[quote name='BigT']I have no problem with any interactions or associations that people have with each other.[/quote]
This is like the "I don't mean to sound like a racist, but..." of the anti-marriage crowd.
I have already said multiple times that I believe that government should not be involved in marriage.
I'll keep that in mind. I have a feeling as soon as I turn the corner I'll find a different argument, like I'm playing Saints Row and all of a sudden all the pedestrians and cars disappear to be replaced by different pop-in characters.
I support prop 8 because I do have a problem with a small minority of people trying to redefine the institution of marriage for the majority of people. Unfortunately, a small group of activists and relativists are using this issue to purposefully weaken traditional nuclear families while mainstreaming hedonism and deviancy (of course, this issue is much broader than just that of homosexuality and extends into feminism, promiscuity, and sexual deviancy).
There we go. You no longer can lay claim to either (1) the argument of yours that "government should not be involved in marriage," or that (2) you "have no problem." That's bullshit. As you liken sexuality to a psychological illness (CITE YOUR DATA!) later on, you
ing *clearly* have a problem with it. I already said your phony egalitarianism in the form of an empty gesture towards government getting out of all marriages was just that. You're no egalitarian; you've clearly established a hierarchy of preference here that one kind of marriage is perfectly fine both in the church and as recognized by the state. You're not just a hypocrite: you lied through your
ing *teeth* in your last post. That's despicable.
Plain and simple, "marriage" b/w 2 men or 2 women is not equivalent to marriage b/w a woman and a man. In principle, such unions are not capable of reproduction and do not carry the same benefits for society. Moreover, they create confusion for society and for future generations by creating a vague and less precise definition for the term marriage while also muddling the intrinsically different roles of males and females within society.
Yeah. Like women in the workforce, desegregated schools, and white kids with dreadlocks. Look, dude, social change happens whether or not you're a postmodernist (n.b.: I'm not). You seem to want to embrace traditionalism, yet you're enforcing the status quo of modern society. You're against promiscuity, yet seem to want to misattribute the responsibility for that onto homosexuals - which is patently incorrect, and your brilliant plan to fight against promiscuity is to - get this! - fight against MONOGAMY!?!?! You're a blithering idiot.
You're fighting one battle against gay marriage, and not petitioning your congressperson to spay and neuter sexually active unwed teens and adults; you're not petitioning your congressperson to repeal divorce laws (remember the good old days, when divorce would only be granted due to philandering by the wife and not the husband? Them were the days!); you're not petitioning your congressperson to make sure women are good homemakers in order to meet your ideal.
In short (finally!), you've sculpted this elaborate rationale and backstory for your vote, none of which holds any water, none of which stands up to any ideological scrutiny, and none of which you're actively working to change in favor of your grandiose "Pleasantville" world vision. You just want to act like you have a well-thought-out reason for voting against gay marriage. It's thought out, but philosophically empty.
I'd have more respect for you if you just said "I can't stand gay people, I can't stand monogamy, I can't stand lifelong commitments by people I can't stand, and I've stands all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."
Another issue is that of whether society should create exceptions for something that may well be a psychiatric illness. Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, "diseases" are often difficult to define (DSM is rather arbitrary and this all becomes a discussion to itself). Nevertheless, the possibility exists that we may be making an exception to placate the whims of those with a psychiatric condtion... and where does that stop? Should we ignore the crimes of those with antisocial personality disorder, forgive the debts of those with bipolar mania, provide welfare to those with amotivation caused by schizophrenia?
I'll stick with tradition...
Oh, well, there's...
that. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I s'pose that does give me a modicum of respect for your willingness to simply admit to hating a group of people.
[quote name='BigT']This issue is different than the issue of race. Race is an immutable characteristic over which one has no choice. Homosexuality, despite any propensities that may be biologically ingrained, also involves an aspect of behavior and choice... hell, I could, in principle, choose to have sex with a man or transsexual and could enter into a relationship with a member of one of these genders. However, as hard as I may try, I cannot change the fact that I'm a white man.[/quote]
Race is a social category. Tell my Irish great-great grandmother just how
ing "white" she was.
And, of course, you're conflating sexual attraction with sexual performance. Two issues, and I'm, as usual, unamazed that you can't intellectually separate the two. Were the reality in your world the case, divorce wouldn't happen. Married couples would look at each other 20 years later, say "oh, I guess I could
...*that*...again," sigh with some semblance of resigned eroticism, and enjoy themselves. One chooses who they perform with sexually; one does not choose who they are sexually attracted to (can't imagine scat fetishes are consciously selected. In fact, don't want to imagine anything down that psychological path!).
Now, that said, let's say it's a choice. Let me claim the mantle of a Republican for a moment.
*cough*
I'M AN AMERICAN CITIZEN GODDAMMIT! I CAN STICK MY DICK WHEREVER I GODDAMNED WELL PLEASE AND UNCLE SAM CAN'T SAY A
ING THING ABOUT IT!
I mean, really, choice or not choice...so
in' what? Unless, as we've established, you're prejudiced against homosexuals. Not like that would go away if you could even admit that sexual attraction is biologically driven.
Look, I have no problem with women forming relationships with women, men forming relationships with men, or even men forming relationships with male to female transsexuals (add other permutations as needed).
Just as long as they shut up, keep it in their bedrooms, and reinforce heteronormativity, right? Don't want Judy and Janice doin' somethin' NASTY like...like...like...HOLDING HANDS OR KISSING IN PUBLIC OH MY GOD MY EYES THEY BURN!!!!!
(this is where I'm a bit facist: I think PDA should be punishable by death except in cases of military deployment/return, but that's neither here nor there, really.)
It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others).
Duly noted. I concur.
However, these people should realize that if their chosen behavior differs significantly from the norm, they should not expect that society will provide them with the same benefits that are afforded to the more generally accepted behavior.
Oh, so now there are caveats for freedom without persecution? Shit, I guess I haven't been reading my constitution lately. Sorry, queers, the white straight folks have spoken. Back in your holes!
The teachers union donation is a symptom of a bigger problem (i.e., the curious lack of focus on education). It is akin to having a huge gas leak in one's house and then using one's money to build a swimming pool in a neighbor's yard instead of fixing the gas leak.
That's a cute analogy. I've been using "it's akin to sweeping the kitchen floor when the house is on fire" when discussing McCain's proposed elimination of earmarks, FWIW. How adorable. Think we're compatible?
Our public school system and it's unions are made up of liberal ideologues who have shown their hand on this issue through their donations. They are champions of relativism and want to indoctrinate into their pupils that homosexuality is simply an alternative to heterosexuality.
So...liberal unions made up of liberals are passing on money to liberal candidates. Are you just pissing and moaning, or are you decrying democracy being democracy?
