Re: OT: Hysterical - and not in a good way

On 2008-05-24, Nashton <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-05-24, Nashton <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-05-23, Nashton <nana@xxxxx> wrote:
noctiluca wrote:
The sometimes rational (if not right) but often loopy Dennis Prager
has an article at WND (weapons of nutty dissemination) that takes the
slippery slope argument to new depths of mud-slicked inanity. He is
upset with the recent California ruling on gay marriage and, after
looking into his crystal ball, shares his vision of the future with
us.


From the article:
--------------------------------
"If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The
California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing
with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we
can only begin to imagine.

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged
from imagining one day marrying their prince charming ? to do so would
be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they
will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not
be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little
girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one
day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young
people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to
the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed
from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more
of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive
homosexuality. Much of humanity ? especially females ? can enjoy
homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human
sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction ? until now,
accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a
bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be
extirpated from society.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as
hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man
putting a ring on a man's finger ? if they show only women fingers,
they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be
now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as
antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people
smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians ? i.e. those who believe in a divine
Scripture ? will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in
Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow
a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it ? a
man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be
morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate
crime."
--------------------------------

Damn! There goes my dream of owning an engagement ring store.

RLC

Could you elaborate on the reasons that you find this hysterical?
Given your past performance here, I find it not surprising that you
think it is the very apex of moderation.
Translation: Let's discredit by character assassination.

I don't need to assassinate your character. It commited suicide a long,
long time ago.


LOL. So Mark, tell us more about your conspiracy theory as to how sex is
akin to mind control drug? Who just committed character suicide here?

I'm curious: what planet are you transmitting from? Here on Earth, sex
is a powerful motivator and strongly influences people's behavior. Perhaps
it is different wherever you are transmitting from.

It is, however, a brilliant
example of hysterical homophobia.
Merely stating this doesn't make it true. It's just your opinion. Is
the author not entitled to his? Can you carry a conversation based
on arguments, for a change, instead of baseless accusations and
characterizations?

Sure. But as you've amply demonstrated, you aren't interested in
actually discussing anything, so you'll have to nominate someone as
ignorant as yourself to serve as your proxy. Let me know when you've
located one. I'm prepared for it to take a while.

You are not interested in discussion. You're merely interested in
provocation, spewing venom and hatred and lies. You really ought to find
other interests. You've made an art form out of lashing out at others.
So Mark, tell us more about your conspiracy theory as to how sex is akin
to mind control drug? Who just committed character suicide here?

I'll clarify for you: it was you who did. Feel better?

Here's the thing: marriage, whatever religious meaning people think it
has, is ultimately a legal construct. By virtue of my being married, my
wife and I have joint property, we can make certain decisions for one
another should we become ill, we can get cheaper health insurance, and
a number of other legal privileges that we would not enjoy were we not
married.
You also enjoy what is commonly known as the "marriage penalty" for
income tax purposes, unless you're an elderly couple in Canada where you
can use income splitting.

So, why are you denying the rights of gay people to pay more taxes? Why
shouldn't they pay the same as the rest of us poor overburdened heterosexual
people?

More contradictions: According to your original response, there are
tangible benefits to getting married.

Of course there are. There are also costs. Why are you denying gay people
the right to share the costs?

I'm not denying them either the privileges or the costs. I'm leaving it
up to them. Whatever the costs, some gay couples are wanting to pay the
costs to receive the benefits. Who are you to deny them?

Now you turn around and declare
that paying more taxes is a privilege. Can it get any funnier than this?

I said no such thing.

And humor is another thing that you are not endowed with in abundance.

I'm still waiting for you to enumerate the myriad of financial benefits
marriage confers to people. Shall I hold my breath? ;)

Sure. Until you pass out. That would be best, in that it would keep you
from saying something more foolish than you already have.

Gay people don't enjoy these privileges. That's just wrong. It's unfair.
Can you enumerate the "privileges" that married couples enjoy above and
beyond simple civil union couples or privileged partnerships?

I already did. And marriage is a civil union. It's stupid to create a
separate but equal system just to placate religious conservatives.

You wouldn't have to create it, it's already there. Many countries
accept the notion of privileged partnerships and civil unions that
confer the same rights to gay couples.

Well, ignoring other countries (the original article was after all about
the U.S) currently there are civil unions in Vermont, California, Connecticut
New Jersey, New Hamsphire and Oregon. The vast majority of states have no
such legislation. It should also be noted that while being married in
one state conveyes recognition in other states, these civil unions are
NOT in recognized in states where they were not performed. This itself
means that civil unions are not the equivalent of being married.

All the rest is just pure homophobia. Gay people aren't going to make
your heterosexual children gay. Get real. Gay sex is just sex, it's not
any more of a mind control drug than regular sex is.
You were doing alright up until now. How is reproduction in any way
functionally and operationally equivalent to a mind control drug?

You obviously have not been having *good* sex. I'm not surprised.

LOL


What kind of nonsense is this and how do you expect to be taken
seriously when you make such idiotic and childish claims?

Don't take me seriously. What do I care what you think? You're an
hateful, spiteful imbecile.

I don't think anybody can take an individual that declares that sex is
some kind of mind control drug. And really, if you didn't care what I
thought, Mark, you would be ignoring me. Which you are not.

Just keep telling yourself that.

As for sexual confusion,
sex _is_ confusing. It would be surprising if it weren't. The way that you
resolve confusion is by learning, and you don't learn by sticking your
fingers in your ears saying "lalala! gay people don't exist! lalala!".
Can you elaborate further on what criteria you employ in order to
declare an individual as being "gay" or "queer" and which physiological
differences are characteristic of this category of people, as opposed to
people whom naturally prefer intimate relationships with members of the
opposite sex? Notice that I'm refraining from characterizing people as
gay or heteros.

Don't care. People will self identify themselves however they like. I'm
perfectly happy to accept their own characterization, since I don't care
what they do in their own homes, or who they do it with.

More proof that your opinion on the matter was not formed by knowing the
facts. The state and society in general *do* care what people do in
their bedrooms and *should* care and have actually created laws that
govern this behavior. This is what prevents people from having sex with
minors or engaging in incest.

So, being gay is having sex with minors? It's incest?

No homophobia here, no sireee bob.

Do you think these are also not of your concern, Mark and that people
should do whatever they please in their "bedrooms?"

Oh, and sorry to say, but I think the Catholic Church has lost considerable
moral high ground on telling people what's best for children.
When did the RC church enter the discussion?

When the original author mentioned them. You did actually *read* what
you were responding to, didn't you?

Contrary to you, Mark, I read and try my best to respond with arguments,
instead of spewing venom and insults. But you're not a man, Mark, you're
a little yellow coward that excels in ad homs. It doesn't make up for
the fact that you can't come up with any arguments, other than "you're
an imbecile."

Whether I argue to your satisfaction or not, you are still an imbecile.

Honestly, heterosexual people make up the vast majority of the population.
You'd think they were going extinct. This missive is just another example
of the whining of a persecuted majority.
I agree that the rights of minorities should not be voted upon by
majorities. I would really like to know what your views are on the issue.

Minorities and majorities don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

LOL

Perhaps a review of the Bill of Rights would be useful for you.

I believe that it would have been preferable to refrain from calling
such unions marriages.

Civil ceremonies have been called marriages for a long, long time. That
some people get their panties all in a bunch because *certain* ceremonies
occur between *gasp* same sex couples is something that they can deal with
themselves.

LOL

This is your thoughtful response?

Civil unions or preferred partnerships which are
recognized in many countries would have conferred the same rights and
privileges to these couples, without evoking the notion of sacred
matrimony which is fundamentally religious in nature from time immemorial.

Ah, yes, the sacred institution which ends in divorce 50% of the time.


You can't go around accusing a specific religious group of shoving
morals down people's throats and at the same time, try to use the
definitions used by the same groups you decry to characterize and define
relationships in your revised morality.

Sure I can. As a matter of fact, that's just what I did.

You did more than that. You proved your inability to think on your feet,
Mark ,for the umpteenth time;)

So let's resume:


Mark resorts to insults because he can't back up his assertion that
there are actually no privileges, financial or otherwise that are an
advantage of marriage.

I didn't assert this. In fact, I asserted the exact opposite. There are
benefits and costs to marriage, benefits and costs which are denies unfairly
to gay couples.

Mark believes that paying more taxes is actually a privilege. (I really
enjoyed that one!).

I didn't assert this either. I wondered why you are such a friend of
gay people that you want them to avoid paying taxes. Why do you hate
heterosexual couples?

Mark believes that minorities have no rights.

They don't. The Bill of Rights grants rights to individuals. Groups do
not.

Mark doesn't care what I think, but responds to every one of my posts in
detail, just the same.

The vast majority of your posts are ignorant one liners (indeed, the one
I responded to was just one such ignorant one liners) which are unworthy
of comment. In this particular case, the original article was such an
over the top case of homophobia that I was shocked to find that it had
a supporter.

I shouldn't have been surprised.

Mark believes that I committed character suicide

Shall we put it to a vote?

yet declared that sex
is nothing more than a some kind of mind altering drug and that it
doesn't matter whether it's gay sex or heterosexual sex.

I didn't say it was "nothing more". That you cannot reason out the point
I was making is a failing of yours, not mine.

Furthermore, he
backed out of trying to prove what he stated concerning the financial
advantages of marriage.

It's well known and understood what the benefits of marriage are, both
financial and otherwise.

The hell with groups in society who are offended, because Mark cannot
see the value of accommodating other people's sensitivities because
their world view doesn't coincide with his own.

Denial of marriage rights is also saying to hell with other people's
sensitivities whose world view doesn't coincide with yours.

There is no reason to continue this discussion Mark.

Well, admittedly, it would be hard to make you look more foolish than you
look when you just keep yammering on your own, but I reserve the right
to try.

I have better things to do than trying to discuss with fools.

I bet that you really don't.

Since you don't care what I say or think, I'm sure you won't respond
to this post;)

So, I should conclude by this response that you care what _I_ think?

Mark

.

Relevant Pages
Loading