"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[Verv]

Good, this will help me undermine our great society: I simply can't destroy worthless Western civilization fast enough.

If our pathetic civilization is undermined by gay marriage, then someone hand me some torches. New World Order! To channel Arthur C. Clarke, our civilization can't be worth many regrets if this fiasco and changing its outdated Victorian ideals threatens it.

Gay marriage is only one facet of moral undermining.

The lack of common ideology is the clearest -- one could say that Communistic ideologies destroyed the West. Homosexual movement is merely a part of it.

Homosexuals should have rights -- and they do. They should be protected under the law from all violence directed at it but the notion of normalizing their status goes against the fundamental way of Nature.

You mean besides a powerful majority wanting to use it's power to limit the freedoms of a minority?

The freedoms of people should have a modicum of limits -- though they should be socially and not politically imposed. Social standards are the true laws of a society.

It should be legal to be a drunken adulterer -- it doesn't matter if it is punished by law or not. What matters is that it is universally frowned upon.

Well, that pre-supposes that culture and societies are static constructs to begin with - which, incidentally, is absolutely false. Cultures are constantly in a state of flux, including their values. Societal norms in 1600 differed markedly from societal norms in 1700, which in turn had little in common with societal norms in 1800 and so on and so forth. Unchanging, static tradition is, for the most part, a fiction.

I agree, and we are on the downward trend.

You do know that the concept of the nation state and the nationalist ideal that supports it are relatively new, historically speaking - don't you?

Yeah, Jose Ortega Y Gassette (sp?) documented the phenomenon in his seminal book the Revolt of the Masses. Due to the industrial age the nation state came about.

Most of these downfalls could be traced back to a phase of militaristic empire-building, in which the culture in question overextended its reach and weakened itself to the point of collapse. The very economic overabundance of wealth that allowed such societies to become increasingly "decadent" was merely a consequence of such expansionism, not its cause.

Like Carthage, and subsequently Rome. Cultural decay sealed the death of the empire.

The ideal society is able to maintain a high culture and moral unity. But this is impossible.

The whole world is meant to be cleansed of rotting institutions.

That is why the Protestant Reformation occurred, and that is why Empires fall when they become decadent.

War and revolution are Civilizantion's hygiene to paraphrase F. T. Marinetti. "War is the world's only hygiene."

That we consume more than we should, by the way, has been an integral part of capitalism from its conception onwards. For the last few hundred years, we've managed to stave off most negative side effects by delegating them to economically dependent "developing" countries (or, historically speaking, colonies). It's only now that the consequences of our wasteful lifestyle finally start to catch up with us.

We cannot curb freedom, but we must socially frown on decadence and opulence, and we must socially enforce the idea of 'right.' Laws which have no social support are worthless.

The health of the society depends on the society, not the government.

This has already been answered: a powerful majority tries to curtail the rights of a minority by pointing to religious writings as a "confirmation" that God wants things to progress like they always did. And yes, the slave-owners had good biblical support for their stance. I'd even go so far as to claim that it was better than the current anti-homosexuality angle.

It is not always religious writings. The Chinese point to Communist writings and largely most Asian societies have pointed to other ideological systems.

How does gay marriage fracture society? we've yet to hear evidence from the religious right. I can assure you, Europe is all ears. Surely the more tolerent we become, the closer society comes together as it removes the tedndency of minorities to resent the nation in which they live.

It destroys social norms within the society and decreases the lack of unity that comes from within living in a united society.

You know, ethnic homogenity is unimportant, really; many societies have existed well in heterogenuous societies but they were dependent on ideological unity to answer the call to battle and to maintain a high moral standard which would prepare them to face challenges united.

Overly individualistic societies are doomed to failure -- however, overly Confucian/conformist societies are doomed to stagnation.

A balance is needed and the West lost their balance.

I took your advice and done a little research and found out that The Roman Empire which was the dominant power on Earth for almost 1000 years, just crumbled and fell apart decades after embrassing Christianity. Same with Ancient Ireland, once a nation of great builders and worriers for 3,000 years. But became weak and was soon colonized shortly after christianity became the dominant religion

Was this because of the rise of Christianity, or the fall of Paganism? When the main religion fails, then the society has failed.

There were many great Pagan thinkers that philosophized on the differences between the literary gods and the actual nature of the gods, and who pointed out countless differences; they even contributed to Christian ideas concrning the relationship between man, godhead and beast.

If Paganism would have remained healthy as a religion they would not have failed.

But Paganism was doomed to failure as the godhead within any pagan society is undeveloped and has a lack of clear, moral principles.

yes and part of the majority's obligation is to ensure the rights of the minority. And protecting the rights of the family (if the parents are of the same sex or opposite sex) is another obligation we have, as the family is the building block of society.

There can be no society without standards and definitions on what family is; diversity and lack of mutual connection is a weakness.

People cannot unite effectively under the banner of "freedom to do whatever you want" as i tis the least meaningful unity.

There must be common values people are interested in preserving.

One of western societies most basic moral tenets is the belief that everyone, even members of minority groups are equal to everyone else. The attempts to deny one particular minority group equal rights and equal protection in the area of marriage is defiantly undermining our society

It's a bad idea... Equal under the law is good, but the idea that immoral persons can be equal to moral persons within a society is ridiculous.

A prostitute and a drunk should have the right to be either but they should be universally abhorred. A society with no common moral ground is a society with no ground to stand on.

And the point of discrimination is to fracture society, to make some parts of society less equal

In some cases. In other cases it is healthy to dislike that which is a tear in the moral fiber.

Just like the people who waved their bibles in opposition interracial marriage said it would undermine society

They were illogical.

If you can point out really weird reactionary examples, can I equate your stances with Pol Pot?

“discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry. John Lewis

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." Coretta Scott King

Coretta Scott King was a dude's wife who once fought for something good, and later wanted to create a welfare state, which I think is kind of funny.

I do not fear homosexuals and think theiy should be protected but I think the day we give social approval to an unnatural sexual inclination is the day that we fracture.

We lose our more conservative values which are fundamental in molding the identity of the nation.

A nation without an identity is a nation with no reason to exist.

And "Freedom" is no worthwhile identity.

Freedom is something we should desire, as is equality, and they are things we can ideologically fight for; however, if a nation is so inundated with warped concepts of the two that we make unequals as equals and abuse our freedom, we have accomplished nothing.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

True. I noticed that Communist states are every inch as sexually repressed as the most conservative religious environment, and I often wondered why. My guess is two-fold:
1. It's based on Communism's obsession with productivity and "contributing to the welfare of the community". Sex, as a mostly non-reproductive, pleasant, and - last but not least - private experience, does not comply to that ideal.
2. It's about control. Sexuality is one of the drives that make humans tick, but unlike, say, eating and sleeping, you can deprive people of it for extended periods of time without seriously impairing their functionality. By controlling the circumstances under which it is acceptable for them to have sex, you basically show that you are able to control every aspect of their existence, even something as private and essential as that.
It's a little bit like cult brainwashing, or even military training: the population is taught that they are not in control, and that others tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it.

 

[morningstar2651]

Lack of a common ideology...does that translate to the lack of a one-party state?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To BigBadwlf,

Same gendered marriages are marriages whether you like it or not

But again I wasn’t referring to what I thought but what God thinks.

They certainly aren’t according to the Biblical testimony of God, but I thought prop 8 meant the state didn’t recognise them.

Gee in all the anti-gay rhetoric and fallacious claims about “natural” no one seems to have ever posted the specific biblical verse saying that there will never be such a thing as a same gendered marriage

Yes they have many. Gee you have none that countenances it. As was shown earlier its easier for a paedophile to justify paedophilia from the Bible than same sex relationships, they have less to deny.

Maybe bigots shouldn’t become doctors

So now it seems you are labelling animal rights supporters as ‘bigots’

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,
But there is no such thing as same sex marriage in law of many states and neither in the UK, so don’t you mean civil partnerships?

Nope, I meant marriage as this is the claim being made by these "pro-family" groups and that is what is legal where these ads are running.

Ok you mean civil partnerships then as there correctly is no such things as same sex marriage in the UK and most parts of the world.

 

[DZoolander]

Gay marriage is only one facet of moral undermining.

The lack of common ideology is the clearest -- one could say that Communistic ideologies destroyed the West. Homosexual movement is merely a part of it.

Homosexuals should have rights -- and they do. They should be protected under the law from all violence directed at it but the notion of normalizing their status goes against the fundamental way of Nature.



The freedoms of people should have a modicum of limits -- though they should be socially and not politically imposed. Social standards are the true laws of a society.

It should be legal to be a drunken adulterer -- it doesn't matter if it is punished by law or not. What matters is that it is universally frowned upon.



I agree, and we are on the downward trend.



Yeah, Jose Ortega Y Gassette (sp?) documented the phenomenon in his seminal book the Revolt of the Masses. Due to the industrial age the nation state came about.



Like Carthage, and subsequently Rome. Cultural decay sealed the death of the empire.

The ideal society is able to maintain a high culture and moral unity. But this is impossible.

The whole world is meant to be cleansed of rotting institutions.

That is why the Protestant Reformation occurred, and that is why Empires fall when they become decadent.

War and revolution are Civilizantion's hygiene to paraphrase F. T. Marinetti. "War is the world's only hygiene."



We cannot curb freedom, but we must socially frown on decadence and opulence, and we must socially enforce the idea of 'right.' Laws which have no social support are worthless.

The health of the society depends on the society, not the government.



It is not always religious writings. The Chinese point to Communist writings and largely most Asian societies have pointed to other ideological systems.



It destroys social norms within the society and decreases the lack of unity that comes from within living in a united society.

You know, ethnic homogenity is unimportant, really; many societies have existed well in heterogenuous societies but they were dependent on ideological unity to answer the call to battle and to maintain a high moral standard which would prepare them to face challenges united.

Overly individualistic societies are doomed to failure -- however, overly Confucian/conformist societies are doomed to stagnation.

A balance is needed and the West lost their balance.



Was this because of the rise of Christianity, or the fall of Paganism? When the main religion fails, then the society has failed.

There were many great Pagan thinkers that philosophized on the differences between the literary gods and the actual nature of the gods, and who pointed out countless differences; they even contributed to Christian ideas concrning the relationship between man, godhead and beast.

If Paganism would have remained healthy as a religion they would not have failed.

But Paganism was doomed to failure as the godhead within any pagan society is undeveloped and has a lack of clear, moral principles.



There can be no society without standards and definitions on what family is; diversity and lack of mutual connection is a weakness.

People cannot unite effectively under the banner of "freedom to do whatever you want" as i tis the least meaningful unity.

There must be common values people are interested in preserving.

[/size][/font]

It's a bad idea... Equal under the law is good, but the idea that immoral persons can be equal to moral persons within a society is ridiculous.

A prostitute and a drunk should have the right to be either but they should be universally abhorred. A society with no common moral ground is a society with no ground to stand on.



In some cases. In other cases it is healthy to dislike that which is a tear in the moral fiber.



They were illogical.

If you can point out really weird reactionary examples, can I equate your stances with Pol Pot?



Coretta Scott King was a dude's wife who once fought for something good, and later wanted to create a welfare state, which I think is kind of funny.

I do not fear homosexuals and think theiy should be protected but I think the day we give social approval to an unnatural sexual inclination is the day that we fracture.

We lose our more conservative values which are fundamental in molding the identity of the nation.

A nation without an identity is a nation with no reason to exist.

And "Freedom" is no worthwhile identity.

Freedom is something we should desire, as is equality, and they are things we can ideologically fight for; however, if a nation is so inundated with warped concepts of the two that we make unequals as equals and abuse our freedom, we have accomplished nothing.

I actually agree with you on the BULK of your ideas about nation states - how they rise - what makes them strong - how they become weak - etc.

However - where I will differ with you is on what those issues are that really bond us together.

I think that to an extent - what makes America unique as a nation - and what bonds us together - is the idea that you *are* allowed to do as you wish provided that you're not harming anyone else. There really is no protocol to being an American. You are free to explore life as you see fit - be as successful or unsuccessful as you care to be - on your own terms - provided you do not infringe upon my rights.

If we were to go to war - and I were crouched next to you in a foxhole - I would risk my life for yours as an American - not because I'm sure that you're gonna hop on your female spouse once you get home. I would be no more, nor less inclined, to risk my life if I found out that you were a homosexual. What matters to me is that we're Americans and we're preserving the freedom that being an American entails.

So while I agree with you in principle - I think you're misidentifying the things that truly bond us as Americans.

 

[Psudopod]

Ok you mean civil partnerships then as there correctly is no such things as same sex marriage in the UK and most parts of the world.

Just because same sex marriage isn't legal, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. It's silly to same there is no such thing as same sex marriage.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

Just because same sex marriage isn't legal, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. It's silly to same there is no such thing as same sex marriage.

Rubbish, for many there is no such concept, and the law in the UK reflects that.
Pink grass doesnt exist either, grass is green, marriage is man and woman.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Psudopod,
Rubbish, for many there is no such concept, and the law in the UK reflects that.
Pink grass doesnt exist either, grass is green, marriage is man and woman.

If we genetically engineered grass to be pink, would pink grass exist or be a lie?

 

[Shane Roach]

Green pink does not exist. Same gendered sexual intercourse does not exist. Same gendered marriage will not truly exist even if the term is applied to same gendered couples. It is an attempt to further confuse the issue of family, of how culture is passed along, and an attack against self government.

Same sex "marriage" destroys marriage by making the word meaningless, and hence undermining the significance of the institution. It's Orwell, plain and simple. Control the language to control the mind. It doesn't really work, but it is annoying to have to deal with this over and over again in a supposedly free nation.

 

[b&wpac4]

Green pink does not exist. Same gendered sexual intercourse does not exist. Same gendered marriage will not truly exist even if the term is applied to same gendered couples. It is an attempt to further confuse the issue of family, of how culture is passed along, and an attack against self government.

Same sex "marriage" destroys marriage by making the word meaningless, and hence undermining the significance of the institution. It's Orwell, plain and simple. Control the language to control the mind. It doesn't really work, but it is annoying to have to deal with this over and over again in a supposedly free nation.

In a free nation, people are not free to redefine words that have outgrown their previous definition?

For that matter, have you noticed how language has always changed and evolved over time? Try reading the Canterbury Tales in the original written format without going through a translator. He was an English writer, correct? I wish you luck.

Read some Shakespeare too. I will insist you will not understand everything being said without looking up what it meant by phrases and words that were used differently.

 

[b&wpac4]

For an example of the original Canterbury Tales:



Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

So, I mean, that's perfectly clear to you what's being said, right?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Same gendered sexual intercourse does not exist.

WAIT! WHAT?

No really, are you saying homosexuals don't even exist?

What are you saying?

 

[lawtonfogle]

If we genetically engineered grass to be pink, would pink grass exist or be a lie?

BRB, buying some pink paint.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

If we genetically engineered grass to be pink, would pink grass exist or be a lie?

It would be a deception, just as homosexual relationships are a deception.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lawtonfogle

WAIT! WHAT?

No really, are you saying homosexuals don't even exist?

What are you saying?

He is saying what he is saying, what are you thinking?

Sexual intercourse requires the male penis and the female vagina interacting. Gay sex is just sexual gratification with various parts of the body its not intercourse.

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,
It would be a deception, just as homosexual relationships are a deception.

The grass would not be pink? It would be pink. You would not be deceived to think it was pink, it would be pink.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ti b&wpac4,

The grass would not be pink? It would be pink. You would not be deceived to think it was pink, it would be pink.

It would be green if you had not made it pink so you could call it pink. In reality the grass is green. hence the deception.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,
But there is no such thing as same sex marriage in law of many states and neither in the UK, so don’t you mean civil partnerships?

Ok you mean civil partnerships then as there correctly is no such things as same sex marriage in the UK and most parts of the world.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your argument reminds me a lot of the "debate" about whether a tomato is a vegetable (as defined in all of the US by law) or a fruit.

And if Christians were really trying to define marriage per their religion; would you not be arguing that any marriage that involves a non-Christian is not marriage, since marriage is a covenant between the couple and God? I'm sorry the English language has moved past your personal beliefs/prejudices. If it had not there would be no discussion of same-sex marriage as no one would understand the concept but instead people understand perfectly if two people of the same are married.

 

[IzzyPop]

To lawtonfogle
He is saying what he is saying, what are you thinking?

Sexual intercourse requires the male penis and the female vagina interacting. Gay sex is just sexual gratification with various parts of the body its not intercourse.

You wanna bet?

sexual intercourse
n.

1. Coitus between humans.
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source


Oh, lover of dictionary definitions, what now?