| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 2:20:04 PM | An article I read recently reminded me of a very important point about law:
The business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 2:26:39 PM |
We also have a new culture of feminized males with less and less male traits and qualities that once they had because they now are by being raised by two female parents.
And this is a problem how?
A feminized male is exactly what?
What is a male?
Oh wait, I know. A male is a human who has large bulging muscles, short hair, or bald, has a six pack, mustache and beard, and spends all day out in the woods cutting down forest and hunting meat. That's a male, right?
Talk about backwards thinking. I think we have come down to the realization of where this is all coming.
A man must be a man and a woman must be a woman. Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, right Monatnan76? That way the man can hunt and be the provider and the woman can cook and clean and take care of the children.
two species of humans
Hmmm, there are two species of humans?
Well, that is the first I heard of this. I suppose its possible, so I decided to google it, because I was interested. Let's see.
The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-489653/Human-race-split-different-species.html
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
London, Oct 26 In 1900, experts made predictions for the 20th century. They got much wrong but a lot right—housework never became fun, but we did get the internet and the nuclear bomb.
If the accuracy of 1900 is a guide, researchers in Britain might be right this time. They have predicted that the human race may be split into two different species in 100,000 years' time—an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.
Wow, I guess your right. There are two species of humans. And only 1000 years before it was suppose to happen.
Anyone want to take a guess which species they belong to? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/3/2008 4:34:35 PM | The only person I am use to reading my post as it was wrote and not reinterpreted is Aceofspace.
If you read my previous post Stella you should have noted that I wrote the following to the pretend scenairo......"So lets elaborate on them and consider possible consequences shall we? Lets go 50 to 100 years down the road......." How did you miss that what I wrote following that statement was a "PRETEND SITUATION"??? You did your own disservice by taking what I wrote as a literal truth of what would be 50 to a 100 years from now and responding to it as you did.
Lets address this slippery sloap so you and others seem to like calling it who are VERY APPARENTLY not well read of the history of marriage in the USA and who has been fighting for the same equal rights that hetrosexual unions have always TRADITIONALLY held.
The first, THE VERY FIRST RECORDED court cases of a human relationships that fought for equal status as the hetrosexual union was POLYGAMY. People believing and participating in POLYGAMY have been fighting for their right in courts for equal legal treatment as hetro unions since the early 1900's. They were fighting for their rights for equal treatment LONG BEFORE HOMOSEXUALS began their fight for equal treatment. That fact alone does not make this issue a slippery sloap as the ill and uninformed like to refer to it. Polygamists have been in courts fighting to be recognized as legal in the laws of marriage for a longer time then most even know about for the USA.
If the US courts of various states begin to recognize why same sex unions should be held in equal status as a hetro union to make all fair and well, they will have but no choice to recognize that polygamy has the same legal rights for a marriage certificate that they are amending for same sex couples. But I suppose IF people (maybe yourself included?) and others who think religionists are bigoted and evil and gay bashers because they disagree with same sex marriages being equated with hetro unions...........you and others will become just like those religionists except you will now be the bigoted, evil, polygamy bashers because you don't think it's right they should have the same rights to a marriage cirtificate that you feel should be given to hetros and homos, correct???
See, there is a real gut laugh here because all the people (as you yourself so stated....."as the Christian right hate mongers") making the ruckus/calling names about anti-same sex proponants being evil, bigoted, narrow minded, hate mongerer gay bashers turn right around and DISCRIMINATE to the fullest against polygamists!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
If you or anyone else is going to support same sex marriage rights to be equated with hetros then YOU BETTER well be supportive of polygamy or else you are nothing but a true HYPOCRITE to it's purest definition!!
Following my roll here??? If you support hetro unions and you want homo unions to have the same marriage certificate you HAVE to also support the cause of polygamists or else you have become the very thing you have established that anti-same sex proponants are in your view because you are an anti-polygamist. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/4/2008 2:12:16 PM | Aceofspace asked....
"So, is this a reflection of a general view that tradition is more important than justice, or a specific exception that you feel is warranted for the sake of child-rearing?"
In the eyes of the populace, yes. If you wish to see a prime example of tradition beung changed and slowly being accepted by those that really are against change, watch Fiddler On The Roof. It is not just a story of the Jewish plight in Russia but it is a lesson of how a new generation makes new choices about how things have always been done and they don't like the old way because it is to conforming, to restrictive.
That is the battle that is being fought now. Older generations have a belief of what marriage should be defined as and are not willing to see the definition changed. That older generation represents the other older generations that have kept this time honored traditional definition of marriage and who it pertains to for more then 2000, (read that number) TWO THOUSAND plus years of human thinking, extreme to non-extreme thinking and back again and yet always sticking with that definition in the end. I have given it some thought and research and I cannot find another tradition of humans that has remained so consistant through so many diverse societies for so many thousands of years. No matter if other forms are accepted like polygamy or homosexual unions, the hetro union has been the one accepted way of life BECAUSE it is the ONLY union that begets life. BUT......BUT I repeat to say, with frozen sperm injections and fertilized egg implants the hetro union is now NOT the only way to produce human offspring. Homosexual couples, single females can now produce life without ever needing actual intercourse which as this new form of producing life grows ever more popular, the emphasis on real intercourse between a man and woman in marriage will be less and less needed.
In summary, because of the afore mentioned, marriage shall be redefined to accomadate the NEW types of unions that can produce off spring without intercourse. And polygamy will later then sooner be put under that definition.
As an after thought of my previous post, keep in mind all you anti-polygamists that are so against anyone that is anti-same sex marriage but of whom you support same sex marriage for, YOU have become the very names you call anti-same sex marriage people by being hateful, bigoted, polygamyphobia, hipocrites. How's it feel to wear the very names you slander others with? Huh??
My opinion | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/4/2008 3:09:52 PM | I've been debating this for years and every argument against homosexual marriage ( no matter how eloquently put) all seem to boil down to one thing....
"I don't want them to have it"
Sorry, but in my books that's not a good enough reason to deny any committed couple the same rights and privileges that any other couple would have within a marriage. I don't care if it's against your morals, your religion or if you think people will start marrying their trucks. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/4/2008 5:33:43 PM |
every argument against homosexual marriage ( no matter how eloquently put) all seem to boil down to one thing....
"I don't want them to have it"
Bravo!  Like you, I've been following - and participating in - this debate for years. In all that time, I have never (including in this thread) heard one argument against same-sex marriage, however expressed, that was not rooted in ignorance and/or bigotry. Not one.
Except the "slippery slope" argument; that one is just stupidity. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/5/2008 6:00:38 AM |
If you wish to see a prime example of tradition being changed and slowly being accepted by those that really are against change, watch Fiddler On The Roof. Hmmm. Fiddler on the Roof.
Is that the story about the proud traditionalist father who, after hearing his two oldest daughters' entreaties, eventually agrees to let them go against the long standing tradition of arranged marriages and gives them his blessing to marry the men they love? The same story where despite his flexibility on the first two counts he decides he can't budge on the next daughter's choice to marry outside her race, so she runs off with the guy she loves anyway causing the dad to disown her...his resolve thereby ripping the family apart?
That Fiddler on the Roof?
Never saw it.
Things change and old habits die hard.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
OT: Huzzah for the Supreme Court of California. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 9:00:08 AM |
If the US courts of various states begin to recognize why same sex unions should be held in equal status as a hetro union to make all fair and well, they will have but no choice to recognize that polygamy has the same legal rights for a marriage certificate that they are amending for same sex couples.
You apparently do not understand the meaning of a slippery slope argument. There is a reason why we are all calling it the same thing. It is a fallicious argument. It does not work and is faulty thinking. Your continuing to use it shows where your thinking is.
