NRO's The Corner: Rolling Bile, Spit, and Gnash Thread

I'm really excited about reading KJL's response on Monday.

[Approved commenter] flenser

06/26/11 20:13

Link

Report Abuse

Four updates! This is starting to look like a Glenn Greenwald post.

Love how those tyrannical regimes (say, N.Korea) continually are bestowing new rights on their people.

Mr. Steorts:

Thank you for the excellent example of the tolerance we traditionalists will be graciously afforded under Gay Rule. I don't know what we could possibly be afraid of!

Gay Rule sounds kinda great!

Gay Rules:

If the straights were at the point, we forced them left and doubled them. If they were on the left wing, we went immediately to a double team from the top. If they were on the right wing, we went to a slow double team. And if they were on the box, we doubled with a big guy.

you forgot the fouling

the corner self-immolation later today? stay tuned

judging from the comments you'd think the NYS govt not only legalized "SSM" but also ordered every catholic to have anal sex before next sunday

What the hell is this dude even doing there?! http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270517/nro-readers-are-best-michael-potemra

I’m even thankful, to some extent, to those who wrote in disagreement, most of whom avoided cheap vilification. Many gave me food for thought, and some, I admit, for tongue-in-cheek mockery. One of my favorites deplored gay marriage as sending us down the road to “the full ‘gay’ morally relativistic agenda” which will result, if we permit it, in “materialism at high-tide.” Now, this is an objection I take very seriously indeed, because I think materialism is a great danger to the soul, especially in a wealthy country such as ours. So I hope we never reach those vilest depths of moral decay, the ones my reader is so worried about; and never become a country so overtaken by materialist excess that a respected conservative presidential candidate will have a million-dollar account at Tiffany’s to buy gifts for his wife. The gays will sure have a lot to answer for, if that ever happens . . .

. . . I am generally a fan of Archbishop Dolan — I have written about my appreciation for him here — but I thought his North Korea comparison was unfortunate. I know that he was trying to make a very specific point, about the relation between government power and the use of language; but I also know that if some liberal ever compared America to North Korea, even in the most “nuanced” possible way, conservatives would be jumping up and down accusing him of “anti-Americanism.”

To be honest, one of the reasons why I vote against gay marriage is because I know it annoys people like this. Chalk it up to spite.

^^^ 2011 GOP motto

When the Athenians voted to execute Socrates, was he or was he not the victim of tyranny? Can tyranny take any form other than dictatorship? Are the fears of our founding fathers mere fantasy, or is care for legal protection against the tyranny of the majority an actual real-world concern? Is the vote of a democratically elected body necessarily not tyranny? To dismiss the N. Korea analogy as beyond the pale is to deny the rational of the founding fathers, to deny any appeals to right and wrong that extend beyond positive law. Tyranny is capricious law, based upon the will of one, few, or many in a way that gravely contradicts the common good and the traditional laws for securing that good. Too much Team America and not enough Aristotle in these dismissals of the N. Korea analogy.

tsk, the tyranny of democracy

where is the originally N. Korea comparison? Following all their link circle jerks leads me nowhere.

wasn't Socrates a boy bugger?

tying themselves in knots trying to explain how the votes of elected politicians equal dictatorial mandates, but that's how you have to roll sometimes

everyone loves the majority opinion when they are in agreement with it

here ya go, Ed: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270491/new-york-s-age-anarchy-hour-zero-michael-potemra

the tyranny of democracy - from the same folks who brought you "liberal fascism"

Dear fuckfaces,

Below is the entirety of the long-dead Founding Fathers' thoughts on gay marriage:

Thank you,
The Management

oh man:

She Went by ‘Daddy’
June 27, 2011 11:53 A.M.
By Glenn T. Stanton

My daughter and I were in Manhattan over this weekend so I could do some research at the Met. Waves of people were coming into the city for Sunday’s big gay-pride march, where they could celebrate the Empire State’s new same-sex-marriage law. We sat behind some of them on the train, three young women with a precious, excited toddler girl in tow. The very evident leader of the clan was the patriarch. Adorned as if she might be an actor portraying a hip-hop teen from Cleveland, she had her meticulous corn-rows tucked under a backwards navy-blue flat-billed ballcap, a matching wife beater revealing a mural of tats on her arms, shoulders, and back. Baggy jeans rode low, leading to her construction boots with untied laces dangling free.

