Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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.
Mr. Medved is really interesting on history but it is obvious that he doesn’t even listen to the shows he is complaining about.
Cindy Munford on December 6, 2008 at 10:46 AM
IMO Seattle is a corrosive environment: you spend enough time there and the prevailing opinion tends to become your own.
I remember last year when I was in Seattle, a friend of my sister told me (once I had been ‘outted’ as a Republican) that:
“Keith Olbermann is the one true voice of the American people.”
I love my sister but I fear that we may have lost her.
rockbend on December 6, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Medved peaked in the ’90s with his culture/values material. Politically he’s a pragmatist, more interested in his “team” than principles. Medved showed how little he cared for his core audience during the Shamnesty bill fight; he thinks the Repub’s need to pander to the Hispanic vote. with amnesty. Hannity may be a robot clown, but at least he’s a clown who hammers on conservative principles.
Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, (and many more) are far better radio hosts and also have much stronger principles than Medved.
If he’s on his way out, good riddance.
Harpazo on December 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM
IMO Seattle is a corrosive environment:…
Constant rain
Home of over priced coffee
Full of smelly socialist hippies
It doesn’t get any more corrosive than that.
Fletch54 on December 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I had about enough of Medved as he seemed to turn himself inside out to support McCain even going so far as to name call any conservative that had a legitimate beef with the Senator from Arizona! He was nearly as bad as Hewitt on being such a cheerleader for the team that he made any claim that he had principles laughable.
But if the new president makes credible efforts to govern from the center, then talk radio can’t afford long-term marginalization as a sulking, sniping, angry irrelevancy. It makes no sense to react with pre-emptive rage (and an odd obsession over Obama’s birth certificate) to a president-elect who has remained pointedly vague on policy)
Talk radio is not a person. SUV’s do not veer and murder their occupants or hate people in the next lane. Talk radio does not go to shrinks or ask advice on how to talk
Talk radio is speech by many people. Those who are listened to by a lot of people stay on the air. Those who say things of little interest to a large amount of people go off the air, unless they are subsidized by donors.
In a free country you are allowed to be an ’sulking, sniping, angry irrelevancy’. See the View for an example
Why is another man’s rage ‘pre-emptive rage
Perhaps it is real time rage
Medved finds the obsession over Obama’s birth certificate to be odd while others find the unwillingness to produce the long form odd
I find the disinterest in a candidate’s legal credentials even more odd.
Show me the money. Nope. Ok, next question.
Vague policy statements are found on both sides, but hard facts, past behaviour, and legal records are the best evidence of a candidates future behaviour.
If Medved doesn’t like the blarney of the talk radio imp, why does he give credibility to the blather of a candidate’s promises?
Medved, go have a drink with Barnes, you are on the same page
entagor on December 6, 2008 at 11:32 AM
But if the new president makes credible efforts to govern from the center, then talk radio can’t afford long-term marginalization as a sulking, sniping, angry irrelevancy.
Really? That is *exactly* the strategy the Left, the mass media and the Democrats used the last 8 years of President Bush being in office, essentially governing from the center (he definitely was not governing as a conservative), and it paid off for them quite handsomely with the White House and big majorities in both Houses of Congress. So this is simply nonsense.
The problem is with “moderates” in the GOP who are too afraid to actually stand for something. I’m done supporting GOP members who just want to get along and who want to be popular. I want leaders and statesmen who stand for principles, not politicians who pander to the ignorance of the populace, because it will win them votes. The GOP is in the tank now, because GOP now stands for Grand Old Pandering.
Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck (as someone listed earlier) are leaders. They don’t sacrifice their principles to pander to Parties. That is what is needed in Washington, not just on talk radio.
So I completely disagree with Medved. We need *more* of Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham and Beck, not less. And we need more statesmen and leaders of their principled stripe in Washington, not less.
We need *more* of Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham and Beck, not less. And we need more statesmen and leaders of their principled stripe in Washington, not less.
Too many of these fools are kissing up to the left.
Rush is fine though I prefer Ingraham when it comes to political talk. She does a nice job with interviewing with those that we may not agree.
Jamson64 on December 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM
With conservative talk radio expected to surge thanks to Barack Obama & Friends, can one moderate boost his sagging career by attacking right-leaning hosts and their listeners?
Isn’t the market for conservative turncoats getting pretty crowded right about now. I had assumed a lot of the “moderate conservatives” who endorsed Obama at the last moment would be sucking up like crazy right now to try and see if they can salvage their markets. And this guy is now trying to jump on the bandwagon?
Seriously, does being an occasional stooge on liberal media news progams pay well? Most moderates pay attention to politics a few two weeks every four years. What kind of an audience is that? These dorks are wrecking whatever personal appeal they may have once had. Nobody will buy THEIR books; nobody will listen to THEIR shows.
logis on December 6, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Medved is great on some things, but he is also afraid of being “too Conservative”. He is an example of what IS wrong with the GOP.
Gatordoug on December 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM
These meaningless bone-headed issues like gay marriage and the Terri Schiavo case are a big reason why we are losing the young and college educated vote. Are we really the party of less government and liberty, or only so when it suits us here and there?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
A couple of years ago, they all complimented Limbaugh as being so gracious and helpful to them. This past year, I started hearing BOR and Medved taking veiled swipes at Limbaugh. Not sure what happened.
But all of these pundits — radio, newspaper, and internet, need to get over this idea that they can tell people what to do and think.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM
These meaningless bone-headed issues like gay marriage and the Terri Schiavo case are a big reason why we are losing the young and college educated vote. Are we really the party of less government and liberty, or only so when it suits us here and there?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
You are conflating “less government” with “no government”. By your logic, we could achieve “less government” by doing away with all laws.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
But all of these pundits — radio, newspaper, and internet, need to get over this idea that they can tell people what to do and think.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Unwitting irony, I think that’s called. And no, that’s not a compliment.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:25 PM
You are conflating “less government” with “no government”. By your logic, we could achieve “less government” by doing away with all laws.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Reductio ad absurdum.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Meh. I don’t agree with the degree of his rhetoric on this. Medved is positioning himself at the left edge of right, but I don’t think he’s attacking the right.
Jaibones on December 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Michael Medved is the Mr. Irrelevant of talk radio. Does anybody listen to him anymore?
Percy_Peabody on December 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Cauda.
The point, which should have been obvious to anyone with at least 3 functioning synapses, is that enforcing moral law (such as prohibitions against murder & theft) is not a sign of “big government.” Do you disagree?
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
You are conflating “less government” with “no government”. By your logic, we could achieve “less government” by doing away with all laws.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
You essentially confirm toliver’s assertion that government is OK — when it suits your religious beliefs, moral standing or monetary needs.
What about keeping our money and troops here at home, keeping the government out of my kitchen cabinet and my bedroom and as far away as possible from my guns? Getting government out of the compulsory education job would also be a big step. Fair taxation is also a good idea…but a pipe dream.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Michael Medved is the Mr. Irrelevant of talk radio. Does anybody listen to him anymore?
Percy_Peabody on December 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Apparently millions of weekly listeners. He still sucks.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
But all of these pundits — radio, newspaper, and internet, need to get over this idea that they can tell people what to do and think.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Do you even listen to people such as Rush and Ingraham and Beck and such? Their popularity is not about “telling people what to do and think”. It is based on people being drawn to them, because they finally have a voice to express opinions that they already hold. The funny thing is that people who don’t listen to Rush, etc, think that his listeners are all “mind-numbed robots” who get their orders of what to think and do from him. But it is pretty much the opposite. His listeners are some of the most informed and active in politics and they like to listen to him, because he gives a voice they do not have to views, principles and values they hold dear.
Rush is popular based on the values, principles and views of his listeners. When Rush is no longer popular and successful, then we will have something to worry about, because it will mean that the values, principles and views of the American public have changed. And not in a good way.
The irony is that many on the Left *do* go to their masters in the mass media and on the web in order to get told what to think and do. Me, I come here to HotAir, Michelle Malkin, NRO, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Blackfive, Mudville Gazette, This Ain’t Hell, The Jawa Report, etc not to be told what to think/do, but to have what I think and do reaffirmed. It is comforting to know that I am not alone in the wilderness.
And that is the basis of the popularity of “right-wing” talk radio. It is a comfort and reaffirming that we are not alone in the wilderness, when it seems that way based on the complete Left-wing takeover of every other major medium of information dissemination (mass media, schools, universities, entertainment industry).
Apparently millions of weekly listeners. He still sucks.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Apparently you like sentence fragments. You suck.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM
And that is the basis of the popularity of “right-wing” talk radio. It is a comfort and reaffirming that we are not alone in the wilderness, when it seems that way based on the complete Left-wing takeover of every other major medium of information dissemination (mass media, schools, universities, entertainment industry).
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Pshaw puppy! You’re just another minority bitching and moaning.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Fuck that.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM
These meaningless bone-headed issues like gay marriage and the Terri Schiavo case are a big reason why we are losing the young and college educated vote. Are we really the party of less government and liberty, or only so when it suits us here and there?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I tend to agree, at least partially. There are some Social Cons who are all for limited government, until something offends them of course. A perfect example is the lunacy of preaching less government, more freedom, then asking the FCC to gain more control over certain TV shows we may not like.
Be a REAL Conservarive and use the freaking remote and quit whining!
“When it suits my religious beliefs”? Must one be religious to accept the need for a law against, for instance, murder? If you believe that, you’re a loon. If you don’t then it comes down to defining terms, which reasonable people can disagree about without getting pissy. What I am arguing against is the apparent proposition that all laws reduce liberty. I posit that some laws increase liberty. For instance, because of laws prohibiting robbery, assault and murder, I have liberty to walk the city streets without unreasonable fear of being robbed, assaulted or murdered. The average guy in Mogadishu, on the other hand has much more “liberty” than you and I (no rule of law), but I doubt you’d want to live there.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Michael Michael Michael…
Didn’t your momma tell you that you can’t build yourself up
by tearing others down?
You won’t be the greatest talk show host
on GOD’S GREEN EARTH with a pound of flesh in your molars
from El Maha Rushie.
silverfox on December 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Can you ever post a nonpatronizing response that is less than hundreds of words? You are fooling yourself if you think people read all your crap. And for both you and splashman, the other ahole, I do not go on blogs, listen to radio shows, read columns to be repeated told what my political position must be and to be insulted if I don’t agree. This applies to some and not to others. If you were too stupid to figure it out, that’s your problem. Unlike you, I feel no need to write a thousand words to explain every position I hold and as a result bore people to death.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Translation: “I am unable to verbalize a coherent argument, a-hole.”
At least you’re honest.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 1:13 PM
The point, which should have been obvious to anyone with at least 3 functioning synapses, is that enforcing moral law (such as prohibitions against murder & theft) is not a sign of “big government.” Do you disagree?
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Once again, reductio ad absurdum. Anyone with three functioning synapses would know I haven’t argued for less rigorous laws regarding theft and murder.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself please.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Can you ever post a nonpatronizing response that is less than hundreds of words? You are fooling yourself if you think people read all your crap. And for both you and splashman, the other ahole, I do not go on blogs, listen to radio shows, read columns to be repeated told what my political position must be and to be insulted if I don’t agree. This applies to some and not to others. If you were too stupid to figure it out, that’s your problem. Unlike you, I feel no need to write a thousand words to explain every position I hold and as a result bore people to death.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Wow, I didn’t know you had so much time on your hands that you count the words in my crap posts. Interesting.
And yeah, I guess you can bore people to death with less words. Kudos to you!
Can you ever post a nonpatronizing response that is less than hundreds of words?
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
The only thing “patronizing” in my post — if you were so sensitive to take it that way — was asking if you even bothered to listen to the Rush Limbaugh program. Since it is obvious to anyone to listens to his program on a daily basis, as I do, that his listeners do not go to him for orders on how to think, but listen to him as a reaffirming of their already strongly held views.
(Only 82 words this time. Good enough for ya? heh)
This, plus your “Foxtrott that” comment reaffirmed your great wit. I’m so glad you’re here TRC.
Blake, what got into you today, or at that moment? No need to answer.
Michael in MI, don’t go changing. We’re all the way we are, take it, or leave it. It’s one of the beauties of the internet, and otherwise.
Now, all, please get along
Entelechy on December 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
The funny thing is that people who don’t listen to Rush, etc, think that his listeners are all “mind-numbed robots” who get their orders of what to think and do from him. But it is pretty much the opposite.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
If you think about it (and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” for some people) it’s downright bizarre.
Rush Limbaugh is “propaganda” and his listeners are “brainwashed” because we actively seek out a show, not just at a certain time but on an entire medium that we would never otherwise go to. (Before Rush Limbaugh, some companies were even starting to make radios without an a.m. setting.)
But that’s not even the bizarre part – that’s just plain old stupid. And you can’t really argue with it; if someone wants to believe that Rush Limbaugh is the source of all evil in the world, that’s an article of faith and as such there’s no possible way to disprove it.
The bizarre part is that if you try to ask the moonbats who THEY listen to, they have no coherent response. Uh, Katie Couric?… Not really. Oprah Winfrey?… Never!… Paul Moyer? Who? They’ll say they listen to “everything.” In other words, they make absolutely no effort whatsoever to discriminate between information sources.
…And the moonbats are completely convinced that this proves that THEY are the ones who have infinitely active, inquisitive intellects.
logis on December 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM
In a USA Today Op-Ed piece, he’s accused conservative talk radio listeners of being “disgruntled” and “paranoid”.
Sounds like a little projection going on here. Like the pot calling the kettle bl…
Oh. Oops. Never mind…
rmgraha on December 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Are we really the party of less government and liberty, or only so when it suits us here and there?
Well, yeah, you can’t just say “less government and liberty” and then shut your brain off. We should not be the party of a government which stands by as either (a) a disabled woman is starved to death by the state or (b) the bedrock institution of recorded human history is radically redefined to suit a fringe fad.
I don’t think Medved is talking about Rush at all – he’s talking about Michael Savage, who really is a fruitcake.
packsoldier on December 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM
…And the moonbats are completely convinced that this proves that THEY are the ones who have infinitely active, inquisitive intellects.
logis on December 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I hear ya. I was talking to a friend of mine prior to the election about all the things with which I took issue with Barack Obama (and listed his campaign donation fraud, campaign voter registration fraud, campaign voter fraud, ACORN ties, Rev Wright, William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc) and the first thing she said in response was “where do you get your information?” And I told her that I read a lot of blogs and do a lot of research. Her response: “Oh okay, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t just getting info from FOX News”.
These people are so paranoid about Rush and FOX News Channel it’s ridiculous. My friend made no effort to discredit anything I said on the substance of it, she simply went straight for trying to discredit my source(s). Once she found out she couldn’t discredit it based on it coming from Rush or FOX News Channel, she just shut up and changed the subject.
I should have, but I didn’t even bother to ask her where she got her info on Obama (whom she was proud to say she was supporting). I just assumed she was a lost cause, based on the substance (or lackthereof) of our conversation to that point (all she could do was make fun of Sarah Palin. She had nothing to say when I noted that Sarah Palin had a much better and more qualifying resume for the office than Obama and proceeded to list off all her accomplishments. All she does is spout the Tina Fey line “I can see Russia from my house!”).
By the way, logis, that’s a pretty long post you made there. You’re gonna have to learn to make it much shorter, as I have been told there is no way anyone likes to read all that crap without getting bored to death. heh
Michael in MI, don’t go changing. We’re all the way we are, take it, or leave it. It’s one of the beauties of the internet, and otherwise.
Now, all, please get along
Entelechy on December 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Heheh. That’s the beauty of the interwebs, Entelechy: there’s no need for anyone to have to get along. There’s that nice little thing called… ignore. I choose to take that route many a time. heh
I’ve enjoyed Medved a lot in the past, but he’s pretty arrogant for a guy who got almost everything wrong about the 2008 election cycle (the one thing he got right was predicting that Huckadouche would be a bigger player than many originally thought).
Since at least the Fall of 2007 Medved tirelessly promoted John McCain as the best chance Republicans had to win the presidency, and it’s fairly clear now that McCain did not have the fire in his belly that was needed, as many of us felt deep down for a long time.
I see no evidence that Medved should be trusted to chart a pathway to victory at this point. Entertaining radio, sometimes, but Karl Rove he ain’t.
I don’t think Medved is talking about Rush at all – he’s talking about Michael Savage, who really is a fruitcake.
You could be right. Medved’s been pretty upfront about his contempt for Savage, a contempt I believe is well-placed.
Some people opine that Medved is a phony conservative, and others make the same claim against O’Reilly, but if you ask me, the one guy who really seems like a phony deep down is Savage. I just don’t believe his sincere. I think it’s an act.
If Medved does not change direction, he may end up where he is heading.
Cheshire Cat on December 6, 2008 at 2:47 PM
but if you ask me, the one guy who really seems like a phony deep down is Savage. I just don’t believe his sincere. I think it’s an act.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Is Savage a hero or a skunk
A fiddling Nero or a drunk?
I’m told he waddles when he walks
And often giggles to himself when he talks
Is he a dolt? He’s very deep!
Oh, Medved is losing sleep!
Is Savage robust or very pale?
At least we know he’s male!
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Is Savage a hero or a skunk
A fighting Patton or a drunk?
I’m told he stagers when he walks
And often giggles to himself when he talks
Is he a dolt? He’s very deep!
Oh, Medved is losing listeners as well as sleep!
Is Savage a Paul Revere or someone who should be in jail?
At least we know he’s male!
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Oh, you’re one of those.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Yeah, I’d like you to keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Are you one of those people that oppose gay marriage because some ancient text called it a sin? Do you really think the vast majority of teh gheys choose to be ghey?
That’s pure religious ignorance if you do, and it’s just one reason why the young ‘uns are turning away from the Republican party. Kids these days don’t care about gay marriage, interracial relationships, Terry Schiavo or arduous stem cell arguments. Reasonable abortion arguments will win many over in time, because there is some logic to some of the anti-abortion arguments, but the other stuff won’t change for the most part.
National security + small government + liberty + personal responsibility – evangelical bullcrap = future victory.
So Kensington,
I’m not the one with the brain turned off. To have “faith” is by definition doing just that. Having said that, I really don’t know if there’s a God or not.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
A McAmnesty shill… Nuff said and don’t care what he says and don’t listen to his tripe anymore! He is part of the problem not the solution!
sabbott on December 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Hard to figure how Medved is reviving a fading career when his book is on the NYT bestselling list. Logic out the window when it comes to covering the fighting between conservatives for the soul of the movement.
Yeah, I’d like you to keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Are you one of those people that oppose gay marriage because some ancient text called it a sin? Do you really think the vast majority of teh gheys choose to be ghey?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
My question for those who want to redefine marriage in this country to include homosexual/same-sex unions is why, if we are going to redefine marriage, we don’t redefine marriage to include polyamory and polygamy. Afterall, as you said, homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, and those who are polyamorous and polygamoous don’t choose to be that way either. (For that matter, neither do those who are attracted to children or those who are attracted to animals…) So, if we are going to redefine marriage, we should redefine it to be all inclusive to all of us who were born with different sexual orientations.
However, I have read that some of the leaders of the homosexual/same sex marriage movement are against redefining marriage to polygamy. I just wonder why. Why redefine it to suit their purposes, but not those of others? Why accuse traditional marriage people of intolerance, yet not see themselves as intolerant for not supporting polygamy?
I usually don’t get a good response from anyone. Usually they try to get me to answer where I stand on the issue first, so they can address any of my perceived biases, instead of addressing the issue on the substance of the matter.
Again and again the straw grasping reductio ad absurdum.
So if we let gheys get married, why not a dude with a hog, dog, Grace Jones and Carrot Top?
Silly.
People are born ghey and straight. Get over it.
Instead of getting a divorce evangelicals, sue to stone your wife – hey, it’s in the Bible you know.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Tolliver, I don’t oppose gays getting married. Any gay person who wants to marry someone of the opposite sex has my best wishes, however unwise such a marriage may be. My opposition to same sex marriage, on the other hand, is rooted in conservatism, i.e., I don’t think it’s wise to radically redefine the institution or marriage because people are shrieking disingenuously about how their rights are being denied.
Nowhere in recorded human history has a society codified same sex marriage into their laws and structures, not even the ancient Greeks, even while they were encouraging their men to maintain homosexual relationships outside of their marriages.
Now, either they all had a good point or they were all, every last one of them, guilty of bigotry, hatred or whatever other smear the same-sex marriage activists insist upon, and only today’s liberals know best.
I’m not convinced.
By the way, Tolliver, nice sleight-of-hand trying to fold in interracial marriage as if anyone is opposed to interracial marriage. You did that because you want to suggest that opposing same sex marriage is the same thing as opposing interracial marriage. That’s nonsense, as anyone who can tell the difference between sexes understands.
And, finally, the day that Republican victory requires me to stand by as disabled women are starved to death in order to make sure that government doesn’t overreach (to protect disabled women from being starved to death) is the day I leave the party forever.
When that day happens, when the social conservatives depart, watch the Republicans become as relevant as the Libertarians.
So if we let gheys get married, why not a dude with a hog, dog, Grace Jones and Carrot Top?
Silly.
People are born ghey and straight. Get over it.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
No, that’s not it at all, toliver. Also, you skipped over polygamy.
I addressed your point of ‘homosexuals did not choose to be that way, so we shouldn’t discriminate against them for it’. Fine, I say, premise accepted. Taking that premise, then we cannot discriminate against anyone else either, correct?
And, if we are going to redefine marriage in this nation, then why not redefine it all the way, not just to suit the homosexual community. Why not redefine it to also include polygamy? What if a bisexual is also polyamorous? The bisexual wants to marry their wife and husband and form a polygamous marriage. Bisexuals did not choose to be bisexual, so we should not discriminate correct?
So my question stands. If we are going to redefine marriage, why not redefine it all the way. What is the logical argument from the homosexual marriage lobby against polygamy? The argument the homosexual marriage lobby gives for redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is that it is a matter of tolerance and lack of discrimination. Well, that case can be made also for polygamy and bisexuals. Yet, we’re not pushing for polygamy and polyamory. Why not?
Also, side note, you say that people are born homosexual and heterosexual. Aren’t people also born bisexual and as women who feel they should be men and as men who feel they should be women and end up getting sex changes? What about the people who are sexually attracted to children. They were born that way too right? So we can’t simplify this down to homosexual and heterosexual. People are born as many different ’sexual orientations’.
Applying the “logic” of same-sex marriage activists, we have to recognize that bisexual people simply have to have sex with both men and women. They have no choice. Consequently, they have to be allowed to marry at least two people, one of each sex.
By the way, Tolliver, nice sleight-of-hand trying to fold in interracial marriage as if anyone is opposed to interracial marriage. You did that because you want to suggest that opposing same sex marriage is the same thing as opposing interracial marriage. That’s nonsense, as anyone who can tell the difference between sexes understands.
I said interracial RELATIONSHIPS. Reading comprehension is fundamental. Many [most] of the same people that freak out over people that are born gay getting married are also upset [under their breath] when they see a black dude with a white chick [or visa-versa]. Yes, it’s true, as I know what many people say behind closed doors. So, nice try at pulling the nice try.
SEC Championship kick off! We’ll have to pick this up some other time gents.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Applying the “logic” of same-sex marriage activists, we have to recognize that bisexual people simply have to have sex with both men and women. They have no choice. Consequently, they have to be allowed to marry at least two people, one of each sex.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Yep, exactly my point. Yet, of course, when I apply their ‘logic’ and pose my question to them, suddenly they see their ‘logic’ in the same way I see their ‘logic’. heh
Nowhere in recorded human history has a society codified same sex marriage into their laws and structures, not even the ancient Greeks, even while they were encouraging their men to maintain homosexual relationships outside of their marriages.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Consequently, they have to be allowed to marry at least two people, one of each sex.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Now, now, boys — toliver has an ideological agenda impervious to facts and logic, so let’s not attempt to cloud the issue with, er, facts and logic.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Medved is conservative. he’s just very worried about the future of the party.
he’s shrewd.
and ive yet to hear a valid claim against a specific point he’s made…
Yep, exactly my point. Yet, of course, when I apply their ‘logic’ and pose my question to them, suddenly they see their ‘logic’ in the same way I see their ‘logic’. heh
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM
You chaps still haven’t told me if gays choose to be so. It all starts there, for if God created homosexual behavior [as God has done countless times in other species] then why can’t teh ghey have the same rights as straights?
So evangelicals, please tell me if homosexuality is a chosen sin, and not an inborn trait [the vast majority of the time]? And while we are at it, is the world 6,00 years old?
Bringing up ridiculous scenarios is exactly what I’ve said it is, reductio ad absurdum. It’s a poor way to argue.
But perhaps your goofy hypothetical prove the point that government shouldn’t be in the love business. Just because some government sanctioned behaviors has existed for thousands of years doesn’t make it logical or right.
Damn, I’m trying to watch a game here…
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
You chaps still haven’t told me if gays choose to be so. It all starts there, for if God created homosexual behavior [as God has done countless times in other species] then why can’t teh ghey have the same rights as straights?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
(1) I granted your premise and asked you a follow-up about polygamy to include bisexuals. You have refused to answer.
(2) Homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexual men can marry any woman they want. Homosexuals women can marry any men they want. What homosexuals actually want is to redefine marriage. But currently, they are denied no rights. Neither homosexual men nor heterosexual men can marry other men. And neither homosexual women nor heterosexual women can marry other women. All our rights are currently the same.
The issue is not rights, but redefining marriage.
And so I ask once again, why not redefine marriage to include polygamy so as not to discriminate? Polygamy is not any more a “ridiculous scenario” than redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
(1) I granted your premise and asked you a follow-up about polygamy to include bisexuals. You have refused to answer.
You gents bring up polyamorous ans multi-species BS. Who is pushing for that? Your arguments head down the reductio ad absurdum every time because so much of your thought process revolves around ancient texts that make little sense.
2) Homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexual men can marry any woman they want. Homosexuals women can marry any men they want. What homosexuals actually want is to redefine marriage. But currently, they are denied no rights. Neither homosexual men nor heterosexual men can marry other men. And neither homosexual women nor heterosexual women can marry other women. All our rights are currently the same.
That’s cute. You get a cookie.
Gays are denied the same rights as straights, because they have CHOSEN to live in sin, no? God would never create people that are attracted to the same sex, no?
Please keep your ancient myths and dogmas to yourselves.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Medved is conservative. he’s just very worried about the future of the party.
he’s shrewd.
Drunk Report on December 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Medved may be rude
He may be crude
But he sure ain’t shrewd
And if he’s conservative then I’m the Queen of Spain!
What that jackanapes is up to one need not even quess
For I do not care again to hear his name nor his radio address
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 6:56 PM
IMO Seattle is a corrosive environment: you spend enough time there and the prevailing opinion tends to become your own.
I remember last year when I was in Seattle, a friend of my sister told me (once I had been ‘outted’ as a Republican) that:
“Keith Olbermann is the one true voice of the American people.”
I love my sister but I fear that we may have lost her.
rockbend on December 6, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Believe me, I’ve been in Seattle for more than twenty years, and I have only grown more conservative since arriving.
I’m a regular listener (because I have tremendous respect for his intellect and knowledge of history), and I think Medved’s opinions are kind of all over the map…maybe because he used to be a liberal. Sometimes I feel like I’m listening to a moderate, other times I think I’m listening to a knuckle-dragger.
capitalist piglet on December 6, 2008 at 7:43 PM
And if he’s conservative then I’m the Queen of Spain!
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Welcome, Your Majesty.
capitalist piglet on December 6, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I’m a dishonest hack.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Agreed!
Only 82 words this time. Good enough for ya? heh)
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 2:00 PM
No. Only blank posts would make yours interesting.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Medved is great on some things, but he is also afraid of being “too Conservative”. He is an example of what IS wrong with the GOP.
Gatordoug on December 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Mr. Medved is really interesting on history but it is obvious that he doesn’t even listen to the shows he is complaining about.
Cindy Munford on December 6, 2008 at 10:46 AM
IMO Seattle is a corrosive environment: you spend enough time there and the prevailing opinion tends to become your own.
I remember last year when I was in Seattle, a friend of my sister told me (once I had been ‘outted’ as a Republican) that:
“Keith Olbermann is the one true voice of the American people.”
I love my sister but I fear that we may have lost her.
rockbend on December 6, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Medved peaked in the ’90s with his culture/values material. Politically he’s a pragmatist, more interested in his “team” than principles. Medved showed how little he cared for his core audience during the Shamnesty bill fight; he thinks the Repub’s need to pander to the Hispanic vote. with amnesty. Hannity may be a robot clown, but at least he’s a clown who hammers on conservative principles.
Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, (and many more) are far better radio hosts and also have much stronger principles than Medved.
If he’s on his way out, good riddance.
Harpazo on December 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Constant rain
Home of over priced coffee
Full of smelly socialist hippies
It doesn’t get any more corrosive than that.
Fletch54 on December 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I had about enough of Medved as he seemed to turn himself inside out to support McCain even going so far as to name call any conservative that had a legitimate beef with the Senator from Arizona! He was nearly as bad as Hewitt on being such a cheerleader for the team that he made any claim that he had principles laughable.
Warner Todd Huston on December 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Medved has how many listeners? And Rush ???. Heh
Dingbat63 on December 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Talk radio is not a person. SUV’s do not veer and murder their occupants or hate people in the next lane. Talk radio does not go to shrinks or ask advice on how to talk
Talk radio is speech by many people. Those who are listened to by a lot of people stay on the air. Those who say things of little interest to a large amount of people go off the air, unless they are subsidized by donors.
In a free country you are allowed to be an ’sulking, sniping, angry irrelevancy’. See the View for an example
Why is another man’s rage ‘pre-emptive rage
Perhaps it is real time rage
Medved finds the obsession over Obama’s birth certificate to be odd while others find the unwillingness to produce the long form odd
I find the disinterest in a candidate’s legal credentials even more odd.
Show me the money. Nope. Ok, next question.
Vague policy statements are found on both sides, but hard facts, past behaviour, and legal records are the best evidence of a candidates future behaviour.
If Medved doesn’t like the blarney of the talk radio imp, why does he give credibility to the blather of a candidate’s promises?
Medved, go have a drink with Barnes, you are on the same page
entagor on December 6, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Really? That is *exactly* the strategy the Left, the mass media and the Democrats used the last 8 years of President Bush being in office, essentially governing from the center (he definitely was not governing as a conservative), and it paid off for them quite handsomely with the White House and big majorities in both Houses of Congress. So this is simply nonsense.
The problem is with “moderates” in the GOP who are too afraid to actually stand for something. I’m done supporting GOP members who just want to get along and who want to be popular. I want leaders and statesmen who stand for principles, not politicians who pander to the ignorance of the populace, because it will win them votes. The GOP is in the tank now, because GOP now stands for Grand Old Pandering.
Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck (as someone listed earlier) are leaders. They don’t sacrifice their principles to pander to Parties. That is what is needed in Washington, not just on talk radio.
So I completely disagree with Medved. We need *more* of Rush, Prager, Hannity, Ingraham and Beck, not less. And we need more statesmen and leaders of their principled stripe in Washington, not less.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Dittos.
petefrt on December 6, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Too many of these fools are kissing up to the left.
Rush is fine though I prefer Ingraham when it comes to political talk. She does a nice job with interviewing with those that we may not agree.
