Is Western culture being destroyed?

[Jarlaxle]

I don't think terry schiavo is as dumb as jar -- in or out of coma.

Idiotic personal attacks...the last resort of someone who has absolutely zero substantive arguments left, and knows it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't think terry schiavo is as dumb as jar -- in or out of coma.

Cheap personal attack, sorry you have nothing to say.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, it is your intention that gay marriages be accepted as 'traditional' -- 'a body of unwritten religious precepts' type of traditional?

At least you're mildly amusing.

No, not at all,Nums, how can you be so wrong so consistently? I want marriage to be a legal entity available to all consenting adults equally, eventually the term "marriage" will come to be seen as traditionally accepting of all loving relationships between consenting adults.

I've no use for written or unwritten religious precepts, that's just dogma for the people who cannot think for themselves.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Isn't that what a lot of people do when the nature of their legal action is the same and against the same entity? And wouldn't a class-action suit be cheaper than litigating individually?

Please do NOT start in on law, you've already proven yourself incompetent in enough fields.

And the first ammendment doesn't do that for you?

Since you are not an American I can't fault you for not knowing enough about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nor for your lack of perception when it comes to the rights of a voting majority to pass laws restricting the rights of a minority.

And send me on a fools errand. No thank you.

Who better to send? It's just as well, Nums, the article is probably over your level anyway. Revel in your ignorance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And since when is it the business of the state to legislate love, eh?

It isn't! That's why all loving realtionships between consenting adults should have equal standing before the law.

It's only the Bible-beaters who have tried to make other people's personal lives their business and have passed laws to hurt those of whom they disapprove.

I'm glad you're finally getting a grip on this issue and that you realize that it's not the State's place to legislate loving realtionships. The Pope ain't gonna like you straying from the church's dogma like this though. Watch out he doesn't have the Opus Dei on you like ugly on a toad.

 

[dahermit]

Yes it is.

Is western culture being destroyed by multi-culturalism?

I say yes, soon to enjoy the civility of white culture, we will have to establish a segregated Anglo colony and start all over. Both Europe and the United States of America will be third world cultures and countries.

I personally put the blame on the liberal mental disease that exist in the western world today, what say you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=504159&in_page_id=1773

Nothing remains the same. This fear you have of multi-cultural ism was shared by the majority English colonizers who settled our country. They feared the cultural influence of the French in the north, the Spanish in the south etc. Then there was an influx of Irish and eastern Europeans that fueled similar fears. Yes, it is true that multi-cultural is changing the face of America. Demographers state that in a few years most of the southwest United States will resemble Mexico more than it does the U.S. Change is inevitable albeit not very comfortable to contemplate.

 

[Coyote]

So, you want gay marriages to be accepted as 'traditional' when there is nothing, whatsoever, about it that conforms with tradition???

What is accepted as "traditional" changes as time goes on. Eventually - something that was novel and revolutionary and "liberal" is either discarded or becomes tradition.

Examples include:
women's right to vote
the demolishing of segregation
inter-racial marriage
inter-racial adoption

 

[Coyote]

I'm sorry but you are contradicting yourself upon inspection of the discussions in the abortion thread.

How am I contradicting myself?

If a woman's implied right to privacy does not include terminating her own unborn child (at least not in an absolute way), what makes you think marriage gives that right to a person over his or her spouse?

It was not a "right to a person" - it was, according to court proceedings, a right of her spouse to follow her expessed wishes.

The court's decision on terri schiavo is a more blatant disregard of legal principles than roe can ever be.

That is a whole 'nother debate - one in which there are no clear cut right or wrong except it should never have gone beyond the local jurisdictions to be decided.

 

[Coyote]

You are going into the nature of tort law -- specifically, why the hell personal injury suits are so expensive. Changing the laws on marriage would do nothing about this, I'm afraid.

You're losing me here....my statement was:

It's not trivial, and it's not impertinence and once the person has died...of what value is pursuing it? Where is any compassion in trivializing such an issue? Why should a gay couple have to go to such lengths and expense (if they have the resources) for the simple rights enjoyed at no cost by a married heterosexual couple

I'm not sure how exactly your response relates when I was thinking more along the lines of compassion and simple human rights such as those enjoyed by a married couple.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think terry schiavo is as dumb as jar -- in or out of coma.

Terry Schiavo was in a severely brain damaged state - not simply in a coma. She was so damaged subsequent autopsy pretty much put to a lie the claims she had any awareness or cognition.

All in all, extremely tragic and bitter and sad. The only lesson we should take from this is: make a living will so that your wishes, whatever they are, are clear and written out.

 

[numinus]

Idiotic personal attacks...the last resort of someone who has absolutely zero substantive arguments left, and knows it.

LOL.

For someone whose posts in this forum never exceeded 3 sentences, I'd say you've gotten exactly the amount of intellectual content or substance from me.

I would never have deigned it appropriate to even respond to you if you hadn't insulted me first -- in your third post, if I remember correctly. You're first and second posts you spent laughing like a hyena.

One would imagine that cowboy rednecks would've heard of the golden rule. No such luck in your case, I suppose.

 

[numinus]

Cheap personal attack, sorry you have nothing to say.

I have tons to say -- very little of which are within the comprehension threshold of that person, or yours for that matter.

On the bright side -- at least I have found the person suited for your intellectual level. I'm sure the both of you would never get bored exchanging ineffable twaddle.

 

[numinus]

No, not at all,Nums, how can you be so wrong so consistently? I want marriage to be a legal entity available to all consenting adults equally,

An agreement between two consenting adults constitutes a contract that is ALREADY legally binding.

One cannot presume a gay union as a marriage because of the numerous reasons already given.

eventually the term "marriage" will come to be seen as traditionally accepting of all loving relationships between consenting adults.

Nonsense.

There are many forms of love -- adoration, agape, philia, eros, philostorgos, etc. They are different manifestations of a single human emotion -- all of which operate within their own unique purpose.

If and when you have straightened out your emotional baggage, perhaps you can proceed to appreciate their differences.

I've no use for written or unwritten religious precepts, that's just dogma for the people who cannot think for themselves.

Human knowledge has its basis from the philosophical tradition -- and is roughly subdivided into the fields of metaphysics, mathematics, theology, politics, ethics and aesthetics.

Western culture is inexorably intertwined with the judeo-christian tradition in the same way that the above fields of inquiry are related to one another.

I cannot help it if you employ prejudice to human knowledge on the basis of its nature or field of inquiry. Argue for your own limitations, sure enough, they are yours.

 

[numinus]

Please do NOT start in on law, you've already proven yourself incompetent in enough fields.

And what fields would those be, hmmm?

Since you are not an American I can't fault you for not knowing enough about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nor for your lack of perception when it comes to the rights of a voting majority to pass laws restricting the rights of a minority.

Nonsense.

One of the most insightful political criticism of america came from a frenchman. Surely, you've read democracy in america by alexis de tocqueville, haven't you?

There is no shame nor humor in the fact that I know more about your country's constitution than yourself.

Who better to send? It's just as well, Nums, the article is probably over your level anyway. Revel in your ignorance.

The fact that I'm not dignifying you're efforts should be clue enough for you.

 

[numinus]

It isn't! That's why all loving realtionships between consenting adults should have equal standing before the law.

It's only the Bible-beaters who have tried to make other people's personal lives their business and have passed laws to hurt those of whom they disapprove.

I'm glad you're finally getting a grip on this issue and that you realize that it's not the State's place to legislate loving realtionships. The Pope ain't gonna like you straying from the church's dogma like this though. Watch out he doesn't have the Opus Dei on you like ugly on a toad.

One cannot legislate marriage for gays just because gays are capable of loving. It is legislated because of the rights asserted in the udhr and the rights of children.

Nothing to do with the church, bible-beaters, religion. Certainly nothing, whatsoever, to do with the gay lifestyle.

How many more times do you need me to say these before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?