View Full Version : Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be argued before SCOTUS this week
Personally I'd like to see SCOTUS rule that the federal government should have no involvement in defining what marriage is or between whom is it legal, and by extension there should not be any sort of tax incentives/benefits for being married, period. At most it should be state issue, certainly not federal. Do I support gay marriage? No, but again I don't think this is an institution that the government has any business being involved in in the first place. One of many I'll concede.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wide-range-potential-outcomes-gay-marriage-18796896#.UU8MoleGHac
The Supreme Court can choose from a wide array of outcomes in ruling on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The federal law, known by the shorthand DOMA, defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and therefore keeps legally married gay Americans from collecting a range of federal benefits that generally are available to married people.
The cases will be argued Tuesday and Wednesday; rulings are not likely before late June.
The justices might come out with rulings that are simple, clear and dramatic. Or they might opt for something narrow and legalistic.
The court could strike down dozens of state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, but it also could uphold gay marriage bans or say nothing meaningful about the issue at all.
A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA:
———
Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8?
A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly 40 states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Such an outcome probably would trigger a political campaign in California to repeal Proposition 8 through a ballot measure and could give impetus to similar voter or legislative efforts in other states.
———
Q. What if the court strikes down Proposition 8?
A. A ruling in favor of the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the voter-approved gay marriage ban could produce one of three possibilities. The broadest would apply across the country, in effect invalidating constitutional provisions or statutes against gay marriage everywhere.
Or a majority of the justices could agree on a middle option that applies only to California as well as Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Those states already treat gay and straight couples the same in almost every respect through civil unions or domestic partnerships. The only difference is that gay couples are not allowed to marry. Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., signed his state's civil unions law Thursday.
This "nine-state solution" would say that the Constitution forbids states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples while giving them all the basic rights of married people. But this ruling would not implicate marriage bans in other states and would leave open the question of whether states could deprive gay couples of any rights at all.
The narrowest of these potential outcomes would apply to California only. The justices essentially would adopt the rationale of the federal appeals court that found that California could not take away the right to marry that had been granted by the state Supreme Court in 2008 before Proposition 8 passed later that year.
In addition, if the Supreme Court were to rule that gays and lesbians are deserving of special protection from discriminatory laws, it is unlikely that any state ban on same-sex marriage could survive long, even if the justices don't issue an especially broad ruling in this case.
———
Q. Are there other potential outcomes?
A. Yes, the court has a technical way out of the case without deciding anything about same-sex marriage. The Proposition 8 challengers argue that the private parties defending the provision — members of the group that helped put the ban on the ballot — did not have the right to appeal the trial judge's initial decision striking it down or that of the federal appeals court.
The justices sometimes attach great importance to this concept, known as standing. If they find Proposition 8's proponents lack standing, the justices also would find the Supreme Court has no basis on which to decide the case.
The most likely outcome of such a ruling also would throw out the appeals court decision that struck down the ban but would leave in place the trial court ruling in favor same-sex marriage. At the very least, the two same-sex couples almost certainly would be granted a marriage license, and Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., who opposes Proposition 8, probably would give county clerks the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
———
Q. Are the possibilities for the DOMA case as complicated?
A. No, although there are some technical issues that could get in the way of a significant ruling.
Q. What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman?
A. Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits.
———
Q. What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision?
A. A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples, or in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
———
Q. What procedural problems could prevent the court from reaching a decision about DOMA?
A. As in the Proposition 8 case, there are questions about whether the House Republican leadership has the right to bring a court case to defend the law because the Obama administration decided not to.
House Republicans argue that the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.
If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts, but there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court and it would remain on the books.
Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8?
A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly 40 states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
"limiting marriage to a man and a woman"? Well, that's ABC for you. That is rather like them saying "We don't want to limit the meaning "assault rifle" to mean only a rifle that is select-fire capable.
Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490/
What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155&utm_source=RTA+Snell+Marriage+Book+Review&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email
How so called "gay marriage" does in fact affect all marriages.
THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4
Naked Before the State
To make matters very much worse, the parens patriae power has recently received an enormous boost from another feature of the contraceptive society: same-sex “marriage.” Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of Bastards. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f#ixzz2OU3CcLnc
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law.
But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no
longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law.
But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no
longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
This is just another government infringement on liberty. Not legalizing gay marriage will not prevent people from being gay anymore than gun laws will prevent criminals from being criminals. Straight couples will still marry and have kids.
GeorgiaBoy
03-24-13, 14:07
This is just another government infringement on liberty. Not legalizing gay marriage will not prevent people from being gay anymore than gun laws will prevent criminals from being criminals. Straight couples will still marry and have kids.
Belloc does not see liberty like you or I do. We had a long discussion about this a while back.
The Founding Fathers and the great philosophers of liberty were rather certain that you could not have one without the other [morals].
I kind of think like the OP. Remove marriage from the law. Make marriage a completely religious thing that has nothing to do with taxes, benefits, etc. Change the current thing to civil union and transfer the legal benefits from marriage to CUs. Anyone who wants benefits must get a CU, if married or not.
Marriage should have as much meaning to the legal system as having completed the hajj... None whatsoever. Leave both to churches to fight over but stop government discrimination.
montanadave
03-24-13, 14:25
I kind of think like the OP. Remove marriage from the law. Make marriage a completely religious thing that has nothing to do with taxes, benefits, etc. Change the current thing to civil union and transfer the legal benefits from marriage to CUs. Anyone who wants benefits must get a CU, if married or not.
Marriage should have as much meaning to the legal system as having completed the hajj... None whatsoever. Leave both to churches to fight over but stop government discrimination.
Works for me.
Civil unions between consenting adults for all legal and governmental matters.
Let marriages be the purview of religious institutions. And each denomination is free to make their own determination with respect to recognizing gay marriage.
MountainRaven
03-24-13, 15:19
Works for me.
Civil unions between consenting adults for all legal and governmental matters.
Let marriages be the purview of religious institutions. And each denomination is free to make their own determination with respect to recognizing gay marriage.
I concur.
And I'll take it a step further to include polygamy. I don't see any reason why someone would want more than one spouse (and certainly not simultaneously), but so long as they're consenting adults and their religion condones it....
This is just another government infringement on liberty. Not legalizing gay marriage will not prevent people from being gay anymore than gun laws will prevent criminals from being criminals. Straight couples will still marry and have kids.
"Being gay"?
Care to explain exactly how harbouring homosexual inclinations, or the desire to sodomize or be sodomized by another male, is somehow an ontology?
Although no one ever has, perhaps you feel that you are equal to the task.
Belloc does not see liberty like you or I do. We had a long discussion about this a while back.
Remembered well. But there is a reason why no one actually attempts to refute the logical and reasoned arguments made in those links. Namely, and quite frankly, they can't.
Remembered well. But there is a reason why no one actually attempts to refute the logical and reasoned arguments made in those links. Namely, and quite frankly, they can't.
That's not true. It's more that a writer can do a lot of damage in only a few pages. I could sit here and write 20 sentences --each of them based on some kind of fallacy-- and challenge anyone to refute them, then declare myself the winner by default when nobody does. But the problem is that it could take 3 or 4 paragraphs just to untangle and properly deal with each statement. Ain't nobody got time for that. It's the same deal as in the Pope thread, which I just read over again. The juice is just not worth the squeeze. If I'm going to take the time to respond in depth, it's going to be to someone's own thoughts, which they've taken the time to craft and type. Who would sit here and argue with some ghost author behind a link?
I kind of think like the OP. Remove marriage from the law. Make marriage a completely religious thing that has nothing to do with taxes, benefits, etc. Change the current thing to civil union and transfer the legal benefits from marriage to CUs. Anyone who wants benefits must get a CU, if married or not.
Marriage should have as much meaning to the legal system as having completed the hajj... None whatsoever. Leave both to churches to fight over but stop government discrimination.
I posted this question to a homosexual "marriage" supporter elsewhere:
So what if a heterosexual man wants to marry his heterosexual best friend, or even his own brother, or both, for the sole reason of securing any and all accompanying benefits from that "marriage", since you are claiming that you want an end to "marriage discrimination" do you also favor eliminating those restrictions which presently prohibit them from "marrying"?
It sadly bears much reminding that no one can claim an inalienable right to keep and bear arms without at one and the same time believing in objective reality, truth, and morality.
That's not true. It's more that a writer can do a lot of damage in only a few pages. I could sit here and write 20 sentences --each of them based on some kind of fallacy-- and challenge anyone to refute them, then declare myself the winner by default when nobody does. But the problem is that it could take 3 or 4 paragraphs just to untangle and properly deal with each statement. Ain't nobody got time for that. It's the same deal as in the Pope thread, which I just read over again. The juice is just not worth the squeeze. If I'm going to take the time to respond in depth, it's going to be to someone's own thoughts, which they've taken the time to craft and type. Who would sit here and argue with some ghost author behind a link?
Sorry, but sloth as an excuse is rather without dignity.
Their should be no government benefits tied to marriage, period. Gay, straight, or otherwise. I understand what your saying in regards to allowing gay marriage and it being a net negative for the moral fabric of society but let the people decide for themselves what is or is not appropriate. But If a guy wants to marry his mail box and is willing to be admonished by his neighbors for doing so then be my guest, however neither he nor anyone else should get a tax credit for having done so. It doesn't get more equality sensitive than that.
Sorry, but sloth as an excuse is rather without dignity.
Right, because not arguing with a ghost-author on M4C = slothliness and laziness as if taking the time to do so wouldn't cause me a great opportunity-cost, paid in my ability to do something productive. This is what they call a false dichotomy. See what I mean about those single sentence fallacies?
I was just pointing out that if you want to have a discussion, you should try not to argue by link-dropping.
Right, because not arguing with a ghost-author on M4C = slothliness and laziness as if taking the time to do so wouldn't cause me a great opportunity-cost, paid in doing something else extremely productive.
Now you are simply being less than honest. You claim at one and the same time that you don't respond to my own thoughts on the Pope thread for the stated reason that "it's not worth the juice", and now grumble about not responding to my posts on this thread because they contain links to offsite articles which make arguments for a stated position to which my thoughts are in agreement.
And I fail to see how repeatedly taking the time to respond to posts with the rebuttal that it's not worth your time to respond to posts improves your position.
So what if a heterosexual man wants to marry his heterosexual best friend, or even his own brother, or both, for the sole reason of securing any and all accompanying benefits from that "marriage", since you are claiming that you want an end to "marriage discrimination" do you also favor eliminating those restrictions which presently prohibit them from "marrying"?
So what if a heterosexual woman wants to marry her heterosexual (or homosexual for that matter) male best friend for the sole reason of securing any and all accompanying benefits from that "marriage"?
FWIW, I see this happen ALL THE TIME in the military.
So what if a heterosexual woman wants to marry her heterosexual male best friend for the sole reason of securing any and all accompanying benefits from that "marriage"?
FWIW, I see this happen ALL THE TIME in the military.
Fair question. There's a film with Adam Sandler where he in fact "marries" his best friend, (I think one of them is a fireman) in order to get on his state health plan. But first there must be an investigation to make sure they are "really homosexuals". The problem here is the contradictory message and philosophical incoherence. If the government has no right to deny a "marriage" to two male homosexuals who wish to sodomise each other, then it has no right to deny marriage to two heterosexual males who have no desire whatsoever to sodomise each other.
Also, if you grant and permit that the government does in fact have the Orwellian power and authority to change the very meaning of the term marriage into something that it has never meant before, then you in fact concede that government has every right with that same power and authority to change the meaning of "assault rifle" to even include a single shot .22 Derringer.
If that is the world you would defend and support, you are welcome to it. For myself, I firmly hold that not one single iota of the Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, Cuomo, et al. agenda is good for America or for freedom and liberty.
Sorry, but sloth as an excuse is rather without dignity.
Then explain your position, in your own words.
Then explain your position, in your own words.
1. Should I take this to mean that in fact when it comes to the leftist agenda concerning guns you stand opposed to Obama, Feinstein, O'Malley, Boxer, Cuomo, and Bloomberg, but on the issue of homosexual "marriage" you march in leftist lockstep with them?
2. Women and men are ontologically distinct. But homosexual desire is an orientation, not an ontology. (Of course pedophilia is also apparently now considered an orientation.) Or do you in fact also claim that the sexual desire to sodomise other males is in fact an ontology? If so, make your case.
3. If you concede and acknowledge that in fact government has the Orwellian power and authority to change the definition of marriage, then do you at the same time acknowledge or deny it that same power and authority to change the meaning of "assault rifle" to mean anything whatsoever that fires a chambered round?
4. If the most fundamental principle of marriage is simply arbitrary, then explain how all subordinate principles are not then rendered necessarily arbitrary.
NeoNeanderthal
03-24-13, 17:17
Also, if you grant and permit that the government does in fact have the Orwellian power and authority to change the very meaning of the term marriage into something that it has never meant before, then you in fact concede that government has every right with that same power and authority to change the meaning of "assault rifle" to even include a single shot .22 Derringer....
"Being gay"?
Care to explain exactly how harbouring homosexual inclinations, or the desire to sodomize or be sodomized by another male, is somehow an ontology?
I'm not sure what definition of marriage you believe to be the "true one" but christians do not own the term marriage. Marriage was practiced prior and separately to christianity and our government.
Why is there a focus on sodomy in this thread? Lesbians do not (usually) sodomize each other, it has nothing to do with the definition of gayness. The act of gay sex has nothing to do with this discussion. Two hetero couples can still be married even if one is paralyzed or otherwise unable to have hetero sex. Gays do not define themselves by what specifically they do in the bedroom and we should not define them as such ether. Only being able to LOVE someone of your gender IS a way of being, not an action.
Singlestack Wonder
03-24-13, 17:19
Well stated Belloc!
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-24-13, 17:20
Gay marriage is just another attempt by radical progressives to de-legitimize organized traditional religion. The attempt to make gay rights the new civil rights fight is to cast the Catholic Church as the KKK of the 21st century. As more money and power shift to the state, being against the queer agenda denies you access to govt programs. Look at child adoption.
I'm not against gay marriage, just the flanking attack it brings .
Plus, how is this 'right' all of a sudden discovered, and 3000 years of cultural precedence has to act as the radical position.
Also, the govt not backing the law in court, not following up on CO&WA pot laws makes the legal system look arbitrary. It's like blind justice is being made to play Marco Polo trying to get where progressive want it. Can't find a judge to toe the line on reinterpreting a law, just ignore it.
ICANHITHIMMAN
03-24-13, 17:20
I concur.
And I'll take it a step further to include polygamy. I don't see any reason why someone would want more than one spouse (and certainly not simultaneously), but so long as they're consenting adults and their religion condones it....
The only issue with this is the women in most cases have NO say in it what so ever. In my perfect world freedom means what it means and the government has no say in what I or anyone else chooses to do. I'm married, I don't think we are making out on the deal however. I still clam married and single just like I did before, if you love someone you don't need someone else to tell you its OK. I say to hell with entitlements. At the end of the day I don't know enough or have the foresight to see what a decision either way does to me?
Also, if you grant and permit that the government does in fact have the Orwellian power and authority to change the very meaning of the term marriage into something that it has never meant before, then you in fact concede that government has every right with that same power and authority to change the meaning of "assault rifle" to even include a single shot .22 Derringer.
If that is the world you would defend and support, you are welcome to it. For myself, I firmly hold that not one single iota of the Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, Cuomo, et al. agenda is good for America or for freedom and liberty.
Nice straw man. I'll leave it at that.
I'm not sure what definition of marriage you believe to be the "true one" but christians do not own the term marriage. Marriage was practiced prior and separately to christianity and our government.
Never denied. But that does not change the historical fact of the most fundamental principle of marriage.
Why is there a focus on sodomy in this thread? Lesbians do not (usually) sodomize each other, it has nothing to do with the definition of gayness. The act of gay sex has nothing to do with this discussion. Two hetero couples can still be married even if one is paralyzed or otherwise unable to have hetero sex. Gays do not define themselves by what specifically they do in the bedroom and we should not define them as such ether. Only being able to LOVE someone of your gender IS a way of being, not an action.
To point out a reality is not to "focus on sodomy". Homosexuals cannot ever consummate a marriage. And while heterosexuals often also enage in sodomy, the fact is that most do not, while homosexuals can only sodomize each other. And to claim that the homosexual agenda is not strongly and intrinsically linked to the homosexual act is simply self-deception.
Nice straw man. I'll leave it at that.
Nice red herring. But what else could you do?
NeoNeanderthal
03-24-13, 17:45
[QUOTE=Belloc;1590874]And while heterosexuals often also enage in sodomy, the fact is that most do not, while homosexuals can only sodomize each other. /QUOTE]
Homosexuals can (and do) a lot more than sodomize each other, first off- you are focused on males here, and have obviously never seen a lesbian porno. You act as though all gays want to do is put it in each others butts. If that was the case, they would not give a shit about marriage, equality or adoption. Gay sex (male or female) has been legal for a long time, so to claim that it is strongly and intrinsically linked to their "agenda" (which is equality) is absurd.
Marriage equality is not a republican/dem issue. There are many libertarian type republicans (the pauls come to mind) that do not believe in discrimination. So acting like everyone who agrees with marriage equality is just another obama loving, gun hating, liberal is insane.
You are very good at explaining your beliefs in a non-hateful way and I admire that. However, you are on the wrong side of history and eventually it is YOU that will have to explain to your grandkids about how you supported discrimination (albeit in a eloquent way). Just as racists have had to do. Times are a changing dude and you're gonna have to get with it.
1. Should I take this to mean that in fact when it comes to the leftist agenda concerning guns you stand opposed to Obama, Feinstein, O'Malley, Boxer, Cuomo, and Bloomberg, but on the issue of homosexual "marriage" you march in leftist lockstep with them?
2. Women and men are ontologically distinct. But homosexual desire is an orientation, not an ontology. (Of course pedophilia is also apparently now considered an orientation.) Or do you in fact also claim that the sexual desire to sodomise other males is in fact an ontology? If so, make your case.
3. If you concede and acknowledge that in fact government has the Orwellian power and authority to change the definition of marriage, then do you at the same time acknowledge or deny it that same power and authority to change the meaning of "assault rifle" to mean anything whatsoever that fires a chambered round?
4. If the most fundamental principle of marriage is simply arbitrary, then explain how all subordinate principles are not then rendered necessarily arbitrary.
1. I'm not in lockstep with anybody. I believe in equal liberty for all, so long as it does not infringe on anybody else. You either believe in liberty or you don't.
2. One has nothing to do with the other, stay on topic.
3. The government has no Orweillian power to define marriage at all, let alone granting "tax loopholes" or special privileges.
Nice straw man. I'll leave it at that.
About sums that up.
4. Such as?
Gay marriage is just another attempt by radical progressives to de-legitimize organized traditional religion. The attempt to make gay rights the new civil rights fight is to cast the Catholic Church as the KKK of the 21st century. As more money and power shift to the state, being against the queer agenda denies you access to govt programs. Look at child adoption.
I'm not against gay marriage, just the flanking attack it brings .
Plus, how is this 'right' all of a sudden discovered, and 3000 years of cultural precedence has to act as the radical position.
Also, the govt not backing the law in court, not following up on CO&WA pot laws makes the legal system look arbitrary. It's like blind justice is being made to play Marco Polo trying to get where progressive want it. Can't find a judge to toe the line on reinterpreting a law, just ignore it.
Except the left uses the gay marriage issue, or any other issue, to pander, get elected and further their agenda. They don't actually care about liberty.
Belloc quick question.
Do you think being gay is a choice or something that someone is born with?
Magic_Salad0892
03-24-13, 18:28
I could get behind marriage not being a legal matter. But if it has to be a legal matter, then we can not give the government the power to re-define words.
Magic_Salad0892
03-24-13, 18:29
To point out a reality is not to "focus on sodomy". Homosexuals cannot ever consummate a marriage. And while heterosexuals often also enage in sodomy, the fact is that most do not, while homosexuals can only sodomize each other. And to claim that the homosexual agenda is not strongly and intrinsically linked to the homosexual act is simply self-deception.
Who cares what they do in the bedroom?
Because they can't procreate?
MountainRaven
03-24-13, 18:29
Except the left uses the gay marriage issue, or any other issue, to pander, get elected and further their agenda. They don't actually care about liberty.
And the right does the exact same thing with different issues, like gun control and taxes.
Next question.
Belmont31R
03-24-13, 18:53
I could get behind marriage not being a legal matter. But if it has to be a legal matter, then we can not give the government the power to re-define words.
The government has a vested interest in promoting marriages because it produces kids, and future tax payers.
I agree tax laws and such based around marriage need to go away. I found it AMAZING when I was in the mil two people, same rank, joined same month, one single and one not...when it came tax time these married guys were getting 5-6K in a 'refund'.
These days, if you are middle class, it's probably not financially worth it to have kids. You really need to be making like 75k or more to live comfortable with small kids who take up tons of money. Every time we take our kids in they want to do a 'well child checkup', and they just had one within the last year. Nope won't be seen unless they get $500 out of us for the nurse to do spend 10 minutes checking their eyes, weight, and height.
Or just go on welfare, and get all that for free. In between is really hard because no one making $40-60k a year has thousands of dollars sitting around to spend on BS shit.
Belloc quick question.
Do you think being gay is a choice or something that someone is born with?
While I'm not Belloc, I think homosexuals are born attracted to the same sex. They choose to act on that desire. Just like I was born attracted to 18-24 year old female ass, but I choose to be faithful to my wife and not act on that attraction.
In other words, some of us are lucky in that we were born with attractions and desires that are not considered deviant. Is it fair? Nope, but that does not mean that I want to change the definition of a 3000 year old institution to make life a little more fair.
Who cares what they do in the bedroom?
Because they can't procreate?
For the limited purpose of defining marriage, I care. That is because procreation is a fundamental aspect of the institution of marriage. Otherwise, I don't care if they are 2 consenting adults having a good time and not trying to change a fundamental institution of society.
Magic_Salad0892
03-24-13, 19:23
For the limited purpose of defining marriage, I care. That is because procreation is a fundamental aspect of the institution of marriage. Otherwise, I don't care if they are 2 consenting adults having a good time and not trying to change a fundamental institution of society.
But they can adopt. Which effectively makes that null.
Do you think that a straight man, and woman who cannot produce a child should be forbidden from marriage?
But they can adopt. Which effectively makes that null.
Do you think that a straight man, and woman who cannot produce a child should be forbidden from marriage?
No, adoption is not procreation. We cannot sustain a society with adoption.
No, we should not require fertility testing of heterosexual couples prior to marriage.
Do you disagree that procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage?
I'm not against gay marriage, just the flanking attack it brings .
http://bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.co.at/2011/02/i-do-not-oppose-gay-marriage.html
I do not oppose gay marriage for the simple reason that there is nothing to oppose. It is impossible for me to oppose what does not and cannot exist. It is for this reason that I do not oppose the tax edicts of the Roman emperor Augustus. Neither he nor his edicts exists, so there is literally nothing for me to oppose.
Magic_Salad0892
03-24-13, 20:01
No, adoption is not procreation. We cannot sustain a society with adoption.
Agreed, but we can definetely make some children's lives a lot better.
No, we should not require fertility testing of heterosexual couples prior to marriage.
But if procreation is such a fundamental aspect of marriage, then why not?
Do you disagree that procreation is a fundamental aspect of marriage?
Not to everybody. Many people view monogamy as a fundamental aspect of marriage, but there are married couples who have open relationships, or do porn. Some people get married without the intention of ever having kids. I don't think anybody gets to have a monopoly on what makes a marriage valid. Even by a biblical definiton. I know married athiests. Marriage isn't exclusive to religion either.
Homosexuals can (and do) a lot more than sodomize each other,
No they can't. Look up the definition of sodomy.
Gay sex (male or female) has been legal for a long time, so to claim that it is strongly and intrinsically linked to their "agenda" (which is equality) is absurd.
No it isn't. Active homosexual males, about 1.2-1-5% of the population, are responsible for almost half of all new cases of HIV infection in the US every single year according to the CDC yearly rate of infection report. And this is perhaps the main reason why it is intrinsically linked to their agenda.
Marriage equality is not a republican/dem issue. There are many libertarian type republicans (the pauls come to mind) that do not believe in discrimination. So acting like everyone who agrees with marriage equality is just another obama loving, gun hating, liberal is insane.
Actually, it is equating the act of males sodomizing each other to the bond between a husband and wife that is insane and utterly unhinged from both reason and reality.
You are very good at explaining your beliefs in a non-hateful way and I admire that. However, you are on the wrong side of history and eventually it is YOU that will have to explain to your grandkids about how you supported discrimination (albeit in a eloquent way). Just as racists have had to do. Times are a changing dude and you're gonna have to get with it.
Reality and truth never allow themselves to be long mocked and denied. Indeed this fact is now playing itself out in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and coming soon to an economy near you. As the denial of economic reality always eventually leads to great suffering, so too the denial of moral and objective reality. Always. Never in history has it ever been other.
1. I'm not in lockstep with anybody. I believe in equal liberty for all, so long as it does not infringe on anybody else. You either believe in liberty or you don't.
No. You clearly believe in using government force to pound reality into submission so as to attempt to make equal that which is in nature unequal.
2. One has nothing to do with the other, stay on topic.
Meaning in fact you are not remotely able to explain how homosexual desire is an ontology, nor apparently capable of even simply comprehending the intrinsic pertinence.
3. The government has no Orweillian power to define marriage at all, let alone granting "tax loopholes" or special privileges.
Marriage pre-exists the nation state. Thus even government, like the rest of us, must bend to reality. Pretending otherwise has ever ended rather grimly. And actually, government does in fact have the power and authority to grant "tax loopholes". To claim otherwise is both theatrically ridiculous and astonishingly ignorant.
4. Such as?
You're joking, right?
Belloc quick question.
Do you think being gay is a choice or something that someone is born with?
Neither. And much of the latest research attests to this.
Conduct is a choice however.
If marriage pre dated the State and religion there where do the rules of what constitutes a marriage come from?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 00:22
No. You clearly believe in using government force to pound reality into submission so as to attempt to make equal that which is in nature unequal.
There is no such thing as "marriage" in nature. Marriage is a man-created "thing".
There are some animals who mate for life, others mate with different partners each breeding season, others mate and die.
It is irrefutable that homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species, and homo sapiens are no exception.
Our government condoned HUMAN SLAVERY for the first 70 or so years of our nation's history. "Redefining" marriage in the 21st century, when polls of the People clearly show it has substantial support, is the least of my concerns in the power of government.
OK, can we all agree that their is no other valid reason why gay marriage has become such a prominent issue except for the fact that politicians want to pander for more votes? It has nothing to do with liberty or equality or whatever else...
Now that said can someone please try and articulate a cogent argument as to why the government needs to be involved in anyway shape or form in defining legally what marriage is or is not or between? I firmly believe the government has no business in doing so and frankly the only reason the government is involved and this irrational movement demanding equality has evolved to this point is because of the benefits straight married couples get and homosexuals currently don't. Their should be no financial benefit to being married. That is absolute equality under the law.
Marriage is a man-created "thing".
That is simply your dogmatic religious belief in secular fundamentalism, and it is a belief which you can never prove scientifically.
It is irrefutable that homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species, and homo sapiens are no exception.
Incest and even post-coital cannibalism are also observed in nature, but that does not in any way mean it is natural for us as rational human beings to engage in them. But believe what you will.
Our government condoned HUMAN SLAVERY for the first 70 or so years of our nation's history. "Redefining" marriage in the 21st century, when polls of the People clearly show it has substantial support, is the least of my concerns in the power of government.
And quite a good many polls support bans on standard capacity issue magazines and "assault rifles". Thus the view that tyranny, when by majority poll, poses no concerns simply and tragically evidences the quote in my sig.
If marriage pre dated the State and religion there where do the rules of what constitutes a marriage come from?
I never stated that marriage pre-dates religion, and are you really now claiming that marriage does not in fact pre-date the nation state?
And where do the principles of Natural Law come from? Where does the right to keep and bear arms come from?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 11:16
That is simply your dogmatic religious belief in secular fundamentalism, and it is a belief which you can never prove scientifically.
Please prove your belief scientifically.
I never stated that marriage pre-dates religion, and are you really now claiming that marriage does not in fact pre-date the nation state?
And where do the principles of Natural Law come from? Where does the right to keep and bear arms come from?
So again, where do your laws of marriage come from?
I also never said marriage predates religion or the state, I was asking you a question. I believe marriage to be a spiritual/religious thing.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 12:15
Aren't there more important battles to be fought than worrying over two homos tying the knot?
I think so.
Let them get married and let God judge them for it later on.
The left enjoys making fools out of conservatives over the homo and abortion issues. Time to move on and focus on the more important issues like the economy, monetary policy, tax code and maybe gun rights. Many elections are lost by mouthy candidates that just cannot stop blabbering on about homos or abortion. Most of those people probably don't know any gays or any woman that has ever had an abortion.
Why allow an issue that affects maybe 1-3% of the population to occupy so much of your time? I would bet than many here do not even KNOW and gay people and that gay people have zero effect on their daily lives. So why devote so much time to an issue that affects this tiny part of society?
Sorry...I just cannot get all that worked up over homos.
-brickboy240
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 12:26
Agreed Brickboy. Social issues are not of as near importance as the economy, spending, and the deficit.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 12:45
If you have to ask questions like "do you think gay people were born like that or is it a choice?" then you obviously know NO gay people.
As a person with two known gay people in my family and a few gay friends....every one of them has said...without a doubt...they were born with those leanings. It was not a choice.
Also, I have had more than one gay person tell me that they wish they were not gay. One gay couple I know that adopted a baby boy, said they hoped the boy did not grow up to be gay.
Anyone that believes that gay people are trying to "recruit" your kids or will attempt to have their way with you is completely wrong. Gay people do NOT want to make passes at heteros hoping to "turn" you. That is nonsense.
Also, you might find this shocking buy some gay people I know are repulsed by the whole gay pride scene. They do not want a parade or any special recognition. Some also do not want to marry. Many want to be left alone and live their lives in a private manner. Sound familiar?
I swear...some people just get too worked up over the gay people. Those people are very obvious as ones that have never been around gay people and are just running on hatred, prejudice and fear.
Seriously...some here are making way too big of a deal out of all of this. If two boys trying the knot is going to affect the sanctity of your marriage...then your marriage is not very strong to begin with.
...please
-brickboy240
Please prove your belief scientifically.
The scientific method is necessarily restricted to only that of which can be measured. Thus science is not my 'religion'. You however stated an unproven and unprovable assertion as if it were an established scientific fact, and when asked to simply answer for your own statement, are found wanting. You have a faith based view of the world while pretending you don't. You tend your garden of hypocrisy well.
So again, where do your laws of marriage come from?
I also never said marriage predates religion or the state, I was asking you a question. I believe marriage to be a spiritual/religious thing.
Do you believe marriage pre-dates the nation state or don't you?
And answer my question. Whence comes inalienable rights?
As for marriage, are you asking about it substance or accidents?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 13:37
The scientific method is necessarily restricted to only that of which can be measured. Thus science is not my 'religion'. You however stated an unproven and unprovable assertion as if it were an established scientific fact, and when asked to simply answer for your own statement, are found wanting. You have a faith based view of the world while pretending you don't. You tend your garden of hypocrisy well.
Um... I'll take that as a "no".
If you have to ask questions like "do you think gay people were born like that or is it a choice?" then you obviously know NO gay people.
-brickboy240
That wasn't directed at me was it because I have the exact same experience as you?
Do you believe marriage pre-dates the nation state or don't you?
And answer my question. Whence comes inalienable rights?
As for marriage, are you asking about it substance or accidents?
I believe marriage predates the state but I'm not a marriage historian. I believe marriage to be a spiritual/religious belief. I'm asking you where do your beliefs of marriage come from?
I believe freedom and other rights like that to come from nature. Animals are free to defend themselves just like us. But I don't know of any other species to conduct marriage so I dot think its a "natural" thing.
Aren't there more important battles to be fought than worrying over two homos tying the knot?
I think so.
And you could not be more wrong.
As allowing Hitler to grab and hold Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland, greater Czechoslovakia, and Austria, without even once objecting, was incredibly stupid and ignorant, so too now giving even an inch to the lunatic fascist agenda of Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Boxer equally as incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Would that every single politician who supported the Orwellian term "gay marriage" were defeated in the last election, do you really think our rights protected under the 2nd Amendment would be under threat now?
Are you truly just that utterly detached from sense and reality?
Sorry, you can foolishly pretend all you want that a lot of what Bloomberg, Obama, and Boxer want for America is the right thing, but that might be the very definition of insanity.
I believe freedom and other rights like that to come from nature. Animals are free to defend themselves just like us. But I don't know of any other species to conduct marriage so I dot think its a "natural" thing.
How in the world do you derive objective Natural Law philosophical immaterial principles such as inalienable rights from materialism?
brickboy240
03-25-13, 13:58
I guess because I think that debt/deficit issues, tax policy, monetary policy and gun rights are more important than homos....yeah...call me detached from reality.
The two gay guys down the street cannot forcibly take a part of my earnings and use it for things I don't approve of.
They cannot tell me where to live, what kind of car to drive or dictate what I do on my own property.
They cannot make the dollars in my account worthless.
They cannot take my guns away.
They cannot tell me whom I can associate with.
Basically...they have no power over my daily life.
So yeah...call me detached from reality but I worry MORE about those other issues and LESS about a group of people I rarely deal with and has no real power over my daily life.
Better watch out....the gay people are coming! LOL
You people kill me. No wonder why we are losing on the big issues.
Abortion and gays will continue to be the albatross for the conservatives in America. Sad....we will lose everything because of homos and abortion.
-brickboy240
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 14:08
Would that every single politician who supported the Orwellian term "gay marriage" were defeated in the last election, do you really think our rights protected under the 2nd Amendment would be under threat now?
Are you truly just that utterly detached from sense and reality?
"Gay marriage" is an Orwellian term now? Seriously? Really? Did you really just say that, or am I mistaken?
I guess because I think that debt/deficit issues, tax policy, monetary policy and gun rights are more important than homos....yeah...call me detached from reality.
Now you are simply, and quite very deliberately, being patently dishonest.
Again, that you have no problem supporting any of the lunatic fascist agenda of Obama, Boxer, Feinstein, Cuomo, and Bloomberg, evidences your wilful separation from sense and reality.
And the reason you did not even attempt to answer my question that had every single politician who supported the Orwellian term "gay marriage" been defeated in the last election, do you really think our rights protected under the 2nd Amendment would be under threat now, is because you would have to either again be dishonest, or be confronted with the sheer ignorant stupidity of supporting any of the Obama agenda.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 14:33
Oh please.
You have just exemplified why I am not a social conservative.
The far right might SAY they are for freedom and liberty and waive the flag an all but they are tyrants of the same strength as those on the left. They are just tyrannical about different issues.
The far right would have us live in a theocracy full of censorship and other restrictions. Pushing for bans on gays or abortions...some might even push for prohibition of alcohol again.
The far right is as restrictive as the far left and part of the problem, if you ask me. Just another faction that is trying to control everyone's daily lives.
It seems weird that many here get all riled up about the left trying to tell you what guns you can own or what you have to do with your own business or other restrictive policy comes along.
However, they want to make it illegal for gays to marry and outlaw abortion.
Well...you either believe in liberty and all its warts and trappings or you do not. Like the Constitution....you cannot just cherry pick the parts you like and ban the rest. Isn't that what the left is trying to do?
I fail to see how this makes me "dishonest" or some sort of supporter of all that Obama and the left wish to bring forward.
You make it seem as if it is "all or nothing" and sorry...life is just not that way. Does not make me "dishonest" or a leftist plant...sorry.
In fact, it is usually the LEFT that makes gay marriage out to be a more important issue than it actually is. You are doing their work. I am here to tell you there ARE more important issues.
-brickboy240
With every post you again evidence that you are given to emotive rationalisations instead of actual sense and reason.
Foolishly and with breathtaking ignorance claim the lunatic fascistic path for this nation as set forth by the agenda of Obama and Feinstein is one of "liberty" all you want, it only very sadly and tragically again validates an assertion once made by my logic professor that "it would seem all but impossible to use logic and reason to move someone away from any position that they did not use logic and reason to arrive at in the first place."
brickboy240
03-25-13, 15:00
So it is "logical" to believe that keeping the homos from marrying is more important than solving the fiscal issues that face our country? This is the biggest demon we face?
...mm-kay
Also, I never said that the Obama agenda meant liberty. Where are you getting this stuff?
Call me ignorant all you want but reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
-brickboy240
NeoNeanderthal
03-25-13, 15:02
I do not agree, and take offense to lumping anyone who believes in marriage equality in with Obama and other left wing liberals. Dick Cheney is all about gay marriage to. It is nearly impossible to find a party or even a politician with whom you agree with 100%. So to act like the assault rifle owning members of this board in fact side with liberals is retarded.
Is it not possible for a conservative to believe in conserving individual rights, natural resources, and finances?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 15:03
Actual "sense and reason" says stop caring about preventing 1.5% of the population from having a marriage and care about important issues.
However, I know that Belloc will simply call me "ignorant" whilst using a long string of scrambled words once again circle reasoning that I do not understand "natural law" and that I contain to much "secular religious faith" or whatever.
It's quite humorous!
Actual "sense and reason" says stop caring about preventing 1.5% of the population from having a marriage and care about important issues.
However, I know that Belloc will simply call me "ignorant" whilst using a long string of scrambled words once again circle reasoning that I do not understand "natural law" and that I contain to much "secular religious faith" or whatever.
It's quite humorous!
Actually, it's about faulty presuppositions and disobedience to the Lord's commandments. Don't you wonder why people keep mistaking you for an atheist when you actually claim to be a Christian?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 16:17
Actually, it's about faulty presuppositions and disobedience to the Lord's commandments. Don't you wonder why people keep mistaking you for an atheist when you actually claim to be a Christian?
What "people" are you referring to?
brickboy240
03-25-13, 16:18
I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I do a socialistic police state.
If this makes me a heathen or "dishonest" then so be it.
Too much religion causes things like inquisitions and planes being run into buildings.
Count me out on the theocracy OR the socialist state, please.
-brickboy240
What "people" are you referring to?
Well that would be me, and Belloc for starters.
I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I do a socialistic police state.
If this makes me a heathen or "dishonest" then so be it.
Too much religion causes things like inquisitions and planes being run into buildings.
Count me out on the theocracy OR the socialist state, please.
-brickboy240
1+ to this. I want neither a theocracy nor socialism. I tend to prefer freedom. As I e always said. If you don't like abortions then don't have one and raise your children to not need one. If you wish to for I'd them the ability to have an abortion in case of some tragic event then so be it. I won't tell you how to deal with your internal problems. If you feel that people who have abortions are heathens then by all means feel free to never associate with someone who you think may have one. You can also rest assured that God will eventually make judgement upon their souls and take appropriate action when the time comes. No need for government intervention.
If you don't believe in homosexual marriage them just don't marry a homosexual and you'll be fine.
RancidSumo
03-25-13, 16:38
This thread now holds many of the top spots on my list of the most stupid comments I've seen on M4C.
1+ to this. I want neither a theocracy nor socialism. I tend to prefer freedom. As I e always said. If you don't like abortions then don't have one and raise your children to not need one. If you wish to for I'd them the ability to have an abortion in case of some tragic event then so be it. I won't tell you how to deal with your internal problems. If you feel that people who have abortions are heathens then by all means feel free to never associate with someone who you think may have one. You can also rest assured that God will eventually make judgement upon their souls and take appropriate action when the time comes. No need for government intervention.
If you don't believe in homosexual marriage them just don't marry a homosexual and you'll be fine.
And this is what? Your preference, or some profound truth you've discovered?
This thread now holds many of the top spots on my list of the most stupid comments I've seen on M4C.
Then move on, okie dokie.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 17:00
I don't have all the answers, either.
However, if you believe...then let God judge people later for their bad decisions. Be it abortion or a gay lifestyle. Neither of these should be decided upon by a government body.
People should be free to make good....or bad decisions and then they should be expected to live with the results.
-brickboy240
Actual "sense and reason" says stop caring about preventing 1.5% of the population from having a marriage and care about important issues.
However, I know that Belloc will simply call me "ignorant" whilst using a long string of scrambled words once again circle reasoning that I do not understand "natural law" and that I contain to much "secular religious faith" or whatever.
It's quite humorous!
That you find even english, your mother tongue, confounding, says all that need be said. Ignorance is rather a heavy cross to carry, and I shouldn't imagine your wilful decision to loose your grip on sense and reason, so as to support any of the Obama/Boxer/Feinstein/Cuomo fascistic agenda, will lighten the burden any.
But best of luck.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 17:11
Yeah yeah....we are all idiots and YOU are the only brilliant one....we get that.
I am having Glock Talk flashbacks! LOL
(we are through here...aren't we?)
-brickboy240
Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children
“The redefining of marriage, quite frankly I think it’s nuts,” said Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a homosexual. “Being gay, I’ve had a long time to consider this, look at it.”
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures."
Yeah yeah....we are all idiots and YOU are the only brilliant one....we get that.
I am having Glock Talk flashbacks! LOL
(we are through here...aren't we?)
-brickboy240
I wouldn't say your an idiot in the sense that you don't know 2+2=4. But you are heading toward reprobation, no doubt.
I wouldn't say your an idiot in the sense that you don't know 2+2=4. But you are heading toward reprobation, no doubt.
The problem is that he views issues in like fashion as Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo, i.e. emotively, which I presume may be the reason he has no problem advocating their agenda here.
RancidSumo
03-25-13, 17:29
Yeah yeah....we are all idiots and YOU are the only brilliant one....we get that.
I am having Glock Talk flashbacks! LOL
(we are through here...aren't we?)
-brickboy240
I think I've got their reasoning figured out. It goes something like this:
Since Obama believes in/does/likes (insert topic), and Obama is a fascist, if you believe in/do/like (insert topic) then you are a fascist too.
So for this discussion it goes like this:
Since Obama supports gay marriage and is a fascist, and since I don't believe the government should be in the business of telling people who they are allowed to marry, I must be a fascist too.
It's really quite simple if you don't believe that logic and reason are important.
It's really quite simple if you don't believe that logic and reason are important.
Which evidently you don't. Worse still than your rather undeniable intrinsic aversion to logic and reason is your antipathy for honesty.
Well played.
RancidSumo
03-25-13, 17:44
Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children
“The redefining of marriage, quite frankly I think it’s nuts,” said Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a homosexual. “Being gay, I’ve had a long time to consider this, look at it.”
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures."
So to sum those articles up, children turn out better when they live in a household with a mother and a father?
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 17:52
I think I've got their reasoning figured out. It goes something like this:
Since Obama believes in/does/likes (insert topic), and Obama is a fascist, if you believe in/do/like (insert topic) then you are a fascist too.
So for this discussion it goes like this:
Since Obama supports gay marriage and is a fascist, and since I don't believe the government should be in the business of telling people who they are allowed to marry, I must be a fascist too.
It's really quite simple if you don't believe that logic and reason are important.
You summed it up perfectly.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 17:54
Belloc. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my comments on page 2.
I don't intend to do debate with you at this time, but I'm interested in your viewpoint. As mine is near the same as GeorgaBoy.
Belloc. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my comments on page 2.
I don't intend to do debate with you at this time, but I'm interested in your viewpoint. As mine is near the same as GeorgaBoy.
Which ones specifically?
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 18:19
Which ones specifically?
The ones regarding procreation being a fundamental principle of marriage, and that not being true for everybody.
The ones regarding procreation being a fundamental principle of marriage, and that not being true for everybody.
It is a fundamental principle that procreation is always possible between men and women, and that principle is not abrogated even when confronted by individual cases of sterility, impotence, or barrenness. Homosexual sodomy and copulation however are always in principle infertile and sterile.
The most fundamental principle in marriage is that it has always been between men and women. All else is subordinate to that principle. Abrogate that most fundamental principle and all that is subordinate is necessarily negated.
Aren't there more important battles to be fought than worrying over two homos tying the knot?
I think so.
Let them get married and let God judge them for it later on.
The left enjoys making fools out of conservatives over the homo and abortion issues. Time to move on and focus on the more important issues like the economy, monetary policy, tax code and maybe gun rights. Many elections are lost by mouthy candidates that just cannot stop blabbering on about homos or abortion. Most of those people probably don't know any gays or any woman that has ever had an abortion.
Why allow an issue that affects maybe 1-3% of the population to occupy so much of your time? I would bet than many here do not even KNOW and gay people and that gay people have zero effect on their daily lives. So why devote so much time to an issue that affects this tiny part of society?
Sorry...I just cannot get all that worked up over homos.
-brickboy240
This is pretty much my point. While it's against what I personally believe, I also support liberty, just as God allows free will. We have more important things to focus on as a country that will destroy it faster than gay marriage. The Fed, monetary policy, and fractional reserve banking for starters.
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 18:43
So the bottom line is:
1. You think, out of tradition, "marriage" in its human form should be for only men and women.
2. You think that the government GRANTING (giving the legal ability) for two same-sex people the chance of marrying is some sort of "Orwellian" "Fascist" "power", and is far worse than our economy and debt crisis.
NeoNeanderthal
03-25-13, 18:50
The most fundamental principle in marriage is that it has always been between men and women. All else is subordinate to that principle. Abrogate that most fundamental principle and all that is subordinate is necessarily negated.
Hmm. I see the most fundamental principle in marriage to be that the participants are in love. What sex organs they have is subordinate to that.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 18:56
Hmm. I see the most fundamental principle in marriage to be that the participants are in love. What sex organs they have is subordinate to that.
I would agree.
So the bottom line is:
1. You think, out of tradition, "marriage" in its human form should be for only men and women.
2. You think that the government GRANTING (giving the legal ability) for two same-sex people the chance of marrying is some sort of "Orwellian" "Fascist" "power", and is far worse than our economy and debt crisis.
I think it rather self-evident that your irrational and purely emotive support of any of Feinstein's and Cuomo's and Obama's repugnant agenda is based on nothing other than wilful puerile ignorance and a disdain for those principles of ordered liberty upon which the Founders said freedom and liberty could only securely stand.
That you concede that government does in fact posses the Orwellian power and authority to actually redefine the substance of any terms it sees fit, for any reason it so desires, only reinforces the belief in your intrinsic contemptuousness for logic and reason.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 19:00
I think it rather self-evident that your irrational and purely emotive support of any of Feinstein's and Cuomo's and Obama's repugnant agenda is based on nothing other than wilful puerile ignorance and a disdain for those principles of ordered liberty upon which the Founders said freedom and liberty could only securely stand.
That you concede that government does in fact posses the Orwellian power and authority to actually redefine the substance of any terms it sees fit, for any reason it so desires, only reinforces the belief in your intrinsic contemptuousness for logic and reason.
My problem is that there was NO legal definition of marriage BEFORE the DOMA was passed. Without that law, I would be in support of gay marriage, but I cannot support letting the government have the power to define words. That's all it is for me. In principle I do believe in gay marriage however, and that DOESN'T make me a fascist.
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 19:06
Sigh..
I'm stepping out. Quite tired of being categorized with the "fascist" Obama and Feinstein because I support ONE socially liberal/libertarian position. That foolish accusation completely invalidates the rest of your argument. I doubt your logic professor would approve.
Hmm. I see the most fundamental principle in marriage to be that the participants are in love. What sex organs they have is subordinate to that.
You would be wrong. The notion of romantic love as we understand it, is rather quite modern, thus not any kind of fundamental principle. You would also be at pains to explain how a changing emotion is a fundamental principle of anything. But do have at it. I should like to see you give it your best attempt.
And what of University of Columbia professor David Epstein's 3 year romantic and sexual consensual relationship with his adult daughter? Does your assertion that love being some sort of fundamental principle mean you would advocate for their "right" to marry?
Likewise the same question concerning poet William Wordsworth, who apparently was very deeply and passionately in love with his own sister.
Sigh..
I'm stepping out. Quite tired of being categorized with the "fascist" Obama and Feinstein because I support ONE socially liberal/libertarian position. That foolish accusation completely invalidates the rest of your argument. I doubt your logic professor would approve.
A good many libertarians do not agree that government has any power or authority whatsoever to redefine the term marriage, as you irrationally claim, to mean any damn thing it so wishes. And if you have no desire to be categorised with Obama, Cuomo, and Boxer, then by all means stop supporting any of their patently stupid agenda.
My problem is that there was NO legal definition of marriage BEFORE the DOMA was passed. Without that law, I would be in support of gay marriage, but I cannot support letting the government have the power to define words. That's all it is for me. In principle I do believe in gay marriage however, and that DOESN'T make me a fascist.
Is there a legal definition of a tree? The only reason DOMA was necessary was because of the continual assault of the homofascist lobby on moral reasoning, common sense, and objective reality.
But I will put the question to you as well. Notwithstanding the fact that the present notion of romantic love is a very modern incarnation, how do you suppose an emotion to be a fundamental principle of anything?
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 19:33
Is there a legal definition of a tree? The only reason DOMA was necessary was because of the continual assault of the homofascist lobby on moral reasoning, common sense, and objective reality.
A tree in most cases doesn't have legal effect. Marriage always has a legal effect. That was a terrible example. DOMA wasn't necessary, and Clinton doing things that are necessary is extremely rare, if existent at all.
But I will put the question to you as well. Notwithstanding the fact that the present notion of romantic love is a very modern incarnation, how do you suppose an emotion to be a fundamental principle of anything?
Because it's the reason that most people even get married, and it's been that way for a very long time. You don't need marriage to have children, and you don't need marriage to be in a romantic relationship with somebody.
While I do think that children are entitled to a biological mother, and father. Children who are put up for adoption aren't going to get that anyway, so a loving couple, even if they're gay are going to give them a better chance at a better life than they had anyway.
Also, the way somebody chooses to have sex should have no place i the decision as to if they should be allowed to get married or not. That's nobody's business but their own. Or the internet, if you're one of the weirdos who join sex forums. Yes. They exist.
I do believe in that emotion being the principle of marriage. I mean. Seriously. Wedding vows. What do most people say in their vows?
How in the world do you derive objective Natural Law philosophical immaterial principles such as inalienable rights from materialism?
Quite frankly I don't know what they **** this response even means. Can you dumb it down for me?
Also can you please answer this question without asking me some ****ing big worded question..... Where does the definition of marriage come from? Who decided what it was?
A tree in most cases doesn't have legal effect. Marriage always has a legal effect. That was a terrible example. DOMA wasn't necessary, and Clinton doing things that are necessary is extremely rare, if existent at all.
You missed the point. A thing can only be what it is, and cannot be other.
Because it's the reason that most people even get married, and it's been that way for a very long time.
A reason is not a fundamental principle. And how long exactly do you suppose it has been so?
Also, the way somebody chooses to have sex should have no place i the decision as to if they should be allowed to get married or not. That's nobody's business but their own. Or the internet, if you're one of the weirdos who join sex forums. Yes. They exist.
Really? Rape, incest, necrophlia, beastiality, pedophilia, etc, are not impediments to marriage?
I do believe in that emotion being the principle of marriage.
What it is exactly that you mean by "fundamental principle" because clearly we are not talking about the same thing.
And I take this to mean that you then in fact would support the "right" of University of Columbia professor David Epstein, (who had a 3 year romantic and sexual consensual relationship with his adult daughter) and the poet William Wordsworth, (who apparently was very deeply and passionately in love with his own sister) to marry their siblings?
__________________
MountainRaven
03-25-13, 20:10
Really? Rape, incest, necrophlia, beastiality, pedophilia, etc, are not impediments to marriage?
Historically? Nope.
Historically, if you were a man and you went on crusade, you raped women. If you were a man and lived in Sparta, you had a wife and a little boy who, ahem, you had sexual relations with. Until Christianity came to Ireland, the king of Ireland was supposed to, as part of his coronation, have sex with a mare. Kings don't beget princes and princesses without queens. And kings and queens in general? Incest left and right.
Necrophilia is the only one that I cannot think of an example of as having been normal at one point or another in history. (Unless Egyptian mythology counts.)
What a supremely confused group this is. We wonder where our moral compass has wandered to in the age of glorified thugs shooting babies in the face while debating if a man and man are equal to a man and a woman relationship wise. Even rats and insects figured that one out, but we're simple enough to now debate it like the supposed intellects we hoped we were.
The leftist media has already won and some don't even know they have been conquered.
It is a fundamental principle that procreation is always possible between men and women, and that principle is not abrogated even when confronted by individual cases of sterility, impotence, or barrenness. Homosexual sodomy and copulation however are always in principle infertile and sterile.
The most fundamental principle in marriage is that it has always been between men and women. All else is subordinate to that principle. Abrogate that most fundamental principle and all that is subordinate is necessarily negated.
I agree with you. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Gays have domestic partnerships. They should be happy and stop pushing for marriage. :mad:
In the guise of intelligent evolution and increased awareness we mass produce weapons of mass destruction. The air in some cities is so polluted you can cut it with a knife, the water so wretched even resilient aquatic life perishes. But we are so great, so advanced.
Now we've gotten so smart we can't settle upon a definition of natural companionship, the very same natural companionship that brought us to life. Maybe it's come time for our comet to hit.
Or ok, maybe after the next American idol is chosen so at least it'll all have been worth it to a meaningful extent.
Even rats and insects figured that one out, but we're simple enough to now debate it like the supposed intellects we hoped we were.Whatever the "homosexual" equivalent is between animals, it is quite common in many species including dogs, monkeys, even giraffes.
Whatever the "homosexual" equivalent is between animals, it is quite common in many species including dogs, monkeys, even giraffes.
Another South Park fan, eh?
theblackknight
03-25-13, 21:11
Let this be a lesson to keep your religious institutions out of the state's bed, unless you like the ****ing mess it has made.:D
RancidSumo
03-25-13, 22:06
A good many libertarians do not agree that government has any power or authority whatsoever to redefine the term marriage, as you irrationally claim, to mean any damn thing it so wishes. And if you have no desire to be categorised with Obama, Cuomo, and Boxer, then by all means stop supporting any of their patently stupid agenda.
Any philosophically consistent libertarian or supporter of personal liberty would take the position that the government should stay out of marriage altogether.
Whatever the "homosexual" equivalent is between animals, it is quite common in many species including dogs, monkeys, even giraffes.
Can you give specific examples? In other words tell us of a documented, socially successful gay giraffe couple or their animal equivalent. Also clarify if they are gay for life, gay for a day or bisexual. And don't forget to mention how they can make other giraffes, because obviously they must be able to somehow will the reality into existence, just like humans do when nature becomes problematic.
Personally I don't doubt that being gay is a natural phenomenon and I certainly don't dislike gays by default. But if we really allow our enlightened, tolerant selves to believe that overall there should be no difference in the substance or perception of a same sex marriage then let us reap what we sow.
Heck, endless tolerance and enlightment is working positive wonders in our inner cities each day, why not spread the wealth?
Since few animals mate for life, I suppose it wouldn't be a life long relationship. I figured that engaging in homosexual activity make you a homosexual. I was merely pointing out that your assumption that rats and insects have it figured out was incorrect. If you feel like it, I imagine you could Google "homosexuality in animals" and learn all you like. Me, I could care less.
I think the government has no business whatsoever in sanctioning marriages. I also think that the government and it's regulations should not be involved with granting preference (or prejudice) against married couples; such as tax breaks for those that are married or insurance regulations that favor married couples.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-25-13, 22:55
"Gay marriage" is an Orwellian term now? Seriously? Really? Did you really just say that, or am I mistaken?
I could think of nothing more diabolical than making all gay people get married, now that would be Orwellian.
I wouldn't say your an idiot in the sense that you don't know 2+2=4. But you are heading toward reprobation, no doubt.
you're not your
sorry, had to be done.
Is there a legal definition of a tree?
This is what I have the most problem with, the whole 'gay marriage' thing seemed to pop out of quantum nothingness to be the default position? Forty years ago it would have been almost seen as being alarmist if you wanted to try to pass a man-woman marriage limitation. In the vacuum of this, the gay marriage position has slipped in. Gay marriage didn't even pass in CA of all places.
But on the bigger picture of marriage, gays are but the cherry on the sundae of modern societies attack on marriage. The number of out of wed lock kids, people with more spouses than Liz Taylor, marriages lasting less time than the wedding gift kitchen appliances among other things all are symptoms of a society that has done its best to destroy marriage from every angle.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 22:58
You missed the point. A thing can only be what it is, and cannot be other.
Context, and meaning can change over time. You missed the point.
A reason is not a fundamental principle. And how long exactly do you suppose it has been so?
Then I'd argue that the fundamental principles are different for everybody, and nobody elses businesses. And I'd guess 100 years plus.
Really? Rape, incest, necrophlia, beastiality, pedophilia, etc, are not impediments to marriage?
Homosexuality is not any of those things. Those are their own seperate arguments. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another willing, non-blood related man, of legal age is not the same as molesting a child, or raping a woman.
What it is exactly that you mean by "fundamental principle" because clearly we are not talking about the same thing.
A traditional value, or reason. Sometimes these things change.
And I take this to mean that you then in fact would support the "right" of University of Columbia professor David Epstein, (who had a 3 year romantic and sexual consensual relationship with his adult daughter) and the poet William Wordsworth, (who apparently was very deeply and passionately in love with his own sister) to marry their siblings?
I don't believe in incest, and I've never claimed to. That's a straw argument.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 22:59
I could think of nothing more diabolical than making all gay people get married, now that would be Orwellian.
What?
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-25-13, 23:28
Originally Posted by GeorgiaBoy View Post
"Gay marriage" is an Orwellian term now? Seriously? Really? Did you really just say that, or am I mistaken?
I could think of nothing more diabolical than making all gay people get married, now that would be Orwellian.
What?
Sorry trying to by funny. It would be ultimate in Orwellian twistedness if the govt made gay people get married.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-13, 23:29
Sorry trying to by funny. It would be ultimate in Orwellian twistedness if the govt made gay people get married.
Oh. Sorry, bro. I thought you were actually implying that that's what the government was really trying to do.
Any philosophically consistent libertarian or supporter of personal liberty would take the position that the government should stay out of marriage altogether.
That actually is, as far as I know, the majority opinion of libertarians. Therefore I pointed out the dishonesty in the claim that conceding government is so all powerful that it can even change the very meaning of words to anything it so wishes, for whatever reason it so chooses.
Whatever the "homosexual" equivalent is between animals, it is quite common in many species including dogs, monkeys, even giraffes.
Which matters not a whit. Incest, and even post coital cannibalism are "found in nature" as well, and also committed by humans, but that does not mean it is natural for humans, who unlike wild animals are rational creatures, to engage in that behaviour.
"Thus [even] Plato, speaking through the character of the Athenian stranger in Laws, rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), and even describes it as a “crime” (tolmema)."
"In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle himself refers to homosexuality as a form of "brutality"- a vice so beneath human nature that those who engage in it are like beasts."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/in-the-case-of-martha-nussbaum-9
This is what I have the most problem with, the whole 'gay marriage' thing seemed to pop out of quantum nothingness to be the default position? Forty years ago it would have been almost seen as being alarmist if you wanted to try to pass a man-woman marriage limitation. In the vacuum of this, the gay marriage position has slipped in. Gay marriage didn't even pass in CA of all places.
But on the bigger picture of marriage, gays are but the cherry on the sundae of modern societies attack on marriage. The number of out of wed lock kids, people with more spouses than Liz Taylor, marriages lasting less time than the wedding gift kitchen appliances among other things all are symptoms of a society that has done its best to destroy marriage from every angle.
I tend to agree, which is why I consider the "slippery slope fallacy" itself a fallacy. It is the slippery slope fallacy fallacy. For every time the argument was made against the lunatic left's fundamentalist agenda that "this is not only wrong, but will lead to this other wrong", it has born out. Does not what is presently transpiring with the concerted attack on our 2nd Amendment protected rights witness the truth of this?
Context, and meaning can change over time. You missed the point.
Only for accidentals, not for substances. In 1000 years the term "tree" may mean "dog", but it will never mean, and can never mean, that what we today mean by "dog". Any position held counter to this fact is the very definition of Orwellian "doublespeak". 2+2= anything.
Then I'd argue that the fundamental principles are different for everybody, and nobody elses businesses. And I'd guess 100 years plus.
Then they are by definition not fundamental principles. Reality is what it is, denying it changes nothing.
Homosexuality is not any of those things. Those are their own seperate arguments. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another willing, non-blood related man, of legal age is not the same as molesting a child, or raping a woman.
And none of those things are any of the other things. That is not a rebuttal.
A traditional value, or reason. Sometimes these things change.
Again, that simply is not what a fundamental principle is.
I don't believe in incest, and I've never claimed to. That's a straw argument.
How exactly is it, by definition, a "straw argument"?
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 05:23
That actually is, as far as I know, the majority opinion of libertarians. Therefore I pointed out the dishonesty in the claim that conceding government is so all powerful that it can even change the very meaning of words to anything it so wishes, for whatever reason it so chooses.
I don't understand what you are saying.
Referring to the assertion of GB concerning the libertarian position.
I don't believe in incest, and I've never claimed to. That's a straw argument.
What makes incest any worse or more unatural than two men? Your personal opinion?
What makes incest any worse or more unatural than two men? Your personal opinion?
Two men is like a sterile man and woman. Incest can produce genetic defects.
Two men is like a sterile man and woman. Incest can produce genetic defects.
Nothing personal against you but this is exactly what I mean about the media already having softened our sensible defenses to the point of near oblivion.
Incest was practiced, largely successfully minus some of the mentioned rare defects, by many extremely noteworthy families in history. Families that established and ruled dynasties, families that will be remembered forever. Isn't my preferred way of course, but it worked well for many while they sustained their existence.
How many generations of leaders did two men ever conceive? And how many, including children, have died as a result of the disease that started with butt-fu*king in Africa?
Two men is like a sterile man and woman. Incest can produce genetic defects.
What about incest between sterile siblings, or siblings who are both either male or female?
What about incest between sterile siblings, or siblings who are both either male or female?
Why does it have to be that complicated? Let them answer the initial questions with something other than obscure facts or personal perceptions first.
Remember that unlike you I'm not coming from a primarily religious angle as much as I am a practical and honest one. Not making you wrong, but they have two seperate mindsets to overcome as opposed to one.
How many generations of leaders did two men ever conceive?
I think you know the answer to this unless you failed biology.
And how many, including children, have died as a result of the disease that started with butt-fu*king in Africa?
HIV didn't start with "butt-fu*king in Africa." It spreads because people don't use protection, whether because the church bans contraception, because its not available, or because people didn't think about STDs, only pregnancy.
As for same sex incest, if it's consensual (no coercion and both are of age for informed consent) I don't have a problem. I wouldn't do it. But why are you trying to judge people when they aren't harming anyone else? Incest with the chance of pregnancy DOES hurt someone else. But if that's not possible, then get the hell out of their business. Let God judge them, that's not your responsibility.
Why does it have to be that complicated? Let them answer the initial questions with something other than obscure facts or personal perceptions first.
Because it has been my experience that they won't.
Remember that unlike you I'm not coming from a primarily religious angle as much as I am a practical and honest one. Not making you wrong, but they have two seperate mindsets to overcome as opposed to one.
Actually I approach it from a philosophical (my first degree) angle. Although I have been known on occasion to quote some of the Founding Father's thoughts concerning ordered liberty and its dependence on, to use their words, religion, virtue, and morality, without attributing the quote so as to give the impression that the sentiment was of my origins. More than a half dozen times on TOS this resulted in (which I knew it would and was the very reason for doing so) being called a "theocrat" and even "just like the Taliban". When I then revealed the Founder who wrote the quote the knee-jerk reply was always, "You took it out of context!" When asked how the quote was out of context, they never replied. Not once. Not ever. And so it goes.
HIV didn't start with "butt-fu*king in Africa." It spreads because people don't use protection, whether because the church bans contraception, because its not available, or because people didn't think about STDs, only pregnancy.
That is flat out incorrect. Contraceptives, when used perfectly, without any mistakes, still are only about 80% successful. What percentage of people do not use contraceptives correctly I don't recall, but it is significant. Thus HIV still would have spread.
And tens of millions of people, and including tens of millions of homosexuals, have access to things like condemns, don't give a whit about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding sexual ethics, are fully aware of both the dangers of STDs and pregnancy, and still decide not to use them.
And the Church does not "ban contraception", it teaches that it is sinful to use it. But it also teaches that sodomy, adultery, incest, fornication, etc, are also sinful, and people rather ignore those teachings as well.
I agree with you. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Gays have domestic partnerships. They should be happy and stop pushing for marriage. :mad:
God allows free will, why shouldn't the state allow liberty?
God allows free will, why shouldn't the state allow liberty?
So you support incestuous marriage.
That is rather disgusting.
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 12:14
Some people in this thread really need to get laid.
;)
HIV didn't start with "butt-fu*king in Africa."
Check again.
It spreads because people don't use protection...
Who asked how it's spread? What does that have to do with this discussion? The disease originated in Africa via gay sex and has killed millions, including non-gays since. The fantasy that being gay is harmless is just that, even if for that one and only reason.
Couple it with the degenerative effect on society when two men are seen as the equal to a man and a woman and hence see another blatant contribution to the destabilizing of humanity. And look I'm not looking to change anyone's mind and there is no hate involved here, but we are an extremely imperfect people capable of screwing all kinds of incredibly important things up as a matter of routine.
So yes, we sure can collectively screw something up as simple as the fundamental and life-bearing relationship between a man and a woman. And so far no one can legitimize why incest is bad while two men is ok.
Pretty sad that I'm somehow defending incest to prove this point, obviously time to get back to work. Good luck Belloc, I'm out.
Some people in this thread really need to get laid.
;)
This is the best thing I've read in this whole thread, from any side of the argument.
MountainRaven
03-26-13, 12:36
So... Anyone care to venture why the government has any business being in the marriage or civil union business in the first place?
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-26-13, 12:52
I tend to agree, which is why I consider the "slippery slope fallacy" itself a fallacy. It is the slippery slope fallacy fallacy. For every time the argument was made against the lunatic left's fundamentalist agenda that "this is not only wrong, but will lead to this other wrong", it has born out. Does not what is presently transpiring with the concerted attack on our 2nd Amendment protected rights witness the truth of this?
Remember how Santorum was crucified when he said the repeal of sodomy laws would be used to further gay marriage- and that is exactly what happened.
Some people in this thread really need to get laid.
;)
Too many married guys wishing their wives would do 'unnatural' acts for them. ;) I've been married for 13 years, I don't do business trips over my birthday anymore....
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 13:03
Nothing personal against you but this is exactly what I mean about the media already having softened our sensible defenses to the point of near oblivion.
Incest was practiced, largely successfully minus some of the mentioned rare defects, by many extremely noteworthy families in history. Families that established and ruled dynasties, families that will be remembered forever. Isn't my preferred way of course, but it worked well for many while they sustained their existence.
How many generations of leaders did two men ever conceive? And how many, including children, have died as a result of the disease that started with butt-fu*king in Africa?
This post is hilarious. I'd love to see your study showing that somehow gay sex is what created HIV.
Check again.
You're confusing its spread in America and the western world with its origins in Africa. I respectfully suggest that you "check again."
Couple it with the degenerative effect on society when two men are seen as the equal to a man and a woman and hence see another blatant contribution to the destabilizing of humanity. And look I'm not looking to change anyone's mind and there is no hate involved here, but we are an extremely imperfect people capable of screwing all kinds of incredibly important things up as a matter of routine.
What kind of degenerative effect on society are you talking about? Please give examples.
And so far no one can legitimize why incest is bad while two men is ok.
I already stated my opinion on the matter, both are ok if consenting individuals without possibility of harming a child.
And the Church does not "ban contraception", it teaches that it is sinful to use it. But it also teaches that sodomy, adultery, incest, fornication, etc, are also sinful, and people rather ignore those teachings as well.
De facto ban for anyone Catholic.
This post is hilarious. I'd love to see your study showing that somehow gay sex is what created HIV.
This.
So... Anyone care to venture why the government has any business being in the marriage or civil union business in the first place?
You mean other than some sort of financial benefit somewhere?
Unfortunately, many of the second or third order effects of marriage have some sort of effect on how you deal with the government, or what rights or privileges or benefits other entities confer on you, and your legal recourse to not receiving such treatment. Government recognition of marriage, union, or whatever you want to call it is the first step in the government protecting what rights and privileges you have because of your status. Until someone changes that, it is what it is.
I work with and socialize with gays, lesbians, and folks of similar persuasions literally every day. They are coworkers, customers, and friends. I've never heard any of them ask for marriage. They've asked for rights and privileges that the government confers on married hetero couples, but to them, "marriage" is a religious term and construct, and they understand very well that "marriage" is under the purview of the churches, a ceremony or status to be done at their discretion.
The media, and the demagogues, have done a great job muddying this up. No one wants to take your church away, force churches to perform these ceremonies, or sterilize what you as a hetero couple have together. What people want is a means by which they can be recognized as spouses for the purposes of health care accommodations, property rights, legal issues, and final preparations/living will stuff. Some states have this in varying degrees; some do not. When one has to access these benefits in a state where their union is not recognized, or do business with a company residing in another state, it becomes problematic, due to DOMA, among other things. Think of it as FOPA or permit reciprocity for homosexuality.
You don't have to tolerate it in your church, or your household, but the arguments that some folks should be allowed to join as couples, while others should not, has been used in previous years and places, for other groups. These groups were eventually allowed to access these benefits or rights, and the sky hasn't fallen. Make of that what you will.
De facto ban for anyone Catholic.
It is no more a "ban" than the Church teaching that adultery is sinful is a "ban" on adultery.
HIV didn't start with "butt-fu*king in Africa." It spreads because people don't use protection, whether because the church bans contraception, because its not available, or because people didn't think about STDs, only pregnancy.
That is flat out incorrect. Contraceptives, when used perfectly, without any mistakes, still are only about 80% successful. What percentage of people do not use contraceptives correctly I don't recall, but it is significant. Thus HIV still would have spread.
And tens of millions of people, and including tens of millions of homosexuals, have access to things like condemns, don't give a whit about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding sexual ethics, are fully aware of both the dangers of STDs and pregnancy, and still decide not to use them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Does the fact that you did not attempt to deny that your assertions here were also patently false mean you concede that fact?
I work with and socialize with gays, lesbians, and folks of similar persuasions literally every day. They are coworkers, customers, and friends. I've never heard any of them ask for marriage. They've asked for rights and privileges that the government confers on married hetero couples, but to them, "marriage" is a religious term and construct, and they understand very well that "marriage" is under the purview of the churches, a ceremony or status to be done at their discretion.
From my post several pages back in case you missed it.
Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children
“The redefining of marriage, quite frankly I think it’s nuts,” said Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a homosexual. “Being gay, I’ve had a long time to consider this, look at it.”
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures."
Alaskapopo
03-26-13, 13:48
This falls under the who gives s shit catagory. I don't care if two men marry or two women or a man and a woman. None of my concern let people live how they want to live.
Pat
No, it means that I've decided you're not worth debating at times, for a number of reasons. I'm not conceding the issue, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. So if you want to take that as a victory, go ahead, I won't stop you.
So you are not going to "waste your time" defending your own patently false irrational and puerile assertions, but yet you are going to waste your time posting that you are not going to take the time to defend your patently false irrational and puerile assertions. :rolleyes:
And if it is a "victory", (to use your word) for me, then it is only because you have been shown to be wrong, and your deliberately childish retort does not change that fact.
Thanks for posting the links.
Again, I, and those who I know personally, are not talking about redefining marriage. Its not the term that's important, but what the term means to people. For some, its rights, responsibilities, and recognition. For others, its about children. Others still, its a religious sacrament. However, the only thing that bestows these rights, and is recognized across 50 states, is "marriage".
For some religions, "gay marriage" is entirely contradictory. I get that, and I frankly respect that. But, marriage is also the gateway to those benefits that I outlined above, that many of these people want. An individual's state approved "civil union" or "domestic partnership" only goes so far, and that's where DOMA comes in.
You do make a strong argument against redefining marriage, as it is now, and I get that. Its my belief that if the feds (God help us) could come up with some sort of institution by which same sex couples can have the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples, without calling it marriage (and leaving that term up to the individual churches to decide for themselves), then we'd be all good.
Its the terminology that trips us up.
montanadave
03-26-13, 14:37
It's a word.
Get over it.
I couldn't give a shit what the bible-bangers choose to get apoplectic about and I have no interest in their moribund dictates on social morality.
The government granting legal status to gay marriage is simply granting equal rights (and responsibilities) to gay couples.
Those who wish to see homosexuals burn in hell will still get their opportunity. Or not.
theblackknight
03-26-13, 16:12
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures."
Thank you for posting this.
However, the government shouldnt be in the bid'ness of delagating what is best for people unless you'd like Bloomburg's soda ban to go viral and you being required to clock in at the new state run gym for at least a half hour every other day.
Why dont you keep on with conservative ideas and have the gubbament stay the hell out of people's way?
brickboy240
03-26-13, 17:34
Well...that is kind of where I started with this thread. By stating that we have much more important things to worry about than two boys tying the knot.
Then, this guy tells me nothing is more important than denying homos the right to marry and that I am a tool of Pelosi, Reid and Obama because I did not think so.
...whatever
I enjoy enraging the Bible thumpers as much as I do the socialist leftists. They are both just tyrants of a different stripe.
-brickboy240
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 17:46
Then, this guy tells me nothing is more important than denying homos the right to marry and that I am a tool of Pelosi, Reid and Obama because I did not think so.
-brickboy240
Its called the guilt by association fallacy. Belloc is very proud of his college courses on philosophy and logic, but has no problems using fallacies to prove his point.
Comparing the request that the government grant the ability to marry with the ability to redefine what the Second Amendment means is such a False Analogy. One is a constitutional right that SCOTUS has ruled on several times in very recent history, and has strong public support. The other is not a constitutional right, and therefore is not forbidden for the People to want and change. "Tradition" is no reason to not allow people to change something. It was not "traditional" for people to have complete freedom of speech, or a constitutional right to bear arms. But all that changed in 1788. What shock and horror...
I consider myself a social liberal, and therefore agree with some of the President's and similar politicians views on social issues. To be a party/ideological extremist and argue that you MUST be completely loyal to one ideology is simply incomprehensible. I like ideas from both parties, and thats why I consider myself an independent.
brickboy240
03-26-13, 17:52
Let them get married and if the whole homo thing is wrong...God will punish them for it later on.
Let those that want abortions have them....if it is murder...again...God will punish them later for their actions.
Basically, people should be free to make bad decisions....or good ones.
This thinking does not make you a tool of the left....please.
Actually, by saying that gay marriage is THE most important issue, you ARE allowing the left to distract you with an issue that affects such a tiny part of our population. This is exactly what they want....people bogged down on abortion and gay marriage and NOT paying attention to how they are wrecking our economy and monetary system.
the left does this because they KNOW it works...every time. All they have to do is bring up abortion or homos and the Bible thumpers go bat shit crazy, frothing at the mouth and cannot focus on more pressing issues. Works every 4 years...does it not?
-brickboy240
Let them get married and if the whole homo thing is wrong...God will punish them for it later on.
Let those that want abortions have them....if it is murder...again...God will punish them later for their actions.
Basically, people should be free to make bad decisions....or good ones.
-brickboy240
Yep. Sin is sin. Gay, or man and woman living together before marriage, or premarital sex, etc. There are no laws preventing the latter. Let he without sin......
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 18:42
From my post several pages back in case you missed it.
Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children
“The redefining of marriage, quite frankly I think it’s nuts,” said Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a homosexual. “Being gay, I’ve had a long time to consider this, look at it.”
Gays Against Gay Marriage
http://takimag.com/article/gays_against_gay_marriage_bp_terpstra
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures."
I tried to ask you about this a while ago. It pretty much has nothing to do with your desire to ban gay marriage unless you would also like to ban divorce and dying before your children reach adulthood.
theblackknight
03-26-13, 19:02
I enjoy enraging the Bible thumpers as much as I do the socialist leftists. They are both just tyrants of a different stripe.
Yes sir. No 24oz sodas,labor unions,firearms,beer over a certain ABV%, or Man-spooning for you because we know better, thank us later.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
This topic's still going? I didn't realize topics like this yet lived in General.
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 21:09
This topic's still going? I didn't realize topics like this yet lived in General.
Probably because its current news, and not a random discussion about gay marriage.
theblackknight
03-26-13, 21:11
I think the mods are trying letting people run out of steam so we dont have this thread every 2 weeks.
Hopefully it works!:D
Thank you for posting this.
However, the government shouldnt be in the bid'ness of delagating what is best for people unless you'd like Bloomburg's soda ban to go viral and you being required to clock in at the new state run gym for at least a half hour every other day.
Why dont you keep on with conservative ideas and have the gubbament stay the hell out of people's way?
Bloomberg and his big government gun-grabbing fascistic agenda actually supports "gay marriage" and the belief that government can redefine any words to mean anything else for any reason it wishes.
If you think supporting any of Bloomberg's agenda is in any way good for America, then you are simply completely deluding yourself.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 21:25
Bloomberg and his big government gun-grabbing fascistic agenda actually supports "gay marriage" and the belief that government can redefine any words to mean anything else for any reason it wishes.
If you think supporting any of Bloomberg's agenda is in any way good for America, then you are simply completely deluding yourself.
My God! I just leaned that Bloomberg, Pelosi, and Obama all breath air and drink water! I knew you would want to know so that you can make sure you don't do anything they do. After all, if they do it, it must be fascist!
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 21:28
I think the mods are trying letting people run out of steam so we dont have this thread every 2 weeks.
Hopefully it works!:D
It has actually been pretty civil other than Belloc's occasional ad hominem attacks.
I consider myself a social liberal, and therefore agree with some of the President's and similar politicians views on social issues.
Which is why it is not a "guilt by association" fallacy.:rolleyes:
But not knowing what marriage is, it is not in the least surprising that you so eagerly display wilful ignorance concerning other terms as well.
And I have no problem defending the proposition that your confessed belief that much of the agenda of Bloomberg, Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo is good for America and freedom and liberty is completely lacking in any sense and reason, and evidences a released grip on reality.
It has actually been pretty civil other than Belloc's occasional ad hominem attacks.
How does your very deliberately ranting like a petulant child equate in your mind to being civil?
My God! I just leaned that Bloomberg, Pelosi, and Obama all breath air and drink water! I knew you would want to know so that you can make sure you don't do anything they do. After all, if they do it, it must be fascist!
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 21:39
How does your very deliberately ranting like a petulant child equate in your mind to being civil?
Oh look, another one...
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 21:41
Which is why it is not a "guilt by association" fallacy.:rolleyes:
But not knowing what marriage is, it is not in the least surprising that you so eagerly display wilful ignorance concerning other terms as well.
And I have no problem defending the proposition that your confessed belief that much of the agenda of Bloomberg, Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo is good for America and freedom and liberty evidences a rather complete lack of sense and reason, and a released grip on reality.
It is guilt by association when you categorize A with B if A shares ONE characteristic with B. You claimed I am in the same boat with the "Fascist Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo" before I ever said I was a social liberal. You committed the fallacy before you knew the answer.
Further, until you identify the "agenda" your comparison holds no weight either. Are you talking about social change agenda? Fiscal issues? Gun issues?
Please though, continue with your ad hominems and blanket statements. I enjoy being told how ignorant and dumb I am because I don't agree with you.
MountainRaven
03-26-13, 21:42
Bloomberg and his big government gun-grabbing fascistic agenda actually supports "gay marriage" and the belief that government can redefine any words to mean anything else for any reason it wishes.
If you think supporting any of Bloomberg's agenda is in any way good for America, then you are simply completely deluding yourself.
This makes about as much sense as feminists saying that women who want a traditional marriage are misogynists. Or, equally ridiculous, that a woman who is feminist must also be misandrist. It is a patently ridiculous argument.
As everyone knows, even a broken clock is right twice a day: Just because my watch says that it's 12:15 at the same time a known broken clock says that it is 12:15 does not mean that my watch is broken nor that the clock is wrong.
Does the Japanese Communist Party's support of an individual right and duty to bear 'military-style' arms render the Second Amendment invalid? Does it make those who support it (the Second Amendment) Communist and anti-American?
It is guilt by association when you categorize A with B if A shares ONE characteristic with B. You claimed I am in the same boat with the "Fascist Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo" before I ever said I was a social liberal. You committed the fallacy before you knew the answer.
Well, no actually. You had already posted your support for Bloomberg's and Feinstein's idiotic agenda here. Your very desperate attempt to hide behind an invented "guilt by association" fallacy because you many times posted support for their liberal "gay marriage" agenda and later revealed support for even more of their repugnant agenda is simply frivolous and juvenile. :rolleyes:
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 21:58
Well, no actually. You had already posted your support for Bloomberg's and Feinstein's idiotic agenda here. Your very desperate attempt to hide behind an invented "guilt by association" fallacy because you many times posted support for their liberal "gay marriage" agenda and later revealed support for even more of their repugnant agenda is simply frivolous and juvenile. :rolleyes:
Ah yes. It is juvenile and repugnant to not share the same political ideologies with you. I'm so sorry I'm a degenerate of society because I don't have a consistent conservative view.
Seriously Belloc, are you really being serious or are you just baiting me and the rest of the members here?
BTW, do you really understand what fascism is?
Oh look, another one...
So you don't deny ranting like a petulant child in the above post, but you are not keen on having it pointed out.
I'll remember that for next time.
Cheers.
Ah yes. It is juvenile and repugnant to not share the same political ideologies with you.
It is juvenile to attempt to invent some sort of claim to a "guilt by association" fallacy, (especially with your patently ridiculous defense that I was right all along but since I somehow did not know at the time I was right, I was wrong) and repugnant to share the same looney liberal political ideology of Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 22:09
So you don't deny ranting like a petulant child in the above post, but you are not keen on having it pointed out.
I'll remember that for next time.
Cheers.
You are seriously the most ridiculous man I've ever tried to have a discussion with. As fun as its been poking fun at your authoritarian beliefs, since you refuse to address the posts that counter your insane nonsense and instead have chosen to repeatedly insult me and other posters, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing.
You are seriously the most ridiculous man I've ever tried to have a discussion with. As fun as its been poking fun at your authoritarian beliefs, since you refuse to address the posts that counter your insane nonsense and instead have chosen to repeatedly insult me and other posters, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing.
Insult? I would very seriously be interested in seeing you even attempt to defend you above post as anything other than a petulant puerile emotive rant.
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 22:18
It is juvenile to attempt to invent some sort of claim to a "guilt by association" fallacy, (especially with your patently ridiculous defense that I was right all along but since I somehow did not know at the time I was right, I was wrong)
Not juvenile. You made the fallacy before you knew anything else about me. You can't wiggle your way out of it because I later voluntarily revealed what I believe. I know you refuse to be wrong or outwitted, so you will not concede the you committed the fallacy.
and repugnant to share the same looney liberal political ideology of Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cuomo.
We do not "share the the same" ideology. I'm conservative on issues of immigration, abortion, affirmative action, and welfare.
You need to stop always trying to be right and understand that at times you are wrong. I'm sorry to break it to you, but its the truth. I can tell that you have a big time "type A" personality.
I can share some similar social beliefs with the left. That does not make me any more liberal than making a liberal a conservative because he or she supports gun rights.
Geeze dude, can't we just call this a day? Yay, you continue to believe in your beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and what it "has meant forever". Meanwhile the country moves forward, and worries about more important things like our economy and debt rather than trivial issues like gay marriage; regardless if it is made legal or not.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 22:19
Insult? I would very seriously be interested in seeing you even attempt to defend you above post as anything other than a petulant puerile emotive rant.
Tell you what, you be more specific about which post and I will. Right after your go back through the last several pages and actually address the arguments that I, along with other posters, have made that is. This time try to do it with actual arguments and logic, rather than nonsense and insults.
I seriously find it very hard to believe that you are as educated as you claim to be.
Tell you what, you be more specific about which post and I will.
Exactly how many more times do you need it pointed out and quoted so that it is "specific" enough for you?
theblackknight
03-26-13, 22:34
Bloomberg and his big government gun-grabbing fascistic agenda actually supports "gay marriage" and the belief that government can redefine any words to mean anything else for any reason it wishes.
If you think supporting any of Bloomberg's agenda is in any way good for America, then you are simply completely deluding yourself.
Man, you sure are informative. I didnt realize that gay marriage was Bloomberg's idea and agenda. He's a crafty dude.
Again, the state should'nt be nannying people's personal lives. No more nanny state please. I fully support American's right to ruin their lives and make bad decisions and big brother muthafckers like you can piss off trying to powder everyone's diaper.
It's really non of my concern because I'm not gay nor religious, but this is a direct result of Christian's claiming we live in a "christian nation" and letting the state butt rape their sacred institution. I have no sympathy, history be damned.
So now that you've been left with a figurtive burning sensation in your political crotch, are you going to do it again or keep things separate?
http://reading.kingrat.biz/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/the-conservative-nanny-state.jpg
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 22:42
Exactly how many more times do you need it pointed out and quoted so that it is "specific" enough for you?
I guess I'm just a dullard. I need it pointed out one more time since you have described every single post in this thread that you don't agree with in nearly the exact same way. Seriously, you write like the school girl in Tom Sawyer, you have "a tendency to lug in by the ears particularly prized words and phrases until they were worn entirely out". Personally, I think it is all an attempt to hide your obviously lacking debate and logic skills.
Here's a thought from a gun owning, pro Constitution, hard working, truck driving, heterosexual, married, father, and U.S. Citizen:
1. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'
2. 'Judge Not' (isn't that a Christian thing?).
Seriously, who are you to claim you know God's will?
3. To all the "slippery slope" arguments out there: I really don't give a **** if someone is into ****ing sheep, or sleeping with their brother, or their dog, or a member of the same sex, or a member of the opposite sex, or having a million ****ing willing wives or husbands, or lemmings... As long as they don't hurt someone (including their offspring, meaning there is a biological reason why relatives should not reproduce).
As long as there is no victim it is not MY RIGHT TO JUDGE another member of a free society. Nor is it government's right to regulate it.
If you don't get that, you are a proponent of State control of the individual, and you are no better then the ****ers that advocate that the state has a right to tell you how many bullets you should own, what kind of Religion you should be, how big your soda pop should be, or who you should love.
Would I invite a guy who lives down the block from me that is married to ten sheep and worships June Bugs into my house? NOPE! But that doesn't give me a right to tar and feather him, nor to deny him the same rights as someone who believes that God will protect them from rattle snake bites.
As long as there is no victim there is no crime, that is how our society should work, and that is what Freedom means! So back off your high ****ing horse, and remember that while your bitching about someone else's right to be who they want, the same government is trying to take away your right to be who you want.
I can't believe how dogmatic and blind some of you people are.
Not juvenile. You made the fallacy before you knew anything else about me. You can't wiggle your way out of it because I later voluntarily revealed what I believe. I know you refuse to be wrong or outwitted, so you will not concede the you committed the fallacy.
That is simply being either mendacious concerning the reality of it, or ignorant of the use of philosophical terms. And I should not be so eager to claim patronage of either. You continual repeated support of the liberal "gay marriage" agenda of Obama, Feinstein, Cuomo, Boxer, and Bloomberg, and later confession of support for still more of their idiotic agenda means that by definition, it was not a logical fallacy. Your very desperate attempt to claim 'you only knew I supported their agenda a little, and were not aware, until I myself confessed it, that I support even more of their liberal agenda' as a guilt by association fallacy is, yes, frivolous.
Geeze dude, can't we just call this a day? As you like.
Yay, you continue to believe in your beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and what it "has meant forever". Meanwhile the country moves forward, and worries about more important things like our economy and debt rather than trivial issues like gay marriage; regardless if it is made legal or not.
What you fail to see is the big picture. It is all the same thing, it all stems from the same problem. The debt, economy, gun control, etc, etc. It all stems from the steadfast refusal to acknowledge reality for that it truly is, and pretending it is something else.
How I feel about overcoming the urge to get sucked into this thread:
http://i.imgur.com/VmrcK.gif
Again, the state should'nt be nannying people's personal lives. No more nanny state please. I fully support American's right to ruin their lives and make bad decisions and big brother muthafckers like you can piss off trying to powder everyone's diaper.
I see. So you in fact support the agenda of Big Brother Bloomberg, while claiming those who oppose it are the ones who are "big brother". Doublespeak at its undisguised finest. Well done.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 22:55
How I feel about overcoming the urge to get sucked into this thread:
http://i.imgur.com/VmrcK.gif
Come on in, it's hilarious in here.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 22:56
I see. So you in fact support the agenda of Big Brother Bloomberg, while claiming those who oppose it are the ones who are "big brother". Doublespeak at its undisguised finest. Well done.
You are basically Bloomberg with slightly different motivations.
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 22:57
You are basically Bloomberg with slightly different motivations.
:jester:
I use big words and stuff...
You have yet to prove anything more then conspiracy minded bullshit.
Please illustrate to all of us, using an actual argument with a thesis statement, an introduction, a body, and a conclusion how exactly it is OK for agents of a Free State to take away one person's right, while it is not OK for that SAME Free State to take away another person's right?
Do tell??? Please.
Personally, I think it is all an attempt to hide your obviously lacking debate and logic skills.
Now you are simply projecting. Still, it is a step up from your previous petulant child tactic. Good for you. There is hope yet.
You have yet to prove anything more then conspiracy minded bullshit.
Please illustrate to all of us, using an actual argument with a thesis statement, an introduction, a body, and a conclusion how exactly it is OK for agents of a Free State to take away one person's right, while it is not OK for that SAME Free State to take away another person's right?
Do tell??? Please.
Who's "rights" are being "taken away"? And displaying contempt for actually simply possessing a vocabulary greater than that of a teenager does not reflect as well on you as you seem to believe.
Cute.
That is a circular argument and one that could be equally attributed to the freeing of Slaves, or the right for Women to vote, or the right for Black's to vote, or the elimination of segregation.
One could say, using your logic: "Slaves have always been slaves, and never had 'rights', therefor keeping them in slavery is not denying them rights."
That same person would actually be "correct" in their argument, and would "win" given the context of our current conversation if we are arguing purely to the status quo of the time.
They would also be a bigot, and anti American.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 23:04
Now you are simply projecting. Still, it is a step up from your previous petulant child tactic. Good for you. There is hope yet.
Yet again you've somehow managed to dodge every actual argument made in the last page...
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 23:05
:alcoholic:
I know how to use big words too, and history, and stuff like that...:)
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:06
Who's rights are being "taken away"?
The right of two consenting adults, non blood-related, to have a legal marriage.
I admit, that I don't like the idea of the government changing the definition of a word, but DOMA is the first act to define marriage as between a man, and a woman. It would be easier to argue that I don't want the government to have the power to define words to begin with.
That is a circular argument.
No it isn't. It's called a question. But I understand how it could perhaps confuse you. Poor thing. :rolleyes:
:alcoholic:
I think you need one more GeorgiaBoy, we'll find you in the morning and clean off your face. If you need someone to hold your hair I'm sure you have a roommate... ;)
No it isn't. It's called a question. But I understand how it could perhaps confuse you. Poor thing. :rolleyes:
Are you ****ing serious?
Who are you saying is a "poor thing", you aren't even capable of having an adult conversation.
Magic Salad (****ed up in original post, I misquoted Beloc, my bad, baby brain) just spelled it out for you.
I however didn't feel your 'question' deserved an actual answer, so I used a historical context to attempt to bring your brain back into reality.
Amateur hour buddy.
The right of two consenting adults, non blood-related, to have a legal marriage.
Where does this so called "right" to equate males sodomizing each other to the bond of marriage that exists between a man and his wife come from?
Upon what do you base your belief that two males can "get married" but not two brothers?
And why do you support the discrimination inherent in the number 2?
Upon what do you base your belief that the government has the Orwellian power and authority to change the meaning of marriage into something it has never meant in all of civilisation?
You still have not in any way explained how emotions are a fundamental principle of anything, much less positive law.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 23:14
I think you need one more GeorgiaBoy, we'll find you in the morning and clean off your face. If you need someone to hold your hair I'm sure you have a roommate... ;)
I better have one too. Until this thread I had no idea that believing in personal liberty made me a fascist, now I don't know what do do with myself. A bit of gin should clear up my world view.
Are you ****ing serious?
Who are you saying is a "poor thing", you aren't even capable of having an adult conversation.
Having an adult conversation with a child proves yes even often beyond my faculty.
Belloc just spelled it out for you.
I know I did.
Amateur hour buddy.
At least you admit to it.
I better have one too. Until this thread I had no idea that believing in personal liberty made me a fascist, now I don't know what do do with myself. A bit of gin should clear up my world view.
"Don't like your rights taken away? Don't try and take away another's..."
Seems pretty relevant to this conversation, and our current reality as gun owners. Stop ****ing with people's rights to be who the **** they want to be.
Like I said before, if there is no victim there is no crime, so back off your neighbor and start pointing the finger at Government where it belongs.
theblackknight
03-26-13, 23:20
I see. So you in fact support the agenda of Big Brother Bloomberg, while claiming those who oppose it are the ones who are "big brother". Doublespeak at its undisguised finest. Well done.
Does anyone else hear his posts in V for Vendetta's voice?:cool:
Overbearing, controlling behavior is the calling card of big brother.
In the vast majority of cases, I support freedom to do as mah****as please.
If Bloomburg wants to take a slice of government out of people's way, then I support him in that tiny sliver. He's is the face of Big Brother right now, and YOU appose him on one of the few things he isnt trying to ban,outlaw, regulate to a smaller size, etc etc.
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:21
Where does this so called "right" to equate males sodomizing each other to the bond of marriage that exists between a man and his wife come from?
That is not up to you, me, or the government to define. Also, who gives a shit what they do in bed, and why does it bother you so bad?
I use contraceptives. Does that make me the same as them to you?
Upon what do you base your belief that two males can "get married" but not two brothers?
To be honest? As long as they're not hurting anybody, I don't give a shit anymore. It may be absolutely disgusting, and we should discourage it, but whatever. You cannot equate gay people to incest.
Upon what do you base your belief that the government has the Orwellian power and authority to change the meaning of marriage into something it has never meant in all of civilisation?
Actually, both ancient Romans, and Native Americans honored homosexual relationships. But whatever. Also I don't support the belief that the government has any right to define marriage as anything at all. It's not their place.
You still have not in any way explained how emotions are a fundamental principle of anything, much less positive law.
Are you saying that you're not using emotion as well?
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 23:23
Are you saying that you're not using emotion as well?
He is using rationalism and logic. Not emotion.
:jester:
Having an adult conversation with a child proves yes even often beyond my faculty.
I know I did.
At least you admit to it.
Ha, typing so quickly I misquoted. Meant to say Magic Salad.
Good catch, you win the day buddy. You are the smartest person in the room. But before I go can I ask you a question:
A Satanist moves next door to you, and they recently won the local election and are in the majority. This person has been coming over to your house and talking with your children.
He recently made it a law that he has a right to come into your house, because according to his religion, he lives purely for himself and no one can deny him his right to do so...
...So he has been coming into your house and basically stealing whatever he wants, ****ing your wife, and hanging out with your kids.
Do you have a right as an individual in this question to defend your freedom to exist as you see fit on your own property?
Do tell Belloc, do tell? Can you shoot this person? Can you resist? Are your "rights" being violated?
By the way, he re-wrote the laws so that you never had any actual "rights". And since he's in the majority, your actually up shit's creek without a paddle when it comes to legal support, and a community willing to help you out.
If Bloomburg wants to take a slice of government out of people's way, then I support him in that tiny sliver. He's is the face of Big Brother right now, and YOU appose him on one of the few things he isnt trying to ban,outlaw, regulate to a smaller size, etc etc.
Well no actually, but lie to yourself all you want.
Again:
Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490/
What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155&utm_source=RTA+Snell+Marriage+Book+Review&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email
How so called "gay marriage" does in fact affect all marriages.
THE AUDACITY OF THE STATE
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f#ixzz2OU2YyUJ4
Naked Before the State
To make matters very much worse, the parens patriae power has recently received an enormous boost from another feature of the contraceptive society: same-sex “marriage.” Though most people have not yet realized it, the advent of same-sex marriage has transformed marriage from a pre-political institution conferring “divine and human rights,” as the Roman jurist Modestinus put it, into a mere legal construct at the gift and disposal of the state. The legal terrain has thus changed dramatically, along with the cultural—something I have tried to show in a little book called Nation of Bastards. The family is ceasing to be what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confesses it to be, viz., “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f#ixzz2OU3CcLnc
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law.
But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no
longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 23:28
You can't just keep posting links when every time someone takes the time to read and address them you ignore their post. This is just getting silly.
You can't just keep posting links when every time someone takes the time to read and address them you ignore their post. This is just getting silly.
Dude he's a bigot. And he's anti American. Enough said.
I'm curious what his response to my Satanist Majority question will be?
Does he feel morally obliged to defend his family, and fight for his "rights" to exist in such a society?
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:33
Ha, typing so quickly I misquoted. Meant to say Magic Salad.
What?
he lives purely for himself and no one can deny him his right to do so...
I wholeheartedly recommend The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey actually, as many on this board would probably agree with many of his teachings. If they understood why he chose Satan as the symbol for his religion.
And a real Satanist would actually never do the things you described.
theblackknight
03-26-13, 23:34
No fish sticks, you are here in support of DOMA, so that literally means you support the state regulation of people's personal lives in one of the few places Bloombarge dosent. You cant turn that around, post a link refuting it, or say it isnt true.
And posting links from religious nutbags that you look up to dosent further your pulpit riding any further.
What?
My bad buddy:
You said:
The right of two consenting adults, non blood-related, to have a legal marriage.
I admit, that I don't like the idea of the government changing the definition of a word, but DOMA is the first act to define marriage as between a man, and a woman. It would be easier to argue that I don't want the government to have the power to define words to begin with.
And I ****ed up and said:
Belloc just spelled it out for you
When I meant to say:
"Magic_Salad just spelled it out for you." in response to your above quote.
I hit "paste" to quickly and wasn't able to edit the post prior to him responding.
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:40
My bad buddy:
Ah. I see. My reading comprehension must suck tonight. Thanks for clearing it up.
To be honest? As long as they're not hurting anybody, I don't give a shit [about two brothers getting married) anymore. It may be absolutely disgusting, and we should discourage it, but whatever.
So you find two brothers sodomizing each other disgusting, but do not find two males sodomizing each other disgusting?
And again we see how once the substantive meaning of marriage is abrogated and redefined to mean something it has not and cannot ever mean, then in fact it can mean anything at all. Which means that in fact it has no meaning.
You cannot equate gay people to incest.
Why not?
Actually, both ancient Romans, and Native Americans honored homosexual relationships.
Homosexual acts between Romans was illegal.
Are you saying that you're not using emotion as well?
As a fundamental principle? No, of course not.
Ah. I see. My reading comprehension must suck tonight. Thanks for clearing it up.
Not your fault, I just type to fast for my own good.
blah blah blah
Answer my question.
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 23:44
Are you married Belloc?
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:50
So you find two brothers sodomizing each other disgusting, but do not find two males sodomizing each other disgusting?
No. Not really. I just don't wanna be apart of it.
And again we see how once the substantive meaning of marriage is abrogated and redefined to mean something it has not and cannot ever mean, then in fact it can mean anything at all. Which means that in fact it has no meaning.
Who says it cannot ever mean that?
Why not?
And none of those things are any of the other things. That is not a rebuttal.
In your own words. They're not the same thing.
Homosexual acts between Romans was illegal.
Not until they became Christian. Until then, it wasn't encouraged, but it was honored. And it WAS a thing.
Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride.
Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Aurelius Victor are the sources cited by Williams, Roman Homosexuality, p. 279.
As a fundamental principle? No, of course not.
How not? Who invented marriage, and who gets to define it?
Are you married Belloc?
Yea, I think he's sexy!!! We may not always agree, but in the end it comes down to his refusal to admit when he's wrong.
It get's me so ****ing hot!!!!!
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-13, 23:51
Yea, I think he's hot!!! We may not always agree, but in the end it comes down to his refusal to admit when he's wrong.
It get's me so ****ing hot!!!!!
Gay. :p
RancidSumo
03-26-13, 23:54
I just keep hoping SafetyHit is going to come back and explain to me how anal sex created HIV.
I just keep hoping SafetyHit is going to come back and explain to me how anal sex created HIV.
HAHAHA what page is that on?
Edit: Never mind; found it. Hilarious thread.
Not until they became Christian.
No, Lex Scantinia was not a Christian law.
RancidSumo
03-27-13, 00:01
HAHAHA what page is that on?
Page 7, post 127. One of the many posts in this thread that made me laugh while at the same time making me very sad for humanity :D.
theblackknight
03-27-13, 00:03
Homosexual acts between Romans was illegal.
He has a point on this one. The romans had buttsecks, and now they're all dead. Checkmate sodomites
I just keep hoping SafetyHit is going to come back and explain to me how anal sex created HIV.
HIV is clearly god's mechanism for punishing the gays for all that blastphemin' they been doing, including Ellen's dancing.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
GeorgiaBoy
03-27-13, 00:11
No, Lex Scantinia was not a Christian law.
And Lex Scantinia did not explicitly forbid homosexuality or gay sex. So whats your point?
HAHAHA what page is that on?
Edit: Never mind; found it. Hilarious thread.
Wow, I log off for a bit and this thread becomes huge!
Magic_Salad0892
03-27-13, 00:19
He has a point on this one. The romans had buttsecks, and now they're all dead. Checkmate sodomites
That's the funniest thing posted in this thread so far.
Magic_Salad0892
03-27-13, 00:19
No, Lex Scantinia was not a Christian law.
Okay. I was kind of wrong, but it didn't make gay marriage/buttsecks illegal. You gonna reply to the rest of that post?
RancidSumo
03-27-13, 00:23
Okay. I was kind of wrong, but it didn't make gay marriage/buttsecks illegal. You gonna reply to the rest of that post?
Of course not. That would be completely out of form for him.
He has a point on this one. The romans had buttsecks, and now they're all dead. Checkmate sodomites
This quote made reading this whole thread worth it.
If Belloc had started with this the argument would have been over in one page
Aw hell, screw it. Belloc, you seem to be treating marriage as a concrete, supernaturally originated, objectively existing thing. Hence, it cannot change.
So for you, this conversation is not about human activity and its socially constructed products, but magic. And you imagine this magical "thing" called marriage to be necessary rather than contingent due to its divine origin, and thus immalleable.
I assume you're not wholly ignorant of biology and psychology (though I know the real Hilaire Belloc foolishly dismissed Darwinism). Are you aware that there are good evolutionary and psychological explanations for the marriage construct? Are you aware that if these natural explanations are more plausible than your supernatural theories, then marriage is a contingent and changeable institution? That your traditionalist assertion that marriage has "always been" between a man and a woman and thus should remain so is an obvious example of the is-ought / naturalistic fallacy?
Until you can plausibly demonstrate the supernatural origin of marriage, you can't even get your argument that its definition is rigid and unchangeable off the ground. Thus far you have simply assumed that which you must demonstrate. So why don't you fly under your true flag, sir? Your argument is not about reason. It's not about logic. It's about faith.
Alaskapopo
03-27-13, 01:47
So you find two brothers sodomizing each other disgusting, but do not find two males sodomizing each other disgusting?
And again we see how once the substantive meaning of marriage is abrogated and redefined to mean something it has not and cannot ever mean, then in fact it can mean anything at all. Which means that in fact it has no meaning.
Why not?
Homosexual acts between Romans was illegal.
As a fundamental principle? No, of course not.
Great the morality police. Live and let live.
Pat
Aw hell, screw it. Belloc, you seem to be treating marriage as a concrete, supernaturally originated, objectively existing thing. Hence, it cannot change.
No.
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law.
But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no
longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."
And I removed the links since being made aware that for some reason they intimidate you.
Great the morality police. Live and let live.
Pat
Why is it exactly that you feel so driven and compelled to make sure no one has posed anything more banal and infantile than you?
Alaskapopo
03-27-13, 02:15
Why is it exactly that you feel so driven and compelled to make sure no one has posed anything more banal and infantile than you?
Stay out of other peoples bedrooms your moral code should not be forced on others. If two dudes want to marry who cares. Many of the strongest homophobes actually have the same tendancys themselves. Look at all the ministers who have molested young boys and been caught with tranny prostitutes. By the way using a larger vocabulary to break forum rules is still breaking the rules. (no insults)
Pat
No.
Oh, so you were just kidding when you posted this link?
http://bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.co.at/2011/02/i-do-not-oppose-gay-marriage.html
The core argument of the piece is found here: "Yet God has not ceded this competency to the state [to define marriage], the Church has not ceded it, and therefore I cannot cede it." Then the author writes, "I do not oppose gay marriage because there never has been nor ever can be such a thing to oppose."
The "logic" is exactly as I described. Marriage is a concrete, actually existing thing of supernatural origin, and thus cannot be redefined or changed. And "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Do I take you to be disavowing this line of argument, then?
though I know the real Hilaire Belloc foolishly dismissed Darwinism.
You seem to be trying to make it seem that H. Belloc disbelieved in evolution. Either you are misinformed or you are simply and deliberately being intellectually dishonest.
Stay out of other peoples bedrooms your moral code should not be forced on others. If two dudes want to marry who cares. Many of the strongest homophobes actually have the same tendancys themselves. Look at all the ministers who have molested young boys and been caught with tranny prostitutes. By the way using a larger vocabulary to break forum rules is still breaking the rules. (no insults)
Pat
90% of those "ministers" molested teenage boys. To use Ann Coulter again:
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view – adopted by the Boy Scouts – is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests – more than 90 percent – are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
You seem to be trying to make it seem that H. Belloc disbelieved in evolution. Either you are misinformed or you are simply and deliberately being intellectually dishonest.
I understand Belloc to have considered the non-random selection of positive mutations based on fitness to be a mathematically nonviable way of increasing complexity (the fundamental principle of Darwinism -- notice that I said Darwinism and not evolution. Darwinian selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution) Is this not the case?
PS. Stop casually accusing people of lying. That's the second time you've suggested I might be being dishonest in two encounters. You might get away with insulting people because you're doing it for Jesus and the forum staff happen to agree with you, but it doesn't make it alright.
Oh, so you were just kidding when you posted this link?
http://bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.co.at/2011/02/i-do-not-oppose-gay-marriage.html
The core argument of the piece is found here: "Yet God has not ceded this competency to the state [to define marriage], the Church has not ceded it, and therefore I cannot cede it." Then the author writes, "I do not oppose gay marriage because there never has been nor ever can be such a thing to oppose."
The "logic" is exactly as I described. Marriage is a concrete, actually existing thing (which many including myself believe of supernatural origin) and thus cannot be redefined or changed. And "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Do I take you to be disavowing this line of argument, then?
Fixed. The belief in origin is not incidental, but it is also not needed to carry the argument. God did not make the M-16 assault rifle, yet I know that if the government wishes to point to an ar-15 and say "look, an assault rifle", in like fashion I am not going to abandon reason and sense so as to pretend to now see an assault rifle where there is none.
Fixed. The belief in origin is not incidental, but it is also not needed to carry the argument. God did not make the M-16 assault rifle, yet I know that if the government wishes to point to an ar-15 and say "look, an assault rifle", in like fashion I am not going to abandon reason and sense so as to pretend to now see an assault rifle where there is none.
But surely you can see that if marriage is not in fact supernaturally defined, but is an emergent natural phenomenon, then arguing that it ought to be something or not become something simply because of the way that it is commits the naturalistic fallacy by taking an unwarranted leap from is to ought.
Thus you can't dismiss "gay marriage" as a contradiction in terms on that basis. If you want to argue against gay marriage, you have to construct a positive argument against it by some other means.
Just as you could provide reasons that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, you might try to provide reasons why gay marriage is not marriage. You can't just say "it's not because it's not."
The role of government is really not operative at this stage of the argument. What I'm trying to do is suggest that the definition of marriage is not axiomatic, nor a first principle, and is subject to change. The role of government in this is another question and we're not there yet.
I understand Belloc to have considered the non-random selection of positive mutations based on fitness to be a mathematically nonviable way of increasing complexity (the fundamental principle of Darwinism -- notice that I said Darwinism and not evolution. Darwinian selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution) Is this not the case?
PS. Stop casually accusing people of lying. That's the second time you've suggested I might be being dishonest in two encounters. You might get away with insulting people because you're doing it for Jesus and the forum staff happen to agree with you, but it doesn't make it alright.
If you are actually stating that you had no intention whatsoever to give the impression that H. Belloc did not believe in human evolution then I apologise. However it seems rather obvious that that was in fact your intention. And since a good many evolutionary biologists reject Darwinian theory in favour of more modern theories of evolution, it seems strange you would label his belief that the scientific evidence at his time seemed to suggest evolution by drastic saltation, as "foolish".
Still waiting for anyone to address the issues raised with here:
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law.
But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no
longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."
And since a good many evolutionary biologists reject Darwinian theory in favour of more modern theories of evolution.
Curious -- what and who are you talking about? Gradualism wins, and as the primary motivator of speciation, natural selection is the only game in town. Neo-Darwinism remains the best causal mechanism to explain the fact of evolution.
Still waiting for anyone to address the issues raised with here:
I'm getting there but you're not playing along. You still haven't admitted that without supernatural intervention, your argument about the permanency of the marriage institution amounts to a common logical fallacy.
I could really care less about this. What really concerns me is that we are over 16 trillion in debt and climbing, and we still haven't felt the financial impact of Obama Care yet.
Magic_Salad0892
03-27-13, 03:20
I could really care less about this. What really concerns me is that we are over 16 trillion in debt and climbing, and we still haven't felt the financial impact of Obama Care yet.
Thread drift. Ban him. :p
Curious -- what and who are you talking about? Gradualism wins, and as the primary motivator of speciation, natural selection is the only game in town.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
With full allowances for the considerations of your distaste for off-site links.
Thread drift. Ban him. :p
Motion seconded. :suicide:
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
With full allowances for the considerations of your distaste for off-site links.
Okay, so we're miles off-topic now. But the central topic addressed in these papers is the role of selection in adaptation, not speciation. Evolution as a whole continues to make no sense without selection. I understood Belloc's argument against Darwin to focus on selection being the operative cause in speciation. Anyway, this is a digression so I'll leave it there.
I could really care less about this. What really concerns me is that we are over 16 trillion in debt and climbing, and we still haven't felt the financial impact of Obama Care yet.
This is all part and parcel of the same problem, the denial of reality, economic, moral, objective, historic, etc.
It is the 'great pretending', if you will, and the consequences, as in every single other time in history when a culture or civilisation so took leave of its senses, are on the way, courtesy of both parties, and gift wrapped by the American people themselves.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.