View Full Version : Why do people find my beliefs so offensive?
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 18:12
In the "Left vs. Right Authoritarianism" thread, Belmont31R made the comment,
What ever happened to leave me alone and Ill leave you alone?
As an extension of this, why do people tend to hate those of us who hold that belief so much? I've found this hatred to be almost universal over the last three years as my beliefs have gotten progressively libertarian and I really don't understand it.
An example of this came up today (actually about 45min ago) in my Nature and Human Values class. There were many people in the class that were opposed to the topic at hand (genetic engineering) on religious grounds. I made the comment that just because they didn't like something and justified it with, in my opinion, a faulty interpretation of the Bible, does not give them the right to force me to live by their beliefs, even if I'm in the minority. This really made several of them upset and in some cases, angry.
I don't understand their anger. I wasn't trying to force them to live by what I believe, I wasn't condemning their religion, I wasn't doing anything of the sort. All I said was that they don't have the right to force me to do a damn thing and similarly, I don't have the right to force them.
This should be the most acceptable viewpoint to a reasonable person I would think. It isn't like I was trying to force the Christians to convert to Islam, I was just telling them to stay out of my life. Does anyone have insight into this thought process? What is it that makes the beliefs that I hold along with many others on this forum so hated by the rest of the population?
The fact that they have no control over you... and what you could do with the freedom of being free of others rules (e.g. with DNA engineering, you might decrease infant mortality rates, but you could also turn into a psychopath who creates monsters from innocent human embryos).
It comes from a culture fear-mongering, plain and simple.
It's kinda how people want more money than everyone else. They want to be free, but they don't want you to have the same.
The prof flipped out in my criminal law class when I said that every prisoner who was not expected to pay back the costs of his incarceration in taxes once released should be executed as a matter of economic pragmatism. The next day he gave a public apology for his flip out.
WTF does he care what I think?
Mr. Evans: You ever been to Lawrence KS young man?
Jack Bull Chiles: [scoffs] No, I reckon not Mr. Evans. I don't believe I'd be too welcome in Lawrence.
Mr. Evans: I didn't think so. Before this war began, my business took me there often. As I saw those northerners build that town, I witnessed the seeds of our destruction being sown.
Jack Bull Chiles: The foundin' of that town was truly the beginnin' of the Yankee invasion.
Mr. Evans: I'm not speakin' of numbers, nor even abolitionist trouble makin'. It was the schoolhouse. Before they built their church, even, they built that schoolhouse. And they let in every tailor's son... and every farmer's daughter in that country.
Jack Bull Chiles: Spellin' won't help you hold a plow any firmer. Or a gun either.
Mr. Evans: No, it won't Mr. Chiles. But my point is merely that they rounded every pup up into that schoolhouse because they fancied that everyone should think and talk the same free-thinkin' way they do with no regard to station, custom, propriety. And that is why they will win. Because they believe everyone should live and think just like them. And we shall lose because we don't care one way or another how they live. We just worry about ourselves.
Jack Bull Chiles: Are you sayin', sir, that we fight for nothin'?
Mr. Evans: Far from it, Mr. Chiles. You fight for everything that we ever had, as did my son. It's just that... we don't have it anymore.
Belmont31R
02-17-11, 19:32
That was my point in that thread. Both conservatives and liberals want to project their idea of "right" onto you.
Conservatives want religious values and "traditional" family legally enforced on everyone.
Liberals want social and economic justice (AKA communism) legally forced on everyone.
I don't care what anyone does so long as it doesnt have a direct impact on me or my family. If someone wants to smoke pot in their house then so be it. If I want a full auto M240 to shoot on a range or my own property then I should be able to.
Remember rights stop where anothers begin.
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 19:37
I heard a bum on the streets of NYC say: "Americans hate God and fear death."
That answers a lot of it, in my opinion.
B_C
That was my point in that thread. Both conservatives and liberals want to project their idea of "right" onto you.
Conservatives want religious values and "traditional" family legally enforced on everyone.
Liberals want social and economic justice (AKA communism) legally forced on everyone.
I don't care what anyone does so long as it doesnt have a direct impact on me or my family. If someone wants to smoke pot in their house then so be it. If I want a full auto M240 to shoot on a range or my own property then I should be able to.
Remember rights stop where anothers begin.
Where's the party for the fiscally conservative and socially liberal (I'm not talking everyone-should-make-the-same liberal, I'm talking why-can't-gay-people-get-married liberal)? Every party that claims to be both seems to quickly move towards Republican or Democrat policies in short order.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 19:56
Where's the party for the fiscally conservative and socially liberal (I'm not talking everyone-should-make-the-same liberal, I'm talking why-can't-gay-people-get-married liberal)? Every party that claims to be both seems to quickly move towards Republican or Democrat policies in short order.
That's the libertarian party although lately I've been moving so far libertarian, I don't even agree with them on some issues.
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 20:18
Gee, why can't gay people get married, it's such a puzzle! How can we be so mean! What could possibly go wrong with that!
B_C
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 20:26
Gee, why can't gay people get married, it's such a puzzle! How can we be so mean! What could possibly go wrong with that!
B_C
Well I believe that marriage should be a religious institution so if you can't find a church to marry you, you are shit out of luck. There shouldn't be any need for a government equivalent because all of the shit that marriage currently brings as far as the government is concerned shouldn't exist in the first place.
Gee, why can't gay people get married, it's such a puzzle! How can we be so mean! What could possibly go wrong with that!
B_C
What could go wrong?
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 21:01
Well I believe that marriage should be a religious institution so if you can't find a church to marry you, you are shit out of luck. There shouldn't be any need for a government equivalent because all of the shit that marriage currently brings as far as the government is concerned shouldn't exist in the first place.
Nice head fake, but it won't work. You've created a false choice between either no marriage or any type of marriage. Wrong.
B_C
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 21:03
What could go wrong?
If you aren't sharp enough to figure out the point of marriage, I can't help you.
B_C
Cagemonkey
02-17-11, 21:13
The problem is that the saying "Live and let live" is easy to say or repeat, but very difficult to practice. I think it comes down to one word, judgemental. People can't hold back their personal opinions regarding others. Its hard to allow principles to trump ones emotional feelings.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:16
Nice head fake, but it won't work. You've created a false choice between either no marriage or any type of marriage. Wrong.
B_C
Ok, care to explain why it won't work then?
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:20
The problem is that the saying "Live and let live" is easy to say or repeat, but very difficult to practice. I think it comes down to one word, judgemental. People can't hold back their personal opinions regarding others. Its hard to allow principles to trump ones emotional feelings.
It isn't hard in practice at all. Hell, I am probably one of the most judgmental people you could ever meet but that doesn't mean I want to force all the idiots I see to do something else. They're stupidity doesn't affect me one way or another so they can go about their lives making stupid decisions all along the way and the only thing I will do about it is make sure not to count them as a friend and to stay away from them whenever possible.
It only becomes my problem when the government starts making ME pay for THEIR stupidity. That is why I don't approve of welfare programs.
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 21:21
Well, the most obvious one is demographics. Go ask the Soviets, er I mean Russians, how well their family policies with respect to the sanctity of marriage have worked out. Or go to China and see how their one child policy is about to detonate their society. The greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man, a woman and children under one roof.
B_C
Cagemonkey
02-17-11, 21:26
It isn't hard in practice at all. Hell, I am probably one of the most judgmental people you could ever meet but that doesn't mean I want to force all the idiots I see to do something else. They're stupidity doesn't affect me one way or another so they can go about their lives making stupid decisions all along the way and the only thing I will do about it is make sure not to count them as a friend and to stay away from them whenever possible.
It only becomes my problem when the government starts making ME pay for THEIR stupidity. That is why I don't approve of welfare programs.Well your a better man than most. I try to live by that saying as a golden rule. I must admit it causes some internal moral conflict. You must be a pretty laid back dude.
Where's the party for the fiscally conservative and socially liberal (I'm not talking everyone-should-make-the-same liberal, I'm talking why-can't-gay-people-get-married liberal)? Every party that claims to be both seems to quickly move towards Republican or Democrat policies in short order.
It should be the Constitution party but sadly it isn't. It's Libertarians more than any other but even then you have some with an agenda trying to run things. Doesn't help that the average person who calls themselves a Libertarian is nothing more than a stoner Democrat who wants legal weed.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:31
Well, the most obvious one is demographics. Go ask the Soviets, er I mean Russians, how well their family policies with respect to the sanctity of marriage have worked out. Or go to China and see how their one child policy is about to detonate their society. The greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man, a woman and children under one roof.
B_C
The difference is that I am not forcing stupid policies on anyone. I'm not forcing you to stop having children and start taking it up the butt. I'm saying that marriage isn't something that the government should have any hand in because their input is unwanted and unneeded in that area.
Please try to articulate an actual argument against this and don't send me around looking for information that isn't even relevant.
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 21:34
I have articulated an actual argument, so the ball is in your court.
B_C
Probably because you're 18 years old.
Where's the party for the fiscally conservative and socially liberal
There's a good reason why such a party doesn't exist, and it's not because everyone other than you is "stupid."
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:43
Well your a better man than most. I try to live by that saying as a golden rule. I must admit it causes some internal moral conflict. You must be a pretty laid back dude.
I try to be. It sure as hell makes life easier and more fun :cool:
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:45
I have articulated an actual argument, so the ball is in your court.
B_C
No you haven't. You brought up an example of government oppression (China) and I don't even know what you are getting at with the Russia comment so be a pal and explain your argument in clear terms to an idiot like me.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 21:46
Probably because you're 18 years old.
Which means what exactly?
There's a good reason why such a party doesn't exist, and it's not because everyone other than you is "stupid."
They aren't stupid, they are just immoral if they want to force their views on others.
Cagemonkey
02-17-11, 21:50
I try to be. It sure as hell makes life easier and more fun :cool:I hear you. Its better for both your physical and mental health.
