Posted by Charity on June 22nd, 2009

The Burlington Planning and Zoning Office refuses to issue a Certificate of Occupancy to a landlord who replaced rotting wood siding with nice new siding.

“It was a distinct loss when the original siding was replaced,” [Mary O’Neil, a historic-preservation officer with the city’s Planning and Zoning Office] said of the three ALPH buildings. “They no longer look the way the used to look.”

Apparently, Ms. O’Neil likes the look of rotting wood.

The City’s justification for the hold up: the siding has a 4-inch reveal.  The original siding had a 3-inch reveal.

Seriously.  This is your tax dollars at work, folks.

34 Responses to “City Won’t Give an Inch”

  1. There you go, those damn liberals, they killed McJesus!

  2. Congratulations! You win the “most incoherent comment ever” award!

  3. Ever watch the Design Review Board on channel 17? They are a bunch of wantonly pompous and obtuse pricks. Good bless the property owners who put up with their bullshit.

  4. Ridiculous.

    Oh, and don’t forget the children’s future, we mustn’t forget the children (/sarcasm alert/).

    “We’re trying to retain as much of Burlington’s original fabric as we can for future generations,” said Mary O’Neil, a historic-preservation officer with the city’s Planning and Zoning Office.

  5. You are right, two margarita’s and I was no longer capable of speaking down to a ditto-heads level. So here’s one for you:

    The Bible is the infallible word of our Lord. If you are a TRUE Christian, you follow these these commands:

    Who You Should Kill

    –Unruly or rebellious child. Deut 21:20-21
    –Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev 20:9, Ex 21:15
    –Worshipers of other gods. Deut 13:6-11
    –Psychics, witches. Lev 20:27, Deut 13:6-11, Ex 22:18.
    –Those who do not believe in Jesus (parable). Luke 19:27.
    –Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 (Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.)
    –Those who are accused by at least two people of wickedness. Deut 17:6.
    –The children and babies of enemies. Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29.
    –Adulterers. Lev 20:10.
    –Homosexuals. Lev 20:13.
    –A woman who is not a virgin when married. Deut 22:13-21.
    –Those who are careless with murderous livestock. Exodus 21:29.

    Who You Should Hate

    –Those who eat crab or shrimp. Lev 11:10.
    –Those who sacrifice an animal to God that has a blemish. Deut 17:1.
    –Those who remarry the same person after divorce. Deut 24:4.
    –Homosexuals. Lev 18:22.
    –Those who are proud. Prov 16:5.
    –A woman who wears pants. Deut 22:5.
    –A man with long hair (Jesus?). 1Cor 11:14
    –Those who call others fools Mat 5:22

    Should we still do this stuff?

    –All OT laws still apply in NT. Matt 5:17-19

    —————————————

    You don’t dare to try and FILTER and pick and choose from the word of God right? You don’t pull that nambie-pampy “out of context” silliness with passages you don’t like, but then wholeheartedly accept those you DO like? That is SIN!

    So either you are a TRUE Christian, and you’ll follow those loving commands from God. Or you are doomed to be tortured in hell forever! Oh Glory!

    ———————————
    Note: This is a satire written to show what a horrific work the Bible is, please don’t actually hurt anybody! And generally “Christians” who are suprised by it . . . HAVE NOT EVEN REALLY READ THEIR OWN BOOK! Folks would kill and die in fits of rightousness over a book they don’t even KNOW?! And of course they want to pick and choose what they think the “real” word is! Many stories from the OT, and the 10 Commandments and etc — THAT is all ok, but the bats*it crazy commands? Well he is much *nicer* now apparently?! Anyways, crazy. But again, please – don’t hurt anybody!

  6. Who knew a casual mention of my becoming a Christian in a long list of how I have changed over the years would bring out the crazy?

    Susan, you do realize this is a post about a Burlington city zoning dispute, right?

    Jay, Haik, I love when we agree on things!

    Of course, the children! Obviously, I hate the children! :)

  7. BTW, Jay, I saw your line about Vermont Democrats this morning and it had me LOLing!

  8. Dear Charity,

    Susan’s comment captures exactly, I bet, the reasons why you have found political blogging so discouraging. Her’s is a stunning bit of ignorance. I only wish I knew to which blog post of yours she is referring.

    I notice something in my small part of NH: virtually everyone on every historic commission is a Democrat. God forbid anyone should CHANGE anything; heaven forbid some folks would freely choose to redefine — for themselves — what has been defined by history and tradition. Certain colors, certain fences and window trim and gutters: these MUST BE PRESERVED because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Seriously, think of the chaos if people living in historic districts could just “choose” to “impose” their views on architecture, or to redefine what is aesthetically contextual. If Smith can change his clapboards, Jones will want to change his shutters. Just think of the slippery slope! No one should change anything.

    Except marriage.

  9. Contratimes, said, “I only wish I knew to which blog post of yours she is referring.”

    This is what launched her screed (and e-mail to me, which was even worse).

    From my “Goodbye” post:

    Over the past 8 years, a lot has changed. In 2001, I was a working, single mother of 2 in my twenties. Since then, I got married, became a stay-at-home mom, had another baby, came to Christ, started homeschooling, and started a business, to name a few things. And I am no longer in my twenties. Haven’t been for a few years, now.

    The words “came to Christ” were enough to set her off like that. The idea that someone would become a Christian is enough to send some people off the edge. It’s sad, really.

  10. “Except marriage”

    …which has never had one definition in the history of man.

  11. Mister Guy,

    How wrong you are. Marriage has indeed ALWAYS been defined EXACTLY the same way throughout history. It is the revisionist/enviers of the world who have recited the meme you’ve chanted here. It is being redefined by the most irrational folks among us; gay marriage is indeed contra-rational. It represents the very undoing of human thought.

    Marriage HAS ALWAYS been a union between males and females. It has NEVER been a union — if one can even call it that — between two males or between two females. Polygamy, bigamy, monogamy — it matters not. Marriage has always been — and will return to always being — about heterosexuals in sexual, procreative relationships.

    A man in drag is not a woman, despite his demands he be called “Priscilla.” A transgendered woman — man to woman — is ALWAYS male: his XY chromosomes prove it on the most biological and intimate levels. Marriage, despite the absurdity being foisted upon America right now, will always be a heterosexual fact. Once this novelty called a right passes, heterosexual marriage will return in full vigor. Just watch.

    Good luck with the derivative, imitative, grossly contingent thing called “gay marriage.” The derivation (and imitative origin) of gay marriage is so utterly absurd, it is laughable. It’s worse than playing “Let’s Pretend!” At least children understand that “Let’s Pretend” is indeed pretentious.

    But please — DON’T EVER change the siding of a house that sits in the historic district. The way “things have always been” is just too sacred.

  12. Mister Guy,

    How wrong you are. Marriage has indeed ALWAYS been defined EXACTLY the same way throughout history. It is the revisionist/enviers of the world who have recited the meme you’ve chanted here. It is being redefined by the most irrational folks among us; gay marriage is indeed contra-rational. It represents the very undoing of human thought.

    Marriage HAS ALWAYS been a union between males and females. It has NEVER been a union — if one can even call it that — between two males or between two females. Polygamy, bigamy, monogamy — it matters not. Marriage has always been — and will return to always being — about heterosexuals in sexual, procreative relationships.

    A man in drag is not a woman, despite his demands he be called “Priscilla.” A transgendered woman — man to woman — is ALWAYS male: his XY chromosomes prove it on the most biological and intimate levels. Marriage, despite the absurdity being foisted upon America right now, will always be a heterosexual fact. Once this novelty called a right passes, heterosexual marriage will return in full vigor. Just watch.

    Good luck with the derivative, imitative, grossly contingent thing called “gay marriage.” The derivation (and imitative origin) of gay marriage is so utterly absurd, it is laughable. It’s worse than playing “Let’s Pretend!” At least children understand that “Let’s Pretend” is indeed pretentious.

    But please — DON’T EVER change the siding of a house that sits in the historic district. The way “things have always been” is just too sacred.

  13. Charity,

    Thanks for the reference. It is helpful.

    What is amazing — truly amazing — is that Susan believes that she was a shade too inebriated to “talk down to a ditto-heads [sic] level.” Like nearly every leftist critic I’ve ever encountered, Susan is blind to irony: her entire entry is indeed that of a ditto head. Nothing she has penned is one whit thoughtful, original or even relevant: her entire post is built from a straw-man comprehension of Christianity. She THINKS she understands, and that is her problem: she fails to realize the greatest threat to civilization is not ignorance (and she is ignorant) but the illusion of knowledge. Susan suffers from the illusion of understanding, and it is really quite painful to witness such a thing, especially in the 21st century.

    It is clear to me that you are thoughtful, circumspect woman. I commend you for your intellectual restraint, as you are never guilty of over-reaching. Susan is your opposite. Her over-reaching is shocking in its conceit and disconcerting in its triteness. And she dares to insult you.

    As I said. Amazing.

  14. “Marriage has indeed ALWAYS been defined EXACTLY the same way throughout history.”

    Ah, and the real facts again elude you my troubled, Right-wing friend.

    The Bible does not give specific details or directions about a marriage ceremony at all, but it sure mentions marriage a lot (see below…lol). Civil marriage is simply the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with the marriage laws of a particular jurisdiction, which can change over time.

    The Nuer people of Sudan have allowed for female-female marriage in the past. For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. In Ancient Greece, men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s & and expected their wives to be in their early teens.

    http://www.historylink102.com/greece3/marriage.htm

    http://www.richeast.org/htwm/G.....riage.html

    A few examples of same-sex marriage exist even in ancient Rome.

    http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/32/4/343

    In the 12th century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and sought romance in adultery.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com.....ge-history

    In ancient Chinese society, a marriage to one’s maternal relatives was not thought of as incest. In some societies ranging from Central Asia to the Caucasus to Africa, the custom of bride kidnapping still exists, in which a woman is captured by a man & his friends…sometimes against her own will.

    In Islam, polygamy is allowed for men, with the specific limitation that they can only have up to 4 wives at any one time, given the religious requirement that they are able to & willing to partition their time & wealth equally among the respective wives.

    In some cultures, the groom or his family were expected to pay a “bride price” to the bride’s family for the right to marry the daughter, or dower, which was payable to the bride.

    In the Jewish tradition, the rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into a marriage contact, called a ketubah. Besides other things, the ketubah provided for an amount to be paid by the husband in the event of a divorce or his estate in the event of his death. This amount was a replacement of the biblical dower or “bride price”, which was payable at the time of the marriage by the groom to the bride or her parents. One of my former gf’s father’s showed me his ketubah, which said specifically that he could divorce his wife for only one Dollar…nice…not…

    Not that long ago, whites & blacks couldn’t even be married here in the USA.

    Same-sex marriage is currently recognized by the Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, and Reform Jewish congregations.

    “Marriage HAS ALWAYS been a union between males and females. It has NEVER been a union — if one can even call it that — between two males or between two females. Polygamy, bigamy, monogamy — it matters not.”

    See above…oh, and tell that to Webster’s while yer at it:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    “Once this novelty called a right passes, heterosexual marriage will return in full vigor. Just watch.”

    What the heck does this even *mean*?? You really need to get a grip & have a laugh at the whole issue of “redefining marriage”. Allow me to provide you with this from your old buddy JD:
    http://fivebeforechaos.com/200.....-marriage/

  15. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 27th, 2009 at 11:45 am

    Monsieur Guy,

    My gosh, what vapidity. Your reply here is so empty as to suggest nihilism is the default state of human aspiration. I can’t imagine that a reply could be so dumb.

    You have not demonstrated that my assertion is faulty. Marriage is indeed a heterosexual “thing.” It has never been defined as a homosexual thing. But, if it has, then the “new” campaign for gay marriage is NOT PROGRESSIVE, but regressive — in fact, it sounds if you believe that the Nuer tribe in the Sudan represents the very epitome of social thought. Yeah, like their practice of ghost marriage is a thing we should all emulate.

    But if we accept that gay marriage has been recognized in the past, then we must accept that the past has rejected it. Of course, this does not fit well with the historical narrative foisted upon us by homosexual activists, all of whom insist that gay marriage needs to be FINALLY recognized NOW in order to give them freedom, peace of mind, and the meaning their lives lack without it. They can’t be fully human, or so it goes, nor can they fully love, without the state recognizing them. One wonders, really, how threatened and weak gay relationships must be if they cannot maintain their love — their union — without the blessing of their neighbors.

    So, thus far you’ve not handled the fact that marriage is a heterosexual thing. You’ve invented — or parroted — the idea that marriage has always been fluid, elastic. No it hasn’t. As for your idiotic suggestion that I consult a “dictionary” (dictionaries ONLY list USAGE; definitions themselves are elastic — by definition), as if the Merriam-Webster should advise us here, I can only offer the Oxford American Dictionary:

    MARRIAGE |ˈmarij|
    noun
    1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Since marriage has been recently redefined by the likes of yourself, of course a dictionary will reflect that, since a dictionary reflects usage. Hence, your passing and snide reference to Merriam-Webster is essentially void of meaning, at least in this context.

    Again, I have made an assertion the truth of which you have not shown to be false: Marriage has always been about heterosexuality. Even miscegenation, or the condemnation of it, was patently about heterosexuality.

    It is in the end reassuring that you have listed the UUA, UUC and certain other religious groups. As I’ve said in many places, gay marriage is the religious left’s imposition of religion on America. Thank you for confirming that this is ALL about religion; about codifying and making normative the religious teachings of the religious left. It will be interesting to see how those who fume about separation of church and state will handle this new manifestation of religion’s overt intrusion into the secular state.

    And now back to the topic at hand: Historical district commissions want to preserve “history.” In so doing, they oppose the very history of TODAY — the historically relevant architectural and aesthetic trends that are inherent to this, the 21st century. They stand in the way of change.

    And yet you have proven, by your posts here, that marriage HAS been RECENTLY RE-defined. You aver that such a “new” definition is vital and important; that the progressive churches should be permitted to impose their religious beliefs on the country, against the very facts of history.

    As I said, and it remains an incontrovertible fact: Marriage has ALWAYS been defined exactly the same way throughout history — it is ALWAYS heterosexual. And this despite the protestations and the ridiculous pretensions of those who disagree. Just because a tiny percentage of envious malcontents believe marriage is whatever THEY deem it to be, marriage as heterosexual will prevail. History, along with the vast majority of humanity, will ensure that marriage as a heterosexual covenant will indeed prevail.

  16. “You have not demonstrated that my assertion is faulty.”

    Of course I have, as I have clearly shown, the definition of marriage has changed drastically throughout history, and it even has included same-sex marriages in certain cultures, period.

    “it sounds if you believe that the Nuer tribe in the Sudan represents the very epitome of social thought.”

    Hmmmm, did I ever say that?? Nope, but they *have* definied marriage as something other than purely a heterosexual relationship, which, of course, flies *directly* in the face of your nonsense on this entire issue, period.

    “Yeah, like their practice of ghost marriage is a thing we should all emulate.”

    Once again, did I ever say that we should?? Nope, and there have been instances of such marriages in France, India, and China. So what??

    “But if we accept that gay marriage has been recognized in the past, then we must accept that the past has rejected it.”

    LOL…because you personally don’t like it…I don’t think so. Once again, marriage has NEVER had one, single definition, period.

    “all of whom insist that gay marriage needs to be FINALLY recognized NOW in order to give them freedom, peace of mind, and the meaning their lives lack without it”

    …in the USA, sure.

    “One wonders, really, how threatened and weak gay relationships must be if they cannot maintain their love — their union — without the blessing of their neighbors.”

    LOL…and one *really* wonders how weak the marriages of the homophobes that are opposed to the concept of civil unions or same-sex marriages are in the first place in order to be “threatened” by a few people getting hitched in the eyes of their govt….not their church.

    “definitions themselves are elastic — by definition”

    Thanks for proving my point that the definition of marriage can & has, in fact, changed over time!

    “as if the Merriam-Webster should advise us here, I can only offer the Oxford American Dictionary”

    Well, tell that also to Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which modified its definition of marriage in 2000, adding a fourth example to the entry: “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.”

    Also, your favorite Oxford English Dictionary this past March added in a draft version that the term sometimes refers to “long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.” Its editors also have proposed updating the primary sense of the word to mean “the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509733,00.html

    Even Fox “News” says that it’s true…so it *must* be true eh?? LOL…

    The FACT is that The American Heritage Dictionary & Black’s Law Dictionary have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage, period.

    “I have made an assertion the truth of which you have not shown to be false: Marriage has always been about heterosexuality.”

    No, it hasn’t, and even the likes of you can’t claim to be ignorant of that fact anymore.

    “gay marriage is the religious left’s imposition of religion on America.”

    Not quite, since the issue is all about *civil marriage*, NOT religious marriage. The fact that a few sects have decided to acknowledge the reality of gay marriage doesn’t mean that the rest of them will. We still have real freedom of religion in this country, in part due to the separation of church and state, which the Right wing hates BTW.

    “And now back to the topic at hand: Historical district commissions want to preserve ‘history.’ In so doing, they oppose the very history of TODAY — the historically relevant architectural and aesthetic trends that are inherent to this, the 21st century. They stand in the way of change.”

    So, redefining what “historic-preservation” is is OK, but re-defining marriage is not OK…sure, sure… Like I’ve said to you before, logic…it’s just another word from the dictionary…

    “that the progressive churches should be permitted to impose their religious beliefs on the country”

    Nope, I’ve never said that…you just made that up out of thin air, period.

    “Marriage has ALWAYS been defined exactly the same way throughout history”

    Keep repeating the same thing…even though it will *never* be true.

    “History, along with the vast majority of humanity, will ensure that marriage as a heterosexual covenant will indeed prevail.”

    What do these wild ravings from you even mean…do YOU even know??

    BTW, why hide & post under another user name here…you’re not fooling anyone about who you really are wing-nut…

  17. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 28th, 2009 at 7:04 am

    Monsieur Guy Incognito,

    No, you haven’t. You can insist you have, you can even be petulant and fussy and stamp your feet, but you have NOT shown that the definition of marriage, prior to the last few years, changed from anything but a heterosexual institution: heterosexuality DEFINES marriage, and “gay marriage” is a pretentious, derivative and imitative state of such unions. There is not a functioning, dynamic, rational or progressive culture on the planet that has seen gay marriage as anything but a descent into insanity.

    You are not very bright, are you? Sorry. You can play the incredulity game all you want. You can act surprised and confounded at my alleged obtuseness. The fact is that you are simply wrong. You have presented exceptions to monogamy; you’ve trundled out polygamy, bigamy and other variations, without once substantially contradicting my assertion that marriage has indeed been static, that it has been a covenant between heterosexual partners. You may not understand my language; clearly you don’t. And since you don’t, one can only infer that you are dumb as nails or you are intentionally obtuse to protect yourself from the painful truth. Gay marriage, as any thinking person knows, is utterly contra-rational. Shut off your brain and of course gay marriage appears perfectly normal. But spend a few minutes thinking it through; and spend a lifetime studying what REAL marriage means, and you will see — I hope — that you are propagating insanity and delirium every moment you defend gay “marriage.”

    PLEASE DEMONSTRATE — list your source material — so you can prove you have clearly demonstrated that gay marriage has been instituted in other functioning cultures. If you are suggesting that some Sudanese tribe uniting two wives of their dead bigamist husband in legal marriage AFTER he has died is somehow a call to lesbians everywhere that gay marriage is marriage par excellence, then you deserve to be derided at every turn. In fact, I deride you right now.

    Do you think I am attempting to hide anything? I am as transparent as glass. You, however, are the obscurantist: you have always hidden. Haven’t you? (Again, you are guilty of projection and are blind to irony.)

  18. “There is not a functioning, dynamic, rational or progressive culture on the planet that has seen gay marriage as anything but a descent into insanity.”

    Tell that to the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Nepal, and even here in the USA. Your ability for the over-dramatic statements is quite amusing though.

    BTW, in the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered into similar arrangements. In Japan, Shudo, the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century.

    http://www.colorq.org/Articles.....ssmarriage

    “You are not very bright, are you?”

    LOL…could you be a little more pompous?? It adds very nicely to your general douchebaggery…like this:

    “You may not understand my language; clearly you don’t. And since you don’t, one can only infer that you are dumb as nails”

    LOL…

    “If you are suggesting that some Sudanese tribe uniting two wives of their dead bigamist husband in legal marriage AFTER he has died is somehow a call to lesbians everywhere that gay marriage is marriage par excellence, then you deserve to be derided at every turn.”

    LOL…now I’m not, of course, and that doesn’t change the FACT that same-sex marriages have occurred throughout the world at various times in both the past & present, as I have clearly shown already, period.

    “Do you think I am attempting to hide anything?”

    It’s kind of hard to hide anything when you really don’t know anything in the first place…

    “you have always hidden. Haven’t you?”

    No, I always been myself, not some alter-ego that doesn’t know that “LObamatomy” is basically an unpronounceable word…ugh…

  19. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 29th, 2009 at 9:20 am

    Monsieur Guy Incognito,

    Yeah, sure you’ve always been yourself. That is why you hide. But since you claim to know who I am — and I make no such claim of you — then you can’t possibly conclude that I am hiding, can you? (I am sorry you find “LObamatomy” such a shibboleth. It works just fine for me.)

    Again, you descend into the trite and nearly irrelevant. You cite certain progressive cultures in Europe — that bastion of moral excellence — as some sort of templates for clarity on marriage constructs. As you SHOULD know, but apparently do not, the countries you cite are undeniably in the experimental stage; one might argue that they’ve only just begun their grand exploration of sexuality. Hence, citing these as some form of authority — I laugh at that! — is not only unconvincing. It is intellectually puerile.

    It is fascinating that you should deem ME pompous. As I said, you do not understand irony. Your FIRST comment in this thread was the utterly pompous “[marriage]… which has never had one definition in the history of man.” But you are wrong: it has indeed only had one definition “in the history of man,” and I’ve shown you what that definition was — and is — and you have yet to contradict it with anything other than your own contrarian spirit (and your fallacy of the “many links”).

    Homosexuality, without question, is a sexual contingency:it is utterly dependent on, and the result of, heterosexuality. Moreover, gay “marriage” is NOTHING OTHER than an imitation of, and derivative of, heterosexual marriage. It is “pretend,” or “dress up.” It is not real: gay marriage is not born of itself, but in the crude emulation of heterosexual mating rituals and their attendant formalities (and offspring). Surely you see this? You can invent all you want; you can deny biology and religion and culture all you wish, but you cannot ever shake free of the fact that “gay marriage” is a mere political and psychological invention that has nothing to do with reality (other than to serve as an unproven coping mechanism to appease envy and assuage guilt and alienation). There is no mating in gay marriage; there is no becoming “one flesh,” there is not even any real sex.

    I am SO glad we are REGRESSING to the much-lauded era of the Samurais! And here I thought gay marriage was all about PROGRESS. No, no. Gay marriage is actually — and who could have known! — an ancient art form, rooted, no doubt, in the martial arts.

  20. “But since you claim to know who I am”

    Right, so you’re NOT “Contratimes”, or Bill Gnade from NH?? Sure you are, and you know it, moron.

    “As you SHOULD know, but apparently do not, the countries you cite are undeniably in the experimental stage”

    Sure, sure…because the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden don’t pre-date the founding of the USA…not…

    “It is ‘pretend,’ or ‘dress up.’”

    Speaking of which (kind of), “Two-Spirit” people are Native Americans who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles found traditionally among many Native Americans & Canadian First Nations indigenous groups. The term usually implies a masculine spirit & a feminine spirit living in the same body. As of *1991*, male & female bodied Two-Spirit people have been documented in *over 130 tribes*, in *every* region of North America, among *every type* of native culture.

    “there is not even any real sex.”

    LOL…what a small mind you really have there Billy-boy…

    BTW, I look forward to you documenting for us how your own state of NH will now be “descending into insanity” now that gay marriage is the law of the land there…LOL…

  21. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    June 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am

    As I said, dear Mister Guy Who Hides, I am utterly transparent. Unlike you. But you can keep on guessing. As someone said to Charity on this website, liberals who engage in “debate” (they really don’t know what that that is), OBSESS and FIXATE on WHO says what, and not on what is actually said. They like to smear, attack, denigrate; their favorite fallacy, like yours, is the ad hominem.

    The fact that NH has already legalized gay marriage proves my point that NH has descended into insanity. You CAN’T understand this because you are not, obviously, a philosopher. Not that you would ever present yourself as one. But it is clear that you do not hold to REASON like I do. I am committed to reason to the very end and to the greatest heights. Note how you have NOT ONCE tried to show me that gay marriage is rational. I have averred that it is inherently contra-rational; you’ve merely avoided this by heaping insult upon insult and by foraging the web for mostly inane references to marginal marital practices (the fallacy ad vericundiam, by the way). How I LOVE you cited FoxNews! Good one (again, blind to irony, especially in your use of dictionaries).

    And since you are unaware of your defense of chaos, I will make sure I pass on to my husband that you think I MUST be male. He’ll get a kick out of that, especially in this new world that is utterly contra-rational.

  22. “liberals who engage in ‘debate’ (they really don’t know what that that is), OBSESS and FIXATE on WHO says what, and not on what is actually said. They like to smear, attack, denigrate; their favorite fallacy, like yours, is the ad hominem.”

    Your projecting again Billy-boy…

    “The fact that NH has already legalized gay marriage proves my point that NH has descended into insanity.”

    Have fun in the straight-jacket then…

    “Note how you have NOT ONCE tried to show me that gay marriage is rational.”

    It’s called human rights…look it up sometime…

    “I will make sure I pass on to my husband that you think I MUST be male.”

    LOL…now you’ve just resorted to outright lying…what a fitting end for the likes of you Billy-boy…

  23. MONSIEUR GUY THE OBSCURANTIST,

    You wrote:

    “It’s called human rights … look it up sometime…”

    Your dependence on ellipses is rather telling, but I will not explore that here. I will note again your habit of appealing to dictionaries and other apparent authoritative sources; somehow you are convinced I will find something compelling therein under the definitive heading “Human Rights.” I would normally bother you with questions about how your quip is at all germane to the discussion at hand, but since this is not even remotely a normal discussion, I will abstain. I would also normally ask my interlocutor other questions, like what he or she means by “human” and “rights”; I would also seek a definition of marriage, and who it is that should define it, so that I could better understand whether marriage is indeed a right, and who possesses the power to confer that right. And finally I would seek to understand how any quip like yours is at all related to my assertion that “gay marriage” — and homosexual acts in general — are irrational, even contra-rational. (Forgive the paralipsis.)

    _______________

    YOUR CONTRADICTION?

    You have gone to great lengths to show that marriage has never been a static concept, that it is morally and socially fluid and elastic; that marriage has many manifestations, none of which is fixed or even normative. And now you attempt to show that “gay marriage” is NOT irrational by insisting it is a human right. Again, unaware of the ironic, you fail to see how you’ve argued yourself into chaos. Surely you realize that there is no fixed or static definition of either “human” or “right”; nor is there any fixed and immovable definition for your apparently over-powering construct, “human rights.” What it means to be human is still open to debate; and both the connotation and denotation, or the intension and extension of “right”, have not been sealed and secured either. The whole notion of human rights is fraught with problems, disagreements. There is nothing intrinsically normative — or definitive or authoritative — to this vague, amorphous notion of human rights you adore. And certain “rights,” either past or present, American or not, are not only irrational, they are deplorable.

    Clearly, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you abhor reason, that the rational is anathema to you. Otherwise you would disapprove of the NH “gay marriage” law, and you would see that the sponsors of that bill, who argued, like you — that marriage is a fluid and elastic concept — have nonetheless delineated in that bill all the types of people and configurations of people WHO CAN’T GET MARRIED because, well, marriage is ONLY between two people, and ONLY two TYPES of people. (Where you see emancipation and human rights, I see idiocy and chaos.) Apparently “marriage” has ALWAYS been a malleable concept — until now! Now, marriage has FINALLY been defined and fixed permanently: marriage is only what the NH legislature says it is. And what you say it is.

    And then, in the very heart of this GREAT deliverance from evil, this bill of freedom recognizing “gay marriage” as a human right, a religious exemption is offered to those people who have the power to confer that right but choose not to for “religious” reasons. Imagine this: A man who has the power to confer a human right as defined by a legislative body is ALSO permitted by that same body to abstain from conferring that human right because he finds the idea “offensive”! And you think THIS is rational and good; you believe NH has not proven itself morally and intellectually bankrupt! I ask: How valuable and meaningful is the human right of “gay marriage” if gay marriage proponents themselves support the idea that some people have the right NOT to confer the right of “gay marriage” to those who seek it? What if there was a Catholic priest who refused to confer the Blessed Sacrament to a black man because it offended his religious sensibilities? Do you think the state should provide an exemption to that priest? What if the priest refused to give the black man a job, or an apartment, because the idea offended his religious convictions? Does this priest merit legal protection?

    I am denounced by you — another irony! — as a “moron” for believing that NH has proven itself insane for not only passing but drafting such an unbelievably irrational law. You say you are laughing at me, but who, really, is laughing at whom?

    You are also obviously comfortable with the religious left imposing its religious beliefs on the secular state, and I say this with confidence because you’re the one who mentioned the religious left’s positions on gay marriage so approvingly. And you seem to have no problem — since you’ve not once attempted to refute it — with the fact that homosexuality and “gay marriage” are patently derivative, imitative and artificial. “Gay marriage” is a mere psycho-social contingency; its emulation of heterosexual marriage is no doubt quaint but nonetheless intellectually devoid of anything intrinsically interesting. My assertion that “gay marriage” is a new invention on what is intrinsically a heterosexual institution still remains; and yet even if we stipulate that “gay marriage” is not new, it is nonetheless an aberrant form of a prior universal definition, i.e., marriage of any kind was always heterosexual. The orthodoxies of all the world’s great religions, and great societies, have been rather constant in this fact.

    Where do you go from here? Shall you show me that NH’s great law is indeed great? Shall you show me that NH has finally slid toward sanity? No, you won’t. Why? Because I have just showed you that NH’s law is both ludicrous and insane. It is — just like “gay marriage” — contra-rational. It represents the end of thought.

    _______________

    FINAL REMARKS

    You DO lack all understanding of irony, don’t you? Your obsession with who I am is rather telling, and it proves an essential point in what has been written in this and other threads (and you have fallen into a trap). You are OBSESSED and FIXED on who I am; and it is clear that not knowing who I am — DEFINITIVELY and ABSOLUTELY — bothers you. It is good to know you need to have things a“certain” way, just so.

    Of course, I get the game, particularly the dark side of it. You want to NAME me in order to besmirch, intimidate and threaten. It’s a typical tactic, particularly for the weak.

    Have you noticed that I have not the slightest interest in knowing who you are? I don’t mind calling you a hypocrite, for that’s an easy conclusion anyone reading your contributions here MUST reach. You have chided me for concealing my identity all the while you so courageously protect your own. That one fact discredits you, and it nullifies nearly everything you’ve drafted at this site. You should be grateful I have shown you the courtesy of treating you as a real, reasonable and decent person. Apparently you do not care to be any of those things.

    I will leave you with this question to ponder again in your chaotic world:

    How valuable and meaningful is the human right of “gay marriage” if gay marriage proponents themselves support the idea that some people have the right NOT to confer the right of “gay marriage” to those who seek it?

    And now I must get my husband his coffee. Or is it tea? Who knows. It is all so confusing in this topsy-turvy world. Who cares about what means what? Alas. There IS a spoon.

    CONTRATIMES, indeed.

  24. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am

    TEST: Are comments still open here?

  25. Sorry, a comment by Refusing a Frontal LObamatomy got caught in the spam filter. Not sure why. Usually only comments with lots of links get stuck there.

  26. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am

    DEAR MONSIEUR GUY,

    Please, see my comment above.

  27. Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Dear CHARITY,

    Perhaps you have already spotted it, but my last comment on the health care thread has also not posted.

    Thanks for posting my last comment here.

    Blessings to you, and Happy 4th!

    BG

  28. “Your dependence on ellipses is rather telling”

    You’re projecting again there Billy-boy.

    “who possesses the power to confer that right.”

    We have rights because we are human…our rights come from *nowhere* in particular, therefore they can’t be legally taken away by anyone or anything.

    “You have gone to great lengths to show that marriage has never been a static concept”

    …and I even *proven* that was true…lol…

    “And now you attempt to show that ‘gay marriage’ is NOT irrational by insisting it is a human right.”

    No, that’s not at all what I said…my goodness you just LOVE to twist & turn words, don’t you Billy-boy??

    “Surely you realize that there is no fixed or static definition of either ‘human’ or ‘right’”

    Really?? We don’t know who’s a human & who’s not?? LOL…

    Human rights refer to the basic rights & freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Examples of such rights & freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil & political rights, such as the right to life & liberty, freedom of expression, and *equality before the law*; and economic, social & cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

    BTW, try reading this sometime Billy-boy:
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    “And certain ‘rights,’ either past or present, American or not, are not only irrational, they are deplorable.”

    LOL…

    “Otherwise you would disapprove of the NH ‘gay marriage’ law”

    No, that would be YOU Billy-boy…most likely because you’re a homophobe, but who knows…

    “Apparently ‘marriage’ has ALWAYS been a malleable concept — until now!”

    Nope, wrong again, but what else is new, eh??

    “a religious exemption is offered to those people who have the power to confer that right but choose not to for ‘religious’ reasons.”

    Nonsense, once again, you are intentionally conflating religious marriage with civil marriage, and intentionally ignoring that we have freedom of religion within the USA.

    “you believe NH has not proven itself morally and intellectually bankrupt!”

    Well, I used to live there a while back, so I will refrain from saying anything nasty about the Granite State here…lol…

    “What if there was a Catholic priest who refused to confer the Blessed Sacrament to a black man because it offended his religious sensibilities?”

    “What if the priest refused to give the black man a job, or an apartment, because the idea offended his religious convictions?”

    When was the last time that ANY of this actually happened?? I wasn’t aware that my Mom’s Catholic Church was blatantly racist all of a sudden…

    “You are also obviously comfortable with the religious left imposing its religious beliefs on the secular state”

    Keep saying that over & over again…maybe some day it will be true, but don’t hold yer breath there Billy-boy.

    “My assertion that ‘gay marriage’ is a new invention on what is intrinsically a heterosexual institution still remains”

    …completely & totally wrong, period.

    “marriage of any kind was always heterosexual.”

    No, it was not, as I have clearly shown here.

    “You are OBSESSED and FIXED on who I am”

    No, I’m really not…it’s just really, really obvious who you really are “Contratimes” or “Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy”. Thanks for proving my point over & over again BTW…lol…

    “and it is clear that not knowing who I am — DEFINITIVELY and ABSOLUTELY — bothers you.”

    Again, your powers of projection are truly *monumental* there Billy-boy.

    “You want to NAME me in order to besmirch, intimidate and threaten.”

    Keep dreaming wing-nut…

    “You have chided me for concealing my identity all the while you so courageously protect your own.”

    No, what I’ve merely pointed out is that your constant ramblings at trying to label myself as “Monsieur Guy Incognito”, “Mister Guy Who Hides”, etc., etc. flies in the face of your absurd cross-labeling of yourself in these threads here as “Refusing A Frontal LObamatomy”. We already *know* who you are Mr. Bill Gnade of NH, so why go through the silliness of trying to hide with another pseudonym?? It’s stupid…even for a moron like yourself.

    “And now I must get my husband his coffee.”

    Case in point, you liar…ugh…unbelievable…

  29. Wow! You are REALLY quite the investigative journalist, MONSIEUR GUY!

    Of course, throughout our exchange I have declared that I was utterly transparent. And, since you do not understand irony; since you are given to partisan parroting, you failed to discern that — when I referred to my “husband” — I did so ironically. You see, YOU’RE the one who believes “gay marriage” is rational, despite the fact that it isn’t. However, since “marriage” is malleable and elastic — according to you (et al) despite your ridiculous contradiction — then so are terms such as “wife,” “husband,” “mother,” “father,” and so on. Please, let’s bring on the chaos, the babble of Babel, if you will. (Notice that I even played with the words tea and coffee? No, you don’t.)

    If such terms are indeed as you say — and you MUST say it — then I was merely following your example. My husband is my wife; I am a wife, I am a husband. I, even, am female. Hurray! I can be whatever I want to be.

    And, even though I gave you ample clues to see what I was up to, you stepped right into another trap: I have AGAIN shown you that you are blind to irony! I even TOLD you to watch out for it, and yet — BAM! — you smashed right into it. I even hinted that I was taking my cues from your position. To illustrate my point that “gay marriage” is irrational, I played with terms, terms that are not constant or fixed in your world. And what did we discover? You hated it so much you had to resort to calling me a liar! What does “liar” even me in your world? And here I thought there were no fixed definitions and you were comfortable with chaos. Too funny! YOU WANT ORDER! And then, to top it all off, you NAMED ME PRECISELY! Fantastic! (No wonder you hide!)

    As for me “projecting” regarding the use of ellipses, you can’t prove yourself more inept if you tried. Please show me where I have, in a single non-quoted sentence (generally ellipses are used to indicate omissions in running quotations), resorted to using such punctuation marks. But you can’t help but use them. You live and die by them, apparently. And while you think they indicate something forceful, they are always a sign of weakness and laziness. That’s not all, of course, but I will let you figure out the rest for yourself.

    I have already pointed out that you are not a philosopher. You may kick at that fact, but there is no denying it. If you think what it means to be human is settled, you live in fantasy land. If you think the concept of “right” is fixed, you are utterly clueless. You apparently don’t even realize that these ideas are essentially ambiguous across differing language groups; you act as if these terms translate from one language to the next. I bet you actually think synonyms are identical! If you don’t, then you know — intuitively — that terms like human, right, and “human right” are not absolutes; they are not fixed. But, boy, how you WISH they were!

    Please, I hope that someday that you will realize that your terse, presumptuous and arrogant rejoinders really do you no good. They stand in your way — or something else does — of being a real intellectual, a person who actually thinks clearly, thoroughly and independently. And please know that repeatedly saying “No!” and “Wrong!” does not constitute a rebuttal.

    And please know that this has all been just plain fun for me. If I knew who you were, well, I would consider you a thoroughly decent chap, or chappess. I’ve nothing against you, whoever you may be, so take this all in the spirit it is meant. Think sport or games. Think of a backyard game of bocce. Or croquet. Yes, on this lovely day, let us think of croquet! I’m red!

    Good luck.

    Bill Gnade

  30. “Of course, throughout our exchange I have declared that I was utterly transparent. And, since you do not understand irony; since you are given to partisan parroting, you failed to discern that — when I referred to my ‘husband’ — I did so ironically.”

    STOP with the mindless back-peddling!

    “However, since ‘marriage’ is malleable and elastic — according to you (et al) despite your ridiculous contradiction — then so are terms such as ‘wife,’ ‘husband,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ and so on.”

    Really?? When did I say that?? Oh yea, it was never.

    “My husband is my wife; I am a wife, I am a husband. I, even, am female. Hurray! I can be whatever I want to be.”

    Wow, this guy has truly come off the rails once & for all. Wow…

    “You hated it so much you had to resort to calling me a liar”

    …which you are, since you stated things that you *knew* were untrue. Thanks for proving my point Billy-boy…ugh…

    “Please show me where I have, in a single non-quoted sentence (generally ellipses are used to indicate omissions in running quotations), resorted to using such punctuation marks.”

    Ah, now it’s “time to change the subject, because if it stays on this topic I can’t hope to win” time! By now, we’ve ALL seen your tendency to *intentionally* misquote Obama in another thread on this very website. Even *you* can’t run away from that Billy-boy!

    “You live and die by them, apparently.”

    You mean when I use them interchangeably with commas…like this?? It drives you crazy, doesn’t it…too bad…lol… It’s called a writing style, not a particularly good one though.

    “If you think what it means to be human is settled, you live in fantasy land.”

    Is this like the alternative reality that *you* live in where math doesn’t matter?? LOL…

    “And please know that repeatedly saying ‘No!’ and ‘Wrong!’ does not constitute a rebuttal.”

    Sure it does, especially when one states something so ridiculous that has no basis in reality, and very especially when one doesn’t even bother to try & back up what they say with actual, verifiable facts! This tends to make it that much more easy for one to dismiss these wild ramblings as inaccurate.

  31. MISTER GUY!

    Yes, I must stop with the “mindless back-PEDDLING.” You ARE rich!

    The fact is, MISTER GUY, the only person who has back-pedaled throughout our exchanges is you. You know that perfectly well, and if you don’t, well, you better run for your precious little ellipsis. (You know, at health clubs around America, one can find elliptical trainers to help with that.)†

    Actually, nothing you do “drives” me “crazy,” (except, perhaps, that you are clearly a terrible reader). As I said, I will not fully explore what it means that you use ellipses. I don’t mind pointing out that you misunderstood how I use an ellipsis in a quote; or that my use and your use are fundamentally different. Nor will I explore how you thought my use of those fine punctuation marks was identical to yours.

    MISTER GUY, allow me to let you in on a really big secret: You have lost this whole debate, too. In fact, you’ve been “done here” (your words) for a really long time. It’s now time to let it go. You lost. I didn’t.

    †Talk about LOL!

  32. “”As I said, I will not fully explore what it means that you use ellipses.”

    Good, since your thoughts have never been either relevant or accurate.

    “or that my use and your use are fundamentally different.”

    No shit Sherlock.

    “You lost. I didn’t.”

    Keep that projection right on coming there Billy-boy…

  33. MISTER GUY,

    What is also gloriously funny is that you don’t understand projection!

    Good stuff!

  34. MISTER GUY?

    Word.