Quote of the day
From the Daily Show on California’s gay marriage ban getting passed because a lot of black people showed up at the polls (paraphrased):
The oppressed have become the oppressors.
13 Responses to “Quote of the day”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
When does the media throw Barack Obama under the bus? The day a clean, articulate homosexual runs against him.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Man I really miss that craig kilborn. I cannot remember him saying anything this stupid when he had the chair.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I don’t think there’s anything stupid about it–the very demographic that embodied (and greatly benefited from) the civil rights movement a generation ago is opposed to granting a civil liberty to another group it doesn’t like.
Hypocrisy anyone?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
NB. People who think that the Daily Show is going to have a light touch on Obama and the Dems forget that Stewart took over TDS during the Clinton presidency and savaged him as well. It’s been almost 10 years since Kilborn was on TDS.
As for that comment link to the video for the context. It was pretty clear what Stewart is getting at: “Shrill identity politics people assume that everyone who is also oppressed because of their identity is automatically down with the shrill identity politics issue at hand.” Um, no. That’s not the case, you simple fucks.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Change we can believe in!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Classical liberties don’t impose positive obligations on third parties. If the gay marriage movement was just asking for gays to be able to declare themselves married to anyone who would recognize that, I couldn’t argue with it.
The problem I have with state-mandated gay marriage is the effect of the ant-discrimination and hate crime laws already on the books. Churches, clubs and employers would end up required to recognize and accomodate married gay couples. This leaves them with no choice but to fight it out in the public arena, because any bid for gay marriage amounts to an assault on their freedom of association and self-government. This is why I voted to ban gay marriage in Oregon even as a registered Libertarian.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
ah pure democracy, championed by the left, has come home to roost! The irony is so wonderfully delicious.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Identity politics works by driving wedges between each identity-group. Race, sex, age and youth – whoever’s got Teh Moneyz – they all lose it one way or another – their egos get stroked while their pockets get picked.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The problem I have with state-mandated gay marriage is the effect of the ant-discrimination and hate crime laws already on the books. Churches, clubs and employers would end up required to recognize and accomodate married gay couples
You could argue this about straight marriage too and just about anything else that the government recognizes. I’m not sure what major effect this would have on “clubs” (or even what you mean by clubs). Employers would have to offer health benefits, but thats not really a big deal as many already do. Church’s could still discriminate to their hearts content.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The oppressed have become the oppressors.
There’s a big diference between being forced to sit in “coloerd” sections in public places, not having the vote, living under “seperate but equal” laws, etc., and not being able to force the state to recognize your marrige. To compare the civil rights struggle to the demand for gay marrage is to cheapen the civil rights struggle.
I don’t particularly care whether the government recognizes my marrage. So long as they stay out of my face and out of my life, I have liberty. They can call me by whatever word they like. If not “marrage” then “schmarrage” or “civil union”, or they can call it “Fred”, or they can choke on their own vomit. As long as they buzz off, I don’t care.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am
This is going to make people angry, but it needs to be pointed out.
Saladman said:
“The problem I have with state-mandated gay marriage is the effect of the ant-discrimination and hate crime laws already on the books. Churches, clubs and employers would end up required to recognize and accomodate married gay couples. This leaves them with no choice but to fight it out in the public arena, because any bid for gay marriage amounts to an assault on their freedom of association and self-government.”
Try it like this:
“The problem I have with state-mandated interracial marriage is the effect of the ant-discrimination and hate crime laws already on the books. Churches, clubs and employers would end up required to recognize and accommodate married interracial couples. This leaves them with no choice but to fight it out in the public arena, because any bid for interracial marriage amounts to an assault on their freedom of association and self-government.”
Remember, many of the same arguments being used against gay marriage now were used against interracial marriage in the 60’s, and they were almost universally based in religion.
This is the danger of having the government recognition of any religiously based arrangement. The question becomes “Which religion’s limitations will we use?” One religion becomes the source for the government at the expense of other religions. Marriage? Whose marriage? Christianity only allows one man and one woman. Islam allows one man to have multiple wives (up to 4, I believe) if he can support them. As I understand it, the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints believe that it is a duty for a man to have multiple wives. The Neo-Pagan religions allow all sorts of combinations (but require that everyone involved is informed and willing, which many religions do not).
This is why the current recognition and special treatment of marriage by the government is a bad thing.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Here in CA employers already have to offer health benefits (if they offer any at all) to Civil Union couples, so that’s not an issue. But the experience of being Black during slavery and Segregation is not at all the same as being Gay – because a gay person doesn’t immediately stand out in a crowd based on skin color, they have no innate externally distinguishing characteristics. It’s not all flame and flannel.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The problem is that their are tax and other government enforced benefits that are for married couples only and this applies at all levels of government. All of the government enforced benefits should be repealed and it is no longer a political issue, as it should be. As someone with libertarian and constitutionalists political views I believe that all levels of government have become far to intrusive. We simply need those intrusions that pertain to our marital status removed and it is no longer an issue. Of course this applies to many other areas of political dispute and the same solution can be applied there as well.