Jamson64 on December 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Isn’t the market for conservative turncoats getting pretty crowded right about now. I had assumed a lot of the “moderate conservatives” who endorsed Obama at the last moment would be sucking up like crazy right now to try and see if they can salvage their markets. And this guy is now trying to jump on the bandwagon?
Seriously, does being an occasional stooge on liberal media news progams pay well? Most moderates pay attention to politics a few two weeks every four years. What kind of an audience is that? These dorks are wrecking whatever personal appeal they may have once had. Nobody will buy THEIR books; nobody will listen to THEIR shows.
logis on December 6, 2008 at 12:05 PM
These meaningless bone-headed issues like gay marriage and the Terri Schiavo case are a big reason why we are losing the young and college educated vote. Are we really the party of less government and liberty, or only so when it suits us here and there?
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
A couple of years ago, they all complimented Limbaugh as being so gracious and helpful to them. This past year, I started hearing BOR and Medved taking veiled swipes at Limbaugh. Not sure what happened.
But all of these pundits — radio, newspaper, and internet, need to get over this idea that they can tell people what to do and think.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM
You are conflating “less government” with “no government”. By your logic, we could achieve “less government” by doing away with all laws.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Unwitting irony, I think that’s called. And no, that’s not a compliment.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Reductio ad absurdum.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Meh. I don’t agree with the degree of his rhetoric on this. Medved is positioning himself at the left edge of right, but I don’t think he’s attacking the right.
Jaibones on December 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Michael Medved is the Mr. Irrelevant of talk radio. Does anybody listen to him anymore?
Percy_Peabody on December 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Cauda.
The point, which should have been obvious to anyone with at least 3 functioning synapses, is that enforcing moral law (such as prohibitions against murder & theft) is not a sign of “big government.” Do you disagree?
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
You essentially confirm toliver’s assertion that government is OK — when it suits your religious beliefs, moral standing or monetary needs.
What about keeping our money and troops here at home, keeping the government out of my kitchen cabinet and my bedroom and as far away as possible from my guns? Getting government out of the compulsory education job would also be a big step. Fair taxation is also a good idea…but a pipe dream.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Apparently millions of weekly listeners. He still sucks.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Do you even listen to people such as Rush and Ingraham and Beck and such? Their popularity is not about “telling people what to do and think”. It is based on people being drawn to them, because they finally have a voice to express opinions that they already hold. The funny thing is that people who don’t listen to Rush, etc, think that his listeners are all “mind-numbed robots” who get their orders of what to think and do from him. But it is pretty much the opposite. His listeners are some of the most informed and active in politics and they like to listen to him, because he gives a voice they do not have to views, principles and values they hold dear.
Rush is popular based on the values, principles and views of his listeners. When Rush is no longer popular and successful, then we will have something to worry about, because it will mean that the values, principles and views of the American public have changed. And not in a good way.
The irony is that many on the Left *do* go to their masters in the mass media and on the web in order to get told what to think and do. Me, I come here to HotAir, Michelle Malkin, NRO, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Blackfive, Mudville Gazette, This Ain’t Hell, The Jawa Report, etc not to be told what to think/do, but to have what I think and do reaffirmed. It is comforting to know that I am not alone in the wilderness.
And that is the basis of the popularity of “right-wing” talk radio. It is a comfort and reaffirming that we are not alone in the wilderness, when it seems that way based on the complete Left-wing takeover of every other major medium of information dissemination (mass media, schools, universities, entertainment industry).
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Apparently you like sentence fragments. You suck.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Pshaw puppy! You’re just another minority bitching and moaning.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Fuck that.
The Race Card on December 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I tend to agree, at least partially. There are some Social Cons who are all for limited government, until something offends them of course. A perfect example is the lunacy of preaching less government, more freedom, then asking the FCC to gain more control over certain TV shows we may not like.
Be a REAL Conservarive and use the freaking remote and quit whining!
Gatordoug on December 6, 2008 at 12:55 PM
BTW, that last post should read be a real Conservative, sorry! Damn I might need glasses.
Gatordoug on December 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
“When it suits my religious beliefs”? Must one be religious to accept the need for a law against, for instance, murder? If you believe that, you’re a loon. If you don’t then it comes down to defining terms, which reasonable people can disagree about without getting pissy. What I am arguing against is the apparent proposition that all laws reduce liberty. I posit that some laws increase liberty. For instance, because of laws prohibiting robbery, assault and murder, I have liberty to walk the city streets without unreasonable fear of being robbed, assaulted or murdered. The average guy in Mogadishu, on the other hand has much more “liberty” than you and I (no rule of law), but I doubt you’d want to live there.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Michael Michael Michael…
Didn’t your momma tell you that you can’t build yourself up
by tearing others down?
You won’t be the greatest talk show host
on GOD’S GREEN EARTH with a pound of flesh in your molars
from El Maha Rushie.
silverfox on December 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Can you ever post a nonpatronizing response that is less than hundreds of words? You are fooling yourself if you think people read all your crap. And for both you and splashman, the other ahole, I do not go on blogs, listen to radio shows, read columns to be repeated told what my political position must be and to be insulted if I don’t agree. This applies to some and not to others. If you were too stupid to figure it out, that’s your problem. Unlike you, I feel no need to write a thousand words to explain every position I hold and as a result bore people to death.
Blake on December 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Translation: “I am unable to verbalize a coherent argument, a-hole.”
At least you’re honest.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Once again, reductio ad absurdum. Anyone with three functioning synapses would know I haven’t argued for less rigorous laws regarding theft and murder.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself please.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Wow, I didn’t know you had so much time on your hands that you count the words in my
crapposts. Interesting.And yeah, I guess you can bore people to death with less words. Kudos to you!
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The only thing “patronizing” in my post — if you were so sensitive to take it that way — was asking if you even bothered to listen to the Rush Limbaugh program. Since it is obvious to anyone to listens to his program on a daily basis, as I do, that his listeners do not go to him for orders on how to think, but listen to him as a reaffirming of their already strongly held views.
(Only 82 words this time. Good enough for ya? heh)
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Medved is a perpetual irrelevant whiner.
This, plus your “Foxtrott that” comment reaffirmed your great wit. I’m so glad you’re here TRC.
Blake, what got into you today, or at that moment? No need to answer.
Michael in MI, don’t go changing. We’re all the way we are, take it, or leave it. It’s one of the beauties of the internet, and otherwise.
Now, all, please get along
Entelechy on December 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
If you think about it (and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” for some people) it’s downright bizarre.
Rush Limbaugh is “propaganda” and his listeners are “brainwashed” because we actively seek out a show, not just at a certain time but on an entire medium that we would never otherwise go to. (Before Rush Limbaugh, some companies were even starting to make radios without an a.m. setting.)
But that’s not even the bizarre part – that’s just plain old stupid. And you can’t really argue with it; if someone wants to believe that Rush Limbaugh is the source of all evil in the world, that’s an article of faith and as such there’s no possible way to disprove it.
The bizarre part is that if you try to ask the moonbats who THEY listen to, they have no coherent response. Uh, Katie Couric?… Not really. Oprah Winfrey?… Never!… Paul Moyer? Who? They’ll say they listen to “everything.” In other words, they make absolutely no effort whatsoever to discriminate between information sources.
…And the moonbats are completely convinced that this proves that THEY are the ones who have infinitely active, inquisitive intellects.
logis on December 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Sounds like a little projection going on here. Like the pot calling the kettle bl…
Oh. Oops. Never mind…
rmgraha on December 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Well, yeah, you can’t just say “less government and liberty” and then shut your brain off. We should not be the party of a government which stands by as either (a) a disabled woman is starved to death by the state or (b) the bedrock institution of recorded human history is radically redefined to suit a fringe fad.
There’s nothing “conservative” about either.
Oh, you’re one of those.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I don’t think Medved is talking about Rush at all – he’s talking about Michael Savage, who really is a fruitcake.
packsoldier on December 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I hear ya. I was talking to a friend of mine prior to the election about all the things with which I took issue with Barack Obama (and listed his campaign donation fraud, campaign voter registration fraud, campaign voter fraud, ACORN ties, Rev Wright, William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc) and the first thing she said in response was “where do you get your information?” And I told her that I read a lot of blogs and do a lot of research. Her response: “Oh okay, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t just getting info from FOX News”.
These people are so paranoid about Rush and FOX News Channel it’s ridiculous. My friend made no effort to discredit anything I said on the substance of it, she simply went straight for trying to discredit my source(s). Once she found out she couldn’t discredit it based on it coming from Rush or FOX News Channel, she just shut up and changed the subject.
I should have, but I didn’t even bother to ask her where she got her info on Obama (whom she was proud to say she was supporting). I just assumed she was a lost cause, based on the substance (or lackthereof) of our conversation to that point (all she could do was make fun of Sarah Palin. She had nothing to say when I noted that Sarah Palin had a much better and more qualifying resume for the office than Obama and proceeded to list off all her accomplishments. All she does is spout the Tina Fey line “I can see Russia from my house!”).
By the way, logis, that’s a pretty long post you made there. You’re gonna have to learn to make it much shorter, as I have been told there is no way anyone likes to read all that crap without getting bored to death. heh
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Heheh. That’s the beauty of the interwebs, Entelechy: there’s no need for anyone to have to get along. There’s that nice little thing called… ignore. I choose to take that route many a time. heh
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I’ve enjoyed Medved a lot in the past, but he’s pretty arrogant for a guy who got almost everything wrong about the 2008 election cycle (the one thing he got right was predicting that Huckadouche would be a bigger player than many originally thought).
Since at least the Fall of 2007 Medved tirelessly promoted John McCain as the best chance Republicans had to win the presidency, and it’s fairly clear now that McCain did not have the fire in his belly that was needed, as many of us felt deep down for a long time.
I see no evidence that Medved should be trusted to chart a pathway to victory at this point. Entertaining radio, sometimes, but Karl Rove he ain’t.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 2:38 PM
You could be right. Medved’s been pretty upfront about his contempt for Savage, a contempt I believe is well-placed.
Some people opine that Medved is a phony conservative, and others make the same claim against O’Reilly, but if you ask me, the one guy who really seems like a phony deep down is Savage. I just don’t believe his sincere. I think it’s an act.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 2:43 PM
If Medved does not change direction, he may end up where he is heading.
Cheshire Cat on December 6, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Is Savage a hero or a skunk
A fiddling Nero or a drunk?
I’m told he waddles when he walks
And often giggles to himself when he talks
Is he a dolt? He’s very deep!
Oh, Medved is losing sleep!
Is Savage robust or very pale?
At least we know he’s male!
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Is Savage a hero or a skunk
A fighting Patton or a drunk?
I’m told he stagers when he walks
And often giggles to himself when he talks
Is he a dolt? He’s very deep!
Oh, Medved is losing listeners as well as sleep!
Is Savage a Paul Revere or someone who should be in jail?
At least we know he’s male!
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Yeah, I’d like you to keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Are you one of those people that oppose gay marriage because some ancient text called it a sin? Do you really think the vast majority of teh gheys choose to be ghey?
That’s pure religious ignorance if you do, and it’s just one reason why the young ‘uns are turning away from the Republican party. Kids these days don’t care about gay marriage, interracial relationships, Terry Schiavo or arduous stem cell arguments. Reasonable abortion arguments will win many over in time, because there is some logic to some of the anti-abortion arguments, but the other stuff won’t change for the most part.
National security + small government + liberty + personal responsibility – evangelical bullcrap = future victory.
So Kensington,
I’m not the one with the brain turned off. To have “faith” is by definition doing just that. Having said that, I really don’t know if there’s a God or not.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
A McAmnesty shill… Nuff said and don’t care what he says and don’t listen to his tripe anymore! He is part of the problem not the solution!
sabbott on December 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Hard to figure how Medved is reviving a fading career when his book is on the NYT bestselling list. Logic out the window when it comes to covering the fighting between conservatives for the soul of the movement.
bryanmyrick on December 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
My question for those who want to redefine marriage in this country to include homosexual/same-sex unions is why, if we are going to redefine marriage, we don’t redefine marriage to include polyamory and polygamy. Afterall, as you said, homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, and those who are polyamorous and polygamoous don’t choose to be that way either. (For that matter, neither do those who are attracted to children or those who are attracted to animals…) So, if we are going to redefine marriage, we should redefine it to be all inclusive to all of us who were born with different sexual orientations.
However, I have read that some of the leaders of the homosexual/same sex marriage movement are against redefining marriage to polygamy. I just wonder why. Why redefine it to suit their purposes, but not those of others? Why accuse traditional marriage people of intolerance, yet not see themselves as intolerant for not supporting polygamy?
I usually don’t get a good response from anyone. Usually they try to get me to answer where I stand on the issue first, so they can address any of my perceived biases, instead of addressing the issue on the substance of the matter.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Again and again the straw grasping reductio ad absurdum.
So if we let gheys get married, why not a dude with a hog, dog, Grace Jones and Carrot Top?
Silly.
People are born ghey and straight. Get over it.
Instead of getting a divorce evangelicals, sue to stone your wife – hey, it’s in the Bible you know.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Tolliver, I don’t oppose gays getting married. Any gay person who wants to marry someone of the opposite sex has my best wishes, however unwise such a marriage may be. My opposition to same sex marriage, on the other hand, is rooted in conservatism, i.e., I don’t think it’s wise to radically redefine the institution or marriage because people are shrieking disingenuously about how their rights are being denied.
Nowhere in recorded human history has a society codified same sex marriage into their laws and structures, not even the ancient Greeks, even while they were encouraging their men to maintain homosexual relationships outside of their marriages.
Now, either they all had a good point or they were all, every last one of them, guilty of bigotry, hatred or whatever other smear the same-sex marriage activists insist upon, and only today’s liberals know best.
I’m not convinced.
By the way, Tolliver, nice sleight-of-hand trying to fold in interracial marriage as if anyone is opposed to interracial marriage. You did that because you want to suggest that opposing same sex marriage is the same thing as opposing interracial marriage. That’s nonsense, as anyone who can tell the difference between sexes understands.
And, finally, the day that Republican victory requires me to stand by as disabled women are starved to death in order to make sure that government doesn’t overreach (to protect disabled women from being starved to death) is the day I leave the party forever.
When that day happens, when the social conservatives depart, watch the Republicans become as relevant as the Libertarians.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM
No, that’s not it at all, toliver. Also, you skipped over polygamy.
I addressed your point of ‘homosexuals did not choose to be that way, so we shouldn’t discriminate against them for it’. Fine, I say, premise accepted. Taking that premise, then we cannot discriminate against anyone else either, correct?
And, if we are going to redefine marriage in this nation, then why not redefine it all the way, not just to suit the homosexual community. Why not redefine it to also include polygamy? What if a bisexual is also polyamorous? The bisexual wants to marry their wife and husband and form a polygamous marriage. Bisexuals did not choose to be bisexual, so we should not discriminate correct?
So my question stands. If we are going to redefine marriage, why not redefine it all the way. What is the logical argument from the homosexual marriage lobby against polygamy? The argument the homosexual marriage lobby gives for redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is that it is a matter of tolerance and lack of discrimination. Well, that case can be made also for polygamy and bisexuals. Yet, we’re not pushing for polygamy and polyamory. Why not?
Also, side note, you say that people are born homosexual and heterosexual. Aren’t people also born bisexual and as women who feel they should be men and as men who feel they should be women and end up getting sex changes? What about the people who are sexually attracted to children. They were born that way too right? So we can’t simplify this down to homosexual and heterosexual. People are born as many different ’sexual orientations’.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Applying the “logic” of same-sex marriage activists, we have to recognize that bisexual people simply have to have sex with both men and women. They have no choice. Consequently, they have to be allowed to marry at least two people, one of each sex.
Kensington on December 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM
First off all:
I said interracial RELATIONSHIPS. Reading comprehension is fundamental. Many [most] of the same people that freak out over people that are born gay getting married are also upset [under their breath] when they see a black dude with a white chick [or visa-versa]. Yes, it’s true, as I know what many people say behind closed doors. So, nice try at pulling the nice try.
SEC Championship kick off! We’ll have to pick this up some other time gents.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Yep, exactly my point. Yet, of course, when I apply their ‘logic’ and pose my question to them, suddenly they see their ‘logic’ in the same way I see their ‘logic’. heh
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Now, now, boys — toliver has an ideological agenda impervious to facts and logic, so let’s not attempt to cloud the issue with, er, facts and logic.
Splashman on December 6, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Medved is conservative. he’s just very worried about the future of the party.
he’s shrewd.
and ive yet to hear a valid claim against a specific point he’s made…
Drunk Report on December 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM
You chaps still haven’t told me if gays choose to be so. It all starts there, for if God created homosexual behavior [as God has done countless times in other species] then why can’t teh ghey have the same rights as straights?
So evangelicals, please tell me if homosexuality is a chosen sin, and not an inborn trait [the vast majority of the time]? And while we are at it, is the world 6,00 years old?
Bringing up ridiculous scenarios is exactly what I’ve said it is, reductio ad absurdum. It’s a poor way to argue.
But perhaps your goofy hypothetical prove the point that government shouldn’t be in the love business. Just because some government sanctioned behaviors has existed for thousands of years doesn’t make it logical or right.
Damn, I’m trying to watch a game here…
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
(1) I granted your premise and asked you a follow-up about polygamy to include bisexuals. You have refused to answer.
(2) Homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexual men can marry any woman they want. Homosexuals women can marry any men they want. What homosexuals actually want is to redefine marriage. But currently, they are denied no rights. Neither homosexual men nor heterosexual men can marry other men. And neither homosexual women nor heterosexual women can marry other women. All our rights are currently the same.
The issue is not rights, but redefining marriage.
And so I ask once again, why not redefine marriage to include polygamy so as not to discriminate? Polygamy is not any more a “ridiculous scenario” than redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2008 at 5:24 PM
You gents bring up polyamorous ans multi-species BS. Who is pushing for that? Your arguments head down the reductio ad absurdum every time because so much of your thought process revolves around ancient texts that make little sense.
That’s cute. You get a cookie.
Gays are denied the same rights as straights, because they have CHOSEN to live in sin, no? God would never create people that are attracted to the same sex, no?
Please keep your ancient myths and dogmas to yourselves.
toliver on December 6, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Medved may be rude
He may be crude
But he sure ain’t shrewd
And if he’s conservative then I’m the Queen of Spain!
What that jackanapes is up to one need not even quess
For I do not care again to hear his name nor his radio address
PercyB on December 6, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Believe me, I’ve been in Seattle for more than twenty years, and I have only grown more conservative since arriving.
I’m a regular listener (because I have tremendous respect for his intellect and knowledge of history), and I think Medved’s opinions are kind of all over the map…maybe because he used to be a liberal. Sometimes I feel like I’m listening to a moderate, other times I think I’m listening to a knuckle-dragger.
capitalist piglet on December 6, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Welcome, Your Majesty.
capitalist piglet on December 6, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Agreed!
No. Only blank posts would make yours interesting.
Eff off.
Blake on December 7, 2008 at 8:53 AM