Video: 10-year-old refuses to pledge allegiance until gays can marry
posted at 5:51 pm on November 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via Greg Hengler, a palate cleanser you’ll never forget. Normally I’d suspect the parent of having put the kid up to this, but nope — not in this case. It’s actually a cute interview, but as an added incentive to watch, I’ll tell you now that the quote of the day is buried somewhere within. You’ll know it when you hear it.
I hope dad’s teaching him how to fight because this poor kid is probably in for a rough eight years until college. Exit question: You know who would be a sweet debating partner for him? Dude.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Many married couples don’t have kids. Should they be allowed to marry? What about single parents who eschew or refuse marriage? Should they be disallowed from procreating? What about guys who like oral/anal sex over vaginal intercourse? Should they be restricted too?
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 12:12 AM
What is “berdache?”
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 12:15 AM
I find forcing kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to be kind of creepy, irrespective of gay marriage.
holygoat on November 18, 2009 at 12:25 AM
I love liberal logic. I got thousands of examples opposing my position, but there is one example that might support me therefore I am right and you are wrong.
Now they are scouring remnants of American Indian heritage because that is the only place they find it and is actually rare in American Indian tribes. Only a few tribes had the idea of Two Spirits and the others treated them harshly (Human Sacrifice FTW!)
Holger on November 18, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Don’t know if this has been posted already but Doc has a great article here:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/11/in-defense-of-marriage/
beachgirlusa on November 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Allahpundit:
What’s “cute” about it? If the kid had refused to stand up for the pledge because he believed that blacks were not real people, and he, therefore, could not support a nation that considered them such, would you have described the little brat “cute”?
I would bet you my next years salary that the father is an atheist, or skeptic, agnostic, what have you. Why do I say that? Because atheists have no fundamental standards on which to adhere to societal norms and values. They pick and choose what suits their fancy, just like Allahpundit, who thinks this noxious little twerp crapping on the U.S. is “cute.”
I am a teacher, and if this kid were in my class, he would be out before he could murmur “first amendment rights violation.” Not for his beliefs, but for him telling me, his teacher, to go jump off a bridge.
Joe Pyne on November 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Sorry, but this is just a kid. He knows little to nothing of the world and someone needs to explain to him how little he knows.
What we are really looking at is a failure of the education system once again. And this poor kid has parents to foolish to even tell him when he is simply wrong.
And as usual, the terrible politically predictable CNN trots out yet another prop to espouse a ‘liberal cause’.
As someone else here likes to say, ‘Pravda would be proud’!
Freddy on November 18, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I responded directly to your statement within minutes of your making it. I required no research to refute your over-the-top comment. I only sought to remind that superlatives are word-traps. You trapped yourself with your own words. Calling me a liberal or insulting does not change that.
If you have some other proof than tradition, I’m open to it. Also, the berdache tradition existed within more than a “few tribes.”
Calm down then get back to me. Or fester in your own anger over what another man does with his penis.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Getting a marriage license is no more a right than getting a drivers license is. The laws regarding contracts, including marriage, are set by the people through the representivie process or by direct elections. This kid just doesn’t like the result of elections, something that is basic to a free people. The kid needs to understand that you pledge an allegiance to the flag, the country, and our system of government knowing you will often times not like the results when the majority disagrees with you.
Dollayo on November 18, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Reciting the pledge is not a requirement. Some families disallow their kids from doing so because of religion. Yet you think that you have the right as a teacher to force compulsory recital. That’s fascistic. Unreal, but not unbelievable.
He never said he does not support America as a nation. And even if he hated everybody on the planet except for Starbucks barristas he would have the right to sit out the pledge every day of his school career.
Are conservatives really for compulsory pledges of allegiance? Really?
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Several things sport:
1. Dennis Prager would eat you for lunch.
2. You know zero about this issue, and even less about marriage.
3. Sodomite “marriage” is as much of a oxymoron as Beastial “marriage.”
Get down off your high horse there, sport, you aren’t in Huffingtonland in here. This is where real people with real minds destroy the drivel of you on the left.
