Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[Josh_LA]

By your logic then, gee, none of us needs to follow the Constitution either or any laws. We didn't write them...so we shouldn't have any responsibility for following them either?

Yes, exactly.

You should be held accountable for EVERYTHING you do and say, regardless of whether you authored the saying. You should be accountable for what you do regardless of whether it's against the law, the Bible, the COnstitution or your stupid excuse.

 

[Josh_LA]

"If you want to protect your children from the corrupt liberal education system, KEEP THEM OUT, PERIOD. Don't wait for them to teach that gay marriage is ok and Mexican border jumpers are our equals when they're already teaching evolution, sharing is caring, and refusing to lead prayer."

They already teach gay marriage as not just okay, but a valid option to Kindergarten and 1st graders in CA schools, there is no waiting...it is here and has been here. Clearly you are not as current on this topic as you think you may be...

Actually, I AM, I just don't have a problem with it. Teaching children gays are OK is no worse than teaching blacks and Hispanics are to be treated equally. Unless "protecting marriage" specifically makes it illegal to teach what marriage is in schools, it's useless. So either you make it a thought crime, or you're not making any difference.

 

[ItsTime]

Please list and I will give you a better way to deal with these issues than "banning" a word.


This situation is fricking stupid. I just got an e-mail from my mom:


"Already in CA when you take out a marriage license it now says "Party 1" and "Party 2" instead of "Husband" and "Wife".
There will be a cascade of lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money.
Churches will be forced to have same sex marriages or their tax status will be changed.
One lawsuit that has already come to court and been decided makes it mandatory for all health clinics in CA to perform invitro(sic) fertilization for same sex couples even if the clinic doesn't believe in it. Just like in MA the Catholic Church dissolved its adoption agencies because they are forced to give babies to same sex couples."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA




WTF?!!

It seems like a vote "Yes" or "No" is a vote for fascism

Either that, or there is some major scare mongering going on here.

I think that is where the term "liberal fascism" comes from

 

[Josh_LA]

Just curious, where do/did you go to school: public institution, private institution, or "private school" at home?

I went to school in a public insitution, and I was fortunate enough to have good parents that taught me better things. I don't believe our education is either completely bad or completely good, there are both.

 

[Josh_LA]

I think that is where the term "liberal fascism" comes from

can we have a discussion without using the terms Fascism, Nazi, Statist, Bureaucrat, Hitler, Communist??

I tried using "hatred" to describe the worst of us, do we need to resort to comparison when things are so bad already?

 

[dannno]

Well I'm voting "No" but it just pisses me off because I know if the vote goes that direction I'm going to have to then put effort into protecting people's freedom of religion from misguided homosexuals and greedy attorneys

 

[Josh_LA]

I'm not sure if you are really for one side or another or just playing devil's advocate. To be honest, since I do teach at home, nurse a baby, run a household, etc....don't have a whole lot of time to go back and forth on this. I'm guessing you are in your teens or twenties and have a bit more time....if so, I remember the days....wasn't that long ago. It's been fun nonetheless.

I do take a side, I believe the whole debate is hatred and equality, wrapped in semantics. I don't believe there's anything wrong with hatred or equality, and surely lots of it has to do with the fact society and laws ALREADY favor and encourage marriage, thus gays want the same. I believe semantic debate is hypocritical and blinds us from the real issues. I believe people should speak their mind, not back their beliefs with religious teachings if what they say is indeed reasonable.

I did find the comment quoted below to lucius interesting. I think I've seen you argue this before...alluding to eugenics being okay. Perhaps you are with the "over-population" crowd too. Have you read 'A Brave New World' and 'A Brave New World Revisited' by Aldus Huxley? If not, suggest you do. Introducing sex-ed concepts from K & 1 grades doesn't help the world become free from slavery either. Anyway, I'd beg to differ on one of your comments, I think for some they may be easier to control when they are "in need of help for your children"....but that is assuming parents need help for their children. I could argue I've seen just as many people that are alone that are just as dependent on that same "help" that enslaves them. For some, children are the "wake-up" call that produces a great understanding of freedom and therefore then fight even harder to establish a new lineage of education in that matter.

I'm not exactly with the overpopulation crowd, but I do believe that it's not wrong to consider some style of eugenics, some style of population control IF some facts are present and IF there are some good results. It's not black and white, we should allow gray areas.

My point is, when you have a child, you're much easier to control because you have a reason to care for another thing, a new worry, a hostage against you someday. This does NOT work the same for other people, but I do believe not breeding and dying young are BAD for slavery.

 

[Josh_LA]

Well I'm voting "No" but it just pisses me off because I know if the vote goes that direction I'm going to have to then put effort into protecting people's freedom of religion from misguided homosexuals and greedy attorneys

fights are never over that easily. but you should understand that voting YES on propositions almost always introduces new laws and more government power.

 

[Pericles]

I must be an idiot for jumping into this thread because any sort of rational public policy is not the real goal for proponents and opponents. Both want to force their views on other citizens.

Consider this -
1. This is a state issue unless the Constitution is amended.

2. Each religion or group with a viewpoint can define marriage, as they wish, but already established precedent (Mormons) is that the civil view will be the rule.

3. The civil rule has been the minimum requirement to show how property rights and responsibilities are transferred from generation to generation (creation of legal heirs), within a cultural framework limitation (no incest - however incest might be defined).

4. Changing the principle of marriage from one male one female definition to a civil right that belongs to a person has the following implications because the definition changes from minimum necessity to produce children.
(A) Why is the limit two people?
(B) Are incest limits then a violation of civil rights? Two brothers OK, two sisters OK, brother and sister not OK?

I suggest that if you answer in the affirmative to either (A) or (B), your interest in the matter is other than a civil rights issue.

 

[nodope0695]

Do I agree with gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle as a whole? NO. But that doesn't mean if for me, or the government, to tell people how to live. If two gays want to get married, does it threaten my life, liberty, property? NO.

Therefore, if they want to do it, then let 'em. It is not for me to judge - that is for a higher power.

 

[lucius]

Obviously you've not seen Idiocracy.

Respecting retards as people makes societies and minorities WORSE, its only in our PC filter today that we find it wrong to say NOT ALL LIVES ARE EQUAL AND NOT ALL LIVES ARE BETTER THAN DEATH (just ask Henry). Dying young is BAD for slavery, slave owners WANT their machines to last as long as they can. Breeding CREATES slaves, unless a person is intelligent enough to control himself, you're much easier to control when you're in need of help for your children than when you're alone. WRONG ON ALL COUNTS FOR SLAVERY.

Nobody "PROMOTES" single families as if it's better than married couples, they promote respect for single families as appreciation and "better than nothing".

'The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?'

- Author unkown, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116

This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of 'knowledge' or, in Huxley's own words, a 'scientific dictatorship.'

I see this argument as a facet of a scientific dictatorship, which is being weaved around us. Start with a few definitions:

retard: check: slow the growth or development of.

policy agenda is a list of subjects or problems to which people inside and outside government are paying serious attention to at any given time.

The premise of a scientific dictatorship is that there are elite who create/shape/direct policy agenda.

It is also policy agenda to have a 90% reduction of world population within two generations--mortality is not a factor.

Redefine retard as "inability to bond with a member of the opposite sex for purposes of procreation." Destroying marriage and family was a plank in their Communist Manifesto (1848) and now is part of this NWO. The agenda is to destroy all "forces of collective strength" for control.

Can you spot a trend?

The American marriage rate has dropped almost 50% since 1970. Thirty seven percent of American children do not live with both biological parents, the highest percentage among Western nations, compared to 9% in 1965.

Almost 40% of children were born out of wedlock in 2005 compared to 8% in 1965.

Only one-in-four households consist of married couples with children, compared to two-in-four in 1960.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," says Rutgers Sociology Professor David Popenoe.

Let's talk about this minority lifestyle:

Marriage has been redefined to include gays despite the fact that only ten percent avail themselves. Let's say that generously four percent of the population is gay. (Ten percent of that is .4% )

It's not about extending "equal rights" to .4% of the population, but about redefining 'norms' of society, ie. more social engineering.

A[strategy] might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

– Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

Once again Josh, not 'what if's', but 'what is'...

Original sources:

Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's', by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word.

'Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far' by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.: interesting/logical Darwinian argument.

All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey:

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

Source: Henry Makow, Ph.D.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You're saying that as if every other child in the world had a choice or is 100% satisfied with their parents. Denies a child? Who owes a child ANY care or love?

The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.

It may be just as good/bad as a single parent, so what can be worse to have an extra helper for money or company?

The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You're saying that as if every other child in the world had a choice or is 100% satisfied with their parents. Denies a child? Who owes a child ANY care or love?

The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.

It may be just as good/bad as a single parent, so what can be worse to have an extra helper for money or company?

The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.

 

[H Roark]

The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment. The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place. I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you? You can't move forward if you're working backwards.

Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"

 

[Josh_LA]

The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment. The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place. I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you? You can't move forward if you're working backwards.

Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"

THANK YOU. But I don't find it ironic, some libertarians are just stupid.

 

[Josh_LA]

The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.

Yes, less enforce that. No communities don't owe any protection, only socialists believe that.

The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.

We sure don't need the state to jump in and promote ANY type of family, adopted, single, or gay, the state does not owe any child any type of family, it's not the state's fault the child's parents died or walked away. Nor is it anybody's fault some nice people are willing to be good parents (that are better than nothing). Children have no rights to choose what they want, if they don't like it they can run away and feed themselves.

There is no legitimizing gay marriage any more than there is respect for gay lifestyle, either gays are people, or they are not, what difference does it make whether gays are married or not? They obviously love another and love sex as much as we do.

So we should make it UNACCEPTABLE to make women single mothers, and make some incentive for women who marry men just for the sake of marriage (guess what, that's called taking advantage of socialism, which many gays ARE going for)?

 

[Josh_LA]

I must be an idiot for jumping into this thread because any sort of rational public policy is not the real goal for proponents and opponents. Both want to force their views on other citizens.

agreed, which is why I don't think a Proposition is going to do anything, certainly nothing good and nothing to further liberty.

 

[Josh_LA]

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:
\.

Just because I see a trend doesn't mean I agree it's completely bad.

What Huxley wrote, what Hitler used, what Sanger promoted, are not all bad things.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment. The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place. I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you? You can't move forward if you're working backwards.

Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"

Sad when so-called libertarians argue for any kind of "legal" marriage. From my understanding of laissez-faire, government has no damn business being involved with marriage anyway.

 

[Josh_LA]

Sad when so-called libertarians argue for any kind of "legal" marriage. From my understanding of laissez-faire, government has no damn business being involved with marriage anyway.

Not sad, some people just believe their freedom is threatened by gays or their future is doomed if gays are equally protected and respected.