More on the British sniper...er, homosexuality

#78
#78
CSpindizzy said:
Seriously? Wow. I cannot believe you just asked that. I cannot spell out any clearer for you. It's about the logic you used and how your whole argument itself was flawed. Did you just shut down earlier in the day and type out random comments? Did you completely ignore every single question I raised to you? It had NOTHING to do with how you felt on gay marriage. It had to do with again: your "logic" which bounced between humans and animals, what happens in nature vs. what is permissive in society, some complete freedom as long as all consent vs. admission of having a standard that does limit permitted behavior.

I know your original point. Again the argument is what I tried to figure out. I don't know how many times I can say the words logic, argument, etc. and you just not get it. To prove your point you were all over the place. You even went on the other side in some distorted effort to prove your point.

Again, did I mention I was trying to follow your logic? You do know that word right? You aren't just trolling around websites to throw out big boy terminology to deflect right? Again, you pick a side and then drift all over the place to defend it. It makes it difficult to follow based on your argument. I'm trying to restate this over and over to see if you're catching on. Is it working?
Click to expand...

Succinctly: Homosexuality is not "unnatural (to be outside of nature)", as such things occur in the natural world.

Fighting against people being able to freely choose to marry one another seems to be counter to the founding principles of our country (individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness).


I have said as much multiple times in this thread, to which you begin trying to basically make me explain the rule of law in how it relates to personal liberty and quibble over the exact nature of the acts animals commit with one another.
 
#79
#79
lumberjack4 said:
The difficult part for most folks is the inability to understand that their solution is the government to draw the line in the sand instead of the family and/or the individual. I find it very amusing that we all hate on the Liberals and Dems because they want the government to mandate social and economic equality, yet the religious right demands that the government mandate morality. So what if gay marriage and polygamy is legalized? Gays will be gays and polygamists will be closet polygamists regardless on the marriage law. There is no good reason to deny them marriage.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the concept of relativism: what was morally wrong in the past is no longer wrong relative to today's times. Right and wrong has to be rooted in something that does not change with the times, and the only thing that doesn't is the Word of God. I am by no means a Bible thumper, but that is ultimately the source of what we are all taught is right and wrong.

And there is good reason to deny marriage, because defining homosexual relationships with the term marriage violates the definition of the word.Allowing unions, tax breaks, and all the civil and legal benefits is fine, but marriage is "our" word.
 
#80
#80
distrovol said:
[/B]
Ahh, the concept of relativism: what was morally wrong in the past is no longer wrong relative to today's times. Right and wrong has to be rooted in something that does not change with the times, and the only thing that doesn't is the Word of God. I am by no means a Bible thumper, but that is ultimately the source of what we are all taught is right and wrong.

And there is good reason to deny marriage, because defining homosexual relationships with the term marriage violates the definition of the word.Allowing unions, tax breaks, and all the civil and legal benefits is fine, but marriage is "our" word.
Click to expand...

Who's "our?" Christians? Muslims? Hindu? Papua New Guinean cannibals? They all use the word "marriage."
 
#81
#81
Okay, I'll throw 2¢ into this fray.

So should mankind strive to be like the animals or be like humans (serious question, since some seem to consider animals a measuring stick of sorts)?

Does the bearing, raising and well being of children not matter in this topic? Are all of the studies that demonstrate that a father and mother is the best environment for child rearing wrong or skewed?

Personally, I'm not in favor of using politics to force Christian morality on the world, so long as Christian churches are not forced to accept worldly ways, perform homosexual or non-traditional marriages and are not abridged in their freedom to preach the whole Scriptures, whether the gay community agrees with the message or not. I'm a Christian, but I see no evidence in the Scriptures of Jesus Christ nor of His apostles trying to force the world to change to their ways by political means. They preached sin, repentance and atoning grace and those who wanted to follow their ways voluntarily were welcomed into the church and those that did not were kept at arms length, prayed for and left to God's judgment.

I do have concern about the long term effect on future generations produced by such a society.

"Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue." John Witherspoon ca. 1776
 
#82
#82
And I asked whether "individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was your measuring rod on the matter. And I asked you about whether it had limits or not. You went from a libertarian to acknowledging that society has the ability to impose limits. You used an example of consenting adults and I asked what that definition was. Clearly the definition in itself is a societal limit - which is counter to individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I more or less asked you if you were truly arguing a point based on individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness or agreeing that there are limits.

Going with your second paragraph ONLY why have limits on liberties of voting? Smoking? Drinking, serving in the military, having sex at an age lower than the age of consent, pedophilia, etc.

The issue is gay marriage but the logic you use is based on individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am merely pointing out that society puts limits on that. Speech has limits. Use of firearms have limits. Society can impose limits on these things. There is no pure libertarian freedom in this country. Even the founders had limits so to say the founding principles - what exactly are they? And since those who made those statements imposed limits, does that make the founders hypocrites?
 
#83
#83
Just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it fits the natural order of things.

It is troubling that those who do not support terming gay relationships as "marriage" are somehow bigoted and homophobic. It is simply a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed. It's analogous to Rev. MLK Jr.'s argument why segregation and Jim Crowe were wrong. Not some legal or biological argument, but because it was morally wrong and an affront to God himself. It is noteworthy that the civil rights movement was rooted in religious and moral grounds.
 
#85
#85
CSpindizzy said:
And I asked whether "individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was your measuring rod on the matter. And I asked you about whether it had limits or not. You went from a libertarian to acknowledging that society has the ability to impose limits. You used an example of consenting adults and I asked what that definition was. Clearly the definition in itself is a societal limit - which is counter to individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I more or less asked you if you were truly arguing a point based on individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness or agreeing that there are limits.

Going with your second paragraph ONLY why have limits on liberties of voting? Smoking? Drinking, serving in the military, having sex at an age lower than the age of consent, pedophilia, etc.

The issue is gay marriage but the logic you use is based on individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am merely pointing out that society puts limits on that. Speech has limits. Use of firearms have limits. Society can impose limits on these things. There is no pure libertarian freedom in this country. Even the founders had limits so to say the founding principles - what exactly are they? And since those who made those statements imposed limits, does that make the founders hypocrites?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "is my measuring rod?" If you mean what I think you mean, then yes if something isn't directly hurting anyone else than an individual should be free to do something.


I would think the limits would be when it starts infringing on other people's personal liberty. (This will be the part where you insert your "well what if someone was forcefully screwing goats" or something, which goes back to that logical fallacy stuff I mentioned before)

I am a libertarian. That doesn't mean I pretend like society and government doesn't impose restrictions and limits. It just means I disagree with them, and often think they are contrary to the nation's supposed goals.

As far as limits on alcohol and cigarettes, the issue is one of being able to understand the dangers and consequences. The age could probably be lower for both.

Pedophilia is an issue of a young person not being able to give consent, as well as an issue of forced rape in many cases. "Personal liberty" extends to a child unable to consent. They are free to not be sexually abused.

All the things you pointed to as things that were limited by the founding fathers were done in ways that preserved the liberties of others. Not being allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowded theater is because it infringes on the freedom and safety of others in the theater.

The use of firearms was not restricted by the founding fathers.

So, how does gay marriage infringe on others' personal liberty?
 
#86
#86
J-P said:
Does the bearing, raising and well being of children not matter in this topic? Are all of the studies that demonstrate that a father and mother is the best environment for child rearing wrong or skewed?
Click to expand...

I believe there have been several recent studies that have found that homosexual couple homes are equally good environments as heterosexual homes. It's the single parent homes that come up short.
 
#88
#88
Preserved the liberties of others? I must have missed rights of people called slaves, women, etc. Voting and property ownership was restricted. Even Jefferson's own design on admission to UVA was highly restrictive based on gender, race, and land ownership. Military service even saw periods of compulsory service. James Madison himself tried to even go beyond a draft. Are these the same founding fathers you mention?
 
#89
#89
CSpindizzy said:
Preserved the liberties of others? I must have missed rights of people called slaves, women, etc. Voting and property ownership was restricted. Even Jefferson's own design on admission to UVA was highly restrictive based on gender, race, and land ownership. Military service even saw periods of compulsory service. James Madison himself tried to even go beyond a draft. Are these the same founding fathers you mention?
Click to expand...

Yes. They weren't perfect, but those were the ideals set out for. You clearly are at least somewhat familiar with early American history, so you know there was great debate about the issues of slavery, compulsory service, etc.

I guess I'll just keep responding to your endless posturing, in the hopes that one day you will actually present a position yourself instead of just trying to attack mine.
 
#90
#90
And there is a debate about gay marriage. Good. Are you saying that the founding fathers were striving for women to vote and own property? And slaves as well? Did they envision gay marriage as a goal as well? Did they strive to allow drug use for example? Or the right to die either from euthanasia or suicide? From all of the readings, autobiographies, letters, etc. I've read on the founding fathers none of them were pure libertarians with a pure and open definition of individual liberties and the pursuit of happiness. All while making those statements they willingly enacted laws, regulations, policies, etc. that were in fact restrictive on rights. They had boundaries. There was a basepoint to many things and issues.

Endless posturing. I guess you didn't catch the dozens of times I stated my intent. No posturing but even after saying that, you draw your own conclusion.
 
#91
#91
IPorange said:
Who's "our?" Christians? Muslims? Hindu? Papua New Guinean cannibals? They all use the word "marriage."
Click to expand...

Personally, I think "our" is inclusive of the collective of humans that through the ages have come to know the concept of "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.

If that collective moves to a view that sees it as something different then so be it. However, it's hard to deny that the concept is imbued with meaning by people and that meaning for those people throughout history is tied to 1) 2 people; and 2) heterosexual relationships.

Adding a governmental sanction makes things more complicated. I'm all for civil unions but I don't think government can degree that the meaning of the word suddenly is changed. IOW, courts shouldn't be ruling on whether or not gays can be "married". It is a cultural phenomenon.

Civil unions solve 90% of the problem but in many ways the gay community is fighting so hard over the word "marriage" precisely because of the cultural meaning attached to it.
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
CSpindizzy said:
And there is a debate about gay marriage. Good. Are you saying that the founding fathers were striving for women to vote and own property? And slaves as well? Did they envision gay marriage as a goal as well? Did they strive to allow drug use for example? Or the right to die either from euthanasia or suicide? From all of the readings, autobiographies, letters, etc. I've read on the founding fathers none of them were pure libertarians with a pure and open definition of individual liberties and the pursuit of happiness. All while making those statements they willingly enacted laws, regulations, policies, etc. that were in fact restrictive on rights. They had boundaries. There was a basepoint to many things and issues.

Endless posturing. I guess you didn't catch the dozens of times I stated my intent. No posturing but even after saying that, you draw your own conclusion.
Click to expand...

In context, they were very expansive on individual rights. Issues of women and slavery were hot-button to be sure. The reason why slavery continued was because that was "society's rules" at the time, ironically, and the South needed them. That didn't make it right then, or mean we should continue the practice now.
 
#93
#93
distrovol said:
And there is good reason to deny marriage, because defining homosexual relationships with the term marriage violates the definition of the word.Allowing unions, tax breaks, and all the civil and legal benefits is fine, but marriage is "our" word.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the Bible states that the only acceptable grounds for divorce is via infidelity. No other reason is acceptable be it abuse, realizing you made a mistake, or whatever. Yet churches have no problems granting divorces for a litany of reasons. You also are not allowed to remarry if you have divorced for any non-biblical reason (infidelity or spouse left you first). Again, these minor details don't bother the at all. You say gay marriage is against the Bible, yet half the marriages today are against the Bible, but its OK because these people aren't gay.

You have proven my point. You have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage as long as its not called marriage, because marriage is 'your' word. What exactly is the difference between the two groups of people who get all the same legal and civil benefits but have to go by two different titles except the name? Nothing. Sounds a little bit like 'Separate but Equal' to me.

You claim that marriage is a biblical institution, yet other religions have the concept of marriage as well, and you don't even need a priest or any other biblical figure to perform the marriage ceremony.
 
#94
#94
lumberjack4 said:
You have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage as long as its not called marriage, because marriage is 'your' word. What exactly is the difference between the two groups of people who get all the same legal and civil benefits but have to go by two different titles except the name? Nothing. Sounds a little bit like 'Separate but Equal' to me.
Click to expand...

what it's called is at the heart of the matter. If it weren't then gay marriage advocates would be fine with civil unions.

Why do you think the "word" is so important? Where and how does that word get it's power?
 
#95
#95
This is what I don't understand, lets create identical institutions and give Group A one label and Group B another even though the end result is the same. One of the points of Conservatism is treating everyone as one, not sub dividing people into a thousand groups and render special treatment to different groups of people. The religious right is so deep in hypocrisy its sickening. I've laid out examples where Christianity doesn't even follow their own rules on marriage, even though they use those same rules to back their stance on gay marriage. Its clear that bigotry is at the heart of the issue, and the sad thing is most people don't even realize it. Good people can be bigots through their ignorance and blind faith.

