I have such limited time these days. So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available. It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me. Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM). At least that's what I thought the topic was. Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm. So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.
A little background: Dan Trabue supports SSM. He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion. In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage. Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position. In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position. But Dan holds fast to his heresy. He loves his heresy. Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage.
So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate. His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.
He says that we "are now on the losing side of history". Who came up with that idiocy? "Wrong side of history". "Losing side of history". It's inane. I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless. How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side? Especially as history is still unfolding.
But I digress.
Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument." The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument. They just take it for granted.
He then goes on to explain our problem:
" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...
1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts
and, the ever popular...
6. The public is too dam dumb!"
This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent. Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not. (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support)
Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate. Take #2. The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6. There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited. That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex. Marriage requires one of each gender. Always has. It's never been different. It is what marriage is. Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate. To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other. But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.
And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage.
Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5. A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods. Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments. Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more. To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy. Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe. "See? Even the kids know!"
The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate. That's not possible. All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue. We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality.
Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all. Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist. They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all. Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle.
And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle. No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective. They just dismiss him. No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side. And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.
But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage. No argument will be good enough as a result. It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail. It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve. Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).
As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking. His question morphs throughout. He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?" What does that mean to you in light of the context? I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM. So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to
marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other -
and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be
for stopping that marriage?"
Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman. And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other. But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy. The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all. It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.
Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing. Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house. I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.
So here's a question: Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM? There is none. There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
263 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 263 of 263Jim asked for legal definitions of marriage. I offer a few here, here, and here. Before he gets the vapors, I will also state that it can be found other offerings that are more vague, using the terms "two people" as opposed to one man/one woman, as well as those that speak to states defining the term for themselves, which unfortunately for those states provide a definition more suitable to the morally corrupt like Jim and feo. But the important thing to remember is that until that abominable turn of events, there was a legal definition that distinctly included "one man/one woman" by which all related law relied.
As an aside, Jim must keep in mind that Glenn isn't necessarily arguing legalities by referring to Scripture. He's arguing against feo, who falsely claims Scripture isn't on Glenn's side (or mine, or the side of honest people).
Jim also, in a very Sybil-like manner, cannot remain consistent in his defense of perversion when he appeals to law when it suits him, rights when he thinks it works better, and then back again as is convenient. This is because he is matched each time and his point of the moment is left wanting.
For example, he earlier spoke of state legislatures as speaking on behalf of the will of the people when those legislatures pass laws legalizing SSM. But Prop 8 was a more legitimate representation of the will of the people, since it passed by a majority vote of those people, and Jim responds that the courts, led by Vaughn Walker, overturned the will of the people. So here, he is for the will of the people when the people agree with him (in this case the reps of the people passing SSM law), and for the courts decision of unlawful discrimination when the people vote in a manner Jim doesn't like.
He did the same in speaking about benefits denied to homosexuals. We say that homos don't qualify for those benefits because the definition of marriage disqualifies them. But he has no problem with the incestuous, polygamists or pedophiles not qualifying because, well, they don't qualify under the laws of states that have legalized SSM. Well, either it's discrimination or it isn't. Of course it isn't until homosexuals decide they want what they can't have, and Jim follows this selfish line of reasoning as a good little enabler should.
"This is absurd. Of course you can logically exclude corpses and inanimate objects from marriage."
The point here is that if you can change the definition to accommodate one group of people, you have less chance of denying other groups who can use the same arguments. Frankly, the arguments used by homosexuals cover just about anybody and anything.
"This "changing the definition" bullshit is a smokescreen and has no meaning."
The "changing of the definition" is exactly what the debate is all about. It is filled with meaning and consequence, most of it bad that the activists and enablers (perfectly labelled by Glenn as "homosexualists") ignore or pretend isn't possible. To that, I again point to the many legitimate and incredibly compelling arguments against this change of definition. They not only exist, but are easily found as easily as they have been ignored by the homosexualists.
"Nonsense. There is no redefining of the word."
You're a liar.
"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence..."
...which is describes exactly what your enabling promotes in homosexuals. Self-indulgence of a kind God called an abomination. He has never changed His mind on that. Nothing you have presented from Scripture suggests or even hints that such a behavior could ever be anything more.
"Loving one's fellow Christian means not putting him or her back under the Law."
This is typical progressive, pro-homos-speak for "We can do what we want, God's will be damned." You, feo, point to Lev 19. Would we be putting back under the Law anyone we urge not to steal or lie? Anyone who would swear falsely by God's name? How about those who turn to idols?
Paul goes on to say that nothing he has said on this issue means we can act as we wish, and he encourages using the Law as a guide for living. Not the ritualistic stuff...the purity laws, the dietary laws, which have no value now, but the behavioral laws. Don't forget how he admonished his followers for not dealing properly with the man who had relations with his father's wife. That was a direct violation of the laws of Lev 18. Do you think he'd be less concerned or more so had the guy been in a homosexual relationship? Don't kid yourself.
"We are still - and literally - paying for the harm of Jim Crow and poll taxes that kept some gropus for excersizing the rights and benefits that the majority had."
No we are not. You just like to think so because you think you have truthful input from black people you know. The problems of the black community these days are of their own making and there are many blacks who are honest enough to admit this. Proof of this is that there are white people who suffer from doing the same stupid things as the blacks who blame their suffering on racism.
"We are still paying and will continue to do so for paying women only 80% or less of what we pay men for the same job done."
This hasn't been the case for at least a generation, if not more. Most income discrepancies have been shown to be the result of things not related to "unequal pay for equal work".
"In this way, society has suffered untold numbers of bad, horrific and crushingly lonely marriages because many gay people were trying to live out repressive expectations."
This is pathetic! No homosexual was ever forced to marry against their will. They married because of their own twisted ideas of expectations. Most people repress or refuse to indulge compulsions they know are sinful or culturally unacceptable. Those that struggle the most seek professional help in order to learn how to deal. But most simply lean on God and understand that they are not ruled by every whim that rears its head. (If only you could do that with your arrogant condescension! Seek help!) What you're doing here is a text-book example of enabling, pretending that their struggles are the result of others. Nonsense. There is far greater harm to society in pretending each of us is not responsible for dealing with our own sinful natures.
"Opressing homosexuals is wrapped in the millenia of group bias, prejudice and outright violent oppression."
What absolute crap! There's no "oppressing" going on simply because we refuse their demands to redefine marriage and family. The oppression is coming from their direction (with the help from morally confused people like yourself and Jim). If there is oppression, then the incestuous, polygamists and pedophiles (and single people) are suffering as well since none of them are entitled to marital "rights" and benefits, either. What deceitful hyperbole!
"Here's an easy list for you, Marshall
Example A
1. Polygamist
2. Bestiality
3. Whips and chains, torture and sexual slavery.
4. Two adults in love.
5. Sex between a son and his mother.
Which one is made in the image of God, and so facist to prohibit?"
None of the above. I know well you expect #4 to qualify, but as listed is not accurate. It would have to read "Man" as it was man who was made in His image. But you want it to mean the marital arrangement that metaphorically represents the relationship between Christ and His church. Sorry again, because that would require one man and one woman in love. NOT "two adults".
"Peter thought the gospel surely did not extend to Gentiles. But God, at Cornelius house, told him that what God has cleansed, you must not call unclean."
And the sexual sins of Lev 18 have not been "cleansed" in any way, shape or form. You really need to cease this false teaching of yours and repent of it once and for all.
