Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"
- From: Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2009 22:20:13 GMT
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:28:49 -0500, Strabo wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:09:28 -0500, Strabo wrote:*Do* have the right.
Dan wrote:
Sue wrote:You don't understand "logical fallacy of same-sex unions" or
On 26 Feb 2009 16:04:28 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
<CurlySurmudgeon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:16:32 -0500, Strabo wrote:I sure am waiting for the answer to that one. I've been waiting for
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:Straw man, how has your, or my, hetrosexual marriage been
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:44:21 -0500, Zarian wrote:The knuckle draggers know something you don't.
Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yeah, some day the knuckle-draggers in the USA will figure that
I'd suggest his agenda is more coherent and his "sincerity" inThe USA is in trouble. High crime, fiscal irresponsibility.
his outbursts somewhat less so... a drearily ordinary usenet
troll.
Dhu
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.
out...
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.
"destroyed" by giving homosexuals equal rights?
a long time. That is such an incredibly idiotic reason to disallow
gays to marry.
Sue - Waiting for the inevitable.
"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 theThat sounds like Gunner arguing that Bush's infamous Patriot Act does
question: "What extra rights do gays have?"
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.
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.
That's probably the core of our disagreement. You see this as a
homosexual issue, I see it as a human rights issue.
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.
Agreed, my bad. Recollection is sometimes colored with perception. My
disagreement is that there should be any sanctity of hetrosexual marriage
that is denied homosexuals.
As it fits within the American framework...
Doesn't work, this is an interconnected world and some states have
already 'sanctified' homosexual marriage.
...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.
The same argument was used to keep blacks enslaved.
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.
Superstition is not a basis for evading "all men are created equal."
By applying heterosexual values, can 'gays' accomplish the same as
parents?
We are not speaking of "values" but equality.
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.
The solution is to abolish marriage as a legal institution. I'm fine
with that. Let consenting adults effect their commitments through true
legal contract rather than by shamen encumbering society with contracts
to enforce.
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.
No one "instills hetrosexual values" in anyone. Orientation is innate.
What I have instilled in my daughter is tolerance and acceptance of
others even if they have a different value system. I do not buy into the
paradigm that American, or christians, are superior.
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.
Don't degenerate into the ridiculous.
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.
Allowing, no _nurturing_, a child to develop their selves into whole,
integrated, reasoning adults should be the goal, not indoctrination into
any of the infinite belief systems available. I taught my child the
tools of reason, how to make choices based upon extrapolation of effects
and events, consequences, not to necessarily follow mine.
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.
Rejecting religion can only be a very good thing for society as a whole.
In fact I can make the argument that atheists are morally superior to
religionists for we do good works our of the kindness and goodness of our
hearts, not because a cosmic muffin will torture us eternally.
I see no "sanctity" in "marriage." Marriage is simple the formal
declaration of a commitment between consensual adults. Religious
trappings have clouded the fundamental tenant with pomp and guilt.
Homosexuals deserve the same legal protections as anyone else. I don't
care if you, or religionists, keep "marriage" with all the ornamentation
as long as _legal_ rights are consistent across the board. Either give
everyone the same rights as "marriage" or remove legal rights from
"marriage." Doesn't matter which to me as long as all are given equal
treatment.
While we disagree, perhaps deeply, on the topic I laud you for being
forthright and mostly avoiding typical use(less)net character
assassination.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$8,800,000,000,000.00, Angry Yet?
Arrest Bush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Next by Date: Re: An eye for an eye. How Biblical.
- Next by thread: Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
