I'm not sure what you mean. Is this a play on words, as in, "not see much"? Too cryptic for me.
I thought the articles were interesting in that it plainly refutes the notion put forth by some that Christianity played any part in Nazism and the atrocities they perpetuated. Terror in the name of Allah is common. The same in the name of God/Christ is not. When this issue arises, and parallels are drawn, Nazism is often used to bolster the notion that Christianity is just as bad as Islam in producing heinous jerkwads. These articles dispel that notion rather well. I thought it a good idea to make sure at least a few more people see them. Kind of a pebble in a pond sort of thing.
Just sayin' it seems you're really on a Nazi-themed spree here lately. Someone must've really gotten under your skin about this for you to devote so much energy to what I'd consider a trivial concern. Kinda like collecting a bunch of evidence to definitively prove once and for all that the earth is, indeed, round. Again, it goes to the issue of rationality. Who cares what the wackos think? Personally, I don't think there's any need to dignify certain comparisons by responding to them as if they were legitimate. Then again, this blog is called "Marshall Art's", not "Les'", so I'll just shut the hell up now.
Not at all. A legitimate concern. Consider it filler. At the same time, I did find the articles interesting and it was coincidental that they all came about in the short span of time it did.
But hey, dem Bulls is playin' like crap, ain't dey?
I completely disagree. It's not that common, Cameron. Don't believe the hype. Such comparisons generally come from the quite vocal yet extreme fringe-type groups that make absurd claims like, for example, Bush conspired with bin Laden to bring down the towers.
Yes, while certain strains of evil can be tied to practitioners of all stripes of dogma - including Christianity - it takes a special breed of extremism to genuinely believe Christianity can be even remotely equated with Nazism. It's one thing to criticize one's faith - it's quite another to link one's faith to the most infamous genocidal machine in centuries. If we give credence to the arguments of those fringe groups by pretending there's any real debate here, we're fighting an unwinnable battle. Crazy can't be stopped altogether, but it can most certainly be ignored.
Perhaps you don't listen to as many talk shows as I do. I hear it with some regularity when the subject of stopping terrorism comes up. Generally, the Crusades card is played, and when it's distance to the present is played, then comes the search for modern examples, such as the murder of abortion doctors (very few in number and the guy most often cited isn't even religious), or that Hitler was a Catholic. Yeah, I think it's extreme to say as much, but I don't think all the people I've heard say it are necessarily extremists. They're just mistaken. Articles such as those I've presented would go a long way toward eliminating at least the Nazi-as-God-fearing-Christian angle. It ain't a REALLY big deal. It's just something that happens now and then, as if it's a grand "Ah HAH!"
Yet there's a big difference between drawing certain elements out of selected historical examples of fascism/totalitarianism/oppression/whatever vs. putting Christianity together with said example under the same big umbrella. That's one of the most infuriating things about these kinds of arguments - the COMPLETE discarding of context. Again, oppression is oppression WHEREVER it's manifested, and if a government decides to restrict any particular group's human rights because they don't conform to their own biased concept of morality (like the Nazis), then it's not out of line to compare such BEHAVIOR to that of people in our own country who want to create prohibitive legislation based on THEIR own belief systems. See what I mean?
Look, I've referenced the Crusades on numerous occasions to illustrate the evils that can be perpetrated in the "name" of Christianity. Why? Because it was, in fact, evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity! More often than not, I'm referencing the Crusades in an effort to find some explanation as to why the Christian west is so reviled by much of the Muslim world. I'd never say the Christian community of 2007 is the same as the "Christian" community of 1099, cuz it simply ain't. Big difference.
But getting back to a point I was making earlier, it seems to me that the aforementioned fringe perspective has somehow become the focal point of political and cultural discussion. When the hell did this happen? When the hell did the rational, informed majority that used to hold the real electoral power in this country retreat to the back corners of the town hall? Have they become so calloused by the Daily Kos bloggers and the Bill O'Reillys of the world that they've simply decided to step away and let the freakshows dominate the headlines? This, to me, is a social tragedy of epic proportions, and it's what fools people into thinking that those who equate Christians with Nazis represent a much larger portion of the population than they actually do. Speak up, people!!! Your country needs you!
Your points are well taken. Mine was to simply offer the articles as more solid proof that such arguments are stupid. I agree the arguments being on the table is in itself stupid, but until there is something solid, like these articles and their sources, to stand as obvious obstacles, such idiotic comparisons and parallels will be drawn, and in their doing so, needlessly and purposely interfere with getting to the heart of the issue, that usually being, that terrorism today, in the here and now, is being perpetuated by radicals in the name of Islam. There is no comparable Christian example in the here and now that isn't on the scale of a Fred Phelps.
So, when we strip away this argument, those seeking to, I don't know, defend? lessen the importance of? radical Islam, or more exactly, use such to battle against the U.S. strategy against radical Islam, those fools will have one less arrow in their quiver.
On a side note, I agree oppression is oppression no matter what provokes it. However, there is the tendency for some to cry oppression simply because they can't get their way. This is happening today. Your average teenager feels oppressed 24/7. Doesn't make it so. If I want nude volleyball in my backyard, am I being oppressed if the local authorities interfere? Well, yes, but that doesn't mean my civil rights are being denied me. The reason is that the majority does indeed set the tone for what is or isn't moral and the 2% that is not getting their way simpl have to deal. It happens to be the way the country is set up.
(BTW, that would be an all women's volleyball league. I'd simply be the line judge.)
I need to visit the shrink as I find myself agreeing with Les. I don't think Christians are compared with Nazism very often at all, and when they are it's usually some whacko that believes things like the WTC conspiracy theory, little green men from outer space, ghosts, and Global warming.
"The reason is that the majority does indeed set the tone for what is or isn't moral and the 2% that is not getting their way simpl have to deal."
They can set the tone SOCIALLY all they want, but I'll never agree that true freedom allows for the official CODIFICATION of subjective morality. More importantly, what does the size of any particular faction have to do with anything? You've used a variation of this argument with me before, Art. If memory serves, you recently expressed curiosity as to why I would concern myself so much with defending those particular groups I'm not exactly a part of. My general response to such queries has usually been something like, "Well, I might not be part of the group I'm speaking up for, but that doesn't mean I don't feel obligated to help them safeguard their status as equal citizens." Since this is a Nazi-themed thread, I figure Martin Niemöller's famous poem ties in quite nicely here. I'm sure you've read it before:
"First the Nazis came… First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me."
"They can set the tone SOCIALLY all they want, but I'll never agree that true freedom allows for the official CODIFICATION of subjective morality. More importantly, what does the size of any particular faction have to do with anything?"
First off, the size of the faction has everything to do with it since we are a country that decides according to majority rule. It is only recently that certain issues have been commandeered by the courts in a manner that suggests that is the proper way. It is not.
