If You Listen Carefully, You Can Hear The Sound Of Civilisation Crumbling.
It's one thing to laugh at the opposition and mock their lack of rationality at times.It's one thing to have those who see things differently to how you do agitate for acceptance and "tolerance". After all, we're all equal, don't you know?
But what happens when those asking for acceptance, and tolerance, and all the rest, don't get their way?
Well if you're a person who runs a restaurant in California, a gay-friendly one, and you just happened to vote for Proposition 8, and even donated to it, then you're in for a bit of a wakeup call.
Basically, Marjorie Christoffersen, who just happens to be a believing mormon, donated $100 (yes, a whole one hundred dollars) of her own money to the "Yes" campaign for Proposition 8 in California. Her church asked her to, and she did. What her private thoughts were on this were, I would have thought, her own business.
Apparently not.
For her to have spent her own money in this way makes her a traitor to homosexual people everywhere.
It doesn't matter that her clientele are gay-friendly and she has gay staff working in her restaurant.
It doesn't matter that even those howling her down acknowledge that her business has done a lot of good work in the field of gay relations.
It matters that her beliefs led her to donate against gay marriage.
The comments on the blogs I've linked to above are hysterical, and I don't mean that in an amusing way.
My favourite comment so far? This one from Peace. Love. Lunges.
....Shame on Margie and shame on her entire family. I feel sorry for the 89 people and their families that work at the restaurant, but they will find other jobs. I feel much more sorry for the more than 18000 families that have had their marriage stripped from them - and I feel sorry for the other gay couples that won’t have the chance to marry.
BTW - this woman also donated money from the gay community to the relection of George W Bush to the tune of $1000. Do a google search on her name.
And the shame that she still supports the rape of gays by keeping us from having marriage.[Emphasis added.]
This particular quote boggles my mind, because we can talk about rape as being all about power (and having been raped a long time ago I can appreciate that aspect of it), but what about the marriage thing?
Historically, marriage has been about power and property for most of its existence.
It's for the protection and procreation of the family; if we didn't have familial structures, then we'd be no more than animals rutting in the scrub out in the bush or forest somewhere.
With a social structure revolving around a family unit of (generally speaking) father, mother and offspring, there is some reason for people to actually invest in a future existence and hopefully some prosperity.
I am taking religion out of this one because people tend to get upset about it, and this is not a post for debating that at the moment.
But I digress...
It's only been in the last few decades that marriage has become a purely personal decision to do with emotional bonding or romantic ideals rather than anything else.
With the support of welfare and child support, women can have all the babies they like and raise them without a father.
With the lack of accountability coupled with a draconian child support regime, men are more and more inclined shack up with women, and then up stakes and move on, whether they have fathered children or not.
These days, more and more western men are choosing not to father children, and undertandably so.
What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that the world does not revolve around Me.
It revolves around We.
That is We, the People, or We, the Family, or the Clan, or the Tribe or the Country.
If there is only I, then I will be rather lonely in my dotage, I suspect.
Ultimately, whether a person is for gay marriage or against it, society can only survive when all its members work from the same rulebook.
In this case, when a democratic outcome is being ignored or treated with disrespect by those whom it does not suit, when those crying for acceptance refuse to show acceptance for someone else, then there is going to be trouble.
Those who already take issue with the gay or GBLT lifestyle will only have further grist for their mill, while those who didn't give a toss will wake up with a snarl.
What happens then is anybody's guess, but I doubt it will be pretty.
posted by Nilk @ 8:37 PM
41 Comments:
How "gay friendly" can you be if you donate to a campaign to strip them of basic civil rights that you enjoy?
She donated $100 in her own name. It was a private decision which happens to be traceable.
My issue is not her politics.
My issue is with those who have taken umbrage. There was a vote against gay marriage in the State Constitution.
That gay marriage was allowed in the first place was because judges allowed it, not because it was constitutional.This is my reading of the situation - IANAL)
Proposition 8 was to confirm that gay marriage was against the Constitution, and it was confirmed by vote.
Every time that the concept of gay "marriage" has been brought to the ballots, it has been defeated.
It won't be accepted by the general population, since for many people "marriage" is considered sacred in a religious as well as secular sense.
When the gay lobby refuses to accept the majority opinion and targets someone who has supported them even though she disagrees with their lifestyle, then they are going to end up pissing off a whole lot more people than the rabid activists among them do now.
This, to me just throws more acid onto our weakened foundations.
For the left, and i suppose the gay left, it's always about ME, couldn't care less about the democratic process or the damage to society.
ME, ME, ME, that's all that matters to them, until it comes to things like the right to defend oneself, the right to keep the money you worked for, the right to spend it on what you like, the right to pass some of it onto your children etc. Then suddenly they get most concerned about 'we'.
"ME, ME, ME, that's all that matters to them, until it comes to things like the right to defend oneself, the right to keep the money you worked for, the right to spend it on what you like, the right to pass some of it onto your children etc. Then suddenly they get most concerned about 'we'."
It's individual rights except where they impact seriously on others, MK.
ie, a gay person getting married affects you, or Nilk, or I, not one jot. (That "damage to society" link of yours is absolute nonsense. How does a gay person getting married lessen the meaning of a heterosexual person's marriage? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.)
There being a whole heap of guns in society DOES affect us, because the likelihood of getting shot is greatly increased. And if there were not a decent public school system, funded by taxation, that would seriously limit children's rights. Likewise public health.
Funny that you're only interested in the state getting involved when it's telling people what's acceptable in their bedrooms... but you're perfectly happy for it to butt out when they're shooting each other or kids are missing out on an education.
Nilk - we can have this argument later, but "the majority voted for it" is a poor justification for taking away the rights of a minority. And I wouldn't be so confident of that majority lasting, anyway - gay marriage is accepted by a clear majority of younger people, and even middle-aged people now. When the present oldies die off, your Prop 8 ballots are going to come back in favour of civil liberties and against discrimination. It's inevitable.
It just sucks that they're making the present generation of gay people suffer needlessly in the meantime.
Marriage is not a "civil right" Jeremy but if you haven't worked that one out, it's probably why you are an underemployed lawyer.
"Marriage is not a "civil right" Jeremy but if you haven't worked that one out, it's probably why you are an underemployed lawyer."
Nice ad hominem. Wrong, but nice try.
And insofar as marriage is recognised by the government and people are treated differently according to whether they are married or not, you are mistaken. Of course it is a civil right.
Or would you have no problem with the government deciding that some arbitrarily-defined group of which you're a part (I neither know anything about your personal life nor care to) could not get married?
Of course you wouldn't.
Question for you, Jeremy... would you die for your country?
Would you die to protect your loved ones from the enemy without?
Now would die to protect from the enemy within?
Historically speaking, women used to be chattels, and were used to breed and aid in the transfer of property. This is why rape in marriage was seen as a non-issue. She's your property, do as you will, so to speak.
When it came to the kids, you just married them off for the most advantageous match.
Part of that included the propagation of the species in the form of offspring who would inherit/expand the family circumstances.
Today, marriage is not seen as a contract between two people which will strengthen families and aid prosperity.
It is an agreement between two people who may or may not remain married a few years down the track because the union is no longer convenient.
By agitating against "marriage", the socialists have done far more damage to our society than those voting for Prop 8 could ever do.
It has been devalued as a social construct to where it's no longer seen as an obligation to yourself and your family/clan/country, but a means for personal fulfilment above all else.
Just as an aside, am I the only one who finds the word verification "matingsb" ironic given the subject matter?
Jeremy, also, if you never read another book in your life, get your paws on Lee Harris' book, The Suicide of Reason.
The subtitle is "Radical Islam's Threat To The West," but there isn't really a whole lot on that side of things, and I think there is no need for a subtitle at all.
I could trace what's going on in society back to Gramsci, but Harris takes everything back to the Enlightenment in clear, consise, and neutral language.
Bugger... I've drifted off the topic, sorry.
Jeremy, when it comes to gay marriages, without procreation, there is less of a bond or incentive to remain bound by the contract.
With divorce law as it currently stands, again there is less incentive to remain bound by the contract.
When the definition of "marriage" as an institution is further watered down by allowing every man and his dog to participate in it, it loses its allure.
The ease with which men and women enter and exit it shows this, and that makes me wonder why on earth gays would want to be a part of something so transitory (as it stands today).
I suspect the activists are far more interested in the idea of destroying the ideal of marriage altogether, which would help them break down the judeo-christian "dead, white, male" interpretation of civilisation so they can remake it how they choose.
"Question for you, Jeremy... would you die for your country?"
No. I'd die for justice over injustice, though.
"Would you die to protect your loved ones from the enemy without?"
I'm not sure what you mean, but yes, I'd die to protect my loved ones from violence.
"Now would die to protect from the enemy within?"
I have no idea what you mean.
"Historically speaking, women used to be chattels, and were used to breed and aid in the transfer of property. This is why rape in marriage was seen as a non-issue. She's your property, do as you will, so to speak.
When it came to the kids, you just married them off for the most advantageous match."
I suspect you're not raising this to point out how the definition of marriage has changed over time, and for the better - but, ironically, clearly your example demonstrates this.
"Part of that included the propagation of the species in the form of offspring who would inherit/expand the family circumstances.
Today, marriage is not seen as a contract between two people which will strengthen families and aid prosperity.
It is an agreement between two people who may or may not remain married a few years down the track because the union is no longer convenient."
I don't think you'd find many couples seeking to marry who'd agree with that.
"By agitating against "marriage", the socialists have done far more damage to our society than those voting for Prop 8 could ever do."
The culture war on the subject of marriage isn't between "socialists" and conservatives, it's between progressives and conservatives. There'd be plenty of gay people who want to marry who share your views on the subject of economics.
Secondly, agitating for marriage to not discriminate on the grounds of gender is not "against" marriage. It's pro-marriage!
"It has been devalued as a social construct to where it's no longer seen as an obligation to yourself and your family/clan/country, but a means for personal fulfilment above all else."
I'd say it was devalued on a moral level when it was about women as chattels, and its development to being about two people committing their lives to each other was a genuinely positive step.
"Jeremy, when it comes to gay marriages, without procreation, there is less of a bond or incentive to remain bound by the contract."
Since many marriages are childless, and many child-bearing relationships are not marriages, I fail to see the relevance of the above, even if it were true.
"With divorce law as it currently stands, again there is less incentive to remain bound by the contract."
The alternative is forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages, which is hardly a social good.
"When the definition of "marriage" as an institution is further watered down by allowing every man and his dog to participate in it, it loses its allure."
Well, every man is allowed to participate in it (no-one's suggesting animals should), and if the marriage of people you don't like undermines the value of marriage to you, then I think you need some perspective.
I do not see the marriage of John and Janette Howard as a taint on the institution, even though I have nothing but contempt for one of that marriage's members.
"The ease with which men and women enter and exit it shows this, and that makes me wonder why on earth gays would want to be a part of something so transitory (as it stands today)."
Obviously they're more idealistic about the institution than you are!
"I suspect the activists are far more interested in the idea of destroying the ideal of marriage altogether, which would help them break down the judeo-christian "dead, white, male" interpretation of civilisation so they can remake it how they choose."
I suspect they're genuinely committed to equality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Removed the above post due to a massive freudian slip lol.
If by "equality" you mean we're all a mediocre shade of grey, then I'd agree with you, Jeremy.
However, as it stands, some animals are more "equal" than others.
From my travels around teh interwebs, the deconstruction of marriage is a marxist/stalinist thing, but I've not yet read Marx. (That's next on my list after I finish Alec Baldwin).
Societies are built on foundations, like houses are, and when those foundations are fractured - whether through ignorance or design - then it has less strength to survive and prosper than before.
We can look at islamic societies, and one thing's for sure, they're certainly not undermining their own foundations.
With our breaking down of the judeo-christian heritage we are contributing to the downfall of life as we know it.
Yeah, I know it sounds all melodramatic, but when I was 18, I went to the pub on my own and walked home if I were drunk.
I worked all around the state when I was younger, and I never had any real fear.
When I was a child of 7 and 8, I used to tell my oldies that I was going off on my bike and I'd see them when I came home.
No fuss, no bother. They never knew where I went, but they also knew that I was safe.
My girl's 6 and I don't let her go off on her own anywhere. I worry about being overprotective, but so far, at the end of her first year of school, she's been hit and kicked and pushed around (it's okay, she hits back), she's been spat on, and there's a lad in her class who exposes himself to her.
At least I made it to high school before getting pushed around.
When it comes to sex, it's all around us. In the magazines, the media, the clothing and toys.
Magilla's getting a whole new handmade wardrobe because the clothes are inappropriate, for example, and I'm a long way from being a prude.
I look at the big picture, and what I see is not good. There is a reason that the current generation is called the "Me Generation."
I tend to call the Gen Y'ers "Gen Whine", and entitlement seems to be a major trait in a lot of the youngsters of today.
Needless to say, this is something I can rant on about at great length.
I'll stop here for now and catch my breath lol.
I guess if you dismiss any evidence of gay marriage being bad for society simply as nonsense, you won't be convinced. That's ok, i don't expect you to change your mind on this.
However.
"...because the likelihood of getting shot is greatly increased..."
By that logic, then shouldn't you be whining about banning all knives then, since if we ban knives the likelihood of getting stabbed is greatly decreased? Shouldn't you also be crying for our police to be disarmed then, since the likelihood of them getting shot (your logic) is greatly increased?
What about those who hunt, shooting sports, shouldn't those also be banned? Unless you can demonstrate that any person with a hunting or sporting permit simply cannot take his/her gun and drive to the nearest city and kill as many as he/she can.
Frankly, your point it stupid, because unless you can keep the law-abiding safe 100% of their lives from criminals with weapons in this country, you cannot infringe upon their right to protect themselves from criminals with guns if they so choose jeremy. It's logical, unless you are stupid and seriously believe there are no criminals out there with weapons, no matter how many crimes are committed by them.
"Funny that you're only interested in the state getting involved when it's telling people what's acceptable in their bedrooms... but you're perfectly happy for it to butt out when they're shooting each other or kids are missing out on an education."
Are you just making stuff up now? I have no problem with who and what you have sex with jeremy, i don't remember advocating for people to be arrested or prosecuted because of who they fornicate with in their bedrooms.
Also, how does protecting oneself with a gun equate to me being happy (you mean laughing?) with everyone shooting at each other. Where did i say that the state must stay out if people just start shooting at each other for no reason, like you are insisting will happen.
Have you got any evidence where concealed-carry permits were issued to the law-abiding, and this directly resulted in people just shooting at each other? Or are you just being hysterical jeremy.
I don't see what kids and education have to do with anything here jeremy. But since you brought it up jeremy, why should i be made to pay for the education of your children, through taxation or otherwise. How is that NOT infringing upon my rights when you're crying about the infringement on the rights of gay people. Are gay rights more equal?
And since you're wailing about the children, and assuming you're not stupid enough to think that our schools really are weapons and crime-free, would you support the teachers in a school being armed with guns to protect the children that you insist you care for and want to force others to care for as well?
What! Two days and nothing from jeremy!
I guess Dave was right again, ask for some facts and not hysterics and jeremy suddenly gets real busy with other matters.
"We can look at islamic societies, and one thing's for sure, they're certainly not undermining their own foundations."
That depends on your definition of foundation Nilk, if you mean the spread of Islam and the way they live their life, then yes.
However their foundations are screwed up beyond anything. Their hatred of every other culture and religion, their terrible treatment of women and children, polygamy (which incidentally jeremys pro-homo-marriage stance would effectively allow) etc have brought them a cancerous foundation that we can't even fathom.
Sure some of them in the middle east are swimming in money, but that's only because we infidels want something they have. If western civilization were to go up in flames one day, those morons would be left high and dry with nothing, apart from the koran and scratching around in the sand when they're not trying to subjugate & kill us infidels.
Whilst they're caterwauling about the west, their own people enjoy few or little of the rights that we in the west take for granted. Things like free speech, liberty, the right to pursue your dreams without hindrance from others etc.
Those are our foundations, and you are 100% right when you say our breaking down of the judeo-christian heritage is contributing to the downfall of life as we know it, also entitlement seems to be a major trait in a lot of the youngsters of today.
Too many want everything and they expect others to pay for it. It's the collectivist mentality and eventually everyone gets tired of looking after other people's interests.
MK, when I speak of islam's foundations, I am speaking of the tenets, not the practical outcomes.
Absolutely I agree that they are twisted and I consider them harmful to people in general, but muslims tend to remain true to them. /hen you consider that islam (for example) has been around for 1400 years, that's some serious longevity happening there.
Compare that to our experiments in representative democracies.
Our "western" way of life truly is aberrant if you look at all the other cultures out there - African, Asian, South American and North American indigenes. Those tend to be tribal/clan-based rather than reason/logic (or what Lee Harris calls "enlightened reason")- based.
What we have is so much harder to maintain, even though we have the most mindblowingly prosperous way of life ever.
So many people just don't get it, and unfortunately, I suspect they'll find out the hard way just how fragile our society really is.
Thanks Nilk.
Yeah, we'll only figure it out when we've lost it.
" I guess if you dismiss any evidence of gay marriage being bad for society simply as nonsense, you won't be convinced."
You've never presented any such evidence.
" "...because the likelihood of getting shot is greatly increased..."
By that logic, then shouldn't you be whining about banning all knives then, since if we ban knives the likelihood of getting stabbed is greatly decreased?"
Uh, no, because knives have a vastly more prominent useful role in society. What else are we going to use to cut food? In comparison, guns don't. All you can do with a gun is shoot someone or something and try to kill it. That is not a fundamental part of our daily lives.
Secondly, you can do vastly more damage with a gun - and kill many more people before you're apprehended - than a knife.
" Shouldn't you also be crying for our police to be disarmed then, since the likelihood of them getting shot (your logic) is greatly increased?"
They're a hell of a lot better trained than your lawful gun-owner. And their equipment is much more tightly regulated.
The point about gun ownership is not that putting guns out there means lawful citizens have access to them: it's that people who are likely to shoot other people - people who aren't criminals until after they've done just that - are also much more likely to get them.
Shootings increase the more people have guns. It's inescapable.
" What about those who hunt, shooting sports, shouldn't those also be banned? Unless you can demonstrate that any person with a hunting or sporting permit simply cannot take his/her gun and drive to the nearest city and kill as many as he/she can."
I'm happy with tight regulation where sporting shooters can use guns at firing ranges and are prevented from taking them elsewhere.
" Frankly, your point it stupid, because unless you can keep the law-abiding safe 100% of their lives from criminals with weapons in this country, you cannot infringe upon their right to protect themselves from criminals with guns if they so choose jeremy."
It's not a "right" because it puts the rest of us in danger.
"It's logical, unless you are stupid and seriously believe there are no criminals out there with weapons, no matter how many crimes are committed by them."
It's beyond obvious that if you make firearms more available, more criminals will have guns.
" Are you just making stuff up now? I have no problem with who and what you have sex with jeremy, i don't remember advocating for people to be arrested or prosecuted because of who they fornicate with in their bedrooms."
You want them discriminated against by the state on those grounds.
" I don't see what kids and education have to do with anything here jeremy. But since you brought it up jeremy, why should i be made to pay for the education of your children, through taxation or otherwise."
This is the typical conservative approach to education: children as chattels. "YOUR children". "MY children".
How about simply agreeing that all children deserve a decent education? Regardless of who their parents are?
I don't have kids, but say I did and I simply didn't care what sort of education they'd get, and I certainly wasn't willing to spend my money on them - why on earth should the government simply accept that's the way it has to be and leave my children to have a second-class (or no) education?
Look at it from the child's point of view. Why is the child of parents who are unable or unwilling to provide an excellent education, deserving of being left out in the cold at the start of their life and being robbed of reasonable opportunities?
" How is that NOT infringing upon my rights when you're crying about the infringement on the rights of gay people. Are gay rights more equal?"
Not paying taxes is not a civil right. (That "right", if granted, would cause serious hurt to every impoverished child, for example.) Not being discriminated against on grounds of gender is. (Because that right doesn't hurt anyone.)
" And since you're wailing about the children, and assuming you're not stupid enough to think that our schools really are weapons and crime-free, would you support the teachers in a school being armed with guns to protect the children that you insist you care for and want to force others to care for as well?"
You are seriously nuts, MK. We don't have that problem in Australia. You make guns more widely available, and it'll be like those schools in the US where they have to have metal detectors at the gate.
"What! Two days and nothing from jeremy!
I guess Dave was right again, ask for some facts and not hysterics and jeremy suddenly gets real busy with other matters."
Alternatively, that I had work to do.
Know what that's like, MK?
Jeremy the idiot:
ie, a gay person getting married affects you, or Nilk, or I, not one jot. (That "damage to society" link of yours is absolute nonsense. How does a gay person getting married lessen the meaning of a heterosexual person's marriage? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.)
This is because you are a bear of very little brain.
Firstly: any gay person can get married, anywhere, any time... to another (human) of the opposite sex.
Secondly: Marriage is defined, and has been for millennia, as a union, formally recognised by society, between a man and a woman. By definition then, a union between two people of the same sex is not and cannot be marriage. The term is taken, eff off and make up your own.
Thirdly: No civilised person has any objection to a secular union arrangement (say the same as a defacto relationship) legally valid until divorce court, between homosexuals. As an ambulance chaser yourself, Jeremy, think of the cash.
Fourthly: This is not and cannot be marriage, even though it recognises the same legal linkages between the two people involved.
There being a whole heap of guns in society DOES affect us, because the likelihood of getting shot is greatly increased.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks unless you add that those guns are "in criminal hands." The recent studies of the ridiculous Howard-era gun control measures proves that it was a complete waste of money and achieved not one of the touted aims.
Funny that you're only interested in the state getting involved when it's telling people what's acceptable in their bedrooms...
Bollocks. Nobody cares what people do in their bedrooms - but how typically stupid that you equate marriage to sex. You are so intellectually shallow that you8 make a carpark puddle look like the Laurentian Abyss.
but you're perfectly happy for it to butt out when they're shooting each other
Bollocks. Read Nilk's comments on crime.
Nilk - we can have this argument later, but "the majority voted for it" is a poor justification for taking away the rights of a minority.
Bollocks. Nobody has taken away anyone's rights. Anyone can still get married - to a person of the opposite sex.
And I wouldn't be so confident of that majority lasting, anyway - gay marriage is accepted by a clear majority of younger people, and even middle-aged people now.
Yet again, bollocks. They do not object to some form of civil union with the same legal liabilities. But that is no more marriage than a recognised defacto relationship is.
It just sucks that they're making the present generation of gay people suffer needlessly in the meantime.
Bollocks. The suffering is on the other side, from attacks by homosexual thugs (buggerers-thuggery?) who have been denied their wish to devalue something that they cannot, by definition, have.
Any homosexual can get married any time they want. Provided it's to a person of the opposite bender. So how is marriage 'denied' to them?
And if people have no objection to a form of civil arrangement with teh same outcome as a defacto relationship, why is THAT not being pushed for?
Easy - becasue it is not about that at all - it's about politics and power, and wanting to enforce the views of a tiny minority on everyone else.
MarkL
of it's warm here.
Jeremy is an idiot Pt II
[Police are] a hell of a lot better trained than your lawful gun-owner.
Bollocks. I know a lot of cops. I spend an order of magnitude more time at the range than they do, and fire two orders of magnitude more ammo.
And their equipment is much more tightly regulated.
Bollocks. Check your local firearms act. The police are exempt from most of it, only having internal regulations they themselves write to 'regulate' their arms.
The point about gun ownership is not that putting guns out there means lawful citizens have access to them: it's that people who are likely to shoot other people - people who aren't criminals until after they've done just that - are also much more likely to get them.
