Friday, February 6, 2009

Don't Divorce Us

From the Courage Campaign, via xoff:




It is sadly ironic that the ones worried about the sanctity of marriage now want to cause18,000 divorces.
Posted by capper at 11:37:00 PM
Labels: , , ,

16 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2009 at 12:15 PM

    Umm . . . separating an illegitimate marriage isn't a divorce.

    Think a little more before you publish your tripe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. capperFebruary 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM

    Umm, they were legally married. That is the whole point. No wonder you choose to be anonymous. It must save you tons of embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM

    Umm, Legal marriage isn't the same as legitimate marriage. One good example is a marriage rendered legal at one point in time, but rendered illegal as the laws change. A legitimate marriage is not dependent upon the arbitrary nature of activist judges or referendums.

    So again, just because you run the site doesn't mean you have to be the brightest bulb in the the socket. But then again, you liberals always think you're the brightest. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. capperFebruary 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM

    And, you base your claim of the legitimacy v. legality of a marriage on what? Your personal belief system? That would not be recognized by any body, any where, at any time, just like my personal belief system wouldn't be.

    Prop 8 is only an effort to legalize bigotry based on the belief system of one part of the population, not on the Constitution. And the last time I checked, the U.S. of A. was not a theocracy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2009 at 11:42 PM

    What belief system isn't personal? And what arguments aren't made based upon beliefs? It doesn't invalidate the argument for others simply because of a personal belief system.

    Prop 8 was an attempt to keep judges from reinterpreting law in such a way as to change the original intent. If the judges in question tried to preserve the law, then prop 8 would never have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  6. capperFebruary 8, 2009 at 12:13 AM

    Again, the Constitution isn't based on a theology.

    One of the premises of the Constitution is equality for all. That includes men, women, blacks, whites, heterosexuals, and homosexuals, and any combination thereof, plus all the rest of demographics that I didn't include.

    If I, as a heterosexual man, have the right to get married, why shouldn't a gay man or woman have that same privilege? In other words, the Constitution, and hence the law, are supposed to be secular. Prop 8 denies that right to a specific population, and hence is unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    The constitution does not demand equality for all, but equal opportunity under the constraints of the law - this is something that liberals fail to see time and time again.

    People are not inherently equal. Some have abilities, skills, temperaments, and morals that are either inferior or superior to others. All our constitution tries to guarantee is that people, despite various inherent inequalities, have an equality opportunity to succeed in life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness.

    In the case of Proposition 8, the people of California voted to ban same sex marriage. The Supreme Court overturned it, which not only defied the will of the people, but legislated from the bench. The term legislating from the bench, as some may know, is applied to the executive branch for acting like the legislative branch when they indeed are not. The court reinterpreted the will of the people as a violation of the constitution, which it was not since the constitution does not specifically define marriage.

    The people struck back and modified the state constitution - end of story. You want to keep theology out of it? Fine, don't complain about the constitutional right of the people to create their own laws. We live in a democratic republic protected by a constitution. Proposition 8 was appropriate, legal, and legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. capperFebruary 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

    All our constitution tries to guarantee is that people, despite various inherent inequalities, have an equality opportunity to succeed in life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness.

    And Prop 8 counters that. And the reason people voted the way they did was the hate put out by religious groups, led by the Mormons, or because of the fear of people different from them.

    But Prop 8, and other hate bills like it, will eventually fail, as did Prohibition did on the national scale.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2009 at 8:43 PM

    Your argument is based upon ad hominem. This is a typical ploy used by liberals to put others on the defensive.

    You talk about hate and fear as the primary forces that explain the majority vote, but you don't know the intentions of people. If I lived in California, I too would have voted for Proposition 8. And my motives are not based upon hate or fear, but the conviction that marriage is a spiritual institution established between a man and a woman.

    Now, you may argue that my spiritual convictions or morals have no place in a secular arena such as government legislation - this is a viewpoint I've heard before. However, legislating always involves personal convictions and morals. Our Constitution does not tell us that we must make decisions devoid of our spiritual aims. You think it's wrong that gays are not allowed to marry. That is your personal conviction based upon a premise that lifestyle of gays are equally legitimate to others that gays ought to marry. However, a majority of people in California disagree with you based upon the premise that the gay lifestyle is wrong. You call Proposition 8 a hate bill, but by doing so, you presume to know the intent of a majority of people you never met, nor do you understand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. capperFebruary 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM

    Au contraire. My argument is based on surveys, studies and observations.

    Tis nothing more than Psych 101.

    The same arguments that people are using for the anti-gay marriage laws are eerily similar to the ones that were used by those trying to prevent equal rights being given to blacks or to women.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2009 at 11:15 PM

    The comparison is counterintuitive. Would you be as ardent to fight for equal rights to marriage for an incestuous couple?

    Let's say we have siblings who fell in love with each other. They pronounce their intentions to marry, but become victims of their "coming out" by their own family and strangers. Would you use the same argument that equal rights to marry belong to them?

    What if we had the same situation with a father and daughter? How far are you willing to go to promote the right of marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  12. capperFebruary 8, 2009 at 11:29 PM

    Yes, yes, I am quite familiar with the slippery slope argument.

    Incestuous relationships can be proven harmful due to the birth defects that are common among children who are the products of such relationships.

    Who gets harmed by a homosexual couple getting married?

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2009 at 12:04 AM

    Incestuous relationships aren't always physically harmful. Safe consensual sex, birth control, or various medical procedures like a hysterectomy or a vasectomy could solve that problem.

    There are cases where siblings sought to get married in Europe, and they were not only denied, but one of them was imprisoned for violating an incest law.

    In cases where an incestuous relationship is physically safe, e.g. no offspring, are you willing to blog about protecting their rights to marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  14. capperFebruary 9, 2009 at 12:08 AM

    The cases you cite require the person to give up something for a right. And there are no guarantees that many of these procedures are without fail or irreversible.

    Again, who gets hurt by gay marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM

    And? What exercised right doesn't require sacrifice? When people marry, they always give up something - whether it's their personal space, their alone time, their money, or their selfishness. So your point is kind of moot.

    The problem with liberals [I know I say that a lot] is that you are not consistent with the application of your philosophy. The example of incest shows this inconsistency. I haven't met a single liberal who fought for gay marriage that was also willing to fight for incestuous marriage.

    So, why aren't you defending incestuous marriage with the same zeal as gay marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  16. capperFebruary 9, 2009 at 11:20 PM

    I've already answered why it was wrong. It hurts others than themselves.

    Now, for the third time, who gets hurt if gays are allowed equal rights?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)