Who is Stanley Kurtz, and . . .

[Bertha Venation]

. . . did anyone hear his slippery-slope commentary on NPR this morning? I'd like to hear how others would refute his "rational" argument against marriage.

[peekaloo]

1. writes for the National Review (ahem)

and is a member of the Hoover Institution, which I believe includes Richard M. Scaife on its Executive Board.

[Bertha Venation]

2. thanks, peek, and the next question

from this neophyte is: Who is Richard M. Scaife? And I know little about the NR except that it's conservative.

I don't mind revealing my ignorance. It's a great way to learn.

[peekaloo]

4. for starters

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/07news.html


short answer, a BIG money man for right wing

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm

[dolo amber]

3. I heard that wanker

He was spewing some nonsense comparing legalizing gay marriage to the rise in children born out of wedlock in the Netherlands. His argument apparently is that the basic purpose, or at least societal norm, of marriage is to have children. Since gay *marriages* cannot achieve this on their own and must go to a source outside the marriage, it basically nullifies the need for ANYONE to actually be married before running off and getting knocked up. :wtf:

I personally would refute his argument by telling him to have his rectal-cranial inversion corrected.

[dolo amber]

5. Kick

:kick: