Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering litigator. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Recovering Former Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

More Posts Twitter Facebook

9 Comments

  1. Burt, I think it’s gotten to the point where people have just grown tired and bored with the whole issue. SSM is a legless subject because once it hits the proverbial wall, there’s really nothing left to say. Poof. It’s really a colossal waste of time for whatever position you end up supporting. This isn’t romance or love or Shakespeare sonnets or Chopin Nocturnes or Wordsworth with his boundless love of Nature or Keats with his boundless love for Nature and beautiful sunsets and beautiful women. No, when all is said and done, it really boils down to where one may legally insert their sex organs. None of this kind of stuff…

    She walks in beauty, like the night
    Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
    And all that’s best of dark and bright
    Meet in her aspect and her eyes;
    Thus mellowed to that tender light
    Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

    Oh, just wondering–judging from the posters and commenters at this site, I’d say a sizable number, certainly a majority of the number are gay. Interesting–a majority are atheists and homosexuals. If that isn’t a statistical anomaly I guess nothing is. Why do you think that happens? I can’t come up with any logical explanation at all insofar as its ideological ability to attract like-minded tribal kinfolk.

    • Well, it’s probably true that for most people, there is nothing anyone could say, argue, or point to that would get them to change their minds — and it is an issue upon which most people hold strong opinions. That’s part of why I found Frum’s essay so notable.

      As for your second point, it’s true that like attracts like, but I think that what attracts people here, and what attracts people here to the SSM issues, are not gay-straight issues particularly nor religious issues particularly. We’re mostly about culture here, and while things like politics and law are critical aspects of the culture, they aren’t the only parts of it.. That’s why we also talk about movies and social interactions and a whole bunch of other things. The common denominator seems to me to be a desire to view the culture with clear, open eyes and to discuss it with intellectual integrity and a spirit of mutually productive argument.

      • I applaud you, sir! You are a most interesting Mensch. I am gratified you didn’t run me out of here on the next freight train because of my remarks. They were not for a second meant to be offensive or bigoted.

        So thank you very much for your very interesting and courteous reply. Shalom!

        p.s. I’m making up a Final Jeopardy question for you-no cheating now!

        This famous violinist performed in front of a full house with his gas mask still on.

      • I forgot to mention–name the violinist AND the country where this happened.

  2. Burt-how rich a statement! How Liberals love it when people “cross the aisle” or change their opinion after much thought. Of course, it’s always a one-way street. If a Repub cross the aisle to join the Libs that shows “open mindedness”, deep, thoughtful reflection. If a Democrat crosses the aisle to support a Republican, he is a hateful, irredeemable bigot. At best.

    • I’m not sure that’s true. The level of vitriol aimed at people who change their minds varies according to some factor other that the orientation of the change.

      Dennis Miller and David Letterman moved significantly to the right after 9/11. Not a lot of heat got aimed at them. They weren’t called anything resembling “hateful, irredeemable bigots.”

      Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame, however, moved from right to left, and took no end of heat.

      Isolated examples? Examples with other factors involved? Sure. But examples of anyone changing their minds, at all, on anything of significance, are pretty isolated to begin with.

        • Both Miller and Lieberman took plenty of heat, no doubt. But so did Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter.

          I read that article this morning. It sounds to me like Lennon might have been better-described as “disillusioned” and “suffering growing pains,” but of course we can’t exactly ask him anymore and I question whether Yoko would be able to give us a reasonably objective answer.

          • Burt, Jeffords and Spector ran as GOPs and turncoated. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman did not join the other party. I’m not feeling the equivalency.

            As for David Frum, David Brock and other ideological turncoats, it’s seen on my side of the aisle as mere opportunism. I’ll give Andrew Sullivan some benefit of the doubt on sincerity, because he’s as incoherent as a turncoat as he was as a conservative.

            As a turncoat, he is treasured by the left far more than he was ever valued on the right, where he was not the heart, but an appendix.

            He is not missed. 😉

            [Hope I get some points for an apt metaphor, that.]

Comments are closed.