Posted by Tina
Climate change reminds me of that character, Seymore, in The Little Shop of Horrors. Seymore makes friends with a cute little green plant that attracts a lot of attention but before long he’s being held hostage by a ever larger, demanding, blood thirsty tyrant….“Feeeeed me, Seymore!”
Our government is spending $32 billion a year in direct spending and tax breaks to combat a non-existent threat, human caused global warming
This very large figure, issued by the Congressional Research Service is a sobering number to keep in mind as warming zealots begin another indoctrination push prior to the September 23rd U.N. Climate Summit taking place in New York City. Actor and film maker Leonardo DiCaprio will be doing his part by releasing a series of films. The first, “Carbon,” tells of the dire threat that our use of this element poses to the world and makes the case for keeping it in the ground. I wonder if the film will cover the many benefits of carbon, for example:
Carbon is a critical element to all life. It is one of the six bulk elements and is the second most common element in the human body. It is a constituent of DNA, the primary building block of all organic matter.
A primary building block, huh? Pretty amazing stuff.
DiCaprio is no more a scientist than I am but his films will be accepted and applauded as important and significant, just as Al Gore’s book was widely lauded as representing the absolute findings of the science community. The wealthy Glo-Warmers will gather and acknowledge these films…he may even be nominated for an Oscar…or the Peace Prize! I appreciate DiCaprio as an artist. I do wish the entertainers of today had the same sense of responsibility that existed in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
A growing number of us would also prefer that our government strike a healthier skeptics pose before imposing taxes and regulation. It’s very troubling that our government chooses to ignore scientific findings/revelations that dispute what has been accepted as “settled science” and that shows there has been no warming for many years. It’s very troubling that our government would choose to spend so much of our money on hyped-up claims based primarily on computer models. It’s also troubling that the people have been so profoundly duped. But, in years gone by dedicated scientist brought us men in space, fabulous breakthroughs in medicine and technology, and time and labor saving devices so I guess it’s understandable that people believed what we now know has been a vast political hoax fueled by self-serving politicians and science games. Maybe the lesson is to be very wary of politicians, fuzzy scientists and film makers, who sell science fiction to us, and to our kids, through entertainment packaging.
A New York Post story today featured DeCaprio as it informed responsibly of the inconvenient truths his films will have to overcome to be believed:
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider: According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
Two more points from the article underline the point:
…the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.
And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model
Billions of dollars a year…billions. Our government always claims it needs more money. The greed of our government has already created over $17 trillion in debt. That’s over and above the budgeted $3.7 trillion that will be spent this year. Whenever reforms are suggested or tax cuts proposed politicians say that it would mean cuts in basic services. Obviously this is a lie. We know they could eliminate $32 billion a year just by eliminating this unnecessary spending. We also know there is a lot more just like this in the budget that could be cut.
There’s something I want you to consider as you mull this over in your minds. Our gross domestic product is running at $16.8 trillion. That figure represents our work…what we as a nation produce. How can our government possibly expect us to feed not only the federal budget, but the debt too, and continue to produce, to sustain our businesses and pay employees? The economy has stumbled along at 2% growth! Our government just keeps growing! What in the world are our representatives thinking when they spend $32 billion annually on a hoax? If our government were a family it would be bankrupted…or in prison.
This isn’t the only spending that needs to be cut in Washington but it would be a very good place to start.
OMG!
Hollywood Reporter, “United Nations Names Leonardo DiCaprio Messenger of Peace”:
well, that didn’t take long!
This is wonderful news… I think he should be our first envoy to call on ISIS and demand their immediate surrender or else. He ought to go alone of course.
Liberalism Is A Disease: by Jon McNaughton
http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease.html
97% of peer reviewed climate scientists acknowledge the threat of AGW. The scientist you cited is in the minority, and has not published a peer reviewed paper in over thirty years.
“As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science.”
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/
Peggy : “Liberalism Is A Disease”
Neither liberalism nor conservatism qualify as “diseases.” Bigotry might, though.
Hey Dewey, put this in your memory file.
The Left’s Political Network, Exposed in One Chart:
“A new chart reveals the expansive network of progressive organizations funded by wealthy liberal donors, calling attention to the same “dark money” practices for which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has publicly criticized conservatives.
The graphic, which was circulated by Senate Republicans, illustrates a vast web of nonprofits, think tanks and grassroots organizations encircling Democracy Alliance, which recommends various liberal organizations to influential political contributors.”
http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/17/183-organizations-lefts-political-network-exposed-one-chart/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Chris: “The scientist you cited is in the minority, and has not published a peer reviewed paper in over thirty years.”
As we now know getting a paper published when the subject of the paper doesn’t rubber stamp the AGW THEORY has been nearly impossible, as has getting a government grant.
One of the many scandals that plagues the AGW monopoly is that activist publishers controlled what was being published to skew perceptions.
A new report just released found that the EPA colluded with groups like Greenpeace to bankrupt coal companies through the use of draconian regulations:
There is a very big difference between sharing and competing in the realm of ideas and actively conniving to control the information that is released for consideration. There is also a very big difference between responsible regulators who take the lives and livlihoods of the people into consideration as well as the safety and health of the citizens when writing regulations.
AGW activists are out of control, corrupt, controlling liars.
Fox Business today featured six or seven coal companies that have during this period lost considerable value so the efforts of our government to actively work against a specific private industry, its shareholders, workers, and customers appears to be working.
“… with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science.”
It is equally possible that he has kept up for all of those 30 years and knows exactly what he’s talking about. Students lacking the background, maturity, and experience are likely to leap to conclusions that feed popular opinion…especially if they want or expect to get government funding for research.
“Neither liberalism nor conservatism qualify as “diseases.” Bigotry might, though.”
If so, liberalism should be dead by now considering the extreme damage it has left in it’s wake.
Peggy its good to see Republicans push back on the ridiculous notion that Democrats are only funded by “the little guy” and Republicans “big corporate money.”
Democrats just lie and lie and lie about themselves and their opposition.
It would be great to see them have to actually compete for a change. I still have doubts about the Republican ability to message and get the message out. The next two years offer a great opportunity. I hope they are ready for it.
*GASP* Environmentalist and the EPA worked together as part of an evil plot to…stop pollution? I’m so scandalized!
Sarcasm?
Are you telling me you’re okay with possibly illegal, behind closed doors collusion to systematically destroy the businesses of American citizens as long as its for a cause you believe in?
Well I should have suspected as much. You didn’t really mind the tactics used, including bribery, intimidation, and secret meetings to shove Obamacare down our throats either.
Nor do you mind it when activist courts overturn the will of the people as expressed by direct vote.
You do a hell of a lot of finger wagging around here for someone so locked in to the progressive ends justifies the means MO. Turns out you are just another phony.
Our readers should be aware of the consequences to this collusion with activist organizations like Greenpeace.
an article in Forbes describes the new regs and the consequnces:
There is no excuse for this radical approach. Democrats claim to be the party of compassion but its clear that their compassion is directed only toward those who can be used for political gains.
The Wall Street Journal reports that coal states are fighting back:
National Review explains the investment the coal industry has already made to clean up pollution:
Bright Future explains some of the history of innovations that have helped to make coal a cleaner fuel source.
Dedicated scientists, innovators, and the coal industry will continue to discover and fund better ways to bring inexpensive energy (And good jobs) to America one way or another. It seems really stupid to me to make that job harder for them, and energy more expensive for consumers, by forcing unrealistic regulations down their throats.
Tina: “Are you telling me you’re okay with possibly illegal, behind closed doors collusion to systematically destroy the businesses of American citizens as long as its for a cause you believe in?”
What was done that was illegal?
The regulations you’re describing are not “destroying” the coal business. That is the same old over-the-top rhetoric we’ve heard about every environmental and worker safety regulation passed over the past 100 years, if not longer.
“Well I should have suspected as much. You didn’t really mind the tactics used, including bribery, intimidation, and secret meetings to shove Obamacare down our throats either.”
Obamacare was the subject of constant, public, round-the-clock debate. You don’t get to claim that the other side cheated just because you lost.
“Nor do you mind it when activist courts overturn the will of the people as expressed by direct vote.”
Three things wrong with this statement:
1) When the “will of the people as expressed by direct vote” violates the constitutional rights of some, then overturning the will of the people is the judicial branch’s entire goddamn job. Every time you voice this complaint, you are revealing utter contempt for the very constitution and its system of checks and balances you claim to love.
2) Another thing this complaint reveals is an ideological kinship with the segregationists of yore, who used literally the exact same argument to lament the “activist courts overturning the will of the people” in Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and many other civil rights cases. I’m not sure why so many Republicans either don’t realize or don’t care that when they make this argument, they are explicitly inviting the comparison between themselves and old school racists. You’ve got enough of that going on as it is.
3) You have claimed numerous times that Democrats are wrong to use the term “democracy” to describe our country, and that they use this term in order to bring our nation closer toward “mob rule” where all decisions are made by the people, even if they violate our constitutional rights. This is in complete contradiction to your stated accusation that Democrats are using the courts to overturn the will of the people. Either Democrats want all decisions made by the will of the people, or they have absolutely no respect for the will of the people. Both of these accusations cannot be true at the same time.
Can you please clarify which of these accusations you actually believe, and which one you have been pretending to believe in order to hammer liberals?
Chris: “What was done that was illegal?
From the article cited: “The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) released a report on Monday based on an analysis of dozens of e-mails received under FOIA requests, all of which point to a collusive relationship between senior activists and the EPA. The revelations are sure to raise questions on the legality of EPA rules. … One such relationship is that between Michael Goo, recently head of the EPA Office of Policy and a former Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) lobbyist, and John Coequyt, a top Sierra Club lobbyist. According to the e-mails, Coequyt supplied materials directly to individual activists within EPA, even helping EPA keep a score for “internal use” of coal plants to shut down. Coequyt saw to it that plans to build new coal plants ultimately did not come to fruition.
Coequyt wrote to Goo and another EPA staffer to pressure the EPA into adopting regulations so strict that coal plants that had already received construction permits could not be built.”
“The regulations you’re describing are not “destroying” the coal business.”
Says who? You?
AP ~ Governing.com:
“Obamacare was the subject of constant, public, round-the-clock debate. You don’t get to claim that the other side cheated just because you lost.”
Chris a debate between bloggers and media hacks is not representative government! Democrats passed this piece of crap legislation WITHOUT letting even all of the Democrats participate. The leadership had their super majority, wrote the bill behind closed doors, and had to intimidate and bribe three of their members to pass it. There was no representative discussion or debate.
” violates the constitutional rights of some, then overturning the will of the people is the judicial branch’s entire goddamn job.”
And when the courts have become politicized and are driven by ideology and agenda they discover rights that don’t exist in the Constitution in order to impose the will of the minority. The California judge should have recused himself. The Roe decision was a trumped up case…an agenda driven case!
“Another thing this complaint reveals is an ideological kinship with the segregationists of yore”
BS
“..they use this term in order to bring our nation closer toward “mob rule” where all decisions are made by the people, even if they violate our constitutional rights. This is in complete contradiction to your stated accusation that Democrats are using the courts to overturn the will of the people.”
Yours is a party of activism, protest and intimidation. You bypass the legislative process whenever you can. You prefer the courts, unaccountable EPA regulators, activist judges, and even in the case of the legislative process, closed door single party manipulation, bribery, and intimidation.
Yours IS a party of corrupted values, corrupted means, corrupted ends…destroyers out to beat the system of republican government created with the Constitution in order to supplant it with a socialist utopean model. (Utopean only in the sense that the narcissist radicals that are in leadership imagine themselves as the bearers of universal truth, peace and love. Such hogwash.)
Your radical party leaders have no respect for our republican form of representative government..,or our Constitution…NONE! They are out to “fundamentally transform” it and our nation and have been for several decades. The current bunch are at a pinnacle…more obvious, more hard core, more willing to openly trample on everything that has made America unique in terms of personal freedom, dignity, and rights.
The left isn’t interested in individual rights. They believe in group rights. All of their movements (women, gays, minorities, children) are just vehicles that move them toward ultimate power and control and a complete loss of freedom. Radical progressives USE people, invent causes to create chaos and break down
standards, traditions and moral grounding.
I will not explain this to you further. You will either discover it the hard way for yourself or be swallowed up in the corrosive illusion.
Tina, nowhere in your incoherent rant did you answer either of my questions. You did not show any illegal activity by the EPA, you merely suggested it. You also did not explain whether you believed Democrats are in favor of pure mob rule, or whether you believe they have no respect for the will of the people. Again, both of these things cannot possibly be true, so either you are being willfully disingenuous in your arguments, or you have such little self-awareness that you cannot recognize severe cognitive dissonance even when it’s pointed out to you.
I’m leaning toward “cognitive dissonance” since you hold so many other nonsensical and contradictory beliefs (Obama is a soft peace-loving tyrant; Obama is in favor of both expanding Sharia law and special rights for gays, etc. etc. etc.).
“The California judge should have recused himself.”
Oh really?
Would you have demanded a Christian judge recuse themselves from the Hobby Lobby case? Would you demand a female judge to recuse themselves from a women’s rights case?
The idea that a gay judge is inherently biased and a straight judge wouldn’t be is nonsensical, and ultimately, based on the same subtle bigotry that suggests that members of privileged groups are more “objective” than members of minority groups.
Maybe it’s you who should have “recused” yourself from voting in favor of annulling the marriages of thousands of complete strangers, given the fact that those marriages did not affect yours in any way, and were none of your damn business.
Climate Change marchers joined with communists, socialists, cop haters and leave the area filled with trash.
Contrasted with Tea Party rallies, 2 Million Biker Ride’s and Glenn Beck’s rally when the grounds were left cleaner after than before.
‘F*** the Police’: Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March in New York City Demanding ‘Revolution, Nothing Less’:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/21/f-the-police-communists-radicals-spotted-throughout-climate-march-in-new-york-city-demand-revolution-nothing-less/
We need system change to stop climate change:
SocialistWorkers.org
http://socialistworker.org/2014/09/15/we-need-system-change
Take a look at all of the plastic. That mess sure doesn’t look “green” to me. At least they could have picked it up.
‘Hey @LeoDiCaprio you going to sweep up?’
Climate marchers leave behind piles of trash:
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/21/hey-leodicaprio-you-going-to-sweep-up-climate-marchers-leave-behind-piles-of-trash/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Chris: “You did not show any illegal activity by the EPA”
I am not sure what your problem is since the article cited in comments only suggested there could be legal issues (collusion) given what was learned from the emails.
Wikipedia defines collusion:
If it can be demonstrated that environmental organization leaders worked with EPA officials to create regulations that would eliminate competition with green energy alternatives or make it hard for them to compete that collusion could be illegal.
Our government has no business picking winners and losers.
My description of the radical leadership of your party is clear enough. I see no reason to entertain your presumptions and imaginings about what I said.
“….that suggests that members of privileged groups”
“Privileged” is a word used by the left to create victims or victim classes. One of the many ways they have of ripping the nation to shreds.
Gays and lesbians are people like everyone else. They make choices in life and the choices they make carry with them certain consequences, advantages, disadvantages and realities some comfortable and some not so comfortable, just like everyone else. None of us has all options and choices open to us. In America, none of us is privileged.
“Obama is a soft peace-loving tyrant; Obama is in favor of both expanding Sharia law and special rights for gays”
So this is all you have ever gleaned from my position? It reflects only the attitudes and biases you carry about conservative opinion. In effect, you argue constantly with yourself…you do not get the opposite view.
As is often the case with progressives, the need to make the world adjust so that the latest designated victim group can be comfortable is present in this fairly new idea, gay marriage. But there will always be something else, and something else, and something else and if not another issue then there will be another victim group.
“Would you have demanded a Christian judge recuse themselves from the Hobby Lobby case?”
Not every Christian would have a bias in that case. There are instances where it might be appropriate for a Christian judge to recuse himself. A Catholic judge might think it appropriate to step aside in a child abuse case for instance.
My own opinion wasn’t that he was gay but that he was seen as left activist, possibly unfair but, just as possibly, right on the money.
I could suggest that you recuse yourself from voting based on your adolescent, petulant, politically correct inability to actually discuss an issue without becoming personal, emotional and nasty but that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?
“…given the fact that those marriages did not affect yours in any way, and were none of your damn business.”
Neither of those statement have anything to do with my position. The relationships and arrangements of gay and lesbian people are none of my business and I’ve said so from the start. Unfortunately, after years of being lectured about how I had to accept their “different lifestyle choice,” which i did, they suddenly changed their minds and have made of themselves a special case needing special attention, special laws, special waivers and accommodation including changing definitions for word like marriage, wife and husband, mother and father, changing dictionary definitions, forcing changes to birth certificates, programing young children in public education and generally making the military a social engineering institution rather than a fighting force. In short they do not allow me to mind my own business. In fact they do not allow anyone to mind his own business, to live and let live. They must constantly orchestrate the next phase of how life will be conducted in business, education, in the military, in public.
Left radicals have made life in America a living hell of intrusive regulations, rules, and offenses. The left is constantly in EVERYBODY’s business probing and looking for excuses to be offended.
America has bent over backard since the sixties to make minority groups feel included. Enough! It’s time we quit letting ourselves be bullied and lectured by so-called victims who are really just unhappy people who need to get on with life and mind their on damn business.
I wonder if Leo will highlight his yacht in his Global Warming documentary he’s producing, directing and narrating.
Is this the yacht Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t want to talk about at #PeoplesClimate march?:
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/21/is-this-the-yacht-leonardo-dicaprio-didnt-want-to-talk-about-at-peoplesclimate-march/
Tina: “Gays and lesbians are people like everyone else. They make choices in life and the choices they make carry with them certain consequences, advantages, disadvantages and realities some comfortable and some not so comfortable, just like everyone else. None of us has all options and choices open to us.”
This is an incredibly weak justification for your choice to take certain options and choices away from other people.
When you voted in favor of Prop 8, gays and lesbians had the legal right to marry in California. You chose to take that away from them. Take responsibility for your own decisions.
“In America, none of us is privileged.”
…She said, defending her choice to take what she views as a privilege away from other people.
“Unfortunately, after years of being lectured about how I had to accept their “different lifestyle choice,” which i did, they suddenly changed their minds and have made of themselves a special case needing special attention, special laws, special waivers and accommodation”
What are you talking about? No “special rights” are required for gays to get married. They just have to have the same rights as everyone else: to get married.
“including changing definitions for word like marriage, wife and husband, mother and father,”
These definitions have changed many times throughout history.
“forcing changes to birth certificates,”
I’m drawing a blank. What do you mean by this?
“generally making the military a social engineering institution rather than a fighting force.”
This is exactly the same logic used to justify segregation in the military.
Once again, you reveal that your arguments are IDENTICAL to the arguments used by every single opponent of equality, like, ever.
Chris: “This is an incredibly weak justification for your choice to take certain options and choices away from other people.”
You cannot take a choice from people that for thousands of years they never had unless they have first made a victims class in order to change definitions and choices. Get real.
Sorry, no. I don;t consider marriage a privilege. “Privilege” is a politically correct term used to demonize and create false enemies.
Marriage is a responsibility.
” No “special rights” are required for gays to get married.”
Of course it is! They consider marriage a right. I do not. They say they discovered this right in our constitution, even though there is no such right, and demand that we change our laws, our dictionaries, and the way we describe and talk about men and women and the rolls they play. This is a unique and special right.
“I’m drawing a blank. What do you mean by this?”
Outside the Beltway:
KCET:
“Once again, you reveal that your arguments are IDENTICAL to the arguments used by every single opponent of equality, like, ever.”
Doesn’t mean the trumped up cause is IDENTICAL…or legitimate since it involves a lifestyle choice.
Tina: “You cannot take a choice from people that for thousands of years they never had unless they have first made a victims class in order to change definitions and choices. Get real.”
This is incoherent.
So, when women were campaigning for the right to vote, did they make themselves a “victim class in order to change definitions and choices?” After all, they certainly changed the definition of the term “citizen.”
Were the people who campaigned and voted against women’s equality acting in a moral fashion, simply because the right they were voting against was new?
Your argument is little more than an appeal to tradition, which is an obvious fallacy.
“Sorry, no. I don;t consider marriage a privilege.”
If it’s not a right, and not a privilege, what the hell is it?
““Privilege” is a politically correct term used to demonize and create false enemies.”
In this case I was merely using it to distinguish it from a right, since you have said many times that marriage is not a right (which goes against the ruling in Loving v. Virginia, as I’ve explained to you many times).
“Marriage is a responsibility.”
OK…and? What makes gays any less able to take on this responsibility than straight people?
“Of course it is! They consider marriage a right. I do not.”
Well, the Supreme Court considers marriage a right, and has for over 40 years, so your argument won’t hold up in court.
“They say they discovered this right in our constitution, even though there is no such right,”
There is a right to equal protection under the law, however; check the 14th Amendment. Denying a couple the right to marry based on their genders violates the equal protection clause for no compelling reason.
“and demand that we change our laws,”
Yes, because the laws are discriminatory.
“our dictionaries,”
The dictionaries changed before the laws did. The meanings of words change all the time in a dynamic society. Get over it.
“and the way we describe and talk about men and women and the rolls they play.”
Yes, that would be a good thing.
“This is a unique and special right.”
No.
“The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says. “The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”
And that affects you…how?
“California birth certificates could be getting a makeover after a bill pushing for the accurate identification and self-designation of same-sex couples on birth certificates was sent to the Governor this week.
AB 1951 would eliminate the need for same-sex parents to inaccurately place a partner’s name in the wrong “Father” or “Mother” field, according to the bill’s language. Instead, same-sex couples would be able to fill out the following options on a child’s birth certificate: Mother, Father, and a gender-neutral parent option.”
And that affects you…how?
“Doesn’t mean the trumped up cause is IDENTICAL…or legitimate since it involves a lifestyle choice.”
Marrying someone of another race is just as much a “lifestyle choice” as marrying someone of the same gender. Yes, your argument is identical; all anti-equality arguments rest on the same fallacies at their core.
Chris: “This is incoherent.”
It is not incoherent. Marriage for gays is a brand new idea. Before it could be “taken it away” it had to first be demanded. Let’s not make those who defend the thousands year old tradition the activist victims, okay? If you are going to argue for this you should at least own who started it.
“So, when women were campaigning for the right to vote, did they make themselves a “victim class in order to change definitions and choices?”
Absolutely. They have never stopped either, by the way. Feminists, particularly radical feminists, continue to discover new ways to feel like victims as a group in order to keep the cause alive. The argument begins with, “All we are asking…” or “All we want…” Decades later they are still making trouble as victim groups.
“Were the people who campaigned and voted against women’s equality acting in a moral fashion, simply because the right they were voting against was new?”
A woman’s sense of equality is in the mind of the woman. Eligibility to vote is another matter that concerns women as citizens. Eligibility to vote could be based on any number of things other than gender. Not really interested in starting another debate, we’re already way off track.
“Your argument is little more than an appeal to tradition, which is an obvious fallacy.”
I’m expressing my opinion. I don’t really care that you think tradition is unworthy. You learned a bit about debate and that makes you right by default? Sorry not impressed.
“If it’s not a right, and not a privilege, what the hell is it?”
I told you before it is a responsibility. Two people who have the capacity (and desire) to procreate have a responsibility to the children they will produce to join in marriage, and in my mind honor and keep that marriage, for the sake of the children and society. I believe strongly that that should be our nations standard. It has nothing to feelings, fairness, or preferences. It has to do with stability and it has to do with holding the act of bringing human beings into being more reverently! It has to do with putting the needs of those human beings ahead of selfish desires and wants!
“Well, the Supreme Court considers marriage a right, and has for over 40 years, so your argument won’t hold up in court.”
I said some time ago that you won the battle. What do you want blood?
“There is a right to equal protection under the law, however; check the 14th Amendment. Denying a couple the right to marry based on their genders violates the equal protection clause for no compelling reason…Yes, because the laws are discriminatory.”
Protection from what? Discriminate how? Denial of benefits? As I wrote before those consideration are a problem of benefits laws rather than marriage law. Inheritance issues? These can be arranged through wills and other legal documents.
“The dictionaries changed before the laws did.”
As a means of changing perceptions and beliefs…just part of the activist game. I am over it…go stuff yourself in a box (see I can do it too)
“And that affects you…how?”
You cannot think beyond yourself and selfish concerns?
Step-fathers are step fathers, a word used to designate a parent who is not a biological parent but has taken on those duties. Kids understand. The words have meaning and are useful in conversation. Men called “mother” or “wife” confuse and confound the language. I realize language evolves as things change. This is different. This is manipulating the language in order to change the culture.
“Marrying someone of another race is just as much a “lifestyle choice” as marrying someone of the same gender.”
It is a choice. It is not a choice that requires a different “lifestyle”. Lifestyle being a polite way to describe sexual choices that DO NOT result in the creation of a brand new human being.
It’s unfortunate that so many in the LGBT community see themselves as unequal simply because they have chosen a life different from others.
As I wrote before the responsibility of marriage would be unnecessary for all of us were it not for the huge responsibility attached with bringing new life into being. As a society, long before gay marriage became an issue, we already have done a great deal of damage by making divorce easy and by loosening standards of morality and fidelity. It may not be something you can get since you have not experienced the changes that have come with devaluing marriage and human life. Your own arguments are academic for the most part and come from the perspective of individual want. I don’t have animosity toward others and I do respect their choices but I also think its time we began as a society to expect more from each other when it comes to procreation and the responsibility of raising children. Marriage has a purpose in that. I defend marriage as between one man and one woman for that reason.
People in relationships that are not between one man and one woman could choose another term to define their commitment nobodies feathers would be ruffled. But for the political element marriage became another “front”…another victim class to create division and controversy and whip up voters. It’s always something with progressives.
Strange…with progressives, who always portray themselves as peaceful and loving, there is no peace…ever!
The only person “devaluing” marriage here is the person insisting that marriages that don’t result in procreation are basically worthless and unworthy of recognition.
That person would be you.
Tina: “Marriage for gays is a brand new idea.”
Yes, and? Democracy was at one point a brand new idea. People tried to stand in the way of that too.
“If you are going to argue for this you should at least own who started it.”
Traditionalists “started it” by persecuting gays. For the most part, this was not done out of malice, but ignorance.
By your logic, African-Americans “started it” in the civil rights era, and women “started it” when they demanded the right to vote. This framing assumes that oppression and inequality are humanity’s natural state, and demands for equality and freedom are violations of that natural order. I will never accept that.
“Absolutely. They have never stopped either, by the way. Feminists, particularly radical feminists, continue to discover new ways to feel like victims as a group in order to keep the cause alive. The argument begins with, “All we are asking…” or “All we want…” Decades later they are still making trouble as victim groups…A woman’s sense of equality is in the mind of the woman. Eligibility to vote is another matter that concerns women as citizens. Eligibility to vote could be based on any number of things other than gender. Not really interested in starting another debate, we’re already way off track.”
I almost can’t believe what I’m hearing right now. Are you honestly saying that women who demanded the right to vote were just “making trouble” and playing the victim in an irrational way? Because that’s sure what it sounds like. Please clarify if this is not the case.
“I’m expressing my opinion. I don’t really care that you think tradition is unworthy.”
I don’t think tradition is inherently unworthy. But it is not inherently worthy either. That’s why appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy.
“You learned a bit about debate and that makes you right by default? Sorry not impressed.”
Learning a bit about debate would certainly do you some good.
“I told you before it is a responsibility. Two people who have the capacity (and desire) to procreate”
And this is where your argument completely falls apart. Marriage is not just for “two people who have the capacity (and desire) to procreate.” It never has been, and it never will be. Procreation is ONE common aspect of marriage, but it is not the sole reason we recognize marriage in this country (or in any other). If it were, we would not allow heterosexual couples who could not (or had no desire to) procreate get married. We would not recognize marriages performed after a couple’s child-bearing years. We would not allow women who had had hysterectomies to marry.
Your insistence on centering marriage around procreation is a flimsy smokescreen. You are starting with the premise that gays should not marry, and working backwards to find some fundamental difference between gay and straight couples in order to justify that premise.
That you feel this is your best argument against SSM shows how irrational and emotional the opposition is. The anti-gays have not been able to produce a single logical, compelling reason why gays should not be able to marry, because no such reason exist. There are no rational reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. And I don’t say that lightly; I can come up with logical reasons to oppose many things I support: abortion, welfare, even recognition of climate change…there are rational reasons to oppose these things, but there are no rational reasons to oppose SSM, and I mean that in the most classical sense: none of the arguments have conclusions that actually follow from the premises.
“It has nothing to feelings, fairness, or preferences. It has to do with stability and it has to do with holding the act of bringing human beings into being more reverently! It has to do with putting the needs of those human beings ahead of selfish desires and wants!”
Those are noble goals. The idea that preventing gay couples from marrying does ANYTHING to achieve those goals is so irrational as to be almost insane. Preventing gay couples from marrying does JACK-ALL for children. If anything, yours is the stance that hurts children: for children already being raised by gay couples, you are intentionally destabilizing their legal situation by denying them the benefits of having two married parents; for children who grow up questioning their sexuality, you are helping spread the idea that they are unequal and undeserving of the same rights as everyone else.
Yours is the position based on emotion, because it sure as hell isn’t based on anything resembling logic. You hide behind buzzwords like “preserving traditional marriage” while completely ignoring the damage your policies are doing to real, flesh and blood people. You believe your policies help strengthen marriage even though you have no rational basis for that belief. Like most of your political stances, you believe this simply because you want to, not because there is any evidence for it. (See also: Benghazi, your stance on climate science, death panels…)
“I said some time ago that you won the battle. What do you want blood?”
What I want is for you to realize that your position doesn’t make any sense, and to apologize for voting to annul the marriages of complete strangers for the sole reason that you are bad at logic.
“Protection from what? Discriminate how? Denial of benefits? As I wrote before those consideration are a problem of benefits laws rather than marriage law.”
And your proposed solutions were so impractical as to be laughable. In that conversation, you insisted that the government should basically eliminate every last one of the 1138 federal benefits of marriage and have all of them privately contracted instead. You did not acknowledge the fact that certain marital rights such as Social Security benefits, the right not to be called to testify against one’s spouse, and preferential immigration treatment could not possibly be contracted for separate from marriage. You also did not acknowledge that disincentivizing marriage in the way you proposed would obviously cause less people to get married–a central tenet of both conservatism and liberalism is that when you incentivize something, you get more of it, and when you disincentivize something, you get less–ultimately weakening the very institution you claim you are desperate to preserve, at the cost of unequal treatment for a historically marginalized group.
Forgive me if I did not find that argument convincing.
Proposing completely impractical solutions to the problems gay people face and which you helped create is not in any way a reasonable response to discrimination. Saying that the “government should just get out of the marriage business” may sound nice on paper, but it’s never going to happen. It’s not a serious argument for equality.
“Inheritance issues? These can be arranged through wills and other legal documents.”
So more lawyers, more red tape, more inconvenience for citizens…that’s really what you want? Come on. This is beyond disingenuous at this point. Either you are being willfully dishonest, or you are just clinically unable to think through the implications of your own arguments past the most shallow level possible.
“As a means of changing perceptions and beliefs…”
No, the dictionaries changed the meaning of marriage to include gays because marriages including gays were already happening. I know you believe that we should all conform to your conservative vision of political correctness, where words only mean what you want them to, but that’s not how the world works. The world changes. The meaning of “marriage” has changed multiple times throughout history, which you would be grateful for if you had any sense. Had the definition of marriage never changed, you would likely be one of your husband’s many wives, you would not work outside the home or vote, and you would be considered your husband’s property.
The Tina I know would never be OK with that. So why do you pretend that these things never happened?
“You cannot think beyond yourself and selfish concerns?”
What are you talking about? So being concerned about the very real discrimination faced by a minority group I am not a part of is “selfish,” but getting upset over some words on a document that doesn’t hurt anyone is…what? The height of selfless nobility?
“Step-fathers are step fathers, a word used to designate a parent who is not a biological parent but has taken on those duties. Kids understand.”
This has nothing to do with anything either one of us have said at this point. What are you talking about? Many gay male couples refer to the non-biological parent as the “step-father.”
“The words have meaning and are useful in conversation. Men called “mother” or “wife” confuse and confound the language.”
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with anything either one of us have said at this point. How many gay men do you know who are called “mother” and “wife?” That is quite uncommon–mostly both embrace the title of “father” or “stepfather” if one of them is the child’s biological parent, and they call each other “husbands.” Where are you getting this stuff from?
Even in the uncommon event that a gay male couple chooses to call one partner by female-sounding names…what the hell is that to you? They’re a very small percentage of Americans. In what way does this hurt anyone?
“I realize language evolves as things change. This is different. This is manipulating the language in order to change the culture.”
It’s only “different” to you because it’s challenging your generations’ beliefs. Every single generation has had a subset which opposed equality for the same exact reasons you’re presenting here.
You present “changing the culture” as inherently sinister. OF COURSE THEY’RE CHANGING THE CULTURE. The culture as it stands is unreasonable hostile to gays. That’s a culture in need of change, just as it was in need of change during slavery, segregation, and, oh, the first 130 years where women couldn’t vote.
Your complaints are not new. Supporters of equality have heard them all before. And society has rejected them in nearly every other case. Because they aren’t logical.
“It is a choice. It is not a choice that requires a different “lifestyle”. Lifestyle being a polite way to describe sexual choices that DO NOT result in the creation of a brand new human being.”
That’s absurd. The vast majority of human intercourse ever performed does not result in the creation of a brand new human being. The idea that any non-procreative act that does not do this requires some kind of “polite” euphemism is ridiculous and, frankly, kind of sad. Seriously, it makes me depressed to think about why someone would feel the need to hierarchize other people’s sex lives in such a restrictive way. It’s creepy! And it’s none of your business.
“It’s unfortunate that so many in the LGBT community see themselves as unequal simply because they have chosen a life different from others.”
This is twisted. So twisted that I have to wonder if you are just doing a parody of yourself. Are you Stephen Colbert?
You’re honestly going to sit there and claim that gays are fighting for equality because they view themselves as unequal? And you, the person who is actually fighting to preserve unequal treatment, are totally blameless?
This is a new, unfathomable level of denial. You are so freaking lost in your own bubble of privilege it is disgusting. You are blaming the victim for YOUR shitty treatment of them. How dare you.
Chris I am expressing my opinion. In my opinion marriage can only be defined as a union of one man and one woman. I argue from that perspective so to say I am devaluing marriage is absurd.
You mean that I am not in agreement with the new definition of marriage and because of that, somehow, I dehumanize gays and lesbians.
I think that is also absurd since there is no way they can fit the description, the definition, of marriage. But I know that in your limited sphere there is only room for total agreement, otherwise I am a hateful bad person who doesn’t value others who are different.
Unfortunately this is not a discussion about what marriage is or what the purpose for promoting marriage has been for society or why its a good idea to preserve traditional marriage and indeed strengthen our marriage laws. It’s not that discussion because for you its always about victims who want something that I would deny them. Stomp your little foot all you want it will not transform your motivation or your arguments.
“Traditionalists “started it” by persecuting gays. For the most part, this was not done out of malice, but ignorance.”
What a load of CRAP! Marriage had nothing to do with gay relationships…ever…until some gay person with a new sense of entitlement decided marriage was the next demand and activated the cause.
“By your logic, African-Americans “started it”
Another load of crap.
The two issues are not the same. Gays want it to be but it is not. Black people cannot choose another color. There are many relationships that do not constitute marriage. Nobody was being excluded and everyone understood what marriage was and was not.
“This framing assumes that oppression and inequality are humanity’s natural state”
Your argument assumes people have been oppressed. Can we call it oppression when the choice was theirs to make? Can we deem inequality exists when the relationship doesn’t fit the definition by definition. It may be true that gay people felt oppressed or isolated but marriage was not the reason behind the feelings.
You keep trying to pretend there is no history. Your side has won a few legal battles and so now the past never happened. You don’t get to rewrite that history in order to claim that marriage was invented to discriminate against gays and as a means to oppress them. The narcissism in that thinking is horrendous!
“Are you honestly saying that women who demanded the right to vote were just “making trouble”
No. I am saying, once won, claim victory and get off it! Women won political power with the vote. We live in a free country. All that is left is to live free. Live it! At some point it is time to let go of causes, particularly when they have to be manufactured to keep them alive.
“Learning a bit about debate would certainly do you some good.”
It might, but it wouldn’t make my position different.
“…and this is where your argument completely falls apart. Marriage is not just for “two people who have the capacity (and desire) to procreate.” It never has been, and it never will be.”
Are you talking about the law now or wishes and hopes?
This nation has based its civil law on exactly that and for the reasons I cite. Marriage was recognized as a cornerstone of civilization and encouraged in civil law as well as religion as a means for stability and strength in society. I was reading today and ran across several cases in law that demonstrate this. For instance in the Goodrich case which was the first to allow same sex marriage the following was included in the plurality opinion: “…our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries.”
So can we stop pretending that marriage hasn’t been what it has been?
The commenter who cited that quote wrote, “The liberty to choose to form a relationship that lacks either husband and (or) wife, well, that is a freedom exercised and not a fundamental right denied. (Emphasis mine)
“Procreation is ONE common aspect of marriage, but it is not the sole reason we recognize marriage”
It is the ONLY reason society should have an interest at all. Free people can arrange their lives however they choose and dissolve relationships by agreement. The obligation we SHOULD HAVE as parents necessitates an acknowledged union with obligations and expectations recognized by society. We have moved away from that standard and our kids have suffered greatly as has our society!
It is unfortunate that we threw this standard away and made the self and the self’s wants and desires what is important. Kids, as I have said before, have become an afterthought…another item of ownership to be divided up like the dishes, furniture, cd’s and pets.
There is a civic purpose for marriage to be recognized, promoted and supported. The standard that is established does not mean that other types of relationships are not meaningful or that all people in marriage have a requirement to procreate. It just means that in-tact families are the recognized best form in which to raise the next generations.
Kids have rights here too and I think its time for the adults in the room to start giving them more priority in the discussion. Kids should be able to have a reasonable expectation that their biological parents will stay committed and raise and nurture them. They should have a reasonable expectation that their nuclear family will include grandparents, and and uncles and cousins. Exceptions happen…we all get it. But we should also recognize that where children are involved there is nothing better for them or society than mom and dad and the extended family.
It’s late. I need to give this up. I will consider getting back to it if I can find time…I already feel badly that we (I) haven’t posted anything new for most of the day and this is off the original topic.
Tina: “Chris I am expressing my opinion. In my opinion marriage can only be defined as a union of one man and one woman.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, and if all you had done is “express” that opinion, I wouldn’t have a problem. I might try to persuade you to change your opinion about marriage, but I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal.
But that’s not all you’ve done. You tried to enshrine your personal, subjective opinion about marriage into law, in a way that disenfranchised thousands of your fellow citizens for no justifiable purpose. If it weren’t for an action of the so-called “activist courts” you despise for doing their job as laid out in the Constitution, they would still be disenfranchised. Yet years later, not only do you continue to stand by this decision, but you also refuse to even acknowledge the harm you’ve caused to others through your actions.
This is deeply selfish behavior.
“I argue from that perspective so to say I am devaluing marriage is absurd.”
You have said before that you can’t imagine why anyone would get married if not for the possibility of procreation:
“As I said, if it were not for procreation why would anyone get married? What would be the incentive…especially for men…
…But a commitment to the person you love doesn’t require a legal document unless you don’t think of each other as equals or as honest. If that were the case a simple legal contract would suffice (And be less expensive than a big wedding and honeymoon).”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/05/10/romney-obama-and-the-gay/
In addition to being sexist against men, this comment devalues the marriages of thousands of childless and child-free heterosexual couples by implying that procreation is the only rational reason to get married.
The fact is that most people don’t cite children as their primary purpose for getting married. The most commonly cited reason today: love.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/
I found a fairly moving list of reasons for why men get married from, of all places, Esquire magazine:
“Why do we get married? Because you love her. Because you like her. Because she wants to. Because kids sound nice. Because she doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Because you don’t want her to go anywhere. Because, wait — how old are you? Because of God. Because your boss is married. Because the sex is good. Because the fights are good. Because the sex after the fights is really good. Because she picks up the dry cleaning. Because you know that even if it gets bad, life will probably be easier, happier, with her than without her. Because you believe that it’s going to work out. Because you know that even if it doesn’t, it’s not the end of the world. Mostly, though, it’s because you love her, and that’s as good a reason as any.”
All of those reasons apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Every single one. And they are worth supporting.
Now, I can already hear you: society has no business supporting personal commitment without children!
You’d be wrong. Married people are more stable, less likely to need welfare or government-provided hospital care, and more likely to work and contribute to society than non-married people, even if they don’t have any children. This is undoubtedly good for our society, and something we should support.
“You mean that I am not in agreement with the new definition of marriage and because of that, somehow, I dehumanize gays and lesbians.”
No. Where did I say you were dehumanizing gays and lesbians?
“I think that is also absurd since there is no way they can fit the description, the definition, of marriage.”
There is no way they can fit your personal definition of marriage. Ask ten people on the street what marriage is and they will give you ten different definitions. Go to ten different time periods separated by a few hundred years and you will see ten different definitions. It used to be defined as a man having legal ownership of a woman. Traditionalists didn’t really like when that was changed either, and they viewed it as a fundamental change to the basic nature of marriage as established by God.
However, it is very clear that homosexual couples can fit a legal definition of marriage, because they’re already doing that in many places. So this argument assumes that your person definition of marriage should be enshrined into law, and I have already torn that premise to shreds.
“But I know that in your limited sphere there is only room for total agreement, otherwise I am a hateful bad person who doesn’t value others who are different.”
No, you can disagree all you want. You are not entitled to enshrine your definition into law at the expense of real harm to real people.
“Unfortunately this is not a discussion about what marriage is or what the purpose for promoting marriage has been for society or why its a good idea to preserve traditional marriage and indeed strengthen our marriage laws. It’s not that discussion because for you its always about victims who want something that I would deny them. Stomp your little foot all you want it will not transform your motivation or your arguments.”
Yes, silly me for thinking the debate should be centered on the people most harmed by a policy, rather than on ephemeral abstractions that you can’t back up with any solid evidence! Shame on me–you have uncovered by sinister motivation, to help real people! If only I could acknowledge that definitions of words are more important than human beings, like you do!
“What a load of CRAP! Marriage had nothing to do with gay relationships…ever…until some gay person with a new sense of entitlement decided marriage was the next demand and activated the cause.”
Just like voting had nothing to do with being a woman, until some woman person with a new sense of entitlement decided voting was the next demand and activated the cause.
Look, I don’t like ridiculing your arguments any more than you do, so why do you keep making it so easy for me? Make your arguments less ridiculous, and we’ll have a serious conversation.
“The two issues are not the same. Gays want it to be but it is not. Black people cannot choose another color.”
No, but they can choose who to marry. They could have chosen not to marry white people, and then they wouldn’t have had to bother supporters of traditional same-race marriage with their petty demands for the right to marry who they chose.
Do you see how easy your arguments are to rebut? THINK THEM THROUGH, Tina.
“Nobody was being excluded and everyone understood what marriage was and was not.”
You are, as usual, describing a time that never existed. People have NEVER universally agreed on what marriage was! That’s why it’s changed so many times!
You argue that all of those changes are on the surface and this one is “fundamental,” but that’s what every previous generation thought too. You only see this change as different because of your unique situation in time and space. It’s a very self-centered view of history.
“Your argument assumes people have been oppressed.”
It doesn’t assume it, it proves it.
“Can we call it oppression when the choice was theirs to make?”
You tell me. Would you call it oppression when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry one another? The choice was theirs to make. They could not control their own race, but they could control the race of their partner; similarly, gays cannot control their sexual orientation, but they can control the gender of their partner.
Saying that it’s a “choice” is pretty meaningless if the alternative–a gay person marrying someone they do not love in a romantic sense, or not marrying at all–is so clearly undesirable. It’s equivalent to telling a mixed race couple in the South prior to Loving that the state has no interest in recognizing their choice, since they could easily choose to marry someone of the same race or not marry at all. Well, duh–that’s the freaking problem. They don’t love anyone else. This argument simply begs the question, “What’s wrong with this choice that it shouldn’t be treated equally to those other choices?”
Do you understand that in this case, it is liberals who are arguing for MORE options, and conservatives who are arguing for LIMITING options? Does that strike you as ironic?
“Can we deem inequality exists when the relationship doesn’t fit the definition by definition.”
Again, it can easily fit the LEGAL definition. This argument assumes that there is one timeless, consistent definition of marriage, and that you possess it. THAT is arrogant and narcissistic. More importantly, it’s factually wrong.
“You keep trying to pretend there is no history.”
Wigga. You’re the one who keeps talking as if there has been one single definition of marriage through time. You know that’s not true, I know that’s not true, anyone even remotely familiar with the history of marriage knows that’s not true, and yet you keep saying it! In every single iteration of this debate! And you’re going to tell me that I’m the one ignoring history?
Are you from Bizarro World?
“You don’t get to rewrite that history in order to claim that marriage was invented to discriminate against gays and as a means to oppress them.”
Please do not make strawman arguments. Nowhere in my arguments have I ever said that marriage was “invented” to discriminate against gays. I already clearly said that most bigtory exists out of ignorance rather than malice. You are either willfully misrepresenting my words, or your reading comprehension is truly terrible.
“No. I am saying, once won, claim victory and get off it! Women won political power with the vote. We live in a free country. All that is left is to live free. Live it! At some point it is time to let go of causes, particularly when they have to be manufactured to keep them alive.”
This is atrocious.
You can’t honestly believe that once women gained the right to vote, they magically and over-night achieved full social and legal equality in the United States…can you? I mean, nobody really believes this, do they?
“It might, but it wouldn’t make my position different.”
Perhaps not, but maybe at least you’d be able to defend your position without constantly resorting to the same faulty fallacies, circular arguments, strawman arguments, and reprehensible interpretations of history…or perhaps, that’s all opponents of same-sex marriage can muster. Maybe there are no rational reasons to oppose SSM. You certainly haven’t presented any.
Me: “…and this is where your argument completely falls apart. Marriage is not just for “two people who have the capacity (and desire) to procreate.” It never has been, and it never will be.”
Tina: “Are you talking about the law now or wishes and hopes?”
I am very clearly talking about the law, which does not contain any procreation requirement. Obviously.
“This nation has based its civil law on exactly that and for the reasons I cite.”
You are obviously wrong. The civil marriage law barely references procreation, and certainly does not consider procreative ability a requirement in order to enter into a marriage contract.
“Marriage was recognized as a cornerstone of civilization and encouraged in civil law as well as religion as a means for stability and strength in society.”
Yes, and as I’ve already pointed out here–not to mention in dozens of other iterations of this conversation–marriage strengthens society even when not all marriages involve children. I don’t recall you addressing these other benefits of marriage even once.
“It is the ONLY reason society should have an interest at all.”
Again, no. Unless you don’t care about more people paying for their own medical care and working, and less people on welfare, this statement is absurd.
“Kids, as I have said before, have become an afterthought…another item of ownership to be divided up like the dishes, furniture, cd’s and pets.”
And you have provided no reasoning to explain how SSM would make this worse, so this is a total non-sequiter.
“Kids have rights here too”
Again, non-sequiter.
“and I think its time for the adults in the room to start giving them more priority in the discussion.”
You’re not giving them more priority in the discussion. You are using them as a nonsensical excuse. If you want more focus on childrens’ rights, then by all means, focus on childrens’ rights. Opposing same-sex marriage does shit-all to help children.
“Kids should be able to have a reasonable expectation that their biological parents will stay committed and raise and nurture them. They should have a reasonable expectation that their nuclear family will include grandparents, and and uncles and cousins.”
Yes. And? This is a non-sequiter. Recognizing same-sex marriage would not do anything to jeopardize this expectation.
“Exceptions happen…we all get it. But we should also recognize that where children are involved there is nothing better for them or society than mom and dad and the extended family.”
WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE UGGGGHHHHH
Tina Science is not on your side.
BTW there were no Dinosaurs on Noah’s arc either.
But all that aside the Koch Boyz declare war on Solar and now we see the attack.
Is it not Freedom for a person to decide whether they want Solar or not?
It is well known the Koch Boyz are behind the curtain on the attack on others peoples freedom to do something about climate change.
It’s funny the 1st scientist the Koch’s paid for reversed his decision at the end Remember that.
Ya see he took the Koch answer and worked backwards to make it true but he couldn’t cause they were wrong.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/112781/top-climate-change-denying-scientist-found-to-be-on-exxon-koch-brothers-payroll/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html
Jeez I guess I am just fixated on the Koch Boyz cause as you said they are just humble businessmen
No one is buying what they are selling and the Facts and Truth are getting out The Koch’s are trying to buy out Democracy and they want Yosemite! to Tear it up!
There are other Billionaires trying to help them but when it comes to Climate change it is the Koch Boyz!
Right out of the tobacco playbook….Remember when there were Doctors in Cigarette Ads cause it was all a Liberal Conspiracy that tobacco caused cancer!
Well we are not waiting we are acting and China is now acting after we polluted their country.