or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Suck it, haters. - Page 6

post #201 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Common thread: Discrimination & Disenfranchisement--BAD; Rejecting Discrimination & Disenfranchisement--GOOD.  Hmm...which group sides against gays and for voter suppression?  Conservatives you say?  Shocking.

 

Cry more tears of impotent rage.  Today is a good day.

 

Common thread: Discrimination & Disenfranchisement--BAD; Rejecting Discrimination & Disenfranchisement--GOOD.

 

Glad to see you've wised up. The Supreme Court did indeed declare that it was bad for the federal government to discriminate and refuse to allow certain states to use voting rules and measures that have passed Constitutional test for no other reason than they want to discriminate and disenfranchise against voters in those states. Thus the Obama actions and his discrimination and disenfranchisement were ruled against.

 

You're such a sad puppy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #202 of 236
Thread Starter 

It's over.  Welcome to the 21st century.  You had up until today to get on the right side of history before same sex marriage was officially recognized.  Those who waited too long now just need to come to terms with it.  And you know what?  You're still welcome to join us on the right side of history by recognizing the beauty of Justice Kennedy's writing below:

 

Quote:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

 

Will you accept that society has progressed or will you grow old to be the new version of the embarrassingly racist grandparent, still complaining about desegregation and miscegenation? 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #203 of 236
Thread Starter 

#LoveWins

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #204 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post
 

It's over.  Welcome to the 21st century.  You had up until today to get on the right side of history before same sex marriage was officially recognized.  Those who waited too long now just need to come to terms with it.  And you know what?  You're still welcome to join us on the right side of history by recognizing the beauty of Justice Kennedy's writing below:

 

 

Will you accept that society has progressed or will you grow old to be the new version of the embarrassingly racist grandparent, still complaining about desegregation and miscegenation? 


OK, BR.  You're out of the box.  How long you remain out is up to you.  I confess, I just had to see what you posted on the SCOTUS decision.   

 

First, let me say this:  Screw the false dilemma.  There are many people who support same sex marriage, and many who oppose.  Most of the latter (at least the ones I've read) don't harbor animus towards gays.  They oppose same sex marriage for a variety of reasons, often rooted in their faiths.  It's not a question of society "progressing," nor someone's ability to get with the times.  For a movement supposedly built on tolerance and acceptance, there seem to be a whole lot of folks like you who cannot accept that some people legitimately disagree.  

 

Secondly, I've consulted with several qualified attorneys whom I know well, and read the majority opinion myself.  As a legal layperson (at least compared to the people to whom I'm referring), I was somewhat surprised that after reading the opinion, I came to same conclusion as they did:  1) I see a case to be made for gay marriage.  2) The case laid out was not it.  More on that later.  

 

Thirdly, it may surprise you to know I actually think the outcome of this case is the right one (gays getting equal legal rights), and that given a choice between supporting same sex marriage or not, I choose to support it.  My view changed on this over the years, as my former opposition was not rooted in any sort of religious view (and certainly not from any ill-will towards gays).  I simply decided that in this case, the 14th Amendment (equal protection and due process) had to outweigh the 10th (states' rights, the rights of the people).  Put simply, there was no good reason to deny gays equal legal rights of marriage, despite the numerous concerns I have about changing the institution.

 

So with the notion that I support the decision, I'll wait for you to duct-tape your head back together.  Ready to move on?  Good...

 

My support does not mean I lack serious concerns.  One of the first issues I see (and have always seen) is the fact that the United States government just redefined a primarily religious institution (at least in its roots) and building block of our society, and did so for everyone.  Marriage was a religious institution recognized by the State in order to promote not love, but children, family and overall stability.  Marriage is a fundamentally stabilizing influence in society, and, despite all the problems within it, a positive force.  Recognizing same sex marriage does not promote child-bearing, there is a key difference.   All that said, I don't believe this concern is enough to justify denying equal legal rights to gays.  

 

Another major concern I have, though, is where we go from here.  Kennedy's decision is problematic (even if ultimately correct) because he "found" a Constitutional right to same sex marriage--in fact, to marriage itself.  By relying on reasoning centered less on 14th vs. 10th Amendment grounds and more on "dignity," he opens to court to future challenges to marriage's definition, and the State's ability to define marriage at all.  If #LoveWins (e.g. dignity) is the primary reasoning, then future challenges will ultimately be successful.  For example:  While the movement is nowhere near critical mass, politically speaking, the argument to allow polygamous marriage is legally identical (and don't start with the standard "that will never happen, SDW.  It already is happening as we speak).  Some may not care about future changes to the institution, but I think that's misguided.  The reason is that allowing future changes will eventually render the term "marriage" meaningless in our society.  If you can marry whomever you love because you're biologically programmed to do so, on what grounds can the State prevent you from marrying anyone (or everyone)?  Clearly, there will be limits based on current law unrelated to marriage (e.g. prohibitions on incest, laws on the age of majority, etc.).  But, can the State tell you how many people you can marry?  If so, why?  Isn't monogamy pretty well proven at this point to be a social construct, not a biological one? Can the State tell you anything about marriage, other than what is prohibited under certain statutes already?  The point is that if we value marriage as a positive force in society, aren't we concerned about the term being rendered meaningless?  I think we should be.  

 

Fortunately, the above "fight" seems pretty far off.  In fact, it may never hit critical mass, so the point may be moot.  What is not moot is how certain "gay rights" groups and others will use this decision to attack people of faith.  We've already seen the New Ministry of Thoughtcrime in Oregon not only order a couple to violate their beliefs, but essentially place a gag order on them.  There are those calling for churches to lose their tax exempt status completely and universally.  How long until a same sex couple sues a church in order to force it to perform a same sex wedding?  I'd put the over-under at "it's probably happening as we speak."  How long until governments move from assailing closely held, for-profit businesses to assailing churches?  Or, until the Feds dangle the prospect of individual churches losing their tax status unless they comply?  Not long, I think.   

 

All of the above is why I would have preferred (and still do prefer) to get the government out of marriage entirely.  Grant civil unions (for all, gay or straight) between two persons and leave "marriage" to those who want it through their faiths.  The justification against further changes could easily be the administrative nightmare multiple spouses (for example) would create.  People get equal legal rights, and the government doesn't redefine a millennia-old pillar of society.  Problem solved.  While we're at it, pass legislation protecting the religious rights of closely held (e.g. sole proprietorship and the like) business owners who, as a result of the nature of their work, must personally participate in services (e.g. weddings).

 

My hope is you respond intelligently and measuredly to what I've written.  We'll see.  

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #205 of 236
Many people supported slavery for reasons other than hating blacks. That doesn't make their support for slavery any less wrong.
post #206 of 236
As for "redefining a primarily religious institution", isn't that up to the individual religions to do? Shouldn't the federal government allow individual religions the right to do that?
post #207 of 236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
 OK, BR.  You're out of the box.  How long you remain out is up to you.  

It's actually up to you.  This feels similar to the reasoning that homosexual marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, when in fact two women or two men pairing up do absolutely nothing to any existing heterosexual married couples.  The agency of one's marriage belongs to those parties involved--placing it anywhere else is absurd.

 

Look, SDW, there's just a lot wrong with what you posted.  I don't mean wrong in the moral sense, but rather in the factually incorrect sense.  You make a lot of claims about the origin, history, and purpose of marriage that are just objectively false.  Just like you showed a teeny bit of intellectual honesty in reading some of muppetry's links in the global warming thread (though you did so under the lens of not wanting to change your position), I'd like you to show some here and read about the history of marriage from someone who spent a lifetime studying it:

 

http://origins.osu.edu/article/real-marriage-revolution/page/0/0

 

There are two pages in the article.  I hope that you will see that your are operating from severely flawed premises, which inevitably have led to faulty conclusions.

 

Let me know when you've actually read, understood, and updated your understanding of historical marriage, and then we can actually have a conversation.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #208 of 236
Probably the most insidious part of the progressive movement is the language used. The term "Haters" for instance. Question for BR, (or any other progressives/Leftists here) how many Christians do you know have told you that they hate gays? (Or have said even anything similar?)

Progressives somehow judge the intentions of entire religious groups -- ??? -- something no one can do -- and end up disparaging people in the most bigoted way conceivable. Using stereotypes based on lies.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #209 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Probably the most insidious part of the progressive movement is the language used. The term "Haters" for instance. Question for BR, (or any other progressives/Leftists here) how many Christians do you know have told you that they hate gays? (Or have said even anything similar?)

Progressives somehow judge the intentions of entire religious groups -- ??? -- something no one can do -- and end up disparaging people in the most bigoted way conceivable. Using stereotypes based on lies.


I repeat.

 

Many people supported slavery for reasons other than hating blacks. That doesn't make their support for slavery any less wrong.

 

As far as treatment of homosexuals goes, anyone who can treat a person so hatefully, either hates that person, or is a sociopath who simply enjoys hurting people. It's actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that your actions are due to the former.

post #210 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Probably the most insidious part of the progressive movement is the language used. The term "Haters" for instance. Question for BR, (or any other progressives/Leftists here) how many Christians do you know have told you that they hate gays? (Or have said even anything similar?)

Progressives somehow judge the intentions of entire religious groups -- ??? -- something no one can do -- and end up disparaging people in the most bigoted way conceivable. Using stereotypes based on lies.
One group claims other group of using stereotype by using stereotype... irony overload.
post #211 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

One group claims other group of using stereotype by using stereotype... irony overload.
Baseless assertion/quip without any context or evidence.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #212 of 236
Check swing....
Edited by dmz - 7/6/15 at 11:26pm

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #213 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Baseless assertion/quip without any context or evidence.
context and evidence supplied by poster. Response required no addition :-)
post #214 of 236

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR View Post
 
Quote:
 OK, BR.  You're out of the box.  How long you remain out is up to you.  

It's actually up to you.  This feels similar to the reasoning that homosexual marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, when in fact two women or two men pairing up do absolutely nothing to any existing heterosexual married couples.  The agency of one's marriage belongs to those parties involved--placing it anywhere else is absurd.

 

Look, SDW, there's just a lot wrong with what you posted.  I don't mean wrong in the moral sense, but rather in the factually incorrect sense.  You make a lot of claims about the origin, history, and purpose of marriage that are just objectively false.  Just like you showed a teeny bit of intellectual honesty in reading some of muppetry's links in the global warming thread (though you did so under the lens of not wanting to change your position), I'd like you to show some here and read about the history of marriage from someone who spent a lifetime studying it:

 

http://origins.osu.edu/article/real-marriage-revolution/page/0/0

 

There are two pages in the article.  I hope that you will see that your are operating from severely flawed premises, which inevitably have led to faulty conclusions.

 

Let me know when you've actually read, understood, and updated your understanding of historical marriage, and then we can actually have a conversation.  

 

First a couple points. Your article notes the history of marriage and the motivations for it. SDW asked you specifically about new marriage forms based on the court reasoning for this current outcome and how it doesn't appear that the reasoning would limit these two forms.

 

You can claim his historical understanding is flawed. I read your article and the thing I really take from it is that it proves his contention. Marriage was about financial and family ties and along the love was added. There were a number of marriage forms per your article.

 

How does that support an argument that recognition of the marriage right for same sex couples will stop there?

 

I've read the Kennedy reasoning. There is nothing in it that would stop new marriage forms from submitting to the same legal test it establishes and easily passing that test.

 

I've argued for YEARS in these forums that I support same sex marriage but that the legal path to recognition is too broad. People didn't care about that. Perhaps they will care when they realize the door isn't just cracked too wide, it is blown wide open.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #215 of 236
"I've argued for YEARS in these forums that I support same sex marriage but that the legal path to recognition is too broad. People didn't care about that. Perhaps they will care when they realize the door isn't just cracked too wide, it is blown wide open."

Liar. You argued for years in these forums that you support civil unions but we should never "redefine marriage".

And it looks like you're borrowing your arguments from Mike Huckabee now.

And never, NEVER will anything that is an issue of consent "pass the same test easily".

That means pedophilia - never. Bestiality (sex with animals is legal right NOW in a few mostly backassed red southern states, plus Oregon) - never will count for marriage.

Polygamy? We both know BR never argued against it if the people can show it won't cause serious social problems.

But you just love the bogus "slippery slope" scare tactics to stop something you no longer have the moral high road to oppose.
Edited by tonton - 7/7/15 at 2:30am
post #216 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I repeat.

Many people supported slavery for reasons other than hating blacks. That doesn't make their support for slavery any less wrong.

As far as treatment of homosexuals goes, anyone who can treat a person so hatefully, either hates that person, or is a sociopath who simply enjoys hurting people. It's actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that your actions are due to the former.
You're begging the question, tonton. "Hater" is bigoted language because it judges motives - and does it based on lies and stereotypes. How many Christians have told you they hate gays?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #217 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"I've argued for YEARS in these forums that I support same sex marriage but that the legal path to recognition is too broad. People didn't care about that. Perhaps they will care when they realize the door isn't just cracked too wide, it is blown wide open."

Liar. You argued for years in these forums that you support civil unions but we should never "redefine marriage".

And it looks like you're borrowing your arguments from Mike Huckabee now.

And never, NEVER will anything that is an issue of consent "pass the same test easily".

That means pedophilia - never. Bestiality (sex with animals is legal right NOW in a few mostly backassed red southern states, plus Oregon) - never will count for marriage.

Polygamy? We both know BR never argued against it if the people can show it won't cause serious social problems.

But you just love the bogus "slippery slope" scare tactics to stop something you no longer have the moral high road to oppose.

 

That is simply incorrect. We spent quite a bit of time in this thread (since it has covered years) discussing Prop 8 in California. I have said I support multiple marriage forms including limited term marriage, civil unions for heterosexual couples, and covenant marriages that cannot be dissolved by one party at anytime for no fault. I have said that having marriage be a catch-all for everyone who wants a legally sanctioned, government recognized relationship is very problematic. I feel as a country we take shortcuts and then continue to fight because the shortcuts don't really work. This is true of abortion, gay marriage, and increasingly true of health care. I may have argued that people aren't "haters" if they supported civil unions but wanted a word that had a religious orientation to remain that way, but that doesn't mean I never supported gay marriage.

 

When discussing Prop 8 I argued that the reasoning of the 9th Circuit for California was absurd because they ruled a Constitutional Amendment was unconstitutional. BTW, the recent ruling legalizing gay marriage did not address that terrible decision at all. It side stepped it.

 

Here is my first post in this thread. I specifically noted I did not vote for Prop 8. I did not vote to amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. In this thread I applauded every state that VOTED for gay marriage. It's plain to read. However you might want to go back and review the section where you accused Oklahoma of being bigoted and were caught stereotyping and dead wrong regarding interracial marriage.

 

As for various "marriage" forms causing societal problems, that really is societies problem to resolve. That is the gist of the Kennedy reasoning on his decision. If you have a birth certificate with two spaces and one says mother and the other father, it is society's job to print new certificates that have two spaces that say parents instead of mom and dad. If a group of more than two wants to be recognized, society can reformat the institutions and forms that serve them again.

 

It isn't hard to see how to challenge the notion of two people relationship forms. You simply have someone who is bisexual file a lawsuit demanding that they be issued a marriage license to both of the people they love.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #218 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's actually up to you.  This feels similar to the reasoning that homosexual marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, when in fact two women or two men pairing up do absolutely nothing to any existing heterosexual married couples.  The agency of one's marriage belongs to those parties involved--placing it anywhere else is absurd.

Look, SDW, there's just a lot wrong with what you posted.  I don't mean wrong in the moral sense, but rather in the factually incorrect sense.  You make a lot of claims about the origin, history, and purpose of marriage that are just objectively false.  Just like you showed a teeny bit of intellectual honesty in reading some of muppetry's links in the global warming thread (though you did so under the lens of not wanting to change your position), I'd like you to show some here and read about the history of marriage from someone who spent a lifetime studying it:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/real-marriage-revolution/page/0/0

There are two pages in the article.  I hope that you will see that your are operating from severely flawed premises, which inevitably have led to faulty conclusions.

Let me know when you've actually read, understood, and updated your understanding of historical marriage, and then we can actually have a conversation.  


See trumptman's post below. I don't know what it is with you...it always comes down to you knowing more than someone else, doesn't it? I certainly didn't mean to imply that marriage was exclusively religious, nor did I make any claims about its origin. I'm saying it's a primarily religious institution, one that goes back thousand of years. Even if you want to quibble with that by pointing out other forms of historical marriage, other purposes, etc, the primary argument is that marriage was legalized/sanctioned by the State for the purposes laid out (children, family, stability, etc.).

As for your first comment, it's purely rhetorical. I don't care what "feels like" to you. If you can't see that changing the definition of something several times over changes that very thing's nature, I can't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

First a couple points. Your article notes the history of marriage and the motivations for it. SDW asked you specifically about new marriage forms based on the court reasoning for this current outcome and how it doesn't appear that the reasoning would limit these two forms.

You can claim his historical understanding is flawed. I read your article and the thing I really take from it is that it proves his contention. Marriage was about financial and family ties and along the love was added. There were a number of marriage forms per your article.

How does that support an argument that recognition of the marriage right for same sex couples will stop there?

I've read the Kennedy reasoning. There is nothing in it that would stop new marriage forms from submitting to the same legal test it establishes and easily passing that test.

I've argued for YEARS in these forums that I support same sex marriage but that the legal path to recognition is too broad. People didn't care about that. Perhaps they will care when they realize the door isn't just cracked too wide, it is blown wide open.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #219 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"I've argued for YEARS in these forums that I support same sex marriage but that the legal path to recognition is too broad. People didn't care about that. Perhaps they will care when they realize the door isn't just cracked too wide, it is blown wide open."

Liar. You argued for years in these forums that you support civil unions but we should never "redefine marriage".[/quote/]

Prove it.

 

 

Quote:
And it looks like you're borrowing your arguments from Mike Huckabee now.

 

Why do you feel the need to characterize his words?  Can't you argue on the merits?  By the way, is everything Mike Huckabee says complete bullshit?  

 

Quote:
And never, NEVER will anything that is an issue of consent "pass the same test easily".

That means pedophilia - never. Bestiality (sex with animals is legal right NOW in a few mostly backassed red southern states, plus Oregon) - never will count for marriage.

 

There are specific laws in place to prevent pedophilia, so I agree.  But Bestiality?  If, as you note, there are states that allow it, what is the argument against it?  The entire point is that Kennedy's decision is written so that the reasoning for changing marriage further is the same as the that in Hodges.  

 

 

Quote:
Polygamy? We both know BR never argued against it if the people can show it won't cause serious social problems.

 

That doesn't mean it would be good for the institution of marriage or society at large.  


 

Quote:
But you just love the bogus "slippery slope" scare tactics to stop something you no longer have the moral high road to oppose.

 

Not all "slippery slope" arguments are slippery slope fallacies.  I've already shown examples of how some people are, in fact, applying for marriage licenses for "other" forms of marriage.  I've already shown how the decision is being used to attack churches.  I haven't seen trumpt use any sort of moral argument, nor have I made such an argument.  What he's posted is exactly what I'm arguing:  The legal argument for changing marriage further is now wide open.  It will be interesting to see what the courts end up doing with cases of polygamous marriage licenses, or people marrying animals (in states where relations are legal), or even inanimate objects.  

 

If we can "marry" anyone and everyone or any thing, what is marriage?  Does it really have any meaning at all in our society?  


Edited by SDW2001 - 7/8/15 at 8:44am
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #220 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Not all "slippery slope" arguments are slippery slope fallacies.  I've already shown examples of how some people are, in fact, applying for marriage licenses for "other" forms of marriage.  I've already shown how the decision is being used to attack churches.  I haven't seen trumpt use any sort of moral argument, nor have I made such an argument.  What he's posted is exactly what I'm arguing:  The legal argument for changing marriage further is now wide open.  It will be interesting to see what the courts end up doing with cases of polygamous marriage licenses, or people marrying animals (in states where relations are legal), or even inanimate objects.  

 

If we can "marry" anyone and everyone or any thing, what is marriage?  Does it really have any meaning at all in our society?  

 

I don't see problems arising from such legal "redefinitions of marriage", purely on account of credibility. No politician or group in the United States is going to sponsor or lend support towards any measure legalizing marriage between a person and an animal, a person and an inanimate object, a person and a child, or a person and multiple spouses. Of course there's always the chance that someone will give it a shot, perhaps as a publicity stunt or similar, but I cannot envisage any elected official from anywhere on the political spectrum granting a marriage license for any of these types of unions...  such would be political suicide.

 

I believe this is a non-issue - the people and our representatives have enough common sense to limit marriage as a legal contract/spiritual bond between "two persons" and anything outside of this will be legally rejected....and laughed out of court, so to speak.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11.  Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.
Reply
We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11.  Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.
Reply
post #221 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

I don't see problems arising from such legal "redefinitions of marriage", purely on account of credibility. No politician or group in the United States is going to sponsor or lend support towards any measure legalizing marriage between a person and an animal, a person and an inanimate object, a person and a child, or a person and multiple spouses. Of course there's always the chance that someone will give it a shot, perhaps as a publicity stunt or similar, but I cannot envisage any elected official from anywhere on the political spectrum granting a marriage license for any of these types of unions...  such would be political suicide.

 

Liberals just don't know history. At all. EXACTLY the same sentiments above were voiced when abortion was legalized.

 

"Don't be silly...this will never lead to the discussion of euthanasia for general society...it would be political suicide."

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #222 of 236
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I cannot envisage any elected official from anywhere on the political spectrum granting a marriage license for any of these types of unions...  such would be political suicide.


Gee, that’s exactly what they said about homosexuals only 60 years ago.

 

Are you joking?

post #223 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Liberals just don't know history. At all. EXACTLY the same sentiments above were voiced when abortion was legalized.

"Don't be silly...this will never lead to the discussion of euthanasia for general society...it would be political suicide."
and what is wrong with euthanasia?
post #224 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 


Gee, that’s exactly what they said about homosexuals only 60 years ago.

 

Are you joking?

 

To make my point, I mentioned "these types of unions", which included "a person and an animal, a person and an inanimate object, a person and a child, or a person and multiple spouses". These extreme cases have nothing in common with the gay marriage issue, regardless of "what they said about homosexuals 60 years ago".
 
Please try to avoid misrepresenting someone's point to fabricate one of your own.
We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11.  Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.
Reply
We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11.  Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.
Reply
post #225 of 236
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 These extreme cases have nothing in common with the gay marriage issue

 

Hey, enjoy your delusions.

post #226 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post


and what is wrong with euthanasia?


Forgot about this question. But to be clear, I didn't answer because it's outside the topic of this thread.

 

My point was that abortion backers swore up and down that the legalization of abortion wouldn't lead to a discussion of the acceptability of euthanasia, and they were dead wrong (pun intended.) A similar fate awaits our society regarding the approval of 'same sex marriage' and discussions on incest, polygamy and bestiality.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #227 of 236
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

…discussions on incest…

 

    The thing that ticks me off is that we’re inevitably going to have to support incest and cheer them on. Hooray! Woo-hoo! Well done for fucking your siblings!

    TV shows will start showing incestuous couples as normal. Any old TV show that made a joke about it will be ceremonially crucified, their creators made to retroactively apologize. There will be lots of worried hand-wringing that there aren’t enough incestuous couples on TV. “Did you know that 15% of couples are incestuous, whereas only 6% of TV couples are?” And, of course, this will become akin to a sexuality: it’s “not” a choice; these people have fallen in love. How can you fault someone for just falling in love with his sister? Are you some kind of love-hating bigot? I bet you’re a fat, dumb, Christian Republican who thinks it’s still the ‘50s! Get with the times, grandpa!

    Incestuous couples will become a protected minority. We will have to check that employers are hiring the right amount of incestuous people. You aren’t allowed to insult incestuous couples–that’s illegal–but people who are in a relationship with someone to whom they’re not related? HILARIOUS! Maybe we could borrow the term ‘breeders’ from the gays, or maybe we can invent a new one. You’ll see articles on Huffington Post with progressive liberals writing an open letter to apologize for not being incestuous.

    The transformation will be complete: incestuous couples will have been part of the fabric of America since the beginning, and only since the repressive ’50s have they been in the closet. Thank God we solved that problem; now everyone is more tolerant and society is so much better.

 

Oh, and you didn’t even mention pedophiles.

post #228 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Oh, and you didn’t even mention pedophiles.

 

 

Pedophilia, like rape, really has nothing to do with sexuality. Sex is just a channel through which power can most effectively be asserted. 

 

Incest…well, half of Kentucky is a significant portion of the United States. You might want to consider legalising them.

post #229 of 236
Originally Posted by spheric View Post
Pedophilia… …really has nothing to do with sexuality.

 

Insofar as there is nothing to be sexually attracted to in the victim thereof, but not regarding the perpetrators.

 
Sex is just a channel through which power can most effectively be asserted. 

 

Ah, but that’s bigotry, you see. Pedophiles are not mentally ill in that they are sexually attracted to a lack of sexual expression, oh, no no no; they are simply misunderstood and should be helped and normalized, not ostracized!

 
Incest…well, half of Kentucky is a significant portion of the United States. You might want to consider legalising them.

 

Taking your nonsensical obscenity at face value, your argument stands using homosexual ‘logic’, as the number of homosexuals in this country is almost exactly the same as half the population of Kentucky. We may as well legalize that insanity.

post #230 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Ah, but that’s bigotry, you see. Pedophiles are not mentally ill in that they are sexually attracted to a lack of sexual expression, oh, no no no; they are simply misunderstood and should be helped and normalized, not ostracized!

 

Well…or jailed. Or a combination of both. Depending upon how your particular society deals with abusive individuals. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Taking your nonsensical obscenity at face value, your argument stands using homosexual ‘logic’, as the number of homosexuals in this country is almost exactly the same as half the population of Kentucky. We may as well legalize that insanity.


​It's unsurprising that you don't do sarcasm. 

 

post #231 of 236
Originally Posted by spheric View Post

It's unsurprising that you don't do sarcasm. 

 

As I said, I knew you weren’t being serious in your belief, however that kind of behavior is exactly what equalists tend to want to shame out of existence. The irony was humorous.

post #232 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

    The thing that ticks me off is that we’re inevitably going to have to support incest and cheer them on. Hooray! Woo-hoo! Well done for fucking your siblings!

    TV shows will start showing incestuous couples as normal. Any old TV show that made a joke about it will be ceremonially crucified, their creators made to retroactively apologize. There will be lots of worried hand-wringing that there aren’t enough incestuous couples on TV. “Did you know that 15% of couples are incestuous, whereas only 6% of TV couples are?” And, of course, this will become akin to a sexuality: it’s “not” a choice; these people have fallen in love. How can you fault someone for just falling in love with his sister? Are you some kind of love-hating bigot? I bet you’re a fat, dumb, Christian Republican who thinks it’s still the ‘50s! Get with the times, grandpa!

    Incestuous couples will become a protected minority. We will have to check that employers are hiring the right amount of incestuous people. You aren’t allowed to insult incestuous couples–that’s illegal–but people who are in a relationship with someone to whom they’re not related? HILARIOUS! Maybe we could borrow the term ‘breeders’ from the gays, or maybe we can invent a new one. You’ll see articles on Huffington Post with progressive liberals writing an open letter to apologize for not being incestuous.

    The transformation will be complete: incestuous couples will have been part of the fabric of America since the beginning, and only since the repressive ’50s have they been in the closet. Thank God we solved that problem; now everyone is more tolerant and society is so much better.

 

Oh, and you didn’t even mention pedophiles.

 

But Tallest, that will NEVER happen, you BIGOT!  You're just afraid of CHANGE!  There is no slippery slope!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #233 of 236

 

post #234 of 236

Insanity does not respect the delineations of sexual orientation…or religion. 

post #235 of 236
What a depressing read this thread is.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #236 of 236

Love wins, friends. Never forget. These people are just like you or me.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Suck it, haters.