Joe Pyne on November 18, 2009 at 12:59 AM
How daft are you?
I haven’t seen anyone argue that anyone should be forced to say the pledge. I teach school, and there are Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuse to say the pledge in class. That is not the issue!
The issue is this little turd telling a teacher to “go jump off a bridge.”
This is the “broken window syndrome.” The more this school allows their teachers to be disrespected, the more dangerous it becomes for them.
Joe Pyne on November 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM
I agree with you, compulsory pledges are NAZI not American. In this case, I don’t think the kid should pledge his allegiance to our country if he doesn’t believe in governance by the people through elections.
Dollayo on November 18, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Are his parents pitching a reality show? Perhaps “My Dumbass Kid Should Pilot A Backyard UFO?”
BHO Jonestown on November 18, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Child abuse.
Connie on November 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
LMAO
beachgirlusa on November 18, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I must agree. I have to question a guy who turns his adolescent son, going through puberty, over to leftist media vultures to spout his views of marriage, of all things, on national TV, even if the kid wants to. His parents should have enough sense to know that it’s something he might regret doing and could have negative consequences later on. It’s downright cruel.
Dollayo on November 18, 2009 at 1:25 AM
That’s like saying, “give me definitive proof that pederasty is bad for society.”
Gay is no worse for society than stupid? Really? Try this one on for size:
Destructive for women, children, and society, I would say that is much more destructive for society than “stupid.”
Joe Pyne on November 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
This kid is going to get in quite a few fights and go on very few, if any, dates in the years to come.
I’m going to squeal in laughter like a little girl the day in the future I find out this little brat, now an adult – in physical age only, is on the air bawling his head off because he was denied a job or a promotion or something because someone pulled up this video and said, “Sorry Partner, but you have grown up but haven’t changed, you are still a classless brat.”.
A kid who tells the teacher to “go jump off a bridge” is one who will not be in that classroom long enough to recite the pledge. You don’t have to recite the pledge for any reason you wish and you don’t need to give a reason; the beauty of Liberty. You do need to show respect to your elders and your teachers; one of the burdens of living in civilized society.
Kid needs to get new parents.
Yet another reason to send my son to private schools or home school.
Bubba Redneck on November 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Cute? Maybe for a gay wad.
Seriously, maybe his dad should propose some thought provoking questions of his son. So, these gay people you supposedly know, what would stop them from say to each other ‘We are now married and putting a ring on each finger’?
Nothing? Well, looks like you are back to saying the pledge tomorrow.
TechieNotTrekkie on November 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM
The kid has a constitutional right not to recite the pledge.End of story.
DDT on November 18, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Gays are allowed to marry already. Nobody asks your orientation when you apply for a license.
One of the fundamental characteristics of marriage is that it involves both a man and a woman. Since they are different sexes, they complement each other. Same-sex relationships automatically leave out this crucial element.
Gays can marry (and some choose to in spite of their inclinations). They are just not currently allowed to call same-sex arrangements marriage.
SheofTwoMinds on November 18, 2009 at 3:24 AM
I’ve spoken with Dennis on several occasions. I’ve listened to him for more than a decade, maybe more than 15 years, since Religion on the Line. When it comes to love and marriage, I think Dennis is among the most clear-thinking and realistic. He understands men and women very well.
That being said, I think he’s wrong on the point I made about gay marriage. It would be nice if you addressed that point. If you’re going to condescend so rudely the least you could do is address my remarks specifically. The scatter-shot anger is wasted on me.
Simply put, could you consummate a homosexual marriage? If not, why should a gay man or woman be expected to do so with a straight person?
Please address my points or acknowledge that you cannot or wont.
Neither the kid or the host brought up the issue of a state’s right to allow its citizens to vote on such issues. There could have been 10 conservative pundits on the panel and none of them would have brought it up either. Were you arguing for states’ rights at 10?
