Monday, December 3, 2012

You Can't Argue With The Logic - UPDATED WITH REBUTTAL

This is the most persuasive argument I've heard supporting gay marriage. In fact, I wasn't even FOR gay marriage...and now? Welllll....I'm still not for it, but I think you guys should be.


"What did we make her for breakfast? Nothing." 

Okay, so which argument is the most convincing? 


  1. Well, the rebuttal was funnier. I don't think "Fine by us, go for it!" qualifies as a rebuttal though. :)

    Hey! Where are the lesbian versions? I'm outraged by this rank sexism! I'm not sure against who exactly, but I'm sure I can be sort of generically outraged if I work at it.

    1. Lesbian version coming right up!

      And you're right. Rejoinder would have been a better term.

    2. Hahaha! I should have known it was out there by now.

  2. Watching the gay guy video: I have never felt less threatened. I am more threatened by a bunny. There does exist a strata of women who would like to be in relationship with those gay guys ... and THAT is the EXACT strata of women whom I try to avoid like the plague. PLEASE, gay guys, take ALL those women ... far, far away from me.

    Second, b/c we are in a societal moment in which most women refuse to be in a marriage in which the man is the leader of the marriage, and b/c we are in a societal moment in which most women have sex before marriage ... therefore, in relationships with all such modern women: the man has power before marriage; the man loses power after marriage. Thus, it is simply true that, in macro, men who are in such "modern" relationships are in less hurry to be married: marriage reduces their power and increases their harassment.

    Taken en macro: what "modern" women do is exceedingly harmful to women, society, men, children, humanity, and the planet and everything else. It is not a sane strategy. Of course, all women act en micro, and are not responsible, and ought not feel responsible, for the macro effect. Still, the macro effect is devastating.

    1. gcotharn: I TOTALLY agree with you. It is entirely possible, in fact it is NECESSARY, to look at trends within societies and their GENERAL impact from a larger and strictly impersonal viewpoint. I got into this on Rachel's thread the other day about men. Some were POSITIVE I would react with umbrage and hysterics if anyone wrote that women are ever wrong. HAHAHAHA! I think women are FREQUENTLY wrong. And the more power they've gained politically and economically, the more wrong they often are.

      By I are entirely correct that while the women's movement of the 60's certainly did expand women's opportunities in society, I think it came with great and quite negative consequences. But change almost always does. The bottom line is, are you willing to adjust to the negative consequences for the payoff? What's the cost/benefit ratio? Is there more good that's occurred as a result of the change, or more harm?

      And just between you and me, I don't think women used their new freedoms very well. Acting like men isn't my idea of being liberated. We abandoned our femaleness instead of celebrating it. Equal should not mean same.

  3. Love both the videos. I lol'ed.

    Also, I agree with gcotharn and you about what the sexual revolution has wrought on society. The irony is that women's liberation has hurt women more than men, ultimately. But, like you asked, what could we do to fix it? We're never going back to pre-sexual revolution. I don't really want to...I just wish more women (and a lot of men, too), would apply more critical thinking and be more intellectually honest about what's going on in our culture.

  4. Years ago we stopped speaking frankly about the very real and SCIENTIFIC differences between men and women, ergo we haven't had an honest discussion for decades. When Lawrence Summers said that women aren't as good as men in the sciences, he was correct IN THE MAIN, but that doesn't mean there aren't women who excel in math, etc. It's just not the GENERAL rule. And women flipped out. Like TOTAL idiots.

    To me it is OBVIOUS that men and women think differently, make different connections between things, focus on different things, prioritize differently. Why can't we say that anymore?

    And sex. Don't even get me started. Young women are being destroyed by a society that teaches them to behave promiscuously. We aren't men. But we are trying to be and we will lose at that game. It isn't ours to play.

    Everything should be in balance and the male/female energies must balance each other. When they don't you get psychosis.

    1. " ... male/female energies must balance each other. When they don't you get psychosis."


      re "What could we do to fix it?"

      1. Christianity
      2. Conservative push into culture via pushing into movies and television ... maybe via a distant cousin of the "starfish" (i.e. headless, many legged) tea-party push into politics. Internet creates new and cheap avenues of distribution (including distribution to the eyes of moneypersons who could fund reshooting parts of movies + distribution into theaters).

      Re culture
      Having read about the Koch brothers deliberate push into the 2012 political scene: I have wondered why the Koch brothers do not simultaneously push into movies and television. After 2012, it is perfectly obvious that national elections will be heavily impacted by voters who are almost 100% persuaded by culture; 0% persuaded by political argument about what constitutes superior government.

      Re Christianity
      An interesting historical moment in philosophy: for the first time since the 19th century, a large number of influential philosophers are either theists or Christians. This nascent shift, of reasoning in academia, might presage an eventual cultural revival re Christianity.

      Brief touch on reasons the academia shift is happening:

      Big Bang. God is the best explanation. Its as if science has struggled its way up a mighty mountain, finally attaining the summit, only to find a band of theists who have always been there, waiting.

      Evolution theory has no compelling explanation for creation. In mid 20th Century, almost all scientists could abandon religion and embrace evolution. However, with Big Bang ascendant, there are compelling reasons to embrace theistic explanation of creation.

      Also, despite popular (and skewed) claims to the contrary, many now argue that there is no conflict between Christianity and science. BTW, if there were conflict between Christianity and science: I would not be a Christian.


      "Francis Collins is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He is both a medical doctor and a leading gene scientist who was part of the team which discovered the genes for cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease.
      As a scientist, do you believe in miracles?

      COLLINS: If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time. So if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I don't see why that is an illogical possibility."


      So, anyway: I think there is hope for our society and for our culture. Which is not to say that gaining ground will be easy. The enemy is entrenched and fortified. But, also, stupid. Like a 5 letter word.

  5. It has literally tickled me for decades that Christianity makes more sense than the Big Bang theory. Most big bang theorists actually agree. It is all the robots put through our school system that mindlessly support the BBT.

    Like any movement with little substance, I think the modern day liberal will eventually die out to the PETA fringe. However, it is a movement, and like any motion it has momentum. It will be a while.

    1. There are more and more scientists who are stepping forward with the heresy that maybe -- just maybe -- there is something to this whole God thing.

      I find it amusing because the idea that we got here all by our little lonesome is harder to believe. I don't believe that randomness (even supposedly driven by environment) can produce increasingly sophisticated life forms.

      As Dennis Prager says, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

    2. Tuerqas,

      Just an FYI, b/c maybe I explained myself poorly, and I don't want to accidentally mislead anyone:
      both myself, and many scientists, accept the Big Bang as the best current explanation of creation. Further, we believe the Big Bang points to a Creator (who is necessarily omniscient, loving, all powerful, and exists outside of time and space). We believe Earth is 4.54 billion years of age (which age can be consistent with Genesis, b/c there could have been many generations between official "begat"s; and b/c the Genesis creation story was a poetic rendering). We believe in limited parts of evolution: mostly the parts in which evolution is like breeding horses. The jury is still out on complicated life forms having radically evolved: it could still be true, but at this point I am quite skeptical (yet remain open minded). Evolution has no credible explanation of creation. And to think that evolution explains our human instinct to "do right" ... is simply ludicrous. Philosopher Alvin Plantiga best explains why.

      I hope this helps. I do not want to accidentally mislead anyone (via my own poor writing skill).