MichFan Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 Just a quick question : To those who oppose gay marriage, can you give me a multi-sentence explanation why? 229965[/snapback] Check the archives from back around October/November. This topic was beat around so much that I'm sure those involved don't want to contribute more than one sentence anymore.
Bill from NYC Posted February 7, 2005 Posted February 7, 2005 >>>>It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess.<<<< Honestly, I have a tough time with the issue. Yes, I have a problem with the govt. being involved in the bedrooms of America. Otoh, what shall we do when people sue because they want to marry their brother, or their German Sheppard? This may sound nuts, but do you doubt for even a second that someone will take these issues to court? I do not. Gays are far better off the way things are imo. If I get a divorce, everything I have ever worked for will be lost, including half of a rather generous pension, my home, custody of my children, etc. Gay people want this? Or, do they want a form of forced acceptance? I hate to get flimsy, but it is not easy for me to take a stand on this issue. PS: Before you attack, NO, I do NOT liken bestiality to 2 adults being gay. The reference was ONLY made in terms of lifting restrictions.
John Adams Posted February 7, 2005 Author Posted February 7, 2005 >>>>It's an extension of the government into the love/sex life of adults. It bugs me more than you, I guess.<<<< Honestly, I have a tough time with the issue. Yes, I have a problem with the govt. being involved in the bedrooms of America. Otoh, what shall we do when people sue because they want to marry their brother, or their German Sheppard? This may sound nuts, but do you doubt for even a second that someone will take these issues to court? I do not. Gays are far better off the way things are imo. If I get a divorce, everything I have ever worked for will be lost, including half of a rather generous pension, my home, custody of my children, etc. Gay people want this? Or, do they want a form of forced acceptance? I hate to get flimsy, but it is not easy for me to take a stand on this issue. PS: Before you attack, NO, I do NOT liken bestiality to 2 adults being gay. The reference was ONLY made in terms of lifting restrictions. 230696[/snapback] You worry about the slippery slope. That's Gavin and SDS's concern too. All I can say to that is: the current topic is two adults in love who want certain benefits (not dogs, incest, or pedophilia). Just look at death benefits. In most states, the law presumes that an estate passes to spouse and then relatives. When a gay life partner dies, the estate of the deceased should follow that traditional pattern. It should go to the spouse or spouse-equivalent. Others bemoan the burden on the system for additional healthcare and the like (you didn't mention this). But what's stopping the 95% of straight people from marrying for benefits? Straight people don't marry for convenience, for the most part, because marriage is a serious contract. Why would the minority of gay people do anything different?
KurtGodel77 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I really dislike the term activist judges. Part of the purpose of even having a judicial system is to protect the interests of the individual against that of a majority. Basically, there needs to be some system allowing you to do unpopular things. The courts struck down anti-inter-racial marriage laws a few decades ago, and it went against the will of the majority. Brown v. Board of Ed is another case. Segregation was popular, because it imposed the will of a majority on the minority - it got trumped by equal protection under the law, just like this. Legislatures can NOT be trusted to protect any minority or any individual. That's why we need courts. 229113[/snapback] Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace. 235149[/snapback] You have got to be kidding.
John Adams Posted February 11, 2005 Author Posted February 11, 2005 You have got to be kidding. 235193[/snapback] Give him credit for consistency.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Allowing interracial marriage wasn't a case of protecting individual rights. It was a judicial elite imposing a racial agenda upon an unwilling American populace. 235149[/snapback] You have been far off before, but this one takes the cake. I hope Tom doesn't delete it so everyone can see how stupid it looks.
nobody Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 We all just need to pray that god will show the judicial elite the errors of their way.
Rubes Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 We all just need to pray that god will show the judicial elite the errors of their way. 235479[/snapback] Can we then pray that God will later show the religious conservatives the errors or their way, too?
KurtGodel77 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 You have been far off before, but this one takes the cake. I hope Tom doesn't delete it so everyone can see how stupid it looks. 235461[/snapback] To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse. The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse. The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide. 235565[/snapback] Man, who knew that interracial couples were committing "marital genocide"? This is a serious problem, Kurt. Thanks for raising our awareness. Maybe if there were a death of "global racial diversity" (which I see happening sometime around 30450) it wouldn't be such a bad thing. People sure as hell couldn't blame all their problems on black or white people. I don't know where beauty and justice and truth factor into all this, but I suppose two people of different races loving and caring for each other is unjust and ugly to you? Keep firing away, man, you look wholly ridiculous.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Man, who knew that interracial couples were committing "marital genocide"? This is a serious problem, Kurt. Thanks for raising our awareness. Maybe if there were a death of "global racial diversity" (which I see happening sometime around 30450) it wouldn't be such a bad thing. People sure as hell couldn't blame all their problems on black or white people. I don't know where beauty and justice and truth factor into all this, but I suppose two people of different races loving and caring for each other is unjust and ugly to you? Keep firing away, man, you look wholly ridiculous. 235574[/snapback] I saw a report indicating that the number of naturally blonde people is declining, and will reach essentially zero by the year 2200. That's at least one indication that global marital genocide is proceeding at a much faster pace than you seem to realize. Environmentalists worry about whether a particular subspecies of feline or bird or other animal may be going extinct. The Siberian Tiger, for example can interbreed successfully with other tigers, and even with lions. Even so, there is--and should be--concern about the fact this wonderful and unique creature may be going the way of the dinosaurs. How much more then should we be concerned about the preservation of the various human subspecies! We don't understand race, and cannot understand it in this day and age, when political correctness counts more than honesty or truth. Future generations will curse us if we choose to destroy something irreplaceable that we do not even understand.
slothrop Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 To someone who has grown up influenced by the propaganda of the decadent media and academia, my post indeed looks stupid. Any time you step outside of a particular worldview, those trapped within it will often see you as stupid or worse. The world has a choice. On the one hand, there is a future in which the world's races have been mixed together to the point that all individual races would be extinct. This future would mean the death of global racial diversity, and indeed the death of the world's races. On the other hand, we can choose a future in which racial uniqueness is preserved; where no race has gone extinct. As for me, I choose life over death, beauty and justice and truth over decadence and globalization and sameness. This is why I utterly and wholly reject global marital genocide. 235565[/snapback] I am frickin' speachless. Was this excerpt from a 1939 Nazi rally speech? This thread started as a semi-intelligent discussion and it evaporated into this. Wow.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I am frickin' speachless. Was this excerpt from a 1939 Nazi rally speech? This thread started as a semi-intelligent discussion and it evaporated into this. Wow. 235611[/snapback] In my original post, I wrote that any time you chose to step outside a particular worldview, those trapped inside that world view would see you as stupid or worse. Thanks for helping clarify the "or worse" part of that equation.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Environmentalists worry about whether a particular subspecies of feline or bird or other animal may be going extinct. The Siberian Tiger, for example can interbreed successfully with other tigers, and even with lions. Even so, there is--and should be--concern about the fact this wonderful and unique creature may be going the way of the dinosaurs. How much more then should we be concerned about the preservation of the various human subspecies! 235598[/snapback] WOW. Subspecies? Someone from Africa is still a homo sapien. They're not a different SPECIES, they're a different CULTURE.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 WOW. Subspecies? Someone from Africa is still a homo sapien. They're not a different SPECIES, they're a different CULTURE. 235720[/snapback] I never said that different races are different species; but that they are different subspecies. The gene pools of the different races have been separated for 100,000 years, and that's enough time for them to have become different subspecies. Which is a good thing, because it means there is more diversity within the overall gene pool. There is no sense in attacking or destroying this diversity by using marriage as a weapon against it.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 In my original post, I wrote that any time you chose to step outside a particular worldview, those trapped inside that world view would see you as stupid or worse. Thanks for helping clarify the "or worse" part of that equation. 235627[/snapback] Of course, you forget the very important point that the worldview you step into must have some sort of demonstrable grounding in reality. Otherwise, it's just mental illness. Now go find a good pshrink. The judicial elite propagating their liberal agenda of "marital genocide"?
Rubes Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Of course the original subject of this thread was "gay marriage", which, if I'm not mistaken, is an issue of love and union rather than reproduction. Where's the genetic suicide in this?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I never said that different races are different species; but that they are different subspecies. The gene pools of the different races have been separated for 100,000 years, and that's enough time for them to have become different subspecies. Which is a good thing, because it means there is more diversity within the overall gene pool. There is no sense in attacking or destroying this diversity by using marriage as a weapon against it. 235753[/snapback] No, Kurt, Someone from Africa is not Homo Sapiens Africensis. They're Homo Sapiens.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Of course the original subject of this thread was "gay marriage", which, if I'm not mistaken, is an issue of love and union rather than reproduction. Where's the genetic suicide in this? 235780[/snapback] According to someone here (I forget who), the propensity for "gayness" will be passed on to future generations as the species mutates so that men prefer men sexually, until such point as we all go extinct. It was a really elegant theory except for...well, everything. Wish I could remember precisely whose it was.
Recommended Posts