Conservative Republican Brainwashing.

[Gnomesmusher]

Are you asking a Republican to say something that makes sense, in a thread discussing seemingly nonsensical behavior from people who vote Republican? Seems to me that you're setting yourself up for some serious disappointment.

Oh I always expect them to say something nonsensical, so there's no disappointment. I don't really expect anyone to give a good answer why gays and lesbians (or anyone really) should vote Republican. Not that the Democrats are much better, since they're hardly progressive now, but gays voting for Republican? Insane.

 

[InReasonWeTrust]

Last I checked, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. The government shouldn't recognize ANY marriage, gay or straight. It violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Last I checked, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony. The government shouldn't recognize ANY marriage, gay or straight. It violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

You need to check again. Marriage is a civil contract that may or may not be associated with a religious ceremony. Therefore, no violation of the the Constitution whatsoever.

 

[InReasonWeTrust]

I don't need to check again. There's a reason that you have to be an ordained minister to conduct a marriage ceremony. I have no problem with the government recognizing civil unions between two people for legal matters. However, when a government is recognizing religious practices, how is that not respecting an establishment of religion?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Marriage is an intersection of religious and civil traditions and has effects on both. Really people are arguing semantics. If religious people don't want to perform a ceremony that they don't agree with, fine. If people want to expand legal protections to new groups of people that haven't had access to them before; it merits scrutiny but it seems to be acceptable in this case. Does it really matter what anyone calls these things?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't need to check again. There's a reason that you have to be an ordained minister to conduct a marriage ceremony. I have no problem with the government recognizing civil unions between two people for legal matters. However, when a government is recognizing religious practices, how is that not respecting an establishment of religion?

You don't have to be an ordained minister to conduct a marriage ceremony. Therefore, once again I'm forced to point out that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're really just being silly.

You need to slow down and educate yourself a bit (OK, a LOT) because you keep posting things that are absolutely wrong, while thinking you're absolutely right.

Look up "Dunning-Krueger effect" while you're at it.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Marriage is as much a religious invention as having supper is a religious invention. Just because religious ceremony was added to an otherwise secular tradition does not make it the sole domain of religion. Religious folk saying grace at supper, for example, does not make dinner a religious ceremony for all. Just as two people who have declared to be mates for life does not make it religious.

On other words, religion hijacked marriage and claimed it as it's own.

 

[Jotto999]

I just don't trust the human race enough to think education can fix the problem.

Some people are just fundamentally dumb. You know those guys you have to snap your fingers in front of to get them to actually maintain eye-contact and not float away to drone land?

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of mandatory education, but I've met way too many people that all the education in the world wouldn't fix their problem.

I think you're wrong. One of the few things that helps people is education. At least, in the long run.

There are many things wrong with schools. Education has not reached it's perfection, not by a very long shot. Developments in neurology alone should change education hugely, assuming things go in a progressive direction.

You think too many people simply have too low IQ, or maybe more broadly, fluid intelligence. I don't see how that supports a view of futility. Isn't that just an indication that we need better ways to mentally equip people?

Suppose after technological developments, society adopts more sophisticated things to improve education. Like a more advanced version of this, for example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104154209.htm
EDIT: To be clear, that example is not specific to mathematical skills, as can be seen for dexterity, or language abilities.

Given that there are huge amounts of progress to be made, I think your futility-based view is mistaken.

 

[philsophycanada]

I am completely fine with homosexuals and infact have very close friends and family members who are gay. They should have every right to be together, however marriage is between a man and a woman and a child has the right to a mother and a father.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I am completely fine with homosexuals and infact have very close friends and family members who are gay. They should have every right to be together, however marriage is between a man and a woman and a child has the right to a mother and a father.

What does any of that nonsense even mean?

Why is a marriage between a man and a woman?

How do children have a right to parents of a specific number and gender, and how do you propose to enforce that. Oh, wait... you consider yourself to be another Hitler, so I suppose you'd murder people to get your way. :facepalm:

 

[philsophycanada]

id like to clarify that. the test gave me similar views to him, im not so sure how correct that is.
dont get too angry because you disagree, argue with me calmly.
What i was talking about in that post was the family unit. Consider that humans are animals too, since the begining of time our young have been raised and nutured by both a father and a mother. As far as marriage goes, in any religion it is used to celebrate the union of a man and a woman. Gay people certainly have everyright to be with whomever they choose but this ancient custom should be left out of it. thats just what i think. id like to debate this with you, but just chill out.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What i was talking about in that post was the family unit. Consider that humans are animals too, since the begining of time our young have been raised and nutured by both a father and a mother. As far as marriage goes, in any religion it is used to celebrate the union of a man and a woman. Gay people certainly have everyright to be with whomever they choose but this ancient custom should be left out of it. thats just what i think.

Nonsense again. You're factually wrong. Children used to be raised by mom, dad, older siblings, aunts and uncles, and grandparents. "One male, one female" is a historical anomaly. In religion, marriage has been polygamous and included straight and gay relationships on the side for several millennia. Also, historically people owned slaves... should we worship that ancient custom as well?

Your views are just wrong from top to bottom and side to side. You can get mad at my tone, but facts are facts, and you don't have any on your side.

 

[philsophycanada]

For the most part, most children are predominately raised by their parents. Back to instinct, maybe is a better way of putting this. A young girl has dolls because she feels the instinct to nurture, an older brother protects her because he feels that instinct . It is animal instinct to form family units. Can two men or two women reproduce? no they aren't built to be compatible like that. and im not talking solely physical. As nurturing as a gay father may be he cannot take the place of the instincts of a mother. Your absolutely right about polygamy, i interperet that as feeling of divine right men have and could have acted on before the rights of women were protected.I agree with what someone above was saying before in that, we should abolish the entire title of marriage in the eyes of the law. It should be recognized as a union in court whomever it may concern. and leave the title of marriage to be decided with various religious beliefs.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

For the most part, most children are predominately raised by their parents. Back to instinct, maybe is a better way of putting this. A young girl has dolls because she feels the instinct to nurture, an older brother protects her because he feels that instinct . It is animal instinct to form family units. Can two men or two women reproduce? no they aren't built to be compatible like that. and im not talking solely physical. As nurturing as a gay father may be he cannot take the place of the instincts of a mother. Your absolutely right about polygamy, i interperet that as feeling of divine right men have and could have acted on before the rights of women were protected.I agree with what someone above was saying before in that, we should abolish the entire title of marriage in the eyes of the law. It should be recognized as a union in court whomever it may concern. and leave the title of marriage to be decided with various religious beliefs.

Naturalistic fallacy, isn't it?

 

[philsophycanada]

I didn't know that was the name for it, but yea.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I didn't know that was the name for it, but yea.

The problem I see you keep falling into is this appeal to tradition, appeal to nature, appeal to all sorts of actual obvious fallacies.

In this specific case, "marriage" is whatever people want to call it. It isn't JUST a religious ritual, it isn't JUST "one man and one woman", it isn't any one thing that has a fixed and static definition. 50 years ago, white people and black people couldn't get married in large chunks of America. According to the Constitution, slavery is an accepted fact and slaves are only counted as 3/5ths of a person. According to even older traditions women were unclean the week that they menstruated. Go back to that time, and you could rape someone and then buy her from her father.

You can't just say "that's how things used to be, so that's how they should stay"

In nature, violence is an absolute given. If you want to be in a higher social level, you just beat and/or kill the guy above you. If you want to have babied, rape is pretty common as a natural tactic. So is murdering babies and eating them. So are a thousand other things that no modern civilized human being would ever accept.

You can't just make an appeal to "nature" and expect it to be taken seriously.

 

[Aught3]

I am completely fine with homosexuals and infact have very close friends and family members who are gay. They should have every right to be together, however marriage is between a man and a woman and a child has the right to a mother and a father.

This would be fine if marriage didn't also come with a whole range of extra civil rights to do with property, inheritance, children, and medical decisions. If you want to ban same-sex marriage then there needs to be a secular equivalent available for all couples to get the same rights.

For all your talk of instinct, studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples are as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples. For one example see here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477. The only downside to being raised by same-sex parents is that you are more likely to be bullied by the children of bigoted parents.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

The Conservative Republicans in my state don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, Yet, my sister and her girlfriend are heading straight to the polls to vote conservative republican. It's that bad in MS people.

Do you know who exactly they voted for?

What's important to understand is that a political party is a combination of similar views, but the views are not 100% identical. There are some conservatives who, regardless of their personal feelings on the issue, do not believe in banning same-sex marriage.

 

[RichardMNixon]

A young girl has dolls because she feels the instinct to nurture

Or a young girl has dolls because her parents and the media tell her she's supposed to enjoy playing with dolls. How do you divorce nature from nurture?

since the begining of time our young have been raised and nutured by both a father and a mother

So single mothers aren't allowed to keep their kids?

Can two men or two women reproduce? no they aren't built to be compatible like that.

So an infertile woman isn't allowed to adopt a child with her husband?


Along with all the fallacies of your appeals to nature that Joe has pointed out, you have arbitrary double standards in every statement you make.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I was brought up by two lesbians, as well as my biological father and his wife, and I turned out just fine.

Indeed, I was an above average student in college and high school. My career is slightly less than ideal, but only just (temporarily in Michigan), and I am currently involved in a stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationship (why I'm in Michigan). I have no known psychological conditions, and am generally well liked in my community.

My life gives lie to this foolish notion that homosexual parents are somehow deficient. Indeed, I count my upbringing as above-average.