quote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
I personally believe that marriage is a basic right. Upon saying that, my detractors immediately would say, "See, so you can't deprive them of that right."
But here is the fundamental difference. My detractors notoriously neglect CONTEXT. If it is a basic right to marry, then we first need to describe what a marriage is. Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, as Nature/God has doled out. As a testament to that, almost every nation on earth, irrespective of religion or cultural differences, have had an aversion towards it, and have in some capacities outlawed it. That speaks for itself, and no one should take that too lightly.
It is also noted that when saying freedom is indispensable, and shall not be infringed upon, what are its entailments? While this statement is wholly factual, it neglects to define what "freedom" actually entails. If we were free to do every single thing that crossed our mind, we would actually be engaging in criminal activity much of the time. Though we are free, we are not free to do every single thing imaginable. There are parameters of freedom, which are the very things that protect that freedom. It is a hedge of protection. To pervert the word to entail whatever the hell we want, we actually undermine that very freedom we hold up so high.
There is frequently talk about "protecting traditional marriage." I suspect that a court would have no trouble finding that protecting marriage is a compelling state interest. But I have yet to hear anyone describe in what way allowing gays to marry will harm or even change in any way anyone else's marriage. Absent a showing that gay marriage presents a threat to marriage, I can't imagine how it could be described as narrowly tailored to serve that end, or be the least restrictive means to achieve it.
Homosexuals marrying would likely not do anything to some heterosexual marriage. Anyone that makes that argument is making an incredibly specious one, IMO. What I believe is that it does is open the floodgates to more degradation. Without trying to illicit religious connotations, I believe that there is a pure and less pure way of living life -- one that is productive and healthy, and the other counterproductive and unhealthy -- unhealthy not only to the person, but to society as a whole.
The downward spiral of a society is imperceptible in real time, just as watching one's finger nails is imperceptible in real time. You are not aware that your nails are growing until one day you realize it is time for a trim. Its the same thing as a society. Its slow.
I doubt anyone would really argue the fact that society has changed much in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Some say for the better, some say we've lost our way. I will leave that up to the reader. But I think that even those who say that we are making progress in some areas might concede that we are losing other critical aspects. We have grown more calloused.
Under intermediate scrutiny, the question becomes whether the ban is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Once again, the analysis at this point depends on the governmental interest advocated. Again assuming that the interest is protecting marriage, that would likely be considered an important interest. But we still run into the problem of articulating exactly how a gay marriage ban serves that interest in any way.
I will say this much: A very large part of me, the libertarian side of me, says that in a free society, a person should be allowed to make choices for themselves so long as it does not immediately subvert any one else's will.
The interesting thing to note is that the acceptance of societies views on homosexuality does psychologically impact a society in such a way that the answer is virtually made for you. If you go against the grain, you will be all but ostracized and referred to as a bigot should you go against that grain. I was looking at another forum the other day and had a bit of a revelation. The members were discussing sexuality. I noticed that almost all of the younger people on the forum expressed that they were bisexual, whereas the older folk were somewhat disturbed by it.
Are you telling me that everyone is now born bisexual, whereas a slightly older generation was not? Absolutely not! Its a perfect example of monkey see, monkey do. Today's generation is taught not only to respect other people's sexual preference, but to embrace it, and even to believe that it is innate within you (see Kinsey). And so what we have now is young people believing, because they were told so, that they are essentially bisexual. It is a complete psychological manipulation, yet people say that Christians are the sheep, bleating the night away in total conformity?!?!?!? And then, what about YOU, the reader? Have not your own views been changed to conform to the majority? Do you think you are above the influence of a society? Perhaps you need to ask yourself that.
The other belief that conforms to libertarian qualities is that by prohibiting such things will invariably lead to a backlash -- which just makes people want to do it even more. So in that sense, passing laws that outlaw homosexual marriage may in many ways encourage it.
But then there is the other side of the coin. By idly sitting back and watching society go, you are inadvertently counting on disaster, and the complete lack of inhibition. Because after homosexual marriage is a-okay, what is next? Do you really, honestly believe that this is going to be the last taboo fought for? I don't -- not for a second. After this comes will be the next battlefront -- pedophilia.
I am making this prediction in front of all of you. If I am wrong, I will eat my words. In the next 15-20 years, you will see a major battle being fought for pedophile rights. Its already at the doorstep, under the ubiquitous guise of love.
The argument will come down to a matter of allowing children the right to consent of their own volition, and the antagonists will decry that it is an injustice to assume that children haven't the emotional or mental capacity to make forthright decisions about their lives.
Now I ask the reader: Given that I have made both pro and con points about homosexual marriage, can any of you, even if you lean towards homosexual marriage, at least understand where I am coming from? Have you ever honestly considered the repercussions for allowing it?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Wives (until very recently) have "always" had to obediently submit to the sexual advances of their husbands, by the definition of marriage, thus making marital rape an extremely recent concept that people just a few decades ago would have thought unnatural and ridiculous.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but I would like for you to substantiate your claim, and furthermore, that no one really cared about such an issue of it were happening in abundance.
maybe you can explain how promoting marriage, which is the basic unit of society, and supporting greater numbers of consenting adults to engage in it, will lead to a less stable society.
Because of what it leads to. Offhand, can you think of any immediate damage that would incur should people en masse revert to bondage as a healthy sexual practice, even if it is consensual by both parties? Can you think of any immediate problems with polygamy? Incest? Is there any immediate problems associated with divorce, even though both parties want it? Ever heard of a young girl being pressured to have sex with her boyfriend when she isn't entirely comfortable with it? If she consents, should that remove the moral question? What comes as a result to our psyche, to our conscience, is the problem. We will become so detached and calloused of normalcy so as to make it a relic of the past.
If you want people to stop fornicating and sleeping around, thet them get married. Encourage marriage and monogomy.
You can be monogamous without marriage. You are trying to use one practice, that does not have anything to do with the other, and trying to conflate them.
nobody can "manipulate" another person to become sexually aroused in response to a particular gender if they don't find that gender sexually arousing in the first place.
Your husband is a psychologist and you don't see a correlation between the power of suggestion and culture? That's as basic as 1,2,3 a,b,c. Cultural influence has an enormous impact on how most people view the world. If an "authority" gives you the go-ahead, then on the basis of their position, you are more apt to listen. If you are a little teeny bopper girl infatuated by some pop idol, and she thinks homosexuality is kewls, chances are you will fall right in to line with your peers.
Seriously think about it. Look at the acceptance of homosexuality. 20 years ago, virtually the entire population was weirded out by it. That, in and of itself, you could say was culturally induced. Now we see a radical shifting in polarity. How did that happen? Cultural influence. I mean, can you honestly deny that? Call it "awareness" if you want, its all the same thing.
it wasn't very long ago that any openly gay people were often regularly harassed, beaten and sometimes killed just for being gay.
Sometimes people are beaten and killed over a glance. Its still culturally induced.
Gay and Bi folk have always been here, juggs, but people like you have forced them to pretend to be something they aren't just to survive.
You would have no way of knowing that, now would you? Supposing mass people have been hiding, did it ever occur to you that they do so because they know what they are doing is immoral? Should adulterers carouse in the broad daylight in the hopes that society won't be so gosh darn puritanical about it?
All of the arguments you've made in this post have been seen before, except they were made 50 years ago by people who thought that society was headed down the tubes because blacks were going to be allowed to marry whites.
No they didn't, and you've neglected to answer the question. Are there any repercussions to the complete acceptance of homosexuality? If not, why?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Slavery, racism, sexism, religious persecution, fascism, communism; each of these societal institutions is based on the idea that what's best for society is best instead of what's best for the individual. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is simply more of the same.
Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc? Your argument is based upon individual desire, without examining the consequences. In your mind, the adage, "If it feels good, do it," should be the defining principle to look up to.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
This is just you projecting your personal bias onto society.
Naturally, I assume you are exempt from projecting bias...? Its an opinion of mine. In a free society we grapple with ideas in a marketplace of ideas. I thought that would be appreciated.
there has never been a worse time to be a British paedophile. They are regarded as the lowest of the low, and that is a trend that shows no sign of stopping
Just be patient. Dams don't rupture for no reason. They start with small fissures weakening the walls. The collapse may be sudden and swift, but not what leads up to it. But, I hope I am wrong if that offers any consolation.
Same-sex marriage has been recognised for eight years in the Netherlands, and for nearly two decades in Denmark. Neither state shows any inclination to legalise paedophilia. Perhaps you would like to eat your words in Danish.
That's fantastically hilarious, if not totally ironic, that you mention it because not even one month ago, I just busted 4 out of 5 Danish sailors with child pornography. That's not to mention the Thai, Filipino, German, Ukrainian, etc sailors with the same materials. Either sailors are prone to debauchery (very likely, actually), or pedophilia is on the rise.
In truth, the two topics are unrelated, save that you revile them both in seemingly equal measure.
No, there is a very special place in my heart for child molestors. If walking the plank were still a legal practice, I might assume it too light a punishment.
But I know what you mean...
Can you feel the pride?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Questionable content has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
What does promoting marriage lead to that you would consider detrimental to society?
The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law.
the rest of your "examples" are irrelevant to marriage.
They aren't irrelevant. If they are irrelevant in establishing a baseline, then spousal abuse is also irrelevant.
quote::You can be monogamous without marriage.
It is an awful lot harder, though. Don't you agree?
I do agree, but you are asking me to exonerate a greater sin out of a lesser one.
The institution of marriage is vital to promoting monogamy and stable families. Surely you aren't going to contest that, are you?
No. And certainly stable families include mothers and fathers. Wouldn't you agree?
Psychology is a big, big field, remember.
Big or not, you have to crawl before you can walk.
So, how come "culture" can't turn gay people straight?
For the same reason that cutters have a hard time stopping despite the cultural fau pax. Sometimes people ask, "Why would anyone choose to be gay?" Why would anyone choose any number of abnormal things? Some people search ways to be different, as if it were a little badge of courage.
It didn't work for Ted Haggerd, did it?
Ted Haggard is has serious unresolved issues that he needs to deal with.
Look, Juggs, you have to stop thinking of sexuality is such either/or terms. Just about every trait in a population can be plotted on a bell curve distribution, and I don't see why sexuality should be much different. ...especially considering the very strong social bonding role sex has in our species.
Then pedophilia is a trait that cannot be stopped. Its innate. If it that is so, then we can't very well ask them to stop what is normal, can we? You can't stop rapists because they are simply following their instincts. Monkeys don't ask for permission, especially the alpha male. Do see where I'm going with this? You can't act as if people are incapable of controlling themselves. By doing this, you alleviate responsibility, which in turn makes for a very unhealthy society.
Same thing with interracial marriage. Most people were "wierded out" by that concept as well. So what?
That was a relative recent turn in history. Its a distortion that only lasted a little while, consequently, due to societal influence. Some people honestly believe that slaves were taken from Africa because they were black instead of the obvious answer, that slave merchants were opportunists. Anyone who couldn't defend themselves was subject to the slave master's tyranny.
But even when these racist ideologies started popping up, prominent members of society payed no heed to it. Even Thomas Jefferson slept with his own slaves.
The point is, terrorizing a group for certain behaviors is apt to have a chilling effect upon the behaviors. Remove the terrorist threats, and the behavior that was repressed will be more freely expressed.
I wholeheartedly agree that the singling out of homosexuals over their perceived sin with more ferocity than any other sexual sin by Christians or, whomever, is wrong. However, simply stating why someone does not agree with the notion that homosexuality is perfectly natural doesn't constitute terrorism, nor does it constitute "homophobia."
if you read any history, you know that they have always been there. Repressed and persecuted, but there.
That's like saying adulterers have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying pedophiles have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying rapists have been repressed and persecuted. The belief, among various cultures, is that homosexuality is an aberration. They are entitled to that belief just as the avowed homosexual is entitled to disagree.
They probably believed that due to the bigoted and homophobic society in which they lived.
Why are the purchasers of pornogrpahy discreet? Surely it can't be because society has rejected it, since the porn industry have profited over it more than all professional sports combined. It is because somewhere in their heart of hearts, they know it is less than virtuous.
Can you explain to me without using the a religious argument, why homosexuality is immoral?
LOL! Can you explain why anything is immoral aside from invoking God? Maybe you can tell me why anything is to be considered immoral that will make a lick of sense from a naturalistic point-of-view. The irreligious often borrow Christian-Judeo concepts of morality in order to denude all of Christian-Judeo ethics. Its obviously oxymoronic.
How is being gay similar to adultery? Please explain.
They are both forms of sexual sin.
I can't think of any, other than religious and gay-hating people possibly getting so angry and fearful about their fading ability to dictate to other people what to do and how to live that they become desperate and violent.
There is no reason for anything apart from the very source of all that is.
Why aren't there any reprocussions? Maybe becasue it is a good thing.
Why is it, good? What is inherently good about it?
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions.
Which I have already pointed out in the other thread is prohibited by the United States Code. What more can be said except to get to the heart of the issue; the heart of why a law exists in the first place?
Whether they should be "the defining principle to look up to" isn't the question. The question is what should the law say.
So you are asking us to make moral pronouncements without invoking the very source of the moral in the first place? How exactly is placing the cart before the horse going to to get you from point A to point B?
The law shouldn't be about what I think is good for everyone else, or what you think is good for everyone else, or what anyone else thinks is good for everyone else. It should be about everyone making their own decision about what's good for themselves.
Brilliant, save the fact that every criminal in the history of the world has used this philosophy.
The purpose of the law shouldn't be to mold free individuals into your (or anyone else's) icon of what a good person should be. It should be to protect people and their property from harm by others. This means that others will make personal choices for themselves that you disagree with. Tough shit, bucko. That's the price you pay to live in a free country. If you don't like it, get the fuck out, and take all your blue-nosed, tight-assed, anal retentive, brain-damaged friends with you. I understand that there are some really nice places in the Middle East where they think it's a good idea to write morality into the law.
Subbie, did it ever occur to you that you are trying to make it compulsory for me to conform to your morals all the way saying that my morals are irrelevant? We are spit-balling ideas in a marketplace of ideas, as the Framers likely intended.
This is how it works: You give your point-of-view, I give a retort, you then respond to that, where I then respond to your response until some kind of compromise is made. I don't have to move to the Middle East so you can come in and subvert time honored ideals. You can go live in the Netherlands and be with your husband for all I care.
Try not to forget for a moment that it is homosexuality infringing on every one else to conform to their ideas, not the other way around.
The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination. You are certainly welcome to say that you want that law repealed. As a member in a free society, I would even encourage you to do so. But don't sit here and moralize to me, only to turn around and say I can't give you the source of mine!
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
we can play games back and forth all day about what you feel is appropriate. that doesn't change THE LAW.
Right, and the law says that homosexuals cannot marry, my feelings be damned. Sooooo.... Where do we go from here?
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Yeah TJ fucked his slaves, but he still owned them. He's hardly a good example of someone overcoming racist ideologies.
Jefferson was a bit of a paradox being that it was he that coined the phrase, "all men are created equal," and yet he bought and sold slaves.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
You can marry the love of your life, but gay people can't? That is clearly discriminatory.
Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
child abuse remains illegal in Denmark
So was homosexuality in America. But we see how that turned out.
I like your photo by the way. Which one is you?
The one next to you of course.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Right, you "pointed that out." Then I quoted the actual language of the U.S. Code, which didn't say anything of the sort. DOMA didn't "prohibit" gay marriage. It says that the U.S. government won't recognize it for purposes of federal law and that one state doesn't have to recognize another state's gay marriage.
quote:In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Title 28: Chapter 115 1738C of the United States Code
Subbie, that's plain English. The US government does not recognize homosexual unions as being legal. Furthermore, no State, no territory, nothing within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States will recognize such a union. It is therefore illegal -- meaning, NOT legal.
This more than substantiates my claim.
You are a blithering idiot!
As much as we all love it when you talk dirty to me, you should be careful. This is grounds for a suspension. Take it down a notch and try to remember that this is a forum.
I got news for you, sweetheart, for the most part gays couldn't care less what you think about them.
You could have fooled me.
All they are asking for is the right to marry. They aren't trying to impose anything on you. They're just asking for the same rights as you.
Awesome... Take it up with Congress, who made it illegal.
Cite any law in the U.S. that calls homosexuality an abomination. And it must be a law in the U.S., since U.S. law is the topic of this thread.
You will never see the word 'abomination' used anywhere on any legal document because it injects emotion in to the law. Since DOMA is in fact a law, and one that renders your entire argument moot, it more than amply shows that even lawmakers understand that such an aberration should not be allowed.
As long as I'm bitch-slapping you
There you go talking dirty again. Subbie, you've lost the debate. I have unambiguously supported that homosexual marriage is not legal. Surely you know this, as your attitude has given away your hand! Just go ahead and fold now and spare yourself the embarrassment of having to resort to ad hominem.
the Fourteenth Amendment analysis that is the focus of this thread.
Since when? You said, US law. And since the 14th Amendment could be so broadly construed to mean anything you want it to be, explain why homosexual marriage fits the criteria.
This thread is about what the law should allow. Despite your gargantuan ego, I guarantee that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It's a legal question, not a moral one, that we're debating on this thread.
And I have provided the LEGAL basis for the moral. What more is there to discuss?
I even stated the pro's and con's of allowing it. I even said that I believe the Federal government should be out of the debate, and that it should be left for the states to decide for themselves, which in effect, I am agreeing with you to some degree. For some odd reason, that wasn't good enough for you. Unless I completely bow to you and convert to your rationale (i use that word loosely) you won't be satisfied.
But that is my personal belief. The matter we are now engaged in is if it is illegal. For some bizarre reason, you refuse to concede this point despite it being glaringly obvious.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Address the topic of this thread, in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment.
You specifically asked if there was any law prohibiting gay marriage. There is. If you would like to discuss what the entailments of the 14th Amendment cover, then we can do that. Forgive my saying so, but it certainly seems that you are bent on only discussing this amendment, presumably because it is cryptic enough to pass a whale through a net, or to smuggle an elephant in a suitcase.
The mere fact that the law says something doesn't mean the law is right.
I certainly agree. I even went so far as to say that I don't agree with DOMA, in many regards, because it takes away the State's rights, and the rights of a religion. I even said in the Huckabee thread that I would even join you in seeing it overturn on that basis. My personal beliefs about homosexuality be damned.
No one wanted to pay attention to that. It seems some are just bent on arguing with personal beliefs, rather than the actual premise, which is what the law states.
My analysis says it's wrong.
That's fine. You are entitled to an opinion without the fear of reprisal. My issue is this: When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things. About the only parity I find is that they are sexual sins. As a non-believer, I won't expect that to mean anything to you, which is why I don't harp on that position. I also will not attempt to place them in linear fashion. That is not a position of mine, as I am not the Judge. What I am trying to do, is to get the readers thinking in the very pragmatic way they allege they use, but ironically, do not when it comes to discussions like this. I am asking them, on what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others?
On what basis? On what authority? Why is one intrinsically good, where the others are intrinsically bad? What arbitrates such things without invoking something beyond arbitrary rules? Nobody answers this with cogency. And the reason is because they have nowhere to answer this, because they have no greater authority in which to instill these principles. They have no point of reference. When attempting to answer it, is as if they are stating that intrinsic values are intrinsic because they are intrinsic. In other words, its circular.
Nature does not care about "rights." Nature, itself, cannot offer these things to you because it presumably hasn't the mind to do so. So where then do you get this feeling that homosexuality is perfectly fine, and is perfectly natural, but something such as incest or pedophilia is a moral tragedy? Are you not unwittingly using a Judeo-Christian ethos in order to subvert all Judeo-Christian ethics? As a result of the inanity of it, do you not have to invent some Darwinian reason in order to rationalize your position? The answer yes, you do. But unconvincingly so, in my opinion.
Watching people fumble and flounder on that position is all I see. And if it forces people to see the weakness of their most basic beliefs by showing them that there very foundation is without meaning, I am more than happy to expose it. Because at least then they might finally come to the most inescapable of conclusions.
So far, you've managed to ignore that in every single post in this thread.
I answer people in sequential order, as I feel obligated to answer them in the order in which it is received. On a popular thread, such as this one, I typically generate approximately 4 replies per every post I make. Add them up. Couple this with the fact that I have other threads I'm engaged on, as well a life outside of EvC, and it should be reasonable to assume that it is going to take me some time to get to your post(s).
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit for typos
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Immediately support your contention that the law in the US states that homosexuality is an abomination, or retract your disgusting lies.
It is categorically listed in numerous states laws, the UCMJ, and the United States Code. I'd say that more than amply proves how lawmakers view it. But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you?
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
quote:Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
Oooo! A pedophile! Huh.
Let's take a look at the statistics, shall we?
98% of these male perpetrators are heterosexual.
What!?!?! Are you joking? Are... you.... kidding.... me? 2% of all pedophiles are homosexual? 2 percent?
Going by Kinsey's generous figures, lets say that homosexuals actually represent 10% of the total US population. The US currently has roughly 280 million people. That means roughly 280,000 homosexuals live in the US. Of that 280,000, you now allege that 5,600 of them are pedophiles.
I guess NAMbLA and Butterfly Girls is representative of that tiny fraction, of which, homosexuals already account for a small fraction of the total population.
Interesting just how many of that small fraction just so happens to wind up on To Catch a Pedator.
Better yet, its amazing how unlucky I was when I was molested at the ripe age of 9 years old!
I could come up with all these biased articles that this or that assertion, just as you do, but really all its going to do is prove there is a bias in both directions.
But then you have to think about things sensibly. 5,600 of people in the entire population? Think about that seriously for a moment.
Not that it matters what sexual preference one takes when it comes to pedophilia, its all wrong either way, but don't make these kind of erroneous statements so you can protect homosexuality.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
You thinkin' Massachusetts is floutin' federal law?
No, it just won't be recognized by the US government, which makes me wonder how that all works on their income taxes.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Subbie, explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage.
You say you just want to talk about the law. I point to a law, and you proceed to skirt completely around the issue. You then cite the Constitution, which is totally non-specific as to what the entailments of a "right" is.
This is the problem: When talking about the Constitution, you have to interpret it from a moral perspective. Like it or not, your argument will end in the moral arena -- I guarantee it, because you will have no other way to justify the act.
So, explain to me why homosexual marriage is a basic right.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2
