Jump to content

On "Defense of Marriage": A reply to Quinn


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

"Eins, zwei, drei, alle!"

I'm also concentrating instead on creating laws that take children away from homosexuals.

Waiting to cut out the deadwood.

Waiting to clean up the city.

Waiting to follow the worms.

Waiting to put on a black shirt.

Waiting to weed out the weaklings.

Waiting to smash in their windows

And kick in their doors.

Waiting for the final solution

Link to comment

If you have a general philosophy of leaving the gov't out of pretty much everything, that takes no thought either. While I'm libertarian in my political leanings, there are some things, like freedom of speech, and marriage, that are so fundamental to a functional democracy and society, the gov't needs to protect both of them.

Ha! You aren't about to give someone with whom you disagree any credit for rational thought, are you? Of course, a "libertarian view" on marriage doesn't necessarily make a person a full-blown Libertarian, like those Paul fanatics who want to privatize everything and trust corporations to regulate themselves.

Read this carefully. It suggests that I am both wasting efforts on stopping lesbians from calling their relationship a "marriage" and I'm also concentrating instead on creating laws that take children away from homosexuals. I didn't misunderstand so much as you misspoke.

You should have had a negative in the first clause of this sentence in order for you to get what you were trying to say across.

Ah, I see your confusion now. You see, in English, the use of the word "instead" serves that very purpose, quite the opposite of the "also" you seem to have incorrectly added in your mind.

Link to comment

"Eins, zwei, drei, alle!"

I'm also concentrating instead on creating laws that take children away from homosexuals.

Waiting to cut out the deadwood.

Waiting to clean up the city.

Waiting to follow the worms.

Waiting to put on a black shirt.

Waiting to weed out the weaklings.

Waiting to smash in their windows

And kick in their doors.

Waiting for the final solution

You are suspended for a week. Another comment like this will result in your permanent banning.

Skylla

Link to comment
Ha! You aren't about to give someone with whom you disagree any credit for rational thought, are you?...

It's hard to give credit to someone for rational thought, when they start arguing with me about gay-marriage dogma. I mean, you are the one that claimed that I was trying to prevent gay people from calling their unions, "Marriages." Perhaps you could expand on that, so I can see your line of thought there. Otherwise, I'm not going to give much credit.

Ah, I see your confusion now. You see, in English, the use of the word "instead" serves that very purpose, quite the opposite of the "also" you seem to have incorrectly added in your mind.

Actually, the word and was the synonym for also. I wasn't looking at instead so much. The fact remains, your suggestion that I might concentrate on promoting a monstrous government is non sequitur. There is nothing in the obviously true claim that the gov't shouldn't adopt obviously false dogmas that would suggest I would also (or instead) want a monstrous, oppressive gov't.

Furthermore...

Here's your wording:

Then why do you waste your efforts trying to stop a lesbian couple from calling their committed relationship a "marriage," and concentrate instead on creating laws that take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples?

Here is how it should have been worded:

Instead of wasting efforts trying to stop lesbians from calling their union, "a marriage," why don't you concentrate on creating laws take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples?

See the difference? If you put "Then why do you waste your efforts" in the first clause, then the clause after the and appears to be an extension of that: "Then why do you waste your efforts... concentrating instead on creating laws that take their children away and give them to acceptable mixed-gender couples?" See how it's not very clear?

Sorry to get into this, but I took 3 college grammar courses. Seriously. Sadly but seriously. Still, I know what you meant, and my response was still appropriate, although kind of mocking, mostly in jest.

Link to comment
The basis for the Constitution is largely statements like Jefferson's in the Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights."
That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, it is other related statements in the Declaration of Independence such as the one that immediately follows, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The Constitution was built on the premise that Nature's God (as the founding fathers tended to describe the concept) was above the government.
Above, perhaps in some philosophical sense. Although a better analogy might be, that God, whatever the individual might conceive Him or It to be, is not involved in governmental decisions, but only in individual, personal ones; hence the idea of the separation of Church and state and the then novel idea of a nation without an official state sponsored religion.
It is the gov'ts job to protect the rights of people that can't be taken away by man, implying that"Nature's God" is above the government. So when nature or God take a life, that comes from a higher source than government. For someone who talks down to me, as if I have no idea what I'm talking about, you're pretty poorly educated on this stuff. Anyone who has listened to at least one or two Constitutional scholars knows about this stuff.
Actually, I have not only listened to, but read the intentions of the founding fathers and those who helped to formulate the Constitution. I'm not so poorly educated on the matter as you imagine. I'm simply don't read into the Constitution my personal religious beliefs which you apparently do, perhaps as a result of indoctrination you have received at the hands of the "Constitutional Scholars" you may have been listening to.
But we're not talking about rights. We're talking about policies that are for the greater good. There is a big difference between a right and a good.
When people start talking about Government acting for the greater good, I start looking for people justifying the infringement of rights in the name of their personal religious and political agendas--both the left and the right are equally guilty in their own causes.
LOL Really? So the state shouldn't let the President fly Air Force One, because that shows favoritism to the President? Really?
Abuses of the privileges that come with the office aside, it is one thing for the law to be impartial, it is another thing altogether to provide secure transportation for heads of state whose lives are routinely threatened.
The state shouldn't send murderers to prison, because that shows favoritism to people that don't murder? LOL Yeah, you know all about making laws and government stuff. Genius.
Murderers are guilty of violating the rights of others. It is not favoritism to remove individuals who have been duly convicted of crimes from the rest of society.
I never said it was about DNA. You're correct that it's about bonding and motivation. Your claim is simply downplaying the fact that biological parents are proven to be more committed to their children than step or adoptive parents. It's just a fact. I know liberals and atheists hate facts, whenever it gets in the way of their political ambition, but it's just a reality. The studies show that even adoptive mothers (and women are statistically more nurturing), are less sensitive to their adopted offspring than biological mothers, past a certain age.
And you're downplaying the fact that responsible adoptive and step parents are better parents to their children then biological parents who are physically, psychologically, and sexually abusive or simply absent due to immaturity, or being convicted of crimes, or being addicts. I know religious conservatives hate facts, whenever they get in their way of their religious and political goals and ideals, but it's just a reality. Studies show that biological relationships do not make up for psychological, physical, or sexual abuse or neglect, regardless of age.
It's easy for an adoptive mother to bond with an infant. Infants don't rebel or talk back. But once a child develops a personality, adoptive parents might have thoughts like, "This frustrating behavior is not my fault anyway! They inherited from their biological parents!"
As if biological parents never have similar thoughts that they don't blame on the other parent! Whatever!
I agree with the equal protection part. But treatment? Again, "Mr. President, you can't fly Air Force One, because no one else can. It's preferential treatment. Illegal!"
Again, we're not talking about the accommodations made for people in the course of their duties as public servants/employees; we're talking about equal treatment under the law for individual citizens in forming legally recognized contracts between consenting adults.
Man, my ribs hurt. Yeah, they're exactly the same. Just keep telling yourself that. Don't ya' HATE reality? You really have to be a drone to accept that a gay union is the same as a real marriage.
No you don't. You simply have to be more intelligent than a religiously indoctrinated half-wit to realize that marriages can be defined as something other than the civil union of a heterosexual couple.
I've talked to the intellectual elites about this, and while they are happy to have drones follow their lead, they admit that their are relevant differences between gay unions and a marriage. Intellectual elites, being lawyers and such, people that have a real grasp on logic and know when to back down from a fight they can't possibly win.
Ah, you are referring to people who are your intellectual betters. I am quite comfortable holding my own with such and would challenge any of them to match wits with me on the matter.
Do you REALLY want to debate whether it's relevant to be able to reproduce naturally, to be missing one or both biological parents and to be missing one gender? Seriously?
Certainly.
This really is a fight you can't possibly win, but if you want to argue how your obviously false dogma is correct, feel free to make yourself look like a fool. In fact, we've had this debate on this message board before, and the gay-marriage dogma side lost. Badly. Embarrassingly. Don't embarrass yourself. It's boring to win an argument by such a wide margin, so I have no interest in doing so again. But I will if I have to.
Keep deluding yourself on the matter. I admit it is nominally entertaining to watch you go on like this, imagining in your mind that you've won any kind of argument or embarrassed those who are opposed to such religious bigotry against homosexuals.
The law doesn't specify sexual orientation. It only specifies gender. Any two people of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation, can get married.
Oh please spare me the disingenuous rhetorical platitude.
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...