Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960. If you can't then you are redefining marriage to suit your political agenda. Re-defining marriage to suit a political agenda is proof that it isn't about "love" but gaining access to government granted benefits.
If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
You see, I'm not condemning others to anything, I want to be clear, I don't support redefining marriage on the sole basis of granting government benefits to gay people. I would rather repeal those benefits from marriage. The fact that you won't support this view makes it clear, it isn't about love or equality or anything else, it is about getting benefits from government.
We are not "herd" animals. We are, if you want to classify it, family pod animals (aka tribal). We have a long history of having extended families (mutually related helpmates). We have no such thing in our current "culture" and make no attempts to keep that kind of structure intact.
"Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. "
I never said anything of the sort. I said that two parent families are optimal. We should strive for optimal, not the opposite. We should as society make it easier to have children raised in optimal situations.
I know plenty of people raising kids in single parent homes, and a few people who have three kids from four fathers, and I can tell you that it is NOT optimal. In every case, the kids are not well adjusted and have emotional and psychological issues. Parenting is hard. And people have been making light of it, and passing it off onto the state for the last two generations in increasing numbers. Our society is not better because of it.
I would not want kids to be raise in a single parent home, but sometimes shit happens. The moment it becomes a "choice", rather than crappy circumstances, we've degraded our society. IF you believe that single parent families are equal to two parent families the by all means prove it to me they go ahead, and try it yourself. Parenting is hard.
I explained that I don't care if gay people are together. How does my view that marriage being religious institution make me a bigot? Or is it just because it doesn't suit your political agenda?
" but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?"
That is not what I said. You have reading comprehension problems, probably because my views differ from your own you have to try to shove me into some category that fits your predisposed paranoia.
I said that gay relationships are fine, and I don't give a shit about them. I said that gay people adopting kids is probably not the best thing for kids. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, then my views are just opinions and not actually dangerous. I'm not preventing them from doing anything.
Some people can't handled a reasoned argument that is counter to their own, and lash out with violent tendencies. And they think they are more "civilized".
So, if I oppose homosexual marriage, I am condemning others? But your condemnation of my views is not really condemnation? I'm not sure how that works. Could you explain this further please.
BTW, I'm supporting the repeal of all government granted "benefits" of marriage, rather than re-define what marriage is. Would you support me in supporting that version of equality?
Marriage is a religious institution, when you redefine it in such a way that it is transforming society into something that has NEVER existed before, you're going to run into opposition. The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state. Rather than redefine marriage, why not re-define (nullify) the laws that create those benefits? Wouldn't that be better for all involved? No discrimination at all! Polygamy, Polyandry and Incestuous marriages will be all be equal.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
I'm against homosexual marriage, because it has nothing to do with equality, and has everything to do with money. I don't care if homosexual live together, love each other or whatever. However, you're extending "rights" to people based on what you THINK is fair, because you think those "rights" are being applied by some sort of homophobia or some sort of discrimination.
If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all. AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
IF (big if) you want "fairness", I suggest rather than supporting Gay Marriage, marriage being a religious institution, that you be for repealing government benefits based on marital status, citing separation of church (marriage) and state. If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest. And this is my position as a libertarian. Repeal all benefits and preferences based on marital status, and all these issues go away. Catholics can forbid gay marriage, and the Atheists of America can perform the religious act of marriage for gay people all they want, everyone is free to do as they please, without forcing anyone else to join their viewpoint. True Liberty.
That is the most fair place to be. Anything less is not fair to anyone with a different idea of marriage than you or I.
"As a humble human, it is not my place to pass judgement on others' behaviors"
"Thou shalt not murder" is passing judgement on other people's behavior. You're not against that... are you? Or is your selective argument not as broad as you'd like it to be.
My point is, everyone judges people on their behavior, we're just arguing on where to draw the line;)
How do you know? I've suffered depression. I don't any more because I changed how I think about things that are out of my control. People who suffer depression, often do things that are counter productive in attempting to deal with stuff that is completely out of their control. This makes things worse for them. I know, I've been there.
And suicide is just one of those "counter productive" things people do when depressed. I know, I considered it. I don't have sympathy, with his choices, he made that bed. Well, in a way it did solve his problems, it just wasn't a productive way of doing it. IF he was depressed before his bad choices started, it would explain those bad choices, at least partially. However, I believe he was depressed, at least partially, because of his bad choices. Do I have sympathy for people with depression? Oh Hell yeah. But that doesn't mean I sympathize with his bad choices. They aren't the same thing.
In the meantime, his death is being hailed as some sort of martyred saintly act. Either it was Depression, or it was because he put himself in a situation he couldn't handle. I rather doubt he was depressed before hand. My guess is he was depressed because of the poor choices he was making, put him into a situation that was beyond his control (snowball was rolling), in which case, he was in the kitchen and didn't like the heat.
Worse than that, what Google actually did wasn't illegal, just bad form. Wardriving has been around a long time. The intention wasn't to steal anything, unlike Aaron's intention.
