual marriage that it does not in gay marriage, and it also has, or should have, an interest in traditional marriage that it doesn't in mere cohabitation. <br /><br />Why?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764264/" rel="nofollow">Because fathers cause daughters to be tax payers instead of consumers</a>: <i>father absence was an overriding risk factor for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was a major protective factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other risk factors were present. These findings may support social policies that encourage fathers to form and remain in families with their children</i>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/family-structure-and-the-economic-mobility-of-children" rel="nofollow">Marriage matters</a>: Divorce is particularly harmful for children's mobility, and even more so for African American children.<br /><br />At a societal level (which isn't where anecdotes live) households that contain both biological parents of all the children through the duration of their childhood have, on average, better outcomes than all other arrangements. Therefore, the state has, or should have, a particular interest in that arrangement.<br /><br />Similarly, the state <i>should</i> prefer adoption by married heterosexual couples, because that is where the states interests are most likely to be satisfied.<br /><br />And heterosexual marriage is the institution most likely to produce that outcome.<br /><br /><br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-22260645626031945672015-08-19T16:49:44.723-07:002015-08-19T16:49:44.723-07:00We are being asked to use government force to impo...<i>We are being asked to use government force to impose traditional marriage,...</i><br /><br />HUH?<br /><br />Who we and what government force?erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-88225590741755986062015-08-19T15:41:21.940-07:002015-08-19T15:41:21.940-07:00I find this thing incredibly weird. We are being a...I find this thing incredibly weird. We are being asked to use government force to impose traditional marriage, but you are unwilling to consider what is traditional.<br /><br />Many marriage traditions are economic, though sometimes authorized by revealed religion, like levirate marriage. Others are nakedly economic like bride price (and its odd American exception among the revoltingly rich, groom price).<br /><br />Since the liberalization of mating practices, many of these traditions have been ditched, even levirate marriage despite its sacred character.<br /><br />So why are some marriage traditions given up with so little concern that most people aren't even aware they have done it; while at least one is supposed to be so important that political force is justified to maintain it?<br /><br />And isn't it odd that people who claim to despise government force in personal relations are making an exception here?<br /><br />Then there is the issue that some of the loudest arguments for maintaining that one special tradition say that the nation will be supernaturally punished if it does not? And where is the evidence for that? <br /><br />But until we are able to consider what traditional marriage is, it is pointless to argue whether the tradition is worthy or not. <br /><br /><br /><br /> Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-88321400943960460732015-08-19T05:34:27.204-07:002015-08-19T05:34:27.204-07:00No, Harry, I am clearly saying that in this brave ...No, Harry, I am clearly saying that in this brave new world after the SCOTUS decision, there is absolutely no reason to prefer heterosexuality as a criterium for adoptive parents. <br /><br />Never mind that claiming outcomes for children brought up with homosexual parents are the same as those with biological parents is so extraordinary as to require extraordinary evidence.<br /><br />Which is completely lacking.<br /><br />But never mind that.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-14014811919963929752015-08-19T02:06:24.526-07:002015-08-19T02:06:24.526-07:00Are you saying priority in adoptions is first come...Are you saying priority in adoptions is first come, first served?Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-83940970658342648882015-08-17T04:13:49.095-07:002015-08-17T04:13:49.095-07:00[Harry:] I would have thought, on theoretical grou...<i>[Harry:] I would have thought, on theoretical grounds, that among people who absolutely adore property rights as individual rights, this would stick in the craw, but, as usual when dealing with rightwingers, logical consistency is not a good guide</i>.<br /><br />Perhaps when criticizing people's logical inconsistency, it might be rewarding to reflect upon how completely you failed to take on board the point. Let me help:<br /><br /><i>The question is, in the realm of adoption, should homosexual couples have equal standing with heterosexual couples? Now that SCOTUS has fallen upon equal protection arguments, then priority goes solely to who has been waiting the longest, not with what is best for the adopted child. <br /><br /><b>Insisting that, generally, children are just as well off with homosexual parents as heterosexual is an extraordinary claim absolutely devoid of evidence</b>. <br /><br />Yet that is the knock on effect of this ruling. <br /><br />Society has a specific and ongoing interest in heterosexual pair bonding. There is no remotely comparable interest in homosexual pair bonding</i>.<br /><br />What was part of marriage when women could not control their fertility, and men had a very material interest in not raising others' children, is so far removed from what is at hand here that I'm astonished you brought it up.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-14652968978883909722015-08-16T16:56:45.317-07:002015-08-16T16:56:45.317-07:00Harry, I personally have spoken of women as proper...Harry, I personally have spoken of women as property from cavemen times until my own childhood even in the west which continues in many other parts of the world specifically in the Islamic realms.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-81450910143116448552015-08-16T16:51:43.333-07:002015-08-16T16:51:43.333-07:00Harry, again, who or what are rightwingers.
Venon...Harry, again, who or what are rightwingers.<br /><br />Venona papers confirmed the existence in the U.S. of commie agents and provocateurs aka spies financed by the Soviets. erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-78639530757079850182015-08-16T16:04:51.364-07:002015-08-16T16:04:51.364-07:00There was quite a bit of talk about 'tradition...There was quite a bit of talk about 'traditional marriage' in this thread without anyone's ever specifying what the tradition was. The implacaion, I suppose, was that the traditions ended at one man/one woman.<br /><br />However, as we should know, there were other traditions involved as well. For example, that a woman surrendered her property to her husband upon marriage.<br /><br />I would have thought, on theoretical grounds, that among people who absolutely adore property rights as individual rights, this would stick in the craw, but, as usual when dealing with rightwingers, logical consistency is not a good guide.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-91448969026112704602015-08-13T13:49:29.681-07:002015-08-13T13:49:29.681-07:00You are mistaken on this point. You are mistaken on this point. erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-45479116202721962202015-08-13T13:41:35.941-07:002015-08-13T13:41:35.941-07:00I see you understand very little of the Catholic c...I see you understand very little of the Catholic church and its hierarchy, Erp. The nuns in your school must have neglected that part.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-37644224405376153222015-08-13T12:53:19.169-07:002015-08-13T12:53:19.169-07:00Clovis, you are equating Jesuits with the Catholic...Clovis, you are equating Jesuits with the Catholic church hierarchy. They weren't one and the same until very recently, i.e., when the new pope was installed.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-73144380820212104712015-08-13T11:03:27.793-07:002015-08-13T11:03:27.793-07:00Erp,
---
Jesuits took exception to that in the ol...Erp,<br /><br />---<br />Jesuits took exception to that in the old days, but when Caesar became left wing <br />dictators, they changed their tune and not only supported Caesar, but joined him in <br />keeping the masses in check, Latin America being prime example and the new Jesuit pope's utterances leave no doubt of his proclivities. <br />---<br />You don't make any sense, Erp. Try harder, please.<br /><br />I just told you the Church mostly supported Right-wing dictatorships in LA.<br /><br />Take Chile, your preferred LA nation. Who do you think the Church there supported, Allende or Pinochet?<br /><br />The Catholic Church may well be a force, culturally and institutionally speaking, working towards our Capitalism down here being so Crony. But they were even more of a force against Communism back then too.<br /><br />Surely the Church ways are not favorable to pronounced individualistic lives as our Libertarian friends hope for, but that's true of every other Religion too, including the Protestant ones that founded your country. The difference being that Protestant ways led to less cronism and better disposition towards work and profit.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-57430171079453424372015-08-13T10:36:38.530-07:002015-08-13T10:36:38.530-07:00You might like to go over that list again.You might like to go over that list again.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-46214552604038553362015-08-13T10:09:18.472-07:002015-08-13T10:09:18.472-07:00http://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions
and
https://...http://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions<br /><br />and<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_universities_and_colleges_in_the_United_StatesHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-41106086967224520162015-08-13T09:18:24.402-07:002015-08-13T09:18:24.402-07:00Harry, again link to list please and answers to my...Harry, again link to list please and answers to my questions would be a nice change.<br /><br />Clovis, as I was pretty sure you would, you make my case for me. <br /><br />The church has always followed Jesus' rule of rendering unto Caesar ... .<br /><br />Jesuits took exception to that in the old days, but when Caesar became left wing dictators, they changed their tune and not only supported Caesar, but joined him in keeping the masses in check, Latin America being prime example and the new Jesuit pope's utterances leave no doubt of his proclivities. <br /><br />Capitalism is the only hope of the downtrodden masses. <br /><br />Socialism in all its many guises has been proved disastrous in so many different instances, it's amazing that anybody with any historical perspective at all can continue to champion it.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-71109680066208071942015-08-13T05:43:19.280-07:002015-08-13T05:43:19.280-07:00Harry,
---
They were suppressed in Enlightened co...Harry,<br /><br />---<br />They were suppressed in Enlightened countries for good reasons.<br />---<br /><br />Heh, way to go with your definition of "Enlightened".<br /><br />Portugal, Spain and France must have been very Enlightened when they imprisoned and killed most Jesuits, reducing the whole order from thousands to a few dozen members languishing in cells.<br /><br />Jesuits had a tradition of upsetting the status quo (somehow paradoxically, since they were very faithful to Papal orders). Be it renouncing Earthly possessions, defending slaved indians, siding against a few evil Monarchs, or more recently having their first Pope uttering criticisms to Capitalism.<br /><br />You may say they were/are wrong at many things, but they used to be (and probably still are) the closest you've got to "Free Thinkers" among the Catholic hierarchy.<br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.com