OK, maybe I WOULDN'T have voted for him.
From Sunherald.com:
Then, in Ditka's typical blunt-speaking fashion, the former coach launched into an unsolicited tirade about a Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage.
"What's the matter with right and wrong? Talk about right and wrong. It's either right or wrong. There's no in-between," Ditka said. "And I'm not going to change, and you're not going to change me, no matter if some judge in the state of Massachusetts or the Supreme Court says it's right. It's not right. Wrong is wrong."
Apparently, Iron Mike is unaware that something can be both "wrong" and none of the government's business at the same time.
Pulling out an old Ayn Rand chestnut, I would ask Ditka"Wrong? By what standard?"
But then again, maybe Coach Ditka is not the best person to have philosophical discussions with.
posted by The Last American at 9:36:00 AM
View blog reactions
3 Comments:
Rand was not a proponent of men sticking penises up each other's asses.
Her standard was reality.
She might not be the best intellectual ammunition to deploy.
And you can't make the argument it ought to be a matter reserved to the states and it ought not to be a matter of government at all and be consistent.
There are several problems with your comment.
"Rand was not a proponent of men sticking penises up each other's asses.
Her standard was reality."
1. Ayn Rand formed her opinion on homosexuality based on incomplete information. The scientific evidence that suggests homosexuality is not a matter of choice, such as the physical difference in certain brain structures between gay and straight men, did not exist until after she died.
2. Gay marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with "men sticking their penises up each other's asses." In gay circles, as well as in straight ones, there are sexless marriages, and there is sex outside of marriage. Marriage does not equal sex.
And there is a large percentage of the gay community that doesn't find anal sex appealing in the least.
"She might not be the best intellectual ammunition to deploy.
And you can't make the argument it ought to be a matter reserved to the states and it ought not to be a matter of government at all and be consistent."
3. Which might me a valid argument if I had ever made the argument that it is a state argument. I don't believe I have. Some of the people I quoted may have at some point, but I believe government at all levels exists solely to protect the rights of it's people -- life, LIBERTY, property, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to have neighbors who don't call themselves husband and husband.
Government's sole interest in marriage is in preserving and enforcing the marital contract. It has no business dictating the sexes of those who enter the contract. Marriage does not equal sex. It does not equal parenthood. It is marriage.
And, like it or not, it IS an equal protection issue. Suppose Andy is a hermaphrodite. If you constitutionally define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, Andy can NEVER get married, not because of anything Andy did, but because of who Andy is, and something Andy had no control over.
What's that? There aren't very many Andies out there? I remind you that rights EXIST to protect the 1% from the 99%.
When you amend the Constitution to limit individual freedoms and to socially engineer, you begin a dark journey into Hitler-style dictatorship. It's not a journey I want to take.
This notion that marriage as it exists now is the standard that has existed as long as civilization has is a flat-out lie. Marriage is, and always has been, an evolving concept. Last century alone, bans on interfaith and interracial marriages fell by the wayside. Right before those bans fell, were the Orrin Hatches and the Santorums railing against any changes to "traditional" marriages?
I didn't see any call for action by the government there. In fact what he said was that in spite of what these judges (government officials) said, right is still right and wrong is still wrong. Now, you and I may disagree with his notions of right and wrong, but that's freedom at its best. Judicial fiat is not.
Post a Comment
<< Home