Posted on 11/23/2008 8:07:33 PM PST by goldstategop
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You really need to come up with a logical reason.
This is not about fighting or pointing our how weird gay activists are. It is about the rights of individual homosexuals. If we paid attention to the activists the black panthers and Stokely Carmichael and the Nation of Islam would have shot down everything that was done when blacks were finally acknowledged as 100% citizens. You're rights are not restricted because extremists advocate for them. You're fighting the boogey man and in the process denying millions their rights.
One of the hallmarks of common sense is the ability to differentiate between real and counterfeit. Two sissy boys engaging in a sodomite relationship where one of them plays the role of the girl during sex is a counterfeit relationship. It is not a real marriage and cannot ever be.
You are using the Orwellian tactic of redefining a concept into something it did not ever mean. You then have the audacity to act as if that concept has always meant what you say it means, despite the fact that it obviously has not, and then accuse people who don't agree with your deliberate and malicious dishonesty of being opponents of liberty.
There is no right to marry someone of the same sex because such an action cannot be a marriage. Nor is there a right to marry a tree, a giraffe, or a television set. Nor is there a right for a group of people to marry. Nor is there a right to polygamy.
In fact, sanctioning these counterfeit same sex “marriages” results in a NET LOSS of liberty. That's because actual rights, with constitutional and historical backing, invariably end up being curtailed to accommodate the perverted agenda of the same sex “marriage” activists.
Government should stay out of pretty much EVERYTHING except the 3 things it was intended for: minting money, maintaining a standing army, and maintaining roads. That’s it.. marriage licenses...unconstitutional, same with driver’s licenses, dog licenses, business licenses...most taxes..the current public education system...I could go on all day, but you get the point.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of marriage in this culture and others. At one time public concern DID stop the dissolution of marriages. Divorce used to be far more difficult to obtain and was often unattainable if there were minor children.
Historically, marriage has never been treated as a right in any culture. Most often it was a status to be acheived. Women were chattel and often awarded as prizes, sold, traded or purchased.
Obviously times have changed, but marriage is not a right and never has been. Nobody said that the sole intent of marriage was to have children. They said the public concern or interest in marriage was the children marriage typically produces. Before science gave us paternity testing, marriage provided for legal definitions of paternity and responsibility.
The fact is society or the public has no interest or concern in homosexual unions since they will not produce children that need to be protected or provided for. That some gay couples have children means nothing because they didn’t get those children via homesexual conjugal acts, they got them through some convolution of the law, adoption, artificial insemination or sometimes the good old fashioned way, heterosexual union prior to discoverying their gayness.
See “A Libertarian Case Against Same-Sex Marriage,” FreeRepublic.com, Oct. 20, 2008, link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2119551/posts
Gays have been screaming they are born with the same-sex attraction for decades and for decades, science has disagreed.
If their one and only argument for decades has been wrong from the outset, why, on this fact alone, should California redefine marriage, especially when gays already have the exact same benefits of marriage without the name?
Are you of the opinion that any group, no matter how fringe, should be able to redefine marriage? If not, what fringe group crosses the line for you? That is, where do you draw the line on redefining marriage?
These problems inevitably arise when an institution designed to celebrate something clearly good (the bonding of people of the opposite sex), clearly a transcendent act that elevates us as a people, is transformed into nothing more than an act of physical gratification to satiate the lusts of “human autonomy units”.
I think that this libertarian article’s point is that ultimate freedom should come from being able as an individual (or religious institution or even secular private institution) to define marriage. Not have the STATE tell us what the meaning of “is” is, if you will.
This argument is trying to show that true freedom comes from NOT giving power to the state. Think about it. It would work for both proponents and detractors of gay marriage. I like this point.
They can look for a priest/pastor and arranged a wedding before the eyes of the Lord. (Whether the Lord approves is a different matter)
The only way a homosexual could find a problem is if they find marriage... an institution whose legitimacy is *ONLY* conveyed by government.
And I would hazard that this belief would be wrong. That marriage is an institution witness before G-d, not government.
He doesn't! :-)
But neither does any historical religion. Buddhist and Hindu societies didn't recognize same-sex "marriages", either. Same-sex "marriage" is a concept that could only arise in the era of the totalitarian state, something technologically impossible until the rise of mass media with its ability to manipulate, and modern technology with its ability to control. Only in a deeply manipulated society could more than one percent of the population ever believe that gender is a sociological construction, or that marriage is a genderless institution, or that people are "autonomous pleasure units" rather than part of an organic society with deep historical and biological roots.
I would have no problem if the government got out of the marriage business. When the governmemtn decides to do something then it has a hard time telling some tax payers they can’t avail themselves of the activity.
What you may have concluded from my earlier post is that historical arguments are weak when one is talking human rights. Abrogating rights for centuries does not make the continuation of those restrictions a good thing per se. See my previosu comments about slavery and women.
We have engaged before and you merely have a very narrow opinion of human rights. I won't repeat all of the other problems with your position. They're peppered throughout my other comments here.
I think loaning money for interest is immoral. I think restricting people from their pursuit of happinness is immoral.
Now, you can't be so intellectually dishonest that you think anyone here is advocating that people be allowed to "marry" trees or giraffes. Or can you? Given the fact that you find nothing unusual about including same-sex pairings within the definition of marriage, when no one until the modern post-human era ever thought of such a thing, and then have the audacity to act as if the burden of proof is on the people who disagree with you, then perhaps you are that intellectually dishonest.
We have engaged before and you merely have a very narrow opinion of human rights.
Incorrect. I merely understand that a human right doesn't exist outside of a historical or logical context. There is no right to "marry" someone of the same sex, just as there is no right to "marry" a stalk of celery. Nor is there a right for males who claim to be "emotionally" female to enter the girls' restroom or locker room. Nor is there a right to illegally cross a border into another nation. Nor is there a right to engage in prostitution.
The fact that nufsed claims that "x" is a right isn't enough for most people to genuflect and bow down to you as some sort of divine oracle empowered to declare which things are rights and which aren't. When you assert that something is a right, in absence of any textual support in the Constitution, in absence of any historical basis for the claim, in absence of providing any great philosopher, thinker, or essayist who agrees with you, and in absence of producing any example of a civilization which successfully implemented your assertion, then a reasonable person would assume you're simply posturing in deference to the liberal zeitgeist.
I won't repeat all of the other problems with your position. They're peppered throughout my other comments here.
I'm sure all the lurkers are floored by your "brilliance".
Your inability to distinguish between two human marrying and you marrying a tree or a giraffe indicates the anti-intellectual characteristic of your position.
Here's a historical perspective on human rights, people with power took away the rights of others. We don't do that anymore in the US, except when a group of people can muster ebnough votes to try to do so. That's why we have courts. As happened with school desegration, and a republic form of government which recognized voting and other rights.
You're merely on the wrong side of the issue. You stand with the tyrannts of the past and history will prove you wrong, sooner or later.
I think we got to this point on another thread and you are devoted to restricting the rights of homosexuals, regardless of history, logic or anything else you are told. So have a good one and feel the vendication of the victor, for now. You have put those homosexuals in their place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.