[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy, I HIGHLY doubt that there are millions of transgendered people running around. On what basis do you conclude that?
I was referring to those who were transgendered and/or intersexed. There aren’t that many transgendered people alone, but the stats on intersexed is quite boggling:
Given that the population of the US according to the US Census Bureau as of 28-NOV-2005 is 297,764,205 and the American Journal of Law and Medicine says that 1.7 to 4 percent of the population is intersexed…
297,764,205 * .017 = 5,061,991.485
Hmmm… and that’s the minimum? Do I need to explain how to do multiplication?
These are people who do not fit within the commonly accepted XX = woman, XY = man paradigm… the same paradigm currently adopted by many, if not all, of the courts in the US as being the final say in determining whether a human being is a man or a woman.
Now, only an idiot would continue to say that the definition of marriage being “a man and a woman” is flawless. You can’t say just “man” and then think that it’s obvious, no matter how much people say that I’m being asinine.
You can’t ignore five million people. You can’t ignore the facts. Medical science has gone way beyond the point where tradition can used alone to determine the definition of marriage.
Welcome to the 21st century, folks! Human knowledge and understanding of the world around us has increased geometrically in the last one hundred years alone. If God has created people who have unexpected genotypes when compared to their phenotypes, and medical science has now revealed their true nature to us, then our old way of classifying them is flawed… not God.
If the tradition of marriage can somehow expand to embrace the capabilities of medical science, then no one should fret.
But I personally do not see how that can be done right now.
I’m still waiting for someone to address this problem posed by the existence of the intersexed population. They too are created in God’s image, yet those defending tradition would deny them the same legal rights and priviledges because they don’t fit our flawed human method of interpretation?
THAT is completely asinine my friends.[/quote]
I’ll make a deal with you Jimmy.’ If you start a “transgendered” thread I promise I won’t post on it!
This thread is (or at least was) about gay marriage.
[quote]WMD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Here is an argument for society as a whole: we are better off as a nation and in keeping with our principles of liberty and equality when every non-criminal citizen has the same legal rights.
ZEB does not see that as a good reason. I pointed that out more than once. He just poopoos it. He’s never said what he thinks a good reason would be. I think there is no reason he would view as good, just so he can continue to be “right”.[/quote]
Another reading comprehension challenged individual. And one with so many degrees too.
I have stated at least twice on this thread that if it were proven conclusively that being gay was totally genetic then I would reevaluate my postiion on gay marriage.
Further proof of my “open mindedness” came when I was in favor of visitation rights for significant others who were not married.
Now Ms. open minded social liberal, tell me, what would make you change your mind and oppose gay marriage?
Um…nothing huh?
Looks like I am the more open minded regarding this issue!
Think!
[quote]I like how he doesn’t get “personal” in his debates. He just calls people silly, confused, illogical and liberal, like that is a dirty word. He just mocks everyone who does not agree with him. But it isn’t personal.
[/quote]
You are a comedian as well as a social liberal I see. First of all, if you have been keeping up you know that I have been called many, many nasty names. And if I am not mistaken you are probably out front in leading the name calling on this thread.
And come to think of it you are usually leading the name calling charge on (just about) every thread that you enter. Anger issues?
Secondly, I don’t find the word “liberal” to be a dirty word. The only way that you feel that that is an insult is if YOU think “liberal” is a dirty word. Why are you not proud of being a social liberal?
And yes, some arguments for gay marriage are indeed just silly. Like the transexual argument for example.
One more time: When you attack someones argument as being silly, or call someone a liberal you are referring to either their political stance, or their argument in general. Both fair game in any debate.
When you call someone a “fucktard” as you did me (among other choice words) that is a personal attack.
I’m surprised that you cannot see the difference. You do hold a big shot job at a major university. At least that’s what you posted.
I feel empowered to call bullshit on your fake-ass beliefs when they are being used to oppress and deny, instead of encourage and uplift. And that goes for anything being used negatively. When your beliefs are used as a tool to separate and look down upon others who do not deserve your scorn, then I will stand up and call you on it. Every time. The fact that I have friends who are disparaged by the common attitudes held by those of your faith just adds to my vehemence in defending those you guys target for derision.[/quote]
Ha ha…thanks for the laugh. You have been deriding anyone who believes in God on this forum for as long as you have been a member!
That you now use the homosexual marriage issue to excuse that behavior is very much beneath you my friend.
Fess up you are a God hater and a hater of anyone who believes in God regardless of their stance on homosexuals marrying!
The fact that you have tried to twist your stance around so that it looks compassionate is diseng…
[quote]Back in my day… you are a broken record. And when you get your fingers out of your ears, you might realize that gay marriage is not the same as hetero marriage, and therefore is its own institution separate but equal in the eyes of the law (but not your religion, for obvious reasons). We change hetero marriage when we pass laws that weaken it, like making fasttrack divorce laws.
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT CHANGING HETERO MARRIAGE!!! (three exclamation points)
Maybe if I write it all in caps, it might sink in. We are changing societal standards, we are changing our mores, we are adding a few new rules and regs when we accept gay marriage as a valid option for relationships which are recognized by the government. Societal standards and social mores change constantly… this is just one more bend in the river, ZEB.[/quote]
You take the stance that many do who want to legalize gay marriage. You attack the institution of marriage. Do you think that pointing out that dicorce is somehow eaisier to get makes your case for gay marriage any stronger?
One has nothing (NOTHING) to do with the other!
Where are all the strong points FOR gay marriage? MIA!
[quote]Further, you don’t have the extended experience that age automatically gives you. You are limited by your few years on this earth. And might I add somewhat niave. (I think that covers it).
Hey, call me all the names you want, buddy. I won’t whine about it. [/quote]
Pointing out that you don’t have experience is name calling? LOL
As I have already stated, by your logic a 10 year old is far wiser than you. Right? Less experience means much smarter and wiser. HA HA
[quote]lothario, your world is so tiny that you don’t care about the greater good of a society. All you care about are a hand full of your homosexual friends.
Wrong again, my friend. Just like how the war in Iraq is a painful but necessary thing, the greater good IS served by adopting gay marriage… you just don’t see it because you’re, well, you’re old and tired by your travails upon this cold unforgiving earth. LOL Just playin’ man… But seriously now, maybe you think you’ve earned the right to cling to home base while the rest of us run around trying not get tagged out. I’m just trying to tell you that your way is a very lame way to play tag, that’s all. Just like I was admonishing everybody not to get old and make excuses like “back in my day” and “you’re all a bunch of heathens”, that’s my whole point here. You’re being lame, ZEB.Don’t be lame. Just because it sucks.[/quote]
I’m being lame? Are you sure you are even in your late 20’s? Your arguments are sounding sort of childish.
Um…I’ll try not to be lame…
More liberal logic: Just let go and let it happen “man.”
Try to imagine an America that does not care about giving any two people of the same sex the right to marry. Oh wait you don’t have to imagine…sorry.
You are forgetting one important thing: you have still not given one good reason why America has to change. And until you do that 70% who is against gay marriage will probably stay right around that figure, or higher.
I never said that so this must be more hyperbole. More empassioned reasonless tripe.
Yes, me and about 90 million other people in this country have just got it all wrong. Whereas you and your “gay friends” have it all right. Yea…I think I’m starting to understand.
Thank you
I agree and it’s a shame that you have not gotten that experience as yet.
Well, the fact that you dismiss this so readily speaks to your inexperience. You don’t think you are being influenced on a daily basis by the books you read, the movies you watch, the places you go and the people whom you call your “friends?”
I think that is a remarkable position that you have taken!
You just somehow “know” things. Perhaps a lightning bolt comes out of the sky and strikes you just right on the third Monday of every month.
lothario you do have a lot of growing up to do my friend (I’m sort of glad you played the age card).
No man is an Island. Did you read that book? No probably not…
The problem is you don’t call “bullshit” on reality that parades around as “shit!”
I never looked down on anyone. You must be referring to how you look down on Christians in such a bigoted way. Which by the way is more liberal logic. Liberal logic demands that you respect their “Sacred cows” but they get to look down on the rest of societies long standing traditions.
Ha…
No, I don’t know what you mean. Studies demonstrate that those who actually hold firm values are more stable in life. Lower suicide rates. Less anxiety and depression etc.
You must know this you work in the field of health.
You think hitching your wagon to a moving post is actually a good way to live your life? You think you are able to determine in a split second your ultimate values? And yes it might be a split second is all that you do have.
No my friend you are very much mistaken!
You must first respond to the links that I posted (wasn’t that link war fun?). How can 200+ gay people suddenly “convert” to hetersexual from reparitive therapy if it is genetic?
Seriously, this is one question that I want you to consider.
[quote]See, you can be wrong. What if you are wrong about God? Do you think a “my bad” will work? Oh my…
OOOO I’M SO SCARED!!! When will you guys knock it off with the “be weak like me or go to hell” crap? I’m sorry… that was uncalled for, mostly. It just gets to me that y’all’s holier than thou attitude makes you pathetic and you don’t see it.[/quote]
“Weak like me?” You think that Chirstians are weak? On the contrary I tihnk it takes guts to stand up to haters (like you) who deride God every chance that they get. Granted, it takes no courage on the Internet to either defend or attack (in my opinion). However, face to face a Christian can take quite a beating in todays society. Mostly by the enlightened social liberal wonder boys who want everyone to think the way they do.
I wonder is that pack mentality weak?
True-today you are wrong about gay marriage
Well, we can agree on that one. I make some huge mistakes daily (at least according to me wife).
It has nothing to do with them being normal. It has to do with changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population. Hey …where have I heard that before?
lothario how many times do I have to tell you that I am not stating that it is a conscious choice! I think we are all beyond that.
In short: life experience as a child may have something to do with it. You don’t know and neither do I. But we do know that reparitive therapy has helped many “homosexuals” become “heterosexuals.” That is a fact! How could that be if it were genetic?
Now don’t you think you could have used a different anaology? LOL
What is common sense to you? Does it change daily with your own personal values? It must as you admitted you have no true “hitching post.”
And someone else’s “values” may dictate that we accept Polygamy, adult incest and many other things. Why not? The exact same reasoning that you use to debate gay marriage can be used to rationalize just about anything else.
Okay, that was funny. Please, tell me how not allowing about 1% of the population to marry someone of the same sex is holding us back as a culture. No seriously…
I know why too. Not one good (as in truly valid) reason has been given by your side to sanction such an act.
[quote]… On the other hand you continue to attack those people who believe in God. And when questioned on this you dismiss it by claiming that God is a “fairy tales”. How flexible of you! LOL…the word “intolerant” comes to mind…again.
Let’s not forget how inflexible I also am when discussing the realities of winged flying pigs, Elton John’s tremendous stash of “Hustlers”, and how Michael Jackson never got plastic surgery.[/quote]
Once again you deride what you do not understand. I know you like to spit in the face of tradition. I would only ask that you respect those people who do in fact believe in God.
You see, it’s not “what” they believe in that you should concern yourself with. It’s that they do believe and that you offend them everytime you do one of your anti- God tirades.
Sort of like some ingnorant moron coming onto this thread and stating the following:
“Who cares what those fags want anyway? They are a bunch of butt pirates who won’t be happy even after they are married.”
See how that looks? Pretty sick and narrow minded huh?
Everytime you launch your “I hate God” material you are doing something very similar.
/-------------
Blocked comments are my own.
-------------/
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
/-------------
I have provided logical reasons why SSM is a good thing.
-------------/
No, with all due respect you have not.
/-------------
Yes. Irregardless of anyone’s respect, I have.
-------------/
What you have done, among other things, is go off on a “transgender bender.” (Roll?s off the tongue). Which has nothing at all to do with the real argument of gay marriage.
/-------------
The real argument is same-sex marriage. Learn to make the distinction. If you know what “transgender” means, then it wouldn’t be hard for someone with even the most feeble of minds to figure out how “transgender” might crop up in a debate about same-sex marriage.
-------------/
Transgender people make up an even smaller percentage of the population than the 1-% or so of gays who want to get married.
/-------------
You have made wrongful, ignorant assumptions yet again! Intersexuals make up 1.7 to 4 percent of the population. I have posted numerous links to independent and verifiable sources reknowned for their impartiality.
-------------/
talk about a silly tangent!
Why is it that social liberals are always claiming that the exception proves the rule? How illogical!
/-------------
If there are exeptions to a rule, then it isn’t much of a rule in the first place. There is a rule that states 1 plus 1 = 2, but if there were then exceptions to that rule, the whole body of mathematics would crumble. In the case of marriage, intersexuals are the exception which breaks down the logic of a traditional marriage, which states that only XX + XY = marriage. The belief is that XX and XY are the only possible combinations out there, and this is the inherent flaw. Someone may have XX, XXY, XXXY who looks male, complete with a functioning penis, may want to marry a woman who was XX, yet the definition would clearly be in violation and so the “normal” looking couple would not be granted a marriage license. There are many possible scenarios. Google “intersexed” and do some research into reality.
I have shown why it is illogical to lump to people who want to practice illegal acts in with groups of people who are not yet adequately addressed by current laws.
-------------/
No, actually you have not done that either! Let’s take a look at Polygamy for example. Polygamy happens to be very much thriving in the state of Utah and other areas of the world. Did you not know this?
/-------------
And yet why would I care? Like cannibalism, it is illegal. Same with cock-fighting. Same with pedophilia. I’d probably have a few ethical problems with practitioners of all the aforemetioned activities. However, I do not harbour ethical dilemmas about those who practice same-sex marriage. This discussion is not about polygamy, cannibalism, cock-fighting, pedophilia or any other illegal activity.
-------------/
"Gov. Mike Leavitt (of Utah) indicated Thursday the state has not rooted out polygamy because that might infringe on freedom of religious expression.
(Religious expression! It seems that you too were trying to use religion as yet another (lame) excuse to accept homosexual behavior. Very interesting indeed!)
/-------------
Religious expression is a behaviour. Homosexuality is a behaviour. I was only using Religion as a way of refuting the completely non-sensical notion that you can’t grant people rights based on a behaviour. My example of religion proves my point. I find it very interesting that you fail to display the mental capacity required to understand this. Um, not really. More like… sad, ZEB.
-------------/
“It’s clear to me in this state and many others, they have chosen not to
aggressively prosecute it,” said the Republican governor, speaking to reporters at his monthly news
conference at KUED studios at the University of Utah.
“I assume there is a legal reason for that. I think it goes well beyond tradition.”
(A legal reason for Polygamy? Oh my…)
/-------------
I hope you’re happy with just connecting the dots, ZEB, because there’s no picture I can see from all of the senseless lines you’ve drawn. Perhaps you should pay attention to the numbers a little more closely: Monogamy = 1 plus 1
Polygamy = 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus ?
Same-sex marriage = 1 plus 1
Traditional marriage = 1 plus 1
Seems pretty clear to anyone that can count to two. Give it a shot, ZEB. You can do it.
-------------/
The governor mentioned arguments others have made that plural marriage may be an expression of
religion that is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment."
Well…there you go. So much for this particular group being “out of the mainstream.” They are simply practicing their “faith” I guess. Yet, another “behavior” with special rights.
/-------------
So are you saying that religion has screwed things up? Dammit! We should never have given those religious nuts legally sanctioned marriages in the first place! Next thing ya know, we’re sliding down that slippery slope to polygamy! Damn it, ZEB. Damn it.
-------------/
"Why aren’t all those polygamists jailed again?
/-------------
Because there are polygamists occupying the highest ranks of every major US institution pulling all of the strings? I don’t know! Tell me!
-------------/
A recent poll by the Salt Lake tribune found that 35% of Utah’s population think that polygamists should not be prosecuted. Many of the folks in Utah are descendants of polygamists, and don’t care to heap the same type of intolerant
(I like that word intolerant)
/-------------
(Maybe that’s because you are. Shhh… I won’t tell anyone. It’ll be our little secret, okay fella?)
-------------/
Abuse of their neighbors that the early Mormon people were subjected to. In addition, the laws that were written against polygamy are basically laws against consensual sensuality, which cannot be prosecuted in today’s legal climate."
Maybe you better read that last line over again: “CONSENSUAL SENSUALITY, WHICH CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IN TODAY’S LEGAL CLIMATE.”
/-------------
Whoa. Um… actually, that’s a good thing, right? I mean, I could’ve jailed several hundred times over had CONSENSUAL SENSUALITY really been a crime. Let the polygamists engage in their consensual sensuality. Who cares?
-------------/
The last Polygamy prosecution was in 1953!
/-------------
And then Rosa Parks, the Beatles, the Summer of Love, Woodstock and Women’s Lib. came on the scene. And dudes started landing on the Moon!!!
-------------/
By the way, it was not until 1975 that 46 out of 50 states had invalidated their laws on homosexuality!
/-------------
Paving the way for Star Wars in 1977!
-------------/
And it was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against homosexuality.
/-------------
Just in time for the final installment in the Star Wars saga, “Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith”!!!
-------------/
Hey, I just thought of something: First the act of homosexuality was illegal. Then some states removed those laws. Then the Supreme Court removed all of the laws. Then some states began special rights for homosexuals. And now low and behold homosexuals want the right to marry.
/-------------
Congratulations, ZEB. You’ve identified what is called a logical chain of events. It would be kind of tough to think about getting married when just getting caught with the dude you were sleeping with is punishable by hard time… and not the hard time that dudes who get caught sleeping with other dudes want to think about.
-------------/
Whether you dislike the idea of homosexuals marrying (like about 70% of the nation). Or, you like the idea of homosexuals marrying (like the social liberals) you have to admit the previous description does in fact represent the “slippery slope” theory pretty well.
/-------------
Homosexuals marrying? Slippery slope theory? Well, are you alluding Anakin Skywalker’s transition to the Dark Side, which wasn’t fully fleshed out until 2004’s Revenge of the Sith? Heck, people didn’t even know at first that Darth Vader was really Luke’s father until the Empire Strikes Back (1980), which was technically the second to last episode, and yet George Lucas makes it painfully clear that Anakin is Luke’s father in the prequels, all of which were released only in the last several years. Which does not make sense. Why would George Lucas release a movie that destroys any of the dramatic impact of the final scene in the Empire Strikes Back after Vader cuts Luke’s hand off, if one were to watch the entire series from Episode I through Episode VI… especially considering that ludicrous light saber duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin when Obi-Wan warns Anakin not try come after him because he’s got the high ground, but Anakin does it anyway. And Obi-Wan totally chops Anakin’s legs off, so Anakin starts sliding down that slippery slope towards the lava and gets all burned up and stuff? And then there’s that one scene where Anakin gets fixed up and he gesticulates just like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster would in a B-movie after the straps of the operating table are released? But it’s not Frankenstein’s monster, so, if one is going to watch all of the Star Wars movies in a row, it just doesn’t make sense, right? All I know is, if Darth Vader is not Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, you must agree that same-sex marriages should be legal!
Or are you talking about something else?
-------------/
I know you like links, so here you go:
/-------------
Yep. The Supreme Court knows that people are perfectly capable of deciding what goes in or comes out of their pooper. Mouths and poopers are both similar in that they’re orifices. If I can do something with my mouth, why is it morally wrong if I try it out with my pooper? Too bad all of the States just couldn’t figure that subtle distinction out on their own. You wouldn’t have needed that link, then.
-------------/
/-------------
Cool. Here’s something straight from the horse’s mouth. According to the polygamist who runs this website, anyone can be a polygamist and not get prosecuted by the law as long as they DON’T GET MARRIED TO ANY OF THEIR WIVES OR ADMIT TO HAVING A COMMON-LAW RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY OF THEM. Meanwhile, people bound together in holy matrimony are pursuing extra-marital affairs!!! So is adultery worse than polygamy in this case? I’m confused. The polygamist’s aren’t breaking any laws? And the only danger they really seem to be wary of facing is excommunication from the LDS church if they’re vocal about or visibly practicing polygamy? Huh. Weird.
-------------/
/-------------
Here, it seems that polygamy is quite clearly denounced for the inequality and subsequent abuses that arise from these unbalanced relationships. I think I had posted something eerily similar to this in a previous post. Thanks for adding more fuel to our collective fire, ZEB!
-------------/
It seems that they are having quite a time regarding Polygamy in the state of Utah.
But wait!
There are already certain groups popping up all over the country on behalf of those who want “special rights” for their own particular “behavior.”
The Mormons think that Polygamy is a fine “behavior.”
/-------------
Well… Um, hate to beat a now dead horse here, but isn’t the LDS Church actively excommunicating those they find practicing polygamy in their ranks? So… not all Mormons might think that polygamy is a fine “behaviour”, right? (What’s with the quotations around behaviour? Monogamy is a “behaviour” too. So what’s your point?)
-------------/
Here’s another link for you:
/-------------
Again. So what? It’s a dating service tailored to Mormons. Where’s the polygamy? According to absalom.com–one of the links you posted above–the LDS church excommunicates members found practicing polygamy. So… it kind of doesn’t make sense that a dating service run by the LDS church would have any visible ties to polygamy, wouldn’t it? Maybe I’m missing the intricacy of your point, ZEB.
-------------/
As far as Adult incest: do you know how many cases of adult incest have been prosecuted in the United States over the past few years? ZERO!
Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that governments care less and less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, even if they are brother and sister?
/-------------
HOLD ON ONE SECOND… I’m sorry, but are you saying that there should be someone going around and making sure that two people, armed only with the bodies that they were born with, don’t partake in certain consensual expressions of their love and committment for one another, even if they don’t inflict grievous bodily harm to one another? ZEB, you little peeping-tom, you! Very tricky, ZEB–aside from any genetic paternity tests done on children sired from such incestuous relations, the only way to possibly prove that incest was committed is by witnessing it! So how do you propose to monitor millions of unlit bedrooms across the country and around the clock on a nightly basis?
-------------/
It seems Germany along with many other countries are moving in the direction that “two consenting adults” can pretty much do what they want.
What’s next?
/-------------
People enjoying and sharing their lives with others on a more intimate level without fear of persecution? Ally McBeal marathons on the Life Network? I’m not sure which page of the T.V. Guide you’re reading…
-------------/
/-------------
Yep. It’s pretty much as I stated before in my critique of incest–it’s a bad practice because of the risk it poses to any generations conceived out of incestuous relations through the increased risks for genetics maladies. If it was just about the sex, then maybe there’s no big deal. Hell, in the Bible, Lot slept with his own daughters, and he didn’t get whupped so much as blessed!
Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 30-38.
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Weird!!! And it gets weirder still… One of their descendants was Ruth–one of the Moabites implicated in the above verses. And guess who’s lineage can be traced back to Ruth herself? The messiah Himself! So there’s actually a bit of incestuous hanky panky in Jesus’ genetic makeup. Interesting! Maybe being born by a virgin counteracts the sinful genes… and here I was, thinking that not even God could stop genetics.
-------------/
You have not shown any benefits that society would reap if homosexual marriage were allowed. Not one!
/-------------
Society is compromised of individuals. Some of the individuals in society are seeking same-sex marriage rights to protect their relationships. Pre-existing different-sex marriages would not have their rights diluted or threatened in any way. Legal rights given to marriages are beneficial. The same-sex relationships not currently being protected would greatly benefit from the protections afforded by law. Therefore, society gains the benefit of having more individual’s relationships protected by law.
-------------/
What you tried to do was make a case that homosexual marriage has nothing to do with Polygamy or adult incest in that if one were given marital rights the others would not follow.
However, you failed to do that.
/-------------
You’re right, ZEB. The slippery slope argument was something I completely ignored because it’s a bunch of paranoid crap. Each case must be considered based on it’s own merits. I couldn’t care less about polygamy. It’s a piss poor comparison, ZEB. Having one does not automatically include the other. What drugs are you on? Get off of all of them, okay? You’re really starting to worry me.
-------------/
As you can see clearly in my post it is not that much of a stretch to imagine adult incest as being accepted as well as Polygamist having their day at the alter.
/-------------
Not much of stretch? Well, considering that Jesus’ lineage is directly linked back to a bouts of hot daddy/daughter action over the course of a couple of drunken evenings, I guess it isn’t that far of a stretch to figure that they could have their day at the altar. But in regards to same-sex marriage debate, it still doesn’t make the smallest difference in the world.
-------------/
To think that sanctioning marriage for one group based upon “behaior” would not lead to other groups who wanting marital status based upon behavior is simply foolish!
/-------------
Yep. Those religious groups really screwed things up. I mean, didn’t they know that religion is a behaviour? And now other groups want marriage based on other behaviours! Incredible foolish, ZEB. Incredibly foolish.
-------------/
Is there a “polygamist gene?” No doubt some are already claiming that.
/-------------
So what?
-------------/
(You also seem very much hung up on transgender people. And again that is the absolute nuttiest “reason” to legalize homosexual marriage. In fact, it’s quite funny
/-------------
In fact, you’re funny! You seem so hung up on heterosexual polygamists… the absolutely nuttiest reason for NOT making same-sex marriages legal!
-------------/
Again I ask where do we draw the line?
/-------------
At equality. Too easy, ZEB. Ask a better question and get a better answer.
-------------/
I will leave you with this:
In order to change a long standing societal tradition you must first give legitimate reasons for that change.
“The Supreme Court has found that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to choose whether or not to reproduce, the RIGHT TO MARRY, and the right to make decisions about how to raise children are all fundamental privacy rights. THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT VIOLATE A PERSON’S LIBERTY BY INFRINGING ANY OF THESE RIGHTS WITHOUT FIRST PROVING IN A COURT OF LAW THAT THERE IS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST THAT MUST BE SERVED, AND THAT THE METHOD THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS USING IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.”
Fundamental privacy rights supersede tradition… or else they wouldn’t be called “fundamental”. Of course, granting same-sex marriages doesn’t infringe on other people’s fundamental rights. Providing all of it’s citizens with equal opportunity to access the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by others who are already married is as compelling a governmental interest as any that I’ve heard of. Narrowly tailoring them to persons of same-sex seems adequate enough to me as well.
-------------/
You have not done this. In fact, you have not given any good (giving “a” reason is not autmatically a “good” reason) reasons why society must change to sanction homosexual marriage.
/-------------
Well, first of all, stop acting like a spoiled brat. Secondly, stop making it sound like society is making a huge sacrifice. You say that it’s stupid to ruin marriage if only to make 1 percent of the population happy, but neither is the world going to end because 1 percent of the population suddenly experiences equality with the rest. So get over yourself.
-------------/
It seems to me that we are still in the infancy of trying to figure out why (or how) people become gay. As I have shown on another post homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic. In fact there are strong theories that it is something that can be reversed. A most unpopular topic among social liberals.
/-------------
It doesn’t matter if it’s genetic or not. The reality is, just like so many other aspects of humanity, it’s probably some combination of both. Whoopee. It’s an unpopular topic because it’s both unenlightening and pointless. People can be conditioned to do all sorts of crazy things. People have even conditioned themselves to the point where they were able to perform self-mummification. Mind over body.
Somehow, going from gay to straight just isn’t quite as compelling a change as turning yourself into mummy, your corpse free from the ravages of decay for hundreds of years. Yeah… the whole gay to straight conversion is probably closer to all those dudes on death row that suddenly find Jesus and become reformed. All the skeletons just went back into the closet to hide a bit harder. There was no “cure”.
-------------/
However, how do you explain the hundreds of people who have actually left the gay lifestyle because of “reparitive therapy?”
/-------------
They weren’t gay enough to begin with. They were only partially gay. They left the lifestyle… but deep down inside, they’re still gay. How’s that?
-------------/
How can anyone stop being homosexual if it were in fact genetic?
/-------------
That’s right. No one can stop genetics. Not even God. Genetics are just too powerful.
-------------/
It’s time that the social liberals open their eyes to this possibility!
/-------------
Yes. Let’s open our minds to the possibility that this is yet another spiffy piece of propaganda from the good people at Concerned Women for America.
-------------/
Also, don’t let the social liberals fool you into thinking that homosexuality should be compared to the struggles of the early black and female population. It’s not! Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. The other two are in fact GENETIC.
/-------------
What about religion? Is that behaviour or genetics? And wasn’t the struggle for religious freedom one of the reasons why the U.S. of A. was founded in the first place? So wasn’t the first struggle about behaviour then? Or has religious belief been proven to be genetic? I’m still confused ZEB… what’s a religion?
-------------/
In fact, a recent poll shows that black americans are not in favor of two homosexuals marrying
/-------------
I’m sorry… which poll was that? A recent one? Um… can you be more specific?
-------------/
Maggie Gallagher states: "At least 60 percent of African Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Many say they feel viscerally betrayed at the transfer of the civil-rights mantle to further this cause.
/-------------
Maggie states it so it must be true, huh? Yeah, an opinion columnist for a Republican website. Pathetic source, ZEB.
And what exactly does “viscerally betrayed” really mean? Do you even know, ZEB? What was the actual wording of the question asked? I, for one, would never have used that term to describe any emotions I might have had, and I certainly would have been confused had anyone asked me if I felt “viscerally betrayed” about such-and-such issue. Talk about confounding the issue–Maggie then gets busy trying to impress her readership with the impotent yet somehow dangerous-sounding “transfer of the civil-rights mantle”. What language was the original poll question asked in that such a crazy English translation was deemed by Maggie to be the best one in conveying what was supposed to be communicated? If only we had a link to the actual poll… maybe we could begin to make sense of your runes and riddles, ZEB.
-------------/
The Times reported on August 8, 2003, that since 2000, African-American identification with the Democratic party plunged 11 percentage points (from 74 to 63 percent). Could the increasing identification of same-sex marriage by Democratic interest groups as the civil-rights issue of our day be a contributing cause?"
/-------------
What if I answered, “Nope.” Where’s your proof? You offer only the spectre of a possibility. Weak ass correlation, if there is any at all, ZEB.
-------------/
America has become a very tolerant nation. The people in it tolerate all sorts of beahvior that is different than their own. I’m thankful for this, and the many freedoms that we enjoy.
Homosexuals can live together peaceably without fear of any sort of persecution. We have come a long way and I am pleased that we have. It’s a step in the right direction.
/-------------
More thanks to rational people like me, as opposed to the saying-it’s-so-makes-it-so people like you, ZEB.
-------------/
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy, I HIGHLY doubt that there are millions of transgendered people running around. On what basis do you conclude that?[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
WMD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Here is an argument for society as a whole: we are better off as a nation and in keeping with our principles of liberty and equality when every non-criminal citizen has the same legal rights.
ZEB does not see that as a good reason. I pointed that out more than once. He just poopoos it. He’s never said what he thinks a good reason would be. I think there is no reason he would view as good, just so he can continue to be “right”.
Another reading comprehension challenged individual. And one with so many degrees too.
I have stated at least twice on this thread that if it were proven conclusively that being gay was totally genetic then I would reevaluate my postiion on gay marriage.
Further proof of my “open mindedness” came when I was in favor of visitation rights for significant others who were not married.
Now Ms. open minded social liberal, tell me, what would make you change your mind and oppose gay marriage?
Um…nothing huh?
Looks like I am the more open minded regarding this issue!
Think!
I like how he doesn’t get “personal” in his debates. He just calls people silly, confused, illogical and liberal, like that is a dirty word. He just mocks everyone who does not agree with him. But it isn’t personal.
You are a comedian as well as a social liberal I see. First of all, if you have been keeping up you know that I have been called many, many nasty names. And if I am not mistaken you are probably out front in leading the name calling on this thread.
And come to think of it you are usually leading the name calling charge on (just about) every thread that you enter. Anger issues?
Secondly, I don’t find the word “liberal” to be a dirty word. The only way that you feel that that is an insult is if YOU think “liberal” is a dirty word. Why are you not proud of being a social liberal?
And yes, some arguments for gay marriage are indeed just silly. Like the transexual argument for example.
One more time: When you attack someones argument as being silly, or call someone a liberal you are referring to either their political stance, or their argument in general. Both fair game in any debate.
When you call someone a “fucktard” as you did me (among other choice words) that is a personal attack.
I’m surprised that you cannot see the difference. You do hold a big shot job at a major university. At least that’s what you posted.
[/quote]
Talk about your comprehension and anger issues. I get called names, too, but I don’t have to cry about it all over the boards. I think your issue with me is that I am on target about your misrepresentations and your agenda. Sucks to get called out, I guess.
I am a social liberal, compared to you. I do believe that all citizens should have all the same liberties, including the gay citizens. I believe those that need help should get it. I also believe in personal responsiblity, that once you have the help, it’s up to you to do something with yourself.
You are absolutely correct that there is nothing that will change my mind about gay people being able to marry each other. Shouldn’t even be a question. It won’t cause a societal disaster, it won’t harm traditional marriages, it won’t harm the children. I know a number of young people raised in gay households and they are doing fine. They love their parents and are happy with their lives. The studies that have been done indicate that children from gay households suffer no harm in the process. In fact they learn to deal with fools quite effectively.
Just a few articles for you to read. I frankly do not care whether it is ever proven that homosexuality is nature or nurture. Seriously, what is the obsession, aside from your religious objections? Do you have ANY peer reviewed studies from non-Christian or non-conservative sources that show any distress or harm to children of gay couples? My personal understanding is that it is a natural variation in sexual preference much like variation in eye color or blood type. Less of a choice than religion, that is for sure.
Kinda sad you have to reach so hard to “prove” how open-minded you are. You are willing to change your mind if conclusive proof shows up as to its genetic base. Not whether gays are good people or good parents or whether they kids come out healthy and happy. That’s not what is important to you. Just how the queers got that way. Kudos to you, sir. Feel free to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
[quote]One more time: When you attack someones argument as being silly, or call someone a liberal you are referring to either their political stance, or their argument in general. Both fair game in any debate.
When you call someone a “fucktard” as you did me (among other choice words) that is a personal attack. [/quote]
I agree with you here. I am sure I will faint dead away in astonishment when you stop your sneaky attacks on those that differ with you.
Chris Shugart had a good quote about this argument (except that he used it in another one)…
We seldom convince others that their tightly held beliefs are wrong. Instead, a newer generation slowly replaces the dogmatists, who fade away and eventually die.
Earlier ZeD you stated you knew ‘umpteen’ gays in your illustrious life and claimed to be more qualified than others to ‘know’ about them. Yet all your postings stink of ignorance, naievity, and utter confusion regarding ‘them’. Your puny, phoney, smug responses to educated posters trying to help you get a grip of the situation doesn’t shed good light on you either.
Furthermore…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never looked down on anyone. You must be referring to how you look down on Christians in such a bigoted way. Which by the way is more liberal logic. Liberal logic demands that you respect their “Sacred cows” but they get to look down on the rest of societies long standing traditions.
[/quote]
There you go again, pretty sad ZeD. You continue to dwell and flounder in the misguided notions that middle America and Christians have no Liberals. You can bet you are just the type of backtracking neo-con fruitcake Jesus would chastise as a hypocrite and deem unworthy for contributing to a better world.
I’m still following this thread. I haven’t seen any new points being brought up since my last post. That post stated my position and outlined what I thought would be the best compromise to bring the two sides together to move the debate forward.
I don’t think anything else productive will be generated by this thread. From what I’ve seen, ZEB is the only one arguing against gay marriage and he has stated his position and the reasons behind it.
The sticking point here is that ZEB stated the criteria that he feels would have to be met in order for him to re-evaluate his position and the pro-gay marriage side doesn’t believe that his given reasons are valid or truthful.
If you don’t believe he’s providing honest responses then I think that the debate is over.
I tried to present a course of action that would lead to a greater public acceptance of gays and hopefully eventually full civil union rights.
I personally think that full rights could be granted tomorrow without any negative consequences, but I have no concrete proof of this. Therefore I proposed a series of incremental increases in rights afforded to same sex couples, that would demonstrate the benefit to society of sanctioned same sex unions.
I understand that for you and many others (including myself), that this is a simple question of equality and personal freedoms, however, current popular public sentiment is against us.
What course of action do you believe is best for achieving your goals? Do you think that the arguement of equality based on the notion of fairness will eventually convince enough people? Is there a compromise, somewhere between what we currently have and full rights same sex unions, that you would be willing to accept for an “introductory” period?
Do you feel this is an issue best fought in the judicial system or at the ballot box?
Cheers,
Soup
p.s. LOL, I started this post saying I thought the thread was dead and the debate was over and ended it by asking a number of questions…I still think we may have jumped the shark when intersexed chromosomal ambiguity was brought up.
Talk about your comprehension and anger issues. I get called names, too, but I don’t have to cry about it all over the boards. [/quote]
Actually ole’ girl as long as you brought it up…again, I think you are what’s wrong with message board communication (at least around here). One of the things that is wrong anyway.
You get “called names” usually because you began calling other people names. I would wager that you throw more personal attacks out per post than anyone who has ever posted on T-Nation. I have been around here a long time and I can’t think of anyone who has ever topped you in terms of your vile personal attacks.
Some get a feeling of power by personally attacking others. I’m not talking about using humor (like our pal lothario). No, your attacks are mean spirited and personal. You berate others for spelling and puncuation. You are inolerant and use personal attacks as a method of some sort of Internet intimidation.
I don’t think that’s a sign of courage, or any sort of badge of honor. What does it take to swear at someone on your computer?
Issues my dear…you have BIG ONES.
You don’t have to qualify it. You are a social liberal PERIOD. Unless of course you can name one social issue that you are not liberal on.
I agree with that statement. And gay citizens can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will say yes.
Naturally, I’m not in favor of changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population. (You know that already huh?)
Agreed.
Then you admit to being closed minded on the issue. I see…
To the readers: Liberal logic dictates that it’s okay for liberals to hold stubbornly to a point. That is not being closed minded. However, if someone who opposes them holds to a point they are closed minded.
THINK.
You, not unlike other social liberals have recieved the bolt of lightning from the sky! At that very moment you became enlightened as to what would and would not “harm children.”
There have not been any long term studies to determine how a child would turn out raised by a gay couple. You liberals like scientific studies until it gets in the way of your political agenda.
Furthermore, we don’t even know how people become gay in the first place! Is it nature or nuture or a combination of both?
NO ONE KNOWS! Stop pretending to know in order to push your liberal agenda.
Oh anecdotal evidence is so charming. Gee … I read about a child who was raised by a gay couple who ended up on a building with a rifle in his hand. (eye roll)
All you have to do is step right up and post a link to back up what you have just stated. Now remember, the link can be from any nutball source (this is the Internet after all).
(By the way in your first link it clearly states “the research is slim.” You probably should have read it a little better-That’s a good way to lose the link game)
Okay, here are my links:
The first one talks about the superiority of one man and one woman raising children. It also mentions far more.
One of them states: "Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago’s emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting “contained at least one fatal flaw,” and “not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.”
Oh, do you want to skip the part of the Internet debate where we condemn the links and sources of the other person? I’m not going to do that until you go first. Otherwise, who cares?
The obsession? Wow…How many times have you read or heard a gay person say “I wish I was not gay.” That alone (if you really had compassion and not a political agenda) should alert you to the fact that it matters how people become gay!
If there are one or more childhood occurences which help to make children turn out gay don’t you think it would be nice to know this before we rush out sanction gay marriage and encourage gays to adopt children?
I have said it before: most of the social liberals appear to give more thought to their training programs than to the gay marriage (and children) issue!
It’s astounding when you peel back the layers.
Your being funny again. Okay…I’ll play: Do you have any peer reviewed studies from non-liberal Universities, or other non liberal sources that conclusively prove that long term harm is not done?
(There we both did our duty
Your personal understanding? Is it me or is this argument getting more ridiculous (on your part, of course).
(Clears throat) Well, it is my understanding that your understanding is quite wrong!
And yet you do even less!
You would not change your mind according to your own comments on this thread no matter what eveidence turned up!
Your words:
[quote]Your are absolutely correct that there is nothing that will change my mind about gay peoople being able to marry each other.[quote]
That means that if it was proven conclusively that gay parents harmed children (not saying they do) you would not care about those children.
You are one social liberal who cares not about children, society or anything else. As long as your political agenda is realized!
Absolutely dispicable!
[quote]One more time: When you attack someones argument as being silly, or call someone a liberal you are referring to either their political stance, or their argument in general. Both fair game in any debate.
When you call someone a “fucktard” as you did me (among other choice words) that is a personal attack.
I agree with you here. I am sure I will faint dead away in astonishment when you stop your sneaky attacks on those that differ with you.[/quote]
[/quote]
Please name one of my “attacks” that is sneaky.
I have stated clearly that there are no good (as in valid) reasons to allow gay marriage. And when someone presents a bad argument I am not shy about pointing that out.
You call that “sneaky?”
And you are a supposed to be a “highly educated researcher.”
/-------------
Blocked comments are my own.
-------------/
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
/-------------
I have provided logical reasons why SSM is a good thing.
-------------/
No, with all due respect you have not.
/-------------
Yes. Irregardless of anyone’s respect, I have.
-------------/
What you have done, among other things, is go off on a “transgender bender.” (Roll?s off the tongue). Which has nothing at all to do with the real argument of gay marriage.
/-------------
The real argument is same-sex marriage. Learn to make the distinction. If you know what “transgender” means, then it wouldn’t be hard for someone with even the most feeble of minds to figure out how “transgender” might crop up in a debate about same-sex marriage.
-------------/
Transgender people make up an even smaller percentage of the population than the 1-% or so of gays who want to get married.
/-------------
You have made wrongful, ignorant assumptions yet again! Intersexuals make up 1.7 to 4 percent of the population. I have posted numerous links to independent and verifiable sources reknowned for their impartiality.
-------------/
talk about a silly tangent!
Why is it that social liberals are always claiming that the exception proves the rule? How illogical!
/-------------
If there are exeptions to a rule, then it isn’t much of a rule in the first place. There is a rule that states 1 plus 1 = 2, but if there were then exceptions to that rule, the whole body of mathematics would crumble. In the case of marriage, intersexuals are the exception which breaks down the logic of a traditional marriage, which states that only XX + XY = marriage. The belief is that XX and XY are the only possible combinations out there, and this is the inherent flaw. Someone may have XX, XXY, XXXY who looks male, complete with a functioning penis, may want to marry a woman who was XX, yet the definition would clearly be in violation and so the “normal” looking couple would not be granted a marriage license. There are many possible scenarios. Google “intersexed” and do some research into reality.
I have shown why it is illogical to lump to people who want to practice illegal acts in with groups of people who are not yet adequately addressed by current laws.
-------------/
No, actually you have not done that either! Let’s take a look at Polygamy for example. Polygamy happens to be very much thriving in the state of Utah and other areas of the world. Did you not know this?
/-------------
And yet why would I care? Like cannibalism, it is illegal. Same with cock-fighting. Same with pedophilia. I’d probably have a few ethical problems with practitioners of all the aforemetioned activities. However, I do not harbour ethical dilemmas about those who practice same-sex marriage. This discussion is not about polygamy, cannibalism, cock-fighting, pedophilia or any other illegal activity.
-------------/
"Gov. Mike Leavitt (of Utah) indicated Thursday the state has not rooted out polygamy because that might infringe on freedom of religious expression.
(Religious expression! It seems that you too were trying to use religion as yet another (lame) excuse to accept homosexual behavior. Very interesting indeed!)
/-------------
Religious expression is a behaviour. Homosexuality is a behaviour. I was only using Religion as a way of refuting the completely non-sensical notion that you can’t grant people rights based on a behaviour. My example of religion proves my point. I find it very interesting that you fail to display the mental capacity required to understand this. Um, not really. More like… sad, ZEB.
-------------/
“It’s clear to me in this state and many others, they have chosen not to
aggressively prosecute it,” said the Republican governor, speaking to reporters at his monthly news
conference at KUED studios at the University of Utah.
“I assume there is a legal reason for that. I think it goes well beyond tradition.”
(A legal reason for Polygamy? Oh my…)
/-------------
I hope you’re happy with just connecting the dots, ZEB, because there’s no picture I can see from all of the senseless lines you’ve drawn. Perhaps you should pay attention to the numbers a little more closely: Monogamy = 1 plus 1
Polygamy = 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus ?
Same-sex marriage = 1 plus 1
Traditional marriage = 1 plus 1
Seems pretty clear to anyone that can count to two. Give it a shot, ZEB. You can do it.
-------------/
The governor mentioned arguments others have made that plural marriage may be an expression of
religion that is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment."
Well…there you go. So much for this particular group being “out of the mainstream.” They are simply practicing their “faith” I guess. Yet, another “behavior” with special rights.
/-------------
So are you saying that religion has screwed things up? Dammit! We should never have given those religious nuts legally sanctioned marriages in the first place! Next thing ya know, we’re sliding down that slippery slope to polygamy! Damn it, ZEB. Damn it.
-------------/
"Why aren’t all those polygamists jailed again?
/-------------
Because there are polygamists occupying the highest ranks of every major US institution pulling all of the strings? I don’t know! Tell me!
-------------/
A recent poll by the Salt Lake tribune found that 35% of Utah’s population think that polygamists should not be prosecuted. Many of the folks in Utah are descendants of polygamists, and don’t care to heap the same type of intolerant
(I like that word intolerant)
/-------------
(Maybe that’s because you are. Shhh… I won’t tell anyone. It’ll be our little secret, okay fella?)
-------------/
Abuse of their neighbors that the early Mormon people were subjected to. In addition, the laws that were written against polygamy are basically laws against consensual sensuality, which cannot be prosecuted in today’s legal climate."
Maybe you better read that last line over again: “CONSENSUAL SENSUALITY, WHICH CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IN TODAY’S LEGAL CLIMATE.”
/-------------
Whoa. Um… actually, that’s a good thing, right? I mean, I could’ve jailed several hundred times over had CONSENSUAL SENSUALITY really been a crime. Let the polygamists engage in their consensual sensuality. Who cares?
-------------/
The last Polygamy prosecution was in 1953!
/-------------
And then Rosa Parks, the Beatles, the Summer of Love, Woodstock and Women’s Lib. came on the scene. And dudes started landing on the Moon!!!
-------------/
By the way, it was not until 1975 that 46 out of 50 states had invalidated their laws on homosexuality!
/-------------
Paving the way for Star Wars in 1977!
-------------/
And it was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against homosexuality.
/-------------
Just in time for the final installment in the Star Wars saga, “Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith”!!!
-------------/
Hey, I just thought of something: First the act of homosexuality was illegal. Then some states removed those laws. Then the Supreme Court removed all of the laws. Then some states began special rights for homosexuals. And now low and behold homosexuals want the right to marry.
/-------------
Congratulations, ZEB. You’ve identified what is called a logical chain of events. It would be kind of tough to think about getting married when just getting caught with the dude you were sleeping with is punishable by hard time… and not the hard time that dudes who get caught sleeping with other dudes want to think about.
-------------/
Whether you dislike the idea of homosexuals marrying (like about 70% of the nation). Or, you like the idea of homosexuals marrying (like the social liberals) you have to admit the previous description does in fact represent the “slippery slope” theory pretty well.
/-------------
Homosexuals marrying? Slippery slope theory? Well, are you alluding Anakin Skywalker’s transition to the Dark Side, which wasn’t fully fleshed out until 2004’s Revenge of the Sith? Heck, people didn’t even know at first that Darth Vader was really Luke’s father until the Empire Strikes Back (1980), which was technically the second to last episode, and yet George Lucas makes it painfully clear that Anakin is Luke’s father in the prequels, all of which were released only in the last several years. Which does not make sense. Why would George Lucas release a movie that destroys any of the dramatic impact of the final scene in the Empire Strikes Back after Vader cuts Luke’s hand off, if one were to watch the entire series from Episode I through Episode VI… especially considering that ludicrous light saber duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin when Obi-Wan warns Anakin not try come after him because he’s got the high ground, but Anakin does it anyway. And Obi-Wan totally chops Anakin’s legs off, so Anakin starts sliding down that slippery slope towards the lava and gets all burned up and stuff? And then there’s that one scene where Anakin gets fixed up and he gesticulates just like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster would in a B-movie after the straps of the operating table are released? But it’s not Frankenstein’s monster, so, if one is going to watch all of the Star Wars movies in a row, it just doesn’t make sense, right? All I know is, if Darth Vader is not Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, you must agree that same-sex marriages should be legal!
Or are you talking about something else?
-------------/
I know you like links, so here you go:
/-------------
Yep. The Supreme Court knows that people are perfectly capable of deciding what goes in or comes out of their pooper. Mouths and poopers are both similar in that they’re orifices. If I can do something with my mouth, why is it morally wrong if I try it out with my pooper? Too bad all of the States just couldn’t figure that subtle distinction out on their own. You wouldn’t have needed that link, then.
-------------/
/-------------
Cool. Here’s something straight from the horse’s mouth. According to the polygamist who runs this website, anyone can be a polygamist and not get prosecuted by the law as long as they DON’T GET MARRIED TO ANY OF THEIR WIVES OR ADMIT TO HAVING A COMMON-LAW RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY OF THEM. Meanwhile, people bound together in holy matrimony are pursuing extra-marital affairs!!! So is adultery worse than polygamy in this case? I’m confused. The polygamist’s aren’t breaking any laws? And the only danger they really seem to be wary of facing is excommunication from the LDS church if they’re vocal about or visibly practicing polygamy? Huh. Weird.
-------------/
/-------------
Here, it seems that polygamy is quite clearly denounced for the inequality and subsequent abuses that arise from these unbalanced relationships. I think I had posted something eerily similar to this in a previous post. Thanks for adding more fuel to our collective fire, ZEB!
-------------/
It seems that they are having quite a time regarding Polygamy in the state of Utah.
But wait!
There are already certain groups popping up all over the country on behalf of those who want “special rights” for their own particular “behavior.”
The Mormons think that Polygamy is a fine “behavior.”
/-------------
Well… Um, hate to beat a now dead horse here, but isn’t the LDS Church actively excommunicating those they find practicing polygamy in their ranks? So… not all Mormons might think that polygamy is a fine “behaviour”, right? (What’s with the quotations around behaviour? Monogamy is a “behaviour” too. So what’s your point?)
-------------/
Here’s another link for you:
/-------------
Again. So what? It’s a dating service tailored to Mormons. Where’s the polygamy? According to absalom.com–one of the links you posted above–the LDS church excommunicates members found practicing polygamy. So… it kind of doesn’t make sense that a dating service run by the LDS church would have any visible ties to polygamy, wouldn’t it? Maybe I’m missing the intricacy of your point, ZEB.
-------------/
As far as Adult incest: do you know how many cases of adult incest have been prosecuted in the United States over the past few years? ZERO!
Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that governments care less and less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, even if they are brother and sister?
/-------------
HOLD ON ONE SECOND… I’m sorry, but are you saying that there should be someone going around and making sure that two people, armed only with the bodies that they were born with, don’t partake in certain consensual expressions of their love and committment for one another, even if they don’t inflict grievous bodily harm to one another? ZEB, you little peeping-tom, you! Very tricky, ZEB–aside from any genetic paternity tests done on children sired from such incestuous relations, the only way to possibly prove that incest was committed is by witnessing it! So how do you propose to monitor millions of unlit bedrooms across the country and around the clock on a nightly basis?
-------------/
It seems Germany along with many other countries are moving in the direction that “two consenting adults” can pretty much do what they want.
What’s next?
/-------------
People enjoying and sharing their lives with others on a more intimate level without fear of persecution? Ally McBeal marathons on the Life Network? I’m not sure which page of the T.V. Guide you’re reading…
-------------/
/-------------
Yep. It’s pretty much as I stated before in my critique of incest–it’s a bad practice because of the risk it poses to any generations conceived out of incestuous relations through the increased risks for genetics maladies. If it was just about the sex, then maybe there’s no big deal. Hell, in the Bible, Lot slept with his own daughters, and he didn’t get whupped so much as blessed!
Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 30-38.
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Weird!!! And it gets weirder still… One of their descendants was Ruth–one of the Moabites implicated in the above verses. And guess who’s lineage can be traced back to Ruth herself? The messiah Himself! So there’s actually a bit of incestuous hanky panky in Jesus’ genetic makeup. Interesting! Maybe being born by a virgin counteracts the sinful genes… and here I was, thinking that not even God could stop genetics.
-------------/
You have not shown any benefits that society would reap if homosexual marriage were allowed. Not one!
/-------------
Society is compromised of individuals. Some of the individuals in society are seeking same-sex marriage rights to protect their relationships. Pre-existing different-sex marriages would not have their rights diluted or threatened in any way. Legal rights given to marriages are beneficial. The same-sex relationships not currently being protected would greatly benefit from the protections afforded by law. Therefore, society gains the benefit of having more individual’s relationships protected by law.
-------------/
What you tried to do was make a case that homosexual marriage has nothing to do with Polygamy or adult incest in that if one were given marital rights the others would not follow.
However, you failed to do that.
/-------------
You’re right, ZEB. The slippery slope argument was something I completely ignored because it’s a bunch of paranoid crap. Each case must be considered based on it’s own merits. I couldn’t care less about polygamy. It’s a piss poor comparison, ZEB. Having one does not automatically include the other. What drugs are you on? Get off of all of them, okay? You’re really starting to worry me.
-------------/
As you can see clearly in my post it is not that much of a stretch to imagine adult incest as being accepted as well as Polygamist having their day at the alter.
/-------------
Not much of stretch? Well, considering that Jesus’ lineage is directly linked back to a bouts of hot daddy/daughter action over the course of a couple of drunken evenings, I guess it isn’t that far of a stretch to figure that they could have their day at the altar. But in regards to same-sex marriage debate, it still doesn’t make the smallest difference in the world.
-------------/
To think that sanctioning marriage for one group based upon “behaior” would not lead to other groups who wanting marital status based upon behavior is simply foolish!
/-------------
Yep. Those religious groups really screwed things up. I mean, didn’t they know that religion is a behaviour? And now other groups want marriage based on other behaviours! Incredible foolish, ZEB. Incredibly foolish.
-------------/
Is there a “polygamist gene?” No doubt some are already claiming that.
/-------------
So what?
-------------/
(You also seem very much hung up on transgender people. And again that is the absolute nuttiest “reason” to legalize homosexual marriage. In fact, it’s quite funny
/-------------
In fact, you’re funny! You seem so hung up on heterosexual polygamists… the absolutely nuttiest reason for NOT making same-sex marriages legal!
-------------/
Again I ask where do we draw the line?
/-------------
At equality. Too easy, ZEB. Ask a better question and get a better answer.
-------------/
I will leave you with this:
In order to change a long standing societal tradition you must first give legitimate reasons for that change.
“The Supreme Court has found that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to choose whether or not to reproduce, the RIGHT TO MARRY, and the right to make decisions about how to raise children are all fundamental privacy rights. THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT VIOLATE A PERSON’S LIBERTY BY INFRINGING ANY OF THESE RIGHTS WITHOUT FIRST PROVING IN A COURT OF LAW THAT THERE IS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST THAT MUST BE SERVED, AND THAT THE METHOD THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS USING IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.”
Fundamental privacy rights supersede tradition… or else they wouldn’t be called “fundamental”. Of course, granting same-sex marriages doesn’t infringe on other people’s fundamental rights. Providing all of it’s citizens with equal opportunity to access the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by others who are already married is as compelling a governmental interest as any that I’ve heard of. Narrowly tailoring them to persons of same-sex seems adequate enough to me as well.
-------------/
You have not done this. In fact, you have not given any good (giving “a” reason is not autmatically a “good” reason) reasons why society must change to sanction homosexual marriage.
/-------------
Well, first of all, stop acting like a spoiled brat. Secondly, stop making it sound like society is making a huge sacrifice. You say that it’s stupid to ruin marriage if only to make 1 percent of the population happy, but neither is the world going to end because 1 percent of the population suddenly experiences equality with the rest. So get over yourself.
-------------/
It seems to me that we are still in the infancy of trying to figure out why (or how) people become gay. As I have shown on another post homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic. In fact there are strong theories that it is something that can be reversed. A most unpopular topic among social liberals.
/-------------
It doesn’t matter if it’s genetic or not. The reality is, just like so many other aspects of humanity, it’s probably some combination of both. Whoopee. It’s an unpopular topic because it’s both unenlightening and pointless. People can be conditioned to do all sorts of crazy things. People have even conditioned themselves to the point where they were able to perform self-mummification. Mind over body.
Somehow, going from gay to straight just isn’t quite as compelling a change as turning yourself into mummy, your corpse free from the ravages of decay for hundreds of years. Yeah… the whole gay to straight conversion is probably closer to all those dudes on death row that suddenly find Jesus and become reformed. All the skeletons just went back into the closet to hide a bit harder. There was no “cure”.
-------------/
However, how do you explain the hundreds of people who have actually left the gay lifestyle because of “reparitive therapy?”
/-------------
They weren’t gay enough to begin with. They were only partially gay. They left the lifestyle… but deep down inside, they’re still gay. How’s that?
-------------/
How can anyone stop being homosexual if it were in fact genetic?
/-------------
That’s right. No one can stop genetics. Not even God. Genetics are just too powerful.
-------------/
It’s time that the social liberals open their eyes to this possibility!
/-------------
Yes. Let’s open our minds to the possibility that this is yet another spiffy piece of propaganda from the good people at Concerned Women for America.
-------------/
Also, don’t let the social liberals fool you into thinking that homosexuality should be compared to the struggles of the early black and female population. It’s not! Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. The other two are in fact GENETIC.
/-------------
What about religion? Is that behaviour or genetics? And wasn’t the struggle for religious freedom one of the reasons why the U.S. of A. was founded in the first place? So wasn’t the first struggle about behaviour then? Or has religious belief been proven to be genetic? I’m still confused ZEB… what’s a religion?
-------------/
In fact, a recent poll shows that black americans are not in favor of two homosexuals marrying
/-------------
I’m sorry… which poll was that? A recent one? Um… can you be more specific?
-------------/
Maggie Gallagher states: "At least 60 percent of African Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Many say they feel viscerally betrayed at the transfer of the civil-rights mantle to further this cause.
/-------------
Maggie states it so it must be true, huh? Yeah, an opinion columnist for a Republican website. Pathetic source, ZEB.
And what exactly does “viscerally betrayed” really mean? Do you even know, ZEB? What was the actual wording of the question asked? I, for one, would never have used that term to describe any emotions I might have had, and I certainly would have been confused had anyone asked me if I felt “viscerally betrayed” about such-and-such issue. Talk about confounding the issue–Maggie then gets busy trying to impress her readership with the impotent yet somehow dangerous-sounding “transfer of the civil-rights mantle”. What language was the original poll question asked in that such a crazy English translation was deemed by Maggie to be the best one in conveying what was supposed to be communicated? If only we had a link to the actual poll… maybe we could begin to make sense of your runes and riddles, ZEB.
-------------/
The Times reported on August 8, 2003, that since 2000, African-American identification with the Democratic party plunged 11 percentage points (from 74 to 63 percent). Could the increasing identification of same-sex marriage by Democratic interest groups as the civil-rights issue of our day be a contributing cause?"
/-------------
What if I answered, “Nope.” Where’s your proof? You offer only the spectre of a possibility. Weak ass correlation, if there is any at all, ZEB.
-------------/
America has become a very tolerant nation. The people in it tolerate all sorts of beahvior that is different than their own. I’m thankful for this, and the many freedoms that we enjoy.
Homosexuals can live together peaceably without fear of any sort of persecution. We have come a long way and I am pleased that we have. It’s a step in the right direction.
/-------------
More thanks to rational people like me, as opposed to the saying-it’s-so-makes-it-so people like you, ZEB.
-------------/
Posted again, for the benefit of the feeble-minded:
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy, I HIGHLY doubt that there are millions of transgendered people running around. On what basis do you conclude that?
I was referring to those who were transgendered and/or intersexed. There aren’t that many transgendered people alone, but the stats on intersexed is quite boggling:
Given that the population of the US according to the US Census Bureau as of 28-NOV-2005 is 297,764,205 and the American Journal of Law and Medicine says that 1.7 to 4 percent of the population is intersexed…
297,764,205 * .017 = 5,061,991.485
Hmmm… and that’s the minimum? Do I need to explain how to do multiplication?
These are people who do not fit within the commonly accepted XX = woman, XY = man paradigm… the same paradigm currently adopted by many, if not all, of the courts in the US as being the final say in determining whether a human being is a man or a woman.
Now, only an idiot would continue to say that the definition of marriage being “a man and a woman” is flawless. You can’t say just “man” and then think that it’s obvious, no matter how much people say that I’m being asinine.
You can’t ignore five million people. You can’t ignore the facts. Medical science has gone way beyond the point where tradition can used alone to determine the definition of marriage.
Welcome to the 21st century, folks! Human knowledge and understanding of the world around us has increased geometrically in the last one hundred years alone. If God has created people who have unexpected genotypes when compared to their phenotypes, and medical science has now revealed their true nature to us, then our old way of classifying them is flawed… not God.
If the tradition of marriage can somehow expand to embrace the capabilities of medical science, then no one should fret.
But I personally do not see how that can be done right now.
I’m still waiting for someone to address this problem posed by the existence of the intersexed population. They too are created in God’s image, yet those defending tradition would deny them the same legal rights and priviledges because they don’t fit our flawed human method of interpretation?
Here is a poster who just is not able to speak what’s on his mind LOL
[quote]Vegilles wrote:
Earlier ZeD you stated you knew ‘umpteen’ gays in your illustrious life and claimed to be more qualified than others to ‘know’ about them. Yet all your postings stink of ignorance, naievity, and utter confusion regarding ‘them’. Your puny, phoney, smug responses to educated posters[/quote] Note that educated posters are only the posters that agree gay marriage should be sanctioned LOL
ZEB wrote:
[quote] pretty sad ZeD. You continue to dwell and flounder in the misguided notions that middle America and Christians have no Liberals. You can bet you are just the type of backtracking neo-con fruitcake Jesus would chastise as a hypocrite and deem unworthy for contributing to a better world.
[/quote]
We are back on the Bible again? The funny part about that is that everytime a social liberal like vegilles brings up the Bible and I respond, I get accused of using only the Bible to base my gay marriage opinions on when they are usually the ones bringing up that very topic…funny stuff.
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior. Therefore, I think you are quite wrong in your assessment.
I suggest that you scroll back and take a look at the early posts which were on the Bible.
And at this point I think everyone knows were everyone else stands. You are no exception to that rule.
You have been an outspoken advocate of gay marriage. Therefore, there is nothing that I could post based upon my position which would please you. And do you know what? I’m not trying to please you. Sorry…
Now let’s have some fun with what you have written. No mean spirited fun. More like “lothario style fun” Let’s recap some of your beauties. And to make it more fun I’ll give you a score for each one
Here goes:
You have used flawed logic in one of your posts comparing it to inter-racial marriage…Um one is genetic the other is a behavior. Minus 10 points!
You stated that other countries have accepted gay marriages…You learned from your Mom growing up: “Just because so and so jumps off the bridge does that mean you are going to?” MInus 10 points!
You referred to anyone who speaks out against gay marraige as a “Bible thumper.” I have to categorize that as intolerant and closed minded. You know like some ignorant moron using the term “fags” to classify all gay people. Sick isn’t it? Minus another 10 points!
You then made remarks denouncing President Bush. How that fit in I don’t know but you stated it none the less. I noticed that liberals will not miss taking a shot at Bush if they can fit it in in any way. (He beat Kerry by 3 million votes-There I feel better
Since your comment had nothing at all to do with the debate (at least how you used it) you get a big minus 20 points!
Then you claim hetersexual marriage has a high divorce rate. As if that argument holds any sort of legitimacy on this thread LOL. It’s the “marriage is bad anyway how could this hurt” argument. Minus another 20 points!
And finally you feel that in order to further make your point you decide to make fun of my screen name by calling me “ZeD.” Hmm…childish, for sure and not funny (it’s okay to be childish if you are funny,I think those are the rules). That would have to be minus 30 points!
When we total them all up you are -100 on this thread! I won’t even count your latest blather (Can’t go below 100 sorry).
More thanks to rational people like me, as opposed to the saying-it’s-so-makes-it-so people like you, ZEB.
[/quote]
Your postiion is political. It is not based upon rationality at all. Many of your brehtern have also been shown as lacking any sort of logic when the issue of gay marriage comes to the surface.
It seems that you are just one more.
Rational people like you who will not wait for scientific studies to demonstrate exactly how or why people become gay to begin with?
Do you know for a fact it is 100% genetic? NO!
Do you have any long term studies to demonstrate that a child placed into a gay home will not be somehow psychologically harmed? NO!
Do you have any studies, or for that matter even thought about the social impact that gay marriage would have on society? NO!
Are you aware what “reparitive therapy” is? NO!
(This thereapy has in fact turned, in one study, over 200 people who called themselves homosexual, into heterosexuals!)
I am willing to change my postion if studies prove that being gay is totally genetic.
I am further willing to state that I think anyone should be able to designate another as their “significant other.” Giving that person certain rights such as hospitalization visits.
Are you willing to change your position if any or all of the long term studies prove to be negative for your side?
WMD said: “There is nothing that will change my mind about gay people being able to marry each other.”
Are you like her, stating that you don’t care about the facts?
It seems that is the case!
You JimmyTango are indeed part of the “saying so makes it so” social liberals. You are so blinded by your political agenda that facts, mean nothing to you.
Now get busy and post more of your “transgender bender” points.
I know when I’ve finished saying everything that I’ve come to say. At this point, my posts will simply become various exercises in copying and pasting previous posts.
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior. [/quote]
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior.
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
[/quote]
The “orientation” being that it’s okay to have homosexual desire, but not okay to act on it?
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior.
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
The “orientation” being that it’s okay to have homosexual desire, but not okay to act on it?
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
Chris Shugart had a good quote about this argument (except that he used it in another one)…
We seldom convince others that their tightly held beliefs are wrong. Instead, a newer generation slowly replaces the dogmatists, who fade away and eventually die.[/quote]
Yes, I’m sure one day in the future everyone will accept men who want to marry teenage boys as normal just like the movement to accept homosexuality as normal. Riiiiiight!
No I have another quote for you; what is right and moral will constantly be torn down by those who value the changing tide of popular opinion over consistent moral values unless the silent majority becomes the vocal majority.
