juansavage1

I bet you popped in that Ricky Martin CD and rocked hard.

Rock succession:

Muddy Waters》Beatles》Led Zeppelin》Van Halen》Metallica》Ricky Martin

I test drove a Subaru once. Behind the wheel, I was overcome with the desire to buy a flannel shirt and get a Justin Bieber haircut.

Juan, a lot of our disagreement boils down to "traditional" vs. "post-traditional." You believe that certain (religious) traditions should be upheld while I don't. Or, at least, I believe they should be questioned and flexible to the times and changing cultural values.

1. Sounds like a good idea, in principle, but it doesn't always work out that way.

2. Again, you talk about some supposed "true purpose" of marriage, as if this is written in stone. Juan, the purpose of marriage is defined by the specific culture. As cultures change, so too will the purpose of marriage. You seem to have this static ideal of a "true society," when in truth there are so many variations and possibilities. Why must human life adhere to one rigid standard? Or to put it religiously, does not God love diversity?

3. This is just a bit creepy. Anyhow, you really should include adoption because it means that same-sex couples can have the unwanted (or unable-to-care-for) children of man-woman couples.

Your non-religious argument could be applied equally to gay and straight marriages. Why should the state be involved in marriage, gay or straight?

In response to your natural law argument, why must we follow what our biological reproductive nature dictates? Why can't we choose how to live our lives, who we are attracted to and love, and who we wish to enter into matrimony with? It isn't like there's a population problem, in fact the opposite.

Some quick notes. I can reply in more detail if you find it interesting.

1. My definition of marriage is static. Other things in society aren't static. So some things are and some aren't.

2. I do not consider SSM an equality issue. Every adult could participate in marriage if they wanted to, provided they were conform to the rules. It would be like saying that bisexuals don't have equal rights because they can't marry two people.

3. Remember when the same people who now support SSM said that marriage is just a piece of paper? People could still be with the person they love without being married.

4. I don't think the profound changes in society are worth making the few homosexuals within a tiny minority of people feel nice.

It's a big picture view of things. Sometimes we see things in bits without connecting them together. For example, on the lesbian parents thread. We can argue whether lesbians are nice or what kind of relationship we want the government to affirm as the ideal. Small versus large. It's not for everybody. 

“WE DEMAND the university administration publicly acknowledge the racist legacy of Woodrow Wilson and how he impacted campus policy and culture,” the students’ demands say. 

 

what did wilson do that was racist? and why would it still be an issue today, almost a hundred years later?

Wilson was a racist (and a progressive). I think it was he who segregated the Army.

We still shouldn't do it because it will lead to bad places. Are we going to change all of the FDR monuments because he interned Japanese? On the other hand, if I was living in Russia, I'd support changing the names of cities back to their Christian names and removing Lenin statues and the like. 

What are these delicate flowers going to do when they reach the real world and the real world tells them all to **** off?

I don't think they'll suffer too much. If they go into academia or the government, they'll feel right at home. Much of corporate America is scared of them. 

Breitbart has a review of the book I started reading. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/cultural-marxism-enemy-review-michael-walshs-book-devils-pleasure-palace/

Honestly, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is an accounting action which defines tax liability and property ownership.

For businesses it is about benefits liability.

For the religion it is about moral code and how they interpret it based upon their own dogma.

For individuals it is primarily about an emotional bond.

Now begin the argument as to who really has the responsibility to decide.

Taxes

Benefits

Dogma

Love

FIGHT!

That's a way of looking at things. See, we can be honest without being mean. 

Remember that no society, secular or religious, Buddhist or Animist, has seen the logic of opposite-sex marriage until now. North Korea and China don't have gay marriage. 

My non-religious argument would simply be a few questions: Why should the state be involved in marriage? To what end? How does marriage make for a better society? and What's best for children? What's better for women and men?

My natural law argument would be these questions: Why are half of people women and the other half men? How many people does it take to continue life? How many parents does every person on earth have?

How do you know that? Because 1) You think I'm unable to change my opinion or 2) the case against gay marriage doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
 

I'm guessing the former, but it is simply not true as I generally don't hold onto my opinions too tightly and am always looking for reasons to change them. The evolution of ideas is very important to me, more important than being "right."

 

So I'm open to a good argument against gay marriage. I just haven't seen one. I'm guessing also you are thinking I won't change my view because 99% of arguments against gay marriage are based in religion and you think I'm anti-religion. Yes?

 

 

And how is this not a hyperbolic statement, one that is emotional in nature? It is problematic on two levels - one, this assertion that marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Two, that gay marriage somehow destroys it. 

 

By the way, you never addressed the point I made - that if marriage is about procreation, should straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not why are they deserving of being married?

 

Here's another: Who's marriage is more valid in your mind, a straight couple that doesn't procreate or a gay couple that adopts?

How do you know that? Because 1) You think I'm unable to change my opinion or 2) the case against gay marriage doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

 

I'm guessing the former, but it is simply not true as I generally don't hold onto my opinions too tightly and am always looking for reasons to change them. The evolution of ideas is very important to me, more important than being "right."

 

So I'm open to a good argument against gay marriage. I just haven't seen one. I'm guessing also you are thinking I won't change my view because 99% of arguments against gay marriage are based in religion and you think I'm anti-religion. Yes?

 

 

And how is this not a hyperbolic statement, one that is emotional in nature? It is problematic on two levels - one, this assertion that marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Two, that gay marriage somehow destroys it. 

 

By the way, you never addressed the point I made - that if marriage is about procreation, should straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not why are they deserving of being married?

 

Here's another: Who's marriage is more valid in your mind, a straight couple that doesn't procreate or a gay couple that adopts?

I'll respond to all nice questions until they're gone. 

Marriage is the bedrock of civilization: 

1. If society can rely on two people to provide care for each other and care for their children, at least for the first 18 years of the child's life, and if children, in turn, can assist their parents later in life, society is much much more self-sufficient and would require much less state intervention (big turn off for leftists). Parents would provide better care than the state and children would ideally receive the talents of both mother and father, as women would benefit from the presence of men and vice-versa. 

"Destroys marriage"

2. Gay marriage turns the true purpose of marriage into something else. It's life not requiring certain subjects in school "destroys" the purpose and meaning of a liberal arts education. 

"Children"

3. Some history and background: You may not know that traditional Christian marriage vows require people to accept children into their lives. Not consummating (what would that be for two dudes?) marriage has traditionally been enough to annul a marriage, in both secular and religious law. You also may not know that birth control used to be illegal. So, men for a long time have thought it strange or against the purpose of marriage not to have children. 

Now, most people probably wouldn't be for some of those policies today. It's not necessary. I think since the vast majority of opposite sex couples will have children, even some who don't think they'd ever want any, society can assume that children would just happen in most cases, and that it wouldn't be worth it to punish people who frustrate that purpose.

Remember, children are possible in almost all opposite-sex pairings while always impossible in same sex pairings. 

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

 

Really not a fair critique since nothing presented to you would be a reasonable case against gay marriage.

That's right. Because the most reasonable argument for anything is, "how would it affect your marriage?" unless it's something you don't like and then that question doesn't matter. 

Juan, I don't think anyone hates heterosexual marriage. It may be, though, that some aren't as attached to it as the bedrock of our civilization, that marriage should reflect the changing times, which are more inclusive of gays.

 

In my opinion, you are unable to present a reasonable case against gay marriage, or why adhering to "traditional values" Is more important than equal rights.

Thanks for the civilized response. I tried. 

I don't think letting a very few people officially participate in what must now become public support for an emotional state is worth destroying the bedrock of civilization. 

Here you go: 

http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=U280DF&PC=U280&q=power+structure+marriage+feminism

Remember that I'm not talking about you guys who are downstream from the origin of these ideas. I know because I like philosophy and the history of ideas. 

People on the left tend to have negative feelings towards HETEROSEXUAL marriage as an institution.** You can see that in this thread and a previous one where I said that one positive aspect of the fifties was that families stayed together more. Why? Three reasons:

1. Families are a source of inequality. Kids from good/stable families have an advantage.

2. Families are a rival to the government, with its own loyalties. 

3. Within marriage, there are "power" issues. This is the preoccupation of leftists. 

**If you ask the average TV viewer if gay marriages are happier than straight marriages, my guess is that he'd say that they are. This is similar to how people think 20-something % of people are gay even though they're only 2-3% of the population. If the left feels that gay marriage is safe, they'll ignore it. It was mostly about pushing an agenda. 

Remember, I'm not saying that YOU think explicitly think this way. I'm saying that you're influenced by people who do. 

If you don't believe me, google something like "power structure marriage feminism"

Buddhism?

I don't know. I'll have to think about it, do some research. 

Sorry I quoted this in reverse order, but here's my addition: Both are true, in my opinion. Religion has lead millions of folks to helping other folks, but it has also created further division among people and instigated clashes and, in some cases, violence.

I don't think it is fair to either complete castigate religion (like my buddy Bill Maher, who I generally agree with on most things but feel is a bit too black-and-white on religion), or to be a true believer and naive about the downsides of religion, especially the extremist/fundamentalist variants.

Because a bunch of women realized they didn't have to stay in shitty marriages with assholes.

Damn that women's lib.

mtangelsfan said "bone."

Huh-huh-huh.

One la as the thing. This is an example of how thoroughly effective TV is at forming opinion. Look at the graph of divorce I put up. First, what percentage of divorce is initialized by women? A little more than half. OK:

1. Do men initiate divorce because the women are assholes?

2. What percentage of your divorced male friends are abusive assholes?

3. In cultures that divorce a lot, like Hollywood, are people just bigger assholes?

Actually, the third one might be true.

Sorry I quoted this in reverse order, but here's my addition: Both are true, in my opinion. Religion has lead millions of folks to helping other folks, but it has also created further division among people and instigated clashes and, in some cases, violence.

I don't think it is fair to either complete castigate religion (like my buddy Bill Maher, who I generally agree with on most things but feel is a bit too black-and-white on religion), or to be a true believer and naive about the downsides of religion, especially the extremist/fundamentalist variants.

Because a bunch of women realized they didn't have to stay in shitty marriages with assholes.

Damn that women's lib.

mtangelsfan said "bone."

Huh-huh-huh.

If you notice, people will divide themselves by what they think is important. Some of the most popular are: race, nationaity, income, sports, looks, school, politics, philosophy, and job. The lesson is that people separate themselves and they fight over things.

The advantage of good religion is that we know we shouldn't fight and that we are all essentially equal despite the differences above. If you agree with that sentiment, you can thank a specific religious tradition.

Yep its very difficult to have a conversations with someone takes his own generalizations and wild fantasies as absolute fact and has the mindset of a white dude in 1950s texas

Every comment has come with an example.

I decided not to respond to nonsense If you want to discuss the ideas or, better yet, give counter examples with evidence, then I'll respond. A couple of you tried to do that.

Juan has never heard of the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition I guess...

Yes, I have. Without getting into detail, as wars the four Crusades were pretty mild. The Spanish Inquisition was religious, but it's first purpose was to expose people likely to be traitors to the monarchy. 

I hate when a decent thread gets "juan'd"

You wish everything could stay dick jokes and "why does anybody care...it's so obvious...)

I'll leave again and see what you geniuses come up with. 

Who has ever come out against traditional marriage, as in saying traditional marriage should be outlawed?

Many people have, actually. There are different levels to it. The intellectual elites like the prominent feminist below ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen ) 

come up with these ideas. I don't think you guys believe this. I think most people who support these measures think they're being sensitive and "just." 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506

 

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

 

 

plenty of things lead to war and death.  Bad things have been done in the name of plenty of things.

 

Of course I don't like bad things being done in my religion, I speak out against it when it happens.  You've seen it.

Not true. In the West the wars directly related to religion are only a fraction of the violence. The only ones I can really think of at the moment was the 30-Years war and some other Reformation skirmishes and maybe the Crusades in the South of France, and even those were dubiously religious as France helped the Protestants during the 30-Years war. 

Most of the wars are fought over territory. Except:

Anti-religion- French Revolution, the Communist, and fascist wars- has led to over a hundred million deaths in the West alone. If we count all of the world, it's much more. 

Again, just pointing out facts. 

Times change, and laws change to reflect that. I wonder what imagined fantasy past you wish to go back to? Again, I really don't see much of an argument against gay marriage that isn't based upon religious fundamentalism and homophobia. My guess is that 95% of people against gay marriage, if not more, are religious fundamentalists. For those that aren't it is probably just pure homophobia.

 

And yes, it is about equal rights. I don't care whether people get married or not or what they choose to do within their marriage, whether they have kids or not, are divorced, have gay orgies, etc. What I care about is that people have equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation. In my opinion, human rights are more important than the institution of traditional marriage.

I'd say the majority of people really against (most people either don't care or don't like to be called names) traditional marriage are either atheists or hostile towards religion (I really do think this, but I never use it as an argument).

And, yes. times change. I'd like a future where marriage is restored to its natural, logical definition and that most kids get to experience life with their parents. I think that can happen in several states rather quickly if one of the next SC justices isn't as sappy as Kennedy. 

To be fair according to the chart the divorce rate went from 1% to 2%

 

I really don't think it has to do with SSM.

 

More likely it has to do with the Women's liberation movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_liberation_movement

SSM is the effect of the kind of thinking that divorces marriage from any higher purpose and declares it a primarily emotional bond between people. It's not the cause. 

Your point is valid if only SSM people were getting the divorces

No. My point is that SSM isn't an expansion of marriage, but another attack on marriage. The attack started with the secular-left movements of the 19th century and really flowered with the sexual revolution in the 60s. 

Again, I'm just pointing out facts and representing a point of view while also noting flaws in your arguments and facts, not trying to convince people of anything.