Friday, January 09, 2015

What About Shellfish?

Another great response to the "Shellfish Argument" that supporters of the Agenda That Does Not Exist continue to believe is a game-changer.  Hat tip to Wintery Knight.

193 comments:

Anonymous said...

So...reading the article, the solution is to allow gays to marry. All it talks about is immorality in the form of pre-marital sex or adultery.

Marshall Art said...

"All it talks about is immorality in the form of pre-marital sex or adultery."

...so says Mr. See-What-I-Want-To-See.

First of all, the "Shellfish Argument" is trotted out against defenders of real marriage when in the context of Biblical teaching, homosexuals and their enablers are reminded that the Bible refers to homosexual behavior as "an abomination" or "detestable", depending upon which Bible is being used. Whichever, one can then see the terms (abomination/detestable) used in reference to eating certain foods, such as shellfish. (Hence the name of the argument.)

Those self-deluding people fail to realize that they can talk themselves into anything to justify support for sexual immorality of this kind, but they cannot talk better students of Scripture into buying into BS. Honest people can see that God prohibits the behavior and gives a reason why He does: it's an abomination/detestable.

But as to the prohibition against eating shellfish, God mandates that the people of Israel are to regard doing so as an abomination/detestable. In other words, they don't have to treat homosexual behavior as detestable, because it already is. That's why it's prohibited. On the other hand, eating shellfish isn't already detestable...they are to regard it as such.

Secondly, this article goes on to describe why the prohibition on foods is no longer in effect, while the prohibition on sexual immorality, in this case homosexual behavior, still is.

Thirdly, if Mr. SWIWTS above believes the article is speaking about "pre-marital sex or adultery", he didn't read the article itself, wherein the author clearly describes marriage by its true definition: one man/one woman.

Fourth, "gays" are already "allowed" to marry and always have been. Just not to each other because that would not be a marriage, but something else. Something else that is immoral and twisted.

I'm fairly certain I know who "anonymous" might be based on the ludicrous comment. Don't know why he isn't using his name here, or, if not the ludicrous person I believe it likely is, why the actual person feels he/she needs to remain anonymous. It is my position that one can remain anonymous by adopting a "nom de plume" and using it consistently just to separate his/herself from others who wish to remain anonymous. I use a handle but my real name is easily discovered. The timid don't have to risk being identified if they don't want to. Just sayin'.

Feodor said...

I see. So, your contention is that Jesus freed us up to enjoy lobster but not for some people to love each other.

Sounds like you.

Feodor said...

Also sounds like your gospel; sounds like your Jesus.

Marshall Art said...

"So, your contention is that Jesus freed us up to enjoy lobster but not for some people to love each other."

What an incredibly idiotic take-away. Sounds so much like you. Leave it to a false priest to pretend one cannot love another without immoral sex acts. Just like your false gospel and your fictitious Christ.

A REAL Christian would never demonstrate love for another by engaging in sinful behavior with that person. But feo would. That's why he is the false priest he is, preaching heresy and foolishness. Pray for him, folks. He really needs it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

These people like the false priest and cowardly anonymous always look to justify perversions.

The Bible is clear that the whole thing about foods was directed only to Israel to begin with. No other nation was given those laws.

On the other hand, the issue of homosexuality and other immoral sexual activities (bestiality, adultery, incest) was directed at EVERYONE, as I demonstrate pretty conclusively (IMO anyway) with my article:

http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html

Marshall Art said...

Indeed, Glen, and the beginning of Lev 18 makes this quite clear. In this chapter God states that the behaviors He was about to prohibit were practiced in both the Egypt they fled and in the Canaan they were about to conquer. Those sexual practices were already wrong. The other rules were not dealing with sinful behaviors, but only restrictions for reasons of ceremony, ritual and symbolism.

Anonymous said...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/01/12/3610816/federal-judge-overturns-south-dakotas-same-sex-marriage-ban/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

And another one bites the dust.

"he didn't read the article itself, wherein the author clearly describes marriage by its true definition: one man/one woman."

No, he did not say anything about a "true definition" of marriage.

"Fourth, "gays" are already "allowed" to marry and always have been."

This is perhaps the stupidest argument anywhere for disallowing same sex marriage, and this idiotic blog is the ONLY place I've ever seen it argued.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Schreier ended by referencing Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court overturned all bans on interracial marriage. “Little distinguishes this case from Loving,” she concluded. “Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification.

Here the fool is comparing inter-"racial" marriage with same-sex fake marriage. Typical liberally deception. If the liberals were unable to lie and deceive they would never get their agendas passed --- INCLUDING Obamacare!

Marshall Art said...

"And another one bites the dust."

Yeah. Another state with good people who decided democratically to codify into law the true definition of marriage to prevent sexual deviants from pretending there is another meaning of the word. States with such overwhelming majorities favoring common sense, truth and honesty, character and morality are falling like dominoes to the most selfish and perverse of our kind. Sad. Anon, probably Jim, celebrates such depravity with glee.

"No, he did not say anything about a "true definition" of marriage.

What the hell is wrong with you? You quote me and then contradict something the quote clearly shows was never said. I didn't say he spoke of the true definition. I said he described marriage by its true definition. IF the distinction of something so obvious is lost on you, you probably are Jim.

"This is perhaps the stupidest argument anywhere for disallowing same sex marriage, and this idiotic blog is the ONLY place I've ever seen it argued."

More idiocy. It is not put forth as an argument in defense of real marriage, nor have I ever used it as such. It has only been used, by me and others with sense, to refute the whine that homosexuals are being denied the right to marry. But more than that, you don't even take the time to really look at defense of marriage arguments, so it is not surprising that you don't see this correction put forth as often as it is.

Got any other stupid things to say?

Anonymous said...

"Got any other stupid things to say?"

Sure, but they are hardly a match for your stupid things.

"Another state with good people who decided democratically to codify into law"

Civil rights trump democracy.

"I said he described marriage by its true definition."

I read the article yet again and could find nothing of the sort.

"IF the distinction of something so obvious is lost on you"

It is a distinction without a difference.

"It is not put forth as an argument in defense of real marriage, nor have I ever used it as such."

You have used it as an argument against same sex marriage many times.

"It has only been used, by me and others with sense, to refute the whine that homosexuals are being denied the right to marry."

You have failed. The courts have recognized that homosexuals HAVE been denied the right to marry.

"you don't even take the time to really look at defense of marriage arguments"

I have read them many times especially in relevant court cases. Virtually no court in the land has given validity to any DOM argument.

Marshall Art said...

"Sure, but they are hardly a match for your stupid things."

When you can present something I've said that is stupid along with an explanation (not a stupid one) for why it is so, that'll be the day.

"Civil rights trump democracy."

When you, or any other activist/enabler can show how any homosexual's civil rights have been denied based on the exact wording of any law and proper definitions of words used in that law, rather than merely asserting that they have been, that'll be the day.

"I read the article yet again and could find nothing of the sort."

And dare have the audacity to refer to anyone else as stupid. Here, I'll point it out for you:

The Bible, consistently throughout, teaches that sex is only permissible within a marriage between a man and a woman.

That's a description of marriage by its true definition. It doesn't have to ever use the word "definition" for it to be so. Nor does it require that the description be the definitive definition. But it is a version of that definition of the conjugal union of one man and one woman, whether it's good enough for a morally bankrupt person like yourself or not.

"It is a distinction without a difference."

That you lack the intelligence to recognize the distinction is irrelevant while being so absolutely typical. More likely, as with all that defends the truth of marriage, you ignore and dismiss for lack of a real alternative possibility.

"You have used it as an argument against same sex marriage many times."

Find one example that you believe supports your contention and I'll demonstrate why your contention is stupid and false. I've never used it as an argument in defense of marriage. It is as I've said: I've only used it to counter the lie that homosexuals are being denied the "right" to marry.

"The courts have recognized that homosexuals HAVE been denied the right to marry."

Not possible, since it has never happened. Under the definition of marriage that has existed since the birth of mankind, no homosexual has ever been denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is required in order to label the union a marriage. What's more, there are countless examples of homosexuals and lesbians who are or have been married to members of the opposite sex and thus the whine is just another lie of the agenda. As a liar yourself, I can understand your clinging to falsehood, but it's a lie nonetheless. No judge can change that by merely asserting it is so.

"I have read them many times especially in relevant court cases. Virtually no court in the land has given validity to any DOM argument."

First of all, you've demonstrated, as if it is your purpose in life, that you lack the ability to comprehend even my own humble comments. Secondly, no court that has overturned the will of the people on this issue has demonstrated that arguments in favor of real marriage are invalid. They only assert that they are. If you can provide just one example of a judge explaining why just one argument in defense of real marriage is invalid, I'll explain, using small words for your benefit, why that judge is abusing his position and only rejecting, not rebutting, that argument.

Anonymous said...

"When you can present something I've said that is stupid along with an explanation (not a stupid one) for why it is so, that'll be the day."

OK: Fourth, "gays" are already "allowed" to marry and always have been.

You admit it's stupid by enclosing allowed in quotes.

"When you, or any other activist/enabler can show how any homosexual's civil rights have been denied based on the exact wording of any law and proper definitions of words used in that law, rather than merely asserting that they have been, that'll be the day."

This is the day:

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark civil rights case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

"Here, I'll point it out for you"

That sentence occurs nowhere in the article you have linked to.

"That you lack the intelligence to recognize the distinction is irrelevant while being so absolutely typical."

I stand by what I said.

"I've never used it as an argument in defense of marriage."

I've never said you have, and you've stated this straw man twice. I said you've used it as an argument against legal same sex marriage. And you have in this very thread.

"Not possible, since it has never happened."

The US Supreme Court says it has. I'll stick with them over you.

"which is required in order to label the union a marriage."

Not in about 34 states.

"No judge can change that by merely asserting it is so."

They can and they have.

"you lack the ability to comprehend even my own humble comments."

Your comments are hardly humble and are often incomprehensible.

"no court that has overturned the will of the people on this issue has demonstrated that arguments in favor of real marriage are invalid."

This one rates with the "gays are already allowed" to marry in level of stupidity. Why would anybody, much less a court, say that the arguments in favor of "real" marriage are invalid. They never have and they never will.

What they HAVE done is state that the arguments AGAINST same sex marriage do not rise to the legal scrutiny required to uphold state bans.

"If you can provide just one example of a judge explaining why just one argument in defense of real marriage is invalid"

See above. There is no rational reason to make such an argument.

Marshall Art said...

"You admit it's stupid by enclosing allowed in quotes."

Enclosing allowed in quotes highlights the stupidity and dishonesty of pretending homosexuals have not been allowed to marry. Try to keep up.

"That sentence occurs nowhere in the article you have linked to."

My link is to an excerpt of the article, not the article itself. Try to keep up. What's more, the complete article has further links to others that continue to state the fact. An honest and courageous perusal of that which is offered would go a long way toward mitigating your reputation as being intellectually lazy.

"I stand by what I said."

No doubt. It is far easier for you to stand by what you'd like to be true as opposed to honestly facing what is true.

"I've never said you have, and you've stated this straw man twice."

Now you demonstrate how you prefer to play semantic games. There are two sides to this issue. The dishonest and immoral side deceitfully frames the issue as a denial of the "right" to marry. The reality is that the righteous and honest side is defending the true meaning of "marriage" and it's importance of maintaining it in our culture and in our laws.

As such, it is true that I have never used it as a defense of real marriage OR as an argument against SSM. It is merely a statement of fact that marriage laws in our country do not require that either party in the union be heterosexual. What's more, there are many, many cases of homosexuals marrying throughout our history. V Gene Robinson, for example, is a flaming homosexual and he had not only married, but fathered children while doing so. The whine by your side is that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The fact, the truth, is that they've never been denied. What they've been denied is the right to redefine the word so as to allow their perversion to be regarded as a marriage. It isn't and never will be, even if the whole world chooses to call it such. A dog will always be a dog regardless of whether or not the world chooses to call it a cat.

"This is the day:"

Apparently not, since what you offer does not meet the challenge I put forth at all. It merely reiterates the false assertion that the true results in a denial of anyone's civil rights. It doesn't demonstrate how it denies any rights, and what's more, it cannot. The marriage laws never prohibited homosexuals from marrying (see my example above), but only states what marriage actually is: the union of one man and one woman.

Marshall Art said...

"'Not possible, since it has never happened.'

The US Supreme Court says it has. I'll stick with them over you."


Wrong again, sparky. The US Supreme Court merely said that for the purpose of receiving federal benefits, what is called a marriage in one state must be regarded as such in order to receive those benefits. It doesn't say that homosexuals have been denied the right to marry since, as we've seen with the case of such as V Gene Robinson, that is clearly not true. So you can stick with the Supreme Court on any poor judgement of theirs they you like, but you should at least know what the hell they actually said.

"'which is required in order to label the union a marriage.'

Not in about 34 states."


Again, you lack the honesty to deal with what I'm actually saying and then pretend you've refuted something. It doesn't matter how many states say that homosexuals are entitled to marriage licenses for their deviant unions. It still isn't a marriage by definition. Judges do not determine definitions, but are supposed to rule based on actual definitions, which none of them who overturned the will of the people have done in order to rule as they have.

"Your comments are hardly humble and are often incomprehensible."

To you most certainly, proving my point well. Nicely done.

"Why would anybody, much less a court, say that the arguments in favor of "real" marriage are invalid. They never have and they never will."

They most certainly have as those who argue in the courts on this issue from the side I favor actually are defending the true definition of marriage. They are arguing in favor of traditional marriage. If you're going to claim that you are up on these cases, you'd be doing yourself a service by not stating something so categorically false.

"What they HAVE done is state that the arguments AGAINST same sex marriage do not rise to the legal scrutiny required to uphold state bans."

Again you play semantic games, but even so, I have never read an explanation that bears out the contention. As with all else, this is merely another assertion that continues to go unsubstantiated.

"There is no rational reason to make such an argument."

You say this as if your stupidity needed any more confirmation. But it doesn't. It has been on display ever since you first began visiting here. The rational reason lies in the what marriage is and why it is important. Judges ruling in favor of sexual deviants like homosexuals merely dismiss these most rational and logical reasons without a substantive explanation for why they fail or are untrue. YOU don't even know what the reasons are because you are so in the bag for depravity and sexual immorality.

Erik said...

The implication constantly popping up in this comment thread that definitions of human institutions are somehow unchangeable in perpetuity seems odd to me. To be clear, we're talking about a culturally and socially recognized human relationship institution here, not a physical certainty or demonstrable scientific law, correct? Because definitions are most definitely subject to change. If someone living in the year 1000BC looked up the definition of the word "earth" in their rock dictionary, would there be any mention or concept of a spherical design? Probably not.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Erik. "Government" is another case in point. "Home", maybe." Certainly "family."

Anonymous said...

"An honest and courageous perusal of that which is offered would go a long way toward mitigating your reputation as being intellectually lazy."

And actually linking to the words you are citing would go a long way toward mitigating your reputation as being intellectually lazy.

"but only states what marriage actually is: the union of one man and one woman."

Was. Sometimes.

"It doesn't say that homosexuals have been denied the right to marry since"

If one is denied the rights and privileges of legal marriage, then they are denied the right to marry. State bans on same sex marriage does exactly that. The fact that Windsor says that bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional acknowledges that THESE BANS EXIST. Which means exactly that gays are not allowed to marry the person of their choice.

You continue to spew this dishonest and absurd line, and yet it appears to never have been seriously considered by any court of law. This leads me to believe that same sex marriage foes have never even actually brought up this argument in court, realizing the absurdity of it. But I'd be happy to read any court case where it WAS seriously argued or seriously considered by a court if you can provide a link to it.

"It doesn't matter how many states say that homosexuals are entitled to marriage licenses for their deviant unions. It still isn't a marriage by definition."

Yes it is. It is for the couple. It is for their families and friends. It is for the Federal government and most of the states. It is for a lot of churches. The fact that it isn't for you and your dishonest, anti-social, anti Bible crew is less than irrelevant.

"Judges do not determine definitions,"

Indeed they do.

"but are supposed to rule based on actual definitions"

Since actual "definitions" vary, it's up to the judge to decide which apply in matters of law.

"They are arguing in favor of traditional marriage."

I don't think anybody has a problem with "traditional" marriage, but most people don't see "traditional" marriage being a reason to exclude same sex marriage from the legal or social institution. After all didn't Jesus say, "The greatest of these is love"? In the decision I've linked to below it states that "tradition" by itself is not a compelling reason to deny gays to marry the person of their choice.

"I have never read an explanation that bears out the contention. As with all else, this is merely another assertion that continues to go unsubstantiated."

Read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

Start at page 109. A few excerpts follow below:

Anonymous said...


1. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.

2.THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

3. Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse.

4. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

5. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.

6. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

7. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition

8. Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

9. That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote

10. Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

More...

Anonymous said...

I LOVE this part. This is where the anti same sex marriage arguments are refuted starting on page 123. Just for you:

1. Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The“ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational.Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

2. California has eliminated all legally- mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of afore gone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

3.The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality,because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.

Another of my favorites:

1. Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.

And so it goes. Every one of the "pro traditional marriage" arguments is refuted, one after another.

"Judges ruling in favor of sexual deviants like homosexuals merely dismiss these most rational and logical reasons without a substantive explanation for why they fail or are untrue."

I DO know what the arguments are. The are outlined in the decision above with very substantive explanations of why the fail or untrue.

And finally:

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION.

Marshall Art said...

Not much time available at present, so I will only address a few things before I go through and totally shred Jim's lame offerings.

First, Erik. Welcome. Don't believe you've ever left a comment before, but feel free to do so at any time.

Definitions do change all the time, but we're not talking about a gradual metamorphosis that characterizes most changes. Here, we're talking about forcing a definition upon a word that was never understood to be true, particularly with regards to establishing law or interpreting existing law. So when a judge, like Walker, tries to pretend there is some definition of marriage that is simply the union of any two people, that is a blatant lie. It is NOT the definition upon which passed laws and court rulings were based. And he damn well knows it, which is why he is a liar.

As to the shape of the earth, it is mostly myth that the earth was ever widely regarded as flat. Just sayin'.

Marshall Art said...

As for Jimmy-boy, I will begin with the last and get to the rest later.

"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."

I am so glad that no one is basing legislation in this manner. Rather, the opposite is true. Homosexual judges are basing their rulings on the private moral view that same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples and thus equally entitle to identical regard. What a hypocrite!

More later. MUCH more.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait to hear how opposite sex couples are NOT identical to same sex couples except for outdated notions of gender.

BTW, Walker very easily lays out the reasons that his decision does not rely on his "moral" view.

Erik said...

Change is change is change. I'm not concerned about the nature of it, really. It's not like I'm ever going to get gay married. And I think the "forcing" concern will become less relevant with time as older, traditionally-held values give way to the attitudes and culture of a rapidly-changing youth.

The sphere thing - you seem like a bright guy. I'm sure you get my point.

Erik said...

On a side note, Marshall Art, I'd like to thank you for teaching me something here. I consider myself a fairly educated person, yet until I read your response to my initial comment, I'd never heard of the "Myth of the Flat Earth" before. Very interesting. However, it would seem my first comment still holds water - based, at least, on my last twenty minutes of internet surfing - because the myth you mentioned seems to apply primarily to the middle ages. My example referred to the year 1000BC - a good half millennium or so before the Greek intellects started documenting their observations on this topic. See how much I learned today?

Anonymous said...

Erik,

That's why I come here (and places like it). You learn so much by researching the issues to easily find the actual truth behind Marshall's and Glenn's faulty assertions.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

Here's a little more information for you from Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference

August 4, 1997 at Westmont College:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.


The question then would be, did those a half millennium before even think about the shape of the earth? Should we assume there were no deep thinkers before Pythagorus? Then I came upon this:

However, sailors were well aware of the shape of the earth. One myth states that people realized that the earth was round because they saw ships slowly sinking below the horizon. But before telescopes, it was more likely the other way round: sailors returning to land saw high mountains before lowlands.

Might this not also have occurred to any who traveled beyond their place of origin in those early days, that seeing tall things well before low things might imply a spherical shape?

More importantly, should we engage in such irrelevance in a discussion about the immorality and irrationality of SSM? I'd rather stick to the subject and direct all snark in that direction, rather than get too tangential. But that's just me.


Jim,

Please feel free to provide examples of any of that "actual truth" that in any way debunks what you choose to regard as "assertions", faulty or otherwise. As to better examples of assertion, I will soon address the many found in the ruling you think answers my challenge. Stay tuned.

Erik said...

Yeah, that's the same information I read. No mention of any acknowledgment of the existence of the earth's circumference before then. Which is what I already said. There is, however, an indication that the theory of a disc-shaped Earth had some traction among the smarty smarts of the time. Ultimately, there's no way to prove what the early so-called intellects believed about the subject, so who cares? It's just an example I used to make a point. You're the one who got off topic and brought it up, not I. If you'd like a better example, google the history of the definition of the word "decimation."

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

Your examples, regardless of what they are, do not support the issue at play here at all. I do not reject the notion that definitions change. What I reject is that there is the same sort of natural metamorphosis that normally occurs with regard to the word "marriage". Throughout human history, it has always, with extremely rare exception, meant the union of man and woman with an orientation toward procreation. Indeed, that aspect defines it more than any other, that procreation is intended, hoped for and only possible by uniting a man and a woman. Now, because of pressure and marketing of the homosexual lobby, there is the willful deception that it ever meant merely any two people with no relation to procreation at all. It is a lie.

Marshall Art said...

I want to begin addressing Jim's dodge of my challenge. I know it wasn't a purposeful dodge, since he lacks the ability to truly understand what he reads, either of my challenge or that anything in Walker's ruling actually serves to answer it. Before I do, however, one or two caveats:

1. It should be noted that Walker's ruling is widely perceived as poor, even by some who agree with the outcome. In this it is much like Roe v Wade, where a judge makes law rather than rule on the constitutionality of one. The fact that he acted willfully to pervert the process, and his lack of honor in not recusing himself is but one example. Nonetheless, we have a list that, as I said earlier, provides great examples of assertions put forth as fact, as well as outright lies the likes of which no honorable judge should ever vocalize in a court of law.

2. Due to time constraints, as well as the amount of points to address, I no choice to attack this challenge piecemeal. The extent to which I respond at any given time will be determined by the time I have available to do so. Of course this does not mean that every available minute I use for internet discussions will be devoted to this one, so it could take some time to get through it.

In the meantime, I will entertain no comments, particularly from Jim, despite how much I enjoy his convoluted parsing of words and other honor-free responses and comments. I am weighing whether to copy and paste those Jim will no doubt post regardless of any desire I express that he not, or delete them altogether until I am through with the list. The latter is the easier of the two and all he deserves, so I lean toward that. But to do so will invariably bring about his accusation that I am incapable of (or too afraid to) answering his point (such as it may be). We'll just have to wait and see if I care.

I will, however, give exception to Erik, since he is new here, though I may not necessarily respond so as not to get off track.

Let's begin....

Marshall Art said...

"1. The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage."

Not really. Right off the bat we see an intentional distortion of reality. We will see much of this because homosexuals do this as if it is their job. The evidence shows that there is a movement to force marriage away from a gendered institution. It isn't moving away on its own, nor is the culture naturally drifting in that direction. It is a forced move by the homosexual lobby, enabled by those who are chumps for the cause, having allowed themselves to be moved by the false marketing that would portray them as oppressors of a helpless minority group.

The same is true for the perception of gender. While many of a conservative bent freely accept that certain functions do not, or no longer fall within notions of gender roles, the homosexual lobby, in concert with radical feminist groups, seek to force the notion that there is no difference whatsoever between the sexes. This is an insult to both sexes as well as a complete lie.

This is mere assertion on Walker's part, not an argument against any point defending traditional marriage.

"2.THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER."

This is another assertion, not a reflection of anything ever put forth in any previous court case. Indeed, the most definitive case dealing with this lie happened in the 1970's and Walker didn't even refer to that case at all. A quote from Nelson Lund, George Mason Law School...

"The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1971 that an identical challenge to the traditional definition of marriage was meritless. Nor has the Supreme Court ever suggested that its 1971 decision was wrong…"

"3. Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse."

Interesting that he would say this without offering any reason why the state would or should. Nor is it the case that any argument was put forth suggesting that a marriage license is a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. That does nothing to mitigate the state interest in licensing marriages BECAUSE of the procreational aspects of heterosexual sexual relations.

More than mere assertion, this point is meaningless and irrelevant and does not counter the procreative argument.

Marshall Art said...

"4. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality."

Of course it did, and it did BECAUSE homosexuals were unjustly given the right to marry. What's more, I don't recall anyone making the argument that normal people would lose the right to marry because the definition was forcibly changed to include homosexuals. Nice straw man.

"5. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household."

Yes. To choose a woman for a wife in one is a man, or to choose a man for a husband if one is a woman. THAT is what "to marry" has always meant. It has NEVER meant SSM. EVER.

"Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."

This is an outright lie. While race restrictions were only regionally (both in time and geographically) an issue, there was never a time when anything akin to SSM had widespread acceptance in ANY culture.

"6. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents."

7 million Californians vehemently disagreed. Twice. In between, morally corrupt mayors allowed licensing of homosexuals to marry. This is what brought about Prop 8. The people ARE the state and to the people gender is indeed relevant in a marriage. Another assertion, not a rebuttal to the point.

"Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."

Again, 7 million Californians vehemently disagreed. Twice. Husband and wife are indeed equals. SSMs and real marriages are not. Not even close. The "marriage under law" in the minds of the majority of Californians means the union of one man and one woman. Walker asserts that isn't true. He doesn't say in what way it is false other than to cite his own bigoted and biased opinion.

Marshall Art said...

"7. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage."

This is an outright lie and unsupportable by anything in history. Not surprising no history is offered to buttress this nonsense. The historical purpose of marriage always involved the procreative aspect. Only a homosexual would pretend this is untrue. Thus, the plaintiffs don't "encompass" the historical form of marriage as that form always consisted of one man and one woman.

"Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition."

And rightly so, because theirs does not "encompass" the historical form of a marriage. Thus, it is both logical and righteous that the state give no recognition to their deviant union.

"8. Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right."

Absolutely they do. They seek the "right" to force the entire state to regard their union as something it is not and cannot be due to its "form".

"To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage."

Not at all. It suggests that the state is differentiating between real marriage and what these disordered people want to do. To call two different things by different names avoids confusion. They are NOT the same at all.

"Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

But they are not. They are unions to which they demand the state regards them as marriages. They will never be. Just as a guy who undergoes a sex change isn't really a woman, regardless of what he calls himself, these unions will never be marriages. In both cases, the same is true even if the whole world says the guy is a chick and the union is a marriage. Neither is true.

Well, that's 8 points I've gotten through more quickly than I initially thought I would. That means that Jim thinks Walker is a genius. But it's all the time I have at present. Thus far, not one point presented a counter argument to any put forth by those defending real marriage. Not one defended the push to alter the definition in law to include homosexuals marrying each other. I'm disappointed, though not the least bit surprised, that Jim's attempt has thus far rendered nothing. But we still see that my claim is true, that no judge who has ruled against real marriage has argued against any point made by its defenders. I will say, however, that Jim would have had a better chance with Judge Posner, as the lawyers defending real marriage in his court weren't very good. But still, even he didn't actually counter the arguments they made. They just didn't make them well.

More later...

Erik said...

"Your examples, regardless of what they are, do not support the issue at play here at all."

They do. They just don't support your criterion for change.

Erik said...

I would add that the other theme that caught my eye in your arguments is this notion that gay marriage is being forced upon the majority of the American public. While election results certainly haven't all gone the way gay marriage supporters might have hoped, the numbers in favor of allowing SSM to happen are definitely growing. How that might play out in future legislation seems pretty clear. Maybe think of it like this - today, just over 50% of Americans are ok with SSM. In 2000, just under 48% of Americans won George W. Bush the White House.

Marshall Art said...

"They do. They just don't support your criterion for change."

They don't, particularly because I'm not speaking in terms of criteria, but in the distinction between a natural metamorphosis and an unnatural forcing of change in order to perpetuate a lie to garner support for a bad idea.

As to your most recent comment, Erik, you ignore some realities.

First, with one (possibly two) exceptions, every opportunity for the people of a state to vote on the issue, it was roundly defeated by an average of 60% or more opposed to SSM. Prop 8 may have been passed by a greater percentage (I haven't checked, but I believe that's the case), and Cali already had conceded a host of marital benefits in their civil union legislation.

Second, recent Pew poll (within the last six months or so) reveal a leveling off of support. Now, to me, the only polls worth a damn are those at election time, or any others that allow the majority of those willing to vote (amongst all eligible in a given state). All others use only an incredibly small sampling of around 1-2000 people at best (most times) and pretend that is a legitimate snapshot of the entire country. It isn't and can't be.

One also cannot be sure of just how "random" such polling is. Total numbers and who was polled are points I always seek out in reviewing polling data, The latter is rarely given out or given out in detail to get a good sense of the fairness of the poll. Also, the manner the question is worded and how the response is then analyzed leaves much better to be desired.

One is also dealing with "either/or" questions, as opposed to a political election that usually includes more than two candidates, especially presidential.

Homosexuals know they cannot expect overwhelming approval even after putting forth their suspect polling data as "proof" that public sentiment is now in their favor.

Marshall Art said...

Back to it...

"9. That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote"

This does nothing to rebut any pro-traditional marriage argument. It is also a distortion of reality. Like all other states that had similar legislation pass and then unjustly overturned, the majority of Californians simply put into their Constitution the actual meaning of marriage for the purpose of civil law. Under that definition, no homosexual is denied any rights to that institution nor have they ever been.

At the same time, this idiotic claim by Walker must provide the same "right" to the polygamous, the incestuous and a great number of underage marriage hopefuls. How can it not, especially give all the other pro-homosexual arguments that work equally well for the polygamous and incestuous?

"10. Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest."

And they did, but Walker dismisses and ignores that evidence as if it was never put forth or as if it isn't evidence at all. He doesn't provide evidence of his own that refutes any of it, without imposing a false definition of marriage to do so (speaking of past cases, such as Loving v Virginia).

Thus far, no refutations of pro-traditional marriage arguments have been seen in any of the ten points thus far. Next, I will attack the idiocy present in that which Jim thinks are game-enders.

Stay tuned.

Erik said...

From Merriam-Webster:

"criterion: something that is used as a reason for making a judgment or decision."

From Marshall Art:

"...a natural metamorphosis and an unnatural forcing of change..."

Those two things, however subjective, are, by definition, criterion.

While we're at it, can you please provide some historical examples of what you consider to be "natural metamorphosis" when it comes to changes in definitions? Then we can discuss how those changes compare to this topic. Until then, I'm forced to argue against an unknown opposing position.

"...it was roundly defeated by an average of 60% or more..."

No arguments here, although I'd say 60% can hardly be considered"roundly" when placed within the context of the significantly lower support numbers SSM could claim just a decade and a half ago. But if you'd have read my comment more closely, you'd notice my focus is on the American public as a whole - not on election results. I already conceded that election results haven't worked towards SSM supporters' favor. At least not yet.

"...reveal a leveling off of support."

Agreed. And that "leveling off" has specifically leveled off at around 51%. And you and I both know, whatever our personal politics might be, that those numbers aren't done moving. We're getting older - there will always be new youth.

"Homosexuals know they cannot expect overwhelming approval..."

Neither can elected officials. No one is arguing otherwise, and I'm sure gay people aren't expecting it. This is an irrelevant observation.

Marshall Art said...

Again, Erik, I'm not speaking in terms of criteria for change, but in the distinction between two sets of criteria. One is legitimate and the other not. The change in the definition of marriage forced upon the nation by activists was, by virtue of its being forced, is an example of an unnatural change. Your example of "decimation" is an example of a more natural change.

The latter is often the result of unintentional misuse, or in some cases, an intentional misuse meant to convey a sentiment, often hyperbolic. The activist's misuse is purposeful and deceitful. They insist it is an accurate definition in order to pretend they are being denied a right. But their definition is most assuredly false and never before regarded as a definition by honest people, heterosexual or not.

Other examples of a more natural change would be for profanities, such as "bitch" or "bastard". They've come to mean things apart from their true definition (while still working as true definitions) when used pejoratively. A bastard is still one born out of wedlock, but also used to denote an unsavory character, such as Jim.

As to public support for SSM, I insist the numbers put forth by pro-SSM polling are unreliable, even laid against the passage of time when considering when most states voted on the issue. If we cannot get a similar poll done (aside from one single case from a most liberal state), it is deceitful to suggest that others fall in line with an alleged wave of changing sentiment.

That latest Pew poll to which I referred could also mean the sentiment is shifting back as opposed to merely leveling off. Whether that happens or is even possible depends largely upon true and factual data regarding the issue brought forth to counter the propaganda of the activist. That marketing has done great damage and is the major reason why the youth of America are so sadly in support of sexual immorality.

"Neither can elected officials. No one is arguing otherwise, and I'm sure gay people aren't expecting it."

While nothing is certain, those running for election can indeed get an accurate sense of probabilities. Homosexuals KNOW they cannot get overwhelming approval and that is why they seek sympathetic courts to legislate from the bench...a truly unConstitutional ploy that has done wonders for the agenda.

Erik said...

Your entire comment strikes me as someone who is seeing what they want to see. Ironically, weren't you just accusing another commenter of that very same thing earlier? You refuse to believe an acceptably significant percentage of the population is ok with the definition of marriage being expanded to include gays, so you attack the criteria that might lead to its expansion. You refuse to accept that attitudes and social mores towards SSM are trending away from your belief set, so you attack the credibility and/or methodology of the polling system used to acquire such data. You refuse to accept how those changing attitudes might translate into future legislation brought about by future aforementioned elected lawmakers, so you discredit the present means by which those you clearly despise have decided to go about securing what they believe is their fair slice of the equality pie.

You, sir, are a conservative if I ever saw one. See ya at the polls.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"Your entire comment strikes me as someone who is seeing what they want to see."

And you are absolutely correct, if by that you mean that what I want to see is the truth. And the truth is that we cannot depend upon pro-homosexual results of polling done by people of questionable motives collecting responses from people of questionable "randomness".

"You refuse to believe an acceptably significant percentage of the population is ok with the definition of marriage being expanded to include gays..."

Not at all. I question the size of that percentage, and I question how those who are "OK" with it got to that point where they are now indeed "OK" with it. I also question whether all those who claim to be "OK" with it truly are or are in fear of being "on the wrong side of history" or demonized as bigoted.

"...so you attack the criteria that might lead to its expansion."

What "criteria" led to the expansion of the definition? The only one that one can honestly say drove that expansion is the outright lie that "marriage" is defined as merely the union of two people. Again, it is not, nor has it ever been before activists and morally bankrupt judges proclaimed it to be.

"You refuse to accept that attitudes and social mores towards SSM are trending away from your belief set, so you attack the credibility and/or methodology of the polling system used to acquire such data."

Again, I accept that they are trending away from truth and morality, but that the reasons behind that trend are not legitimate. In addition to what I have just said above, there are hordes of examples to demonstrate how the general public has been chumped into buying into the agenda, rather than brought toward a genuine understanding of the issue which would likely not result in attitudes trending in the manner and direction it has.

"You refuse to accept how those changing attitudes might translate into future legislation brought about by future aforementioned elected lawmakers..."

Absolutely NOT true. Indeed, I know exactly how it WILL translate as attitudes regarding the black race translated into Jim Crow laws and other forms of wrongdoing against blacks. This, too, will translate into legislation that supports, encourages and protects immorality and bad behaviors, as well as to persecute those who oppose them. It is happening already. This makes all I've just said all the more chilling and devious in the manipulation of public sentiment. And those who willingly take part in such manipulation are worthy of being despised for their actions are indeed truly despicable.

"You, sir, are a conservative if I ever saw one."

Well thank you! A compliment at the end of all you've said was truly unexpected. How nice!

Marshall Art said...

Erik,


I'm hoping that, unlike Jim and a few others, that you possess the integrity and courage to study the links I will now provide. Some are rather lengthy, but what you read can be researched for accuracy. They will give you some sense of what I mean when I speak of manipulation, one in particular. You will also see how little it takes for the activists to trump up the significance of their "research" in order to pretend they have evidence that justifies their agenda. I believe what little I will provide you to be enough to demonstrate what crap Judge Walker's ruling truly was.

Take your time.

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

My purpose in providing these few examples is to drive home my point regarding the tactics by which public sentiment came to be as it is. If more people were aware of these aspects of the history of the agenda, I don't believe we'd see so many people believing support for the agenda is a good thing. I also believe we'd see far more judges and legislators supporting traditional marriage more aggressively, rather than believe they do themselves and those they serve any real service by supporting the whining of 2% of the population.

I wonder how much of the above is news to you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Number 5 has no link.

Anonymous said...

"we cannot depend upon pro-homosexual results of polling done by people of questionable motives collecting responses from people of questionable "randomness"."

Nor can we depend on unbiased recounting of APA processes by a person affiliated with anti-LGBT groups and so-called reparative therapy. See Marshall's link #1.

Link 2 is another anti-LGBT guy who complains about the APA process in deciding homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

#3 And you think the Tony Perkins and the Bill Donohues don't use the same marketing techniques in their anti-LGBT agenda?

#4 The author is Loren Marks: "In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples."

Link

Maybe you could find some articles on "the agenda" and the APA written by people who are neutral on the subject. Who aren't anti-LGBT and don't make their living from "reparatory therapy."

Marshall Art said...

Five

Marshall Art said...

While I have saved the two or three previous comments from Jim since I politely asked him to refrain from commenting until I've finished shredding his initial lengthy post, he predictably lacks the honor and integrity to comply with a simple request. Not surprised in the least. But as this latest attempt has sat for a bit, I am leaving up with the following corrections.

Links 1 & 2 are NOT necessarily to "anti-gay" proponents, nor are they linked to "anti-gay" groups merely for providing answers to inquiries from any. The second link, to the video, clearly exposes the pro-"gay" position of the past president of the APA, who was present for the events of which he speaks. He shows a tremendously rare honesty uncommon among the homosexual activists and their enablers, like Jim.

It should also be noted that if any of those highlighted in the links are "anti-gay", it is more than merely possible that they are so due to facts they reveal in their respective links. To the activist/enabler, any fact that disputes, rebuts or conflicts with the agenda proves anti-"gay" bias, rather than merely exposing falsehoods purposely put forth to support the agenda and demonize its detractors.

Jim does this with his own link, which, contrary to his alleged concern with "neutrality", is from a guy who is clearly an advocate for the cause. This link is lengthy and provides many links within it. I haven't time at present to peruse every one, and might not given the fact that two links I did review failed to support contentions prompting the links in the first place.

One link spoke of the Regnerus study and the claim that Regnerus admitted that it would be too hard to find the type of subjects for the study that would have pleased Scott Rose. The truth is the Regnerus said it IS too difficult to find such subjects considering the era in which the subjects grew up---very few committed homosexual parents existed that could reasonably be compared, "apples to apples-like" with typical heterosexual parents.

So we see immediately that Jim lacks the integrity to do what he demands of me.

Marshall Art said...

To link 3, Jim writes:

"And you think the Tony Perkins and the Bill Donohues don't use the same marketing techniques in their anti-LGBT agenda?"

Everything is marketing. The issue is whether or not one is using truth, facts and sound evidence to accurately support or denounce. This is the point of the link 3 piece. They activists willfully distort and manipulate data to put themselves in the best possible light. Downplaying negatives is one thing. Actively suppressing them out of existence, and demonizing those who draw attention to them due to the importance in considering them in order to draw the soundest conclusion is quite another.

Link 4 resulted in Jim's questionable link. But it does little to back up Jim's contention, at least so far as I could tell with insufficient time to peruse. (By the way, "peruse" is an example of a word that may be in the midst of change, as so many use it in a manner completely opposite its true definition.) I've seen that Marks has responded to charges about his study, but I have yet to find access to it. I'm sure I'll find evidence of the usual "cherry-picking" of which Marks was accused to be no more than legitimate examples of his premise. His study includes many footnotes and references for further review by any so inclined to take the time. Jim isn't one of those, but one who merely seeks out far less than neutral sources who may have rebuttals to offer. I wonder if Jim even studies what he offers us? Not likely.

Link 5, reposted above, is just another example of how the activists have spun a less than compelling and flawed study to use as evidence that "science" back the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.

Jim,

If you can't hold your water and insist on responding, do this: save it and post it when I say it is fair to do so. You are only interrupting my response to your initial nonsense, which I'm sure is your intention, since I've shred it up pretty good so far. If you post anything else in the meantime, I will delete it completely without saving it for later, as I have been doing thus far.

Erik said...

Well, Marshall Art, like you, I also shall refrain from investing too much time in links provided on someone's blog. From what I gleaned from the links, as well as your own commentary, there's a sense of semi-contradiction in play that makes me question whether or not our exchange on this topic is worth our time.

First, your comments...

On the one hand, you cite election results as evidence that Americans aren't buying what SSM proponents are selling. On the other, you concede that changing attitudes will ultimately translate into new legislation. "Bad ideas", as you say. Which is it?

Similarly, on the one hand, you reject the notion that those very attitudes are, indeed, still moving towards the SSM side. "Leveling off", as you say. Then you concede that attitudes are, indeed, "trending away" from traditional ideals of morality. Which is it?

In terms of the actual SSM support numbers, I'm not sure which polling model would be satisfactory to you. Might I suggest you google "same sex marriage polling report" (no quotes), check out Polling Report's statistics, and see what you think of their numbers and methodology? They actually list the questions that were asked in all the polls listed. I do get the feeling that, given your apparent skepticism of why people answered these polls as they did, you might dismiss these results anyway, but it's worth a try.

Which brings us to your links...

One and two involve dissatisfaction with the political handling of ADA research in general, and five also deals with research shortcomings. While I can understand the frustration, something in five bothered me. The question of whether or not homosexuality is accompanied by mental health issues such as depression and suicidal tendencies pops up. Five mentions a study where the researcher listed discrimination and social exclusion as potential causes. The writer of the article summarily dismisses those concerns as an attempt to "PC" it up. If dissenting opinions about the nature of a homosexual's psychology are so easily cast aside, what's the point of even studying it? Don't get me wrong - that goes for both sides.

Three is ultimately a lesson in sales. Nothing my undergraduate rhetoric course didn't cover. I guess my reaction to this is that gays would probably argue that they've been on the other side of the propaganda narrative for centuries. The default position from the Bible to the locker room was always that they occupy the seedy corners of society. Can you blame them for wanting to change that narrative? Are you shocked they'd want society to take another look at their position from a fresh starting point?

On a related note, one thing that did jump out at me was the mention of the expansion of technology. While the article lists it as a sordid means for the spreading of the gay agenda, I view it differenty. Perhaps it's simply emblematic of the times we live in that a whole new world of information and perpective is available at the click of a mouse or the wielding of a remote control. People's worldview is no longer limited to what parents or local acquaintances or a newspaper could provide. Exposure to diversity tends to change perspectives, and perhaps that in and of itself contributes much more to the changing attitudes of society than you're willing to give it credit for.

Erik said...

*APA

Feodor said...

Marshall claims that the Bible has to be read as making strict rational sense.

Marshall claims that a conception of s flat earth has never been fully held.

Daniel 4:10-11: the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

Either scripture is not interested in being scientific, or Marshall doesn't read what he claims to believe.



Marshall Art said...

Either feo is not interested in truth, or...no, that's about it. He lists a few verses employing rhetorical flourishes to pretend he has a valid point about someone who doesn't mistreat Scripture as he does. Typical false priest stuff.

And feo, as with Jim, I'd prefer you stifle your urge to post your idiocy until after I've completed responding to Jim's foolish list. I'm almost there. I allow Erik's comments out of courtesy to a newcomer (as I don't recall that he has visited before this thread, though I could be wrong).

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"Well, Marshall Art, like you, I also shall refrain from investing too much time in links provided on someone's blog."

I do not necessarily refrain from reading such links. My point was that it is too often a waste of time given the links people like Jim so routinely provide. They don't support the argument put forth and are often far more biased and filled with falsehoods and distortions than people like Jim have the honesty and integrity to admit. But more often than not, if not always, I do read them and regret the waste of time later.

"On the one hand, you cite election results as evidence that Americans aren't buying what SSM proponents are selling. On the other, you concede that changing attitudes will ultimately translate into new legislation. "Bad ideas", as you say. Which is it?"

Each of these addresses disparate points and as such are not the least bit in conflict.

As to election results, I referred to the latest polling of significant sampling size, that of statewide ballot questions before voters deciding state and/or federal elections. If we are to pretend we can assess changing attitudes, these elections present a better basis on which to do so as opposed to samplings of 1-2000 people. Indeed, the sampling is far greater given how many states, and thus the total numbers of people, had such issues on their ballots (I believe it was eleven before judges really started to overturn the will of the people). That's a lot of people being ignored compared to less than the 1-2000 people per survey. The bottom line is that if one wishes to speak in terms of changing attitudes, which "poll" will provide the more accurate assessment? Obviously, it is that which polls the most people.

If I poll one person and base my decision on that, I can say that 100% of those polled determines my course. But that isn't the truest reflection of public sentiment. If two people give opposite responses, then is it truly an indication of what 50% of the population believes? And can we not presume it is possible that of 1000 respondents that we might have happened to have surveyed 1000 people who feel the same way, while the other 2 million people in the state not surveyed are abjectly opposed?

Thus, to trumpet polls questioning such small sampling is inherently unreliable for the purpose of proposing legislation, or even to simply pretend we know which way the wind blows.

From this, we can now look at the second part of the question. This merely states a fact. If attitudes are changing, those changes will translate into new legislation, and if that change is compelled by false information, that legislation will be wrong. This is the point. Are attitudes changing in reality, and if they are, why? My reference to polling suggests that we can't insist the attitudes are changing to the extent the activist insists. They falsify or overstate that change. But whatever the change, however true, legislation will indeed follow it. That does not conflict with anything I've said earlier, but only concedes a fact. Changing attitudes will affect legislation. The question is whether or not attitudes are changing to the extent the activists insist, and whether or not those attitudes are changing on the basis of true and accurate information. My point is they are not. They are changing, to whatever extent they are, based on falsehoods, distortions and misinformation.

Marshall Art said...

Erick,

"Similarly, on the one hand, you reject the notion that those very attitudes are, indeed, still moving towards the SSM side. "Leveling off", as you say. Then you concede that attitudes are, indeed, "trending away" from traditional ideals of morality. Which is it?"

Again, I question the extent and speed to which sentiments are changing, and I was specifically referring to the trend suggesting more people are cool with the notion of redefining marriage to include SSM. I maintain that we haven't sufficient evidence to insist emphatically that there is enough movement toward the pro-SSM side to justify changing laws and traditions that serve us well, just to appease the whining of a disordered and immoral 2% of the population. I maintain that what shift there is relies on false information of the kind that would unduly influence some that would otherwise continue to support traditional marriage as the only legitimate form worthy of state interest and support.

But are attitudes shifting away from traditional notions of morality? Of course they are. They have been for some time and those changing attitudes have led to this particular issue having weight. Loosening attitudes of morality provided the space for homosexuals to pretend their desires are worthy of respect. Had morals not already eroded in our culture, largely due to the "free love" era of the 60's, there is little room to suggest that homosexuals would ever have had the ability to garner support now. There is no contradiction on my part here.

"In terms of the actual SSM support numbers, I'm not sure which polling model would be satisfactory to you."

In general, those polls with the largest sample sizes. Again, a statewide ballot issue results in a sampling far, far greater than the typical 1000 people of the average Pew or Gallup poll. The statewide poll better represents public sentiment.

"...check out Polling Report's statistics, and see what you think of their numbers and methodology?"

I did this. The Report only gives an analysis of the various polls. And their methodology, as far as I can divine, does little to speak to how public sentiment has gotten to where it is. While they do seem to address the impact of court rulings on public sentiment, that is hardly the be all and end all for how sentiment changes. Indeed, I would submit that it is not the driving force behind changing sentiment at all, regardless of whatever impact it does have.

I didn't see how they come to question those they question. Or how they determine the randomness of the polling. How can we be sure that the respondents are not of an area or region where support is higher? In short, how can we justify using the results to do anything at all legislatively?

The list of polls showed that most involved only 1000 respondents. The largest I saw as I skimmed for that particular piece of info was less than 5000. We are a nation of 300 million. Regardless of margin of error and claims regarding polling reflecting anything, even 5K out of 300 million does little to convince me of accuracy. Why should it be given such credence at all unless one needs to have 300 million people believe there is support for that which is unsupportable?

My bottom line is that polls like these are deceptively used to convince others that there is a trend that should be followed. "Look! You're behind the times and on the wrong side of history!" and other such nonsensical arguments. Yet, they do influence some to get on board.

continuing....

Marshall Art said...

And of course, these polls do absolutely nothing to explain how the change in attitudes came about, nor whether or not those causes are legitimate nor whether they justify the changes.

Consider: Everyone would admit that stealing is wrong. But note how many are willing to "fudge" their tax returns or their insurance claims. I'm sure you know who have falsely claimed illness in order to get a day off, often receiving pay for that day when they weren't sick. So many find these forms of theft acceptable, if not outwardly, then at least when they need to employ them themselves. Eventually, they are seen as not so bad compared to armed robbery, but are still examples of outright theft. Some download music without paying the artist, but do not regard it as theft when the artist intended that all pay for the privilege of owning copies of their work. The attitudes of such people have been falsely altered to believe there is no moral issue with their behaviors.

