<< Will Wonders Never Cease? | Squiggle >>
Conditional Support
Conditional Support

Yay team!

Posted on March 12, 2007 to Politics





Comments

Well-ribboned. Don't you just want to puke over this crap? Actually, maybe it would be okay with Gen. Pace to send the 'immoral' troops home first. Any start is a good start.

Posted by: braine on March 14, 2007 12:31 PM

I love you, Matt. If it were possible, and if there were no The Queen, and if...you know... you went that way, and if you would support him or her, I would totally have your baby.

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2007 1:08 PM

Brilliant. Wish I'd thought of it.

Posted by: Ipecac on March 14, 2007 1:47 PM

Nice. But don't be quick to judge where support should be cut off. We must never forget, as Matt Sanchez reminds us, that engaging in homosexual sex does not necessarily make a Marine gay.

Posted by: Ashley on March 14, 2007 1:48 PM

I think in order to express the "everything but" sentiment, it would be helpful to have a magnet with all the colors of troops that you DO support - with the exception of pink, for the gay ones. It could look like this.

Posted by: five toed sloth on March 14, 2007 1:50 PM

In fairness to the comedian David Cross, he used to joke -- years ago - that he supports our white troops. Same general idea, conditional support. (It's on the "It's Not Funny" album.)

I also would like to know what it says about these people that they place MAGNETS on their SUVs, pledging support for the troops, not stickers. Way to commit, huh? I always thought it ironic that I have to stare at these kneejerk badges of blind faith masquerading as patriotism, and here they are attached with magnetic force -- lest these patriots get some sticky residue stuck on their cars after it's time to back another horse.

Posted by: Rob G on March 14, 2007 3:52 PM

Now I just need to go buy an enormous black SUV to put this on...

Posted by: Nate on March 14, 2007 5:03 PM

I followed a Subaru with a yellow ribbon reading

Proudly supporting the guy in China who makes these stupid ribbons

Posted by: Joe on March 14, 2007 5:56 PM

Oh, yeah. I keep forgetting: Nothing is "wrong" except for saying that something is "wrong". How silly of me.

Posted by: JeffR on March 14, 2007 6:56 PM

That would look tacky on my Prius. Does it come in pink?

Posted by: Adam S. on March 14, 2007 8:37 PM

yall are abunch of lousy diks!

Posted by: cody on March 15, 2007 8:16 AM

yall are abunch of lousy diks!

Posted by: cody on March 15, 2007 8:16 AM

At least we have somebody who is willing to stand up for what he believes. Stating that a particular behavior is 'wrong' is not being bigoted -- it is an expession of opinion and belief. Nobody here would argue that being a pedophile is just a matter of choice, and we should let child molesters do whatever they want. Pedophilia is (at least for the time being) seen as an immoral lifestyle choice. Just because certain groups want to feel less guilty about indulging in disgusting habits, does not mean we have the obligation to go along with their delusion.

Posted by: palad on March 15, 2007 9:21 AM

palad:
homosexuality = pedophilia?
people choose to be gay?

i doubt anyone here would argue that you are anything but a moron.

Posted by: david on March 15, 2007 10:22 AM

Actually, Palad, saying something is wrong is not an opinion--it's an expression of fact. That he said he thought it was immoral is an opinion--morals are inherent to the person and the society that person lives in.

As for "indulging in disgusting habits" I would say hatred is right there at the top of THAT list. And I don't go along with that.

Posted by: New Blue Shoe on March 15, 2007 1:09 PM

Like it or not he has the right to hold and express his opinion on the subject. It's up to the people he's accountable to, to determine if his beliefs adversely affect his job performance or infringes upon the rights of homosexuals he supervises.

No amount of liberal communing, tree hugging or after school specials will eliminate the feeling that homosexuality is immoral, in certain segments of the population.

Posted by: Ryan on March 15, 2007 4:09 PM

Jeff, Palad et al:

Regardless of one's belief or opinion regarding homosexuality, doesn't it seem a bit odd to proclaim "I support the troops" and then single out individual soldiers or Marines that don't "deserve" that support for reasons entirely unrelated to their service?

Personally, I find it ironic that many of the same people who resent any words of reproach about our soldiers' behavior themselves in battle and on duty (Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, various checkpoints) would discharge those same soldiers immediately over a consensual same-sex relationship.

