[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
You can justify that till the cows come home, what you cannot do, or you would have done so is to point to a law justifying the apparent discrimination.
At least supposedly America is a nation of laws, not a nation of your moral intuitions. [/quote]
Ah, the minarchist supporting government expansion. Riiiight. You know, since STATE recognized marriages would first expand the government footprint through homosexuals, and then, using Orion’s philosophy as a guide, to the polyamorous, and then to whatever imaginative arrangement of consenting adults that would trickle through.
Unless we ask him directly…You don’t want government recognized marriages at all, do you? No, that’s ‘statism.’ And we liberalta…sorry, libertarians…don’t like that sort of stuff. No, no. State recognition of ‘alternative marriages’ is simply a tool. A tool for destroying the institution. And then, when it’s a hollowed out waste, doing away with it.
But at least you’re crafty, in your reasoning. These other guys, bringing up bigotry, while not supporting the expansion of marriage to every imaginative arrangement of consenting adults, are painful to read.
Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why I deal with these dipshits.
Listen, moron -read this carefully, kay sweetheart? Here, I’ll make it nice and big for ya:
MY POINT WAS NOT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE ITS NATURAL.
Yes, (a) homosexuality is morally acceptable. And, yes, (b) homosexuality is natural. Now, read the sentence above again – just because I say that (a) and (b) are both true, does not mean that I am saying (a) is true because of (b) or that (b) is true because of (a). I’m simply saying that both are true.
So, pointing out something else that is natural, but morally unacceptable, does not address any point I made, at all.
Nice try, play again.[/quote]
Then what is your point? I think it was REASONABLE to make the assumption that I did based on the limited context.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, sex machine, some things that are natural (rape) are morally unacceptable.
[/quote]
Is ‘rape’ morally unacceptable in the animal kingdom?
Morally acceptable to whom? Society overall? You? Define “sex?”
Define “unnatural” - In what manner is a biological agent unnatural and what has its use as a weapon of warfare to do with your point.
Getting silly…
Think there might be some differences between swans and people for starters?
Well now I said neither. I did not say it is “wrong” and I did not say it’s “unnatural” - what an outrageous response?
Okay…
Right, the first claim that I DIDN’T make.
The second claim I DIDN’T make.
[quote]
and THEN you get to be wrong again because the statement implies that being unnatural makes something wrong! [/quote]
No, the statement that I did NOT make would NOT imply that had I made it…can I go now?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.[/quote]
So…Olee and her mom?[/quote]
I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. In any event, incest is a no fly zone as there is too much potential for preadulthood influence, and sexual interference. There are laws against incest, and there are laws against sexual interference, but there are no laws against homosexuality. There are however laws which exclude homosexuals.
No, I have…Did you not read my description? I want the smallest biological unit capable or rearing it’s OWN biological children in intact homes (with both natural, bio parents present) as the model. Regardless of an individual couple having children, the model (one man, one woman, smallest reproductive unit) is still present. I want the model encountered as frequently as possible. Sheer numbers will take care of the rest. Further managment would be burdensome and most likely counter-productive to the intended goal. Heterosexuality vanishes tomorrow, so does humanity. Homosexuality? “Well, what’s on TV tonight?” [/quote]
You still haven’t. Again, these are multiple choice, yes or no questions. Dodging questions is not the same as answering them. In any event how does not permitting gays (who aren’t going to take a woman regardless), and lesbians (who aren’t going to take a man regardless) from marrying each other create more heterosexual unions? It doesn’t detract from the pool of eligable heteros, so the frequency of your model is completely unefected. All this does is take the people who will never ever fit into your model, and give them the oportunity to contribute in a similar model to the benefit of them, and to everyone else.
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha
I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. [/quote]
Bigot.[/quote]
I’ve given reason to why gays should be alowed to marry. If you’d like to give reason why a girl and her mother should be wed, by all means enlighten me.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]
Undoubtedly you could. Which is why I said that gays should be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us. : )
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.[/quote]
So…Olee and her mom?[/quote]
I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. In any event, incest is a no fly zone as there is too much potential for preadulthood influence, and sexual interference. There are laws against incest, and there are laws against sexual interference, but there are no laws against homosexuality. There are however laws which exclude homosexuals.[/quote]
Sorry. I can shoot this one down with both eyes closed.
Using the logic of those espousing homosexual marriage there is NO reason to deny Olee and her mom the “right” to marry.[/quote]
Except for the afformentioned protection of minors.
Marriages as far as governments are concerned are a contract between two consenting adult.
Denying two consenting adults to enter into the very same contract everyone else can because of their sexual orientation is discrimination…
[/quote]
Explain your position on Olee marrying her mom.
[/quote]
I dont have to.
I did not get governments in the marriage business, I will not waste a minute trying to drain the swamp that produces. [/quote]
C’mon, chickenshit, answer the question.[/quote]
Why would I?
It is really up to you to answer it, this is not a clusterfuck of my making, this is the inevitable result of wanting a) government subsidized heterosexual marriages and b) wanting a republic.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Again, these are multiple choice, yes or no questions. Dodging questions is not the same as answering them. In any event how does not permitting gays (who aren’t going to take a woman regardless), and lesbians (who aren’t going to take a man regardless) from marrying each other create more heterosexual unions? [/quote]
How does it (or any other, and I mean any other) create more heterosexual unions, is the question. It’s another man, marrying a man. Or a woman, marrying a woman. They aren’t special. They are no more special than Joe and his fishing buddy. But a man, marrying a woman…well yeah, that does serve to fill the model. I’m not going to hold your hand on this anymore. Homosexual unions serve no critical, irreplaceable function. Now you explain to me why you’re only slightly less ‘bigoted’ than me. Or, as I’d argue, the actual bigot between us. You unjustifiably put homosexual relationships above friendships. That’s not your call. That a private decision.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]
You can justify that till the cows come home, what you cannot do, or you would have done so is to point to a law justifying the apparent discrimination.
At least supposedly America is a nation of laws, not a nation of your moral intuitions. [/quote]
Ah, the minarchist supporting government expansion. Riiiight. You know, since STATE recognized marriages would first expand the government footprint through homosexuals, and then, using Orion’s philosophy as a guide, to the polyamorous, and then to whatever imaginative arrangement of consenting adults that would trickle through.
Unless we ask him directly…You don’t want government recognized marriages at all, do you? No, that’s ‘statism.’ And we liberalta…sorry, libertarians…don’t like that sort of stuff. No, no. State recognition of ‘alternative marriages’ is simply a tool. A tool for destroying the institution. And then, when it’s a hollowed out waste, doing away with it.
But at least you’re crafty, in your reasoning. These other guys, bringing up bigotry, while not supporting the expansion of marriage to every imaginative arrangement of consenting adults, are painful to read.[/quote]
I have no real opinion on marriage one way or the other.
What you do not seem to get that I care very much that governments live up to their own rules and that they do not discriminate based on some arbitrary moral notions.
If that in some way endangers marriage as you see it so be it, this is not a goal in and of itself.
Now what is true is that I point out how the state sponsored marriage crowd are caught in a trap if their own making, to cry “sippery slope” when you actually went to great lengths to erect the very slope is disingenuous.
You like the slope, you just want to stay on top of it.