Comments on Young, Hip and Conservative: a skeptical blog: Looks like I have to defend these people again

You say "as if to prove my point" as if ...

2012-02-12T16:26:39.855-05:00

You say "as if to prove my point" as if you think I wasn't going for explicit irony. And by "as if you think" I mean it's obvious that you didn't get it. But you're probably the smart one here.

Perhaps one day when I gain the sort of apologetic intelligence you possess, I will also be able to allow bigots to run around unchallenged, free to spew lies about the basics of how marriage works or what constitutes equality. If only we had your dream world maybe we could have millions of Nates running around, restricting the liberty of entire groups for no reason other than their own insipid, proudly-curmudgeon bigotry.

As if to prove my point... And you wish to be ta...

2012-02-12T10:42:18.848-05:00

As if to prove my point...

And you wish to be taken as intellegent I assume. I think individuals like yourself harm, rather than help our common cause of expanding reason over tripe.

Nice job making yourself out to be a low level lunitic.

My apologies if my refusal to not be nice to bigot...

2012-02-10T00:00:32.782-05:00

My apologies if my refusal to not be nice to bigots is too childish for you.

Oh. And fuck you.

I was on your side michael, but you come across as...

2012-02-08T20:52:33.716-05:00

I was on your side michael, but you come across as a child. I dont know you or nate, but I can tell you who seems to be the reasonable one, and it looks less and less like you.

That I'm not a gun-totting paranoid kook such ...

2012-02-07T12:47:30.701-05:00

That I'm not a gun-totting paranoid kook such as yourself does not mean that I think the government is perfect. You need to get your head out of your far right-wing ass and start looking at what people are actually saying. I know we liberals all love drugs, long hair, and welfare in your world, but you're just being stupid - not ignorant, not merely wrong, but plainly stupid. You have zero perspective in life, Nate. Maybe once you grow out of your curmudgeon life you'll realize that. I hope, at the very least, you stop making up strawmen.

But you certainly can claim you are married to your ink cartridge, I haven't said otherwise.

Whoa, wait! Where did those goal posts go? I'm having trouble finding them. All you've been claiming here, on your blog, on my blog, and on Facebook before you hissy-fitted your way off it, is that you're somehow magically restricted from being allowed to marry without governmental consent. It's a lie you've been peddling and you effectively just admitted as much.

And, it's plain old discrimination to have benefits for married couples which are not extended to unmarried ones.

Yes, if I wanted to abuse connotations I would also say that was discrimination.

Why you think that the government should be defining marriage terms is beyond me,

I refer you to that whole "by the people, for the people" jibber jabber.

You want people to be able to make a contract with the government to have their marriage recognized, great, me too

That's another blatant lie. You want gays to have fewer rights than straights. You proved as much in 2009.

I only don't want it to be a requirement, somehow you equate that to fewer choices.

Tell me again, what was that part about you not claiming that people can't declare they're married to what or whomever?

And no, the meddling is not because of me or people like me or any such thing.

Let's review. The law is being applied unequally. Why? Because people keep voting to restrict the rights of gays. Who did that? Nate Fellows and 53% of Mainers. Yep, looks like a pretty concrete case to me.

The reason is because of people like you who think government meddling is a positive thing by definition.

Have you replaced the tinfoil on your roof yet? If you don't replace that every few months the CIA is bound to start reading your brainwaves.

Alright Michael, good for you. Since you typically...

2012-02-07T04:23:19.064-05:00

Alright Michael, good for you. Since you typically come across as someone who thinks only the government can be right, I'm not going to dignify most your jibber jabber with responses.

But you certainly can claim you are married to your ink cartridge, I haven't said otherwise. And, it's plain old discrimination to have benefits for married couples which are not extended to unmarried ones. Especially if a couple is choosing not to get legally married because they don't wish to contract under the governments arbitrary terms.

The only actual right at stake here is to not be forced to testify against ones spouse, apparently if that ever became an issue, the state could redefine marriage to force testimony or increase tax revenues.

Why you think that the government should be defining marriage terms is beyond me, and you haven't given a concrete answer for why that is. You want people to be able to make a contract with the government to have their marriage recognized, great, me too, I only don't want it to be a requirement, somehow you equate that to fewer choices.

And no, the meddling is not because of me or people like me or any such thing. The reason is because of people like you who think government meddling is a positive thing by definition.

You keep making up this shit about marriage licen...

2012-02-06T20:17:16.218-05:00

You keep making up this shit about marriage licenses, Nate. It's getting old. Check this out:

I, MICHAEL HAWKINS, DO HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM OFFICIALLY MARRIED TO THIS EMPTY CARTRIDGE OF HP INK IN FRONT OF ME.

Guess what? The government isn't after me. What I did isn't illegal. Stop making up that you are somehow restricted from doing anything like this. You're free, my friend. Stop pretending otherwise in order to cover up your bigotry.

[blockquote]The current marital inequity is a direct result of that meddling.[/blockquote]

I'm glad you're able to admit that the law is being applied unequally, but it isn't because of the government. It's because of you and people like you. Stop voting to deny gays rights and we won't have this inequality.

[blockquote]Simply removing provisions that require government authorization to get legally married would satisfy my issues with marriage.[/blockquote]

I just married my ink cartridge. We couldn't be happier and I don't think Uncle Sam cares, so would you mind dropping this made-up argument of yours?

[blockquote]You seem to favor giving people two choices, do as the state says or you can't be legally married.[/blockquote]

I favor not making up false arguments.

Now, even if I was to grant your fabricated argument, you're still a blatant, bigoted hypocrite. When given the option of allowing people more rights - even under your incorrect, distorted view of reality - you think you know best. That is, you have been given the option of allowing people to enter into contracts equally - something you acknowledge is not currently happening. Yet you have voted to deny that equal opportunity. Let me summarize your position: "I, Nate Fellows, incorrectly think I cannot arbitrarily declare I am married to any damn thing or person. In order to remedy my loose grip on reality, I shall make sure that fewer people are able to exercise a particular right."

Again, you are making stuff up. I am for choices, ...

2012-02-05T20:46:04.317-05:00

Again, you are making stuff up. I am for choices, I'm not for the governments one size fits all plan for marriage. All I want to do is get rid of the requirement for marriage licenses. Either you have simply misunderstood or you are being willfully ignorant on the matter.

Government shouldn't be screwing with marriage at all. The current marital inequity is a direct result of that meddling. Simply removing provisions that require government authorization to get legally married would satisfy my issues with marriage.

You claim that I want to take the choice of whether or not one wants to enter into a contract with the government away, when I do not. I merely wish the coercion to be eradicated, apparently you do not. You seem to favor giving people two choices, do as the state says or you can't be legally married.

The only person forcing people is you when you for...

2012-02-05T10:35:08.818-05:00

The only person forcing people is you when you force gays to remain single.

I know you aren't interested in seeing people treated fairly, but you do claim to be interested in not taking away choices. You should live up to your ideology.

Lies Michael, that is why I am against forcing peo...

2012-02-05T00:57:34.575-05:00

Lies Michael, that is why I am against forcing people to do so.

Part of the issue, Michael, is that for the longes...

2012-02-04T23:44:22.378-05:00

Part of the issue, Michael, is that for the longest time gay rights activists painted the argument in the light of nature alone: The idea was that we have no choice in our love and desire and so should not be judged negatively for it. Under this model, orientation was considered an immutable characteristic like race or gingerism.

But this ignored or dismissed the evidence that people's orientation can shift over the course of our lifetimes. Whether by our environment or by acting on curiosity or by other factors entirely, it would seem that orientation is not as immutable as gay rights activists used to claim.

To take into account the potential that (choosing) to act on curiosity might alter our orientation, gay rights activists are slowly dropping the immutable argument and conceding that further evidence could show that our actions have a significant impact on how we feel. Put this way, the idea that we can influence our orientation through our actions seems more plausible than arbitrarily choosing to be into dudes.

Which is why you're in favor of telling gays t...

2012-02-03T09:48:48.746-05:00

Which is why you're in favor of telling gays they can't freely enter into a contract with the government equal to straight people.

I don't care if it is or isn't a choice. I...

2012-02-03T03:24:23.242-05:00

I don't care if it is or isn't a choice. It's just none of my business.

It's so weird to see that people actually beli...

2012-02-02T23:55:05.670-05:00

It's so weird to see that people actually believe being gay is a choice.

I have serious doubts that a gene sequences causes it, but the idea of arbitrarily choosing to be into dudes is silly.

Unless you're talking about college girls feigning homosexuality to attract male attention, that's a choice.

I'm catholic, and still I know that your post ...

2012-02-02T16:44:29.220-05:00

I'm catholic, and still I know that your post is rubbish.

Assuming that homosexuality is indeed a choice and not a biological imperative, I fail to see it being any of my business who is doing what.

Theft is a sin and yet I don't see anyone claiming that God is going to hold me responsible for other people committing robbery. Following that logic, if there is a God, and homosexuality is a sin, than I fail to see myself or you being held responsible. So it's none of our business. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is between the homosexual in question and Jesus, not me and not you and certainly not the democratic or republican parties.

Don’t let the LGBT agenda a small percentage of pu...

2012-02-02T16:21:51.375-05:00

Don’t let the LGBT agenda a small percentage of public opinion influence. The argument of being born gay has been scientifically proven that there is no gay gene. This comes to no surprise to Christians who have always said that God did not create sin and instead Satan wants everyone to believe the lie! The truth is slow moving giving reason as to why the LGBT is eager to push gay marriage before it is widely known that being gay is a choice and not a virtue.