What does that about our society?


Posted by: Dorothy on March 15, 2007 4:33 PM

You know what?


MONKEY BUTT!

Posted by: shannon b. on March 15, 2007 6:00 PM


I saw a brown ribbon the other day: Support Our Pants.

Posted by: Wretch on March 15, 2007 7:04 PM

He didn't single anyone out, he said he disagreed with the policy, as many people on BOTH sides do. The policy is a lose-lose no matter which side you're on, and it's inconsistent with the military's policy on adultery.

Regarding "homosexuality = pedophilia?", give it another 50 years and those fighting for children's rights to divorce their parents and those fighting for your right to any lifestyle choice will find they've created enough legal precedent that pedophilia will be called consensual sex, and anyone who disagrees will be a hater. Does that seem "wrong" to you? Welcome to our world.

Posted by: JeffR on March 16, 2007 4:36 AM

Did you choose your sexual orientation? I sure as hell didn't. So why would you think gays do, when they say they don't?

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Also, and here's a key part you might not have considered, it involves a party who, by definition cannot give consent to engage in sexual activity. Therefore, it's not the same thing as being gay. Drop the strawman argument.

Posted by: Ipecac on March 16, 2007 1:14 PM

hmmm...didn't work. I'll try again. You know what? Monkey BUTT!!

Posted by: shannon b. on March 16, 2007 7:22 PM

I support them all as long as they're not doing gay stuff.

Posted by: Diesel on March 16, 2007 9:47 PM

My favorite one of those is a big yellow ribbon that says, "I Support Whatever's Trendy"

Posted by: Leah on March 16, 2007 10:31 PM

The sad thing is that you could probably mock up this magnet and sell a bundle to high RWA* types (* RWA = rightwing authoritarian per Bob Altemeyer's psychological research)

Posted by: SoupCatcher on March 17, 2007 5:13 AM

JeffR: Homosexuals engage in consensual acts with fellow adults. Pedophiles assualt children against their will. Homosexuality has no ill effects on the people involved or society as a whole, pedophilia is inherently damaging to the child and those around them. Get it?

(PS - Don't even try to say that pedophilia could ever be seen as consensual, kids can't consent to something they don't understand. Here's the test for consensuality: ask ther person involved if they liked it. Guess what the respective answers are!)

Posted by: Blake on March 17, 2007 5:30 AM

JeffR: Homosexuals engage in consensual acts with fellow adults. Pedophiles assualt children against their will. Homosexuality has no ill effects on the people involved or society as a whole, pedophilia is inherently damaging to the child and those around them. Get it?

(PS - Don't even try to say that pedophilia could ever be seen as consensual, kids can't consent to something they don't understand. Here's the test for consensuality: ask ther person involved if they liked it. Guess what the respective answers are!)

Posted by: Blake on March 17, 2007 5:32 AM

JeffR: Homosexuals engage in consensual acts with fellow adults. Pedophiles assault children against their will. Homosexuality has no ill effects on the people involved or society as a whole, pedophilia is inherently damaging to the child and those around them. Get it?

(PS - Don't even try to say that pedophilia could ever be seen as consensual, kids can't consent to something they don't understand. Here's the test for consensuality: ask ther person involved if they liked it. Guess what the respective answers are!)

Posted by: Blake on March 17, 2007 5:34 AM

Ooops... My apologies for posting so many times, it seemed to not be working... Stupid slow connection!

Posted by: Anonymous on March 17, 2007 5:36 AM

That's the problem, though. Today, a child "by definition cannot give consent", but if no one ever speaks out, that definition can be changed. We're prosecuting kids as adults at increasingly lower ages and arguing for their rights, so why not consent while you're at it? You don't even need a majority of people to buy into it, just a few with money and lawyers and a catchy word like "pedophobic".

If the test is "if they liked it", then one kid saying he liked it is all someone needs to get the first case heard. Why, you're denying that poor child his rights.

It probably wouldn't start in the courts, though. There would be a short film at Cannes or somewhere where a kid is abused, then one a couple of years later another where the abuser was portrayed so as to make him just *slightly* sympathetic...then a show on HBO with a brilliant detective who goes home at night to fight his bent toward pedophilia...and on it goes.