We can also look at abortion as another area where false information has resulted in changing attitudes, as well as how personal experience has as well. When one is in a position of being burdened by having a child, they justify their own decision to kill that child in the womb, and having done so, will now be in the camp of supporters of "pro-choice". But they didn't arrive at their stance by objective reasoning at all. Nor did they do so by the facts of what an abortion truly is. The same is true of shifting attitudes regarding SSM. They know someone who otherwise is regarded as a "good" person, or they rely on very questionable "studies" that purport to support pro-homosexual claims. And of course, with pro-homosexual groups having access to schools and media, kids grow up inundated with what is really no more than "we are good, opponents are bad" indoctrination that fails to accurately report the whole story.

How could we expect such people to poll against that which they are influenced to believe is a "right"?

coninuing...


Marshall Art said...

To my links:

Links 1 & 2 deal specifically with the fact that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was NOT on the basis of science, but on activist pressure within and without the APA. This is significant given the activists' insistence that, according to the APA, homosexuality is not a disorder. But how did they come to this conclusion? Was it by scientific proof? No. It was by activist pressure to remove its classification as a disorder. What remains then is the distinct possibility that it is indeed a disorder. Yet, by activist deceit, everyone can now join in the pretense that it was legitimately declassified. It was not and these two links, by former high ranking members of the APA, expose the lie that has come to used to justify support for the homosexual agenda.

Jim would have us believe that these links, and the testimonies presented, are invalid due to the organization providing the platform to give testimony. This is nonsense. No pro-homosexual organization would provide such a platform since the testimony exposes their lie. What's more, at least one of the two, the video, presents someone who is a supporter of the homosexual agenda, but maintains the integrity to allow researchers to let true scientific research inform us one way or the other. A rare quality indeed in a supporter of SSM.

As to link 5, the point is that the study purposely handpicked those homosexual that showed no mental instability in order to prove that homosexuality was not in itself, a sign of instability. This is a problem I've always had with research hoping to show that homosexuals aren't mental cases. Imagine a successful attorney. He has a great track record of winning court cases and has made for himself a comfortable life. But ask his name and he responds, "I am Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of all France." Is he not goofy because he is able to function apart from his self-perception, or in spite of it? This is what most research tries to do. They ignore the fact that homosexuals see themselves as Napoleon and focus on whether or not he can function with that self-perception.

At the same time, to dismiss any homosexual from study who shows other signs of mental abnormality purposely eliminates any possible connection of those signs to the subjects homosexuality, instead of determining whether there actually is nor is not connection between them. In the meantime, there is no indication that heterosexual subjects were as carefully selected. As if that wasn't enough, those who selected the homosexual subjects had a personal stake in the outcome of the study. So, a small sample size, a selective sampling of homosexual subjects together with no indication of similar selection criteria for heterosexual subjects and we have a lame study used to argue for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Thus far, I've seen no responses to these charges. I've only seen descriptions of the study as if these flaws did not exist to taint the study.

continuing...

Marshall Art said...

Regarding link 3:

"Can you blame them for wanting to change that narrative? Are you shocked they'd want society to take another look at their position from a fresh starting point?"

If that was all they were trying to do, I would say "no". I do not blame the Mafia for trying to rationalize their behavior, either. Nor the adulter or the drug dealer. The issue is in how that is accomplished. Is it accomplished by presenting facts? No. It isn't. It is accomplished by calling fact what isn't fact at all and rarely even promising research that might lead to such facts.

It is done by lying about that which is clearly untrue, such as the motivations of those who oppose the agenda and specifically oppose SSM. It is done by demonizing the opponents themselves, as if they were evil people looking to oppress a "class" of people, such as those of another race or gender.

If proponents simply used verifiable facts to change the narrative, that would be one thing, and it is significant that what few facts they actually have do nothing to justify altering laws and traditions that have served us well for generations.

For example, Lawrence v Texas was basically an argument for allowing (allegedly) mature, consenting adults to engage in whatever sordid sexual practices floated their boats with in the privacy of their own homes. And while intelligent people understand that true liberty is not a license to act badly, most people would have let that poor court ruling slide if not for the predicted result of it (see Scalia's dissent). The "fact" here is that in this country, liberty is granted to all as long as harm to others is not the result (and this sets aside the physical harm homosexuals do to each other by engaging in the commonly understood sex practices they said to employ).

But there is no "fact" in the insistence that homosexuality is not a disorder. Indeed, the activists within the psychological community no longer allow for objective research into the question at all. They act as if the fact has been established when it hasn't been and "market" themselves accordingly. This isn't just opinion. It is blatant false advertising. There is far better research available to support the contentions of proponents of vitamin supplements that are not allowed to make claims about themselves.

There is indeed far more info available at the click of a mouse. Yet, so much of it that supports the agenda is of the same questionable quality and it still stands to corrupt those who truly wish to make an informed decision about this issue. I constantly deal with those who take as gospel proof of the slightest hint that a study result proves what they need to believe to justify their support for homosexuality, while at the same time writing off anything that says otherwise as the result of mere bigotry and backwardness of the opponent. How can we not expect that such crap will influence a new generation to believe that which is not true?

From this point on, while allowing responses to any of this a voluminous response to your last, I will be focusing on completing my response to Jim's Prop 8 ruling and how it does nothing to meet my challenge.

Erik said...

As I suspected, it appears there's no use wasting our time on this. If the statistics/information available to us about social reactions and expectations about both the present and, potentially, future nature of the word "marriage" don't cut it for you, then we have no mutually satisfactory data over which to debate the topic. Everything becomes nothing more than a battle of opinions and personal value sets. That's too bad. We're just not going to agree on this one.

Feodor said...

Marshall dodge. Unalterable strategy.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

For an example of one seeing what one wants to see, I give you feo. Please. Take him.

As to your comments, I wonder what it is about data that you find so exact, especially in how they are or must be used. If you believe stats and data aren't manipulated, then indeed there's little we can discuss. To base every opinion simply on such data alone does not indicate true honesty given that such data is cold and merely a measure of sentiment (such as it is) rather than an indication of whether or not a particularly sentiment should be held at all, or is beneficial to the culture in its manifestation.

So let's assume that the data is absolute in its depiction of attitudes and opinions of our fellow Americans. Let's assume we are witnessing a true trending toward Gomorrah. What then is there to discuss? I find more compelling the why's and wherefore's behind that trend. What is the cause of it?

And since a trending is used by those who approve of the trend to further encourage others to get on board with the trend, do you not see a value in reviewing what compels that trend? In doing such a review, does it not matter to you at all to find that the trend is the result of misinformation, distortions, trumped up data and outright lies?

Think of it this way: If someone lied to you about the effectiveness of a cleaner (the advertisers, for example), would you not, along with all those who began to use that product based on the flawed data of the advertiser, be pissed? You were part of a trend toward the use of that product versus its competitor and found that the product failed to live up to its marketing, all because the data indicating the effectiveness of the product was distorted, manipulated and falsely reported.

This is the problem with the data, stats and information that has been used to garner sympathy for the homosexual cause. But here, its far worse than merely downplaying the bad and hyping the good. It distorts the reality of both by hiding the bad completely and inventing good. Opinion polls might indicate growing support, but would that growth exist with an influx of truth? I don't think so. That's what I see as a problem with your attachment to the "trend", as if the trend alone is proof that the sentiments of the trend is a "good" by which the culture will benefit.

Marshall Art said...

Now for the final act of Jim's comedy:

"1. Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law."

That would depend upon one's notion of what a tradition is based upon. That is to say, no one is making a "just because" argument for this tradition. It is based, and quite rationally so, on the self-evident unique nature of the heterosexual union. The tradition of traditional marriage, as it were, is not simply one of "because that's the way we've always done it". Throughout human history this union is seen as necessary for the perpetuation and foundation of civilization. Thus, the tradition is based on human experience, that one must unite with a member of the opposite sex in order to bring forth the next generation and the support and encouragement of this uniting serves a legitimate and absolutely obvious good that in no way is duplicated by the union of two of the same gender. Indeed, same-sex unions are not even a pale facsimile of marriage. This point does not refute a damned thing.

"2. California has eliminated all legally- mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman."

And rightly so, given the necessity of uniting male and female in order to perpetuate the species. Apparently, in defending sexual deviancy, Walker would have us believe that it makes no difference if children are brought forth outside of marriage, despite the large body of evidence that more than merely indicates the opposite is true.

An "artifact of a foregone notion"? Only to a homosexual who needs it to be so. Removing gender requirements for car mechanics has no bearing on the need for mothers and fathers in a child's life. Another argument NOT refuted by Walker.

"3.The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest."

Says Walker, but without any real argument to support the premise. He merely asserts, which is exactly what I have been saying is true in all these pro-agenda rulings. The state interest lies in the unique nature of the male/female union and the importance of encouraging that union to remain intact, especially throughout the development of the children that union creates. There is no such interest the state finds in homosexual unions and thus no reason for the state to treat them as identical to real marriages.

"...Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality..."

This is preposterous bullshit. There is no such evidence, unless one wants to say that everyone not married suffers in the same way, which would at least indicate some level of consistency. There is nothing Walker puts forth, aside from mere assertion, that indicates there is a reason to treat two obviously different things as identical to satisfy some distorted notion of equality. Under the actual definition of marriage, no homosexual is denied the right to enter into such an arrangement. THAT is the proper understanding and application of "equality". It is NOT proper to insist that two men is identical to one man and one woman.

continuing...

Marshall Art said...

Another of Jim's favorites, not because it is true, but because it agrees with Jim's morally bankrupt position:

"1. Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same."

One would think it would have been a good idea to present some of that evidence that allegedly rebuts the premise. But it is self-evident, given the difference of component parts as well as the abilities of the unions that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for ANY purpose relevant OR irrelevant to California law, decidedly nowhere near "exactly the same". Again, we see mere assertion here or Jimmy could have provided that solid evidence that rebuts this FACT of disparity between the two very different unions.

But what of that "evidence" cited by Walker? Could it be the 59 studies by which the APA insists no difference exists in outcomes based on the gender of parents? That which pretends that homosexual/lesbian parents are as beneficial if not (this is rich) more so than the biological parents of any child? These are studies that have been shown to be extremely flawed, but since the results favor the agenda, they are put forth as solid. Studies such as these cited as evidence in favor of the agenda demonstrate the lengths to which proponents of that agenda will go to force their immorality upon the nation. Distortion, manipulation and outright lies and falsehoods are put forth as "evidence". (And I'm supposed to have faith in polls indicating a legitimate trend in moral sentiment!)

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

The ultimate lie. One would think any shred of honesty would preclude the inclusion of such sophistry in the opinion of a federal judge. A vain hope apparently. I would suggest, however, that morality plays a role in every bit of legislation. To pretend it has no place also indicts the integrity of Walker and buffoons like Jim who regard his ruling as Mt. Sinai-like revelation.

"And so it goes," says Jim. "Every one of the "pro traditional marriage" arguments is refuted, one after another."

Clearly, they have not been, but have as I have stated, been merely dismissed without argument. He puts forth as fact that which is merely the opinion of a homosexual who stands to gain by the outcome of his ruling.

Jim thinks he knows what the arguments defending traditional marriage are (or arguments against SSM, if he prefers). Yet he proves he does not. As proof, I finish where I started, with the last "game-ender":

"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION."

I have never heard anyone speak in terms of superior or inferior, except as concerns what is best environment for raising kids. Aside from that very true and factual point, the argument is that the two forms of union are different and thus there is no compelling reason to treat them as identical, which is what the homosexual demands.

Jim loses again.

Anonymous said...

"I have never heard anyone speak in terms of superior or inferior"

This is implicit in almost everything you argue.

Gays are inferior because God says so.

Gays are inferior because they are mentally disturbed.

Gays are inferior because the way they have sex is disgusting.

Same-sex couples are inferior because they can't have penile/vaginal sex.

Same-sex couples are inferior because they cannot between themselves conceive and bear a child.

Same-sex couples are inferior because their same-sex marriage goes against tradition.

More to come.

Erik said...

I find it somewhat amusing that all of this is over the definition of a word. Which was my very first point. I would guess that, ultimately, the real problem for you, Marshall Art, is in allowing gay unions the state recognition that the word "marriage" provides, correct? Otherwise, why not go after other terms that can also apply to gay relationships? Should we stop calling them lovers? Couples? Boyfriends? Girlfriends? I'm pretty sure your disapproval covers all the ways and means these terms are applied to gays, so why the big stink about allowing the definition of the word "marriage" be expanded to include them? It's not like doing so would mean you approve of homosexuality, which is quite clear. It has to be something deeper for you than simply "it's always meant this thing so it shouldn't mean this other thing."

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

Your points are sounding more and more like Jim's. That's not a good thing. Let's look at your examples:

-Lovers=generally this means two who love each other, and more specifically those who do the nasty together. Why would that change for deviants?

-Couples=So long as there are two of them, the term still applies. Why would that change for the disordered?

-Boyfriends=Two homosexuals? Really? Why would that not remain the same for pervs?

-Girlfriends=Two lesbians? Really?

I'm pretty sure my disapproval of the distortion of a word with a specific meaning is not affected by trying to pretend I would have issues with the proper use of other words. It is enough that the term does not apply to two of the same gender because the definition of the word requires one of each, just as the definition of "dog" requires specific characteristics.

What's more, the reason the state concerns itself with marriage at all is due to those specific characteristics which are tied to the natural biological function of sexual intercourse between males and females. Without that function natural to opposite sex couples, the state has no interest whatsoever in the intimate relationships of any two or more people. It is telling that proponents of SSM pretend that it has no significance whatsoever, and/or that a pale facsimile is good enough to force the state to pretend it sees an interest in it.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"This is implicit in almost everything you argue."

That you infer such implies an inferiority issue within yourself. This is likely due to your conscience reminding you of what a liar you are in pretending the homosexual union is identical to the hetero.

"Gays are inferior because God says so."

No. Homosexuals who have sex with each other are rebellious sinners because God identifies such behavior as an abomination.

"Gays are inferior because they are mentally disturbed."

No. Homosexuals are deserving of treatment and counseling because they are mentally disturbed.

"Gays are inferior because the way they have sex is disgusting."

No. Homosexuals who have sex with each other are rebellious sinners and mentally disturbed.

"Same-sex couples are inferior because they can't have penile/vaginal sex."

No. Homosexual couples are not identical to heterosexual couples because they cannot have "penile/vaginal" sex.

"Same-sex couples are inferior because they cannot between themselves conceive and bear a child."

No. Same-sex couples are not identical to hetero couples because they cannot between themselves conceive and bear a child.

"Same-sex couples are inferior because their same-sex marriage goes against tradition."

No. Same-sex couples do not a marriage make.




Erik said...

"...those specific characteristics..."

Such as?

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to reply to these one by one. I'll just pick this one:

"No. Same-sex couples are not identical to hetero couples because they cannot between themselves conceive and bear a child."

By this logic, they are identical to infertile hetero couples-who can legally marry.

Anonymous said...

“It should be noted that Walker's ruling is widely perceived as poor, even by some who agree with the outcome.”

Widely? I don’t think so. I couldn’t find anybody but you who criticized it except those who like you asserted, wrongly, that Walker should have recused himself. The only justification for asking Walker to recuse himself would also demand that a straight judge recuse himself. And if one says that a straight judge has no reason to recuse himself, they would be admitting that a straight person cannot be harmed by same sex marriage.

“We will see much of this because homosexuals do this as if it is their job.” This is a lie.

“the homosexual lobby, in concert with radical feminist groups, seek to force the notion that there is no difference whatsoever between the sexes.” Bullshit.

“homosexuals were unjustly given the right to marry.” How can someone “unjustly” be given a right?

More later....

Erik said...

"That's not a good thing."

That's because you missed the point of them. Of course there's no reason to change those words, regardless of how one feels about the various kinds of relationships to which they can be applied. My point is that your resistance to the expansion of marriage's definition is odd to me, because it seems like you're singling it out based on the historical interpretation of it. It's clear you don't approve of anything about homosexuality, which is certainly your right. But why you've decided to let that disapproval embolden your efforts to prevent gay unions from being called marriages seems a bit uncalled for, quite honestly.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

""...those specific characteristics..."

Such as?"


Really? How about "one man/one woman oriented toward procreation"? Those are the characteristics of the institution known as "marriage". Always has been. It's what the word means.

"But why you've decided to let that disapproval embolden your efforts to prevent gay unions from being called marriages seems a bit uncalled for, quite honestly."

You confuse my disapproval of homosexual behavior with my defense of the actual definition of a word used to describe something specific. You, like too many, seem to think there is no negative consequence for watering down the meaning of a word. You certainly can't explain how we benefit. What's more, the whole debate must begin with an understanding of what the word means and why that meaning is important. Proponents of the agenda do not care about that discussion, but only demand that we pretend there is no difference between a union of opposite sex couples versus one of same-sex couples. This is self-evidently false.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"By this logic, they are identical to infertile hetero couples-who can legally marry."

You obviously struggle with logic. Even without procreation, the two are still not identical. Infertile hetero couples still are composed of one of each gender and as a result can provide both a mother and a father for any children in their care. That's a benefit for the children not available in same-sex couples. Not identical at all.

"I couldn’t find anybody but you who criticized it..."

Keep looking. It is very similar to the Roe v Wade issue, wherein supporters of abortion can see the flaws in the ruling.

Walker, being in a ten-year relationship at the time of his ruling had an immediate and personal benefit to ruling as he did. He would then be able to marry his perverted friend and reap the financial benefits of having done so. No heterosexual judge stood to gain in such an immediate and personal manner, unless of course he also owned a bakery or floral shop. But that would require a ruling of a different kind.

Erik said...

Ah. The procreation rationale. My stepfather married my mom when I was six. My mom couldn't have any more kids after me. Their marriage didn't provide the spark of life, if you will. Much like many gay unions who adopt or procreate via surrogacy. My parents' marriage doesn't fit your criteria, and it never could. Are you prepared to disqualify them from the marriage club? I highly doubt it.

Erik said...

"This is self-evidently false."

Agreed. I'm not arguing that, so please don't imply that I am. Just like I'm not arguing that there's no difference between gay couples and straight couples. Both are just couples. You apparently agree with this. The difference, obviously, is that I wouldn't have a problem calling both gay and straight state-recognized unions marriages.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

Your stand is contradictory. To call both homo and hetero unions marriage implies no difference between the two very different unions. It erases the meaning of the word and replaces it with something else. One man/one woman now becomes any two people. Thus, any two people over here is the same as any two people over there and over yonder. The union of two homosexuals, the union of two lesbians and the union of two normal people are no different from each other legally. This is the state saying (some asshat judge, actually) that there is no difference between the two in the eyes of the state. The state is saying they are all identical. It never ceases to astound me that allegedly thoughtful and mature adults buy into this lie that such different things are to be treated as if identical.

Even if you prefer the word "equal" instead of "identical", the effect is the same and we end up with another abuse of language to make it work. Homosexuals had always been treated equally under the law, never having been denied the right to marry based on the REAL definition of the term recognized by the state and all honest people everywhere. But they demand something distinctly different to be called by a word that means something specific that does not include their distinctly different demand. Childish to say the least. Dishonest to say the obvious.

"My parents' marriage doesn't fit your criteria, and it never could."

Sorry, but it absolutely does. Regardless of whether or not a couple intends to procreate or is incapable of procreating, their union is still oriented toward procreation. It is of they type of union that procreates. The law is not required to cover every possible exception, nor do we benefit by it doing so.

Wait here a minute....

Erik said...

"Your stand is contradictory."

Based on the traditional definition of marriage, yes. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? Please stop pretending like we are. We're talking about the evolution of the word and what it entails - whether you agree with said evolution or not - and you know it. Just because you wish this is a social conversation that didn't exist doesn't mean it's a conversation that isn't happening.

"...oriented toward procreation."

How can joining two things that have zero chance of procreating be oriented towards procreation?

Marshall Art said...

In order to address fully the really quite ridiculous response to the "procreation rationale", as Erik called it, I present this video. I purposely chose to link to Wintery Knight's presentation of it for the additional links he offers at the end of his post. Much more information is available, and a condensed offering from Frank Turek (with a link to the full article) also deals a bit with reasons why that "procreation rationale" is more than merely legitimate.

At the end of the lecture, a question/answer period also enlightens. I've read Anderson's book on the subject and viewed several other videos of him speaking on it as well. This one I found especially good. But he is but one who speaks eloquently and especially logically with regards to what marriage is and why it matters, especially why it matters that it not be redefined to satisfy the lusts of anyone, homosexual or not.

Erik said...

How about instead of posting a nearly hour and a half long video (I watched the entire thing, by the way. Nothing I haven't already heard before, with the exception of the "so Mr. 50-year-old newlywed doesn't impregnate anyone outside of wedlock" response to the elderly marriage question.), why not answer my last question?

Marshall Art said...

"How can joining two things that have zero chance of procreating be oriented towards procreation?"

Sorry. I thought you were being facetious. It suggests that inability or unwillingness mitigates the orientation. It clearly does not since it deals with the type of union, not a specific union of that type.

I'm not sure that you truly made the effort to understand the points made in the video. Your exception also suggests a less than serious regard for them. Again, because the state's support of the conjugal union encourages fidelity doesn't mean that everyone will actually be faithful. In the clear childish-mode manner of the activist/enabler, you focus on exceptions to rules or ideals that cannot possibly account for those lacking the intelligence or integrity to adhere or aspire to those rules/ideals. The exceptions are irrelevant and those that refuse to adhere have little to do with the point of the state's position in taking interest in that one particular and unique type of relationship.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the "50-yr old" point you dismiss represents only a segment of the overall point. As in the case of your parents, their union still represents the ideal and by its representation encourages and cements it in the culture. It still provides a degree of fathering AND mothering so important in a child's development.

I would strongly encourage you, and others, to listen more intently to the arguments put forth by people like Anderson, at least to the extent that a legitimate counter argument to any of his points can be presented. Your response suggests the typical simple dismissal and rejection of those sound arguments, not a rebuttal. Don't be a Jim.

Erik said...

And I'm not sure you truly understood what I actually said about "Mr. 50-year-old." I said it was the one argument in the video that I hadn't heard before. Please pay closer attention. Don't be a Marshall Art.

In terms of the video's content, you seem to confuse disagreement with a lack of understanding. Just because I question the context of the information from which you build your belief set doesn't mean I don't understand it. For example, let's use an earlier topic from this comment thread. I'd like to know the extent to which social treatment of gay families with kids contributes to the development statistics mentioned by the lecturer. This was the concern that was dismissed by the author in an earlier link you provided. Why is that? Shouldn't the whole picture be taken into account here? Are we really to believe that no child raised by gay parents can genuinely self-actualize? Because if some have - and you know they have - then maybe we should start asking why all of them can't. I would suggest it's more than simply the gender of their parents.

Speaking of being childish, I would strongly encourage you, and others, to maybe stop assuming you know the extent to which I, and others, listen to the arguments put forward by people like Anderson.

Erik said...

One more thing:

"...the type of union."

You're describing the union of a fertile woman and a man. I am not.

Anonymous said...

"Walker, being in a ten-year relationship at the time of his ruling had an immediate and personal benefit to ruling as he did. He would then be able to marry his perverted friend and reap the financial benefits of having done so."

District Court Judge James Ware heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day, writing that "the presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief."[28][29] Legal experts noted that similar efforts to remove Hispanic judges from immigration cases or female judges from gender-discrimination cases have also failed in the past.

"never having been denied the right to marry based on the REAL definition of the term recognized by the state and all honest people everywhere."

Where did you find this "argument". Please provide a link to SOME case where this argument has been made.

"How about "one man/one woman oriented toward procreation"? Those are the characteristics of the institution known as "marriage". Always has been. It's what the word means."

You keep bringing up procreation (although this "oriented toward procreation" is a new phrase) and then when someone brings up infertile couples you brush it off with "nobody requires that married couples procreate."

So why are you requiring same sex married couples be able to procreate when you are NOT requiring the same for infertile hetero couples?

"How can joining two things that have zero chance of procreating be oriented towards procreation?"

Exactly!

"It clearly does not since it deals with the type of union"

Yes, a type of union that can NEVER procreate.

"It still provides a degree of fathering AND mothering so important in a child's development."

I think it's safe to say (Erik correct me if I'm wrong) that Erik's father and step mother were past the point where any degree of fathering and mothering in a child's development was relevant at all much less important.

Erik said...

Incorrect. My mother remarried when I was six. And for the record, despite the nature of this particular discussion, I'm very grateful for the contributions my stepfather made towards my upbringing.

Marshall Art said...

Not much time at present. Likely none for perhaps 24 hours from now. I will address one point that should serve as a response to both of you. I'll use the following from Erik:

"You're describing the union of a fertile woman and a man. I am not."

I'm describing the typical male/female union as that type of union in which the state finds interest enough to give its support and encouragement. You're describing one untypical example of that type of union. Rather, the notion that not all hetero couples can or are willing to procreate as an argument against the male/female union being that type which is oriented toward procreation. An infertile couple is still of that type of relationship despite its inability to conceive.

What's more, in starkly obvious contradiction to Jim's ludicrous suggestion, the mere fact that a hetero couple is infertile in no way makes them anything like a homo couple in a manner of any significance. Even the inability to conceive is different, as the hetero couple's is a result of a physical defect, while the homo couple's is the result of a mental defect.

Erik said...

"...that type of union..."

Yes, I get it, Marshall Art. But the fact that not all man/woman marriages are capable or destined for procreation provides the window for which SSM supporters believe they have a case, and I'm inclined to agree with that line of reasoning. I get that you are not. Truth be told, if the possibility of procreation existed for all straight marriages, I might be more prone to agree with the traditional definition of marriage being untouchable. But that loophole does exist, which makes me lean the other way on this one. It's not a personal verdict on the practice itself. It's simply an acknowledgment that an expansion of the term isn't as implausible as you clearly believe it to be.

Anonymous said...

"Rather, the notion that not all hetero couples can or are willing to procreate as an argument against the male/female union being that type which is oriented toward procreation. An infertile couple is still of that type of relationship despite its inability to conceive."

We must be stuck at 6:00 here since it appears we are attending the mad Hatter's tea party.

It is simply nonsense to assert that the marriage of a hetero couple that has no ability to procreate belongs to any classification suggesting an orientation towards procreation.

Anonymous said...

I watched a bit of the video, but one can get the gist of it by the outline on the left of the page. There was hardly any bullet point there that wasn't a ridiculous or dishonest assertion by Anderson. Some examples:

1) "there is no such thing as parenting, there is only mothering and fathering" No such thing as "parenting"? Horse manure! Does this mean only a mother can teach a child to drink from a cup and only a father can teach a child to ride a bike?

2) "boys who grow up without fathers are more likely to commit crimes". While there is plenty of evidence to support this assertion where "boys" grow up in a single mother household more likely to be in poverty, there is no evidence that the same would apply to a household with two mothers.

3) "girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to have sex earlier". Similar to #2. There is a big difference between a family with a single mother and no father and one with two mothers. This assertion like #2 completely ignores that.

4) "can’t say that fathers are essential for children if we support gay marriage, which makes fathers optional". A gay marriage can double the number of fathers. "Essential" means critical or necessary. Millions of children have grown up healthy and successful after a father has died.

5) "without marriage: child poverty increases, crime increases, social mobility decreases, welfare spending increases". So why deny marriage to gay couples who have children? This is actually a great argument for ALLOWING gay marriage.

6) "finally, gay marriage has shown itself to be hostile to religious liberty". No, it's the other way around.

7) "Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer permanence?" No more or less than "traditional" version.

8) "Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer sexual exclusivity?" No more or less than the "traditional" version.

9) "Also, if marriage is just about romance, then why is the state getting involved in recognizing it?" Who says marriage is "just about romance"?

10) "Typically, marriage redefiners view marriage as a more intense emotional relationship". Are you going to look a "traditional" bride in her eyes and actually say that with a straight face?

11) "the evidence shows that children benefit from mothering and fathering". Even if this were true, would we remove children from a single-parent family?

12) "it changes the institution of marriage away from the needs of children, and towards the needs of adults". Bullshit on many levels.

13) "if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then if other people cause intense feelings, there’s no fidelity". Try telling this to hetero couples that have been faithful for their entire marriage.

14) "a final consequences is the decline and elimination of religious liberty". Only if "religious liberty" means denying people equal protection under the law. Do you believe that "religious liberty" trumps all other liberties?

15) "Marriage unites spouses – hearts, minds and bodies". Yes it does. Why should gays be excluded? There is more than one way to unite bodies.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"And I'm not sure you truly understood what I actually said about "Mr. 50-year-old." I said it was the one argument in the video that I hadn't heard before. Please pay closer attention."

Am I to understand, then, that despite your general dismissal of the opposition of SSM that what was said about "Mr. 50-year-old" is the one argument you aren't dismissing? Thanks for clearing that up.

"I'd like to know the extent to which social treatment of gay families with kids contributes to the development statistics mentioned by the lecturer."

Are you referring to the growing acceptance you feel is evidenced by polling results to that effect? I would expect it mitigates other negative effects of not being raised by both of one's biological mother and father. Or maybe I'm just being a Marshall Art again and don't understand the relevance. Or maybe I'm to agree that because one criteria you feel is required to be considered is actually necessary to consider. All in all, I'm sure we could come up with a number of factors missing in every study ever conducted that might alter the conclusions.

"Are we really to believe that no child raised by gay parents can genuinely self-actualize?"

I don't believe there are any researchers opposing SSM that believes there is no possibility that a child cannot be raised by homosexuals and still come out of it as well adjusted and successful. That hardly detracts from a factual finding that states what is best for children. For example, there are kids raised by drunks that do not become drunks themselves upon reaching adulthood. That doesn't mean that children are not better off being raised by those who don't abuse alcohol.

"...stop assuming you know the extent to which I, and others, listen to the arguments put forward by people like Anderson."

Actually addressing the arguments directly and accurately might help dissuade me from that assumption.

"You're describing the union of a fertile woman and a man. I am not."

No kidding? But I'm not comparing hetero unions. I'm comparing hetero unions with homosexual unions (as well as against other unions not recognized as legitimate marital unions by states that adhere to the real definition of the word "marrage"). If you were as keen on the arguments of those like Anderson as you wish me to believe, you would be aware of how this "exception" is addressed and why it fails as an excuse to demand state recognition of homosexual unions.

It is not a "loophole" that not all hetero unions are capable of producing children. It is an exception to the rule that does not remove a particular union from being of that type oriented toward procreation.

Erik said...

Try this - Google some traditional wedding vows and see how often procreation pops up. Then ask yourself if it's possible - just possible - that two people of the same gender could exchange those vows. Exclude the religious elements, of course. I'm not debating that part.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"District Court Judge James Ware heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day..."

From a Catherine Snow article at CitizenLink.com:

"In short, had Walker recused himself — or ruled in favor of Prop 8 — he would have destroyed his prospect of being in a same-sex marriage, if he so desired.

Even legal ethicist Jack Marshall, who supports same-sex marriage, reluctantly admitted: “A straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the [Perry v. Schwarzenegger] case” (emphasis added).

“Don’t forget that Olson and Boies chose the 9th Circuit for a reason,” Hausknecht said. “Defending marriage in San Francisco is a lot like defending the Christians in early Rome. However, the genius of our three-tier federal court system is that this case will ultimately get to the Supreme Court, which doesn’t take kindly to the adventures in judicial activism commonly practiced in the 9th Circuit.”"


But to you, since a sympathetic judge says it, it is so, because you don't have the moral integrity, nor the intellect, to argue why it might be.

""never having been denied the right to marry based on the REAL definition of the term recognized by the state and all honest people everywhere."

Where did you find this "argument". Please provide a link to SOME case where this argument has been made."


Normally I would ask if someone asking something like this is serious, but since it's you asking...

This argument is inherent in the whole debate. The homos say they are denied a right, but that is only true if the definition of marriage is altered from its true form. Thus, there is no state which codified the real definition that denied homosexuals the right to marry. To "marry" means to enter into a union with one of the opposite sex. They were not denied the right to do this. Try some honesty once in a while.

"So why are you requiring same sex married couples be able to procreate when you are NOT requiring the same for infertile hetero couples?"

I know you think this dishonest question is legitimate, but it is childish. Hetero relationships are oriented toward procreation. That does not mean each and every one will or can procreate. To say such relationships are so oriented does not require that they do in fact procreate. The law does not need to be absolute in this regard just to satisfy selfish sexual deviants. Try studying the video I posted in its entirety with an attitude of honest objectivity for a change and you'll find this is addressed in more detail, though I doubt you possess the intelligence to understand it.

more coming...

Marshall Art said...

Continuing...

""How can joining two things that have zero chance of procreating be oriented towards procreation?"

Exactly!"


Clearly I referring to a generality or concept. The heterosexual union is oriented toward procreation. Again, that doesn't mean that it always will or can procreate. The homosexual union is NOT oriented toward procreation because it never can. Ever. It is not possible. Ever. You want to focus on exceptions to the rule and use that exception as evidence the argument is flawed. This is ludicrous (though not for you) and dishonest (especially not unexpected of you).

"It is simply nonsense to assert that the marriage of a hetero couple that has no ability to procreate belongs to any classification suggesting an orientation towards procreation."

It is simply nonsense to expect that you could engage in discourse with any degree of honesty and integrity. Once again, since you are so dense, every hetero couple, being a hetero couple, is of that type of union oriented toward procreation. It is OF THAT TYPE. That does not mean that it will or can. It is still OF THAT TYPE. If this is too difficult a concept for you to grasp, check with an adult.

"I watched a bit of the video, but one can get the gist of it by the outline on the left of the page."

Watching "a bit" of the video is not enough, especially for the likes of you as your poor grasp of the arguments clearly attests. Take the time. You've wasted so much of mine. I'm not suggesting that it will make a difference for one so given over to moral bankruptcy, but one can always hope.

Out of time. Will be deleting comments from Jim until after I complete responding to his goofy list.

Anonymous said...

"This argument is inherent in the whole debate. The homos say they are denied a right, but that is only true if the definition of marriage is altered from its true form. Thus, there is no state which codified the real definition that denied homosexuals the right to marry. To "marry" means to enter into a union with one of the opposite sex. They were not denied the right to do this. Try some honesty once in a while."

In other words, you cannot demonstrate that this argument has ever been made in any court case or any serious debate on the issue.

"Hetero relationships are oriented toward procreation."

Not those in which both parties agree that they are unable or unwilling to procreate. They cannot EVER be oriented toward procreation. They know it, even if you don't.

Marshall Art said...

Erik,

"Try this - Google some traditional wedding vows and see how often procreation pops up."

You could find a more irrelevant point if you really try. The vows a couple take have nothing to do with why the state chooses to recognize, sanction and encourage one type of relationship and not others.

"Then ask yourself if it's possible - just possible - that two people of the same gender could exchange those vows."

I've no doubt they take similar vows already, Erik. But doing so doesn't make their relationship a marriage, but only a union committed to the extent of whatever vows they take. They could recite the exact same words as any man and woman uniting in marriage and because they are not a man and woman, but two men or two women, their union is not a marriage. They MUST distort the definition of the word in order to use apply it to their union.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"In other words, you cannot demonstrate that this argument has ever been made in any court case or any serious debate on the issue."

It's the very premise that is being argued. But, if you want to provide links to the transcripts of every trial deciding this issue in every state where it has failed to uphold the true definition of marriage, then we can see if the argument is worded in the manner I've worded it here. I'm betting you've never reviewed even one court transcript.

"Not those in which both parties agree that they are unable or unwilling to procreate. They cannot EVER be oriented toward procreation."

You're stupid. Too stupid to realize your dishonest semantic games don't score you any rhetorical points in this debate. So I want you to let me know if what I'm about to say is too hard for you to understand even though I will only use really small words:

The comparison is between types of relationships by who is in those relationships (I know, there are three long words already...get your momma to help you). The hetero is being compared to the homo, the polygamous (that's like a guy with 3 wives), the incestuous (that's like you marrying your momma) and couples where either one or both are too young. YOU, as the liar you are, pretend "type" refers to any possible couple you need to try and make your false argument work.

Any man/woman couple is of the hetero type in which the state takes interest because ONLY the hetero type results in pregnancy. The state is not concerned with whether or not it happens. But in cases of two of the same sex, there is NO possibility that their deviant sexual behavior will EVER result in pregnancy and thus, the state sees no reason to give a flying rat's ass about them.

Now here's the important part. If you cannot muster the integrity to avoid these lame and deceitful semantic games, don't waste another keystroke. I will only delete you. You aren't rebutting anything. You aren't actually making any legitimate argument that counters anything I've presented. You're playing games of a most childish kind to support sexual immorality.

It is clear you don't possess the intelligence to understand that the ability or willingness to procreate is not relevant in the state taking interest in the union of heterosexuals because, on average, their sexual behavior will result in procreation. They are still of the same type of relationship by virtue of the sex of both parties. To put it another way in the vain hope that you will understand (and really, I have no doubt that you do but aren't possessed of the honor and integrity to respond accordingly), a hetero couple that cannot or will not procreate is still of the type of union that is oriented toward procreation. They are of the type of union oriented toward procreation that cannot or will not procreate. Same thing and that's how the law has always regarded them.

Now, be a good little reprobate and watch and study the video so that you will learn something about my side of the issue.

Anonymous said...

"It's the very premise that is being argued."

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. The argument is NOT and never has been about whether or not gays have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It's about if they have the right to marry the person of their choice.

"I'm betting you've never reviewed even one court transcript."

You would be losing big time. I've read Walker, Posner, SCOTUS' Perry, and any number of district court decisions on the issue of same sex marriage. In none of them has the matter of gays being able to get married to a person of the opposite sex been argued.

And then you use the old trick of requiring me to find the information to support YOUR assertion. It's very dishonest.

"ONLY the hetero type results in pregnancy."

Untrue. A gay couple can add biological children to their family in a number of ways.

"the state sees no reason to give a flying rat's ass about them."

Can you explain why the state would NOT give a "rat's ass" about a couple who brought children from previous marriages into the relationship and would like to marry to create a stable family with all the family protections of a legally recognized marriage?

"You aren't actually making any legitimate argument that counters anything I've presented."

You don't realize how hard it is to make legitimate arguments to counter some of the most absurd and asinine "arguments" I've ever read on the subject coming from you.

Marshall Art said...

"Talk about intellectual dishonesty. The argument is NOT and never has been about whether or not gays have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It's about if they have the right to marry the person of their choice."

You see? You lack any shred of honesty. The whine is that they don't have the right to marry. The truth is that they want to force the state to define "marriage" the way they want it defined, as if the state, that is the people of the state, cannot decide, and have stand, that the true definition is the only definition by which marital law shall be decided. They have the right to marry and always have. "Marriage" is the union of one man and one woman, not closely related, not currently married to anyone else and of legal age. The incestuous cannot marry who they want to marry, the underage cannot marry who they want to marry and those who dig multiple partners cannot marry who they want to marry. But they all have the "right" to marry as the word is already defined and has been since the dawn of time.

"I've read Walker, Posner, SCOTUS' Perry, and any number of district court decisions on the issue of same sex marriage."

How nice for you. I clearly did NOT say "decisions" or "rulings". I said "transcript" and you even quoted me you idiot. The transcript would have the back and forth arguments of all parties before the bench. In those we can determine just what arguments were made and how. The decisions cannot be accepted as complete and accurate representations of what was said by defenders of real marriage.

"And then you use the old trick of requiring me to find the information to support YOUR assertion."

Because YOU insist that a given argument has never been made (as if you're smart enough to even know it IS being made, as the contrary is confirmed here so often by your comments).

"Untrue. A gay couple can add biological children to their family in a number of ways."

False and thus another example of your dishonesty. The homo couple can never reproduce. Only one of them does with an outside party. That is NOT the couple reproducing.

Marshall Art said...

"Can you explain why the state would NOT give a "rat's ass" about a couple who brought children from previous marriages into the relationship and would like to marry to create a stable family with all the family protections of a legally recognized marriage?"

More dishonesty as I clearly was referring to the ability or likelihood of hetero couples conceiving children by their sexual behavior. It is because homos cannot ever in any way procreate that there is no reason why the state would take interest.

But to address your selfish question, any interest the state might take in the scenario you present is to prevent it and discourage it. Homosexuals have no right to bring their children into their sordid relationships but should leave the kids with the spouse they dumped. It is better for the kids (all things being otherwise equal) for the kids to be raised with the spouse that is not morally corrupt. Furthermore, if they cared about a stable family for any children they might bring into the world, they should have chosen more carefully the person with whom they would ultimately engage in procreative activity. Now that their true deviant nature is exposed, you (and they) want to pretend they care about the kids? Talk about selfishness and dishonesty! This is the same issue with those who divorce. It ain't for the kids at all.

"You don't realize how hard it is to make legitimate arguments to counter some of the most absurd and asinine "arguments" I've ever read on the subject coming from you."

More dishonesty and this time of the most idiotic kind. My arguments are sound and fact based. THAT is why it is hard to make legitimate arguments. You're trying to defend an illegitimate position, and like homosexuals to people of faith, you demonize me and the arguments I put forth. Typical of the morally bankrupt and absolutely reprehensible.

Anonymous said...

"They have the right to marry and always have."

They have the right to marry someone they have no interest in marrying. Therefore whether or not they supposedly have this right, it is moot. It's a meaningless, dead end "argument" that nobody has made but you. I know this because you can't provide a source that anybody has actually made that argument in front of judges. I have read enough court decisions to know that in most all cases, the judges address all the arguments made by plaintiffs in their decisions. Walker, Posner, and others address the arguments of plaintiffs because they have to to be fair and assure the plaintiffs' argument have been considered.

""Marriage" is the union of one man and one woman, not closely related, not currently married to anyone else and of legal age."

In a few states that's true. In many, it is not.

"you even quoted me you idiot. "

Fuck you, moron.

"as if you're smart enough to even know it IS being made"

I know it has been made if the court addresses it. See above, dummy.

"False and thus another example of your dishonesty."

Liar! I said nothing about a couple reproducing. I said they can add a biological child to their family. Surrogacy, AI, etc.

"It is because homos cannot ever in any way procreate that there is no reason why the state would take interest."

So the state has no interest in a child if he is not a biological result of the couple who is raising him? Screw him? Is that it?

"Homosexuals have no right to bring their children into their sordid relationships but should leave the kids with the spouse they dumped."

The spouse died or abandoned the family. Now what?

"It is better for the kids (all things being otherwise equal) for the kids to be raised with the spouse that is not morally corrupt."

And in the absence of the best possible scenario, the children should be put in a weighted burlap sack and drowned in the nearest river?

"This is the same issue with those who divorce."

So no more divorce?

"My arguments are sound and fact based."

The biggest joke of all.

"you demonize me and the arguments I put forth. "

Pot meet kettle.

"Typical of the morally bankrupt and absolutely reprehensible."

Typical of the cold-hearted troglodyte. Good to know same sex marriage will torture you until your death.

Anonymous said...

In the end, none of your deviant crap, your mental illness, your despicable, your oriented towards procreation, your they already CAN get married matter. None of that is relevant. What's relevant is gay people wish to exercise their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by marrying the person of their choice.

What's relevant is the people get rights. We have a Constitution. It is the law of the land and it has rights in it that are not subject to popular votes. In it you will find the following words: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that it says "All persons." Notice that it says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property". Note that it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ALL persons get rights and privileges. They get them unless there is a legal reason to deny them those rights and privileges. Therefore, it is not the burden of a person to demonstrate that they should get the rights and privileges that the Constitution guarantees them. It is the burden of the state to demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest to deny these rights; an interest SO compelling that it justifies denying a right that every citizen otherwise enjoys.

A legal reason to deny rights must pass legal hurdles, because people must receive equal access under the law and equal protection. A law denying a right must pass "strict scrutiny", meaning that it must have been passed to FURTHER a compelling government interest and must have narrowly tailored that law to achieve that compelling interest. The state has the burden of proof under strict scrutiny.

Four out of five district courts that have rendered decisions on this matter have said that state laws banning same sex marriage do not pass strict scrutiny in that the state could not provide any compelling government interest in denying same sex marriage.

So you be the proponent of same sex marriage bans and provide a compelling state interest in such bans. The compelling state interest cannot be a matter of distaste, "religious liberty", what is better for children, or tradition. It has to be a compelling state interest that CAN be achieved by the banning of same sex marriage.

Marshall Art said...

"They have the right to marry someone they have no interest in marrying."

That has nothing to do with whether or not they are in possession of the right. That they are unable to find a suitable partner with whom they can form a real marriage is irrelevant. Many heterosexuals face this very dilemma. If someone has an interest in marry their table, the rest of us are not obliged to regard his affection as legitimate and worthy of the label "marriage" just because he wants us to do so.

"...the judges address all the arguments made by plaintiffs in their decisions."

How do you know this if you've never read the transcripts of the trial proceedings?

"...because they have to to be fair and assure the plaintiffs' argument have been considered."

"Fair"? What is fair about Walker's false definition of marriage? He judges arguments based on that false definition rather than on the definition that society has used throughout human history, and specifically throughout American history.

"In a few states that's true. In many, it is not."

Not in states that have recently ruled against the people of those states who sought to codify that true definition. That move was provoked by the whine that marriage is something different than that true definition and until that whine was first given the time of day, no rational person questioned the true definition or needed to be reminded of what that definition is. But you're a liar and now pretend that what has only recently come to pass represents something traditionally ever understood. Typical.

"Fuck you, moron."

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

"Liar! I said nothing about a couple reproducing. I said they can add a biological child to their family. Surrogacy, AI, etc."

The lie is in trying to equate surrogacy and other artificial methods with the procreative act between normal couples and then using that as a means to insist they are equally entitled to state interest. Try to get your head out of your backside and deal in reality. The interest the state takes in hetero relationships is due to the likelihood of conception as a result of their sexual union. That likelihood is the basis of state interest. That interest isn't concerned with whether or not that likelihood comes to pass as the result of intention or accident, but only that the parents be encouraged to stay together to care for the child that sexual union between the two produced. That likelihood that the average hetero couple will conceive a child from their sexual behavior is what makes the hetero relationship the "type" of relationship in which the state takes interest.

Marshall Art said...

"So the state has no interest in a child if he is not a biological result of the couple who is raising him? Screw him? Is that it?"

Try to focus here, little Jimmy. The interest of the state to which rational debaters refer is toward the procreative likelihood of the heterosexual union. Indeed, the interest is in the child such unions produce. Of course all normal people care about children brought into the world regardless of the means by which that is accomplished. The difference is that you are allowing two deviants who cannot possibly produce a child without a third party to help pretend they are the same simply because they forced a child to live with them. Don't pretend you pervs care about children when the whole point is trying to force the world into believing your deviancy is morally no different than properly married normal people. If the welfare of kids was truly a concern, they'd not marry someone of the opposite sex and produce a child, then divorce the spouse and expose the child to deviancy. If they cared about the welfare of kids, they wouldn't purposely bring one into the world only to purposely deny the child either a mother or a father. What reprehensible and disgusting deceit to pretend the welfare of kids plays any role in this selfish demand to force the world into accepting as moral your sexual immorality.

"The spouse died or abandoned the family. Now what?"

Oh, right. The best thing to do is to shack up with some perv of the same gender and expose the child to that. Good thinking. Again, don't pretend the welfare of the kid is the point here. Widows, widowers and the divorced or abandoned raise their kids all the time. Not the best circumstance, but better than exposing the kids to sexual immorality.

"And in the absence of the best possible scenario, the children should be put in a weighted burlap sack and drowned in the nearest river?"

Is this your idea of clever? Don't pretend you care about the kids here. Your only goal is whatever cheap rationalization you can float to legitimize sexual deviancy. An honorable homo, having married, produced children and then found him or herself alone to raise them does not serve the best interests of the kid by exposing them to sexual immorality. But you don't understand this truth because you're morally bankrupt and a reprobate.

"So no more divorce?"

No more no-fault for sure. What is really required and necessary you're too spineless to accept. This is where your "sex nazi" crap would come in.

"Good to know same sex marriage will torture you until your death."

You wish. It will torture our nation, however, just as sexual immorality has thus far.

Marshall Art said...

"In the end, none of your deviant crap, your mental illness, your despicable, your oriented towards procreation, your they already CAN get married matter. None of that is relevant."

Well, not untypically, we see again that truth, honesty, morality and reality don't matter to you and other homosexualists. It never is as it gets in the way of your whiny demands.

"What's relevant is gay people wish to exercise their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by marrying the person of their choice."

Of course they do and they are not denied. This is what you're too stupid and/or dishonest to fathom/admit. The state defining marriage properly does not deny anything. But what homos want is to force the state to value what it sees as having no value. Why should it? Why should the state be forced to believe what if sees is untrue? Where does the Constitution demand that any state must treat something as if it is something else when clearly it isn't?

"In it you will find the following words:"

Yet, you cannot show how those words are ignored by not pretending the union of two of the same gender is the same as the union of two of the opposite, or how under the true definition of marriage any homosexual is legally denied. You must pervert the definition to make your argument here work by citing that amendment. The state does not deprive homos of anything by not recognizing their unions in the same manner it does normal marriages. If this is true, then it does so for the incestuous, polygamous and those underage.

Four out of five district courts have rendered fraudulent decisions on this matter without demonstrating how homos have been denied anything but the right to force the states to redefine marriage to their liking. The interest the state has in defending the true definition has been demonstrated completely and exhaustively and all that has simply been ignored, not rebutted or shown to be false or unConstitutional.

It is way past time that activists show what compelling state interest is achieved by pretending homosexual unions must be regarded in the same manner as normal and proper marriages.

Anonymous said...

"It is way past time that activists show what compelling state interest is achieved by pretending homosexual unions must be regarded in the same manner as normal and proper marriages."

The burden of proof is upon the state to show compelling interest to deny liberty.

More to come....

Anonymous said...

You were right. I found a case where the anti-same sex marriage side argued that gays already had the same right to marry as anyone else.

It was in the Iowa Supreme Court Decision in 2009:

The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to "You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else":

“It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation."

Varnum v Brien

Marshall Art said...

"The burden of proof is upon the state to show compelling interest to deny liberty."

This is one of the many areas where you go horribly wrong. There is no denial of liberty whatsoever. Maintaining the true definition of marriage in civil law does not deny the liberty of homosexuals to form unions to which they can misapply the word "marriage" if they so choose. But that isn't the whine. The whine is that the rest of the world MUST regard their perversion as normal and moral in the manner the rest of the world regards normal hetero marriages (a regretful redundancy given the true definition, but necessary here). What's more, the compelling interest is in why the state feels it benefits the culture to support, encourage and sanction one type of relationship and not any other. Homosexual unions are merely one of many that the state sees no interest in supporting OR denying.

As to the Iowa Supreme Court, viewed in the complete context of marriage, the unappealing option for a homosexual in uniting with a member of the opposite sex is totally irrelevant. Marriage in civil law was never a question of intimacy, that is, that intimacy was required. Certainly intimacy is a word connected with even cold, clinical sexual intercourse. But that isn't the driving reason behind the state taking interest in hetero unions. "...the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute..." aren't granted to a variety of relationships.

Thus this decision is total fantasy without first redefining the word "marriage" so as to appease the selfish self-interest of the homosexual. Just as "man" is defined in manner the excludes women, as "mankind" is defined in a manner that excludes animals, "marriage" is defined in a manner that excludes a variety of relationships that do not consist of one man/one woman, not closely related, not currently married and of legal age. That definition does not equate to a denial of any liberty whatsoever, nor does it relegate anyone to "second class" status nor does it mean a denial of rights. That you cannot force the state to regard your intimate relationship with your mother as it does mine with my wife does not deny you the liberty to engage in it. You need to convince the state that it has a compelling interest in doing so. No such interest exists either of your and your mother or any homosexual union. None that has ever been provided, explained or demonstrated.

Anonymous said...

"There is no denial of liberty whatsoever."

This is one of the many areas where you go horribly wrong. Liberty is "the power to do or choose what you want to." Gays want to be legally married to a person of the same sex. They are denied the liberty to do this. They are denied this liberty with out due process and without equal protection of the law.

You can't "misapply" the word marriage in this issue because the issue is civil marriage which is defined by law, not by tradition, religion, or your personal disgust. These laws are subject to due process and equal protection.

"The whine is that the rest of the world MUST regard their perversion as normal and moral in the manner the rest of the world regards normal hetero marriages"

No, only the government must regard all civil marriages the same. Your church or klavern can decide who can marry whom for non-civil marriages.

"Homosexual unions are merely one of many that the state sees no interest in supporting OR denying."

Thank you. You've proved the case in your own words. The state sees no interest in denying homosexual unions the legal right to marry. Without that state interest, by law a state cannot bar same sex marriages.

Other unions can try to make their own case.

"Marriage in civil law was never a question of intimacy". If so, then how could one say that they are "oriented towards procreation"?

"the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute..." aren't granted to a variety of relationships."

Sure they are. Prisoners can marry non-prisoners. Elderly people can marry very young people. A divorced person can marry another divorced person or they can marry someone who was never married. One of the couple can be fertile and another not. Or both infertile or fertile. Cousins at different levels can get married depending on the state. In California and other states they can be opposite sex or same sex.

"Thus this decision is total fantasy"

What is your legal background, education, or profession? How is it that Marshall Art can declare the vast majority of judicial decisions and opinions "fantasy", "flawed", "perverted", etc without being a complete fool?

"Man" is certainly not always defined in a manner that excludes women.

"nor does it relegate anyone to "second class" status nor does it mean a denial of rights."

In your own small opinion. In the opinion of the Supreme Court and many other judges and courts you are wrong. They count. You don't.

"That you cannot force the state to regard your intimate relationship with your mother as it does mine with my wife does not deny you the liberty to engage in it."

My mother is dead. But if she were alive, she would already be married. If I were interested my liberty would be denied but not without due process and equal protection of the law.

"You need to convince the state that it has a compelling interest in doing so."

Again, you have it bass ackwards. The state must convince the court that it has a compelling interest in denying that liberty.

"No such interest exists either of your and your mother or any homosexual union. None that has ever been provided, explained or demonstrated."

Bass ackwards again. The burden is not on the denied; it is on the deniers. That's due process and equal protection under the law.

Craig said...

"It's about if they have the right to marry the person of their choice."

No, it's not. There is no right to marry "the person if their choice". The choice in marriage partners in limited in numerous ways.

The above statement is closely related to the call for "marriage equity for everyone" which was plastered all over the place during the run up to the vote here.

So, perhaps a bit of clarification would be in order.

Do you really support allowing people to marry "the person of their choice."?

Do you support "marriage equity for all"?

Marshall Art said...

"Gays want to be legally married to a person of the same sex."

Not a liberty issue. They are forcing their will on the rest of society by demanding the rest of society pretend there is a reason beneficial to society in supporting their relationships. There isn't. If there is, they've yet to reveal what the benefit is.

At the same time, the state does not interfere with their deviant lifestyle choice and has even allowed them to force kids into households where they lack either a mother or father.

"You can't "misapply" the word marriage in this issue because the issue is civil marriage which is defined by law..."

Nonsense. They misapply it all the time as they cite past rulings in an attempt to support current opinions. Yet, the rulings they cite require that they distort the meaning of the word as it was understood in civil marriage law at the time of the previous ruling. For instance, Loving v Virginia didn't regard marriage as the union of any two people, but the union of one man and one woman.

But if that wasn't dishonest enough, there is a ruling from the 1970s, from a Minnesota case, I believe, that totally rejected the claims of homosexuals that are being used now. The Supremes denied appeal and let the decision stand because there was no Constitutional breech by denying marriage to homosexuals. Current judges never bring up that case in their rulings. No other is so definitive. Look it up.

"No, only the government must regard all civil marriages the same."

But it begins with an understanding of what the word means. Sympathetic judges are merely asserting a definition that is not true and, as stated above, citing previous rulings as if those previous rulings also did. Judges are not endowed with the power to dictate definitions. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to cite what law so empowers them.

"Thank you. You've proved the case in your own words."

No, thank YOU. I know I proved my case. But you don't even understand how. I referred to "unions" not being denied. "Unions" are not "marriages". No marital law forbids two pervs from living as a couple. They simply don't regard them as marriages (except in states that corrupt judges overturned the will of the people).

You have not shown that the state must take interest in any other relationship it does not deem worthy. You make circular arguments that do not provide a legitimate reason why the state must alter its understanding of the institution and why it licenses any relationships at all.

continuing...

Marshall Art said...

""Marriage in civil law was never a question of intimacy". If so, then how could one say that they are "oriented towards procreation"?"

This is just another case of abusing words to your personal needs. One does not have to have sex to have an intimate relationship. Conversely, having sex does not indicate an intimate relationship at all. (Think rape or orgies). You're purposely narrowing the word to force a conclusion you need it to force. The point is that a relationship type that is oriented toward procreation is not necessarily the same as merely a relationship that is intimate. Thus, intimacy alone is not a factor in licensing a relationship.

"Sure they are."

What followed the above idiocy does not in any way mitigate the truth of the statement it sought to refute. There are a variety of relationships the state does not grant the same regard as it does the standard and normal male/female type. Indeed, note that all of your examples are true only if they are of male/female types.

"How is it that Marshall Art can declare the vast majority of judicial decisions and opinions "fantasy", "flawed", "perverted", etc without being a complete fool?"

By being honest and logical in my study of those few decisions (there aren't all that many) and not being a chump for the cause of sexual immorality and perversity. That leaves YOU out, fool.

""Man" is certainly not always defined in a manner that excludes women."

Even women who undergo sex changes no longer regard themselves as women, so my comment is confirmed even by the mentally disordered. Of course, people like you often deride me for allegedly excluding women when I use the terms "man" or "mankind" as one might were one to say, "Man does not live by bread alone..." or "for the good of mankind". Again, we see another example of abusing words to force deceit as truth.

"In your own small opinion. In the opinion of the Supreme Court and many other judges and courts you are wrong."

Once again, we see that Jim cannot think for himself. It's funny that I am often accused by those one Jim's side of these issues as being unable to know right from wrong without being told by some "sky fairy". Jim needs a pro-homosexual judge to tell him what's what about morality. Pathetically sad. That a judge differs does not make me wrong in any way, shape or form.

continuing...

Marshall Art said...

"My mother is dead. But if she were alive, she would already be married. If I were interested my liberty would be denied but not without due process and equal protection of the law."

You're barely treading water here, but none of this mitigates the point in any way. The point regards the state denying, not circumstance. You're beyond embarrassing yourself now.

"The state must convince the court that it has a compelling interest in denying that liberty."

There is no liberty issue. How is one's liberty denied when they can form a union without a license? How is liberty denied because one fails to qualify for a license to marry? Marriage means something specific, but the fact that homos doesn't qualify under the true definition doesn't deny them any liberty to pursue a damned thing. You think because they don't get what they don't have coming that they are denied liberty? Here are the definitions of liberty at the first on-line dictionary I saw:

1-The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2-The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.

3-A right to engage in certain actions without control or interference by a government or other power.


I don't see any liberty issue at all and using these definitions, neither do you.

"The burden is not on the denied; it is on the deniers."

So if a judge determines that you are a dog, I must refer to you and treat you as a dog. Is that your argument? The homo demands we must treat his deviant union as something it is not. You think he has that right to force his belief upon the entire state. How is that Constitutionally protected exactly when no law denies him anything?

Anonymous said...

Check this out.

Anonymous said...

"The choice in marriage partners is limited in numerous ways."

Yes it is, but legally there must be a rational basis for doing so. Every court that has applied the concepts of strict scrutiny and rational basis have found laws banning same sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

"The above statement is closely related to the call for "marriage equity for everyone""

It's not related at all. You've made it up. Do you have any pictures? I googled "marriage equity" and could not find an example of the phrase. If it existed, what would it mean?

"Do you really support allowing people to marry "the person of their choice."?"

Subject to due process of law and equal protection, yes I do. If the state can present a rational basis or compelling interest in denying this choice, then I can agree with certain limitations such as incest, polygamy, and any other sort you fantasize about.

"Do you support "marriage equity for all"?"

I don't know what that means. I can find no definition or example of the term.

Anonymous said...

"They are forcing their will on the rest of society by demanding the rest of society pretend there is a reason beneficial to society in supporting their relationships."

No such demand exists. The rest of society can be as cruel and boneheaded as you for all they care. They don't have to pretend anything. Society has to provide a reason not to recognize their relationships.

"they've yet to reveal what the benefit is."

There is no requirement that they do so.

"into households where they lack either a mother or father."

Thirty-five percent of American children live in single-parent households which by definition lack either a mother or a father. It is illogical to assert that having two of one or the other would be worse than having only one.

"For instance, Loving v Virginia didn't regard marriage as the union of any two people, but the union of one man and one woman."

This is NOT TRUE. "The union of one MAN and one WOMAN is never mentioned in the decision. In fact, the majority opinion repeatedly refers to "persons" as in The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person,"

"Current judges never bring up that case in their rulings. No other is so definitive. Look it up."

I did. Notorious RBG in the majority decision for Hollingsworth v. Perry referred to Baker v. Nelson and said that it was no longer relevant in part because it came from a time when certain sex acts were illegal.

"But it begins with an understanding of what the word means."

The word means many things to many people in many circumstances. In all but about a dozen states in 2015 it means a legally-recognized union of two marriage eligible people.

Traditionally the word "voter" meant an adult male. Over time and by law, the meaning of the word "voter" changed to mean a an adult male or female. Such shit happens.

"You have not shown that the state must take interest in any other relationship it does not deem worthy."

I don't have to. The state must show why it should not deem such relationships worthy of equal protection. You continue to refuse to understand this critical concept in the issue.

Anonymous said...

"You're beyond embarrassing yourself now."

Hah! I'll be the judge of that!

"How is one's liberty denied when they can form a union without a license?"

The issue isn't forming a union. The issue is having it legally recognized so as to receive equal protection under the law.

"one fails to qualify"

How can an adult person of sound mind who is unmarried fail to qualify?

"Marriage means something specific"

But not one thing.

"they don't get what they don't have coming"

Says who?

"So if a judge determines that you are a dog"

This is not at issue. And a judge wouldn't anyway.

"The homo demands we must treat his deviant union as something it is not."

No. You and your Klavern can treat it any legal way you want or not treat it at all. The government is not concerned with your so-called deviancy and must treat it as any other legal marriage.

"You think he has that right to force his belief upon the entire state."

His personal beliefs, no. His legal decision, upon the government, yes. Your beliefs you can continue to share with your klavern.

"How is that Constitutionally protected exactly when no law denies him anything?"

If no law denies him anything, then why is any court hearing any cases? They would be thrown out of court. You are dumber than a bag of rocks.

Marshall Art said...

From you first link of Feb 12 @ 12:02AM:

"The court, he wrote, “now takes judicial notice of the general consensus in the mental health field that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but is instead a normal variation of human sexuality,” and it would be a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise."

Obviously, this ruling is blatantly flawed. The existence of credible, professional people in the field of psychology that feels otherwise totally demonstrates that "consensus" is nothing more than hyperbole. Since the removal of homosexuality from the DSM there have always been, and continue to be those in the field that continue to see the condition for the disorder it is. This clearly is another example of a sympathetic judicial hack lacking the integrity to truly rule based on reality. The APA and other pro-homosexual organizations, infiltrated with homosexual activists, are they who are doing the misrepresenting as regards the true nature of homosexuality.

It is also clear that, as you continue to demonstrate over and over again, that you lack the brain power to judge between fact and fantasy when it comes to issues of morality, needing a judge to tell you how to think.

"The plaintiffs, two former clients and three parents of clients, argued that there was “no factual basis for calculating” the statistics JONAH cites in its marketing."

Thus far, I haven't seen any marketing citations of statistics at the JONAH website. Nonetheless, I don't see that whether they cite stats of a general nature regarding those who left the lifestyle or stats related to their own success is of much consequence. Nothing I've seen on their website makes promises beyond their desire to help those with unwanted deviant desires. As per usual, pro-homosexual sources, such as ThinkProgress, are loathe to provide the details to support what they claim about the opposition.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents the plaintiffs, lauded the ruling. “For the first time,” SPLC deputy legal director David Dinielli explained, “a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured."

So, the pro-homo activists have found enough enablers in the courts to proclaim opposing professional opinion against the law. However, no such therapists do more than claim one can change or overcome. "Cure"? Not too many in the psyche field use that term in counseling anyone for too many psychological conditions.

"The ruling follows another decision by the court last week to not allow so-called “experts” on ex-gay therapy to testify on behalf of JONAH. Bariso compared them to experts on flat-earth theory."

This is the worst part. What expertise does Bariso have that gives him room to dare criticize the knowledge, expertise and professionalism of those who work to treat those with unwanted homo desires? Answer: none. He simply takes sides and dismisses. Typical.

Marshall Art said...

I deleted your first link since your second was the same article. That ludicrous ruling I addressed above. The last of the three links I deleted because it was simply incredibly stupid, typical of the pro-homosexual asshat who thinks he's clever. That would be you as well as the one who made the video. It's bad enough you clutter my blog with your idiotic and intelligence free commentary. I don't need poor attempts at humor, sarcasm and condescension as well. You're definitely beyond embarrassment now. You aren't smart enough to know that you should be embarrassed.

Moving on now to the rest of you pathetic attempts at thought:

""The choice in marriage partners is limited in numerous ways."

Yes it is, but legally there must be a rational basis for doing so."


Those arguments defending why the true definition of marriage should remain unaltered by the disordered and deviant people you defend provide well that rational basis. No judge has yet to explain their flaws, and you certainly aren't capable. Any appeals to the 14th Amendment require first distorting the definition to have any hope of making the pro-SSM arguments work. Thus, the rulings are based on falsehood.

"It's not related at all. You've made it up. Do you have any pictures? I googled "marriage equity" and could not find an example of the phrase. If it existed, what would it mean?"

That you have never seen the term used (which I don't believe---Dan Trabue uses it constantly, though he hasn't visited here in some time), doesn't mean it hasn't been. However, I'm not surprised you have no idea what it means.

"If the state can present a rational basis or compelling interest in denying this choice, then I can agree with certain limitations such as incest, polygamy, and any other sort you fantasize about."

I would love to see what passes for "rational basis" in your basement for denying marriage rights to the polygamous and incestuous. That should be fun.

Marshall Art said...

""They are forcing their will on the rest of society by demanding the rest of society pretend there is a reason beneficial to society in supporting their relationships."

No such demand exists. The rest of society can be as cruel and boneheaded as you for all they care. They don't have to pretend anything. Society has to provide a reason not to recognize their relationships."


First of all, if the rest of society was as cruel and boneheaded as me, society would be in far better shape, as I am neither cruel nor boneheaded. Your inability to understand the clear logic and truth I defend on this blog does not make me boneheaded. That would be your dysfunction.

Next, they are indeed forcing their will through the use of pro-homo judges and legislators and a public too morally corrupt to defend truth and righteousness. The result is a state or nation that must pretend the union of homosexuals is a marriage by force of law.

""they've yet to reveal what the benefit is."

There is no requirement that they do so."


You only say this because it cannot be done, and certainly not by you. The negative impact has been explained without refutation, only dismissal.

"Thirty-five percent of American children live in single-parent households which by definition lack either a mother or a father."

First of all, some of those are the result of the death of one or the other parent. For the rest, those parents are just as guilty of putting their own selfish interests above the children they bore as are homos. Hardly an argument in their favor.

"It is illogical to assert that having two of one or the other would be worse than having only one."

Spoken like a true hack for the cause, but a totally baseless assertion of your own.

"This is NOT TRUE. "The union of one MAN and one WOMAN is never mentioned in the decision. In fact, the majority opinion repeatedly refers to "persons" as in The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person,""

As there was no such thing as SSM anywhere in the country at the time of the Loving decision, there is no basis upon which to make the ludicrous assertion that by using the term "person" the component parts of a marriage were not assumed to be one man/one woman. It clearly, based on the salient issue of the case, used the term in relation to "persons" of one race or another. That is "black" or "white" persons as opposed to "male" or "female" persons. What a pathetic attempt on your part to revise history!

Marshall Art said...

"Notorious RBG in the majority decision for Hollingsworth v. Perry referred to Baker v. Nelson and said that it was no longer relevant in part because it came from a time when certain sex acts were illegal."

Here are her exact words:

"The Supreme Court hadn't even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don't think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson."

The irrelevance of her references to what SCOTUS had done at that point and what other states at the time did with regards to the criminality of homosexual behavior should have embarrassed her for bringing it up, despite your not being smart enough to ever be embarrassed by your own goofy opinions. The plaintiffs in that case argued with reference to four amendments and the SCOTUS found no merit in their arguments. She's arguing something that wasn't at issue in the case as far as I've been able to find. Thus, she totally dismissed what the SCOTUS did say, to render an opinion on what they didn't. Thanks for helping me make my point.

More importantly, Ginsburg didn't rule in the Hollingworth case. She rendered an opinion to uphold the ruling when SCOTUS weighed in. Plus, SCOTUS didn't overturn Baker v Nelson in any way, and Ginsburg can't overturn SCOTUS support of the Baker decision.

"The word means many things to many people in many circumstances."

And there you go again with your dishonest semantic games. It's not about what a word means to YOU. It's about what a word MEANS. It is judicial activism for any court to dictate the definitions of words for the purpose of crafting legislation, which is not the duty of the judicial branch. And to rule on Constitutionality of a law, it would seem to rational people, definitions should not be altered in order to rule one way or the other. But of course, you're cool with it as long as it goes in the direction of the immoral.

"Over time and by law, the meaning of the word "voter" changed to mean a an adult male or female."

By the 19th Amendment. Up to that time, no court saw a denial of rights regarding the voting laws. The PEOPLE decided to change the "meaning" of what a legally recognized voter was. It wasn't by the ruling of any judge. Yet, the people are denied their Constitutionally protected right to self-determination by having the meaning of "marriage" forced down their throats by pro-homosexual judges.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't have to. The state must show why it should not deem such relationships worthy of equal protection. You continue to refuse to understand this critical concept in the issue."

You and yours continue to corrupt the debate by insisting that the state must argue why what isn't a marriage should continue to be regarded as not a marriage. Such an idiotic demand ignores why the state involves itself with regulating marriage at all. Nothing is more critical to this debate than understanding that most salient question. You're apparently not capable.

""You're beyond embarrassing yourself now."

Hah! I'll be the judge of that!"


You're far less capable of judging that as well, as you continue to prove.

"The issue is having it legally recognized so as to receive equal protection under the law."

How is their liberty denied by the state not pretending their union is what it isn't? How are they less protected under the law than other relationships also not recognized as marriages?

"How can an adult person of sound mind who is unmarried fail to qualify?"

By trying to choose a person of the same gender to marry. By trying to choose a sibling to marry. By trying to choose more than one person to marry. By trying to choose a person under the legal age to marry. Is your contention that any of these people are necessarily not of sound mind simply based on the person or people they wish to marry? The criteria for marriage were firmly, logically and justifiably set. None of the above qualifies regardless of the soundness of mind of the applicant. That is, until morally corrupt judges forced an unjust change in the peoples' law.

""Marriage means something specific"

But not one thing."


Then it's not specific, then, is it?

""they don't get what they don't have coming"

Says who?"


The people of every state whose justly enacted laws were overturned by morally bankrupt judges. Those people determined that only one type of relationship compelled their interest. They had decided that none other had that interest coming.

""So if a judge determines that you are a dog"

This is not at issue. And a judge wouldn't anyway."


What is at issue is being forced by judicial fiat to regard one thing as something it is not. It doesn't matter what that thing is. If a judge says we must, little Jimmy believes it must be what the judge says it is, regardless of what Jimmy's addled mind might have reason enough to see otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

"No. You and your Klavern can treat it any legal way you want or not treat it at all."

Now you accuse me of being in the Klan, simply because I defend truth, reason, logic and morality? How typical of your sad, pathetic nature to demonize such as myself for doing so.

However, regardless of my affiliation with good people or bad (you and the fascist homosexual lobby are far more Klan-like than defenders of real marriage---thus you are among the truly bad), we are indeed being forced to treat the sexually deviant as something they are not, from their unions being "marriages" to their behavior being moral or at least morally benign. People are being sued, fired and harassed for standing up for truth. Jesus said it would happen, but that doesn't make it right.

""You think he has that right to force his belief upon the entire state."

His personal beliefs, no. His legal decision, upon the government, yes."


There's no distinction there, you idiot. WE are the government and we as citizens who must live according to the laws of our state are being forced to live by the personal beliefs of homosexuals. People are being sued, fired and harassed for opposing the agenda.

"If no law denies him anything, then why is any court hearing any cases?"

That's a really stupid question there, Jimmy-boy. I'd say "even for you", but you never cease to embarrass yourself.

"...shit happens."

Your birth is proof of that.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, this ruling is blatantly flawed."

Of course. They ALL are.

"The existence of credible, professional people in the field of psychology that feels otherwise totally demonstrates that "consensus" is nothing more than hyperbole."

You are suggesting that "consensus" requires 100% agreement? I think not. I'd be happy to read anything you could provide that TODAY more than a small minority cling to the old position that being gay is a mental disorder.

"they who are doing the misrepresenting as regards the true nature of homosexuality."

Your credentials?

"You aren't smart enough to know that you should be embarrassed."

I'm smart enough to know that only one or two people read this stuff, and none of them is an audience before whom I would be embarrassed.

"the disordered and deviant people you defend"

I'm defending no one, least of all you.

"the true definition of marriage"

There is no such "true definition of marriage" at issue here. The issue is civil marriage which is defined by civil law.

"should remain unaltered by the disordered and deviant people you defend "

If such people you call disordered and deviant could alter the definition of marriage, it would have been legal years ago. It is civil law that determines the definition of anything legal.

"I'm not surprised you have no idea what it means."

I note here that you make no attempt to enlighten me as to its meaning. I must assume you cannot.

"I would love to see what passes for "rational basis" in your basement"

I'll go with this explanation from Cornell University Law School: "Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest."

"for denying marriage rights to the polygamous and incestuous."

I don't have to. I'm not interested in that argument, but if you think you can make them for SSM, you should easily be able to make them for your two fantasies above.

Anonymous said...

"pro-homo judges and legislators"

Yes, aren't they all.

"The result is a state or nation that must pretend the union of homosexuals is a marriage by force of law."

The state or nation has no need to pretend as they make the law. You can "pretend" or not as far as you're concerned as long as you don't have anything to do with administering the rights of legally married people.

"You only say this because it cannot be done, and certainly not by you."

Of course I can. Married couples provide pooled financial benefits to their children and well as survivors benefits of pensions ans Social Security. Marriage provides a more stable household with a greater likelihood that both parents will remain in the household.

"The negative impact has been explained without refutation"

This is simply not true.

"First of all, some of those are the result of the death of one or the other parent."

Yes. What's your point? They still lack a mother or a father.

"Hardly an argument in their favor."

That's not the argument. The argument is that two of one or the other is better than only one of one or the other. Refute that.

"Spoken like a true hack for the cause, but a totally baseless assertion of your own."

So you can't refute it?

"What a pathetic attempt on your part to revise history!"

Hah! You're funny. It was you who said that Loving regarded marriage as the union of one man and one woman: For instance, Loving v Virginia didn't regard marriage as the union of any two people, but the union of one man and one woman.

I cited Loving wherein one man and one woman was not mentioned at all because it wasn't at issue. No revision of history occurring here.

Anonymous said...

"The irrelevance of her references to what SCOTUS had done at that point and what other states at the time did with regards to the criminality of homosexual behavior should have embarrassed her for bringing it up"

Is there some way you can post a picture of your law degree? Or give me the name of the law school you graduated from so I can check? It is you who should be embarrassed by your legal quackery.

Baker was not irrelevant since the plaintiffs had made the argument that Baker "foreclosed" and further review by the court. But since sex laws were no longer on the books and SSM was legal in Minnesota by the time of Hollingsworth, Baker didn't hold here.

"Yet, the people are denied their Constitutionally protected right to self-determination by having the meaning of "marriage" forced down their throats by pro-homosexual judges."

So if the people of a state voted to define "arms" as knives and bows and arrows, they would be exercising their protected right to self-determination immune from any court that might reject that definition?

Craig said...

Anon,

I'll try to find the link to some of the ad's the pro gay marriage folks put up during the campaign.

But, beyond that, you clearly do not believe that people should be able to marry marry the person of their choice. As you have just contradicted your earlier statement. Given that you clearly support limits, can you demonstrate that whatever limits your accept, are the correct limits?

Here is one quick example of support for marriage "equality" for all people.

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/blogs/160731225.html

I suspect that, just like you really don't support the right of everyone to marry the person of their choice, these folks really don't support marriage equality for everyone.

But, why let consistence get in the way of a good sound bite.

Anonymous said...

"You and yours continue to corrupt the debate by insisting that the state must argue why what isn't a marriage should continue to be regarded as not a marriage."

Here is where you continue to fail. Marriage is a civil as well as religious matter. As a civil matter, marriage is whatever the state recognizes as marriage. In states that have voted to allow SSM, such marriages are in fact marriages. Even if the couple moves to your state, their marriage is a marriage. So the worst you could say is that a marriage in one state might not be marriage in your state. However, the repeal of DOMA has ended that and marriage is what ever the state in which gays are legally married says is the definition of marriage.

As to religious marriage, UCC is suing the state of North Carolina to stop barring them from performing legal marriages in their church. To them, a SSM performed in their church IS marriage.

And...

"You and yours continue to corrupt the debate by insisting that the state must argue why what isn't a marriage should continue to be regarded as not a marriage."

Under the basic concept of freedom, any action or liberty must be allowed unless the state can provide a rational basis for why it should be disallowed. If ANYONE challenges a restrictive law, it is incumbent on the administrators of that law to prove that the restriction is justified. You just can't seem to understand that concept.

Anonymous said...

"How is their liberty denied by the state not pretending their union is what it isn't?"

Circular logic. They are being denied legal recognition of their union because their union isn't recognized by law. They want their union to be recognized by law. The state has no legal reason not to recognize their union. Therefore they are being denied equal protection of the law (liberty).

"How are they less protected under the law than other relationships also not recognized as marriages?"

Because there is a rational basis for not recognizing other relationships. None exists for denying marriage to same sex couples.

"By trying to choose a person"

Ridiculous! Trying to choose is not a qualification. Being adult is a qualification. Being of sound mind is a qualification. Being unmarried is a qualification.

"The criteria for marriage were firmly, logically and justifiably set."

But not permanently.

"That is, until morally corrupt judges forced an unjust change in the peoples' law."

Yeah, we already know that all judges besides Ray Moore are morally corrupt.

"Then it's not specific, then, is it?"

You said it. Marriage between an elderly person and a young person is as much a marriage as that of a previously unmarried person and a divorced person, or a childless marriage, or a marriage of convenience of a couple of seniors, or a couple still living at home, or a couple married after eloping, or a marriage by a justice of the peace, or a marriage performed by a Rabbi.They are all legally recognized marriages.

"overturned by morally bankrupt judges."

Yeah, we know all judges are morally bankrupt except Roy Moore.

"Those people determined that only one type of relationship compelled their interest."

Again you have the "compelling interest" bass ackwards. The compelling interest is only a reason to deny marriage, not grant it. Besides I think that the multitude of types of relationships I listed above
would still be marriages.

"judicial fiat to regard one thing as something it is not."

You don't have to regard squat. Just the county clerk does.

"If a judge says we must, little Jimmy believes it must be what the judge says it is"

Who is "little Jimmy"?

Yes, it must be what the judge says in matters of law. My personal genus species is not a matter of law nor is it in question.

Anonymous said...

"How typical of your sad, pathetic nature to demonize such as myself for doing so."

Pot/kettle.

"defenders of real marriage"

I am a defender of real marriage.

"There's no distinction there, you idiot."

Yes there is, you moron.

"we as citizens who must live according to the laws of our state are being forced to live by the personal beliefs of homosexuals."

Absurd. How will you live differently when SSM is recognized in your state?

"That's a really stupid question there"

No your answer is really stupid. If there was in fact and obviously no denial, why isn't each and every court laughing the plaintiffs out of court?

Marshall Art said...

""Obviously, this ruling is blatantly flawed."

Of course. They ALL are."


Good to see you finally admit the truth about all the pro-SSM rulings.

"You are suggesting that "consensus" requires 100% agreement?"

I wouldn't if it wasn't used to denote that such is the case. Indeed, to cite "a consensus", particularly as it might further the agenda of those like yourself, is to suggest that those who oppose are wrong in their opposition simply due to their smaller numbers, and thus, due to their smaller number they are not worthy of serious consideration. It is another deceitful ploy of the agenda and those who support it. What's more, the following from Dictionary.com suggests a unanimity of belief:

An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

""they who are doing the misrepresenting as regards the true nature of homosexuality."

Your credentials?"


I need credentials to read about the history of the issue? I'm sorry you cannot decide truth from falsehood without someone telling you which is which, but most of us who seek to be honest and objective are more than capable of doing so. And objectively speaking, those that act contrary to their biology reveal the true nature of homosexual attraction as being that of a condition of dysfunction. Clearly so.

"I'm smart enough to know that only one or two people read this stuff, and none of them is an audience before whom I would be embarrassed."

An honest and honorable person of character needs no audience, but only a conscience, in order to be embarrassed by acting in an embarrassing manner. That leaves you out.

""the disordered and deviant people you defend"

I'm defending no one, least of all you."


Now you're lying again and of course, you lack the character to be embarrassed and ashamed for doing so.

"There is no such "true definition of marriage" at issue here. The issue is civil marriage which is defined by civil law."

Again, no embarrassment for the stupidity required to make the above statement. The entire issue revolves around what the true definition of marriage is or is not. In order to have a "civil" definition, one must have some notion as to what the definition is. Any "civil" definition is the result of the people of a state deciding that definition, and the civil definition of most of the states now with SSM had that civil definition rejected by a judge, which is outside the bounds of his position.

Marshall Art said...

"If such people you call disordered and deviant could alter the definition of marriage, it would have been legal years ago. It is civil law that determines the definition of anything legal."

They've only organized for the purpose within the last couple decades, and it took them time to find sympathetic and morally corrupt judges to help the cause along. It has not been civil law that altered that definition, but the ruling of judges. Why the states allowed themselves to be subject to a judge when they didn't have to is beyond me.

"I note here that you make no attempt to enlighten me as to its meaning. I must assume you cannot."

Your assumption is without basis, as I have clearly demonstrated a better understanding of definitions. You have trouble with "marriage", so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't understand the meaning of "equity". Indeed, it should be less surprising that you couldn't possibly understand "marriage equity". "Equity", as used by proponents of SSM, means "fairness", that is, "marriage fairness" as if the established laws regarding marriage were not already fair and fairly applied to all equally. It's just another example of homosexual dishonesty.

"I'll go with this explanation from Cornell University Law School: "Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.""

Both constitutionality and legitimate government interest has been clearly, comprehensively and exhaustively established in the arguments put forth by those defending true marriage, arguments merely dismissed without a counter by those supporting homosexuals.

I said:

"I would love to see what passes for "rational basis" in your basement for denying marriage rights to the polygamous and incestuous. That should be fun."

To which you, in your cowardly manner replied:

"I don't have to. I'm not interested in that argument, but if you think you can make them for SSM, you should easily be able to make them for your two fantasies above."

Actually, you do. If there is no basis for denying homosexuals, then there cannot be for denying others. Your argument suggests that the state definition of what marriage is, which is only the codifying of what marriage has always meant since the dawn of time, stands as a denial to those whose unions do not qualify as a marriage. Removing the gender criterion, arguably the most important criterion given the procreative aspects of the true marital union, renders all other criteria equally worthy or suspicion, particularly considering the extremely weak argument for doing so. Removing that criterion puts the whole defintion in question, yet like the coward you are, you avoid addressing this most obvious consequence. Typical.

Anonymous said...

What is your stand on same-sex marriage in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and DC? Same-sex marriage was approved by the state legislature or popular vote in the case of each of these.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to the Posner decision in 7th Circuit decision on same sex marriage. I just finished reading it again.

I noted that Posner also mentioned Baker and dismissed it as no longer holding especially in view of Loving and Lawrence.

The decision discusses "traditional" marriage. It discusses the right to marry the person of one's choice. It discusses "procreation oriented relationships".

It would be great if you could set me straight on where Posner has it wrong, what arguments he ignores, and what he simply makes up. Can you cite the specific words you disagree with? Is he corrupt?

Marshall Art said...

"The state or nation has no need to pretend as they make the law."

Except in three cases, no state, which is the people that comprise the state, has ever voted for a definition that eliminates the gender requirement. This is my personal speculation, but I wonder how many who didn't vote in those elections would have had they knew their state would enact abomination as law. Nonetheless, as one can only judge according to those that did indeed vote, we must respect that those three unfortunate states chose abomination over reason, as is their right as sovereign states with the Constitutional freedom to do so.

""You only say this because it cannot be done, and certainly not by you."

Of course I can. Married couples provide pooled financial benefits to their children..."


Clearly, and with no ambiguity whatsoever, I was referring to the benefit to the state in recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. Your argument is an "after-the-fact-argument" that does not exist if homosexuals don't form relationships to which they improperly apply the terms "marriage" and "family", the latter a most egregious deceit given the disregard for the welfare of children they involve in their delusion. In order to honestly provide an argument for whatever benefit to the state might exist in recognizing such deviant unions, one must argue on equal grounds. The state sees an interest in the union of men and women before the union takes place due to the potential for procreation resulting from that union taking place. What interest is there in the unions of two men or two women that could possibly concern the state with no such consequence likely by virtue of their uniting? It is this salient point that you homosexuals lack the courage to give response, nor the ability to do so.

""The negative impact has been explained without refutation"

This is simply not true."


This is absolutely true, unless as with other words and terms you distort the understanding of "refutation". It requires a counter argument presenting logic, facts, evidence and/or a solid demonstration that the opposing argument is actually untrue (not merely asserted as such) or flawed. This has yet to be done. Dismissing and ignoring is not "refuting".

"Yes. What's your point? They still lack a mother or a father."

Obviously (to an honest person, that is) the point is that the children who lost a parent through death was not brought into the world knowing that death would deprive the child. In the case of homosexuals, as well as heteros equally devoid of morals, the child's right to live with both biological parents was purposely ignored in favor of the self-gratification of the alleged adults who now force the child into that situation of lacking either a mother or a father.

Marshall Art said...


"The argument is that two of one or the other is better than only one of one or the other. Refute that."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11150-013-9220-y

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

Of course the Regnerus study and the review of pro-homosexual parenting studied done by Loren Marks reviewed in the following (links included):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all#pagebreak

Then this most recent study:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

But OH! you'll say. I was referring to two homos versus one parent. Comparing apples to oranges doesn't cut it, though that's just what Marks found was common in the pro-homo parenting studies the APA claims proves there is no difference. They often compared, say, lesbians against single parents. A far more relevant question is the impact of homo parents versus moral non-homo parents of character. A more difficult challenge, but a more honest one that pretending that two of low character (homosexuals) are better for a child than one of righteous character.

In the meantime, you have only assertion on your side, while I have loads of stats demonstrating the unwholesome nature of the homosexual lifestyle that the activist hides or dismisses as reflective of mythical causes.

"Hah! You're funny. It was you who said that Loving regarded marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

-snip-

"I cited Loving wherein one man and one woman was not mentioned at all because it wasn't at issue."

Indeed I did say that Loving regarded marriage as one man one woman. There was no need to actually mention the specific words "one man/one woman" because as you said, THAT was NOT the issue, particularly since the case involved the union of one man and one woman. No, the use of the word "persons" in place of "one man/one woman" was in reference to race, as in "white persons" versus "black persons" uniting, but never white men with black men or any men uniting with other men regardless of color. You need to revise history to make your argument work. In other words, you lie once again.

Marshall Art said...

"Is there some way you can post a picture of your law degree?"

It is stupid to assume that because you lack the ability to understand why Ginsburg's reference was irrelevant that only one with a law degree can do so. It is as if you have some fanatical, religious-like devotion to the omniscience of lawyers and judges. Or, that you cannot determine right and wrong, truth and falsehood without some lawyer or judge telling you the difference.

"Baker was not irrelevant since the plaintiffs had made the argument that Baker "foreclosed" and further review by the court."

I didn't say Baker was irrelevant. Indeed it is absolutely relevant in that it involved SCOTUS affirming the decision there, which was that there is no Constitutional problem with affirming the true definition of marriage and holding that two of the same gender do not qualify for state licensing of their union. I don't believe it even dealt with whatever sex laws were on the books, as the decision focused on the demand for a license from the state for a homosexual union.

The irrelevance was in regards to citing the presence of sex laws as if that had anything to do with the Constitutional issues regarding equal application of the laws regarding what marriage is and who qualifies for a license in the state of Minnesota. You fail yet again.

"So if the people of a state voted to define "arms" as knives and bows and arrows, they would be exercising their protected right to self-determination immune from any court that might reject that definition?"

Doubtful. Not without once again revising history so as to ignore the clear intent of the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights. However, if the people of the state were so inclined as to be so stupid, and you were just peachy with people walking around with bows and arrows and knives of all sorts openly for protection, then I would see it as their right as a sovereign state, and move to a more sensible locale.

"Arms" refer to whatever tool one carries or uses for protection. The question here refers to something that is indeed Constitutionally protected specifically, and I don't know that any one state can quibble with regards to what kind of arms one can carry. Recent SCOTUS decisions seem to support that.

Marshall Art said...

"Circular logic. They are being denied legal recognition of their union because their union isn't recognized by law. They want their union to be recognized by law."

The circular logic is yours. Mine is straightforward. They are being denied recognition because their unions are, nor can be, marriages. A marriage is a one man/one woman union.

"The state has no legal reason not to recognize their union."

Obviously, since the definition of marriage is one man/one woman, and that definition has been codified into the laws of various states, the legal reason is homosexual unions are not of the one man/one woman variety and thus do not qualify for licensing.

"Because there is a rational basis for not recognizing other relationships. None exists for denying marriage to same sex couples."

Actually, there is less reason to deny polygamous, incestuous and younger people (except for the polygamous, incestuous and young who are homosexual) because they are at least male/female relationships. Those are far closer to the ideal, and as we all know, historically each is far more common than are homosexual unions. You have no basis for denying any of them if allow homosexuals.

"Ridiculous! Trying to choose is not a qualification. Being adult is a qualification. Being of sound mind is a qualification. Being unmarried is a qualification."

True, but choosing a person of the opposite sex is indeed a qualification and it is mandatory where morally bankrupt judges have not overturned the will and good sense of the people. As is choosing a person not closely related, or currently married (nor being currently married one's self) or a person of legal age.

""The criteria for marriage were firmly, logically and justifiably set."

But not permanently."


If any aren't, none are, including incest and polygamy and the underage. You want it your way and thus suppose the criteria shouldn't be permanent. Typical childishness of the sexually immoral liberal left.

"Yeah, we already know that all judges besides Ray Moore are morally corrupt."

Obviously not true given that a recent district court ruled in favor of traditional marriage. But we do know that all judges who ruled in favor of SSM are indeed morally corrupt. Their rulings are evidence of their corruption.

"You said it. Marriage between an elderly person and a young person...snip...They are all legally recognized marriages."

Yes, and they all fall within the specific definition of marriage. Thanks for the help.

"Again you have the "compelling interest" bass ackwards. The compelling interest is only a reason to deny marriage, not grant it."

Not at all. The state licenses marriages between men and women because it sees a compelling interest for the state to do so. It does not see a similar or equal interest in recognizing all relationships, regardless of how loudly and petulantly the homosexual whines. Without seeing that interest which is based upon the unique nature of the male/female unions, it would not bother with any relationship as regards marriage. This is the definitive fact you homosexuals ignore or pretend is unimportant.

Marshall Art said...

"You don't have to regard squat. Just the county clerk does."

Another idiotic statement (more so than most of your other statements). If we are going to allow judges to dictate our law from the bench, a clear violation of their Constitutionally enumerated duties, then we all must regard what isn't marriage as marriage. This is clearly the case as several small business owners now being sued have found out, as have many who have lost their jobs merely for standing up for truth and reason as regards marriage.

"Yes, it must be what the judge says in matters of law."

No. It mustn't. That's why I used the extreme example of you being a dog (you're really a jackass). In ruling on legislation as to its Constitutionality, he can't just redefine words in order to find the legislation unConstitutional. That's what these judges have been doing with SSM. They are redefining the "marriage" in order to insist that marriage laws are applied unequally and sad little homos are being denied. They are not.

""defenders of real marriage"

I am a defender of real marriage."


Again, you prove yourself an abject liar. But you've established that long ago. No need to do so again. It's not like it isn't obvious. You defend that to which you and other homosexuals have applied the term "marriage". But it isn't real marriage.

"Absurd. How will you live differently when SSM is recognized in your state?"

I will have to provide my products or talents for sale to those who wish to purchase them to celebrate deviant behavior which would make me complicit in that celebration in breech of the tenets of my faith and good sense. I will have to allow my kids to be taught lies regarding human sexuality. I will have to stifle my opposition, nor allow it to be published publicly for fear of losing my job. I will have to close my counseling clinic, denying help for those who do not wish to live with deviant sexual desires, such as homosexual attraction. I will have to risk exposing my family and property to attack and harassment should my support for legislation seeking to reverse pro-homosexual advances be made known.

Good enough for you?

"No your answer is really stupid. If there was in fact and obviously no denial, why isn't each and every court laughing the plaintiffs out of court?"

No, your counter question to my response to your first is really stupid. The answer is obviously because they have found sympathetic judges to support their agenda in court.

Marshall Art said...

"What is your stand on same-sex marriage in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and DC? Same-sex marriage was approved by the state legislature or popular vote in the case of each of these."

I addressed the three that approved deviancy after a vote by the people of those states. I believe that had those who didn't vote felt that perversion would become the law of the state, turnout would have been different and likely not have resulted in passage of immorality. I also believe that of those who voted in favor of distorting reality, were they subject to a truthful understanding of the issue of homosexuality, including the truth about people like Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard, stats regarding "spousal" abuse and other hidden facts about the lifestyle, the percentage of child molesters who are homosexual, and a host of other facts that homosexuals and their enablers will not allow to see the light of day, fewer would have voted to allow SSM.

As to the other ten states, I know from my own, that some Republicans "evolved" while in office and had they done so before the election previous to their support of legislation granting SSM, they would not have been elected to vote in support. More than likely the people of other states were likewise upset with the betrayal of their representatives in their states' legislatures.

Regardless, what legislatures do on every issue is not always what the constituency would prefer and an issue such as this should not be decided without first having the issue decided by the people through the voting process. There is no reason to push this crap through like they did with Obamacare, ignoring the will of the constituency.

Thus, if you add all the people of these thirteen to those of the remaining states where judges overturned the will of the people, I would wager that SSM would not be legal anywhere. Support grew out of exposure to lies and distortion, not because people actually "evolved".

Marshall Art said...

I have to take more time than I have right now to review Posner's decision. I am about to begin my work week which involves long hours that do not allow for proper perusal of a forty page legal document. But right off the bat I see two problems:

1. The decision does not include a transcript of the trial, which would better expose the accuracy of claims Posner will make in his rulings. This is important because of point...

2. The first paragraph;

Formally these cases are about discrimination against the small homosexual minority in the United States. But at a deeper level, as we shall see, they are about the welfare of American children. The argument that the states press hard-
est in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only
reason government encourages marriage
is to induce heterosexuals to marry
so that there will be fewer “accidental births,” which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to
the mother (unaided by the father)or to foster care. Overlooked by this
argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their
adoptive parents were married.


1. The argument is NOT about discrimination against homosexuals, no matter how much they wish to portray it as such. Right here we see a judge who is sympathetic to the agenda for daring to suggest such a thing.

2. While it is about the welfare of children in part, not so in the way he will try to make it seem, as this paragraph itself clearly points out.

3. The argument regarding "accidental births" is not one I've heard put forth as a primary argument, and without a transcript of the trial, I cannot assume it was even made there. I have heard from someone following the case closely that the lawyers arguing for real marriage did a poor job in responding to Posner's idiotic questions and objections. (If I can find that article, I will link to it, but I don't recall how I came across it.)

4. There is a wealth of data that suggests kids are NOT better off being adopted by homosexuals if every criterion for measuring their welfare is considered. It is also the case that many good placement services have been closed simply because homos whined about not being considered as the proper destination for orphaned kids. It is also the case that mere economics does not equate to a better situation for any kid.

This is all I have time for now, but clearly there will be a host of problems with Posner's ruling if this first paragraph is any indication. I'm sure my feelings regarding judges in these cases will be more than justified and confirmed the more I read.

Anonymous said...

Oral Argument Baskin v. Bogan, 7th Circuit Court

This is a combination of 2 cases. The second case, Wolf v. Walker, continues after the first.

Anonymous said...

A better link to Wolf v. Walker is here.

Anonymous said...

So much to consider.

"we must respect that those three unfortunate states chose abomination over reason"

Why do you argue ANY OTHER point if your final argument is that SSM is an abomination? Because you've just admitted that SSM was made legal by the voice and vote of the people without judicial corruption but then condemned those voters as choosing "abomination".

There does not have to be a benefit to the state for recognizing SSM (although benefits clearly exist). There has to be a harm to the state in order to deny SSM. As demonstrated in the 7th Circuit case (oral arguments and decision) no such harm could be named by the state.

"The negative impact has been explained without refutation".

As shown in this case and others, the state has failed time after time to show any negative impact of SSM, much less a negative impact that out weighs the positive impacts.

"the child's right to live with both biological parents"

Where is this "right" enumerated? Is there something in the Constitution outlawing the death of a parent?

First link does not compare SS households to single parent households, therefore irrelevant.

Link two says that domestic violence among same-sex partners has been under reported and does not claim that incidence is significantly greater among same-sex partners. It also says nothing about same-sex partners with children in the family, therefore irrelevant.

Link three is anecdotes of four people, none of whom came from married SS families. There is no indication that they would have been worse off if their parents were married or that outside of specific details, their problems were any greater in significance than those of children of unmarried heterosexual couples, therefore, irrelevant.

Link 4, the Regnerus study, I'll just give you this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

Your most recent study includes a SS parent sample equal to 0.2% of the entire population studied. Furthermore, no comparison of this sort is valid without accounting for marriage. It is unfair to compare a population of children of likely mostly married parents with one with likely no married parents. Furthermore it ignores children in single parent households, therefore, irrelevant.

"A far more relevant question is the impact of homo parents versus moral non-homo parents of character."

No court case that I've ever heard about argues about moral vs amoral or immoral parents. Since there is no final arbiter of morals in American jurisprudence, it's not relevant to the issue.

"unwholesome nature of the homosexual lifestyle"

What is "the homosexual lifestyle"?

Anonymous said...

"Ginsburg's reference was irrelevant"

Ginsburg is not the only judge saying that Baker no longer holds. Posner did as well.

"Or, that you cannot determine right and wrong, truth and falsehood without some lawyer or judge telling you the difference."

This is not a discussion of right or wrong. It's a discussion about legal recognition of same sex marriage. It is about harm and benefit. If it were about right or wrong, it would have been over in about two posts.

"You fail yet again"

No, the point is that most judges believe that given jurisprudence since Baker, it no longer holds. Your original point was that courts today ignore Baker, and my counter is that they don't ignore it since both Baskin and Hollingsworth cite it. They simply say it no longer holds.

"I would see it as their right as a sovereign state, and move to a more sensible locale."

So the Constitution is not supreme as far as you are concerned? You haven't read Article Six paragraph 2?

"They are being denied recognition because their unions are, nor can be, marriages."

Today they can be in 37 states.

"Obviously, since the definition of marriage is one man/one woman"

No, it is not. That is YOUR definition.

"as we all know, historically each is far more common than are homosexual unions"

I don't think you can back up that claim.

"You have no basis for denying any of them if allow homosexuals."

Simply false. There is no connection.

"where morally bankrupt judges"

There you go again. There is no arbiter of morality in American jurisprudence.

"If any aren't, none are, including incest and polygamy and the underage."

That may be, and someday people may make convincing argument for those cases. But they haven't to date and they are unconnected to the current issue.

"Obviously not true given that a recent district court ruled in favor of traditional marriage."

They didn't rule in favor of "traditional marriage". They ruled that the states should decide. That three judge panel is the only court to do so.

"But we do know that all judges who ruled in favor of SSM are indeed morally corrupt. Their rulings are evidence of their corruption."

Yada, yada, yada.

"The state licenses marriages between men and women because it sees a compelling interest for the state to do so. It does not see a similar or equal interest in recognizing all relationships"

Wrong again. It doesn't have to have an interest to recognize SSM. It has to have a compelling interest to treat same-sex couples differently. It hasn't and can't.

Anonymous said...

"They are redefining the 'marriage'"

No they are not. Marriage is a civilly-recognized union with benefits, responsibilities. and costs to each person. While traditionally this was most often recognized only between a man and a woman, as the 7th Circuit said, "tradition" is not a reason for exclusion (Loving). The definition has not changed; only who is officially recognized is changing.

"But it isn't real marriage."

Of course it is. See the real definition of marriage above.

"I will have to provide my products or talents for sale to those who wish to purchase them to celebrate deviant behavior which would make me complicit in that celebration in breech of the tenets of my faith and good sense."

No you wouldn't. You could make your business exclusive to members of a club and refuse non-members.

"I will have to stifle my opposition, nor allow it to be published publicly for fear of losing my job."

You could say that about a lot of things.

" I will have to risk exposing my family and property to attack and harassment should my support for legislation seeking to reverse pro-homosexual advances be made known. "

You could say that about a lot of things.

"The answer is obviously because they have found sympathetic judges to support their agenda in court."

Show me a case where an unsympathetic judge has thrown it out.

Marshall Art said...

IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR "ANONYMOUS"!!!

My work schedule is such that I for periods of three-four days, I cannot spend appropriate time to respond to voluminous postings by you. Simply picking through to find which are actually worthy of response is time consuming in itself, much less actually doing what is necessary to respond to those the I choose to regard as worthy (particularly when some research is needed to provide supporting evidence). Thus, I warn you not to post any further comments until I can catch up. Unlike you, I like to actually study links you provide. This is necessary in order to fully explain to you why your links are crap for the purpose of supporting your arguments. At present, you have posted a link to a 40 page opinion by Posner, and then two more links to legal stuff, followed by two more lengthy comments, some of which I will respond to now.

I suggest, then, the following:

1. Post your comments to MicrosoftWord or some such, that you can save until such time as your comments will be allowed.

2. Make sure that any references to studies or legal opinions come with, not only links, but some indication of where I can find the specific point being discussed. From there I can decide whether or not more study is required. You have a bad habit of merely asserting and then expecting me to find where you saw what you think you've seen. Give a guy a break.

3. Restrain yourself from snipping tiny portions of one of my comments and then expecting me to find the context from which it was drawn. In other words, copy and paste a greater portion. Too often you haven't even addressed the actual point at all and the copied quote of mine does not actually make the point I intended to convey. Thus, it akin to a straw man argument on your part.

From this point forward, I will delete your subsequent comments sight unseen until such time that I have caught up with all the sure to be waste of time links as well as responses that aren't nearly as compelling and victorious as you surely like to believe they are.

Marshall Art said...

"Why do you argue ANY OTHER point if your final argument is that SSM is an abomination? Because you've just admitted that SSM was made legal by the voice and vote of the people without judicial corruption but then condemned those voters as choosing "abomination"."

They HAVE chosen abomination. Your immoral belief to the contrary makes no difference. Of course I would "condemn" those who support abomination as equally immoral. The larger question is why they did so. You would naturally like to believe they did so for noble reasons, as if that it is possible to have noble reasons for supporting immorality. But I posit that of those who do support this abomination, most, or at least far too many, are deceived by the lies put forth by activists and enablers. They've been discussed and proven to be lies, and in some cases, by other homosexuals of note.

"There does not have to be a benefit to the state for recognizing SSM (although benefits clearly exist)."

You have yet to provide any hint as to what those benefits to the state are. I'm guessing they depend on those lies, to which I previously referred, in order to make whatever case you think exists that any benefit actually exists.

More importantly, your comment indicates a total lack of understanding by what is meant with regards to demonstrating benefits to the state. Government involvement in marriage was due to the people seeing a benefit of marriage to the people of the state that outweighed no involvement by the people's government. One way or the other, the state is affected and the people had decided that the costs of not encouraging lasting unions between men and women and the children their unions produced as a result of their sexual behavior was worth government involvement through licensing.

Now, you expect that the people MUST see the same interest in a type of relationship that has no chance of producing kids and pretend not doing so would have the same negative consequences for the state. It can't possibly because their sexual behavior does not result in offspring.

Here I must warn you against conflating the actions of immoral people using artificial means with the natural consequences of of heterosexual behavior, which is what is what compelled state interest in the first place. I argue from that perspective, and you deceitfully argue from the perspective of homos finding ways to bring kids into their relationships and then pretending it is the same thing and equal to why the state took interest in human relationships of this kind in the first place. This is why your arguments fail, because you lack the honesty of focusing on the real issues at the heart of the matter.

More later.... do NOT respond until I'm finished.

Marshall Art said...

"As shown in this case and others, the state has failed time after time to show any negative impact of SSM, much less a negative impact that out weighs the positive impacts."

This is an absolute lie, both in that there are no negatives and that they are outweighed by positives you can't seem to spell out. Worse, you contradict yourself in the very same sentence. Either there are negatives that have been presented or there aren't. Yet, you suggest there have been but they are outweighed. Make up your lying mind.

""the child's right to live with both biological parents"

Where is this "right" enumerated? Is there something in the Constitution outlawing the death of a parent?"


You're going to dare demand that I produce where this right is enumerated when you homosexuals cannot point to where marriage is enumerated? The gall! Clearly the concern of homos are of their own selves, never of the children about whom they claim to care so much.

Your responses to my links are laughable. You are basically dismissing them due to the rarity of marriage licenses granted the homos in the studies. This is ludicrous. Licenses do not factor into the longevity of a union. If one or both are not committed to the union, it wont' last regardless of whether or not there is a piece of paper registered with the state. To cite the lack of a license as being meaningful in explaining the disparities between hetero unions and homo unions is just another piece of evidence that indicts the psychological stability of homosexuals, and thus for the negative impact on kids in their care. Thanks for the help. With friends like you, the agenda needs no enemies.

The fact is that there are no studies of which I am aware that make a direct comparison between homo parenting versus single person parenting that have not compare non-representative samples. That is to say, what little there is compares well off, recruited-for-the-study lesbians with single mothers of any kind (financial status, educational status, etc). Put yet another way, no apples to apples studies, such as ivy-league educated lesbian parents versus ivy-league educated single mothers/fathers, or homos from the hood versus single mothers/fathers from the hood.

But what we do have speaks volumes about the negative impact on children raised by homosexuals due to higher rates of depression and mental issues, spread of disease, alcohol and drug abuse, promiscuity, separations and other issues, all of which occur in higher percentages than their heterosexual counterparts.

Bottom line: You simply cannot make the case that kids are better off with two homo parents versus one biological parent.

Marshall Art said...

"No court case that I've ever heard about argues about moral vs amoral or immoral parents. Since there is no final arbiter of morals in American jurisprudence, it's not relevant to the issue."

If it is not relevant, it is only because it has been decreed so by the court, or the relevance of the morality of homosexual behavior is ignored. Indeed, it is purposely avoided and assumed to be morally equal to sex within a real marriage. But if we're to speak of the impact on children, then we must deal with the morality of the behavior for the sake of the children. And outcomes revealed by studies that looking at adults raised by homosexuals demonstrate that impact clearly, regardless of your desperate plugging of the ears while yelling "LALALALA!!"

"What is "the homosexual lifestyle"?"

From the homo playbook, another stupid question put forth as though it was thoughtful, when the mere asking is deceit.

"This is not a discussion of right or wrong. It's a discussion about legal recognition of same sex marriage. It is about harm and benefit. If it were about right or wrong, it would have been over in about two posts."

Of course it's about right and wrong. But like the typical leftist supporter of sexual immorality, you skip that very important segment of the discussion so as to more easily legitimize your position. Harm and benefit go hand in hand with right versus wrong. Obviously, harm indicates wrong/immoral, while benefit often indicate right/moral. The only recent the post has lasted this long is the same reason all others related to the issue of homosexuality have lasted as long as they have: immoral people like you are of low character and cannot and will not deal with the issue from a level of morality and honor. It would be over because you can't justify or rationalize it as moral behavior or morally benign.

"No, the point is that most judges believe that given jurisprudence since Baker, it no longer holds. Your original point was that courts today ignore Baker, and my counter is that they don't ignore it since both Baskin and Hollingsworth cite it."

That makes two cases out of how many? And that assumes references to Baker in those two cases were actually dismissing it as irrelevant. I'll find out when I finish going over the rulings, but your citation of Ginsburg doesn't bode well as her citation did not negate the precedent set by Baker at all.

More later...do NOT respond until I'm finished.

Feodor said...

The Bible thinks the world is flat. And you, Marshall, find the lobster to be more lovable than people. And, at least, in your case I would agree.

Marshall Art said...

Wow...what an idiot. The Bible does not "think" the world is flat. And I have no idea from what dark, smelly orifice you pulled that bit about lobster. It makes no sense.

Feodor said...

Marshall you claim to "beieve" in scripture but you don't know much of it.

Daniel 4:10-11: the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

Either scripture is not interested in being scientific, or Marshall doesn't read what he claims to believe.

Marshall Art said...

Either feo is not interested in truth and reason (rhetorical...we know he is not), or he is just a complete idiot (also rhetorical...we know he is). Using dreams, visions and metaphor to pretend the Bible teaches the earth is flat is the height of desperation and deceitfulness. Typical of a false priest.

Feodor said...

I don't see scripture pouring forth from your hands like it does from mine. Don't tell me you don't have biblical witness for your sidestepping avoidant anxious talk?

Marshall Art said...

I have the very same passages you presented. They do not serve as evidence of your nonsensical notions regarding what the Bible "thinks". Try again, loser.

Feodor said...

And there we have - once again - your abdication of honesty.

Marshall Art said...

And there we have - once again - feo's assertion without evidential support. Give it up. Your attempts to disparage me and the positions I hold (regardless of how poorly you even understand them) only expose you for the false priest and pseudo-Christian you are. You're a reprobate, heretic and teller of lies. Why you wish to continue proving it here is beyond my ability to comprehend, but prove it you do as if it is your mission in life. Kudos to you for your great success in accomplishing that goal.

Marshall Art said...

Regarding the Posner ruling, I have decided to post as I go. Time constraints may prevent my dealing with all forty pages. Thus, should at my conclusion there remains some point I did not cover that might be considered by Jim to be worthy of discussion, I'll address those concerns at that time. But for now, this is what I have so far:

Page 2

“Formally these cases are about discrimination against the small homosexual minority in the United States.”
Right away we see that this decision is flawed. These cases are about the true definition of marriage, that is, what marriage is and why it is important. In that sense stated by Posner, it is equally about any other claimant that does not qualify under the definition: one man/one woman, not closely related, not currently married and of legal age.
From that same paragraph:
“Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.”
This presupposes that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children at all, or that it is in the best interests of children to be adopted by homosexuals. Worse, it takes an after-the-fact view of the situation, by which I mean that homosexuals are wrongly being allowed to adopt children and then crying that they aren’t being treated equally to those who either have children normally or are, because they are heterosexual couples, satisfactory adoptive parents.

There is a reference to the 14th Amendment and it provides a good opportunity to address the common misapplication of that to support SSM. The following link provides a detailed response to Constitutional issues that Posner lacks the smarts or honesty to consider:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/memo-to-supreme-court-state-marriage-laws-are-constitutional
We can see the above addresses the concerns on page 3…
“We’ll see that the governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a “reasonable basis” for forbidding same-sex marriage.”
He goes on in this paragraph to speak of “immutable” characteristics. This is clearly a case of judicial idiocy as there is no scientific proof of immutability, and regardless of whether or not there could be (there isn’t), it is irrelevant to the question of what marriage is and why the state takes interest in the first place.

Marshall Art said...

At this point, Posner begins to list four points he believes are critical in determining the proper ruling, yet they do not seem to address the most crucial question of what marriage is and why the state takes interest in the first place. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this critical question has not even been acknowledged thus far. Perhaps it will be explained later.

Due to time constraints, I will allow Jim to comment on what little I've provided thus far on the Posner decision. It doesn't mean I'll respond to any of his comments, as doing so might derail the desire to see just what Posner said that Jim finds so compelling and beyond reproach. In the few pages I've reviewed, there seems little that truly is. I can see already that Posner makes assumptions and assertions regarding both the case for traditional marriage and the case for SSM...assumptions and assertions that cannot help but result in a favorable ruling for homosexuals, but none that truly justify such a ruling. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

Whew! I've been to Europe and back since you last posted. :-)

"Right away we see that this decision is flawed."

No we don't. No it isn't. The definition of marriage has varied over the millenia and is barely even raised as an issue in the arguments. To the extent that it is raised, the answer is that so-called "tradition" cannot be used as a defense for restricting or denying rights. See Loving.

"This presupposes that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children at all"

A moot point since they ARE and have been allowed to do so. That bell has been rung.

"or that it is in the best interests of children to be adopted by homosexuals."

There is no proof that it is not, and at best one can only say that this is in dispute.

"Worse, it takes an after-the-fact view of the situation, by which I mean that homosexuals are wrongly being allowed to adopt children"

You can have this opinion all day long. It's irrelevant. The fact is that it is legal and that will not change.

"Posner lacks the smarts or honesty to consider"

This is laughable considering the respect he has enjoyed throughout his career.

"it is irrelevant to the question of what marriage is and why the state takes interest in the first place."

If the state "takes interest" in marriage in the first place, that interest must apply to all examples of it. If the interest of the state is the care for the biological offspring of heterosexual couples, then it has no interest in any other marriage and infertile couples must be excluded. So must couples with no intention of having children.

"This is clearly a case of judicial idiocy as there is no scientific proof of immutability"

There is no scientific proof against immutability. When did you choose to be straight?

Anonymous said...

"He goes on in this paragraph to speak of “immutable” characteristics."

Do you have a problem with discriminating on the basis of religion?

Marshall Art said...

"Whew! I've been to Europe and back since you last posted."

Good for you. I hope you had a great time. Where'd you go?

"No we don't. No it isn't. The definition of marriage has varied over the millenia and is barely even raised as an issue in the arguments."

If the definition of marriage isn't even addressed, then that alone is all the evidence we need to know the ruling is horribly flawed. How can one rule on that which is unknown? The definition must be addressed in there somewhere. If it wasn't raised in the arguments, why didn't Posner raise it himself? This indicates a preconceived notion on his part and likely a pro-homosexual disposition that could only result in a ruling favorable to homosexuals.

"To the extent that it is raised, the answer is that so-called "tradition" cannot be used as a defense for restricting or denying rights."

And right away we have flawed reasoning. First, "tradition" is not, nor has ever been, the sole reason for opposing SSM.

Second, a definition is not akin to tradition. Either a word means something or it doesn't, especially when proposing legislation or in citing previous legislation. To suggest that "marriage" means what it does simply due to it being a traditional understanding still requires that citing past law take into account what the word meant at the time in order to determine if it had been applied equally. To suggest that the ruling in, say, Loving v Virginia can be cited to support SSM, is flawed since the word was, at that time, understood by its true definition, with no reference anywhere in the case to same-sex unions.

What the "can't use tradition" argument means in reality is that right up until the time of the trial, the word had a specific meaning that before the trial is even over, is corrupted in order to rule in favor of homosexuals.

Third, the proper meaning of the word "marriage" is definitively relevant to the question of whether or not the state should recognize SSMs. What marriage is and why it matters is the whole point, and without defining it first, the rest is meaningless theater.

""This presupposes that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children at all"

A moot point since they ARE and have been allowed to do so."


It is not a moot point. The fact that "that bell has been rung" is a problem. It should never have been rung in the first place, but now that it has, it is assumed to be unworthy of addressing simply because it has been rung. That's simply ludicrous.

In addition, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the state is compelled to take interest in that type of union and why. THAT question is resolved before the union actually takes place, as it did when the state first got involved in marriage in this country. It is this: "Why should we care about two people getting together?" The answer was because when a man and woman get together, the potential for pregnancy is real and likely. That answer compelled state interest.

"There is no proof that it is not, and at best one can only say that this is in dispute."

There is far more credible evidence that indicates children suffer by being raised by homosexuals than not, but certainly more to than enough to put a moratorium on the practice until the issue can be studied over the long term. Thus far, actual longitudinal studies indicate that its a bad idea.

Marshall Art said...

"You can have this opinion all day long. It's irrelevant. The fact is that it is legal and that will not change."

Oh, it's greatly relevant to those of us who truly care about the welfare of children. Homosexuals and their enablers don't and acquired legal permission before determining just what the impact on children truly is. The fact is that though it is legal now, it can certainly change, and hopefully will before too many kids are adversely affected.

"If the state "takes interest" in marriage in the first place, that interest must apply to all examples of it."

This is a twisted understanding of "equal application of the law" if it is to mean that ANY union to which the component members apply the term "marriage" must be legally recognized. That makes the word entirely meaningless. It's inane.

"If the interest of the state is the care for the biological offspring of heterosexual couples, then it has no interest in any other marriage and infertile couples must be excluded. So must couples with no intention of having children."

An absolute childish demand. Such situations do not undermine the public meaning of marriage. They still represent, at least outwardly, what marriage is. They are still of the same kind of relationship. Two men or two women are never of that kind or type of marriage that reproduces (without outside assistance, which doesn't matter to the argument in any way). What's more, determining which couples can't or won't reproduce might be satisfying to whiny supporters of sexually immoral pairings, it represents the kind of government intrusiveness these same whiners wine about with regards to their deviant unions. Indeed, SSM results in far more government involvement in private lives than maintaining the status quo.

"There is no scientific proof against immutability. When did you choose to be straight?"

Another childish response. It is the homosexual who pretends he has no choice and thus that lack of choice stands as an affirmative argument for his demand. If the notion is put forth for the purpose of justifying the demand, some proof that the notion is true in any sense is a reasonable request. As to proof against, it requires objective attention to those who claim to have once been homosexual and are no more.

"Do you have a problem with discriminating on the basis of religion?"

I'm assuming this is another attempt to sidetrack the discussion, as it has no relation to my highlighted comment it follows. Nonetheless, I have a problem with the government discriminating against people, and I have a problem with the government telling me I cannot. Whether I choose to or not is irrelevant. More to the point, however, and this is a truth the homosexual activist/enabler lacks the honesty and integrity to acknowledge, there is a vast distinction between discriminating against a person versus discriminating between the various behaviors in which a person might engage.

Anonymous said...

Paris for our 25th anniversary. We had a lot of fun, thank you.

"The definition must be addressed in there somewhere. If it wasn't raised in the arguments, why didn't Posner raise it himself?"

That would be arguing the case for one of the sides. The judges hear and decide on the case that is argued before them.

"This indicates a preconceived notion on his part and likely a pro-homosexual disposition that could only result in a ruling favorable to homosexuals."

Baloney.

"First, "tradition" is not, nor has ever been, the sole reason for opposing SSM."

Nobody ever said it was, but it is the essence of the changing definition argument, so it's one of the main arguments.

"Either a word means something or it doesn't".

You know this is a silly idea. Words mean lots of things and lots of words mean the same thing.

"What marriage is and why it matters is the whole point"

No it isn't. The whole point is why should same-sex couples be denied the legal recognition of their marriage.

"The answer was because when a man and woman get together, the potential for pregnancy is real and likely."

For some people and not for a lot of people.

"if it is to mean that ANY union to which the component members apply the term "marriage" must be legally recognized."

I'll say this again since you don't get it. The state does not have to legally recognize a "union" if it has a compelling reason not to. So far no state has been able to do so.

"They are still of the same kind of relationship."

Two people wishing to be married?

"Two men or two women are never of that kind or type of marriage that reproduces"

Neither are an infertile couple.

"discriminating between the various behaviors in which a person might engage."

You have a dirty mind.

Your entire position is based on your personal aversion to homosexuality. This aversion has nothing to do with the law or to civil marriage. The real issue at the heart of the matter is legal: what is the harm of SSM that overrides SS couples’ right to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples.

Marshall Art said...

"That would be arguing the case for one of the sides. The judges hear and decide on the case that is argued before them."

No, that would be deciding the case based on reality. How can one rule on marriage without an understanding of what it is?

"Nobody ever said it was, but it is the essence of the changing definition argument, so it's one of the main arguments."

And tradition is used as a legitimate argument for maintaining the status quo. If he ignored tradition in any way, if he proclaimed that it is not a legtimate argument, then he is more than going against precedent. He's making up his own rules.

""Either a word means something or it doesn't".

You know this is a silly idea. Words mean lots of things and lots of words mean the same thing."


Not silly at all. Essential. A legitimate ruling requires an understanding of what is meant when words are used. Everyone has to be on the same page. Past rulings cited to come to a current decision requires that one cite that past ruling based on what was meant at the time, not how a word might be used now. Otherwise the current ruling is based on lies.

"No it isn't. The whole point is why should same-sex couples be denied the legal recognition of their marriage."

This is idiotic and circular reasoning. What marriage is and why it matters provides the reasons why the state takes interest in hetero unions in the first place, reasons not existent in homo unions.

"For some people and not for a lot of people."

Doesn't matter in the least. The hetero union isn't required to produce offspring, but it only matters that the hetero union, IN GENERAL, is the only union that is likely to produce offspring. Here is a good explanation for why the "infertility" argument is weak whine it is. A more detailed discussion can be found in the books, Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, and What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George. Anderson also has essays on the subject that can be found at the Heritage Foundation website.

Marshall Art said...

"I'll say this again since you don't get it. The state does not have to legally recognize a "union" if it has a compelling reason not to. So far no state has been able to do so."

First of all, you have this backwards. You need to show why the state MUST take an interest in a relationship it doesn't find an interest in by itself. The reason it takes an interest in hetero relationships does not exist in homo relationships and therefore it is inane to demand that it should then treat homo relationships as if they were no different than hetero relationships.

Secondly, if the homo relationship does not qualify as a marriage by definition, which it doesn't, it cannot justly be referred to as a marriage. It again goes back to what marriage is and why it matters.

"Your entire position is based on your personal aversion to homosexuality. This aversion has nothing to do with the law or to civil marriage. The real issue at the heart of the matter is legal: what is the harm of SSM that overrides SS couples’ right to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples."

Nonsense. My "aversion" may be personal, but it is based on realities and facts, not just the truth from Scripture or any "ick" factor crapola (indeed, a gag reflex response is just as likely with any number of hetero couples I've known throughout my life---most people regard as "icky" the thought of their own parents having sex).

The legal issue, however, does not require explaining harm of allowing SSM, though there is plenty. The legal issue begins with acknowledging what marriage is, why it matters, and whether there is a benefit or legitimate reason to expand the definition to include that which does not by itself provoke state interest. There is no such argument that cannot also be used for any possible arrangement of people and animals thereby making the word "marriage" completely meaningless. Certainly none YOU'VE ever been able to provide.

Anonymous said...

"No, that would be deciding the case based on reality. How can one rule on marriage without an understanding of what it is?"

The judge rules on the case before him.

"If he ignored tradition in any way, if he proclaimed that it is not a legtimate argument, then he is more than going against precedent. He's making up his own rules."

Loving contradicts that.

"A legitimate ruling requires an understanding of what is meant when words are used."

When it comes to the law, it is quite clear what the meaning of marriage is.

"What marriage is and why it matters provides the reasons why the state takes interest in hetero unions in the first place, reasons not existent in homo unions."

Again, you have no understanding of the law. The issue is that of denying some couples rights enjoyed by others. The law doesn't need reasons to allow liberty; it needs reasons to deny them.

"Here is a good explanation for why the "infertility" argument is weak whine it is."

The infertility argument is not used to justify SSM. It is "used" to demonstrate the absurdity of requiring couples to be biologically able to procreate in order to have their marriages recognized.

"You need to show why the state MUST take an interest in a relationship it doesn't find an interest in by itself."

Only among your debate club. Not in law.

"Secondly, if the homo relationship does not qualify as a marriage by definition, which it doesn't, it cannot justly be referred to as a marriage. It again goes back to what marriage is and why it matters."

It does in dozens of states. If the couple has a license, it has a legal marriage.

"The legal issue, however, does not require explaining harm of allowing SSM"

Nonsense! It is a key requirement of the law. That is why it is considered in almost every case and why SSM almost always wins.

"There is no such argument that cannot also be used for any possible arrangement of people and animals"

Why shouldn't people be able to marry animals?

Marshall Art said...

"The judge rules on the case before him."

This is an incredibly preposterous and inane implication that a judge rules on anything without some understanding of what words mean. Even more so considering the case at hand was not an argument over the definition of the word "marriage", but whether or not laws in place were unConstitutional. In order to determine that, an understanding of the correct definition might be argued, but that would require the homosexuals to demonstrate that "marriage" ever meant anything other than the union of one man and one woman, not for the righteous side to demonstrate that it never meant anything but. To that end, tradition most certainly is a legitimate and essential factor in determining that very point. There has never been any widely held notion that marriage meant merely the union of any two people regardless of the gender of either, and certainly never in this country's history. This is never more obvious considering how very recently homosexual practice was outlawed in every state of the union. There is no way that with that in mind a union based on an outlawed relationship could in any way be possibly viewed as a "marriage".

Your statement above requires the presiding judge to be ignorant of what is basic understanding.

"Loving contradicts that."

No it did not. Loving spoke to a specific tradition, one not long held actually, but not "tradition as an argument" itself.

"When it comes to the law, it is quite clear what the meaning of marriage is."

You're speaking after the fact. There is no law in this country regarding marriage as you want it to mean that is based on the actual, traditional and long understood meaning of the word. Those "homosexual" rulings were based on a blatant rejection of the true meaning of the word. The Constitution does not delegate legislation to the bench, and thus the bench is not authorized to dictate definitions. That the legislative branch has improperly ceded that authority does make judicial activism legitimate.

Marshall Art said...

"Again, you have no understanding of the law. The issue is that of denying some couples rights enjoyed by others. The law doesn't need reasons to allow liberty; it needs reasons to deny them."

The misunderstanding is all yours. So is the deceit. The issue is whether 2% of the population can force the other 98% to regard as true what isn't. In this case, that marriage is the union of any two people. The issue involves forcing the nation to pretend it sees a reason to take interest in homosexual relationships in the same way it does normal marital relationships. There is no liberty being denied anyone because the law treats different things differently. There is no right denied because the state does not grant licenses to those who do not qualify for those licenses based on the stated criteria for qualifying. There is no rights or liberties denied simply because the state maintains that "marriage" means something that doesn't work for the mentally disordered.

"The infertility argument is not used to justify SSM. It is "used" to demonstrate the absurdity of requiring couples to be biologically able to procreate in order to have their marriages recognized."

There's nothing "absurd" about it. Your whiny complaint implies that the state just liked hetero unions for no reason and subjectively chose to sanction them with licenses, and then to defend that decision chose the procreative nature of those relationships as the argument of choice. That's idiotic. The procreative likelihood of the typical heterosexual relationship is the very reason the state sees a reason to take interest in marriages at all. It doesn't "require" it...it acknowledges it. It's the reality that compels state interest.

"Only among your debate club. Not in law."

Nonsense. The state is not required to take an interest in much of anything.

"It does in dozens of states. If the couple has a license, it has a legal marriage."

You're once again arguing after the fact. That didn't work for slavery, and there's no better reason why it should work here, except that you have no better and legitimate argument to defend what was done in those dozens of states.

Marshall Art said...

"Nonsense! It is a key requirement of the law. That is why it is considered in almost every case and why SSM almost always wins."

The nonsense is in the assertion that it be required to defend the actual and true definition of marriage and why it is best to maintain the status quo. It is not a requirement of any law that YOU could cite. Regardless, harm has been demonstrated exhaustively only to have those explanations dismissed out of hand without rebuttal. It's as if the reasons why blind people can't be licensed to drive (OH! the horror of rights denied!!) are dismissed as not compelling.

"Why shouldn't people be able to marry animals?"

You tell me. You're the one defending a diluted definition of marriage. You've removed gender from the criteria. Go ahead and try to defend maintaining the criteria for species, age, numbers of spouses and consanguinity without also denying gender.

Anonymous said...

"This is an incredibly preposterous and inane implication that a judge rules on anything without some understanding of what words mean."

The judge knows exactly what the words mean as a matter of law.

"Even more so considering the case at hand was not an argument over the definition of the word "marriage""

Then why do you obsess about what the definition is or about whether or not a judge knows what the word means?

"but that would require the homosexuals to demonstrate that "marriage" ever meant anything other than the union of one man and one woman"

It doesn't matter what marriage "ever meant", really. What matters is what it means now as a matter of law.There is nothing about marriage law today that cannot apply to two people of the same sex. So the question is why shouldn't same sex couples have access to the same rights and responsibilities. What is the harm of same sex marriage that provides the state with a compelling reason to ban it. That is the essence of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

"This is never more obvious considering how very recently homosexual practice was outlawed in every state of the union."

This was fixed by Lawrence.

"Your statement above requires the presiding judge to be ignorant of what is basic understanding."

So how do explain that in all the many cases leading up to the coming case being heard next week, no judge or panel of judges has ruled based on what the "meaning of the word" is? Are you suggesting that all of these judges including many appointed by conservative presidents are legal incompetents?

"There is no law in this country regarding marriage as you want it to mean that is based on the actual, traditional and long understood meaning of the word."

That doesn't matter. What matters is what marriage means today under the law and the Constitution.

"Those "homosexual" rulings were based on a blatant rejection of the true meaning of the word."

The entire judicial system is populated by homo-loving incompetents?

"The Constitution does not delegate legislation to the bench, and thus the bench is not authorized to dictate definitions."

It does delegate to the judiciary the power to enforce the Constitution and its amendments.

"The issue is whether 2% of the population can force the other 98% to regard as true what isn't."

Ask any judge who has heard or will hear this case it that's the essence of these trials. It's not. If it were, SCOTUS wouldn't have decided against the District of Columbia regarding possession of hand guns. The issue is whether there is a legitimate harm to the state of allowing same sex marriage.

"The state is not required to take an interest in much of anything.

So why are you basing your rejection of same sex marriage on the premise that the state takes an interest in opposite sex couples?

"There is no rights or liberties denied simply because the state maintains that "marriage" means something that doesn't work for the mentally disordered."

This really proves that your argument is based on antipathy of homosexuals. There is no argument that will change your hateful mind however logical and however legal. You don't understand the law, you don't understand the legal process. You don't want to understand any of it. You only want to deny same sex couples the ability to legally marry the person they love.

"It is not a requirement of any law that YOU could cite."

Au contraire. Any law that discriminates against a class requires a justification for doing so.

"Regardless, harm has been demonstrated exhaustively only to have those explanations dismissed out of hand without rebuttal."

And yes all those homo-loving incompetent Bush judges laughed them out of court.

Marshall Art said...

"The judge knows exactly what the words mean as a matter of law."

Evidently not, considering those who rule in favor of homosexuals. Yet they do not insist on homosexuals proving the definition is as vague as needed to allow for state licensing of same-sex couples as if they are actually married.

"Then why do you obsess about what the definition is or about whether or not a judge knows what the word means?"

"Obsess"? You regard reiterating the true definition of marriage equal to "obsessing"? Establishing the meaning of the word, specifically at the time any related law was put in place or any previous court ruling was decided would seem to any rational and honest person essential in deciding whether or not "rights" have been denied or whether the laws are equally applied.

"It doesn't matter what marriage "ever meant", really. What matters is what it means now as a matter of law.There is nothing about marriage law today that cannot apply to two people of the same sex."

Of course it matters, and does so specifically in every case where a judge has ruled in favor of homosexuals. Those judges have decided that the meaning of the word in the properly established laws means something other than what those who enacted the laws knew better what it meant. So, as a matter of law, in those states where judges ruled in favor of homosexuals, the laws overruled by those activist judges had clearly legislated according to the actual definition of the word.

And yes, there are plenty of reasons to maintain what was the status quo. They are the same reasons the state took interest in the marital relationship in the first place. In other words, there is nothing about homosexual relationships that compels the state to take interest.

"So the question is why shouldn't same sex couples have access to the same rights and responsibilities."

Because by law, their unions did not, and do not, constitute a marriage, any more than multiple partner relationships, incestuous relationships, best friends, roommates, business partners or you and your goat do. There is no argument put forth by homosexuals that compels the state to alter that definition. There is no argument that justifies the state acquiescing to the homosexual demand to do so.

"That is the essence of 14th Amendment jurisprudence."

Nonsense on two counts:

1. All marriage laws in every state until the first fell to judicial activism had no prohibition against homosexuals entering into a marriage agreement as the word was defined by law and every honest person in the world since the dawn of time...and in this country in particular.

2. The 14th was ratified at a time when homosexual behavior was outlawed in every state in the union. Thus, it couldn't possibly have been meant to apply to whiny homosexuals seeking to legitimize their immoral sexual behavior.

"This was fixed by Lawrence."

What was "fixed" by Lawrence was the ability of the state to intrude into anyone's private residence for the purpose of arresting two consenting adults from engaging in whatever kinky sexual activity by which they chose to defile themselves. More importantly here, the Lawrence decision (foolishly rendered) doesn't mitigate in the least the fact that "There has never been any widely held notion that marriage meant merely the union of any two people regardless of the gender of either..."

Marshall Art said...

"So how do explain that in all the many cases leading up to the coming case being heard next week, no judge or panel of judges has ruled based on what the "meaning of the word" is?"

Because they were all activist judges who wanted to rule in favor of homosexuals. What other explanation can there be for judges neglecting to account for the true definition before doing so? Certainly no compelling reason by homosexuals since there are none.

"Are you suggesting that all of these judges including many appointed by conservative presidents are legal incompetents?"

That explanation is just as good, but I favor the above reason. They wanted to rule in favor of homosexuals. (This was certainly true in the Prop 8 case)

"That doesn't matter. What matters is what marriage means today under the law and the Constitution."

That's another idiotic response on two counts:

1. What the law says it means today is the result of the corruption imposed on the law by activist judges (and immoral legislatures and/or voters in two or three of the states that dropped the moral ball). The law said one thing and the judge forced it to mean another, which isn't really within his job description to do. Every one of those judges were obligated to rule on the law as it stood, not change it to his own satisfaction.

2. There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution. But there was in various state constitutions until activist judges overstepped their authority.

"It does delegate to the judiciary the power to enforce the Constitution and its amendments."

Not true. It is to interpret the Constitution and its amendments for the purpose of proper application. It has not done so with regard to the whine of the homosexual lobby.

Marshall Art said...

"Ask any judge who has heard or will hear this case it that's the essence of these trials. It's not. If it were, SCOTUS wouldn't have decided against the District of Columbia regarding possession of hand guns. The issue is whether there is a legitimate harm to the state of allowing same sex marriage."

Then those judges are indeed incompetent because that is indeed the essence of these cases. All one needs to do is actually look at what is being demanded by the homosexual lobby. They are indeed essentially demanding for everyone to agree that "marriage" is defined as the union of any two people, rather than what has always been the case in this nation and before. Thus, they are trying to force the rest of the nation to regard as true what isn't. The state's position doesn't require proving there is harm in allowing homos to marry. The state's position is that the reason it takes interest in marriage is due to the unique nature of the typical male/female sexual relationship. You, like all defenders of sexual immorality, simply lack the honesty to recognize that fact.

"So why are you basing your rejection of same sex marriage on the premise that the state takes an interest in opposite sex couples?"

Even with your inability to pay attention, a simple re-reading of most any of my comments on this issue would demonstrate how idiotic that question is. I base my rejection of the demand of the homosexual on the basis of why the state takes an interest in the unions of normal people, not simply that it does.

"This really proves that your argument is based on antipathy of homosexuals."

Why? Because I refuse to ignore the obvious regarding the abnormality of same-sex attraction? Don't be absurd. Failing to endorse is not the same as expressing antipathy.

But assuming antipathy toward homosexuality and the homosexual agenda does exist within me (and I don't deny it, I just don't admit it is the basis of my opposition), it exists because of the facts regarding the condition and the agenda, the sum of which provides all the basis I need before that sum can begin to result in antipathy.

Marshall Art said...

"You only want to deny same sex couples the ability to legally marry the person they love."

This is just more idiocy on your part and proof of a dishonest dismissal of my position. Homos can marry each other all day long. I see no reason why the state must be forced to recognize, sanction, endorse and/or license their unholy unions as it does the unions of normal people. I haven't pushed for outlawing homo unions (though I wouldn't oppose it), so there is no question of legality. That is, neither "legal" or "illegal" as far as the state is concerned.

"Any law that discriminates against a class requires a justification for doing so."

And this is the lie you continue to perpetrate. There was never any prohibition against homosexuals entering into an marital union. No law regarding marriage ever prohibited them. There had always been homosexuals marrying. No marriage law concerned itself with the degree of love that exists between the two parties seeking licensing from the state. ALL that was required (and that requirement applied equally to all, regardless of "orientation") was that the union be between a male and a female, not closely related, not already married and of legal age. Where's the discrimination against any class in this? This essential question is NEVER addressed by supporters of SSM. YOU'VE never done it. HOMOSEXUALS have never done it. What HAS been done is arguing on that which isn't a factor, such as "marrying the one you LOVE" as if any of the marriage laws even mentioned the word.

"And yes all those homo-loving incompetent Bush judges laughed them out of court."

Laughing them out of court is not the same as explaining why the arguments are not valid, which has never been done. I haven't gotten through your Posner ruling yet (way busy these days), but you haven't cited a damned thing from it that stands as such an explanation.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'll be listening and following the oral arguments tomorrow. We'll see what the Court thinks is a good argument and what isn't. There will be a lot about rational basis and compelling interests and due process.

If SCOTUS rules against same sex marriage it will be solely because of the states' rights argument, and none of the ones you brought up.

Marshall Art said...

If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, it will be because they ignored the arguments I brought up (of course Scalia, Alitto and Thomas have more integrity and wisdom to ignore the essential elements which are the foundation of the states rights in this matter).

Anonymous said...

Well I can tell you they never called the plaintiffs "homos" of perverts.

Marshall Art said...

Of whom are you referring?

Anonymous said...

The justices and the attorneys.

Marshall Art said...

Considering how whiny the LGBT community is, and how they have been given the authority to dictate what is or isn't offensive, simply because it serves them to call anything that isn't outright praise and admiration "offensive", few are willing to get bogged down calling a spade a spade. Homosexuals ARE perverts. (They pervert the function of their sexual organs for sexual self-gratification, for one.) And the term "homo" is simply a contraction of the word homosexual. But you know this and like them, you aren't honest enough to regard it as such and prefer instead to demonize those who oppose sexual immorality by equating the term with something derogatory, as if actually being homosexual, lesbian, "bi" or "transgendered" isn't derogatory all on its own.

Anonymous said...

"they have been given the authority to dictate what is or isn't offensive"

No you have apparently assumed that authority.

"They pervert the function of their sexual organs for sexual self-gratification, for one."

So you've never gotten a blow job or gone down on your partner?

"And the term "homo" is simply a contraction of the word homosexual."

Says the only one who uses the term in polite company.

How can being something be derogatory?

Marshall Art said...

"No you have apparently assumed that authority."

Not at all. Indeed, I don't give much thought as to whether or not speaking truthfully is offensive, particularly when speaking about the sexually immoral.

"So you've never gotten a blow job or gone down on your partner?"

I'm sure you think that is some kind of "touche", but it isn't. Foreplay between husband and wife isn't a perversion of body parts because the context in which the practice takes place is the only one where sex for pleasure is acceptable morally. Yet, when you engage in such outside of marriage, then it's problematic. And doing so with someone of the same sex is indeed perversion. Indeed, it's the hat trick for homosexuals: wrong partner, wrong context and wrong use of body parts.

"Says the only one who uses the term in polite company."

You're not particularly polite. What's more, I use the term "hetero" just as often, if not more.

"How can being something be derogatory?"

Because being homosexual tends to lessen the merit or reputation of a person in the eyes of those who are honest about sexual morality. That's what a derogatory remark does. That's what being a practicing homosexual does.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Is this a private circle jerk, or can anyone join in? I was going to use other metaphors, but really, seeing as no one commenting here has moved on to greener pastures, found better arguments, and seems to prefer one another's company, I believe that the most apt.

Marshall Art said...

Of course you do, Geoffrey. You could believe nothing better, considering your character. But regardless of that sorry level, you were never prohibited from contributing, such as you are able, to any conversation here. It's not like some blogs where the host shuts down discourse rather than offering a defense of questionable and less-than-Christian positions. Feel free. I'm sure you finally have profound alternatives to those arguments you believe are less so. I can't wait to hear what you regard as "better arguments". For my part, I don't believe there exists "better arguments" than truth and reality. That is actual truth and reality, not the progressive alternatives.

Anonymous said...

Geoffrey, we have pretty much hashed this out in the above comments. At this time we, at least I, are waiting for the court's ruling on the subject to comment further. Since the thread consists primarily of comments and replies from Marshall and me, our totally opposite positions (no pun intended) on this issue would preclude the thread from being a circle jerk.

Join in. What do you think the ruling will be?

Marshall Art said...

Amazing. You both are fixated on group masturbation.

Anonymous said...

Exactly as I've argued: Kennedy's decision.

Marshall Art said...

A black robe doesn't make idiocy more profound or compelling. Nice try.

Feodor said...

For coming in last, Marshall, you get a clown's car of options. Take your time. I'm sure you'll pick the least compassionate, most rigid, most pharisaical and history/science denying white male failed politician available. (Probably didn't know "pharisaical" was a word, did you?) Sometimes we are what we don't know.

Marshall Art said...

Sorry, feodope. I don't vote Democratic. I support good people that at least appear to adhere to traditional notions of character and virtue. Why you'd think I'd vote like you will is a mystery to me.

Feodor said...

Speaking of candidates that have your values, I'm loving Trump. He so clearly shows all of us where people like you are: spreading hate even as innocent lives are slaughtered by your children.

Anonymous said...

I found this article useful in debunking just about every argument you've touched on in this thread. Enjoy.

Marshall Art said...

Sorry feo, but again you err, and famously. You've never identified candidates that have my values because first, you don't seem to recognize what my values are, and secondly, you don't understand what "values" are. You lack the capacity.

Marshall Art said...

Anon,

I've finally found some time to begin perusing your offering. I don't think you understand what the word "debunk" means, for I've yet to find anything in this article that constitutes a "debunking" of any defense of actual marriage. Take the following:

"...Anderson constructs an artificial concept of what marriage is. Instead of the familiar religious and civil definitions of marriage, he develops his own hypothetical ideal of “marriage,” an abstract, philosophical notion that supposedly borrows from both the civil and religious definitions."

This is abject nonsense. Anderson "constructs" nothing but an explanation of what marriage has always been and meant, both religiously and in civil law. Zach Ford merely asserts that Anderson is weaving out of whole cloth some new concept of what marriage is. In short, he is projecting onto Anderson what has been S.O.P. for the homosexual activist since the beginning of the "marriage equality" campaign began...that marriage is something it never was. Anderson, by contrast, reminds what marriage actually is and always has been, and why. Ford's initial charge is patently ridiculous.

"...he simultaneously ignores much of how marriage is actually practiced in culture and the many different ways it is important to people and the government that recognizes it."

Here Ford must be speaking after the fact, that is, after SSM had been imposed upon at least 35 states that roundly rejected it when give the opportunity to vote on the issue. Until then, how it was practiced was nowhere near as varied as Ford would like his readers to pretend. Further, how it varies in importance to different people is not a matter of significance for why government takes interest in the practice. The highlighted statement if fantasy in the manner the typical pro-SSM argument usually is.

Before I go further, I feel it incumbent upon me to make known the fact that I have yet to read Anderson's book upon which this inane article is based. But as Ford declares it is mostly a rehashing of the book I have read, I feel justified in "debunking" Ford's "debunking" of the recent Anderson offering. Thus...

"He conveniently selects concepts that serve his purpose of rejecting same-sex marriage without explicitly sounding anti-gay..."

This is the typical distortion of reality so routine in the homosexual whine. Anderson defends marriage. He isn't rejecting SSM. There's a distinction that the pro-homosexual activist purposely ignores so as to demonize the defender of marriage as one who is "anti-gay". While such a person may indeed be, the defense of real marriage does not require a position on homosexual behavior itself. This does not serve the narrative of the SSM proponent who needs marriage defenders to be recognized as haters to distract from their own lack of legitimate argument.

"Wolfson provides helpful understanding for Anderson’s artificial framework for marriage. In an interview with NPR’s Fresh Air earlier this month, he pointed out how drastically marriage equality opponents had to change their tone — to cover up their homophobia — after the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in 2003."

This is just another example of pro-homosexual idiocy presented as deep thought. No one on the right side of this issue who pretend there doesn't exist simple "hatred" and revulsion toward homosexuals. But the irony with Wolfson's perspective is that it is the very type of animus towards all defenders of real marriage that is asserted as the basis for all arguments for that defense. It suggests that any objection to a behavior indicates a hatred or "phobia" of the person who engages in the behavior. This has never proven to be the case in the typical objector to SSM.

Marshall Art said...

Moving on....

"“Since 2003,” Wolfson explained, “with the ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case, that moral objection or moral disapproval of gay people because of who they are is not a basis for making laws to disadvantage people.”"

Again, this was never the issue with regard to Lawrence. The objection was to a behavior, and as Scalia explains in his dissent, it was no different than any other legal objections to other sexual behaviors. The disapproval therefore, was not so much of homosexuals themselves, but of the homosexual behavior in which they might engage. What's more, and this was another travesty of the Lawrence majority opinion, the sodomy law was not exclusively intended for homosexuals alone. This was rhetoric of the activist and thus, like the lion's share of the activist rhetoric, a bald-faced lie.

"Instead, “They actually had to come up with a neutral-sounding rationale for why states were denying marriage. And that got them twisted up in knots about, well, it’s heterosexual people who can procreate by accident, and that’s actually the whole purpose of marriage. And that just made no sense to anyone who, of course, thinks about marriage about as about love and commitment.”

Rank stupidity. This argument ignores why the state takes interest at all in marriages or sexual relationships. While the individual might see himself as marrying for love, the state does not concern itself with whether or not love exists between the two seeking to marry, but only the consequence of their sexual union and the impact that consequence might have on society. Activists just cannot seem to focus on reality in their whiny defense of sexual immorality.

"The contrast was evident in the 2013 Windsor case, when opponents of marriage equality were forced to reconcile the “moral disapproval of homosexuality” lawmakers cited as their reasoning for passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996."

The idiocy continues as this passage contained links that supposedly demonstrated a reconciling of some kind. Both of the links provided righteous arguments in defense of real marriage, but the activist cannot accept that one can disapprove of a behavior while as the same time respecting the person who desires to engage in that immoral behavior. There's nothing to reconcile except by the activist as to how that can be so. The activist doesn't want it to be so. He needs the defender of real marriage to be a hater. Pathetic.

"Anderson thus tasks himself with convincing the reader that the traditional wedding vows — “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part,” as Roman Catholics like Anderson recite — get marriage wrong."

This is lunacy, as if these vows do nothing for the benefit of the children produced by the union. If love was all that mattered, what need would there be for such vows? But the love of a real marriage is not the erotic, romantic version that Ford and activists insist is the purpose and point of marriage. These vows bind people who will typically lose that romantic attraction that brought them together and led to procreation. Indeed, it anticipates the fading of romance and the dissolution of the relationship that would otherwise be inevitable, just as similar relationships fade and dissolve when marriage does not take place. What of the kids then?

That's all I have time for now. I will pick it up from the "Fallacies And Falsehoods Galore" point later. Do not comment until I have completed my response. I will delete them to maintain continuity. Afterwards, you or anyone else may try to "debunk" my comments.