web analytics

The Abject Lunacy of Gay Marriage Agitators

I had really thought I had said all I wanted to say about gay marriage, but then a commenter said something that has made it so that I cannot repress this further.  You can see my reply there, but the gist of it is that I feel that what we are seeing in the “gay ‘marriage'” agenda is the final fruition of a completely a-rational manifestation of an entirely feelings-based movement.  I say ‘a-rational’ rather than irrational, because even though the arguments are irrational, that only matters insofar as there is actually an attempt to have an argument–in the logical sense of the word.  If someone is acting based on feelings or instinct, reason and rationality has nothing to do with it.

In a vain attempt that is almost certainly a waste of my time, let me take a moment to illustrate the utter depths of idiocy that we have been driven to regarding gay marriage.  The goal here is not to belittle anyone or beat them, just like the goal of the mother in Baltimore didn’t want to beat her teenage son so much as save him from his own actions.  Likewise, in describing what follows as idiocy, my hope is to fan into flames any tiny sparks of reason that may be left–while it still matters… if it still matters–because what is transpiring is, in any sane universe, most appropriately called idiocy and lunacy.  It is not an insult if it is true, and that is the case here:  we’re just talking about some really, truly, stupid things.  I don’t like using such language, but I do like using accurate language.  I am in the unfortunate position of finding that what I am seeking to describe, if described accurately, requires this brutal description.

I refer, of course to the arguments made by Mary Bonauto to SCOTUS in the recent gay marriage case, Obergefell vs. Hodges.  I’m probably even going to take the unprecedented step of sending this blog entry to Bonauto, in the baseless hope that some flicker of reasoning might go off and we can all be spared later monstrosities from appearing in oral arguments.

Justice Alito:  “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”

Now, this is the question that has been asked of gay marriage proponents from the very beginning.  You see, there are self-evident grounds for defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  I hate to be crass, but we are faced here with a strange thing:  the people who tend to be the sort to back gay marriage are also the kind who think sex education–early and often–is a good idea, and yet these same seem to be unaware of the fact that boys have penises and girls have vaginas;  only one penis will fit in a vagina at a time, and when this happens, the sperm that is ejaculated  from the man will meet and have a merry time with egg provided by the woman, and–get this!–an entirely new human will be created.  These new humans we call children, or babies (if wanted; otherwise we call them fetuses, and we destroy them for any damned reason we wish).  Up until recent technological advances, there was no other way for new humans to be made.

Forgive me for making this as clear as it can be made, but it seems to me that propriety and politeness has obscured certain facts:  a penis inserted inside an anus will not create a new human.  Two vaginas in close, physical proximity will not create a new human.

Thus, there is something entirely non-arbitrary and objective about the male-female sexual relation, having nothing to do with love (see:  children conceived in rape), and everything to do with simple, basic, biological facts.  When progeny is produced and brought to term, it must be cared for, else it will DIE.  It has likewise been a true fact of human nature that the two individuals deemed most obviously suited to raise particular children are the two particulars that created those particular children in the first place.  We call them parents, and this new kind of relation, the Family.  Again, this is thoroughly grounded in reality.

I am not being mean, or unsympathetic, or uncaring, or, well, Republican, by pointing out these basic truths about REALITY.  I have ‘religious’ views on this, but what I am describing is not in the least bit ‘religious.’  There is nothing arbitrary about this framework.  The framework spontaneously emerges whenever a man and a woman have sex and a child is created.  A child is never created when a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but we evidently live in a society where NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

Now we ask ourselves, given these non-arbitrary REALITIES, on what possible basis could the state justify imposing itself on such a framework?  I mean, this kind of thing is going to happen whether the government gets involved or not.  Individual men are going to identify individual women, and lifelong monogamous relationships will form in which it will often be the case that new humans will be created, whether the state likes it or not.  That’s because we’re talking about a reality that belongs to the order of creation.  Marriage is not an institution so much as the word we use to describe a phenomena we observe, just like gravity is not an institution, but instead the word we use to describe what happens when an apple falls onto Newton’s head.   You can re-define ‘gravity’ to mean “what happens when water boils” but there will still be the original phenomena, but without its own word to describe it.  Gays may eventually be given the legal right to ‘marry’ but whatever that means, it will have NOTHING to do with the original phenomena, which will still exist and will always exist; a new word will have to be invented to describe it (which liberals will naturally seek to co-opt ASAP, out of a visceral urge to fight any kind of ‘discrimination’), when we had a perfectly good word for it all along, but a ‘rose by any other name is still a rose.’  All this being the case, we ask again, what on earth does the state have to do with any of this?

It is purely pragmatic:  sometimes, the man or the woman or both will die, leaving their offspring to fend for itself–that is, it will DIE.  Who will take care of this orphan?  Obviously the extended family is the natural place to look, and this works out to a degree, provided members of the extended family can be identified, and so on.  In the real world, a community may discover that there are children for whom no caregiver can be discovered, and not wanting to just snuff the orphan out (ie, the ‘new human’ described above), has to do something.  Similarly, it is sometimes the case that the man or the woman will die, and there will be the matter of their belongings.  What shall be done with them?  Well, again, since everybody dies (at least once), here again is a phenomena that is going to happen whether there is a community (read: the state) or not.  There are going to be belongings left over when people die.  Again, naturally the extended family is going to be looked at, with the immediate descendents being the most obvious first place to begin: but these may not yet be old enough to manage the inherited estate.

These are all entirely pragmatic concerns.  You can call me mean, or mean-spirited, or say that I lack empathy, or whatever else you want, and all it would mean is that YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.  The problem is all YOU.  I’m not being mean or callous in the slightest by pointing out the non-arbitrary, objective (that is, realities that exist apart from whatever I feel about them) aspects of REALITY.  And you can re-define things or call them whatever you want, but these realities are not going to disappear.  Do you know why not?  Because they are realities.

Now, these pragmatic concerns have historically been precisely the reason why the state has gotten involved in marriage and the family in the first place.  Going back centuries, now, there was common law that arose that reflected how various communities dealt with these issues, and eventually (eg, under Blackstone) these were codified.  I am not here saying that this was a good idea, or that in fact it was proper for the state to get involved.  In fact, hindsight being 20/20, I think it was probably a bad idea.  At most, I think, these concerns should never have been allowed to be codified at a level beyond say, the county.  But I understand why it moved to the state level and then the Federal level.  The point, though, is that it was because of disputed and/or abandoned and/or orphaned children and property that was the basis for government involvement in this question.

But what if we were talking about relationships where no new defenseless humans are created?  What might be the basis for state interest then?  What possible parameters could conceivably be needed to handle the property that, say, corporate law or what not couldn’t cover?  More to the point, are the people who will have to deal with the fallout from broken families be allowed to govern themselves?  Or are they just going to be MADE to PAY, MADE to COMPLY, MADE to AFFIRM, whatever some Federal court or bureaucrat dictates?  If it is the latter (and it has been the latter for some time), the Republic is a Republic in Name Only.

So, now Bonauto steps up to the plate to take a swing at Alito’s pitch:

MS. BONAUTO:  I believe so, Your Honor.

JUSTICE ALITO:  What would be the reason?

MS. BONAUTO:  There’d be two.  One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons.

Bless Scalia, who replies, “Well, I didn’t understand your answer.”  The answer is practically incomprehensible; it should make us nervous if anyone did understand it.  Where on earth does ‘coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships’ play into this, given what they are proposing to do?  Nonetheless, she is clearly appealing to the fact that it would be practically unworkable for the state to manage such a thing.  Kind of like how it is already unworkable to decide who should take care of a child when it was carried to term by a surrogate mother paid for by two gay men* who then go on to get divorced; and what if neither of the men provided the necessary sperm in the first place (perhaps due to fertility problems) so that neither of them have a non-arbitrary connection to that child?  How does all this get sorted out in any sane, rational basis?  Oh, wait a minute.  I’m a bigot, I guess, just for asking the question.

At any rate, her argument reflects precisely the same concerns that my argument does.  Except maybe the “coercion and consent” thing.  That was just weird.

So, Scalia and Alito press her, and finally she says:

MS. BONAUTO:  Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.

Oh no she didn’t.

So, lets get this straight.  Bonauto is party to a lawsuit that has the specific purpose of overturning the results from the last time “the States” ‘rushed in’ says that the results won’t get any crazier because… “the States would rush in”!

Are people flippin’ nuts?  I mean, are you KIDDING ME?  We’re not talking about some wayward reactionary response by some county government or an isolated state.  The laws and amendments that Bonauto are hoping will be reversed were the result of the efforts of tens of millions of Americans, working their way through the tedious processes required in order to pass actual amendments to their state constitutions, etc.  These very same people, she says, will–properly–preserve the ‘traditional’ understanding of “marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.”

Please.  Please stop me.  I am currently slamming my head against the wall, and cannot type through the blood spurts.  The abject stupidity of this argument, given what they are trying to do in their case, is mind-blowing.

The very thing that she wishes to overthrow is the thing she says will prevent increasingly creative relationships!

I wish that Alito or Scalia would have called attention to this lunacy.  I mean, at that point, there is nothing left to say.  End the hearing and go home:  “The people have the right to govern themselves; which they did, and you expect that they will quite properly do again.  You just would have them govern differently–well, then how about YOU try to get your own legislation passed, instead of getting a handful of men and women (say, NINE) to do your dirty work in overthrowing what MILLIONS have presently concluded.”

Because basically what we learn here is that her whole argument really amounts to, “We just don’t feel like those kinds of relationships are legitimate whereas we feel these ones are, so we’ll support government limitations on the former rather than the latter.”  There is no principled reason for placing limitations on the former.  Some further Bonauto can be expected to make this very point; indeed, with this kind of cognitive dissonance in play, we can practically expect Bonauto herself to be the one to make that argument some day.

Do we really have to take this seriously?  Are we really going to utterly transform society and completely obliterate the legislative wills of millions of Americans on the basis of such specious reasoning?

Alas, it appears that this is precisely going to be the case.

And let me just say that in a contest between reality and what we wish is true about reality, reality wins every time.  A society that has decided to live in fantasy-land is not a society that will be along for very long.

You hear arguments that no harm will come to the rest of us if gays are married.  I think this is wrong for a number of demonstrable reasons that have already come to light (ie, people being put out of business), but it is wrong for another reason:  a nation that is governed on feelings or fantasy is one that will be governed right into the ground.  And I, and my family, will have to pay the price for that incompetence just like everyone else will.

It’s time to grow up, friends.  If you think you have an argument to make, then make it.  Get your laws passed.  Persuade your fellow man in your local community.  Don’t think you can change reality by calling the realists bigots.  It won’t work, because reality is reality for a reason:  it’s reality.

* Just as a reminder for our liberal sex-education enthusiasts:  gay men cannot conceive children solely through the use of their own ‘equipment.’

 

Share

27 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Touche. I guess we are long overdue for high-school classes in logical reasoning and critical thinking. Or is that too “conservative” of me?

    • Timaahy on May 3, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

    Suppose that the state allows one man and one woman to marry, and a couple consisting of two men apply for a marriage licence. Would there be any ground for denying them a licence?

    The point being, if the slippery slope exists, why does it not start with heterosexual marriage?

    • Anthony on May 3, 2015 at 8:50 pm
      Author

    “Would there be any ground for denying them a licence?”

    vs

    “why does it not start with heterosexual marriage?”

    These questions assume that the state’s interest in ‘marriage’ is the same in both cases. The question you need to be asking is, “What is the state’s interest in being involved in ‘marriage’ at all?. This very post answers that question in regards to the latter, and in doing so answers it for the the former.

    As I have said over and over again, my opinion is that if the grounds that the state appealed to re: traditional marriage is dropped, then the state should get out of the ‘marriage’ business completely.

    I would also raise an objection to the notion that the state could allow or disallow ‘marriage.’ As I said in my post, there will always be men and women forming lifelong monogamous relationships, often with the clear intent to bring children into the world. This we call marriage. If you decide to extend the term to cover others, all this does is impoverish the language, forcing us to come up with a new word to cover something that’s always going to happen, and always be distinctive, because it reflects a non-arbitrary and objective reality.

    I think history has shown pretty clearly that the state does not manage its interest in ‘marriage’ very well, thus my statement that it should never have done so, except perhaps in very limited fashion, and then only at the local level.

    • Timaahy on May 3, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    Yes, there will always be men and women forming lifelong monogamous relationships, and there will always be men and women who fail to fulfill that ideal (insofar as it is an ‘ideal’). Those people will want to go their separate ways. Those people will have assets, and possibly children. Being humans, it is likely that they will disagree on how best to divide the assets, or care for the children. For that reason, at least, it is probably necessary that the state is involved.

    But I guess that is possible without having a legal contract called “marriage”. Perhaps you’re right. Maybe we just do away with the whole thing.

    If you decide to extend the term to cover others, all this does is impoverish the language, forcing us to come up with a new word to cover something that’s always going to happen

    This sounds an awful lot like *gasp* a feeling! 🙂

    Words change meaning over time. It’s not that big of a deal.

    Just look at the word “voter”, for example. Or, “wife”, even.

    • Timaahy on May 3, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Not to mention that fact that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not affect you personally. I know marriage equality opponents are found of saying otherwise, but I’m yet to see anything that amounts to more than a “feeling”.

    • Anthony on May 3, 2015 at 10:39 pm
      Author

    “For that reason, at least, it is probably necessary that the state is involved.”

    Isn’t this what I said in the original post?

    It is precisely for these reasons that the ‘state’ got involved, although its important to understand the route that it did so: common law. In other words, local communities have always had to grapple with these issues. In the 1800s this common law was codified, which is not intrinsically bad, but it quickly led to adoption at ever higher levels of government, with host of abuses that always seems to accompany higher levels of government.

    That’s why I said in the original post that it would be best to return this to the level of the local community, say, the ‘county.’ Government, perhaps, but not the ‘state.’

    “But I guess that is possible without having a legal contract called “marriage”. Perhaps you’re right. Maybe we just do away with the whole thing.”

    I’m going to put this on a plaque and frame it on my wall.

    “This sounds an awful lot like *gasp* a feeling! :-)”

    lol not even close.

    “Words change meaning over time. It’s not that big of a deal.”

    But the underlying phenomena doesn’t. That’s the point.

    “Not to mention that fact that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not affect you personally.”

    That’s not true. It is demonstrably not true for a number of people who have been targeted for destruction because of gay marriage… usually because gay marriage folks INSIST that everyone participants in their activity, and God forbid anyone state that they believe it is evil. But, as state in the original post, a nation governed by people thoroughly out of touch with reality will certainly make catastrophic decisions. It would be a pipe dream on my part to think these catastrophic decisions won’t affect me.

    Pretend that my last name was Huguenin. Now, do you think your statement is true? Is it really the case that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not affect me, Mr. Hugeunin, personally? Or is that just a ‘feeling’ that it appears I now have to pay several thousands of dollars in fines for my refusal to participate in the gay ‘marriage’ ceremony, or is it reality?

    • Anthony on May 6, 2015 at 8:29 am
      Author

    I didn’t have any particular story in mind when I wrote in the original post:

    “Kind of like how it is already unworkable to decide who should take care of a child when it was carried to term by a surrogate mother paid for by two gay men* who then go on to get divorced; and what if neither of the men provided the necessary sperm in the first place (perhaps due to fertility problems) so that neither of them have a non-arbitrary connection to that child? How does all this get sorted out in any sane, rational basis? Oh, wait a minute. I’m a bigot, I guess, just for asking the question.”

    But then there is this:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32603514

    In this case there is at least the fact that custody was given to the biological father. But now what if the father and his gay partner separate? Who gets custody, then? Isn’t it conceivable that the judge could just as easily decide it is in the child’s best interests to grow up in the custody of the gay partner, which is not at all biologically connected to the child? (This has already happened in the US)

    Tim, how would you feel if a judge decided that the child that is biologically your offspring is better raised by another man?

    Such are the things that can happen when the decision making process is ripped from the foundations of non-arbitrary and objective realities.

    • Anthony on May 7, 2015 at 7:24 am
      Author

    And then there is THIS:

    “‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

    But why not 10?

    “‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’”

    But that’s obviously just his subjective opinion.

    This was juicy:

    “‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’”

    Ah right. The biology is “largely a social and cultural construction.” Right.

    But as usual, you libs admit too much:

    “It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way.”

    But of course,

    “‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’”

    Ah, right! Though something as benign as reading to your kid at night has a measurable impact on the well-being of a child, having the kid grow up with two dads or two moms won’t have an impact at all! And we know, don’t we! We’ve been doing gay marriages for all of 10-15 years and we’re so smart we just KNOW what the impact is going to be when all these kids come of age! Cuz we smert and edumated, not like u conservatives; we don’t no have no need for facts when we haf empathy!

    • Timaahy on May 7, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    Do you know that the people who raised you are your biological parents?

    I don’t.

    • Anthony on May 7, 2015 at 6:39 pm
      Author

    Irrelevant.

    Stay focused.

    • Timaahy on May 7, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    Why is it irrelevant?

    • Anthony on May 7, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      Author

    Why is it relevant?

    A. The question was asked, why not 4 parents?

    B. The answer was given: the states would step in.

    C. But the states already stepped in, which is precisely what she wants to have overturned.

    The only relevant question is WHY shouldn’t a family consist of 2, 3, 4, or 10 parents, if you’ve stripped away the traditional concept?

    You say: “Do you know that the people who raised you are your biological parents? I don’t.”

    I say: “Great. So the biology isn’t the important point. Why not 10 parents then?”

    You say: _______________

    And don’t say “The people will decide!” See C. above.

    • Timaahy on May 7, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    You’re making it out like there is a bunch of people out there trying to decide how many parents a child should have. It’s not like that at all.

    • Anthony on May 8, 2015 at 5:30 am
      Author

    “‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.”

    Of course there is. Where do you live? Under a rock? lol 😉

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 1:18 am

    Yes, I live under a rock. And under that rock, there is a difference between “could” and “should”. 🙂

    • Anthony on May 14, 2015 at 5:33 am
      Author

    Sure. But you’ve moved the goal posts. Your most immediate, which mine was in reply to, suggest that there aren’t people trying to decide that question. Well, the article itself (May 7, 2015 at 7:24 am) has the person deciding that question. And certain members of SCOTUS itself seems to think their verdict will have a bearing on that question.

    Of course its under discussion. Of course. The only time it “isn’t” is by fiat, when the propaganda requires it, such as in this piece:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-awkward-moments-117444.html

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/04/28/marriage_equality_arguments_first_reaction_ginsburg_strikes_kennedy_wavers.html

    Looks like you bought the propaganda, yourself.

    Many other things will follow from gay marriage as a matter of course. Here’s what will happen: a goodly portion of the things that people pointed out would be the logical outcome would actually come to pass. These are the things that people like yourself and DH and many others of your type denied would ever happen, insisting that they had no connection or relationship, blah blah blah blah. After they actually happen, people will say “I told you so.” At that time, ya’ll will say, “we never said that. And at any rate, why shouldn’t we consider X (whatever the thing in question is)? After all, as a society we accept gay marriage.”

    Will be fun to watch, in a sad, terribly pathetic way.

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 6:06 am

    I haven’t shifted anything. You said “The only relevant question is WHY shouldn’t a family consist of 2, 3, 4, or 10 parents, if you’ve stripped away the traditional concept?”

    And you are almost right. I haven’t ever said that I am against state recognition of polygamous relationships, for example, and I am willing to consider it. But if I do, it won’t be because we’ve allowed same sex marriage.

    • End Bringer on May 14, 2015 at 6:34 am

    See, Timmy? You’re already gearing up to accept polygamy now. It’ll only be a matter of time before you start considering having sexual relationships and marrying siblings, animals, inanimate objects, currently considered underage children, etc. etc. just as valid.

    And it’ll be precisely because same-sex “marriage” is allowed. More specificly it will be because you fully bought into this insanity that marriage is a purely invented social construct that can be changed at a society’s whim, rather than an objective phenomenon that is the foundation of the family that occurs regardless of what society does; and that the same arguments and tactics that justified same-sex “marriage” can justify a slew of other potential relationships.

    So, why SHOULDN’T the State recognize a man marrying his dog? After all, it’s not hurting anyone, is it? The two parties aren’t unconsenting, right? That children can’t be inherently produced is irrelevant, right? These are all the reasons ‘same-sex marriage’ is accepted, so why SHOULDN’T beastiality be recognized for the same reasons too?

    • Anthony on May 14, 2015 at 11:36 am
      Author

    “I haven’t shifted anything.”

    Yes, you did.

    “You said “The only relevant question is WHY shouldn’t a family consist of 2, 3, 4, or 10 parents, if you’ve stripped away the traditional concept?””

    That’s true. But that’s not what you replied to. You replied to me saying, “Of course there is. Where do you live? Under a rock? lol”

    Which was a response to something you said, which immediately preceded it:

    “You’re making it out like there is a bunch of people out there trying to decide how many parents a child should have. It’s not like that at all.”

    If your words mean anything, they mean that you object to my characterization that this is a thing being talked about, but its not like that. To which I replied with a direct quote from the linked article which provided direct evidence that your assertion was wrong. That quote was:

    “‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.”

    THEN, you say “And under that rock, there is a difference between “could” and “should””

    Which is totally distinct from whether or not people are actually talking about it, which is the statement you initially took issue with, and which I defended.

    So, its not being talked about, says you, and as proof you submit that there is a difference between could and should.

    Maybe that is not moving the goal posts. Maybe its just rank irrationality. 🙂 Whatever it is, it throws cold water on any hope for a conversation (in my opinion) since any meaningful conversation requires that I reply to what you actually say and you reply to what I actually say, and you don’t randomly skip around as it suits you (ie, “”You said “The only relevant question is WHY shouldn’t a family consist of 2, 3, 4, or 10 parents, if you’ve stripped away the traditional concept?”””

    After all, you did say, “The pretend crisis of the boats has given way to the pretend crisis of Islamisation and anxiety over a war that is being fought thousands of miles away over territory that wouldn’t have anything to do with us if we hadn’t helped invade it.”

    Right? RIGHT?

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    Whatever it is, it throws cold water on any hope for a conversation (in my opinion) since any meaningful conversation requires that I reply to what you actually say and you reply to what I actually say, and you don’t randomly skip around as it suits you

    Or, it could be a simple misunderstanding. What I meant by my original comment was that you’re acting like the government is plotting to enact statutes to force children to have 8 parents. There is a big difference between that and some random muppet spouting rubbish on the internet. Just as there is a big difference between saying “having three parents really isn’t the worst thing that can happen” (could) and “YOU MUST HAVE THREE PARENTS” (should).

    You know, SJ, sometimes you might like to consider that Danny and I aren’t just sitting here trying to figure out new ways to enrage you. Sometimes we just misunderstand each other. Like you just did.

    After all, you did say, “The pretend crisis of the boats has given way to the pretend crisis of Islamisation and anxiety over a war that is being fought thousands of miles away over territory that wouldn’t have anything to do with us if we hadn’t helped invade it.”

    No, actually, I didn’t say that. That was the other author on my blog.

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    See, Timmy? You’re already gearing up to accept polygamy now.

    HAHAHAAAAAAA

    Ah EB… you are such a pillock.

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    You’re actually looking at it backwards. Don’t look down the slippery slope, turn around and look back up.

    I’m guessing that won’t mean anything to you, though, because you’re a pillock, so I’ll make it a bit easier for you.

    It’s actually your side that has the explaining to do. You guys are the ones that put forward reasons X, Y and Z for heterosexual marriage, and we are the ones that have pointed out that if those are the reasons for allowing heterosexual marriage, then there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage. You then turn around and say “Well if you allow same-sex marriage what’s to stop someone marrying their dog”.

    It beggars belief.

    • Anthony on May 14, 2015 at 8:01 pm
      Author

    lol @ your remarks to EB. I’ve got about ten posts that explain that that is dead wrong. But on to it.

    “Or, it could be a simple misunderstanding.” “Danny and I aren’t just sitting here trying to figure out new ways to enrage you.”

    Ha! Perhaps I would be more inclined to consider that it was a misunderstanding if you didn’t stand by your remark: “I haven’t shifted anything.” The next time we have a ‘misunderstanding’ perhaps say, instead, “Let me clarify…”

    “What I meant by my original comment was that you’re acting like the government is plotting to enact statutes to force children to have 8 parents.”

    A. You know that this isn’t the case, how? I make the arguments I make because I’ve taken time to investigate and research the matter. You?
    B. Actually, I don’t see the ‘government’ plotting here. Certainly, there are people plotting. I see a connection that you don’t:

    “There is a big difference between that and some random muppet spouting rubbish on the internet.”

    This ‘random muppet’ is a respected scholar. I have already posted his CV on the corresponding FB conversation, but here it is in case you didn’t see it: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/swift/main_cv.doc

    Yea, real ‘muppet’ there.

    The philosophies of the academics in one age become the policies of the next.

    “Just as there is a big difference between saying “having three parents really isn’t the worst thing that can happen” (could) and “YOU MUST HAVE THREE PARENTS” (should).”

    I have no problem understanding this, but this is not the issue that has me on fire. Who decides the ‘should’? Just you, or do I get to say? Just the gay activists, or can the tens of millions who went through the effort to pass laws, referendums, amendments, and so on, also have a say?

    If the gay activists want to go out and win popular support for their view and convert it into legislative realities, I say more power to them. However, their use of the judiciary to get what they want (convincing 3 people here, or 7 people there, or 9 people here… literally…) lays an obvious precedent for the day that they wish to say “NO! We will NOT allow 8 parents!” All the Octo-parents need to do is go to the courts to get what they want, overruling what the gay activists and liberals like yourself said would “never happen.”

    Not that it would go to court, of course. You can say what you want, but if such a day came, I’m pretty sure you’d just give out a great big yawn.

    “No, actually, I didn’t say that. That was the other author on my blog.”

    Dang. Thought I had you there. 😉

    • End Bringer on May 14, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    Your responses would be extremely humorous Timy, except when one realizes that you really do believe you are making a rational and coherent argument. Then it just becomes depressing.

    It’s clear you have no argument, and that this is because your position truly has no rational basis. As noted before (and has become extremely obvious as you continue posting) your position is purely defined by your subjective and highly fickle “feelings.”

    And since your position is clearly not based on reason, it is self-evident the ability to reason with you is ultimately futile.

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    The next time we have a ‘misunderstanding’ perhaps say, instead, “Let me clarify…”

    That’s what “What I meant by my original comment” means!

    If the gay activists want to go out and win popular support for their view and convert it into legislative realities, I say more power to them.

    That’s not reeeeeeeeally how you feel, is it…?

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 10:22 pm

    HAHAAA… ahhh EB… I love it when you try and sound smart!

    You’re just stating that I’m being irrational though, aren’t you. And the fact that you think my arguments boil down to feelings shows that you haven’t really considered my position at all (as also demonstrated by your recent inability to articulate the position you oppose). Because it’s actually your position comes down to feelings. The feeling that the bible is the divinely inspired word of god. And the feeling that your interpretation of that unimaginative hodge-podge of inconsistencies is the right one.

    Meanwhile, you continue to insist that marriage is for heterosexual couples to have children, apart from all the heterosexual couples that don’t want or can’t have children. And I’m the irrational one.

    • Timaahy on May 14, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    The philosophies of the academics in one age become the policies of the next.

    Which is why, of course, that the family is now extinct (thanks Socrates!), and eugenics is alive and well (thanks Darwin!).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

7 + nine =