Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

Toleration accepts intolerance so long as it does not violate property rights or phisically attack someone else. Homosexuals can not marry each other because that simply is not what marriage is.
This is a value judgment on your part and is hardly an immutable law of the Universe. The one thing above all else that marriage is according to the vows is a "loving committment" and there is no requirement for gender when it comes to love or committment. There are no physical attacks nor trespasses on property rights involved in homosexual people being allowed to marry.

Creating law and bringing the power of government to bear upon joe blow in an attempt to make him respect homosexual couples in the same way as he respects married couples is not the recipe for a settled society.

Joe probably could care less if homosexuals are allowed civil unions because that does not bring the force of government to bear on him and does not demand that he give equal respect or face the consequences of the law.
I wondered about the two paragraphs above, you are apparently stating that marriage is deserving of respect but civil unions are not. Yet you are prescribing ONLY civil unions for homosexual people. Is this so that you can continue to disrespect them legally? And thus continue the discrimination, the violence, and the denial of legal rights? Please explain to me how this issue is different from what black people faced.

Abortion denies the most basic human right to a human being. I have no tolerance at all for that. If homosexuals are being denied basic human rights (and marriage is not a basic human right) then I would be as strongly opposed to those who are denying their rights as I am to those who deny unborns their rights via abortion. If the government can't assure and protect our most basic human rights, exactly what good is it?
Is respecting another person as an equal human being a right? Is equal respect under the law a human right?

I don't demand anything from anyone except that they respect my property rights and not assault me.
No, I don't think this is true, you have a real problem with allowing ALL people to have the same rights that you have--and there is no assault or property involved. Or at least you haven't shown any yet.

Being conservative, I am interested in freedom "FROM". Freedom from government intrusion into my life is freedom.
No, I don't think this is true either. You are only too happy to allow government intrusion to take FREEDOM from women when it comes to control of the insides of their own bodies--and you are willing to do this by law and force if necessary. You are also anxious to deny FREEDOM from religious persecution to homosexual people.

Modern liberalism is much more interested in freedom "TO". This involves making law that intrudes into people's lives. It involves making law that makes demands upon people and the willingness to punish those who don't deliver. Freedom "TO" eventually becomes authoritarianism which in its course, denies everyone both freedom from and freedom to. All tyranys start out promising everyone everything but the fact is, they simply can't deliver.
I don't think this paragraph says very much, depending on how one words the sentence almost any right or privilege could be a "freedom to" or "freedom from".

You can't use the force of government to restructure society and you can't successfully mandate respect.
No, that's not true either, government force has restructured societies all down through history. Just look at how the Draconian one-child law has changed Chinese society.

While it is true that one cannot madate respect by law, just like happened with the black people, one can make overt or violent disrectful actions illegal and this tends to encourage people not to do them. As the old hardline bigots die of old age the new generation grows up with the new paradigm of respect and they tend to be better than their parents, later yet their children will be even better.

I think your postion is disingenuous in that like the very same liberals that you decry, you want freedom from government intrusion in YOUR life, but you are only too happy to have government intrude into the lives of others if they don't treat their children as you demand. Your whole argument about human rights would be more believable if you didn't have a single issue on each side of the divide. On one side we have YOU wishing no government intrusion on YOUR freedom, on the other side you demand government intrusion into the freedom of others. If you believed in and campaigned for ALL human rights, then I would find you not only more believable, but more palatable as well.
 
Werbung:
I think your definitions are arbitrary and far too sweeping, it seems that except for Pinochet you taken every bastard in human history lined them all up along side everyone who is,might be, looks like, or identifies themselves as "liberal" (inclusive of all the ways that all those people use the word "liberal") and you have dumped all of this vast diversity of human thought and action into on pile and blamed them for practically everything. I don't like much of what the larger Christian community does, nor much of what passes for the practice of Christianity in today's world, but even I never swept up all the garbage in human history and reversed the definitions of words so that I could condemn all of them without exception.

Feel free to name off some far right tyrants. Of course, any tyrant who has manuvered to control the means of production in his country can not accurately be called right wing. Make a list if you like. I can only think of one or two right wingers who have managed to become dictators. Conservative thinking doesn't lend itself to tyrany because conservative thinking is centered around freedom from government intrusion. It is most difficult to carry out a tyrany if your government doesn't impose itself on people more than necessary.

I'm really glad you're tolerant, I can't imagine what you'd be like if you weren't. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it sure sounds like it.

Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or respect for everyone regardless of what they do. Tolerance means not taking illegal action against people who are doing a thing that is within the law. Demanding, by force of law that I give equal respect to people that I don't respect is, by definition, tyrany.
 
Change is not tyranny, change is inevitable as the human race learns and matures.

Change by force of government is.

Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been just one thing. Marriage has had so many meanings and definitions down through history that your contention of man/woman is narrowly confined to our kind of society.

I welcome you to provide some credible support for the idea that marriage has ever been between two or more men or two or more women. Even in societies that accepted relationships between homosexuals, the relationships that they sanctioned were not called marriages. But as I said, feel free to provide some credible support for your argument.

It's like heteros get Driver's Licenses but queers have to get Operator's Permits, there is no reason for two separate classes IF the two classes are equal, the point I think you desire to make is once again a relgious one in that homosexual's in committed relationships are still not as good as REAL people in committed relationships.

The only point I am trying to make is that sexual preference is not a valid reason to grant special rights. Suppose we enact law and forcibly change marriage to include homosexuals what about the next group who also wants to be married? Is there any point at which you would draw a line and say no, that is not acceptable?

If there is some functional reason why we should have to rewrite all the laws to include the words "civil unions" instead of just calling all legally sanctioned loving relationships "marriage" I haven't heard it yet.

You know as well as I that new law doesn't require rewriting all old law. And homosexual relationships aren't marriage any more than walking is flying. Marriage is what it is and bringing the force of government to bear on a society and telling them that this thing has now been redefined to mean that thing is by definition tyrany and you continue to prove my point about modern liberalism being authoritarian in nature. You are perfectly willing to step on everyone's rights to have what you want and are perfectly willing to punish those who aren't willing to give it to you.

Would you be willing to use the European pattern? Every couple gets a civil union license that guarantees all the legal rights and privileges and then if they want to get some religion troweled on, they can go to the church of their choice for a ceremony that will have all the pomp and circumstance they desire with promises to God and ... whatever, but that ceremony will have no more legal force than a christening.

No, I wouldn't. That is nothing more than a smoke screen thrown up to conceal the fact that you have now redefined marriage to include homosexuals.

I don't want your respect, you certainly don't have mine, why should I desire yours? I want equality under the law, I want the beatings and killings to end, I want the legal discrimination to end.

You don't want equality. You want special law to be written just for you.


No, not being a Catholic, I think that no-fault divorce has prevented a HUGE amount of pain and agony. What's your problem with it? As far as weakening society, I think that's a buzz-term with little real meaning, mostly people use it when they want to object to the way society is changing because they don't like the changes. You need to provide more information about your position if we are going to discuss this intelligently. What is your problem with ending marriages without court battles?


You don't believe that the broken children of broken marriages have caused a great deal of problems and expense for society? And you don't think that people growing up with the attituted that getting married is no big deal and if it doesn't work out we can just call it quits and divide up the kids as if they were poker chips has, and will continue to unsettle society.
 
You don't believe that the broken children of broken marriages have caused a great deal of problems and expense for society? And you don't think that people growing up with the attituted that getting married is no big deal and if it doesn't work out we can just call it quits and divide up the kids as if they were poker chips has, and will continue to unsettle society.

It's better to come from a broken home than to live in one. I think the Draconian government forces brought to bear on people to force them to continue living in broken homes filled with hate and despair is far more damaging than no-fault divorces.

Funny how change forced by the government is tyranny until YOU want the government to force and end to abortions and force people to remain married, then that's okay.
 
I welcome you to provide some credible support for the idea that marriage has ever been between two or more men or two or more women. Even in societies that accepted relationships between homosexuals, the relationships that they sanctioned were not called marriages. But as I said, feel free to provide some credible support for your argument.
Actually, in Roman times I have read that there were some homosexual marriages. In many indigenous cultures homosexual people paired off just like heterosexual people and there was no stigma attached to it. In fact it's only the last 800 years that homosexuality has been a problem in the Christian church.

The only point I am trying to make is that sexual preference is not a valid reason to grant special rights. Suppose we enact law and forcibly change marriage to include homosexuals what about the next group who also wants to be married? Is there any point at which you would draw a line and say no, that is not acceptable?
You are the ONLY one making sexual orientation a valid reason for or against marriage. I think that ALL consenting adults should have equal access to marriage. What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?

You know as well as I that new law doesn't require rewriting all old law. And homosexual relationships aren't marriage any more than walking is flying. Marriage is what it is and bringing the force of government to bear on a society and telling them that this thing has now been redefined to mean that thing is by definition tyrany and you continue to prove my point about modern liberalism being authoritarian in nature. You are perfectly willing to step on everyone's rights to have what you want and are perfectly willing to punish those who aren't willing to give it to you.
It does require rewriting old laws, right now in Rhode Island (I think) the civil unions law is not working because many big companies have contracts mandating benefits for married people and they will not pay benefits to civil union partners because they are not legally "married".

Allowing gay people to marry steps on no one's rights. It simply allows a tiny minority to share equally with the majority. Okay, who's rights are stepped on? A bunch of fundie Christians? The same kind of fundie Christians who didn't want blacks to have equality either? The same kind of fundie Christians that didn't want women to have equality?

No, I wouldn't. That is nothing more than a smoke screen thrown up to conceal the fact that you have now redefined marriage to include homosexuals.
It provides equal protection under the law as is guaranteed by the US Constitution--and you're against that? Why do you have such a hard-on for gay people? You never will answer the question, I know that, you will continue to pump out your insipid reasons for making them 2nd class citizens while claiming that you don't care one way or another about them--except for your property rights.

You don't want equality. You want special law to be written just for you.
Okay, what's special about allowing two consenting adults to marry? You used that same time-worn argument about blacks marrying blacks and whites marrying whites and thus no one is discriminated against and when I called you on it you said that my argument had been discredited. Okay, by who, when? Let's all note that if it's been discredited then we should still have laws against interracial marriage--but we don't. Hmmm, maybe it's YOUR argument that has been discredited and that's why we have black/white marriages now and nobody thinks a thing about it.
 
Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance or respect for everyone regardless of what they do. Tolerance means not taking illegal action against people who are doing a thing that is within the law. Demanding, by force of law that I give equal respect to people that I don't respect is, by definition, tyrany.

The blind adhereance to law is what allowed Hitler to stuff Jews in the ovens, it was legal to kill the Jews, but just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's ethical or right.

I assume that you believe that gays SHOULD have laws passed restricting their rights. Why?

Oh yeah, Hitler was a conservative--he was death on freedom.
 
It's better to come from a broken home than to live in one. I think the Draconian government forces brought to bear on people to force them to continue living in broken homes filled with hate and despair is far more damaging than no-fault divorces.

Funny how change forced by the government is tyranny until YOU want the government to force and end to abortions and force people to remain married, then that's okay.

I never said that I wanted the government to force people to remain married. There is a medium between not being able to get out of a marriage and being able to cut and run over the first argument about which mustard to put on a sandwich. Marriage is supposed to represent a committment and people should consider before they jump in. Under the present no fault system, the only people who actually consider marriage carefully are people with a considerable amount of money and the only real considerations they make are how to protect the money. Marriage is a contract. Maybe you can show me some other contracts that you can just walk away from if you decide that you are tired of the deal.

The exact same is true for abortion on deman. Modern liberalism has relieved people of their need to think carefully and consider the consequences of thier actions.

By the way, most divorces are not over fear, hate and dispair as you suggest in your emotional appeal. Most divorces are over differences in opinion and nothing more.
 
Actually, in Roman times I have read that there were some homosexual marriages. In many indigenous cultures homosexual people paired off just like heterosexual people and there was no stigma attached to it. In fact it's only the last 800 years that homosexuality has been a problem in the Christian church.

