Please explain how its different then.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
Please explain how its different then.
There are plenty of gay conservatives, as Jilliannotes. Some no doubt vote their pocketbooks, as they see it. And others are genuine, ideological conservatives.
I suspect most gays would be happy to get the legal disabilities from which they suffer out of the way, and leave the marriage issue to a future generation.
Is it "discrimination" to restrict the formal, legal recognition of marriage to two people of opposite sex? Of course it is.
However, we discriminate in many ways which may not be justifiable through the exercise of Pure Reason. But there are no societies built on Pure Reason, and those which were tried did not last.
We don't recognize polygamous marriages, although we tolerate them in fact. There are rational, consequential arguments against them, but there are also arguments for them. Our attitude is not derived from these arguments.
We don't let people below the age of X get married -- X has varied over time and place, but notice that whatever X is set at, it discriminates against those people who are a few weeks younger than X when they wish to get married.
We forbid -- with lots of toleration depending on time place and circumstance -- public nudity. Why? There is only feeble justification to be found for this if we consult Pure Reason.
We forbid -- with less tolerance -- public copulation. Why? What harm could it do? It certainly discriminates against those who can only find satisfaction before an involuntary audience.
We forbid consensual cannibalism. Even if I willed my post-decease body, which was tested by the most rigorous standards to meet public health criteria, you could not advertise a feast of sauteed Long Doug. Why? Our ancestors probably did it. Why cater to these prejudices, especially since a major religion makes a weekly sacrament out of ritual cannibalism.
There are many customs and taboos which have been encrusted in law. Few people want to rush to repeal these laws out of some mad desire for perfect consistency, or the wish to punish only those activities which are directly and provably harmful to non-consenting adults.
Perhaps we subconsciously feel that breaking all but provably-harmful restraints on our behavior may have repercussions down the line which, although not predictable now, will be very serious and socially-harmful.
Perhaps we are not keen to leap into the superficially attractive libertarian world of "an it hurt no one, do what thou wilt" because we have seen things like the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and the expansion of the welfare state, with the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.
So many conservatives, and I suspect many liberals too, are willing to offer gays a good-faith effort to remove whatever current legal disabilities they face in the realms of inheritance, visitation rights, and so on. In other areas, such as military service, de facto reality is approaching what is asked for de jure.
There are things which are done, and not said. There are things which are said, and not done. This is how a society of diverse but sophisticated adults deals with its problems, when it can.
In turn we ask that gays let the traditional definition of marriage remain. Perhaps in fifty years things will look different to our descendants, who in any case will have more information about the social effects, if any, of the growing acceptance of the homosexual condition.
The liberal democracies, of which the United States is the principal sword and shield, are facing myriad problems and potential threats in the world. A power which punishes homosexuality by death is about to acquire nuclear weapons. We have plenty of things to worry about, and to argue about, and to fight over, which directly affect our future. Let's put this one off the agenda.
I suspect most gays would be happy to get the legal disabilities from which they suffer out of the way, and leave the marriage issue to a future generation.
Is it "discrimination" to restrict the formal, legal recognition of marriage to two people of opposite sex? Of course it is.
However, we discriminate in many ways which may not be justifiable through the exercise of Pure Reason. But there are no societies built on Pure Reason, and those which were tried did not last.
We don't recognize polygamous marriages, although we tolerate them in fact. There are rational, consequential arguments against them, but there are also arguments for them. Our attitude is not derived from these arguments.
We don't let people below the age of X get married -- X has varied over time and place, but notice that whatever X is set at, it discriminates against those people who are a few weeks younger than X when they wish to get married.
We forbid -- with lots of toleration depending on time place and circumstance -- public nudity. Why? There is only feeble justification to be found for this if we consult Pure Reason.
We forbid -- with less tolerance -- public copulation. Why? What harm could it do? It certainly discriminates against those who can only find satisfaction before an involuntary audience.
We forbid consensual cannibalism. Even if I willed my post-decease body, which was tested by the most rigorous standards to meet public health criteria, you could not advertise a feast of sauteed Long Doug. Why? Our ancestors probably did it. Why cater to these prejudices, especially since a major religion makes a weekly sacrament out of ritual cannibalism.
There are many customs and taboos which have been encrusted in law. Few people want to rush to repeal these laws out of some mad desire for perfect consistency, or the wish to punish only those activities which are directly and provably harmful to non-consenting adults.
Perhaps we subconsciously feel that breaking all but provably-harmful restraints on our behavior may have repercussions down the line which, although not predictable now, will be very serious and socially-harmful.
Perhaps we are not keen to leap into the superficially attractive libertarian world of "an it hurt no one, do what thou wilt" because we have seen things like the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and the expansion of the welfare state, with the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.
So many conservatives, and I suspect many liberals too, are willing to offer gays a good-faith effort to remove whatever current legal disabilities they face in the realms of inheritance, visitation rights, and so on. In other areas, such as military service, de facto reality is approaching what is asked for de jure.
There are things which are done, and not said. There are things which are said, and not done. This is how a society of diverse but sophisticated adults deals with its problems, when it can.
In turn we ask that gays let the traditional definition of marriage remain. Perhaps in fifty years things will look different to our descendants, who in any case will have more information about the social effects, if any, of the growing acceptance of the homosexual condition.
The liberal democracies, of which the United States is the principal sword and shield, are facing myriad problems and potential threats in the world. A power which punishes homosexuality by death is about to acquire nuclear weapons. We have plenty of things to worry about, and to argue about, and to fight over, which directly affect our future. Let's put this one off the agenda.
I suspect most gays would be happy to get the legal disabilities from which they suffer out of the way, and leave the marriage issue to a future generation.
Some would, some wouldn't. Many gays feel as though they are second class citizens in this country and the marriage issue doesn't help much.
However, we discriminate in many ways which may not be justifiable through the exercise of Pure Reason. But there are no societies built on Pure Reason, and those which were tried did not last.
How about a society built on Federal Law which outlaws discrimination based on sex?
We don't recognize polygamous marriages, although we tolerate them in fact. There are rational, consequential arguments against them, but there are also arguments for them. Our attitude is not derived from these arguments.
I don't think we "tolerate them in fact". And perhaps your attitudes are not derived from the arguments, but some peoples attitudes are.
We don't let people below the age of X get married -- X has varied over time and place, but notice that whatever X is set at, it discriminates against those people who are a few weeks younger than X when they wish to get married.
This is merely an illustration of the "grains of sand" problem in which you have one grain of sand, add another, add another, add another, etc, etc...and at some point, it is impossible to determine when, suddenly you have a mound of sand. This is a fact of reality and hence one must approach it differently than societal discrimination based on nothing more than prejudices.
We forbid -- with lots of toleration depending on time place and circumstance -- public nudity. Why? There is only feeble justification to be found for this if we consult Pure Reason.
There is no justification for it.
We forbid -- with less tolerance -- public copulation. Why? What harm could it do? It certainly discriminates against those who can only find satisfaction before an involuntary audience.
Utilitarian reasons.
We forbid consensual cannibalism. Even if I willed my post-decease body, which was tested by the most rigorous standards to meet public health criteria, you could not advertise a feast of sauteed Long Doug. Why? Our ancestors probably did it. Why cater to these prejudices, especially since a major religion makes a weekly sacrament out of ritual cannibalism.
A bit silly to forbid it...but a justification similar to the one against virtual child porn can be used.
There are many customs and taboos which have been encrusted in law. Few people want to rush to repeal these laws out of some mad desire for perfect consistency, or the wish to punish only those activities which are directly and provably harmful to non-consenting adults.
Few people are rational or are able to step out of their own prejudices. This is not a justification for continuing them.
Perhaps we are not keen to leap into the superficially attractive libertarian world of "an it hurt no one, do what thou wilt" because we have seen things like the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and the expansion of the welfare state, with the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.
We have?
In turn we ask that gays let the traditional definition of marriage remain. Perhaps in fifty years things will look different to our descendants, who in any case will have more information about the social effects, if any, of the growing acceptance of the homosexual condition.
So basically your argument is that people are too stupid, selfish, and prejudiced to allow gays to have full equality in this country? It may be, but that is no reason for them to stop fighting for such equality.
The liberal democracies, of which the United States is the principal sword and shield, are facing myriad problems and potential threats in the world. A power which punishes homosexuality by death is about to acquire nuclear weapons. We have plenty of things to worry about, and to argue about, and to fight over, which directly affect our future. Let's put this one off the agenda.
Marriage directly affects many peoples futures, although it may not affect yours.
Doesn't sound like minor or isolated events to me at all. Just glad my kids are out of the public school system now.
Should have guessed RSG would come to the defense of Mr. "White Power" Pale Rider and his ADF friends...
Larkinn: I said:
And you said:
With which of the above statements do you disagree?
... we have seen things like
--- the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with
--- the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and
--- the expansion of the welfare state,
with
--- the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.
And you said:
We have?
With which of the above statements do you disagree?
the enormous increase in violent crime side by side
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01a.html
the expansion of the welfare state,
It has not been expanded in the past 6 years. Rather the opposite has happened.
Well, I was not talking about the last few years, but the last few decades. The effects of changes in laws and customs generally are not felt for a generation or two.
If you check the thread on the Stupidity of Militant Atheism, you will see some figures for the last 100 years in Britain, comparing 1898 and some intermediate years up to 1998.
The British standard of living has improved enormously during that time. The welfare state holds the entire population in its clammy embrace: free this and free that, you name it. Those mean old policemen have been restrained in all kinds of ways. Capital punishment was abolished almost fifty years ago. If a welfare-scrounging immigrant stabs a school principal to death in broad daylight, he will be out of prison and back on welfare in eleven years. The laws are much more permissive. A liberal's paradise. And crime of all sorts has increased by twenty, thirty, fifty times (except for murder, where the rate has only tripled).
Now no one predicted this. And no one can really explain it. But in light of these developments I am reluctant to keep pulling threads out of the fabric of the social order.
If you check the thread on the Stupidity of Militant Atheism, you will see some figures for the last 100 years in Britain, comparing 1898 and some intermediate years up to 1998.
The British standard of living has improved enormously during that time. The welfare state holds the entire population in its clammy embrace: free this and free that, you name it. Those mean old policemen have been restrained in all kinds of ways. Capital punishment was abolished almost fifty years ago. If a welfare-scrounging immigrant stabs a school principal to death in broad daylight, he will be out of prison and back on welfare in eleven years. The laws are much more permissive. A liberal's paradise. And crime of all sorts has increased by twenty, thirty, fifty times (except for murder, where the rate has only tripled).
Now no one predicted this. And no one can really explain it. But in light of these developments I am reluctant to keep pulling threads out of the fabric of the social order.
Discriminating against homosexuality is hardly a necessary "thread in the social order".
And making the correlation between this vague concept of "the social order" and crime is not correlative unless you think the social order improved in the 1990's?
And making the correlation between this vague concept of "the social order" and crime is not correlative unless you think the social order improved in the 1990's?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Once again for the slow ( that would be Larkinn) claiming that some how preventing a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman is sexual discrimination is ignorant.
Men and Women have the EXACT same rights in regards marriage as each other, there is no discrimination. And not allowing Homosexuals to marry is NOT on par with not letting black MEN marry white WOMEN or vice versa. It is an ignorant argument, one that is absent any logic or compelling evidence.
Further it is nice to know Larkinn is all for public nudity, public acts of sex and on and on. When are you Larkinn planning to campaign for multiple marriage partners?
The entire argument that Homosexual marriage is about an inequality between the sexes is stupid. It is IGNORANT. It has no basis in fact.
Men and Women have the EXACT same rights in regards marriage as each other, there is no discrimination. And not allowing Homosexuals to marry is NOT on par with not letting black MEN marry white WOMEN or vice versa. It is an ignorant argument, one that is absent any logic or compelling evidence.
Further it is nice to know Larkinn is all for public nudity, public acts of sex and on and on. When are you Larkinn planning to campaign for multiple marriage partners?
The entire argument that Homosexual marriage is about an inequality between the sexes is stupid. It is IGNORANT. It has no basis in fact.
Once again for the slow ( that would be Larkinn) claiming that some how preventing a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman is sexual discrimination is ignorant.
Yes yes, you've made this assertion before. Now back it up with something.
Men and Women have the EXACT same rights in regards marriage as each other, there is no discrimination.
Really? So if person A( a male) and person B(a female) both want to marry person C, they have exactly the same rights in regards to marriage? Oh wait, no they don't.
And not allowing Homosexuals to marry is NOT on par with not letting black MEN marry white WOMEN or vice versa. It is an ignorant argument, one that is absent any logic or compelling evidence.
What a surprise. Another assertion with nothing at all to back it up. At least try for fucks sake.
Further it is nice to know Larkinn is all for public nudity, public acts of sex and on and on. When are you Larkinn planning to campaign for multiple marriage partners?
And its reassuring to know that, although the world may change, RGS still won't be able to read.
The entire argument that Homosexual marriage is about an inequality between the sexes is stupid. It is IGNORANT. It has no basis in fact.
Amazing how its so incredibly ignorant, but you in all your infinite wisdom haven't given even one single reason to think thats the case. Its not even that your reasoning is bad or flawed its that you haven't provided anything except for naked assertions with no evidence.
For those interested in some actual facts about American gays, look here . (Click on the "PUMS" link for income data.) The data do not include comparisons with straights, nor are the political opinions of gays mentioned, but there are a lot of interesting facts, taken from the US Census. (The Census does not -- yet -- ask about sexual orientation, but the last one did ask about "unmarried partners" living in the same household, and it asked their sex, and the sex of the respondent, so a good guess can be made about the number of gay couples. This misses out single gays, underaged gays and those who chose not to respond, or respond correctly, but the data are probably as reliable as most other surveys.)
I do recall reading, a couple of years ago, some rather surprising statistic about the number of conservative-voting gays. I shall try to locate it -- it supported Jillian's assertion, as I believe the statistics about gay income above do too. The following link is interesting in this regard.
I do recall reading, a couple of years ago, some rather surprising statistic about the number of conservative-voting gays. I shall try to locate it -- it supported Jillian's assertion, as I believe the statistics about gay income above do too. The following link is interesting in this regard.
007
Charter Member
- Thread starter
- #174
For those interested in some actual facts about American gays, look here . (Click on the "PUMS" link for income data.) The data do not include comparisons with straights, nor are the political opinions of gays mentioned, but there are a lot of interesting facts, taken from the US Census. (The Census does not -- yet -- ask about sexual orientation, but the last one did ask about "unmarried partners" living in the same household, and it asked their sex, and the sex of the respondent, so a good guess can be made about the number of gay couples. This misses out single gays, underaged gays and those who chose not to respond, or respond correctly, but the data are probably as reliable as most other surveys.)
I do recall reading, a couple of years ago, some rather surprising statistic about the number of conservative-voting gays. I shall try to locate it -- it supported Jillian's assertion, as I believe the statistics about gay income above do too. The following link is interesting in this regard.
And all this has exactly what to do with the homos infiltrating schools and pushing their sick agenda on young, impressionable children?
roomy
The Natural
- Apr 22, 2006
- 4,862
- 984
- 48
that was one of the stupidest things I read today, Allie.
And I"ve been arguing with Roomy!
I beg to differ Numpty, I have been showing you the error of your stupid ways, I have my work cut out for me, it seems.
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
I beg to differ Numpty, I have been showing you the error of your stupid ways, I have my work cut out for me, it seems.
You are showing me the error of my ways much like a viewmaster shows major motion pictures.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Banned
- #179
I shall re-iterate.
If a group who wants one life choice is allowed to spend time in public schools telling kids why everyone should accept that life choice, and choose it, if they want, then who's to say everyone can't come in and push their life choices?
To say it's okay to promote one but not the other is the definintion of hyocrisy and even tyranny.
If a group who wants one life choice is allowed to spend time in public schools telling kids why everyone should accept that life choice, and choose it, if they want, then who's to say everyone can't come in and push their life choices?
To say it's okay to promote one but not the other is the definintion of hyocrisy and even tyranny.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 269
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 158
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 466
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 408
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 85
- Replies
- 104
- Views
- 329
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 476
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 398
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8348
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-