Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage

[GFR7]

@Granite: Public Discourse is "clickbait"? :mock: I am one of the few posters who bothers with intellectual and academic journals and websites.

 

[Rusha]

I don't need to let you know: My ideology is coherent. You're the one who cannot grasp it.

You and Chrys are both inconsistent. Intentionally so.

TWO people go into a marriage. Children sometimes come later. Children do not sometimes come later.

You are standing behind assumptions (that all couples will have children) that is not based on reality. Personally, I believe that you KNOW this but refuse to admit it because it doesn't serve your real agenda.

 

[Rusha]

Dead argument, been refuted several dozen times here.

No it hasn't.

 

[GFR7]

You and Chrys are both inconsistent. Intentionally so.

TWO people go into a marriage. Children sometimes come later. Children do not sometimes come later.

You are standing behind assumptions (that all couples will have children) that is not based on reality. Personally, I believe that you KNOW this but refuse to admit it because it doesn't serve your real agenda.

We are here today because for centuries dating back to pre-antiquity, generations were produced from men and women in marriage.

 

[Granite]

I don't think I could have done a philosophical honors' thesis and defended it successfully before a panel, if such were true.

Internet academics impress absolutely no one, FYI. And book smarts doesn't prevent gullibility, as is obvious.

Bringing the 2 complementary genders together and procreating, within a cohesive and stable environment, which forms the foundation of society.

...so the heterosexual childless by choice or biology are pretty much second class or not "really" married in your book.

 

[Rusha]

...so the heterosexual childless by choice or biology are pretty much second class or not "really" married in your book.

Which means, by that standard, that adopted children are inferior.

 

[GFR7]

Which means, by that standard, that adopted children are inferior.

Very false and weak argument.

 

[GFR7]

Internet academics impress absolutely no one, FYI. And book smarts doesn't prevent gullibility, as is obvious.

I'm not here to impress anyone. I'm here to facilitate debate.

 

[Rusha]

Very false and weak argument.

Then why do you imply it?

 

[Granite]

I'm not here to impress anyone. I'm here to facilitate debate.

Then here's a suggestion: Change your shtick.

Here's what you do--regularly. You offer an incredibly ridiculous, poorly-wrought opinion, and catch a good amount of flack for it. Then you whine when people disagree with you, then you try to backtrack, and then you try to change the subject when people call you out for the many often asinine things you say.

Suggestion? Think more before you type and explain what the world you're actually talking about. Otherwise you're just a glorified troll.

 

[GFR7]

Then why do you imply it?

You yourself see it as implicit. So, why do you ask me?

 

[GFR7]

Then here's a suggestion: Change your shtick.

Here's what you do--regularly. You offer an incredibly ridiculous, poorly-wrought opinion, and catch a good amount of flack for it. Then you whine when people disagree with you, then you try to backtrack, and then you try to change the subject when people call you out for the many often asinine things you say.

Suggestion? Think more before you type and explain what the world you're actually talking about. Otherwise you're just a glorified troll.

I don't think this is what occurs, no.

 

[Granite]

I don't think this is what occurs, no.

Yeah, that's the problem. You wouldn't, Diary Boy.

So are the heterosexual childless by choice or biology pretty much second class or not "really" married in your book?

 

[Rusha]

Internet academics impress absolutely no one, FYI. And book smarts doesn't prevent gullibility, as is obvious.

...so the heterosexual childless by choice or biology are pretty much second class or not "really" married in your book.

Which means, by that standard, that adopted children are inferior.

Very false and weak argument.

Then why do you imply it?

You yourself see it as implicit. So, why do you ask me?

Then here's a suggestion: Change your shtick.

Here's what you do--regularly. You offer an incredibly ridiculous, poorly-wrought opinion, and catch a good amount of flack for it. Then you whine when people disagree with you, then you try to backtrack, and then you try to change the subject when people call you out for the many often asinine things you say.

Suggestion? Think more before you type and explain what the world you're actually talking about. Otherwise you're just a glorified troll.

I don't think this is what occurs, no.

It is exactly what occurs. Why not just be honest and admit that the reason you are anti anything that has to do with gays (especially marriage) is because you despise them instead of hiding behind the children argument?

 

[Sitamun]

Point One: children were born in this world before the invention of marriage
Point Two: for a majority of history marriage has been a means of consolidating wealth and power.
Point Three: for many many years polygamy was an acceptable form of marriage.
Point Four: There are numerous times children wish their parents had divorced, or divorced sooner than they did. Kids know when their parents are miserable.
Point Five: Biological parents aren't always superior to non biological ones.
Point Six: Just because the parents aren't married it doesn't mean the parents aren't 'together' or that the children are without one parent.

 

[GFR7]

Yeah, that's the problem. You wouldn't, Diary Boy.

So are the heterosexual childless by choice or biology pretty much second class or not "really" married in your book?

The world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal. Kantian ethics gives you the answer you seek.

 

[GFR7]

It is exactly what occurs. Why not just be honest and admit that the reason you are anti anything that has to do with gays (especially marriage) is because you despise them instead of hiding behind the children argument?

I don't despise them, no! I am against gay marriage.

 

[GFR7]

Point One: children were born in this world before the invention of marriage
Point Two: for a majority of history marriage has been a means of consolidating wealth and power.
Point Three: for many many years polygamy was an acceptable form of marriage.
Point Four: There are numerous times children wish their parents had divorced, or divorced sooner than they did. Kids know when their parents are miserable.
Point Five: Biological parents aren't always superior to non biological ones.
Point Six: Just because the parents aren't married it doesn't mean the parents aren't 'together' or that the children are without one parent.

All true. But there still needs to be a reversal of no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and third party reproduction.

 

[Granite]

All true. But there still needs to be a reversal of no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and third party reproduction.

a) because empowering women is dangerous
b) because bigotry is comfortable
c) because if people can't have kids without help, hey, screw 'em

 

[Granite]

The world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal. Kantian ethics gives you the answer you seek.

I'm asking for your answer, bright eyes.