Make my day…

9 Jun

38 Responses to “Make my day…”

  1. Dan Tesic June 9, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Yes… true libertarian, as befits most of his on-screen characters.


  2. paul walter June 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Remember looking at those lists they’ve drawn up,as to who in the way of celebrities supported republicans or democrats. The only two people on the repug side that have ever struck me has having any credibility are Duvall and Eastwood.


    • Sam Jandwich June 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

      You will forgive me Paul for comandeering the euphamism “repug” in fuure conversations I have on this topic?! Very clever.


  3. hudsongodfrey June 9, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    If Clint goes up just a little in my estimation then it isn’t for having stated the bleeding obvious, but because so many others are as yet blind to such a simple thing.

    On the other hand avoid his wife’s reality show like the plague if you feel the guy ought maybe to retain a shred of dignity!


  4. Hypocritophobe June 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    It’s as simple as Clint says.
    When the ACL and its foul mouthing Nazism referencing mouthpieces can identify one single negative impact gay marriage will have on their own physical Christian existence I’m all ears.
    The Christian lobby with their clamouring for the high ground have turned this into a battle for human rights debate which they can never win.


    • hudsongodfrey June 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

      More than that Hypo, they’re morally wrong in taking a stance that offends against people’s natural inclination to love the person of their choice.

      By holding values that maintain a strong tradition they deny values that would make the social institution of marriage stronger because it would become more inclusive.

      In the case of a shooting it matters enormously whether only one party or both were armed and indeed whether the shooter was aware of his victim’s weapon or lack thereof. This demonstrates above all how knowing the pertinent facts of the matter influences the moral stance we may take towards something as crucial as the use of lethal force for self defence. The facts inform the moral position, and when they change our moral standpoint may well be reversed.

      In the case of homosexuality I argue that what has occurred over time has been a changing in attitudes brought about in part by the progress of science helping us to understand that it is not something aberrant and to be feared but that a person’s sexual orientation is a natural part of their make up. Morally what occurs as a result is that new knowledge gradually informs a shift in relation to how we understand the right way to approach the issue.

      If that shift does not occur then you’re still morally wrong to deny its existence even if you do have a stack of scripture and theological apologetics to back you up.Although I am a non religious person I nevertheless regard the correct interpretation of a loving creator to imply that having created gay people god wants them to be happy. If being allowed to marry makes some gay people happy then who am I to deny them that.


  5. doug quixote June 9, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Personally I don’t give a shit about who marries who. If they want to marry, why should they not be allowed to do so? A no-brainer.


    • Hypocritophobe June 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

      +1 for DQ’s post above.
      And @ HG, I believe Jennifer said in an earlier blog or Tweet we/you/I no-one can argue morality with conservative Xians/religious zealots.
      They own morality.(In their own tiny minds)


      • Jennifer Wilson June 10, 2012 at 7:37 am #

        They are blinded by belief, Hypo. Makes them turn inwards not outwards.


        • hudsongodfrey June 10, 2012 at 11:20 am #

          I think that atheists are more concerned about morals than believers. Because we have to be, we don’t have the convenient crutch of an immutable ancient text or the ruminations of clotted theocracy to delude us.


          • paul walter June 10, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

            Comment of the week, from Hudgod. The ghost of Kant beams down indulgently…


            • hudsongodfrey June 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

              Well according to some I’m about as readable as Kant which is probably a bit of a worry!


          • Goku June 12, 2012 at 10:00 am #

            Just thought I would jump in at this point and finally bite at the provocation :). I am a Christian and don’t believe atheists are more concerned with morals than believers. One assumption that non-believers will often make is that Christians are blindly lead, don’t question the morals laid before them through the text and that we simply have no rational thought.


            • hudsongodfrey June 12, 2012 at 11:50 am #


              Frankly I hope religious people are anything but irrational and that through following their rationality they may eventually arrive at better conclusions.

              The inherent problem I see with the religions of the book is inflexible belief in immutable texts. While it helps to establish cohesive traditions, it fails to re-evaluate faith positions when the facts are seen to change.

              So there is a real difference between rational thought taken on atheism as opposed to the rationalisations of the versions of morality that scripture and its various apologists and interpreters have provided.

              My earlier post was simply an exposition of those thoughts and how I came to the moral conclusion that homosexuality was a perfectly natural phenomenon that doesn’t deserve to be discriminated against any longer.

              Basically I think there is considerably more to sifting through objective and subjective ethical considerations in order to make well founded ethical judgements than there is in applying a rule. But then in my view acting well on genuine motives attracts merit in a way that simply doing what you’re told is right does not.


  6. Goku June 12, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Thanks for the reply Hudson, you put forward a fantastic argument. Though I do differ in thought on a couple of your points.

    I do not see a need to re-evaluate my faith position as I don’t see how the facts have changed. Societies views on the matter may have changed, but then societies views are always changing and not always for the good. Science is yet to prove that homosexuality is a ‘perfectly natural phenomenon’, if anything it seems there is just as much proof that it is by mere choice.

    Also, though I do believe in God and absolute truths that our consciences confirm, it does not mean that I do not ‘sift’ through ‘objective and subjective ethical considerations’. I bring them before a set of morals I believe to be universal to help guide my outcome and do not simply do what I am told.


    • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 1:54 am #


      I think it went a little like this. In the past we learned to fear others who were different from ourselves. That doesn’t say much about our basic human nature at the time, but diversity far from being embraced was seen as a threat. As we became more social some people did tend to change their attitudes to others but it must have worked out badly for a while because others started to formulate proscriptions and traditions reinforcing their disapproval of strange people or different behaviours.

      And that’s pretty much how it continued right up to modern times.

      But now there is a difference. Now we know for a fact the same sex attraction is neither a perversion nor a disease, but just natural sexual orientation for perhaps no more than 3% of the population. We have the studies to confirm that is isn’t a choice and a good deal of evidence for its persistence throughout history and prevalence among other species of animals as well. Most importantly we know that it isn’t a threat and that there’s really no reason to disapprove of it.

      Why then do you suppose that some people still do so?


      • doug quixote June 13, 2012 at 6:47 am #

        Please don’t feed the trolls, HG. Especially not religious ‘concern trolls’.


        • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 9:11 am #

          Hey Doug,

          I can argue this in anyone’s terms as long as they’re civil. And I’d prefer those who proselytise a little over the kind we’re all encountered* who’ll argue round in circles until they all but disappear up their own aught, refusing all the while to concede that having religious leanings is their main influence.

          And anyway even if you were religious you’d have to say that if god didn’t want them to “love one another”, then why’d he make ’em gay!?

          *not mentioning any names…okay maybe some initials?


        • Hypocritophobe June 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

          I wonder if Religious Concern trolls have Tony Abbots blessing when it comes to marriage equality, DQ?

          By the way the latest nasty development in the UK proves that the church will stop at nothing to deny SSM.
          Blackmailing by way of threats to bring down a government seems to be the latest Anglican tactic.No doubt the left footers will have similar moves in mind.
          To threaten in this way over something which does not impact on the church (or any of their flock) shows how insecure and irrelevant,these dinosaurs are.
          And indeed how far above fairness and human rights, they place their personal distorted views above ‘the many’.(I mean on lots of levels-not just SSM)
          I guess what I am saying is that yep,you’re right.
          At some point when backed in a corner where logic resides the religious trolls ALWAYS go feral.
          Always.It starts as a pseudo-normal discussion.Moves to pseudo science based on internal church opinion dressed as fact,heads to denial,moves to anger and then BAM!

          “Go told me so there!”

          Another well-worn, Bacwa Fantale Wrapper.

          Religion,once the opiate of the masses,has become the lobotomy of the masses.And there appears to be a disproportionate amount of narcissism in the members of the flock these days.Looks a lot like the meek will be inheriting diddly-squat ,now.


  7. Goku June 13, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Thanks again Hudson for your reply and again well put.

    I absolutely agree that homosexuality in the past may have been feared and I’m sure that sadly and unfortunately people with that sexual orientation would have been cast out and discriminated against. I do think we have come a long way and that people are free mostly from those discrimination’s. Though I believe marriage is between a man and a women, that does not mean I do not allow homosexual people to love one a another, they are free to do so and I believe marriage is more than a social construct to be changed according to how people feel.

    I believe the basis for your argument is anything but definitive, on the contrary Gene Edward Veith concludes on his blog, in relation to a recent article concerning a study on twins sexual orientation and genetic make up, that
    ‘So in plain English, the best contemporary scientific findings are that when one identical twin brother is gay, the probabilities of the second twin being gay are approximately 10%. This suggests that the contribution of genetics to the determination of homosexual orientation is modest at best.’
    So if science is to some day definitely prove genetics to be the key reason for homosexuality my opinion on gay marriage may differ, but as it stands there is no or definitely not enough evidence to suggest ‘God made them that way’.

    P.S. Doug, ….. not sure what to say there dude? I will just go back to my bridge I guess.


  8. Goku June 13, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Sorry Link to above quote,


    • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

      I’m puzzled as to what you think it would prove if homosexuality was deemed genetic. I mean your race is genetic. But that doesn’t make racism right!

      I really think that arguments for why sexual orientation delineates exceptional treatment need to be seen not just in the light of whether we can find a difference upon which to base this form of discrimination. We can argue that at some times discrimination is a good thing, as in being a discriminating shopper. But in this case going beyond just identifying difference means thinking more deeply and honestly about whether this particular form of discrimination against same sex couples getting married has anything basically good or bad about it.

      I think that if we’re honest then the only real issue is that it offends against people’s idea of traditional values. In response to that I simply want to say that I think the tradition of marriage can and should be strengthened by expanding to embrace values of inclusiveness and diversity.

      The existing tradition is not to be diminished or disrespected by this. In fact if social acknowledgement of love, commitment, fidelity and kinship between partners wasn’t equally valued by gay people then they probably wouldn’t want to share in it. It makes sense to think that they’re about adding to the social value and relevance of marriage just as they contribute, as we all contribute, to every other aspect of our lives. In equality!


      • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

        I’d probably have gotten away with the whole race/genetics thing, but seriously taxonomically speaking race doesn’t even exist, so make of that what you will. I hope people will both understand my meaning and at the same time not take implied validation for racism from anything that I wrote.


        • Goku June 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

          Thanks again for the reply,
          Though it now seems that it has nothing to do with (as you stated above)
          ‘I argue that what has occurred over time has been a changing in attitudes brought about in part by the progress of science helping us to understand that it is not something aberrant and to be feared but that a person’s sexual orientation is a natural part of their make up’
          but simply the right for a person to marry whom they love. Then what restricts polygamists or even a person marrying someone from their immediate family.
          I argue the point that genes do not play a part in homosexuality because I would state that it is a sin that a man acts on sexual or intimate emotions with another male (or be it Women acting those feelings with another women). The most common rebuttal, also the one you put forward, is that it is genetic make up and that these feelings are natural and unavoidable.

          I believe God has created us Male and Female and that we are meant to have a special union, if we choose, with each other within marriage. I find it hard to except the term discrimination you may label me or other people with the same view. Marriage is a very serious commitment with another person (of the opposite sex as God intended) before friends, family, members of the society and most importantly I believe, God. So I feel marriage has a large impact on society and as such is something to be protected and respected to say the least and if someone simply chooses to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, then demand the right to this exclusive union and scream discrimination otherwise, I feel it is totally unwarranted.


          • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2012 at 12:55 am #


            This is where you can’t have it both ways. Either you go with your head and realise that there’s nothing inherently wrong with consensual relations between any two adults within a committed relationship, or you basically go with tradition.

            You’re not really going to waste time arguing that boring old stuff about the slippery slope to polygamy, incest and “my the family dog looks saucy today” are you? None of these are even remotely under consideration. In all probability the dog wouldn’t respect you in the morning, your cousin isn’t old enough to be capable of consent and most of us would question the degree of commitment between three people as opposed to two.

            What I was driving at much earlier was the idea that some of the discrimination that we persist with against homosexuality lacks moral force because it is based on ideas that are themselves devoid of merit. And by merit I relate notions of right and wrong in terms of the principle of reciprocity, the golden rule… do unto others….That notion whereby your rights can only be guaranteed insofar as they don’t impinge upon those of others.

            So if you can find any reason to say there’s anything wrong about being gay that doesn’t include quoting the bible or appealing to your tradition then you may raise questions about how same sex marriage impacts upon you. But if you look at the array of attempts to do so that have already been decisively rebutted then you should reasonably be willing to concede that the time is upon us to recognise that the sun will still dawn tomorrow if it smiles on Adam and Steve as kindly as once it did on Cain and Eve.


            • Goku June 14, 2012 at 10:46 am #

              Great reply and very funny 🙂
              Though that ‘old argument’ is not out dated at all and still rings true today as polygamist groups would prove otherwise.
              I will have to concede that my faith is a factor in my decision. Though you would also have to concede that your faith of ‘do unto to others’ guides you to your decision that people a free to do as they will as long as it does not impose on others freedom. You see, you are dismissing my argument because you believe my notions of right and wrong are flawed and that goes into a much larger debate.

              I would say the ‘impact upon me’ argument is also an old one. You can not seriously admit that you live that one out? Anyway if I hold marriage as an important union between a man and a women that influences society, ‘tradition’ and religion aside, than someone wishing to change that does impact me?


              • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2012 at 11:41 am #

                I’m not worried about polygamists in the least unless they’re Mormons, ’cause the funny undies creep me out!

                As for the principle of reciprocity; I try to stick by it. I think tolerance is to be recommended to everyone especially when the changes that we make in public policy really don’t impact on your ability to practice the religious tradition of your choosing, whereas the current situation does impact on gay people’s right to live as equals in Australian society.


  9. Goku June 15, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    Thanks for the reply,
    I agree the whole undergarment thing is weird.I will have to say you put forward a great argument and thanks for taking the time to deliver it very well, you come across very erudite.
    I will finish at this point and say that I see how you would see gay peoples right to marriage an equality issue based on that it does not impose on anyone in anyway (immediately that is, though I believe there would be affects on society as a result that may not be beneficial), but I just do not agree, as stated in my replies above.

    Thanks again.

    P.S. Just to ensure DQ and hypo have placed me in the right religious troll pigeonhole, may church and state be united, may all vote for tony abbot based not on his political credentials, but purely on his faith in God and all because God told me so!


    • Hypocritophobe June 15, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

      Why thanks CockGoo,

      I live in the comfort of knowing that when you’re not trolling you do the felching society proud.
      Careful that you don’t choke on that straw.


      • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2012 at 3:54 am #

        What is this the Andrew Dice Clay hour or something?

        Maybe just ease it back half a notch?


        • Hypocritophobe June 16, 2012 at 9:40 am #

          Maybe next time HG.

          But it looked hungry,and I felt compelled,so I broke the feeding rule.


          • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2012 at 11:01 am #

            I think that when a suspected troll responds to reasoned discussion about the subject of their provocation then we can always hope they and others may actually learn something as a result.

            But to get carried away by flaming them is to feed them with the confirmation they may have sought that all of their ideological opponents are completely intolerant.

            Tolerance, as we all know relies on reciprocity, so that for those who’re disinclined to it then it becomes all to easy to deliberately set up situations where intolerance is reciprocated. That’s what trolling really is. But in my view looking to engage one another in challenging debate, even if slightly off topic, doesn’t need to signal a feeding session.


    • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2012 at 3:52 am #

      What you might’ve written to create the prefect storm was…

      -Written and spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party by the ghost of Bob Santamaria-

      Maybe or maybe not, but since you’re being so nice please try and extend that niceness to a little more tolerance for the change when it arrives as I think it inevitably will. Like a lot of things that were railed against at the time it may well make less diffrence to the natural order of things as percieved in a future version of hindsight.


  10. Hypocritophobe June 16, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    DQ said earlier;
    “Please don’t feed the trolls, HG. Especially not religious ‘concern trolls’.”
    But I did you did and I have now fessed up.

    I said earlier “Always.It starts as a pseudo-normal discussion.Moves to pseudo science based on internal church opinion dressed as fact,heads to denial,moves to anger and then BAM!”

    “Go told me so there!”
    It complied fully.
    It said earlier.
    “Just thought I would jump in at this point and finally bite at the provocation”

    I bit back.ergo, reciprocated in kind.

    This troll pollutes the ABC as well,HG.Under a plethora of never ending pseudonyms and never beginning logic.
    Usually it’s prolific on Damon Young blogs. It’s your time and energy HG.And I respect your views,a lot.
    I’m not you though.
    They are no doubt a willing participant and activist in this friendly game of tolerance roulette.

    ” I would say, following the teaching of the bible, that although friendship and fellowship is a great thing, the sexual relationship between two males or two females is something that’s not for our good.
    Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen”

    Looks like the Church has declared war……………….here as well as the UK.

    More later


    • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

      You know I just go by the principles of free speech in a marketplace of ideas. Meet bad speech with more and better speech.

      Ignoring it may eventually make it go away, but it always seems to me like not being up to the task of besting them,

      And when the victory that you seek is one for tolerance rather than the domination of one ideology over the other then the terms you’re looking to negotiate look a little different.

      Granted some may say that they’ve beefs with the churches that can’t be solved by tolerance. If the issue were about clerical child abuse I wouldn’t prevaricate for a second, but gaining acceptance for same sex marriage is a matter of building tolerance, and one I feel quietly confident will soon enough be won and won decisively.


  11. Hypocritophobe June 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    This is an interesting but predictable call by the church.
    I think Gillard can either win or lose government in the flak damage this may produce, and the church will no doubt lose some attendees.
    But those punters will still not leave their faith in numbers.
    A conscience vote will never appease the church,though on a real planet it should.
    The way I see it Gillard would need to diffuse this thing ASAP, by saying she will put it to a referendum, and throw the question into the Constitutional Referendum, to justify cost.
    Hell I would throw in a real republic question too, but the Opposition would have a field day if she did that.
    The church would hate to see a ref on gay marriage but it would be foolish of them to stand between society and their doctrine.I hope they do though.It will show their colours once and for all.And we can start tearing down the wealth mountain tax payers afford them.

    “Referendum Julia.Now! The longer you try to articulate with the blind ideology of the church,the closer you get to political oblivion.Let the entire population have a say.”


    • Hypocritophobe June 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

      and…even the good man himself added….”You may notice that we’re not talking about Anglicans. I’m talking about all of us. This affects you; it affects me. It affects our society,” he said.

      Well all of us should get to have our say,then.ASAP.
      And NO the church does not get to frame the question.

      It is a simple one.
      “Do you support the enactment in law (changes of the marriage Act) which would allow same sex marriage.”

      If you throw in the question ‘should atheists and agnostics receive equal funding to religious groups’, I can add my answer to that too.


      • Goku June 16, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

        One more reply,
        Hypo, I apologize for the earlier sarcastic statement. Sincerely I do, it was written in anger at the labeling that gets thrown around far too often, which HG touched on. I don’t watch the ABC often (apart from my son watching the kids shows) or visit their website and do not know who Damon Young is. I must admit I wasn’t aware of what felching was until I goggled it, gross!
        I never actually reply to any threads, and must admit this could well be my first. I was somehow lead here through goggling Melinda Tankard Reist (and before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am not a MTR lover nor hater, but was interested in her views which I would mostly agree) and found Jennifer Wilson’s blog interesting.
        So again I apologize for the outburst.
        Have a good weekend.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: