“There are bigger issues to me then gay marriage. The will to win our war on terror is more important to me then gay marriage. Keeping the government from taking over our health care is more important to me then gay marriage. Securing our borders, controlling who enters our country and making sure that visitors return when their visa runs out is more important to me then gay marriage. Pork barrel spending is more important to me then gay marriage. The list of things more important to me then gay marriage is quite long.”
None of those issues are incompatible with gay marriage/gay civil unions. Admittedly, I’m more concerned about the Iraq war and the health care system, too, although I suspect we have differing opinions there.
“While Republicans are not perfect they are closer to my views then most Democrats’ and certainly closer to my view then either of current Democratic candidates for President. Ditto Gore vs Bush or Kerry vs Bush.”
So you support a bigot, then. Bush is a bigot, and a big part of his 2004 campaign especially was based on that. Plus, he is absolutely incompetent in everything he has attempted. He’s awful.
“A marriage is of one man to one woman. Some cultures allow one married man to join with a second or third woman and beyond. Some cultures allow one married woman to marry a second man and beyond. Each individual marriage is between two individuals.”
Um, you just contradicted yourself. A marriage is between one man and one woman or women in many cultures. Other cultures allow men to marry.
“There is no culture that allows men to marry men or women to marry women. The situations in Europe and Canada are very recent and we have yet to see the sustainability of these changes and their full effect on the society.”
What do you honestly think is going to happen? Why do you have this idea that there is going to be some big disaster?
“Let them experiment with these changes and wait a few generations before we start thinking to change our own institution. I think the current European model of most everything is a poor one and your bringing up their acceptance of same-sex marriage lowers the appeal of this change for me.”
We disagree here. I think Europe is a lot more free than our nation, and they do a lot of things better than us. And before you jump on me with “America, love it or leave it” – if I could afford to move there, I would.
“You tickle a newborns cheek and it will root whether a nipple is in the vicinity or not. Rooting is a response to stimulation on the cheek. We quickly learn to associate this rooting with a nipple and then the nipple with milk. That is called learning to nurse.”
But my point is, if you put a nipple there, it will begin to suck that nipple. It doesn’t exactly “know” what it is doing, true. It’s an instinct. But it knows the motions it should do with a nipple from birth.
“That is pure cant.”
Pure cant? What? Is it beggars talk, hypocritcal piety, or platitudes? I firmly believe traditions are nothing to base morality on.
“The strength of a culture gives merit to their traditions.”
What kind of strength? What are you talking about? Strength as in economic power, military power? I honestly don’t see how any of that means that not allowing gay marriage is a good thing.
“When a culture weakens you might want to look at what traditions may have been scuffed off between the pinnacle and the current condition.”
Traditions may weaken when a culture is on its way out, but that doesn’t mean the setting aside of traditions made the culture weak. I think it has a lot more to do with economic and military forces.
“It seems to me that we no longer teach our history and culture in a positive light, that we accept such things as family to be fluid things subject more the whims of the married couple rather then to the commitment of the vows, and that we have created a cultural environment in which children are rarely cared for by those who should care and know them best.”
I think we should strive for neutrality. The fact that we don’t teach your particular political view of family in a classroom simply means we aren’t indoctrinating kids into your worldview.
“We avoid teaching critical thought (hense your straight faced comparison of the institute of marriage to slavery).”
Once again, you have shown a remarkable ability to misrepresent and misunderstand me. The only thing I was comparing was the fact that you see “tradition” as a justification for an institution. So, I provided you with a counter-example, as is commonly done in philosophy, of slavery. Slavery was also an institution that was justified by people by the fact that it was “tradition”. That was as far as the comparison went. “Tradition” does not make something right or moral – it must be evaluated on its own merits.
For you to say I’m not familiar with critical thought is ridiculous. You’re the one who comes to their moral convictions by having them handed down through tradition – as if that is good enough. You are the uncritical one.
“We avoid learning the sciences. We waste time teaching children that people are killing Mother Earth.”
In all my years of schooling, no teacher ever told me “we are killing Mother Earth”
You mean we don’t teach your conservative agenda in spite of environmental science. We are really screwing up this planet. I’m going to guess you also believe global warming is just a fad. Well, I don’t want to get to that debate right now, either. That is even more off the point of gay marriage.
“What I see is that the more we accept the Leftist principles (distinct from liberal) the less strong our nation becomes, the lower the quality of our children’s education, and the less meaningful our contributions to mankind.”
One of the key Leftist principles is equal rights for all citizens. That does not make us weaker.
“I just said that I don’t care if you hate Jews so long as you don’t use that as an excuse to physically harm or steal their property.”
Really? You have no reaction whatsoever? Anti-Semitic propaganda doesn’t bother you, doesn’t make you uncomfortable?
“The government should not consider ones religion, race or creed when judging a case in court, offering work to the public or accepting the candidacy of a public servant.”
The government shouldn’t, I agree. The people can do that.
“I think private companies should have that right.”
Which right? I think private companies ought to be obligated NOT to consider those things. Are you arguing you think private companies ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, etc.?
