I must confess to a certain surprise, considering your support for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," not that these two things are very similar at all. On this one, I agree with you, and I will not be watching that part of the show. It's disgusting and ABC should be ashamed of themselves, but of course that would be expecting far too much from our moral abrogators.

Snochasr:

I think you're surprised because you thought my positions stemmed from some moral reaction to homosexuality itself: You thought I was "pro-gay," so you're surprised that I'm opposed to putative "transgenderism;" and if you recollect previous posts, you're probably surprised that I am extremely opposed to same-sex marriage as well.

But I am neither pro- nor anti-gay. I see no moral aspect to homosexuality at all, neither an abomination nor a sacrament; it's simply a lifestyle choice that's nobody's business but the principals'.

I do see a strong liberty interest in allowing people to express their own sexual nature (some day I'll expound upon this more) without fear of government repression; contrariwise, I see a strong social interest in restricting legal marriage to one man and one woman (I don't even care if husband and wife are both gay).

I really don't like Chastity Bono (she calls herself "Chaz" Bono now) because of her leftist activism and very nasty things she has said about those who disagree with her; but I would have no particular qualms about her competing on the show... as a woman, which is what she is. With a male partner; those are the rules of ballroom competition. (I didn't object to other lefty activists, from Jerry Springer to Heather Mills, dancing on the show.)

The competition demands couples which comprise one man and one woman; Chastity Bono cannot have a female partner because she is not a man, she is a woman, regardless of what she had lopped off or sewn on.

The male-female ballroom partners need not be married, dating, or even friendly; they may each have separate lives. One or both may be gay; who cares? Several of the pro-dancers on the show are openly gay; but they always partner up on the basis of gender, not sexual preference (because it's not about sex, it's about dancing!)

If Ms. B. wants to go to a club and dance with another woman, snogging all the way, fine; enjoy; that's that old "liberty interest" I mentioned above. But a competition has rules; if you want to break the rules, then start your own competition: Indeterminate Gender Competitive Dancing, or somesuch.

I am equally appalled by male athletes who get some quack doctor to whack off their wackadoodles, swaller some hormones for a couple of years, and then start competing in the Olympics and other international sporting events as supposed women. (In that case, it's not only offensive and delusional, it's grossly unfair to the real women who suddenly find themselves competing against people who have the muscular strength and reaction time of guys, but who we are supposed to pretend are gals.)

If at some point in the future we can actually turn male into female -- instead of just painting the alligator brown and calling it a weinerdog -- then I might change my mind. But until then, I will not be rooting for Lacy and her gal pal.

I reckon that makes me a "crazy" from whom Bono must needs be protected; but that's nothing new to those of us who continually reject liberal orthodoxy. We've grown used to it.

Dafydd

Reminds me of my brothers old Volkswagen bug. He bought this kit that turned it into a Rolls Royce, big hood, spare tire on the back,etc. He was really proud of it. He showed our dad, "look, now it's a Rolls"!. My dad said, no, it only looks like a Rolls, underneath it's still a VW.

Famous bankruptcy case from Texas back in the 70s. Banks tried to argue that a financing agreement was a lease, not a sale. One point raised -- the title of the document was "Lease". Judge said it was a sale based on the overall terms of the agreement. As to the title argument -- "you can paint H O R S E on the side of a cow. Still won't make it a cow."

Famous bankruptcy case from Texas back in the 70s. Banks tried to argue that a financing agreement was a lease, not a sale. One point raised -- the title of the document was "Lease". Judge said it was a sale based on the overall terms of the agreement. As to the title argument -- "you can paint H O R S E on the side of a cow. Still won't make it a cow."

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)