Bollocks. Go and read the AIC's recent report on criminal use of handguns in Australia, or any of the large number of reports which find absolutely no relationship like the one you have postulated here.
Lord, you are so ignorant of basic facts, Jeremy...
Shootings increase the more people have guns. It's inescapable.
Bollocks. Prove this causal link! Shootings [of people by people] are a criminal act. You postulate that people are naturally criminally inclined (you are probably right in teh lawyering community!) based on NOTHING. No study has EVER supported this stupid contention.
Your response, of course, will be to point to accidents and claim that is what you meant. But that will be bollocks too.
MarkL
of somewhere warm
Jeremy is an idiot Pt III
I'm happy with tight regulation where sporting shooters can use guns at firing ranges and are prevented from taking them elsewhere.
Tough Luck, sunshine. Like all socialists, you want a society where only criminals have guns.Not going to happen.
It's not a "right" because it puts the rest of us in danger.
Bollocks. What danger are you in from a law-abiding, legal, registered gun owner, who hunts for sport? You are in danger from criminals illegally owning firearms.
You merely demonstrate colossal ignorance by conflating the two.
It's beyond obvious that if you make firearms more available, more criminals will have guns.
Bollocks. This is only self-evident to cretins. No study has EVER proven this. Japan has the strictest gun controls on the planet. No person in the country except the military & police are permitted to possess a firearm.
Japan is awash with guns, they are incredibnly common in criminal circles (the favourite de jour is the 9mm glock, and sub-machine guns). That same 9mm Glock will cost you $3500 in Sydney.
" Are you just making stuff up now? I have no problem with who and what you have sex with jeremy, i don't remember advocating for people to be arrested or prosecuted because of who they fornicate with in their bedrooms."
You want them discriminated against by the state on those grounds.
Bollocks. You impute your incorrect views to someone else here. How are homosexuals discriminated against by a definition, when those same homosexuals can get married any time they want? All they have to do is to find a [human] person of the opposite sex. If they choose not to, that is hardly discrimination.
This is the typical conservative approach to education: children as chattels. "YOUR children". "MY children".
Bollocks. This is the typical drooling leftard approach to discourse: facts as mutable, and a quick change of subject.
" would you support the teachers in a school being armed with guns to protect the children that you insist you care for and want to force others to care for as well?"
You are seriously nuts, MK. We don't have that problem in Australia.
Bollocks. Our schools are awash with weapons, knives are common, illegal pistols are frequent.
You make guns more widely available, and it'll be like those schools in the US where they have to have metal detectors at the gate.
Bollocks. Again you conflate legal gun owners with criminals.
Not much of a lawyer, son.
MarkL
It's genuinely toasty outside.
I'm going to stay on topic, rather than getting involved further in a gun control debate with gun nuts in a comment thread on a completely different issue.
So, this is what I said:
"ie, a gay person getting married affects you, or Nilk, or I, not one jot. (That "damage to society" link of yours is absolute nonsense. How does a gay person getting married lessen the meaning of a heterosexual person's marriage? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.)"
And this is Mark "if I call my opponent an idiot do I win?" L's response (note how it doesn't actually show a single reason how a gay person getting married lessens the meaning of a heterosexual person's marriage):
"This is because you are a bear of very little brain.
Firstly: any gay person can get married, anywhere, any time... to another (human) of the opposite sex.
Secondly: Marriage is defined, and has been for millennia, as a union, formally recognised by society, between a man and a woman. By definition then, a union between two people of the same sex is not and cannot be marriage. The term is taken, eff off and make up your own.
Thirdly: No civilised person has any objection to a secular union arrangement (say the same as a defacto relationship) legally valid until divorce court, between homosexuals. As an ambulance chaser yourself, Jeremy, think of the cash.
Fourthly: This is not and cannot be marriage, even though it recognises the same legal linkages between the two people involved."
1. No, it's discrimination. I am allowed by law to marry a woman. My female friend can't. When a person is prevented by law from doing something because of their gender, what do we call that?
2. Actually, marriage was redefined by anti-gay bigots in the last decade, because you were worried that people understood the concept of marriage such that it could easily include gay people. So you had governments quickly redefine it as "one man and one woman".
That definition would be a snap to undo.
The point is that language isn't determined by governments. If a gay civil union is indistinguishable in treatment by the government from a marriage (which you pretend in point 3 to support), then sorry mate, people are going to call it a marriage.
If it looks like a marriage, is treated the same as a marriage, and its participants think of it as a marriage, THEN IT'S A FREAKING MARRIAGE.
You can call it what you like. The rest of the English-speaking world will call it what it is.
3. As above.
4. That's the same as your point 2. Point 2 was weak enough to start with: why repeat it?
And Mark L, desperately trying to come up with some way in which gay marriage is going to hurt straight people who are married, fails abysmally. To even come up with one.
How embarrassing for him.
1. No, it's discrimination. I am allowed by law to marry a woman. My female friend can't. When a person is prevented by law from doing something because of their gender, what do we call that?
Poor Jeremy. This is the 'why cannot my girlfriend have a vasectomy' argument. And you are a lawyer! Marriage is defined in the marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. How is that definition discriminatory?
2. Actually, marriage was redefined by anti-gay bigots in the last decade, because you were worried that people understood the concept of marriage such that it could easily include gay people. So you had governments quickly redefine it as "one man and one woman".
Proof of this assertion, please. Else this is merely more of the usual jeremy BS.
That definition would be a snap to undo.
So now you admit that this is a matter of definition. Therefore, how can it be discriminatory as claimed? You are not very good at this 'debating' thing, are you?
The point is that language isn't determined by governments. If a gay civil union is indistinguishable in treatment by the government from a marriage (which you pretend in point 3 to support), then sorry mate, people are going to call it a marriage.
They can call it anything they like, although I note that defacto relationships are not called 'marriages' by those in them. they are called "defacto's". I appreciate your admission of 'no argument can I put up' inherent in the ad hominem sneer above, boy. Why the hell should anyone oppose the idea of giving homosexuals the same legal rights as defacto's under a secular civil union arrangement, should they want them? Like defacto between heterosexual couples, it's not marriage, but carries much the same civil and financial responsibilities. What's the problem with you over this?
Or is is a political issue for you? That's it, isn't it.
If it looks like a marriage, is treated the same as a marriage, and its participants think of it as a marriage, THEN IT'S A FREAKING MARRIAGE.
No, it isn't. It's a defacto. It carries no sacramental or spiritual meaning.
You can call it what you like. The rest of the English-speaking world will call it what it is.
As they do already. They call it a defacto relationship. What is your problem with this?
You just want to 'strike a blow against religious people', that's it, isn't it? This is all about your own personal anti-religious personal feelings.
And Mark L, desperately trying to come up with some way in which gay marriage is going to hurt straight people who are married, fails abysmally. To even come up with one.
Why do I have to prove harm. YOU have to prove that it will cause no harm. Becuase YOU are the person who wants to impose your will on me. Well, eff off.
And it will cause harm because it is intruding into deeply held religious and societal convictions that the institution of marriage is a foundation stone of our society.
Think the muslims will like being forced to "marry" homosexuals in the mosque? Might be a few beheadings in THAT one. hey stone homosexuals to death... Could this meet your mutable definition of 'harm'?
Think that Catholics will obey such a demand at all? And by your reasoning, forcing them to is active discrimination, laddie boy, becuase you are trying to force them to do something against the teachings and moral considerations of the Church.
So you propose to discriminate against the majority to prevent what your feverishly imagine to be "discrimination" against homosexuals.
Dude, as a lawyer, you might just starve if this is your level of reasoning.
And all the while, no-one has any genuine or suatainble objections to giving homosexuals the same responsibiltiies under the law as heterosexual defacto relationships. Because that removes it from the religious sphere into the secular.
Jeremy Sears - stupidy and irrationality so self-parodying that you cannot make it up.
MarkL
SEA
I suspect a lot of this has come about precisely because of de facto arrangements being given near the same amount of societal approval as actual marriages.
Since a "marriage" no longer has the societal clout and support as an institution it once had, we see less commitment on the part of both men and women. All we have to do is look at the stats on divorce.
I'm a single parent. I never got married, and if I had, then it would have been over in 6 months, I can tell you that now.
I also disagree with cohabitation - attempting it once was enough.
Anyhoo:
So, which institution is the greatest enemy of human liberty? There can be only one answer: the state in general, and, in particular, the totalitarian version thereof. Perhaps there is no greater example of such a government than the USSR, and its chief dictators, Lenin and Stalin (although primacy of place in terms of sheer numbers of innocents murdered might belong to Mao’s China). We thus ask, which institutions did these two Russian worthies single out for opprobrium? There can be only one answer: primarily, religion, and, secondarily, the family. It was no accident that the Soviets passed laws rewarding children for turning in their parents for anti-communistic activities. There is surely no better way to break up the family than this diabolical policy. And, how did they treat religion? To ask this is to answer it. Religion was made into public enemy number one, and its practitioners viciously hunted down.
Why pick on religion and the family? Because these are the two great competitors – against the state – for allegiance on the part of the people. The Communists were quite right, from their own evil perspective, to focus on these two institutions. All enemies of the overweening state, then, would do well to embrace religion and the family as their friends, whether they are themselves atheists or not, parents or not.
The main reason religion sticks in the craw of secular leaders is that this institution defines moral authority independently of their power. Every other organization in society (with the possible exception of the family) sees the state as the source of ultimate ethical sanction. Despite the fact that some religious leaders have indeed bowed the knee to government officials, there is a natural and basic enmity between the two sources of authority. The pope and other religious leaders may not have any regiments of soldiers, but they do have something lacking on the part of presidents and prime ministers, greatly to the regret of the latter.
Our government's undermining of marriage as a result of vocal and aggressive activism on the part of people of socialist/communist leanings has lead us to where we are today.
Everything is about giving you more freedom, but at the expense of my freedom.
As MarkL points out, if you attempt to force catholics to perform gay marriage ceremonies, then you are forcing them to act against their religion (which would, incidentally, be in breach of my favourite legislation, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 201).
Catholic adoption agencies have closed their doors rather than go against their tenets, but there are some who think that forcing catholics to go against their beliefs is okay.
The "your church will be forced to marry gays" line?
That's what you're reduced to?
Gay marriage being treated equally by the state as heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with what churches choose to do. Churches don't have to marry anyone who doesn't share their beliefs, gay or straight. Gay marriage will change that not one jot.
It's a complete furphy.
And either Mark is the total dribbling moron he accuses others of being, or he's well aware of the dishonesty of his argument but is happy to run it anyway.
PS Don't call me "boy", dickhead.
Jeremy, the rainbow sash activists already have a habit of interrupting masses to demand communion.
When they don't get it they scream discrimination.
Communion is a sacrament, as is marriage, in the catholic church and should not be taken lightly, or to score political points.
The catholic doctrine on homosexuality is that it is a sin, and as such not to be celebrated or rewarded.
Granting communion to those who disagree with or disrespect the church's views would be according them a respect do not deserve.
I also suspect that taking communion under these circumstances could be deemed blasphemous.
There have also been cases in the UK of churches being told to officiate gay marriages or face prosecution.
(too late to link, sorry. Cranmer probably has it in his archives.)
Of course it will happen here.
Okay, my bad. Not a church, but an Earl.
Cranmer's post.
But the Earl now finds himself under siege from ‘gay rights campaigners’, who are not content that the Earl has had his licence to host civil marriage ceremonies (gay or straight) revoked, but are intent on persecuting him further. They insist that because Powderham Castle has ‘conditional’ exemption from inheritance tax because it is open to the public, that the exemption should be withdrawn because the castle is ‘not accessible to all members of the public without exception’.
This is, of course, a ludicrous assertion. The Earl of Devon does not demand that visitors to his home complete a form outlining their sexual preferences, and then admit or expel them on the basis of that response. He has simply determined that, under his roof, marriage shall be in accordance with the orthodox Christian understanding of the term. If he is forced by law to transgress the bounds of his conscience, he has decided that none shall enjoy his home for their wedding ceremony.
"Jeremy, the rainbow sash activists already have a habit of interrupting masses to demand communion.
When they don't get it they scream discrimination.
Communion is a sacrament, as is marriage, in the catholic church and should not be taken lightly, or to score political points. "
I think there's a considerable difference between debate about discrimination in society as a whole - which is what we're talking about when governments are refusing to treat gay marriages the same as heterosexual ones - and debate within a religious institution on a similar subject.
As far as I'm concerned, the civil rights issue of importance is ensuring government does not discriminate on gender.
If religious organisations want to discriminate, then that's a decision for them - but keep in mind that debate within such organisations is also healthy. If it weren't, there'd be no Christian church other than the one that swears allegiance to the papacy. And they'd still be burning witches.
Gay catholics are as entitled as any other catholics to challenge the validity of church doctrine.
But that's an entirely different issue from whether governments should treat gays the same as the rest of us - that they don't is a serious civil rights issue.
Hmm. OK, Jeremy, you do npot like the term 'boy'? So Sad. Well, I'll use 'prettyboy', then.
Dear prettyboy, during the week, the govt brought in the pretty much the same set of responsibilities for homosexuals as m/f defacto's have.
This is a good move, in my view. Why should not divorce lawyers get their hooks into the prettyboys, too?
Prettyboy, what your verbal drooling shows is that you are an anti-Catholic bigot. You want to COMPEL those with a moral compass in their lives to follow whatever, fancy you and your fellow prettyboys have today.
Well, to hell with that. Marriage is a religiously recognised issue at heart. The secular marriage deals with the non-religious, and few have a problem with that.
But forcing the religious to accept that non-religious arrangements between homosexuals is equivalent o a genuine amrriage is harmful to those people with religious inclinations.
Try this line of argument with the denizens of the Lakemba Mosque, prettyboy, and I doubt you'd survive the day. Try forming teh homosexcual muslim marriage league and wearing a rainbow dishadasha to mosque, and see how long you and your fellow prettyboys last.
SO I find your approach to be profoundly bigoted, narcissistic and irrational.
Guess you must be a leftard.
MarkL
SEA
This is a great thread, not sure if it still going, but anyways...
Marriage as an institution has been weakened by several social advances. Quickie divorces; sexual liberation; reliable contraception / abortion availability; cohabitation; destigmatising illegitimacy; mixed dancing. Just kidding about mixed dancing. That we are at the stage of debating whether gays can marry is a sign that marriage has already been traduced.
Personally I am against gay marriage because it just doesn't seem logical.
It' still limping along, ar; I'm just in the middle of packing the house and I'm getting a lot of hours work which I'm grabbing with both hands.
The economy's on a downhill slide, so I'm making hay while the sun shines, so to speak. :)
Yeah, markymark, if people want a basic civil right the rest of us share but that the Roman Catholics don't want them to have, that's bigotry. Refusing to discriminate against people the RCs want the government to discriminate against is itself discrimination against RCs!
Who are we to oppose the discrimination against gays the RCs want government to maintain? That's "anti-Catholic bigotry"!
Idiot.
PS "prettyboy"? Double idiot.
Jeremy, it's not only the rock crushers who don't agree with gay marriage.
Talk to the muslims. Google iran and homosexual and see what comes up.
There are evangelical christians, and then there are ordinary people who don't think one way or the other about religion, but gay marriage just rubs them the wrong way.
They feel it's bad, does that mean that any discomfort they feel should be discounted at the cost of a minority of the population?
Supposedly in this representative democracy of our, the majority is supposed to have the final say.
How about we see that demonstrated for a change?
I for one am tired of my faith being the punching bag when it comes to stuff like this.
When the Prop 8 sooks start protesting outside mosques then I might start to look at their list of demands a bit more seriously.
As MarkL has pointed out, we already have civil unions that are treated as marriage in all but name, so why can't that be enough?
Do you really want to tear down those who believe God when He said that homosexuality was wrong to prove a point?
Why does everyone else's belief trump mine?
It's not beliefs trumping yours, it's other people's basic rights. You can have whatever religious belief you want.
The state shouldn't discriminate against others on that basis, though.
Basically, gay people getting married doesn't affect you. You making sure they can't get married seriously does affect them.
It's the old aphorism - your right to extend your arm suddenly ends at the point where it's connecting with someone else's face.
"...if people want a basic civil right the rest of us share but that the Roman Catholics don't want them to have, that's bigotry."
Comment: Prettyboy, you are shifting ground. Interesting. I'm a Catholic, and I have Catholic gay friends and Catholic gay relatives. They do not feel discriminated against, and like me think that the secular recognition of defacto rights is a good thing. I certyainly think so.
What YOU are on about here, prettyboy, can be classified as bigotry. You want to force others to abandon their own views in favour of yours, and you profess to despise them for not doing so. This could be described as bigotry on your part against Catholics - it's pretty normal, of course, as the standard leftist is often a racist, a bigot and an anti-semite. (Not that I am implying that you are a standard leftist, of course.)
"Refusing to discriminate against people the RCs want the government to discriminate against is itself discrimination against RCs!"
It IS? Well, who'd a thunk it, eh?
"Who are we to oppose the discrimination against gays the RCs want government to maintain? That's "anti-Catholic bigotry"!"
You HAVE to be a lawyer to come up with stuff this dumb. How is defining one form of union between a man and a woman where that union is sacramental in nature discriminatory? Remember, in the eyes of the Church, defacto relationships are not marriage either, for all there is a popular perception that they are. Is this dicriminatory?
Now, the state has said that homosexuals may have the same legal rights as defacto m/f couples. That's fine by me. But marriage it is not.
And there is nothing at all stopping you or any homosexual from forming the "Church of the Raiment Raiser", registering it as a "religion" (yup, lots of hoops to jump through), and conducting "marriages" in it. No, the Catholic Church will not recognise those either, but as my homosexual cousin said: 'Hey, it's the wedding that interests me'.
