The boyirl will almost certainly meet its judge in some afterlife, but that judge won't be the dizzy bint who presided over this sad case, and if it eventually ends up in hell, I'll have the added satisfaction of knowing you'll both have had the opportunity  to say "kuzu-zangpo sister" to each other.

Happy 2011 to you, too.

This is what you get when the why? chromosome auditions for The X- Factor.

1 If, as you say, there is insufficient information for you to judge on this case, on what evidence do you reach the conclusion that our hero(ine) must be "dangerously religious"? (see below).

2 The 'schoolboyirl' on the backside of polite society in question hasn't (Thank God!) to the best of my knowledge, expressed ANY desire to father children later in life, it just wants what it wants, NOW, and to hell with the consequences. It's the dizzy liberal (female) judge who has ruled that an individual SHE currently claims is mature enough to go ahead with this sex-change must first freeze some of its sperm in case, I suspect, she and 'Son of Tootsie' BOTH turn out to be wrong about the currently perceived maturity of the latter.

...to present "Bhutan Clan"  life as a model for modern decadent (and clueless) Germans?  What a great idea!  Why not go back to 'feudal clan' life in Teutonic forests? 

@marcfrans: „... sociological evidence concerning children's welfare in various competing 'marital' environments.“ A Bhutan clan has a better family life than a Cleveland working-class family? What 'competing marital environments' do you refer to?
„The issue of "prostitution" has nothing to do with the matter of "marital rights". That's your secret wish, isn't it?
@Atlanticist: tabloid news of today, as you say. Insufficient information to judge on the case. Strange, however, that the boy becoming a girl still thinks of fatherhood. He must be dangerously religious.

Kappert: "In short, the capacity to rise children is highly individual, a rather difficult subject to be 'regulated' by law..." Oh, I don't know. Take the following case for example.

A schoolboy has been given permission to start changing into a woman - provided he has his sperm frozen in case he decides to 'father' children some time in the future...

Judge Linda Dessau said the teenager, who is mildly autistic, was mature enough to know what he wanted ...

Added to the unusual case was the judge's observation that the boy's father had also enjoyed dressing up as a girl but he had said that he 'grew out of it'...

Source: article in today's MAIL tabloid newspaper.

 As they say in my neck of the woods, there's nowt so queer as folk!

1) It can come as no surprise to any regular reader that Kappert thinks that..."People who like each other may live together and when they want to have a child, they should have one"...  Note particularly the "should", as if we were talking about getting a new car or a 2-week vacation from work.  It is the ultimate result of putting one (or a few) individual's wishes ahead of another's welfare (i.e. the child) and ahead of society's welfare as well. The least one can say about such a view is that it reflects an extraordinary ability to wish away inconvenient considerations such as the (general) importance of biology as a determining factor in human behavior, especially as it relates to 'sacrifice' for others.  It also reflects an extraordinary head-in-the-sand attitude towards overwhelming sociological evidence concerning children's welfare in  various competing 'marital' environments.   Senator Patrick Moynehan warned us against this coming disaster many decades ago.

2) The issue of "prostitution" has nothing to do with the matter of "marital rights".     

Marriage: The purpose that parents want their children to be married was the selfish desire to 'prosper', as the children would live 'better' and continue the 'family business'. In Western XXI century, there is no need to procreate for these reasons. If two people decide to have a child, they can realize their wish by natural or artificial means or adoption. There is no proof that a male/female couple provides better care and education than a male/male or female/female couple, and of course we know that some 'normal families' hide terrible situations of violence. In short, the capacity to rise children is highly individual, a rather difficult subject to be 'regulated' by law. People who like each other may live together and when they want to have a child, they should have one.
Prostitution: The popular monolithic perspective is that prostitution is an unqualified evil. According to this oppression model, exploitation, abuse, and misery are intrinsic to the sex business. Because prostitution is defined as an institution of extreme male domination over women, violence and exploitation are inherent and omnipresent—transcending historical time period, national context, and type of prostitution. It is easy to misjudge a situation as to which degree a woman works as a prostitute out of her own motivation or whether she is in fact a victim of trafficking.
Investigations in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Berlin showed that married males are within the most 'loyal clients' not only within the segment of the occasional prostitution in the public (e.g. in the red-light districts) or non-public areas (e.g. private chats). For the traditional prostitution in brothels, clubs and e.g. in flats (half-public and non-public area), the Internet represents an increasingly important additive for making contacts. Most of the male clients have children (as a fact many searched for prostitutes after the birth of their child, cross-check 'educational capacity'). Men are setting examples, prostitution is rather a male problem.

Kappert: While I await your usual detailed response to my previous question, perhaps you'd also like to consider why on earth you would seek to extend what you have identified as a perceived societal problem ('the compulsive masculine behaviour of frustrated family men') to 'married' male homosexuals.

Thank you.

@ Johnny F

Any consideration of "gay marital rights" should be preceeded by consideration of marital rights tout court.  From a conservative political point of view, the idea of creating "rights" for some, instead of for all, is not a good idea.  'Rights' should be in principle shared by all, or by none in the political realm.

It behoves, therefore, to question the purpose of the institution called "civil marriage", before embarking on extending or expanding these 'special rights' or before deciding who can enter the institution and who cannot.   In my view, the only acceptable or  rational purpose for the institution of civil marriage is the protection of children that can issue from the marriage.  It is not the role of government to approve... nor disapprove, nor cerimoniously 'sanctify', nor forbid... relations (sexual or otherwise) between its adult citizens.  There is a proper role for government to protect the genuine 'weak', like children,  but not to grant 'rights' to some and not to others.

Therefore,  the issue of gay marriage really flounders on the issues of child adoption and of 'artificial' pregnancy/birth.   The traditional view has been (a) that children are ideally raised by their two biological parents, and (b) that a child's welfare takes precedence over perceived 'needs' or wishes of adults (and especially of adults who cannot be the biological parents of the particular child).   While the ideal is not alway possible in the real world, it should nevertheless be the 'norm' for legal or civil institutionbuilding.  Hence, civil marriage should be restricted to certain (not all) heterosexual relationships that are 'open' to children-from- the-marriage.

It is somewhat dismaying that many of our conservative "gay friends" have so little regard for a sensible tradition and would seek a governmental approval or public  'recognition' of their private relationships.   Instead of expanding marital rights, a more sensible policy (for the sake of children and future generations) would be to restrict marital rights further, i.e. impose higher hurdles for those (heterosexual adults)  who wish to enter it.

Kappert: Perhaps, in the interest of 'fairness', you'd care to meet me half-way. Let's both agree to  condemn homosexual marriage and prostitution, but not necessarily in that order.  Do we have a deal? And if not, why not?

Instead of arguing against a 'love link of two people' which also may be a marriage, I would rather suggest condemn prostitution, that is the compulsive masculine behaviour of frustrated family men. Sweden has made an attempt in that direction.

After homosexual marriage is instituted, the demands will continue. Indeed, they will never end. Read the history of 20th century totalitarian regimes.

The glib way that you approach this subject suggests that you have succumbed to the sense, common these days, that social institutions are there for us to play with, that they are strong enough to endure sustained attack and experimentation. In truth, they are both fragile and precious.

But, alas, and as the wise man said: 'we grow too soon old and too late smart'. So many social changes were resisted by a few 50 years ago but accepted by the masses because they were new and promised great things. Now we know their value and what a loss it has been. Must we now accept a new definition of marriage on this same trial error basis? What if it turns out to be an error. What will be the cost? And will we be able to turn the clock back?

I am a pessimist regarding these things and am quite resigned to the idea that the living heart of civilization stopped beating quite some time ago. The end of all of this is a future where all of the institutions of society, including the new marriage, will work in concert to crush the human spirit. But lies are a thing of this world, not Heaven, and God will have the final word on these matters.

"Our LGBT friends are happy, for the time being. But soon they will fight even harder to get full civil rights, to get the right to marry (and to divorce). Give them that right. Stop the discrimination. The world will not end."

And a Merry Hollywood Christmas to you too. Hoist the rainbow flag matie and let's toss these Christians overboard once and for all!

Give them that right? Stop the discrimination?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217?printerfriendly=true

We have not begun to fight and we have no intention of going quietly into the night. I genuinely wish our LGBT friends happiness and a merry Christmas, but how will we do that by denying Christ and embracing a concept, Homosexual marriage which is such an open and self-professed assault on the Judeo-Christian tradition?

When I was seventeen I lasted a few months in Hollywood among the Hollywood elite due to a relative who was very prominent and wealthy in the community, I realized then ('76) what I was being asked to accept and deny with the elite's laissez-faire acceptance of the gay lifefstyle. I was back home in boring middle class America by Christmas.

Sorry Johnny it just won't work, it's not you, it's simply two thousand years and the heart of Western Civilzation which won't be silenced by a Hollywood fantasy. 

You believe the USA is doomed: mountains of debt that will never been repaid, a huge wave of inflation coming our way, wholesale plunder of our liberties, and politicians unable to clean up the mess they created. Observing what happened in the last year, I’m more optimistic. I don’t underestimate the wisdom and drive of the American people, and the power of the US-style of democracy with its two parties system and elections every two years.  I give the Republicans a few months in 2011 before I pass judgment on their ability to rein in the spending, to boost the economy, and to limit the powers of the government.

The political reality is: the Republicans were the minority party these last 2 years, and some Senators are Republican In Name Only (RINO). The Republicans will still only hold the majority in one Chamber coming 2011. Doing nothing, refusing everything coming from the Democrats, just blocking all legislation is political suicide for the Republican Party. Overall we should be proud of what the Republicans accomplished in these last two weeks (see this and the previous letter): stopping the worst legislation, and adapting the other laws for the better. The Tea Party people and other conservatives will up the pressure on them in 2011 to make sure the Republican Senators and Representatives in the House cut expenses significantly, and return liberties to the people.

Homosexuality is about love. And we can’t have enough of that in this world. If some of them want to commit themselves to each other in a lasting relationship, and want this relationship recognized by society with all the advantages and obligations attached to that institution, I welcome that. My contacts with gays taught me how hard it is to discuss with them economics, liberty, and national security, when they believe we heterosexuals consider them second-class citizens. We can deny this characterization of our opinion, or we may not understand the importance for them of the word ‘marriage’, or we may think it is foolish to consider marriage more important than economics, but the fact stands that they feel discriminated. As a political conscious Fleming active in Belgium from the late 1960’s until the early 1990’s, I know what discrimination is.

And it is not like heterosexuals have not desecrated the institution of marriage with a divorce rate of about 50% and serial polygamy, whereby +30% children are born out of wedlock. I urge you to make some gay friends. You’ll find out that most of them are smart, creative and loving people. This the season!

1.  New START was neither a victory for Obama nor the Democrats.  New START had considerable Republican support from the outset including senior Senator Lugar, former President Bush (G.H.W.), and 6 former Republican Secretaries of State.  Without the support of 13 Republicans, especially Lugar, Corker and Isakson, the treaty never would have been ratified by the Senate.  New START was a bi-partisan effort begun long before Obama was even in the running for leadership of the Democrats!

The Heritage Foundation, Kyl, McConnell et al, are actually more concerned with areas not covered by the treaty, such as tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense and modernization of delivery systems.  However, one gets the impression that elements of the Republican Party believe that Russia should not have any sort of nuclear parity with the United States, given Russia’s decline in every area save warhead count.

2.  I agree with mpresley that social conservatism is part of the Republican Party platform and very important to its voter base.  I believe that a third classical liberal party should emerge in the United States that offers voters liberal social and economic policies, which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats do.  The Republicans will never target homosexual voters over Christian/traditionalist ones.

3.  Again, I agree with mpresley that the emergency workers who participated in 9/11 should be compensated the same as any others in any emergency.  Americans misuse the term “hero”.  These first responders were doing their jobs.  Heroism means going above and beyond – such as diving onto a grenade to protect your comrades or throwing yourself across an enemy maching gun nest so the hill can be taken.  A civilian who braved danger to help evacuate the WTC would be a hero.  The passengers of UA 91 were heroes…

4.  I doubt any party has the ability to impose austerity on Americans.  Would China allow it?

I presume this was not written in an ironic spirit, so I will reply seriously:

The Republicans forced them to listen and to compromise. During the recent two weeks both parties worked together, and the results are acceptable.

Obama traded away a few earmarks and in return got pretty much everything he wanted.  The Republicans essentially folded, and are in fact on their way to becoming what they've been in the past, Democrat Lite.

Obama bagged his big international victory.

How is this an 'international' victory?  Is Obama now the president of an international organization?  And the word victory implies that without the agreement, he (as an international proxy) would somehow have been defeated.  Very odd language to use.

Our LGBT friends are happy, for the time being. But soon they will fight even harder to get full civil rights, to get the right to marry (and to divorce). Give them that right. Stop the discrimination.

This shows the author to be steeped in a liberal mind-set, and one concludes that he is either unfamiliar with, or antagonistic to traditionalism.  To frame the issue as one of 'civil rights' and discrimination is to accept a notion of individual rights that trumps the maintenance of the traditional social order.  It is a grotesque perversion of the classical idea of man living within a natural order. 

Next, to speak of 'homosexual marriage' is to abuse language.  It is like saying that you want a square ball for Christmas.  If one takes the meaning of marriage to be simply contingent, and if one takes the notion of marriage to be wholly grounded in positive law, then one might just as well logically argue for polygamy, or the right to marry a dog or horse.

The right to marry is really the most important concern for the majority of gays and lesbians.

This is a completely unsupported assertion.  How many homosexual men want to be married (using the term in its modern-day liberal semantic inversion)?  However, once homosexuals legally have this 'right,' then adoption will follow, along with a host of other peculiar outcomes.

... the Republicans blocked Obama to raise taxes, and how his 1.2 trillion dollar budget was defeated.

Again, there was no defeat.  The budget was a clear victory for the Democrats. And you are mistaken about the income tax debate. It was Obama who wanted to extend the so-called Bush cuts against the Democratic House/Senate. However, in the grand scheme, taxes are going up. For instance, the huge ethanol subsidy passed with the help of the Republicans is in fact a tax increase, albeit “hidden.”

Congress created a fund to compensate the health expenses of people who gave their best on 9/11/...

There is no justification for this. The firefighters had health insurance, and in any case their injuries were no different than firefighters responding to any large burning building. The fact that the building was the Twin Towers is simply a liberal emotional response lacking reasoned judgment.

If the Republicans can continue with the same conviction, it will be no problem to save 20% on the expenses of the government, and create a balanced budget.

This suggests a misunderstanding of the size of the current fiscal problem we face.  Too, it is not clear what 'saving twenty percent of government expenses' could mean.  Whatever, it will take massive spending cuts in all areas to even approach solvency. There will be no balanced budget. I cannot predict the future, but I will bet that we find ourselves approaching sovereign default before we get our fiscal act in order.