R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I see.
If you don't wish to answer the question, that's just fine. However--and to respond precisely in kind--in true fake-conservative right-wing talk show host style, you prefer invective. Never fails to amaze me, when folks who espouse Christian values abandon them at first opportunity.
Just to clear up a few things, unless I'm hallucinating--as we Libs are wont to do--the topic of this thread is, "and what of gay marriages?" I've several times simply asked you on what grounds, scientific or religious, you are resting your arguments against allowing it. You know--it's that thing about building one's house on rock or on sand?
Rather than offer an answer to a polite question, you've chosen various forms of insult--including the latest, "Bobby," which employs the dimunitive of my name in an attempt to position yourself as the adult responding to a foolish child.
I pursued the matter out of genuine interest, and to keep the conversation going--and, frankly, because I suspected that no answer or logical refutation would be forthcoming. And readers please note: whatever Mister Mike might think I think, I always phrased things politely, and well...judge the responses for yourself. For me, it's enough to make one think that Neil Hertz had a point about male hysteria in response to political pressure.
Part of the reason I've become more and more sympathetic to, "minorities," like gay people as I've gotten older, I have to say, is the unreason of those who have problems with them. Here, it's the classic right-wing talk-show host response: get a question, launch insults, wait for the other party to get honked off in the slightest, accuse them of being childish and losing their temper, keep shifting the grounds of the discussion, keep claiming that one has, "proof," without ever specifying what that proof is, and eventually, when the game grows tiring, break off the conversation on the grounds that the other party is somehow being unreasonable for asking a question. Follow up with a snippy comment about the other person's beliefs, or what you're pleased to claim they believe.
And never, never, never answer the question. Never cite the basis for the belief. Never follow ordinary rules of courtesy. Just yell.
As for the topic, the connection is that it is this sort of unreason that makes life difficult for so many.
Just to "help," the other side, here are the primary arguments against so-called, "gay marriage."
1) Christian. Gay marriage violates the rules for life laid down in the Bible, and in mainstream Christian teachings since the Renaissance at least. It particularly violates the teachings of modern Protestantism, in particular those of the evangelical and fundamentalist divisions of Protestantism.
2) Christian. Gay marriage violates the basic premises that a) sex in marriage, the proper place for all sexual behavior, is either a sort of, "necessary evil," preferable to illegitimate lust or a pleasure that serves as a foretaste of Heaven, and b) sex in marriage is to be enjoyed in the context of procreation.
3) "Scientific." Gay marriage, based as it is upon, "abnormal," sexual expression, contradicts the biological basis of marriage. {Note: I have put quotes around, "scientific," since it is difficult to find evidence for this assertion of absolute, normative heterosexuality in animal studies or in human history.}
4) Scientific. Gay marriage rests upon the expression of perverse sexuality, with homosexuality being the result of an unusual genetic trait.
5) Historical. Gay marriage has never been practiced before, and is a modern notion altogether. It is wrong, because it flies in the face of past practices.
6) Cultural. Gay marriage is a perverse expression of a perverse, declining, corrupt culture.
7) Cultural. Gay marriage is part of an ongoing, active and quasi-deliberate attempt to undermine the normal American family.
8) Legal. Gay marrriage runs contrary to the establish tradition of Western law.
9) Legal. Gay marriage would require enormous, sweeping changes in our civil laws, with dangerous consequences.
10) Financial. Gay marriage would place enormous and unreasonable burdens on our insurance system and tax revenues, since gay people would immediately become eligible for marriage deductions, spousal benefits, and certain inheritance rights.
11) Psychosexual. Gay marrieds who adopted, or otherwise had children, would "spread," homosexuality to them, or create a generation of confused, unahappy, and indeed neurotic children.
Sheesh. Bobby shut up now.
If you don't wish to answer the question, that's just fine. However--and to respond precisely in kind--in true fake-conservative right-wing talk show host style, you prefer invective. Never fails to amaze me, when folks who espouse Christian values abandon them at first opportunity.
Just to clear up a few things, unless I'm hallucinating--as we Libs are wont to do--the topic of this thread is, "and what of gay marriages?" I've several times simply asked you on what grounds, scientific or religious, you are resting your arguments against allowing it. You know--it's that thing about building one's house on rock or on sand?
Rather than offer an answer to a polite question, you've chosen various forms of insult--including the latest, "Bobby," which employs the dimunitive of my name in an attempt to position yourself as the adult responding to a foolish child.
I pursued the matter out of genuine interest, and to keep the conversation going--and, frankly, because I suspected that no answer or logical refutation would be forthcoming. And readers please note: whatever Mister Mike might think I think, I always phrased things politely, and well...judge the responses for yourself. For me, it's enough to make one think that Neil Hertz had a point about male hysteria in response to political pressure.
Part of the reason I've become more and more sympathetic to, "minorities," like gay people as I've gotten older, I have to say, is the unreason of those who have problems with them. Here, it's the classic right-wing talk-show host response: get a question, launch insults, wait for the other party to get honked off in the slightest, accuse them of being childish and losing their temper, keep shifting the grounds of the discussion, keep claiming that one has, "proof," without ever specifying what that proof is, and eventually, when the game grows tiring, break off the conversation on the grounds that the other party is somehow being unreasonable for asking a question. Follow up with a snippy comment about the other person's beliefs, or what you're pleased to claim they believe.
And never, never, never answer the question. Never cite the basis for the belief. Never follow ordinary rules of courtesy. Just yell.
As for the topic, the connection is that it is this sort of unreason that makes life difficult for so many.
Just to "help," the other side, here are the primary arguments against so-called, "gay marriage."
1) Christian. Gay marriage violates the rules for life laid down in the Bible, and in mainstream Christian teachings since the Renaissance at least. It particularly violates the teachings of modern Protestantism, in particular those of the evangelical and fundamentalist divisions of Protestantism.
2) Christian. Gay marriage violates the basic premises that a) sex in marriage, the proper place for all sexual behavior, is either a sort of, "necessary evil," preferable to illegitimate lust or a pleasure that serves as a foretaste of Heaven, and b) sex in marriage is to be enjoyed in the context of procreation.
3) "Scientific." Gay marriage, based as it is upon, "abnormal," sexual expression, contradicts the biological basis of marriage. {Note: I have put quotes around, "scientific," since it is difficult to find evidence for this assertion of absolute, normative heterosexuality in animal studies or in human history.}
4) Scientific. Gay marriage rests upon the expression of perverse sexuality, with homosexuality being the result of an unusual genetic trait.
5) Historical. Gay marriage has never been practiced before, and is a modern notion altogether. It is wrong, because it flies in the face of past practices.
6) Cultural. Gay marriage is a perverse expression of a perverse, declining, corrupt culture.
7) Cultural. Gay marriage is part of an ongoing, active and quasi-deliberate attempt to undermine the normal American family.
8) Legal. Gay marrriage runs contrary to the establish tradition of Western law.
9) Legal. Gay marriage would require enormous, sweeping changes in our civil laws, with dangerous consequences.
10) Financial. Gay marriage would place enormous and unreasonable burdens on our insurance system and tax revenues, since gay people would immediately become eligible for marriage deductions, spousal benefits, and certain inheritance rights.
11) Psychosexual. Gay marrieds who adopted, or otherwise had children, would "spread," homosexuality to them, or create a generation of confused, unahappy, and indeed neurotic children.
Sheesh. Bobby shut up now.