You’re looking for a way to insult a 10-year-old. You’re a real stud.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 5:40 AM
Hey kid! Don’t forget to register for SELECTIVE SERVICE when you turn 18…
NOT (repeat, NOT) OPTIONAL…
;-)
Khun Joe on November 18, 2009 at 5:47 AM
Looks like this kid hasn’t read the constitution yet. It’s about States Rights. Once a State agrees to same sex marriage, then all States, and even the Federal Government must recognize it. This should never be a Federal law. It wouldn’t pass as an Amendment to the Constitution, that I can see. The core problem here is sometimes people are born both sex. Gender has become ambiguous. I read recently that plastic has chemicals in it, that cause male brains feminine during pregnancy. If the pregnant mother microwaves leftovers in a plastic container, it could cause her baby boy to be metrosexual. In any case, I think Hermaphrodites and Homosexuals and Ambiguous sex people, have rights to marry only if the State allows. It is not Federal business.
Ed Laskie on November 18, 2009 at 6:24 AM
But this teacher confronted him everyday he sat out for the pledge. The teacher should not have made a big deal out of it, and not treat Will any different based on his right to sit out the pledge. The Teacher provoked him.
Looks like Will, with the help of his Dad, made this a national story.
Ed Laskie on November 18, 2009 at 6:38 AM
and you have nothing to prove that gay marriage is NOT a threat to religious liberty…no surprise there.
so what? we’ve already seen the results of the gay movement already…a doctor in CA was sued because he refused to give a lesbian artificial insemination…he lost. with gay marriage, churches are going to be ruled discriminatory, lose their tax exempt status…and of course with ‘hate crimes’ anything you say that offends the gays will be a crime.
you really are a piece of work..typical lib…who cares about freedom for people you disagree with.
BS, as with the case of the doctor above, and a photographer in AZ, to name just a few, we have seen the results already.
right, in other words you have expectation that there will be religious freedom after gay marriage.
no surprise there.
its rather obvious you didn’t even read the article…
get a clue…oh but then you wouldn’t be a liberal if you did…
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 7:15 AM
oh and I asked for you articles proving the benefits to society from gay marriage…you have none
no surprise.
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 7:16 AM
oh and tell me why we should not have polygamy, and peophile marriages.
any ‘logic’ you use for gay marriage can be applied to polygamy or pedophilia.
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Marriage = 31
Gay Marriage = 0
Sorry Kid you lose!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on November 18, 2009 at 7:54 AM
How is it that a 10 year old has ‘lots of gay friends’? I find it hard to believe that his classmates his age are gay or even debating their ‘sexual preference’.
And someone correct me if Im wrong. Doesnt a civil union give gay people pretty much all the rights as a man and woman who are married? If so, what is this outcry to make it be called marriage?
bucsox79 on November 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Featured on O’Reilly last night. Everyone was Switzerland on the child and no one disparaged him or his “protest”.
Cindy Munford on November 18, 2009 at 8:07 AM
This kid is so brainwashed it is sickening. The next Keith Olbermann right before our eyes
tflst5 on November 18, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Even if the child is right, a parent should be intelligent enough to not let their child humiliate themself on national television like this. The boy will probably regret this later in life as it’s a moot point. Case law on this is long since completed and everyone knows the pledge can’t be forced on anyone. A 10 year old is not capable of having social and political views. He’s simply parroting his parents, and thus should not have been permitted to embarrass himself in this manor. It’s not cute. 10-year-olds should be playing outside in the mud, not parroting their parents views on TV, liberal or conservative in bias.
tx2654 on November 18, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Homosexuality has been destructive to the Republic period end of story. We call it HIV.
Holger on November 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM
If you look at the abortion argument, you can see the vacuum in your own. Abortion started out as a private right, and has evolved into a right which (a) reaches into everyone’s pocketbook and (b) requires medical professionals (including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) to support said right even when their own morals and ethics require them to do otherwise, and (c) requires that employers offer it as part of their medical plans, even when they morally object to the procedure.
As goes abortion, so goes homosexual “marriage” — now businesses must offer healthcare plans for “spouse”, landlords must rent to said “couple”, …
Personally, I think the religious rights of one town clerk who thinks homosexuality is an abomination trumps the supposed civil rights of two guys standing before her asking for a marriage license.
And I voted for Prop 8 for precisely that reason.
unclesmrgol on November 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Polygamy is endorsed in the Bible, so I didnt think you would have a prob with that. As for Pedophilia, the argument can absolutely not apply when one half of the union is not a consenting adult.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
So you supported the judge who refused to sign the marriage certificate of the interracial couple in LA (note, I am not equivocating interracial marriage and gay marriage, I know they are 2 different potatoes)
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
What was more destructive, the gay sex or the society that forced gay men into heterosexual lifestyles where it could spread to wider social groups.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
How many states recognize civil unions?
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Considering Marriage came from religion long before govts got involved, Gay Marriage is an oxymoron.
Gays are not treatedany differently from straight people. A gay man can marry a woman. Because afterall that IS marriage.
This kid has been completely brainwashed! LOL
jeffn21 on November 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Nice way of covering up the fact that AIDS hit the gay demographic first and they spread it like wildfire thanks to their sexual promiscuity, sexual promiscuity unmatched by hetero men, homosexual women or hetero women at the time. Sexual promiscuity among gay men is still much higher than hetero men, hetero women and homosexual women. STD infection rates are also much higher.
I’d also bet money that drug abuse and crime rates among gay men is also higher than heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual women.
Holger on November 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Another aspiring ACLU scumbag that thinks he knows what’s good for the American people, and we don’t. Yeah, I’m thoroughly impressed. Another idiot that knows nothing of America’s foundation on Judeo-Christian values, nor states rights to self-government. Obviously, his father is just as stupid as he is, because he hasn’t taught these things to his simply dah-ling son, Poindexter. He also comes from an uneducated family from the Great Unwashed that believes strongly in ‘white guilt’, special rights and hate crimes. Liberals are like a disease; a virus or bacteria. As opposed to trying to achieve a peaceful, healthy homeostatic life in the body, they multiply, spread and kill off everything that is not of them. They consume everything, and insure there is nothing remaining for anything else. Instead of achieving balance, they look to take over. I’ll bet this little weasel that shows disrespect to his betters that fought, and continue to fight, for this nation wouldn’t have any problem singing songs to Obama. I’d more want to pound his head into his body for being an ACLU aspirant, than for being an asinine O-bot gay booster.
As a hard-right black Christian Conservative (something his family wouldn’t know anything about), I find his arrogance and the obvious and glaring collective ignorance he comes from (and represents) about fundamental Constitutional Rights to be thoroughly disgusting. He’s quite obviously the product of completely uneducated parents that have been asleep at the switch since the day he was born, and I can only pray to the God they respect even less than their country that they’re shown the errors of the path they’re walking, and committing their kid to walk.
Virus-X on November 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Well, he has the right to not say the pledge. How does the news get ahold of these small stories, anyway?
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
This sanctimonious little snot makes me sick.
I hope he lets us know when he finds that perfect-in-every-way (to him) land of unicorns and rainbows so he can pledge allegiance.
BlueStateBilly on November 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Then why use that example?
It’s the “gay rights” movement that stand for arbitrary power of office-holders to violate their oath to the Constitution and imagine the 9th Amendment covers a topic that has been continually legislated against in every state since before ratification.
Interracial marriage, on the other hand, has been legislated into acceptance.
Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Does his refusal to pledge allegiance to the United States, mean his dad won’t claim a tax-credit for him from that government?
Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
That is either meaningless, or applies to believers as much as to non-believers.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Kids just don’t come up with that on their own. And why is a CHILD concerned about gay marriage? Maybe he leans that way already since he has gay friends (at 10). And why would gay 10 year olds have any concern about marriage?
I’m not for forcing anyone to say a pledge, but this kid is clueless that the citizens of this country (even in leftist CA) have by FAR have voted AGAINST gay marriage.
It figures that this young dweeb aspires to be a rotten lawyer.
elle capitan on November 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Now that I think about it…I see a HUGE RED FLAG with this kid. It sounds like an OLDER gay person is influencing this him. I’d be worried if I were this kids’ parents. The likelihood of a pedophile being involved with Will is very high….likely to be one of his teachers.
elle capitan on November 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
You are only an embarrassment to yourself, and clearly no better educated than that arrogant 10 year old. Just because something is in the Bible does not make it “biblical“. Jesus Christ at no time endorsed the wrong-headed mysogyny of polygamous relationships, and at best tolerated them. Speaking authoratatively on subjects that you obviously know nothing about only serve to further undermine your already nonexistent credibility. <strongRead the Bible, before commenting and attemting to espose God’s viewpoint on anything.
Virus-X on November 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
That is amazingly backward.
By “heterosexual lifestyles” do you mean a practicing bisexual that is open about heterosexual acts and secretive about homosexual acts?
The reality is that it isn’t the specifics of the acts that are so harmful (though there are some problems with any kind of sodomy), it is the promiscuous and unstable lifestyle on one hand, and sterile lifestyle on the other. Even then, it isn’t so much the individual instances, but the push to mainstream and universalize the behavior as a cultural norm.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM
John Roberts…”what’s a gaywad?”
Riiiiiight. Like HE’S never been called that.
You know…I have a 10 year old and he told me the other day after breaking his Bauer composite goalie stick and borrowing one of the other goalies wooden SherWood, that he wanted to switch to wood because the stick was heavier and he said the puck didn’t seem to jump off the blade as much when he made stick saves…said he had better control.
I like my son better than this kid.
LtE126 on November 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I don’t see how it’s any worse than anything else kids are forced to do. Why should they be exempted from saying the pledge but not standardized testing, sex ed, PE and any other government regulated class? The same public service arguments that support forced education can easily support forced allegiance.
So you don’t want gay men to die but you do want to be able to control what they do with their bodies?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The chances are probably elevated, though I wouldn’t rule out that the kid might be just trying to impress a leftist teacher with his strict and intolerant adherence to “open minded and tolerant” leftist dogma.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Getting them to take responsibility for what they do with their own bodies would be nice.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
When I was ten, I didn’t know what a gay person was. Only indoctrination can get a 10 year-old to speak this way.
Am I the only one who wonders why liberals don’t whine about the liberty to say a prayer in school? All we hear is how offensive it is for atheists to hear them. That usually means a handful of people deny that liberty to the masses by twisting the Constitution into something it doesn’t state and never did. Yet, a handful of liberals demand that the vast majority of the country change their minds and agree with them on gay marriage.
Don’t worry kid…sooner or later Obama will appoint a liberal judge who will legislate gay marriage for you.
orlandocajun on November 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM
No, it really isn’t. In fact, the kings who had multiple wives were specifically going against God, who understood that wives can easily lead a man astray. This too is covered in the Bible with David and Solomon, though more so with the latter.
Forced? Give me a break. No one forces anyone to get married, and gay sex is still adultery if the person is married.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
That’s obviously significantly easier if ObamaCare isn’t passed.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Doesn’t marriage tend to reduce promiscuity?
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM
No, its only meaningless to you because you don’t understand it. Like the typical liberal religious bigot, you dismiss anything you don’t put your presonal (and utterly worthless) stamp of approval on as lacking in merit and value. The point he made was clear in the fact that we are, in fact, bound by the laws and morality of God, believe in them, or not. This arrogant, uneducated child doesn’t believe it, but that changes nothing. The morals and laws of Man can and will change with something as simple as an election.
Jesus’ value system is unchanging and constant, which is part of what allows it to be a fundament. Values that change, going where the wind blows cannot be fundamentals simply on the basis that they cannot last. His (the arrogant 10 year old that parrots his parents’ warped ideals of social justice) morals, and those of other athiests/”agnostics” (like yourself) are houses with no foundation. You go where society’s winds blow you, and have no bedrock foundation, so you see the concept of having a real foundation in your life as something alien.
Virus-X on November 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
The liberty angle on school prayer is kind of a fine point. Mandating that students pray is clearly a violation of liberty, and leading a prayer that non-believing students have to sit through is very questionable, but preventing students from praying on their own (on their own time and in their own space) is also a clear violation of liberty.
