Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

But we’ve (although maybe not you) already concluded that humans will still produce other humans. If you somehow have been led to believe that being gay = being sterile, impotent or barren then this conversation should probably be over. It’s not like, “hey mom and dad, I have something to tell you…I’m gay. Oh, and my testicles suddenly disappeared.” [/quote]

So, you’re suggesting that gays are able and willing to start and maintain intact heterosexual households…

[/quote]
So gays have to succeed at something heterosexuals fail at? [/quote]

If you let gay people get married apparently heterosexuals like me will fuck up marriage even more therefore let’s keep a broken system broken because this is the broken system we have had for a long time and this time we shouldn’t change the broken system for someone even though we have in the past because this time I really don’t like the oooky things that other people may do also what if every marriage now starts doing that because apparently the only thing keeping hetero people from marrying gay people is it was illegal.

How’s that for a run on?

422

[quote]H factor wrote:
Ok, let’s play along with this. You build a case for the state to treat individuals different based on something they choose to do because it is best for society.[/quote]

Of course. You do too or you wouldn’t argue for STATE recognized gay marriage, but instead for STATE recognized whatever-the-heck-imaginative-consenting adult-‘marriage.’ STATE recognized marriage will always treat those without differently just through the simple act of recognition.

One whopping whole other kind of relationship doesn’t make it not discriminatory.

Of course.

You have the argument entirely backwards. I’m not arguing that there must be STATE recognized Catholic doctrine on contraception. Only that the state not interfere in private business. Just like I’m not petitioning the state to enter homes and ensure two males, or two females, are living together in a sexual relationship.

You do too, or you’d argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated no different than a friendship, a single individual, a commune, etc., etc. Not this silliness that you MUST support increasing government beneficiaries so you can then turn around and tear it down.

No.

We’re talking about a public/state institution.

I’m not anti-state intervention in health care. I actually believe there should be at least some sort of catastrophic form of social safety net.

Because we live in a democratic republic.

Are you better than those of us who disagree with you as to what government shouldn’t and should do? You’re the moral relativist, so no. We’re both similarly justified.

Doesn’t sound like you think gays need marriage, then. Or, should be treated any differently than every other imaginable consenting adult arrangement still left in the cold.

This bit was objectively emotional as I never said people would catch the gay.

So which ‘libertarian’ position have you adopted?

Have the STATE recognize every and all imaginative arrangements between consenting adults, regardless of number or romantic involvement?

Or, tear down all STATE recognized marriage?

423

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Actually homosexuals can have sex to procreate if they so choose. It’s not like being gay means you are unable and/or unwilling to impregnate a woman (a lesbian at that) naturally. So the idea that the human race will go extinct as a result is not based on what we already know to be true.

The vanishing of heterosexuality will not cause a crisis. Who would be upset about EVERYONE (including himself) being gay? The heterosexuals? Oh wait, there won’t be any around to complain.

[/quote]

i guess NAMBLA North American Man/Boy Love Association would go for zecarlo’s idea because who would there be to complain?

“NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.”

NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

*building understanding and support for such relationships;
*educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
*cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation
 movements;
*supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice
 and oppression.

queer recruiting of individuals that have been misled to believe it’s OKAY because gay dad said so. and for arguments sake lets not include incest which has to follow or be a close second to bestiality in the context below:

gay dad #1 raises son to embrace homosexuality and is number one on gay dad’s homosexual friends list of sexual “victims.”

gay dad #2 does same so eventually a population of gay men in the future engage in self-love with mostly children. they would of course go along with what the responsible mentoring adult homosexual men suggest.

just a random scenario that “of course would never happen.”

turn the situation around for recruitment of 8 or 9 year old girls to be liberated from sexual prejudice and oppression. you still don’t see or can fathom the consequences of uninhibited self gratification?

it boils down to…self love, self gratification.

i’m not catholic but i can see where pro-creation sex only can be a virtuous idea.

424

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you let gay people get married apparently heterosexuals like me will fuck up marriage [/quote]

…H-factless would fuck up a free lunch.

425

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Ok, let’s play along with this. You build a case for the state to treat individuals different based on something they choose to do because it is best for society.[/quote]

Of course. You do too or you wouldn’t argue for STATE recognized gay marriage, but instead for STATE recognized whatever-the-heck-imaginative-consenting adult-‘marriage.’ STATE recognized marriage will always treat those without differently just through the simple act of recognition.

One whopping whole other kind of relationship doesn’t make it not discriminatory.

Of course.

You have the argument entirely backwards. I’m not arguing that there must be STATE recognized Catholic doctrine on contraception. Only that the state not interfere in private business. Just like I’m not petitioning the state to enter homes and ensure two males, or two females, are living together in a sexual relationship.

You do too, or you’d argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated no different than a friendship, a single individual, a commune, etc., etc. Not this silliness that you MUST support increasing government beneficiaries so you can then turn around and tear it down.

No.

We’re talking about a public/state institution.

I’m not anti-state intervention in health care. I actually believe their should be at least some sort of catastrophic form of social safety net.

Because we live in a democratic republic.

Are you better than those of us who disagree with you as to what government shouldn’t and should do?

Doesn’t sound like you think gays need marriage, then. Or, should be treated any differently than every other imaginable consenting adult arrangement still left in the cold.

This bit was objectively emotional as I never said people would catch the gay.

So which ‘libertarian’ position have you adopted?

Have the STATE recognize every and all imaginative arrangements between consenting adults, regardless of number or romantic involvement?

Or, tear down all STATE recognized marriage?
[/quote]

If I post the platform one more time will you ignore it and say that is not what Libertarians believe like normal? I’ve said I would prefer NO benefits for people. In June I will get married. I’m “single” in the states eyes right now. Why do I deserve more benefits in June? What did I do that was so fucking special? Get married? Really? Something you can do in Vegas in 5 minutes by Elvis? Something that close to 50% of people will end at some point? THIS is the thing that gets special recognition and treatment?

The less special treatment the state gives individuals and businesses the better for all of us. It’s special treatment that leads to bailouts, crony capitalism, and all sorts of other problems. The only thing I’m saying is if we are going to have state recognized benefits why don’t we let everyone participate? We used to make it illegal for blacks and whites in areas. We changed that. Is marriage worse for it? Has the world blown up in the states where gay marriage is also allowed? Or is the divorce rate actually lower?

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. You keep inventing libertarian positions and frankly my positions as well. Marriage isn’t going anywhere. Gay people are just going to be allowed to do it as well. Deal with it. The irrational, emotional, and biblical reasons for why to oppose it already lost. It’s a matter of time until it is lost everywhere in this country.

And guess what…you will be perfectly fine.

426

[quote]H factor wrote:
If I post the platform one more time will you ignore it and say that is not what Libertarians believe like normal?[/quote]

Take note, you capitalized Libertarian. As in, a member of the Libertarian Party. Not as in libertarian.

Then why are you increasing the resistance to your supposed goal of tearing down STATE recognized marriage, through the increase of its beneficiaries? Bass-ackwards. I don’t believe it. And if it is so pointless, why do homosexuals need it?

Is your next group the non-romantically involved poly-partner arrangement? The poly-amorous? The single person? Or any other person or arrangement of persons that can use some if not all of the benefits? Or if ,hey, they want to do it because they can! You must say yes, by the nature of your previous arguments. So are you trying to tear it down, are make it impossible to tear it down? Unless

The question becomes, do you support gay marriage for:

  1. Because you’re actually a social progressive, wanting the STATE to normalize homosexuality through public-state recognition. Or, because it’s not fair that the inherently unequal aren’t equal. Because the Libertarian Party told you that’s libertarianism. Which makes the “slippery slope” crap just that. Crap.

  2. Beholden to an emotional fad. You won’t support expanding this further than binary intimate homosexual relationships. Which would make you a hypocrite yourself.

or,

  1. Gay marriage is a trojan horse for throwing the gates so wide open to any all imaginative consenting-adult arrangement in the future, that the state part of the institution must then implode under the crush. Which makes the slippery slope crap, just that. Crap.
427

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. [/quote]

Ummm, you’re supporting STATE recognized gay marriage…

428

[quote]H factor wrote:
The less special treatment the state gives individuals and businesses the better for all of us [/quote]

So you either want state recognized marriage tore down (including homosexual marriages) are you want every possible imaginative consenting adult arrangement recognized.

Edit: A single person would be an individual. Think on that.

429

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. [/quote]

Ummm, you’re supporting STATE recognized gay marriage…

[/quote]

Yes…I don’t see the point of this post. If we are going to have the government recognize and give benefits then we should make them more similar not less.

430

[quote]H factor wrote:
I’ve said I would prefer NO benefits for people. [/quote]

So ultimately, you’d like to see even STATE recognition of gay marriages tore down.

431

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The less special treatment the state gives individuals and businesses the better for all of us [/quote]

So you either want state recognized marriage tore down (including homosexual marriages) are you want every possible imaginative consenting adult arrangement recognized.

Edit: A single person would be an individual. Think on that.
[/quote]

Read this carefully over and over and over and over and over again before attempting to make the argument of what I believe for me.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

432

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. [/quote]

Ummm, you’re supporting STATE recognized gay marriage…

[/quote]

Yes…I don’t see the point of this post. If we are going to have the government recognize and give benefits then we should make them more similar not less. [/quote]

They’re not even remotely similar situations, or relationship that have even remotely similar levels of critical impact/function in on society.

“Just because” isn’t an argument.

433

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I’ve said I would prefer NO benefits for people. [/quote]

So ultimately, you’d like to see even STATE recognition of gay marriages tore down.
[/quote]

Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation.

434

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The less special treatment the state gives individuals and businesses the better for all of us [/quote]

So you either want state recognized marriage tore down (including homosexual marriages) are you want every possible imaginative consenting adult arrangement recognized.

Edit: A single person would be an individual. Think on that.
[/quote]

Read this carefully over and over and over and over and over again before attempting to make the argument of what I believe for me.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.[/quote]

Cool, I see a progressive argument for a party calling itself the Libertarian Party.

435

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. [/quote]

Ummm, you’re supporting STATE recognized gay marriage…

[/quote]

Yes…I don’t see the point of this post. If we are going to have the government recognize and give benefits then we should make them more similar not less. [/quote]

They’re not even remotely similar situations, or relationship that have even remotely similar levels of critical impact/function in on society.

“Just because” isn’t an argument.
[/quote]

This is frankly fucking stupid to continue to go down this road. You are opposed to a loving homosexual couple having certain benefits because they are gay. However you are FOR benefits for heterosexual couples who cheat on each other, abuse each other, can’t procreate, will divorce and remarry and all sorts of other scenarios.

That loving couple can’t have them though because they are gay and you think gay is yucky.

All those straight people with fucked up relationships NEED special government benefits unlike the loving gay couple? Absolute bullshit. If the government was going to take away marriage benefits for Catholics you would lose your fucking mind man.

So why can they pick and choose this? It isn’t like people are born choosing gay. Religion is much more of a choice than sexual orientation.

436

[quote]H factor wrote:

Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]

So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”

437

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The less special treatment the state gives individuals and businesses the better for all of us [/quote]

So you either want state recognized marriage tore down (including homosexual marriages) are you want every possible imaginative consenting adult arrangement recognized.

Edit: A single person would be an individual. Think on that.
[/quote]

Read this carefully over and over and over and over and over again before attempting to make the argument of what I believe for me.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.[/quote]

Cool, I see a progressive argument for a party calling itself the Libertarian Party.
[/quote]

You can see that if you like. We just don’t buy your argument of government determining who can and can’t have certain privileges based on those things.

We see less government and more freedom as the answer. You see making sure the sex is heterosexual to receive benefits as the answer.

438

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Ideally no one would get certain benefits simply because of who they are “with.” Since this is not happening anytime soon we should stop having the government pick and choose who gets benefits based on sexual orientation. [/quote]

So, ultimately you would tear down state recognition of marriage. Including for homosexuals who are now also beneficiaries due to your efforts. And, for the poly-amorous you must undoubtedly support in their cause (for now). And, hey, I suppose the non-romantically involved of indeterminate number. And since marriage is defined by the individual (or it’s bigoted) even for a single adult individual if he so chooses to have the state bestow him the title “married.”
[/quote]

I have laid out what I think would be the best. This is irrelevant to the discussion because MARRIAGE is not going anywhere anytime soon. The definition is just changing yet again.

I don’t actively fight to tear down marriage because frankly that is a losing battle. I have laid out why I don’t believe the government should give special treatment to me in June simply because I said “I do.”

You seem to be really pissed about homosexuals receiving benefits so why not get rid of benefits for all?

Could it be…because you like special treatment for what you think is correct, but are against it for those who think you are wrong? I think you were right when you picked bigoted. Gay people aren’t taking anything away from you. You still can marry any woman you want. You’re the one attempting to establish your authority via the government as the decider of right and wrong.

439

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’ve never said I support gay marriage because I want to tear it down. [/quote]

Ummm, you’re supporting STATE recognized gay marriage…

[/quote]

Yes…I don’t see the point of this post. If we are going to have the government recognize and give benefits then we should make them more similar not less. [/quote]

They’re not even remotely similar situations, or relationship that have even remotely similar levels of critical impact/function in on society.

“Just because” isn’t an argument.
[/quote]

This is frankly fucking stupid to continue to go down this road. You are opposed to a loving homosexual couple having certain benefits because they are gay. However you are FOR benefits for heterosexual couples who cheat on each other, abuse each other, can’t procreate, will divorce and remarry and all sorts of other scenarios.

That loving couple can’t have them though because they are gay and you think gay is yucky.

All those straight people with fucked up relationships NEED special government benefits unlike the loving gay couple? Absolute bullshit. If the government was going to take away marriage benefits for Catholics you would lose your fucking mind man.

So why can they pick and choose this? It isn’t like people are born choosing gay. Religion is much more of a choice than sexual orientation.

[/quote]

I made my case justifying why a state might have a critical interest in how heterosexuality orders the reproductive act.

That was point of the hypothetical I raised. We all know the two arrangements aren’t even remotely similar. One has a massive impact on humanity as a whole.

440

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I made my case justifying why a state might have a critical interest in how heterosexuality orders the reproductive act.

That was point of the hypothetical I raised. We all know the two arrangements aren’t even remotely similar. One has a massive impact on humanity as a whole.
[/quote]

By this logic one should be against benefits for anyone who cannot reproduce or will not reproduce either.

If a hetero couple has a wife who cannot get pregnant she definitely needs no benefits because she isn’t impacting humanity as a whole.

Also I think most gay people would give a big hearty fuck you to the idea that they are irrelevant to humanity. They honestly just don’t get why you feel the need to flip them the bird all the time when it isn’t effecting you.

The thing is you KNOW a gay marriage doesn’t effect you. It doesn’t make you gay. It doesn’t make you have to like it. It doesn’t make you have to change anything about you.

Yet tooth and nail and hypothetical after hypothetical you will warn us of these dangers like all the preachers throughout time who have predicted the apocalypse over social change and ALWAYS been wrong.