Its not like Christians own marriage, gays simply want equal treatment. Is there a vendetta going on, on both sides? Probably. Since this issue has dragged on so long people on both sides has lost sight of the real issue and their goal has become to stick it to the other side, but the central issue is still there none the less.
 
#96
#96
I don't think it's necessarily about religion or conservatism.

Marriage has meaning because it is a social institution. That institution is also linked by the government with certain rights and by religions with certain meanings.

Society "owns" the symbolism of marriage as a social institution. Even if the government extended it's use to homosexual or polygamous situations the meaning wouldn't change at least in the short term.

I personally don't care. I wouldn't vote for a ban and I wouldn't vote against a ban.

I do however understand that the word has specific meaning and that meaning is highly important to some people. When society changes the meaning then the meaning will change. Until then, I don't see it as a matter of civil rights (hence Separate but Equal) issues.

In an ideal world, marriage as an ideal would be separate from government sanctioned contracts. Until that time I don't see a thing wrong with civil unions. Further, if a state votes to confer the title of married on homosexual or polygamists then I'll be fine with that.
 
#97
#97
lumberjack4 said:
Interestingly, the Bible states that the only acceptable grounds for divorce is via infidelity. No other reason is acceptable be it abuse, realizing you made a mistake, or whatever. Yet churches have no problems granting divorces for a litany of reasons. You also are not allowed to remarry if you have divorced for any non-biblical reason (infidelity or spouse left you first). Again, these minor details don't bother the at all. You say gay marriage is against the Bible, yet half the marriages today are against the Bible, but its OK because these people aren't gay.

You have proven my point. You have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage as long as its not called marriage, because marriage is 'your' word. What exactly is the difference between the two groups of people who get all the same legal and civil benefits but have to go by two different titles except the name? Nothing. Sounds a little bit like 'Separate but Equal' to me.

You claim that marriage is a biblical institution, yet other religions have the concept of marriage as well, and you don't even need a priest or any other biblical figure to perform the marriage ceremony.
Click to expand...

As far as the significance of the word "marriage" I think bham nailed it, so 'nuff said there. I never said that marriage is a biblical instiution, but it does have religious connotations. You are taking an oath before God when you say those words (when you get married), and you will be held accountable to God at the end of our time here. That is, if you're a believer.
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
what it's called is at the heart of the matter. If it weren't then gay marriage advocates would be fine with civil unions.

Why do you think the "word" is so important? Where and how does that word get it's power?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be easier to accept that "marriage" is really a civil union draped in a specific set of social mores? As long as there is no functional discrimination between one set of individuals over another (tax breaks, insurance, whatever) then why wouldn't the one group that holds a clear historical association with a word not have a case in having the word usurped in what they feel is the actual meaning of that word?

I don't know, maybe it's too whimsical, but if a bunch of people decided to start calling pool parties bar mitzvahs I'd be pretty sympathetic about some Jews having issues with it. I think it might be hard to argue that there isn't some precedent for the idea of marriage specifically referring to a union of male and female joining together as husband and wife, said union also setting up the demonstrable (and pretty exclusive) historic means of biologically starting and raising a family.

I don't spend a lot of time losing sleep over the issue but I think I see the point VB is trying to make here.
 
Last edited:
#99
#99
hndog609 said:
Perhaps it would be easier to accept that "marriage" is really a civil union draped in a specific set of social mores? As long as there is no functional discrimination between one set of individuals over another (tax breaks, insurance, whatever) then why wouldn't the one group that holds a clear historical association with a word not have a case in having the word usurped in what they feel is the actual meaning of that word?

I don't know, maybe it's too whimsical, but if a bunch of people decided to start calling pool parties bar mitzvahs I'd be pretty sympathetic about some Jews having issues with it. I think it might be hard to argue that there isn't some precedent for the idea of marriage specifically referring to a union of male and female joining together as husband and wife, said union also setting up the demonstrable (and pretty exclusive) historic means of biologically starting and raising a family.

I don't spend a lot of time losing sleep over the issue but I think I see the point VB is trying to make here.
Click to expand...

:hi: You've got it. Entering into "marriage" has deep meaning for many. I don't see why they should have to give up that meaning just because another group demands it.

OE first introduced me to the idea of the govt being completely out of the "marriage" business. Upon reflection I have to say I agree.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top