Change order of comments:  



Comments on:   The Naked Theocrat . . .


Comments on This Entry (Add your comments in the form below):
urthshu  2013-03-03 03:57:00

I do give Brizoni credit for saying straight out that he's out to destroy religion and seeing same sex marriage as a means towards that end. It is refreshing to find that sort of honesty within this context. Were other gay advocates to be so bold there might be a more straightforward settling of the issue.



RL  2013-03-03 05:45:00

For someone who so obviously despises religious argumentation of any kind, that was quite a sermon.

It's like going to a jazz festival without much knowledge of the history of music, assuming that fans of such an archaic discipline must know nothing of the superior attainments of pop music, and then lecturing them that it's time to put the 'Old Ghost' of Louis Armstrong on the shelf in favor of the revealed music of Lady Gaga.

For the record, most of your argument was preempted by my rebuttal to your first post on "fag marriage." So it's still my prime response to this one. Defending yourself and your faith against aggressive claims that you are a bigot BECAUSE you believe in your faith (claims you repeat and endorse) is hardly the same as moving offensively to impose a religious theocracy.

Pardon us if we're not so quick to genuflect to Gaga-ism as you wunderkind are.



Lake  2013-03-02 02:21:00

Brizoni: The guy who posts incendiary arguments and then ignores comments, leaving for months at a time.

We'll see the next carpet bombing in - (checks watch) - July.



ErisGuy  2013-03-02 05:00:00

"Christianity was an immoral source of profound human misery for its first thousand years or so.

Nothing like being completely wrong.



urthshu  2013-03-01 07:29:00

Next:

To forestall any misunderstandings. I'm neither religious nor a full opponent to gay marriage. I would look for other means to achieve the same standing, such as allowing common-law recognition of marriage in cases of same-sex couples thereby side-stepping much of the controversy [although not all, to be sure].

But they, and presumably you, reject that despite that doing so would give all the rights currently argued for. Which means they are lying about their goals.



urthshu  2013-03-01 07:16:00

Next:

You're scoffing throughout the piece about those who say including gay marriage would harm straight marriage and dissuade straights from entering into it. Of course that looks ridiculous on its face!

The trouble here is that you're not the marginal case. The fact is there are plenty of policies besides gay marriage which can and have affected the institution of marriage, and at each step along the way virtually the same arguments have been made, lost, and harm has ensued exactly as predicted.

70's era, it was loosening the divorce laws. Opponents said that making divorce easy would increase the amount of divorces, shattering families and leading to widespread societal ills, such as poverty and behavior problems with youth.

Those persons were called crazy. "You're nuts! There's so much stigma attached to being divorced that nobody in their right mind would want to be divorced! We're trying to lessen the amount of pain that these unfornates will go through so they can get on with their lives! Plus we're saving children in the absolute worst cases! You're just blocking this out of antiquated Biblical notions!"

But they were right. And each shifting of the margin makes the next instance more possible, until it becomes commonplace.

And you know, there's plenty of these examples. Welfare [nobody would willingly endure the shame of being on the dole!], welfare for single moms [there's so much shame involved in being a single mom - nobody would choose that! No way there's going to be more of them!], enforced child support from never-married men [there's so much shame in being a deadbeat dad - this is going to increase the level of responsibility in young men!].

So: If we allow gay marriage, will the institution of straight marriage be harmed? In some respects, the answer has to be yes. It won't dissuade you, no. It would dissuade somebody else, if only as an excuse for their own cold feet. And each case of objection makes the next more palatable until that becomes common, like single motherhood and welfare.

That's just how people are. Fact. Which is what you claim to deal with.



Spike  2013-03-01 06:32:00

Gays have their own version of the Boy Scouts. It's called NAMBLA.



urthshu  2013-03-01 06:09:00

>>>>Here's a very simplified way to tell if an action is moral or not. A two-question test. First ask Question One: "Does this action further my happiness in the short or long term?" It does? Great. Now ask Question Two: "But does this action violate anyone's rights?" No? Have at it.

There's your problem.

In the general, I've seen plenty of people who make the same reply that what they're doing isn't harming anyone, except perhaps themselves. Alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsives of many stripes. They're wrong but they want what they want and fuck you.

In the specific instance, gay marriage opponents are making arguments focused on the harm they believe will ensue. You're not listening because you want what you want and fuck you.

You've given your light-weight criteria for a moral foundation. Fine, I'll accept it as the where you're at and agree that, for you, those are valid moral criteria and you're fully entitled to follow them. See? Very tolerant of your views.

But have you noticed - at all - that the BSA has given their criteria for morality upfront? And that nowhere in it are listed your criteria? Yet because you want what you want [and fuck you] their criteria has to go.

And you've convinced yourself there is no harm you are causing.



Change order of comments:  


If you would like to post a comment, please complete the following form. Keep your comments on point. Have fun. Thanks.


Post a comment