Like it or not, think it's pejorative or not, the current logic people are using to justify and legalize gay relationships applies equally to other non-abusive relationships, including polygamy, polyamory and bestiality. Are we saying that homosexuality and beastiality are the same, morally speaking? No, but I'm not sure why bestialists are judged as 'bad' – I mean, it may seem 'gross' to us, but who are we to judge? You can't have it both ways if you want to be logical.
And The People's Cube has a really witty article on this – but if you can't take the humor, and are deeply offended, your misplaced sense of self-righteousness will certainly keep you from seeing the point. Here's the intro:
This tax season you have surely wondered why you weren't allowed to claim your talking parakeet as a dependent. Many of you maintain a strong loving relationship with your cats, dogs, hamsters, or sheep. You can't imagine life without your pet – just like your next door neighbor whose companion happens to be human – yet you are denied the same rights, respect, and recognition that your neighbor enjoys – only because your companion happens to be a member of another species.
"This tax season you have surely wondered why you weren't allowed to claim your talking parakeet as a dependent."
I tried to claim my 4 frozen blastocysts as dependents but for some reason, they wouldn't allow it. Someone told me, and I think they may be onto something, that since blastocysts are not people, I can't claim them.
wow daniel, that self-hatred is bringing out your mean side. it must be tough being you.
it's OK, you know. you don't need to be a certain way to have genuine self-worth. I hope that at some point in the not too distant future that you can make peace with yourself. when you're not letting yourself get all twisted up in hatred and fear, there is a genuinely attractive person in there.
stinker likes sheep!
[Nelson Muntz]: HA-HA!
Pops – I don't know whether to be snyde or straightforward with such tripe. Let me try the latter:
1. Your faux-compassion is not appreciated. Assuming it was so. Might have been well-meant.
2. How was I mean? If you think the article I referred to was mean, perhaps your complaint is with that author. Perhaps you should use your armchair psychology with him, since he's the one with self loathing.
3. Attacks on a person's self-worth are a cheap tactic, a bit of a parlor trick, and a genetic fallacy – we all have hurts and some personal esteem issues to work with. I might say that your lack of true compassion and snyde comments show that YOU have a hateful, self-worth problem. That says nothing against the strength of the argument, or the satire.
4. I have peace with myself (on most days ;) AND with God through faith in Christ, something which gays need. You can have 'peace' with yourself and still be an enemy of what is right, and an enemy of God. Do YOU follow Jesus, or are you still an enemy of Christ? Jesus said "he who rejects me rejects my Father also."
5. I like logical argument. In the pro-gay marriage rhetoric, I see no reason why they should also exclude polygamists, polyamorists, and bestialists. I think they are hypocrites for looking down on these others, thinking that they are somehow better.
An by comparison, I do NOT think it hypocritical to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. I never made overtures at being inclusive, but at supporting what the natural and moral law support.
The humorous article which you call 'mean' is meant to point out the ridiculousness of the gay marriage argument. Perhaps, in the heat of the humor, you missed that. I am not surprised, since many who think unbiblically confuse hate with humor, criticism, and moral condemnations.
See:
What is Hate?
Don't agree with liberal politics? Hateful!
And thank you for posting. I mean it. Mostly.
We are told, over and over again: Christians want to impose their views upon the rest of'us'. … but … it might be more the other way round … and if you have to choose: which one do you prefer? Think about it …:
… apropos 'same sex marriage'
After the 'funny' laws without God, there will be harsh ones without God. If God is not the law-giver, man will; after Rex Lex has been buried by the 'progressives', after the sweet talk has ceased to debauch and people awake to the new reallity, the prevalent law will be the law of the jungle.
The one side will decide'progressively' in the 'name of the common good': in history, on behalf of their circles, class and caste.
After a while, the decisiontakers will start thinking:
Why would one man submit to the rules of another? Why would one higher salad bow to the will of another higher salad, another chemical machine? (… and this is the better case; if not: 'the masses' will be enslaved like in Communism or in Nazi-Germany)
The progressive decisionmakers wake up in the morning and tell you: I've dreamt something: let's have a new law.
If God is abandoned as lawgiver, disturbed action of the bowels will inspire 'progressive' laws. Arbitraryness will rule.
If law and consciousness are opposing each other you are in trouble. Don't forget: Quid sunt leges sine moribus?
There are just two choices, ONLY TWO: Laws inspired by the Almighty or the rule after man's fancy which comes down to the law of the jungle, sooner or later, even if sold as 'social gospel' in the beginning. Don't get this one wrong!
Paranoid schizophrenia casebook study.
@ Louis
… how about watching "The Lives of Others" just to wet your appetite: it was all already there; all we have to do is being oblivious about the past.
It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem. G B Chesterton.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Santayana
… and Louis, how about a qualified rebuttal?
Well, I felt the same way about Bush and his ilk (you know, the Republican party) with their Patriot Act, spying on U.S. civilians, wiretapping without a warrant, imprisonment without Habeus Corpus, secret rendition and torture, “signing statements” indicating he wouldn’t follow the law if he didn’t want to, lowering taxes on the wealthy, misuse of Justice Dept. power (eg, firing U.S. Attorneys for not instituting investigations of liberals), and so on. So, I guess we’re even.
I also find it insulting in the extreme that you would connect equality under the law for such as myself with encroaching tyranny. On the contrary, I see it as justice and freedom from tyranny.
Your rant was just nutso. Sorry.
GDR compared to Bush's policy: "So, I guess we're even." You have no idea – not in the slightest – of the real thing, Son.
"…that you would connect equality under the law for such as myself with encroaching tyranny."
… after thinking it through for a while: yes, absolutely. It has little to do with 'people as yourself'; the principle behind it is deadly: it's a law after man's fancy and against what we can assume as acceptable for the Triune God. It's like an avalange: starting as a snowball or a careless sidestep. But it will gain momentum, and someone will be at the receiving end. – Lady Liberty among those.
"equality under the law": equality with husband and wife as people who will (potentially and likely) 'reproduce'? That's why a state has a legitimate interest in marriages: they are it's future.
"equality under the law" with husband and wife as people in an affectionate relationship?
I have a few close friends, our relationships are deep,heartfelt and decades old. They are just not sexual. – why am I excluded from something you feel entitled to? Equality?
"equality under the law" because there is a sexual relationship? Why should state and government bother at all if it's just about sex – as long as no one is hurt? What is the higher interest of the state in that?
Give me a reason!
And if it's just about a sexual relationship, we are back to danielg's point: why not any and every sexual relationship? THAT would be equality!
You are demanding a privilege, not a legitimate right! What do you give back to society for such a 'right' i.e privilege?
Give the taxpayer a reason: why should the government deal with it?
(privileges by the way are a speciality of those states at the end of the avalange I described above: see, it already starts!)
Just in order to get some education:
1. How would one reason for 'equality' and equality under the law, if his or her first and 'founding' assumption is Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest'?
… is there any logical connection?
2. How would one reason for a privileged homosexual relationships if it's all about passing on our genetic material? What is the evolutionary gain?
I want to add: I feel sympathy with you.
Earlier on I thought, when encountering people with your (des)interests: "One less in the running". I've no issue with your disposition. It's just: it will prevent you from overcoming your alienation from you origin and destiny. It deters you from comming home. And I know, it's not easy to deal with it. That makes my heart bleed.
You don't deserve a reply, bigot a**hole.
Jefferson believed in free speech, because he and the Founding Fathers thought, the truth will prevail.
Views, opposing the reality, will run short on arguments over the discourse …, not necessarily short on 'words'.
Thank you for the proof.
…such cannons and bluster…
the issue for me is not that the majority community has taken a stance against gay marriage; it is always to be expected that something different will be resisted indefinitely…
the question is: why, if the true goal is to protect the family and to protect the sacred institution of marriage, there is no effort actually do THAT? …
given that bigamy and polygamy are already legal in the US why is there no effort to correct that? Sure you're not supposed to have more than one spouse at a time, but there is no law against dropping Wife A to make official what you're already doing with the chick that will become Wife B…. and why stop at two? there are a lot of fish in the sea and there's no law against it… …we laugh about serial monogamy…
i don't purport that this is the norm, but a commonly held statistic is that 50% of marriages end in divorce…
i'm of the opinion (and i admit that it's just that) that divorce has done insurmountable damage to the american psyche in the last generation as it has become more and more pervasive and acceptable…
it strikes me as more than curious that an army of people, to whom divorce would have been taboo and unacceptable a generation ago, have banded together in the name of protecting the family… …but have not joined forces against something that has a demonstrated impact.
no politician is stupid enough to take a platform stating that she will work to make divorce more difficult and remarriage nearly impossible…
…sure, it's my privilege as a man to take a wife, but it is also my privilege to drop her and take another and as many more as I please?
there is no law against that… …and while, it would be easy to find condemnation of this in the Bible, there are very few churches that would excommunicate me or discipline me in any way for doing this…
it's really nice to say that the fight is to preserve and protect "the family"; the family really is under attack; "marriage" really is under attack…
but to claim that the battle against same sex marriage is anything more (for 95% of americans) than the denial of a privilege, by those who have that privilege, from those who do not… is silliness…
and that to claim that this is in some way about protecting the family, completely fabricated… but it's damn good rhetoric and it sure does bring in donations for the cause…
i am always curious of writers who go to great lengths to talk about the law of god and the bible… they find, for themselves, and their flocks, places from which they can pull law, but they are unable to either pull and apply the whole of the law or to be a channel of grace (of which some of the scriptures speak) in regard to the law…
i am always curious of writers who quote other writers and get their names wrong…
i am curious of writers who will incite the readership they might consider "undesirable"…
i am so very entertained by the banter of the "you're an a-hole" to which the reply is simply "you called me an a-hole, so i win"
all the things in life that really matter, but for some unknown reason i've spent over an hour today on this stupid blog… i guess that makes me the a-hole…
Sometimes people act like a-holes and should be called out as such.
I'm not sure what is meant by "families are under attack." It may be that things are getting difficult for the traditional notion of the family (one dad, one mom, 2.5 kids and dog), but most of this is the result of economic pressure (something conservatives never mention, btw). There's also the notion that this idea of the family was never viable as the only alternative, that no other configuration ever existed or worked anytime in history. It seems somewhat arbitrary that this must be the one and only "definition" of family for everyone everywhere for all eternity (amen). Why? Who says so? If your sole criterion of "family" is the production and raising of children there are other arrangements which work as well. But why should that be the one and only basis for considering what is and isn't a real marriage. Again, why? Who said so? If you aren't a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian, why should you have to conform to their definitions of anything? As you point out above, divorce [expressly forbidden by Jesus] does more damage to traditional notions of the family than anything else, why aren't Christians agitating for constitutional amendments banning divorce?
No, the real story here is creating a scapegoat to blame for the failures heterosexuals have made for themselves. There's no evidence anywhere (not emanating from fundamentalist Christian circles, that is) which indicates that gays are any threat to marriage or families, that 3% or the population constitutes any threat to the other 97%. No, it's just unjust scapegoating and protection of heterosexual privilege at work.
When I see mass movements by Christians to write bans on divorce into law, I'll give this jihad against gays some credence. Until then, it's just bullsh*t by bigot a–holes.
WinterLion,
I have addressed these issues previously, and don't have much time, but I think you have some misconceptions that I would attempt to correct:
1. Christians do a LOT to secure families and marriages besides fighting pro-homosexual legislation. Ever heard of Promiskeepers, Family Dynamics Institute, Marriage Missions Intl, Focus on the Family, Family Life, or a host of other organizations working to save and heal marriages? The work is broad, deep, and extensive.
2. The reason you don't see them fighting in the legal arena is simple. As I said, for morally questionable activities, there are four possible legal stances – prohibition, regulation, neutrality, or promotion.
The Christian position regarding sexuality is one of government neutrality, except for the promotion of the healthy hetero monogamous marriage. You wanna be promiscuous, use sex toys, be gay or lesbian, no problem.
We even think that, though no-fault divorce is an easy out, that divorce should not be illegal. However, neither should it be promoted by law as a favored situation. If people were trying to promote such activities through government approval or favored tax status, we would fight that too.
I agree with you, divorce is terrible. But how to you fix it? Maybe getting rid of no fault divorce, or making it harder to get a divorce, or even harder to get married. But we don't fight that battle primarily through legislation, but through offering services, education, and transformative teaching, which perhaps you are not aware of.
We are vocal about gay marriage, and fighting a legislative battle there, because gays are fighting for more than government neutrality, but for legal privileges and sanction, something polygamists, bestialists, and man-boy groups are NOT doing (yet).
So we are not myopically focusing on gays, it's just that they are the main ones raising the selfish promotion of their dysfunction through government sanction.
So your claims of hypocrisy on our part are mistaken, imo.
>> WINTER: given that bigamy and polygamy are already legal in the US why is there no effort to correct that?
Um, what US do you live in? Those are not legal at all. But shacking up is. You wanna live with three women who agree to have sex with you and raise children together, whose to stop you? No one. But don't ask the government for aid.
More later.
>> WINTER: and that to claim that this is in some way about protecting the family, completely fabricated… but it's damn good rhetoric and it sure does bring in donations for the cause…
Your cynical analysis might be true, but it's not the reason we think we are supporting the family. It comes down to this: whatever is sanctioned by government is taught in the schools and unsuspectingly entered into by both children and adults when government gives sanction.
Epidemiology shows hx to be emotionally and physically unhealthy, common sense morality as well as the bible indicate that is is a sickness and a warping of a healthy psyche. When we unwittingly give people permission and encouragement to explore things like promiscuity, homosexuality, and porno, we are inviting them into damaging lifestyles. So we fight all three of those with abstinence programs, holding the line on marriage, and fighting the porno industry, as well as reaching it from within (see xxxchurch).
That is not just silliness, that is reasonable concern about established risks. You just like to call it silliness because you disagree. But that's no argument
We even think that, though no-fault divorce is an easy out, that divorce should not be illegal. However, neither should it be promoted by law as a favored situation. If people were trying to promote such activities through government approval or favored tax status, we would fight that too.
I think you just broke your own argument right there.
>> GODLESS: If your sole criterion of "family" is the production and raising of children there are other arrangements which work as well. But why should that be the one and only basis for considering what is and isn't a real marriage. Again, why?
No one said it is the sole criteria, but it is an important one, unless you care more about yourself than children. Other arrangements may produce passable results (grandparents, single parents, gay parents), but they are inferior to what healthy emotional development requires. The ideal is the two gender home. By what argument?
We could quote studies, but that won't be entirely conclusive. We also appeal to common sense, but not everyone shares the same sense of what is intended by observing nature. In public policy debates, we don't appeal to the bible, but to science, ethics, and natural law, which is sometimes arguable. But when the founders said 'we hold these truths to be self-evident', they implied that (1) no reasoned argument need be given, nor perhaps could be conclusive, and (2) men of clear thinking and reason would agree.
We say the same about homosexuality. It is clearly a dysfuntion, and although reason and science could be martialed to defend that position, there is a sense in which such moral stances go beyond mere empiricism, and we appeal to the self-evident laws of nature, and claim that reasonable people would agree. And like the founders, we stand on that moral claim whether the armies of opposition are outraged at the hubris of such a declaration or not.
>> GODLESS: No, the real story here is creating a scapegoat to blame for the failures heterosexuals have made for themselves.
You can comfort yourself with that straw man all day, but such amateur psychoanalyzing is very far from the truth. We oppose the moral sanction (as opposed to neutrality or regulation) of homosexuality for the same reasons that we oppose the sanction of porno, promiscuity, adultery, and even divorce. Because they are unhealthy perversions of healthy sex and self-concept. It's no more than that.
No scapegoats, just loudmouthed sinners clamoring for recognition of their dysfunction as normal. And if they get that, the ignorant and innocent could be led astray in droves into their damaging error. And we won't stand by while such selfish, twisted, sick ideas are lifted up in our culture. Because we love what is right, and our children.
I repeat, why should the production and upbringing of children be the only or, if you prefer, the most "important" (or even one) criteria to qualify one for marriage? Marriage can be far more than that – and it should be.
It's ironic that you refer to the founders statement in the Declaration of Independence to bolster your assertions concerning the inferiority gays. Shall we reproduce the entire statement?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The "self-evident truths" here aren't concerning the supposed dysfunctionality of hx or the inferiority of gay people, rather, the fact that all men and women are created equal, and that the rights they are endowed with are, among others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights accrue to all people in this country, not just heterosexuals. Thus, contrary to how you would twist it, gays are just as entitled to equality under the law, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness as you are. These are self-evident truths, not the bigotry you promulgate.
[Homosexuality] is clearly a dysfunction, and although reason and science could be martialed to defend that position, there is a sense in which such moral stances go beyond mere empiricism, and we appeal to the self-evident laws of nature, and claim that reasonable people would agree.
Actually, all current science (and the reason that backs it up) is on the side of equality for gays, and that hx is not a dysfunction. This is fact. The "self-evident laws of nature" you spin out of thin air are merely assumptions on your part, assertions for which there is little to no evidence (untwisted by religious belief, that is).
I have seen no evidence that the numerous assertions you produce above are anything but the fantasies of religiously motivated prejudice. Your animus towards gays is illustrated by your constant yoking of them to such extraneous issues as polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. These are the blood-libels by which people like you have tarred the honor and dignity of gay people for too long.
Fortunately, the tide is turning against you and your infernal lies. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa…gay equality is advancing, and they will prove that the cataclysm you proclaim will not occur. Rather, as Amos declared,
But let justice flow like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Justice will come for gay people, regardless of what their enemies among the religious right might do.
denial-g,
please don't quote me out of context…
thanx
W-L
@ godless
"But let justice flow like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Justice will come for gay people, regardless of what their enemies among the religious right might do."
What 'justice' do you mean, godless?
The justice of the Roman empire where the pater familiaris held the right to decide over life and death of the members in his household?
Or do you mean the 'justice' of islamic rule which the Left in America and Europe happens to support so eagerly in the name multicultural 'equality' policies? …which makes killing an apostate from Islam a perfecty justified act.
(and gay people should better dress warmly if this kind of multiculturalism will prevail)
Or do you mean the 'justice' of socialist flavor, which made the attempt to leave the country a crime: those people could be shot at stake,when attempting to leave the paradieses of socialism. That was a honoured and a required 'response' to such a 'criminal act'.
… a little like the islamic response: leaving the realm of their beliefsystem meant death.
Or do you talk about justice coined by the Judeo-Chrisian value-and-beliefsystem (that one that seems so hard for you to escape but which, on the other hand, you are so eager to dismantle?)
I repeat the questions that 'deserve' being called names after asking:
1. How would one reason for a privileged homosexual reason for 'equality' and equality under the law, if his or her first and 'founding' assumption is Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest'?
… is there any logical connection?
2. How would one reason for a privileged homosexual relationships if it's all about passing on our genetic material? What is the evolutionary gain?
additionally, godless:
How would one reason for justice under the mentioned premise?
In answering these questions, can you show a sense of intellectual honesty and the ability to follow a logical train of thought – or will you leave it at showing arrogant boorishness?
Do these questions again 'deserve' the a-word as an answer or do you have more to offer than offenive words to clear but hard-for-you questions?
Why should I? My long, sad experience with you right-wing religionists is that your arrogant boorishness is impenetrable. You are motivated by a twisted religious sense of bigotry and thus are incapable of reason or compassion. I'm through using a reasonable approach. One might as well argue with a scorpion or Ebola virus. For instance,
You are demanding a privilege, not a legitimate right!
As if we are subjects of a royal or theocratic government who have to beg for our inalienable rights. No! We are citizens! The government answers to us and not the other way around. We demand our rights to equality, and you anti-gay bigots are just gonna have to go pound sand if you don't like it.
I refuse to continue discussion with people whose main intent and political goal is to force me back into the closet and into second-class status! I agree with Louis completely: you don't deserve to be taken seriously, despite your pseudo-intellectual pretensions.
"Why should I?"
You simply can't answer my questions.
Your logic is inconsistent.
You would have to face this truth, and truth in general, if you would start to think through it and if you had to put your thoughts in words. That all.
"Why should I?" is, because you can't. Not because you are stupid, but because you are dishonest.
An answer,putting your thoughts into words, would show your self-deception to the world, and even to you. You can't bear it, so you ""Why should I?" – chicken out.
Your decision.
Nope. I just refuse to accept your attempt to hijack the whole subject by defining the terms of the argument your way. I’m being honest: I reject your worldview, and will not enter it in a futile and doomed attempt to convince you otherwise. You may think you are being reasonable, but you are really just trying to extend the hegemony of the religionist/patriarchal ideology. Again, I reject this, and will not fall into the trap of arguing on your terms.
Finis.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! … but you are funny, at least. ( – intentionally?)
>> WINTER: denial-g, please don't quote me out of context…
1. How did I misrepresent what you wrote? I was not quoting out of context to my knowledge, but I have to excerpt when I comment, can't reproduce it all. I did not mean to misrepresent your argument, so you'll have to be more specific if you really want me to understand.
2. Is it OK if I mock your name like you did mine? You know, like calling you Whining Lion or something? Just checking to see how your sense of fairness works ;)
>> GODLESS: You are demanding a privilege, not a legitimate right!
I don't agree with this argumentation. Rather, I see it as requesting a 'right' that is not yours to have – like me requesting a right to write off my second wife on my taxes.
As I've explained, *I* think that you are seeking legal SANCTION for a behavior and identity (or orientation, if you like) that is of questionable health and origin. On such things, the government ought to be neutral, not sanctioning or criminalizing, IMHO.
So, if I want to sleep around, or have children by more than one woman, should the government criminalize me? How about just leave me alone while I womanize? But if I want to get government approval, tax status, and education in schools to approve of and support my behavior, um, I think that is beyond the pale.
And BTW, I am not trying to accuse homosexuality as being of the same moral ‘terpitude’ as sleeping around or fathering multiple children – but I do think that if you judge these as immoral but say that hx is ok, you are being a little hypocritical. I mean, as long as my sleeping around is consensual, and I support my many kids, who are you to judge?
I say this tongue in cheek, of course. I do think that such activities are all immoral, including hx. But I don’t want you to think I am merely engaging in guilt by association. I am just using examples.
Godless, Louis,
I asked you about YOUR beliefsystem: how are you substantiating it?
Is it consistent? Is it logical?
The interesting thing is: I had to think a lot, moving through tons of doubts, before ariving at what I do believe today.
But your beliefsystem in comparison suggests: you must not think about it! Otherwise it will not survive. If you start asking hard questions about your worldview, you would torpedo and sink it by your own thoughts!
So, the only thing you can do is to stop thinking about it and chickening out, when asked tough questions about YOUR beliefsystem.
Well, then stick to your 'Mustn't think!'- weltanschauung!