[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It is spelled weak.
And actually it’s not, Natural Laws, which I found through Mises, before I entered in full communion, I found that through Natural Law, homosexually is morally wrong. ;)[/quote]
It wuz uh typo, buttt thnx aniwayz!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea, we straights pretty much force gay men to have unsafe sex with multiple partners. To be on the prowl for sex regularly
[/quote]
Straight men have unsafe sex with multiple partners as well. Sometimes they even have unsafe sex with multiple partners in the “naughty” hole.
That certainly doesn’t sound very safe does it?[/quote]
Yeah and that is morally wrong, probably why we do not allow Polygamy anymore.[/quote]
But Zeb doesn’t even acknowledge that straight people do the very thing he blames gay men for.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
But Zeb doesn’t even acknowledge that straight people do the very thing he blames gay men for.[/quote]
Because they don’t. Not at anywhere near the same rate.
For instance a poll in my hometown recently asked “How many sexual partners have you had in the last year?”
Straight men had ~2/year.
Gays and bisexuals had ~30/year.
The fact is gays/bis love to get around.
Does anyone here actually know why marriage became sanction by law? Here is the ultra short version. Marriage was invented and sanctioned by law in order to preserve wealth in the form of real property transfers. Parents typically arranged marriages to maximize land holdings - love was irrelevant. The couple was expected to have heirs who would then inherit the property and keep it in the family. Illegitimate children had no inheritance rights. Fidelity was also somewhat optional. Obviously it was better if the husband remained faithful, but if not, no big deal, since those little bastards (and I used that term in its correct, literal sense) couldn’t inherit any property. As long as the property was safe, that’s all that mattered. If a husband died the woman was on her own. She was not entitled to any of her husband’s property. If here in-laws were nice they might let her stay on the property until she remarried.
That’s marriage in a nutshell. It was an economic relationship designed to accumulate wealth. The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Dustin wrote:
But Zeb doesn’t even acknowledge that straight people do the very thing he blames gay men for
Because they don’t. Not at anywhere near the same rate.
[/quote]
Yeah right. I guess you have never stepped foot on a college campus?
That’s cool you live in an Amish community.
[quote]
The fact is gays/bis love to get around.[/quote]
And so do straight people.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I think by rewording your question, we can more accurately get to the heart of the matter. Does the government have a compelling reason to allow age discrimination as it relates to pensions? I think it does.
Does the government have a compelling reason to deny a portion of it’s citizens the rights and obligations afforded to another portion of it’s citizens? I don’t think it does.
[/quote]
The latter is simply a more general version of the former.
You are simply stating in the specific case of old age pension it is a-ok but in the general case it is not acceptable.
So what is the line between acceptable and not acceptable under the 14th amendment? Because old age pension is simply one example of hundreds I could come up with.
At the end of the day the 14th is either almost absolute (in which case it would include areas like the old age pension) or it is open for interpretation by society (in which case not recognizing gay marriage is not a violation).
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]
It is not a modern notion. The current notion of marriage has been around since the 15th century, if not earlier.
Basically the modern notion has grown out of Chrisitian marriages that have existed in a similar form for over 500 years.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, I would think one that advocates limited government wouldn’t want to dictate the lives of consenting adults.[/quote]
And, you’d be wrong on this topic…yet again.
Again, you seemed to be confused on this issue. Conservatives aren’t relativists, and support for state recognition of traditional marriage is not and has never been incompatible with limited government principles.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Yeah right. I guess you have never stepped foot on a college campus?
[/quote]
Yes I have. I’ve studied at multiple colleges. Contrary to popular opinion only a few people were having sex with new partners left right and centre. Maybe 10% of the people.
Perhaps you just associated with the “highly sexed” crowd.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
That’s cool you live in an Amish community.
[/quote]
Except of course I don’t. I guess you are young and hang out with the slut crowd.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
And so do straight people. [/quote]
Do you have any statistics to suggest straight people get around to anywhere near the same extent?
[quote]orion wrote:
Not in the least, it is more like being baffled how some comservatives think that they can build a government powerful and informed enough to regulate the most intimate details of peoples lifes and yet act all surprised if it turns around to bite them.[/quote]
Marriage doesn’t regulate the most intimate details of people’s lives - it promotes certain behavior we think good in society. That’s very important - but it’s that simple.
And that, unquestionably, is part of a conservative mission. Libertarian? Probably not, but - who cares?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, I would think one that advocates limited government wouldn’t want to dictate the lives of consenting adults.[/quote]
And, you’d be wrong on this topic…yet again.
Again, you seemed to be confused on this issue. Conservatives aren’t relativists, and support for state recognition of traditional marriage is not and has never been incompatible with limited government principles.
[/quote]
Look man, we have been over this before. You want the state to dictate morality.
You think it is fine and I think it is immoral.
There really isn’t much else for you and I to discuss on this issue.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Do you have any statistics to suggest straight people get around to anywhere near the same extent?[/quote]
No, but I do have a set of eyes.
And the point remains people like you and Zeb want to act like straight people (males) don’t engage in dangerous (sexual) behavior. Straight people (males) can spread disease too. Sexual contact, period, can be dangerous if one isn’t careful, whether they are straight, gay or bi.
It’s just another in a long list of garbage arguments presented by the anti-gay crowd to try and justify their beliefs.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]
It is not a modern notion. The current notion of marriage has been around since the 15th century, if not earlier.
Basically the modern notion has grown out of Chrisitian marriages that have existed in a similar form for over 500 years.[/quote]
Wrong. Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned. In a feudal economy, which was the norm in Europe in the 15th century and several hundred years before and after, those who owned land held the power. The landowners arranged marriages among their children to maximize land holdings and hence power. The problem with arranged marriages where the couple may not have even liked, much less loved, each other, was that divorce was more likely. So the wealthy got the Church to declare divorce a sin in order to keep arranged marriages together. The wealthy also got judges to classify children born outside of the marriage as “illegitimate” and not entitled to inherit anything. Modern law, since around the 1950s or so, no longer makes the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.
Go read up on history.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Look man, we have been over this before. You want the state to dictate morality.
You think it is fine and I think it is immoral.
There really isn’t much else for you and I to discuss on this issue.[/quote]
Probably right, but when you keep suggesting “conseratives” are somehow inconsistent because they won’t buy into “libertarian” beliefs, well, that isn’t so much a difference of opinion between me and you and more of you continuing to misstate the issue.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, but I do have a set of eyes.
[/quote]
And are you a young bloke (i.e. <25) who has just recently finished college (or still at college) and perhaps are “into” the nightclub scene?
Lets just say your perception of reality is not even close to reality.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
And the point remains people like you and Zeb want to act like straight people (males) don’t engage in dangerous (sexual) behavior. Straight people (males) can spread disease too. Sexual contact, period, can be dangerous if one isn’t careful, whether they are straight, gay or bi.
[/quote]
And this is why you come across as a little kid. Straight people are not spreading disease in the same way that gay people are. You have to completely ignore the statistics to believe otherwise. Look at the CDC stats on AIDS.
Some straight males engage in dangerous sexual behaviour. However a much larger % of gay males do. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?
Look if I hated gay people I would be overjoyed at their unhealthy sexual practices. They are only diseasing themselves and other gay people. But I don’t hate them. I care about these people. And you aren’t helping by denying a very real problem.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned.
[/quote]
Perhaps “Marriage laws” did. However the concept of marriage as a loving union between one man and one woman has existed both within society and certainly within the Christian faith for over 500 years.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Go read up on history.[/quote]
Perhaps you should provide some sources on your version of history.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Since this is a motherfucking democracy. Until they change that, you gotta deal with my opinions.[/quote]
How anti-libertarian of you.
[/quote]
My Libertarian opinion is that since if we legalize gay marriage, companies would be forced to pay benefits to employees spouses in a gay marriage, when they did not agree to this, I vote NO on forcing companies to pay for people they did not agree to pay for.
See, even my sans-moral/economist utilitarian point of view says no on gay marriage.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea, we straights pretty much force gay men to have unsafe sex with multiple partners. To be on the prowl for sex regularly
[/quote]
Straight men have unsafe sex with multiple partners as well. Sometimes they even have unsafe sex with multiple partners in the “naughty” hole.
That certainly doesn’t sound very safe does it?[/quote]
Yeah and that is morally wrong, probably why we do not allow Polygamy anymore.[/quote]
But Zeb doesn’t even acknowledge that straight people do the very thing he blames gay men for.[/quote]
Well most straight men are not having dangerous butt sex with gay men. However, gay men are.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Does anyone here actually know why marriage became sanction by law? Here is the ultra short version. Marriage was invented and sanctioned by law in order to preserve wealth in the form of real property transfers. Parents typically arranged marriages to maximize land holdings - love was irrelevant. The couple was expected to have heirs who would then inherit the property and keep it in the family. Illegitimate children had no inheritance rights. Fidelity was also somewhat optional. Obviously it was better if the husband remained faithful, but if not, no big deal, since those little bastards (and I used that term in its correct, literal sense) couldn’t inherit any property. As long as the property was safe, that’s all that mattered. If a husband died the woman was on her own. She was not entitled to any of her husband’s property. If here in-laws were nice they might let her stay on the property until she remarried.
That’s marriage in a nutshell. It was an economic relationship designed to accumulate wealth. The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]
Same reason the Jews had marriage…and this is why it is pointless to have gays get married, the only thing they are trying to do is take benefits wrongly given to already married couples because the government thought it be a good idea to make companies pay benefits to spouses against their will.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]
It is not a modern notion. The current notion of marriage has been around since the 15th century, if not earlier.
Basically the modern notion has grown out of Chrisitian marriages that have existed in a similar form for over 500 years.[/quote]
Wrong. Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned. In a feudal economy, which was the norm in Europe in the 15th century and several hundred years before and after, those who owned land held the power. The landowners arranged marriages among their children to maximize land holdings and hence power. The problem with arranged marriages where the couple may not have even liked, much less loved, each other, was that divorce was more likely. So the wealthy got the Church to declare divorce a sin in order to keep arranged marriages together. The wealthy also got judges to classify children born outside of the marriage as “illegitimate” and not entitled to inherit anything. Modern law, since around the 1950s or so, no longer makes the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.
Go read up on history.[/quote]
Read a Hebrew Bible, and even Christ explains the formalities of marriage. Illegitimacy and all that stuff go back to the Hebrew Bible.