I’m always amazed by people who refuse to support the CBLDF because they perceive the organization as solely interested in protecting the publication of adult-only comics. Since such nay-sayers find such comics in poor taste, they don’t understand why the CBLDF would fight for the rights of any adult to purchase them. And when it’s pointed out that other material may well be targeted, they dismiss such claims out of hand.
I wonder what they would say to what’s currently going on in South Carolina, where the U.S. government seized a comic book because–get ready–it featured a parody of George W. Bush.
Not that that’s what they admit to, of course. From the intro to the case at www.cbldf.org:
“On October 27, U.S. Customs sent a letter to Top Shelf Productions notifying them that copies of the anthology Stripburger had been seized, charging that the stories “Richie Bush” by Peter Kuper and “Moj Stub” (translated, “My Pole”) by Bojan Red
• 
Ken took the time out of his day to post:
The sky is falling, better send donations to CBLDF!
Glad you could contribute something useful to the conversation, Ken. {rolling of eyes}
Apparently, Jarissa, it is more than you have contributed.
What are you talking about, Ken?
I contributed a link to an animated feature — a moving comic, you might say — that satirizes current government and society, however gently, and is therefore on-topic as a potential future target of the “$satire_of_government=bad!” theory.
I contributed sarcasm in your general direction. I don’t have the virtue of being French, so certain other options I could not justify sending in your general direction, however much you might have earned them.
I contributed humor to the conversation — granted, humor likely to be ignored by most folks, but maybe it’ll give someone a brief chuckle as they read along. A sense of humor is often useful when facing weighty problems such as limitations on free speech versues concern that “them liberals” are overreacting yet again (if I correctly understand the opposing viewpoint, and my apologies to that side of the fence if I got it wrong). Otherwise, everyone just gets mad and hollers and stomps around, and nothing *useful* gets done.
Also, since I had to add html to my post, I know that I put more thought and effort into my contribution than you put into yours. I even tied yours back into the greater topic, making you more relevant! See how I did that? I’m gracious like that. {evil grin}
Additionally, by adding the “rolling of eyes” to my post, I raised the bar on overall maturity from where your post had set it. Adolescents roll their eyes at everything as a form of sarcasm-laden mockery. Kindergarteners proclaim ludicrous, marginally-relevant extrapolations of the debated position they don’t like, such as “Totally nonsensical extreme case that couldn’t happen! Must be time to do what Those Guys advocate!” as a form of sarcasm-laden mockery.
The next person, other than you or me, who posts will thereby have a great opening for raising the maturity level by another ten years or so. Won’t that be keen? We might even get grown-up varieties of sarcasm-laden mockery in the next riposte — oh, wait, *adult* ripostes don’t lean on mockery, they instead raise valid points that either support their own position or undermine the opposing position (or, better yet, both at once).
Oh, well. Could someone shoot for “I’m twenty and I! Know! Everything!” sarcasm-laden mockery, then, please? We’re working on a trend, here!
The reality is that all of us fans of comics should be scared. Comics are an easy target for the religious right and hypocritical politicians masquerading as district attorneys. It is easy to see that Peter could easily be made a target of their focus with FALLEN ANGEL. “How dare Peter write sex scenes in a comic! Comics are for kids!!! et al.
What also concerns me is that a lot of comics are printed up in Canada. I wonder how easy it would be for DC or Marvel to be blocked by Customs.
You know, it’s kind of funny…I just finished re-watching the second season of Babylon 5 on DVD…
“The Night Watch exists to protect our people from misinformation and harmful ideas.”
Life imitating art? I sure hope not…we all know how that worked out for the Night Watch.
Here is my two cents worth:
It may not be intentional, but the series of similar postings about the censorship issue does give one a feeling of Chicken Little yelling, “The sky is falling.” While I understand PAD’s desire to (paraphrasing) “nip it in the bud,” it is easy to jump to the conclusion that this is a conspiracy by the current powers that be.
I lived in Dallas during the time when Jesus of Keith’s comics was wrongly accused. The charge was a joke. I am clearly a conservative (as many of you know) and was disgusted by the contents of the comic in question. But having shopped regularly at the store (their prior location), I knew that they did go to an effort to keep kids out of the more mature comics area. In addition, the comic was sold to an adult, not a kid. If I had been on the jury, he would have been found not guilty in two seconds. (Of course, I would have had to have lied to have been on the jury since knowing him would have disqualified me from serving.)
All that to say this: I have a respect for the CBLDF. I see it as more than just trying to protect “pørņ,” etc. And as PAD noted, I am sure Keith’s did NOT need the type of publicity that was generated. So I am sympathetic to this issue. I would want to know more to understand what exactly is going on (since there can be more to the story than what is reported) before jumping to conclusions. But if the story is as stated, clearly it should be immediately stopped, struck down, whatever.
Having been on the other side of things when Clinton won a second term, there is part of me fascinated with the “sky is falling” and “this country, as we know it, is over” types of attitudes. Recent history has shown, things can change rather quickly. Our country has a tendency to swing back the other way after a certain anmount of time. So before you completely write off this country and say that Bush has ruined it forever, take a deep breath, count to 10, and repeat after me, “This, too, will soon pass.” Unfortunately for my side of things, Bush only has 4 more years. There is no clear Republican to carry the torch when he is done. So don’t give up hope for life as we know it just yet.
Jim in Iowa
Bladestar wrote
“Now wonder this country is going to down the tubes…”
To quote George Carlin,
“Those must be some big f**kin’ tubes”
Because if you make divorce harder, you’ll see the number of kids growing up in really f-ed up homes and getting really f-ed up as a result will skyrocket, as will incidents of spousal abuse and probably “spousicide”…
I said … Peter said Folks from South Carolina–chill. I apologize if I offended you. Only 49 more to go. Tehe! :0)
I should have clarified my statement. It should read …
Only 49 more states to go. :0)
Zach said
Mitch said I want to make it clear to everyone here that I am not attacking Novafan in any way.
Oh come on Mitch. Just about everybody else does it without any reservations (should I name names?).
What makes you any different? :0)
Karen said Who said anything about human cloning? I just want them to stop gutting environmental regulations. Respond to what I write. Not what you think I’ve written.
What you said was 5. Science seems to be a dirty word to this government.
With that statement, you left it wide open to what people could comment on. You didn’t give anything specific like environmental regulations until after the fact.
This all scares the living crap out of me. I don’t quite think we’ve quite packed up and gone on the Orwellian Vacation, but we as a country have definitely gone to the travel agency. Anyone out there applying to be the new Dr. Righteous? I decide what’s appropriate for my son, or, for that matter, for me. I think that everyone that posts on this board is intelligent enough to decide the same things for themselves. I just hope that we’re all smart enough not to let this kind of thing continue.
Novafan,
A comment about science being a dirty word to this administration is a far cry from calling for human cloning. This administration uses junk science to justify what they want, rather than using real science to justify what this country needs.
Tom Keller,
Wow, I’m blushing. That’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this site. Thank-you very much. I still think, at this point in time, that this country is hardly the best in the world. We are currently bullies half the time, and the other half we just ignore other countries concerns. They took us out of the Kyoto treaty and the International court because they don’t think we should have to follow rules others do. IBM just sold it’s personal computer division to a company in China, a country that holds a massive trade imbalance with us, in their favor. One of these days China and Japan are going to say no more credit, and then you will see our economy plunge into a black hole. Good thing the real scientists found something that can escape from them, so we have that infinitesimal chance to get out of it. See, this is a great blog. I’ve learned about science here!
Oh, and with censorship on the rise, we won’t be able to complain with impunity for much longer.
I still can’t find the article that says the Army is having problems getting new recruits this year, but for those of you who think everything is going fairly well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1397131,00.html
PAD wrote: “What’s pernicious about this case, though, is that if it’s then allowed to stand, suddenly it’s more than a guy or a couple of guys being humorless jerks imposing their will in flagrant disregard for the First Amendment. Suddenly it’s a precedent, and customs agents elsewhere who would never have flagged parody material only because they thought it wouldn’t survive a challenge will now feel empowered to do whatever the hëll they want when it comes to curtailing material they find personally vexing.”
That’s a reasonable argument, and there’s nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution. However, I really don’t think it was the first anti-Bush print job to pass through customs. Lots of U.S. publishers are getting their stuff printed overseas these days, and the odds of this comic being the first anti-Bush publication (or even one of only a handful) to pass through customs are slimmer than the odds of me directing “Hulk 2.”
I keep seeing posts that say PAD is overreacting. Look to history (as those in power do not care to do) and try to tell me that those in power don’t crave more and more power, impose their wills and ideologies on their people, until they don’t recognize where they live anymore. Do you think the dictators in history started with sweeping changes? No, they began small and worked their way up. We no longer have the checks and balances we used to, and if the minority opposition party doesn’t get it’s act together, we are looking at difficult times ahead. The time to fight is before they take our rights away. You can’t just say this is a small thing that will go away. You don’t really know that, unless you work to make sure we can keep our rights. I don’t want to wake up one day and find I can’t read what I want because someone else decided it wasn’t approprate for me. CBLDF is just one of the groups on the front line. We need to support them now, to win the battles that seem to come more often anymore.
James Lynch posted: I thought the standard was that something violated copyright if it could be too easily mistaken for the original. (Negativeland got hit with this for doing a U2 parody whose cover had “U2” in massive letters, which the court ruled could make people think it was an album by U2.)
It’s worth correcting this though I agree with James’ point: the problems with the Negativland piece — brilliant though it was — went far beyond the cover. The piece was not a parody, it was a sound collage, and it employed unlicensed samples of both U2’s music and of profane outtakes from Casey Kasem’s radio show. Had it just been a parody, with newly-recorded music (a la “Weird Al” Yankovic), it would have been fair use. Their peice went far beyond fair use.
(And again, I personally think the piece is brilliant.)
In other news, Wal-Mart is being sued over the lyrics on an Evanescence CD. They’re also suing the label and are threatening to take the suit national. All because the CD didn’t carry the (strictly voluntary) Parental Advisory sticker (Wal-Mart’s policy is not to carry albums that carry the label, and some artists copromise and release “clean” versions of their albums to appease Wal-Mart). I think the lawsuit has no grounds, personally, and I don’t see how they think they can get a court to order Wal-Mart to not carry the album.
(Interesting side note: I have personally purchased two CDs at Wal-Mart in the last few weeks that did not include the Parental Advisory labels but that did include uncensored profanity — Modest Mouse’s [i]Good News For People Who Love Bad News[/i] and Gwen Stefani’s [i]Love, Angel, Music, Baby[/i]. I refuse to purchase censored CDs — I want to hear what the artist originally intended — so in both cases, this was a pleasant surprise for me — but obviously, this goes beyond just Evanescence. Wal-Mart’s argument — and I agree with them — is that they cannot possibly screen every song on every CD they carry. Personally, I think they should offer both versions and let the consumer decide).
OK, just put my money where my mouth is. Money is kind of tight around here, but this is important. I am the newest CBLDF member.
Novafan: “Mitch said I want to make it clear to everyone here that I am not attacking Novafan in any way.
Oh come on Mitch. Just about everybody else does it without any reservations (should I name names?).
What makes you any different? :0)”
Hëll, I don’t know what makes me different. Perhaps I’m just and angry idealist who’s tired of the direction we as a nation lean sometimes.
Or maybe it just that I’m the guy who secretly turns the radio all the way up in his friends car as we get out after he’s cut the engine just to see his reaction when he fires the car back up later.
I really don’t have a clue.
Julio Diaz: “In other news, Wal-Mart is being sued over the lyrics on an Evanescence CD. They’re also suing the label and are threatening to take the suit national.”
I don’t think this has as much to do with censorship as it does with someone looking for an easy payoff.
Here’s an idea… How about voluntary labels on music, literary, and video products that indicate that it is censored and by whom? Somehow I think that those who engage in the censoring of such products wouldn’t want their names known.
I read an article about this and that article indicated that there was one instance of the dreaded “F-word” (‘Fûçk’ for the uninitiated).
Meanwhile in California a deposition from a high-ranking member of the clergy indicates more instances of sexual abuse toward children in the church.
It’s a dámņ good thing we people monitoring these music CD’s (irony).
Salutations,
Mitch Evans
To those insulted by PAD’s remark on South Carolina:
*laughs* I’m from the South…and actually, I’m worse. I’m from TEXAS. I FREELY make fun of myself in much the same way. Chill, people, he was speaking lightly. Remember that next time you say something laughingly about “them dayam Yankees.” Try to LAUGH at something you’re proud of or something you like–it makes life go that much easier when someone else makes light of it.
As for the censorship…It’s crap and I’m not surprised. Might as well stop all those newspapers from publishing political cartoons, right? Oh noes! They made fun of the president! That’s NEVER happened before to ANY other president!
All because the CD didn’t carry the (strictly voluntary) Parental Advisory sticker
My wife was checking around on some other articles about this, and apparently if you listen to it (or purchase, whatever) through Wal-Mart’s website, it IS censored.
So, how they could get it there, but not in stores, should be on Wal-Mart’s shoulders.
Craig J. Ries posted: My wife was checking around on some other articles about this, and apparently if you listen to it (or purchase, whatever) through Wal-Mart’s website, it IS censored.
So, how they could get it there, but not in stores, should be on Wal-Mart’s shoulders.
Not exactly.
Walmart.com is almost a different division of the company, totally separate from the bricks & mortar stores. In fact, the physical stores will not even honor walmart.com’s prices. The people that censored the sample of the song online have nothing to do with the physical stores.
I hate to defend Wal-Mart, but the facts are the facts.
All this talk of censorship reminds me of the one time that I recall in which censorship made something better. It was a song by Adam Sandler singing about his car. The censored version was funny with horns sounding and the like while the uncensored version was boring.
And I have a few words for you. Bush was the only President ever in our history to use federal funding for stem cell research.
Bush is the first President who COULD use federal funding for stem cell research. Not that he understands what is is.
Idiot.
And I have a few words for you. Bush was the only President ever in our history to use federal funding for stem cell research.
All those of you here more well read than me on this topic, please correct me if I am wrong, but… Even if Bush is the only President in history to federally fund stem cell research, isn’t he only allowing it on 20-some lines? No new lines of stem cells can be created or used with federal funding?
This is like people in Michigan claiming that the schools shouldn’t be in trouble because they’re getting the same funding this year that they’ve gotten for the past three years (which is less than they got in the years before that!). Costs go up, NCLB comes into effect, funding stays static, and kids educations suffer.
Oh, yeah. Bush is a great President.
Eric
Peter,
Thanks for your apology. But even with that, I think your comment slamming South Carolinians was an uncalled for cheap shot.
And your statement: “I was writing in “the voice” of Edward Rutledge, representative of South Carolina from the musical “1776”?
Well, that’s lame.
I see a lot of “Northerners” portrayed negatively on TV and Film every single day. Do I use these portrayals as an excuse to denigrate REAL “Northerners”?
No. I don’t.
I wouldn’t be so amped up about this subject except I am unbelievably tired of watching almost everyone not from the South use these antiquated stereotypes when describing “Southerners”.
Funny thing is– these mischaracterizations still happen all the time… Even though a huge number of “Northerners” have already moved South and continue to do so.
Oh, and for everyone who thinks all Southerners still drawl out their words all the time– like in “1776”– think again.
Any speech therapist will tell you that the “Southern” accent is actually one of the most economical uses of the English language. Instead of drawing words out, “Southerners” actually cut off various vowels and sounds to SHORTEN words– not LENGTHEN them.
Speech therapists will also tell you that the Southern accent is one of the most soft, lyrical accents to be found in this country.
Thanks for your apology. But even with that, I think your comment slamming South Carolinians was an uncalled for cheap shot.”
And I think you’re spending so much time belaboring a remark that I already apologized for and so little dwelling on the truly important issue that one or more South Carolina-based customs agents are trying to break new ground in censorship, that it’s pretty clear your priorities are out of whack. So it works out.
PAD
“Bush is the first President who COULD use federal funding for stem cell research. Not that he understands what is is.
Idiot.”
Although I disagree with Bush on this, in fairness it should be pointed out that he came up with that plan on August 10 2001. It seems hardly likely that the issue had sprung up from whole cloth in the 7 months he had been president then.
I’m a bit puzzled as to why Clinton didn’t act on the issue, would have been a better legacy than the ones he will have.
“And I think you’re spending so much time belaboring a remark that I already apologized for and so little dwelling on the truly important issue that one or more South Carolina-based customs agents are trying to break new ground in censorship, that it’s pretty clear your priorities are out of whack. So it works out.”
Actually, my initial response to your slam took less than 4 minutes to type. My contribution to the CBLDF took considerably longer to complete.
So I sincerely doubt my priorities were out of whack.
I spoke up for something I believe in– which is my right.
I then responded to your story on the customs seizure by supporting and organization both you and I believe in.
See, I can separate my concerns.
NOW “it works out”.
PAD, a question,
If the CBLDF can’t use the name of the stores/defendents, what about just releasing the numbers?
“This month, x number of stores/people called about being pressured, our lawyer called y number of people in return, z number of cases were dropped.”
Not a perfect answer I realize, but one that tells us a little bit more about how much is going on.
PAD,
I don’t really give a flip about the accent thing, but I live in Charleston, and I am pìššëd about the way you jump to the conclusion that it’s politically motivated because it happened in the south. I’m liberal, but not even my conservative friends would think about censoring something based on political beliefs.
You failed to note that they also seized another issue of Stripburger that riffed on Peanuts, a strip that had no political messages whatsoever. While I’m not happy about this turn of events, I have a hard time believing someone came up with a scheme involving a totally separate issue of the comic as a cover-up for politically motivated censorship.
Also, considering the number of yankee immigrants who have ended up in our fair city because they like the weather here, it’s impossible to say that the person who did this was actually a southerner.
If you’ve never been here, this is my personal invitation to you to visit Charleston. You might want to come during Spoleto, an arts festival that has an audience of 70,000 people. This past political season was also fun, as students at the College of Charleston organized many voter registration drives (most of these were young democrats). One of the highlights was a bunch of DJs spinning in the main park downtown. You could also come visit my school, the Medical University of South Carolina, where some of my friends are doing stem cell research.
In case you’ve missed it, my point is that, while it’s not perfect, Charleston isn’t some den of Republicans waiting to take away people’s rights just because it’s in South Carolina. Just like any other place, there’s a diversity of people and opinions here. Jumping to the conclusion (one not well supported by facts, by the way) that this was politically motivated because of the geography of the event is insulting. And not just regular level insulting. We’re talking John Byrne level insulting.
I think a lot of other people have said all I really wanted to say RE the stem cell thing
“Because if you make divorce harder, you’ll see the number of kids growing up in really f-ed up homes and getting really f-ed up as a result will skyrocket, as will incidents of spousal abuse and probably “spousicide”…”
I didn
Zach,
But you know it’s true. If the legal alternative of divorce is removed or made too difficult, this is EXACTLY the sort of the thing that will rise.
I’d rather see kids have one happy parent than two miserably unhappy/hateful parents.
And the violence levels in this country overall seems to climb evey year, lending credence to the other half of the statement…
Here in M I they’ve been talking for years about making divorces harder to get…
Marriage Counseling should be required before divorce and it might make both people happy. Divorce should not be anywhere near as easy to get as it is now.
Ken:
>Marriage Counseling should be required before divorce and it might make both people happy. Divorce should not be anywhere near as easy to get as it is now.
