________________
Short Gayriage Rant (originally uploaded July 4th 2009 to myspace blog)
Gay Marriage is not a "rights" issue its a "subversion of the Law" Issue, using activist courts to redefine words so as to get around their meaning in contracts. If Gay Marriage was ACTUALLY about equal rights they'd be lobbying Hospitals to change their rules etc. but, it being (to them) about a state mandated acceptance of their behavior, actual rights wouldn't get them there, only an Orwellian inversion of the most universally sacred of words, not to mention also its further secularization.
David Blankenhorn Article on Gayrriage.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
4rthly All men are created equal, as men (individual human beings) we are equal in that and must have equal protection under the law as citizens; but this does not deride exact sameness amongst us nor prohibit distinction; laws prohibit for Youths what is allowed for the mature, Criminals are jailed, Aliens Barred, and marriage defined as of opposite genders, because there is no separation of your stripe, no sameness in spite of all distinction, Equality is theirs collectively for the taking, but it is forsaken for an envied word, not even unanimously wanted, nor if had, I suspect, majoritarily enshrined. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAYRRIAGE!?~
Lets shake up the Luv Fest!~
The very purpose of Marriage as an institution as promoted by Govt. (& I'm not married to the idea of Govt being involved in it at all) is to promote the stabilizing influence of a nuclear family on society, and the next generation. Anthropologicially & Culturally that IS its purpose: Marriage is a promise to the resulting children of that union that the two who made you will be there to raise you) the modern Romanticism is the exception of history & culture, not the rule.
A recent (San Francisco Chronicle) poll showed 50% of gays are in "open relationships", many stating they were reticent to say so because of political reasons (so obviously then, how many didn't say it when they were?).
I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal.
Discrimination didn't used to be a bad word it literally means to discern/tell the difference in things; Blacks were believed inferior which was a presumption later proven false. Of course gays blacks and all the rest of us are equal in our humanity; however when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment out of a misplaced sense of guilt? (Be it with ppl, or definitions of institutions: Marriage being defined as Man+Woman=Child)
There is also precedent in the string of logic for advocating Racial + Behavioral, Profiling (as apposed to dumb Racial profiling) but I think I'll spare you.
___
Not all, just half of a 500+ Survey of San Francisco reported by the Chronicle (That bastion of Right Wing Conservatism [<-Sarcasm]). And not Whores, Sluts. (Whores have sex for money, Sluts are promiscuous).
(Marriage being primarily for Child Rearing) is in the origin of the institution. Pagan Tribes have Marriage Ceremonies for the same reason. It is a near Universal Human institution.
There is no "Separation Of Church and State" in the way I'm sure you understand it. It is not in the constitution. The constitution guarantees Freedom Of Religion, not Freedom From Religion. This was reinterpreted by a Fascist (similar to the Jacobin Tradition) FDR Lawyer; before which the only mention of "Separation Of Church & State" was in a Thomas Jefferson letter clarifying that the 1st amendment prevented an establishing of a National Sect of Christianity, there having already been Official State Religions. And debating why the first amendment was necesary there came up the Avoidance of prohibiting Official State Religions, while Providing for the Prohibition of a national one.
I'd prefer Govt Get out of, rather than manipulate the corner stone of civilization. Won't Marriage be diminished if engaged in by more and more ppl who don't consider it sacred?___
The inequality/diminishment [of marriage by instituting gay marriage] is primarily in definition and purpose, not necessarily the character of Individuals. I've already explained that constitutionally and within the framework of the USA your emotional "can't vote away rights" argument does not apply. and furthermore I doubt many enlightenment thinkers would agree that naming your contract in a spirit of revenge would be considered a "Right".
Civil Unions Yesterday but for craving a name.
I more specifically said a majority would not hold it sacred and that there is not a unanimous want of the name Marriage either.
There are many gays who either don't care about "Gay Marriage" or are actually against it.
What most Pro-Gayriage supporters don't recognize is that a political elite is controlling the argument.
___
You presume anything less than Gay Marriage makes gays second class citizens. I disagree, advocating Civil Unions, which legally could not be made unequal as contracts. There is a Principle which only one side of the argument gets. Simply put that Marriage is a unique institution. Equal Rights are not even an issue.
Actually there is modernly great fear to amending the constitution because the pervasiveness of ignorance and indoctrination; and I would suggest that is a good reason not to.
Equal rights are not the issue; otherwise Civil Unions would be the issue not "Gay Marriage". Gays can't get married, by definition of what marriage is. An Orwellian Oxymoronical legislation of language won't change that. Just as changing in print the gender of a man who has a sex change operation doesn't make him a woman.
This whole fiasco is an attack on The Fundamental issue of gender difference. The leaders of it believe that Gender is socially constructed, that there is no difference.
Doubting that you would believe this, consider that I do, and if it Were true, what that would mean.
___
There is LITERALLY NO COMPARISON between Segregation and legal acknowledgment of the differences between the sexes. I don't want to put all gays on an island somewhere. I don't want separate drinking fountains & bathrooms.
