Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 06-12-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(yguy): Marriage IS the manual.
(Fr Andrew): That's why (heterosexual) divorce is at an all-time high?

A few months ago my wife and I were talking about this. We can think of *VERY* few people we know that have been married as long as we have.

Jennie · 06-12-2003, 12:31 PM

Not allowing gay marriage has whittled away the distinction between unmarried and married folk. Most people realize that allowing two people, who love each other and live together, but who are *not allowed* to get married the same rights as married folks is just. Thus the proliferation of domestic partner laws and acceptance of domestic partner policies by employers. These have in turn been used by heterosexual couples not yet committed enough to marry as reasons why they should be covered too. Thus, the line between married and unmarried is blurred. If marriage should be protected and encouraged, then it is imperative that gay marriage be legalized as soon as possible to stop this blurring.

Fr.Andrew · 06-12-2003, 12:45 PM

(yguy): I'm guilty of hate speech. Is that it? Since by your reasoning I am an accomplice to homicide, I should be jailed for saying what I think.
(Fr Andrew): I didn't say you were an accomplice to homicide, although that's a dandy strawman for you to beat on.
I said you perpetuate the sort of misinformation and ignorance that creates an atmosphere conducive to homosexual suicide. Particularly homosexual children.
Jail would be a great learning experience for you, come to think of it. A few times around the dance floor with Big Bruce may loosen you up a bit.

eldar1011 · 06-12-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Would those be same the Ten Commandments that come from the book that also prescribes killing disobedient children, witches, and non-virginal brides, recommends how we are to beat our slaves and how they are to obey us, describes dividing up captured women as "war booty" after their brothers, mothers, and fathers were butchered, and condones infanticide?

And based on yguy's statement here:

Quote:

If nobility and compassion relate to traditional Judaeo-Christian morality, we should expect the nation which adhered to it to a greater degree than other nations to, among other things...

The list provided by him seems to be contradictory to the morality displayed in the Bible. Therefore, the US is not following traditional Judeo-Christian morality very well at all.

I knew it wasn't a Christian nation. Thanks yguy!

cheetah · 06-12-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jennie
These have in turn been used by heterosexual couples not yet committed enough to marry as reasons why they should be covered too. Thus, the line between married and unmarried is blurred. If marriage should be protected and encouraged, then it is imperative that gay marriage be legalized as soon as possible to stop this blurring.

They have also been used by heterosexual couples committed enough to marry, but not accepting of the Big Brother paradigm options to get equal pay for equal work (health benefits) and other rights without submitting to registering their love, about as unromantic a concept as I can think of. That's another reason why the lines between married and unmarried are blurred, because a lot of us can think of no good reason to do it! Making it available to homosexuals at least takes one bad reason off the scorecard.

Amen-Moses · 06-12-2003, 01:13 PM

Why not just abolish marriage, that would save a fortune and stop all the bloody bickering.

Amen-Moses

yguy · 06-12-2003, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
And why do they all seem to be Americans? Is that a result of traditional marriage as well or maybe inbreeding?

Amen-Moses

Just thought I'd save this scabrous little insinuation for the record, as a testament to the character of some of my detractors.

yguy · 06-12-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(yguy): I'm guilty of hate speech. Is that it? Since by your reasoning I am an accomplice to homicide, I should be jailed for saying what I think.
(Fr Andrew): I didn't say you were an accomplice to homicide, although that's a dandy strawman for you to beat on.

(yguy): Am I to blame for homosexuals who committed suicide?
(Fr Andrew): Absolutely!

Tell you what, sport - I do'nt know how I could possibly be anything else if what you said is true.

But you are certainly welcome to plow ahead. It won't hurt me in the least.

Quote:

Jail would be a great learning experience for you, come to think of it. A few times around the dance floor with Big Bruce may loosen you up a bit.

Really? You think I should be raped?

Damn, I ain't 'zackly feelin' the love here, guy. Guess I've done something to you I don't know about, huh?

Amen-Moses · 06-12-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Just thought I'd save this scabrous little insinuation for the record, as a testament to the character of some of my detractors.

If the cap fits ....

Amen-Moses

Godot · 06-12-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Assuming you meant "claim that an assertion can be validated" rather than the part in bold, kindly show me where I've made an assertion that I've claimed can be validated empirically.

A nice little strawman you're building here. Of course, I cannot provide you with an assertion the you've claimed can be validated empirically, as you have made it abundantly clear that

Quote:

[you] have little respect for empirical approaches to these things.

Of course, this doesn't absolve you by any means. Simply because you have not claimed empirical support for your positions does not mean that none exists (or is attainable if you contemplated making the effort). However, if no empirical data can be provided to substantiate the claim, the claim should not be put forth.
Here we go on a retrospective of this thread (apologies in advance to all due to the tedium of this exercise, but better me than you):

Quote:

No way in the world will a nation survive if gender confusion becomes the norm; and that surely is where things like homosexual marriage are leading us.

Surely to make such a claim, there is some data to substantiate your position? Got proof?

Quote:

Homosexual marriage robs the child of either a male or female role model, encouraging this confusion.

Got proof?

Quote:

Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but they can be expected to be disproportionally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists.

Got proof?

Quote:

[...] an integral component of step 2 is the fact that gender confusion and the selfishness which spawned it produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children, which produces a decline in population, inducing the government to loosen immigration laws to maintain the population base.

Got proof?

Quote:

In America, evangelical "gays" have already gained an amount of influence in the media disproportionate to their percentage of the general populace.

Got proof?

Quote:

I submit that any relationship outside of traditional marriage is selfish at root, because it amounts to using another person strictly for self-gratification.

Got proof?

Quote:

Any offspring of such a union can hardly hold the parents in high esteem. Acceptance of homosexuality is only a symptom of a more fundamental flaw in the culture.

Got proof?

Quote:

[...]so we must take care not to grant societal approval to unions which, if they became prolific, would have a corrosive effect on our moral foundation.

Got proof?

Quote:

It is an extension of the decades long effort to psychologically intimidate those of us who see perversion as what it is.

Surely, there is some documented evidence of said "psychological intimidation"? No?

Quote:

I'm not defending "traditional marriage" because it's traditional, but because, like democracy, it's a lousy deal until you consider the fact that it's several orders of magnitude better than any alternative.

Got proof for this "fact" of yours?

Quote:

A society in which children are generally a secondary motive for marriage cannot last.

No corroborating evidence for this one either?

Quote:

Marriage IS the manual.

How about this one? No? *sigh*

Quote:

Traditional marriage made America not just the most powerful country in the world, but the noblest and most compassionate. In effect, the history of the country from the founding until WWII is a monumental case study demonstrating the value of traditional morality, including marriage.

*snort* Not this one either, eh?

Quote:

Once empowered, they eliminate it in favor of strict moral laws which they follow in public to hide the buggering of little boys that goes on in private.

Undoubtedly, you have some proof to back this one up.

Quote:

A far better case can be made for the similarity between recognition of homosexuality as legitimate and recognition of pedophilia as legitimate than that between sexual orientation and race.

Eh? In so far as this doesn't make much sense, and has no bearing upon what I had said earlier, surely you can back this claim up somewhat?

I think I've made my point.

Quote:

If you actually said what you meant, I have to ask: what are you, nuts? How in hell do we determine beforehand whether a claim can be validated empirically?

For one thing, a responsible person would actually look at some facts to see if their particular position was tenable. They might also present some evidence to substantiate their position.
In the absence of this, you must produce a caveat that your position is merely your personal opinion and not "right becasue I think I am" as a maxim it appears you hold to, Chicken Little.

Quote:

The morality circumscribed by the Ten Commandments would be a reasonable working definition, I think.

Which set of the Ten Commandments are you using? Protestant, Catholic? Exodus, Deuteronomy? Maybe you would be so kind as to point out to me which of those glorious Commandments of yours explicitly prohibits homosexual marriages?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2003, 12:31 PM	#112
Jennie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Washington State Posts: 3,593	Not allowing gay marriage has whittled away the distinction between unmarried and married folk. Most people realize that allowing two people, who love each other and live together, but who are not allowed to get married the same rights as married folks is just. Thus the proliferation of domestic partner laws and acceptance of domestic partner policies by employers. These have in turn been used by heterosexual couples not yet committed enough to marry as reasons why they should be covered too. Thus, the line between married and unmarried is blurred. If marriage should be protected and encouraged, then it is imperative that gay marriage be legalized as soon as possible to stop this blurring.

06-12-2003, 12:45 PM	#113
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(yguy): I'm guilty of hate speech. Is that it? Since by your reasoning I am an accomplice to homicide, I should be jailed for saying what I think. (Fr Andrew): I didn't say you were an accomplice to homicide, although that's a dandy strawman for you to beat on. I said you perpetuate the sort of misinformation and ignorance that creates an atmosphere conducive to homosexual suicide. Particularly homosexual children. Jail would be a great learning experience for you, come to think of it. A few times around the dance floor with Big Bruce may loosen you up a bit.

06-12-2003, 01:13 PM	#116
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Why not just abolish marriage, that would save a fortune and stop all the bloody bickering. Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.