An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Belk]

I understand that, I'm just saying that if we were to make it legal, we would have to address the legal ramifications that go along with it.

Ah, gotcha. A good point.

 

[BigBadWlf]

and the banning of gay marriage is seen as a "valid reason" by the government currently.

Just as a generation ago banning interracial marriage was seen as having valid reasons (it is interesting that the same reason given as to why banning interracial marriage was valid are repeated today by those trying to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Did the fact that some people chose to misrepresent religion and logic to justify bans on interracial marriage make that ban moral or valid or just?

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Either marriage shows partiality or it does not.

The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.

If the gays do not support the polygamists and inter-family breeding then they are hypocrites.

The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.

If your gonna support so called gay marriage at least do it in a non-hypocritical way. I myself can at least declare marriage shows partiality

the law of the land calls for impartiality

 

[Shane Roach]

Just as a generation ago banning interracial marriage was seen as having valid reasons (it is interesting that the same reason given as to why banning interracial marriage was valid are repeated today by those trying to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Did the fact that some people chose to misrepresent religion and logic to justify bans on interracial marriage make that ban moral or valid or just?



The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.




The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.

the law of the land calls for impartiality

It seems highly unlikely to me that people argue that miscegenation will result if gays marry.

I would like less of the blind linkage between racism and gay issues, and more actual evidence of any alleged similarities. Racism is based on judging people due to physical and cultural characteristics. Being against gay marriage is about the idea that marriage is intended to help regulate responsibilities of men and women to each other and to their children.

Unless they adopt or somehow make use of other alternatives, gays do not have children when they cohabit. There is no reason in the world to just assume all the law associated with marriage applies. Almost none of it does, and what little of it does indeed would likely already be remedied if gays focused on those issues instead of attacking the status quo and wholeheartedly making themselves allies of the anti-church socialist establishment of the far left.

 

[riw]

Saving and investing are not mutally exclusive so I'm not sure where you're trying to with the above. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Saving and investing are, in fact, closely related. Saving and going into debt are two different things. Your argument was that the US Government should promote same sex marriage because those who are married save more. The first problem here is that the US Government does not encourage saving, but rather going into debt. The second problem here is you're assuming same sex "marriages," in a society as a whole, will have the same impacts as traditional marriage, and that there are no unintended consequences.

I don't know about this. It seems likely that single people would be more willing to join a start up because married folk are less likely to take that kind of economic risk, rather than the other way around as you suggest. I haven't researched this though. As far as career advancement goes, I think the economic security of marriage would lend to opportunity. That's the case in my marriage. It's unlikely that my husband would be finishing his degrees if it wasn't for our marriage.

You're confusing career advancement with economic output. Among all the people I know who've worked at startups, I don't know a single one who has said they believed being married helped them to fit in better, or helped them work more hours, etc, etc. I know of many who left once they were married, because they had suddenly developed a life outside work, and could no longer keep up with the unmarried folks.

Statistics can be used to show the benefits of rights. I don't see the problem with using them in such a way, especially in conversations about discrimination. It sheds light.

Two points:

1. A statistician is someone who puts their head in a hot oven, their feet in a bucket of ice water, and says: "On the average, I feel fine."

2. If you think statistics can throw light on a right, then you don't understand what a 'right' is. A right is something people are given no matter what the statistics say, or even in spite of the statistics.

You're essentially arguing that same sex marriage is a "good thing" not because it's a right, but because it's a societal good. And you're using statistics to back that argument up. For instance:

"Overall, married people earn more, save more, own more, and are better shielded from economic risks, including poverty, than are non-married individuals"
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/4/3/pages104432/p104432-1.php

Did the survey actually include same sex couples, say, from other countries? Has anyone done such a survey in other countries? What has been the impact of same sex marriage in other places? Was it a net positive, or a net negative? How is it working out, say, in Holland? What's the net effect on marriages and childbirth?

The problem with all these statistics is the same as trying to centrally manage an economy. You can't even know what all to measure, much less how to interpret the results, so building policy on statistics is like arranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It looks nice, but it leads to disaster.

Government should be built on solid reasoning, not on statistics.



Russ

 

[riw]

Actually, this seems more true of your post than mine, especially as you don't even bother quoting my entire post but rather quote mine from it for effect.

Lets start simple:

Is marriage a right, or a privilege?

If you claim it is a right, then provide me with the fundamental reasoning behind this assertion. Not a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court also declares that murdering children in the womb is a right. I must assume you agree with them on that one, as well, from your argument here.

And let me point out a rather deep logical fallacy in your reasoning on this point. You accept: "The Supreme Court said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't accept: "God said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't want a "fundamentalist Christian" ruling over you, but you don't mind a fundamentalist secularist.

Funny how you restate my claim that you said there is only a single reason for marriage (procreation) but, other than denying that you create a straw man by claiming there is only one reason for society to allow marriage, you never say my claim isn't true, much less state what other reasons society has for allowing marriage.

Do you always put words in other folk's mouths like this? Just wondering.

This is what I said: The state's primary interest in marriage is children. Not social stability, not increasing the savings rate, not in caring about people who "fall in love." For instance, to quote a recent Supreme Court case:

pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical to the fetus in order to further the State's asserted interest.

Interest in what, precisely? What comes out of a pregnancy?

You argue the State supports marriage because it increases savings rates. First, can you quote case law to that effect? Second, if the State wants people to save more, why doesn't it just change the tax laws to encourage, rather than discourage, saving? Isn't encouraging marriage a rather round-a-bout way to 'encourage saving?"

Sorry, but no. Rather, I was showing the fallacy in your argument.

Um, where? So far, you've not even addressed my questions, much less my arguments. When you do, I'll reply.



Russ

 

[b&wpac4]

Lets start simple:

Is marriage a right, or a privilege?

If you claim it is a right, then provide me with the fundamental reasoning behind this assertion. Not a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court also declares that murdering children in the womb is a right. I must assume you agree with them on that one, as well, from your argument here.

And let me point out a rather deep logical fallacy in your reasoning on this point. You accept: "The Supreme Court said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't accept: "God said it, so I believe it, that settles it." You don't want a "fundamentalist Christian" ruling over you, but you don't mind a fundamentalist secularist.

The Supreme Court said it and they are empowered with interpreting the Constitution in relation to the law of the US. I don't have "belief" in this, it is a point of fact. Do you believe Obama is the President? That would be a silly statement.

 

[Shane Roach]

The Supreme Court said it and they are empowered with interpreting the Constitution in relation to the law of the US. I don't have "belief" in this, it is a point of fact. Do you believe Obama is the President? That would be a silly statement.

Logical fallacy, not legal fallacy.

 

[b&wpac4]

Logical fallacy, not legal fallacy.

It isn't a logical fallacy to suggest that those empowered with a task can execute it.

 

[LightHorseman]

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Either marriage shows partiality or it does not.

Of course you can. Just watch...

I support homosexual marriages when they occur between mutually consenting adults.

I do not support incestuous relationships because it is my contention that it cannot occur with genuine mutual consent.

As for polygamy? I am of the position that if all parties to a polygamous marriage genuinely give their mutual informed adult consent, they should be allowed to be married. However, I think the liklihood of finding any two women and a man, any two men and a woman, or any other of the various possible permutations where all 3 (or more) give their GENUINE informed mutual consent to be in such a relationship, would be exceptionally rare. That said, if you can find such a group, why shouldn't they be allowed to be married? There isn't even a "Bible sez!" argument to condemn polygamy!

 

[riw]

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Either marriage shows partiality or it does not.

The very same argument was used to justify discrimination against interracial couples.

Can you prove this assertion? Can you back it up with quotes from major Christian leaders, using a Biblical foundation as their guide? The specific reason interracial marriage was banned was because it was believed the different "races" were actually more akin to different "species," (asserted by Darwin in his book "The Descent of Man"), and it was not a good idea to have inter-species breeding of any sort. None of this was from a Christian perspective, but rather from a secular evolutionist perspective.

the law of the land calls for impartiality

Then why are the tax laws constructed to tax "rich" people more than "poor" people? Why not just return to the state of nature, where everyone fends for themselves, in whatever way they can best do so? Nature is impartial, isn't it?



Russ

 

[Shane Roach]

It isn't a logical fallacy to suggest that those empowered with a task can execute it.

Possibly I shouldn't have butted into someone else's post and response, but my point was, and maybe I am wrong, that the point that the Supreme Court has decided one way or the other is already ceded.

This is "Ethics and Morality", not "Law".

So where is the actual argument, rather than simple reliance on an imperfect institution that may well reverse itself as wrong ten years from now?

 

[riw]

The Supreme Court said it and they are empowered with interpreting the Constitution in relation to the law of the US. I don't have "belief" in this, it is a point of fact. Do you believe Obama is the President? That would be a silly statement.

Hence, you will agree with anything the US Supreme Court declares as law? Which means that if you lived in the time of the US Civil War, you would agree with the US Supreme Court that slaves were not people, because they said so. And now you believe that murdering children in the womb is perfectly acceptable, because the US Supreme Court says so.

Very sad.

And again, this is not an argument. This is a sidestep. Explain the logic behind your assertion that marriage is a right, explaining the foundation of that right in natural law, without referencing a court case.



Russ

 

[Shane Roach]

Then why are the tax laws constructed to tax "rich" people more than "poor" people? Why not just return to the state of nature, where everyone fends for themselves, in whatever way they can best do so? Nature is impartial, isn't it?



Russ

I'll give you your flat tax if you give me corporate law reform.

Nature, after all, is no respecter of the concept of limited liability. You're either a liability or you're not.

(Pun fully intended)

 

[b&wpac4]

Possibly I shouldn't have butted into someone else's post and response, but my point was, and maybe I am wrong, that the point that the Supreme Court has decided one way or the other is already ceded.

This is "Ethics and Morality", not "Law".

So where is the actual argument, rather than simple reliance on an imperfect institution that may well reverse itself as wrong ten years from now?

I find it interesting that I cannot refer to an imperfect institution that can reverse itself when others refer to a perfect institution that would later be referred to as a curse and taskmaster and be considered reversed.

 

[b&wpac4]

Hence, you will agree with anything the US Supreme Court declares as law? Which means that if you lived in the time of the US Civil War, you would agree with the US Supreme Court that slaves were not people, because they said so. And now you believe that murdering children in the womb is perfectly acceptable, because the US Supreme Court says so.

Very sad.

And again, this is not an argument. This is a sidestep. Explain the logic behind your assertion that marriage is a right, explaining the foundation of that right in natural law, without referencing a court case.



Russ

I would have accepted it as current US law. Agreement or not does not make it law or not law. One can fight against laws they do not agree with, and those on the other side can fight to keep those laws. Ironically, both sides are always sure "God" is on their side.

 

[LightHorseman]

Can you prove this assertion? Can you back it up with quotes from major Christian leaders, using a Biblical foundation as their guide? The specific reason interracial marriage was banned was because it was believed the different "races" were actually more akin to different "species," (asserted by Darwin in his book "The Descent of Man"), and it was not a good idea to have inter-species breeding of any sort. None of this was from a Christian perspective, but rather from a secular evolutionist perspective.

I just googled "Christian condemnation of inter racial marriage" and there were 10,700 hits... some pro, some con, but there are certainly some sites claiming that the Bible condemns it.

Also, you are misquoting Darwin. He never said anything to suggest he thought races were analogous to species, or that there should be no inter racial breeding. Nor do I think you can claim that his ideas published in 1871 were responsible for the millenia of condemnation of inter racial marriage.

 

[riw]

I support homosexual marriages when they occur between mutually consenting adults.

I do not support incestuous relationships because it is my contention that it cannot occur with genuine mutual consent.

Can you prove it in all cases? Or do you assume that all cases on incest involve a minor, and minors cannot decide? And if so, aren't you assuming that minors will never gain rights? And isn't this a rather strange assumption, given there are cases of minors gaining the right to "divorce" their parents?

How, precisely, would you argue that a sheep or dog or cat hasn't given "informed legal consent?" There are any instances of people according them rights, so you can't run down the road of "don't be silly, animals don't have rights, nor can they assent to anything."

This is a very slippery slope you're on here.



Russ

 

[b&wpac4]

Can you prove this assertion? Can you back it up with quotes from major Christian leaders, using a Biblical foundation as their guide?

Define major leaders. It was said for a long time in many churches that Africans carried the curse of Cain and therefor the races should not be mixed. Obviously not every church and obviously not ever Christian believed that, but it was taught in many for a while. I don't think that idea comes from Darwin.

 

[Shane Roach]

I just googled "Christian condemnation of inter racial marriage" and there were 10,700 hits... some pro, some con, but there are certainly some sites claiming that the Bible condemns it.

Also, you are misquoting Darwin. He never said anything to suggest he thought races were analogous to species, or that there should be no inter racial breeding. Nor do I think you can claim that his ideas published in 1871 were responsible for the millenia of condemnation of inter racial marriage.

Why not cite some and quote them? You are a fan of specific examples after all.

 

[Shane Roach]

I would have accepted it as current US law. Agreement or not does not make it law or not law. One can fight against laws they do not agree with, and those on the other side can fight to keep those laws. Ironically, both sides are always sure "God" is on their side.

Still no actual argument though... that's my main beef here.