Aaron Swartz wasn't a bad guy, just a poor sob who couldn't handle the heat of the kitchen he was cooking in. I have no sympathy for him killing himself. He should have manned up, and faced his accusers with honor.
Passing up Moderation to ask the poster a question, but first, recap of the part I'm asking about:
Corporate America is going to stick it to you no matter what you do to get ahead. If you find a clever way to save money, our greedy corporate masters will STEAL it from you one way or another, because at the end of the day, they are pulling all the strings and turning all the knobs.
Question: Are our government masters ever "Greedy" and do they ever "STEAL".
The reason I ask, is because people who make statements like you did, tend to believe that Government can do no wrong, as long as they "stick it to the rich". I find this mentality to be childish and self serving.
To the point about fuel prices (and other things), have you ever considered that the government restrictions cause some of the price differentials? I mean, after all, we can't drill, or build pipelines or refineries or... due to government restrictions. Perhaps it is government that is "Greedy" (power hungry) Stealing (via unsustainable social programs) from our children. But when we talk about it, we are labeled "tossing grandma off the cliff" and having to make choices between "fire, police and education" while our Government Masters are busy planning their next golfing trip, birthday bash with Beyonce and Adel and closing White House Tours down.
In other words, your view is simple, narrow minded and out of touch with the real Greed.
The AC is a classic Troll, and you fed him. Do not feed the trolls.
That being said, some people are so ingrained with the "Anyone not like me is a (pejorative) " The fact that it passes as intellectual in much of the far left rantings is classic example of not actually paying attention because doing so will cause challenges to one's belief system. Which ironically, is exactly what they claim in a perfect case of projecting; tossing their own weaknesses upon everyone else.
Oh, and BTW, I'm a white racist homophobic misogynist./sarcasm
Here is my exact view: North Korea wants to be invaded, because of the spoils of war that the US will bring it. Imagine getting wiped off the globe by the US in a 3 day war, and then have the next 10 years of "Nation Building" infrastructure improvements that we've become accustomed to giving the vanquished foes. It is brilliant plan!
I do believe there was a movie with this same plot, though I don't recall the title off hand.
Slashdot Mirror
No legally recognized same sex marriages. Nice try though.
Happy Birthday!
Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960. If you can't then you are redefining marriage to suit your political agenda. Re-defining marriage to suit a political agenda is proof that it isn't about "love" but gaining access to government granted benefits.
If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
You see, I'm not condemning others to anything, I want to be clear, I don't support redefining marriage on the sole basis of granting government benefits to gay people. I would rather repeal those benefits from marriage. The fact that you won't support this view makes it clear, it isn't about love or equality or anything else, it is about getting benefits from government.
We are not "herd" animals. We are, if you want to classify it, family pod animals (aka tribal). We have a long history of having extended families (mutually related helpmates). We have no such thing in our current "culture" and make no attempts to keep that kind of structure intact.
"Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. "
I never said anything of the sort. I said that two parent families are optimal. We should strive for optimal, not the opposite. We should as society make it easier to have children raised in optimal situations.
I know plenty of people raising kids in single parent homes, and a few people who have three kids from four fathers, and I can tell you that it is NOT optimal. In every case, the kids are not well adjusted and have emotional and psychological issues. Parenting is hard. And people have been making light of it, and passing it off onto the state for the last two generations in increasing numbers. Our society is not better because of it.
I would not want kids to be raise in a single parent home, but sometimes shit happens. The moment it becomes a "choice", rather than crappy circumstances, we've degraded our society. IF you believe that single parent families are equal to two parent families the by all means prove it to me they go ahead, and try it yourself. Parenting is hard.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
Or maybe it is. Depends on which "survey" you view.
I explained that I don't care if gay people are together. How does my view that marriage being religious institution make me a bigot? Or is it just because it doesn't suit your political agenda?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
Of course, you're free to disagree.
" but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?"
That is not what I said. You have reading comprehension problems, probably because my views differ from your own you have to try to shove me into some category that fits your predisposed paranoia.
I said that gay relationships are fine, and I don't give a shit about them. I said that gay people adopting kids is probably not the best thing for kids. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, then my views are just opinions and not actually dangerous. I'm not preventing them from doing anything.
Some people can't handled a reasoned argument that is counter to their own, and lash out with violent tendencies. And they think they are more "civilized".
So, if I oppose homosexual marriage, I am condemning others? But your condemnation of my views is not really condemnation? I'm not sure how that works. Could you explain this further please.
BTW, I'm supporting the repeal of all government granted "benefits" of marriage, rather than re-define what marriage is. Would you support me in supporting that version of equality?
Marriage is a religious institution, when you redefine it in such a way that it is transforming society into something that has NEVER existed before, you're going to run into opposition. The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state. Rather than redefine marriage, why not re-define (nullify) the laws that create those benefits? Wouldn't that be better for all involved? No discrimination at all! Polygamy, Polyandry and Incestuous marriages will be all be equal.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
I'm against homosexual marriage, because it has nothing to do with equality, and has everything to do with money. I don't care if homosexual live together, love each other or whatever. However, you're extending "rights" to people based on what you THINK is fair, because you think those "rights" are being applied by some sort of homophobia or some sort of discrimination.
