You do realize how ignorant it is to keep implying that “Homosexuals can hold themselves as married” and “They can have celebrations and ceremonies for it, nothing is stopping them”… right?
Whats stopping them from doing so is that they cannot legally do so. That’s blatantly obvious and ignorant that you ask.[/quote]
No, marriages are almost entirely private affairs. The only reason marriage is recognized by the state is for the public policy benefits of that institution to Society at large.
There’s nothing “ignorant” about it. My commitment to my wife has exactly zilch to do with the state, and if my state declared tomorrow that all marriages were null and void as a legal matter of public policy, our relationship would not change in the slightest.
That should be the case with any private marriage. I guess it’s not, but if a relationship craves the approval of the state (the self-esteem project, you see), that isn’t anything the state can fix.
[/quote]
Are you really going to pretend that the legal matters surrounding your marriage play no part in your commitment?
Its not the approval of the state, its the numerous legal benefits - estate, hospital visitation, etc. Of course, few argue that homosexuals shouldnt get these legal benefits through other (more costly, more time consuming, less legally binding) means - just that they cant call it marriage because it interferes with their own self-esteem project.
Read all the threads on T-Nation dealing with homosexuality and gay marriage. Lemme know how many express the viewpoint that homosexuality is “wrong”.[/quote]
No, no - I am not asking about “T-Nation” - I am asking about the public at large. Looking forward to your findings.
Nonsense - we have learned exactly the opposite, and Forlife himself even committed to a position that, based on his principles, polygamy should be allowed. It doesn’t “fail” simply because you want to have selective amnesia and hit “reset” on the arguments.
I don’t know, but once again (always, once again), you commit the fallacy of “because it hasn’t happened, therefore it will not happen”. Been covered. Asked and answered. I am not interested in going over it yet again.
Are you really going to pretend that the legal matters surrounding your marriage play no part in your commitment? [/quote]
Of course it “play a role” - but no, it doesn’t affect the nature or commitment of our relationship. Zero.
Yes, once again (always once again), you note the benefits - but we don’t dole out benefits “just 'cause” - we dole them out as a quid pro quo for benefits generated to Society. No tangible benefits to society, no benefits to the couple. It’s that easy.
Look, you’re a tolerance warrior - you want public policy to show tolerance for the sake of tolerance. That’s fine. That doesn’t offend me, as airheaded as that is. But you keep running into dead ends on policy. There’s little left to say. You just keep repeating half-baked arguments over and over, thinking that somehow they’ll make sense the fourteenth time around. They won’t.
No, no - I am not asking about “T-Nation” - I am asking about the public at large. Looking forward to your findings.
[/quote]
Right, because T-Nation doesnt represent the public at large. You want stats so you can tell me the source is biased or the information is too old, yeah?
The fact that you had to change the topic from gay marriage to polyamorous marriage to prove that “threat” shows that you dont have a strong argument about gay marriage itself posing that threat - only against the things gay marriage “might” lead to.
[quote]
I don’t know, but once again (always, once again), you commit the fallacy of “because it hasn’t happened, therefore it will not happen”. Been covered. Asked and answered. I am not interested in going over it yet again.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure, if it did, you’d know - because it would be your proof. Hell, you were able to find a story about someone trying the argument - yet you “dont know” if its ever been enacted?
Right, because T-Nation doesnt represent the public at large. You want stats so you can tell me the source is biased or the information is too old, yeah?[/quote]
So, you don’t have the information? Next time, just say so.
Nope, and I tired of your convenient laziness. I have (1) taken on gay marriage directly and (2) also pointed out where its principles threaten to lead (i.e., polygamy, etc.). I haven’t “changed the subject” - I’ve written what feels like a treatise on exactly why gay marriage is in and of itself not a good idea.
More selective amnesia. Doesn’t hold up.
No, I haven’t spent much time researching it. The argument is one of applying legal principles to other factual situations.
I’m not a zealot in the issue. Trust me, I am more interested in my short game and putting than this topic. Next time I am in Europe, I’ll conduct a double-blind study - right after I hunt deer.
That makes no sense. It plays a role but it doesnt affect your relationship. Please clarify.[/quote]
Well, it affects how we organize our taxes. “Affects”. But the nature of our relationship doesn’t change if all tax modifications on the basis of marriage were dropped.
That means exactly nothing to me. “Tolerance” has become the holy grail of the Good, and it is foolish errand.
C’mon, man. Be serious. We’ve covered this at least seven times.
No, I don’t have a problem, because (1) the law has to be overinclusive as a practical matter, (2) it still serves to reinforce the “pedestal”, (3) it stil orders reproduction, because it keeps otherwise fertile people from straying and creating unwanted children (rarely are both people going to be infertile), and (4) the concept of “infertile” is fluid, not fixed - many couples think they are “infertile” (and don’t want to be) only to learn later that they are not and get blessed with a child.
Give me a break, and stop recycling. It’s getting old. And desperate.
I’m not a zealot in the issue. Trust me, I am more interested in my short game and putting than this topic. Next time I am in Europe, I’ll conduct a double-blind study - right after I hunt deer.[/quote]
A double-blind study of marriage laws? How will you see the papers?
That makes no sense. It plays a role but it doesnt affect your relationship. Please clarify.[/quote]
Well, it affects how we organize our taxes. “Affects”. But the nature of our relationship doesn’t change if all tax modifications on the basis of marriage were dropped.
That means exactly nothing to me. “Tolerance” has become the holy grail of the Good, and it is foolish errand.
C’mon, man. Be serious. We’ve covered this at least seven times.
No, I don’t have a problem, because (1) the law has to be overinclusive as a practical matter, (2) it still serves to reinforce the “pedestal”, (3) it stil orders reproduction, because it keeps otherwise fertile people from straying and creating unwanted children (rarely are both people going to be infertile), and (4) the concept of “infertile” is fluid, not fixed - many couples think they are “infertile” (and don’t want to be) only to learn later that they are not and get blessed with a child.
Give me a break, and stop recycling. It’s getting old. And desperate.[/quote]
I think you’re right that we’re at a point where we wont cover new ground. I’ll respectfully bow out. Thanks for the exchange. Till next time.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]Flatly untrue.[/quote]Listen bub. Self governance was at the very heart of the trajectory that this nation was set upon and the Christian “religion”, and the voluntary morality that it engenders was absolutely viewed as indispensable to the long term civil freedom of this citizenry. To deny that is to simply yell with your hands over your ears. No society will ever even approach perfection, but we were the first to attempt a system of self governance by overt design and the fact of full churches and the preponderance of public attitude being influenced by YES, the bible, and especially it’s teaching on family is what gave those early men the courage to even try it.
If you ever get your stubborn deluded head outta the sand you will see that staring you in the face. Like I say, even rank heathen hypocrites like Franklin and Jefferson said as much. Read de Tocqueville’s “democracy in America” (1835) who was a French political philosopher who traveled here to study our fledgling nation. Read of his observations on how women were treated (AND BEHAVED!), for instance and compare it the absolute whorehouse this nation has degenerated into. That guy saw back then and told us that we were definitely ascending and would continue to do so as long as the private morality of our citizens held fast because he recognized the precarious fragile nature of what we were doing and exactly what would preserve or destroy it. EXTREMELY analytical and penetratingly insightful man who saw the writing on the wall 176 years ago.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]Flatly untrue.[/quote]Listen bub. Self governance was at the very heart of the trajectory that this nation was set upon and the Christian “religion”, and the voluntary morality that it engenders was absolutely viewed as indispensable to the long term civil freedom of this citizenry. To deny that is to simply yell with your hands over your ears. No society will ever even approach perfection, but we were the first to attempt a system of self governance by overt design and the fact of full churches and the preponderance of public attitude being influenced by YES, the bible, and especially it’s teaching on family is what gave those early men the courage to even try it.
If you ever get your stubborn deluded head outta the sand you will see that staring you in the face. Like I say, even rank heathen hypocrites like Franklin and Jefferson said as much. Read de Tocqueville’s “democracy in America” (1835) who was a French political philosopher who traveled here to study our fledgling nation. Read of his observations on how women were treated (AND BEHAVED!), for instance and compare it the absolute whorehouse this nation has degenerated into. That guy saw back then and told us that we were definitely ascending and would continue to do so as long as the private morality of our citizens held fast because he recognized the precarious fragile nature of what we were doing and exactly what would preserve or destroy it. EXTREMELY analytical and penetratingly insightful man who saw the writing on the wall 176 years ago.
[/quote]
Listen, Tirib - your bible is not some great source of morality, your god kills innoncent firstborn children, and the problems in America are NOT caused by a lack of bible-thumping.
People absolutely should not believe in your god. No matter what dystopic paradise you think it would bring.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]Flatly untrue.[/quote]Listen bub. Self governance was at the very heart of the trajectory that this nation was set upon and the Christian “religion”, and the voluntary morality that it engenders was absolutely viewed as indispensable to the long term civil freedom of this citizenry. To deny that is to simply yell with your hands over your ears. No society will ever even approach perfection, but we were the first to attempt a system of self governance by overt design and the fact of full churches and the preponderance of public attitude being influenced by YES, the bible, and especially it’s teaching on family is what gave those early men the courage to even try it.
If you ever get your stubborn deluded head outta the sand you will see that staring you in the face. Like I say, even rank heathen hypocrites like Franklin and Jefferson said as much. Read de Tocqueville’s “democracy in America” (1835) who was a French political philosopher who traveled here to study our fledgling nation. Read of his observations on how women were treated (AND BEHAVED!), for instance and compare it the absolute whorehouse this nation has degenerated into. That guy saw back then and told us that we were definitely ascending and would continue to do so as long as the private morality of our citizens held fast because he recognized the precarious fragile nature of what we were doing and exactly what would preserve or destroy it. EXTREMELY analytical and penetratingly insightful man who saw the writing on the wall 176 years ago.
[/quote]
You seem mad that people don’t believe your imaginary friend exists.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]
Flatly untrue.[/quote]
Which part is untrue? That its the reason to deny it, that the nation was founded on those principals or that Franklin and Jefferson did not have any Christian faith?
I think the first 2 are true. I think that western civilization, guided by Judeo Christian morality clearly accepted that societies that came to accept open homosexuality were destroyed largely as a result of it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals >>>[/quote]The real reason to deny it is because Judeo\Christian morality is undeniably what was in place when this nation was founded and is affirmed as essential for it’s survival almost universally by the founders, included Franklin and Jefferson neither of which had any Christian faith whatsoever.
[/quote]
Flatly untrue.[/quote]
Which part is untrue? That its the reason to deny it, that the nation was founded on those principals or that Franklin and Jefferson did not have any Christian faith?
I think the first 2 are true. I think that western civilization, guided by Judeo Christian morality clearly accepted that societies that came to accept open homosexuality were destroyed largely as a result of it. [/quote]
I think its funny that one poster claims the laws were set up without invidious intent… only to have other posters assert that the laws were set up based on a system of ethics from a book which calls homosexuality an “abomination” and advocates that homosexuals “be put to death”.
Can you elaborate on your last point? Which societies and exactly how did accepting homosexuality destroy them?
Honestly? I view the acceptance of open homosexuality as an advanced symptom. Gays are not going to be responsible for the downfall of this nation. General promiscuity is 1000 times worse.
Don’t you love long debates that regard only 1% of the population?
Who cares about this uber-minority? They are affluent and influential in media is the only reason why this is even brought up (+ hot topic/controversial).
To even have dialogue about it is a waste of breath.