And we all had a good laugh at that one around the pool.
So, prettyboy, you are merely squealing the standard socialist line: 'I want to force you to do what I think'. The usual path to fascism.
It's just another reflection of your own fundamental narcissism and amorality. Quite normal for leftists.
MarkL
Canberra
Expecting the majority to deny themselves their own traditions to accommodate a minority is ridiculous and unbalanced, and is actually the tragic foundation of political correct theory. No wonder it has crashed as badly as it has.
People have fought wars for that lady to have that freedom of opinion and choice...So leave her the hell alone you nasty little bullies.
Heavens above, jeremy is back...
You got him good MarkL. It's amazing how stupid, shameless and dishonest he can be.
"You've never presented any such evidence."
That's ok jeremy, you keep telling yourself that.
"Uh, no, because knives have a vastly more prominent useful role in society. What else are we going to use to cut food? In comparison, guns don't. All you can do with a gun is shoot someone or something and try to kill it. That is not a fundamental part of our daily lives."
Uh, no, protecting yourself from harm is far more important that cutting your loaf of bread jeremy. If you can't protect yourself from the armed criminal, you have no life. Focus on this jeremy, i know it's hard for you but try, there are criminals out there with guns, read the news and you will see, if you cannot prevent them from having guns, it's fundamentally stupid for you to try and prevent the law-abiding from protecting themselves from those with guns. Do you have any logical argument against this? Apart from your pointless rambling about more guns = more deaths with guns. In case you didn't know more cars = more deaths with cars.
"They're a hell of a lot better trained than your lawful gun-owner. And their equipment is much more tightly regulated."
Do you have a driving license jeremy, are you better trained that a racing car driver? If not why are you allowed to drive a vehicle, what's stopping you from going mad and plowing into a busy street full of people?
By the way, are you saying that if all of us who want to carry guns were happy to submit ourselves to similar police training, the sort you seem to be in such awe of, will you be happy for us to carry guns then? If not then your point is stupid and pointless.
"Shootings increase the more people have guns. It's inescapable."
Shootings already happen because criminals have guns jeremy, what increase are you referring to, are you afraid that some criminals might get shot? Typical leftist, always crying and wailing for criminals.
"I'm happy with tight regulation where sporting shooters can use guns at firing ranges and are prevented from taking them elsewhere."
Again, can you prevent 100% of people with a hunting or sporting permit from simply taking his/her gun and driving to the nearest city and killing as many as he/she can? If so how? Your happiness doesn't make it an impossibility jeremy, no matter how much you think of yourself.
"It's not a "right" because it puts the rest of us in danger."
Your collectivist side is shining through again jeremy, my right to protect myself from an armed thug/s is trumped by jeremy and his fellow lawyers right to feel warm and safe.
Then why aren't you caterwauling for the banning of knives and cars, sure they are useful, but they put the rest of us in danger, so by your own stupid logic, you should be calling for a ban on cars and knives. Whining about their usefulness doesn't cut it jeremy, because preserving your life carries more weight that driving from point A to point B.
"This is the typical conservative approach to education: children as chattels. "YOUR children". "MY children".
How about simply agreeing that all children deserve a decent education? Regardless of who their parents are?"
Typical leftist approach to just about everything, when he wants something but doesn't want to pay for it himself, it's some half-assed waffle about chattel and crying for 'decent' this and that.
How about simply agreeing that all people deserve a decent home to live in regardless of who they are? Come on jeremy don't you agree? Now start paying for it and let's see how long you are in agreement for. You see jeremy, we all want everything, but it's not a right when someone else has to pay for it. I know you'll find that hard to understand since you probably got everything given to your lazy ass. Even if you didn't, what gives you the right to take money from me for anyone else's education, no matter who their parents are? If you take money for education, why can't i take money from you for their healthcare, their first home, their clothes, their holiday trips, their entertainment expenses, their first bike, car, wedding and so on? Why are you only entitled to a decent life jeremy, why are you entitled to do with your money as you please?
I ask again, and since you're wailing about the children, and assuming you're not stupid enough to think that our schools really are weapons and crime-free, would you support the teachers in a school being armed with guns to protect the children that you insist you care for and want to force others to care for as well?
"You are seriously nuts, MK. We don't have that problem in Australia."
You are seriously stupid jeremy, Merrylands highschool invaded by gang with machetes, swords etc, just one example. Go and read about the gun and knife crime in Australia, are you seriously stupid enough to think that none of those guns or knives can be used by criminals one day in a school against the children you claim to care for, being a caring leftist and all that?
"Alternatively, that I had work to do."
Off course you did.
"I'm going to stay on topic, rather than getting involved further in a gun control debate with gun nuts in a comment thread on a completely different issue."
Realized your stupidity didn't you, understandable.
"Try this line of argument with the denizens of the Lakemba Mosque, prettyboy, and I doubt you'd survive the day. Try forming teh homosexcual muslim marriage league and wearing a rainbow dishadasha to mosque, and see how long you and your fellow prettyboys last."
Go on jeremy, just try it.
"This is the typical conservative approach to education: children as chattels. "YOUR children". "MY children"."
By the way jeremy, since you get all huffy and puffy when people refer to their children as MY children, or 'chattels' as you like to call it, i'd like to see you say this very thing to the atheist parents of children over the following.
LiveNews - "Victorian state primary school students will soon be able to take religious education classes which teach there is no evidence God exists. ...... Atheistical parents will be pleased to hear that humanistic courses of ethics will soon be available in some state schools"
So if the school were to suggest that a parent send their child to religious education and they get all huffy and puffy about 'their' children, would you deride them in a similar fashion for making their children mere chattels jeremy?
Say it jeremy, after all, when it comes to funding, you sourly insist that they are everyone's children, so why not when it comes to matters of religious education since we're all forced to pay for it. Or are some chattels more equal?
mksviews, you'll find that Prettyboy goes very quiet after he's had his arguments (for want of a better term) obliterated.
It's an admission of abject defeat. By staying away, he hopes people forget it.
MarkL
Canberra
Yeah i've seen that from him before.
Post a Comment
<< Home