His case is an example of how idiotic the hard Left's view of sex and sexuality is. For years, they argued that sexual preferences (or "orientation") are hardwired. It's natural and not a choice. We're born that way and can't be changed. That's the core assumption behind gay marriage and gay rights in general, and without it, their argument mostly falls apart. (However, they now argue that gender and sex are social constructs that are fluid. That's the core assumption behind the trans movement. To them, you can't make yourself straight by changing your preferences (which they deem horrific and abusive), but you can make yourself straight by changing your gender. Very logical.) Well, if they were right about these things, cases like Bauman's wouldn't happen. He'd still harass people, but he'd harass men. Remember, he's (supposedly) gay, not bisexual. The reality is that he probably isn't "gay." He's just f'd up.
This is kinda funny -- A stunt at Payless Shoes fooling who they describe as "social media influencers" "I would pay $400 or $500," a woman says in a TV ad, holding a pair of $19.99 sneakers. Another shopper calls the Payless shoes "elegant and sophisticated."
Yes, I became aware that they had abandoned the "born that way" argument years ago. It's now, "So what?" You can do whatever you want.
Just as a reminder, a substantial number of gay and lesbian peeps are proponents of the "Drop the T" movement. We don't believe their crap and we see the damage it is doing to the rights of females and the harm being done through the transing of juveniles who dare not conform to the rules of blue and pink stereotypes...
I wasn't aware of this but not surprised. Here is the article I just read about it: Sign the Petition This caught my eye because this has been my primary concern of the bathroom issue: " The infringement of the rights of individuals, particularly women, to perform normal everyday activities in traditional safe spaces based on sex; this is most pernicious in the case of men claiming to be transgender demanding access to bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters and other such spaces reserved for women." When testing a theory or a law, I try to see how the "protected extreme" affects us. In this case, it would be a man who identifies as a woman going into the girls bathroom of an elementary school. I have felt that if I saw what appeared to be a man entering a woman's bathroom that I would advise my daughter to wait until he emerged before going in. Is that transphobic? I don't care. I also advised my daughter to be sure to lock any single-use unisex bathroom. We had this discussion at the coffee bean a few years ago at the Coffee Bean here in Austin. She needed to go and was confused when none of the doors indicated Men or Women. She asked me which one she should use and I quickly gave her the gender talk and she goes, "Oh yeah, I heard of that." She was 12 at the time. So I said, just read the door and it's possible anyone can use it. That solves the problem when it comes to single-use (as opposed to a larger bathroom for multiple people). I myself always knock now on single-use bathrooms because what if anyone is in there but worse, what if it's a young girl? I hate that my daughter is now in a position where any man man (a regular guy like me) might innocently walk in on her if she forgets to lock the door. That wasn't a problem before per se. Men went into the men's room. Women in to the ladies room.
I argued at the time that Obergefell v. Hodges would create huge problems for the future. IMO, the Court did not think its way fully through what they were doing. My position was always that they should just stay out it, gay marriage was a question for the states solely, under the Constitution. Effectively it was up to the people, acting through their representatives, to set the terms of marriage. As has always been the case, the burden was firmly placed upon the proponents of change (here, the proponents of gay marriage) to persuade enough of their fellow citizens to make that change in their local laws. This is how democracies work. It is the very nature of our form of democracy. Yes, it moves slowly, too slowly sometimes, but it still works. And it works better than anything any other peoples in the history of humanity have ever been able to come up with. But some people are just not willing to put in the time to do things the right way. And some of those impatient people work on the Supreme Court. So the Court made a mistake. Incapable of resisting the emotional impulse to show those poor red state slobs up, they substituted their judgement for the will of the people. IMHLO, they were acting outside their delineated powers. The Supreme Court itself acted unconstitutionally in that case. Unfortunately, there exists today no reasonable mechanism for us to fix it when they screw up like this (see Marbury v. Madison (1803)) More practically, what does this mean for the future? This part finally gets to what you wrote. If the people, acting through their democratically elected representatives, cannot set the terms of marriage, then they cannot prevent any other type of marriage either. Think about it. The people can no longer say siblings cannot marry. Nor any other family members. Nor can the people even limit marriage to "between humans." Who can now stop someone from marrying their pet? Their computer or cell phone? Their dead friend or relative? A tree? A sex doll? A Johnny Maziel poster? Whatever you can think of, someone in the future will marry it because of the shortsightedness and impatience of the liberal wing of the SCOTUS. They opened a type of Pandora's Box on marriage. Here is my example of an extreme result from all of this that we will see in our lifetimes. Someone will make a clone of him or herself. Then he/she/it will marry the clone of he/she/it. Who can stop it now? Then he/she/it will pass all of his/her/its assets to the clone. With all tax and other legal implications neatly accounted for. And then repeated into perpetuity. I actually wrote this script about 10 years ago. Never sold.
Deez, that just shows the postmodern influence. The point isn't to be logically consistent. They don't believe in logic. They believe in power. The argument that a person is born gay or straight was to force people to accept homosexuality as normal. That argument was their best one at that point of time. It worked. Now that homosexuality is accepted as normal or acceptable by society, the next step is to normalize trans. To do that you can't rely on "born that way". It is diametrically opposed. But that poses no issue for the postmodernist. The issue is "what argument gains us more power today." People who don't agree, don't have the courage (me included) to publicly explain the logical inconsistency and saying it loud and consistently.
I agree with most of your take on this (with some minor disagreement on a few of your hypotheticals), but if you look at the dictum in Loving v. Virginia, the groundwork was laid long before Obergfell. They could have struck down the interracial marriage bans on equal protection grounds and left it at that. But instead, the Court tossed in what amounted to a substantive due process right with a bunch of flowery rhetoric about the "right to marry" and personal autonomy. Once you go down that road, there's not much of a limit on where this is heading. Basically if it involves consenting adults, the state is going to have to recognize it. At a minimum, polygamy and incest are no-brainers.
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but if we live long enough, there is no telling what we will see in this area -- probably something I did not even imagine
Good point. Obviously, in 1967, nobody thought that gay marriage would come out of the Loving case. People would have been horrified at the suggestion.
If I asked you to name one thing impossible for liberals to ruin, would anyone have guessed "astrology"? Because, how could anyone ruin that? Right? Spoiler
"Baby It's Cold Outside" banned from a Cleveland radio station. Link. Of course, you can rap in graphic detail about doing unspeakable things to women, and that's considered "art."
I did have have my pants fall down by accident during 7th grade football practice many moons ago. That was pretty embarrassing but I didn't get suspended.
Political correctness these days equates to prudes scolding everyone. What a horrible existence these people live. They are best ignored.
[ This is where mb's argument just gets lost in the wash, because in many cases I'm not sure if the progressive mob is that concerned with actual "unintended" consequences as opposed to simply moving the ball down the field. I suspect their response to this inconsistency would be "who cares? We don't need to re-litigate gay rights. We have them now and we can bludgeon people into submission without having to be intellectually consistent." So they ignore the individuals who get rolled over in the process and keep focused on the next fight. Sometimes I think that there are reporters/columnists whose beat is "social justice," and now have the job of finding something to complain about. So they just walk around New York City looking for inspiration. I fully expect an article about how the "Mr. Softee" soft serve ice cream trucks are a reminder of the time when soft serve ice cream's default color was white and they kept the chocolate hidden in bins in the back. Again, a reflection of white privilege and an unconscious statement of kids demeaning "oreos" to display their toxic masculinity. Or something.
There used to be a place called Edge Falls in the hill country. It featured cliffs you could jump off into the deep pool below. The farmer who owned it would let a whole carload of people in for a few bucks. It was private property, so there were zero rules. Minors openly brought in ice chests full of beer. Me and 3 other guys got liquored up and jumped off the cliff by the falls buck naked one 4th of July in front of a packed house. Couldn't tell you why we did it. We just did. No oreos though.
Two points on this. First, they pretend the inconsistencies don't exist, and they rely on social and cultural pressure to marginalize anyone who raises them. If they are forced into the forefront, they rely on the judiciary to force all inconsistencies to be resolved in the "progressive" favor. Second, it's important to remember that the social Left is unified by crushing a common enemy far more than by common values or interests. That's why the gays and transgendered pretend to be on the same side. It's also why the LGBT groups will ally with Muslims who would have them decapitated if they ever gained power.
This has always puzzled me " It's also why the LGBT groups will ally with Muslims who would have them decapitated if they ever gained power."
