Jump to content

DOMA and Prop 8. And Stuff.


Dr Beinfest
 Share

Recommended Posts


I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

My contribution:

 

Double Bind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

Are you cool with bestiality and polyamory, too? That's the logical extension of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

Are you cool with bestiality and polyamory, too? That's the logical extension of your argument.Animals cannot consent.

While that's obviously the case, it's ostensibly not relevant to the LM('s reasoning above).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

Are you cool with bestiality and polyamory, too? That's the logical extension of your argument.

I'm fine with polygamy, yes. I don't see why anyone should care whether some dude decides to torture himself with more than one wife. Not sure why any woman would want to be with a guy who has multiple wives, but its none of my business. Most people already have multiple sex partners..even while married.

 

Bestiality is not a logical extension of my argument. The government does have a justifiable role in preventing animal abuses since animals cannot logically protect themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

Are you cool with bestiality and polyamory, too? That's the logical extension of your argument.

I'm fine with polygamy, yes. I don't see why anyone should care whether some dude decides to torture himself with more than one wife. Not sure why any woman would want to be with a guy who has multiple wives, but its none of my business. Most people already have multiple sex partners..even while married.

 

Bestiality is not a logical extension of my argument. The government does have a justifiable role in preventing animal abuses since animals cannot logically protect themselves.

 

I don't disagree with your points, but they don't follow from your original statement (see: bestiality doesn't "have [any] clear consequences on the greater society one way or the other"). Not worth belaboring, in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, we as a society generally have been trashing marriage for 50 years, why stop now?

 

Starting with the pill in the early '60s. I remember reading the Life magazine "pill" cover story in about '65. Hippies foreverafter professed the benefits of free love and all was cool, man. Then along came feminists to enlighten us as to how marriage was subjugation and rape. Oh, the horror!

 

Then, along came no-fault divorce. No problem. Marriage was oppression, right? So much the better.

 

I loved the whole deal. Literally. 200 loose women, no children and no wives later, I have no objection from a purely personal and selfish standpoint. But, clearly, men in general were convinced over the last five decades that marriage wasn't such a good idea. Their treatment in court has only reinforced that opinion.

 

Not surprisingly, the out-of-wedlock birth rate has exploded across the board. What? Get married because I knocked her up? Nah. Let her marry the government and its benefits. Who has suffered? The children with no fathers. And civil society in general.

 

Now, gays (generally leftists) demand marriage "rights" even though marriage has been denigrated for decades (by their fellow leftists.) They should be careful what they wish for, they might actually get it, including arbitrary treatment in court when it doesn't work out.

 

Regardless of the current "rights" formulation, marriage between one man and one woman has been the basic building block of society for thousands of years, even before there was anything we would know as a government. Create and bring up the next generation with some semblance of stability. Pretty simple stuff. No government necessary.

 

One man-one woman is not something that should be thrown away without serious thought. It's got nothing to do with religion, although most religions support it. But, make no mistake, modifying the time-tested, obvious, basic concept will ultimately destroy it.

 

I remember Jack Baker at the U of Minnesota in '70. His desire to marry his good male buddy turned into a Supreme Court case they refused to hear -- he lost. But, as he said in '71 before he lost in '72, "I am convinced that same-sex marriages will be legalized in the United States."

 

He was just being an optimistic litigant at the time. He will also probably turn out to have been right.

 

But, what comes after the great gay "rights" victory -- step one in the slow but sure demolition of the previously known and unquestioned quantity known as marriage, the bedrock of society?

 

Polygany? Polyandry? Polyamory? Maybe we could throw in a child or an animal, who knows? How about a robot or a clone? The sky won't be the limit as there will no longer be any limits at all. Just as about 80% of the public was against gay "marriage" in the '60s, all opposition can slowly be beaten into submission over time.

 

The possibilities are endless and they'll all be on their way soon enough. There are many interest groups in favor of all sorts of stuff already, and they will become more vocal, bet on it. The fall-out will probably take decades, just as gay marriage "rights" did. Then again, it may not.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god, please shut up. Go away. Nobody wants to hear your crap again and again and again.

 

We get it, you're some supposed self-made self-righteous self-driven middle-aged man who has nothing better to do with his life than to roam around web forums and attempt at being a mega-hipster with radically opposing views from the mainstream. Non-religious marriage defender, we get it. Go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a few facts really get you that upset?

 

What is it that I said that resulted in the most vicious personal attack I've ever seen on this board?

 

While our society is circling the drain, my point is that there is a serious price to be paid for screwing around with societal norms. I no longer give a crap one way or another, so I was trying to be rather circumspect about the whole issue.

 

Never mind children, robots and clones. Explain how you'd deal with polygany, polyandry and polyamory, all of which are next up to bat, in no particular order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it that I said that resulted in the most vicious personal attack I've ever seen on this board?

 

Lol dramatic much?

 

Never mind children, robots and clones. Explain how you'd deal with polygany, polyandry and polyamory, all of which are next up to bat, in no particular order.

 

 

Hmm well... how would I 'deal' with it... I wouldn't! Why is it that you care what consulting adults do with each other? Now... you do bring up an interesting point in regards to our government. I don't think we need an establishment as per the government. There's the minimal record keeping through a civil union that must be conducted and beyond that it really shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Oh my god, please shut up. Go away. Nobody wants to hear your crap again and again and again.

 

We get it, you're some supposed self-made self-righteous self-driven middle-aged man who has nothing better to do with his life than to roam around web forums and attempt at being a mega-hipster with radically opposing views from the mainstream. Non-religious marriage defender, we get it. Go away.

 

To be fair, being against marriage equality is technically the mainstream view as it has gotten voted down repeatedly when put up to public vote.

 

Ironically, it is large liberal voting blocks for the Democratic party who by and large are almost entirely responsible for the equality laws being routinely voted down...the black and latino communities. Its why ridiculously liberal states like California and New York vote it down regularly.

 

I am indifferent to it. If people want to get married, let them. As long as it doesnt personally affect me I dont care what people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polygany? Polyandry? Polyamory? Maybe we could throw in a child or an animal, who knows? How about a robot or a clone? The sky won't be the limit as there will no longer be any limits at all. Just as about 80% of the public was against gay "marriage" in the '60s, all opposition can slowly be beaten into submission over time.

 

 

fantastic, so in 250 years or whatever when bestiality is all the rage or people want to marry their grilled cheese sandwich, you can shout from the grave "told ya so!" in the meantime keep on that slippery slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polygany? Polyandry? Polyamory? Maybe we could throw in a child or an animal, who knows? How about a robot or a clone? The sky won't be the limit as there will no longer be any limits at all. Just as about 80% of the public was against gay "marriage" in the '60s, all opposition can slowly be beaten into submission over time.

 

 

fantastic, so in 250 years or whatever when bestiality is all the rage or people want to marry their grilled cheese sandwich, you can shout from the grave "told ya so!" in the meantime keep on that slippery slope.

Yeah, I love the slippery slope argument. One of the oldest logical fallacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe government should legislate issues of morality that have no clear consequences on the greater society one way or another.

 

Its hypocritical to rail against big government but then support said government when it issues laws banning things for "moral reasons". Why stop at gay marriage? Why not ban all things that people consider to be immoral? Oh, and its okay as long as its the Christian version of morality. I don't think they would appreciate it if it were anyone else's.

 

Are you cool with bestiality and polyamory, too? That's the logical extension of your argument.

I'm fine with polygamy, yes. I don't see why anyone should care whether some dude decides to torture himself with more than one wife. Not sure why any woman would want to be with a guy who has multiple wives, but its none of my business. Most people already have multiple sex partners..even while married.

 

Bestiality is not a logical extension of my argument. The government does have a justifiable role in preventing animal abuses since animals cannot logically protect themselves.

 

I don't disagree with your points, but they don't follow from your original statement (see: bestiality doesn't "have [any] clear consequences on the greater society one way or the other"). Not worth belaboring, in any case.

 

 

Even so, each case would be argued separately since I'm not into slippery slope fallacies like other people.

 

Even if my neighbor were to marry his tree, it wouldn't have any effect on me in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

 

As for the slippery slope, we've been sliding down it for 50 years. Not to the betterment of civil society. That you, and I, for that matter, don't really care simply bodes ill for the next generation. They'll have to put up with or try to remedy the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what you perceive the damage to be? Are we a lesser nation than we were prior to 1960?

 

Furthermore, what, to you, determines morality? Are you the yaysayer of morality? What is wrong about this? Because *you* are uncomfortable with it/don't understand it? It deviates from *your* comfort zone. That's the only impression I get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...