Sorry, not marriage. But do feel free to provide something more credible than "you read something somewhere sometime" to support your claim.


You are the ONLY one making sexual orientation a valid reason for or against marriage. I think that ALL consenting adults should have equal access to marriage. What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?

I asked a question. Why didn't you answer? Where woud you draw the line? Or would you not draw a line at all?


It does require rewriting old laws, right now in Rhode Island (I think) the civil unions law is not working because many big companies have contracts mandating benefits for married people and they will not pay benefits to civil union partners because they are not legally "married".

Sorry, Rhode Island does not have a law recognizing civil unions. They are a state that has not defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but as of today, there is no law legalizing civil unions.

Allowing gay people to marry steps on no one's rights. It simply allows a tiny minority to share equally with the majority. Okay, who's rights are stepped on? A bunch of fundie Christians? The same kind of fundie Christians who didn't want blacks to have equality either? The same kind of fundie Christians that didn't want women to have equality?

Marriage is what it is mare. Your demand that society redefine the word and the institution to mean what you want it to mean only serves to reinforce my original premise that modern liberalism is authoritiarian in nature. Marriage is a big deal and your never ending demands for its redefinition so homosexuals can marry as well is clear evidence. If it were no big deal, why bother?

And your suggestion that only fundamentalist Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. The polls show that there are a hell of a lot more people opposed to homosexual marraige than fundamentalists could account for. You are just looking for someone to blame which is another nasty characteristic of modern liberalism. You need someone, a particular group to blame for the ills of society. A group that you can demonize and hate openly. For lenin and stalin, it was gypsys, for hitler it was jews, for mao it was rural gentry, former employees of foriegn, or the chinese government, intellectuals, in short, anyone whose loyalty was suspect and modern liberals have Christians.


It provides equal protection under the law as is guaranteed by the US Constitution--and you're against that? Why do you have such a hard-on for gay people? You never will answer the question, I know that, you will continue to pump out your insipid reasons for making them 2nd class citizens while claiming that you don't care one way or another about them--except for your property rights.

There is no provision in the constitution that allows homosexuals to marry each other. Equal protection means that homosexuals may marry one of the opposite sex just the same as anyone else. You, however, aren't asking for equal protection, you are asking for special rights.

I have no "hard on" for gay people and your insistence that I do is just one more example of what is wrong with modern liberalism. If you don't get your way, someone must have a "hard on" for you. It couldn't possibly be that you are simply wrong could it? And I have answered the question ad nauseum mare. You just don't like the answer. Here it is one more time. Marriage is what it is and sexual preference is no valid reason to grant special rights.

Okay, what's special about allowing two consenting adults to marry?

It isn't something that anyone can do.

You used that same time-worn argument about blacks marrying blacks and whites marrying whites and thus no one is discriminated against and when I called you on it you said that my argument had been discredited.

I never used any argument against blacks marrying whites. Unless, of course you are talking about black men marrying white men and black women marrying white women.
 
The blind adhereance to law is what allowed Hitler to stuff Jews in the ovens, it was legal to kill the Jews, but just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's ethical or right.

No. What allowed hitler to stuff Jews into the ovens was a successful campaign demonizing them to the point that it became socially acceptable to openly hate them. Much as the modern left has done with Christians. Who needs to secretly hate Christians any more?

There was nothing in the german law that allowed people to be rounded up, imprisioned for their religion and killed. Had hitler had a blind adherence to the law, (also mao, pol pot, stalin, and lenin for that matter) they would not have ever been able to perpetrate the atrocities that they did. It was a willingness to change the law to suit their wants and a willingness to redefine society by force of government that allowed them to do what they did. You hold the same attitute.

Once more, your argument is based squarely in a falsehood.

I assume that you believe that gays SHOULD have laws passed restricting their rights. Why?

Why would you assume that? Didn't I just tell you that if someone were denying homosexuals their human rights that I would oppose whoever it was just as vigorously as I oppose abortion? Homosexual marriage, however, would be a special right, handed out based on sexual preference and I don't favor handing out special rights to anyone based on something as trivial as sexual preference.

Again, you attempt to demonize me because I don't agree with you. Just like the other leftist authoritarian tyrants. I have to hand it to you, you have their style down pat.

Oh yeah, Hitler was a conservative--he was death on freedom.

Sorry, hitler was a leftist. He was a socialist. And tell me, which socialist utopia has been "free"? Socialism is death to freedom. Socialism lite intrudes into every aspect of our daily lives and hard socialism drags everyone down to a level of equal misery except for the elites.
 
I never said that I wanted the government to force people to remain married. There is a medium between not being able to get out of a marriage and being able to cut and run over the first argument about which mustard to put on a sandwich.
No matter how you phrase it, LAW would be required to prevent people from exiting marriages, law is government--unless you want to be like the Catholics and let religion police our marriages.

Marriage is supposed to represent a committment and people should consider before they jump in.
You certainly have a lot of "shoulds" for other people to obey, one might think you were an authoritarian liberal. People probably should do a lot of things, but I personally am not comfortable passing laws and using government force to make everybody behave.

Under the present no fault system, the only people who actually consider marriage carefully are people with a considerable amount of money and the only real considerations they make are how to protect the money.
It might be better if you didn't make such sweeping statements about people you know nothing about. I don't have any money and I considered very carefully before I married. People just aren't living up to your standards and you're unhappy about that, I understand your impatience, but an authoritarian society isn't the way to go.

Marriage is a contract. Maybe you can show me some other contracts that you can just walk away from if you decide that you are tired of the deal.
Show me another contract that can be denied to consenting adults simply on the basis of religious bigotry. You can't have it both ways: either marriage is special and cannot be compared to other contracts or it's just a legal contract between people.

The exact same is true for abortion on deman. Modern liberalism has relieved people of their need to think carefully and consider the consequences of thier actions.
You can make that argument, but you can't say that the evil liberals have taken away people's choice by fiat as you advocate doing.

By the way, most divorces are not over fear, hate and dispair as you suggest in your emotional appeal. Most divorces are over differences in opinion and nothing more.
It wasn't an emotional appeal, it was not the basis for the divorce either. All the hatred, fear, and despair come from NOT being able to leave a situation that may well be intolerable.
 
No matter how you phrase it, LAW would be required to prevent people from exiting marriages, law is government--unless you want to be like the Catholics and let religion police our marriages.

Sorry. Law was required to allow the contract to be broken so easliy.


You certainly have a lot of "shoulds" for other people to obey, one might think you were an authoritarian liberal. People probably should do a lot of things, but I personally am not comfortable passing laws and using government force to make everybody behave.

People should consider consequences before entering into any contract. Do you believe that people should buy houses they can not afford simply because a bank is willing to loan them money?


It might be better if you didn't make such sweeping statements about people you know nothing about. I don't have any money and I considered very carefully before I married. People just aren't living up to your standards and you're unhappy about that, I understand your impatience, but an authoritarian society isn't the way to go.

So long as they aren't causing problems for me (and they are) I don't care what they do but when their irresponsibility begins to cause problems for others, it is rightly time for the law to step in. The purpose of law is to keep you from causing problems for others via your own irresponsibility.

And if an authoritarian society isn't the way to go, why are you promoting one. Expecting people to honor their commitments is not authoritarian. Allowing them to disregard their commitments at the expense of others is authoritarian.


Show me another contract that can be denied to consenting adults simply on the basis of religious bigotry. You can't have it both ways: either marriage is special and cannot be compared to other contracts or it's just a legal contract between people.

You can not enter into a real estate contract if you are buying a car. Marriage is what it is and the contract is what it is. You can only enter into a real estate contract if you are dealing with real estate. You can't call it something other than it is.

You can make that argument, but you can't say that the evil liberals have taken away people's choice by fiat as you advocate doing.

I am not advocating taking anyone's choice away. You choose to enter a contract and I really can't think of any other contract that you can simply walk away from for any or no reason. Feel free to name one or two if you can. I challenged you before but obviously, you have no answer.


It wasn't an emotional appeal, it was not the basis for the divorce either. All the hatred, fear, and despair come from NOT being able to leave a situation that may well be intolerable.

Define intolerable.
 
Sorry, not marriage. But do feel free to provide something more credible than "you read something somewhere sometime" to support your claim.
You did not address the indigenous people's acceptance.

I asked a question. Why didn't you answer? Where woud you draw the line? Or would you not draw a line at all?
I did answer your question and I am quoting my post below:
"I think that ALL consenting adults should have equal access to marriage. What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?"

What part of "all consenting adults" didn't you understand? And I also asked a question which YOU refused to answer (see underlined portion of quote above).

What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?

Sorry, Rhode Island does not have a law recognizing civil unions. They are a state that has not defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but as of today, there is no law legalizing civil unions.
Yeah, I wasn't sure which State it was, I just read about the court fight which is taking place over Fed Ex's refusal to pay benefits, but the point is that until the laws are rewritten to include civil unions, then they will be a second class relationship--Separate is Not Equal according to the US Supreme Court.

Marriage is what it is mare. Your demand that society redefine the word and the institution to mean what you want it to mean only serves to reinforce my original premise that modern liberalism is authoritiarian in nature. Marriage is a big deal and your never ending demands for its redefinition so homosexuals can marry as well is clear evidence. If it were no big deal, why bother?
For me it hinges on having my marriage of many years taken from me because of religious bigotry. Because I was legally male when we married and I am now legally female there are people who wish to have our marriage taken away from us. It is a big deal to a lot of people (Hell, look at your hysteria around a couple of percent of the population getting to share in something that you value), but the legal part of it is the biggest deal. There are more than 1049 rights and privileges reserved for people who are legally married that are denied to everyone else according to the letter of the law. That needs to be changed so that we all can have equal protection under the law as the US Constitution guarantees.

And your suggestion that only fundamentalist Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. The polls show that there are a hell of a lot more people opposed to homosexual marraige than fundamentalists could account for.
I was using the fundies as an example, you are right there are a vast number of Christian bigots supporting the fundies in this issue. A lot of regular Christians supported slavery and the subjugation of women too.

You are just looking for someone to blame which is another nasty characteristic of modern liberalism. You need someone, a particular group to blame for the ills of society.
The ills of society? I'm not blaming the Bible-beaters for ills of society, I am stating that they are the ones who passed the laws against us, that's all. They have a holy book filled with some of the nastiest stuff which they attribute to some god and they use that as a weapon against gay people. Prove me wrong, Pale, show me any other group of any size that pushing gay hate besides the Bible-beaters. A whole bunch of people have tried to do it and no one has been able to because THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER GROUP.

A group that you can demonize and hate openly. For lenin and stalin, it was gypsys, for hitler it was jews, for mao it was rural gentry, former employees of foriegn, or the chinese government, intellectuals, in short, anyone whose loyalty was suspect and modern liberals have Christians.
You really drifted off into the ozone for this one, Pale. This isn't about liberals, this is about religious bigotry by a large majority against a tiny minority. And all the hatred seems to be landing on us, when was the last time a group of homosexuals dragged a Christian like Gwen Arujo into a garage and beat her to death with shovels? When was the last time a bunch of queers pistol-whipped a good Christian and tied him to a fence in Wyoming to freeze to death? When was the last time that two gay EMT's stopped treating a Christian woman when they discovered that she was a Christian? Did they leave her lying in the street and make fun of her in front of more than 100 witnesses? Did Washington D.C. pay $3.5 million in reparations for their heinous behavior--BUT NOT DISCIPLINE THEM?

You can sing the liberal hate song if you like, but we are the ones living in the valley of death.

There is no provision in the constitution that allows homosexuals to marry each other. Equal protection means that homosexuals may marry one of the opposite sex just the same as anyone else. You, however, aren't asking for equal protection, you are asking for special rights.
Yep, that's the insipid argument that the KKK used, are you proud to be using their old material? There is nothing in the Constitution that says gay people can't be married either and there is a "right to the pursuit of happiness". It harms no one, it will make them happier, it will allow me to continue being married, it will not take my children away from me.

I have no "hard on" for gay people and your insistence that I do is just one more example of what is wrong with modern liberalism. If you don't get your way, someone must have a "hard on" for you. It couldn't possibly be that you are simply wrong could it? And I have answered the question ad nauseum mare. You just don't like the answer. Here it is one more time. Marriage is what it is and sexual preference is no valid reason to grant special rights.
So, would you annul my marriage too? Marriage has been many things to many people down through history and your insistence that ONLY your version is valid is egotistical. When you vote to prevent about 2% of the population from having equal rights on the basis of religious dogma, that, by definition, is having a "hard on" for your victims. Especially when you cannot give a single valid reason why homosexuals should NOT marry. Tradition is not a valid reason unless you are arguing for ALL traditions to be continued--thus being conservative and never allowing anything to change.

So, pony up, Pale, is your hard on so bad that you would take my marriage away from me if you could? Being a transsexual is a birth defect that has nothing to do with sexual orientation so maybe your "gay" problem wouldn't kick in? Or are you so conservative that you think the Christian tradition of killing transsexuals or burning them at the stake should be continued? Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being trans, you like it? Fun, fun, fun, better than a pistol-whipping--you don't get blood on your good clothes and there is probably more screaming.

For a person so interested in freedom you sure want a lot of restrictions on other people.

I never used any argument against blacks marrying whites. Unless, of course you are talking about black men marrying white men and black women marrying white women.
Silly, Pale, you used it before and you used it in the post to which I am currently responding (see bolded/underlined section in your quote above).
 
No. What allowed hitler to stuff Jews into the ovens was a successful campaign demonizing them to the point that it became socially acceptable to openly hate them. Much as the modern left has done with Christians. Who needs to secretly hate Christians any more?

Actually, that is a bunch of total b.s. propogated by a group that seems to need to feel persecuted and hated with no factual foundation. And why? I don't know. The only thing I can assume is that they are no longer able to force certain agendas on the public and resort, instead, to a war of disinformation.

Are they able to worship freely and without hinderence in their houses of worship? Yes.

In the public square? Yes. In fact, the very institution they demonize has upheld that right for them.

Do they get preferential treatment? Well...in some strange way they do. Christmas is a national public holiday - the government both state and federal closes. Schools are closed. Of course - someone yells that they are no longer allowed to call it "Christmas" (persecution!!!!) but - like the marriage - it is what it is: a holiday that falls on Christmas and no other day. Not on Passover, not on Divali, not on any other religious date. Same with Good Friday.

I think some people ought to take a cold hard unemotional look at reality before attempting to compare their fictional plight to that of the Jews during Hitler's Third Reich.
 
Actually, that is a bunch of total b.s. propogated by a group that seems to need to feel persecuted and hated with no factual foundation. And why? I don't know. The only thing I can assume is that they are no longer able to force certain agendas on the public and resort, instead, to a war of disinformation.

Are they able to worship freely and without hinderence in their houses of worship? Yes.

In the public square? Yes. In fact, the very institution they demonize has upheld that right for them.

Do they get preferential treatment? Well...in some strange way they do. Christmas is a national public holiday - the government both state and federal closes. Schools are closed. Of course - someone yells that they are no longer allowed to call it "Christmas" (persecution!!!!) but - like the marriage - it is what it is: a holiday that falls on Christmas and no other day. Not on Passover, not on Divali, not on any other religious date. Same with Good Friday.

I think some people ought to take a cold hard unemotional look at reality before attempting to compare their fictional plight to that of the Jews during Hitler's Third Reich.


You genuinely believe that if modern liberalism gained a greater foothold in the US that Christians wouldn't be one of thier first targets? Take a good look at Europe where modern liberalism does have a greater foothold before you start claiming that no such thing would happen.
 
Werbung:
You did not address the indigenous people's acceptance.

Acceptance doesn't make it marriage. I asked for you to provide some evidence that marriage has ever been a recognized institution between two people of the same sex. Clearly, there is a reason that you have not provided said evidence.


I did answer your question and I am quoting my post below:
"I think that ALL consenting adults should have equal access to marriage. What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?"

What part of "all consenting adults" didn't you understand? And I also asked a question which YOU refused to answer (see underlined portion of quote above).

What's the next group of consenting adults you wish to exclude?

Marriage is what it is. If it isn't a man marrying a woman then it isn't a marriage.


Yeah, I wasn't sure which State it was, I just read about the court fight which is taking place over Fed Ex's refusal to pay benefits, but the point is that until the laws are rewritten to include civil unions, then they will be a second class relationship--Separate is Not Equal according to the US Supreme Court.[/quuote]

Since marriage is what it is, equality does not even enter into the equation. You are certainly free to marry a man and have all the rights that belong to married people. Once more, you aren't asking for equality, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference.


For me it hinges on having my marriage of many years taken from me because of religious bigotry. Because I was legally male when we married and I am now legally female there are people who wish to have our marriage taken away from us. It is a big deal to a lot of people (Hell, look at your hysteria around a couple of percent of the population getting to share in something that you value), but the legal part of it is the biggest deal. There are more than 1049 rights and privileges reserved for people who are legally married that are denied to everyone else according to the letter of the law. That needs to be changed so that we all can have equal protection under the law as the US Constitution guarantees.

You made your choice. And you do have equal protection under the law. What you want is special rights assigned due to your sexual preference.


I was using the fundies as an example, you are right there are a vast number of Christian bigots supporting the fundies in this issue. A lot of regular Christians supported slavery and the subjugation of women too.

Non Christians also supported slavery. I see that in your eyes, they are either fundies or some other sort of Christian bigot. Your bias defines modern liberalism.


The ills of society? I'm not blaming the Bible-beaters for ills of society, I am stating that they are the ones who passed the laws against us, that's all. They have a holy book filled with some of the nastiest stuff which they attribute to some god and they use that as a weapon against gay people. Prove me wrong, Pale, show me any other group of any size that pushing gay hate besides the Bible-beaters. A whole bunch of people have tried to do it and no one has been able to because THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER GROUP.

Is this the extent of your argument? This thread is about the inherent authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. You have done nothing to discredit any point that I have made. If the best you can do is whine for special rights based on your sexual preference, then your best isn't very good.

Yep, that's the insipid argument that the KKK used, are you proud to be using their old material? There is nothing in the Constitution that says gay people can't be married either and there is a "right to the pursuit of happiness". It harms no one, it will make them happier, it will allow me to continue being married, it will not take my children away from me.

Marriage is what it is. The Constitution doesn't issue special rights due to sexual preference. And the "persuit of happiness" doesn't involve redefining words to suit your wants. And your argument that it "harms no one" doesn't carry any weight either.


So, would you annul my marriage too?

Yep

Marriage has been many things to many people down through history and your insistence that ONLY your version is valid is egotistical.

I have asked repeatedly for you to provide some credible evidence that a union between people of the same sex has ever been called a marriage. You clearly can't provide it so marriage hasn't been many things to many people. Marriage has always been between men and women. Other unions have been called something other than marriage.

When you vote to prevent about 2% of the population from having equal rights on the basis of religious dogma, that, by definition, is having a "hard on" for your victims. Especially when you cannot give a single valid reason why homosexuals should NOT marry. Tradition is not a valid reason unless you are arguing for ALL traditions to be continued--thus being conservative and never allowing anything to change.

Marriage is what it is. You are asking for special rights based on your sexual preference. Can you or can you not make a case that modern liberalism is not inherently authoritarian in nature. So far, you have made my case for me exceptionally well.

So, pony up, Pale, is your hard on so bad that you would take my marriage away from me if you could?

You don't have a marriage. When you changed your sex, you annuled it yourself. You can call it what you will, but by definition, it is not a marriage.


If you want to go on ad nauseum about homosexual "marriage" start a thread. That isn't what this one is about. So far, you have done nothing but prove that modern liberalism is authoritarian in nature. You would use the force of government to redefine an institution that has been what it has been for no better reason that it is what you want. Pure authoritiarianism.
 
Back
Top