Thursday, December 31, 2015

Monday, December 28, 2015

Can anyone lend me $250,000?

I phoned the New York City Commission on Human [sic] Rights (apparently the English Translation of Le Comité de salut public) and left a message, saying that I still call Caitlyn Bruce.

(Well, actually I would never call him Bruce. He is not one of my Duzfreunde. I would call him Mr. Jenner.)

Sunday, December 27, 2015

An interesting tidbit

Advocates of the universal recognition of gestational surrogacy contracts are wont to argue that gestational surrogacy is a job like babysitting or wet nursing. The gestational surrogate simply cares for (like the babysitter) and feeds (like the wet nurse) the baby, is, therefore, in no way involved in its production, and, hence, can have no claim to parentage. This is a key point for those who want to extend the "presumption of parentage" to same-sex male couples for if it can be successfully argued that gestational surrogacy can entail no parental claims, then no gestational surrogate will be able to rebut a same-sex male couple's "presumed parenthood". (The egg donor, because she [yes, I realize the use of the feminine pronoun is a transphobic presumption because "transmen" can donate eggs as well--report me to the New York City Commission on Human Rights and then go fuck yourselves, okay?] donated anonymously, does not know who used her eggs, and is, therefore, in no position to make a parental claim.) Got all that?

It is curious, then, that Lambda Legal seems to disagree with this claim that gestational surrogacy is simply a service and as such entails no parental claims. Two Lawyers at Lambda Legal write in The Guardian:
"The states that continue to fight these families in court argue that birth certificates are a proxy for biology, and that the members of a same-sex couple can’t both be biologically related to their child. (This is technically false, as an increasing number of lesbian couples use reproductive technology where one mother carries the pregnancy and the other donates the egg. [emphasis mine])"
No one would argue that by feeding or minding a baby a wet nurse or a babysitter becomes biologically related to it. No one. It appears that Lesbian couples are using gestational surrogacy so that both women in the relationship can have biological ties to the child whereas gay couples (and, yes, yes, I know, I KNOW, opposite-sex couples AS WELL) use gestational surrogacy for exactly the OPPOSITE REASON, so that the surrogate will have NO BIOLOGICAL TIES and, hence, no claim to parentage. How this is NOT a contradiction, I do not know. But what do I know? I'm a benighted bigot.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Unseasonal, I know

I'll tell you why "Veni, veni, Emmanuel" is for me THE hymn of the Christian Faith. Musically it is a moan, a desperate cry, a pathetic whimper that shows what little man can do. Man ultimately can only beg. But what does he beg for? For just enough scraps of food to sustain his short life in this vale of tears? A little shelter to keep him safe from the elements? A little, mindless entertainment to distract him from the inevitable anguish of corporeal existence? No, none of that. Man may be a pathetic, whining beggar, but at least he has the dignity to beg for nothing short of the presence of God Incarnate, and it is precisely in man's desperate weakness and brokenness that his daring nobility shines forth. So, please, I beg thee, veni, veni, Emmanuel!

Friday, December 25, 2015

Another Proclamation from the New York City Commission on Human Rights

It has come to our attention, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, that Right-Wing Bigots call each other 'bigots' as a joke. They do this to re-define the word from what it is and should be, a proper shaming and marginalization of those who refuse to conform to Public Reason, to mean nothing more than a flatus vocis  to which Progressives take recourse when they allegedly have no argument. Such re-definitions are not salutary to the commonweal and cannot in any way be tolerated. Therefore, the New York City Commission on Human Rights will impose a fine of $1,000,000 on anyone deemed to have used 'bigot' in any sense other than its proper and official one. Happy Holidays!

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Don't be transmorgiphobic, please!

I am not human. Because I don't identify as human. Humans gave us war, famine, and atomizing Capitalism. Humans are cruel. My true self is not cruel and, therefore, cannot belong to a species that is. Therefore, I am a koala bear, and I demand commensurate bathroom and locker room accommodations.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Happy Holidays!

Person 1: Hey, happy holidays!

Person 2: What did you just say?

1: I wished you happy holidays.

2: Yeah, look, did you know that "holiday" comes from "holy day"?

1: No, I did not. I guess you learn something every day.

2. I'm an atheist, bud. I don't believe that some days are holy and others are not. In fact, I don't believe in the notion of "holy" at all. So, please, keep your religion to yourself.

1. Sorry. I was just trying to be nice.

2. Well, yeah, that's what all you religious zealots say. And then next thing you know, you'll be demanding that I wear a burka. Well, fuck you.

1. You're not even a woman.

2. How do you know? Because I don't conform to what your superstition tells you a woman should look like? The nerve of you people!

1. Geez. I'm sorry. I truly am.

2. Next time think a little more.

1. Fine, Happy Existentialist Engagement!

2. That's the Old Atheism! Excuse me, but I'm a New Atheist who believes that Science gives us our moral code and not some irrational decisionism. Hello!

1. Oh, crap!

Can you guess what knuckle-dragging, right-wing troglodytic bigot made this horridly heterosexist statement?

"The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need."

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Quaestio ultima

Which is preferable? Nasty, brutish, and short or somewhat longer, hectic, stressed, boring, and constantly neurotic?

Sunday, December 20, 2015

My 667th Post

The only purpose of which is to avoid the Number of the Beast.

My 666th Post on this Weblog

Do not read this unless you want to have William Friedkin make a film about you retching pea soup.

The Scottish Play, Act V, scene viii, re-written for our times

MickieB: Thou losest labour:
As easy mayst thou the intrenchant air
With thy keen sword impress as make me bleed:
Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests;
I bear a charmed life, which must not yield,
To one of woman born.

MacDuff: Despair thy charm;
And let the angel whom thou still hast served
Tell thee, Macduff has two men listed on
His birth certificate!

MickieB: Accursed be that tongue that tells me so,
For it hath cow'd my better part of man!
And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us in a double sense;
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope. I'll not fight with thee.

MacDuff: Then yield thee, bigot!

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

How to explain why Marriage Equality requires the national legalization of commercial surrogacy

Okay, please, pay attention. Because I am so full of love and tolerance, I'll try to explain this to you even though you won't understand because you're a BIGOT.

Now, this is why we Enlightened Ones won the argument over marriage. A dim-witted religious right-wing whacko (like you) argued, “Marriage is about procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. Therefore, same-sex ‘marriage’ is nonsense.” To which we Enlightened Ones reasonably responded, “Then why does the state give out marriage licenses to obviously sterile couples?” And the right-wing whacko was stymied and threw a conniption fit and started ranting about slippery slopes to polygamy, incest, bestiality, sexual anarchy in the streets, and other such patent nonsense, none of which could convince any but the most blinkered and bigoted judge. So, that's why we won.

We Enlightened ones use an analogous argument for why the presumption of paternity should also attach to same-sex couples. We point out quite reasonably that even if the wife avails herself of an anonymous sperm donor, her husband is still presumed to be the father at birth. Well, lesbian couples are similarly situated. Therefore, there is no reason why the presumption of paternity, now re-named “presumption of parentage” for obvious reasons, should not apply to the female spouse of a woman who gets pregnant by an anonymous sperm donor. No reason at all, except mindless, irrational, hateful bigotry, exactly the kind that swept Adolf Hitler into power in 1933.

But how can this unimpeachable logic apply to a same-sex male couple that must use a surrogate? It has to because the moral imperative of Equality demands it, and if you can't see this, you are OBVIOUSLY impervious to Public Reason and are, therefore, a bigot who should be cast out into the outer darkness, far, far away from the Sweetness and Light that is the Public Square. So, the only way to fulfill our sacred obligation to the dictates of Equality is for the law to treat surrogacy in the same way as it treats anonymous sperm donation, and that in turn requires the recognition of surrogacy contracts. Hence, marriage equality, the March of History, and just basic common decency requires the legalization of commercial surrogacy in all Fifty States.

In sum, if “marriage equality” is to be truly equal--and that means that all the incidents of marriage, including the presumption of paternity/parentage, attach equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples--then the renting of wombs must be made legal everywhere.

You got that, bigot?!

Monday, December 14, 2015

I wrote this nineteen years ago

I imagine Nietzsche's ghost hovering over bombed-out Berlin in April of 1945, realising what his philosophy of the will had led to. He becomes severely depressed and exclaims, "I wish my philosophy had not been thought at all." Then Clarence pops in and tells N. that he mustn't wish such a horrid thing. But N. insists that the world would have been a better place had his philosophy not been "born" at all. And so Clarence grants him his wish.

All of a sudden Berlin appears new, shiny, and thriving. Germany still has Silesia. Clarence and N. run into Heidegger who is now only a crazy bum panhandling for spare change. N. exclaims, "Martin, what has happened to you?" Clarence says, "He couldn't call you the last metaphysician and get tenure." "Oh, no, one of the major architects of atheistic existentialism!" Nietzsche is nearly in tears. Clarence explains, "But he could not be an architect for atheistic existentialism because your thought wasn't there to lay its groundworks."

Nietzsche timidly asks what has happened to Sartre. "You don't want to know, Fritz, you just don't want to know." But Nietzsche is so importunate that Clarence finally blurts out, "He's an organ grinder in front of Ste Marie des Batignolles." They go to Paris (which, incidentally, was never occupied by Nazi forces because a Nazi movement never developed) and N. runs up to Sartre and begs that he recognize him but Sartre can only grind out the tune of "Frere Jacques". N. is devastated.

Clarence then gives him the worst news of all, "Because your thought was never thought, Sartre could not have a major impact on academia. Deconstruction will not develop and Derrida will have to make a living writing stand-up. Because your genealogy was not thought, Foucault will have to make a living as a male prostitute. And because your Fröhliche Wissenschaft was not thought, everyone now thinks God is alive and well and all is right with the world and neo-thomism is now the academically chic philosophy. No undergraduate will ever wear black, smoke clove cigarettes, and act morbid because he knows your nauseating truth--for your nauseating truth was never thought. And Allan Bloom will not make ragging on you into a cottage industry for conservatives. So, you see how one man's philosophy can have a major impact on all our lives."

Nietzsche runs back to the Brandenburg Gates and cries, "I want my thought to live again, I will it back into being, please, Clarence, let it be willed back again, let it be willed back again." He rests his poor desperate brow on the pillar of the gate, and when he raises his head, he sees to his surprise bombed-out buildings again. He is ecstatic. He runs through the center of Berlin, passes a theatre where The Triumph of the Will is playing, and yells, "I love you, Frau Liefenstahl!" He passes the Reichstag and yells to it, "I love you, you old bombed-out Reichstag." He throws a snowball at a Russian soldier, and the Russian soldier shoots him.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Hey, Hollywood!

I sure hope Rahm Emmanuel gets nominated for an Oscar. I haven't seen anyone break up so perfectly on cue since Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Am I the only one this sensitive?

As a devout Norse Polytheist I am offended that secularists have culturally appropriated the Gods I revere and worship for the Days of the Week and have thereby trivialized them as quotidien.

[Why is this post getting so many hits from France?]

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Dangerous Speech

Massacre of disabled people who are burdens on the state coffers? I blame the irresponsible rhetoric of neo-liberalism and economic austerity.

Molly Ivins, call your office

I find this letter to The New York Times confusing. I think maybe I should read it in the original Newspeak.

To the Editor: 
Re “With Diversity Comes Intensity in Amherst Free-Speech Debate” (news article, Nov. 29): 
For many students of color, at Amherst College and elsewhere, it is not uncommon to feel a continuous sense of homelessness. “Are you sure this space is really mine?” we ask. “They tell me that it is, but I feel so uncomfortable.” 
Student activists are pressing college administrators to make homes out of such homelessness — learning spaces from alienation. Instead of unfairly curtailing free speech, their demands hope for the opposite: the creation of spaces and community norms that affirm individual dignity and equality. This isn’t merely a free-speech issue but an equal justice one as well. 
Amherst College students are not in favor of summarily sanctioning anyone from our community. Students merely hope to prevent behaviors that cause racial injury in an inclusive, restorative way for both parties. Our administration may not be able to change a person’s thinking about certain issues, but it can create spaces for parties to reflect on their behavior in a respectful way. 
Amherst, Mass.
The writer is a member of Amherst’s class of 2016 and an emerging fellow of equal justice at the Roosevelt Institute.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Black Friday


Sunday, November 22, 2015

Why can't we all just get along?

Christian: Original Sin.

Freudian: The Death Instinct.

Hegelian: Beats me, History was supposed to have ended in 1806.

Marxist: Because Hegel was wrong, the Historical Dialectic has not ended and will not end until the last Capitalist is strangled with the rope he sold to the revolutionaries.

Libertarian: Because no one listens to me.

Nietzschean: Because some of us don't want to be that namby-pamby emasculated Last Man who sings Kumbaya as he euthanizes himself.

Gender Theorist: The use of gendered pronouns.

Trumpkin:  Because Obama won't say "Radical Islam".

(Feel free to add to this list.)

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Nietzsche's History of Philosophy

[Yes, I know that this has been translated several times before.  I'm translating it myself now because otherwise my sorry, idle ass would find it too hard to avoid near occasions of sin, which would send me diwectly to hell.  Of course, reading Nietzsche will send me to hell, too, but at least it won't make me stupid.]

How the "real world" finally became merely a fairy tale.
(The history of an error)

1.  The real world attainable for the wise, the pious, the virtuous:  He lives in it, he is it.
      (Oldest form of the idea, relatively clever, simple, convincing.  Generalization of
        the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

2.  The real world, unattainable for now, but promised for the wise, the pious, and the virtuous ("for
      the sinner who repents").
         (The Idea progresses:  It becomes more nuanced, trickier, more incomprehensible, --it becomes
          Christian.  It becomes a woman...)

3.  The real world, unattainable, unprovable, cannot even be promised, but can be imagined as comfort, an obligation, an Imperative.
      (The old sun in principle but visible, if at all, through fog and skepticism.  The Idea becomes
        sublime, pale, northern, Könisbergian.)

4.  The real world, unattainable?  Unattained at any rate.  And because it's unattained, it's also unknown.  Consequently, it is also not comforting, redemptive, obligating;  To what can something unknown obligate us?
       (The morning begins its gray dawn.  First yawn of reason.  The Cockle-doodle-doo of

5.  The "real world"-- an Idea that's of use for nothing anymore, it does not even obligate anymore, a useless, superfluous notion, hence a refuted notion.  Let's do away with it!
       (Broad daylight.  Breakfast.  Return of bon sens and cheerfulness.  Plato is blushing.
         The free spirits run riot.)

6.  We've scrapped the real world, which world do we have left?  The world of appearances, perhaps?  No!  With the real world we've also done away with the world of appearances!
        (Noon.  Moment of the shortest shadow.  The End of the longest error.  Humanity's Highest
         Point.  INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Dale Carnegie's Unique Catholicity

"As the impact settled in, the author [Dale Carnegie] grew amazed by the breadth as well as the volume of the book's [How to Win Friends and Influence People] appeal.  'One day my publishers received two orders in the same mail," he told a journalist with a laugh.  'One was from a theological seminary, which wanted 50 copies for its ministerial students.  The other came from a madame of a high-class bordello in Paris.  She needed nine copies for her girls.  I am the only author you ever saw who wrote a book used as a text in two such highly divergent fields.'"
                                               --Steven Watts, Self-help Messiah, p. 263

What the bitchy neo-cons must be saying now

“Oh, France wants an international coalition now to fight the Jihadists over there so that we don’t have to fight them here? What do you French say, déjà vu?"

Monday, November 16, 2015

Oh, PJ

PJ told me per e-mail, "A birth certificate confirms that a child was born..."

I seem to have lost my birth certificate.  According to you that must mean that I no longer can confirm that I was ever born.

You're an idiot, Mr. PJ.

Questions for the Police Department in Glen Carbon, Illinois

A police officer of yours once told me that the equation 2 + 2 = 4 is an opinion in some places.  Okay, fine.  My question to you is, then:  In what places is this equation an opinion and in what places is it not?  Is 2 + 2 = 4 an opinion in Glen Carbon but not in Ladue, where the Grade School teachers, unlike in Glen Carbon, may actually have to know stuff before they are hired?  Is the certainty of basic arithmetic contingent upon astronomical conditions as well as geography?  Does 2 + 2  = 4 become an opinion in Glen Carbon only when the moon is full, thereby changing all people with a gun and a badge into howling lunatics?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Same-sex "birth certificates": Yet another exchange with PJ


Oh, I still think it's absurd to put two people of the same sex on a BIRTH certificate because it is obviously IMPOSSIBLE for two people of the same sex to make a baby. Yes, I know that as much as I’d like to think that I am following just really obvious rudimentary human biology, I am really being a homophobic bigot simply because everything has to be about you gays and Lesbians, so much so, that one cannot even state the really obvious and incontrovertible scientific fact that two people of the same sex cannot make a baby without being accused of being hostile to the gay and Lesbian community. Two people of the same sex CANNOT make a baby. That is just obvious biology. That’s just really obvious science. It has NOTHING to do with being a hater, homophobe, or bigot. And if you think it does, then you should be considered a raving lunatic, but nowadays, because we live in a loony bin, such thinking qualifies you to be on the bench of the Supreme Court.


Who said birth certificates had anything to do with biology? A birth certificate confirms that a child was born and indicates who that child's legal guardians are.

My parents are on my birth certificate and neither one of them had anything biological to do with my birth.


When we’re talking about birth certificates, we’re talking about the presumption of parentage (what used to be known as presumption of paternity), and this presumption has always been based upon biology or at worst the appearance thereof. For instance, if the father has been absent for longer than ten months, the presumption cannot apply. If the baby is white, and both parents are black, the presumption does not apply, etc. Adoptees usually have two birth certificates, a true one that’s sealed, and a fictional one that’s not. But there are different kinds of fiction. The novels of Jane Austen are fiction. The Time Machine by H.G. Wells is science fiction. An adoptee’s unsealed birth certificate is a fiction, true, but it is a plausible fiction. A same-sex “birth” certificate has no plausibility whatsoever and is in the realm of science fiction.

Also, if the presumption of parentage is not, as you suggest, based upon biology, then why does the law allow it to be rebutted on precisely that basis? This is why lawyers even now suggest that same-sex “parents” adopt even though though they are “presumed” parents because they know full well that this presumption is a joke and, hence, is rebuttable by the mere mention thereof.

Of course, this may present a problem for, as you know, there was a court ruling in New York not too long ago (January of last year) that ruled against a same-sex couple wanting to adopt their “presumed” children. Because presumptive parents are supposed to be the opposite of adoptive parents. Parents adopt because they are not presumptive parents, and vice versa. Oh, all the absurdities of “marriage equality”!

Oh, and we need a birth certificate to confirm that we were born? Yeah, well, good thing I have a birth certificate, then. Otherwise, I would not know if I had been born, just popped into existence out of thin air, have existed since, I don’t know, forever, or whether I exist at all. So, yeah, I need a legal certificate to tell me I was born. You people (yes, I want to sound as “bigoted” as possible) are such legal positivists. You need the law to save you from the condemnation of loneliness, and now you’re telling me that you do need the law NOT so much to confirm the identity of your biological parents, to confirm your birth date, to confirm where you were born, but primarily to confirm that you were born at all? Because, I guess, if you did not have such legal recognition, you would not know if you exist at all. Geez. You’re not an Atheist, Mr. PJ. If you truly believe that you cannot be sure of your own existence without an official document, then it is quite clear that you think the positive law is god. How the deuce did anyone know they were born before the invention of paper? I want to know this.


Saturday, November 14, 2015

The Paradox of Liberalism

Liberalism is the ideology of liberty or freedom, but what is freedom?  To define freedom is to limit it, but the very notion of freedom is the exact opposite of limits.  Therefore, freedom for it to be true freedom cannot have any definition.  But, then, that means that freedom is nothing, and, therefore, Liberalism is an ideology of nothing.

In other words, if freedom means anything, then it can only mean nothing.

Liberalism, therefore, is as nonsensical as the Liar's Paradox.

Of course, one has the very same problem with God...

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Yik Yak and false advertising

If your anonymous comment can be traced back to you, then it can hardly be anonymous, can it?  You'd think a computer science major would know this, especially after the Snowden Revelations.

Oh, Mizzou

If, by chance, you have a German Student enrolled at your University, and this German Student is a devout Catholic (a real rarity these days, granted, but humour me, please), then she just might have on her bookshelf in her dorm a copy of Der Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche or KKK for short.  So, then, the KKK would indeed have a presence at Mizzou.

Be afraid, Mizzou, be very afraid!

[Note to Herr Major Brian Weimer:  This is a joke, this is only a joke.]

Libertarian Hegelianism is Lame

[Looking through my past reviews on, I happed upon this one of Jean Bricmont's Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War. I kinda like it. That means that I am a little surprised I wrote it. I usually hate the stuff I write.]

Well, this book did not deliver on its promise, namely to articulate a third way between the Scylla of Cultural Relativism and the Charybdis of a forced universalist morality. Mr. Bricmont makes it perfectly clear that he is a universalist, just not an imperialist one, and he wants a universalist morality that does not lead to wars in its name. Okay, good, I would like that, too, but once you have an absolute goal, then you have a justification of any sacrifice for the sake of that goal. This is, of course, a huge philosophical problem, and not just philosophical. All Bricmont does is show that what the U.S. has done is pretty much the opposite of the lofty ideals the U.S. professes and thereby reveals the U.S. to be a most bloody hypocrite. This is exactly the sort of thing Noam Chomsky has been doing for decades, and it should surprise no one that the German Edition (at least) of this book has a foreword by none other than Chomsky himself. But showing the United States to be a hypocrite does not invalidate the idea of huminatarian interventionism. Abuse of an idea does not invalidate the idea itself. And so the Enlightenment lives another day to fight more bloody wars all for the sake of human rights.

To say that the book is more or less a re-hash of what you can find in almost anything that the political Chomsky has written in the last fifty years is not to dismiss the book, of course. I really, really like Chomsky, but Bricmont, I have to say, is the much better writer and is able to make the same points that Chomsky makes with greater economy and, therefore, greater force.

But one point that Bricmont does not make with force, great or otherwise, is his suggestion for a third way between relativism and imperial absolutism. Yes, he does come up with a third way but seems to realize that it is so laughable that, like a guilty Straussian, he wants to bury it between the lines. His Third Way is what I'd like to call a libertarian Hegelianism. The developed countries developed to the End of History on their own, so let the other countries do so as well, and, presto, we have on the one hand upheld a definite telos and so avoid the trap of cultural relativism and on the other hand established a principle that lets us remove the adjective "imperialist" from absolutism.

It's neat but Hegelianism does not work that way at all. Hegelianism allows development to go only if the End of History has not been reached. See, one cannot philosophize until one knows the point of history, and one cannot know this until history has reached its end. Until then every thing must be allowed to happen, like wars, mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity, etc., because everything is part of the necessary dialectic of the Unfolding of the World's Spirit.

But once the End of History has arrived, then one immediately understands what once looked liked a tale told by an idiot. One understands the dialectic of history in a truly scientific manner and, therefore, can tell others who have not reached the End of History what to do to get there. Well, if the developed countries of this world are truly at History's End, then they are the rightful guardians of the world and as such have the right to tell the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries what to do, and instead of Humanitarian Intervention, we have Hegelian Intervention (which students of Hegel know is simply Napoleonic Conquest that is conscious of itself as Unfolding Spirit), and Mr. Bricmont would still bitch. And if no country is at History's End, then no one can philosophize, no one can make prescriptions because History remains an inexplicable tale told by a babbling idiot. In that case, Mr. Bricmont should just shut up.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Emergency, Emergency, MUPD, EMERGENCY!!

I asked a young woman out on a date today. She replied, “Sebonde, you’re a nice man, but, look, be real. I am eighteen, you are forty-seven, soon to be forty-eight, two years away from AARP membership. I don’t want to date someone that old. Sorry.”

So, I called the MUPD and reported this woman for committing an act of hurtful speech.

I need to go to my safe space now.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Existentialist Engagement in nuce

"Ich bin entschlossen, wozu weiß ich noch nicht, aber ich bin sicher meiner Entschlossenheit!"

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Modern Love (yet another draft)

Man: Hey, I would like to buy you a drink.

Woman: (flashes her wedding ring at him)

Man: So?

Woman: I’m married, dumbass.

Man: So?

Woman: Are you really THAT stupid? I’m married. That means that I am off the menu. Get it?

Man: Oh, I get it. You think that marriage means the forsaking of all other lovers, right?

Woman: Hey, Einstein, that’s not what I think marriage means. That is what marriage means, you creep.

Man: No, it doesn’t. That may be what your particular religious tradition says it means, but that’s NOT what marriage means according to Rawlsian Public Reason.

Woman: What the hell?

Man: Before you throw your mojito in my face—and you don’t want to do that, anyway, because the mojitos here are just scrumptious—

Woman: Well, yes, okay, you have to go down to Miami to find any better.

Man: True that. They use their own mint, did you know that?

Woman: Yeah, fine, don’t change the subject. Why shouldn’t I throw something else in your face, you creeper?

Man: For the simple reason that you cannot expect me to share your particularly religious understanding of marriage. We live in a secular liberal democracy, not a theocracy.

Woman: What does that have anything to with your trying to hit on a happily married woman?

Man: Look, you support same-sex marriage, right?

Woman: Ah, geez, now you’re suggesting that I’m a Nazi. God, you really know how to flatter a girl. No wonder you’re still a loser, prowling around in bars.

Man: Of course, you’re not a Nazi. Of course, you support marriage equality. I would not dream of suggesting otherwise.

Woman: Yeah, so what’s your point? I support marriage equality, so I must be okay with adultery?

Man: You promise not to throw anything in my face if I answer?

Woman: Oh, no, now I want to hear this. You’ve already stuck your foot in your mouth. I want to hear you gag on it. It’s the femme fatale in me.

Man: Okay, fine. Now, remember how the bigots argued against marriage equality. They said that the marriage was for procreation, and same-sex couples can’t procreate, and, therefore, they can’t get married.

Woman: Yeah, and that was really stupid. Because the law always allowed sterile couples to marry.

Man: And you could get a marriage license without having to take a fertility test.

Woman: Of course. Man, were those bigots just stupid.

Man: So, marriage can’t be about procreation or even fertility because the law does not require couples to procreate or be fertile to marry, right?

Woman: Yes, yes, yes. This is getting tedious.

Man: Okay, so, marriage cannot be about what the law does not require?

Woman: Yes, Socrates, yes. Get to the point already.

Man: Well, does the law require a couple to take a sexual fidelity test for a marriage license?

Woman: Er, well, that’s just assumed.

Man: Are open marriages invalid in the eyes of the law?

Woman: Er, ah, I— I don’t know.

Man: Obviously, they aren’t. Couples who want to sleep around are as entitled to a marriage license as couples who do not. And you just agreed that marriage cannot be about what the law does not require. The law does not require sexual fidelity. Therefore, the Public Understanding of Marriage cannot include a concept of sexual fidelity. When you countered my sexual overtures with mention of your marital status, you were expecting me to understand marriage according to a particular religious tradition. I would not have expected that such a modern and enlightened woman as you at least seemed to be would be in the thrall of such backward theocratic thinking.

Woman: Fuck you! (throws her mojito in his face and stomps out)

The Gorgias by Plato

Has any Professor had to give a "trigger warning" yet for The Gorgias because of the possibility that Socrates' use of "catamite" as a pejorative could be received as traumatically homophobic?  Or do professors hope, given the usual ignorance of undergraduates, that they can get away with defining "catamite" as an "itch-scratcher"?

Yes, I know, I really have too much time on my hands.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Yes, I know that I am a broken record, but...

Dear Enlightenistas,

Please, pretty please, tell me why it is a species of religious extremism to think it absurd for two people of the same sex to be listed on a BIRTH certificate. I know that such thinking must be religious extremism because only a religious extremist would ever object to anything that “marriage equality” demands and requires. But, benighted bigot that I am, I would have thought that listing two people of the same sex on a birth certificate is lunacy not because extremist, subliterate Bible-Thumpers say so but instead because rudimentary human biology says that it is impossible for two people of the same sex to make a baby. But what do I know? I’m just a know-nothing religious extremist. So, please, Ye Keepers of the Enlightenment Spark and Champions against the Kingdom of Darknesse, would you explain to me why rudimentary human biology is really just Biblical superstition? Pretty please? Oh, and remember not to use big, fancy words. I am a stupid bigot, remember? So, keep the vocabulary to a Dick and Jane level. Thanks.



p.s.  Dick and Jane is heterosexist.  Sorry.  I should have written, "keep it to a Dick and Dick level."  I have the utmost confidence that you'll do just that.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Woo hoo!

Robert Zemeckis is a false prophet.  The Billy Goat still is not satisfied.  The Cubs are still perpetual losers,  and saying "1908" to anyone from Chicago still retains its power to humiliate.  All is still (nearly) right with the world.

Now if we can just overturn Obergefell...

Monday, October 19, 2015

The Right Side of History

Is the Right Side of History right because it is right or because History says that it is right?  If the former, then History is completely irrelevant in the determination of whatever its right side may be, and if the latter, then History is simply a whimsical tyrant.  History may determine that today same-sex "marriage" is its right side and tomorrow homophobia is and, perhaps, next month Ethnic Cleansing.  Right simply is at the mercy of Historical Happenstance.

Note to the lunatics:  Replacing God with History does not escape the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Forgive this outburst of completely irrational, commercialized, utterly mindless nativism, but...


(Of course, if the Cubs do go on to the World Series and win it, then we might be witness to the Greatest Miracle since the Resurrection:  George Will might actually smile.)

Monday, October 12, 2015

One conundrum away from nihilistic despair

This past week-end I may have given a young idealist an existential crisis by asking him what moral vegetarians (those who are vegetarian for moral and not primarily for health reasons) feed their cats.  He did not have a satisfactory answer and added that this conundrum would pre-occupy his thoughts for the rest of the day.  He was audibly in awe of this moral dilemma when I left him to corrupt others with aporias.  Call me Mr. Aporia.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Best one sentence movie review ever

"I could've had 2 lattes instead."

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Hey, Enlightenistas, please, answer this question

Am I bigot for being glad that I was raised by a man and a woman and not by two women or two men?

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Gender Theory explained in less than three minutes

My (rough) translation:

Are boys and girls the same? Not when you look at them. Girls and boys are not the same. They are different when they are little. And the older they get, the more pronounced this difference becomes. Above all they are in their natures very different. Some people claim that boys and girls are different not because they have different bodies but because their parents, families, society, schools, and everyone else construct this difference. Girls are girls simply because they are raised to be girls. Boys are boys simply because they are raised to be boys. And because they are raised differently, they are not the same. This is a problem for the gender ideologue.

For these merely acquired differences later on will hinder gender equality. How is this problem to be solved? By erasing the differences between boys and girls, thereby making them completely the same.

Therefore, the parents, the family, and society should stop trying to make boys into boys and girls into girls. But the parents, the family, and society do not understand why sexual difference should be eliminated. Therefore, this goal must be realized in the schools. In the schools, far away from the parents, children can without hindrance be taught to confound everything that is typical for boys with what is typical for girls and vice versa. Of course, Daddy can wear a dress and lipstick. Of course, a girl can swear like a trucker. And, of course, a baby can have two mommies or two daddies because the sex of parents does not matter.

In the classroom everything that is masculine and feminine is all simply mixed together, and when everything is mixed together, everything is the same, and when everything is the same, then we finally have total equality!

But… How can I be sure if I am really a boy? When everyone acts as if everything is the same, then a boy no longer knows if he’s really a boy, and a girl no longer knows if she is a girl. Has the problem of inequality been solved? No. We’ve created a new problem. We’ve confused the children.

We do not want any school to confuse children. We want our children to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. We want schools in which our children can learn about our culture and history and develop critical thinking. Let girls be girls, and let boys be boys.

A question for liberal church-going Catholics

As you probably know, Jesus Christ in the Gospel Reading this past Sunday (Mark 10:2-16) unequivocally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Now, I know that you Progressive Catholics are fond of claiming that Christ said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality or homosexual relationships.  But you may also know that court decision after court decision has established beyond any reasonable debate that such a definition of marriage is utterly irrational, that the only motive to define marriage according to sexual difference is animus against gays and lesbians, is to exclude them from the institution of marriage and thereby to condemn them to lives of intolerable loneliness and despair.  So, if you accept these court decisions, and you do, then you must abandon the claim that Christ said NOTHING about homosexual relationship for in defining marriage heterosexually, He was (according to the Obergefell decision in particular)  condemning gays and Lesbians to loneliness.

There is this additional dilemma: you liberal Catholics profess to have a Faith that neither contradicts reason nor is hateful.  And yet Christ, the very reason you are Catholics, taught a definition of marriage that is completely irrational and hateful.  So, my question to you is this:  Why do you continue to profess to worship an irrational bigot?

Sunday, October 4, 2015

A rarity. Two jokes told in a homily that were actually funny instead of merely cute

The first one was a more chaste version of this joke.  The second one was this:  "The shortest sentence in the English Language is 'I am', the longest is 'I do.'"

The rest of the homily was a rather safe laundry list on what makes for a good, holy, pious marriage.  No mention at all about Christ's shocking heterosexist bigotry.  Not even an attempt to scrounge up archeological evidence that Christ could not have been anti-gay because he granted audiences to longtime gay friends from his high school days.

Federico Lombardi, call your office.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

I really hate the U.S.A.

Any country that has de-sexed marriage has become a loony bin, and I really don't want to live in a loony bin.   If I get enough money, I am going to emigrate.  I hate this damn country.  The United States of America can go fuck itself!

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

For the Record

I wish the Pope, instead of visiting with Kim Davis (who should have done what Thomas More did when he could not stomach the Leviathan's re-definition of "marriage" and resigned; sorry, but Caesar won this round), had said in his address to Congress something along the lines of this:  "Marriage had been the only institution that reflected the social significance of sexual difference.  The de-sexing of marriage therefore is tantamount to a declaration that sexual difference no longer is important in the public sphere, that we all may be men and women privately, but as citizens we become amoebas.  This is, to put it as charitably as I can, absurd.  Being neutered should not be a requirement for citizenship.  And if you think I'm just harping on this because I am a Christian and the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is a particular doctrine of supernatural Christian Revelation, then I beg you to ask yourselves if Ancient Sparta or Pagan Rome were Christian Theocracies.  Is Communist China?   How is it possible for these societies, which either had no knowledge of Christian Revelation or self-consciously reject all its tenets, to have defined marriage according to sexual difference if the sexual definition of marriage is supposed to be a uniquely Christian Doctrine?"

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The Problem of Evil

We know that History is benevolent.  Because History marches us to an ever greater awareness of Equality and Human Dignity.  And we know that History is powerful.  Otherwise, History could not have mowed down all those bigots standing in the way of "marriage equality".

But if History is so benevolent and powerful, then why did it allow same-sex "marriage" to go unrecognized and unaffirmed for so long (millennia, in fact) and why does it still allow the grave evil of the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" to continue in most of the inhabited world?

Monday, September 28, 2015

Political Science Classes in the Future

Decades from now—if we’ve regained our sanity, that is—the whole “marriage equality” movement will be used as a textbook example of demagoguery.

The arguments which finally convinced me to support same-sex "marriage"

His cogency just overwhelmed me.

I changed my mind

I support same-sex "marriage" because the fear of The Right Side of History is the beginning of all wisdom.

Friday, September 25, 2015

By the way

This weblog (yes, I know that everyone calls it a "blog", but "blog" is short for "weblog", and I want people to know this just because I am a pedantic asshole) has only one follower.  Reveal yourself, please, and tell me why you're following the deranged, cranky rants of a middle-aged man.

Note to E.P.

Would you like to see Everest with me some time this week?  I would prefer to see it in 3-D, just because the new 3-D is so cool.  E-mail me.  You have my e-mail.  I don't have yours.  That's basically the story of my entire social life, by the way.  I am so pathetic.


Pope Francis said something on his U.S. Tour that was unambiguous enough to piss off the lunatics!

I wish...

...I had grown up speaking Latin and only Latin.  True, no one except Ratzinger and the whackos still in the SSPX would be able to understand me.  Fine.  Very few people seem to understand me now.  I don't even think that I understand myself.  When you are a cripple in this world of atomizing liberalism, you are especially atomized.  Oh, fucking well.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Hey, D.W.

Read this, please, and tell me why precisely it is unenlightened bullshit.  Pretty please?

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Immanent Critique

So, you are talking to a very P.C. Person about Caitlynn Jenner, and this P.C. Person is very, very indignant that some people intentionally misgender this brave and stunning woman.  These people have the gall to call her Bruce.  Bruce no longer exists.  Bruce never really existed.  She was always Caitlynn.  She only appeared to be Bruce because of decades and decades of misgendering that repressed, strangled, and suffocated her feminine essence, her true core identity.

Yes, you respond, misgendering is violence.

It is, it is.  You get it, P.C. Person responds.   Journalists who misgender Caitlynn Jenner and other transgender people should be fined by the F.C.C.

Misgendering should be a criminal offense for everyone, not just journalists.  It should be classified as assault.

Well, P.C. Person hedges, I agree, but that may not be politically feasible just yet, ya know?

Fundamental rights and the necessary protections of those fundamental rights should never be politicized, you say extra sternly.

Yes, yes, P.C. Person blushingly rushes to say, you are absolutely right.

People should feel safe in their various gender identities, you continue.  If they want to identify as girls...

...then they should be called girls.

And if they want to identify as mothers...

...then they should be called mothers.

And be treated as such.

Damn straight!  Er, sorry, I mean, I wholeheartedly agree!

They should not be subjected to an oppressive regime of gender terror which seeks to deprive them of their right to define and express their identity.

Amen, sibling!

And that's why we should do away with same-sex "marriage".

P.C. Person suddenly looks as if someone just urinated on zir prom dress.  What the fuck? P.C. Person blurts out.

You agree that one of the main premisses of "marriage equality" is that kids raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by opposite-sex couples, don't you?

Well, of course, I do.  That's just a basic scientific fact, and I am no anti-scientific bigot.  But what the hell does this have to do with gender dignity?!

If same-sex and opposite-sex couples are identical with regard to raising children, then it is obvious that the gender of parents does not matter.

Well, duh!  Do you have a point in all this, douchebag?!

In fact, I do, O Enlightened One.  If you accept the underpinning premise of same-sex "marriage" that the gender of the parent is not important, then logically it follows that identifying oneself as a mother cannot be important.  But saying that it is unimportant does gender violence to all those who treasure and cherish their identities as mothers.  Thus, same-sex "marriage" constitutes gender terror.

You're a bigot.

I'm just being logical, you plea.

Well, if that's what logic is, then logic is bigoted, hateful, and the exact opposite of love, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of love and not logic.  So, bye-bye, bigot.  I hope you enjoy the company of the Westboro Baptists because they are the only ones who are gonna tolerate your sorry, atavistic ass.  So long, hater!

Yeah, fuck you, too!

Monday, September 21, 2015

Another Note to D.W.

You better hang on to that triple-weighted chess set I gave you.  Such chess sets are no longer made anymore.  I found this out yesterday from a chess geek who lamented the discontinuance of the triple-weighted sets because you just can't thwack down lighter pieces as well while playing blitz.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Note to E.P.

I love you even though you are a fan of Amy Schumer and, what's that silly woman's name, oh,  yeah, Lena Dunham.

You have my e-mail address.  Please, use it.

A friendly reminder to D.W.

The anti-miscegenation parallel is S-L-A-N-D-E-R.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Note to the Young Hegelians

You can't know what the "Right Side of History", even if there is a Right Side, until History is over.  Because--according to the guy who gave us this moral interpretation of History with that sententiously capital "H", Hegel--until History is over, the Historical Dialectic is still mulling things over.  Hegel thought that Napoleon had ended History with the Battle of Jena in 1806, thereby deciding that the Ideals of the French Revolution would henceforth rule the world, but the Historical Dialectic unfortunately could not decide whether those ideals pointed to Capitalism or to Socialism.  And, thus, History staggered on.  Fukuyama thought History was over when Capitalism won the Cold War in 1989, but then twenty-nine years later we had the China Syndrome of Financial Meltdowns, which prompted Greenspan to declare History resurrected.  And as far as I know, that dialectic is still going on.  True, the United States, Merkel, and the other forces of Globalized Neo-Liberal Darkness seem to be winning, but the Socialists in Spain, Italy, and even still in Greece refuse to be snuffed out, and even in this country, the home of Neo-Liberalism itself, Bernie Sanders is giving the Capitalist Class something to worry about.

To paraphrase a philosopher far wiser than Hegel, History is not over 'till it's over.  You got that?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Metro, come and get me.

Heute bin ich auf dem Red Line Zug von 15:24 bis 15:41 nach Downtown St. Louis schwarzgefahren.  Ich habe meine Fahrkarte nicht entwertet weil der Zug ankam just als ich den Bahnsteig atemlos erreichte.  Es gab keine Zeit, für mich, die Karte aus meiner Tasche herauszuholen und sie zu entwerten.  Ich hätte den Zug verpasst.  Also bin ich eingestiegen, ohne die Karte entwertet zu haben.  Also bin ich schwarzgefahren.  Ich bin böse.

I'm still miserable

...because I am not in any relationship that is recognized by the state and therefore am, according to Anthony Kennedy, condemned to loneliness.

Fuck you, too, Herr Kennedy.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Yet another letter the Post-Dispatch will probably not print

Dear Editor,

the controversy over which restroom and locker room the young transgender woman Lila Perry should be allowed to use obscures a larger question, namely why have sexually segregated restrooms and locker rooms at all? This newspaper suggested in an editorial back in March of this year that sex (“Party like it’s 1820”) is exactly like race. If this is truly the case, then just as all decent people would condemn the very notion of segregated restrooms and locker rooms by race, all decent and right-thinking people should be appalled that restrooms and locker rooms are still segregated by sex and work towards a more just integration instead of piddling over just who fits where in this patently unjust system of anachronistic segregation. If race is just like sex, then just as we should work towards a truly colorblind society in which race no longer matters, we should work towards a truly asexual society as well.

Moreover, it is really hard to understand how sexual segregation of restrooms and locker rooms squares with the re-definition of marriage as the union of two people. The premise of such sexual segregation is that women should not undress or do private stuff in the presence of strange men and vice versa, but that in turn makes the heterosexist assumption that women are not attracted to women and men are not attracted to men. The de-sexing of marriage changes all this. Now the notion that sexual difference is the normative determinant of physical attraction no longer holds, and if it no longer holds, then there can be no justification for sexual segregation in public restrooms and locker rooms. In other words, if we are to respect the wishes of heterosexuals not to undress in the presence of members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses or significant others, then the dictates of marriage equality demand that we do exactly the same with gays and lesbians who may have qualms about undressing in front of members of the same sex who are not their spouses or significant others. And that means that we have to get rid of sexually segregated rest rooms and locker rooms and replace them all with individual stalls and dressing cabins.

I do not see how justice demands anything less.

Thursday, September 10, 2015


I was at a friend's house yesterday and needed to avail myself of the facilities.  Because I identify myself as feline, I quite naturally asked if I could use my friend's litterbox.  My friend was appalled and immediately told me to leave.  Needless to say, he's not my friend now.  Intolerant bigot.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015


If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court says it is, then why is it licensed?  A license is permission from the state to do something.  The idea of a right, especially a fundamental one, is that you have a right to do something no matter what.  In other words, you don't need the permission of the state to exercise a fundamental right.  Thus, the notion that a fundamental right should be licensed can only be a contradiction in terms.

But, perhaps, I am wrong and a fundamental right is not the right to do something no matter what.  Okay, then if that's the wrong definition of a fundamental right, then what is the proper one?

And how can a right be fundamental if it must first be licensed by the state for it to be exercised?  Something that is fundamental is something that is foundational, something that is built upon.  Therefore, a right, if it is fundamental, must be prior to the state, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to marriage consists in the right to a marriage license.  How the deuce can there be a fundamental right to something that can only exist AFTER and not BEFORE the existence of the  State?  Or is my understanding of "fundamental" wrong as well?

Apparently, "marriage" was not the only word the Supreme Court re-defined beyond all recognition.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Kim Davis and Thomas More

My first thought when I heard about the Kim Davis Affair was, "Well, she should do what Thomas More did.  Thomas More could not agree in good conscience with the state's conception of marriage and, therefore, resigned as Chancellor of England.  Kim Davis should have resigned from her official post as well."  But then I did a double-take.  Had England in 1535 given legal recognition to same-sex "marriage", Thomas More would not have merely resigned his post.  He would have thought his entire country had become a fucking loony bin and, not wanting to reside in a lunatic asylum, would have fled with his family to some place a little more sane such as, say, the Ottoman Empire.

A note to the faculty at the School of Social Work at Rutgers

Two days ago I made a remark about how nice a young woman’s new hair-do was. Hair is part of a woman’s physical appearance, and according to your school's own definition of sexual assault  a remark about someone’s physical appearance constitutes sexual assault. Therefore, I committed sexual assault when I told this young woman that her new hair-do was very pretty. And I have no remorse whatsoever. In fact, I intend to make more remarks about women’s hair  in the not so distant future. I am a psychopath. You better stop me before I compliment a woman on her hair again. After all, the only thing required for evil to succeed is for unimpeachably good people like you all to do nothing.

You are barking lunatics, by the way.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Another Letter the Post-Dispatch will not print

Dear Editor,

According to an AP Story which the Post ran yesterday, many couples are using the penultimate paragraph of Anthony Kennedy’s Obergefell decision in their ceremony readings. Apparently, many regard this paragraph to be the Epithalamium, the “marriage” poem of our time. But we should be wary of poems. Thinkers from Plato to H.L. Mencken have warned us that Poetry’s power to dazzle is also its power to deceive, and the penultimate paragraph of Obergefell is certainly dazzling. Apart from its dazzle, however, it is simply nonsense.

Kennedy claims that no union is more profound than “marriage”. How does he support this claim? He simply asserts without argument that “marriage” “embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” This is just piffle. This does not separate the profundity of “marriage” from other relationships at all. One can easily say--and philosophers throughout the centuries have, in fact, said—that friendship embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, and sacrifice. But I’m omitting “family”. I don’t have to. If we can re-define “marriage”, I don’t see why we can’t redefine “family” as well. “Family” is simply a cognate of “familiar” and friends are familiar with each other. Close friends are very familiar with each other, often more familiar than many spouses. So, it can easily be said that friendship, too, embodies the highest ideals of “family”, thereby completely undermining Kennedy’s claim of the uniqueness of "marriage’s" profundities.

Furthermore, Kennedy’s claim about the profundities of "marriage" shows how utterly clueless he is to the arguments for “marriage equality” that have been rammed down our throats this past decade. “Marriage equality” advocates have argued ad nauseam that “marriage” can’t be about what marriage law does not require. Marriage law does not require that the couple procreate, therefore, marriage cannot be about procreation. Marriage law does not require that the couple be fertile, so marriage cannot even be about the potential to procreate. Marriage law does not require the act of coitus or even the ability to perform coitus, therefore, marriage cannot be about encouraging the responsible use of coitus, and so on. And yet Anthony Kennedy in his decision ignores all this and rambles on about the ideals of marriage: love, fidelity, devotion, etc. When a couple applies for a marriage license, does the clerk have them take a “love test”, a “fidelity test”, does the clerk require a demonstration of devotion or sacrifice? No, and so if marriage law does not require it, then it cannot be necessary in any way for a valid civil “marriage”. All that "marriage" law now requires for a valid “marriage” is two consenting adults to sign an application to enter into a financial contract. That’s it, and so all of Kennedy’s blather about love and fidelity and endurance past death is as irrelevant as the insistence by all those stupid, illogical Bible-thumping bigots of the connection between marriage and procreation. “Marriage” is now nothing more than a business contract between two consenting adults, and there is absolutely nothing uniquely profound about that, Kennedy’s purple prose notwithstanding. It is as banal and as humdrum as any business contract is.

Monday, August 24, 2015

A question for my Russian Orthodox Stalker

What the deuce is "semi-modalism"?

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Another mere detail of History

The Front National has expelled its founder Jean-Marie Le Pen in an act of political parricide today.  Yeah, good fucking riddance.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

I am not a responsible person

I really should mow my lawn, but I love my library too much.  In fact, I'm having an orgy with it right now.  And orgies are more fun than mowing the damn lawn.  Mowing the lawn is so goddamn bourgeois, anyhow.

Another thought on Obergefell

Justice Kennedy should have cited Jacobellis v. Ohio in his Obergefell opinion.  If he had, he could have spared us much prolixity in his strained attempts to explain how the court ascertains a fundamental, yet constitutionally unenumerated right and merely wrote, "A fundamental right is like pornography.  I know one when I see it."

It's that simple

If the law is going to hold thirteen year olds responsible enough to be tried as adults, then the law should at the very least hold them responsible enough to vote as well.


Yesterday, the doorman at the Maryland Entrance to the Chase Park Plaza Hotel was actually white.  Wow!

Saturday, August 8, 2015

The Trial of Socrates

Are things just because the law says so, or does the law declare things just because they are just? If the first, then justice is whatever legislators say it is, which makes justice a creature of whimsy. If justice is a creature of whimsy, then the objection to jury nullification on the grounds that it is whimsical is no objection at all. If the second, then justice exists independently of the law, and law’s purpose is simply to acknowledge it, if the law fails to do so, then jury nullification must step in to do so.

The Euthyphro dilemma, which Atheists love to hurl at us Theists, can also be applied to something as thoroughly secular as legal positivism—with the same devastating effect.

An idea for an existentialist Romantic Comedy (or a twist on the typical Woody Allen Film that Allen has not done yet)

A perpetually lonely middle-aged virgin becomes so desperate that he pretends to be gay and seeks out a reparative therapist in the hope of finally, finally getting some nookie. Of course, he realizes that he must really make the fundamentalists think he really is NOT attracted to women. Otherwise, they'll kick him out of the program. So, while he's busy pretending to be a struggling gay guy, his reparative therapists have him read the Bible, assign him various prayer exercises, and so on. The man may be a pathetic loser, but he isn't stupid. His encounter with Fundamentalist Christianity makes him realize that it is really silly. He soon realizes that not just Fundamentalist Christianity is silly, but all religion. He becomes a militant atheist, and the reparative therapists kick him out of the program. He never gets nookie, all he got was an awareness that the godless universe does not give a shit about him. So, he eats himself to death while watching Internet Porn.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Yesterday's Sermon

Father Jeff, as we casual surbubanites have come to know him, read to us some moving pet obituaries that he had found on the internet. Then he mentioned the global outcry and mourning over the murder of Cecil the Lion. We wanted to read to us some of the obituaries of the babies whose tissue Planned Parenthood sells but, alas, could not find a single one.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

My Dad was an English Teacher, Goddammit!

Hey, Emma Green of the Atlantic, it's "different from", NOT "different than".  "Than" is used for comparisons, not contrasts.  Just repeat this, "Contrasts are not 'differenter than' but simply different FROM comparisons."  Got that?  I hope so.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Yet another letter the Post-Dispatch most likely will not print

Dear Editor,

now that same-sex “marriage” is the law of the land, I am curious to know what constitutes bigotry. It is, of course, bigotry to think that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Such claims of heterosexual supremacy are as bigoted as racism or anti-Semitism. You’d have to have been living under a rock for a good decade not to know this. But are there subsidiary bigotries as well that just might require an overhaul of how we think and speak?

For instance, “marriage equality” presupposes an equality between same-sex and opposite-sex parents. That must mean that the sex of parents cannot matter, that being raised by two men or two women is every bit as good as being raised by a man and a woman. That being the case, the notion that it is important to have a mom and a dad will cause you to look askance at same-sex couples raising children, and that is certainly bigotry, is it not?

In fact, the very use of "mom" and "dad" suggests that the sex of parents is important when it clearly is not. So, should we avoid those words if we want to avoid homophobic bigotry?

If sex doesn't matter at all to be a parent, then when does it matter? Obviously, it matters for human reproduction and for private adult desire, but that’s it. Should we then confine our notions of motherhood and fatherhood to surrogacy and seed donation respectively? And should we refrain from using gendered pronouns in public because gender identification matters only for desires which should be kept private?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Monday, July 27, 2015

I just have to get this out (even at the risk of repeating myself)

I had a Mother and a Father.  Got that?  Not a "Parent 1" and a "Parent 2", but a Mother and Father.  I refuse to unsex my family for the sake of some gnostic notion of "equality".

Sunday, July 26, 2015

If Thucydides had documented the negotiation between Merkel and Tsipras

by a good friend of mine (who has requested that he not be identified) and me

12 Juli, 2015, Brussels

Herr Tsipras, enough of the demagoguery: You can foment mass rage against the Nazis of yore, and I can whip up popular scorn at Greek Laziness, but such rhetoric changes nothing. Let me instead talk soberly, and you can stop me and object whenever you find something objectionable.

0 Kuria Merkel, a free and frank exchange would be great, but you don’t want reason to prevail, but brute economic force that presents us with a choice that is no choice at all, either we do as you say and become your slaves or you will starve us with your economic demands.

Alex, economic facts are economic facts. If you wish to ignore them, you really don’t care about your country, and I’ve nothing more to say. If otherwise, then we can go on.

Why did I fire Varoufakis? Fine, go on.

First, let me state the obvious: We Germans worked, and because we worked, we are now an economic power. Work has made us free to enjoy the fruits of our industry. You Greeks instead have leeched off the tax money of my people, and it is our right that we get it back. You may object that the Greeks are victims of economic terrorism and that you never intended to cheat us. Who cares? Justice happens only between equals. Otherwise, the powers that be dictate, and the weak acquiesce.

It’s clear that you understand justice as expediency. Fine, then is it not expedient that the Germans respect the principle of the Summum Bonum, which is the raison d’être of the European Union, without which Europe would regress once again into factional anarchy. The Germans seek to persuade by bullying, and surely you know that Europe has a history of not being too fond of German bullying.

The Highest Good is economic stability, and our European Partners aren’t about to punish their strongest member, whose strength enables that very stability. We’re not a threat to the Highest Good, you are. For if we allow debt relief for you, other countries will want it, too, and then no one will pay their debts, and we’ll have a continent of cheats and thieves. There will be anarchy in the streets. That is why you must become our slaves.

You cannot expect any country to understand their own enslavement as being in their own best interest.

Your interests are served by avoiding an economic apocalypse.

But, dearest Angela, why must you embitter such a tiny nation? If you just let us off the hook this one time, we promise to be your most loyal partners and champions. We’ll even wear Lederhosen. Such leniency will not only transform the bitterness of my people into love, but Germany will also be transformed from a bean counting, petty miser into a paragon of magnanimity!

Please, get your skinny jeans away from me, Herr Tsipras! What you call “magnanimity” would only be a weakness of resolve to enforce the agreements that underpin Europe. Our partners would detect this immediately and exploit it to their advantage. An example must be made of Greece.

You’ve already put the hammer down on much bigger states like France, Spain, and Italy. Isn’t that example enough?

No, because if we let you prevail, the bigger countries will think that we have become weak or have gone soft and will take that as a signal that they, too, can defy us. We dare not leave you unpunished.

Okay. But surely you recognize another, more cogent threat: that by treating us so harshly you bring upon yourselves the potential enmity of your erstwhile friends, the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, etc.? Might they, for instance, think that Germany is trying to build up a Fourth Reich and decide to deal with you now before you’ve gotten too strong? Something like this has happened before, you know.

Oh, that’s just silly. Economic equals act in the same way. We know what they are going to do because they are rational and it is not in their interest to upset the balance of power. It is the weak, unequal states like you, Portugal, and Eastern Europe who act irrationally out of desperation. Therefore, they need the most discipline.

Yes, we are weak and desperate because we are weak, but how is it irrational for us to resist enslavement? How is it irrational not to give in to ignominious subjugation but to stand up and fight? At least, then there is hope.

Die ewige Hoffnung! Hope works only when you have a leg left to stand on, but you have long since been cut off at the knees, O Etaipos, and in such a state hope can only serve as the handmaiden for an even greater disaster. Hope must draw on something to be useful, and you now have nothing. Your hope is a delusion.

But in the eyes of God, we know we are in the right. How could we not be? For we are asking that you treat us with the dignity with which He Himself endowed us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Also, it is not true that we have nothing but a false hope. The French will come to our aid.

We Germans, too, believe in God, and God is first and foremost the creator of the Natural Order, and the Natural Order gives the rule to those strong enough to rule and tells those who are not to obey. God created this law, and we are merely following his Holy Commandments. To do otherwise would be most grievous blasphemy. We are in no doubt that you would do unto us as we are now doing unto you were our positions reversed. So much, then, for your appeal to God. Now, as concerns the French, we admire the simplicity of your argument but do not envy you the folly of it. While the French talk a good game, and make a great show of their high moral standards, of all the people we’ve had the pleasure of dealing with, they are the most notorious for identifying what is pleasant with what is honorable, and what is expedient for what is just. Indeed, such are the people in which you’ve invested such a wide-eyed confidence!

But what happens when Fortune does indeed reverse your position, and you find yourself in the same desperate straits as we are now? Aren’t you afraid that Spain, Italy, and France will do to you what you are doing to us and swoop in like vultures to gobble up what is left of your tattered economy?

I concede this could happen, but given the clear superiority of the German Protestant Work Ethic, it’s very unlikely. Once we sink our teeth into something, we don’t let go very easily – and so it is now with Greece. Thus far in the discussion, you have given little real proof that any of this so-called support will come your way. In fact, your strongest defense thus far has been the hope of deferring further economic sanctions against you – and, I can assure you, that is at an end. Unless you come to some wiser decision after our discussion today, I’m afraid that you are displaying an extremely hazardous lack of discretion. For surely you don’t hope to stand up to us Germans for the mere sake of honor when history has shown so many peoples ruined by such indiscreet resistance? By making so much of honor you run the risk of a far worse result than by being practical, even if it means a bit of dishonor. I beg you, don’t make such a miscalculation. Convince your people that there is no dishonor in yielding to so predominant a power as Germany and becoming our ally. We will leave you your sovereignty and you will take your economic medicine, which will ultimately make us all wealthier people. In the end, I personally believe that the best policy is to be moderate towards your inferiors, go head to head with your equals, and defer to your superiors. Go back to your Bouli, Herr Tsipras, and remind them that they are debating the future of their one and only country, which may be saved or destroyed by this most important decision.

After this conference, Alex Tsipras went back to his country and after extended debate word was sent to the Germans that this proud nation, the cradle of Democracy and Western Philosophy, would not bow to economic austerity.

Thereupon, the European Central Bank, on order of the Germans, cut off all further aid to the Greek Banks, leading to their imminent collapse. The French sniffed their indignation and did nothing. Greece plunged into a depression. For nearly four months bank remained closed and citizens had no access to their money. Pensions and salaries went unpaid, businesses big and small – especially those depending on foreign goods and services – closed, shortages of food entailed, and electricity and water services became intermittent. The heavy shadow of hunger began to creep over the land.

Later that year, the Greeks finally began printing drachmas. All Euro accounts, after a general haircut of 25% to help recapitalize the banks, were exchanged at the ratio of 1:1. On the open market, the drachma depreciated immediately to more than 20:1. Slowly, however, the countries’ economic wheels began to turn, though purchasing power was decimated and standards of living sharply curtailed. Businesses began to appear and a faint glow of hope was again felt across the land.

The Germans were not done. On the pretense of loans unpaid, they tightened the screws, placing a general embargo on the delivery of all essential products and services to the Greek nation. Within six months, with gasoline scarce and businesses again closing, the country’s economic recovery evaporated. Hunger and desperation began to spread anew and crime, especially theft and assault, became widespread. Within the year, the Greeks had had enough. New elections were called and the conservative Nea Democratea, with covert funding from the German government, returned to power. Within weeks, mining and gas rights had been pledged to foreign companies, while Germans controlled the harbors and tollways, all large supermarkets, and, most importantly, the banking system through strategic acquisitions of formerly state-owned financial institutions. Islands were sold off to wealthy individuals, movie stars, corporate executives, hedge fund owners, etc. and the monies used to repay the Eurozone nations and ECB. While the Greeks slowly got used to their new low wage structure and sharply lower pensions, interest and debt payments flowed with efficient regularity to Brussels. New laws were passed which declared that Greek stores must remain open six days a week, 12 hours a day. And, of course, the euro made a triumphant return.

The German language is now taught in all Greek schools.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Contempt of Court

One should use Kennedy's Majority Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges as toilet paper.

Friday, July 17, 2015

A Letter that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Probably Won't Print

Dear Editor,

In yesterday’s Editorial the Post implies that the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is an exclusively religious doctrine. Over the last decade the media have done a good job in training us all to think that the sexual definition of marriage is a purely religious tenet. But it is not. If it were, then why does China define civil marriage as the union of a man and a woman? China is hardly a theocracy, but is instead governed by a party that professes to reject all religious belief.

Though I disagree with the Post over whether the sexual definition of marriage is ONLY a religious doctrine, I agree that Dent County’s reaction to the recent “marriage equality” ruling was inappropriate. That ruling de-sexed the only institution that had heretofore reflected the public importance of sexual difference. By de-sexing marriage the Supreme Court has in effect ruled that sexual difference does not matter, that it does not matter that we are male and female, that, therefore, we as citizens might as well be amoebas. This is a grave insult to humanity. Mourning is too servile a reaction to such an imperious insult. Mourning implies acceptance, and I refuse to accept being degraded to the status of an amoeba. Defiance is called for. Instead of flying the flag at half-mast, Dent County should have hoisted a flag with a middle finger drawn right in the center and flown that at full-mast.


Thursday, July 16, 2015

Amare est percipi civitate

In the penultimate paragraph of his majority opinion in Obergefell, Kennedy writes, "Their [same-sex couples'] hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions." By "one of civilization's oldest institutions" Kennedy must mean a civilly recognized marriage because that’s the institution from which same-sex couples had been excluded. They were never prevented from co-habitating or even from participating in “wedding” ceremonies. These relationships and ceremonies were not prohibited but simply unrecognized by the state.

Even if you are in a relationship, but one that is not recognized as a "marriage" by the state, Kennedy declares you condemned to the outer darkness of loveless loneliness.

Okay, well, fine, I was not in a civilly recognized "marriage" with my mother. That means that all the time I thought I loved my mother and she loved me, I was really lonely and incapable of love. Likewise with my father. I was not "married" to him, either. And it goes without saying that I cannot love all my aunts, uncles, cousins, and close friends because I have not been, am not, and shall never be "married" to any of them.

It is the state that enables you to love but only one person by recognizing the relationship with that one person as a "marriage". The Philosopher George Berkeley claimed that to exist is to be perceived. Unless something is perceived, it does not exist. Since there is an Omniscient God, Berkeley reasoned, everything that exists exists because of God's omnipresent and everlasting perception.

Kennedy's Majority Opinion in Obergefell constitutes a positivistic twist on Berkeleyism: Love can exist only if the state perceives it as "marriage". Esse est percipi becomes amare est percipi civitate. To love is to be perceived by the state. 

 It's not enough to love Big Brother, it seems, you must also acknowledge that love is impossible without Him.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Nota Bene

I can't imagine that I shall ever be invited to a same-sex "wedding", but if I am, I shall immediately decline the invitation.  I would decline the invitation more quickly than I would have an invitation to Henry's Wedding to that Conniving Whore Anne Boleyn (had I been a High Official in England in 1533, that is).

Same-sex "marriage" is a howling lunacy, and I shall never take it seriously.  I refuse to lose my mind.

Sancte Thomas More, ora pro nobis.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Oh. My. God.

This is just too fucking funny.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

I thought this was really funny

What do you get when a Jehovah's Witness marries a Unitarian?

Someone who goes around knocking on doors but does not know why.

Monday, June 29, 2015

My quick take on Obergefell

Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion in Obergefell stresses the centrality of “marriage” as an institution even while re-defining it beyond recognition. Marriage used to be the central public institution because it was the bridge that united the two halves of the human race, i.e. the sexes. But now that it has been re-defined to mean some vague sexless transcendence, it is really difficult to understand what’s so damned central about it anymore. Justice Kennedy is an idiot.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

My four favorite Nihilistic Songs

1.  "I don't like Mondays"
2.  "The Battle of New Orleans"
3.  "Road to Nowhere"
4.  "Mackie Messer"  (And, no, Brother Tom, Bobby Darin did not "nail" it.  His version is just another annoying permutation of American Nihilism plastered with Delusional Carnegiesque Cheeriness.  It makes me retch.)

Friday, June 26, 2015

This is now perfectly constitutional

Man: Hey, babe.

Woman: (flashes her wedding ring at the rake)

Man: What's your point?

Woman: I am married, you dumbass.

Man: So what? Marriage is a relationship unlike any other. It has a transcendent purpose of spiritual expression that no other relationship can touch. I don't want that. I'm just looking for an ordinary, everyday, non-transcendent one-night-stand.

Woman: Are you an idiot?

Man: Justice Anthony Kennedy told us that marriage is about finding other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. You're married, right. Then be free!  Express yourself!

Woman: Fine, I will. (throws her drink in the man's face and stomps out)

Friday, June 12, 2015

My Life as a Dog

"What should you teach a dog?"

"You should try to teach him about the meaning of life.  If he is disinterested, then he's a rational dog."

Sunday, June 7, 2015

You know what sucks?

Getting up to 6 A.M. to get ready to go to Mass.  Yeah, yeah, I know,  it's the least I can do for God, Who gave me this most wonderful life.

I was less sleepy when I was an Atheist.

Friday, June 5, 2015

Schwarzenegger, call your office

 If an opposite-sex couple can say,  "we're pregnant," when expecting a baby, well then according to the dictates of whatever passes for "equality" it is only fitting that a same-sex couple should be able to use this phrase as well.  Because, after all, same-sex couples are NO DIFFERENT from opposite-sex couples.  Human biology is, after all, merely right-wing bigotry and, therefore, nonsense.  That's why History gave us Legal Fiat.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

And, Duke University,

Not only shall I continue to use "fag", I'll also smoke fags.  I'll probably die of lung cancer, fine, but, until I do, you all can choke on your politically correct Newspeak.

Another exchange with PJ


Mr. PJ,

I’ve been reading a very interesting book on surrogacy, which details how surrogates must be rigorously trained to disassociate themselves from the babies they are carrying. Some surrogacy centers deliberately implant eggs of one ethnicity into women who are another ethnicity. For instance, Mexican women gestate Japanese babies. This is done to lessen the attachment the surrogate may well develop for the baby. My question to you, then, is this: If motherhood is really just only an incubation process and has no inherent connection to the asexual enterprise of actually raising a child, then why must surrogates be trained and in some cases tricked to relinquish any parental claims on the babies they are incubating? I would think that if there were no necessary continuum between gestation and parenting, these surrogacy centers would not have to exert such tremendous efforts to ensure that the surrogates understand that they are in no way parents-to-be. Babysitters don’t have to told that the children they mind are not their own, and if surrogacy is just a very long babysitting job, then why do those who do it have to be told and reminded repeatedly that they have no parental claims at all?



You think carrying a baby to term inside your body is comparable to babysitting? How little respect do you have for women? I just don't know what world you live in.


You won’t or can’t answer my question, and so you try to misdirect by accusing me of misogyny. That’s the kind of sophistry I’ve come to expect from you, PJ. No, PJ, I do not think that pregnancy is babysitting. I think that it is the necessary and normal beginning of a mother’s life long relationship with her child. I think this because I think pregnancy is actually part of parenthood. You, Mr. PJ, are the one who denies that pregnancy is a part of parenthood when you claim that motherhood is simply surrogacy and as such has no inherent connection with parenthood. And according to your conception of “parenthood”, which is strictly the raising of the child AFTER birth, pregnancy cannot be anything more than just babysitting. If pregnancy has nothing to do with “parenting”, then pregnancy like babysitting is merely keeping care of the baby until the parents arrive or return.

[Three days later he still has not responded. He usually responds to me within an hour or two. Not this time. I wonder why.]

Hey, Duke University,

You don't tell me what to say because censorship is so fucking gay.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

A Worried Parent in the Not So Distant Future

Say "parent", sweetie, say, "par-ent". No, not "mama, par-ent". No, no, no. Not "mama", please! I don't want to raise a homophobic bully. No, please, for the love of the Right Side of History, say "parent"!

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Will someone tell me why this Progressive Journalist is NOT a raving lunatic?

This recent e-mail exchange with a progressive journalist to my mind clearly demonstrates the complete and utter lunacy of "marriage equality".   But what the hell do I know?  I'm just a Bible-Thumping Rube.


I want to make this point as bluntly and as forcefully as I can. The proponents of "marriage equality" insist that the sex of parents does not matter. This assumes a re-definition of "parent" to mean "guardian". Therefore, "marriage equality" NECESSARILY reduces fatherhood to sperm donation and motherhood to surrogacy. "Marriage equality" reduces fatherhood and motherhood, in other words, to discrete, commodifiable services. "Marriage equality" is just another capitalist trick.


I guess I agree with everything you just said, except the idea that it's a "reduction." It's a clarification, and not one that changes any parent's commitment to raising their children. And the last sentence of course... the difference marriage equality makes for the better is quite obvious.


Well, then, if you agree with the basic gist of what I just wrote, then why do find the logical consequence thereof so improbable and bizarre?  The logical consequence being this:

The courts rule that because marriage has nothing to do with procreation, presumption of parenthood no longer attaches to civil marriage. If a woman gets pregnant by her husband, she has the legal status of a surrogate until she makes it known that she wants to take over joint parenting responsibilities. And, in the same way, the husband has the legal status of a sperm donor until he makes it known that he wants to be a co-parent as well. Of course, both the husband and the wife will have to file for a parenting license and pass the required tests before they can adopt the child. Otherwise, the baby will go to the highest bidders who are also judged the most competent parents.

Such an arrangement would have the distinct advantage of being in conformity with the dictates of justice, fairness, and equality. It would finally put a very bright legal line between marriage and procreation and, thereby, achieve full legal equality between straight and gays. Of course, it falls short of full equality because opposite-sex couples still have the advantage of being their own surrogates and sperm donors and they are allowed first dibs (legally contingent dibs, yes, but first dibs all the same) on whatever sweet little commodities they produce. But the only way to achieve full equality between gays and straights is compulsory mass sterilization, and that unfortunately is politically unfeasible now.


You don't have to be married to have a kid. The way that you assume the two are linked just doesn't make sense, and none of your consequences follow. There's nothing wrong with presumptive parentage; it makes sense to hold people accountable for their own children and, for lack of a better description, ensure that they have dibs on their own children.

We have adoption without same-sex marriage. We have nonprocreative marriages without same-sex marriage. I just don't see how these things are any different with same-sex marriage.


It is not the presumption of parentage.  You never have to presume who the mother is.  For fairly obvious reasons.  It is the presumption of paternity.

Also, in a previous post you agreed that sex is irrelevant to being a parent, and now you seem to say that it is.  If motherhood is nothing other than surrogacy and fatherhood nothing other than sperm donation—and you have agreed that it is--then it has nothing to do with your concept of “parenthood” which you have agreed to be only a completely asexual guardianship, and now you are suggesting that siring and birthing a child are linked to the responsibilities of parenthood?  Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself?  Or do you think that the law of non-contradiction is also a religious notion and as such cannot apply to a secular person like yourself?


I just think you're trying to impose absolutes on situations too complicated for absolutes.

Children deserve two parents that are either accountable or committed to take care of them. There are a number of ways the law can accomplish that that are not mutually exclusive.

When a heterosexual woman has a baby, she has dibs to raise that child. If she's single, she can name the biological father and hold him accountable for child support. That makes sense to me.

If a woman has a baby and decides to put it up for adoption, she can do that too (like my birth mother did). The state can then find a fitting couple — or even a qualified single person in some cases — to raise that child. In that case, the new set of parents should be named the kids legal protectors; the biological mother has given up her dibs.

If a woman in a lesbian relationship uses a sperm donor or a gay male couple hires a surrogate, the situation is the same. In both cases, a donor has agreed that despite being the biological progenitor, they will give up their dibs to raising the child.

None of those points seem contradictory to me. They all seem in the best interest of a child's well-being.


Yes, a parent is accountable to his or her children, but a sperm donor or a surrogate is not.   You want to say that sexual difference does not matter at all in parenting.  But you have to admit that sexual difference is indispensable to the production of the child, and therefore, you have to separate the production of the child from the parenting of the child.  And that is why you have agreed that motherhood is nothing more than surrogacy and fatherhood nothing more than sperm donation.  Surrogacy and sperm donation are not supposed to be connected with your concept of asexual guardianship.

But then you also want to say that the production of child implies parental obligations, and that the law should recognize this, as it does when it forces a father to pay child support. but then sexual difference does matter to being a parent and fatherhood is obviously a lot more than sperm donation and motherhood a lot more than surrogacy.

So, on the one hand you say that fatherhood is merely sperm donation and motherhood is merely a surrogacy, and on the other hand you defend the current parent laws which assume that fatherhood is a lot more than sperm donation and motherhood is a lot more than surrogacy.  How you are NOT contradicting yourself, I do not know.


We're talking about liability here. If you get a girl pregnant, you're responsible. If you donate your sperm and somebody else uses it to conceive a child, then they're responsible. What matters is who is responsible for the pregnancy. Children deserve the support of two parents; it makes sense for the law to hold biological parents responsible first because they're the ones that initiated the pregnancy.

The only sexual difference I see is that it's a lot harder for a woman to run away from her own baby than it is for the man, who has nine months to make an escape. But women do it too, and there's not an inherent difference there.


If impregnation entails parental responsibilities, then fatherhood must be more than mere sperm donation.  You still are contradicting yourself.  Furthermore, impregnation is enough to trigger a paternity suit, and the lack of intent to impregnate is not a defense.  So, the parallel you draw between impregnation, where intent does not matter, and contracting with a sperm donor, where intent obviously must matter, is simply false.

It’s much, much harder because of the mother-child bond that develops for nine months. You are denying decades of attachment theory simply because your lunatic ideology tells you to do so. Face it, the human being is sexual, the human being is NOT an amoeba.


I stand by all my points.


And by doing so, you contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you say that sexual reproduction does not matter at all to parenting because parenting is an asexual enterprise, and then, on the other hand, you claim that sexual reproduction entails parental responsibilities, thereby admitting that sexual difference does matter to parenting.  Again, how this is not a contradiction, I have no clue whatsoever.


I think that every child should have adults responsible for raising her. If indiscriminate adults get pregnant, they’re responsible. If a couple arranges to adoption/sperm donor/surrogacy, they’re responsible. That’s why I support birth control. It’s a burden on straight couples; if you get accidentally pregnant, then yes, you’re responsible. Somebody has to be. But stupidly having sex without protection is not the same as donating sperm, where you’re not responsible for the intent to get pregnant.

You want arbitrary absolutes based on biology. That just doesn’t fit for many kids. And nothing really justifies such an oversimplification of things.


So, you finally admit that opposite-sex relationships should be treated differently under the law from same-sex couples and, thereby, concede that sexual difference does indeed matter for parental obligations.  Still, you try to downplay this admission by comparing once again an accidental pregnancy to a contract with a sperm donor or a surrogate, but this is a false comparison.  A contract is an explicit acknowledgment of obligations whereas a reckless act obviously isn’t.  To say that responsibility attaches to an explicit promise to be responsible is tautological.  To say that responsibility attaches to a certain act is not.

And why, as you claimed in an earlier post, does a child deserve TWO parents?  How the deuce do you arrive at the number two?  Well, it takes two people to make a baby but that’s only if you believe that sexual difference matters in parenting, and you insist that you do not (except, of course, when you do).  Once you throw out sexual difference as a standard for parenting,  what’s to stop—oh, I don’t know—a legislature in a state such as, say, California from saying that sometimes a child deserves to have three or more “parents”?

By the way, absolutes or anything else for that matter cannot be arbitrary if they are based on something.  “Arbitrary” means “baseless”.