Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
This coming from a guy who voted for Barack Hussein Obama...
So this really isn't about the post but about your ongoing larger nonsense. I mostly figured that was the case...
I was responding to your typical left wing rant about the Founding Fathers being racist. You are aware that they are responsible for many of the Christian monuments that you claim you defend?
Edit: In God We Trust: America’s Historic Sites Reveal Her Christian Foundations
http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1962
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding women being 2nd class citizens: Staying home and doing the invaluable job of raising a family while their husband works is far from being "2nd class".
The second class citizenship I spoke to was in play when those founders who allowed slavery also failed to enfranchise women as voters, among other lesser status indicators...
As mentioned, they had more important things to do (raising a family). Regarding women voting in this day and age:
As I mentioned to Art Brain in another thread: You'd think that those women would use their vote to protect the unborn.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Funny how you didn't "morally object" to it [homosexual 'marriage'] when it was a hot topic of debate here on TOL.
I not only did, I did so almost every time I spoke to the subject and every time I was asked about it.
It just so happens that I have a copy of a debate that you had with a TOL'er that goes by the name of "Huckleberry" back on June 2 of 2013. The thread has been deleted, but I copied it word for word.
Originally Posted by Huckleberry
There's much more to being male/female that a collection of behavioral characteristics that themselves are too complex even to be quantified.
Furthermore, I'll plainly call the characterization of gender itself as irrelevant and interchangeable nothing short of evil.
Then all that reduces to is that you believe in a Biblical model and that this model should be the model used for a secular compact. And the next guy, with a different religious view might feel that you shouldn't be allowed to marry across races and that this view should control.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
Can two parents of the same gender raise a child adequately?
I've seen studies going both ways. But seriously, I have. And that presumes that children are a necessary part of what they clearly aren't. It's another issue. The elderly, the infertile and even those who just don't want kids can file by the magistrate and get hitched.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
But if you're arguing for gay marriage by asserting gender is meaningless and irrelevant, and all that to establish there are no arguments against gay marriage that are not religious.
Relevant but immaterial to the contract. That is, it's relevance is established by the current debate, but it isn't or shouldn't be an impediment to contracting for marriage because outside of the purely religious the only thing you end up saying is, "But he isn't a she" or vice versa, which isn't an argument, though it is a neat enough circle.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
As for the question of non-religious arguments against gay marriage...there are a million non-religious arguments against gay marriage. Five minutes on Google will turn up twenty of them. Why are we pretending otherwise?
There are probably as many against race mixing. Doesn't make them good or compelling enough to overwhelm equality in right before the law.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
1. It Is Not Marriage
Sounds circular already. It isn't a contract until it is.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
2. It Violates Natural Law
So does penicillin. Next.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
Marriage isn't about children. Having children is about having children and you don't have to be married to do that any more than you have to have them if you are. Next.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
Sounds like a moral presumption resting upon a moral presumption. You could say not denying people of varying races to marry encourages it, but mostly it just doesn't deny them a right without sufficient reason to.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
A purely religious turn in a compact that doesn't cede that authority. Next.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
As noted above and prior, we don't have any trouble with sterile, elderly or indifferent people entering into a union which won't or can't produce children. And so they don't reap the additional benefits that actually do have to do with procreation. Next.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
Nope. The state has more than one interest, which is why we allow those marriages I only just noted. And gay people could produce children, through artificial insemination for women or by adoption for men or women.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
What's the imposition again? Being outraged? Because I'm fairly sure that outrage is also felt by people being denied a right without sufficient reason. So racists will have to be uncomfortable with mixed race marriages. Those who see marriage as a purely religious function will have to live with knowing atheists and agnostics are forgoing churches for the aforereferenced magistrate, etc. Just as the Amish have to suck it up and deal with weapons being made from their taxes.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
That's not even an argument, but assuming a domino doesn't always pan out. For instance, the sexual revolution and subsequent moral laxity and removal of purely religiously motivated law from the books hasn't helped the pedophile, who finds greater, not lesser protection in law for children.
Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
10. It Offends God
Secular compact, not ruled by Islamic principle. Or did you mean Christian? Same answer.
On that note: Lon threw you a nice party and all of your friends came to wish you well. Any further conversation on my part and I might be seen as a party pooper (and no one likes a party pooper do they Town Heretic?).
Have a nice day
