Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Cearbhall]

I'm struck by the very superficial response you've made to the article. Clearly, your aim in commenting on it is to be dismissive rather than thoughtful.

Selah.

There's no need to be thoughtful in response to just any old tripe.

 

[WindStaff]

You can't equate employees with slaves and expect the logic to carry over. This is absolutely not a reason to doubt accounts of the atrocities that occurred. Employees can leave. Employees have legal autonomy. Employees are recognized as human beings. Of course you aren't going to see the average boss doing something that will lose him his best employee or even land him in prison.

Children have no 'legal autonomy', cannot be employed, do not have social liberties as adults, and are still seen as human beings.

I've seen that argument pop up before, and I'm sure virtually everyone else has heard it as well if they've ever delved into the relevant topic- the definition of 'feminism' being that 'women are people to'.

Pretty much, the argument you put forward is that only white men were considered human beings until slavery and patriarchy ended. Which is ridiculous.

 

[Cearbhall]

Pretty much, the argument you put forward is that only white men were considered human beings until slavery and patriarchy ended. Which is ridiculous.

Biologically, yes, it was known that we're all of the same species. Culturally and legally speaking, no, only white men were given the full rights that were set aside for human citizens. Nothing ridiculous about the truth.

And patriarchy hasn't "ended," though I'm sure you'd disagree.

 

[WindStaff]

Biologically, yes, it was known that we're all of the same species. Culturally and legally speaking, no, only white men were given the full rights that were set aside for human citizens. Nothing ridiculous about the truth.

Human rights didn't exist back then, the one's with rights were the one's who built and protected their culture. They were their own right, you see. Very much different then today's society, where one can be sued for looking at somebody the wrong way.

And patriarchy hasn't "ended," though I'm sure you'd disagree.

I do disagree, because whoever believes that patriarchy still exists here in our society is completely disconnected from reality.

You couldn't so much as provide a simple argument testifying to the contrary, and that's one of the many reasons why I basically conclude feminism as a mental illness.

 

[Skaloop]

I do disagree, because whoever believes that patriarchy still exists here in our society is completely disconnected from reality.

You couldn't so much as provide a simple argument testifying to the contrary, and that's one of the many reasons why I basically conclude feminism as a mental illness.

Can you provide a simple argument testifying the affirmative? That patriarchy does not exist anymore?

 

[Cearbhall]

Human rights didn't exist back then, the one's with rights were the one's who built and protected their culture. They were their own right, you see. Very much different then today's society, where one can be sued for looking at somebody the wrong way.

Which "back then" are you referring to? I was under the impression that we were discussing the Antebellum. You're correct that land ownership was also a requirement, if that's what you meant, but the prerequisites were male and white.

I'm not going to gratify the rest of your post with a response.

 

[aiki]

There's no need to be thoughtful when the material is the same old garbage that's been refuted countless times.

So, where are these countless refutations? You certainly haven't offered any. It's kinda' intellectually lazy - if not dishonest - to respond as you have.

There's no need to be thoughtful in response to just any old tripe.

Well, fortunately, simply calling the article "tripe" doesn't make it so. It'll take more than your dismissive characterizations of Koukl's arguments to actually show that his arguments are, in fact, tripe.

Selah.

 

[Cearbhall]

So, where are these countless refutations? You certainly haven't offered any. It's kinda' intellectually lazy - if not dishonest - to respond as you have.

Well, fortunately, simply calling the article "tripe" doesn't make it so. It'll take more than your dismissive characterizations of Koukl's arguments to actually show that his arguments are, in fact, tripe.

Selah.

You're welcome to read through the last 42 pages of this thread.

 

[Aldebaran]

So that makes slavery OK?

It was ok when it was legal to do, just as it's ok to force people to do things now in violation of their religious beliefs because that's what the law tells them to do under the guise of "anti-discrimination". I say this because liberals seem to think the law is the final word on whether something is ok or not. Slavery was legal when it existed, so I guess it was ok.

 

[Skaloop]

It was ok when it was legal to do, just as it's ok to force people to do things now in violation of their religious beliefs because that's what the law tells them to do under the guise of "anti-discrimination". I say this because liberals seem to think the law is the final word on whether something is ok or not. Slavery was legal when it existed, so I guess it was ok.

What is anyone being forced to do in violation of their religious beliefs?

 

[Aldebaran]

What is anyone being forced to do in violation of their religious beliefs?

Do we really have to go over it again? Fine. Short version: Christian baker.

 

[Skaloop]

Do we really have to go over it again? Fine. Short version: Christian baker.

Baking a cake does not violate his religious beliefs.

 

[Aldebaran]

Baking a cake does not violate his religious beliefs.

Yeah, I guess you want to go in circles again. Just look at one of the many thread already discussing the cake topic. It's already been done to death.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah, I guess you want to go in circles again. Just look at one of the many thread already discussing the cake topic. It's already been done to death.

Yea. And you're wrong about your position. All those threads just bolster that fact.

 

[Skaloop]

Yeah, I guess you want to go in circles again. Just look at one of the many thread already discussing the cake topic. It's already been done to death.

Yeah, I know. But that doesn't change the fact that baking a cake doesn't violate anyone's religious beliefs.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yea. And you're wrong about your position. All those threads just bolster that fact.

So what if the so-called "anti-discrimination" law didn't exist. Would refusing to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" ceremony be ok with you then?

 

[Skaloop]

So what if the so-called "anti-discrimination" law didn't exist. Would refusing to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" ceremony be ok with you then?

For me, no, it wouldn't be OK. But it would be legal. Alas, it is not.

 

[Aldebaran]

]For me, no, it wouldn't be OK. But it would be legal.[/B] Alas, it is not.

So you'd be ok with discriminating against Christians for their beliefs then?

 

[Skaloop]

So you'd be ok with discriminating against Christians for their beliefs then?

What? No. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Aldebaran]

What? No. Where did you get that idea?

Well, if it wasn't for the law....