 enbar says: From the WorldNetDaily bookshop, you can buy "Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" which will help you fight the "deluge of left-wing propaganda" in "the nation's libraries and classrooms," which, if you didn't know, advocate gay marriage and marijuana use. Cover illustration appears to feature cartoons of Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Yes, it really is marketed for four-year-olds. OMG I second that OMG! Mommy, why do we hate people that belive different things from us? Mommy, why are you and daddy brain dead? Poor little children, being brainwashed to believe this venomous garbage...outrageous!  Run a search for Katharine DeBrecht on Amazon.com (there, I've done it for you) ... You'll see she came out with not one, but two hard-hitting sequels including "Help! Mom! Hollywood's in the Hamper!" and "Help! Mom! The Ninth Circuit Nabbed the Nativity!" Mommy, why do we hate people that belive different things from us?Good question!! Self reflection is very important. Christians generally do not hate. So your understanding is childish. However, it is the view by Christians that they want to protect their children from the post-modern, humanist, and relativist agenda that is being hatefully attacked. The intolerance of those of you in this thread is disgusting. Why do you think you need to control what people believe. These people are not ignorant. It is much more likely they have much more awareness than any of you. Good post Willhelm. I don't 'hate' anyone but as a Christian who happens to be a citizen of the United States, I want to protect my cultural, Christian heritage and pass it on to my children. That being said....Christians, in the US, are feeling and experiencing the 'hatred' of those who know nothing about us and want to inhibit our freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution. Happy Thanksgiving! The interesting thing about bigotry is that when some expression of it reaches a level of acceptance in a culture a comfort level is attained that results in transparency. The pre civil rights south is an example. Youth and people considering spiritual issues for the first time with fresh eyes will easily notice the hypocrisy in the bigotry against the religious by those mouthing the virtues of diversity out of the other side of their mouths. Why do you think you need to control what people believe.I ask right-wingers that all the time... Why can't gay people be married? Why can't women get abortions? Why can't I speak out against the government without being called anti-American or worse? Yeah.. I'm sure they are "aware"... And give it up with using the damned bigotry bull.. you are just as guilty as anyone else. Yes, the children should only be taught good healthy things like making blogs wishing death on the president. That was one child was it not? again with the generalizations.. n2 is good at them. Ultimately, I think that children should be taught that their opinions should be considered and informed, and that forming one's own opinions is everyone's right. As is free speech - be that of conservative or liberal principles, and every principle in between and beyond. I ask right-wingers that all the time...These are good examples of what I'm talking about TCW. It is these issues that are being forced into the lives of people, not Christianity. Christians don't want laws passed to make Christianity the only acceptable religion, yet the post-modern-relativist-humanists want to push their religion on everyone else. It is you that support these issues being forced into our society under the guise of freedom, but if Christians oppose these changes (which have never been normal in the entire history of mankind) we are the ones seen as forcing our values. That is a blatant lie. ... willhelm, it would be easy to argue, say, that if you are Christian and don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, you remain free not to marry someone of the same sex. Expanding the definition of marriage to permit same-sex couples to enjoy the same privileges as "normal" couples doesn't "force" anything on Christians. According to this line of argument, it is the Christians who want to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, even though extending those benefits to same-sex couples wouldn't affect the lives of those same Christians in any way. Throwing around terms like "perversion," though, kind of prejudges the issue. It isn't Christians who are trying to change the definition of marriage. BTW, if you think because only one student got caught writing about wishing death on Bush that there are no others, then you are truly naive. If that one student believed that and thought about it enough to write it down, the it is likely that she had heard that kind of stuff from her parents for quite a while, and that a number of her circle of friends had the same ideas. With the rampant BDS suffered by so many adults in the US today, I imagine there are a lot more kids out there that hear similar hatred coming from their parents on a daily basis. Throwing around terms like "perversion," though, kind of prejudges the issue.Yes...prejudices the issue in terms of the politically correct willing to bastardize language to acheive their ends. You can promote a man marrying a six year old girl, a harem, or a milk cow if you want. My interest in protecting the concept and purpose of marriage is my right and is not founded in hate. You just have an opinion that supports a society that acknowledges and accepts behaviour a majority believes to be immoral. I do not. I believe anything that goes against nature, morality, purpose, order, and my faith is bad for society. Who are you to be declaring what morality, purpose, order and faith should be for everyone else? PS By the way, you have no idea what my opinion on this is. I am talking about arguments. Your argument, in my view, does not hold up. You're saying that Christians are the ones having their rights infringed upon when gay people want to secure the right to marry one another. I don't see that that makes any sense whatsoever. I don't either. He left out every other religion and sensible atheists. So if you want to be intolerant of Christians, Muslims, and others thatI thought I was clear on this point earlier in my above statement. I should have known better than to respond to a depiction of your comment rather than the actual. As enbar pointed out, nobody is forcing anything on Christianity (unless of course Christian clergy is forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.. but in Canada, they are expressly exempt...)... on the other hand when Christians, Muslims and others attempt to force in a law that BANS same sex marriage, ban abortion (or make it so hard to get, there' no point) then they are forcing their beliefs on others. So enbar is right.. your logic is flawed. TCW you are not even applying logic. You need to reread my comment and use your brain! whatever will... willhelm, it's your logic that's problematic. You are using the language of rights and toleration in an inappropriate and specious way. If person A wants to engage in a particular behavior X, and if that behavior X is not going to have any material effect on person B, then person B cannot say that person A is violating person B's rights by insisting on the right to engage in behavior X. That's exactly what happens with religious objections to same-sex marriage, however. You do not have a "right" to restrict someone else's behavior if you cannot show how that person's behavior is going to curtail, restrict, or materially affect your own life and freedoms. So far I've never heard a Christian (... If person A wants to engage in a particular behavior X, and if that behavior X is not going to have any material effect on person B, then person B cannot say that person A is violating person B's rights by insisting on the right to engage in behavior X This illustrates the disconnect. Your viewing and thinking micro--I, I, me, me, mine--those opposed to redefining marriage are concerned with the macro--society, culture. Same with the garbage on TV issue. Your side says, "Hey, just change the channel". We are concerned beyond ourselves for the culture. Changing the channel is a personal solution, not a cultural one. Godfrey, I don't know if you were ignoring my point or just not understanding it. Sure, you can make your grand claims about how the culture is going down the toilet and only your own values, and those of people who think just like you, can save it. However, what you cannot legitimately do is complain that your rights are being trampled on if you are not permitted to enforce your vision of "the macro", as you put it, on everyone else. Enbar, I am not a libertarian. There all sorts of things people can engage in that do not directly affect me. That is not a guiding principle in my ideology. My points are logically and evidentially valid. And once again, whether you believe in gay marriage or are just playing devils advocate, you are incorrect in assuming it would not have an effect on society. It would have an effect and I believe a bad one. Tell me what effect you think it would have on you. It would have little or no effect on me. You question is irrelevant. Like I said, I am not a Libertarian. Well, glad we're clear on that. You're against it in the abstract, not because there would be any consequences you've been able to describe. So, according to your thinking, as you're presenting it in this issue, if you could be personally guaranteed that you would not be victimized, you would then have no problem with theft. If you were to object then to it, someone could ask how you justify your objection, as no harm would come to you personally from it. Your whole posture on this is as though I am arguing for the imposition of my "personal" values when in fact I am arguing for the retention of long standing values held by a broad spectrum of people, holding diverse views, and from many belief systems, who together constitute the vast majority. It is a tiny minority that are all about imposition. If you want to put words in my mouth that's fine. However, there are many things I do not support. I do not support the legalization of drugs (because in a loving and compassionate society we should not allow people to destroy their lives). I do not support legalizing prostitution for the same reasons. I do not support gay marriage because it redefines what is the concept of marriage and family. I do not support the welfare state because it dehumanizes people. I do not support socialist economics, because it takes away our god-given liberty and pursuit of happiness and places it in the hands of those least capable of providing for the less fortunate. Now let me put words in your mouth. Yo... No, again, you're both ignoring my points. This whole conversation began with an accusation against the left of not "tolerating" religious views. "Tolerating" someone else's view, however, doesn't mean that you believe it should be enforced by statute on the whole population. Godfrey, your comparison to theft is stupid. It's the categorical imperative all over again. I believe I have the right to my own property, ergo I believe everyone has the right to his or her own property, ergo I believe theft should be punishable by law. My problem is not with arguments against gay marriage per se. My problem is with arguments against gay marriage that appropriate, deceptively in my view, the ... It is interesting you want to aplly the categorical imperative to rebut GD, but is it not obvious the categorical imperative could easily be applied to marriage. It is the right of any man or woman to marry the opposite sex. So Enbar, despite suffering no personal harm, is willing to impose his beliefs regarding theft on others to the point of depriving them of their liberty. The one word in your list of egregious examples that I used in this thread was bigotry, and was appropriate in response to this: Poor little children, being brainwashed to believe this venomous garbage...outrageous! and which preceded the introduction of homosexual issues willhelm, I was applying the categorical imperative with reference to theft. GD, so you don't feel your rights are being trampled by advocates of same-sex unions? Then we're agreed. Whoops, I didn't see that earlier comment from GD... So Enbar, despite suffering no personal harm, is willing to impose his beliefs regarding theft on others to the point of depriving them of their liberty.I believe that property is a basic right. I don't believe that having one's own personal definition of marriage be the law of the land is a right. "personal definition"? I think we have hit the mother lode of cultural relativism. This is why we cannot agree on this issue. Because just like the forces that want to break down our institutions, we have forces that want to redefine the clearly defined. Clearly defined by whom? That question would be reasonable asked by a recent visitor from another planet. Okay, I take that to mean that you think the answer is obvious, so how about answering it? Try a little specificity, not just "tradition" or "the Bible" or "nature" or whatever. I suppose it would be in bad taste to remind you that a half-century ago interracial marriages were thought of as unnatural and were also illegal. Do you really believe if you just continue to assert repeatedly that marriage is something that Will and I just came up with as our "personal" beliefs that that absurdity will somehow attain reality? Okay, fine. Give your definition, and the basis for your definition, then. Clearly defined by whom?By those that support AND do not support GAY marriage. Sorry, Enbar, this is just getting silly those that support AND do not support GAY marriagehave clearly defined marriage? And why should I care what they have to say? And GD, if you think it's getting silly that I am asking you to justify denying the right to marry to ten percent of the population, then I think you have a misplaced sense of what's serious and what isn't. I would assume that if someone wants to change the definition of something, they must first understand the present definition. Enbar, 10 percent is ridiculous. It is about 2% in the US, and the number decreases to less than 1% worldwide. Good grief, you keep changing the subject. So it's okay to deny the right to marry to two percent (but not ten percent) of the population without having to come up with a good reason? Where's the cutoff? How about we split the difference and say six percent? Does that number excuse you from having to explain yourself the way two percent does? To come back to the original argument though. It seems that you're comfortable abandoning the notion that campaigning for same-sex marriage violates the "rights" of Christians. That's the point I was really trying to make originally. No, my point was to "force their beliefs". Christians do not "force" their beliefs on any one. The Post-modern-relativist-humanists do. And, I quite frankly doubt it really has that much to do with the redefining marriage. It is falshoods like the following that make a response necessary. denying the right to marry to ten percent of the population,Everyone has the right to get married. Everyone has the right to procreate. No one has taken those rights away from anyone. To say so shows you do not want to have an honest debate. You just throw out falsehood after falsehood. I just don't understand why you don't argue your position honsestly, Enbar. Why can't you simply say, "I know what marriage is, I know what it's always been, and I'm for redefining it"? We would still be in disagreement, but at least we would have a clean starting point for debate. Can I echo once again the OMG! In Western societies, much of the political and civil rights we take for granted today were restricted to male, white, property owners. Women, the property-less, and blacks need not apply. Over time, basic rights such as the right to vote, the right to protest the actions of one's government, etc. were expanded to include women, the working-classes, and racial minorities. I believe that in the abstract, the concept of political and civil rights means rights for everyone, even though for much of history in practice they were limited to certain groups. I don't think it would be accurate to say that, when women or blacks got the right to vote, "the right to vote has been redefined". Lik... ...there is nothing inherent in the concept to prevent its application to same-sex couples This statement is so absurd to most people, and indicates such a deep state of denial of the nature of man, woman, children, family, sustainable culture, that it essentially precludes any usefulness in debating further. If this is the premise from which one starts the only logical response is to say, Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's truly a sad commentary on our society and culture when 'marriage' has to be defined! Kind of reminds me of a person who had problems explaining the meaning of "is". This only reveals the depths of the danger that has come. When there is no longer any *standard* for truth, justice, right/wrong...then everyone is free to make up their own codes of conduct and the fabric of a civilization dissolves. "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." JK's entire comment is absurd. Then he redefines marriage to make the case for redfining it. He equivocates on the idea of civil rights. None of his points follow in the context of Natural law. Pure rhetoric. The similarity of gay marriage to civil rights issues is a non-starter. I could almost grasp Enbar's point of view, but this is just pitiful JK. I doubt women or blacks would much appreciate the comparison. The point I was trying to make is not that gay marriage is right or wrong. That's a whole separate discussion. I tend to think that JK's analogy is pretty good, though obviously it needs nuance. However, GD, I was arguing my position honestly when I said that I object strenuously to Christians (and others, but it seems to be mostly Christians) arguing that proponents of gay marriage are being "intolerant" by not being willing to accept a certain strand of Christian mores as normative. Agree or disagree, my point is that you, GD and Willhelm, cannot logically call on the language of rights and tolerance to defend your view of marriage. At this point, I don't actually think you [i]are[/... Enbar, if you choose to blind yourself of the impact on society, then that is fine. The impact is visible in this thread by JK's hateful comments and his redefining marriage to make a case for redefining marriage shows what we're dealing with in the area of adequate reasoning skills. Putting those that disagree with gay marriage in the corner of slave holders is grossly ignorant. This is the type of hatred a majority of people will have to endure. Our children will be taught in school this is an acceptable activity, even though a vast majority vigorously oppose it. This violates the conscience of our entire country and drives a wedge between families, the most vital component of society. The... I'm not comparing anybody to anything. I don't think JK was either. My question was just, can you tell me one concrete consequence that will follow from the legalization of same-sex marriage? So far you're just stating vague generalities. Just name one measurable, real, concrete consequence. Putting those that disagree with gay marriage in the corner of slave holders is grossly ignorant.All I said is that if you think that advocacy of gay marriage entails redefining marriage, then it logically follows that you think that advocacy of extending the franchise to the working-classes, women, blacks would mean redefining poliitcal rights. That does not mean that opponents of gay marriage are equal to opponents of extending the franchise. Maybe you think that in one case, redefinition is good, and in the other, redefinition is bad. But as I said, I think making the debate hinge on accusations of "redefinition", as Godfrey Daniel did in the 56th comment, is a prett... Maybe you think that in one case, redefinition is good, and in the other, redefinition is bad JK, you've finally stumbled onto it. Although, the examples you site are not really redefinitions, but rather broadened inclusion. Homosexuals "marrying", on the other hand, is nonsensical within the definition of marriage and would require redefinition. Okay, going once, going twice ... still no one's managed to identify one negative consequence. GD, wanna give it a shot? Or is it that you really have no reason for wanting it illegal besides your own general discomfort with the idea? Enbar, Obviously you choose to ignore the negative consequences I stated in my last comment. Which are more than minor. Besides that, you choose to ignore the realities as stated by me and GD. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. As I understood it, the consequences you noted were:
First, I don't see any reason to believe that any of these consequences will actually follow. Any evidence that these things have been taking place in Massachusetts? Second, they are terribly vague. Can you give an example of something concrete, something that's not just a feeling you have? And third, you seem to be saying, in effect, that heterosexual people will s... Like I said you are not willing to accept the obvious, even as the hatred is spewed in this thread by JK. I'm not unwilling to accept the obvious. You try, for a minute, accepting that what's obvious to you may not be obvious to me. All you have to do is state the obvious. Tell me what it is that you think is so obvious. I am just not seeing it. GD said Sorry, Enbar, this is just getting silly Perhaps we should have ended with that. Fine, suit yourself. I get that you don't like gay people and you think homosexuality is a perversion. I still don't see why you think making same-sex marriage legal would be so destructive. I must say, this little exchange has strengthened my overall impression that opponents of same-sex marriage don't really have arguments; they have feelings. Everything you've said seems to boil down to "It's so obvious" or "It's so hateful, just read JK's remarks." Forgive me for not finding either a particularly convincing argument. That's because they are not arguments they are cop-outs.. he has nothing useful to add, no argument that makes sense, so he uses his normal routine of trying to say he's already told us the answer and we "just don't get it", I guess we are just below his intelligence Enbar...  It's weird ... I feel like i need a reality check here. I honestly just wanted to hear someone say what they thought was going to happen as a result of legalizing gay marriage (the same question posed in this clip). And I thought I asked the question in a straightforward way. And, finally, I honestly think I never got an answer -- I just got laughed at for my willingness to listen. You read the thread and tell me, am I missing something? I get that you don't like gay people As this tactic wouldn't apply to homosexuals opposed to marriage redefinition and child adoption by homosexuals what tactic would apply in their case? Let me guess. Call them "self hating". Uncle Bruces. All you have to do is state the obvious. Tell me what it is that you think is so obvious. I am just not seeing it. Herein is the problem. You just don't have the "spiritual intelligence", and i don't mean that in a religious sense. Even atheists can have spiritual intelligence. All humans have access to it, some just don't know the source. But, without accessing it, the obvious can become invisible, commonsense absent. To most of us the... Okay, so you want laws to be based on some kind of mysterious spiritual insight that only some people have, and that can't be explained, measured, identified or justified? ...we at that point realize that an impasse has been reached. Amazing ... That's the best you guys can do, huh. Well, as someone who lacks "spiritual intelligence," but who somehow or other still has the right to vote, can you give me any reason why I should support your position? Can you give me a quick run-down on why, for example, your position differs from segregationists in the fifties who argued that race-mixing was inherently evil and unnatural and that anyone who thought about it could see that? -- and that catastrophic, though undefinable, social collapse would follow from allowing black people and white people to mix? willhelm, before you start accusing me of "spewing hate," remember this is hypothetical. Just tell me what the difference is... Your example of segregation and mixed marriage has been addressed before and is very simple to answer. One, it's not even analogous. It represents instituted illogic. Marriage is now as it was then, the union of a man and woman. Just as drinking fountains, buses, and housing remain unchanged. The elimination of racism didn't require redefining and or reconstituting these, and represented progress and applied logic. Redefining marriage does just the opposite. It's regressive and applies illogic. Err, you're joking, right? Marriage is not now as it was then, since then it was first the union of a free man and a free woman (slaves couldn't marry, according to the then current definition of marriage), and then it was the union of a man and a woman of the same race (marriage across racial lines were invalid). Let's get away from this notion of "definitions," since there's no cosmic dictionary in the sky telling us what we can and can't legally permit. People define marriage, and it has been defined and redefined differently in different times and places. Your claim that allowing same-sex marriage is "regressive and applies illogic" strikes me as a great example of circ... If you believe that marriage always has to be the union of a man and a woman, then you're right. Thank you. Are you deliberately being facetious, or did you really not understand the idea in my last two sentences? Enbar, I gave you concrete examples of how society is affected,notwithstanding the shear moral and obvious effects. You just don't like what I've said so you infer that I don't like gay people. Typical. This says to me you have no interest in really undersyanding my points. Anytime the moral conscience of a vast majority is blatantly ignored ( and at this point it has not been) then the fabric of our society is grossly undermined. from your last remark, it is obvious to me why you do not want to understand this idea. You just seem to be chomping at the bit to say I hate gay people. Is that what this has all been about. Quite beneath you Enbar. What would you say if hetro's just said : fine... Huh? Sorry, my mistake, then. When you used the word "perversion" to refer to gay marriage, I inferred your disapproval. An honest misunderstanding, I swear. I apologize. So you are OK with homosexuality? I have to differ with your first point, though. You did not give "concrete" examples. You gave vague, impressionistic, emotional responses: words like "husband" and "wife" will turn into "hate words," everyone will start "hating" heterosexuals, children will learn that homosexuality is a tolerable behavior, and a "wedge will be driven" between families. None of those, I am sorry to have to point out, qualify as concrete consequences. How about: the divorce rate will go up? Teenage ... Ok, good grief. Now disapproval of lifestyles contrary to one's values and beliefs is being defined as hate. This is really surreal. What are you talking about? Look, Enbar, I don't know what more to say, this is just so silly, and I should have quit the first time I noted that. We are just in entirely different universes on this issue. I think this horse is dead and thoroughly kicked for now and this thread. Suit yourself. I am genuinely trying to understand how opponents of gay marriage think. The upshot seems to be: they don't. It just occurred to me that you and Alibot use precisely the same tacitcs. . So you are OK with homosexuality?I would prefer to see it redefined to include one man and one woman. Other than that, I have no problems with 2 consenting adults being involved in this type of relationship. I also do not think it should still be illegal. However, it IS NOT any more normal than suicide, murder, using crack, or adultery. I tend to see my position as one of love. I see yours as one of hopeless disrespect for fellow man. We disagree. If in the year 2050, I am still around and MANBLA has made inroads to redefining marriage yet again, I will oppose that too. Where does it end with you? GD: I have no idea who or what Alibot is. willhelm: whom am i disrespecting? and whom are you loving? WOW this REALLY IS getting silly. Seems to me this is the other way around. Look, I stand by my original point. I am simply trying to understand how you two think. Call me names if you want. I don't plan to let this go anytime soon. I am genuinely interested in figuring this out. My position is, same-sex marriage hurts no one, and I see no reason to forbid it, even though it's certainly never going to be a particularly important political issue for me. Your position is, obviously, is different. Apparently you think that two men or two women marrying one another would hurt people. But i have yet to comprehend who would be hurt by this, or how or why. OMG Enbar, I feel for you here, but neither Will or GD will ever agree. They are bigots... They of course will not see that, but they are. If they can't answer your question with a reasonable answer after all this time, they never will. They talk about spiritual intelligence, but it seems more like spiritual ignorance to me... Just because they have this strong emotional problem with Gay Marriage, they seem to think we should all have it as well, and their lack of ability to come up with a sane reason why gay marriage is wrong (I said sane, not silly) stumps them and frustrates them, so instead of answering they continue to vomit out the same senseless garbage they have been since the b... Sigh. I suppose so. No amount of research can turn the order of nature and common sense on its head. As I've said before you are thinking micro--personal feelings and how you or I should or shouldn't be personally affected. Will and I are thinking macro--how culture and society are affected and altered. Nothing more clearly evidences your misunderstanding of our objections and positions than your erroneous perception that we have "strong emotional problems" with marriage re-definition. Not at all emotional. Logical. Normal. Fine. Give me one good example of how culture or society are affected or altered. In a negative way... 'cause the positives are numerous.. * more kids get loving homes & families * more people are protected by social security and there are less legal battles if a loved on does.. (right now, without same-sex marriage, the family of the deceased has more rights than the partner who has lived with, supported, and loved them...) * as more and more people get used to the idea of same-sex marriage, there is less hate, intolerance, etc.. that's better for everyone.. less hate-crime, etc.. This thread has bothered me enough that i actually went and tried to research some of the anti-same-sex marriage arguments, since Godfrey and willhelm have been unable to state any (other than "isn't it so obvious, it will have a terrible effect on society, you are being intellectually dishonest if you pretend not to understand" etc.). What I came up with so far is here and here. Interested readers may also want to check out the fascinating debate between Maggie Gallagher and William Eskridge at the Cato Institute. You can stream the video over the Internet. Gallagher is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, one of the places enbar links to, and Eskridge is the co-author of a book that looks at the effects of legally recognized gay unions in Scandinavia and finds that they had no detrimental consequences whatsoever (and may have had even positive consequences). Thanks JK! |
View the Top Clips from November 13, 2006
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