Here This is DOMA which didn't exist prior to 1996. Next.
Here This link doesn't say what legal code it's from but it does say: "It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives..."
Which I find quaint, don't you? Next.
Here This link is kind of vague about what code it refers to specifically and at what time this definition was put into effect, but it says that marriage is between a man and a woman according to state laws. However, this is out of date since 10 states and the District of Columbia (and more each week) currently recognize same sex marriages.
So I'm afraid your links are off the mark.
until that abominable turn of events, there was a legal definition that distinctly included "one man/one woman" by which all related law relied.
And yet you cannot provide one single source to provide that definition prior to the last several decades, that is prior to the time same sex couples began to seek legal marriage.
More...
he appeals to law when it suits him, rights when he thinks it works better, and then back again as is convenient.
This is a ridiculous charge. Laws are predicated on rights. I make no distinction that would require holding one over the other.
This is because he is matched each time and his point of the moment is left wanting.
Poppycock!
So here, he is for the will of the people when the people agree with him (in this case the reps of the people passing SSM law), and for the courts decision of unlawful discrimination when the people vote in a manner Jim doesn't like.
You misunderstand the concept of rights vs. the will of the people. Rights supersede the will of the people. That's why the Bill of Rights exist. See A2 vs public sentiment regarding universal background checks. This is not to say the people cannot adopt new rights by popular vote.
However, they cannot take away rights once given without a compelling reason. The people of California were given the right to marry by the California Supreme Court. Proposition 8 passed by popular vote to rescind that right was rightly argued null and void because it attempted to rescind rights previously held by same sex couples with no compelling state interest in doing so. This decision was upheld on appeal.
From the decision:
"An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
We say that homos don't qualify for those benefits because the definition of marriage disqualifies them.
It didn't before a couple of decades ago, and it doesn't now in 10 states and the District of Columbia.
But he has no problem with the incestuous, polygamists or pedophiles not qualifying
Of course because a compelling reason for the state to disqualify them is easily made. Furthermore these disqualification apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, hence no discrimination, thereby preserving equal protection of the laws.
if you can change the definition to accommodate one group of people, you have less chance of denying other groups who can use the same arguments.
Almost everyone believes that's a specious argument, but still it's no reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. One could say that if we allow mixed race couples to marry we would have an argument to allow a brother and sister to marry. Ooops, that's right. Mixed race couples can marry (see Loving) and yet nobody has argued that that is a slippery slope to incest or polygamy.
You're a liar.
So is your mother.
"The point here is that if you can change the definition to accommodate one group of people, you have less chance of denying other groups who can use the same arguments..."
Exactly like one of the arguments they used against miscegenation. And for the very same motive of prejudice, too.
Thank God, for me, the moral side won the argument. Just like it's winning this one, too. Good job, Delaware.
And by the way, as an aside, thank God, too, that changes were made to start actually defining marriage as a contract between those of legal consenting age so that Marshall could not say marriage was between one man and one girl.
And thank God, still further, that the definition of marriage was changed again so that women retained ownership of both themselves and their property and that contracts no longer allowed the assumption by the male. So that now Marshall cannot define marriage as between one man who owns everything about the family and one woman who owns nothing.
And, as I say, thank God that black women were redefined as whole and equal women with all others so that marriage could be redefined as any man and woman. That was new. Just in time, too.
________________________________
Marshall, I'm afraid you don't know your NT. Or at least, you don't know St. Paul and the stiff-necked Galatians.
"Self-indulgence of a kind God called an abomination. He has never changed His mind on that.
The "flesh" issue Paul is irate about is circumcision. Some deceitful judaizers who do not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, have convinced them that the Law still applies and that Christians need to be circumcized. For Paul, in Galations 5, that would be indulging the flesh and ignoring that it is for freedom that Christ has set them free. No longer do they need to be imprisoned in the Law that also requires marks in the flesh.
Same new revelation for Peter - to which he is somewhat less stalwart in defending - when the angel tells him that he may kill and eat, aginst the regulations of the law, because what God has cleansed no one may call unclean.
So, according to Israel and the Christians in Jerusalem, and Peter coming back from Cornelius' house and Paul: "So God has done a new thing!"
Who would have thought?
Not a judaizer like you who - in the case of homosexual marriage which God, according to his plans, has revealed at the right time as the freedom won in Christ Jesus - still calls for the dead letter.
WOW!! Feodor's twisting of Scripture equals that of every cultist! I wouldn't have believed such a claim if I hadn't seen it for myself.
""The point here is that if you can change the definition to accommodate one group of people, you have less chance of denying other groups who can use the same arguments..."
Exactly like one of the arguments they used against miscegenation."
I keep hearing this objection, but I've yet to find any evidence that such such an argument was used during debate over mixed-race marriages. Race is not an "orientation". The argument is based on orientation being the same as race. If one's orientation of attraction to one of the same gender deserves recognition, another with an orientation toward very young partners, multiple partners or siblings or parents cannot be denied, either. Jim, like feo, seems to thing that there are compelling reasons to deny these "differently oriented" people, but there are none that aren't as subjective as the support for homosexuals.
"Thank God, for me, the moral side won the argument. Just like it's winning this one, too."
The morality of homosexual behavior, just like the disorder of the attraction itself, has never been settled. Those debates have simply been ignored by the morally corrupt and both have been assumed and asserted.
"And by the way, as an aside, thank God, too, that changes were made to start actually defining marriage as a contract between those of legal consenting age so that Marshall could not say marriage was between one man and one girl."
Why would I say such a thing after consistently defending the righteous position that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman? However, what constitutes "legal consenting age" is a human construct, chosen for reasons that don't apply to every girl or boy of whatever age is chosen to be that "legal consenting age". I know plenty of males and females over 18 that do not act like adults, and I've known a few of each below that age that are quite mature. More importantly for this discussion, however, is that whatever age the law dictates, we're still talking about "one man/one woman".
"And thank God, still further, that the definition of marriage was changed again so that women retained ownership of both themselves and their property and that contracts no longer allowed the assumption by the male."
Yeah. Jim tried to run this crap, too. But unfortunately for you both, this does not constitute a definition of marriage, but terms for each party united in the contract of marriage, which was of one man/one woman, which is the definition.
"And, as I say, thank God that black women were redefined as whole and equal women with all others so that marriage could be redefined as any man and woman."
Also not part of the definition, but a restriction on which woman could be wed to which man. Obviously, there is no line you corrupt will not cross to justify your corruption.
more...
"Some deceitful judaizers who do not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, have convinced them that the Law still applies and that Christians need to be circumcized."
Why bring up circumcision, feo? How is it relevant? If you are trying to say that I am encouraging a works salvation, that is simply the customary diversionary tactic of the spiritually corrupt, which fits you just fine. In Gal 5:19-21, Paul speaks the same way I am. (I get it from him and Jesus and the rest of the NT) And what are the first acts of a sinful nature listed? Well, if you're using the NIV it's sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery. If it's the ASV it's fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. The KJV? Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. In short, sexual sins as listed in the law. He finishes by saying "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." You, Jim and the other enablers who visit here support one form of the sexual immorality the law prohibits and pretends it is a beautiful thing. "Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. the one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction." (Gal 6:7-8) Freedom from the Law was not meant to be ignoring the guidance of the Law. Living by the Law demonstrates one's faith.
"So, according to Israel and the Christians in Jerusalem, and Peter coming back from Cornelius' house and Paul: "So God has done a new thing!""
Nowhere in Acts could I find this statement. It implies that God has changed His mind about something. But Jesus was the point all along and His saving sacrifice was meant for all from the beginning. It was never meant to free us from living as God intends, and same-sex couplings is not a part of that, and never was.
I'm no "judaizer" because I understand what Levitical proscriptions still apply to Christians today. I'm honest, putting His will above my own (to the best of my ability) and hoping others see the profit in doing so. You don't. I grieve for those who think you can teach them about the faith. They will be led astray.
Jim,
From a Conservapedia article on the history of Prop 8:
"Historically marriage in the state of California had always been between a man and a woman as that was the understood definition of marriage. There was no need to include language that specified gender. In 1977, amidst a changing climate that saw the advent of the gay rights movement, the California legislature amended the California Family Code to make it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. [3]
In 2000 the possibility of same-sex marriage being legalized in other states led to Proposition 22 being passed, adding language to restrict California from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples from other states as valid. [4] Proposition 22 passed easily with 61% of the vote, but it was overturned by California's Supreme Court in May of 2008. The court also mandated that same-sex marriage licenses be issued by judicial degree, not by the will of the voters or the legislature. The licenses were not recognized by the federal government and most of the nation."
As you can plainly see, the true definition of marriage was codified in California Family Law in 1977. That constitutes a legal definition and was done due to activism pushing a change of the already widely understood definition. As Glenn rightly stated, there was no need to write into law what everybody knew was the case as regards that definition. More than once we see the will of the people overturned by judicial activism. SSM was never the law of the state. It was never "rights" granted by the state, but by judicial activism. You fail again.
A good response to most of the weak pro-SSM arguments can be found in this post from John Barron's blog.
As you think you have a point regarding incestuous, polygamist and other forms of "marriage", keep in mind that the harm you think can be used against them is almost all related to children, which the homosexual activist claims is not relevant to the right to marry. In addition, to pretend one group can be denied because of alleged downsides of such pairings (or groupings), one can only be intellectually honest in comparing like kinds of people. That is, if we're talking about loving, committed, well-adjusted homos, then we can only make comparisons (for the purpose of legalization) to loving, committed, well-adjusted siblings, parent/adult child couples, polygamist groups, etc. Allow for SSM, and one must allow for them all due to the terms homosexuals deceitfully used to justify their demands.
From your cited blog by John Barron (who the hell is he and why does his opinion count for anything?):
"For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."
Are you kidding me? Would you care to show me any states that restrict heterosexual couples from marriage because they are "unlikely" to produce children.
The blog fails on that count alone.
SSM was never the law of the state.
Then why was Prop 8 needed?
I understand that any judicial decision counter to your opinion is the result of an "activist" judge or court. You know, like Citizens United, right?
I'm sure the Obamacare ruling was the result of an activist court, too, right? Oh wait, the Court upheld the law passed by the people's representatives.
It may surprise you to learn that court decisions actually are law.
All this is really moot. Delaware just passed SSM. That's 11 plus DC. Minnesota is apparently next. Even if SCOTUS doesn't uphold the Walker decision, California voters will overturn Prop 8 themselves at their next opportunity.
You might as well lie back and enjoy it.
"Race is not an "orientation.'"
Well, see there you're just plain stupid.
What is Obama's race, Marshall.
Or that of an octoroon?
_____________
As for your problem in reading the book of Acts, I would strongly suggest you read Acts 10-15 and try to understand what is going on.
As for the Jewish Christians discovery of God doing a new thing, 11:18.
And since the rest of your comments are just as myopic and morally shriveled as the above, I'll leave them alone and you with this, from St. Paul about gay Christians:
"And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
"From your cited blog by John Barron (who the hell is he and why does his opinion count for anything?)"
Typical. Try focusing on the points made. Also note that he cites others aside from giving his own opinion.
"Are you kidding me? Would you care to show me any states that restrict heterosexual couples from marriage because they are "unlikely" to produce children."
Are you kidding me? You copied and pasted his statement and totally missed the "in varying degrees" part? This weak sauce angle regarding heteros incapable of bearing their own children who can still provide for adopted children a mother and a father. Children are still accounted for under the real definition of marriage regardless of the fertility of the couple. You fail on that count in addition to all your others.
"SSM was never the law of the state.
Then why was Prop 8 needed?"
The linked piece answers this question. Try reading it like an open minded adult who savors the truth.
"I understand that any judicial decision counter to your opinion is the result of an "activist" judge or court."
No. Any judicial decision counter to Constitutional principles, as well as logic and reason are the results of activist judges. In this case, there is the illogical presumption that orientation is fixed and impossible to overcome or self-regulate, which then means orientation can be used for other groups wishing to achieve the same goals, not to mention orientation used as a pass for other, more serious offenses.
"It may surprise you to learn that court decisions actually are law."
Doesn't surprise me in the least. Saddens me yes, surprises me no. It doesn't surprise me, either, that lefties don't care about the whether a decision is a good one as long as it works in their favor. Roe v Wade is the classic example, and only worse than pro-SSM decisions due to the millions murdered as a result.
"All this is really moot."
This validates my previous comment as Jim is keen on moving along without any further review, like a football team snaps the ball before the opposing coach can challenge an obviously bad call.
I'll have to deal with feo's willful corruption of Scriptural reality later.
Also note that he cites others aside from giving his own opinion.
I gave it its due. None of this is new, nor are the opinions inarguable.
I'm waiting for the "varying degrees" by which some states disqualify heterosexual couples who are unlikely to produce children. Men with vasectomies? Women with hysterectomies? Septuagenarians? Couples simply choosing to be childless?
The linked piece indicates that SSM marriage WAS the law of the state. Otherwise Prop 8 would not be needed to overturn it.
Any judicial decision counter to Constitutional principles
It may surprise you to learn that the overturning of Prop 22 was specifically due to Constitutional principles. The decision specifically stated that Prop 22 denied citizens due process and equal protection of the laws, legal concepts that are included in the California Constitution as well as the US Constitution.
It doesn't surprise me, either, that lefties don't care about the whether a decision is a good one as long as it works in their favor.
And the same applies to righties for Citizens United and Bush v. Gore.
due to the millions murdered as a result
Not one murder has been committed as a result of Roe v. Wade.
Jim is keen on moving along without any further review
Jim's last comment is the 212th in this thread, which I'm pretty sure makes that statement laughable.
Wow, just stopped back after reading your newest post. 215 comments WITHOUT Trabue weighing in? Wow. I hope you are paid by the comment, Marshall.
I LOVE this quote from John Fugelsang at Current TV:
"Because being gay is natural. Condemning gay is a lifestyle choice."
There is nothing "natural" about being "gay." It is a perversion, plain and simple.
Which demonstrates the stupidity of the statement quoted.
Jim,
"I'm waiting for the "varying degrees" by which some states disqualify heterosexual couples who are unlikely to produce children."
This has been addressed. The state isn't required to be that specific in order to justify its position. In each of those categories, the man/woman arrangement still matches the type and if necessary, can still provide the best setting for raising a child as regards male/female influence. Further, none of those are fixed in the sense that kids can be adopted or produced. People change their minds.
More later...
"Because being gay is natural. Condemning gay is a lifestyle choice."
Using that idiotic definition everything is natural. That would make condemning gays natural. Lust, greed, anger, idolatry, homosexuality, etc. are all natural, but it is only one of those that is considered good and something to be proud of.
Neil, you remind me of Dr. Ed Fields (perhaps you know him):
"Our forefathers recognized the vast gulf which exists between the White and Black races in terms of equality. They recognized the Negro African race to be an inferior race, child-like, capricious, impulsive and cruel, yet useful for manual labor under the constant direction of the White man. They also recognized the inherent danger in the presence of a large Negro population in contact with Whites because it invariably leads to interracial sexual relations. They saw the hideous results of low-class White men mating with plantation negro females. They knew that every civilization in history that had used Negro slaves eventually succumbed to the corruption of interracial breeding, leading to the collapse of that society.
Therefore, the founders of America passed laws forbidding White-Black marriage. This was the real motivation behind the segregation laws which existed in the pre civil rights era South. They did not want their civilization to decay and fall due to interbreeding with inferior racial stock!"
"The Apostle Paul: Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man "and hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Genesis 28:1, says that the Canaanites (blacks) were the "servants of servants" and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, "Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
"Jeremiah 13:23 stresses the fact that we can not make white people out of the Negroes in these words: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots." This could be interpreted as a warning that Negroes could breed Whites down into mongrels but that we can never breed them up into Whites."
The state isn't required to be that specific in order to justify its position.
Uh, yeah it is, otherwise it's target rich for lawsuits.
This has been addressed. The state isn't required to be that specific in order to justify its position. In each of those categories, the man/woman arrangement still matches the type and if necessary, can still provide the best setting for raising a child as regards male/female influence. Further, none of those are fixed in the sense that kids can be adopted or produced. People change their minds.
I need some help here, folks. What the hell does that mean?
feo,
You remind me of every bloviating psuedo-intellectual I've ever seen. Your sad attempt to once again compare homosexuality to race demonstrates such a pathetic level of deceit that I would normally be shocked. But then I'm more than familiar with your contemptuous character.
That would be bad enough, as it is so routinely done by homosexual activists and their enablers, like yourself. But you were incapable of leaving it there and instead, you seek to smear another for the crime of being true to Scripture and common sense.
The irony is how you are a far more appropriate parallel to Fields as you both twist Scripture to support your evil positions.
Jim,
"The linked piece indicates that SSM marriage WAS the law of the state. Otherwise Prop 8 would not be needed to overturn it."
The linked piece indicates that the people of California chose to head off the possibility of having to honor licensed SSMs from other states. Prop 22 sought to remove ambiguities in the original language of the civil and family codes that were seen as loopholes through which SSMs from other states might have to be honored, as well as to cement what was already understood by the state population in general as regards the definition of marriage. In shore, SSM was NOT already legal in the state until after state supreme courts overturned 22 under the premise that it conflicted with the state constitution. Obviously, over 60% of the voters who passed 22 didn't agree. From there, Prop 8 was crafted to put the people's choice into the state constitution, which led to even more judicial activism.
"And the same applies to righties for Citizens United and Bush v. Gore."
Not at all. Those decisions were Constitutionally correct.
"Not one murder has been committed as a result of Roe v. Wade."
This is another case of Jim relying on civil law to determine his morality. He feels that since abortion is legal, it doesn't constitute a murder as "murder" is legally defined as the "illegal" taking of a life. But honest people of character understand that the taking of a life must be justified on the level of self-defense to avoid the charge of murder, whether the law sees it that way or not. Indeed, what makes a killing "illegal" is the fact that it was an unjustified killing. Over 99% of abortions are not justified, but are killings of convenience. So Jim can pretend he's won the argument by virtue of what the law dictates, but he fails on the level of Christian and human understanding of what defines a murder.
He compounds his deceit by such semantic tricks as not "fetus not baby" crap and the nonsensical and self-serving argument that a fetus is not a person.
When I said "Jim is keen on moving along without any further review", it was in reference to just such BS arguments as described above. "The law says..." so he is cool with it regardless of whether or not the law is just. Since the law says so, Jim bases his morality to align with it, rather than what is truly right or wrong. Such is the case with most, if not all lefties.
"I LOVE this quote from John Fugelsang at Current TV:
"Because being gay is natural. Condemning gay is a lifestyle choice.""
That's just the sort of brilliance that made Current the powerhouse network it is today, drawing billions and billions of viewers...or perhaps just Jim.
Being homosexual is not natural. It is a disorder. It has never been proven otherwise but is self-evidently true given the fact that our two genders have a purpose that the pairing of two of the same gender cannot accomplish. The two genders are complimentary and sexually compatible. Two of the same gender are not.
Fugelsang, if the quote is accurate, perpetuates the same lie as most enablers. We don't condemn homosexuals. If they engage in homosexual behavior, they have condemned themselves. We only reiterate that their lifestyle is sinful, just as an unmarried man and woman engaging in sex is sinful. We say this because it is true and we care about the salvation of our fellow man. This is a Christian characteristic and it is indeed a lifestyle choice and we recommend it to everyone.
"I need some help here, folks. (Truer words were never spoken. What the hell does that mean?"
What it means, fool, is that the state is concerned with the procreative potential of hetero pairings. It has never sought to demand that children be produced. How could it considering it's a crap-shoot proposition? It would also be an invasion of privacy to try to determine the procreative intentions of a couple wishing to marry.
However, there's no doubt that a homosexual couple cannot procreate. No disregard for privacy is required to figure that out.
"Wow, just stopped back after reading your newest post. 215 comments WITHOUT Trabue weighing in?"
Really, Neil! Since he inspired this post with his own asking "where's the harm in allowing homosexual marriage?", I could have sworn he'd have a ready answer to my question!
So in other words, Marshall, you've found nothing with which to make an argument. What a shock.
You cannot deal with the implications of Acts 11 to !5 or Galatians.
And you cannot deal with the implication that you and Glenn and the Simp are merely today's version of those who wrung their hands over "the mongrelization of the races."
Oh, well. It was predestined.
_______________
I was hoping that you'd have the guts to answer the question of what race you think Obama is, if indeed orientation plays no part in race construction.
But that you chicken out backing yourself up, too, is just another quotidian truth.
When the law said to send the Jews to the concentration camps for execution, Jim would have been waving goodbye to the Jews because the law said they weren't really persons - they were subhuman - and the law said it wasn't murder.
Oh, and Jim would certainly have been pro-slavery, because the law said they were only 2/3 of a person and the law said they were just property. So since the law is what determines morality, Jim would have had to go along with it.,
Obama is of the human race. Race based on skin color is nothing but a construct.
Race as used in history prior to around the 18th century meant culture or tribe - such as the Irish race, the Spanish race, etc.
There is only one race- the human race.
What is amusing is how everyone claims Obama is the first black president, and he is just as much white by ancestry as he is black - the racists judge him by his skin color!!!
"Race based on skin color is nothing but a construct."
Good for you, Glenn. Nice to see you pay a little attention to modern science.
Now you need to enlighten Marshall.
No, wait, not all your darts are on the board:
"he is just as much white by ancestry as he is black - the racists judge him by his skin color!!!"
"white" what ,Glenn? If by ancestry, then you seem to mean white genetically. Is this what you mean?
And, yes, racists judge him by his skin color.
But when he himself says he is a black man, do you think he is referring to his skin color?
SSM was NOT already legal in the state until after state supreme courts overturned 22 under the premise that it conflicted with the state constitution.
That is correct. I don't believe I claimed otherwise.
Obviously, over 60% of the voters who passed 22 didn't agree.
That's irrelevant and why we have courts to protect rights.
which led to even more judicial activism.
You mean courts protecting rights. Note that decision was upheld by the appeals court.
Those decisions were Constitutionally correct.
Only according to the majority (Republicans). Of course IOCIYAAR.
Over 99% of abortions are not justified
The opposite is true.
a fetus is not a person
A fetus is not a person (Scalia).
Since the law says so
We are a nation of laws, not Bibles.
It is a disorder. It has never been proven otherwise
Was it ever PROVED so?
It has never sought to demand that children be produced.
But your quoted link said that states disqualified couples that were unlikely to procreate. Which is it?
It would also be an invasion of privacy to try to determine the procreative intentions of a couple wishing to marry.
So why wouldn't the same apply to same sex couples?
there's no doubt that a homosexual couple cannot procreate.
This is simply false. They procreate all the time.
When the law said to send the Jews to the concentration camps for execution, Jim would have been waving goodbye to the Jews because the law said they weren't really persons - they were subhuman - and the law said it wasn't murder.
Godwin's Law in action. I didn't live in Nazi Germany at the time any more than you lived in England when protestants were burned at the stake.
What is amusing is how everyone claims Obama is the first black president
He looks black, his father was black, he identifies as black. He is black. Ergo, he IS the first "black" president, Bill Clinton notwithstanding.
feo cannot answer the question of whether or not race is an orientation, which it is not. He needs it to be to support his heretical stance on homosexuality, but he cannot make it work. He asks me what Obama's color is, as if it makes a difference. But I can easily say this: he is not "oriented" toward one race or another, he is both one race and another. One cannot be oriented toward a race. One either is of a particular race or one isn't. One cannot change one's race.
But one can choose whether to act on an orientation. No matter how "white" a black man might try to act, or how "black" a white man, each is still black or white. Neither can deny his race, reject his race or become another race.
But orientation is simply compulsion. One needn't give in to orientation or compulsion, even if the compulsion never goes away. feo needn't give in to his orientation to be a complete asshole, and indeed, like the Christian he claims to be, he is encouraged by his faith to transcend his sinful self. The same goes for those oriented toward homosexual attraction/behavior, as well as heteros who feel the urge to have sex with as many women as they can or want.
So before asking me what race Obama is, feo says:
"Well, see there you're just plain stupid."
feo, however, isn't stupid (or just stupid). He's evil. He knows there is no comparison between orientation and race. One is not like the other even given the similar experiences of each.
"But when he himself says he is a black man, do you think he is referring to his skin color?"
Of course he is, and he has shown his own racist tendencies often.
Jim,
"SSM was NOT already legal in the state until after state supreme courts overturned 22 under the premise that it conflicted with the state constitution.
That is correct. I don't believe I claimed otherwise."
Then you lied when you said this:
"The linked piece indicates that SSM marriage WAS the law of the state. Otherwise Prop 8 would not be needed to overturn it."
Indeed, this whole bit was a result of you saying that SSM was already legal. I went back before Prop 8 to show that it never was and how it came to be to the extent that it became before Prop 8. Try to follow along.
"You mean courts protecting rights. Note that decision was upheld by the appeals court."
No, I meant "activism". No rights were violated. Rights were invented where they didn't exist and the activist judges played their part in doing this.
"Those decisions were Constitutionally correct.
Only according to the majority (Republicans)."
Those decisions were correct regardless of who agrees, just as the pro-homo activists are wrong regardless of who agrees. Right and wrong isn't determined by majority vote.
"Over 99% of abortions are not justified
The opposite is true."
Justified how, and how would that justification work for those who managed to pass totally through the birth canal?
"A fetus is not a person (Scalia)."
Once again proving my claim that for Jim, morality is what the law says it is, not what the God he claims to worship says it is. Just so there's no confusion (as if the lefties will ever be anything more than confused), when I speak of right and wrong, moral an immoral, good and evil, I do not appeal to man-made law. I recognize that man-made law can often conflict with God's truth. My point here is what position is held by those who claim to be Christian, God-fearing or morally upright. When it a leftist making such claims, they have proven that I must take such claims with a grain of salt. So being a nation of laws is irrelevant for the purposes of most discussion I initiate, since the basis of a given law is more important a topic in my opinion.
"It is a disorder. It has never been proven otherwise
Was it ever PROVED so?"
As I said, it is self-evident. Two genders exist. Why would that be do you suppose? Procreation is the key factor here and two of the same gender cannot procreate. For them to be attracted sexually to each other is thus a disorder. Try to be intellectually honest, or just plain honest.
"But your quoted link said that states disqualified couples that were unlikely to procreate. "
What it said was:
"...states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."
I am unaware of any state ever prohibiting opposite sex couples from marrying because they were unlikely to produce children. That cannot be determined with any certainty, anyway, especially without invading their privacy. All opposite sex couples are regarded by the state as having that potential. Homosexual unions cannot produce children. "Varying degrees" is satisfied by this distinction. Try to be honest.
When talking about Obama as to whether he is "black" or "white," the media and even Obama are referring to skin color designating "race." I.e., a person with black skin is of the "black" race, while if you have light colored skin you must be white.
Now, the culture of the darker colored skinned people, and those who propagate a separate black "race" see skin color as the ultimate basis for everything. Obama has to be "black" because they want to appeal to "black" people as a "race." But that is like the old racist ideology of "one drop of black blood" makes a person black.
The media and Obama refer to him as "black" as a race in contrast to being "white" - yet he has half of his parentage on each side of the "racial" fence, so he is no more of the "black race" than he is of the "white race" and yet he is promoted as one of "black race."
That is racist hypocrisy!
"So why wouldn't the same apply to same sex couples?"
Really, Jim? Are you suggesting that there is some possibility that two men or two women can reproduce without the aid of a third party? Really?
"This is simply false. They procreate all the time."
Again you provoke the question, is Jim an idiot or a liar? I'm sticking with both. Homosexuals and lesbian couples CANNOT procreate. Thus, they don't do it "all the time".
"Godwin's Law in action."
Wrong again. Godwin's Law deals with hyperbolic comparisons to Nazism. This comparison is apt. If you're going to pretend that the fetus is not a person because the law or a Supreme Court Justice says so, then you obviously would have taken the same position regarding the Jews or blacks. The criteria for "granting" personhood status by people like you and the Nazis is equally superficial.
"He looks black, his father was black, he identifies as black. He is black. Ergo, he IS the first "black" president, Bill Clinton notwithstanding."
Regardless of how he looks, or how he uses his looks for political purposes, the truth is that he is half-black/half-white. Thus, the best he can say, if he wants to be honest, which doesn't seem to be the case here, is that he is the first mixed race president. One would think that significant enough without having to be deceitful.
BTW, compared to his wife, he doesn't look all that black.
Then you lied when you said this
No, clearly you are not following. Prop 22 was overturned, making legal SSM the law of the state. Then came Prop 8 to take away the legal ability of gays to marry.
Right and wrong isn't determined by majority vote.
But the law is.
Justified how,
By the woman and her doctor.
how would that justification work for those who managed to pass totally through the birth canal?
It wouldn't apply. First, such a thing hardly EVER happens. Second, the doctor and staff would be obligated in the case of a live birth to take measures to preserve the life of the child.
I am unaware of any state ever prohibiting opposite sex couples from marrying because they were unlikely to produce children.
Then what is the sense of the statement in the link? There is none, so it kind of degrades the argument.
All opposite sex couples are regarded by the state as having that potential.
Is there something in the laws that says that? I don't think so. I don't think the law says a single thing about anybody's ability to procreate. The law knows better. Many couples marry with no possibility or even desire to procreate.
Homosexual unions cannot produce children.
Nonsense. Of course they can. Homosexual women bear children all the time. Homosexual men father children all the time.
Varying degrees" is satisfied by this distinction.
More nonsense. Varying degrees implies something besides "yes or no". Either they restrict non-child-bearing couples or they don't. And if they do, how do they determine that a couple is non-child-bearing?
Glenn,
As stated above, Obama has a black father. He has the features of a black man. Most importantly, he identifies as a black man. He is a black man.
Marshall said, "Homosexuals and lesbian couples CANNOT procreate. Thus, they don't do it "all the time"."
Clearly they can and they do.
Neil Patrick Harris and his partner fathered twins.
Ricky Martin fathered twin boys. Elton John fathered a son. Cynthia Nixon and her partner have a child together. Rosie O'Donnell had several kids with her former partner, Kelli Carpenter. Wanda and Alex Sykes have two children together. Iron Chef star Cat Kora and her partner have four boys. Matt Bomer and Simon Halls have three boys.
These are just a few well-known homosexual couples who have procreated. There are thousands of gay couples you have never heard of who have procreated.
without the aid of a third party? Really?
Who cares? They still procreated. Do you have an issue with a heterosexual couple procreating with IVF or a surrogate?
If you're going to pretend that the fetus is not a person because the law or a Supreme Court Justice says so, then you obviously would have taken the same position regarding the Jews or blacks.
False. It is my opinion that a fetus is not a person. The law simply validates my opinion. Nazis, Jews, slaves? I wasn't there but my opinion today would be counter to the laws at that time. To compare the two is a hyperbolic comparison to Naziism. Godwin's Law.
Jim,
It is you who is not following closely. I do not recall anything about the overturning of Prop 22 that mandated SSMs in California, especially since the proposition was to prohibit recognition of out-of-state unions, which the bad court decision overturned. Some in the state simply started handing out licenses without the law having been decided within the state. This is what led to Prop 8.
"Right and wrong isn't determined by majority vote.
But the law is."
That's not in question here. Right and wrong is. YOU use the law to determine right and wrong because it suits your twisted notion of right and wrong. This is quite clear.
"Justified how,
By the woman and her doctor."
This is no more justification than a mafioso ordering a hit. But, since the law allows it, you accept it as moral. This is quite clear.
"how would that justification work for those who managed to pass totally through the birth canal?
It wouldn't apply. First, such a thing hardly EVER happens."
Well this has been proven to be untrue. Gosnell is not the only one to justify killing babies who were birthed and Obama has no problem killing them, either. What's more, there are all sorts of stories of people killing their own children, such as Andrea Yates, Kristine Cushing, Chanthy Mao and many others. All of these people "justify" the killing of their own kids. But that they do does not constitute a legitimate justification. The only justification for killing another human being is to prevent the death of another human being. But since the law says killing human beings before they are birthed is legal, you accept it as moral. This is quite clear.
"Then what is the sense of the statement in the link?"
Already answered this question. I'd say stop playing stupid, but I don't think you're playing.
"All opposite sex couples are regarded by the state as having that potential.
Is there something in the laws that says that? I don't think so. I don't think the law says a single thing about anybody's ability to procreate. The law knows better."
I was right. You're not playing. I already explained this. They are regarded as having the potential by virtue of the fact that in general, a man and a woman engaging in intercourse is likely to procreate. It is the type of union that is important here, and this type of union provides the next generation. It's really quite simple. Ask your mother to explain where babies come from.
"Nonsense. Of course they can. Homosexual women bear children all the time. Homosexual men father children all the time."
See this is what makes it so hard to tell...are you totally stupid or a unrepentant liar? Homosexual unions CANNOT produce children. They need to bring in a third party. The state has no interest in homosexual unions because they have no procreative possibility, which is the reason the state is involved at all. So none of those homos you mentioned had children "together" since it is biologically impossible. Husbands and their wives have children "together" because they are biologically capable of doing so.
"More nonsense. Varying degrees implies something besides "yes or no". Either they restrict non-child-bearing couples or they don't."
Varying degrees implies varying degrees. The law was never restricting non-child bearing couples. They were promoting the union of those likely to reproduce. Homo unions can't reproduce so they are not of interest to the state. The state isn't concerned that all hetero marriages result in children, but only that hetero marriages, in general are likely to or have the potential to do. This general understanding is all that is necessary for the state to favor such unions and is the incentive for the state doing so. You really need to read.
"False. It is my opinion that a fetus is not a person. The law simply validates my opinion."
"There are thousands of gay couples you have never heard of who have procreated."
There is not one homo couple that has ever procreated.
"without the aid of a third party? Really?
Who cares? They still procreated."
No. They didn't. One of each union partnered with someone not of the union in order to procreate. The couple did not procreate. However, you are willing to suspend logic, reason and truth as you are morality in order pretend otherwise. This is quite clear.
"Do you have an issue with a heterosexual couple procreating with IVF or a surrogate?"
Yes.
"False. It is my opinion that a fetus is not a person. The law simply validates my opinion."
Your opinion is worthless because you are a reprobate and the law never ruled on the question of when life begins. At least not in Roe v Wade. Your insipid and self-serving opinion of when one becomes a person is just as superficial and subjective as the racist's views of blacks or the Nazi's view of Jews. The comparison is perfectly parallel. It would be no different than my saying you aren't a person because you are stupid and deceitful. But the fact is that despite your great stupidity and your eagerness to lie for your own twisted reasons, you are indeed still a person. Just not a very good one.
Jim,
You are a fool. Obama is not a “black man” as far as the current idea of races go. He is neither black nor white, but what is known as mulatto.
Homosexual couples cannot procreate, and you are being disingenuous to suggest other wise. They must have a surrogate male or female added in to the relationship, and you know that. Quit being stupid.
SO, you admit that it is just YOUR opinion that a fetus is not a baby, because you don’t want it to be. The law does not validate your opinion any more than it validated that Jews were to be executed or that blacks were to be slaves. Godwin’s law is out.
So, Marshall, you say "he is both one race and another."
You and Glenn are agreeing to disagree about race?
And you say that he's not all that black compared to Mrs. Obama. Well, how could he? She's true black, yeah?
Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in California in the California Civil Code which said that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary".
Notice that no mention is made of gender. It was in 1977 that specific gender conditions were added.
Prop 22 said the California would not recognize marriages legal in other states.
Prop 22 was overturned by the California Supreme Court, the result of which was that SS marriages were legal saying the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship."
As a result SSM marriage was legal under California law until Prop 8.
Some in the state simply started handing out licenses without the law having been decided within the state.
See above. The law WAS decided within the state.
Obama has no problem killing them, either.
This is the lie that keeps on giving, and you seem to have an endless supply. It is false, untrue, a canard, rubbish, and bullshit.
They are regarded as having the potential by virtue of the fact that in general, a man and a woman engaging in intercourse is likely to procreate.
You are making that bullshit up. Read this very closely:
"They are regarded as having the potential by virtue of the fact that in general...is likely.
You NAILED IT!
Homosexual unions CANNOT produce children.
I have clearly demonstrated that they can and do.
They need to bring in a third party.
Big deal. So what?
homosexual unions because they have no procreative possibility
I have shown that that is false.
One of each union partnered with someone not of the union in order to procreate.
Big whoop.
Yes.
Well that's your problem.
law never ruled on the question of when life begins.
True, but it has ruled when a woman can and can't have an abortion.
Just not a very good one.
I'm SO hurt. My dog still loves me.
what is known as mulatto
Cool.
They must have a surrogate male or female added in to the relationship
Yeah? So what?
It never occurs to idiots and fools like Jim that laws defining marriage in the past didn't need to even mention gender because all of society knew that marriage was the union of opposite-sex people! It wasn't until people of his ilk wanted to redefine the meaning of the word that states had to add the specifics into the law.
So little occurs to people like Jim except lame arguments to support the immoral and irrational. He thinks he demonstrated that homosexual unions can produce a child. Obviously, he is a liar. A man can't be impregnated and a woman can't impregnate. Homo unions cannot produce a child.
Millions of opposite sex marriages have had tens of millions of children where the father could not impregnate or the mother could not be impregnated.
Which makes you an idiot and a fool.
If you had been keeping up with all the comments, feo, you'd not have typed that last comment as if you had scored a goal. The state has always recognized a type of union. The male/female type is that which, in general, has the potential for procreation. THAT is what is the definitive characteristic of the type of union the state has recognized as worthy of state support and sanction. It has always been thus, and the fact that not all are capable of procreation or willing to procreate has never entered into it. The state never felt a need to mandate that such a union MUST procreate. The state was concerned with what happens when they do. This particular type of union is thus unique. You are an idiot and a fool to think that your lame counter isn't merely another deceitful ploy to equate one type of union with another. Unfortunately, too many others in this country are equally deceitful or intellectually lazy or immoral to give a flying rat's ass about the obvious truth. You are of the world as well as in it.
wanted to redefine the meaning of the word
Nobody wants to redefine it. They just was to be a part of it.
Obviously, he is a liar.
So is your mother.
Homo unions cannot produce a child.
They can, they have, and they do. Neil Patrick Harris and his partner produced twins.
Millions of opposite sex marriages have had tens of millions of children where the father could not impregnate or the mother could not be impregnated.
Correct, but you see Marshall has a problem with that. It's only righteous if the couple actually performs the big nasty to do it.
The "male/female type? "In general"? There we go with that word again.
It has always been thus,
Not between the striking down of Prop 22 and the passing of Prop 8.
The state never felt a need to mandate that such a union MUST procreate.
But your link said that state require the ability to procreate, uh...to "varying degrees". What degrees would those be?
give a flying rat's ass about the obvious truth.
No, they don't give a flying rat's ass about your opinion on the subject.
If you had paid attention to the history of either 1) "the State" or 2) marriage, you would not be throwing vague generalities together in the inchoate and desperate attempt to find real ground for what you want to be true.
1) The only times the State has "recognized" the institution of marriage is either to a) limit the kinds of partnerships - and in the West that has meant an ever broadening ideal, b) inversely, to protect volition for both parties - and in the West that has meant an ever broadening ideal, and c) only when new rights-bearing but minor age children belong to the coupleship.
Other that these, the State has not deliberated wholly on the institution.
Same-sex marriage is simply in line with the trajectory of Western understanding and increasing State restraint from limiting freedom.
GGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
Please, feo. There's already one liar here pretending history was different, and Jim's not getting anywhere with his revisions, either.
"Nobody wants to redefine it. They just was to be a part of it."
They must redefine it to be a part of it. Try being honest.
"So is your mother."
Liar, reprobate AND class-free. Jim's low character is quite clear.
"Neil Patrick Harris and his partner produced twins."
Total lie (what a surprise!). Either Harris or his partner produced twins with a third party. They both weren't directly involved with the procreative process. Even if they both donated sperm, only the sperm of one of them succeeded. Even if they both donated and two fraternal twins were produced, they each produced a child with a third party. The two of them did not produce a child together since that is physically impossible.
"It's only righteous if the couple actually performs the big nasty to do it."
Whether it is righteous or not (it is) has nothing to do with what type of union the state sees fit to support and why. Try being honest.
"The "male/female type? "In general"? There we go with that word again."
Obviously, reality confuses you.
"Not between the striking down of Prop 22 and the passing of Prop 8."
The striking down of Prop 22 did not mandate legalization in California. Certain municipalities simply began licensing.
"But your link said that state require the ability to procreate, uh...to "varying degrees"."
No, liar, it does not say this at all. Read it again slowly and sound out the words.
"No, they don't give a flying rat's ass about your opinion on the subject."
My opinion doesn't enter into it. But the truth is the truth and it is denied, ignored or twisted by the same group of deceitful or intellectually lazy or immoral trying to deny, ignore or twist it.
Liar, reprobate AND class-free. Jim's low character is quite clear.
So's your old man. You started it.
They both weren't directly involved with the procreative process.
Actually, yes, they were.
Even if they both donated sperm, only the sperm of one of them succeeded.
Wrong.
Even if they both donated and two fraternal twins were produced
Correctamundo!
they each produced a child with a third party.
So what? Lots of heterosexual couples do the same.
Try being honest.
You were the one that has a problem with IVF or surrogacy.
Certain municipalities simply began licensing.
And those marriages were legal and remain legal to this day.
No, liar,
So is your mother.
it does not say this at all
Direct quote: "For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."
But the truth is the truth and it is denied
Which truth?
"So's your old man. You started it."
Really? I started insulting your parents? I see. So, to ward off accurate charges of dishonesty, you turn to...lying. Perfect. Any time you're in the Chicago area, send me an email and we'll meet. You can insult my parents at that time.
"And those marriages were legal and remain legal to this day."
No, they weren't legal. Try being honest.
"it does not say this at all
Direct quote: "For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.""
Now I'm again confused as regards whether you're just deceitful or absolutely stupid. You misstate the fact and then use the fact to prove I've misstated it. What a freakin' Einstein! This "direct quote" does not in any way suggest that the state requires of couples the ability to procreate.
Harris and his "wife" were not directly involved with the procreative process with each other. They each were involved with a third party.
"So what? Lots of heterosexual couples do the same."
Doesn't matter. That some heteo couples resort to unnatural means to get around their inability to procreate is irrelevant to the state's criteria for licensing and sanctioning marriages.
"But the truth is the truth and it is denied
Which truth?"
There is only truth, little Jimmy. But the corrupt like yourself like to pretend otherwise.
You can insult my parents at that time.
I'm not insulting your parents. I'm insulting you. You keep calling me a liar. Keep it up and you'll keep getting a similarly ridiculous claim from me.
No, they weren't legal.
Yes. They were. From Wikipedia: "After the California Supreme Court challenge following the passage of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court Justices affirmed that all same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8 continued to be valid and recognized as "marriage". The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act also established that a same-sex marriage performed outside the state is recognized as "marriage" if it occurred before Proposition 8 took effect. This category also includes same-sex marriages performed before same-sex marriage became legal in California."
This "direct quote" does not in any way suggest that the state requires of couples the ability to procreate.
It most certainly does. If a state restricts from marriage couples unlikely to produce children, it is requiring couples to be able to and desire to produce children in order to marry.
irrelevant to the state's criteria for licensing and sanctioning marriages.
What criteria?
There is only truth
My link to Christian denominations sanctioning SSM demonstrates that there may not be only one truth in this case.
"I'm not insulting your parents. I'm insulting you."
I call you a liar because you knowingly continue to put forth statements that are not true. You respond by saying "so's your mother/father". That's insulting my parents. Thus, you lie again. Of course it could still be the confusion of determining when you're being dishonest or just stupid. You make it so hard to tell the difference.
"Yes. They were."
No. They weren't. Notice your own quote:
"After the California Supreme Court challenge following the passage of Proposition 8..."
It took judicial activism AFTER Prop 8 to legalize what took place before it. Try to pay attention. Dishonesty or stupidity on your part? Hard to tell.
"It most certainly does."
It most certainly does not. I'm going with stupidity on your part here. The state cannot determine, nor is it required to spend time and money trying to ascertain, which hetero couples are likely to produce children. The state knows with absolute certainty that homosexual couples cannot, by themselves, produce children. This satisfies "to varying degrees". The state knows one type of union can't produce children by its vary nature of being biologically incapable. It can't know without great expenditure of time and money, as well as invasion of privacy, which hetero couples are unlikely to produce children. Get a clue.
"What criteria?"
Obvious dishonesty on your part here, as this question has been answered hundreds of times in discussions such as this, as well as in this very discussion, too.
"My link to Christian denominations sanctioning SSM demonstrates that there may not be only one truth in this case."
Your link only demonstrates that even amongst those calling themselves Christians there exists those who distort, twist and manipulate to avoid the truth. Not a newsflash, but extremely sad, nonetheless. You, feo and other left-leaning visitors are among this corrupt and self-condemned group.
Personally, I'm done with this discussion. Jim and feo cannot produce a legitimate answer to the question posed by the post, and also fail to move forward their distorted expressions of their corrupted hearts.
I call you a liar because you knowingly continue to put forth statements that are not true.
I can't be a liar if I believe (actually know) them to be true. You call me a liar because you don't agree with or understand my answers. Your parents would only be insulted if they are the ones reading your blog comments to you.
Notice your own quote
You forgot the rest of the sentence:
"the California Supreme Court Justices affirmed that all same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8 continued to be valid and recognized as "marriage".
judicial activism AFTER Prop 8 to legalize what took place before it.
This is simply nonsensical. And even if it was "judicial activism" (which it wasn't), it would still be law and such marriages legal.
This satisfies "to varying degrees".
"Varying" by definition means subject to change or different from the standard. The link said states "to varying degrees" restrict marriage to those likely to procreate. Your own arguments basically shoot down this assertion because how would the state know?
The state knows one type of union can't produce children by its vary nature of being biologically incapable.
The state also knows that that "type of union" can produce children by other means, just as heterosexual "types" of union.
That some heteo couples resort to unnatural means to get around their inability to procreate is irrelevant to the state's criteria for licensing and sanctioning marriages.
Of course (and this is important) the state has no interest in the means by which ANY couple produces children, making your entire point moot. QED
Jim and feo cannot produce a legitimate answer to the question posed by the post
Asked and answered numerous times.
"Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM?"
Firstly, it's a nonsense question akin to "what's the harm in NOT letting couples adopt children?"
The law does not require a reason to grant freedom. It does require a reason to deny it.
To deny freedom without reason is counter to law and the Constitution as expressed in the 14th Amendment guarantying due process and equal protection of the laws.
Once again, THAT is the harm, and THAT answers your question?
"I can't be a liar if I believe (actually know) them to be true"
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Stupid it is.
"You forgot the rest of the sentence:"
The rest of the sentence doesn't matter. YOU said it was legal. Your own offering says it wasn't until AFTER the judicial activism. That it went back and allowed the illegal licensing to stand does not mean it was legal until AFTER the judicial activism made it so. Try to keep up.
>"The state also knows that that "type of union" can produce children by other means, just as heterosexual "types" of union."
But the state hadn't licensed based on what "other means" might be employed. They ruled on what their biological capabilities were, based on the propensity for men and women to come together and engage in intercourse. Try being honest and you'll understand these very easy to understand facts.
"Of course (and this is important) the state has no interest in the means by which ANY couple produces children, making your entire point moot."]
This actually supports my previous statement, but more importantly, it is a stupid thing to say given the state's understanding of how babies are made. See your mother for info on this important fact of life.
"Asked and answered numerous times."
But not answered well nor honestly at any time. Your answers have not been based on logic, reason or reality, but your own preference for what logic, reason or, most importantly, reality is. That's like...lying, not surprisingly.
"Firstly, it's a nonsense question"
...yet you've made numerous failed attempts at answering it. The question is legitimate considering the harm you whiners and those you enable claim exists by denying what they do not possess qualification to demand. There's no freedom denied. There's no right denied. Demanding that one group be treated as if identical to another, especially when that is so obviously not the case, requires a good reason for compliance. None have ever been given. Only that, like petulant children, they want it.
Your own offering says it wasn't until AFTER the judicial activism.
This is not correct. My "offering" says that the Supreme Court affirmed that those marriages that were NOT illegal prior Prop 8 were indeed still legal AFTER Prop 8. In other words, it did not make them legal. It affirmed that they were already and still legal.
That it went back and allowed the illegal licensing
The licensing was NOT illegal and the Supreme Court affirmed that.
They ruled on what their biological capabilities were
I don't believe you can demonstrate that they, the state, did any such thing. Before 1977, the law said that marriage was a contract between two people. After 1977, the law said that marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. There is nothing in that legal definition that says anything about the biological abilities or desires of the parties involved.
given the state's understanding of how babies are made.
Can you cite the part of California Civil code that says anything about understanding how babies are made? I would maintain that such a thing is non-existent.
But not answered well nor honestly at any time.
Nonsense. Answered simply, honestly, and accurately every time, which you can deny but not refute.
denying what they do not possess qualification to demand.
Such "qualifications" are arbitrary and being removed state by state. Because they are arbitrary, they do indeed deny due process and equal protection.
requires a good reason for compliance
No. It requires a good reason to deny it. None has ever been given.
Marshall: "Personally, I'm done with this discussion. Jim and feo cannot produce a legitimate answer to the question posed by the post, and also fail to move forward their distorted expressions of their corrupted hearts."
"However much and however justifiably one person upbraids another for disloyalty, changeableness, and instability, he still guards against accounting for his own instability on those grounds, because he thereby declares himself as one who has the law of his existence outside himself -- but what is changeableness if not that? If it is true that time changes everything, the changeable, then it is also true that time reveals who it was who did not change.... because it is now apparent that the accuser was the one who changed and now perhaps in fresh vehemence is true to form in complaining about this unchangeableness."
Søren Kierkegaard
Two Ages
feo,
No doubt you believe your posting of that quote is somehow profound. There is plenty of doubt that you could show relevance to the discussion here or the actual topic of the post.
Why don't you post about this atrocity, Marshall, thereby demonstrating you have some basic understanding of proportionality:
www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/why-ending-child-marriage-abroad-good-united-states/p30758?cid=rss-analysisbriefaskcfrexpertsb-why_ending_child_marriage_abro-052213
Why don't you learn how to post a link, thereby demonstrating you're not the poor representation of intellect you've constantly proven yourself to be?
In the meantime, post your certain to be irrelevant idea at your own blog where your imaginary friends can tell you how clever you are.
Post a Comment