WARNING. IF YOU ACT LIKE A SANCTIMONIOUS ASSHOLE DURING THIS DISCUSSION YOU WILL GET SLAPPED. I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE HEATED. KEEP IT CIVIL.
Not being directed at anyone yet, unless you already know who you are. :)
Business_Casual
02-17-11, 21:56
No you haven't. You brought up an example of government oppression (China) and I don't even know what you are getting at with the Russia comment so be a pal and explain your argument in clear terms to an idiot like me.
You aren't an idiot, but you are not very good at baiting me into over-reacting. Anyway, re-read the last sentence - the greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man and a woman with children under one roof.
B_C
Which means what exactly?[quote]
It means that when you're 45, it's likely (since you seem like an earnest, intelligent person) that your beliefs will have undergone some...modification in the interim.
That's all. No insult intended.
[quote]They aren't stupid, they are just immoral if they want to force their views on others.
Life, on this earth, with these humans, forces a reality upon all of us that is quite independent of our wishes.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 22:07
You aren't an idiot, but you are not very good at baiting me into over-reacting. Anyway, re-read the last sentence - the greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man and a woman with children under one roof.
B_C
I don't disagree that a man, woman, and children is the natural and best way for a family to operate. I just do not agree that it should be mandatory and that other ways of life should be illegal.
RancidSumo
02-17-11, 22:22
[QUOTE=RancidSumo;913090]Which means what exactly?[quote]
It means that when you're 45, it's likely (since you seem like an earnest, intelligent person) that your beliefs will have undergone some...modification in the interim.
That's all. No insult intended.
Life, on this earth, with these humans, forces a reality upon all of us that is quite independent of our wishes.
You may be right and my beliefs may change but I doubt it. I've put much more thought into than most people my age I would bet so i think my beliefs will refine themselves with age but won't outright change. Of course, I could be full of shit and be eating my words ten years down the road.
I think that it is unfortunate that most people have come to see government as a necessary evil. It is my belief that it is definitely evil but not in any way necessary (well that isn't entirely true. I am still working on figuring out what is needed with criminal/national defense. It is one of the few questions that I find truly difficult to figure out in this whole mess.) I think that many people have come to see the status quo as the only way to do things when it really isn't.
Life, on this earth, with these humans, forces a reality upon all of us that is quite independent of our wishes.
While true, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. It also doesn't mean it can't be better than it currently is. I don't think anyone actually believes "perfect" is attainable. But things are certainly capable of being better.
And there have been times when man had to accept the situation. This was true of slaves in Rome, victims of the Catholic church, those who suffered under the rule of monarchs, the victims of Nazi Germany or under the Communists. Thankfully we are not in such confining circumstances and we have a means to attempt to improve things despite the roadblocks set by those who seek power over us.
And more importantly, one of the first steps towards improvement is not simply accepting things as "good enough" when they could or should be better.
ChicagoTex
02-17-11, 23:24
the greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man and a woman with children under one roof
That's not actually an argument. That's just something you personally believe stated like a fact.
If it works for you, rock on. I'm personally not sold on it as far as absolute truth goes.
And before it comes up, no I'm not really lobbying for gay marriage here (nor am I lobbying against it) I'm actually lobbying for the social and fiscal responsibility of the single and/or childless. I'd much rather have a single man living within his means in my society than someone in a miserable marriage and in hock up to his eyeballs because of children he could never afford to support in the first place.
If you want to see what full on no gov't regulation, no law enforcement, no infrastructure looks like, buy a ticket to Mogadishu.
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 00:15
If you want to see what full on no gov't regulation, no law enforcement, no infrastructure looks like, buy a ticket to Mogadishu.
I'm not sure that is a legitimate comparison. It was a shit hole before with a corrupt government that started down the path it is on now and then it just degraded from there. Privatizing the US would be a completely different story I would bet. Obviously there are no certainties in this because it has never been done before.
No shit.
If you want to see what full on no gov't regulation, no law enforcement, no infrastructure looks like, buy a ticket to Mogadishu.
...why do people tend to hate those of us who hold that belief so much?
#1 You aren't alone.
#2 Our numbers are growing, welcome to the libertarian philosophy.
#3 Like others have said, the ones that have a problem with us fear losing the ability to control others.
#4 They fear that loss of control because they fear that it may invalidate what they believe in.
When you get down to it High School never ends. Its the same ole shit over and over again in our adult lives. Kids turn into teens who begin to question themselves and are uncomfortable. So they seek out like minded individuals. Those individuals make the person feel like they are the norm and are there fore ok. Ergo anyone not in that group must be abnormal. Abnormal is seen to be bad. Bad must be stopped. Again, its all about control.
Remember, libertarianism isnt anarchism. Libertarianism is about the government keeping to its constitutional duties and obligations and adhering to the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. The rights of the individual are elevated over the needs or desires of the state. Libertarians understand that regulation is needed. However said regulation does not need to be so invasive and pervasive and it sure doesn't need to regulate personal behavior.
If you want to see what full on no gov't regulation, no law enforcement, no infrastructure looks like, buy a ticket to Mogadishu.
I don't think that's the goal of the modern libertarian.
My reason for holding libertarian "extremist" beliefs is that the last 50 or so years have seen greater and greater infringement on every basic right. So at this point it's our duty to push back. When we get to a good level of freedom, i'll stop.
Belmont31R
02-18-11, 00:36
No shit.
As a libertarian I don't believe in no government.
I just don't believe in government doing anything other than protecting our rights.
That means having a military to protect our nation, LEO's to enforce laws, ect.
Where I draw the line is using the rule of law to tell someone they cant do XYZ even though it doesn't infringe on anyone else.
karmapolice
02-18-11, 00:46
Well, the most obvious one is demographics. Go ask the Soviets, er I mean Russians, how well their family policies with respect to the sanctity of marriage have worked out. Or go to China and see how their one child policy is about to detonate their society. The greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man, a woman and children under one roof.
B_C
With the high rate of first marriages resulting in divorce that doesn't really add up in the US, on top of that in the "good ole days" as some people like to call them just because divorce was looked down on it didn't mean that there was a lot more unstable/separated nuclear families going on. While families are a social institution the nuclear family is not the only type and it is also a product of industrialization like adolescence. So the idea of a man, a woman, and a child living under one roof being the only type of family that stabilizes society is crap. The family is only one of the many social institutions that help maintain a balanced society but the social institutions can also be the harbingers of undoing for a society as history has shown us.
The fact of the matter dealing with family is that we live in a industrialized nation/society that is connected to a industrialized global economy and we have no clue what the largest amount of population it can support but that we are more than likely reaching and or already have surpassed the number and we do not know if what it's resilience level is nor it's ability to recuperate after a major fall out. History/Anthropology shows up the most stable form of Society is that of Hunter Gathers but it can only support a few million but it has the highest resilience rate and recuperation rate. Hunter Gather societies marry but not in the way that modern western/usa civilizations practice marriage.
The truth of the matter is we live in unknown times and eventually the current society will fall, history shows that they all do at some point. Will we be able to rebuild based on the current workings or will it be the start of a whole new type of society, no one knows for sure.
To talk about the original question of the thread it basically to me it is part of the human condition for some, the must have some false sense of control etc.
**This nothing more than an opinion and there fore its worth nothing more than any other opinion, I do have a Bachelors of Science in Sociology not that I am a sociologist/expert but I am fairly educated in the realm of Sociology.***
I hope Ron Paul runs again in 2012. I may not agree with everything he does but he's damn sure one of the only politicians who's read the Constitution and actually tries to work within it's limits. I think the majority of Libertarian's beliefs are a hell of a lot closer to our country's founders than any Republican or Democrat.
Who gives a shit whether they call themselves married or butt-buddies? It doesn't harm your marriage and it certainly doesn't "deteriorate the very sanctity of life". I have even less idea as to how you reached that conclusion than I do about why wanting to be free is offensive.
Read what you just wrote. It's not "wanting to be free." If it was about just "wanting to be free," then look around: they're GAY. They actually have the freedom to be gay and do all sorts of gay stuff that gay people do. Other countries kill people for doing that. They're about as free as they can get on this planet. They aren't happy with that. That should be an indicator right there.
And guess what? They made it clear that they didn't care about tax breaks in and of themselves. What do they want? They want the title of "marriage." They want to be the same as everyone else. That's not free, that's them wanting to enforce their lifestyle on everyone else.
Think about it. They want other people to recognize them. It's got nothing to do with freedom, it's simply a bunch of insecure dimwits who want to feel "special" by saying they're the same as everyone else.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 01:30
The family (defined as one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, and their offspring) is the most basic, quintessential self-sustaining unit of the human race. Without it, there can be no life past this generation. The children of that relationship must rely on the parents to teach them how to survive and fend for themselves, ultimately starting their own family. Don't start a flawed argument with "well parents don't have to teach their kids." Yes, they do, and if they don't, then someone else has to and the parents ultimately have to pay for it in one way or another.
Two gays, regardless of how much they might love each other, cannot under ANY circumstances produce a child of their own. They are nothing more than two people who enjoy being together.
One of the above examples is an important, required, essential unit of life. The other is simply two messed up people (physically and/or mentally, per their own definition) who want an emotional fix.
They are not the same.
When the family is destroyed, then our future is destroyed. Want to argue differently? Take a look at the required "same-sex ed" classes that some schools have put into their curriculum. Look at how our 1A and 2A rights are being stripped away from us. At the very core, most every persisting problem in society stems from parents not raising and teaching their kids.
The "traditional" family is much more important than any other and must be held that way, regardless of how many sensitive wallflowers that fact offends, because no other type of family can sustain human life.
Your argument seems to imply that normal families and offspring are in short supply, or that no longer being intolerant of unconventional relationships will somehow doom the human race. The fact is that most people find the "traditional" family to be the most appealing package because most people are naturally hardwired for that and unless and until the laws of nature change, "holding the line" against homosexuality, singleness, and anything else non-traditional is, at best, entirely wasted effort.
The traditional family model has perpetuated itself by a large majority for millenia, it's not about to unravel just because we let homosexuals marry. And besides, even if it did, a population reduction would be a huge boon to this planet anyway.
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 01:31
The family (defined as one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, and their offspring) is the most basic, quintessential self-sustaining unit of the human race. Without it, there can be no life past this generation. The children of that relationship must rely on the parents to teach them how to survive and fend for themselves, ultimately starting their own family. Don't start a flawed argument with "well parents don't have to teach their kids." Yes, they do, and if they don't, then someone else has to and the parents ultimately have to pay for it in one way or another.
Two gays, regardless of how much they might love each other, cannot under ANY circumstances produce a child of their own. They are nothing more than two people who enjoy being together.
One of the above examples is an important, required, essential unit of life. The other is simply two messed up people (physically and/or mentally, per their own definition) who want an emotional fix.
They are not the same. Trying to make them the same is a disgrace to the human race itself. The gays don't want tax deductions or new filing statuses - if they did, they would have pressed for it instead of marriage. The only thing they want is to say that their the same as everyone else. They want to bring heterosexual marriage down to their level so that everyone feels all fuzzy and warm about their sexual choices. In the process of doing so, we're publicly stating that we value two random sexual deviants as much as the only unit known to mankind that can reproduce a human life. It's disgusting and it's a disgrace to life itself.
When the family is destroyed, then our future is destroyed. Want to argue differently? Take a look at the required "same-sex ed" classes that some schools have put into their curriculum. Look at how our 1A and 2A rights are being stripped away from us. At the very core, most every persisting problem in society stems from parents not raising and teaching their kids.
The "traditional" family is much more important than any other and must be held that way, regardless of how many sensitive wallflowers that fact offends, because no other type of family can sustain human life.
For the record, I have nothing against gays. If they want to be gay, then they can have at it. I know they'll burn in Hell for it, so I could care less how they waste their earthly lives.
So how does gay people finding a church that will marry them, wearing a pair of rings, and living that same life harm your family or any other family at all?
So how does gay people finding a church that will marry them, wearing a pair of rings, and living that same life harm your family or any other family at all?
Gays wearing rings, having a ceremony, and joining together in union doesn't hurt anything. I would have to point out the irony in any of them requesting a Christian ceremony, because Jesus said explicitly in the Bible that "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" and that they will burn in hell forever, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem happens when they start claiming that it's "marriage." If we took the term "marriage" and threw it away completely, and then assigned heterosexual marriages the term "child-bearing unions" and gays "non-reproductive union," or "domestic union," I personally guarantee you that the gays would have a huge issue with it. They've already done it with the numerous other terms that were coined out of respect for their relationships (domestic partners, "gay" marriage, etc). They want to be "the same," and that's the problem. They can never be the same because they can never be reborn as the sex they want to be. You cannot and will not ever be able to give them what they want without destroying the definition of every other heterosexual family.
If we say that gay "marriage" is the same as a child-bearing and rearing relationship, then it starts deteriorating the very sanctity of life. We're literally saying we value political correctness over human life.
The two relationships have absolutely nothing in common, aside from the fact that there's two consensual adults involved.
The problem is, the idea that marriage is a "right" is a fundamental misunderstanding.
Marriage is a restriction, forced by society on people who otherwise will whelp their young and then abandon them, forcing greater society to pay for it.
The fact that we've lost the bubble on this makes it no less true.
Arguing marriage as a "right" is the height of moronitude.
Having said that, since we've abandoned the very foundation of why marriage (or sex, for that matter) exists, I see no purpose toward restricting anyone from marrying anyone or anything they want.
Personally, I'd make abandoning a child a criminal offense. Reenact debtors prison, for both men and women and seize children and raise them by the state.
If I gotta pay for them anyway, I want control in how my money is spent.
If not, do away with any and all tax monies spent toward Other People's Kids, up to and including public schools.
Either way is ok with me.
Lets assume we all agree that the male/female=another human equation is the way to continue the human race.
So let me get this straight....the reason why gay marriage should not be sanctioned is because:
Gay marriage becomes sanctioned......
We all instantly turn gay and marry our same sex......
Thereby we end the human race because we stop procreating......
I am a strange bird I guess because if a cpl. of gay guys/gals want to get married, I am proof positive my sexuality will not change in the least.
Framing the reason for not allowing gays to marry because the human race will end or as some refer to as the destruction of the family unit(mother/father/child) could be construed as homophobia.
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 01:52
Gays wearing rings, having a ceremony, and joining together in union doesn't hurt anything. I would have to point out the irony in any of them requesting a Christian ceremony, because Jesus said explicitly in the Bible that "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" and that they will burn in hell forever, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem happens when they start claiming that it's "marriage." If we took the term "marriage" and threw it away completely, and then assigned heterosexual marriages the term "child-bearing unions" and gays "non-reproductive union," or "domestic union," I personally guarantee you that the gays would have a huge issue with it. They've already done it with the numerous other terms that were coined out of respect for their relationships (domestic partners, "gay" marriage, etc). They want to be "the same," and that's the problem. They can never be the same because they can never be reborn as the sex they want to be. You cannot and will not ever be able to give them what they want without destroying the definition of every other heterosexual family.
If we say that gay "marriage" is the same as a child-bearing and rearing relationship, then it starts deteriorating the very sanctity of life. We're literally saying we value political correctness over human life.
The two relationships have absolutely nothing in common, aside from the fact that there's two consensual adults involved.
Who gives a shit whether they call themselves married or butt-buddies? It doesn't harm your marriage and it certainly doesn't "deteriorate the very sanctity of life". I have even less idea as to how you reached that conclusion than I do about why wanting to be free is offensive.
Your argument seems to imply that normal families and offspring are in short supply, or that no longer being intolerant of unconventional relationships will somehow doom the human race. The fact is that most people find the "traditional" family to be the most appealing package because most people are naturally hardwired for that and unless and until the laws of nature change, "holding the line" against homosexuality, singleness, and anything else non-traditional is, at best, entirely wasted effort.
Your rebuttal is akin to saying that since a skyscraper is 80 stories tall, the first two stories are old, outdated, and no longer needed.
You cannot change the foundation of something without damaging it or destroying it. This is true in every law of physics, every mathematical axiom, and every instance of nature. The entire human race is based on the heterosexual family, therefore you cannot change the family without damaging or destroying the human race.
Just for an example, look at China. They tried, one way or another, to "redefine" the family as "one man, one woman, and ONE child." Just like you, they thought that they had more than enough people; in fact, too many. What could this law hurt? Now they have hundreds of millions of men who will never be able to marry because most families opted to have men instead of women and now there's a very low woman to man ratio in China.
As a libertarian I don't believe in no government.
I just don't believe in government doing anything other than protecting our rights.
That means having a military to protect our nation, LEO's to enforce laws, ect.
Where I draw the line is using the rule of law to tell someone they cant do XYZ even though it doesn't infringe on anyone else.
We're on the same page. I dislike extremists of any stripe.
The US is too big, has too many people, for it not to have some kind of gov't. The Whisky Rebellion pretty much solidified taxation by the Federal gov't early on in this nation's history.
I put forth Somalia as an example of a state that has no functioning central gov't, that can't collect taxes, that has no real infrastructure or oversight. People who advocate the same here in the US sometimes forget that this country would be like any other 3rd World Shithole without some kind of effective central authority.
But, don't think that I'm advocating either a police or a nanny state....I'm not.
Leave me the **** alone and I'll leave you the **** alone.
I'm probably not too far away from you as well.
As a libertarian I don't believe in no government.
I just don't believe in government doing anything other than protecting our rights.
That means having a military to protect our nation, LEO's to enforce laws, ect.
Where I draw the line is using the rule of law to tell someone they cant do XYZ even though it doesn't infringe on anyone else.
Who gives a shit whether they call themselves married or butt-buddies? It doesn't harm your marriage and it certainly doesn't "deteriorate the very sanctity of life". I have even less idea as to how you reached that conclusion than I do about why wanting to be free is offensive.
Read what you just wrote. It's not "wanting to be free." If it was about just "wanting to be free," then look around: they're GAY. They actually have the freedom to be gay and do all sorts of gay stuff that gay people do. Other countries kill people for doing that. They're about as free as they can get on this planet. They aren't happy with that. That should be an indicator right there.
And guess what? They made it clear that they didn't care about tax breaks in and of themselves. What do they want? They want the title of "marriage." They want to be the same as everyone else. That's not free, that's them wanting to enforce their lifestyle on everyone else.
Think about it. They want other people to recognize them. It's got nothing to do with freedom, it's simply a bunch of insecure dimwits who want to feel "special" by saying they're the same as everyone else.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 02:10
You cannot change the foundation of something without damaging it or destroying it. This is true in every law of physics, every mathematical axiom, and every instance of nature. The entire human race is based on the heterosexual family, therefore you cannot change the family without damaging or destroying the human race.
Nothing would change. Homosexuality has been observed to naturally occur in all reaches of the animal kingdom, and homosexuality certainly isn't recently new. Whether or not society opposses these natural aberrations that have been around for as long as humanity itself isn't going to make them have children or participate in the traditional family dynamic.
Marriage, by contrast, is not and never will be a natural institution (as evidenced by the fact that animals never marry) and is therefore entirely outside the domain of the nature of mankind.
Face it, homosexuality is actually historically more traditional than the entirely artificial construct of marriage, and while I personally acknowledge a plethora of social benefits from a marriage model (regardless of who comprises it), the reality is there's nothing remotely foundational about it.
If marriage, in any or all it's forms ceased to exist tomorrow, the majority of humans would continue screwing and childrearing and the race would go on - just maybe not as you'd personally prefer. But that's your deal, and hardly a universal truth.
Live and let live and all that.
Nothing would change. Homosexuality has been observed to naturally occur in all reaches of the animal kingdom, and homosexuality certainly isn't recently new. Whether or not society opposses these natural aberrations that have been around for as long as humanity itself isn't going to make them have children or participate in the traditional family dynamic.
And I would agree...
...except that in every other culture, gays didn't go around starting fights because they weren't addressed as "married." And if I see a gay gorilla getting it on with another gorilla, it doesn't call a lawyer if I make fun of it. Like I said, I have no problems whatsoever with gays (I truly mean that), but I do I have problems with it when people try to tell me that their relationship is the same as mine simply for the sake of doing so.
If it was simply about being gay, then I'd have no issue with it. The fact that it isn't says that this is much greater than some emotional need. They (the LGBTs) want to force same-sex-ed on kids in freaking grade school. It's already happened and is happening in the more liberal districts... all in the name of "rights."
This isn't just about the need for a marriage. It's about trying to brainwash the culture into accepting a minority's lifestyle as if its the majority's, without regard to the repercussions.
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 02:37
Read what you just wrote. It's not "wanting to be free." If it was about just "wanting to be free," then look around: they're GAY. They actually have the freedom to be gay and do all sorts of gay stuff that gay people do. Other countries kill people for doing that. They're about as free as they can get on this planet. They aren't happy with that. That should be an indicator right there.
And guess what? They made it clear that they didn't care about tax breaks in and of themselves. What do they want? They want the title of "marriage." They want to be the same as everyone else. That's not free, that's them wanting to enforce their lifestyle on everyone else.
Think about it. They want other people to recognize them. It's got nothing to do with freedom, it's simply a bunch of insecure dimwits who want to feel "special" by saying they're the same as everyone else.
If there is no government institution of marriage and then it doesn't matter. They can call themselves whatever the **** they want and it won't bother me one bit. I don't have to recognize their marriage, the only people that have to do that are themselves and whoever married them (if it was a religious ceremony).
And I would agree...
...except that in every other culture, gays didn't go around starting fights because they weren't addressed as "married." And if I see a gay gorilla getting it on with another gorilla, it doesn't call a lawyer if I make fun of it. Like I said, I have no problems whatsoever with gays (I truly mean that), but I do I have problems with it when people try to tell me that their relationship is the same as mine simply for the sake of doing so.
If it was simply about being gay, then I'd have no issue with it. The fact that it isn't says that this is much greater than some emotional need. They (the LGBTs) want to force same-sex-ed on kids in freaking grade school. It's already happened and is happening in the more liberal districts... all in the name of "rights."
This isn't just about the need for a marriage. It's about trying to brainwash the culture into accepting a minority's lifestyle as if its the majority's, without regard to the repercussions.
Many of your objections in this post seem to come from other government bullshit that I also advocating tossing in the trash. They wouldn't be able to force same-sex ed on all kids if there was no public school system. Then since you no longer have to deal with them "forcing" their beliefs on you in any way, what is there to worry about?
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 02:44
We're on the same page. I dislike extremists of any stripe.
The US is too big, has too many people, for it not to have some kind of gov't. The Whisky Rebellion pretty much solidified taxation by the Federal gov't early on in this nation's history.
I put forth Somalia as an example of a state that has no functioning central gov't, that can't collect taxes, that has no real infrastructure or oversight. People who advocate the same here in the US sometimes forget that this country would be like any other 3rd World Shithole without some kind of effective central authority.
But, don't think that I'm advocating either a police or a nanny state....I'm not.
Leave me the **** alone and I'll leave you the **** alone.
As far as my specific beliefs on this go, I do not believe that ANY government is necessarily the right thing to do. Ludwig Von Mises said, "Government is nothing but beating, hanging, and killing" and I tend to agree with that.
Unfortunately, the fact that not all countries would turn into the perfect world that I would like even if the US did presents a problem with the defense of this new free land. The perfect society that I envision would not be able to defend itself on a large scale. Because of this, I think that a government is necessary to provide defense against other nations otherwise we wouldn't remain free for long. I DO NOT think that income taxes or property taxes are the way to fund it though.
Infrastructure and things of that nature, I believe, could all be privatized and we would be better off.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 02:48
And I would agree...
...except that in every other culture, gays didn't go around starting fights because they weren't addressed as "married." And if I see a gay gorilla getting it on with another gorilla, it doesn't call a lawyer if I make fun of it. Like I said, I have no problems whatsoever with gays (I truly mean that), but I do I have problems with it when people try to tell me that their relationship is the same as mine simply for the sake of doing so.
If it was simply about being gay, then I'd have no issue with it. The fact that it isn't says that this is much greater than some emotional need. They (the LGBTs) want to force same-sex-ed on kids in freaking grade school. It's already happened and is happening in the more liberal districts... all in the name of "rights."
This isn't just about the need for a marriage. It's about trying to brainwash the culture into accepting a minority's lifestyle as if its the majority's, without regard to the repercussions.
So you've reversed positions entirely, and are now pleading butthurt because gay people doing exactly the same thing you do (committing to another person on social and/or religious grounds) want it to be called the same thing?
And you don't understand why it would bug them that you still want to sequester them with different terminology... REALLY?
How would you feel if tomorrow all gun-owning citizens were reclassified as "Gun-toting maniacs" with no change in rights or priviledges? Hey, you can still own guns right? What have you got to complain about! :rolleyes:
RancidSumo
02-18-11, 02:55
Deleted
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 03:05
RancidSumo raises a valid point in his now-deleted comment. One of the reasons this whole thing is an issue in the first place is because the government regulates marriage. Get em out of marriage, and anyone can get married, call it whatever the hell they want, and none of it matters anyway. Alter teachings in public school accordingly (or dump the public school system entirely, whatever your fancy is) and move along.
You may be right and my beliefs may change but I doubt it. I've put much more thought into than most people my age I would bet so i think my beliefs will refine themselves with age but won't outright change.
Says everyone your age. :lol:
Of course, I could be full of shit and be eating my words ten years down the road.
You're not seeing the whole picture because you can't possibly see the whole picture from down there. And even up here you'll only get part of the picture, and there's plenty of people much further up the age ladder than me that see even more.
It's good to be a righteously indignant teenager/twenty-something. and I'd much rather you be righteously indignant with beliefs similar to mine than the kind of "grass roots" bullshit that got us a mooslimb for a president.
Kids, marriage, a job, no job, a critically ill family member, a death in the family, trying to start a side or small business and getting your whole income taxed away from you, moving to a new town, traveling outside the country, military service, a run in with the law (yours or someone close to you), etc. all will change the way you look at things.
Business_Casual
02-18-11, 07:15
Lets assume we all agree that the male/female=another human equation is the way to continue the human race.
So let me get this straight....the reason why gay marriage should not be sanctioned is because:
Gay marriage becomes sanctioned......
We all instantly turn gay and marry our same sex......
Thereby we end the human race because we stop procreating......
I am a strange bird I guess because if a cpl. of gay guys/gals want to get married, I am proof positive my sexuality will not change in the least.
Framing the reason for not allowing gays to marry because the human race will end or as some refer to as the destruction of the family unit(mother/father/child) could be construed as homophobia.
I think we are coming from the "nose under the tent" side of that. We don't expect to become homosexuals because of gay marriage. We simply see it as another attempt to undermine traditional values. We feel that traditional values have, er, value.
The entire 2nd Amendment argument is a perfect example. How many times has registration been proposed or some "common sense" restriction led to confiscation?
B_C
montanadave
02-18-11, 07:19
because Jesus said explicitly in the Bible that "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" and that they will burn in hell forever
Did He now? I must have missed that part.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 07:25
The entire 2nd Amendment argument is a perfect example. How many times has registration been proposed or some "common sense" restriction led to confiscation?
Actually it's a terrible example. You're equating a movement to establish rights for heretofore discriminated individuals with attempts to restrict rights. That's actually the opposite of an example. Your parallel is more like opposing right to carry in a state that's never had it.
I take it you vehemently oppose the constitutional modification to make blacks and women voting citizens then? It was, after all, "tradition" for blacks to be slaves and women to be non-citizens. Hell, it was even constitutional precedent.
Traditional bigotry is still bigotry.
Did He now? I must have missed that part.
He didn't, but He DID explicitly explain the model for marriage:
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
It should be the Constitution party but sadly it isn't. It's Libertarians more than any other but even then you have some with an agenda trying to run things. Doesn't help that the average person who calls themselves a Libertarian is nothing more than a stoner Democrat who wants legal weed.
Yea, there isn't a party that is too close to where I stand on issues. I'd support Libertarians if they had a chance of winning. I vote for Libertarians locally and some do hold local office. I think we need more services for a well functioning society than they think we do, but I'd rather err on the side of freedom without a party closer to my beliefs.
I'm not going to participate in this thread further though, because all I made was one comment about the existence of said party and I was accused of calling everyone who doesn't see things like me stupid, and business_casual is exceptionally homophobic to the point of actually calling people stupid. I come to M4c for a more mature discussion of guns; I guess that just doesn't spill over into politics. C'est la vie.
montanadave
02-18-11, 07:34
How many times do folks have to rehash the same old shit?
Government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business. Government should be in the business of enforcing the rule of law. And the law needs to provide for civil unions between any two consenting adults, with all the legal rights, privileges and obligations attached to that contract.
Folks that desire a marriage, a ceremony with culturally defined religious, spiritual, and social significance, can still engage in that practice. Those that oppose same-sex marriage can get married in a church or institution that does not recognize such marriages. Those that desire a same-sex marriage are free to choose a church or institution that does recognize those marriages.
Can we move on?
John_Wayne777
02-18-11, 07:36
We're on the same page. I dislike extremists of any stripe.
The US is too big, has too many people, for it not to have some kind of gov't. The Whisky Rebellion pretty much solidified taxation by the Federal gov't early on in this nation's history.
I put forth Somalia as an example of a state that has no functioning central gov't, that can't collect taxes, that has no real infrastructure or oversight. People who advocate the same here in the US sometimes forget that this country would be like any other 3rd World Shithole without some kind of effective central authority.
But, don't think that I'm advocating either a police or a nanny state....I'm not.
Leave me the **** alone and I'll leave you the **** alone.
Precisely. No society can function unless there is at least a basic understanding and adherence to some form of social contract where everybody recognizes some level of responsibility toward their fellow citizen.
Everybody doing whatever makes them feel good without restriction is the law of the jungle, and that hasn't ever made for a society anyone wants to live in. There has to be some system of law and some system of enforcement to deal with the people who insist on living by the law of the jungle.
Folks, no modern political party is ideal. If all you do is look for flaws, you'll find nothing but...
The fact remains, however, that one side more consistently than the other believes that our basic social contract...namely the Constitution...places meaningful limits on the power and scope of government authority. Conservatives didn't produce laws that jailed someone for selling wheat below government approved prices, didn't come up with government "retirement" programs that paid tens of thousands of dollars (in 1930's-1940's money) to people who never paid into a "retirement" system, didn't put judges on courts who said that you decide a case based on what you think is right and wait for the law to "catch up"...
Actually it's a terrible example. You're equating a movement to establish rights for heretofore discriminated individuals with attempts to restrict rights. That's actually the opposite of an example. Your parallel is more like opposing right to carry in a state that's never had it.
I take it you vehemently oppose the constitutional modification to make blacks and women voting citizens then? It was, after all, "tradition" for blacks to be slaves and women to be non-citizens. Hell, it was even constitutional precedent.
Traditional bigotry is still bigotry.
Bullshit.
Your point of view depends on claiming marriage as a "right". It is not. It is a restriction between two individuals and the state, or the community. Designed to keep the rest of the community from having to pay for their kids.
The warped view of the role of sex in society is commonly held among the logically challenged. Sex is not an "entertainment device" but rather a reproductive tool.
To boot, homosexuality is a behavior. Dark skin and gender are not.
To even argue with the the homophiles, you have to accept all sorts of stupid shit, like marriage as a right, or to equate an aberrant behavior to an intrinsic characteristic.
How many times do folks have to rehash the same old shit?
Government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business. Government should be in the business of enforcing the rule of law. And the law needs to provide for civil unions between any two consenting adults, with all the legal rights, privileges and obligations attached to that contract.
Folks that desire a marriage, a ceremony with culturally defined religious, spiritual, and social significance, can still engage in that practice. Those that oppose same-sex marriage can get married in a church or institution that does not recognize such marriages. Those that desire a same-sex marriage are free to choose a church or institution that does recognize those marriages.
Can we move on?
I would agree with you, but that won't stop the "Gay-stapo" from suing any such institutions that don't agree with their perversion out of existence.
If you think the gay agenda has ANYTHING to do with freedom, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy, really cheap.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 07:45
Actually marriage is a contract like any other. It's a contract sanctioned either by the state or by both the state and the church. The state is the only one that matters legally since it's a function of law. Marriages that begin in churches end up in divorce court not the local parish.
You have a "right" explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution to enter into a contract with any legal adult.
Government has no power to restrict such a contract.
While I agree that government has no authority to force a church or denomination to recognize a marriage as a religious institution, the church has no authority to force government to recognize or not recognize which marriages are legal contracts under the Constitution.
montanadave
02-18-11, 07:47
Sex is not an "entertainment device" but rather a reproductive tool.
:suicide:
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 07:48
To even argue with the the homophiles, you have to accept all sorts of stupid shit, like marriage as a right, or to equate an aberrant behavior to an intrinsic characteristic.
Once again, homosexuality has been observed in nearly every sexual creature on the planet, leading to the extremely logical conclusion that homosexuality is, to at least some extent, intrinsic.
Regardless, as marriage infringes on no one else's rights, it most certainly is a right. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind about this.
I think we are coming from the "nose under the tent" side of that. We don't expect to become homosexuals because of gay marriage. We simply see it as another attempt to undermine traditional values. We feel that traditional values have, er, value.
The entire 2nd Amendment argument is a perfect example. How many times has registration been proposed or some "common sense" restriction led to confiscation?
B_C
Your position and opinion is unmistakeably Elitist....and the "value" that you are using to relegate an entire class of human beings to a lower level is..again let me try and get this straight...because you don't want your Marriage and it's so called definition to be "degraded" by letting other people simply have a title and a few rights that come along with it. Wouldn't want to tarnish any definitions at the expense of equality and fairness.
You guys act like if your kids see gay literature, gay couples out in public, or even gay tv shows, they will fall victim to the overwhelming onslaught of gays who are so notorious for trying to convert hetero people into becoming gay(even though I have never heard or read of one single scintilla of that being the case ) and become a homosexual. Even if they could sell gum in a lock jaw ward.....they wouldn't budge my genetic sexuality.
Again, it's unavoidable to draw the conclusions that this is homophobia and paranoia, as well as Elitism hiding personal insecurity.
Elitism:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
:suicide:
Hate to go through life feeling that way...whew.
Belmont31R
02-18-11, 08:07
Gays should form their own religion that says gay marriage is ok, and then use it against people for denying them free exercise of religion.
The bible thumpers would go nuts.
Oh and if marriage is about procreation then why do we let people who can't procreate naturally marry? Or revoke marriage licenses if you don't have a kid within X years? If this is about raising kids with a mommy and daddy then they shouldn't need that marriage license if you don't have kids right?
Belmont31R
02-18-11, 08:12
I think we are coming from the "nose under the tent" side of that. We don't expect to become homosexuals because of gay marriage. We simply see it as another attempt to undermine traditional values. We feel that traditional values have, er, value.
B_C
Then go live your traditional values and let other people live in whatever value system they want that doesn't infringe on your rights.
I don't see why this is so hard.
Did He now? I must have missed that part.
Sorry - it was late. Paul said that. Any other day I'd have typed that out right. That's what I get for debating at 2AM.
RancidSumo raises a valid point in his now-deleted comment. One of the reasons this whole thing is an issue in the first place is because the government regulates marriage. Get em out of marriage, and anyone can get married, call it whatever the hell they want, and none of it matters anyway. Alter teachings in public school accordingly (or dump the public school system entirely, whatever your fancy is) and move along.
I'm PERFECTLY fine with that.
If there is no government institution of marriage and then it doesn't matter. They can call themselves whatever the **** they want and it won't bother me one bit. I don't have to recognize their marriage, the only people that have to do that are themselves and whoever married them (if it was a religious ceremony).
Many of your objections in this post seem to come from other government bullshit that I also advocating tossing in the trash. They wouldn't be able to force same-sex ed on all kids if there was no public school system. Then since you no longer have to deal with them "forcing" their beliefs on you in any way, what is there to worry about?
I guess you and I believe the same thing, then. The only issue I see is that you're arguing the way things should be, I'm arguing what the logical course of action should be based on the way things are.
I completely agree with throwing out government-sanctioned marriages. However, until they're thrown out, we're stuck with what we have. My issues start when the government tells us that we have to do X, Y, and Z to be "married," and then tries to (or rather, gay activists try to get it to) declare there's no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals and that both are "important." Bull crap it is.
I'm not a homosexual, I don't believe in being a homosexual, and therefore I refuse to degrade my family to being classified as "the same thing." We can reproduce, they can't. I can raise kids that are my own, they can't. We're going to heaven (if you believe in Christianity), they aren't. And I don't need a sex-ed class to describe my sexual function, while they freaking need a shrink to come in and explain why screwing someone else in the butt is "ok" even though its completely devoid of any biological function.
So you've reversed positions entirely, and are now pleading butthurt because gay people doing exactly the same thing you do (committing to another person on social and/or religious grounds) want it to be called the same thing?
And you don't understand why it would bug them that you still want to sequester them with different terminology... REALLY?
How would you feel if tomorrow all gun-owning citizens were reclassified as "Gun-toting maniacs" with no change in rights or priviledges? Hey, you can still own guns right? What have you got to complain about! :rolleyes:
No, I haven't switched positions. Aside from having two people that live together, there's NOTHING similar about the two marriages. I have no problem with recognizing foreign heterosexuals as being "married," even though their culture might be 180* from ours. Their marriage maintains the same functions as any other, therefore it can be called the same. Now, explain the functions that are the same between homosexual and heterosexual marriages (list the tangible, non-emotional, general functions of both families that they can perform completely on their own - "adoption" and lesbian in vitro don't count).
Your gun argument is seriously off key. Trying to act like calling someone a "homosexual" is the same thing as calling them a maniac is ridiculous and very MSM'ish. There's nothing derogatory about the term "homosexual marriage" (there isn't - the term in and of itself is no worse than "heterosexual"). A better example would have been "From now on, all handgun owners would be referred to as rifle owners." See what happens there? Now you've lost any and all insightful information from the term and you've in effect valued handguns and rifles as the same, even though the couldn't be any more different.
Business_Casual
02-18-11, 10:34
Society grades on a Bell Curve. If I set the right side at LCD, it won't work - if that makes me an elitist, so be it.
B_C
montanadave
02-18-11, 11:01
Society grades on a Bell Curve. If I set the right side at LCD, it won't work - if that makes me an elitist, so be it.
B_C
Care to unpack that statement for the rest of the class?
What ever happened to leave me alone and I'll leave you alone?
As an extension of this, why do people tend to hate those of us who hold that belief so much? I've found this hatred to be almost universal over the last three years as my beliefs have gotten progressively libertarian and I really don't understand it.
I think it's because people have an innate need to try to control others and find it difficult to believe that someone could actually have a different opinion than them. Many people classify themselves as being "intelligent" and if you don't agree with them than you must somehow be a dullard. One of the problems being is that people will not or can not take a more neutral stance and see things objectively.
Personally, I think you make some very valid points on quite a few different topics. I may not agree with you entirely on every subject but I can take a step back and understand where you're coming from. Regardless of your age you should continue your studies and continue down the path you've chosen. Your typical, average American keeps their head buried in their X-Box, American Idol and the latest copy of Us magazine, I'm happy to see that you're pursuing something greater.
And now back to the homo thread...
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 11:14
First it should be noted that there are many homosexuals that have their own biological offspring.
Second there are too many legal implications to marriage (inheritance, alimony, child support/abandonment, medical decision making, spousal privilege) that make some form of government regulation of marriage necessary. Marriage is a legal contract and the only argument pro-gay marriage advocates are making is that they should enjoy the same priveleges/immunities that goes with that contract. If it would help ease the cramping and heartburn by calling it "civil unions" or "common law" marriage or whatever I'm fine with that, just be sure that there is no functional/legal difference between that and church sanctioned marriage.
Where government should stay out of is telling a church or religious denomination what form their sacraments take. If the catholic church refuses to marry homosexuals, they have that right. If the methodist church condones the practice they have that right.
First it should be noted that there are many homosexuals that have their own biological offspring.
.
Like two guys who are members of the Man Country club in Chicago.
It's odd how the wives do not seem to know the husbands are gay even though everyone else does.
If you want to see what full on no gov't regulation, no law enforcement, no infrastructure looks like, buy a ticket to Mogadishu.
Somalia has government in the form of warlords, imams and bandits. It's pretty nasty, but it's government.
The absence of government would be a different flavor of chaos: without people jockeying for power and influence. In other word, without anyone trying to govern others.
You're not seeing the whole picture because you can't possibly see the whole picture from down there. And even up here you'll only get part of the picture, and there's plenty of people much further up the age ladder than me that see even more.
Being older doesn't necessarily make you wiser. But, having a family, a house or a career will certainly drive you towards conservatism.
Everyone's got their own set of blinders. The problem is that everyone assumes they hold the moral high ground.
Gays should form their own religion that says gay marriage is ok, and then use it against people for denying them free exercise of religion.
The bible thumpers would go nuts.
Oh and if marriage is about procreation then why do we let people who can't procreate naturally marry? Or revoke marriage licenses if you don't have a kid within X years? If this is about raising kids with a mommy and daddy then they shouldn't need that marriage license if you don't have kids right?
I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
No, I haven't switched positions. Aside from having two people that live together, there's NOTHING similar about the two marriages. I have no problem with recognizing foreign heterosexuals as being "married," even though their culture might be 180* from ours. Their marriage maintains the same functions as any other, therefore it can be called the same. Now, explain the functions that are the same between homosexual and heterosexual marriages (list the tangible, non-emotional, general functions of both families that they can perform completely on their own - "adoption" and lesbian in vitro don't count).
That is easy. Property rights. That is what marriage from the governments perspective is all about. The ability to have property rights that no other corporate entity can have. That is the crux of the matter. The denial to one group the rights afforded to another that is based simply on genetic make up.
That is easy. Property rights. That is what marriage from the governments perspective is all about. The ability to have property rights that no other corporate entity can have. That is the crux of the matter. The denial to one group the rights afforded to another that is based simply on genetic make up.
I have zero issue with them having the same rights. BUT... the gays have made it clear they don't just "want the same rights," they want to be called the same - "married" - and they want to make sure you can't differentiate between gay and non-gay marriage.
That's like me trying to pass a law where all people can be called "Caucasian," regardless of skin color. It's ludicrous. The term does nothing in and of itself, so why is it important? The only people that are actually offended by it are the people who feel inferior because they're not white (or straight); the rest of the world could care less that they're gay (myself included).
So why the big push to blur the lines? Simple: it's the underlying motive. They want to do everything possible to cast themselves as normal as heterosexuals. And guess what? Once it's accepted as "commonly normal," what do you think will follow next? Required gay sex-ed in schools? Standardized "sex tests" for middle schoolers? Being gay is normal, so kids should be taught that mommy can have a schlong too, right? Think I'm exaggerating? It's already being done in California.
This would be super stupid simple if it was about rights and rights alone. It isn't. It's about trying to enforce a minority lifestyle on everyone so those insecure people living that lifestyle don't feel ostracized.
Gee, why can't gay people get married, it's such a puzzle! How can we be so mean! What could possibly go wrong with that!
B_C
Its in the definition and history of evolution of marriage -- how marriage came to be. This has nothing to do with religion btw. Marriage evolved as a way to protect and provide for the child bearing class (women) and their offspring. Marriage is not merely a social contract -- Gays already have that in many states but are not satisfied.
Marriage is about children -- making and protecting. People may enter into marriage for other reasons -- many things have peripheral reasons for existence and peripheral reasons my people engage in them -- but the reason for the existence of marriage historically, and by definition, what defines Marriage is Children.
Hope that clears things up.
Oh and if marriage is about procreation then why do we let people who can't procreate naturally marry? Or revoke marriage licenses if you don't have a kid within X years? If this is about raising kids with a mommy and daddy then they shouldn't need that marriage license if you don't have kids right?
I hope you see the logical fallacy of your arguments.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 14:59
Like two guys who are members of the Man Country club in Chicago.
It's odd how the wives do not seem to know the husbands are gay even though everyone else does.
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.
But lots of people get married and have kids because of societal expectations only to realize that they're living a lie. Some do so honorably, others get elected governor of New Jersey.
This doesn't change the fact that they are parents and have parental responsibilities. It also doesn't change the fact that the "wives" in question may be at least as ****ed up and are unfit parents. It doesn't change the fact that there are AT LEAST as many (if not more) ****ed up straight parents that do harm to their children. In my years in public safety/EMS and seeing kids taken into the "system" 100% of said dirtbags were straight. Does it happen? Probably, but let's not pretend that straight parents are good parents.
Relevant to marriage as an institution meant for the protection of children, that may be a good reason for the institution, but being a straight married couple doesn't make you good parents any more than being a gay married couple precludes you from being ones.
Relevant to marriage as an institution meant for the protection of children, that may be a good reason for the institution, but being a straight married couple doesn't make you good parents any more than being a gay married couple precludes you from being ones.
No one said that being straight made you great parents.
Gay couples biologically cannot have children within the marriage, which is the point of the institution in the first place.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 16:05
Gay couples biologically cannot have children within the marriage, which is the point of the institution in the first place.
Really? And here I was thinking that the point of marriage was that you loved someone so much you wanted to build a life together irrespective if you wanted kids.
My wife and I don't have kids and don't want any. I know quite a few married couples who feel the same.
Are we "less" married than those with kids?
I know quite a few other couples that can't conceive and so they adopted.
Are they "less" married because they can't have biological children?
You don't want your church to allow gay marriage...go nuts, I don't give a rip. Pretending that society will come to an end if not every church or civil marriage espouses that belief is absurd.
Belmont31R
02-18-11, 16:11
No one said that being straight made you great parents.
Gay couples biologically cannot have children within the marriage, which is the point of the institution in the first place.
According to who?
Really? And here I was thinking that the point of marriage was that you loved someone so much you wanted to build a life together irrespective if you wanted kids.
My wife and I don't have kids and don't want any. I know quite a few married couples who feel the same.
Are we "less" married than those with kids?
I know quite a few other couples that can't conceive and so they adopted.
Are they "less" married because they can't have biological children?
You don't want your church to allow gay marriage...go nuts, I don't give a rip. Pretending that society will come to an end if not every church or civil marriage espouses that belief is absurd.
You are missing the point. Marriage's purpose is for the creation and protection of children. That is a historical and societal fact. Does that mean that everyone who gets married has to fulfill that purpose? no. Of course not. Lots of things get used for other than the intended purpose of their creators. The last few hundred years have seen marriage as an outlet for relationships. Which is good. No problem with some people using it for other than the intended purpose.
I am not coming at this from a religious slant. In fact I used to be all for the get government out of marriage and who cares who wants to get married camp. Until I learned a lot more about marriage and where it came from and its purpose societally and throughout history.
However, some people using it differently than intended does not diminish the origin of marriage and what marriage is.
And lets get off the dumb argument about "less" married etc. The argument that gay marriage damages the INSTITUTION of marriage has nothing to do with any individual actual marriage, but with the overall institution as a protector of childbearing and childrearing.
I am not at all opposed to "civil unions" or whatever you want to call it that give a social contract between two people that would have similar or the same tax and other advantages that marriage does. But its not marriage. By definition.
According to who?
Biology.
(notice I said "within the marriage.")
Two men f*cking won't ever produce a child. If you do it outside the marriage, then what is the point? That is not being true and monogamous to your partner.
I know quite a few other couples that can't conceive and so they adopted.
Are they "less" married because they can't have biological children?
Are you asking this seriously? You are smarter than that GSJ.
Adopted children also need nurturing and love and protecting and the marriage provides for that. Nature does not allow them to conceive for whatever reason but they still go ahead and fulfill parental duties within a loving (hopefully) home.
This whole counter-argument that relies on examination of individual marriages when we are talking about the INSTITUTION of marriage, not individual marriages, makes no sense.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 17:19
You are missing the point. Marriage's purpose is for the creation and protection of children. That is a historical and societal fact.
Nope, you view that as tautologic argument that isn't borne out. In the Talmud, there was no blood price for children under the age of 12. Since most children didn't survive until adulthood.
There was a blood price even for slaves and cattle but none for children.
Even still in the modern context, you don't marry someone to breed with, you marry someone for love.
Concepts of marriage vary broadly across culures.
Even still you're making the presumption that gays have no wish to protect their children and are incapable of doing so.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 17:28
Are you asking this seriously? You are smarter than that GSJ.
Adopted children also need nurturing and love and protecting and the marriage provides for that. Nature does not allow them to conceive for whatever reason but they still go ahead and fulfill parental duties within a loving (hopefully) home.
This whole counter-argument that relies on examination of individual marriages when we are talking about the INSTITUTION of marriage, not individual marriages, makes no sense.
Fair enough and I appreciate the compliment, however if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion that's where you end.
Like I said, if your church has no wish and serious moral objections to sanctioning gay marriage, I have no wish to see those beliefs overruled by government or my church.
I only wish to see my church afforded the same courtesy.
Outside of church, marriage is a civil contract, and two adults of legal age and sound mind are constitutionally able to enter into whatever contract they want.
Nope, you view that as tautologic argument that isn't borne out. In the Talmud, there was no blood price for children under the age of 12. Since most children didn't survive until adulthood.
it is borne out. If you look at marriage throughout the history of mankind its primary purpose was to provide safety/protection and food for women and children for the furtherance of the society.
There was a blood price even for slaves and cattle but none for children.
Even still in the modern context, you don't marry someone to breed with, you marry someone for love.
That is pretty presumptuous statement. I think you would find a LOT of people want to marry because they want a family. Obviously they want to marry someone they love, etc. It makes the whole thing work better. But there are tons of studies thats how that women, for example, approach a marriage partner by looking at their ability to provide and protect and be fathers to their children. Whether consciously or unconsciously.
Lots of people have relationships but don't get married until they want to have a family (ie "breed" as you call it).
Marrying for love and marrying to reproduce are not opposed to one another.
Concepts of marriage vary broadly across cultures.
But they all lead back to the notion that it was beneficial to society to recognize partnerships that brought children and protected them as a furtherance to the well being of the society.
Even still you're making the presumption that gays have no wish to protect their children and are incapable of doing so.
I make no such presumption. That conclusion makes no sense. I have said that marriage by definition (based on its evolution throughout history and why it existed in the first place) precludes so-called "gay" marriage. That is all I said.
People can enter into marriage for any number of reasons, but marriage by definition precludes so-called "gay marriage". Those may be other sorts of relationships but they are not "marriage." And I never said I opposed social contracts for gays or whatever. While I personally find the gay lifestyle and behavior repulsive, as long as you (meaning the general you, not specifically you GSJ) keep it out of my sight and in your own private quarters, that is fine by me.
Outside of church, marriage is a civil contract, and two adults of legal age and sound mind are constitutionally able to enter into whatever contract they want.
But is not. It may include that but that is not what it is.
Marriage has a long history before the notion of "social contract" of the legal type became a notion in someone's head.
"Marriage" exists in isolated "stone age" communities cut off from the modern world.
Gutshot John
02-18-11, 17:59
THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.
Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.
Whatever marriage may or may not have been thousands of years ago, the protection of children wasn't really the key point.
Just because marriage exists in isolated stone age communities cut off from civilization, doesn't mean that their definition of marriage is the only acceptable one. Stone age communities also accepted slavery, cannibalism and other notions that we have since rejected.
Like I said, if your church has no wish to accept gay marriage as a sacrament, I'd even defend their right to reject it. Civil marriage is something else entirely.
Other than that I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.
I never mentioned "THE social contract". I said "social contract" meaning what you called "civil contract"
Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.
It (The Constitution) does no such thing. I cannot marry my cousin, for example. There are probably lots of other examples of contracts that are forbidden and which you cannot claim some constitutional challenge to. Marriage includes a civil contract but it is not solely a civil contract. If it was, we would not be having this discussion and the question would not be a pressing one on society.
Whatever marriage may or may not have been thousands of years ago, the protection of children wasn't really the key point.
Actually, it was (and is). Throughout history marriage was principally supported by society as a way to better guarantee a new generation to further the society.
Just because marriage exists in isolated stone age communities cut off from civilization, doesn't mean that their definition of marriage is the only acceptable one. Stone age communities also accepted slavery, cannibalism and other notions that we have since rejected.
That is a red herring. The example of stone age societies and marriage throughout history is to show that marriage has meaning more than a civil contract. It has actual societal meaning and purpose in its definition that came about through thousands of years of societal experience.
Marriage for love is mostly a modern thing in practical terms.
Like I said, if your church has no wish to accept gay marriage as a sacrament, I'd even defend their right to reject it. Civil marriage is something else entirely.
Other than that I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't know why you keep bringing up my church. My position has nothing to do with my church and my church's position, while the end result happens to be the same, is not my position and in fact I was in disagreement with their position up until I did a bunch of research on exactly what marriage is and where it came from as an institution. The why and how we have a marriage institution in society.
THE social contract (obedience to law in exchange for security) is different than a contract under civil law. Neither of which was broadly accepted before the 17th century.
Our government is premised on a constitution which guarantees the right to contract with whomever we choose, see the First Amendment. Marriage is very much a civil contract.
And just for the record. I am in no way against gay couples making civil contracts with one another. It is just not marriage. You cannot make something what it is not because you want to redefine it. MArriage is more than just a civil contract.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 21:34
Etymologically speaking, all that "marriage" actually means is "to add a man to". If we want to be hyper-technical about what the definition of marriage is, homosexual male marriage would be perfectly acceptable, where homosexual female marriage would not.
That said, the real reason there's an issue of calling it "marriage" vs "civil union" is because using seperate words to describe such extremely similar circumstances serves only one purpose: to foster elitism and divide people. As the actual modern purpose and circumstances for heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, it is only appropriate that they be called the same thing.
If the same rules and laws apply to both types of unions, both unions are the same.
If you like, we could remove "marriage" from the lexicon and just call all such contracts civil unions (hetero and homosexual alike), as well. Doesn't matter what you call it, but it must be called the same thing because it is the same thing, and no amount of standing on your or anyone else's intepretation of what "tradition" is changes that.
Etymologically speaking, all that "marriage" actually means is "to add a man to". If we want to be hyper-technical about what the definition of marriage is, homosexual male marriage would be perfectly acceptable, where homosexual female marriage would not.
That said, the real reason there's an issue of calling it "marriage" vs "civil union" is because using seperate words to describe such extremely similar circumstances serves only one purpose: to foster elitism and divide people. As the actual modern purpose and circumstances for heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, it is only appropriate that they be called the same thing.
If the same rules and laws apply to both types of unions, both unions are the same.
But they are not. You can yell and scream all you want but they are not. Legally they may carry the same rights and benefits, but thousands of years of societal "history" is ingrained in the concept of marriage as traditionally understood. That societal "history" comes with it whether you like it or not.
This has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with hijacking an institution for political correctness and making that institution into something it is not.
If anyone is into elitism it is the gay marriage proponents who want to take away and diminish that institution by removing the meaning behind it for their own political ends.
If you like, we could remove "marriage" from the lexicon and just call all such contracts civil unions (hetero and homosexual alike), as well. Doesn't matter what you call it, but it must be called the same thing because it is the same thing, and no amount of standing on your or anyone else's intepretation of what "tradition" is changes that.
ChicagoTex
02-18-11, 21:50
But they are not. You can yell and scream all you want but they are not. Legally they may carry the same rights and benefits, but thousands of years of societal "history" is ingrained in the concept of marriage as traditionally understood. That societal "history" comes with it whether you like it or not.
You're honestly trying to project "thousands of years of history" onto a word that, itself is no more than 500 years old?
This has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with hijacking an institution for political correctness and making that institution into something it is not.
If anyone is into elitism it is the gay marriage proponents who want to take away and diminish that institution by removing the meaning behind it for their own political ends.
The very fact that you see two people comitting to one another and calling it marriage (which is actually what heterosexual marriages do, no more, no less) a devaluation of "your" institution positively reeks of elitism.
I would submit to you, sir, that by pretending heterosexual marriage carries greater status, you diminish the meaning of it to simple social grandstanding and an utter betrayal of the process's intentions.
That said, we are obviously at an impasse and I see no way we can pursue further discourse without devolving into decidedly uncivil conversation. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
You're honestly trying to project "thousands of years of history" onto a word that, itself is no more than 500 years old?
no, you seem to be the one stuck on the word and its etymological meaning.
The very fact that you see two people comitting to one another and calling it marriage (which is actually what heterosexual marriages do, no more, no less) a devaluation of "your" institution positively reeks of elitism.
No, unfortunately you don't seem to have a clue what marriage is. Heterosexual marriages are much more than that.
I would submit to you, sir, that by pretending heterosexual marriage carries greater status, you diminish the meaning of it to simple social grandstanding and an utter betrayal of the process's intentions.
The attempt by those who only see marriage as a civil contract or commitment to one another obfuscate the matter and deny the history and "baggage" that marriage carries with it as a societal institution, and a lack of understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is more than a civil contract and a commitment. It is a societal institution that came about for the need to raise a new generation and it carries that with it, no matter what you call it, and no matter what you claim about it or want to equate it to.
The average person understands this innately though they cannot explain it in scholarly fashion. This is why the average person is against so-called "gay marriage." (In most states solid majorities of the populace are against this co-opting of the marriage institution though much fewer numbers are against gay civil unions carrying the same legal benefits and responsibilities. It has nothing to do with homophobia though that is what the so-called gay rights zealots and the Hollywood Elite would have you believe.) Because marriage has a much deeper meaning and in general society cannot be co-opted for gay co-habitation or gay civilly contracted unions. No matter what the PC police say.
It has nothing to do with the actual word "marriage." The same argument could be made in Germany where the word is totally different ("Ehe")
That said, we are obviously at an impasse and I see no way we can pursue further discourse without devolving into decidedly uncivil conversation. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Heavy Metal
02-18-11, 22:24
No shit.
All anarchy is is a placeholder for a strong man, an oligarch or a tyrant to fill the void.
It isn't freedom any more than a train wreck is freedom.
Marriage's purpose is for the creation and protection of children. That is a historical and societal fact.
I disagree. Reproduction is not dependent on marriage. So biology plays no role. As its been pointed out, hetereosexual, monogamous pair bonding is the exception in the animal kingdom, not the rule. Marriage was actually created for the purposes of establishing certain legal and by extension inheritance rights between individuals who wanted to have a long term relationship.
Back to the OP
Unfortunately some people "hate" that which they do not understand or which they see as being in opposition to their beliefs.
I hate "liberalism" as practiced by the leftist elites in our country. I don't hate the people, just their beliefs. They are anathema to what I believe. I have plenty of friends who self identify as liberals and we get along great. We just keep political discussions to a minimum (they happen, but we don't go down that path deeply).
Even those people with whom I have had impassioned discussions here on M4C would all be welcome in my home and I would go shooting with them. I think most all of you guys are probably pretty decent folks (even if misguided on a few issues ;) )
I disagree. Reproduction is not dependent on marriage.
You misunderstand what I said. I never said you had to have marriage in order to be able to reproduce. What I said was that societies developed marriage because it benefitted society to do so, in that it provided a better chance of the next generations survival.
So biology plays no role.
Biology actually plays a big role. In that reproduction is a biological process and that process ends up in offspring, which was the purpose of marriage -- to make a better environment so that your offspring had a better chance at surviving and providing for the next generation of your tribe / family group / society.
Reproduction does not limit itself to marriage. Marriage was made by society though due to reproduction and the advantage it gave in making reproduction successful long term in providing for the next generation.
As its been pointed out, hetereosexual, monogamous pair bonding is the exception in the animal kingdom, not the rule.
Not really. You find lots of both sorts, monogamous and non-monogamous pairings in the animal kingdom. Some species are quite devoted to their baby partners and some aren't. It is not really germane to the discussion. I am not discussing homosexuality vs heterosexuality.
Marriage was actually created for the purposes of establishing certain legal and by extension inheritance rights between individuals who wanted to have a long term relationship.
That came later and was also due to its benefits to society. It is an extension of what I said. You need the kids to have people to inherit and carry on your name/station/stuff.
Holy smokes...one side of the argument uses three words essentially in every single reply.
We get it I guess....it's all about,
1. Institution...although this Institution only exists in the mind of some, the righteous.
2. History....Some kinda really old historical tradition that we won't even worry about fact checking as this info prob. is in the same location as how Jesus walked on water, and how a single boat could save the human and animal races after a worldwide tsunami (guess they remembered to put institution on the Ark)
3. Family....ah yes, can't have family if your gay.
Please save us all the extra spinning of these same three talking points...just reply with Institution, History, and Family.
Relevant to marriage as an institution meant for the protection of children, that may be a good reason for the institution, but being a straight married couple doesn't make you good parents any more than being a gay married couple precludes you from being ones.
I would be very skeptical of any conclusions regarding quality of parenting at this point, unless your point is merely to point out the obvious (that there are some bad heterosexual parents and some good gay ones). I don't think children of gay couples who have grown into adulthood have been around in large enough numbers to have a good sample for comparative studies the way there are for say two versus single parent households. Not sure I would even trust the conclusions then as it is such a politically sensitive topic, much like gun control, abortion, and other issues you can find studies on that are highly manipulated by the opposing sides to come to their preexisting conclusions.
PS Kinda funny (or sad) that a thread bemoaning that people no longer have a live and let live attitude degenerated into a back and forth on a topic that people on both sides are constantly fighting about ad nauseum.
Why dont we compromise and have civil unions called Gayages for gay people.
ChicagoTex
02-19-11, 05:48
Why dont we compromise and have civil unions called Gayages for gay people.
Because we don't do Jim Crowe anymore. It's either the same or it's not, if people are so hung up on the word "marriage" then heterosexual marriages should be legally reclassified as Civil Unions.
Gutshot John
02-19-11, 07:54
I would be very skeptical of any conclusions regarding quality of parenting at this point, unless your point is merely to point out the obvious (that there are some bad heterosexual parents and some good gay ones).
Well yes it was intended to be somewhat obvious as it seems that people are going out of their way to avoid the obvious. Straight parents pose at least the same risk to their children as gay ones and in my experience probably more.
The point was that if the purpose of marriage was the protection and rearing of children than gay parents are at least as competent in this regard as straight parents. From my perspective gay parents (and especially ones that chose adoption) have to take it more seriously lest someone use their shortcomings to judge others.
When you hear in the news about parents who murder their child or sells them for some crack or does some other horrific thing like molestation, you never hear about them being gay. While it probably happens, let's not pretend that the point of heterosexual marriage offers any guarantee of a good or even better life than gay marriage. Sure two men can't have a biological kid, but they can certainly adopt and why is that "less" valid if we apply child protection as a standard.
The point of marriage is to legally recognize a contract between two consenting adults. While the state can and does regulate who gets married those regulations/standards change according to circumstances. The only justification I've seen here for forbidding gay marriage is "history", "institution" and "family" as Trident says.
Lots of things were done in history that aren't done anymore.
There is no threat at all to the institution, no one will be "less" married because two homosexuals take vows in front of God and everyone.
That leaves family and as is obvious, hetero parents are as likely to be horrible as anyone else. You have to judge that on a case by case basis. And given the numbers of children that need adoption because of failed hetero parenting and a lack of suitable hetero couples willing to adopt, why shouldn't gays be allowed the same rights if the point is to "protect" and "rear" children.
Gay marriage hurts no one.
Because we don't do Jim Crowe anymore. It's either the same or it's not, if people are so hung up on the word "marriage" then heterosexual marriages should be legally reclassified as Civil Unions.
Have you not been reading anything at all in these last 5 pages? By many conservative opinions, heterosexuals are perfectly fine with being reclassified as some other type of union, provided they're not lumped in with homosexual unions and that there's a similar yet different term used to describe homosexual unions. It's the homosexuals who want all marriages called the same - they aren't. That's what this entire debate is about.
Chadbag has pointed out why heterosexual marriages have been glorified and preserved throughout history; his assessments are dead on, having studied the history of marriage myself (albeit somewhat briefly). It is for those reasons that heterosexual marriage requires to be separate from other marriages and they from it.
I'm perfectly fine with having marriage renamed to "heterosexual union" and homosexuals having a "homosexual union." That falls perfectly in line with the "different but equal" philosophy that our country was founded on. What I'm not ok with is some transvestite wanting to lump their own perverse relationship in with mine and insist on calling them the same.
ChicagoTex
02-19-11, 11:52
Have you not been reading anything at all in these last 5 pages? By many conservative opinions, heterosexuals are perfectly fine with being reclassified as some other type of union, provided they're not lumped in with homosexual unions and that there's a similar yet different term used to describe homosexual unions. It's the homosexuals who want all marriages called the same - they aren't. That's what this entire debate is about.
Chadbag has pointed out why heterosexual marriages have been glorified and preserved throughout history; his assessments are dead on, having studied the history of marriage myself (albeit somewhat briefly). It is for those reasons that heterosexual marriage requires to be separate from other marriages and they from it.
I'm perfectly fine with having marriage renamed to "heterosexual union" and homosexuals having a "homosexual union." That falls perfectly in line with the "different but equal" philosophy that our country was founded on. What I'm not ok with is some transvestite wanting to lump their own perverse relationship in with mine and insist on calling them the same.
Obviously you don't understand the point behind my Jim Crowe reference, so allow me to be more explicit: Heterosexual marriage can be reclassified as a civil union, and homosexual marriage will also be called civil union. Regardless of what you call it, it must, as a matter of law, be called the same for both types of unions.
Seperate but equal is done, and we're not gonna go back to it just because homosexual marriage makes conservatives feel less married.
Magic_Salad0892
02-19-11, 12:27
Is there any way to approach this debate without religious argument?
RancidSumo
02-19-11, 13:01
Says everyone your age. :lol:
You're not seeing the whole picture because you can't possibly see the whole picture from down there. And even up here you'll only get part of the picture, and there's plenty of people much further up the age ladder than me that see even more.
It's good to be a righteously indignant teenager/twenty-something. and I'd much rather you be righteously indignant with beliefs similar to mine than the kind of "grass roots" bullshit that got us a mooslimb for a president.
Kids, marriage, a job, no job, a critically ill family member, a death in the family, trying to start a side or small business and getting your whole income taxed away from you, moving to a new town, traveling outside the country, military service, a run in with the law (yours or someone close to you), etc. all will change the way you look at things.
You are really full of yourself, aren't you? I seriously hate hearing this crap about, "Oh you're just nineteen years old, you can't possibly know what you are talking about." Why not explain to me where I've gone wrong and how your life experiences have shown you that instead of this whole, "you'll understand when you are older" garbage? I'm not four anymore so that explanation doesn't fly with me.
Obviously you don't understand the point behind my Jim Crowe reference, so allow me to be more explicit: Heterosexual marriage can be reclassified as a civil union, and homosexual marriage will also be called civil union. Regardless of what you call it, it must, as a matter of law, be called the same for both types of unions.
No, it doesn't, because they are not the same thing. Legal contract part may be the same and fall under the same law sections, but the unions are different in other than legal ways.
I am bowing out of this since the OP was not talking about this and I have detracted from the OP enough.
Seperate but equal is done, and we're not gonna go back to it just because homosexual marriage makes conservatives feel less married.
There is no separate but equal thing here. That is a red herring. Legally the contractual part is the same. But marriage by definition cannot include so-called gay marriage unless you throw away thousands of years of societal wisdom and history for the sake of political correctness.
And the fact that you want to say "makes conservatives feel less married" tells me and everyone else you don't have a clue about what the issue is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.