Stop the Debate: Liberals Got the Decision They Like
June 1st, 2008 at 02:07pm Mark Noonan
Anna Quindlen demonstrates the rank arrogance of liberalism:
Scream, shout, jump up and down. No matter. The gay-marriage issue is over and done with. The upshot: love won.
Yep, we who feel otherwise might just as well pack it in - “love won”…and the kids, at any rate, are more in favor of gay marriage than adults, and their views not only won’t change to opposition, but will only become more pro-gay marriage as time goes on…so, might as well send that letter off to the Pope and get him to decree that 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian history are worthless…a tiny minority wants to do something strange, and not only do we have to allow it, we have to call it good. Just as in matters of abortion and global warming, the liberals have got the answer they want, and the answer is not even up for debate any more.
Pardon us for not rolling over and playing dead…I think we’ll have a vote in November in California which might come out a little different from the liberal’s preferred answer…and as the State of New York is being forced illegally by the governor of New York to recognise gay marriage, all we’re really doing is setting the stage for the one thing liberals really don’t want, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If that is the only way we can protect marriage and say, “thus far, and no further” to an arrogant liberalism which seeks to ride roughshod over us, then that is what we will do. We are a nation of laws, not men; we are a constitutional republic, not a parlaimentary democracy…we will be America, not Europe, thanks very much.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
91 Comments
1. neocon | June 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Isn’t this always the case? Shut down debate and restrict free speech once the liberals get what they want.
Wonderful example of freedom of speech and welcoming diversity of opinion.
2. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
If America continues to take the attitude that it’s “no big deal” then yes, liberal will continue to force their demon-possession on America…it’s happening everywhere as we speak, New York is considering the prospects of legalizing homosexual “marriage”…..California has already done it, Massachusetts has already legalized it…Bill Ritter in Colorado has signed into law that homosexuals and trangendered sodomites can enter womens’ bathrooms…
It’s time for America to wake up and wage war on Liberals…….There is no peaceful solution, they have the mindset of Terrorists.
3. jayhay | June 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The Constitution says we’re all equal. That’s just all there is to it.
4. jerry | June 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I think you are right liberals like myself like to end the debate when our side wins. Clearly, this debate won’t end here with this court decision. I am sure some ballot initiative will be voted on this November. I think traditionalists still out number the pro-gay marriage crowd, but that will not last. Give it ten years and it will swing the other way at least in places like California. Remember marriage between whites and blacks was disordered not that long ago.
5. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Jayhay,
If our equality is the primary reason to allow gay marriage, then there is no justification for any restrictions on anyone marrying anyone for any reason whatsoever. What you mean, though you don’t understand it, is that we are all entitled to the equal protection of the laws - but this doesn’t mean we’re entitled to have the laws reflect our least whim.
6. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
jerry,
If what you mean by “disordered” is the theological meaning, then you are incorrect - interracial marriage has never been considered disordered…it was, for the longest time, considered socially unacceptable (and this, dear friends, wasn’t because white men wanted it that way, but because white women insisted upon it…the past is filled with things liberals would never suspect were there); the laws which were made barring interracial marriage were made in the 19th century, and were rightly overturned as being clearly in violation of both the letter and spirit of the constitution…but the reason for such overturning is that a marriage between, say, a black man and a white woman in no way changes marriage or its purpose - the marriage of a man with a man does.
7. liberalDream | June 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
mark - a simple question to you. So what if it changes the purpose of marriage? So flipping what! Look - like it or not gays are going to continue to have sex with each other, etc. Giving them the abilty to legal marry will change none of this. I know I know you some how claim that this will cause the end of civilization - give me a break. They are going to continue to do live like this regardless if you give them the legal statue or not.
All I want is one real (with evidence) reason how it will effect anything if you give them the legal status. Not your rediculous argument about jesus this and your dad that…
8. jayhay | June 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Mark says: “If our equality is the primary reason to allow gay marriage, then there is no justification for any restrictions on anyone marrying anyone for any reason whatsoever.” Yes, that’s pretty much it. Who you marry is none of my business, and none of our government’s business.
I sense you’re heading for a “slippery slope” argument, but that’s just playing games with a fundamental issue of decency, privacy, respect, and individual rights. Who someone chooses to be their partner is their personal choice - it really is none of your business.
And I wish Jeremiah would just start his Righteous War On People He Disagrees With… Good luck with that, and be sure to let us know when it starts.
9. bongoman | June 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Not if Jeremiah has his way - they would be rounded up and hanged. Society would be cleansed from the menace of people engaging in consensual, private behaviour.
10. liberalDream | June 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
well Mark…
“then there is no justification for any restrictions on anyone marrying anyone for any reason whatsoever.”
as long as it is between to consenting adults - yes! why should there be restrictions based on your particular set of religious beliefs?
11. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
liberaldream and JayHay,
I’ll answer you together:
If you have no objection to anyone marrying anyone else, then you also have no objection to anyone having sexual relations with anyone else - and this includes sex between close family relations and adults and children. Naturally you will object that you don’t really mean anything like that, but there’s no way for you go get ’round that - you either have to accept that there are various restrictions we place on marriage and sexual relations, or you don’t…and if you do, then you cannot say “because we are equal, gay marriage must be permitted”. You must, then, demonstrate that gay marriage is not outside what we mean when we say “marriage” - alternately, you can accept that what you are advocating is not marriage at all, but you wish to call it such for whatever reasons you present. You’re not going to do the latter, of course, because it would entirely undermine your position.
So, we’re left with marriage, and your insistence that same-sex relations are proper within that institution. I first present what marriage isn’t for:
1. Tax breaks.
2. Property control/inheritence.
3. Love.
4. Personal happiness.
We can have valid marriage if there are no taxes to be paid; we can have valid marriage if there is no property involved; we can have valid marriage if neither party loves the other; we can have valid marriage without either party being personally happy about it. I’ll now state what marriage must have in order to be valid - meaning within the usages necessary for our Judeo-Christian civilization:
1. Two people who are sexually compatible, open to having children and firmly committed to one another and to any children resultant from the sexual relations wihtin the marriage.
If you can fit two men or two women into that, then you’ll have an argument for gay marriage - meanwhile, I have other arguments against it:
1. By making a marriage out of what isn’t, it cheapens the whole concept of marriage, as we’ve seein placed like Holland, where the marriage rate has rapidly gone down since gay marriage became legal.
2. By allowing gay marriage we put society’s imprimature upon homosexual relations as if they were morally the same as heterosexual relations.
3. By allowing gay marriage we undermine the right of Christian parents to instruct their children that homosexual relations are inherently disordered.
4. By allowing gay marriage we open up the floodgates for all manner of things people may choose to call marriage, but are not - incestuous unions; polygamyst unions; etc, etc, etc.
So, I can say what marriage does not require, I can say what it requires and I can bring forth reasons for opposing gay marriage…all you’ve got is an emotion appeal. You want it to be, but you can’t think of one valid reason for allowing the union of same sex couples to be called a marriage.
12. Phil N. De Blachs | June 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the CA Supreme Court judges that voted in favor of gay marriage are Republicans and strict constitutionalists.
They looked at the Constitution and saw that under strict interpretation, no person in a free country can be denied the right to marry the person of his/her choice.
Moreover, the Republican governor is okay with the decision.
It was Republicans that allowed gays to marry in CA. What do you have to say to that?
13. liberalDream | June 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
to summarize your argument against gay marriage is that (to summarize your 4 points:
(1) it would somehow ‘cheapen’ straight marriages? I’m sorry Mark but if two random guys you don’t know somehow cheapens your marriage then its YOUR problem not theirs!
(2)it doesn’t agree with your religious views
(3)it doesn’t agree with your religious views
(4) if we allow that we have to allow incest and polygamy
that is probably the weakest most pathetic thing you have ever said - and you my friend have said a lot of weak and pathetic things… 2 and 3 we can throw out because as you well know the laws of this country are not based on your religious views.
1 is just strange. I don’t know what to say to you and your poor wife if some random guys getting married cheapens your mairage. I would submit that your marrage isn’t worth a dime if two guys getting maried changes anything in your married life.
4 is so stupid i shouldn’t even respond and just show what a complete and utter bigot you are that you would equate incest with homosexuality…
14. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
liberaldream,
Really, you got nothing except to call me a bigot…which shows that you are entirely based on emotion here and just want people to think you’re “cool”. And, also, it is you who equate homosexuality with incest - I clearly differentiate between them and wouldn’t dream of saying that all sexual relations are ok and none of our business…
15. jayhay | June 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Mark - Wow, lot of sound & fury for sure, but still signifying nothing. All your arguments are based on your opinions, as if that’s what this is based on. It’s a Constitutional issue.
My favorite part of your treatise? That marriage is not for “Love” or “Personal happiness”. Oh really? ‘Cause that just sounds sad. But hey, you have the right to your opinion, and your own concept of marriage, no matter how bleak it sounds to me.
Sorry, but your definitions are yours, not mine. This is about equality, even for you.
16. Tractatus | June 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the CA Supreme Court judges that voted in favor of gay marriage are Republicans and strict constitutionalists.
They looked at the Constitution and saw that under strict interpretation, no person in a free country can be denied the right to marry the person of his/her choice.
You are correct.
But what makes them “activist judges” is that they handed down a decision that the wingnuts don’t like. “Activist judge!” is just the mewling of a right-winger who disagrees with a decision. They call it “judicial activism” because they think it sound more sophisticated that way.
I did love this one from Noonan, though:
3. By allowing gay marriage we undermine the right of Christian parents to instruct their children that homosexual relations are inherently disordered.
“Gay marriage is bad because it undercuts our anti-gay bigotry that we want to enforce yet pretend we don’t have!”
And that’s not even getting into the huge logical fallacies contained in that stupid statement of his.
17. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Phil,
A) Republicans can get it wrong
B) You don’t know what “strict constructionist” means.
18. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
jayhay,
As I said, if it is about equality, alone, as you state then you are also arguing in favor of incestuous and polygamyst unions - which is fine; you are entitled to your opinion, but for you to fail to make clear exactly what you want to happen is dishonest on your part.
On the other hand, you can admit you’re a fool for ever saying it was only about equality…
19. Dennis | June 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Mark, oce again you speak of “2,000 years of “Judeo-Christian history” as if such a thing is a given.
Not to belabor the point but Judaism and Christianity are distinctly separate realities. Judaism is much older than 2000 years. Jesus Christ, the rock and foundation of Christianity, spent his entire ministry distinguishing his teachings from those of the scribes and Pharisees, masters of Judaism. As the Gospels tell it they were his continual adversaries, seeking to entrap and confound him at every turn. He called them hypocrites, whited sepulchres, a generation of vipers - and they likewise rejected his teachings. Yet you insist on entwining Judaism around Christianity as if they were part and parcel of each other.
20. liberalDream | June 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
um - no Mark - i have a lot more than to call you a bigot. What I pointed out is
(1) your points are all nonsense either based on your religious beliefs, your strange personal married life (apparently to guys getting married affects your marriage) , or some ridiculous slippery slope argument
(2) there is simply no constitutional reason to not allow same sex marriage. Indeed - it is explicitly allowed given the equal rights for all (note there is a difference between having equal rights to all and saying that you can marry your sister - you bonehead)
(3) although you claim that you distinguish between incest and homosexuality you also explicitly state that this opens the doors to incest..
No mark - it is you who has been emberassed yet again and been shown to be a complete and utter moron
21. jayhay | June 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Now that you have revealed to me that I am a fool, I’m am convinced of your absolute rightness in all things!!
Onward, 101st Fighting Keyboards!
22. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Dennis,
It is a given; we are in Judeo-Christian civilization and we work within that framework…unless you want a revolutionary overthrow of our way of life, in which case honesty would require you to state that up front.
23. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
jayhay,
No, you revealed that all on your own - I’d take credit for it, if I could, but liberals always beat me to the punch on that…
24. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
liberal,
Once again, you’ve got nothing - you can’t controvert anything I say, but you won’t listen to another argument due to the intellectual incuriosity which is hallmark of liberalism…you can insult, and that is all…now, until you’ve got something to actually say, just don’t bother me anymore…
25. USA | June 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Deleted - off topic, commenter to be banned.
26. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Mark, your last point (number 4) is nothing more than the old “slippery slope” argument. Now ill humor you for a second, lets say the slippery slope argument is valid, where do we draw the line? and how does that line remain drawn? if you want to argue from that point of view then sure, lets ban the concept of marriage. a man and a woman is where the slope starts, if we really want to get rid of the slippery slope, lets just ban marriage altogether.
As for comparing gay relationships and incest, you do compare the 2 but word yourself so you can deny it, but others here have openly compared the 2. You’re good friend jerry (who you have not once told he has gone too far) has openly called for the execution of homosexuals on this site, he has said they are all sexual monsters who want to rape little kids, when you ban him or at the very least tell him he is wrong then maybe people will give you a little credit.
27. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I think traditionalists still out number the pro-gay marriage crowd
And that’s a good thing.
,but that will not last.
And if it doesn’t? That will be the end of the road for America!
Give it ten years and it will swing the other way at least in places like California.
Give it ten years, and if God’s people will commit themselves to His Word…then we will see the end of Sodomy in America. A very good thing.
Remember marriage between whites and blacks was disordered not that long ago.
And it still is…the only thing that has changed is kids are being taught lies of the first order in our colleges….pursuading them to believe that interracial marriage is “not” disordered. In turn, what you get is very uneducated law school graduates who become Supreme Court justice and legislate their sickness without the consent of the PEOPLE! Which means they need taken to the trees!!!
* * * *
The concept of marriage is not based upon law, but upon RIGHT and WRONG.
Homosexuality is a FIRST CLASS DISORDER it is a persuasion of Satan, therefore those who partake of homosexuality have swallowed lie hook line and sinker. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They are reprobates, therefore, Satan owns their body, mind, and soul.
Homosexual marriage was never included in the Constitution - for it was never intended to be included in it. And the intent of the Constitution does not permit nor protect homosexual “marriage”.
Homosexuality is wrong, therefore, it is not our basic right…because God punishes those who do it in most cases with a monster variety of diseases, diseases that kill.
Homosexuality is extremely offending to the person who has his head on straight, and walks upright.
Homosexuality should never be allowed in a society that wishes to remain at peace.
Period!
The End!
28. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
pel,
Actually, I did tell Jeremiah that I think his views on homosexuals are wrong - but we don’t censor opinion here. You are allowed to pretty much say whatever you please, whether I like it or not, as long as it is on topic, free of obscenity and doesn’t overly insult.
As for the “slippery slope”argument - it is germane. The pro-gay marriage people say it is a matter of basic equality; that to deny gay marriage is to deny a person his basic, human right to marry anyone he pleases. If this is really the position you hold, then you cannot dispute someone who wishes to marry his sister, or who wishes to have plural spouses. It is you who grease the skids on that slope, not me.
As for me, I hold that marriage is not a right, but a privilege and that is has a specific moral and social purpose, none of which are helped by gay marriage and, indeed, gay marriage may be detrimental to the moral and social purpose of marriage.
29. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
gay marriage may be detrimental to the moral and social purpose of marriage.–Mark Noonan.
To society as a whole, Mark.
30. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Mark. Well then I’m sorry, I never saw you say any such thing to him. And I have never said (ok I’ve never discussed this with you, but I’ve also never seen it said by anyone) that we should be allowed to marry whoever we want. Of course we have to draw a line.
First of all children are off bounds. We all agree thats sick.
Family are off bounds, theres not just moral but scientific reasons for that (the children).
What we on the left propose is that homosexual couples who are not family and are of a consenting age be allowed to get married.
31. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Pel,
Ok. Why should we do that?
32. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
pelirrojo,
Yes, indeed, Mark and I do disagree.
Mark is willing to accept homosexual marriage, but is willing to give the act a pass. And you see, that’s where he and I differ, when I society as a whole is willing to accept the act, then the confusion and chaos is still there. Furthermore, if you accept the act, then homosexuals have reason to plead for a “right” change the Holy institution of marriage into something defiled and disgraceful, a tremendous disgrace.
Well, once homosexual see they have duped our justice system into believing that homosexuality is “acceptable” then they ask for a position of authority to persecute Christians who disagree and disdain for the act, and who speak out against the sin, by sending them to prison…..and then the homosexuals can do as they please, by boasting their evil ways.
Now, if you remember, the United States used to have Sodomy laws, that was at a time when people had sense and brains enough to understand the harm that homosexuality does to a society…..because they feared God’s judgment if they didn’t heed what He commands of us.
Since the idea of liberalism came about, American society has come to accept a lot of things that are displeasing to God, and thus, American society is declining…
As in the days of the Apostle Paul….the day may come when Christians have to endure a lot of hardship and imprisonment for the simeple concept of worshipping God and their faith…Well, if it does, there’s one thing I know without a doubt….
God is my Anchor….And it still holds today the same as it did 3,000 years ago.
33. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jeremiah,
True, but I like to keep things focused narrowly. In politics, if you try to argue about too much, you end up arguing about nothing.
34. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Oops, sorry Mark… let me change that.
Mark is willing to reject homosexual marriage, but is willing to give the act a pass.
35. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Mark, the better question is why shouldn’t we. Why did we get rid of the old system where everyone had to agree with the king (or pope) on pain of death? because it didnt hurt anyone and it gave us more freedom. same applies in this case, a homosexual couple getting married doesn’t hurt anyone (really, theyre not going to break into a christians house and say “have gay sex with me”), and it gives more freedom.
36. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Jeremiah,
Not exactly - homosexual sex is inherently disordered, but I don’t feel that we have the authority to actively prevent consenting adults from sinning in the normal course of events (there are always extraordinary reasons, but I’m talking in the day to day). At bottom, the man who is conning people is doing a worse deed than a man having sex with another man - lies are worse than acts, all the time.
37. Pain | June 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
2. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
liberal will continue to force their demon-possession on America…it’s happening everywhere as we speak . . .
It’s time for America to wake up and wage war on Liberals…….There is no peaceful solution, they have the mindset of Terrorists.
You can actually say that and not explode? With people like Hagee, Joyce Meyer, Rod parsley, Crefilo A Dollar, Jodi Lamb, Paula White and Joel Osteen suckering people out of billions of dollars a year you call Progressives demon possessed? You insult Us Jeremiah and in doing so you make Us laugh!
So which group, Jeremiah, do you advocate doing violence to men like Governor Paterson of NY or the GLBTQ people that you hate?
38. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
lies are worse than acts, all the time.
Mark, lies are bad, but if my neighbor down the street were to have lust for a little boy down the street and just happen to sneak in while the parents were away and rape him, I would want to see him hanged, for sure.
but I don’t feel that we have the authority to actively prevent consenting adults from sinning in the normal course of events
Yes, we do, Mark, we did 70 years ago. There’s no reason we have to accept the act today.
It’s like I said, Liberal have gotten people believing lies that aren’t true, and they have accepted them hook line and sinker.
The ACLU for example, they are strong advocates for Sodomites - Therefore, they are affording protection to child molestations.
There’s nothing that says we have to accept a lie, Mark. And the lie is that the act of homosexuality is “normal” - If we hung 70 years ago, we can hang them just the same today.
If we don’t then there will be no way out of the tidal wave of depravity that will overtake this country.
39. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 1st, 2008 at 8:32 pm
36. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Unless you are seeking to install a Theocracy in the US Mr. Noonan organized religion has no authority whatsosever to prevent any sin that is not proscribed by local State or Federal law. The power of the majority organized religion in America lies in excommunication or whatever the Protestant version is ex legio.
My editorial page editor sends her regards and a response to your earlier comment via the e-mail. She sends her apologies for any past offence but does not apologize for being a lesbian.
11. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
1. By making a marriage out of what isn’t, it cheapens the whole concept of marriage, as we’ve seein placed like Holland, where the marriage rate has rapidly gone down since gay marriage became legal.
2. By allowing gay marriage we put society’s imprimature upon homosexual relations as if they were morally the same as heterosexual relations.
3. By allowing gay marriage we undermine the right of Christian parents to instruct their children that homosexual relations are inherently disordered.
4. By allowing gay marriage we open up the floodgates for all manner of things people may choose to call marriage, but are not - incestuous unions; polygamyst unions; etc, etc, etc.
1. As if all the rampant rate of divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse and sham marriages for immigration purposes don’t? So would you be willing to accept legalized drugs since drug crime is down since Holland decriminalized drug use? America, unfortunately, is not Holland.
2. Because a loving committed same sex marriage is morally better than a opposite sex marriage of convenience
3. That right is still there just as Christian parents can raise their children telling them that interracial marriage which is legal and accepted by many is still wrong in the way they see things.
4. An old saw but a fallacy as my boss Cavalor would say, “Incest can lead to a child being born with serious birth defects which in the eyes of the law is a potential burden to society. Polygamy leads to potential violent strife because of the principle of married couple being just that two people is supposed to be a part of a sharing of wealth convention with wealth meaning sex, money property and attention. The animal thing is illegal because of the factors of harm coming to an animal which cannot consent to sexual relations.”
40. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Jerry, youre still being hate filled and youre still very confused.
homosexuals are not rapists! thats the most stupid thing I have ever heard in my life. some are, yes, so are some straight people, so please stop comparing the 2. It’d be like me saying all christians are murders because a few have killed.
As for the 2nd part, you can’t point to history and say “see, they thought it was acceptable”, slavery was acceptable, before the US ever came into existance homosexuality was accepted. read a little history, in greece they openly celebrated the concept of homosexuality, spartans used to have sex with each other when they went to war (since no women were with them), romans used to do it, though not as openly as the greeks. So if you want to point to history, ill point back to ancient times and show that its very acceptable.
41. Mark Noonan | June 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Pel,
The value of freedom is not our ability to do a thing, but what thing we do. It is not worthwhile for a man to be free if he will freely choose to rob a bank - the worth of freedom is when a man chooses to give to the poor, not when a man chooses to steal, see? Given this, to increase the ability to choose is not as important as increasing the chances of the right thing being chosen. Some times these things (ability and thing chosen) go hand in hand, other times they do not - but “thing chosen” always trumps “ability to choose”.
Be that as it may, let us - for the sake of argument - say that choosing to engage in gay sex is an admirable thing to do; this still does not argue in favor of gay marriage. You are proposing change and as any conservative will tell you, we should only change in order to effect some good or to remove some injustice. In order to get me to agree to gay marriage, you will have to show that instituting it will accomplish one, or both, of these things. We don’t just change because we can, ya dig?
Now, it is my contention that the ability to marry is not a right - it is a privilege, so prohibting some person from marrying a particular person in and of itself would not be a violation of that person’s rights (in case you never saw that from me, I hold that a human right cannot require the participation of another human being - and marriage requires the participation of at least two people, so it can’t be a right). There is, then, no inherent injustice to be removed - we prohibit siblings from marrying, close relations from marrying, adults from marrying minors, people of the same sex from marrying. In all these dases, we are not violating someone’s rights, but merely making a prudential judgement about what we believe marriage should entail.
So, no removal of injustice - but how about some good thing to be obtained? We can change if we merely wish to improve things. So, we can change from being governed by monarchs to being governed by democratic assemblies because we figure that this will improve things, even if the king in question is the wisest and most just king who ever lived. In the matter of gay marriage, what improvement will be made to society as a whole and marriage in particular if we allow it? Keeping in mind that if we are not removing injustice, we must also keep a weather eye out for anything which indicates that any benefit we hope to accrue will be outweighed by any ill which will be created or aggravated by the change.
I can’t think of anything which gay marriage would do to improve marriage - I can’t see it encouraging more marriages; I can’t see that it will encourage more enduring marriages; I can’t see that it will encourage child-bearing; I can’t see that it will improve the moral tone of society. I can, on the other hand, see it cheapening the very concept of marriage, I can see it discouraging child-bearing, I can see it adversely affecting the moral tone of society.
On balance, given that no injustice is done by prohibiting gay marriage; given that gay marriage accrues no benefit to society; given that gay marriage may adversely affect society - given all this, I oppose gay marriage…and please note that I made no reference to the bible or to Church teachings on homosexuality. This is entirely an opinion based on reason - I worked it out. I can, and do, add to this the various Christian viewpoints, but none of them are necessary for me to justify an opposition to gay marriage…so that even in a pluralist, secular republic, I am on firm ground in my oppsition…
42. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
38. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Is there any ethics taught in schools in America these days? Do they still teach civics? Young man the scenario you offer is a crime because a child cannot consent to sexual congress because children have no rights save to be protected from physical harm by the law. Spend a bit of time reading the law and you will find this as a popular vein from 1215 until the present.
In 1938 in America laws were written to maintain control of one race over all other and men over women. Laws regarding sexuality were enforced as a social control because at that time society as a whole had no idea how to deal with what was always known. Homosexuality has existed since the Rise of Man it was not invented in America nor was it invented by liberals. Even in 1938 in the US sin was accepted in many jurisdictions as long as those profiting from the sin where white, male or not muscling in on anyone else’s action.
43. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 1st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
38. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
They [ACLU] are also advocates for religious groups are they wrong in this also? Buffet style Christianity stikes again. Most paedophiles are straight married Christian [read, church going]white men in the USA. Care to debate that point?
44. Tractatus | June 1st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Deleted - deliberately misquotes another commenter.
45. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Mark. you’re wrong, simply stated but true. We do not aim for freedom for the sake of some christian morality. We aim for freedom because we’ve finally boken away from tyrants (eg every king and emperor that ever existed).
But me and you do agree on one thing that may shocked you, less government intrusion. to me the current form of government is unacceptable, and one day needs to be done away with. unless someone harms another directly, we have absolutely no right to prevent them from doing that thing. again, that means sex with family members or children is unacceptable, but homosexual sex and marriage are completely acceptable and we should be ashamed that they are still not acceptable.
46. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
pelirrijo,
Indeed, the Godless pagans who hated God didn’t care what they done, they molested, fornicated, adulterated … you name it, they done it.
…..But the born-again Christian people did not patake of nor accept the Evil of Sodomy …. As God ordered many of the pagans destroyed, even those at Sodom and Gomorrah are a perfect example of how God feels about the sin, and further illustrates this in Leviticus when he set forth the moral code of the Israelites…
Leviticus 18:24-30-
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled); That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.
47. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Jerry, these empires existed before the first christians.
48. Tractatus | June 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I can’t see it encouraging more marriages
Yes, because when a large group of people, many of whom wish to get married, that previously was not allowed to get married is then allowed to get married, no new marriages occur. that makes no sense–have you even seen the footage of gay couples lining up to get marriage licenses when gay marriage bans are struck down? What do you think they’re doing? Getting a license they have no intention of using?
I can’t see that it will encourage more enduring marriages
Why not? What makes a gay marriage more volatile than a straight marriage? Do you base this statement on anything specific?
I can’t see that it will encourage child-bearing
Neither does your marriage. No kids happening there, right?
But leaving that aside, considering how many children are in orphanages, I’d say child care is a more pressing matter than child bearing.
I can’t see that it will improve the moral tone of society.
Because you don’t like gay people and think them inherently morally inferior (because your religion tells you to think that, by the way–worth nothing seeing as how you claim this is an exercise in non-religious reasoning). Fine. But this statement is a complete non-starter, really; it’s just a nebulous thing to make you feel justified in your belief. But one could just as easily say that it does improve the moral tone of society because it encourages more monogamous couples to settle down and have a family. And isn’t the family, according to you, the single most important aspect of society? So how does allowing the creation of more families “hurt” morality? Remember: No appeals to the Bible, here. This is purely a debate of secular logic.
This is entirely an opinion based on reason - I worked it out.
As demonstrated above, this is not based entirely on reason. You may have worked it out, but you did so poorly and in a way certain to conform to your previously held views.
49. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Jerry, these empires existed before the first christians.
No empire has ever stood that disobeyed God’s Word - The crumble and the people are crushed.
As the saying goes - ‘The land never seen the sun rise or set on Alexander the Great’s empire’
…But low and behold, She fell, and fell with a bang. Just like Babylon and the too many to count I can’t remember Nations before them.
50. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Jerry, youre right, but by default, since no empire has lasted.
51. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jerry, youre right, but by default, since no empire has lasted.
No, there is one…
52. Phil N. De Blachs | June 1st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Jeremiah:
Sin does not exist.
There are illegal acts and unethical acts, but there are no sinful acts.
The concept of sin was invented by religious institutions to control the masses.
53. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Sin does not exist.
XXX WRONG!
If there were no sin…there would be no murder, rape, cursing, hatred, greed, lust, and life, in general…would be a piece of cake.
There are illegal acts and unethical acts, but there are no sinful acts.
A few facts:
The law did not come before sin, but after, therefore, the laws that were, were the laws that America was founded on–i.e., the Constitution, it was based upon an understanding of Biblical law - I can’t explain it fully, but I can reference you to somebody who can explain it really well - The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States - By: Benjamin F. Morris. A marvelous work he has created, with patience and dedication to God’s great plan. A true Christian.
Now to reiterate and cover your next sentence..
The concept of sin was invented by religious institutions to control the masses.
The only way to prove to you that you are sinning … If you do not think you are sinning…If you are ever arrested, and taken to prison, and wonder where the judge received the basis from which to come to his decision, all you have to do is look to the Ten Commandments and the book of Leviticus.
Furthermore, any law that deviates from the original law, based upon the Bible, is not a law that can be considered law - Law has its foundation in morality: Right and Wrong. And the only place that we can understand what is Right and what is wrong, is by reading God’s Word.
Law does not come before the fact/act - It’s for starters in long term reality - For example, here on earth, I go to prison for a set number of years, even if that number of years is for an entire lifetime, 60, 70, 80, 100 years … whereas, after death, reward or punishment is eternal.
So, it’s incumbent upon me, if I want to be rewarded, to live to the best of my ability by what God’s Word says now, while I can, and then God will take me in His loving embrace to a brand New Home where there is no suffering, pain, or sorrow.
54. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
whereas, after death, reward or punishment is eternal.
I’ve thought about it, and I think I probably should have worded that sentence a little differently, which should go something like this…
‘Whereas, after death, reward or seperation is eternal.’
Because sin is the only thing that can seperate us from the love of God.
55. JPL | June 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“The concept of sin was invented by religious institutions to control the masses.”
If that’s so, poopie-pants, then why was the athiestic Communist Party of the Soviet Union far better at controlling the masses than any society before it in human history? Please explain that.
56. Rana Quijotesca | June 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Deleted - grossly misrepresents another commenters opinion.
57. pelirrojo | June 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Rana, Thankyou very very much. This is a point I’ve attempted to explain to mark on several occassions, though he doesn’t appear to believe that freedom is important at all so i guess the argument will fall on deaf ears.
58. Jeremiah | June 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Frankly… you should be able to do what you want granted that it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. That is how you maximize freedom, by giving people freedom…
No, Rana.
That would be the same as (hypothetically speaking) the college professor rewarding you for beating or raping another member of the student body.
What we have are some things ‘privileges’ and some ‘rights’ and right should never entail a license or permission to engage in things that are disseminate and lead to more evil actions throughout the land.
It’s so simple. Yet so necessary for people to understand that … Unless we try to do what is right before God….America will not last. It can’t.
And the only way that America can be straightened out at this point…is for those who love God and take interest in what is right, is to get out there and really stress the importance of keeping society free of sodomy, and keeping a standard of decency in our institutions of learning…that’s really the bottom line, and really putting the pressure on our elected officials by telling them that we don’t want homosexual marriage, and I mean pound the message home until it’s ringing in their ears … and when all else fails …….. prepare for battle.
Time and civilization are hanging in the balance, folks, won’t you take a stand??
59. pelirrojo | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Jerry, that would be a reward for doing harm to another. something me and rana have both said are excluded from freedom.
there are 2 types of actions, those which harm others, those which dont. in a free country those that do not harm other should be allowed and unrestricted, those which do harm others should be banned. undestand?
60. Viral Nexus | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Deleted - gross misrepresentation of the views of other commenters
61. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 am
Jerry, that would be a reward for doing harm to another. something me and rana have both said are excluded from freedom.
No, Pelirrojo.
You’re not listening.
There is RIGHT and there is WRONG.
Homosexuality is Wrong.
Because it’s wrong …….. Does not give you a
license to make it “right” or anyone.
One wrong does not make a “right”.
So why are you trying to legislate something that is wrong?
It’s so simple. You can understand it, but you don’t want to accept that homosexuality is in fact - EVIL.
I just pray that America will wake up and have the guts enough to stand for what is right and put and end to sodomy in America!
It’s really sad what is happening, such a happy wonderful place as America, and people are accepting and legislating evil.
It’s time for war.
62. pelirrojo | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Jerry, killing is wrong, but you want to make it law that killing homosexuals is OK, why do you want to make something so wrong acceptable?
63. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Jerry, killing is wrong, but you want to make it law that killing homosexuals is OK, why do you want to make something so wrong acceptable?
No, pelirrojo.
It’s not “killing” ….. It’s PUNISHMENT for doing WRONG!!!!!!
We DON’T stand for WRONG!!
64. bongoman | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 am
Jeremiah: <blockquoteThe ACLU for example, they are strong advocates for Sodomites - Therefore, they are affording protection to child molestations.
Have you seen the rather extensive list of cases where the ACLU has acted for Christians?
I put it to you that the Catholic Church has afforded far more protection to child molestations than the ACLU ever has or will.
Jeremiah, the essence of freedom is to be exempt from the power and authority of another, provided that you’re actions don’t harm anyone else.
Methinks you are actually terrified of freedom - your vision of an authoritarian, theocratic society is un-American and seeks to impose authority on others, even for consensual and private acts.
65. pelirrojo | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 am
Jerry, ah now i understand. so if you do something i consider wrong I have the right to do wrong to you? 2 wrongs make a right?
66. Tractatus | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
And it still is…the only thing that has changed is kids are being taught lies of the first order in our colleges….pursuading them to believe that interracial marriage is “not” disordered.
That’s the quote from Jeremiah that I referenced in comment 44. The “it” he’s talking about is interracial marriage. He continues to believe that interracial marriage is disordered.
Mark Noonan deleted comment 44 for “deliberately misquoting” Jeremiah. What, praytell, do you think he said, Noonan?
I understand if you find the comment distasteful; I know I do. But if such is the case, your beef is with Jeremiah, not me. The fact that you seem to want to protect Jeremiah on this matter is a bit disturbing.
67. bongoman | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Hey Jeremiah, Leviticus 18:22 celarly states that homosexuality is an abomination.
However, Leviticus also has a bunch of other pronouncements that I’m having trouble living my life by.
Care to help me out?
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I’m pretty sure she’s a virgin).
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
68. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Jerry, ah now i understand. so if you do something i consider wrong I have the right to do wrong to you? 2 wrongs make a right?
No, pelirrojo.
The LAW implements capital punishment for offenders.
There are three different meanings that we can classify the taking of a life.
1. Murder - of a law abiding, totally innocent person for no reason at all.
2. Killing - the slaughter or hunting of animals to eat.
3. [Capital punisment - The taking of a person's life who has been convicted of a crime and/or action which is in direct violation the law.] And what is the law based on? Morality - A concept of right and wrong. And where do we get right and wrong? The Bible.
Law and order, my friend, law and order.
69. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 am
bongoman,
This you must understand:
There is:
Civil Code - ( Applying to the Nation of Israel; ordained by God).
Levitical Code - (Applying solely to the Israelites.)
Moral Code - (Universal).
As for Civil and Levitical Code they were at the time when God was building the the Nation of Israel, the Levitical Code in particular, are the customs that were not mandatory, in other words, God gave them a choice, in which, they had to use a measure of faith, and if they showed they had faith, then they would obstain from eating shellfish. And so on right down to the last one on your list.
Many of those customs are not in practice today, because we have the most powerful witnesses of all to God’s grace, and in giving His Only Son becoming flesh and willingly sacrificing Himself to save us from our sin - we show our faith from the heart, and in this, no sacrifice is needed - Christ has paid it all, our every debt is paid in full. Now it’s up to you.
God required no less of them, than He does of us today.
70. Gaijin | June 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Jerry … wants to live in a Christian Theocracy, the same as the taliban, al qaeda and the Iranian mullahs, as long as he is in charge that is.
His ideas are anti-American. He is poorly educated and cannot construct an arguement, nor employ logic.
On the other hand, this might all be a ruse and Jeremiah is sitting at his computer laughing all day that he has convinced everyone that he could be so ignorant.
Peace, Gaijin
(Ed. Note: Gross insult excised)
71. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 am
On the other hand, this might all be a ruse and Jeremiah is sitting at his computer laughing all day that he has convinced everyone that he could be so ignorant.
No, Gaijin.
i am very saddened that such enlightened folk as you guys could be so foolish in your fallacious ideological thinking. But really, it’s not such an amusement after all … seeing how it is that you become educated, with those liberal pinheads in charge.
But yeah, I’ve only got a high school diploma, and that’s it, and barely got that, I even had to go through special education and their were mentally handicapped students in my class, in a wheel-chair.
His hands were all drawed up….I really felt sorry for him.
Other than that, I feel pretty confident with as far as I’ve come in my learning….and this interacting with people on forums on the internet on blogs it really spurs me on to try to learn.
One thing that I know, though, you can be ‘book smart’ but that’s not what makes you smart, it’s the capacity of intelligence you have to have the want to, to do what is right, and there is only on right way - Through God’s Word.
72. Mark Noonan | June 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Jeremiah,
This is why its better to narrow the focus - you’re now debating Leviticus with people who don’t care one way or the other about it, but are more than happy to obfuscate the real issue.
Now, as to how homosexuals should be treated - I am unaware of any jurisdiction in the United States ever having a statute calling for death for homosexual acts - long prison terms were prescribed, but not death, as far as I am aware. But even supposing such laws existed, the fact still remains that we don’t have that sort of authority, at least not anymore.
As Our Lord came to fullfill the Law, my understanding of this passage is that we no longer have the authority to condemn to death for violations of the moral code - unless you can find someone without sin to cast the first stone. We still have a right to defend ourselves and our society from threats to our liberty and the good order of our society, but the lawful ability to kill is highly circumscribed and doesn’t, from my understanding, extend to such things as adultery - or homosexual sex.
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that as a Christian, if I am to err I must err on the side of mercy.
73. Mark Noonan | June 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Pel,
And you still have no argument in favor of your position - why is it a vital necessity to allow for homosexual marriage but not a vital necessity to allow for incestuous marriage? You’re dodging - because you’re entirely built on emotion on this issue rather than reason.
74. pelirrojo | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
Mark, I have never said its vital, its actually not. we can clearly get by without it, but then again, we can get by without free speech…..
75. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Mark,
I found a couple interesting reads, I’ll post one, then another one subsequently, as the system only allows one at a time, ok, here goes:
http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/8634877.pdf
76. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 am
Here’s the other one:
http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/jul03nl.html
77. Mark Noonan | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
Pel,
Hardly - without free speech we would not be able to ascertain the truth (and this explains why liberals are so bent on suppressing free speech via “hate crimes” laws and other fascistic bits of PC).
We are to only do the things we should - to do something just for the heck of it is foolish. You want us to marry gay people…tell us why this is vital.
78. Mark Noonan | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
Jeremiah,
All good stuff, but nothing which argues in favor of your position. For now, you and I stand apart on that particular issue, and I don’t think we’re going to resolve it tonight - so, for the present, let us both take our views to God and ask that he guide us to ensure that what we want is in accordance with his will.
79. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 am
so, for the present, let us both take our views to God and ask that he guide us to ensure that what we want is in accordance with his will.
Mark,
It’s a deal.
It is a disturbing to see what is happening, but something that we musn’t lose our brotherhood over.
I’m really pleased with the work that you do here, Mark, and I know the seas get rough some times, but one thing is for sure…
The Anchor still holds!
Amen?
God bless! :)
80. Mark Noonan | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
Jeremiah,
The disintegration of society is an awful sight, and I know where you’re coming from so, yep, still brothers in Christ.
81. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 am
67. bongoman | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Well done President Bartlett!
82. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 am
69. Jeremiah | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 am
And by this you have lost your way. You either accept Faith in Salvation as a message of love and a manner in which to live your life or you see it as an authoritarian method used to control, manipulate and as you have put it to punish people with death for their actions which your selectively Biblical worldview takes offence at in the main.
Feel free at your leisure to pass on what the prime tenets of the “Moral Code” you speak of entails. And by the by if the Levitical Code only applies to the Israelites then you have voided the fundament for all your arguments that stand on Levitical code.
I have no idea what you do for a living but I hope you a) only blog from home and b) are not a member of the Bar.
83. bongoman | June 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 am
Because one is a relationship, based on love between 2 equals. The other is criminal behaviour, involving serious power imbalances between the parties concerned.
One is consensual; the other, it is safe to assume, is always abuse and can never be truly consensual.
84. Danish Artist | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
uh, bong-man
gay relations was at one time illegal.
incest is not always power imbalanced and can be based on love. It is illegal based on law which can be changed as in the gay relation issue.
Weak, very weak argument by today’s standards.
If the gay relation issues were compared to a health issue, just like smoking, then maybe something can be changed about it. People want to ban smoking for health related issues (second hand smoke etc) so the same can be said for homosexuality it is a health issue. It clearly is since in many cases leads to the spread of a deadly disease. There is no argument against that issue. If liberals want to be conscience about health issues then this is clearly one of them. But since many campaign contributors are gay and RICH then they look the other way.
85. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
84. Danish Artist | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Then I propose that banning alcohol use, driving automobiles and extreme sports should be done as well for “health reasons” as well as the consumption of beef and pork vice fruits and vegetables.
Incest is illegal because of the potential harm it poses to the offspring and the anger it creates in society for creating a state of “congress at ease” meaning the jealousy created in a society when it is found no effort is made in finding a mate.
86. JPL | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
“Most paedophiles are straight married Christian [read, church going] white men in the USA.”
Most men are straight, white, and Christian. So what’s your point?
87. JPL | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
“As if all the rampant rate of divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse and sham marriages for immigration purposes don’t [cheapen the whole concept of marriage]?”
Ah, the old “the institution of marriage is weaker than it used to be, so let’s put the final nail in its coffin” argument. Is that what you want, Esquire? Because that’s what you’re going to get if you create the fiction of gay “marriage.” (Also, why the “Esquire?” I thought English barristers and solicitors never used that title.)
88. Danish Artist | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Cav,
“Then I propose that banning alcohol use, driving automobiles and extreme sports should be done as well for “health reasons” as well as the consumption of beef and pork vice fruits and vegetables.”
Already being considered by those on the left. The nanny government is in full swing.
“Incest is illegal because of the potential harm it poses to the offspring and the anger it creates in society for creating a state of “congress at ease” meaning the jealousy created in a society when it is found no effort is made in finding a mate.”
When argued for, using the same arguments for gay marraige, incest could become legal between consenting individuals as an equal protection right. Doesn’t matter the reasons for its illegality, we have seen them overturned on that “right” basis.
89. Timothy Horrigan | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
One problem with allowing gay marriage is that it encourages gay dating, which in turns leads to more gay sex…. often by bisexuals who currently only date the opposite sex. Gay sex is, of course, so much more satisfying than straight sex that few if any of those bisexuals will ever go back. This will deplete the breeding pool and soon lead to the extinction of the human race.
90. bongoman | June 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Tell that to the Drug Warriors. Heck, they won’t even let the people grow a certain plant in their gardens.
Nanny state alright. It’s a war on personal freedom.
91. Danish Artist | June 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Bong man,
It seems you only worry about the nanny state when it comes to smoking your herb.
You completely ignore and encourage the proposed nanny state with today’s crop of liberal candidates.
Why is that? As long as you get your herb, you could care less about anything else.