Secondly, "subjective" morality plays a part of our crafting of laws as it always has. And it is certainly at play in the push to codify that which you defend, as well as other similarly "subjective" views of morality. Thus, I maintain that the source of the agenda is irrelevant compared to the value of the agenda. Does the agenda benefit or not? I don't care if someone literally pulled an idea out of his ass, if the idea is a good one. In the same way, if an idea is crafted by the largest body of scholars, it doesn't matter if the idea is crap. The people eventually will decide by a vote, that is if we go by how the system is intended, and the majority will determine what's what. If you dislike an idea, it must only be put down or adopted on the merits of the idea and that's what needs to be argued.
I wouldn't fear agreement with Les as a rule of thumb. He's far more reasoned and logical than your average liberal. But I think that the degree to which such comparisons are made is relative, and I simply wanted to dispell the urge to make such comparisons at all, regardless of how often it happens.
"...certain issues have been commandeered by the courts..."
But what does that have to do with me, or this argument for that matter? For example, is my stance on gay rights due to the fact that the issue has been "commandeered by the courts"? Please. My stance on the gay rights issue is what it is precisely because of what I said before - I believe in freedom.
And you missed my point about the size of any particular faction. Again, one doesn't necessarily have to be a part of a certain faction in order to support it. African-Americans only made up roughly 11% of the American population in 1964, so according to your logic, why should anyone else have cared about the Civil Rights Movement? I'll tell you why - people cared because they knew something wasn't right about the world they were used to. They cared because they believed deep down inside that some things are worth taking some abuse for. They cared because they were no longer willing to live in a country where a select portion of its citizenry was still considered less equal than others. That's precisely why I care about equal rights for even the smallest of minorities, Art. I don't have to agree with them. I don't have to live like they live in order to support their right to live as such, and neither do you. Why on earth can't you support that notion? Why do you feel so compelled to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar than your own?
"Thus, I maintain that the source of the agenda is irrelevant compared to the value of the agenda."
WOW!!!! Talk about opportunistic ideology! Dude, that's EXACTLY how I argued against YOU when you blasted LBJ during our "tax-exempt status for churches" debate! It's nice to see you can agree with my logic when it suits your purposes.
And about "subjectivity" in lawmaking - are you suggesting objectivity should be thrown out the door when authoring laws that affect everyone?
My friend, you are not remembering our LBJ discussion. I thought the policy sucked as well as what provoked it.
I was assuming by "subjective" that you were referring to policy stemming from religious origins. Please clarify the difference in your mind between this and "objective". Examples would help.
I have the joy of having not witnessed the debacle in New York. I suffer greatly, but anticipate all manner of foulness into which my nose might be rubbed.
"Why on earth can't you support that notion?"
I can and do. I don't see the parallels between behavior and unchangable factors such as gneder, age, size, or skin color, Michael Jackson notwithstanding.
"Why do you feel so compelled to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar than your own?"
I don't. I'm compelled to oppose the codifying of unhealthy lifestyles into law. I oppose the mandating of moral equivalencies where they don't exist simply to soothe the sensibilities of 2% of the population. I oppose the indoctrination of small children with falsehoods regarding sexuality. I oppose the eradication of one's freedom of association in employment, social groups, and other areas. I oppose being told Scripture is wrong because of the way a tiny segment of society wants to get their jollies. I oppose their public displays of debauchery in so-called "pride parades", particularly when children are present. To save all that from change, I'll join you in defending their right to degrade themselves in the privacy of their own homes and nightspots.
"I thought the policy sucked as well as what provoked it."
Yes, you did, while I could've cared less what provoked it. To me, it's a decent policy, and on this we obviously disagree. That said, I'm not sure why you would've brought up LBJ's intentions in the first place if intentions are irrelevant, as you've argued on this thread.
"I was assuming by 'subjective' that you were referring to policy stemming from religious origins."
Sorta. Personally, I don't think those kind of beliefs should affect a lawmaker's decisions when making laws everyone has to live by. Religious beliefs are subjective, and legislating based on those beliefs threatens religious freedom.
"I can and do."
Keep tellin' yourself that.
"I'm compelled to oppose the codifying of unhealthy lifestyles into law."
Ugh. So you're willing to ignore the millions of man/woman marriages that end in tragedy in order to justify the codification of the traditional marriage formula that, as we all know, isn't exactly perfect or healthy for everyone all the time? You say you don't want to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar to your own, but what exactly do you call a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Sounds like a not-so-subtle ban on gay marriage to me, Art.
"...simply to soothe the sensibilities of 2% of the population."
Are you ignoring what I said about factions on purpose? It's called empathy. It's more than just the gay 2% who have convictions on this issue. Stop acting like it begins and ends with the gay folks themselves. Again, see my Civil Rights Movement comment.
"...I'm not sure why you would've brought up LBJ's intentions in the first place..."
Here we have a distinction between ssubjective and selfish. In the LBJ situation, his push for IRS changes was to prevent at least the clergy from speaking against him. This is a bit different than basing opinion on Scripture.
"Religious beliefs are subjective, and legislating based on those beliefs threatens religious freedom."
Not in the least. There is nothing constitutionally inappropriate about basing one's beliefs and policy suggestions on Scripture, especially if the application benefits everyone. It's the policy suggestion itself that needs examining, as I think we both agree. The LBJ policy prohibits free speech. On it's own merits it's bad policy.
"Keep tellin' yourself that."
This suggests that because I don't agree on the homo thing, that I don't agree with the concept you present in general. Not the case at all.
"Ugh. So you're willing to ignore...etc..."
I'm willing to view the totality of the situation and then render judgement, rather than focus on the exceptions used to defend a bad idea. The ideal of the traditional marriage is superior to any other suggested poor copy and is worthy of special status regardless of the abuses that may occur. An AmericanThinker.com article of yesterday or the day before speaks of the benefits of biological attachments which are formed within the traditional marriage that don't exist in other family arrangements. The traditional notion of adoptive parents comes next closest to biological parents with the father/mother dynamic being a large part of the reason. We cannot create law for every little variation that comes down the pike, just to satisfy those few who don't fit the ideal to a tee. An amendment or law to define traditional marriage honors the ideal due to it's many and varied benefits. We have the right to pursue happiness, but the state is not oblidged to guarantee that everyone attains it. Such an amendment may deprive some, but that's not the purpose as much as it is to defend what is the ideal, the best for our culture.
"It's more than just the gay 2% who have convictions on this issue."
Yeah, I know. And based on results where the issue was put to a vote, you're getting maybe 40% if you're lucky. Not a majority. Maybe at some point that will change, God forbid, but until then...
"...especially if the application benefits everyone."
Except gays, right?
Next topic:
Here's what you said -
"...because I don't agree on the homo thing..."
And here's what I said -
"I don't have to live like they live in order to support their right to live as such, and neither do you. Why on earth can't you support that notion?"
So, yes - because, by your own admission, you're selectively singling out gays here, you're saying you don't agree with the notion that they can live equally among us. That's called discrimination, Art.
"Maybe at some point that will change..."
Exactly. I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything going on around me, but I'm certainly happy knowing I support letting people freely make their own decisions and pursue the same opportunities as I can. I'm sorry you don't.
I used to live in Montana during the formative years of my NFL allegiance, and although I'm thoroughly enjoying the resurgence of one Brett Favre this year since I live here in Wisconsin, I can't ignore the orange and blue that flows through my blood. In Big Sky country, you have two choices when it comes to football - the Broncos and, like, trees. I chose the Broncos. Today, my boys are playin' your boys. I've got five bucks on Bowlen's Broncos. You in?
Frankly, I think it does benefit them as well, though not as they'd like it to. But as I suggested, laws aren't meant to necessarily satisfy or please absolutely everyone, and that's not the same as benefitting everyone. Kinda like eating your veggies.
"... you're selectively singling out gays here,"
Not so much as supporting the ideal, which is traditional marriage. That one group up and says they are seeking the same, doesn't make it so, and it doesn't here. So to say that I'm singling them out isn't accurate, particularly since they aren't the only group looking for legitimacy, only the group who opened their mouth (no pun intended). I'm far more interested in supporting the ideal than I am any poor variation of it.
" I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't."
I don't see crafting law based on such desires as progressive in the least. I have a problem with other "legal" forms of debauchery as well, such as porn and sex all over everything. Progressive in this instance would be resisting every little tingle of the loins in favor of a more lofty and transcendent goal for our society. We are definitely heading in the wrong direction as far as our societal character where sexuality is concerned.
"I'm sorry you don't."
But I insist I do. I simply don't believe every claim for equality is legitimate and worthy of state sanction. This is what we can and have decided at the polls. Should the majority swing your way, it won't make it right or beneficial, only legal. Then, I, and others like me, will have to strengthen our argument to swing it back our way. It would suck, but it would be the proper way, and I'd begrudgingly accept the result, at least until we could swing it back.
A pity I didn't see your challenge until this morning. I would then have been able to tell you that I don't trust my team to keep their heads from burrowing up their own backsides. Thus, I would have had to humbly and ashamedly step back from the wager. It's a sorry time for Chicago sports. All I want for Christmas is a respectable effort.
Art, your entire argument stems from this core belief:
"...it won't make it right..."
How can you not see that that is only YOUR opinion? You're advocating the legal outlawing of a behavior based on YOUR version of morality. Now THAT ain't right, my man.
Almost. What I'm really hoping for is codifying a traditional notion of marriage based on the moral views of a majority of people. As to who loses out on the deal, yeah, it will be those who seek to pretend there's no difference between what the majority now says and what they want us to believe. After they're done, they WILL be followed by other variations of marital arrangements that we're then to believe are also no different or no less worthy of the name or state sanctions. If you actually believe it will stop with the poor homosexual lobby, you're a dreamer. And yes, I see it as a bad thing for society, the culture, the nation and mankind in general.
One man, one woman, that's the way it's meant to be, and that's the way that works best for society. If you want to point to problems that occur under this arrangement, address the problems, don't use them as excuses or reasons to justify a bad idea. If you think this minority of people are being dealt unfairly because they can't have hospital visitation or whatever, then address those concerns. But they are NOT being discriminated against. They are muscling into every area of our culture that which THEY insist is morally equal to the traditional institution. How do the moral views of such a small minority outweigh the views of the majority? It is perfectly appropriate for the majority to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior. And just to show I'm consistent, I don't believe in civil unions for heterosexual couples either.
If you're serious about fairness, wouldn't it make more sense to insist on some kind of verifiable evidence to support their notion that they are otherwise normal and unchangable? I just can't see breaking hundreds of years of tradition because of how some people want to get their jollies. I just don't see the sense of it. So much of their argument is plain hooey designed to legitimize the illegitimate. The best plan here is to leave this issue alone for two or three generations and see it's effect on the Netherlands. It truly boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people would see this as no big deal.
Should gay people be allowed to vote? Should they qualify for government health care programs? Should they get tax returns? Should they be entitled to fair trials? Should they be allowed welfare and unemployment benefits? Should they receive social security when they retire? Should they be allowed to run for public office? Should they be allowed to drive on our roads, cross our bridges, and attend our public schools? Should they qualify for student loans?
Does it have to? I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well? Seems a double standard if I can't.
It can also be said that what hurts my community hurts me as well. I don't see that sex outside of traditional marriage benefits society, be it hetero or homo or group or any other kind. I think it hurts, and badly so, as evidenced by the the plethora of sex related negatives plagueing us now. These would be STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc, etc, etc. My kids have to grow up in this culture and I'd prefer it be a better one than it is now.
As to your last group of questions:
Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can.
"Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can."
I'm confused - so you're saying that despite the fact that they're gay people and they will continue to live their lives as gay people do, they can still reap the tax-funded rewards our government provides to all of our citizens? Why, then, should they be prohibited from enjoying the same marriage benefits as the rest of us? Marriage is a normal part of adulthood, so it's reasonable to assume alot of gay folks are going to want to wed at some point in their lives, right? The fact that they're getting married doesn't change who they are, so if you want to ban them from enjoying that particular benefit, why don't you take it a step further and attack ALL their civic benefits? It doesn't diminish YOUR marriage in the least. That's such a ridiculous argument to begin with - does the fact that a gay person gets social security upon retirement mean YOUR social security is less significant? Please.
"I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well?"
Of course you can be against it, Art, but the disconnect between you and I is that we're approaching the issue differently. You seem to think that legal equal marriage rights for gays is somehow a personal endorsement of the lifestyle. It's not. You have every right to teach your kids about the evil gay lifestyle all you want. That, however, shouldn't mean that your belief on the subject should be LAW. You're a religious man, so consider this - if, in fact, homosexuality is a sin, then wouldn't God be the judge when the day of reckoning comes? At the same time, if our eternal destiny is determined by our choices, then who gives you the right to play God and arbitrarily REMOVE that choice from gay folks?
It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others. Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you? Am I playing God to point out that certain sexual practices are physically harmful and that the more people engage in such the more our medical costs will rise? Is this playing God or simply pointing out the obvious? Either way, since it is obvious, I would be remiss if I didn't, on behalf of society, who's costs will be affected, insist that such behaviors shouldn't be encouraged, particularly in any official way.
"It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others."
Then do it on your own time. We've already debated the ridiculousness of the "higher costs for me" argument, so I don't even want to go there again. Not all our tax dollars go where we want them, dude. That's part of the deal. How many billions have we spent on this war in Iraq?
"Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you?"
I'm glad you brought that up. So are you saying that smoking tobacco should be illegal? Again, it's about BANNING SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH, ART!!!!!! Why are you not grasping this?
I do. I ain't knockin' on no one's door. Any public forum (or my own blog) IS my time.
And we now have a gazillion laws on the books that deprive someone of something. That's freakin' life. Should an ideal be supported, and by supporting that ideal a few are prevented from getting every little thing they want that is outside that ideal, too freakin' bad. The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT? There are no amount of benefits in sanctioning what you support that outweighs the disadvantages to society as far as I can see. Thus, it is right and just that only the traditional marriage receive the support of the state now demanded by those who've deviated from the norm. They can go play house on their own time, but society has yet to agree that such is equal and beneficial as is traditional marriage.
On the side, I don't know about banning smoking, but I'm in favor of banning tobacco. Who doesn't believe it's extremely harmful that is in a position to make public policy proposals? No one, I don't believe. I say, ban the crap and anyone who has taken up the habit in the last, say, twenty years, is on their own health care-wise. If it has been proven to be so dangerous, I can't see that non-smokers should be paying higher premiums to cover the smokers.
First of all, what's with the new security features? I hate those.
"The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT?"
Lame. Of course it doesn't guarantee happiness - merely the pursuit of it. I agree completely. That said, is every hetero married couple happy? Not a chance. Were they allowed the opportunity to PURSUE the happiness they thought could be found in marriage? Sure. Are gay couples allowed that same PURSUIT? Nope. Why? Because of statements like this:
"...as far as I can see."
That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art. What you are failing to acknowledge is that when you support laws being written to ban behaviors you despise, you are NOT "doing it on your own time". You've made it EVERYONE'S time.
First of all, WHAT security features? If you're talking about those two big dudes by the front door, they've always been there. But they're just mannequins, part of the decor here at Marshall Art's.
I don't believe that the happiness of the couple seeking a marriage license has anything to do with the legal process. And homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage. They seek something different, something not now sanctioned by the state or the its people. Yet, that doesn't interfere with their pursuit, if their pursuit means being a couple. If we concede, if not agree, that Lawrence v Texas was decided properly, or that its result is proper, then they really have little over which they can rightly complain. Their pursuit is unfetterred. If they force the majority, through activist judges, to accept their illicit coupling as normal, acceptable, equal to lawful marriage, they have then begun to interfere with the live's of everyone with whom they come into contact. So-called hate speech and hate crimes are already including their deviancy within the legal umbrella.
""...as far as I can see."
That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art."
("golly danged"---I'll thank you not to use that kind of language here, youngish man.) The opinion is shared by the majority of society and that's a salient point. There is no discrimination here, there is only a desire to keep traditional standards high. That the downside of the homo agenda is ignored is far more dangerous to society as a whole than any perceived slight against a tiny minority who hope to legitmize deviant behavior.
"Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage."
Whose definition?
http://m-w.com/dictionary/marriage
Is marriage between a man and a woman the traditional norm? Yes, of course it is. No argument here. And guess what? It will continue to be the norm, IRREGARDLESS of any legalization of same sex marriage. Why? Because homosexuals are, indeed, the minority of our population. Does the legalization of something automatically mean it's going to spread like wildfire? What a crock! When you're gay, you're gay. I guess that's what I'm not getting here - how does legalizing gay marriage affect you, your marriage, or your sexuality? Are you afraid c**k is suddenly going to be appealing to you if gay marriage is legal? Will women somehow be less attractive to straight people? I just don't understand the concern here.
"...homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman..."
How are you missing the significance of the gigantic "if" you included in the text of that statement, Art? You're right - RIGHT NOW gay marriage isn't a legal option almost everywhere. Legal and social environments are always changing. At one point in our history, the 15th Amendment came along to ensure former slaves had the right to vote. I'm sure that didn't sit too well with alot of people when it happened. Today, most Americans could care less, because we take such rights as a given.
So, is your dictionary of recent printing, or a pre-1970 edition? Should I be surprised if the newest books off the presses includes a more liberal (per)version of the word? Honest people KNOW what the definition of marriage is. Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths. There's a little rant for ya.
Now really, Les. In all the many discussions of this issue, have I ever suggested you might be a homo BECAUSE of your POV? And we just covered the part where one doesn't have to be a part of an issue to support it, but apparently, I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense? Wassup? No buds?
The concern stems from seeing plainly the progression from the late 50's/early 60's of relaxing standards of sexuality to the current day. Those days of Hef pretending he's sophisticated to add alure to his titty mags set the stage for what we see now. This is only another stage of the downwardly defined deviancy of our culture. Though there have always been pockets of promiscuity of all sorts, it never had any public support of any kind, and was publicly considered wicked, unhealthy, and of low character and reputation. So the 50s & 60s really opened it up to what our culture now is, which is one that doesn't blink an eye over pre-marital sex, even when participants are getting younger all the time. As things opened up and loosened up, the pro-homo factions found a prime opportunity to seek legitimacy.
Now, with so many liberals giving homo representatives the time of day, they like to think that this will be the end of the progression and Rick Santorum didn't know what he was talking about. Yet, there are supporters of polygamy beginning to "stand up for their rights" and are watching to see how it works out for the homos. And since the same arguments are valid for the polygamists as they allegedly are for the homo community, they too must be accomodated. What other groups do you suppose might feel the same way about their own situation?
And this may be the best argument for granting some exclusivity to traditional marriage: there's no way to deny ANY arrangement the same status if it is granted to the homosexual community. And to anyone not chugging huge frosty draughts of the pro-homo KoolAid, this also marks the first downside.
More to come. I just have to figure out how to lay it out concisely, if possible. Might have to finally learn how to use links.
"I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense?"
That's a complete misreading - intentional or otherwise - of the point I was trying to make. I expressed bemusement as to why you're so concerned about legalization, as if it's somehow going to affect YOUR marriage or YOUR sexuality. Again, it goes all the way back to live and let live, dude. I get the feeling you're concerned there's going to be some sort of massive explosion of homosexuality should gays be allowed to wed. If so, that's absurd. A law does not make people turn gay. They'll still be a minority of the population, and your traditional marriage will still be just fine.
While I disagree that it applies to this particular discussion, I couldn't help but chuckle about this little nugget of partisan gold:
"Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths."
Um, excuse me? Am I the only one here who notices when the NIE contradicts your homeys over in the White House? Let's keep it real, Art. The manipulation of facts is not a partisan habit by any stretch of the imagination.
The NIE also contradicts its own assessment from 2005, yet dances around that little fact. According to Human Events, those putting together the NIE report are known Bush-bashers. I just wanted to throw that out there, not having read the whole NIE article yet.
Dude. What's your point? That Babbin can tell who is or isn't with the prez whilst working under him? The real question is whether or not such is true. If Babbin's stuff is on the mark, where's the bias? If his stuff is true, then he's biased about truthfulness. Not a bad thing.
Regarding sources, I'm going to have a blog asking everyone to name what they consider to be an unbiased source of info. Should be fun. Imagine everyone agreeing with one voice. Not that it'll happen, but just imagine...
43 comments:
Um, Nazi much?
Um, what?
I'm not sure what you mean. Is this a play on words, as in, "not see much"? Too cryptic for me.
I thought the articles were interesting in that it plainly refutes the notion put forth by some that Christianity played any part in Nazism and the atrocities they perpetuated. Terror in the name of Allah is common. The same in the name of God/Christ is not. When this issue arises, and parallels are drawn, Nazism is often used to bolster the notion that Christianity is just as bad as Islam in producing heinous jerkwads. These articles dispel that notion rather well. I thought it a good idea to make sure at least a few more people see them. Kind of a pebble in a pond sort of thing.
"I'm not sure what you mean."