Why would I "think gays [choose their sexual orientation]"? Because I have a relationship with a God who said so, in no uncertain terms. God would certainly never agree that "homosexuality has no ill effects on the people involved or society as a whole"

You might argue that I have succumbed to the "opiate of the masses" but I think Comrade Karl might have a hard time deciding whether religion or the media were the more effective opiate if he were writing today.

You obviously disagree with that, and you have the right to your views. And so does Gen. Pace, though his superiors might wish he hadn't said it on the record.

Posted by: JeffR on March 17, 2007 8:05 AM

As a footnote to "Don't even try to say that pedophilia could ever be seen as consensual",
I suppose the word I should use instead is "pedastery", which is defined as "sexual relations between men and adolescent boys".

"Pedophilia" by definition actually does not imply a breach of consent (just a sexual attraction), but the connotations we've attached to "pedophile" do tend to imply a person that acts illegaly on that attraction.

Pedastery, however, WAS accepted in ancient Greece, Rome and Samurai-ear Japan.

Once a nation turns its back on any moral authority, anything is possible. And "tolerance" will be preached right back to you when it does. Pedophilia is already argued to be an incurable mental disorder as opposed to an immoral behavior, which is often the first brick in the wall.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: JeffR on March 17, 2007 9:51 AM

Jeff,

First, there is a huge difference between portraying a character as sympathetic and condoning his actions. Most authors prefer to work with three-dimensional characters, which means that no character for them is simply 100% evil, "just because" he's the villain. Don't mistake character depth and exploration for approval. This is a very common error, and honestly, as a writer, I find it quite maddening. (This is a total digression, BTW--it has nothing to do with the topic.)

Second, the guideline used by the Supreme Court is that the state must show a compelling interest to interfere in our personal lives. Psychologists can and have demonstrated that pedophilia causes actual harm to the child, and they have clearly shown that there are developmental stages at which children are not capable of comprehending sexual acts. Because there is demonstrable harm to one party and one party is demonstrably incapable of consent, the state clearly has a compelling interest in banning sexual activity between adults and children.

There is no similar evidence in sexual activity between consenting adults or either gender, so the state has no compelling interest in banning sexual activity between two consenting adults. If such evidence is found, then the state can claim a compelling interest. "God said so" has never, in this country, been considered a legitimate compelling interest.

General Pace is free to hold his personal views. However, current evidence indicates that homosexuals can and do serve in the military (openly, in several countries) without harm to the military, and we currently have a shortage of certain skilled professionals in our military. If Congress chooses to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, I trust that General Pace will comply with the law, regardless of his personal views.

And--in this hypothetical situation--if homosexuals are subject to harassment in some units (as women are), General Pace will be required to defend them and punish the bullies, regardless of his personal views. If he is not capable of doing that, at that point he should be asked to step down.

See, it's fine that God told you homosexuality is immoral; he hasn't mentioned that to me. Fortunately, since God isn't making our laws or running our military, we don't have to argue about whose version of God is the "right" one.

Posted by: Dorothy on March 17, 2007 9:55 AM

http://flickr.com/photos/jasoneppink/sets/72157594316778372/

Posted by: Anonymous on March 17, 2007 9:59 AM

hey you hunk o' man - you are also a talented breeder, as i see! what a gorgeous boy you have! congrats. miss you. -stephanie perkal
p.s. i work for a nonprofit adoption agency and feel like i must put in a plug for www.wacap.org and adoption for all us non-breeders who want a squirrel of our own. xoxox

Posted by: stephanie on March 24, 2007 1:10 PM

Dorothy,

You make a number of absolute statements that are nice sound bites but once you realize the none of the terms are defined you see they're meaningless. Take "child" for instance, in most states the age of consent is 16 in some it's higher, higher still if homosexuality is involved. Internationally it varies from about 12 to not-till-you're-married. Of course I'm sure you know the exact age at which everyone ticks over from child to adult. That specific second when sex stops being a heinous crime and becomes an absolute right, it's just the rest of the world that's unsure. Maybe you could enlighten us?

John

P.S. You're a "writer" that honestly believes sexual* activity between consenting* adults* is never harmful*? What do you write about?

*Awaiting unambiguous definitions.

Posted by: john on March 30, 2007 11:24 AM