If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all. AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
IF (big if) you want "fairness", I suggest rather than supporting Gay Marriage, marriage being a religious institution, that you be for repealing government benefits based on marital status, citing separation of church (marriage) and state. If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest. And this is my position as a libertarian. Repeal all benefits and preferences based on marital status, and all these issues go away. Catholics can forbid gay marriage, and the Atheists of America can perform the religious act of marriage for gay people all they want, everyone is free to do as they please, without forcing anyone else to join their viewpoint. True Liberty.
That is the most fair place to be. Anything less is not fair to anyone with a different idea of marriage than you or I.
"As a humble human, it is not my place to pass judgement on others' behaviors"
"Thou shalt not murder" is passing judgement on other people's behavior. You're not against that ... are you? Or is your selective argument not as broad as you'd like it to be.
My point is, everyone judges people on their behavior, we're just arguing on where to draw the line ;)
You just proved you don't need to be any of those things to be a prideful prick damning people.
Funny thing is, most of the Higher level Catholics involved in Politics are Democrats, and they vote against their religion all the time.
Please explain how they are not compatible?
You have no idea about depression and suicide. So you look like an ignorant asshole
You'd be wrong.
How do you know? I've suffered depression. I don't any more because I changed how I think about things that are out of my control. People who suffer depression, often do things that are counter productive in attempting to deal with stuff that is completely out of their control. This makes things worse for them. I know, I've been there.
And suicide is just one of those "counter productive" things people do when depressed. I know, I considered it. I don't have sympathy, with his choices, he made that bed. Well, in a way it did solve his problems, it just wasn't a productive way of doing it. IF he was depressed before his bad choices started, it would explain those bad choices, at least partially. However, I believe he was depressed, at least partially, because of his bad choices. Do I have sympathy for people with depression? Oh Hell yeah. But that doesn't mean I sympathize with his bad choices. They aren't the same thing.
In the meantime, his death is being hailed as some sort of martyred saintly act. Either it was Depression, or it was because he put himself in a situation he couldn't handle. I rather doubt he was depressed before hand. My guess is he was depressed because of the poor choices he was making, put him into a situation that was beyond his control (snowball was rolling), in which case, he was in the kitchen and didn't like the heat.
Probably is now. Wasn't at the time.
Worse than that, what Google actually did wasn't illegal, just bad form. Wardriving has been around a long time. The intention wasn't to steal anything, unlike Aaron's intention.
Aaron Swartz wasn't a bad guy, just a poor sob who couldn't handle the heat of the kitchen he was cooking in. I have no sympathy for him killing himself. He should have manned up, and faced his accusers with honor.
Passing up Moderation to ask the poster a question, but first, recap of the part I'm asking about:
Corporate America is going to stick it to you no matter what you do to get ahead. If you find a clever way to save money, our greedy corporate masters will STEAL it from you one way or another, because at the end of the day, they are pulling all the strings and turning all the knobs.
Question: Are our government masters ever "Greedy" and do they ever "STEAL".
The reason I ask, is because people who make statements like you did, tend to believe that Government can do no wrong, as long as they "stick it to the rich". I find this mentality to be childish and self serving.
To the point about fuel prices (and other things), have you ever considered that the government restrictions cause some of the price differentials? I mean, after all, we can't drill, or build pipelines or refineries or ... due to government restrictions. Perhaps it is government that is "Greedy" (power hungry) Stealing (via unsustainable social programs) from our children. But when we talk about it, we are labeled "tossing grandma off the cliff" and having to make choices between "fire, police and education" while our Government Masters are busy planning their next golfing trip, birthday bash with Beyonce and Adel and closing White House Tours down.
In other words, your view is simple, narrow minded and out of touch with the real Greed.
The AC is a classic Troll, and you fed him. Do not feed the trolls.
That being said, some people are so ingrained with the "Anyone not like me is a (pejorative) " The fact that it passes as intellectual in much of the far left rantings is classic example of not actually paying attention because doing so will cause challenges to one's belief system. Which ironically, is exactly what they claim in a perfect case of projecting; tossing their own weaknesses upon everyone else.
Oh, and BTW, I'm a white racist homophobic misogynist. /sarcasm
Here is my exact view: North Korea wants to be invaded, because of the spoils of war that the US will bring it. Imagine getting wiped off the globe by the US in a 3 day war, and then have the next 10 years of "Nation Building" infrastructure improvements that we've become accustomed to giving the vanquished foes. It is brilliant plan!
I do believe there was a movie with this same plot, though I don't recall the title off hand.
Says who? And will countries like NK or Iran follow suit or not? And does that result play into the discussions at all?
Opinions do not equate to facts, yet some people like reporting as if they do.