Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 10:33am

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Nothing.

If this moral jusgement is based on a book that is a few thousand years old and claims to be be “rational” on top of it, as if there was such a thing as a rational value judgement, well, it better should not be the basis of laws that aspire to prevent bloodshed.[/quote]

No, it is a moral judgement based on Aristotle’s and Aquinas writings on Natural Law, you knowing Ayn Rand should know Rand’s three A’s (Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn) and her views on Natural Law. As well, Kant put forth a few good arguments in figuring if something is moral. I don’t use the Bible when it comes to talking to people that do not believe in the Bible. That is ridiculous, the Bible is for those in the Church so what weight does it have for those that do not hold to the faith of the Church?

That would be like a Muslim trying to convince me of something and stating it says so in the Koran. The Koran is a nice book, but it holds no weight with me. If a Catholic or Christian would disagree with me I suppose I could use the Bible, but I’m not totally sure if the Bible says anything about gay marriage.

I’m all for peaceful solutions, but I’m do not hold to quietism or pacifism. That doesn’t mean I am going to force people against their wills to do what I want, but that doesn’t mean that I have to let them do something against my will with my money. I don’t want them to get married for moral and economical reasons. I also don’t want heterosexual couples receiving money for being married from the Gov’t for economical reasons.[/quote]

Aquinas and Aristotle could not make “rational” value jusdgements either.

I also doubt that Aristotle had too much of a problem with homosexuality and, if he had, he was a weird freakish outlier and definitely not a prime example of his time.

[/quote]

Not always does a majority show the truth.

As well, the reason Aristotle doesn’t seem to have a problem with homosexuality is because he was less interested in the appetites. Although he did give us reasons for passive homosexuality.

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 10:40am

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).

In the 1950s almost all Americans would have agreed with you. Your line of thinking is nothing more than a dim vestige of our barbarous past. You can believe in any fairy tale you want as long as you keep it out of other people’s homes. “An invisible bearded man in the sky told me to” is not sufficient enough reason to enact oppressive legislation in modern America.[/quote]

Lol, in the 1930’s I’m sure if a poll was conducted in Germany it would find that the majority of the people in Germany thought they should exterminate the Jews. Appeal to the majority you say? Well, why not majority makes right? Or, is that might makes right?

P.S. Who in the hell is this invisible bearded man in the sky?[/quote]

You make a good point about the possibilities of majority tyranny. However, I wasn’t saying that you’re wrong because people tend to disagree with you in modern America; I was simply stating my gratitude for that disagreement.

Why do you think same-sex marriage immoral? For religious reasons?
[/quote]

Several different reasons, part of it is religious reasons, but that means nothing because you’re not Catholic. So, it would be a waste of both our times if I delved into the moral theological reasons why it is immoral. However, through philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aquinas, &c. I can still reason that it is immoral. Something as simple as Kant’s ‘rule of thumb’ If everyone does this very act exclusively will it be conductive to human flourishing? Well, can two men or two women create life? No, well then we have to answer no to Kant’s question.

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 11:09am

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You have missed my point. Your position is much closer to that of Hitler/Stalin etc. in that you wish to use the state/law to PUNISH others that behave in a manner you disagree with. There are things that the law should have nothing to so with, regardless of how the majority feels. You are free to try to persuade your children, your family members, your friends. You can rent billboards, hold seminars and social gatherings, etc. All of your reasoning centered on ‘population reduction’ may be true, but it doesn’t matter, not one bit. Others are free to decide not to pro-create if they choose, and the decision has no bearing on their morality, and no direct affect on your life. You may be an honorable person BC, but you loose the ‘high ground’ when you express the desire to force everyone to comply with your view.
[/quote]

WTF? What kinda crack do they got you smoking down there in Texas, old man?

I’m the biggest Anarchist on these boards, I am against coercion and institutions of violence. And I’m not sure how respecting free will and being against the State is anything close to being like Hitler or Stalin, that’s actually kind of fucked up because I descend from Jews.

The hell it doesn’t have affect on my life. That is a bullshit excuse and intellectually lazy, I’m not a hermit, people’s decisions around me affect me. That doesn’t give me the right to force someone, but don’t use bad logic to back up a good conclusion.

When did I express a desire to force everyone to comply with my view? I don’t even try to presuade anyone to my point of view, so why would I want to make that big of a jump to force people to comply?

TrainerDude · February 25, 2011, 11:25am

Dear Barack Obama, you swore an oath to defend and enforce the laws of the land, which BTW, DOMA IS LAW. Which means, you cannot not support it without breaching your contract with America. Huh? What did you say? Oh yes, I KNOW you have already done that several times but I am reminding your dumbass again.

Oh, and Supeme Court, you are accused of dereliction of duty as well as the Attorney General for allowing this dictator-monarch to tell you what to do and not challenge it by the Constitution. Obama, YOU are the biggest terrorist the US has ever seen or had on its soil. YOU and your appointed/elected cronies should be tarred and feathered and shipped back to Kenya. And you call ME a terrorist, Janet-the-lez Napolitano, because I am a Christian, a vet, and a biker? Sheesh! Gimme a break.

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 11:26am

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

You have missed my point. Your position is much closer to that of Hitler/Stalin etc. in that you wish to use the state/law to PUNISH others that behave in a manner you disagree with. There are things that the law should have nothing to so with, regardless of how the majority feels.
[/quote]

OMGDZ, you just compared Obama to Hitler.

Racist.

[/quote]

I am comparing anyone that advocates using the state/law to control matters where no DIRECT force or fraud exists to a fascist.
[/quote]

Well, please. Don’t assume shit about me. If you don’t believe me, just look at the books which sit on my book shelf 15% are on Anarchy, I have a Human Action in my truck and in my book bag and in my bathroom. I have half a shelf of Rothbard, I have a quarter of a shelf with Mises, I have a dozen books from Hayek, I have a copy of Adam Smith’s famous book The Wealth of Nations, I have almost all of Ron Paul’s books, I have Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, several books by Lord Acton, even a few funny and Catholic books by Jeffry Tucker, as well I read a back issue of The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics every two to three weeks.

orion · February 25, 2011, 12:10pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Not always does a majority show the truth.

[/quote]

Mmmmmnhhh, is that so?

CappedAndPlanIt · February 25, 2011, 12:58pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

No, the issue is the boundaries of the individual right. If you claim the right to wear a hat, why not two hats, or three? An old had or a new hat? [/quote]

Why not no hat? Why not no clothes at all, if you have the individual right to decide what clothing to wear and not to wear? Why not go naked everywhere you go all the time, and claim its an individual right?

No no. Allowing you to wear a yellow hat sets too great a precedent. If we do that, pretty soon grown men will be teaching kindergarten classes nude!

See how ridiculous the slippery slope is? An individual right can have limitations, but if one particular limitation is fair is its own issue - yes I have the right to eat steak if I want, no, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that, since I have the right to eat what I want, I can eat human baby.

CappedAndPlanIt · February 25, 2011, 1:04pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

[/quote]

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.

I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.

[/quote]

Really?

Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Fucking seriously?

Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).

With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.

I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.

[/quote]

That is all you got?

Technical difficulties?

People die all the time and leave property behind and it is rare that there is only one person left to inherit the stuff.

Make a short ammendment to inheritance laws, problem solved.

[/quote]

Example =/= argument.

When you have to make “short ammendments” to many laws because a myriad of “technical difficulties” arise - the situation is fundamentally different.

Also, you asked for an argument against poly marriage that could not be used against gay marriage. You got one, now you want to pick apart my one example.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 1:45pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?

(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)[/quote]

I just feel really badly for those other minorities who are down trodden. No one seems to care that there are other “different” types of relationships that are not going to get what homosexuals are getting. I think it’s only fair to give the rights that homosexuals want to all groups don’t you? You don’t want polygamists or those who practice incestual relationships to be discriminated against do you? I sure don’t. Don’t they have feelings too? Why must we minimize their relationships?

You seem like someone who has great compassion for people so I’m sure you’ll agree.[/quote]

Polygamy is a choice. A man observes society and decides that he wants to marry more than one woman. To deny him the privilege of polygamy is to deny him something he WANTS.

Homosexuality is in some people’s making. For as long as I can remember, when I look at a beautiful woman I feel lust and attraction–not by choice, but by necessity. Maybe you do to. Now imagine those feelings arising only when you see men. To deny people the right to act upon a desire of such strength is to deny them the right to be.

Meanwhile, the polygamist creep wants to marry ten chicks…because he wants to. He wasn’t born with some urge to marry many women that I am missing. It is not in his genetic makeup. He just decided (or his fucking imbecile religious leaders decided) that that’s what he wanted.

[/quote]

You are a BIGOT in the first degree! How dare you call those with an alternate lifestyle “creeps”. What gives you the right? How do you know there isn’t some sort of genetic abnormality, or some sort action that took place in the polygamists childhood that caused him to feel as he does?

I can’t believe the lack of tolerance for this and other minority groups who just want the same advantages that homosexuals want.

I’m just disgusted with your post.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 1:51pm

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

[/quote]

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.

I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.

[/quote]

Really?

Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Fucking seriously?

Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).

With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.

I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.

[/quote]

You are not only the biggest idiot on the board but you’re also a BIGOT. You draw a pretty little line in the sand when it comes to marrying multiple partners but no such line is drawn when it comes to marrying someone of the same sex. Why is that BIGOT? Because YOU don’t see the value of a polygamist relationship you have the right to minimize it? And what about incestual relationships? I suppose just because they don’t meet your standards that you have the right to look down your nose at them as well.

What happened to consenting adults being able to enjoy their life the way they see fit? In your eyes that only works for homosexuals. Those who desire an alternate lifestyle have no feelings right?

You are a closed minded bigot.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 2:02pm

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Its an irrelevant extrapolation. Gay marriage will not and should not lead to polygamy. If that’s the best you’ve got you’ll have to do better.[/quote]

No, not at all. You are the one who has to do better. I am insisting on equal rights for all. And if a brother and sister want to marry what gives YOU the right to tell them they cannot have that sort of happiness?

Oh now you’re saying that your bigoted statement was a joke. Well maybe if you were gay you wouldn’t be so flippant to use the term “gay” as a put down. I am not gay but I am personally offended by the use of gay as an insult. You can cover it up by calling it a joke but we all now know how you think.

Good…

You are the one who wants to deny polygamists and those involved in incestual relationships the right to happiness through marriage. And you are the one who uses the word “gay” as an insult. That makes YOU the bigot. You make me sick BIGOT.

[quote]I don’t understand why the mods allow you to harass gay people on this site the way you do (and it is sexual harassment by the way). You’re repeatedly persecuting specific people on this board and its not okay. Being pro straight marriage is one thing, but being anti gay is another.
[/quote]

You’re very confused, I’m the one who wants equal rights for ALL minority groups. How is that wrong? YOU are the one who wants to promote only one group. That means that you are a bigot.

And what about your comment? We are all supposed to walk away and think that you were just kidding when you used the word “gay” as an insult? That’s a joke to you?

You’re a sick man, a very sick man.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 2:14pm

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

See how ridiculous the slippery slope is? An individual right can have limitations,[/quote]

And if one limitation, why not two, or three more? Ridiculous because YOU say it is? How many people thought that homosexual marriage was ridiculous in 1980? And 30 years later it is now becoming a reality. If a 5000 year old institution can change for one minority group, why not another? It’s a perfectly logical evolution at least for those of us who are not bigoted toward those other groups.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 3:16pm

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

[/quote]

Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.

I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.

[/quote]

Really?

Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Fucking seriously?

Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).

With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.

I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.

[/quote]

That is all you got?

Technical difficulties?

People die all the time and leave property behind and it is rare that there is only one person left to inherit the stuff.

Make a short ammendment to inheritance laws, problem solved.

[/quote]

Example =/= argument.

When you have to make “short ammendments” to many laws because a myriad of “technical difficulties” arise - the situation is fundamentally different.

Also, you asked for an argument against poly marriage that could not be used against gay marriage. You got one, now you want to pick apart my one example.[/quote]

All you’re doing is using your bigotry to keep out groups of people that live a lifestyle that YOU don’t agree with. Polygamists being able to marry will not harm society any more than two homosexuals marrying. And the change of laws is no greater a task.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE LIVE BY YOUR MORAL STANDARDS!

Schlenkatank · February 25, 2011, 4:22pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Its an irrelevant extrapolation. Gay marriage will not and should not lead to polygamy. If that’s the best you’ve got you’ll have to do better.[/quote]

No, not at all. You are the one who has to do better. I am insisting on equal rights for all. And if a brother and sister want to marry what gives YOU the right to tell them they cannot have that sort of happiness?

Oh now you’re saying that your bigoted statement was a joke. Well maybe if you were gay you wouldn’t be so flippant to use the term “gay” as a put down. I am not gay but I am personally offended by the use of gay as an insult. You can cover it up by calling it a joke but we all now know how you think.

Good…

You are the one who wants to deny polygamists and those involved in incestual relationships the right to happiness through marriage. And you are the one who uses the word “gay” as an insult. That makes YOU the bigot. You make me sick BIGOT.

[quote]I don’t understand why the mods allow you to harass gay people on this site the way you do (and it is sexual harassment by the way). You’re repeatedly persecuting specific people on this board and its not okay. Being pro straight marriage is one thing, but being anti gay is another.
[/quote]

You’re very confused, I’m the one who wants equal rights for ALL minority groups. How is that wrong? YOU are the one who wants to promote only one group. That means that you are a bigot.

And what about your comment? We are all supposed to walk away and think that you were just kidding when you used the word “gay” as an insult? That’s a joke to you?

You’re a sick man, a very sick man.

[/quote]

bigot
adjective

A person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

You need help, you’re not making any sense you’re just being defiant.

Brothers and sisters can’t marry because if they have a kid there’s a great chance it will have a birth defect. Pretty simple stuff, it still has nothing to do with gay marriage.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 4:33pm

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Its an irrelevant extrapolation. Gay marriage will not and should not lead to polygamy. If that’s the best you’ve got you’ll have to do better.[/quote]

No, not at all. You are the one who has to do better. I am insisting on equal rights for all. And if a brother and sister want to marry what gives YOU the right to tell them they cannot have that sort of happiness?

Oh now you’re saying that your bigoted statement was a joke. Well maybe if you were gay you wouldn’t be so flippant to use the term “gay” as a put down. I am not gay but I am personally offended by the use of gay as an insult. You can cover it up by calling it a joke but we all now know how you think.

Good…

You are the one who wants to deny polygamists and those involved in incestual relationships the right to happiness through marriage. And you are the one who uses the word “gay” as an insult. That makes YOU the bigot. You make me sick BIGOT.

[quote]I don’t understand why the mods allow you to harass gay people on this site the way you do (and it is sexual harassment by the way). You’re repeatedly persecuting specific people on this board and its not okay. Being pro straight marriage is one thing, but being anti gay is another.
[/quote]

You’re very confused, I’m the one who wants equal rights for ALL minority groups. How is that wrong? YOU are the one who wants to promote only one group. That means that you are a bigot.

And what about your comment? We are all supposed to walk away and think that you were just kidding when you used the word “gay” as an insult? That’s a joke to you?

You’re a sick man, a very sick man.

[/quote]

bigot
adjective

A person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

You need help, you’re not making any sense you’re just being defiant.

Brothers and sisters can’t marry because if they have a kid there’s a great chance it will have a birth defect. Pretty simple stuff, it still has nothing to do with gay marriage.[/quote]

You’ve just described yourself to the letter. You are a bigot, simple. Why don’t you admit that you don’t want to see polygamists marry because it does not fit your lifestyle. You are trying to push your moral values on the rest of the country and that’s a manifestation of hatred. Therefore, you find reasons to not elevate them to the status of others who have marriage rights. You minimize their loving relationships, why? Why do you hate them? And why do you hate those in incestuous relationships who want to get married? You are hiding behind the possibility of their children having a birth defect? That is very thin indeed. Almost like saying a homosexual couple shouldn’t marry because they cannot procreate. If you’re that worried about a child having a birth defect simply offer sterility as an option for those who want to marry, problem solved. But no you are not looking for answers, you’re looking for ways to discriminate.

Stop discriminating BIGOT!

smh23 · February 25, 2011, 5:09pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?

(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)[/quote]

I just feel really badly for those other minorities who are down trodden. No one seems to care that there are other “different” types of relationships that are not going to get what homosexuals are getting. I think it’s only fair to give the rights that homosexuals want to all groups don’t you? You don’t want polygamists or those who practice incestual relationships to be discriminated against do you? I sure don’t. Don’t they have feelings too? Why must we minimize their relationships?

You seem like someone who has great compassion for people so I’m sure you’ll agree.[/quote]

Polygamy is a choice. A man observes society and decides that he wants to marry more than one woman. To deny him the privilege of polygamy is to deny him something he WANTS.

Homosexuality is in some people’s making. For as long as I can remember, when I look at a beautiful woman I feel lust and attraction–not by choice, but by necessity. Maybe you do to. Now imagine those feelings arising only when you see men. To deny people the right to act upon a desire of such strength is to deny them the right to be.

Meanwhile, the polygamist creep wants to marry ten chicks…because he wants to. He wasn’t born with some urge to marry many women that I am missing. It is not in his genetic makeup. He just decided (or his fucking imbecile religious leaders decided) that that’s what he wanted.

[/quote]

You are a BIGOT in the first degree! How dare you call those with an alternate lifestyle “creeps”. What gives you the right? How do you know there isn’t some sort of genetic abnormality, or some sort action that took place in the polygamists childhood that caused him to feel as he does?

I can’t believe the lack of tolerance for this and other minority groups who just want the same advantages that homosexuals want.

I’m just disgusted with your post.
[/quote]

If you are disgusted with my post then I know I’m on the right path. Had you approved of it, I’d have had a moral crisis.

smh23 · February 25, 2011, 5:58pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).

In the 1950s almost all Americans would have agreed with you. Your line of thinking is nothing more than a dim vestige of our barbarous past. You can believe in any fairy tale you want as long as you keep it out of other people’s homes. “An invisible bearded man in the sky told me to” is not sufficient enough reason to enact oppressive legislation in modern America.[/quote]

Lol, in the 1930’s I’m sure if a poll was conducted in Germany it would find that the majority of the people in Germany thought they should exterminate the Jews. Appeal to the majority you say? Well, why not majority makes right? Or, is that might makes right?

P.S. Who in the hell is this invisible bearded man in the sky?[/quote]

You make a good point about the possibilities of majority tyranny. However, I wasn’t saying that you’re wrong because people tend to disagree with you in modern America; I was simply stating my gratitude for that disagreement.

Why do you think same-sex marriage immoral? For religious reasons?
[/quote]

Several different reasons, part of it is religious reasons, but that means nothing because you’re not Catholic. So, it would be a waste of both our times if I delved into the moral theological reasons why it is immoral. However, through philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aquinas, &c. I can still reason that it is immoral. Something as simple as Kant’s ‘rule of thumb’ If everyone does this very act exclusively will it be conductive to human flourishing? Well, can two men or two women create life? No, well then we have to answer no to Kant’s question.[/quote]

Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.

For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.

But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 5:26pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?

(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)[/quote]

I just feel really badly for those other minorities who are down trodden. No one seems to care that there are other “different” types of relationships that are not going to get what homosexuals are getting. I think it’s only fair to give the rights that homosexuals want to all groups don’t you? You don’t want polygamists or those who practice incestual relationships to be discriminated against do you? I sure don’t. Don’t they have feelings too? Why must we minimize their relationships?

You seem like someone who has great compassion for people so I’m sure you’ll agree.[/quote]

Polygamy is a choice. A man observes society and decides that he wants to marry more than one woman. To deny him the privilege of polygamy is to deny him something he WANTS.

Homosexuality is in some people’s making. For as long as I can remember, when I look at a beautiful woman I feel lust and attraction–not by choice, but by necessity. Maybe you do to. Now imagine those feelings arising only when you see men. To deny people the right to act upon a desire of such strength is to deny them the right to be.

Meanwhile, the polygamist creep wants to marry ten chicks…because he wants to. He wasn’t born with some urge to marry many women that I am missing. It is not in his genetic makeup. He just decided (or his fucking imbecile religious leaders decided) that that’s what he wanted.

[/quote]

You are a BIGOT in the first degree! How dare you call those with an alternate lifestyle “creeps”. What gives you the right? How do you know there isn’t some sort of genetic abnormality, or some sort action that took place in the polygamists childhood that caused him to feel as he does?

I can’t believe the lack of tolerance for this and other minority groups who just want the same advantages that homosexuals want.

I’m just disgusted with your post.
[/quote]

If you are disgusted with my post then I know I’m on the right path. Had you approved of it, I’d have had a moral crisis.[/quote]

It’s still a free country if you can live with being a bigot that’s your problem.

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 5:29pm