She was the only one of the adult threesome that interacted with the child, mindlessly uttering reassuring words like “Daddy will be right back” or “Sit over here by Daddy.”

You see, this is one of the things that most concerns me about the legal institutionalization of genderless marriage and parenting. We are told that nothing will really change with such laws; people who really love each other will just be able to enter really meaningful, legally protected relationships.

But, to use the language of our women’s-studies scholars, such a turn “does violence” to our concept of sex difference. They would have us believe that their way of looking at the world transcends the “narrow” confines of socially constructed gender difference, but these very folks end up playing to those very confines, usually in comically stereotypical ways. Think drag queen in her everyday clothes, like our Urban Outfitters dad on the train.

If that's all they got, they don't got a lot.

She went by Daddy!

To whom Glenn has written a letter.

Basic category rules (rules defining how things are defined and categorized) will be changed such that the government, rather than biology and the institution of marriage, will determine who is and is not a family.

This is why changing a single rule (marriage excludes adultery changed to marriage can include adultery) matters. It destroys marriage's ability to legitimize family bonds.

I've seen this argument before -- re "basic category rules." It's what happens when you introduce logic to psychosis I think. Utterly insane.

it's like when the buddha leaves his father's house and sees a sick man for the first time.

well no it's more like some dickhead getting weird about a bulldyke on the train.

xps

these idiots are so shook

its almost satisfying

the undercurrent of hilarity that i'm really digging is, they're losing their shit now instead of the other big gay rights victory's because they all live in new york like the rest of the media

er 'victories', wtf

lol seriously that was embarrassing

K-Lo is reduced to muttering whether a referendum wouldn't have been a better idea. These guys love changing the rules when they don't like the results.

I think they're worried mostly about what friends of theirs who they had no idea about (via head-in-sandism) are about to start inviting them to their marriages...

"Uh, can't make it. My leg will be acting up."

NRO weirdly super catholic these last few days.

I wonder if Jonah feels uncomfortable

irobot
06/27/11 12:12
Link
Report Abuse

Put everything to the vote. The Iraq/Afghanistan/Lybia/Yemen wars. Tax increases on the top 1%. The Surge (TM). Pot legalization. Football stadiums. Gambling. Whether we should increase or decrease social security benefits for grandma! The speed limit! The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills!

Representative democracy is a crime against freedom!

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/sodas/7.jpg

butthurt

hahahha irobot has to be an ilxor

Here's an important reminder: any government powerful enough to hand out "rights" to favored minorities is also powerful enough to take them away as well.

!

Oh i've commented a few times under various screennames.

Surely you're just trolling them under your deepest cover yet, Ms. Lopez.

Jabba Fierce, if you're feeling nasty.

The Corner gone crazy with the otm lately:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270590/chris-wallaces-tough-week-michael-walsh

woah -- something weird going on at NRO. i wonder if there's an ideological takedown going on.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270628/ethics-social-change-michael-potemra

^^^ its like he takes a knee at the 2-yd line there

yeah the last couple days have been so wild over there, all out of proportion

This is why changing a single rule (marriage excludes adultery changed to marriage can include adultery) matters.

Wait, do Corner dudes think the state should initiate divorce when a spouse cheats??

the final fallback:

That piece of paper stamped with a state seal and signed by a bureaucrat may give you legal legitimacy, but in society at large, same sex marriage is a joke, and it always will be; fodder for edgy stand-up comedians and raunchy animated sitcoms on Fox.