I’d argue that the ease of divorce should not be the issue, but perhaps the fopcus should be that marriages should not be as easy to get as they are now. More process-oriented. While I’m hesitant to support any mandated counseling for marriage as it is simply a legal agreement between 2 people, making divorce more difficult would most likely only add to the frustrations of a couple and increase the anger that they direct towards one another. Forcing them to jump through hoops, will not necessarily affect positive change in attitude or emotions of a couple.
Fred
You are right, it shouldn’t be easy to marry. But, it also shouldn’t be easy to divorce. Most couples go into marriage unprepared. Marriage counseling prior to marriage should be required and prior to divorce should be mandatory.
What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.
Ken:
>You are right, it shouldn’t be easy to marry. But, it also shouldn’t be easy to divorce. Most couples go into marriage unprepared. Marriage counseling prior to marriage should be required and prior to divorce should be mandatory.
Some churches require a pre=marriage retreat and/or counseling for couples. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement between two people. Who is to say how prepared or unprepared a couple is for marriage? I certainly don’t want the government deciding that. It’s not their responsibility nor their right to be involved in this decision-making process or that of divorce.
>What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.
In all of my time working with people, I’ve never seen a strong connection. Do you have any sources for this statement or is this statement based on your own observation?
I just can’t believe that people want to make it harder to divorce. Doing so would just give one spouse the license to cheat. Even if a divorce could happen eventually, it would be a major trauma to force the other spouse to have to stay in the marriage in such circumstances. If the marriage is going to be saved, it has to be done so because the parties want to save it. Not because they are compelled to do so.
I just can’t believe that people want to make it harder to divorce. Doing so would just give one spouse the license to cheat. Even if a divorce could happen eventually, it would be a major trauma to force the other spouse to have to stay in the marriage in such circumstances. If the marriage is going to be saved, it has to be done so because the parties want to save it. Not because they are compelled to do so.
You are assuming too much. Most suggestions to make divorce more difficult deal with “no fault” divorce. Circumstances, such as adultery or abuse, would clearly be grounds for a divorce.
I would agree that it would be bad to “force” a couple to stay together. But if there are kids involved, it is bad when it is too easy to get out. Go work with some teens for a while and you will quickly learn that divorce has an enormous impact on a kid. If there is abuse, clearly the kid needs to be protected and a loving parent will separate or divorce the guilty spouse. But a lot of divorces are not for that reason. They are simply from selfishness.
Yes, both parties have to want to save the marriage for it to work. But if there is no expectation to even try (assuming there is no abuse, adultery, etc.), then we are setting the bar way too low.
Jim in Iowa
The Wal Mart suit over Evanessence isn’t even about censorship, it’s about money…how much the lawyer can make in settlement. I hope he gets zip. I hope Wal Mart takes his ášš to court and break him.
Wal Mart has a voluntary policy to not carry CDs with the voluntary parental advisory sticker on it. As far as I know, it’s not a policy to not sell items that contain profanity, or sex, or drugs. As others pointed out, Wal Mart sells plenty of CDs with profanity. I think they also sell books that contain profanity and sex in them.
There’s no merit to this case, other than some hack lawyer (and I’m a laywer myself, so it’s ok for me to call him a hack) trying to make a name and a fortune for himself. And I really hope Wal Mart’s legal team really enjoys themselves as they squish him into the ground and into bankruptcy, so the next hack who thinks he can invent a cause of action thinks long and hard before taking that risk.
Jim, I think the whole concept of putting roadblocks in the way of a divorce is wrong.
If one side claims adultry, couldn’t the other side deny it. Are you going to require proof or simply the allegation? If you only require the allegation, then the spouse that wants a divorce will simply allege adultry?
Ðámņ, I could have sworn I typed
If one side claims adultry, couldn’t the other side deny it. Are you going to require proof or simply the allegation? If you only require the allegation, then the spouse that wants a divorce will simply allege adultry?
Good questions. I come from the side of cleaning up the mess after the divorce has happened. While I have dealt with kids in a horrible home situation, I have dealt with far more whose parents got divorced. Neither situation is a good one. But divorce has become too easy of an option for very stupid, selfish reasons.
There are some places requiring some form of pre-marital counseling. And I have read that studies have shown that those who do get pre-marital counseling have a far higher rate of staying together. (Sorry, I didn’t keep the article so can’t quote my source right now.) The requirement did NOT say the counselor had to approve the marriage, it just said they had to do it before marriage.
As some have pointed out elsewhere, we require a test for driving a car, but none for starting a family. It would not be a large burden and would not take away any rights to require a couple to attend premarital counseling. Many churches and other counselors offer this for free or at a very nominal charge.
In regards to divorce, I would be interested in seeing a good discussion on the matter in another forum.
Jim in Iowa
I’m a bit puzzled as to why Clinton didn’t act on the issue, would have been a better legacy than the ones he will have.
Which will still be a better legacy that either Bush will get.
What I find ironic is that the people who are claiming that divorce is best for the kids are the same that feel that nothing should be censored in the interes of the kids.
You better find examples to back that up, because I don’t see people saying that.
But then, the arguement isn’t ever about making it harder for straight people to do anything – get married, get divorced, adopt kids. Only gays.
The argument of “sanctity of marriage” is used so often by those that want to “protect” marriage from gays that it’s become meaningless. The argument is utterly pointless in light of the fact that Brittany “The Whørë” Spears can go, get married, and have that marriage annulled two days later.
And GAYS are going to ruin marriage? Find a REAL argument, please.
“But then, the arguement isn’t ever about making it harder for straight people to do anything – get married, get divorced, adopt kids. Only gays.”
Was someone here arguing that, if homosexual marriage was legalized, we should have unfair barriers to entry JUST FOR THEM? I’ve never seen that argument, here or elsewhere, though it’s possible that I overlooked it.
Despite the fact that I’ve religious reasons for disliking the idea of homosexual marriage, I’ve been saying for a while now that if homosexual marriage proponents will stand with me in arguing that marriage and divorce should both be harder to get, I’ll stand with them in trying to allow them to marry legally — provided that no one tries to force a pastor or priest to hold a marriage ceremony he feels is against his religion (granted, that provision might cause some outrage on the left, since they want to force doctors to perform abortions they don’t feel morally right about, but…).
—–
I tend to be a pretty strong opponent of censorship in the marketplace. I understand the desire to censor certain things out of the public space (public airwaves, billboards, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that these things should be unavailable, just that they should only be available to those who WANT them. Of course, deciding what’s “acceptable” and what isn’t is… difficult.
As far as this goes, I have to agree with Peter — it’s probably one or two overzealous employees, and I think it’s important that we nip it in the bud NOW.
—–
On Stem Cell research:
Isn’t Bush only restricting funding for research on embryonic stem cells, due to ethical concerns that such research provides incentives to create human lives (either in fertility clinics or through “natural” means) with the intent of destroying it for medical purposes? I’ve heard of no restrictions on adult stem cells.
Strangely, every major breakthrough I’ve heard of, even in more “enlightened” countries, has been made with adult stem cells. It’s my understanding that embryonic stem cells tend to grow wildly when used in adult tissue, and that they’re prone to becoming cancerous.
Admittedly, my understanding of the science here is flaky, and I could’ve been misreading something. Computer Engineering doesn’t usually require an intimate knowledge of biology or medicine.
“The argument is utterly pointless in light of the fact that Brittany [insult removed] Spears can go, get married, and have that marriage annulled two days later.”
I’ve got less of an issue with an annullment after two days (which, as I recall, they’d decided to get the next day) than I do with people petitioning for annullments after 18 years of marriage. I’m fairly certain that’s only a Catholic Church thing (that is, I think the government still considers the couple divorced, even if the church doesn’t), but it’s still a bit perplexing to me.
Still, I get the point. The number of HETEROsexuals who think that marriage has approximately the same gravity as a first date disturbs me to no end.