Allowing a couple to get married regardless of the gender does not translate to the forced legality of polygamy. It just doesnt. Marriage is a legal union, for legal purposes. It is not for procreation. People seem to be doing that just fine without getting married.
BTW Lovely "pretend" situation. WTF?
I find your thinking to be faulty and illogical. You cannot find a reason against it that sticks except to say it could lead to the legalization of polygamy and beastiality. Which is absolutely ridiculous, based in fear and ignorance.
I agree with the "I dont want them to have it". Seems like the only argument you've got. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 9:24:46 AM | I think it may be a misunderstanding. Maybe we need to define slippery slope.
So, here it is.
Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
Examples of Slippery Slope
1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
GLBT marriage has NOTHING to do with Polygamy or bigamy.
Now, if you want to address that issue, and if such a case is brought up, then we can address that. However, it has NOTHING to do with polygamy or bigamy.
As far as your tradition argument goes, well, they were meant to be broken.
Tradition use to be that black were not allowed to own property or interact with whites unless they were ordered to do so.
Tradition use to be that anyone who was born disabled was sent to an institution never to be seen again.
Tradition use to be that women were subservient to men and belonged in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
Tradition use to be to fire old people because they did not have the physical ability to be useful.
Tradition use to be that all people were ruled by one person who received their power either through heredity or from "God."
Tradition use to be to have sex with the guy next to you in the barracks because they felt it brought the ranks closer together.
Tradition use to be to burn someone who had mysterious things happen to them without explanation.
Tradition use to be to torture those who did not profess to be Christians.
Tradition use to be that the family of the bride had to pay off the groom in order for them to become married.
Any other traditions I missed?
Fact of the matter is that traditions are not always right, and like a lot of thing, they are meant to be challenged and/or broken. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 11:27:34 AM | Thanks for the clairification ezzee.
So lets do some steps here.
Tradition (regardless of why) has delegated that the official union recognized within societies world wide is a man and woman. Every society has had their own way of celebrating this union then of any other human union also found acceptable. In recent times most do it with a certificate of marriage of some sort.
We in our time era are re-estabishing who can and who can't have legal rights to this certificate. As it stands, same sex unions are at the top of the list at present fighting to have equal rights to this certificate with hetros.
Now though this in general is a dispute if same sex couples can be equated to this certificate, IN THE LONG RUN when this matter will end up before the Supreme Court of the USA to decide what a definition of marriage should be and who it shall pertain to, the issue will no longer be about the rights of same sex couples. The issue will finally be discussed as to what marriage constitutes regarding humans. To establish who can have access to this certificate...the judges will have to first consider who has been fighting for rights to it and of those who it will not be applicable to. When the issue of polygamy comes before them they will have to show good cause why this form of marriage does not warrant the same rights and priviledges that same sex unions are seeking to have with hetro unions. Before these judges will come proponants of each form of marriage existing, legally or illegally, to show why they should be included in this definition and possibly why the others should or should not be included. So forget the beastality issue I did mention earlier. Let us stick with just human to human relationships that have been accepted as "human unions" for over 2000 years which would include same sex unions and polygamy.
I will be the first to AGREE there is no slippery slope AT PRESENT. But it shall have enabled one to come to be when this issue comes before the US Supreme court and that court has to decide what the definition of marriage should be and for whom it will not be appliable to. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:05:02 PM | You want to preserve the 'sanctity of marriage'?
Then outlaw divorce.
Oh, but that's not the same is it? Because you seem to feel homosexuals are second class as compared to heterosexuals. And you wouldn't dare tell a heterosexual couple what the can or can't do.
It's funny how 'decent' christian types are thinking the most depraved thoughts. We talk gay marriage, and you talk bestiality. Just how the decent family values types listened to 'Louie Louie' by the The Kingsmen and hear the most vile of lyrics that never existed.
Equality and Justice for All*
*Except the gays
Doesn't sound too American does it? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:31:15 PM | get mad baby said....
"Oh, but that's not the same is it? Because you seem to feel homosexuals are second class as compared to heterosexuals. And you wouldn't dare tell a heterosexual couple what the can or can't do."
Who exactly in the thread have stated homosexuals are second class citizens??? Who wouldn't dare tell a hetrosexual couple what they can or can't do???
get mad baby said...
"It's funny how 'decent' christian types are thinking the most depraved thoughts." Your either ignorant of statements made in this thread or just uninformed, which is it? Have you even listened to some of the anti-polygamus, bigoted, hateful, polygamousphobia types in here speak against polygamy who declare they support same sex unions while turning around and brow beating anti-same sex types for doing the same thing???That is funny!! So many hypocrites coming out of the closet....about time.
get mad baby said....
"Doesn't sound too American does it?"
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with being American, Canadian, European, Japanese, etc., etc. It has to do whith what a society is willing to accept and what it won't and finally what the law tells that society it will or won't have to accept. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:51:41 PM | The term " ignornace" is thread warn and ineffective , the left is so tiresome .
"Homo-phobe " is a ridiculous orwellian term .
It seems that in the eyes of the p.c. lefty dummies , morality has become the domain of the left , and meanwhile it is the lefty agenda that has brought in an era of rampant immorality , that's truly ironic .
You'd think the left would do a little reflection and change their stupid ways. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:02:24 PM | The left has reflected.......we've decided you don't define morality for us. Goodness........you're over here calling us stupid too! And crazy!!!
How interesting..... | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:27:28 PM | It's funny how 'decent' christian types are thinking the most depraved thoughts
Myself and others have stated that marriage is between man and woman,this belief transcends all religions.I doubt same sex marriages will ever be accepted in Muslim countries such as Iran.Nobody on this thread(including myself) has bashed homosexuals or said they are second class citizens,many states have civil union/domestic partnerships that give the same rights as married couples.If states allow same sex marriage then they will have to allow bigamy/polygamy,the rules apply to all consenting adults don't they? | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:37:43 PM | The left has reflected.......we've decided you don't define morality for us.
I'm sure I don't . I'm guessing that my morality is more based upon nature and reality.
So....you won't be defining morality by calling those who reject the lefty gay agenda since they sincerely feel it's immoral ? You won't be defining morality for them either , correct?
You must be incensed that the lefties would like to re-define the meaning of marriage by forcing this gay marriage crap down the MAJORITIES throat under the guise of morality?
Yeah , me too . | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:45:30 PM | If you feel they're not second class, and they're not, then why when the topic of gay marriage came up you equated it with bestiality through your childish slippery slope worst case scenario oversimplification excuse for why gay marriage was wrong?
Not like marriage means anything these days, with half ending in divorce, where's the sanctity you speak of?
When in doubt, back to reality. Come out of your fantasy world, put down the rose colored glasses and see the world for the beautiful mess it is. You're telling people that they can't do something, who are you to judge? And if what I'm saying or what other people are doing, hey, forgive me. Let's see how dedicated you are to this premise of forgiveness. Keep your silly little faith to yourself. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:49:56 PM |
"Homo-phobe " is a ridiculous orwellian term .
Yes, but it's one that the bigots wear well. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:51:16 PM |
Not like marriage means anything these days, with half ending in divorce, where's the sanctity you speak of ?
Do you feel that this break down of marriage could be attributed to the "liberalism" promoted in society?
Many people would. It's been anything goes, right?
Is the answer ever more "liberalism" ?
If you have little respect for marriage , then , what's the big fuss ?
I know , it's not about marriage at all , it's about an agenda that has been conditioned in lefties..
Yes, but it's one that the bigots wear well.
Yeah , lefty bigots do wear it well .
Is it biggoted to assert that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homo-phobe" (fears gays) ??
I think that is ridiculous and it is definately bigotry.
bigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
| |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:59:09 PM | How about having an open and accepting mind, instead of ushering in another era of the dark ages. That's what you seem to reflect back on so fondly. The church dictating the lives of the citizenry, that's why marriage was more consistent back then, the church had a stranglehold on the unlearned, uneducated populace. Pardon us progressives for shaking off the shackles of a tyrannical theocracy.
There is some shit I will not eat. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:59:56 PM | Humans are serial monogamists........that's human NATURE. The divorce rate has remained static for decades except in those countries where mistresses are accepted as a matter of course.....ok, ok, I think I just made up that part about the mistresses. There is NO evidence of causal relationships in this context because, if there were, the right would be screaming it from a pulpit higher than the one you're on. 
Obama '08 | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 2:03:14 PM |
How about having an open and accepting mind, instead of ushering in another era of the dark ages. That's what you seem to reflect back on so fondly. The church dictating the lives of the citizenry, that's why marriage was more consistent back then, the church had a stranglehold on the unlearned, uneducated populace. Pardon us progressives for shaking off the shackles of a tyrannical theocracy.
You should take your own advice on open mindedness!
History is full of eras of rampant decadism and "liberalism" ..with always the same result.
You should enlighten yourself as to this crap not being anything new.
Guess what ? , there are many like myself who oppose marriage independant of any organised religion , it's prejudiced and closed minded for you to put us all in a little box. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 2:15:44 PM |
Yeah , lefty bigots do wear it well .
Is it biggoted to assert that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homo-phobe" (fears gays) ??
I think that is ridiculous and it is definately bigotry.
*yawn* | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 5:42:35 PM | | And we march on till this country has more issues with it self. As time goes on more sick things are going to be accepted in this country. No wonder why my friends from Italy laugh at me with all the stuff that is allowed to go on in this country. | |
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 9:15:08 PM | get mad baby wrote....
"If you feel they're not second class, and they're not, then why when the topic of gay marriage came up you equated it with bestiality through your childish slippery slope worst case scenario oversimplification excuse for why gay marriage was wrong?"
If you re-read my posts I didn't ever EQUATE bestiality with hetrosexuality unions, polygamus unions or homosexual unions.
If you re-read my post to understand what was written, I was showing what happens concerning a single topic that has a few or more branches to it and how when you have a single faction held above the rest, sooner or later the other factions are going to want to be given the same equal rights that were denied to them.
In this case hetrosexual unions were and have always been held above any other for rights and privledges world wide. The secondary forms of human unions that have happened but were denied equal time are polygamus unions, homosexual unions and those humans that have wished to be married to things and animals. When I mentioned bestaility I did not (though I didn't state it) just mean a sexual union the strange partake in. I was mainly meaning those types of people, hundreds of thousands I would guess, that have one or more pets whom they treat as a marital partner spending thousands or more a year upon for their comfort, rainment, food and health. These types have already stated in more then one manner if they could be wed to their pet(s) they would do it in an instant.
The point of what I have continously wrote of that slips over the heads of mostly those who are so bigoted against those not agreeing with equality for same sex marriages with hetro unions, is this issue is and will come to be about whom a human can be legally married to and whom that law will exclude.
If anyone wishes to believe there is no catalyst in the making here, I dare you to read up on the history of what caused people to think at one time that women would always be bare foot and pregnate or what caused others to think at one time that only men would rule the goverments of the world or anything else that people 50 to 100 years ago swore would never come to be that was not in acceptance then.
The whole point is about RIGHTS and who has options to them and who are being denied them. The crazy thing is not that mostly religious types have denied same sex unions their day of equalty with hetros but that same sex advocates are now dening polygamous unions their day of equality with same sex unions and hetro unions. THAT is the pot calling the kettle black. THAT is sheer defined hypocrisy. THAT is looking in a mirror to see what they have become that they have long accused the other side of being. | |
|
Home
login 
