Post Reply
Page 53 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 70 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 4:23PM #521
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

Am Colph, your call for honesty is commendable and completely appropriate.  However, these old farts are going to die off, and younger folks do not believe as they do...happily.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 4:34PM #522
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Armwar wrote:


that is your answer, Ed W?  that minorities have to shut up?  they call the shots through the influence of their reasonableness, of course, as did the black minority when they had the presumption to insist that their education be equal and in fact identical, at the same places, as whites.  Are you saying they called the shots?  These were the shots heard round the world, in reality...that all humans in this country are created equal, equal protection under the law, EQUAL RIGHTS...uh


Ed W.


 


those shots




not everything a minority wants is a civil rights issue.  If this was a civil rights issue it would have been settled long ago, without public input.


If Marriage is a civil right, no license would or could be required.  (Fail.)


If an Equal Protection Issue then we have to undo the law that says gay men cannot marry women.  No such law exists. (Fail.)



We're down to it's a matter of what the people want or don't want.  It seems you want a judge to make the decision based on the eloquence of arguments, combined with media shaming, and name calling.


And btw, according to your press releases, I'm in the minority, so I guess I should win.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 4:41PM #523
TENAC
Posts: 25,864

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:10PM, amcolph wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 3:02PM, TENAC wrote:


Morocco, in my case, but the same situation is found in all Islamic countries where polygamy is legal.


You are wrong.  This is why these discussions go for 400+ posts.


In Morocco legislation has been enacted to limit polygamy and is almost non existent.  


In islam.  We need to aspire to create a society as such?  This is really weak Am, even for you.
 



 




They very well may be--I lived in Morocco thirty years ago.


My point is not wrong, as your post makes clear.  I was only trying to point out to you that even where polygamy is legal and accepted, it does not lead to the destruction of one man-one woman marriage.


Indeed, all of this 'slippery slope' hysteria does nothing but call your intellectual integrity into question.





Am, you are not alone in that thought, feeling, emotion as evidenced by many on this thread.  And I realize that, but it drives home and demonstrates better than anything else the incredible chasm between the left and right.


The left debates exactly have we have now, and at the end of the day, the structure that allows for the most stable society is the committed man and committed woman in marriage.  But you or some other from the leftist thought pattern will come to this post, make some ambigous, obtuse analysis that has nothing to do with the fact I have stated in order to continue to blur the lines.


A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.  You have no other example of that in an alterntive combination.  But the emotion of inequity and guilt the left lives with is hard to overcome.



Looking for a ssm or polygamous marriage promoting society that is in the forefront of an advancing society is next to an impossible task.


If anything, I would like to see marriage further strengthened by getting rid of the no fault divorce which as done more damage to traditional marriage and our society overall than anything and perhaps even what ssm would do.  To do so would likely drive down the rates of people getting married, but I would rather have fewer and stronger marriages than what we have today.


(on a side note, repeal of no fault divorce laws would almost eliminate the ideal of ssm).

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 4:58PM #524
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:41PM, TENAC wrote:


 


A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.



So it is, and allowing a few people to engage in polygamy--and it will always be a few, as Islamic societies prove to us--evidently does not detract from it.


The argument for SSM is the same.  Allowing a few homosexuals to marry--and it will always be a few, as homosexuals are and will remain a small fraction of society and not all of those will wish to marry--would not detract from one man, one woman marriage either, as far as I can tell, any more than polygamy does.


Looking for a ssm or polygamous marriage promoting society that is in the forefront of an advancing society is next to an impossible task.



You are assuming that if SSM is allowed it will dominate heterosexual marriage.  Why should it?  Polygamy doesn't, as we have seen--and the number of individuals able to enter into SSM is severely limited, while those who are potentially capable of entering into polygamous relationships is not.


 




 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:16PM #525
TENAC
Posts: 25,864

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:58PM, amcolph wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:41PM, TENAC wrote:


 


A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.



So it is, and allowing a few people to engage in polygamy--and it will always be a few, as Islamic societies prove to us--evidently does not detract from it.


The argument for SSM is the same.  Allowing a few homosexuals to marry--and it will always be a few, as homosexuals are and will remain a small fraction of society and not all of those will wish to marry--would not detract from one man, one woman marriage either, as far as I can tell, any more than polygamy does.


Looking for a ssm or polygamous marriage promoting society that is in the forefront of an advancing society is next to an impossible task.



You are assuming that if SSM is allowed it will dominate heterosexual marriage.  Why should it?  Polygamy doesn't, as we have seen--and the number of individuals able to enter into SSM is severely limited, while those who are potentially capable of entering into polygamous relationships is not.


 




 




It is an impossibility for homosexual unions of any type to dominate heterosexual.  The shear numbers wouldnt allow it.   But for the heterosexual left that wish to pat the homosexual on the head with a "there, there, " on one hand then turn and say "it cant hurt anyting" on the other makes that  type of attitude is condescending at best.


My argument here has always been what is best for society.  It eases your guilt to bring ssm into our culture.  If ssm or unions could build a strong culture it would have done so, but historically it cannot. 


Liberals tend to live for today while conservatives ten to look at things after they're gone.  If we saw a strong, civilized homosexual society anywhere in the world it may be something to consider.  But there is none. 



In medicine we seek best practices.  We should do this socially as well.


Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:40PM #526
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:16PM, TENAC wrote:


 


It is an impossibility for homosexual unions of any type to dominate heterosexual.  The shear numbers wouldnt allow it.   But for the heterosexual left that wish to pat the homosexual on the head with a "there, there, " on one hand then turn and say "it cant hurt anyting" on the other makes that  type of attitude is condescending at best.


My argument here has always been what is best for society.  It eases your guilt to bring ssm into our culture.  If ssm or unions could build a strong culture it would have done so, but historically it cannot. 


Liberals tend to live for today while conservatives ten to look at things after they're gone.  If we saw a strong, civilized homosexual society anywhere in the world it may be something to consider.  But there is none. 





Why should I feel guilty?  There is nothing of guilt in my position.  By your admission, there would never be very many SSMs.  Why do we need the example successful homosexual society to allow a few to engage in it?


Your argument begins to sound like the old chestnut, "I'd like to let you, and if it was just you it would be fine, but if I let you then everyone would want to and if everyone did it we'd be in trouble" so popular with incompetent managers.  As a supervisor I always was able to avoid that particular fatuity and I see no reason for our society to engage in it.


 




 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:44PM #527
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

as I said, those who feel in the uncharitable way towards others as some of you here do, monopolizing what a marriage is and is not based upon your own prejudices and B.S.  Your voice is not the minority voice now, but it soon will be, thank God.  so really, go on with your churlish old selves...  I mean it ...go on!  go away...your words are hate-filled and injure my sensitive ears...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:46PM #528
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

Prove in some statistical or other terms that the marriage between a man and a woman is one of the most stabilizing forces in America...that is your opinion, but you tout it as if it is a fact.


 


It is not.  Prove me wrong in my counter-assertion---yes, MY opinion, every bit as strong as yours, but still I recognize it as opinion...as least I am that far ahead of you in reality-checking.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:49PM #529
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

Jun 17, 2012 -- 5:46PM, Armwar wrote:


Prove in some statistical or other terms that the marriage between a man and a woman is one of the most stabilizing forces in America...that is your opinion, but you tout it as if it is a fact.


 


It is not.  Prove me wrong in my counter-assertion---yes, MY opinion, every bit as strong as yours, but still I recognize it as opinion...as least I am that far ahead of you in reality-checking.




You could grant it arguendo and their argument still wouldn't hold water.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 5:56PM #530
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

Hitler believed that he was doing what was best for society---oh, yeah---Hitler held the same beliefs about Gays...not just that they shouldn't marry, but that they shouldn't exist, and he set about to put his beliefs into action.  What stops you guys from going this extra mile?  that Gays not only shouldn't marry but should be eliminated as societal contaminants.  That is what you really believe, isn't it?  Well, get together and influence other Americans!  maybe your collective voice will make your deepest dreams come true:

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 53 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 ... 70 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook