Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Don't you people see??? By fighting for their rights in the courts gay people are actually limiting their freedoms   (chron.com) divider line 91
    More: Dumbass, Alexis de Tocqueville, speed limits, rights movement, freedoms  
•       •       •

3393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 3:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 10:14:49 AM  
Wut?

Yes, this is clearly a desire to restrict freedom.  Without a doubt.  Makes 100% sense.
 
2013-04-03 10:27:21 AM  
I mean, if you accept that gay as a countercultural movement had more to offer than gay as a part of the bourgeois, then sure.  If your baseline is that the military, marriage, and religion are all equal restrictions on freedom, then the argument makes perfect sense.
 
2013-04-03 10:28:47 AM  
Nobody's really that stupid, are they?
 
2013-04-03 10:32:22 AM  

Rincewind53: the military, marriage, and religion are all equal restrictions on freedom


this sounds absurd, though.  Clearly all 3 are wholly different.  One tells you to pray and hate gays.  One tells you to go to foreign places and get shot at.  And marriage tells you to....well I'm not sure except the various statutory issues and real property laws and whatnot.
 
2013-04-03 10:35:01 AM  
Marriage is one of those institutions - along with religion and military service - that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.


Except you have the FREEDOM to not get married if you so choose. They want the OPTION to CHOOSE whether or not they get married.

/Farking dumbass
 
2013-04-03 02:02:13 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


Never underestimate the power of human stupidity, nor the desire to ingratiate with asinine offerings...
 
2013-04-03 02:07:10 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


Yes. Yes they are.
 
2013-04-03 02:13:59 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Wut?

Yes, this is clearly a desire to restrict freedom.  Without a doubt.  Makes 100% sense.


Isn't that what marriage is?
 
2013-04-03 02:23:00 PM  
Maybe I've been reading too much Fark, but did anyone else get a tongue-in-cheek tone while reading this one?  "Once the movement became about self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular" stuck out for me.

I could be crazy.
 
2013-04-03 02:46:08 PM  

factoryconnection: Maybe I've been reading too much Fark, but did anyone else get a tongue-in-cheek tone while reading this one?  "Once the movement became about self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular" stuck out for me.

I could be crazy.


He deleted a comment I made asking if it was a belated April Fools prank, so you may be right.  I hope so.
 
2013-04-03 02:53:25 PM  

FloydA: He deleted a comment I made asking if it was a belated April Fools prank, so you may be right. I hope so.


Hopefully; It is David Brooks, not some derp-o-sphere lunatic after all.
 
2013-04-03 02:55:26 PM  

FloydA: factoryconnection: Maybe I've been reading too much Fark, but did anyone else get a tongue-in-cheek tone while reading this one?  "Once the movement became about self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular" stuck out for me.

I could be crazy.

He deleted a comment I made asking if it was a belated April Fools prank, so you may be right.  I hope so.


I see your comment.
 
2013-04-03 02:59:35 PM  

DarwiOdrade: FloydA: factoryconnection: Maybe I've been reading too much Fark, but did anyone else get a tongue-in-cheek tone while reading this one?  "Once the movement became about self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular" stuck out for me.

I could be crazy.

He deleted a comment I made asking if it was a belated April Fools prank, so you may be right.  I hope so.

I see your comment.


Hmm, now it's there.  Five minutes ago, it said "Zero Comments."  Weird.  Perhaps I've come unstuck in time.
 
2013-04-03 03:09:08 PM  
freedom is slavery, especially if you're married
 
2013-04-03 03:17:44 PM  
So, I'm guessing this author has a long and storied history opposing military service, religion and marriage as limitations on personal freedom?

No? He just started when the gays wanted to do it, too?

Oh, so he's just a jackass. Okay.
 
2013-04-03 03:24:23 PM  

FloydA: Hmm, now it's there. Five minutes ago, it said "Zero Comments." Weird. Perhaps I've come unstuck in time.


I noticed it too. Takes a few seconds for the page to load the comments.

But if you have become unstuck in time, tell the Lutece twins I said hi.
 
2013-04-03 03:24:24 PM  
well, technically, marriage and the military are restrictions on your freedom...  but this article was clearly written by a crazy person.
 
2013-04-03 03:27:59 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


Yes.  Yes, three are lots and lots and lots of people that are this stupid.  Or will agree out of bigotry combined with the urge to troll.
 
2013-04-03 03:29:04 PM  
Well done David Brooks

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-03 03:30:06 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


Fark would still just be a picture of a squirrel with huge balls if they they were not.
 
2013-04-03 03:30:11 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


People are that stupid, and more often than not they're even more stupid than that.

People are, by and large, greedy, selfish, stupid and insensitive beings.  We're really a bunch of worthless meatsacks when all is said and done.
 
2013-04-03 03:31:04 PM  

Infernalist: So, I'm guessing this author has a long and storied history opposing military service, religion and marriage as limitations on personal freedom?


I wonder if he's married.  Oh, the irony.
 
2013-04-03 03:31:57 PM  
TFA author sounds like a gay man who married a woman to keep up appearances.....definitely  conservative.
 
2013-04-03 03:32:15 PM  
It's rare that you see someone miss a point that badly.
 
2013-04-03 03:33:00 PM  

timujin: Infernalist: So, I'm guessing this author has a long and storied history opposing military service, religion and marriage as limitations on personal freedom?

I wonder if he's married.  Oh, the irony.


Or not living in a cabin in the woods, having gone for the full freedom abandoning societal participation eschews.
 
2013-04-03 03:33:06 PM  

FloydA: Nobody's really that stupid, are they?


This seems like one of those ideas someone gets when stoned.  Maybe that's what happened, "Dude, gays getting married or entering the military would, like, totally restrict their freedom.  I so totally have to warn them about this."
 
2013-04-03 03:35:11 PM  
Yes, I would agree getting married limits one's freedom.

/and I would agree some people really want that
//more power to them
 
2013-04-03 03:35:19 PM  
Alright, folks, we can dial it back a notch.  Here's the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.h tm l?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0

Freedom Loses One
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 1, 2013

But the Houston Chronicle running it on the 2nd indicates maybe they didn't get the joke.
 
2013-04-03 03:37:26 PM  
This article really makes you wonder about Mr. Brooks' marriage.  I would have to assume he views it as a prison.  Also, is Mr. Brooks under the impression that people will be forced to get gay married?
 
2013-04-03 03:41:50 PM  
Getting a full-time job restricts my freedom. I can no longer use the 8 hours every weekday I would spend at work doing whatever the hell I want to.
 
2013-04-03 03:44:37 PM  

Blue_Blazer: This article really makes you wonder about Mr. Brooks' marriage.  I would have to assume he views it as a prison.  Also, is Mr. Brooks under the impression that people will be forced to get gay married?


See the post immediately previous to yours.
 
2013-04-03 03:46:17 PM  

timujin: Alright, folks, we can dial it back a notch.  Here's the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.h tm l?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0

Freedom Loses One
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 1, 2013

But the Houston Chronicle running it on the 2nd indicates maybe they didn't get the joke.


At the bottom of the link you provided:

"A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 2, 2013, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Freedom Loses One."

Still a "Not Sure If Serious" situation here.
 
2013-04-03 03:50:02 PM  
I don't agree with the article as written, but there's certainly a legitimate argument that the Supreme Court taking it upon itself to decide for everyone is ultimately a limitation of freedom. Of course, if you believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue, then that argument doesn't work.
 
2013-04-03 03:50:42 PM  
The author appears to have confused "legal" with "mandatory."
 
2013-04-03 03:52:58 PM  
 Can I buy some pot from you?
 
2013-04-03 03:54:30 PM  
It all makes sense if you assume gays are decadent sybarites committed to anonymous sex with multiple partners. Some gays foolishly think that because heterosexuals have marriage, they should have it too, but actually they are shooting themselves in the hedonistic foot and will come to deeply regret this imposition on their effete, degenerate lifestyle.
 
2013-04-03 03:55:21 PM  
Civil marriage itself is indeed a freedom limiting institution but its not like gays were living in a society without it before. They were living in a society with marriage that wouldn't let them marry. Going from not-free to not-free is not a loss of freedom.

You could perhaps make a case that making the institution more egalitarian makes it more credible and therefore harder to tear down in general but oppression bring sturdier is also not oppression getting worse.
 
2013-04-03 03:59:18 PM  

mercator_psi: timujin: Alright, folks, we can dial it back a notch.  Here's the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.h tm l?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0

Freedom Loses One
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 1, 2013

But the Houston Chronicle running it on the 2nd indicates maybe they didn't get the joke.

At the bottom of the link you provided:

"A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 2, 2013, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Freedom Loses One."

Still a "Not Sure If Serious" situation here.


Hrm... the online version was on 4/1, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's a joke.  I can't imagine anyone is actually this stupid and the entire thing rings of satire.  Damned Poe's Law...
 
2013-04-03 04:09:56 PM  
What the fark did I just try to read?!
 
2013-04-03 04:10:10 PM  
I can't keep track of the various NYT columnists, but isn't Brooks super conservative? He might be serious.
 
2013-04-03 04:12:51 PM  

timujin: mercator_psi: timujin: Alright, folks, we can dial it back a notch.  Here's the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.h tm l?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0

Freedom Loses One
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 1, 2013

But the Houston Chronicle running it on the 2nd indicates maybe they didn't get the joke.

At the bottom of the link you provided:

"A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 2, 2013, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Freedom Loses One."

Still a "Not Sure If Serious" situation here.

Hrm... the online version was on 4/1, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's a joke.  I can't imagine anyone is actually this stupid and the entire thing rings of satire.  Damned Poe's Law...


Brooks gets Tuesdays and Fridays, but he would have had to get it to the editors before 11pm on Monday (probably way before then); so it might have been published 4/1, but intended for the 4/2 paper edition.

His point seems to have been that we don't actually want as much freedom as we say we do, not that gay marriage (or marriage in any context) is bad because it limits freedom.  That said I have no idea why he would want to write that, or who he's trying to influence.
 
2013-04-03 04:13:14 PM  
If this article were on The Onion, I'd have loved it.

As is:
chan.catiewayne.com
 
2013-04-03 04:16:11 PM  
David Brooks wrote something so asinine, Kim Kardashian demoted her own to a 7?

Hmm. I guess it's better than "I don't mind liberals praising me, but when it's the really partisan liberals, you get an avalanche of love, it's like uhhh, I gotta rethink this", so GO SUPER DAVE.

// maybe if we gave him an avalanche of love over these column inches, he'd rethink it
 
2013-04-03 04:17:20 PM  
This seems like some sort of bizarre attempt at reverse psychology.
 
2013-04-03 04:17:50 PM  

rynthetyn: I can't keep track of the various NYT columnists, but isn't Brooks super conservative? He might be serious.


I think of him as a principled conservative -- he actually seems to know what he believes in, and he isn't very partisan.  He also seems to be vaguely pro-gay-marriage, or not against it, as this "conversation" suggests:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/marriage-security-an d- insecurities/
 
2013-04-03 04:20:20 PM  

FloydA: He deleted a comment I made asking if it was a belated April Fools prank, so you may be right. I hope so.


It was there when I looked at it, just moments ago.
 
2013-04-03 04:25:02 PM  
Ah, the daily dose of desperation from Republicans who are in denial over the fact that homosexuality has become, for the most part,  accepted and gay marriage is seen as an inalienable right by the majority of the US.

Suck it, losers. You're on the wrong side of history....again.
 
2013-04-03 04:29:38 PM  
Well, he's allegedly the liberals favorite conservative so maybe this is yet another example of Poe's Law?
 
2013-04-03 04:35:40 PM  

gunga galunga: Ah, the daily dose of desperation from Republicans who are in denial over the fact that homosexuality has become, for the most part,  accepted and gay marriage is seen as an inalienable right by the majority of the US.

Suck it, losers. You're on the wrong side of history....again.


The majority of Americans believing something doesn't mean much.

We believe a lot of dumb shiat.
 
2013-04-03 04:44:29 PM  
Wow, reverse psychology....that's an interesting tact. "You don't want to get married, gay people. It's  the worst. Am I right, straights?"
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report