Forced acceptance is TYRANNY. Not of body but WORSE, of mind. Its a sad state that those who scream for diversity are the ones who advocate a lockstep fascism of the mind.
--
Did everything just taste purple for a second?___
The tax code has somewhat recently shifted to discouraging marriage in and of its self, in some instances, yes. This does not negate the original purposes.
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
What is "Normal" is not the reason for the promotion of the nuclear family but what IS and has been PROVEN by history to be the Healthiest system for raising children. You might like to look at "A Conservative History of the American Left" many communes were started in 1800s America where they got rid of the Traditional family and the children were messed up by it.
Several Hundred were polled. It was a couple or few weeks ago that it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Nooo, you have misunderstood. I did NOT say "the takers had to choose an open relationship because that was the only reasonable selection for political reasons." I said, that Many were reticent to admit to being in an "open Relationship" because it would play right into 'Stereotypes' that gays are promiscuous; Which By This Poll Would Not Seem Far Fetched, especially if one thinks outside of the box enough to ask how many Lied to avoid promoting the 'Stereotype'.
You Find It "reprehensible for [me] to even vaguely mention that same sex parters shouldn't raise childre because it wouldn't be fair to the children not to be given an equal start in life."
EXCEPT I specificaly DID NOT SAY THAT
I said "I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal."
TRANSLATED- I DO Believe Gays Should be Allowed to both Raise Children (duh) and Adopt. duh.
Maybe you misread the "I'm not saying no" double negative.
MISCONSTRUMENT!~
& I am speaking about general trends not individuals, so "Not Having An Equal Start" is TOTALLY the wrong language, "being less likely to have the more healthy of possible formitive years" is more like it.
Another Misconrument.
A Useless Source? The entire Population of San Francisco would disagree with you there. I cite a source which suggests 50% + (at least) are in OPEN RELATIONSHIPS. This not only suggests a difference between Gay "Successful Relationships" and Heterosexual Monogomy but a drastic skew in moral values.
"Discrimination" has NOT always been used as a negative word. I'm sorry but you are being quite ridiculous on this point. Read som really really old books, seriously. It was a synonym for dischernmentation. (cause discenrmentation sounds dumb). It seems you don't recognize that I am talking about the WORD before it was ever used in a racial context. (There is always a necessity for someone to do the work for you if you can make them) Actually blacks were Inferior. They were inferior IN CIVILIZATION (and thus were subjugated as has happened thruought human history) the term slave comes from the name of the Slavs, white ppl who were so enslaved their name became the definition of it. And of course (This ought to go without saying) Blacks weren't un-equal in their CAPABILTY of civilization, duh. In fact the combination of shifting climate and lifestyle of other ppls is what caused innovations, necessity being the mother of invention. BTW the arab slave trade was literally 300 times worse than the transatlantic. (Blacks are equal, I'd assume you'd agree that has been proven true)
"when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment"
Maybe this one's above your head, no offense.
Should we have different laws or more lax sentencing for blacks merely because statistically they commit more crimes? (This is the very REAL Inequality; a bad behavior which you wish to reward; inevitably getting you more of it) No, this is called Disparate Treatment and is a part of the Civil Rights act, negating equal protection under the law. This is a From of Reparations instituted out of guilt for slavery & segregation.
I use this as a jumping off point to transfer the principle of equality to marriage which is defined as between a man and a woman, changing this for a victims feelings once again would be gross disparate Treatment.
You think we should censor the statistic racial inequality of prisoners or instute lessor sentences for minorities to prevent "Persecution"? This is what we already have to a large extent and it has only furthered the Victimhood mentality/entitlement culture, which has brought us such gross statistics. This is my point. The Victimhood of blacks was extolled durring the civil rights movement and since there has been a RAPID decline of black families since.
PROFILING!~ You've got Muslims, (I hope your good at this type of SAT questions...) Not all muslims are terrorists, but the Overwhelming vast majority of Terrorists are Swarthy Arab Muslims. (And young males to boot) so in airports doing RANDOM CHECKS that are 90% 100 year old irish nuns is.... Stupid? YES, of course if the Irish Nun is showing the tell tale signs of suicide bomber nervousness KICK HER ASS OUT OF LINE, duh. but the current standard of checking children geezers and the OBVIOUSLY NOT TERRORISTS of all archetypes is functionally retarded and negates the purpose with a false presumption of Equal likelihood that a Nun will be a terrorist as a Young Swarthy Muslim. duh.
LOL Ad Hominem, yay. When one launches into explaining reasoning BEHIND one's opinion, it would be quite obvious I'd think, as to what it is
& yer close, I wanted to "SHAKE UP THE LOVE FEST" by providing dissent in SUCH A FORUM as seems never to have experienced it 
not out of stupid mallice or some imagined bigotry of yours, but the ernest joy of debate and discussion. My citing several FACTS should suggest that I've done some research of my own. And as for my "Formal Language" This is just how I talk, I regard it as a disability in communication, so stop being prejuidiced 
Perhaps I overestimate my readers ability to read my "mess" however your regard for it as a "Waste of space" tells me you aren't even trying to get it. but I'll post this extra long "mess" anyway. One might suggest that you have wasted your time in responding particularly since mine IS a well thought out (if not well laid out) Argument. ___
As an atheist you are specifically divorced from the founding principles of the United States Government. The concept of God Given Rights not having much meaning to you. Some would transcribe to Natural Rights.
Marriage is an institution established before the Govt. or its law; and is in origin a religious institution incorporated into law and endorsement by Govt. breaking any faximaly of a presumed separation.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
A Child is either messed up because of the sins of his father or is okay in spite of them, (no man being without sin); however shifting the corner stone of civilization for 5 millennia, AGAIN, and expecting a different result than that which history has told, is the definition of insanity.
Grey Gouache bleeds not the white or the black but in it surely are both. "any child raised outside the norm wouldn't become a healthy adult." of course I dissagree with that grey-gouache statement.
How many ppl Live in San Francisco? Wikipedia it
(more importantly the poll was of "Successful/enduring Relationships" not saying monogomous for obvious reasons. the whole point of polling is to get an accurate snapshot of the ppl, and since it was the Chronicle, their intentions were obviously noble. 50% odd percent said they were in open relationships, many said they reticent to divulge that DO TO THE STEREOTYPE OF PROMISCUITY obviously some were reticent enough to LIE! SO 50% +, BUT 20 odd % DECLINED TO ANSWER Obviously if some decided to answer and lie more would have just skipped it. This is the Obvious conclusion.
So According to you Morality has nothing to do with raising children. Yep you sound like an atheist.
I suck at Phraseology, or am so brilliant at it as to constantly be misunderstood negating the purpose for which the quality aught to be intended.
Agreed its annoying trying to find previous comments.
My purpose in describing "Discrimination" out of its colloquial context was to break its idiotically racially related assumed meaning, so as to be sure to not be misunderstood in saying That gays are different and said un-sameness makes them not one wit the less human and equal for it, but in discriminating circumstances such as marriage (Irreparable while maintaining its purpose)
I also presume to take on the role of extolling etymology to spread greater understanding about language.
I actually do expect ppl to know the stuff I tacked "Duh" onto...
It is a principle of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Fairness not being the same as equality.
Jinx's poll asked for opinions, I gave reason for mine, and then challenged for not doing so, then for saying too much, would you have me not respond?
An Open Asking of opinion from me, will get you it with details.___
Actually the very nature of the constitution is to limit GOVT.
Regarding Religion; the "Separation" is solely and specifically to prevent Govt from corrupting Church, while allowing the morality of Religion to shine benevolently upon the souls of all equally including those in power. (Without the shadowy cloak of Govt. Smothering Religion [as has been done in England])
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
lol, you cannot (w/o hypocrisy ) declare (even if there was a legitimate secularization of govt. & there's not) that because a certain Taboo ppl believe something it can't be law!~ Otherwise that would merely lend super precedence to Christians as the majority. Neither of us want a theocracy. Remember Equality.
The Constitution has been increasingly deviated from for over 100 years, starting shortly after Lincoln was shot (by members of his cabinet). Woodrow Wilson Imprisoned ppl and allowed gangs of "Patriots" to execute ppl in public for their SPEECH. The Blue Eagle of the NRA (National Recovery Agency) were required to be hung in businesses showing they adhered to the Govt. Minimum Prices
I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there used to be laws against divorce (or rather divorce was not legally recognized) in some states at one point.
There are many ridiculous laws about marriage atm, making a man pay for a woman's lifestyle to which she has "grown accustomed" was from a bygone age and hasn't been gotten rid of simply because its beneficial to the 'Victimhood Class' of Woman.
The whole idea of a Democratic Republic is that a Society as a Whole has a say in what laws are, and thus-far, the majority say No to Gay Marriage; the irony being that the Majority would also say YES to AN ABSOLUTELY EQUAL "Civil Union" Which in my opinion the prohibition of should be out and out illegal seeing as how entering into contracts ARE a Natural Right; however Marriage as a contract definitively requires a Man & a Woman.
Recent attempts in California, at Legalizing 'Gay Marriage' have in them stipulations that Priests unwilling to preform ceremonies for Gays be fined and their Church's tax exempt status removed.
So much for Freedom of Religion. So much for just wanting "Equality".
___
Paper and ink are specifically the tools to record ideas the preservation of which is contingent upon individuals not only reading and understanding them but realizing their value, something the progressive youth cannot accomplish if they are dead set against "old Things" until they become useful again at which point they may be long since beyond repair or warped by constant hypocrisy.
"you have NO RIGHT, no right what so ever to vote on the rights of another person which is already in the constituion."
Sorry no, you are wrong here on many levels.
1stly (A bunch of self evident truths; that we are endowed by our creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS among these life liberty, Pursuit of Happines [originally property but switched so as not to endorse slavery]) The Rights of Men are sourced FROM GOD, to start with, not the constitution which is a protectorate AGAINST Government ENCROACHING upon those NATURAL Rights; a stark document of How To's and What For's (if you read the preamble), and a set of GUARANTEED SWEEPING BROAD Rights that the Federal Govt. CANNOT And WILL NOT Violate. (although they have).
A charter of Negative Liberties.
2ndly we do as a society have the right to take away rights, otherwise laws would be merely suggestions without teeth, to free the slaves you had to extinguish the right of slave owners to hold them. To Enforce a right to Property you must jail the thief.
3rdly The Gay movement has stolen their own rights by diverting the cause from civil unions to Marriage. This has been done specifically to establish not mere standards of tolerance but mandate acceptance, an encroachment, which in principle is inherently totalitarian. Equality in law and principle cannot compete with a Progressive ache for a shifting of names, words, definitions and crushing history.
4rthly All men are created equal, as men (individual human beings) we are equal in that and must have equal protection under the law as citizens; but this does not deride exact sameness amongst us nor prohibit distinction; laws prohibit for Youths what is allowed for the mature, Criminals are jailed, Aliens Barred, and marriage defined as of opposite genders, because there is no separation of your stripe, no sameness in spite of all distinction, Equality is theirs collectively for the taking, but it is forsaken for an envied word, not even unanimously wanted, nor if had, I suspect, majoritarily enshrined.
___
So many ppl today are indoctrinated into the "Why Do You Hate?" Mindset. A caricature so egregious, words can't describe it; but it consistently evokes from me either Laughter and then rage, or rage then laughter; sometimes followed (as now) by quiet depression.
Yeah, I don't hate or "Dislike" gays or any group of ppl. The fact that you can't follow my logic doesn't mean my arguments are governed by emotion or shallow prejudice.
Yes altering the Cornerstone of human civilization affects me. I invite you to view my long winded debates with others on this poll rather than Repeating myself.
___
You are comparing Slavery, with not having the name you want on a contract which is left without the benefits of another Gender Specific (& religious) Contract, specifically because you are hung up on having the name (which by definition does not apply). I don't think so; no, enslaving human beings and segregating them, not the same as resisting an admitted attempt to force not tolerance but acceptance on society as a whole through Govt legal maneuverings and extolled victim-hood status.
Liberty requires many things.
Freedom of speech requires the allowance of racists to speak.
Similarly, Rule of Law requires that we not redefine contracts to get around their lingual restrictions; the only options that Maintain RULE OF LAW, are either to abolish the contract and replace it, or simply write one lacking the restrictive language.
_______________________
Morality shall never be measured solely by the law, and Tyrannically Legislating Morality (particularly that of a minority) for its own sake regardless of language, reason, opinion of the ppl, or precedent is one of the many dastardly aspects of theocracy.
I would be Super Great with abolishing Govt Marriage contracts and instituting Civil Union contracts for everyone.
I'd be super Great with keeping Marriage contracts and having Equal Civil Union Contracts for gays (With all the same rights etc).
If Govt. is going to eliminate the incentives for behaviors/associations promoting the health of society, the least they can do is not retain the name of behaviors/associations that promote the health of society, under their promotion of that which does not do so.
I only have a problem of pretending sameness (Not to be confused with equality which is no pretension). Men are not women, gays are not straights (Humans are still Humans eternally equal), Heterosexual & Homosexual Relationships are not the same (Except in effection, attraction, endorphins and the fact of sexual arousal, the societal legitimizing of which is NOT the purpose of marriage), Gay-Marriage is wholly a pretension of sameness on levels where there is none.
Marriage is being destroyed by modern society, and incorporating into it a loose homosexual culture (which in part already has) can only damage it further.
___
Gay marriage is the negation of a legal contract's defining term & title, (done by illegitimate legal maneuvering) this is not an opinion but a fact. To use your comparative analogy, Gay Marriage is like me saying, you don't want black ppl to vote? Well then Blacks get 2 votes for ever 1 of yours!~
This is disparate social reparations having NOTHING to do with equality under the law. & I care because, I care about Society Civics, the Law, And the INTEGRITY of the American Form of Govt. A REPUBLIC, Ruled by LAW NOT MEN, Reason Tempering Emotion, Equality Chastising "Fairness". Equal Opportunity NOT Equal Outcome.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The very purpose of Marriage as an institution as promoted by Govt. (& I'm not married to the idea of Govt being involved in it at all) is to promote the stabilizing influence of a nuclear family on society, and the next generation. Anthropologicially & Culturally that IS its purpose: Marriage is a promise to the resulting children of that union that the two who made you will be there to raise you) the modern Romanticism is the exception of history & culture, not the rule.
A recent (San Francisco Chronicle) poll showed 50% of gays are in "open relationships", many stating they were reticent to say so because of political reasons (so obviously then, how many didn't say it when they were?).
I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal.
Discrimination didn't used to be a bad word it literally means to discern/tell the difference in things; Blacks were believed inferior which was a presumption later proven false. Of course gays blacks and all the rest of us are equal in our humanity; however when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment out of a misplaced sense of guilt? (Be it with ppl, or definitions of institutions: Marriage being defined as Man+Woman=Child)
There is also precedent in the string of logic for advocating Racial + Behavioral, Profiling (as apposed to dumb Racial profiling)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Paper and ink are specifically the tools to record ideas the preservation of which is contingent upon individuals not only reading and understanding them but realizing their value, something the progressive youth cannot accomplish if they are dead set against "old Things" until they become useful again at which point they may be long since beyond repair or warped by constant hypocrisy.
"you have NO RIGHT, no right what so ever to vote on the rights of another person which is already in the constituion."
Sorry no, you are wrong here on many levels.
1stly (A bunch of self evident truths; that we are endowed by our creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS among these life liberty, Pursuit of Happines [originally property but switched so as not to endorse slavery]) The Rights of Men are sourced FROM GOD, to start with, not the constitution which is a protectorate AGAINST Government ENCROACHING upon those NATURAL Rights; a stark document of How To's and What For's (if you read the preamble), and a set of GUARANTEED SWEEPING BROAD Rights that the Federal Govt. CANNOT And WILL NOT Violate. (although they have).
A charter of Negative Liberties.
2ndly we do as a society have the right to take away rights, otherwise laws would be merely suggestions without teeth, to free the slaves you had to extinguish the right of slave owners to hold them. To Enforce a right to Property you must jail the thief.
3rdly The Gay movement has stolen their own rights by diverting the cause from civil unions to Marriage. This has been done specifically to establish not mere standards of tolerance but mandate acceptance, an encroachment, which in principle is inherently totalitarian. Equality in law and principle cannot compete with a Progressive ache for a shifting of names, words, definitions and crushing history.
GAYRRIAGE!?~
Lets shake up the Luv Fest!~
The very purpose of Marriage as an institution as promoted by Govt. (& I'm not married to the idea of Govt being involved in it at all) is to promote the stabilizing influence of a nuclear family on society, and the next generation. Anthropologicially & Culturally that IS its purpose: Marriage is a promise to the resulting children of that union that the two who made you will be there to raise you) the modern Romanticism is the exception of history & culture, not the rule.
A recent (San Francisco Chronicle) poll showed 50% of gays are in "open relationships", many stating they were reticent to say so because of political reasons (so obviously then, how many didn't say it when they were?).
I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal.
Discrimination didn't used to be a bad word it literally means to discern/tell the difference in things; Blacks were believed inferior which was a presumption later proven false. Of course gays blacks and all the rest of us are equal in our humanity; however when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment out of a misplaced sense of guilt? (Be it with ppl, or definitions of institutions: Marriage being defined as Man+Woman=Child)
There is also precedent in the string of logic for advocating Racial + Behavioral, Profiling (as apposed to dumb Racial profiling) but I think I'll spare you.
___
Not all, just half of a 500+ Survey of San Francisco reported by the Chronicle (That bastion of Right Wing Conservatism [<-Sarcasm]). And not Whores, Sluts. (Whores have sex for money, Sluts are promiscuous).
(Marriage being primarily for Child Rearing) is in the origin of the institution. Pagan Tribes have Marriage Ceremonies for the same reason. It is a near Universal Human institution.
There is no "Separation Of Church and State" in the way I'm sure you understand it. It is not in the constitution. The constitution guarantees Freedom Of Religion, not Freedom From Religion. This was reinterpreted by a Fascist (similar to the Jacobin Tradition) FDR Lawyer; before which the only mention of "Separation Of Church & State" was in a Thomas Jefferson letter clarifying that the 1st amendment prevented an establishing of a National Sect of Christianity, there having already been Official State Religions. And debating why the first amendment was necesary there came up the Avoidance of prohibiting Official State Religions, while Providing for the Prohibition of a national one.
I'd prefer Govt Get out of, rather than manipulate the corner stone of civilization. Won't Marriage be diminished if engaged in by more and more ppl who don't consider it sacred?___
The inequality/diminishment [of marriage by instituting gay marriage] is primarily in definition and purpose, not necessarily the character of Individuals. I've already explained that constitutionally and within the framework of the USA your emotional "can't vote away rights" argument does not apply. and furthermore I doubt many enlightenment thinkers would agree that naming your contract in a spirit of revenge would be considered a "Right".
Civil Unions Yesterday but for craving a name.
I more specifically said a majority would not hold it sacred and that there is not a unanimous want of the name Marriage either.
There are many gays who either don't care about "Gay Marriage" or are actually against it.
What most Pro-Gayriage supporters don't recognize is that a political elite is controlling the argument.
___
You presume anything less than Gay Marriage makes gays second class citizens. I disagree, advocating Civil Unions, which legally could not be made unequal as contracts. There is a Principle which only one side of the argument gets. Simply put that Marriage is a unique institution. Equal Rights are not even an issue.
Actually there is modernly great fear to amending the constitution because the pervasiveness of ignorance and indoctrination; and I would suggest that is a good reason not to.
Equal rights are not the issue; otherwise Civil Unions would be the issue not "Gay Marriage". Gays can't get married, by definition of what marriage is. An Orwellian Oxymoronical legislation of language won't change that. Just as changing in print the gender of a man who has a sex change operation doesn't make him a woman.
This whole fiasco is an attack on The Fundamental issue of gender difference. The leaders of it believe that Gender is socially constructed, that there is no difference.
Doubting that you would believe this, consider that I do, and if it Were true, what that would mean.
___
There is LITERALLY NO COMPARISON between Segregation and legal acknowledgment of the differences between the sexes. I don't want to put all gays on an island somewhere. I don't want separate drinking fountains & bathrooms.
Forced acceptance is TYRANNY. Not of body but WORSE, of mind. Its a sad state that those who scream for diversity are the ones who advocate a lockstep fascism of the mind.
--
Did everything just taste purple for a second?___
The tax code has somewhat recently shifted to discouraging marriage in and of its self, in some instances, yes. This does not negate the original purposes.
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
What is "Normal" is not the reason for the promotion of the nuclear family but what IS and has been PROVEN by history to be the Healthiest system for raising children. You might like to look at "A Conservative History of the American Left" many communes were started in 1800s America where they got rid of the Traditional family and the children were messed up by it.
Several Hundred were polled. It was a couple or few weeks ago that it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Nooo, you have misunderstood. I did NOT say "the takers had to choose an open relationship because that was the only reasonable selection for political reasons." I said, that Many were reticent to admit to being in an "open Relationship" because it would play right into 'Stereotypes' that gays are promiscuous; Which By This Poll Would Not Seem Far Fetched, especially if one thinks outside of the box enough to ask how many Lied to avoid promoting the 'Stereotype'.
You Find It "reprehensible for [me] to even vaguely mention that same sex parters shouldn't raise childre because it wouldn't be fair to the children not to be given an equal start in life."
EXCEPT I specificaly DID NOT SAY THAT
I said "I'm not saying no gay couples should raise kids, I'm saying the main promise of the best sociological start in life should not be diluted further by what is not objectively equal."TRANSLATED- I DO Believe Gays Should be Allowed to both Raise Children (duh) and Adopt. duh.
Maybe you misread the "I'm not saying no" double negative.
MISCONSTRUMENT!~
& I am speaking about general trends not individuals, so "Not Having An Equal Start" is TOTALLY the wrong language, "being less likely to have the more healthy of possible formitive years" is more like it.
Another Misconrument.
A Useless Source? The entire Population of San Francisco would disagree with you there. I cite a source which suggests 50% + (at least) are in OPEN RELATIONSHIPS. This not only suggests a difference between Gay "Successful Relationships" and Heterosexual Monogomy but a drastic skew in moral values.
"Discrimination" has NOT always been used as a negative word. I'm sorry but you are being quite ridiculous on this point. Read som really really old books, seriously. It was a synonym for dischernmentation. (cause discenrmentation sounds dumb). It seems you don't recognize that I am talking about the WORD before it was ever used in a racial context. (There is always a necessity for someone to do the work for you if you can make them) Actually blacks were Inferior. They were inferior IN CIVILIZATION (and thus were subjugated as has happened thruought human history) the term slave comes from the name of the Slavs, white ppl who were so enslaved their name became the definition of it. And of course (This ought to go without saying) Blacks weren't un-equal in their CAPABILTY of civilization, duh. In fact the combination of shifting climate and lifestyle of other ppls is what caused innovations, necessity being the mother of invention. BTW the arab slave trade was literally 300 times worse than the transatlantic. (Blacks are equal, I'd assume you'd agree that has been proven true)
"when a subset of society is measured to be inferior in one way or another (Blacks are disproportionally criminals for instance) are we to engage in disparate treatment"
Maybe this one's above your head, no offense.
Should we have different laws or more lax sentencing for blacks merely because statistically they commit more crimes? (This is the very REAL Inequality; a bad behavior which you wish to reward; inevitably getting you more of it) No, this is called Disparate Treatment and is a part of the Civil Rights act, negating equal protection under the law. This is a From of Reparations instituted out of guilt for slavery & segregation.
I use this as a jumping off point to transfer the principle of equality to marriage which is defined as between a man and a woman, changing this for a victims feelings once again would be gross disparate Treatment.
You think we should censor the statistic racial inequality of prisoners or instute lessor sentences for minorities to prevent "Persecution"? This is what we already have to a large extent and it has only furthered the Victimhood mentality/entitlement culture, which has brought us such gross statistics. This is my point. The Victimhood of blacks was extolled durring the civil rights movement and since there has been a RAPID decline of black families since.
PROFILING!~ You've got Muslims, (I hope your good at this type of SAT questions...) Not all muslims are terrorists, but the Overwhelming vast majority of Terrorists are Swarthy Arab Muslims. (And young males to boot) so in airports doing RANDOM CHECKS that are 90% 100 year old irish nuns is.... Stupid? YES, of course if the Irish Nun is showing the tell tale signs of suicide bomber nervousness KICK HER ASS OUT OF LINE, duh. but the current standard of checking children geezers and the OBVIOUSLY NOT TERRORISTS of all archetypes is functionally retarded and negates the purpose with a false presumption of Equal likelihood that a Nun will be a terrorist as a Young Swarthy Muslim. duh.
LOL Ad Hominem, yay. When one launches into explaining reasoning BEHIND one's opinion, it would be quite obvious I'd think, as to what it is
& yer close, I wanted to "SHAKE UP THE LOVE FEST" by providing dissent in SUCH A FORUM as seems never to have experienced it not out of stupid mallice or some imagined bigotry of yours, but the ernest joy of debate and discussion. My citing several FACTS should suggest that I've done some research of my own. And as for my "Formal Language" This is just how I talk, I regard it as a disability in communication, so stop being prejuidiced Perhaps I overestimate my readers ability to read my "mess" however your regard for it as a "Waste of space" tells me you aren't even trying to get it. but I'll post this extra long "mess" anyway. One might suggest that you have wasted your time in responding particularly since mine IS a well thought out (if not well laid out) Argument. ___As an atheist you are specifically divorced from the founding principles of the United States Government. The concept of God Given Rights not having much meaning to you. Some would transcribe to Natural Rights.
Marriage is an institution established before the Govt. or its law; and is in origin a religious institution incorporated into law and endorsement by Govt. breaking any faximaly of a presumed separation.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
A Child is either messed up because of the sins of his father or is okay in spite of them, (no man being without sin); however shifting the corner stone of civilization for 5 millennia, AGAIN, and expecting a different result than that which history has told, is the definition of insanity.
Grey Gouache bleeds not the white or the black but in it surely are both. "any child raised outside the norm wouldn't become a healthy adult." of course I dissagree with that grey-gouache statement.
How many ppl Live in San Francisco? Wikipedia it
(more importantly the poll was of "Successful/enduring Relationships" not saying monogomous for obvious reasons. the whole point of polling is to get an accurate snapshot of the ppl, and since it was the Chronicle, their intentions were obviously noble. 50% odd percent said they were in open relationships, many said they reticent to divulge that DO TO THE STEREOTYPE OF PROMISCUITY obviously some were reticent enough to LIE! SO 50% +, BUT 20 odd % DECLINED TO ANSWER Obviously if some decided to answer and lie more would have just skipped it. This is the Obvious conclusion.So According to you Morality has nothing to do with raising children. Yep you sound like an atheist.
I suck at Phraseology, or am so brilliant at it as to constantly be misunderstood negating the purpose for which the quality aught to be intended.
Agreed its annoying trying to find previous comments.
My purpose in describing "Discrimination" out of its colloquial context was to break its idiotically racially related assumed meaning, so as to be sure to not be misunderstood in saying That gays are different and said un-sameness makes them not one wit the less human and equal for it, but in discriminating circumstances such as marriage (Irreparable while maintaining its purpose)
I also presume to take on the role of extolling etymology to spread greater understanding about language.
I actually do expect ppl to know the stuff I tacked "Duh" onto...
It is a principle of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Fairness not being the same as equality.
Jinx's poll asked for opinions, I gave reason for mine, and then challenged for not doing so, then for saying too much, would you have me not respond?
An Open Asking of opinion from me, will get you it with details.___
Actually the very nature of the constitution is to limit GOVT.
Regarding Religion; the "Separation" is solely and specifically to prevent Govt from corrupting Church, while allowing the morality of Religion to shine benevolently upon the souls of all equally including those in power. (Without the shadowy cloak of Govt. Smothering Religion [as has been done in England])
"Separation of Church And State" is not in the constitution, but a letter from Jefferson to a man of the cloth assuring him there would be no NATIONAL religion (as there WERE Official state religions).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Within 24 hours of ratifying the 1st amendment a national day of thanks to Almighty God was declared. (Thanks Giving) All your modern misconceptions (about the constitution) stem from a rewriting of history and law after FDR by Statists.
lol, you cannot (w/o hypocrisy ) declare (even if there was a legitimate secularization of govt. & there's not) that because a certain Taboo ppl believe something it can't be law!~ Otherwise that would merely lend super precedence to Christians as the majority. Neither of us want a theocracy. Remember Equality.
The Constitution has been increasingly deviated from for over 100 years, starting shortly after Lincoln was shot (by members of his cabinet). Woodrow Wilson Imprisoned ppl and allowed gangs of "Patriots" to execute ppl in public for their SPEECH. The Blue Eagle of the NRA (National Recovery Agency) were required to be hung in businesses showing they adhered to the Govt. Minimum Prices
I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there used to be laws against divorce (or rather divorce was not legally recognized) in some states at one point.
There are many ridiculous laws about marriage atm, making a man pay for a woman's lifestyle to which she has "grown accustomed" was from a bygone age and hasn't been gotten rid of simply because its beneficial to the 'Victimhood Class' of Woman.
The whole idea of a Democratic Republic is that a Society as a Whole has a say in what laws are, and thus-far, the majority say No to Gay Marriage; the irony being that the Majority would also say YES to AN ABSOLUTELY EQUAL "Civil Union" Which in my opinion the prohibition of should be out and out illegal seeing as how entering into contracts ARE a Natural Right; however Marriage as a contract definitively requires a Man & a Woman.
Recent attempts in California, at Legalizing 'Gay Marriage' have in them stipulations that Priests unwilling to preform ceremonies for Gays be fined and their Church's tax exempt status removed.
So much for Freedom of Religion. So much for just wanting "Equality".
___
Paper and ink are specifically the tools to record ideas the preservation of which is contingent upon individuals not only reading and understanding them but realizing their value, something the progressive youth cannot accomplish if they are dead set against "old Things" until they become useful again at which point they may be long since beyond repair or warped by constant hypocrisy.
"you have NO RIGHT, no right what so ever to vote on the rights of another person which is already in the constituion."
Sorry no, you are wrong here on many levels.
1stly (A bunch of self evident truths; that we are endowed by our creator INALIENABLE RIGHTS among these life liberty, Pursuit of Happines [originally property but switched so as not to endorse slavery]) The Rights of Men are sourced FROM GOD, to start with, not the constitution which is a protectorate AGAINST Government ENCROACHING upon those NATURAL Rights; a stark document of How To's and What For's (if you read the preamble), and a set of GUARANTEED SWEEPING BROAD Rights that the Federal Govt. CANNOT And WILL NOT Violate. (although they have).
A charter of Negative Liberties.
2ndly we do as a society have the right to take away rights, otherwise laws would be merely suggestions without teeth, to free the slaves you had to extinguish the right of slave owners to hold them. To Enforce a right to Property you must jail the thief.
3rdly The Gay movement has stolen their own rights by diverting the cause from civil unions to Marriage. This has been done specifically to establish not mere standards of tolerance but mandate acceptance, an encroachment, which in principle is inherently totalitarian. Equality in law and principle cannot compete with a Progressive ache for a shifting of names, words, definitions and crushing history.
4rthly All men are created equal, as men (individual human beings) we are equal in that and must have equal protection under the law as citizens; but this does not deride exact sameness amongst us nor prohibit distinction; laws prohibit for Youths what is allowed for the mature, Criminals are jailed, Aliens Barred, and marriage defined as of opposite genders, because there is no separation of your stripe, no sameness in spite of all distinction, Equality is theirs collectively for the taking, but it is forsaken for an envied word, not even unanimously wanted, nor if had, I suspect, majoritarily enshrined.
___
So many ppl today are indoctrinated into the "Why Do You Hate?" Mindset. A caricature so egregious, words can't describe it; but it consistently evokes from me either Laughter and then rage, or rage then laughter; sometimes followed (as now) by quiet depression.
Yeah, I don't hate or "Dislike" gays or any group of ppl. The fact that you can't follow my logic doesn't mean my arguments are governed by emotion or shallow prejudice.
Yes altering the Cornerstone of human civilization affects me. I invite you to view my long winded debates with others on this poll rather than Repeating myself.
___
You are comparing Slavery, with not having the name you want on a contract which is left without the benefits of another Gender Specific (& religious) Contract, specifically because you are hung up on having the name (which by definition does not apply). I don't think so; no, enslaving human beings and segregating them, not the same as resisting an admitted attempt to force not tolerance but acceptance on society as a whole through Govt legal maneuverings and extolled victim-hood status.
Liberty requires many things.
Freedom of speech requires the allowance of racists to speak.
Similarly, Rule of Law requires that we not redefine contracts to get around their lingual restrictions; the only options that Maintain RULE OF LAW, are either to abolish the contract and replace it, or simply write one lacking the restrictive language.
_______________________
Morality shall never be measured solely by the law, and Tyrannically Legislating Morality (particularly that of a minority) for its own sake regardless of language, reason, opinion of the ppl, or precedent is one of the many dastardly aspects of theocracy.
I would be Super Great with abolishing Govt Marriage contracts and instituting Civil Union contracts for everyone.
I'd be super Great with keeping Marriage contracts and having Equal Civil Union Contracts for gays (With all the same rights etc).
If Govt. is going to eliminate the incentives for behaviors/associations promoting the health of society, the least they can do is not retain the name of behaviors/associations that promote the health of society, under their promotion of that which does not do so.
I only have a problem of pretending sameness (Not to be confused with equality which is no pretension). Men are not women, gays are not straights (Humans are still Humans eternally equal), Heterosexual & Homosexual Relationships are not the same (Except in effection, attraction, endorphins and the fact of sexual arousal, the societal legitimizing of which is NOT the purpose of marriage), Gay-Marriage is wholly a pretension of sameness on levels where there is none.
Marriage is being destroyed by modern society, and incorporating into it a loose homosexual culture (which in part already has) can only damage it further.
___
Gay marriage is the negation of a legal contract's defining term & title, (done by illegitimate legal maneuvering) this is not an opinion but a fact. To use your comparative analogy, Gay Marriage is like me saying, you don't want black ppl to vote? Well then Blacks get 2 votes for ever 1 of yours!~
This is disparate social reparations having NOTHING to do with equality under the law. & I care because, I care about Society Civics, the Law, And the INTEGRITY of the American Form of Govt. A REPUBLIC, Ruled by LAW NOT MEN, Reason Tempering Emotion, Equality Chastising "Fairness". Equal Opportunity NOT Equal Outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment