At-whay A-yay Otal-tay Ouche-day Ag-bay
ABOVE: One of these is Professor David Novak; the other two are serial killers.
Oh God, it’s another dreary Monday and yet another wingnut trots out yet another supposedly intellectual (and supposedly non-religious) defense of the complete evilness of teh gays getting married. Of course there are only two or three arguments that keep getting recycled by these folks. Every child, mother, father, blah, blart, aahroogah, aahroogah, kersplat. Marriages are only for babymaking. And if teh gay marriage is passed, my hairdresser will start barebacking my husband.
Today, our newest entrant in the contest to find some new “intellectual” argument against gay marriage — the winner gets a full-body erotic massage from Maggie Gallagher — is Professor David Novak. Novak is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto which is, in itself, something of a joke given that the college’s most popular philosophy course is titled: “Did Aristotle Say ‘A-bowt’ or ‘A-boot’?”
So what does Professor (and Rabbi) Novak bring to the table? Latin, I tell you, Latin.
Novak starts off larding the baby-making argument with pseudo-intellectual trappings such as talking about the “telos” of marriage and dropping references to Aristotle and Plato.1 But then he has to bother himself with the all-too-predictable riposte: If marriage is for baby-making, how come Grandma can remarry after Grandpa keels over watching “Sluts of Stockholm VII” in the basement?
One objection is that if marriage’s sole public reason is procreation (and being responsible for those whom a couple has procreated), then why hasn’t marriage been “limited . . . to the fertile, or even of an age to be fertile”? But I would answer that objection by citing the old legal principle: de minimis non curat lex, which could be translated (freely) as: The law is only made for what usually obtains.
De minimis non curat lex. That is pretty much the equivalent of interrupting an argument by shouting “Veni. Vidi. Vici” and then running laps around the faculty lounge pumping your fists in the air and yelling “I won! I won!!”
But let’s go back to Novak’s argument, leaving aside the little magical Latinate abracadabra he employs to try to sound smart. Novak says that since most people getting married are potential baby-factories, then it matters not that a few people, e.g., Grandma and and her new 80-year old husband, are not so fertile, if by not so fertile you mean as barren as the Sahara after a wind storm. Well, wait just one damn minute here. Doesn’t that turn around and bite Novak in suus amplus puga?2 At best, gay marriages are going to be just a fraction of “opposite” (tee, hee) marriages, so don’t we get to sashay up to Professor Novak, say “de minimis non curat lex, the groom may now kiss the groom,” and be done with it?
Sorry, Professor Novak, but I don’t see a steamy session with Maggie Gallagher in your immediate future. Maybe you’ll do better next time. Just leave the Latin in Black’s Law Dictionary.
2 “In his fat ass.” Badly rendered into Latin for comic effect.
Fixed.
And somehow, in violation of God’s Holy law, the state of Massachusetts, the first state to sanction same-sex marriage, still has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Why is that, Professor Novak?
Shut up, that’s why.
The law is only made for what usually obtains.
Assuming that’s true, then it blows the whole “if we allow same-sex marriage then we’re on a slippery slope to allowing people to marry their infants and/or toasters” argument out of the water.
Update: Georgia is tied with Massachusetts for lowest divorce rate. Go figure.
Um … the issue is whether the government should recognize/certify gay marriages as it does straight marriages.
I’m sure Rabbi Novak would object to eating blood sausage. Indeed, unlike pork eating (which is ok for goyim), Rabbi Novak would point out that eating of blood may be against the Noachide laws and hence we Jews believe even the goyim shouldn’t do it.
Would Rabbi Novak thus say that the USDA/FDA (or their Canadian equivalents) should be allowed to certify beef or even pork sausage but not blood sausage?
Isn’t the whole point of “de minimis non curat lex” KISS? (and a Rabbi should be quoting this principle for what reason again?) … how much more difficult would it be to add a single provision to marriage certificates including a “must be fertile” clause?
*
And yes, it’s very funny that Plato, of all people should be cited here. Actually Plato was against gay marriage in a certain sense (c.f. the treatment of Aristophanes’ arguments in the Symposium), but the argument for it, as given in the Symposium involves a humorous adaptation of a myth prevalent amongst the Jews of the time (among other peoples). Indeed, one can argue that, in the Symposium in which Plato most addresses love (and in which we learn that “Platonic love” is not so Platonic … and in which we learn that actual homosexuality, as opposed to men buggering boys, was something somewhat controversial in ancient Greece), the version of love that most corresponds with “Jerusalem” (as opposed to “Athens”) is a vision of love in which monogamy is most important and in which a monogamous gay marriage is equal to (perhaps greater than) a monogamous straight marriage.
I said shut up, that’s why!
No more Black Forest Ham for the goyim!?! Oy vey!
If I recall my old Philosophy 101 course, Plato somewhat condemned the “gymnasium” culture where man-boy love was elevated to lofty spiritual heights – but mostly because it was those icky Spartans who practiced it the most.
This is Sparta!!!
Nabbi Rovak doesn’t even relate the sense of de minimis accurately. The phrase is used to express the idea that there is some stuff that is just too piddly for the legal system to bother with. For example, someone jaywalking across a deserted street in the middle of the night, or drawing a mustache on a dollar bill. Technically illegal but nobody gives a fuck. That’s what de minimis means.
No more Black Forest Ham for the goyim!?! Oy vey! – Joe Max
I’m not a Rabbi, but it sounds like Black Forest ham is pretty darn near kosher (well, except for being made from pig meat) — it gets salted, after all, as part of the curing process, so that should get rid of more blood than we Jews expect the goyim to take the bother to do.
BTW, IIRC Plato is somewhat ambivalent about the gymnasium culture. And somewhat ambivalent about what we would today consider homosexuality (which is different than the “gymnasium culture” and, if you consider carefully how Aristophenes is depicted in the Symposium as a little bit defensive about what he’ll say, was not quite fully accepted amongst, e.g., those practicing the gymnasium culture). But it’s interesting that the defense of homosexuality (as we would understand the term today, especially in terms of gay marriage) is couched in a myth that was current amongst Jews (among other people) and ends with a “fear of the divine” line that could be lifted from the Rosh Hashana service!
Technically illegal but nobody gives a fuck. That’s what de minimis means. – Rusty Shackleford
And yet, in the Talmud, there would still be a long discussion about whether such jaywalking is de minimus or whether Hashem always gives a fuck, so it’s still important. Which is why it’s very odd for a Rabbi to have used this argument.
Novak did my bar mitzvah in the ’70’s. Apparently, he remains an insufferable prick.
Seriously, worst Rabbi ever.
I’m sick of all these “but we don’t want the irish” arguments, ’cause that’s what they are. If the people who are arguing against same sex marriage would just come out and say that they think homosexuals are degenerates we could at least have a constructive argument. But no, they pussyfoot around it and try to find any other rationale that won’t brand them as homophobes. And for any of you people who do that, you should know that everyone sees this. So when you get called gay hater, be prepared with a lucid argument as to what you really mean. I’ll be sure to hold my breath.
What’s Latin for “Because SHUT UP, that’s why”?
Obviously this could never happen without marriage.
He says:
“The fact is…”
Novak is Gary Ruppert?
On behalf of rabbis everywhere, for whom I am in no way authorized to speak and of which group I am not even a member, I’d like to apologize for Rabbi Novak and his specious reasoning.
Man, what a tool.
Obviously this could never happen without marriage. – Righteous Bubba
Gandhi evidently once stated something to the effect of “if everyone stops having sex, God will find a way to make sure humans still have kids”. Dagobert Runes, normally not one for humor, wrote a riposte to that … something to the effect of “funny, humanity doesn’t seem to be willing to test Gandhi’s hypothesis”
According to the free online translator it’s:
Quoniam shut sursum , ut quare
Well if Novak postulates that kid’s are in the best interest of the state, why does he not merely lobby for subsidizing procreation? Have a kid, get a tax break. Wait, that sounds familiar…
What’s Latin for “Because SHUT UP, that’s why”?
IOKIYAR
Ensuring domestic tranquility is something our government is supposed to do. Interracial marriage causes hostility among many of our country’s citizens. It costs money to protect interracial marriages therefore it is with regret (always the regret) the nation is forced to prohibit these marriages until such time as it becomes safer for them.
I was in a heterosexual intraracial marriage and , believe me, there was anything but domestic tranquility.
This is what I’m getting at. Give us the goddamn freedom. Let us worry about the dangers.
IOKIYAR translates to:
is est licitus si vos es a res publica
And here I thought we American assimilated Chosen People (even the rabbis) could give a flying fuck about t3h gays getting hitched (or eating bacon, or even believing in good ol’ Yahweh). This guy is unrepresentative and, as previously stated, a tool. NEXT.
I don’t mean us as in me in particular, cause you know, heh, heh, I… I don’t have a horse in the race, heh,
A better translation:
Quoniam taceo, ut quare
I’ok i’yar? Cthulhu fhtagn?
Incidentally, in most international rankings of universities – which are always worth arguing about – the U of T fares well.
No, it’s not a Jewish position. It’s a “I don’t mind the homos but here’s why they shouldn’t be given equal treatment…”
It’s nice to hear that even in the midst of all the turmoil over there that the University of Tehran is keeping up its international ranking…
Whence comes this overrationalised fear of teh ghey? What sort of repressed, twisted mind is capable of torturing such an argument to his whims with pseudo-intellectual Latin phrases?
Non speculari derelictus est.
The sex is hotter when you’re guilty about it.
Sorry, that should be non speculari derelictus esset.
Personally, I would like to see the government not recognize marriage at all. Just like they don’t recognize baptism or communion or any of the other religious sacraments. That way no one will be legally recognized as being married. The government could then adjust civil unions to cover everybody equally without stepping on the toes religious institutions.
I’ve noticed a disturbing lack of bathroom fixtures in our last several photoshops.
Centurion: What is this then? Romanes eunt domus, “People called Romanes they go the house”?
Brian It-it says, “Romans, go home”!
Centurion: No, it doesn’t! What’s Latin for “Roman”? [grabs Brian’s ear] Come on, come on!
Brian: Romanus!
Centurion: Goes like?
Brian: Annus!
Centurion: Vocative plural of annus is…?
Brian: Anni?
Centurion: [writes] Romani. And eunt? What is eunt?
Brian: “Go”! Let-
Centurion: Conjugate the verb “to go”.
Brian: Ire; eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt!
Centurion: So eunt is…?
Brian: Third person plural, present indicative. “They go!”
Centurion: But “Romans, go home” is an order, so you must use the…?
Brian: The… imperative!
Centurion: Which is…?
Brian: I!
Centurion: [twisting Brian’s ear] How many Romans?
Brian: [yelling] I.. Plural, plural! Ite, ite!
Centurion: [writing] Ite. Domus? Nominative? But “go home”, it is motion towards, isn’t it, boy?
Brian: Dative, sir!
[The centurion promptly draws his swords and presses it against Brian’s throat. Brian yells:]
No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! The… accusative, accusative! Domum, sir, ad domum!
Centurion: Except that domus takes the…?
Brian: The locative, sir!
Centurion: Which is?
Brian: Domum!
Centurion: [writing] Domum… -um [sheathing his sword] Understand?
[Brian nods eagerly]
Now, write it out a hundred times!
I quite like the illustration on this one.
Life of Brian is still one of my favourite movies ever.
Me too!
Dude, calling Symposium an ode to pederasty is wrong on many levels.
For one thing, it’s where the concept of Platonic, non-physically expressed, love originates, from how Socrates explicitly doesn’t have sex with the young Alcibiades.
Explicitly not having sex is just wrong.
Then my wife doesn’t wanna be right.
And DAS, the rest of what you say is too learned for that intro. There’s no position on gay marriage to be found in Plato’s works.
Socrates had several adult male devotees, with whom it’s strongly implied he had erotic love in his past. And the love between Socrates and Alcibiades is never denigrated or questioned, the debate is over how to express it properly.
Heehee.
Have an apple, kid. It’s brain food.
A Different Brad, perhaps you are correct about me over-reading The Symposium (I can’t help it — I read it as required reading in my freshman year of college! 😉 ). I’m not sure I’m with you about the “Platonic” nature of the love between Socrates and Alcibiades, though. I got the impression that Socrates was just full of himself because he had a hawt, young man wrapped around his fingers and was able to keep this going, leading said young man on, playing with his mind whilst on some sort of power trip.
That this is Plato’s ideal of love explains a lot about why Straussian-wanna-be neo-con types lurve themselves some Plato, doesn’t it?
N just to needlessly drone on about the subject, in fact in Socrates’s speech in Symposium pederastic sex is portrayed as an entirely understandable human error born out of an otherwise divine urge.
It’s hard to say “Plato said…”, because he didn’t.
Uhhhhhhhhh….
not to Godwin myself, but Strauss’s relationship to Plato, in my mind, is roughly comparable to Hitler’s with Nietzsche.
A Different Brad,
I certainly agree with you about Plato vs. Strauss. And, arguably, Strauss’ relation to neo-cons is also roughly so comparable.
My point is not that neo-cons or Strauss are genuine, bona-fide Platonists, but that there are certain elements of Plato that certainly do provide fodder for the wanker caucus (all puns intended).
Res ipsa loquitur, bitches!
the winner gets a full-body erotic massage from Maggie Gallagher
Egads, the
survivorswinners will envy the dead. Make it Maggie Gyllenhal and I’ll start learning all sorts of foreign and exotic tongues to make as persuasive an argument as I can.Heck, make it Jake Gyllenhal and I’ll try to figure out why straight marriage she be constitutionally banned.
“she” should be “should” – I blame Obama, and also thoughts of inserting myself into an incestuous menage a Gyllenhal.
He defeats his own argument AGAIN with that. Who’s to say we won’t soon be able to manipulate the DNA from two men, replace the DNA in a donated egg and make one of the men pregnant with a fetus with that mixture of DNA? Of course it would be even easier with two women.
Oh, then we agree, no doubt. Plato had unwritten teachings and a sort of culty feel to some of his thought, but Strauss completely misunderstands Republic and the noble lie as the basis of his self-serving crap.
You should have thought of that before we left the house. Just cross your legs until we get to the next rest stop on the thruway.
I read a decent chunk of Plato’s Republic a few months back, when it was the only English reading material around. My recollection is that it was utter bullshit, riddled with logical fallacies.
Was I missing something? I’m sure there’s still much to be gained by reading ancient Greek philosophy, especially for understanding much of history, and my background is heavily tilted towards hard science, but man, Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit alone would tear most of that crap apart.
And… alas, Novak’s reference to Plato is via Aristotle’s criticisms of the dissolution of the male/female family unit in the mythical state of the philosopher king in Republic, which means Novak was, if anything, calling Plato a DFH, and Aristotle the good conservative. That’s probably not entirely wrong, and, as DAS mentioned, adult homosexuality was much less tolerated in even the relatively cosmopolitan ancient Athens. Pederasty was an institution, gays worked in the drama industry and arts and were the target of ridicule.
Strauss completely misunderstands Republic and the noble lie as the basis of his self-serving crap. – A Different Brad
IIRC, Strauss was not the first person to do this.
Pederasty was an institution, gays worked in the drama industry and arts and were the target of ridicule.
So it was a lot like Los Angeles?
Ass-yeay ole-hay.
You were missing a very large amount, Till. Republic is not idle reading, and can’t be read partially. It’s an incredibly involved text that requires careful study and probably multiple readings to really respond to. You also need grounding in Plato’s works and probably some basic knowledge of ancient Athens and Greece. I don’t mean to sound snotty, but it’s not an easy work to approach.
There’s a reason it’s still hotly debated by academics to this day, and it’s not bad writing.
I think probably the best all around comp for ancient Athens in the US, imo, would be pre-Katrina New Orleans.
“So it was a lot like Los Angeles?”
Yes, except you could get a decent bagel in ancient Greece.
(Badum, thank you, all week, waitress, veal, etc.)
Umm, no. Your arguments are clearly pulled from a posteriori.
re: de minimis nom Nom NOM NOM
How about we just annul any marriages that are baby free after five years. And then throw the fraudulent “marriage hijackers” in jail for misrepresenting their desire to have babies.
re: Isn’t all of this an intentional violation of a child’s natural right to NOM NOM NOM?
No.
Would you like a clarification? Perhaps any widow or widower should be forced to re-marry as soon as humanly possible because we don’t want to intentionally violate NOM NOM NOM. Also, constitutional ban on divorce.
re: consider adoption.
WTF?!?! David Novak – not opposed to gay adoption – only just that it should never ever happen. Because of something pulled outta his posteriori. He’s not arguing empirically because people can point out all sorts of shitty hetero couples and non-shitty homo couples. Trivial to show that there are plenty of gay folks who are in a better position to raise kids than, say Octomom. Even to a bigoted crapweasel such as himself.
He’s arguing “based on the concepts of rights”. Meaning “gays don’t have any”.
And finally, in conclusion, also – PENIS.
eenus-pay.
Obviously, fertility testing must become part of the marriage application process. Additionally, those couples without children by the second year and those who become infertile will have their marriages annulled.
Indeed. Read Courtesans & fishcakes : the consuming passions of classical Athens, by James N. Davidson, who is himself gay. His debunking of the usual trope of the gay-friendliness of Ancient Greek, particularly Athenian culture is very enlightening.
A lot of that comes from Foucault, Rev. Battleaxe, who was a genius, and always factually wrong.
All you have to do is read some Aristophanes and the situation is pretty clear, I don’t understand why that trope took hold like it did.
The Charmides is so much more of a man/boy homoerotic dialog than the Symposium.
I once sat through a lecture in college where a professor somehwat nervously explained that the Greeks likely only had femoral intercourse in their man/boy love sessions, and then only for the purest of spiritual motives. There was much stifled laughter from the students.
You get to call people fags.
Additionally, women with children will not be allowed to divorce until they can prove they have another man ready.
Also, Widows with children will have 90 days to find a new
ownerhusband or face severe fines.The Charmides is so much more of a man/boy homoerotic dialog than the Symposium.
Please don’t squeeze the Chermides. (I always had my suspicions about Mr. Whipple…)
Sharks, Jessica Alba, the United Way, Donte Stallworth, clarity…
Fuck ’em all with free-floating outrage
Considering this thread in its entirety, something has occurred to me: you can learn more about Ancient Greece from comments threads at Sadly, No! than you can from VDH.
Fuck ‘em all with free-floating outrage
Shorter Slushell: Everyone? Everything? I hate it.
After reading all of it, I guess Novak doesn’t realize he’s basically arguing the state should be in the business of licensing and regulating reproduction.
Or maybe he does.
Rude Latin translation of “Because SHUT UP” via a scholar of my acquaintance:
You can get some good venom into that one.
Professor David Novak is another sad relic in the ranks of those who, with copious anacolutha (Eat that one, Prof!), decide to defend the (Slavery, anti-miscegination laws) status quo against those whose machinations would shrivel their tiny dicks even further. To suggest that the absence of the feel of a pair of undergratuate balls bouncing off of Prof,. Novak’s chin is to go too far.
Finally, women who are fertile but refuse to become pregnant are a financial burden on the State and should be taxed at higher rate to compensate for their evil wicked ways!!!!!!!!!
Don’t forget, a ‘c’ in Latin is never pronounced like an ‘s’.
That’s right Caesar is supposed to be pronounce ‘Kai-sar’.
Novak would undoubtedly appreciate a law that was recently passed (and even more recently rescinded) in Afghanistan, establishing a husband’s right to rape his wife at any time, and the wife’s duty to accomodate it. Because, y’know, he’s only trying to do his part to make sure they have kids, ‘n stuff.
That’s why English rules, because, you know, fuck that.
Dude. I was soooooo fuckin’ wasted that night.
That’s right Caesar is supposed to be pronounce ‘Kai-sar’.
Fuck off you goddamn latin grammar nazis! I will NEVER order a Kai-sar salad nor will I ever eat a Caesar roll. Oooh, Kaiser roll….sammich! Scuse me…..
Latin grammar Kenturion, if you please…
ooo, fun ‘n games over at Ballon Juice, where I’m being “schooled” by a commenter who insists that because I didn’t address HER particular situation in the lede paragraph of a comment, that in fact I said the opposite of what I said.
Personally, I think if she’s that sensitive, she should probably be hanging out at Shakesville.
I will NEVER order a Kai-sar salad nor will I ever eat a Caesar roll.
And Obama will noever appoint a “Drug Caesar” or a “Car Kaiser”
Like the lives of the human beings who have created it, the state seeks its own survival.
CATEGORY ERROR FAIL
The analogy would work better if a state were more than a legal fiction. Ststes do not have interests, or rights to exist, or a PENIS.
Personally, I think if she’s that sensitive, she should probably be hanging out at Shakesville.
It isn’t Mona, is it?
Novak starts off larding the baby-making argument
Is that what the
kidsold farts are calling it now?If he needs lubricant, he’s DOING IT WRONG.
Ststes do not have interests, or rights to exist, or a PENIS.
Florida, dude. America’s wang.
Ststes do not have … a PENIS.
FLORIDA.
Darn your hide, Rusty.
In other news, our good friend Hal Turner was in court today, being arraigned “on a felony charge of inciting injury to persons.” No plea. This should be fun.
It isn’t Mona, is it?
No.
But can I just say how completely appropriate the name “Mona” is to the milieu over at that place?
You’re both wrong anyway. Florida doesn’t have a PENIS, Florida is a PENIS.
Darn your hide, Rusty.
You must have me mistaken with zombie rotten mcdonald, although I’m not sure his hide will hold up to another darning.
Trust me on this, guys. I’m a PENIS expert.
A regular PENIS Caesar.
You’re both wrong anyway. Florida doesn’t have a PENIS, Florida is a PENIS.
Indeed – it is the penis of the United States, which is a “state” in the broader sense.
Florida – America’s Wang™
Hal Turner finally (maybe) crosses the legal line, and because he’s enraged about what? “[L]egislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parishes’ finances.”
It’s like Capone finally getting nailed for tax evasion.
“Florida??? That’s America’s wang!” – Homer Simpson
Indeed – it is the penis of the United States, which is a “state” in the broader sense.
HAH! Notice the ‘s’ on the end of the country name there boyo? Also, if it is in the “broader” sense, then it definitely would NOT have a PENIS.
Kyoo Eee Fucken Dee!
Damn, hoisted on my own petard.
Texas – America’s Petard(tm)
Doughpants would never have that many vegetables on a sandwich.
Doughpants would never have that many vegetables on a sandwich.
Problems with the time machine again? You ought to get that thing tuned up.
Problems with the time machine again? You ought to get that thing tuned up.
Blart.
Massachusetts has a hooked penis, and New York has Long Island. Also: some states have Republican governors.
And Obama will noever appoint a “Drug Caesar” or a “Car Kaiser”
That one statement captures everything that is wrong with this country.
There was a young flasher called Rex
Who had a small organ of sex.
When he stood up in court
The judge said with a snort,
De minimis non curat lex.
(A very old rhyme, but oddly appropriate.)
Cucullus non facit monachum.
It’s a FORESKIN joke, see.
South Carolina’s penis has gone missing.
It’s a FORESKIN joke, see.
We don’t DO those around these parts. Ever since the…errrr…incident.
You’re both wrong anyway. Florida doesn’t have a PENIS, Florida is a PENIS.
Good point. However, there is a state that has a peener – Illinois, specifically Dennis Hastert’s old hangout.
Today in court, Mr Justice Cocklecarrot threw out the claim of intellectual-property theft brought by the Delhi Jelly Company against Bimler’s Sponge-cake Emportium, saying that “The law is not concerned with trifles.”
/Morecombe & Wise
so don’t we get to sashay up to Professor Novak, say “de minimis non curat lex, the groom may now kiss the groom,”
De minimis non curat lex,
the grooms may now have sex.
The birds flew the coop;
I want to say POOP
but in Latin the right word is fex.
His translation is not even close:
De minimis non curat lex = “the law does not concern itself with trifles”
What a moran.
One of these is Professor David Novak; the other two are serial killers.
Bahahaha. Wingnuts will, no doubt, complain about such an association, but this a trademark technique of theirs.
Massachusetts has a hooked penis
Actually, Rhode Island is just sporting a PENIS gourd.
TheCat: I thought it was “ftaghn”? Now you’re getting me all confused.
What’s Obama going to appoint Kay Kyser to?
Sirius Lunacy: re government recognition of marriage — IIRC, in many Southeast Asian countries the ONLY legal form of marriage is the civil marriage by a JP or a civil official at the appropriate civil office. The religious ceremony is up to the individual(s) involved and does not replace, validate, or invalidate, the civil ceremony. Necessary where you have large numbers of people who believe in different Imaginary Friends, unless you want Rampant Bloodshed.
Florida – America’s Wang™
Nearly forgot the 2-Euro coin (must credit Flying Rodent).
Dammit! a different brad beat me to it! I had it ready:
“Righteous Bubba said,
Like the lives of the human beings who have created it, the state seeks its own survival. In order to regularly replenish its citizenry and ensure national continuity, the state has an interest in encouraging procreation and child rearing.
Obviously this could never happen without marriage.”
I can’t believe it! The wingnuts argue the interest of the state…straight up! Libertarian this, bitchez.
I’d say “good try, prof” but actually it was quite flimsy.
Are you calling us Scandinavians dicks? Not disagreeing, just curious.
Ah yes. De minimus: “Yeronnah, Theyah fuckin’ QUEER!”
Are you calling us Scandinavians dicks?
No, no. Just the Swedes.
Norway, curiously absent from that Euro coin, is presumably the foreskin of Europe.
Alcibiades said
Dude. I was soooooo fuckin’ wasted that night.
And just what night was that, young man!?!?!?!
You couldn’t lie straight in bed
Alcibiades, this is still Bryce’s mom.
When the Celts talked about giving head, they meant actually giving someone a head.
Plato … on the other hand …
“Kelt”.
If Sweden is the PENIS of Europe, what is Denmark doing to Germany?
Curious coincidence – as I was reading this, I had just brough my two (adopted) sons home (older one had first day of summer school today).
My husband is finishing up at work and should be home soon; then, I’ll take a break and go pick up the younger son’s allergy medication at the pharmacy. Tonight, we’ll all sit down to meatloaf, mashed potatoes and green beans. SUCH a normal, boring life – for which I’m truly grateful. Rabbi Novak would be perturbed to know that my husband and I are legally married in the eyes of the State (at least, the one we live in), and our sons are legally adopted by both of us.
Oddly, people who actually KNOW us don’t see anything odd about our family, other than the remarkable prevalence of Y chromosomes.
I remember a cartoon, years ago, the US taunting the Old Country with, “Hey, Europe! Suck my Florida!!”
If Sweden is the penis of Europe, I think the important question is what IS Germany? Perhaps Denmark is the clitoris?
It’s the nipple IF YOU MUST KNOW.
I think the clitoris is Scotlandica.
If anyone is interested, I went through most of the article’s arguments at http://www.currentlogic.blogspot.com.
Sorry, I’m new to this and don’t know how to do links.
Anyway, it’s not as funny as Sadlyno, but it is more thorough.