miss_s_b: (Mood: Liberal)
[personal profile] miss_s_b
... since they appear to have turned off the comments option only have Disqus comments and I don't see them as an option because of my anti-tracking-software-blocker.

The relevant post is here. My immediate reactions are as follows:
  1. While I totally agree with you that one shouldn't be sent to jail for tweeting offensive crap, no matter how offensive it is, I think you REALLY drop the ball on the other half of your post

  2. Calling someone a bigot does not in any way shape or form equate to a 56 day jail sentence.

  3. Calling someone a bigot does not restrict their freedom of speech either. I got called a bigot myself yesterday, for saying that those advocating prayer as a method for healing cancer should have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. My freedom of speech has not been infringed one jot.

  4. The science on parenting seems to show that it doesn't matter what gender a child's parents are, or if they are biological parents, or even how many of them there are, but how much money they have. Parents with money tend to produce far "better" children, who have better life chances and live longer, whether they are gay, straight, single, couples or poly, than traditional married couples with no cash. The reason traditional married couples correlate with "better" children is that it's only the rich folks that tend to bother getting married these days. Chris Dillow has collated a lot of research on this point if you want to find out more.

  5. Nobody wants to force churches to hold equal marriages if they don't want to, but it would be quite nice if all the religions who are in favour of equal marriage (reform judaism, quakers, etc.) could be allowed to marry non-het couples if they want to. Whilst I agree with you that it would be illiberal to force religions who don't want to have equal marriage to have it - which is why nobody sane is pushing for that - surely it would be equally illiberal to force religions who WANT to have equal marriage to not have it just because some religions don't want to?

  6. Your posts are normally a lot better thought out than this, and I'm fairly sure you normally allow comments too. Are you feeling OK?

Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 07:35 pm (UTC)
ginasketch: (Blasphemy)
From: [personal profile] ginasketch
Must...not...lose...temp...OH FUCKIT

What a bunch of navel-gazing, hand-wringing CRAP.

Where is even getting this information from? I mean, other than his ass.

There are serious issues at the heart of the debate, not least the fact that marriage is not merely a legal and moral commitment of individuals to each other, but also to any children they may produce.Naturally this asks a lot of questions of gay relationships- or indeed hetero but infertile relationships

Wow. Just wow. So only MARRIED people have children. And marriage is only for making Teh Baybeez. And infertile people should feel inadequate because they can't produce children.

the religious have a point of view which is sincerely held: stay faithfully together if at all possible, no matter what- even if, perhaps, the majority disagree with it.

Yeah isn't it funny that most of the longest lasting couples I know are gay. I've seen far more straight relationships fail.

To attack the religious because they disagree with you - particularly to dismiss their positions as mere bigotry- is unfair, and may be dangerous.

AHAHAHAHA. This is just like the time someone I know got offended by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I laughed then too.

For myself, having been friends for years with a couple that were amongst the very first to register a civil partnership, which I found very difficult to distinguish from a wedding, I do not oppose gay marriage


Forcing churches against their will to offer gay marriages is in any event- I believe- deeply illiberal. The tyranny of the majority over a minority is still tyranny.

Because the church has never forced anyone to do anything against their will and gotten away with it...OH WAIT

By all means ensure legal equality for gay and straight relationships, but also accept that there are inevitable differences among all relationships and that these should be respected.

Oh, the irony. I'm so sick of this bullshit, and I'm THROUGH being polite to people who say stupid things. Hell, I was over it years ago.

Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 07:40 pm (UTC)
ginasketch: (storm)
From: [personal profile] ginasketch
Going kaboom is my only way of coping with this crap anymore.

Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 08:03 pm (UTC)
ginasketch: (q hat)
From: [personal profile] ginasketch
On a related subject, I may have to get back into Bones.


Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 11:18 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Hi, Dunno why Disqus has taken over the comments on my blog- think it maybe because you came via twitter- all comments in whatever format are still more than welcome.

Yes sure my view, FWIW was and is pro gay marriage. What I was objecting to was the glib way that The Now Show and others dismiss those they disagree with. Re: parenting, like most things, it is down to individual qualities, not group qualities ( whether "gay", "straight" or whatever. I'm a Liberal and believe the value of the individual should almost always trump the collective). There is some evidence that not having a genetic relationship with kids you bring up creates a pressure- hence the wicked step parent stereotype- again in my view a function of individual qualities, not sexualities and so not an argument against gay marriage- but the religious believe that kids should only come into the world in the context of straight marriage, remember, so it does apply in their view. However even if you disagree with the point of view that anti campaigners put forward, which I do, I don't like the anger and contempt that is poured on those who sincerely hold anti-gay marriage positions (or anti straight promiscuity, for that matter). So I put forward a view that while I disagree with their position, they are perfectly entitled to their views, while the people I generally support- the pros- are not winning the argument through "like" buttons and vituperation. So, rather clumsily perhaps, I drew the parallel between the gay marriage argument and the drunken drivel of Liam Stacey.

Probably didn't work- been too busy to even blog recently. On the other hand good to see that it annoyed a couple of people- high blood pressure is probably the only thing that keeps them upright.

Otherwise, feeling fine- more power to your elbow.

Re: Cicero

Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Yeah, fair enough- with you on that. Plenty of VERY religious folk still think Rick Santorum is a nutter, which I guess is a relief.

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags