Patterico's Pontifications

3/2/2015

California GOP Welcomes Gays Under The Big Tent

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:48 pm



[guest post by Dana]

By a vote of 861-300, California Republicans at the state GOP convention officially recognized the Log Cabin Republicans by granting the group a charter. It is one of the nation’s first gay groups to be officially sanctioned:

Shawn Steel, the Republican National committeeman from California, said in a floor speech that the group’s members have “supported Republican candidates though good years and bad years.”

“They have been solid soldiers in their fight against leftist tyranny in California,” Steel said. “I would welcome them in our organization. … I am proud to have them in the California Republican Party.”

State Party Chairman Jim Brulte supported the move.

However, not everyone was on board with the decision due to the “Family” section of the state’s Republican party platform which they believed to be at odds with the decision:

“We support the two-parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe that it is important to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.”

Objections were voiced:

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, said the group did not meet the criteria, arguing that it advocates for a “certain lifestyle preference.”

Also opposed was Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, who said the debate brought to mind a quote from Ronald Reagan amid calls to move to the political center. He said, “We must not compromise our political principles for political expediency.

“What we do here today, ladies and gentleman, matters,” he said. “Because as California goes, so goes the nation.”

There is also the question of whether this will lead to the party changing its platform on marriage in the future. However, nothing in the state party’s historical definition of marriage changed due to the decision.

–Dana

117 Responses to “California GOP Welcomes Gays Under The Big Tent”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. The problem is that we do not hate the Gay person.

    It’s that we are repulsed by the implied sexual act(s).

    And the defiance of the natural order in the animal kingdom.

    Of sexual pairings being mostly for reproduction. If there is no reproduction,

    what’s the point?

    It flies in the face of one maybe two of our primary instincts.

    Survival of the species

    Replication and replenishment of the tribe.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner. Gays can never manage to absorb that lesson (and

    there are plenty of examples of that not being what happens. Even so.)

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  3. 861 plus 300 equals 1,161. That’s what I estimated the number of Republicans in California to be, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Jake308,

    Do you then feel that the decision by the state GOP was wrong?

    Dana (86e864)

  5. Why in the world would I care how someone expresses their sexuality? Why in the world would any political party become involved in people’s private lives? Why would anyone want the government involved in a decision about who they love?

    If you don’t think that what I wrote above is conservative, you might want to start voting Democrat.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  6. This is a welcome move. Those who want to quote Ronald Reagan should also remember Reagan’s famous (and possibly wrongly attributed) axiom that your 70% friend is not your 30% enemy. I’m sure that Assemblywoman Grove and Senator Morrell are fine people and solid conservatives, but they should learn to cultivate allies where they can find them. Shawn Steel has been the face of ineptitude for the past couple of decades as the head of the California party apparatus; the fact that he finally is figuring out how to expand the tent rather than drive away the heretics should be considered a good thing.

    JVW (854318)

  7. @2

    The problem is that we do not hate the Gay person.

    Is it fair to assume you meant “not that”? If so, I applaud your bold, tolerant stance of non-hate.

    It’s that we are repulsed by the implied sexual act(s). And the defiance of the natural order in the animal kingdom.

    You do realize that homosexuality abounds in the animal kingdom?

    Of sexual pairings being mostly for reproduction. If there is no reproduction, what’s the point? It flies in the face of one maybe two of our primary instincts. Survival of the species

    Well, if sexual pairings are “mostly for reproduction” then the point must be for whatever remains after the “mostly” is gone. This seems to be quite straightforward. But in fact I dont agree with your premise. People engage in sexual activity even when it is clear there can be no offspring, and I would daresay since the window of opportunity for baby making is smaller than the rest of the available time you have some explaining to do. If the primary reason is -as you say- for offspring, then wouldn’t it be easier to get pregnant? And wouldn’t the gestation period be shorter? I mean were talking about 9 wasted months of boinking.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    Oh stupendous! You love them after all. And you demonstrate it how?
    1. By believing that homosexuality is an abomination?
    2. By supporting the psychiatric “curing of gayness”?
    3. By supporting same sex marriage?

    Gil (27c98f)

  8. Republicans, Democrats, same party, if not now, soon.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  9. Why in the world would I care how someone expresses their sexuality?

    I am wholly in favor of hetero/homo/pedo/xeno/sado/maso sexuality/gender/marriage.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  10. hi gay people welcome to the party hope you brought lots of tequila lol just kidding

    happyfeet (831175)

  11. Log Cabin Republicans. Snicker. The Log Cabin is the cabin Abraham Lincoln was shacked up with another guy (Joshua Speed) in, according to these guys. Where he and his boyfriend went at it like a couple of Bonobo monkeys.

    They’re about as Republican as George Soros. They’re a false flag operation to infiltrate the Republican party, undermine it from within, and drive away conservatives.

    Republicans, Democrats, same party, if not now, soon.

    That is their goal.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Meanwhile, paid the $200 fee to have this blatantly unconstitutional initiative circulated for signatures: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008%20%28Sodomy%29.pdf

    aphrael (34edde)

  13. “What we do here today, ladies and gentleman, matters,” he said. “Because as California goes, so goes the nation.”

    One has to hope this is not and has not been true for quite a while…

    ‘Cause if it is, we are sooooooo fucked.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  14. Oh stupendous! You love them after all. And you demonstrate it how?
    1. By believing that homosexuality is an abomination?
    2. By supporting the psychiatric “curing of gayness”?
    3. By supporting same sex marriage?

    1) OK, so someone has cancer, and I hate that cancer, and wish it cured, does that mean I hate the cancer victim?

    Not suggesting homosexuality is equivalent to cancer — just that your logic fails in making such an equivalence to the RESPONSES to homosexuality.

    The Bible’s position is pretty much indisputable: Homosexuality is wrong. Period. This is not up for debate. So any true Christian must be generally opposed to it. This does not require one hate the individual, yet this is the automatic nay-saying claim of the homosexual: “homophobic”. No. I really, really don’t give a rat’s ass what you do in the bedroom. That’s between YOU and GOD, though I would encourage you to seriously reflect on God’s opposition to it. It’s still your choice.

    1. By believing that homosexuality is an abomination?

    See above

    2. By supporting the psychiatric “curing of gayness”?

    Only by completely voluntary means. And this despite a poor record, because it’s one approach to helping people overcome their attraction to the activity, which is clearly wrong. We support psychological approaches to those who want to cure their tendency to obesity, so how is this wrong, IF it is completely voluntary?

    3. By supporting same sex marriage?

    Of course not. See above. And, more critically, this is not ABOUT “what you do in the bedroom” — it’s ABOUT forcing society to accept it as morally acceptable, which, again, flies in the face of The Bible. So no, we aren’t obligated to do that. SOCIETY is not obligated to do that.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  15. @13

    The Bible’s position is pretty much indisputable: Homosexuality is wrong. Period. This is not up for debate.

    Sure. Many texts spell out ways we should live. I would be on board with you completely if the bible were demonstrably true. But I think a pretty big case needs to be made to trust a book coming out of the ancient middle east rife with contradiction, brutality, and obvious borrowing from other mythologies that purports to tell us how to live good lives. What is your best reason for believing it is the true, perfect, inerrant word of god?

    Gil (27c98f)

  16. the bible is sort of over-rated as a handbook for this sort of situation where you have gay people running around willy-nilly

    and you know what that’s ok

    happyfeet (831175)

  17. Sure. Many texts spell out ways we should live. I would be on board with you completely if the bible were demonstrably true.

    This is irrelevant. That it means little to YOU means YOU don’t need to give it much shrift. But if others disagree with you, your opinion on that matter means no more than theirs.

    The key issue here is the distinction between abusing you and imprisoning you for “unacceptable behavior” — which I will more than grant is wrong — vs. ACCEPTING such behavior as socially encouraged — which is what Gay Rights is largely founded upon.

    For most things, when it comes to treating gays no differently than others, gays win this battle. But when it comes to someone else’s right to believe in the religion they choose, gays either lose or it’s a push. And society is at least partly founded on the majority. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to find a suitable middle ground between the will of the majority and the rights of the individual. Neither is transcendent — unfettered individualism is true anarchy and chaos. unfettered majority rule is soul-crushing uniformity.

    What is your best reason for believing it is the true, perfect, inerrant word of god?

    This is literally none of your business. I don’t have to defend it to you in any way whatsoever. My right to believe it is just as valid and acceptable as your right to disbelieve it.

    I do have my reasons, and they are rational ones. But they are subjective, and thus not “transmittable” in any manner which you would necessarily find any cause for agreement. As to why God wants it that way (and it’s clear that, IF He exists, that He does), “eh” — I cannot answer.

    But your belief system — presumably that there is no God — is no better, carries no additional weight, in this society, than mine… excepting by virtue of majority belief. Which is limited in extent and power but not irrelevant, either.

    Again — the matter here isn’t JUST “what you do in the bedroom is your own business”. I’m fine with this, and so are a lot of Christians.

    What’s at issue here is the acceptance and acknowledgement of this OUTSIDE the bedroom by society as a whole — and how much of that is to be foist on indivdual people by social convention in complete disregard for religious beliefs which have just as much individual right behind them as any “gay rights”. That is, this is not just about depriving you of rights as an individual for being “gay”. It’s about the rights of ONE individual — who happens to be gay — coming into conflict with the rights of ONE individual — who happens to be Christian or Muslim or (anything**). It’s not a matter of “in this case, no one is harmed” and “in this case, someone is harmed” as it’s often painted. SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE HARMED — someone is going to be deprived of their rights one way or another — The only question is, “who, and how much”. The proper attitude is to aim to find a balance.

    And gays would go a long way towards winning this argument if they grasped that shoving their gayness into the face of, and down the throats of, Christians isn’t good behavior, if the Christians aren’t being obnoxious about it. Gays could pull the teeth out of most Christian dislike for gay rights if they’d stop deliberately using such rights, once won, to offend Christians **intentionally**.

    You may outlive your enemy, but tapdancing on his grave at the funeral right in front of the family is just gauche.

    ===================

    ** This can be anything that leads one to choose not to associate with gays — from irrational dislike of homosexuals (actual homophobia or not), religious beliefs, or just general distaste for the idea. Why should the right of someone to BE gay have anything more power over social interactions that the choice to not want to be AROUND gays?

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  18. This is irrelevant. That it means little to YOU means YOU don’t need to give it much shrift. But if others disagree with you, your opinion on that matter means no more than theirs.

    I understand that others disagree with me, but so do billions of people who believe sincerely in different faiths. We cant use sincerity or numbers or any amount of interpretation, study, revelation or any of the other claims that are not unique to determine if the worlds various sacred texts are true. Those methods have lead to conflicting results.

    So it very much is relevant if The Bible that guides your life is true. You could be basing beliefs on something that is wrong, in which case suddenly homosexuality is not immoral by decree of a false text.

    This is literally none of your business. I don’t have to defend it to you in any way whatsoever. My right to believe it is just as valid and acceptable as your right to disbelieve it.

    You are correct you dont have to defend it. It is your right to believe whatever you want. But I care to believe as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible. Do you? In that case it would be good to discuss the reasons you believe.

    I do have my reasons, and they are rational ones. But they are subjective, and thus not “transmittable” in any manner which you would necessarily find any cause for agreement. As to why God wants it that way (and it’s clear that, IF He exists, that He does), “eh” — I cannot answer.

    That is the position that many who believe have. You put it well: “not transmittable”. In that case it is hard to give other people a good reason to change the way they are.

    But your belief system — presumably that there is no God — is no better, carries no additional weight, in this society, than mine… excepting by virtue of majority belief. Which is limited in extent and power but not irrelevant, either.

    First of all, I dont make any claim there is no God. I am open to accept one. I am withholding belief at this moment because no good reason has been presented to me. Sure, I may think my point of view is better and you may think yours is. But we should objectively stand back and look at who is making the claims about the way reality is and whether they are based in fact or “non transmittable” reasons. Is it the case that a majority that believes something is wrongly affecting a minority on bad evidence or reasoning? It certainly is the case in a lot of the Muslim world – and they have all the same reasons to believe their faith that you have to believe yours.

    Gil (27c98f)

  19. But I think a pretty big case needs to be made to trust a book coming out of the ancient middle east rife with contradiction, brutality, and obvious borrowing from other borrowing from other mythologies that purports to tell us how to live good lives. What is your best reason for believing it is the true, perfect, inerrant word of god?

    Gil (27c98f) — 3/3/2015 @ 4:20 pm

    I’m not aware of any contradictions.

    Tell us in your own words a couple of “obvious” examples of “borrowing from other mythologies”. Tell us exactly what the mythology is and what makes it obvious that it was borrowed.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  20. Republicans, Democrats, same party, if not now, soon.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7) — 3/3/2015 @ 4:03 am

    Unfortunately you may be correct.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  21. I’m not aware of any contradictions.

    Tell us in your own words a couple of “obvious” examples of “borrowing from other mythologies”. Tell us exactly what the mythology is and what makes it obvious that it was borrowed.

    Hi Gerald,
    Lets just go ahead and look at some obvious ones involving gods who die and were resurrected:
    Romulus was a state god of the Romans. His death and resurrection were celebrated annually. This would have been well known to early Christians

    Osiris was an Egyptian god. He has admittedly a quite convluted tale of death, dismembermant, which involved his wife using his body parts to bear yet another child god. Belief and following of Osiris would guarantee eternal life.

    Zalmoxis is another one who was written about in texts commonly used at the time. Zalmoxis death and resurrection gauranteed eternal life to followers as well.

    Commonalities:
    All these Gods are saviors come to help humanity
    All these gods are sons/daughters of gods
    All these gods can live eternally after death and they share this with their followers
    All these gods have stories set in history
    All these gods predate Jesus

    Sound Familiar yet?

    Aside from that there are many questions and uncertainties raised by how the large number of gospels were whittled down to 4 canonical gospels by tribunals. There is serious scholarly discussion about forged epistles.

    Taken together, this really means we cant just go by what the Bible says, we have to find some way to evaluate it. By itself it is hard to see how it can offer more credibility than other texts.

    What are your thoughts on this?

    Gil (febf10)

  22. Well, this news certainly brought out the sexual anxiety trolls!

    But good for the GOP. I thought they had done that long ago, or maybe that was just the Orange County group that was active.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  23. I’m not aware of any contradictions.

    Heres a few:

    Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    Jesus was born in a house.

    Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
    Jesus was born In a manger. There was no room in the inn.

    Mathew says Magi came to visit when Jesus was born. Luke says Shepherds.

    Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
    The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.

    Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
    The penalty of sin affects generations.

    Gil (febf10)

  24. If you don’t think that what I wrote above is conservative, you might want to start voting Democrat.

    What’s interesting to me is the various times I’ve debated with pro-same-sex-marriage liberals who, for some reason, suddenly become ambivalent or outright indignant about the idea of the state sanctifying multi-partner relationships. Or, namely, polygamy. And that isn’t necessarily a slippery slope notion since a man married to more than one woman has been far more common throughout history and may track with human biology far more greatly (ie, the innately non-monogamous nature of many males) than that which involves male-male or female-female pairings.

    Mark (c160ec)

  25. 22.

    I’m not aware of any contradictions.

    Heres a few:

    Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    Jesus was born in a house.

    Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
    Jesus was born In a manger. There was no room in the inn.

    Mathew says Magi came to visit when Jesus was born. Luke says Shepherds.

    Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
    The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.

    Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
    The penalty of sin affects generations.

    Gil (febf10) — 3/3/2015 @ 8:07 pm

    It would never occur to Gil that what appears to be a contradiction in an English translation isnt’ actually a contradiction in the original Greek.

    I especially enjoyed the part where he thinks mangers can’t be inside buildings. That would be like saying it’s a contradiction for one person to say that “Bob was born in an elevator” and another to say “Bob was born in an office building.”

    Steve57 (127339)

  26. Also, having watched Muslim debaters attempt to twist Biblical verses to prove some point (either the Quran is true or the Bible is false), keep in mind a general rule of scriptural jiu-jutsu. It’s called “read the next verse.”

    Because it’s easy to take one verse out of context. If you read the verses ahead of the cherry-picked verse, and those that follow, the passage means the exact opposite of what the debater intended to use it to say.

    Note I didn’t put any qualifiers in the last clause of that sentence like “usually” or “generally.”

    In Gil’s case the rule isn’t so much “read the next verse.” It’s “read the rest of the sentence he dishonestly cuts short.” For instance:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV

    4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    To be thorough, here’s the relevant passages of Ezekiel:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+18&version=NIV

    He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
    and takes no interest or profit from them.
    He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

    He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

    19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

    The “contradiction” is merely that God punishes different categories of sin differently.

    Gil’s next proof of “contradiction?” I suppose it will be that a whole family will get kicked out of an apartment if mom and dad are running a meth lab. But only Dad is going to be punished if he tries to rob a liquor store.

    Steve57 (127339)

  27. Gil, do you imagine no one has ever read a Bible?

    Steve57 (127339)

  28. It would never occur to Gil that what appears to be a contradiction in an English translation isnt’ actually a contradiction in the original Greek.

    Ok Ill give you that the greek word can mean more than one thing. But even so, here you expose yet another problem. There are multiple ways to translate multiple words which even if the original greek was the word of god, what you have today cannot be. In the example sited “Kataluma” (house/inn) either has to have been meant as “inn” two times or meant as “house” two times. Which is it? Theres a 50-50 shot youve got it wrong. This is but one example. How many times must you perfectly translate the word in order to preserve it?

    Even if you ignore that point, there is no amount of translating that can reconcile the Exekiel and Exodus quotes.

    But you know this is pointless we can argue all day over interpretation and translation. Which is why i hesitated to post this. My previous points on similarities of the bible with other common god stories is enough to cast doubt.

    There are more scholarly studies that count themes that come up in the story of jesus and compare them to themes that come up in other stories like:
    Claims to be born of a god
    Character speaking from high places
    Resurrection
    Eternal Life
    Weak overcoming Strength
    etc etc…..

    The works show just how similar all these stories are to one another. Many, Many religions are out there that have similar stories and similar claims to truth. You must demonstrate why it is that the one you believe is really true if you expect Society to conform to its supposed benefits.

    Gil (27c98f)

  29. The “contradiction” is merely that God punishes different categories of sin differently.

    Exactly. In one case he says Sin does carry over, in the next it doesnt. What is the principle? What is moral? Does God punish innocent offspring or not? O I see it depends.

    This is pointless though, you will rationalize anything if you start from a conclusion and work backward. I shouldnt have even posted those up there Its just a derailment.

    Gil (27c98f)

  30. Here’s a hint to interpreting scripture. You have to look at the whole, not just a part. If the part you interpret contradicts the other parts of the passage then there’s something wrong with your interpretation.

    Even if you ignore that point, there is no amount of translating that can reconcile the Exekiel and Exodus quotes.

    Yes, if your rip individual quotes out of context then you can’t reconcile them merely by playing with the words you’ve selectively quoted.

    Which is why i hesitated to post this.

    Next time go with that impulse, Gil.

    Steve57 (127339)

  31. “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.

    What if the 3rd and 4th generation of a those who hated god kept “all my decrees”

    Nope thats not a contradiction. Its a category error. Ok. Sure i got it.

    Gil (27c98f)

  32. Here’s a hint to interpreting scripture. You have to look at the whole, not just a part.

    And how do you go about telling who has interpretted it correctly? Many people interpret it literally that the earth is in the neighboorhood of 6000 years old and that the whole earth flooded past the height of mt everest only 4000 years ago. Many others do not. Who’s right?

    Gil (27c98f)

  33. It’s an error of fact and of degree. And no, you don’t get it.

    Which is why you think your snark is clever, when it isn’t.

    Steve57 (127339)

  34. 28. …I shouldnt have even posted those up there Its just a derailment.

    Gil (27c98f) — 3/3/2015 @ 9:20 pm

    Go with your first instincts, Gil. Give it up.

    Steve57 (127339)

  35. @32 Ok Steve we can agree to disagree.

    What say you on the problems of the similarity of the Jesus story to other god stories that predated him?

    Gil (27c98f)

  36. How about sticking to the topic, Gil?

    Steve57 (127339)

  37. “We support the two-parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe that it is important to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.”

    There are more ways besides one man and one woman to make a two parent family.
    As for their (quoted) beliefs, they present no reason as to why homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. I would guess it is due to pandering to their religious base.

    Opposing same sex partner adoption is just sad. Whats better foster care or acceptance into a monogamous loving home?

    -Gil

    Gil (27c98f)

  38. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
    5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
    6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    I couldnt help myself to go back to this full verse.
    So in verse 5 God will punish 4 generations of those who hate him
    But in verse 6 God will love 1000 generations of those who love him.

    So Take the case where Gen 1 loves god. God now owes 1000 generations of love. Then Gen 2 comes along and hates God. What happens to Gen 3, 4, and 5? Love from the previous parents actions or hate from the current ones?

    Take the reverse case if you want as well. Gen 1 hates God. Gen 2 loves him. What happens now? You can reconcile only if your presupposed position is there are no contradictions. Honest reading brings up these questions.

    One interpretation might be, “Sorry hating god trumps loving him because that is the first decree by God in verses 4-5. Another interpretation might be “God is good, he would not punish the children of god loving people if their grandparents hated god. Therefore loving god must trump hating him in previous years”

    Either way these are interpretation by humans and you can no longer be sure you got it right.

    Gil (27c98f)

  39. 36. …There are more ways besides one man and one woman to make a two parent family.

    Gil (27c98f) — 3/3/2015 @ 10:20 pm

    No, there aren’t. That’s always been the point of the liberals’ long war against marriage. Which began in earnest with things such as no-fault divorce back in the ’60s. So you can say nonsense like that. Everything else is a synthetic approximation of a family.

    Up until this point we had watered marriage down to the point where the cast of the Brady Bunch was just as much a “legitimate” family as anything else you could cobble together.

    The point of gay marriage is to separate entirely children from the definition of marriage. Which is suicidal.

    With gay marriage you can no longer even argue that the institution of marriage has anything to do with establishing a two parent family. Because that’s no longer part of the redefinition of marriage.

    With gay marriage, any arrangement for having and raising children is just as good as any other. Including a single mom having multiple children with multiple partners. Which has been the communist goal since Karl Marx.

    http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/09/16/karl-marx-abolition-of-the-family/

    The message had to be repackaged many times. But the goal has always been the same. The destruction of the family. They’ve finally achieved it, and all it took was a few shiny objects to distract you, Gil.

    Steve57 (127339)

  40. > The point of gay marriage is to separate entirely children from the definition of marriage. Which is suicidal.

    I believe there are people for whom that is the point. But that is not the point for me, or for any of the pro-ssm people I have discussed the issue with.

    Please try to do a better job of characterizing the *motivation* of your opponents rather than projecting on to them what you assume the motivation to be.

    —–

    I live in a world where children are *already* entirely seperated from the definition of marriage. Of the married straight couples I know socially, *only one* got married for purposes having to do with children – and both members of that couple were previously married and, in their first marriages, had not gotten married for purposes having to do with children.

    Sure, some of these couples have had children. But even among those, if I suggested to them that they got married *in order to have children*, or in order to provide a good environment for the children they weren’t at the time of their marriage committed to having, or in order to ensure that the man would be responsible if he got their wife pregnant – if I were to make that suggestion I’d be laughed at in the best case, and I’d find my friends and acquaintances offended in the normal case.

    I’m asking that my relationship to my husband, which is not based on children, be treated the same as these opposite sex relationships, which were not based on children.

    aphrael (34edde)

  41. aphrael, all you’re doing is making my point. Marriage has been emptied entirely of its meaning, to the point where people today think its ridiculous.

    But then, the entire idea of marriage has become ridiculous. Exactly as intended.

    Please try to do a better job of characterizing the *motivation* of your opponents rather than projecting on to them what you assume the motivation to be.

    Your motivation is behind the point. The fact that you’re not aware of the intellectual basis behind the drive toward SSM doesn’t change the the intellectual basis.

    http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/04Doc124Gunnar-3.pdf

    …Moxness (1993), a Norwegian sociologist, has argued that same-sex marriages have become legalized not so much because homosexuality has become more accepted, but because marriage has become an increasingly empty institution and no longer is seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life, sexual life, and parenthood….

    Kari Moxness did more than that. She wasn’t a passive bystander. She actively campaigned for SSM, as she actively campaigned for other changes to the institution of marriage in Scandinavia, to render it meaningless and irrelevant.

    The fact that you and your circle of friends find this so funny just shows how successful she and her brigades have been. The fact that SSM is so thinkable is precisely because marriage has been stripped of its defining elements and is hardly worth defending. It serves no important purpose anymore.

    So, yes, I have no problem treating your relationship the same as opposite sex relationships that aren’t based upon children. But neither constitute marriage.

    Oddly enough, the people who originated the idea of SSM would agree with me. But whereas I lament the abolition of marriage, they rejoice in it.

    The fact that this happened entirely without your knowledge, and that of your circle of friends, is again beside the point.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  42. * Your motivation is behind beside the point.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  43. I live in a world where children are *already* entirely seperated from the definition of marriage.

    Do you think that was a natural evolution, or the result of a deliberate campaign?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  44. If you don’t like what I’m saying aphrael it’s because you, like a lot of people, were lied to.

    It’s remarkable how honest SSM advocates can be when they think they’re among friends. Here’s LGBT activist Masha Gessen speaking at the 2012 Sydney Writer’s Festival.

    http://www.swf.org.au/component/option,com_2012/Itemid,124/agid,2966/task,view_detail/

    Specifically at the symposium, “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

    Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen

    Got that? It’s a “no brainer” that SSM should be a civil right. It’s also a “no brainer” that the institution of marriage should not exist (cheering).

    The first has always been the means to achieve the second. From the beginning.

    If you don’t like hearing that, your beef isn’t with me. It’s the people who lied to you.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  45. Masha Gessen is a stupid pickle nobody likes her

    NOBODY

    everyone hates her cause she’s so stupid

    happyfeet (831175)

  46. 44. Masha Gessen is a stupid pickle nobody likes her

    NOBODY

    everyone hates her cause she’s so stupid

    happyfeet (831175) — 3/4/2015 @ 11:43 am

    She should have been smart and kept her mouth shut about what SSM is really about.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  47. I have to agree somewhat with Steve when he says “they” (to me, the left) hates marriage, any marriage. Anyone who has even casually read critical theory knows that. But the destruction of traditional marriage began long before the gay movement decided marriage was an issue. When a man and woman buy a home together, invite the families over for holidays, have a couple of kids and then decide to have a church wedding–that’s a party, not a sanctification of their union. It’s a dopey farce, but I am willing to play along as it’s not in a church. Their marriage began when they moved in together.

    But I’m sure there are many married straights and gays who take their marriage vows seriously, but it’s not the same marriage of 50 years ago. We’ll see what happens with all that. And really, I feel so retro even saying “marriage vows.” That’s so 20th century!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  48. 46. …But the destruction of traditional marriage began long before the gay movement decided marriage was an issue.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 3/4/2015 @ 12:02 pm

    I believe I said that many times. On this thread @38:

    ….That’s always been the point of the liberals’ long war against marriage. Which began in earnest with things such as no-fault divorce back in the ’60s. ..

    Also, that was Kari Moxness’ point:

    …Moxness (1993), a Norwegian sociologist, has argued that same-sex marriages have become legalized not so much because homosexuality has become more accepted, but because marriage has become an increasingly empty institution and no longer is seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life, sexual life, and parenthood….

    Which makes me wonder why aphrael would think he’s somehow countering what I’m saying when he says “I live in a world where children are *already* entirely seperated from the definition of marriage.”

    Of course. If that weren’t the case, then SSM wouldn’t be so widely accepted. That’s the necessary condition for SSM. If the liberal/progressive/communist war on marriage hadn’t already separated children from marriage, then SSM wouldn’t be thinkable.

    SSM is at first a symptom of the destruction of marriage. When it’s implemented into law, it becomes an additional cause.

    What I find so amazing about this is that the social engineers actively working to destroy marriage have been and are quite open about their goals, the means they intend to use to achieve their goals, and they aren’t even shy about taking a victory lap or two when they achieve important milestones.

    Yet they insist we all pretend that SSM is the result of some natural societal evolution of the concept of marriage. And we go along with that fiction.

    It’s similar to demographic changes. It’s the result of deliberate immigration policies, including a policy of deliberately not enforcing immigration law. Yet, the people who established those policies insist we pretend that we have a growing hispanic population as the result of some natural phenomena.

    In Britain the Labour party similarly insisted that their immigration policies were purely based upon economic considerations. But then documents leaked that made it quite clear that, no, their immigration policies were based upon social engineering objectives. The Labour party decided that Britain was too white, too British, and consequently too conservative for it to retain a permanent grip on power. So it set course on an immigration policy designed to change that. And part of its new policy was to lie about the intent of its immigration policy and say it had nothing to do do with what it had everything to do with.

    It used to be said that the devil’s greatest deceit was to deceive us he didn’t exist.

    But the liberals have gone the devil one better. They openly brag about not only existing, but achieving everything they’re setting out to do. Then demand that we pretend we haven’t noticed.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  49. “If you don’t like what I’m saying aphrael it’s because you, like a lot of people, were lied to.”

    – Steve57

    I can’t speak for aphrael, but the reason I don’t like what you are saying is that you continually insist on characterizing your opinions as metaphysical realities. Marriage isn’t gravity. It exists in different forms, and for different reasons, all over the planet. You have a preference for one form over another? Fine. That’s all you have.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  50. So you’re pretending that the social engineers didn’t succeed in changing the definition of marriage, too?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  51. We had this discussion last time, and you (Steve) continually hemmed and hawed and dodged when confronted with the extremely obvious pointed question about a sterile heterosexual couple wanting to get married. Should they be allowed to marry? If you want to reinforce your mantra that marriage is primarily about reproduction, then the answer should be “no.”

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  52. 48. …It exists in different forms, and for different reasons, all over the planet. You have a preference for one form over another? Fine. That’s all you have.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 12:40 pm

    I rest my case.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  53. No, Leviticus.

    I’ve never hemmed and hawed.

    Responsible reproduction is confined within marriage. As long as no one goes outside marriage to reproduce then it serves its purpose. Even if no child is produced within marriage.

    There’s no way John Edwards could have had a baby within marriage. As a couple he and Elizabeth couldn’t have had any more children. That didn’t invalidate their marriage. Nor would it have invalidated their marriage had they never had children.

    The crime John Edwards committed against his wife and the institution of marriage was when he went outside marriage to become a baby daddy.

    It’s you who hems and haws. I’ve always been straight up about the purpose of marriage. Childlessness isn’t the issue. It’s infidelity.

    SSM is destructive to the concept of marriage precisely because to have a child the couple always has to go outside marriage to reproduce. No reproduction is possible within it.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  54. big fan of gay marriage here

    first time caller longtime listener

    dittos!

    happyfeet (831175)

  55. Steve57, at 40: I don’t think it’s reasonable to attribute an ‘intellectual basis’ to people who support something for reasons that have nothing to do with that ‘intellectual basis’. Some people support same sex marriage for reasons derived from that ‘intellectual basis’, others do not.

    Your denial of the existence of people who don’t support SSM for the reasons you claim *explicitly* puts words in my mouth. Please stop it.

    > It serves no important purpose anymore.

    See, that’s where you and I disagree.

    *Everyone* I know who is married, gay or straight, believes the marriage to be a defining, fundamental aspect of their lives, and they organize their life, and their conception of their life and their experience, around it. It’s a fundamental aspect of their being.

    The claim that this is ‘no important purpose’ strikes me as being bizarre.

    > But neither constitute marriage.

    So a marriage where both parties intend to never have children is not, in your mind, a marriage?

    Why are you happy treating *that* marriage as a “real” marriage, then?

    aphrael (34edde)

  56. When marriage can mean anything (You have a preference for one form over another? Fine. That’s all you have) it means nothing.

    And marriage is being treated accordingly.

    As if that’s just my opinion.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/marriage-obsolete-pew-research-survey-shows-changing-attitudes/story?id=12182169

    Younger people are leading the way in redefining what marriage means. Forty-four percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 saw marriage as obsolete, compared to 32 percent of those 65 and older.

    Young People Marrying Less and Less

    Steve57 (813c29)

  57. Steve57, at 43: what you’re doing here is taking the views of an extreme minority, that don’t reflect the beliefs or feelings of the majority of SSM proponents, and attributing them to all SSM proponents.

    The people cheering the notion that marriage should not exist are crazy outliers.

    It’s no more fair for you to attribute their views to me and mine than it would be for me to attribute to you and yours the view of the guy who is circulating the petition I linked above.

    aphrael (34edde)

  58. “As long as no one goes outside marriage to reproduce then it serves its purpose.”

    – Steve57

    Cool. So what does anything you’re saying have to do with gay marriage? A marriage between two men or two women has an exactly equal likelihood of confining reproduction as a marriage between a man and a woman.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  59. Steve57, one of the most interesting quotes in your link at #55 is this:

    > Young people are marrying less often, in part, because they’re taking marriage more seriously after watching their own parents divorce or separate from one another.

    This comports very well with my experience. The baby boom generation, and to a lesser extent the silent generation, was very good at creating *failed marriages* that hurt their children in terrible ways – and it’s only natural for children of such failed marriages, or people who grew up surrounded by children of such failed marriages, to be *very cautious*.

    aphrael (34edde)

  60. 54. Steve57, at 40: I don’t think it’s reasonable to attribute an ‘intellectual basis’ to people who support something for reasons that have nothing to do with that ‘intellectual basis’. Some people support same sex marriage for reasons derived from that ‘intellectual basis’, others do not.

    Your denial of the existence of people who don’t support SSM for the reasons you claim *explicitly* puts words in my mouth. Please stop it…

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/4/2015 @ 12:56 pm

    I don’t deny you exist. I’m saying the reasons you’ve been persuaded to support SSM as a civil right are irrelevant to the the inevitable consequences of the trend.

    Just answer this; when Kari Moxness said that “marriage has become an increasingly empty institution and no longer is seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life, sexual life, and parenthood” was she wrong?

    I don’t like it, but I can at least give her credit for achieving her vision. She and her ilk set out to render marriage obsolete, and she did a good job.

    You and Leviticus can keep pretending otherwise for a while, I suppose.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  61. “SSM is destructive to the concept of marriage precisely because to have a child the couple always has to go outside marriage to reproduce. No reproduction is possible within it.”

    – Steve57

    So, again, you beg the question as to “the” purpose of marriage, and again you refuse to answer the extremely obvious pointed question about the sterile heterosexual couple who wish to marry.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  62. She’s wrong that it’s seen as an empty institution.

    She’s right that it’s not seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life or to sexual life or to parental life – although I would say that it’s not seen as *an entrance of any kind* to adult life or to sexual life, but it’s seen as a *preferred but not mandatory entrance* to parental life.

    aphrael (34edde)

  63. Steve57, at 43: what you’re doing here is taking the views of an extreme minority, that don’t reflect the beliefs or feelings of the majority of SSM proponents, and attributing them to all SSM proponents.

    They worked very hard at coming up with justifications for SSM that didn’t reflect the extreme purpose of their endeavor. I observed some of that back in the 80s, when it hit them that they wouldn’t be very successful if they were above board.

    The people cheering the notion that marriage should not exist are crazy outliers.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/4/2015 @ 12:57 pm

    Marriage will continue to exist, but it won’t be any more important or special than any other living arrangement.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  64. that is a very pessimistic view

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. Leviticus, John and Elizabeth Edwards were a sterile heterosexual couple.

    What didn’t I answer?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  66. Most gay couple are fertile.

    As our society continues to war against reality, we are being treated to the spectacle of having to pretend it’s a mystery why so many fertile gay couple just can’t have kids.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/gay-couples-fertility-coverage-california_n_4073491.html

    Gay Couples Will Receive Fertility Coverage Under New State Law

    I know it makes people angry when I refuse to go along with the insanity, but that’s a cross I’ll just have to bear.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  67. i’m patiently waiting for all the die hard gay activists here abouts to get up in arms over stories like this

    but i’m not holding my breath.

    redc1c4 (34e91b)

  68. “Leviticus, John and Elizabeth Edwards were a sterile heterosexual couple.”

    – Steve57

    They were? Then how did they have that kid that you referenced?

    C’mon, Steve. Sterile heterosexual couple wants to get married – Can they get married?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  69. redc1c4 – ISIS is the probably the most vile force in the world today. they’re a threat to the stability of the entire middle east, their treatment of people is terrible, their views on religion and its place in society are medieval *even by muslim standards*.

    they also have zero impact on the daily life of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

    I wouldn’t trade with them. I wouldn’t send them money. I support the air strikes we’ve been conducting against them on a daily basis for months now. But unless I’m willing to take up arms and go to the middle east to fight against them (which i’m not), and unless I’m willing to advocate that the US go to war against them (which i’m not), there is *nothing* I can do about them, and there’s nothing they’re going to do in the forseeable future which is going to effect me.

    So what, exactly, do you want from me?

    aphrael (34edde)

  70. Steve57, what you’re describing in #62 can’t, IMO, be done.

    Marriage is an ancient institution found in *every* human society that I’m aware of.

    It evolves from time to time. It takes one form and one meaning in the lives of a given generation, and then in another generation it has a different form and meaning. What marriage was to the Romans and what marriage was to the people on the eighteenth century American frontier was very, very different from one another.

    But there were aspects of it – the bond between the people in the marriage – which remain.

    Because human beings *inevitably* form such bonds, and they *inevitably* seek to strengthen and reinforce those bonds with sexual partners.

    Not every human. But the overwhelming majority, throughout history.

    So: marriage can’t be destroyed, and it can’t be not important in the lives of the people participating in the marriages. Human nature, as shown throughout time, insists on it.

    What baffles me about this is: how is it that I, a married gay man, am more sanguine about the nature and indestructibility of marriage than you are?

    And what does it say about our worldviews that I think it’s indestructible and you think it’s so fragile that it’s already been destroyed?

    aphrael (34edde)

  71. They were? Then how did they have that kid that you referenced?

    Because the odds of a sterile heterosexual male and a sterile heterosexual female marrying are virtually nil. Hence John Edwards was able to become a baby daddy outside of marriage but he could never have had that child within marriage with Elizabeth.

    I realize you think the question of “Sterile heterosexual couple wants to get married – Can they get married?” is some sort of devastating gotcha. In fact it’s a triviality of microscopic proportions. Marriage serves a public as well as a private purpose.

    That’s the only reason it was ever instituted at all.

    As long as neither married party goes outside of marriage to have children then the public purpose has been served. Whether or not the couple ever has children within marriage is part of the private purpose of marriage.

    So it’s irrelevant whether one or the other parties are infertile.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  72. aphrael, in the continuum you mentioned from the Roman world through the 19th century, can you name any point at which children weren’t ever central to the Western definition of marriage?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  73. “Because the odds of a sterile heterosexual male and a sterile heterosexual female marrying are virtually nil.”

    – Steve57

    If that’s not hemming/hawing/dodging, then I don’t know what is.

    You don’t want to answer the question – you’re smart enough to know what the next one will be. I get that.

    Carry on.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  74. Yes, the sterile heterosexual couple can get married. It does no damage to the purpose of marriage if a sterile heterosexual couple gets married.

    What’s the next question?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  75. Bring on the next microscopic triviality.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  76. 61. She’s wrong that it’s seen as an empty institution.

    She’s right that it’s not seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life or to sexual life or to parental life – although I would say that it’s not seen as *an entrance of any kind* to adult life or to sexual life, but it’s seen as a *preferred but not mandatory entrance* to parental life.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/4/2015 @ 1:06 pm

    She’s wrong that it’s seen as an empty institution?

    Yet just a generation ago it was seen as a mandatory element of adult life, sexual life, and parental life.

    That’s what made marriage important.

    So what provides it with meaning when you subtract the essential elements?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  77. “Yes, the sterile heterosexual couple can get married. It does no damage to the purpose of marriage if a sterile heterosexual couple gets married.”

    – Steve57

    Assuming (which, of course, you must) that the purpose of marriage is reproduction, why can the sterile heterosexual couple get married? They can’t reproduce, and your definition of “the purpose of marriage” is what decides who can or cannot get married.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  78. > just a generation ago it was seen as a mandatory element of adult life, sexual life, and parental life.

    In 1984 being married was seen as a mandatory element of adult life? That’s not how I remember my childhood.

    In 1984 being married was seen as a mandatory element of sexual life? That’s *certainly* not what I remember from my childhood.

    > So what provides it with meaning when you subtract the essential elements?

    See, that’s the thing. Those aren’t the essential elements! The essential element of a marriage is the bond between the two people and the promise & commitment they made to each other and the way they organize their lives around that promise and commitment.

    And that essential element is still there even if it’s not required for adult life or required for sexual activity.

    aphrael (34edde)

  79. …Assuming (which, of course, you must) that the purpose of marriage is reproduction, why can the sterile heterosexual couple get married? They can’t reproduce, and your definition of “the purpose of marriage” is what decides who can or cannot get married.
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 1:46 pm

    No, I don’t have to assume your deliberate misquotations restrict me in any way. Go back and read again. Society created marriage to channel and confine the impulse to reproduce within responsible limits.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch14.asp

    THE three great relations in private life are, 1. That of mafter and fervant; which is founded in convenience, whereby a man is directed to call in the affiftance of others, where his own fkill and labour will not be fufficeint to anfwer the cares incumbent upon him. 2. That of bufband and wife; which is founded in nature, but modified by civil fociety: the one directing man to continue and mulpiply his fpecies, the other prefcribing the manner in which that natural impulfe muft be confined and regulated. 3. That of parent and child, which is confequential to that ofmarriage, being it’s principal end and defign: and it is by virtue of this relation that infants are protected, maintained, and educated. But, fince the parents, on whom this care is primarily incumbent, may be fnatched away by death or otherwife, before they have completed their duty, the law has therefore provided a fourth relation; 4. That of guardian and ward, which is a kind of artificial parentage, in order to fupply the deficiency, whenever it happens, of the natual. Of all thefe relations in their order.

    Are you like Ezra Klein, Leviticus? Gee, that Lord Blackstone is old and hard to understand. Where in there do you see that married couples must have children, as opposed to (what I’ve been saying form the start) confining their sexual (i.e. reproductive) urges to each other?

    Whether or not that impulse results in any children is entirely beside the point. How many times do I have to say it? Childlessness isn’t the issue. Infidelity is what damages marriage. Not just between the couple, but the institution of marriage in general. If the man, the woman, or both is infertile is an entirely private matter.

    It maintains both the form and the purpose of marriage.

    SSM destroys both.

    Your objections are microscopic, Leviticus.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  80. So what, exactly, do you want from me?

    a consistency in the application of moral outrage, maybe?

    the courage of your convictions, instead of hiding behind others, when it might be personally inconvenient or even dangerous to you would be refreshing as well.

    SJW’s are uber brave here in the US, but strangely silent elsewhere, which is why i hold them in contempt.

    redc1c4 (6d1848)

  81. aphrael @77, I wasn’t asking you how you remember your childhood. I asked you what the reality was for the previous generation. Unless “generation ago” means something different to you than it does for me.

    Anyway, I take it that you, like me, can not come up with any example of reproduction not being central to the Western definition of the purpose of marriage from Roman times through the 19th century.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  82. except for Dr. Ben Carson is a fruit loop

    happyfeet (831175)

  83. “Are you like Ezra Klein, Leviticus? Gee, that Lord Blackstone is old and hard to understand.”

    – Steve57

    I know as a professional matter that no one gives a f*ck about what Lord Blackstone thinks anymore. “Society” created marriage to channel and confine the impulse to reproduce within responsible limits? Whose society? Lord Blackstone’s?

    This is our society. We make it what we want. Your opinion is noted.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  84. 82. …This is our society. We make it what we want. Your opinion is noted.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 2:27 pm

    And the results of making it what you want are noted. Congratulations, you’ve trashed marriage.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  85. with all these different states now where you can get gay married you really have to wonder though if maybe in some ways the debate is sort of over in some ways

    happyfeet (831175)

  86. The debate may be over, Mr. feets.

    Now it’s time to make sure the people who won it are properly blamed for the consequences.

    82. …This is our society. We make it what we want. Your opinion is noted.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 2:27 pm

    Funny. Somebody who thinks marriage was important wouldn’t express himself that way. Does this sound like somebody who thinks marriage is in any way important, Mr. feets?

    Steve57 (813c29)

  87. marriage is very important i think it helps people build better lives for themselves

    even to where they’re less dependent and less inclined to be dependent on the sad embarrassing federal government of failmerica

    and I think that’s a win win

    and the tent is big

    happyfeet (831175)

  88. look at how big the tent is

    happyfeet (831175)

  89. Did you check out the chart I linked to, Mr. feets?

    Because the redifinition of marriage has resulted in fewer people making better lives for themselves, not more.

    It’s one of the reasons we are failmerica.

    And like I said, now that the debate is over it’s time to make sure the people who did this take full responsibility for consequences of their cavalier destruction of marriage.

    Contrary to what young Mr. Leviticus has been led to believe, we never could afford to be more stupid or irresponsible than the people of 17th England when they instituted marriage to prescribe “the manner in which that natural (reproductive) impulse must be confined and regulated.”

    I hope you enjoy paying for exploding entitlement spending, Mr. feets.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  90. i don’t see the cause and effect

    you’re identifying a macro trend what started in the mid-60s where hoochies started having kids outside of marriage

    this is probably just cause they’re kinda stupid not cause of gay marriage

    happyfeet (831175)

  91. “Congratulations on your results, Leviticus.”

    – Steve57

    … which of course brings us full-circle to aphrael’s question, as to why someone (like you) who is so in favor of the proliferation of marriage, and so assured of its societal benefits, is so eager to deny marriage to a population of adult Americans eager to proliferate it themselves.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  92. If you frame the issue in utilitarian terms and on top of that impose a balancing of individual interests versus societal interests test, you will likely (but not necessarily) lose, because you have to show concrete, material harm to society sufficient to override the individual’s interest.

    If you frame the issue on both bases that 1) society may legislate from purely moral and esthetic motives and 2) marriage is three-party consensual relationship between two persons and society as a whole, then the question is one of societal consensus and the application of democracy. A political question and one reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment and the federal courts should butt out. And this is how I frame the issue. Humans and human societies are moral and esthetic beings, with concerns that transcend survival, security and comfort. Societies can approve or disapproves certain kinds of marriages the way they approve or disapprove planting bushes on one side of the street and not on the other.

    SCOTUS is going to go with the first analysis because doing things on the basis of whether it is moral or immoral went out of style more than one generation ago.

    nk (dbc370)

  93. *both bases* — *both of these bases*

    nk (dbc370)

  94. Because it in order to accommodate gay marriage the redefinition destroys idea that marriage is actually necessary for the people who need it.

    She’s wrong that it’s seen as an empty institution.

    She’s right that it’s not seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life or to sexual life or to parental life – although I would say that it’s not seen as *an entrance of any kind* to adult life or to sexual life, but it’s seen as a *preferred but not mandatory entrance* to parental life.

    aphrael (34edde) — 3/4/2015 @ 1:06 pm

    As you can see from the chart I linked to @84, single women have been getting that message loud and clear. SSM destroys the idea that marriage is even the preferred prerequisite for having and raising children, since as aphrael said @39 he already lives “in a world where children are *already* entirely seperated from the definition of marriage.”

    Do you have any idea how schizophrenic your arguments have been, Leviticus? I would say you can’t have it both ways. But you are way, way beyond only wanting things two ways.

    How hard is this to understand. If children are entirely separate from the definition then it’s laughable to suggest to young single women that they should be married to have children.

    Hence more wards for the state. Which as Blackstone notes is exactly why marriage became a matter of English civil law in the first place; to prevent that.

    Does marriage serve a purpose? If it does, then you can’t say (as you did @82) “This is our society. We make it what we want.”

    No you can’t. Not if it actually performs a function. If it actually serves a purpose, then you can’t redefine it on a whim. On the one hand aphrael says marriage is important. On the other hand you say it’s so irrelevant every single generation can redefine it however they wish.

    Which one of the above is it?

    It’s pretty simple, actually. Marriage did serve a purpose. It used to channel and confine people’s sex drive within it. YOU, Leviticus, and people like you decided that we no longer need to do that. We can just make up whatever and call it marriage.

    This has been the result of that sort of irresponsibility.

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2013/04/Screen%20Shot%202013-04-04%20at%201.20.19%20PM-thumb-570×400-118034.png

    Now the upshot is in order to evade responsibility for messing with something you had no business messing with, because you didn’t think it was important, you have to pretend there is no such thing as cause and effect.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  95. “Does marriage voting serve a purpose? If it does, then you can’t say (as you did @82) “This is our society. We make it what we want.”

    No you can’t. Not if it actually performs a function. If it actually serves a purpose, then you can’t redefine it on a whim.”

    – Steve57

    See, that just sounds ridiculous.

    We aren’t talking about “redefining” marriage – we are talking about who should be able to participate in it.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  96. Nope. We’re talking about what inter-personal relationships society should sign on and give special protections and privileges to.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. if the bible had focused more on the evils of carbs and less on gay stuff we’d all be way ahead of the game

    happyfeet (831175)

  98. 95. …We aren’t talking about “redefining” marriage – we are talking about who should be able to participate in it.
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 4:33 pm

    Ok. As I said earlier, you are simply going to try to evade responsibility for what you are doing.

    82. I know as a professional matter that no one gives a f*ck about what Lord Blackstone thinks anymore. “Society” created marriage to channel and confine the impulse to reproduce within responsible limits? Whose society? Lord Blackstone’s?

    This is our society. We make it what we want. Your opinion is noted.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/4/2015 @ 2:27 pm

    You can try all you want. You won’t be allowed to get away with kicking over tables and pretending you did no such thing, Leviticus.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  99. Most states do not recognize common law marriage. How does that pass the intermediate scrutiny test?

    nk (dbc370)

  100. i was working from home today and found a banh mi place what delivers

    happyfeet (831175)

  101. As Masha Gessen said in the audio in one my earlier comments, advocating gay marriage requires a lot of lying.

    Her words.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  102. See, that just sounds ridiculous.

    I completely disagree. Wanna know why? Reread steve57’s comments.

    We aren’t talking about “redefining” marriage – we are talking about who should be able to participate in it.

    You are talking about both. In order to discuss who should be able to participate in marriage, it will be unavoidable to talk about redefining it. It is not complicated.

    felipe (56556d)

  103. Masha Gessen’s a big stupid loser I don’t think she’s even a for reals american just some random weirdo and she’s not very attractive either but one nice thing you can say about her is she doesn’t over-pluck

    happyfeet (831175)

  104. On Addison and Southport? Wrigleyville/Roscoe Village is where such a place would exist. Hey, village people, it’s a submarine sandwich with an oriental name! Hero’s at Addison and Western has been making them better for fifty years.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. @102, thanks for the sanity check.

    I don’t see where it’s all that complicated either.

    Steve57 (813c29)

  106. i’ll go there in the spring if you’ll remind me

    I’m more north though in ravenswood so those uptown vietnamese people deliver over here but today’s sammiches came from “nhu lan bakery” on lawrence

    my friend D sent me a grubhub link

    happyfeet (831175)

  107. 97.if the bible had focused more on the evils of carbs and less on gay stuff we’d all be way ahead of the game
    happyfeet (831175) — 3/4/2015 @ 4:42 pm

    I am a type 2 diabetic who is able to control blood glucose levels without any meds, using only diet and exercise. A normal day sees my fasting (morning) level at about 145. and spikes to about 200 after a low-carb meal which I then work off and get it down to 150. by the end of the day I am happily around 120.

    So there I am reading about how some kids who had a vision of Jesus’s mother and one of the kids asks her “what is the best fast?” Well, Jesus’s mother replies that “bread and water” are the best fast.

    Now my brain says to me, it says, “Carbs? 100% carbs?” Are you kiddin’? But I am a pious fellow and I reply to my brain “Let’s give it a whirl!” My brain says “yer on, churchy!” So I go a whole day “fasting” on nothing but evil carbs and deadly (people drown in this stuff, I tell ya) water. I check my blood sugar all throughout the day, and there are no severe ( my high is 150)spikes, so I figure I don’t need to work it off – in fact, at the end of the day I am at an astonishing 90! The next morning I am at 100!

    “Thanks be to God!” Says I. “Not so fast!” says my brain. “why don’t you try a “regular, secular, fast?” So I says “yer on!”

    I proceed with the regular fast which is one meal and two (together they cannot equal a meal)snacks. I get a spike of 200 after my main meal and I must work it off. My two little snacks still keep me at around 150. The end of the day and I’m happily back to 120. The next morning, 130.

    Oh, and speaking of the Bible, there is a recipe in there for ” Ezekiel bread” which is very nutritious. check it out sometime.

    True story.

    felipe (56556d)

  108. oh.

    Jesus never seemed to have any trouble keeping off the pounds but he ate a lot of fish too i think – you need more proteins than you get with the bread and water

    i’m a get me some bible bread at whole foods tomorrow – it actually does have a nice amount of protein per slice – not really enough, but after you make a sammich you should be set so I think I’ll get me some sammins too

    i’ll let you know how this works i need a new thing

    happyfeet (831175)

  109. Just so we’re clear here, you’re talking about Jesus Jesus now, not the Jesus who’s running against Rahm. Right?

    elissa (87e2bc)

  110. yes yes the nice one

    happyfeet (831175)

  111. elissa (87e2bc) — 3/4/2015 @ 5:50 pm

    LOL! – I previously posted this on the wrong thread.

    felipe (56556d)

  112. Heres a few:

    Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
    Jesus was born in a house.

    Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
    Jesus was born In a manger. There was no room in the inn.

    Mathew says Magi came to visit when Jesus was born. Luke says Shepherds.

    Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
    The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.

    Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
    The penalty of sin affects generations.

    Gil (febf10) — 3/3/2015 @ 8:07 pm

    LOL. Matthew doesn’t say that Jesus was born in the house where the Magi found him or that the Magi were present at his birth. They would have had to have come some time later because they saw the star when he was born and they were nowhere near Bethlehem at that time.

    “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

    Matthew in fact makes it clear that they were there probably a couple of years later:

    When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

    In any case it is certain they were not there at his birth.

    Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Bible is aware of those passages. Obviously that excludes you.

    With respect to the other claimed contradiction, you do what the typical “intelligent” atheist does, which is to extract a single line from two different passages, rather than looking at them in context.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  113. Gil (febf10) — 3/3/2015 @ 7:47 pm

    There are factual errors in your list, just as with your claim about Matthew’s account of the Magi.

    The single biggest error is that those things are “set in history”. I don’t think there’s any evidence that they were ever claimed to be real documented events. That alone makes Jesus totally different. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, the resurrected Jesus was seen by about 500 people, and that most were still alive.

    The most that can be said is that there are some similarities, but none of them are remotely parallel, as this site points out.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  114. I don’t think there’s any evidence that they were ever claimed to be real documented events. That alone makes Jesus totally different. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, the resurrected Jesus was seen by about 500 people, and that most were still alive.

    People claimed things were real, so they are? Is that your standard?

    Why dont you google up Sathya Sai Baba. There are real people today who believe he had the ability to perform miracles, was a reincarnated being, could levitate etc. You can go talk to a multitude of people who believe it and claim it to be true based on actual events. Yet of course we all disregard it.

    Why dont you go interview some alien abductees? There are real people today who all tell very similar stories with common themes about “actual events” that “really happened” Some of them have “objective” witnesses. Yet of course most rational people disregard this too.

    But take a set of fantastical stories and run them back a few thousand years into the iron age and suddenly we can trust everything? Good grief man. Oh and I like the “well Paul said 500 different people saw it” comment. Thats great. Hey, 1000 people saw my dad resurrected last week. He will give you eternal life and you dont have to tithe any more than 3% come follow him and I. Credit cards accepted.

    Gil (27c98f)

  115. People claimed things were real, so they are? Is that your standard?

    Why dont you google up Sathya Sai Baba. There are real people today who believe he had the ability to perform miracles, was a reincarnated being, could levitate etc. You can go talk to a multitude of people who believe it and claim it to be true based on actual events. Yet of course we all disregard it.

    Why dont you go interview some alien abductees? There are real people today who all tell very similar stories with common themes about “actual events” that “really happened” Some of them have “objective” witnesses. Yet of course most rational people disregard this too.

    But take a set of fantastical stories and run them back a few thousand years into the iron age and suddenly we can trust everything? Good grief man. Oh and I like the “well Paul said 500 different people saw it” comment. Thats great. Hey, 1000 people saw my dad resurrected last week. He will give you eternal life and you dont have to tithe any more than 3% come follow him and I. Credit cards accepted.

    I was responding to your claim that those myths were “set in history”, which they are not (and other things you said about pagan myth “similarities” are erroneous as well and I think are made up). For example what you said about Zalmoxis is wrong.

    Now strangely, you’re bringing up a totally different point – whether the bible is believable; a question which has been dealt with extensively in Christian apologetics which I’m sure you haven’t read and never will before you go to meet your maker under unfavorable circumstances (claims of pagan myth similarities have also been dealt with extensively).

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  116. Who in Hell, and I mean Hell, has the right to demand that society approve of, sign on to, and grant benefits to this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html What sane society would want this in it?

    And, yes, I know that Thailand is a giant brothel.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1414 secs.