Just sayin' it seems you're really on a Nazi-themed spree here lately. Someone must've really gotten under your skin about this for you to devote so much energy to what I'd consider a trivial concern. Kinda like collecting a bunch of evidence to definitively prove once and for all that the earth is, indeed, round. Again, it goes to the issue of rationality. Who cares what the wackos think? Personally, I don't think there's any need to dignify certain comparisons by responding to them as if they were legitimate. Then again, this blog is called "Marshall Art's", not "Les'", so I'll just shut the hell up now.
Not at all. A legitimate concern. Consider it filler. At the same time, I did find the articles interesting and it was coincidental that they all came about in the short span of time it did.
But hey, dem Bulls is playin' like crap, ain't dey?
It's not just wackos that try to pin all sorts of "evil" things to Christianity, including Nazism. It's actually quite common.
I completely disagree. It's not that common, Cameron. Don't believe the hype. Such comparisons generally come from the quite vocal yet extreme fringe-type groups that make absurd claims like, for example, Bush conspired with bin Laden to bring down the towers.
Yes, while certain strains of evil can be tied to practitioners of all stripes of dogma - including Christianity - it takes a special breed of extremism to genuinely believe Christianity can be even remotely equated with Nazism. It's one thing to criticize one's faith - it's quite another to link one's faith to the most infamous genocidal machine in centuries. If we give credence to the arguments of those fringe groups by pretending there's any real debate here, we're fighting an unwinnable battle. Crazy can't be stopped altogether, but it can most certainly be ignored.
Les,
Perhaps you don't listen to as many talk shows as I do. I hear it with some regularity when the subject of stopping terrorism comes up. Generally, the Crusades card is played, and when it's distance to the present is played, then comes the search for modern examples, such as the murder of abortion doctors (very few in number and the guy most often cited isn't even religious), or that Hitler was a Catholic. Yeah, I think it's extreme to say as much, but I don't think all the people I've heard say it are necessarily extremists. They're just mistaken. Articles such as those I've presented would go a long way toward eliminating at least the Nazi-as-God-fearing-Christian angle. It ain't a REALLY big deal. It's just something that happens now and then, as if it's a grand "Ah HAH!"
Yet there's a big difference between drawing certain elements out of selected historical examples of fascism/totalitarianism/oppression/whatever vs. putting Christianity together with said example under the same big umbrella. That's one of the most infuriating things about these kinds of arguments - the COMPLETE discarding of context. Again, oppression is oppression WHEREVER it's manifested, and if a government decides to restrict any particular group's human rights because they don't conform to their own biased concept of morality (like the Nazis), then it's not out of line to compare such BEHAVIOR to that of people in our own country who want to create prohibitive legislation based on THEIR own belief systems. See what I mean?
Look, I've referenced the Crusades on numerous occasions to illustrate the evils that can be perpetrated in the "name" of Christianity. Why? Because it was, in fact, evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity! More often than not, I'm referencing the Crusades in an effort to find some explanation as to why the Christian west is so reviled by much of the Muslim world. I'd never say the Christian community of 2007 is the same as the "Christian" community of 1099, cuz it simply ain't. Big difference.
But getting back to a point I was making earlier, it seems to me that the aforementioned fringe perspective has somehow become the focal point of political and cultural discussion. When the hell did this happen? When the hell did the rational, informed majority that used to hold the real electoral power in this country retreat to the back corners of the town hall? Have they become so calloused by the Daily Kos bloggers and the Bill O'Reillys of the world that they've simply decided to step away and let the freakshows dominate the headlines? This, to me, is a social tragedy of epic proportions, and it's what fools people into thinking that those who equate Christians with Nazis represent a much larger portion of the population than they actually do. Speak up, people!!! Your country needs you!
End of stump speech.
Les,
Your points are well taken. Mine was to simply offer the articles as more solid proof that such arguments are stupid. I agree the arguments being on the table is in itself stupid, but until there is something solid, like these articles and their sources, to stand as obvious obstacles, such idiotic comparisons and parallels will be drawn, and in their doing so, needlessly and purposely interfere with getting to the heart of the issue, that usually being, that terrorism today, in the here and now, is being perpetuated by radicals in the name of Islam. There is no comparable Christian example in the here and now that isn't on the scale of a Fred Phelps.
So, when we strip away this argument, those seeking to, I don't know, defend? lessen the importance of? radical Islam, or more exactly, use such to battle against the U.S. strategy against radical Islam, those fools will have one less arrow in their quiver.
On a side note, I agree oppression is oppression no matter what provokes it. However, there is the tendency for some to cry oppression simply because they can't get their way. This is happening today. Your average teenager feels oppressed 24/7. Doesn't make it so. If I want nude volleyball in my backyard, am I being oppressed if the local authorities interfere? Well, yes, but that doesn't mean my civil rights are being denied me. The reason is that the majority does indeed set the tone for what is or isn't moral and the 2% that is not getting their way simpl have to deal. It happens to be the way the country is set up.
(BTW, that would be an all women's volleyball league. I'd simply be the line judge.)
I need to visit the shrink as I find myself agreeing with Les. I don't think Christians are compared with Nazism very often at all, and when they are it's usually some whacko that believes things like the WTC conspiracy theory, little green men from outer space, ghosts, and Global warming.
"The reason is that the majority does indeed set the tone for what is or isn't moral and the 2% that is not getting their way simpl have to deal."
They can set the tone SOCIALLY all they want, but I'll never agree that true freedom allows for the official CODIFICATION of subjective morality. More importantly, what does the size of any particular faction have to do with anything? You've used a variation of this argument with me before, Art. If memory serves, you recently expressed curiosity as to why I would concern myself so much with defending those particular groups I'm not exactly a part of. My general response to such queries has usually been something like, "Well, I might not be part of the group I'm speaking up for, but that doesn't mean I don't feel obligated to help them safeguard their status as equal citizens." Since this is a Nazi-themed thread, I figure Martin Niemöller's famous poem ties in quite nicely here. I'm sure you've read it before:
"First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
"They can set the tone SOCIALLY all they want, but I'll never agree that true freedom allows for the official CODIFICATION of subjective morality. More importantly, what does the size of any particular faction have to do with anything?"
First off, the size of the faction has everything to do with it since we are a country that decides according to majority rule. It is only recently that certain issues have been commandeered by the courts in a manner that suggests that is the proper way. It is not.
Secondly, "subjective" morality plays a part of our crafting of laws as it always has. And it is certainly at play in the push to codify that which you defend, as well as other similarly "subjective" views of morality. Thus, I maintain that the source of the agenda is irrelevant compared to the value of the agenda. Does the agenda benefit or not? I don't care if someone literally pulled an idea out of his ass, if the idea is a good one. In the same way, if an idea is crafted by the largest body of scholars, it doesn't matter if the idea is crap. The people eventually will decide by a vote, that is if we go by how the system is intended, and the majority will determine what's what. If you dislike an idea, it must only be put down or adopted on the merits of the idea and that's what needs to be argued.
Mark,
I wouldn't fear agreement with Les as a rule of thumb. He's far more reasoned and logical than your average liberal. But I think that the degree to which such comparisons are made is relative, and I simply wanted to dispell the urge to make such comparisons at all, regardless of how often it happens.
"...certain issues have been commandeered by the courts..."
But what does that have to do with me, or this argument for that matter? For example, is my stance on gay rights due to the fact that the issue has been "commandeered by the courts"? Please. My stance on the gay rights issue is what it is precisely because of what I said before - I believe in freedom.
And you missed my point about the size of any particular faction. Again, one doesn't necessarily have to be a part of a certain faction in order to support it. African-Americans only made up roughly 11% of the American population in 1964, so according to your logic, why should anyone else have cared about the Civil Rights Movement? I'll tell you why - people cared because they knew something wasn't right about the world they were used to. They cared because they believed deep down inside that some things are worth taking some abuse for. They cared because they were no longer willing to live in a country where a select portion of its citizenry was still considered less equal than others. That's precisely why I care about equal rights for even the smallest of minorities, Art. I don't have to agree with them. I don't have to live like they live in order to support their right to live as such, and neither do you. Why on earth can't you support that notion? Why do you feel so compelled to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar than your own?
"Thus, I maintain that the source of the agenda is irrelevant compared to the value of the agenda."
WOW!!!! Talk about opportunistic ideology! Dude, that's EXACTLY how I argued against YOU when you blasted LBJ during our "tax-exempt status for churches" debate! It's nice to see you can agree with my logic when it suits your purposes.
And about "subjectivity" in lawmaking - are you suggesting objectivity should be thrown out the door when authoring laws that affect everyone?
The Knicks? Really? Ouch.
My friend, you are not remembering our LBJ discussion. I thought the policy sucked as well as what provoked it.
I was assuming by "subjective" that you were referring to policy stemming from religious origins. Please clarify the difference in your mind between this and "objective". Examples would help.
I have the joy of having not witnessed the debacle in New York. I suffer greatly, but anticipate all manner of foulness into which my nose might be rubbed.
"Why on earth can't you support that notion?"
I can and do. I don't see the parallels between behavior and unchangable factors such as gneder, age, size, or skin color, Michael Jackson notwithstanding.
"Why do you feel so compelled to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar than your own?"
I don't. I'm compelled to oppose the codifying of unhealthy lifestyles into law. I oppose the mandating of moral equivalencies where they don't exist simply to soothe the sensibilities of 2% of the population. I oppose the indoctrination of small children with falsehoods regarding sexuality. I oppose the eradication of one's freedom of association in employment, social groups, and other areas. I oppose being told Scripture is wrong because of the way a tiny segment of society wants to get their jollies. I oppose their public displays of debauchery in so-called "pride parades", particularly when children are present. To save all that from change, I'll join you in defending their right to degrade themselves in the privacy of their own homes and nightspots.
"I thought the policy sucked as well as what provoked it."
Yes, you did, while I could've cared less what provoked it. To me, it's a decent policy, and on this we obviously disagree. That said, I'm not sure why you would've brought up LBJ's intentions in the first place if intentions are irrelevant, as you've argued on this thread.
"I was assuming by 'subjective' that you were referring to policy stemming from religious origins."
Sorta. Personally, I don't think those kind of beliefs should affect a lawmaker's decisions when making laws everyone has to live by. Religious beliefs are subjective, and legislating based on those beliefs threatens religious freedom.
"I can and do."
Keep tellin' yourself that.
"I'm compelled to oppose the codifying of unhealthy lifestyles into law."
Ugh. So you're willing to ignore the millions of man/woman marriages that end in tragedy in order to justify the codification of the traditional marriage formula that, as we all know, isn't exactly perfect or healthy for everyone all the time? You say you don't want to outlaw lifestyles dissimilar to your own, but what exactly do you call a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Sounds like a not-so-subtle ban on gay marriage to me, Art.
"...simply to soothe the sensibilities of 2% of the population."
Are you ignoring what I said about factions on purpose? It's called empathy. It's more than just the gay 2% who have convictions on this issue. Stop acting like it begins and ends with the gay folks themselves. Again, see my Civil Rights Movement comment.
"...I'm not sure why you would've brought up LBJ's intentions in the first place..."
Here we have a distinction between ssubjective and selfish. In the LBJ situation, his push for IRS changes was to prevent at least the clergy from speaking against him. This is a bit different than basing opinion on Scripture.
"Religious beliefs are subjective, and legislating based on those beliefs threatens religious freedom."
Not in the least. There is nothing constitutionally inappropriate about basing one's beliefs and policy suggestions on Scripture, especially if the application benefits everyone. It's the policy suggestion itself that needs examining, as I think we both agree. The LBJ policy prohibits free speech. On it's own merits it's bad policy.
"Keep tellin' yourself that."
This suggests that because I don't agree on the homo thing, that I don't agree with the concept you present in general. Not the case at all.
"Ugh. So you're willing to ignore...etc..."
I'm willing to view the totality of the situation and then render judgement, rather than focus on the exceptions used to defend a bad idea. The ideal of the traditional marriage is superior to any other suggested poor copy and is worthy of special status regardless of the abuses that may occur. An AmericanThinker.com article of yesterday or the day before speaks of the benefits of biological attachments which are formed within the traditional marriage that don't exist in other family arrangements. The traditional notion of adoptive parents comes next closest to biological parents with the father/mother dynamic being a large part of the reason. We cannot create law for every little variation that comes down the pike, just to satisfy those few who don't fit the ideal to a tee. An amendment or law to define traditional marriage honors the ideal due to it's many and varied benefits. We have the right to pursue happiness, but the state is not oblidged to guarantee that everyone attains it. Such an amendment may deprive some, but that's not the purpose as much as it is to defend what is the ideal, the best for our culture.
"It's more than just the gay 2% who have convictions on this issue."
Yeah, I know. And based on results where the issue was put to a vote, you're getting maybe 40% if you're lucky. Not a majority. Maybe at some point that will change, God forbid, but until then...
"...especially if the application benefits everyone."
Except gays, right?
Next topic:
Here's what you said -
"...because I don't agree on the homo thing..."
And here's what I said -
"I don't have to live like they live in order to support their right to live as such, and neither do you. Why on earth can't you support that notion?"
So, yes - because, by your own admission, you're selectively singling out gays here, you're saying you don't agree with the notion that they can live equally among us. That's called discrimination, Art.
"Maybe at some point that will change..."
Exactly. I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything going on around me, but I'm certainly happy knowing I support letting people freely make their own decisions and pursue the same opportunities as I can. I'm sorry you don't.
Completely unrelated topic:
I used to live in Montana during the formative years of my NFL allegiance, and although I'm thoroughly enjoying the resurgence of one Brett Favre this year since I live here in Wisconsin, I can't ignore the orange and blue that flows through my blood. In Big Sky country, you have two choices when it comes to football - the Broncos and, like, trees. I chose the Broncos. Today, my boys are playin' your boys. I've got five bucks on Bowlen's Broncos. You in?
"Except gays, right?"
Frankly, I think it does benefit them as well, though not as they'd like it to. But as I suggested, laws aren't meant to necessarily satisfy or please absolutely everyone, and that's not the same as benefitting everyone. Kinda like eating your veggies.
"... you're selectively singling out gays here,"
Not so much as supporting the ideal, which is traditional marriage. That one group up and says they are seeking the same, doesn't make it so, and it doesn't here. So to say that I'm singling them out isn't accurate, particularly since they aren't the only group looking for legitimacy, only the group who opened their mouth (no pun intended). I'm far more interested in supporting the ideal than I am any poor variation of it.
" I choose to be part of a progressive society, which you obviously don't."
I don't see crafting law based on such desires as progressive in the least. I have a problem with other "legal" forms of debauchery as well, such as porn and sex all over everything. Progressive in this instance would be resisting every little tingle of the loins in favor of a more lofty and transcendent goal for our society. We are definitely heading in the wrong direction as far as our societal character where sexuality is concerned.
"I'm sorry you don't."
But I insist I do. I simply don't believe every claim for equality is legitimate and worthy of state sanction. This is what we can and have decided at the polls. Should the majority swing your way, it won't make it right or beneficial, only legal. Then, I, and others like me, will have to strengthen our argument to swing it back our way. It would suck, but it would be the proper way, and I'd begrudgingly accept the result, at least until we could swing it back.
A pity I didn't see your challenge until this morning. I would then have been able to tell you that I don't trust my team to keep their heads from burrowing up their own backsides. Thus, I would have had to humbly and ashamedly step back from the wager. It's a sorry time for Chicago sports. All I want for Christmas is a respectable effort.
Art, your entire argument stems from this core belief:
"...it won't make it right..."
How can you not see that that is only YOUR opinion? You're advocating the legal outlawing of a behavior based on YOUR version of morality. Now THAT ain't right, my man.
Almost. What I'm really hoping for is codifying a traditional notion of marriage based on the moral views of a majority of people. As to who loses out on the deal, yeah, it will be those who seek to pretend there's no difference between what the majority now says and what they want us to believe. After they're done, they WILL be followed by other variations of marital arrangements that we're then to believe are also no different or no less worthy of the name or state sanctions. If you actually believe it will stop with the poor homosexual lobby, you're a dreamer. And yes, I see it as a bad thing for society, the culture, the nation and mankind in general.
One man, one woman, that's the way it's meant to be, and that's the way that works best for society. If you want to point to problems that occur under this arrangement, address the problems, don't use them as excuses or reasons to justify a bad idea. If you think this minority of people are being dealt unfairly because they can't have hospital visitation or whatever, then address those concerns. But they are NOT being discriminated against. They are muscling into every area of our culture that which THEY insist is morally equal to the traditional institution. How do the moral views of such a small minority outweigh the views of the majority? It is perfectly appropriate for the majority to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior. And just to show I'm consistent, I don't believe in civil unions for heterosexual couples either.
If you're serious about fairness, wouldn't it make more sense to insist on some kind of verifiable evidence to support their notion that they are otherwise normal and unchangable? I just can't see breaking hundreds of years of tradition because of how some people want to get their jollies. I just don't see the sense of it. So much of their argument is plain hooey designed to legitimize the illegitimate. The best plan here is to leave this issue alone for two or three generations and see it's effect on the Netherlands. It truly boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people would see this as no big deal.
"I just don't see the sense of it."
How does it hurt you, Art?
Should gay people be allowed to vote? Should they qualify for government health care programs? Should they get tax returns? Should they be entitled to fair trials? Should they be allowed welfare and unemployment benefits? Should they receive social security when they retire? Should they be allowed to run for public office? Should they be allowed to drive on our roads, cross our bridges, and attend our public schools? Should they qualify for student loans?
"How does it hurt you, Art?"
Does it have to? I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well? Seems a double standard if I can't.
It can also be said that what hurts my community hurts me as well. I don't see that sex outside of traditional marriage benefits society, be it hetero or homo or group or any other kind. I think it hurts, and badly so, as evidenced by the the plethora of sex related negatives plagueing us now. These would be STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc, etc, etc. My kids have to grow up in this culture and I'd prefer it be a better one than it is now.
As to your last group of questions:
Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can.
"Yes. If they can. If they can. Yes. If they qualify. If they've been contributing during their working years. Yes. Yes. If they can."
I'm confused - so you're saying that despite the fact that they're gay people and they will continue to live their lives as gay people do, they can still reap the tax-funded rewards our government provides to all of our citizens? Why, then, should they be prohibited from enjoying the same marriage benefits as the rest of us? Marriage is a normal part of adulthood, so it's reasonable to assume alot of gay folks are going to want to wed at some point in their lives, right? The fact that they're getting married doesn't change who they are, so if you want to ban them from enjoying that particular benefit, why don't you take it a step further and attack ALL their civic benefits? It doesn't diminish YOUR marriage in the least. That's such a ridiculous argument to begin with - does the fact that a gay person gets social security upon retirement mean YOUR social security is less significant? Please.
"I mean, must I only be FOR something that doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of, or can I also be AGAINST something as well?"
Of course you can be against it, Art, but the disconnect between you and I is that we're approaching the issue differently. You seem to think that legal equal marriage rights for gays is somehow a personal endorsement of the lifestyle. It's not. You have every right to teach your kids about the evil gay lifestyle all you want. That, however, shouldn't mean that your belief on the subject should be LAW. You're a religious man, so consider this - if, in fact, homosexuality is a sin, then wouldn't God be the judge when the day of reckoning comes? At the same time, if our eternal destiny is determined by our choices, then who gives you the right to play God and arbitrarily REMOVE that choice from gay folks?
Oh, to see the zeal for saving the lives of the unborn that we see for the promotion of same sex marriage.
It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others. Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you? Am I playing God to point out that certain sexual practices are physically harmful and that the more people engage in such the more our medical costs will rise? Is this playing God or simply pointing out the obvious? Either way, since it is obvious, I would be remiss if I didn't, on behalf of society, who's costs will be affected, insist that such behaviors shouldn't be encouraged, particularly in any official way.
"It's not in the least bit playing God to point out the error of the ways of others."
Then do it on your own time. We've already debated the ridiculousness of the "higher costs for me" argument, so I don't even want to go there again. Not all our tax dollars go where we want them, dude. That's part of the deal. How many billions have we spent on this war in Iraq?
"Am I playing God to point out that smoking tobacco is bad for you?"
I'm glad you brought that up. So are you saying that smoking tobacco should be illegal? Again, it's about BANNING SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH, ART!!!!!! Why are you not grasping this?
"Then do it on your own time."
I do. I ain't knockin' on no one's door. Any public forum (or my own blog) IS my time.
And we now have a gazillion laws on the books that deprive someone of something. That's freakin' life. Should an ideal be supported, and by supporting that ideal a few are prevented from getting every little thing they want that is outside that ideal, too freakin' bad. The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT? There are no amount of benefits in sanctioning what you support that outweighs the disadvantages to society as far as I can see. Thus, it is right and just that only the traditional marriage receive the support of the state now demanded by those who've deviated from the norm. They can go play house on their own time, but society has yet to agree that such is equal and beneficial as is traditional marriage.
On the side, I don't know about banning smoking, but I'm in favor of banning tobacco. Who doesn't believe it's extremely harmful that is in a position to make public policy proposals? No one, I don't believe. I say, ban the crap and anyone who has taken up the habit in the last, say, twenty years, is on their own health care-wise. If it has been proven to be so dangerous, I can't see that non-smokers should be paying higher premiums to cover the smokers.
First of all, what's with the new security features? I hate those.
"The right to pursue happiness does not require the state to guarantee happiness for everyone or even anyone. Why can't you grasp THAT?"
Lame. Of course it doesn't guarantee happiness - merely the pursuit of it. I agree completely. That said, is every hetero married couple happy? Not a chance. Were they allowed the opportunity to PURSUE the happiness they thought could be found in marriage? Sure. Are gay couples allowed that same PURSUIT? Nope. Why? Because of statements like this:
"...as far as I can see."
That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art. What you are failing to acknowledge is that when you support laws being written to ban behaviors you despise, you are NOT "doing it on your own time". You've made it EVERYONE'S time.
I'm done with this.
Les,
First of all, WHAT security features? If you're talking about those two big dudes by the front door, they've always been there. But they're just mannequins, part of the decor here at Marshall Art's.
I don't believe that the happiness of the couple seeking a marriage license has anything to do with the legal process. And homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage. They seek something different, something not now sanctioned by the state or the its people. Yet, that doesn't interfere with their pursuit, if their pursuit means being a couple. If we concede, if not agree, that Lawrence v Texas was decided properly, or that its result is proper, then they really have little over which they can rightly complain. Their pursuit is unfetterred. If they force the majority, through activist judges, to accept their illicit coupling as normal, acceptable, equal to lawful marriage, they have then begun to interfere with the live's of everyone with whom they come into contact. So-called hate speech and hate crimes are already including their deviancy within the legal umbrella.
""...as far as I can see."
That's YOUR golly danged opinion, and you're entitled to it, Marshall Art."
("golly danged"---I'll thank you not to use that kind of language here, youngish man.) The opinion is shared by the majority of society and that's a salient point. There is no discrimination here, there is only a desire to keep traditional standards high. That the downside of the homo agenda is ignored is far more dangerous to society as a whole than any perceived slight against a tiny minority who hope to legitmize deviant behavior.
I lied. I'm not done with this.
"Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman, the very definition of marriage."
Whose definition?
http://m-w.com/dictionary/marriage
Is marriage between a man and a woman the traditional norm? Yes, of course it is. No argument here. And guess what? It will continue to be the norm, IRREGARDLESS of any legalization of same sex marriage. Why? Because homosexuals are, indeed, the minority of our population. Does the legalization of something automatically mean it's going to spread like wildfire? What a crock! When you're gay, you're gay. I guess that's what I'm not getting here - how does legalizing gay marriage affect you, your marriage, or your sexuality? Are you afraid c**k is suddenly going to be appealing to you if gay marriage is legal? Will women somehow be less attractive to straight people? I just don't understand the concern here.
"...homo couples are indeed allowed if they conform to the parameters of the state licensing obligations. Right now, that limits them to one man, one woman..."
How are you missing the significance of the gigantic "if" you included in the text of that statement, Art? You're right - RIGHT NOW gay marriage isn't a legal option almost everywhere. Legal and social environments are always changing. At one point in our history, the 15th Amendment came along to ensure former slaves had the right to vote. I'm sure that didn't sit too well with alot of people when it happened. Today, most Americans could care less, because we take such rights as a given.
"...the downside of the homo agenda..."
Prove to me this downside even exists.
So, is your dictionary of recent printing, or a pre-1970 edition? Should I be surprised if the newest books off the presses includes a more liberal (per)version of the word? Honest people KNOW what the definition of marriage is. Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths. There's a little rant for ya.
Now really, Les. In all the many discussions of this issue, have I ever suggested you might be a homo BECAUSE of your POV? And we just covered the part where one doesn't have to be a part of an issue to support it, but apparently, I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense? Wassup? No buds?
The concern stems from seeing plainly the progression from the late 50's/early 60's of relaxing standards of sexuality to the current day. Those days of Hef pretending he's sophisticated to add alure to his titty mags set the stage for what we see now. This is only another stage of the downwardly defined deviancy of our culture. Though there have always been pockets of promiscuity of all sorts, it never had any public support of any kind, and was publicly considered wicked, unhealthy, and of low character and reputation. So the 50s & 60s really opened it up to what our culture now is, which is one that doesn't blink an eye over pre-marital sex, even when participants are getting younger all the time. As things opened up and loosened up, the pro-homo factions found a prime opportunity to seek legitimacy.
Now, with so many liberals giving homo representatives the time of day, they like to think that this will be the end of the progression and Rick Santorum didn't know what he was talking about. Yet, there are supporters of polygamy beginning to "stand up for their rights" and are watching to see how it works out for the homos. And since the same arguments are valid for the polygamists as they allegedly are for the homo community, they too must be accomodated. What other groups do you suppose might feel the same way about their own situation?
And this may be the best argument for granting some exclusivity to traditional marriage: there's no way to deny ANY arrangement the same status if it is granted to the homosexual community. And to anyone not chugging huge frosty draughts of the pro-homo KoolAid, this also marks the first downside.
More to come. I just have to figure out how to lay it out concisely, if possible. Might have to finally learn how to use links.
"I must have a secret dick fetish because I oppose it. How does THAT make any sense?"
That's a complete misreading - intentional or otherwise - of the point I was trying to make. I expressed bemusement as to why you're so concerned about legalization, as if it's somehow going to affect YOUR marriage or YOUR sexuality. Again, it goes all the way back to live and let live, dude. I get the feeling you're concerned there's going to be some sort of massive explosion of homosexuality should gays be allowed to wed. If so, that's absurd. A law does not make people turn gay. They'll still be a minority of the population, and your traditional marriage will still be just fine.
While I disagree that it applies to this particular discussion, I couldn't help but chuckle about this little nugget of partisan gold:
"Liberals tend to ignore reality in favor of THEIR truths."
Um, excuse me? Am I the only one here who notices when the NIE contradicts your homeys over in the White House? Let's keep it real, Art. The manipulation of facts is not a partisan habit by any stretch of the imagination.
The NIE also contradicts its own assessment from 2005, yet dances around that little fact. According to Human Events, those putting together the NIE report are known Bush-bashers. I just wanted to throw that out there, not having read the whole NIE article yet.
Ah, yes - Human Events. What a shining beacon of objectivity. No editorializing there, right?
Here's another Jed Babbin gem:
nationalreview.com/comment/comment-babbin030603.asp
Dude. What's your point? That Babbin can tell who is or isn't with the prez whilst working under him? The real question is whether or not such is true. If Babbin's stuff is on the mark, where's the bias? If his stuff is true, then he's biased about truthfulness. Not a bad thing.
Regarding sources, I'm going to have a blog asking everyone to name what they consider to be an unbiased source of info. Should be fun. Imagine everyone agreeing with one voice. Not that it'll happen, but just imagine...
Post a Comment