Come to think of it, I think I also stopped saying the pledge around the age of ten — but then started saying it again when I realized I could just leave out the words “under God” (I didn’t find out until my late 20′s that those words weren’t even in the original pledge).
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
anyone else detect the fake british accent?
JCred on November 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Depends on who you are talking about.
But, what is the point of a monogamous same-sex relationship, anyway?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM
That depends on the marriage. Not all are monogamous.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
What’s the point of any monogamous relationship?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM
It seems in aggregate it does. Even in open marriages there is likely some priority given to the spouse and some set of household responsibilities that reduce the frequency of hooking up with others.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Has anyone bothered to explain to the little darling that marriage is not a right?
Gays already have equal rights. There is no “right” to marriage.
And, not incidentally, gays already can marry — just not each other. They can co-habit, leave their estates to anyone they want, “associate” with other gays — those are rights. They enjoy all the rights that are protected by the Constitution. No one is abrogating that.
Their issue has more to do with forcing society to sanction their lifestyle choice and to neutralize any stigma attached to their sexual orientation and practices. It’s more like a temper tantrum than a legitimate civil rights issue, which I suppose is why this child can relate to it.
cheeflo on November 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Good points but I wasn’t referring to mandated prayer. I was referring to banishment of prayer or any mention of God in school functions, i.e., no prayer before an event, valedictorians can’t mention their faith, no under God in the pledge, no Christmas trees or nativity scenes, etc.
orlandocajun on November 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Christians (or members of any other religion) are clearly not bound by any static set of morals. All you have to do is look back at history to see how much they have changed. You pick and choose how you will interpret the lines of an ancient text. You can postulate an unchanging “word of God” all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that everyone has their own idea of what it is.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I have to say …
I say the pledge of allegiance … I make sure my kids say … though I don’t know why we have it.
Making people say a “pledge” every day kind of desensitizes them to it’s importance imo.
It’s a serious pledge. We haven’t had it for very long in this nation’s history. I believe the original version was not even written until 1892 and didn’t become “accepted” for years after that. The author is sometimes refered to as a “Socialist” … but whatever.
The Pledge is a BIG DEAL.
Confederate prisoners were sometimes required to take an “oath of allegiance” to the United States before being released from Federal custody. This was an attempt to guarantee they’d no longer work to support the Confederate States.
And what are we pledging to …
1. A Flag.
2. The Republic – for which it stands.
What is the character of the “Republic” we’re swearing allegiance to? Why … it’s “one nation, under God” … “indivisible” … “with Liberty and Justice for all”.
If the flag is co-opted by a dictator – are we still obliged to hold our allegiance to it? We should not be – but the pledge says we are.
If the “Republic” fails to be a nation under God – are we released from the pledge? We should not be – but the pledge hints that we can be.
“Indivisible”?? Is that a practical, physical definition similar to the law of gravity? Something that can’t be done? Or are we buying into the concept that what our Fore Fathers built – over 200 years ago – we’re bound to live with no matter how bad it gets?
I have problems with it. I say it – it’s a nice thing I suppose. But I don’t buy into any of the concept behind the words.
HondaV65 on November 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The dad and lad are still owed 7 minutes and forty eight seconds of fame.
He is a bright 10 year old. Like a parrot he can mimic things he has heard and make them sound like his own. He is 10 years old and has no experiential wisdom or knowledge. People ought to realize that and just smile.
The lead Muslim FBI Agent still coming up empty on the Hasan mystery?
BL@KBIRD on November 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Conceiving, baring, and raising children, as part of the biological propagation of the species. Everything else is either just a close friendship or assisted masturbation.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM
This may have been asked already, but is his dad gay or something? My money would bet on he is.
la.rt.wngr on November 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Dads gay, easy to tell. How in creation can a straight father support a leftist educated kid unless he is the same? THAT is why homeschooling has its merits.
royzer on November 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I was talking about societal effects. Across any demographic, married people probably have less non-monogamous sex than single people.
What is the point of monogamous straight relationships? I think marriage is primarily about kids, but other people find that marriage gives them greater stability, trust, and security than living out their lives alone would. Even couples with children will eventually have their kids leave them and have to rely primarily on each other for day-to-day support.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I don’t see how household responsibilities should make hooking up any harder with two people living at the same house as opposed to just one person living alone. If anything, I would think it would lessen the household burdens.
And, depending on the marriage, a spouse can be helpful in picking up men/women at bars, like a more involved wingman.
I do agree with your first sentence, but I’m unconvinced that it has a power to tame individuals who were never interested in monogamy to begin with.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM
So until I have children, I’m just in a close friendship with someone who helps me masturbate?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Marriage is a Constitutionally protected right according to SCOTUS–at least straight marriages are. If a straight couple wants to get married, there are very few reasons why a state can legally refuse them a license.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Pretty much.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
…and, if a gay couple wants to get married (to members of the opposite sex), most states won’t refuse them.
I still disagree with the idea that marriage itself is a right. The decisions themselves seems to be more about the right of cohabitation (and sex), which states had made contingent on marriage, and that is where the decision should have rested.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I’m so glad you have such a low opinion of marriage and couples who would choose to do it. In that case, why even allow marriage without children?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Huh using a kid for propaganda where would anyone get an idea like that mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm……
Dr Evil on November 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
But what would be the point? They wouldn’t even be helping their spouses masturbate, let alone procreate, so it wouldn’t be a marriage.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Dick Cheney?
thuja on November 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Because you want to get all the legal niceties tidied away before you risk starting the process that produces said children.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Why not?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
This argument always kills me. Is that something you really want to promote? Gays entering into heterosexual marriages? Really? That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
TedInATL on November 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM
That wouldn’t apply to old people.
Besides, by your own logic, gays should be allowed to get married as many are already raising children. Those gays would certainly have a greater “right” to their union than I do. I’ve been married five years and still can’t imagine raising a child.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM
You can disagree with SCOTUS. They’ve made bad decisions in the past, but currently they regard marriage as a fundamental right rather than a government program.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Cause sexually they prefer the same parts not opposite parts. Preference is generally very helpful, if not necessary, for arousal, and arousal, at least for men, is necessary for assisted masturbation and child creation.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM
But what about turkey basters?
thuja on November 18, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Not really. First, they are not the biological parents (though this could get messing in the future when the technology permits it), and second, they don’t have the male and female components that we find important socially.
Actually, I’m not a big fan of the legal (or the religious for that matter) institution of marriage. It’s just that I object even more strongly to its use as a cover for irresponsible behavior for people that demand that the government rebuke people that don’t approve of them.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Some swinging couples might increase their promiscuity as a result of being together, though marriage itself doesn’t enhance that opportunity.
In the more common case where either partner is looking for sex outside the relationship, marriage does present legal problems for them. It can cost them some of their property.
My original point is that couples making a public proclamation of fidelity during a ceremony with family and friends tend enter into a less promiscuous relationship than couples who are not hitched.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM
If they won’t learn new habits in something as trivial as sexual arousal, why should the government step in to encourage them not to?
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Which they are free to do without government recognition or endorcement.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
What about adoption?
So if I am unable to have children, and we adopt, I’m still just cohabiting with a friend who helps me out sexually?
Second, not all women have female parts for various reasons.
Clearly that’s not the government’s job, but that’s a secondary issue to marriage.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Yes, though as taxpayers gay couples are entitled to the same treatment by the IRS and SSA as straight couples.
dedalus on November 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Tend to, but it’s difficult to tell if that’s because those people tend to be more committed to the relationship or if marriage itself has something to do with it. I’m only arguing that it’s more the former.
It can certainly quell temptation for those who already view marriage as monogamous but might otherwise stray.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
So your argument is that sexual arousal is completely conditioned and can easily be amended? What exactly are you basing that on?
Also, what business does the government have in encouraging gay people to change what their sexually aroused by?
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »