Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:09:28 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Dan wrote:
Sue wrote:
On 26 Feb 2009 16:04:28 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
<CurlySurmudgeon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:16:32 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:44:21 -0500, Zarian wrote:

Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd suggest his agenda is more coherent and his "sincerity" in
his outbursts somewhat less so... a drearily ordinary usenet
troll.

Dhu


The USA is in trouble. High crime, fiscal irresponsibility.


All the while somoe of them were concerned about "Gay Marriage". The "slippery slide" about "marrying your dog or goat".

Fear mongering that we heard here for about a year, from the
wackiest of religious nut cases.

Canada's Constitution says that gay people are equals. We allow
them to be married.

Yet, Canada has fewer of the nonsense. Our Heterosexual
marriages last longer, we have fewer domestic murders; and
marrying an animal is
not legal because it's called "willful consent". And, yes. A
woman can marry a woman, a man can marry a man.

As far as I know, there has been no instance of homosexuals being
married who have destroyed the sanctity of a heterosexual
marriage.
Yeah, some day the knuckle-draggers in the USA will figure that
out...


The knuckle draggers know something you don't.

Destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage refers to the 1)
logical fallacy of same-sex unions and 2) presenting and supporting
conflicting values, with a resulting moral decline.
Straw man, how has your, or my, hetrosexual marriage been "destroyed"
by giving homosexuals equal rights?
I sure am waiting for the answer to that one. I've been waiting for a
long time. That is such an incredibly idiotic reason to disallow gays
to marry.
Sue - Waiting for the inevitable.

You don't understand "logical fallacy of same-sex unions" or
"conflicting values...resulting in moral decline"?

Not in this context, no. Explain it to me.

You're a parent. You're supposed to act like parent.

And I have. My daughter is tolerant, protective and helpful of the infirm, elderly and minorities. She is a whole, integrated, being.

Get in line. I've been waiting almost 30 years for the answer to the
question: "What extra rights do gays have?"


That sounds like Gunner arguing that Bush's infamous Patriot Act does
not infringe on individual rights. But then you and Gunner are trapped
in a 'left'/'right' box.


You own an apartment building. You don't want to rent to musicians. You
find that their friends and practicing tend to be noisy. And they miss
payments. So you don't rent to musicians.

I suspect the same percentage of homosexuals are musicians as hetrosexuals, unless you have significantly different data otherwise. How is this metaphor applicable?

You own an apartment building. You don't want to rent to homosexuals.
You find that they have a lot of domestic disputes and lots of parties.
And then there is the disease thing. So you don't rent to homosexuals.

I agree, owners should have the right to be bigots.

The musicians go on their way and happily find a place which caters to
them.

Worthless metaphor.

The homosexuals report you to Big Brother. The government prosecutes,
fines you and forces you to rent to homosexuals.

I agree, again, that owners should have the right to be bigots.


*Do* have the right.

>
Then the homosexuals bring a civil case and win forcing you to sell your
building.

The concept of private property no longer exists to the federal
government. The coming 'remedy' to the gun show "loophole" will
demonstrate that.

There are many examples involving discrimination and 'hate crimes' which
places the non-homosexual in legal limbo.

Privilege. Special rights. Extra rights. Government prejudice. Otherwise
known as Socialism.

Your seque into ownership does not explain how homosexuals "destroy" my marriage.



At issue is same-sex marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality
as a normal behavior and not the mere existence of homosexual thought.

I said "Destroying the *sanctity* of heterosexual marriage",
not any particular marriage since the relative success or failure
of all marriages is effected by the beliefs and practices of
previous generations.

As it fits within the American framework...

....the sanctity of marriage is the preservation of certain goals,
expectations and values associated with structuring and maintaining
a monogamous heterosexual household in order to ensure a stable
society and the continuance of individual freedom, liberty and
inherent rights.

In the modern era this package of values and goals has been
described as Christian, but it is the practices within a relationship
that is essential to success, not belief in Christianity. This allows
room for individual variation but a belief by the greater society in a
creator force IS necessary to pass the package along to succeeding
generations.

By applying heterosexual values, can 'gays' accomplish the same
as parents?

No, I do not see that homosexuals can pull this off. *The distortion
of role models*, the *interpersonal and extra-familial social dynamics*,
the *sexual attraction-orientation* of homosexuals, preclude the
possibility of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality.

That some claim success is anecdotal and should be suspect though
I'm sure a child here and there manages to develop properly into
the next procreating generation in spite of the odds.

By rejecting the heterosexual formula one puts society and individuals
at risk through intergenerational downgrading or discounting of
marriage as a serious and necessary social function. Instead,
marriage is treated as a "right" to be enjoined by anyone for the
purpose of self-serving gratification.

Given your value system I suspect you may not have instilled
heterosexual values in your daughter so she will treat her offspring
accordingly. Bit by bit, generation by generation (though it'll
only take three), the tried and true is perverted and tossed away
leaving a valueless hulk that masquerades as marriage.

Moral Relativism and the Next Generation

Your granddaughter for example may find normalcy in *marrying* a goat
or some other bacchanalian or fertility symbol as as social function,
and be impregnated from among a group of pre-approved mates (donors)
- a standard animistic model which historically appealed to the Roman
Confusion.

In the modern world the state will support this breeding endeavor but
take the child in its third year and assign it to a nursery for
beginning indoctrination, per Huxley.

As a forecast, if atheism dominates, there will be a rejection of modern
religions to be replaced by the formation of occupational and fertility
cults. These cults will be sanctified by the corporate state. The
Pope, then the chief cult leader, will be happy and everyone will think
themselves quite normal.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"
    ... All the while somoe of them were concerned about "Gay Marriage". ... there has been no instance of homosexuals ... "destroyed" by giving homosexuals equal rights? ... possibility of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"
    ... there has been no instance of homosexuals being ... Destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage refers to the 1) ... "What extra rights do gays have?" ... possibility of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"
    ... All the while somoe of them were concerned about "Gay Marriage". ... there has been no instance of homosexuals being ... "What extra rights do gays have?" ... You don't want to rent to musicians. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: OT: Hysterical - and not in a good way
    ... be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. ... of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive ... Spouses have rights to community property. ... Gay sex is just sex, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Which Monkey Did You Come From?
    ... I still await an answer: What rights that are currently extended to ... Marriage is impossible for homosexuals. ... "More importantly, what is inherent in a male-female couple that should grant them these privileges, that is not inherent in a male-male or female-female couple?" ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading