Comment

Comment by DaveG on June 19, 2010 at 8:20am

Well, once again our infamous DPS gang returns to carry on meaningless circular arguments that have no real basis aside from the casting off of all accepted moral standards, so that they can can fashion societal standards that have no restraint on human behavior (or decency). In an attempt to castigate God's own moral law, even those historically evidenced throughout all humanity and societies, we see the post-modern arguments of moral-relativism raise its head once again: "There is no right or wrong, there is no basis for moral absolutes, there are no restrictions upon mankind and his appetites aside from those placed legally upon him/her by an ever-evolving society, etc, etc."

I guess if we could just eliminate the influence of God, morality, religion, and any other standard of decency from society then everyone would feel at ease with who they are in their own mind and we could all live together and just be happy? That is the ultimate conclusion of moral relativism when taken to its fruition, but it does not work that way in real life. Soon the thief has a right to steal, the pervert has a right to rape, the politician has a right to deceive, the jurist has a right to be bribed, the judge has a right to be prejudiced, parents have no right to parent -- and so forth.

What folks seem to forget is that the Constitution defines the right of society to establish and maintain its laws -- but all laws are based upon moral and ethical codes of conduct. You can no more remove or eliminate the moral standards of society and have it continue to stand firm, than you can ignore the laws of physics and continue to have a successful space program. Certainly laws need to be evaluated and fine-tuned to work the most effectively -- and if proven to be unnecessary they should be eliminated altogether. But the basis of laws must still lie in the moral fabric of society, otherwise they will be constantly changing to fit the ever-deteriorating appetites of society, rather than being the restraining force against that deterioration. Laugh all you want, but God said "Where there is no restraint, the people perish." Most of us still believe He knew what He was talking about.

Comment by lisa mincey on June 19, 2010 at 8:00am

what lee?....trying to keep the proverbial pot stirred...you already posted your "comments" once 8 hours ago...why the need to reitterate?...didn't get enough attention as a child at home perhaps?...give mike a chance to respond....he will if it is worth his time....he and others on here actually have a life and are busy productive citizens....have patience

Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 19, 2010 at 4:39am

"Yes, that's right she said "legitimate moral objections". Nice!!! I'll wait while to attept to legitimize your fear and loathing."

Leslie,
There you go again - putting your words into my mouth. Can you not see that you have summarily dismissed any objections to your position as being a product of fear and loathing? How can you possibly know what motivates another to object?
Your own biases cause you to profile a large segment of the population without even giving them the courtesy of exploring the basis of their objections. Like many leftists, you refuse to acknowledge that any opinion that doesn't accord with your own is illegitimate.
Though you may not agree with their views, it is intellectually lazy to impugn their motives without addressing the substance of their complaints.
I frequently use satire as a way to point out the absurdities in leftist thinking. Unfortunately, these days, satire is closer to reality than it used to be.
Nancy
BTW: If you want others to take your opinions seriously, you must give them the same courtesy.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 11:33pm

Lee,
You take issue with the statement about children and claim it is unfounded and absolutism. Well you are wrong and wrong. It isn't absolutist, as it was based upon a statistical study, which is all one can do to answer questions such as these. It is not unfounded as I provided a peer-reviewed study to back it up. Why don't you read the references that were provided?

Then you build a strawman argument with "Shall we alter the entire planet to suit your criteria?" This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. From the study data provided I merely pointed out that society HAS a legitimate interest -- your claim notwithstanding -- in whether or not gays marry. That doesn't draw any conclusion about what society ought to do. But it does say that statistically allowing gays to marry will, on balance, cause harm to society. You are claiming something else, but have provided no evidence ZERO to back up your position. Of particular risk -- this is a probabilistic statement, read the studies -- are children if same-sex couples are allowed to raise children. These are simply facts; they are not my opinions.

Let's look at the state of this argument: I provide peer-reviewed study data to back up my position, and I provide the statements of the Framers to back up my position. You provide proof by example, which is a fallacy. An example of that fallacy (as you seem to need a lesson in reasoning), I can prove that the sum of two numbers is the same as the product of two numbers. 2+2 = 4; 2*2=4. Therefore the sum and product of two numbers, by example, are the same. But, 3+3=6 and 3*3=9. So my proof by example led to an invalid conclusion. I gave you evidence, which you have ignored, and you give me proof by example.

With the bulldozer I illustrated another fallacy in your argument. X doesn't have Y; that's not fair; therefore give Y to X. That's your argument and it is a fallacy. I don't have a bulldozer; that's not fair; give me a bulldozer. Same argument and by your reasoning someone ought to give me a bulldozer.
We covered equal. Same-sex couples are not equal to man-woman couples. Surely you see that.
The morals are important because they are the first principles upon which things are built. Presumptions for proof, or postulates for theorems. If these change then one ought to examine the consequences because structure built upon these assumptions may well be altered radically. Don't give me babble; give me the replacement structure if you can.

As to this statement "We're talking about two people who love each other wanting the right to marry like everybody else but being told their marriage would be immoral and they can't because of some peoples' certain religion doesn't approve." That's a so what. That gays can't marry is logically consistent from the morals upon which the nation was founded. Another way to ask my question is show me a logical foundation to support your argument.

Comment by Jim Robinson on June 18, 2010 at 11:33pm

For thousands of years has humanity recognized, accepted, and celebrated the traditional concept of marriage as being a holy union between one man and one woman before God their Creator. Our own society was built on the simple notion that traditional marriage is the basic foundation and cornerstone of a moral and civilized people, and we established our laws and customs to protect marriage and family from assault and attack. When our Founding Fathers spoke of the many wonders and blessings of the sacred institution of Marriage, it is a well known fact that they were speaking of the traditional concept of marriage as recognized over the course of human history. It would be most disingenuous and fallacious for some to argue that marriage was ever recognized as anything but the holy union of one man and one woman before God - until only very recently in modern times, that is.

Only in the past few decades has a militant and fanatical subculture in society feverishly tried to rewrite history, redefine marriage outside of it's long established and widely recognized traditional definition, and force the greater Common Good to legalize and accept a "new" definition of marriage that can only be properly defined as aberrant in nature. But the greater population of this country, and the world in general, are not buying into this madness. Marriage is what it has always been - the holy union of one man and one woman before God, and no amount of legal semantics or convoluted whining about so-called fairness or inequality is going to change this. This a good thing - not a bad thing to be feared or mocked.

And the greatest mark of true conservatism has always been about the preservation of our most valued history, traditions, culture, morality, and spirituality. This is why Conservatives celebrate these things and refuse to toss them away just to please a radical subculture that seeks to redefine and destroy our traditional rights, freedoms, morality, and classical American culture. As Conservatives do we celebrate our greatest traditions and culture - and traditional marriage is most certainly a sacred and treasured part of Americana that deserves to be protected and cherished by this nation. If homosexuals want to have their "civil unions," let them. But these unions will never be accepted as equal to traditional marriage in the eyes of the greater part of humanity. That is just a simple fact of life that is what it is - and no amount of hostilities or name calling from the homosexual subculture is ever going to change that by force and intimidation. Good night, Conservatives!

Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 10:20pm

The moral issues. Go back and read and answer the question about the moral underpinnings. The ones our society were built upon do not allow gay marriage. If we decide to change it then what moral basis is used as a substitute?
Your arguments were, as I understood them, that this didn't hurt anyone. if they want all marriage rights, especially raising children, then that's not a true proposition. The children are most certainly hurt and that's a burden to society. Don't give me a proof by example here either.
Then you argue fairness, which to be honest makes no sense. Why do I say this? A same-sex union is not the same thing as a man-woman union. Surely you can see the difference. So to say they don't have something, that's not fair isn't much of an argument. I don't have a bulldozer, I pay taxes, and I have to plow my own road. That's not fair. The state ought to give me a bulldozer. That's not an argument; that's whining.
If we substitute this part of the nation's moral underpinnings then with what and how do we keep from a slide to moral relativism?
I don't have any particular feelings about this, and I am in some sympathy for the position. It is just that there are a number of unintended consequences (go back and read) that I think are undesirable.
The objections not yet answered are
1. Harm to society;
2. Moral hazards; This means I don't see the systemic moral replacement if gays are allowed to marry.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 10:01pm

Read the part about remedy.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 9:37pm

Lee M,
You don't seem to have any comprehension. Read what is written, understand it, and then we can talk.

You say "Civil unions and gay marriages are only recognized in the state in which they are performed.." That's what I said.

Let's recap, as you have a comprehension problem.

Leslie said "They are different in many ways legally, primarily that civil unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed, while marriages are recognized in all 50 states if not worldwide." Gay marriages are NOT recognized in all 50 states just as I said. Then you say it again and somehow I am wrong. I don't think so. We all said the same thing.

When you actually read and comprehend what is written then we can have an intelligent conversation and move on.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 18, 2010 at 8:16pm

Leslie,
You claim that you can read the posts, but you do not. You state "Furthermore, Mike, there are no "religious underpinnings" in the Constitution and it'll be a tough row to hoe for you to try to unfold that myth in here." Did you not read what I posted earlier? Please read that and reply rationally.

Then you claim "They are different in many ways legally, primarily that civil unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed, while marriages are recognized in all 50 states if not worldwide." Wrong. Some states have laws allowing gays to marry; some states have laws saying that do not recognize gay marriage. So that these marriages are not recognized in all 50 states either. Poof ... there went your argument. Poof. I thought that part of the discussion was the remedy -- a remedy sometimes involves change. The proposed change is to provide a 50-state consistency for civil unions through a federal law. It is funny how that remedy thing works.
Here is where we are: Gays are trying to have the word marriage applied to some union they want to make. This is contrary to the moral and religious underpinnings -- which you chose not to read, investigate, nor refute so my earlier evidence stands -- of the nation. Now you make a claim that one concept, idea, or whatever isn't valid because it doesn't apply in 50 states. Well nothing applies in 50 states as it relates to gay marriages -- so you now argue against your own position. Marriage, as everyone agreed I think, is a contract and a sacred vow. As a remedy to some of what gay people want a federal law creating a standard for civil unions seems reasonable.
I also provided links to data, some peer reviewed that you chose to ignore, that shows there are legitimate societal interests in this gay marriage idea. These legitimate interests would say it is a bad idea. Additionally, the moral and religious underpinnings, which stand unrebutted, would say that gay marriage should not be allowed. You have advanced NO ARGUMENT, NOT ONE, to support your position.
Oh I guess there is one argument equality. Allow me to blow that up right now. In a marriage between a man and a woman procreation and a nuclear family is a possibility. In a same-sex marriage procreation is impossible. They are not equal. Get over it. There went the closest thing to an argument that you've made.
Oh you've called me a couple of names. Of course you don't know me at all and have no way of knowing whether or not these claims are true. That of course is a logical fallacy of ad hominen, which is what one resorts to when one has no argument.
You are not looking very clever my dear.

Comment by DaveG on June 18, 2010 at 6:50pm

Leslie said (to Nancy): "You shold not have thought that a blog like this would go over well just because this is a conservative site. I do not want to be a part of an ignorant, anti-gay ideal and I am not alone I assure you. I am positive the vast internet has some gay-bashing sites that you could post this blog on and be well received. I shouldn't be expected to subscribe to this hatred simply because I'm conservative nor should I ever let this go when I see it happen."

Amazing .. it is alright according to the gay rights activist for the homosexuals to force their own convictions upon society, to demand parades and demonstrations be allowed protected by law. But when a heterosexual suggest that perhaps they, too, should set aside a day or time for celebration of their own God-given rights, then it is suddenly bigoted and unacceptable.

Yep, just utterly amazing. The whole point of this blog post exemplified in spades... Those most vocal in their demand for tolerance are the least tolerant of all when it comes to accepting the beliefs of others.

Oh, by the way... many on here obviously think this blog goes over VERY well. We happen to agree with it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page