If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!
The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

The far majority of us Christians here, myself included, do not want an America-turned-theocracy. A large number of us Christians are conservative-libertarian. We do believe in separation of Church and State.

But separation of Church and State does not mean at all that constitutional decisions and jurisprudence should occur in a “philosophical vacuum.” That is impossible. All jurisprudence and constitutional decisions do occur from **some** particular perspective or viewpoint.

After all, the Founding Fathers of our country quoted the Bible most often as greatly influencing their philosophical convictions leading then to the development of the Constitution.

And yet one particularly vocal special interest group wants to radically redefine the definition of a social norm (”marriage”) that has been in usage for thousands of years.

If marriage is allowed to be redefined by liberal activists to include and mean anything, then ultimately marriage means nothing.

If marriage ultimately means nothing, then why are we as a nation quick to prohibit some of the more bizarre examples that could then easily be codified into “marriage-able” material?

If marriage means anything, ultimately, marriage means nothing.

We should not allow liberal special interest groups to hijack and redefine social norms that have been used for thousands of years. That is liberalism, not conservatism.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Sorry, I’m not “tolerant” of liars and douche bags. And if you had half a brain, you’d recognize that my comment was deliberately an off topic personal attack to illustrate how obnoxious it is for “The Sinner” to keep harping on Christians, religion, and “The Catholic Church” (which again, I have no use for anyway). My response was about as necessary or important as his repeated attacks on religion have been. Just look at how pathetic he is… step outside of the the fact that he’s on “your team” here, and recognize just how pathetic he truly is… right down to his stupid name “The Sinner”.. He’s all about hating religion. I can’t think of another word to describe him but pathetic.

(this is the part where instead of trying to argue with any point I’ve made he gets defensive after pretending I told him he’s going to hell. Yes, I never said that, and it would be stupid of him to do so… but look at his history)

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Agreed, and cool.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

No, “all these people” was still just one person.

I don’t care about that priest that molested you and screwed you up so bad that somehow you started to believe that liking other dudes made sense. Argue in the real world, or f**k off.

Man, you sure are angry.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM

I understand that. I had a reason and perhaps I should have re-thought it, but I am soooooo tired of people tossing around the homophobic accusations as a means to silence debate.

By the way, does anyone else find it funny that I’ve yet to argue religion as a basis for my position against “homosexuality”, yet all these people (who can’t post without posting dishonesty, spin, and diversions) keep whining about “the Catholics Church” (who gives a f**k?), about “religion”, etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Actually, it’s been one, maybe two at most. But you always have a great habit of blowing things out of proportion.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Actually SouthernDem, I was talking about those who’ve been talking to me… and it continues:

That’s because your “one man and one woman” marriage stance IS religious and cultural in it’s nature, and not a legal one, as many a court has decided. And quit acting like you are some constitutional scholar and not religiously biased at all, you are so full of shit. If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

We’re done, I haven’t talked about the Bible, I’ve asked you to explain what the legal precedent is against polygamy. You’re insisting that it’s not the same, because gay marriage would still be “2 people”… When in reality, the “2 people” thing is just as much a cultural thing as is straight marriage (though at least straight marriage has nature and logic as a basis). You’re f-ing pathetic. You’ve not attempted to argue a single point here, and you make yourself worse with each time you whine about religion.

I’m sorry you’re to f**king stupid to recognize just how illogical “homosexuality” is, that you have to resort to “don’t preach the bible at me!” tactics, when I’ve said nothing about Bible, religion, or “the Catholic Church”. You have you dishonest turd.

Don’t respond to me again unless you’re actually responding to me. Leave your anger bottled up. I don’t care about that priest that molested you and screwed you up so bad that somehow you started to believe that liking other dudes made sense. Argue in the real world, or f**k off.

By the way, does anyone else find it funny that I’ve yet to argue religion as a basis for my position against “homosexuality”, yet all these people (who can’t post without posting dishonesty, spin, and diversions) keep whining about “the Catholics Church” (who gives a f**k?), about “religion”, etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

That’s because your “one man and one woman” marriage stance IS religious and cultural in it’s nature, and not a legal one, as many a court has decided. And quit acting like you are some constitutional scholar and not religiously biased at all, you are so full of shit. If you were defending marriage on a purely legal basis, you would have documentation to support your argument (the bible doesn’t count)!

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Thanks for that (sorry it took so long to reply, enjoying a beautiful day). But really, your language in that post was horrific. I only got on you because it doesn’t seem like your normal tone.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Actually, it’s been one, maybe two at most. But you always have a great habit of blowing things out of proportion.

Pretty pathetic, but also pretty predictable, because it happens every time.

Nature is surprisingly illogical, if you bother to take a close look. So are most religions. You can invoke traditionalism all you want, but make sure you note your historical reference point; otherwise, your statements are meaningless.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Thanks for offering nothing to this debate, especially as it pertains to the actual topic, and simply wanting to whine over what “common sense” means.

Figures that you have no sources, because I know you are blowing this out of your @ss. That “proven fact” is about as real as that bearded man in the sky you get on your knees for.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I thought it was common knowledge to anyone who reads blogs and pays attention to the news, and again, it isn’t worth my time to prove to a dishonest and diverting liberal like you, what is common knowledge to everyone else.

With that list goes a behavior that defies all logic and nature.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Nature is surprisingly illogical, if you bother to take a close look. So are most religions. You can invoke traditionalism all you want, but make sure you note your historical reference point; otherwise, your statements are meaningless.

PROVEN FACT that Christians are BY FAR the most generous people on the planet. This has been proven time and time again. Normally I’d do someone the courtesy of digging up the supporting links for them here, but your dishonesty has shown what a waste of time it would be.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Figures that you have no sources, because I know you are blowing this out of your @ss. That “proven fact” is about as real as that bearded man in the sky you get on your knees for.

Your construction of “common sense” makes reference to an arbitrary and unrealistic vision of the past, which you would like to restore in the present day, because you do not like what people have learned and/or accepted in the modern world.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 9:10 AM

You’re almost as dishonest as your friend Sinner… I’m not talking about things we’ve “learned”, however I am talking about things that are now “accepted”. Accepting “homosexuality” defies logic.

As for common sense, I’m talking about things like saving money to take care of your family, rather than driving an Escalade and taking welfare, how about “cutters” who cut themselves just to see if they still feel (give me a f-ing break), how about “transgendered people”, how about ADD, etc. etc. These are all symptoms of a loss of common sense and traditionalism, and the ushering in of a world where anything goes and judgments are off limits. With that list goes a behavior that defies all logic and nature.

Yes, because it’s the gays, not Christians who are known to DOMINATE the world of giving to charity, right?

you:

Is “charity” what you would call the hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to victims of sexual abuse by pedophiles within the Catholic church? The Church “DOMINATES the world” of pedophile lawsuit settlements, too. As I said, religion has caused much more damage to society than gay marriage ever could, this is just one example.

Um, what do I care about the Catholic Church? But I think I’m done talking to you anyway, because you’re clearly a liberal, incapable of honest discussion. (Here’s where you get pissed at me for labeling you, and possibly try to tell me that your friends consider you conservative, etc. etc.). I know you’re a liberal, because you just brush aside the PROVEN FACT that Christians are BY FAR the most generous people on the planet. This has been proven time and time again. Normally I’d do someone the courtesy of digging up the supporting links for them here, but your dishonesty has shown what a waste of time it would be.

“But no Randy, because it’s about being between 2 adults”. Why? What is the “legal precedent” for that?

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Because that’s what marriage entails. 2 consenting adults who love each other. Why should gender make a difference? Again, what is the legal precedent to discriminate due to gender on this basic human right?

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM

No, that’s not what marriage entails genius. Marriage entails 1 man and 1 woman. You asked:

Can anyone explain to me the LEGAL PRECEDENT to deny gay marriage? There’s none. It’s a ban based on religious preferences. Religion in all forms is far more detrimental to society than homosexual marriage could ever be.

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 4:22 AM

You have ABSOLUTELY no argument here, and you gave the predictable response of some liberal college kid who really hadn’t thought the issue through, but instead gave the emotional reactionary response.

You’re so pathetic, you couldn’t even attempt to explain why gays should be able to marry, yet polygamists shouldn’t. Come on, tell me why “2 partners, regardless of gender” should be able to marry, but why a man and 5 women shouldn’t. I’m guessing that, based on your previous comments that were beyond idiotic, and your utter dishonesty that you won’t recognize (or will pretend you don’t) that your whole “marriage is 2 people” argument doesn’t wash (especially when I can always say, “actually it’s 1 man and 1 woman”)

The Sinner on September 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Why the push to co-opt the word “marriage”? I’ll tell you why. MONEY and the ability for gays to pass on the consequences of their behavior onto the rest of us. So spare me the crocodile tears, they don’t fool me.

SouthernDem on September 23, 2007 at 11:46 AM

No. I have no problem with them having civil unions or holy consummations or any other name EXCEPT marriage. And that is just because the term marriage is a traditional term that applies to hetro marriage and the insurance issues. Consistency and fairness.

And it is the militant gays who push the issue for insurance purposes but hide behind “equal rights”.

And the tone of my post was a direct response to the PCness that “The Sinner” was trying to silence others with. Now he has words to complain about, which I’m sure he will rather than deal with the substance of my argument about mortality rates and increased insurance costs passed on to the rest of us. It’s a very quick effective way to find out the intentions of the person.

Gays simple need to get their own word. Period.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:31 AM

Oh I got a word for you, hon, but it’ll get me banned. I’ll just say that as a mormon you are probably most bitter that marriage is confined to only 2 people, no?

Either way, society is not obligated to condone this behavior. Gays should accept civil unions and then drop it. Gays have all the same civil rights that straights do. Sexual deviation or orientation does not demand special rights. If you are homosexual you are exempt from marriage or you have exempted yourself from marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman; if it isn’t, it loses all meaning. Sorry. Be happy with civil contracts, that’s all you’ll be getting for a long, long time.

Dork B. on September 23, 2007 at 9:30 AM

I think marriage “loses all meaning” when you breeders have a 50% divorce rate. At this point, gays could SAVE marriage! And as for us accepting civil unions and when it comes to marriage we should just “drop it”- who made you the king of the world? We will continue to fight for true equality, if you have a problem with that you could move to Iran or Afghanistan or wherever other people have backwards religious views like yourself.

csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:53 AM

So your reasoning for not allowing even civil unions is because of insurance costs. Got it.
By the way, this is a great post from a person who throws the word “bigot” around like pez whenever someone objects to Mormonism.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 1:49 AM

But you can’t change a law for this one group, and not for others.

Oh, of course we can. In fact, we do it all the time. Sometimes we have good reasons for the classifications we draw, and sometimes the classifications are arbitrary. But in any event, we make them.

When the U.S. Supreme Court took up the Lawrence case, a lot of people — including, as I recall, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum — said that legalization of homosexual conduct would result in legalization of bestiality. But that hasn’t happened, has it? And it’s not on the verge of happening, either.

I think we have good reasons for prohibiting bestiality while permitting homosexuality. Perhaps you think the distinction is arbitrary. But whether reasonable or arbitrary, it’s a distinction we make, and one we not likely to unmake.

Massachusetts has same-sex marriage; it doesn’t have polygamy, and it’s not about to get polygamy, either.

More than a decade ago, in a essay for Time, Charles Krauthammer wrote:

The problem here is not the slippery slope. It is not that if society allows gay marriage, society will then allow polygamy or incest. It won’t. The people won’t allow polygamy or incest. Even the gay-marriage advocates won’t allow it.

Krauthammer went on to argue against gay marriage. But he correctly understood that polygamy will not follow gay marriage.

Thanks for the discussion.