A same-sex marriage advocate here in Washington state made the following argument:
Remember 66% of Washington state residents support marriage equality or civil unions per the recent University of Washington poll. You are on the losing side here when it comes to saying the state must ONLY pay attention to your view point.
Notice, this says nothing about whether same-sex marriage is good!
Was slavery moral just because the majority of residents of the South supported it?
Was the Nazi regime right just because they were voted into office?
And since an election is the ultimate, binding poll what are we to make of same-sex marriage advocates after California voters chose marriage to be between one man and one woman? These self-professing tolerant people went on a character assassination rampage against anyone who supported Prop 8. Why?
Suddenly, polls no longer mattered to them.
Polls may monitor where the populace is on any given subject but they tell us zero about the legitimacy of that subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNotice, this says nothing about whether same-sex marriage is good!Why yes I did say that, and since you see my not saying everything about everything in your selective posting let me make it clear, I think marriage is good, same gender, opposite gender makes no difference.
ReplyDeleteThat is the issue that your side conveniently ignores, human beings naturally married through the innate biological mechanism it springs from are happier, healthier, more stable economically, give more to society, take less from it, provide better environments for raising children, and more. And all of these things happen regardless of the gender combination of the married couple.
Polls may monitor where the populace is on any given subject but they tell us zero about the legitimacy of that subject.Yes and the use of out-of-context selective quoting tells us more about the quoter than the person being quoted.
This was left in the context that you want the government to only allow your viewpoint and ignore other law-abiding citizens. This is not an either/or situation - you or anyone who thinks like you need NEVER be in a same-gender civil contract if you don't want to, you just shouldn't be telling others they can't.
Slavery was immoral - it was telling some that they didn't have the same rights as other people, that they could be forced to subsidize the life styles of another by the force of law without just equity.
Same situation here - you want gay married citizens and their spouses to pay taxes for other married couples to access yet have the government ignore their marriages.
About as immoral AND unAmerican as you can get.
Oshtur – welcome to nContx and thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that I took your argument out of context but you never provide what you say is the correct context. I thought that I had but if you want to provide the full context to show how you were not using this U of W poll to support your contention that same-sex marriage is good.
You make the claim that you never said “same-sex marriage is good”. Please reread my post. First, I mentioned that this was an argument from a same-sex marriage advocate. One usually believes the subject they advocate is good.
Second, the context of my response was clearly to show that the UofW poll (and more generically any poll) says nothing about the morality of the (or any) subject. If 66% say that same-sex marriage is wrong, would you then believe they should not be allowed? I doubt it. Polls do not provide any evidence for or against the merits of any claim.
In fact, in your comment, you yourself concede this point when you state: “ Slavery was immoral - it was telling some that they didn't have the same rights as other people, that they could be forced to subsidize the life styles of another by the force of law without just equity. I agree. Yet, as I mentioned, many people in the South particularly supported slavery. Their support did not change the immorality of slavery. The merits of slavery or abolition are judged on another standard, one that is outside whatever human beings may believe at any particular time.
If you think your poll is evidence that same-sex marriage is right then in California, at least, same-sex marriage is wrong since the ultimate, binding poll of the election says marriage is between one man and one woman. What does that say for your side which engaged in rampant character assassination against Prop 8 supporters? You failed to answer that when I originally raised it.
Larry
In addition,
ReplyDeleteYou state: you or anyone who thinks like you need NEVER be in a same-gender civil contract if you don't want to, you just shouldn't be telling others they can't.Oshtur – you don’t have to be in a polyandrous (more than 2 people) civil contract if you don’t want to and yet you have no problems telling others they can't. You are very good at stating principles that blocks your opposition’s arguments but in many cases you refuse to apply those same standards to yourself.
You state: ” Same situation here - you want gay married citizens and their spouses to pay taxes for other married couples to access yet have the government ignore their marriages.
About as immoral AND unAmerican as you can get.”I think marriage is a particular kind of thing, a contract that recognizes human beings’ inherent nature as sexual beings. A homosexual sexual orientation is a sexual desire toward a member of the same sex. Yet, the homosexual’s physical sexual organs are made for the opposite sex. Therefore a homosexual union, by definition, cannot unite the human being’s sexual nature - for the sexual desire they have for the same sex conflicts with the sexual organs they have for the opposite sex.
Marriage between a male and a female unites both parts of a human being’s sexual nature – the physical sexual organs match the sexual desire for the opposite sex.
In other words, nature rejects your claim that “the gender combination of the married couple does not matter. In fact, ”the innate biological mechanism” to which you refer, supports a male/female gender combination only.
Your dismissal of that argument does not constituent my side ignore your argument. We have addressed it ad infinitum. Your side ignores the external physical genitalia in the biological mechanism because to include it reveals the inherent contradiction in that biological mechanism.
The same-sex marriage concept is based on untruths. Shining the light of truth on those untruths and discussing the concept of True rights and true equality follows in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the Founders, and the Declaration of Independence. Their principles, applied to marriage debate, show marriage between male and female exemplifies the very foundations of the American Republic.
For a more in-depth analysis see the following:
The Injustice of Same-sex Marriage http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/injustice-of-same-sex-marriage.html
Martin Luther King’s View on Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html
Coretta Scott King and Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/coretta-scott-king-and-same-sex.html
Equal Protection Under the Law
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/equal-protection-under-law.html
The "Gays Can't Marry" Myth
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/gays-cant-marry-myth.html
From Whence Do Rights Come? - Martin Luther King Day 2009
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-whence-do-rights-come-martin.html
Such pedantic waffling about a tangential subject. As you know I was responding to someone who said that homosexual relationships should be illegal. The poll was presented as evidence of how far outside the mainstream their opinion was, not the 'goodness' or 'badness' of it - that is an issue you have injected into the discussion that wasn't there to begin with.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hadn't explicitly said that I thought marriage equality is a good thing so I did for you, just to be clear.
If you think your poll is evidence that same-sex marriage is right Ah but you know that wasn't why it was brought up. I agree issues of 'right' and 'wrong' aren't up to polling - marriage equality is the obvious high road on this topic and I'm comfortable there.
And if the tables were turned and the polls showed that 66% thought gay relationships should be illegal and I was saying whining they should have marriage equality, I would be the one out wandering in the wilderness just as much as the individual I was talking with.
But they aren't and so they are.
you don’t have to be in a polyandrous (more than 2 people) civil contract if you don’t want to and yet you have no problems telling others they can't. Wow you must be desperate to bring up this red herring over and over.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have denied them nothing, its just has nothing to do with marriage equality. If you want to discuss polygamy in its various forms start another blog entry and we can. But allowing all citizens to do the same thing is not the same as letting all citizens do something new. They are qualitatively different issues.
Marriage between a male and a female unites both parts of a human being’s sexual nature – the physical sexual organs match the sexual desire for the opposite sexHa! What was it? On '3rd Rock from the Sun' the head alien talks about not being able get along without women while the silly one that had gotten a job at a gay bathouse said "No they get along just fine."
People can pair-bond to another adult human regardless of their gender, same mechanisms in play - the idea that it requires 'parts' is just laugh out loud funny when it so obviously does not.
And your closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact. The American ideals are equal rights for all, and if the state is going to license a contract in support of marriage to those that marry men or women it should be open to all citizens that marry men or women. Simple as that and a point you have yet to refute.
Oshtur –
ReplyDeleteI think I can clear up the confusion here. You claimed the following: “As you know I was responding to someone who said that homosexual relationships should be illegal.”Here is you’re your entire quote as found in your 4/24/2009 2:20 PM post at Faith and Freedom. The last paragraph is the one I quoted.
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2009/04/protecting-marriage-is-protecting.html#c6929316870123922054
Person A: His philosophy matches many of us who choose to stay within God's principles.
Oshtur: Which is your right to do - what right you don't have is to tell everyone they have to follow your god's rules. We all have freedom of religion and that means others get to be free of yours and have a right to expect a equal treatment from government regardless of religion.
You think your god doesn't want you to marry someone of the same gender, then don't! No one is going you force to. But that doesn't mean the government should only kowtow to your religion and ignore all the citizens that believe differently.
Remember 66% of Washington state residents support marriage equality or civil unions per the recent University of Washington poll. You are on the losing side here when it comes to saying the state must ONLY pay attention to your view point.As you will note there is nothing in this quote that shows you were “responding to someone who said that homosexual relationships should be illegal”.Interesting, I tried to find the quote that you stated Person A made and it does not exist in this thread. The comment does exist in another thread and it appears you may have responded to that comment in the wrong thread. With multiple threads going on, that is understandable.
Given the context of person A’s comment (i.e. God’s principles which talks of the immorality of homosexual acts), it would seem that you are using the UofW poll to try to refute that claim. Your response is filled with moral language telling person A they are wrong. Then you concluded with the poll. Sure seems to be connected to your moral condemnation of person A.
So I did not take your comments out of context.
BTW - I did find the “illegal” quote that you were responding to in another thread and you did respond with the same poll information. See http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/2009/04/sen-dan-swecker-beyond-gay-marriage.html
ReplyDeleteI find this has the same problems even with your clarification that “The poll was presented as evidence of how far outside the mainstream their opinion was”.Here is the entire quote:
Person A: I think these relationships should be illegal. They certainly should not be allowed to adopt children or teach school.
Oshtur: And with that you lose what ever credibility you might have gotten with the 66% of the state that thinks gay people should at least have the right to the domestic partnerships the state provides.How does one lose “whatever credibility” they might have had because 66% of the state disagrees with their personal opinion?
Did an abolitionist in the South who believed slavery should be illegal lose their credibility just because the majority believed otherwise?
An election is the ultimate, binding poll. What are we to make of same-sex marriage advocates after California voters chose marriage to be between one man and one woman? These self-professing tolerant people went on a character assassination rampage against anyone who supported Prop 8.
Oshtur -
ReplyDeleteI brought up a polyandorous civil contract because you are telling people they can’t do it; a clear violation of your position that it is wrong to tell someone they can’t engage in a civil contract. Your claim committed suicide. Asserting this is a red herring and that it has nothing to do with marriage “equality” is an attempt to dismiss it out of hand.
Further, you claim: “But allowing all citizens to do the same thing is not the same as letting all citizens do something new. They are qualitatively different issues.”Oshtur - Two people of the same gender marrying is new. It has, until the last several years, never been done throughout history. Polygamy is not new. Polyandry is not new. Same-sex marriage is. Therefore by your own reasoning, same-sex marriage should not be allowed. But then, you haven’t demonstrated a willingness to apply your own standards to your own arguments.
In response to my argument that ” Marriage between a male and a female unites both parts of a human being’s sexual nature – the physical sexual organs match the sexual desire for the opposite sex”, you responded: ”Ha! What was it? On '3rd Rock from the Sun' the head alien talks about not being able get along without women while the silly one that had gotten a job at a gay bathouse said "No they get along just fine."Beyond your referencing a sitcom as a refutation, the comment that those at a gay bathhouse ”get along just fine” without women says nothing about the uniting of the two parts of a human being’s sexual natures.
ReplyDeleteYou claim: ”People can pair-bond to another adult human regardless of their gender, same mechanisms in play - the idea that it requires 'parts' is just laugh out loud funny when it so obviously does not.”You appeal to the “biological mechanism”. But the sexual organs (what you call parts) are part of that biological mechanism. If you are going to appeal to the biological mechanism then you need to be intellectually honest and use the entire biological mechanism. You can’t just pick and choose those areas of the biological mechanism that support the position you WANT to hold.
You’re claim is that it is perfectly natural if a male “pair bonds” with another male but in doing so they still have sexual organs in conflict with their pair bonding.
Also, you seem to have no problem with the parts (such as receptors and hormones) when it comes to pair bonding. Again, you only have issue with parts that conflict with the position you like.
One last note. You claim that my ”closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact. The American ideals are equal rights for all, and if the state is going to license a contract in support of marriage to those that marry men or women it should be open to all citizens that marry men or women. Simple as that and a point you have yet to refute.”First off did you bother to read the links I supplied? You are right that “the American ideals are equal rights for all”. Equality is a just claim to something. I explain using Dr. Martin Luther King’s principles for the civil rights movement, Abraham Lincoln’s rejection of slavery, and the Founders view of equality. Same-sex marriage is at odds with all their views.
ReplyDeleteI also show why the claim that gays can’t marry is a myth. Of course, if you had read the links you would have known that.
You may disagree but to claim it is pure dogma is pure rubbish. And if you haven’t read any of my links then you have no grounds to claim my analysis “has no basis in reality or fact”. Except to dismiss my arguments at of hand and simply reiterate what I have refuted.
Your side talks a lot of equality but you never define it. Here’s your chance, Oshtur. Define equality for us and them provide evidence (in context) of how your definition is in line with King, Lincoln, and the Founders.
Did an abolitionist in the South who believed slavery should be illegal lose their credibility just because the majority believed otherwise?Of course they did:
ReplyDeletecredibility: • the quality of being convincing or believableYou can lose your credibility telling people the world is a sphere if everyone 'knows' it is flat.
Again, it wasn't a 'right' or 'wrong' discussion - you straw manned that into the equation.
I brought up a polyandorous civil contract because you are telling people they can’t do it;I said they 'can't'? Please where did I say anything involving the 'c' word. I said it wasn't related to the marriage equality debate, that's all.
a clear violation of your position that it is wrong to tell someone they can’t engage in a civil contract. Wrong in so many ways:
1) my position is that the state can't let only some married people license the civil contract in its support while not letting others.
2) The potential polygamist can already license a contract with their spouse (as long as they are of a male:female combination). What they can't do is license yet another.
See the difference? It isn't an issue of equal access - all citizens have license to the contract with their married spouse, a relationship in which they both desire to marry each other. This is in contrast to the current situation where some tax paying law abiding married citizens with a male or female spouse are not allowed to license the contract when others are.
The issue is the ability to license the existing civil contract, that's why its called marriage equality.
Two people of the same gender marrying is new.But allowing people to license their marriages to men or women spouses is not. That you state it in an artificial way contrary to the actual mechanisms that lead to a couple marrying to try and exclude them for license in no way gets rid of the truth that some citizens with a male spouse can license, and some can not, ditto with a female spouse. Again, that's why it is called marriage equality letting all citizens have the same rights that other citizens already have.
Polygamy is not new. Polyandry is not new.Ah but it is new in that the state contract doesn't let anyone have multiple spouses, or multiple husbands (redundant there). It does allow some citizens to have a male spouse, it does allow some other citizens to have a female spouse. Marriage equality is about letting all citizens license the contract with a female spouse and letting all citizens license the contract with a male spouse.
Its about marriage equality to license the existing civil contract for all citizens.But the sexual organs (what you call parts) are part of that biological mechanism.But a part that has no essential function - people can pair-bond without those 'parts' at all. Marriage doesn't require them. Be like saying a woman needs breasts to be able to marry. Its a silly idea that 'parts' make a marriage when people do regardless of their parts.
You’re claim is that it is perfectly natural if a male “pair bonds” with another male but in doing so they still have sexual organs in conflict with their pair bonding.Again, you need to get out more - there are more sexual organs than you think (hint your entire body is) and guys in particular get along just fine. I mean you are the one obsessed with 'design' - if so the fact the very erotic prostate is positioned where it is makes the design of male-male sex a given then.
Again, you only have issue with parts that conflict with the position you like. No its just in an honest discussion I would assume that the obvious would be conceded by the other side - that everyone has the 'parts' needed to biologically marry with someone of either gender is a 'given' - really you need to get better porn if you don't know that as a fact at your age.
Of course, if you had read the links you would have known that.This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained - your rationalizations elsewhere are of no interest to me in this discussion.
Define equality for us and them provide evidence (in context) of how your definition is in line with King, Lincoln, and the Founders. Ah a red herring task because you want something to attack since you have failed presenting your case. Ok we will jump to the end...
"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".14th Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.Remembering of course that:
1) marriage is a fundamental right of all individual citizens.
2) it can not be denied because of inability to procreate, inability to have sex.
3) with the right to marry is the right to license the civil contract in its support.
4) the law can not be mutually restrictive if that restrictions effectively prevents some citizens from reasonable exercising of their right, such as preventing interracial marriages, or denied because of the gender of the citizen.
Equality means that all citizens have the same right to do the same things and that the state is required to look at them all equally within the law.
Again, if some citizens can license the civil contract with their male spouse, then all citizens should be able to do the same thing.
Agreed?
Oshtur stated: "credibility: • the quality of being convincing or believable You can lose your credibility telling people the world is a sphere if everyone 'knows' it is flat. Again, it wasn't a 'right' or 'wrong' discussion - you straw manned that into the equation."Did you actually read my post on this? Here is what I said, "How does one lose "whatever credibility" they might have had because 66% of the state disagrees with their personal opinion? " I was responding to your specific clarification that " The poll was presented as evidence of how far outside the mainstream their opinion was" (emphasis mine)
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you state yourself that the poll is about opinion. Nowhere did I state the “rightness” or “wrongness” of anything other than ask how one loses credibility by holding personal opinion. Therefore, your claim that I have created a straw man is false.
Secondly, based on your belief then you must hold that same-sex marriage advocates in California have lost “whatever credibility” they had since the election is the ultimate, binding poll and those same-sex advocates went on their character assassination rampage against supporters of Prop 8 after it passed.
Of course, I suspect you will simply ignore this point for the fourth time.
Oshtur stated: ”my position is that the state can't let only some married people license the civil contract in its support while not letting others.This is another example of your redefining terms, Oshtur. The state lets EVERY married person license the civil contract right now. You are redefining the term married to include homosexual relationships. People may be in a same-sex relationship but they are not married! You have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
ReplyDeleteAnother example: ”This is in contrast to the current situation where some tax paying law abiding married citizens with a male or female spouse are not allowed to license the contract when others are.”Which married citizens are not allowed to contract with their male or female spouse, Oshtur? None, unless you redefine married to include homosexual relationships which it does not. The fact is:
- Every male citizen is allowed to license the marriage contract with a female.
- Every female citizen is allowed to license the marriage contract with a male.
- No male citizen is allowed to license the marriage contract with a female.
- No female citizen is allowed to license the marriage contract with a female.
Everyone has exactly the same right! Everyone already has equal protection under the law.
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment refers to individual citizens and as I have shown above all citizens – including homosexual citizens - have always had exactly the same right to marriage as every other citizen. Everyone must all abide by the same criteria.
To my statement: “You appeal to the “biological mechanism”. But the sexual organs (what you call parts) are part of that biological mechanism. If you are going to appeal to the biological mechanism then you need to be intellectually honest and use the entire biological mechanism. You can’t just pick and choose those areas of the biological mechanism that support the position you WANT to hold.”Oshtur states: ”But a part that has no essential function - people can pair-bond without those 'parts' at all. Marriage doesn't require them. Be like saying a woman needs breasts to be able to marry. Its a silly idea that 'parts' make a marriage when people do regardless of their parts.What is the evidence for your assertion that the sexual organs are “parts that have no essential function”?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, in making this claim you have shown you place more weight on pair-bonding in the biological mechanism. Yet, in simply asserting (providing no evidence) that the sexual organs (which are a part of the biological mechanism) are non-essential you strengthen the view that you are indeed picking and choosing which parts of the biological mechanism to support the position you WANT to hold.
Oshtur,
ReplyDeleteI asked you to “Define equality for us and them provide evidence (in context) of how your definition is in line with King, Lincoln, and the Founders”You responded: ”Ah a red herring task because you want something to attack since you have failed presenting your case. I failed to present my case?!? Are you serious, Oshtur?
I gave multiple links to show how my view on rights and equality actually align with Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the Founders.
Your response right before you claimed that I failed to present my case was that “This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained.”If this was true, Oshtur, then why didn’t you say that when you originally commented on my links? Instead you wrote ”And your closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact.” Of course, the links provided my reasons to my closing paragraph arguments. Links you refused to read.
One wonders how you would know it is “pure dogma” and has “no basis in reality or fact” when you didn’t even read it unless you were already predisposed to reject my reasons.Ignoring my case, Oshtur, doesn’t mean I failed to present my case. It means you ignored it! Your claim therefore is intellectually dishonest.
And to claim that I cannot link to reasons upon which I have previously written dealing with the subject at hand is foolish and reeks of an intellectual cop out.
You were caught ignoring my evidence and when called on it you attempted to cover your butt.
In doing so, you demonstrated that you are willing to make any statement in any context as long as you think it makes you sound morally superior, logic and evidence to the contrary be damned.
Secondly, based on your belief then you must hold that same-sex marriage advocates in California have lost “whatever credibility” they had since the election is the ultimate, binding poll and those same-sex advocates went on their character assassination rampage against supporters of Prop 8 after it passed.See its comments like this that make it clear you aren't in it for an honest discussion, you just want the perception of having 'won'.
ReplyDeleteReal Slow:
1) The individual said they thought gay relationships should be illegal.
2) I point out that 66% of the state thinks that gay relationships should have the same rights as married couples under one name or another, so that…
3) a person with the idea that relationships should be illegal is far outside what the vast majority of the population wants for gay relationships, hence their loss of credibility.
See how 2 was being used to show how little credibility 1 was in relationship to the zeitgheist of the Washington voting populace.
You now are saying that I, because a ballot measure lost by a margin of a mere 2%, that this is the same as 66% of people being for relationship equality compared with someone who think they shouldn't have relationships at all. That is your pretty obviously self serving rationalization that no rational person would reach logically. You are picking one little part of what I was saying and trying to represent it as all that I said.
The two situations aren't even similar and you know that, you are too bright not to know that, so I have to assume intent in your misrepresentation.
The state lets EVERY married person license the civil contract right now. You are redefining the term married to include homosexual relationships. People may be in a same-sex relationship but they are not married!Sorry Larry, religiously they marry, biologically they marry. That is again what's changed - same biological triggers, same biological mechanisms in play, same desires, same results, equal citizens. Until you can show a qualitative difference between the individuals they are all married. That's what's changed in our understanding of marriage and relationships - there is no 'attraction to opposites' mechanism, just ones that attract us to males or females.
If you have some proof the individual is somehow qualitatively different than those that are allowed to license the civil contract please present that information now.
Everyone has exactly the same right! Everyone already has equal protection under the law.But those males who marry males are not allowed license - again if there is a difference between what's happening biologically please present it, and do so in the light that the ability to have sex and the ability to procreate with the marriage partner or even procreate in general have all been shown to NOT negate the fundamental right to marriage.
ave always had exactly the same right to marriage as every other citizen.Come on Larry! If that line of reasoning were true the restriction to marry within a citizen's race would have been in compliance with the 14th amendment. No, you can't have a rule that excludes some from exercising their rights.
What is the evidence for your assertion that the sexual organs are “parts that have no essential function”?Not for marriage - again, there is no organ other than your brain that essential for marriage to happen.
Secondly, in making this claim you have shown you place more weight on pair-bonding in the biological mechanism.Well as should you. You know that there are no 'parts' that are considered essential for marriage in the US - you could have two people who's heads were kept alive in jars and they would still have the fundamental right to marry AND to license the civil contract in their support.
You are the one trying to same some parts are essential to marriage - what exactly are these?
I gave multiple links to show how my view on rights and equality actually align with Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the Founders.Sorry they do no such thing - the MLK one in particular is just you trying to say that maybe you're right. No real 'view' or support there at all.
Links you refused to read. I did? No I said they were of no interest to this discussion. I did read them, I just wasn't falling for the high school debate tactic of trying to bury the opposition in doing your research for you, particularly when there is so little of use in the links. I read them, they are unconvincing - you want to use them refine what you trying to say and represent them here (though the gist has been and quickly refuted). Point of fact your posts do not show that marriage equality goes against any of these individuals, every single one of them were rational beings that put reason before dogma and superstition, I have no doubt with modern knowledge they would strongly be on my side - the difference between us is I know fantasy friends won't win this argument.
One wonders how you would know it is “pure dogma” and has “no basis in reality or fact” when you didn’t even read itThey are just the same poor reasonings you've used here. Your origin of rights is wrong, the idea that the bodies were designed with purposes is wrong, the idea that somehow the desires that shape the marriages you support are any more subjective than the ones you try and reject is wrong. You gave me many links to massive amounts of wrong-headedness that I have already easily refuted here mostly.
In doing so, you demonstrated that you are willing to make any statement in any context as long as you think it makes you sound morally superior, logic and evidence to the contrary be damned. And with that you just show this is all just a rationalization for you - you don't really care what the truth is, you are just trying to get to the answer you want.
The truth:
individual citizens marry, its part of their biology and as much a fundamental right as the right to life, to breath, to eat and all the other inalienable rights implicit in our biology.
And marriage is good for the individual, they are happier healthier, more socially productive, provide better developmental environment for children, and that all happens regardless of the gender they are married to. We should want as many of our fellow citizens as possible to marry, if what's best for them and us is really the desired goal.
Our society is based on equal rights for all, not pedantic legalistic equality like the Pharisees advocated but actual rights. You have not and obviously can not if you haven't by n ow show a qualitative difference between the marriage of the citizens that are allowed license to the civil contract of marriage and those you don't want to allow. There is no biological difference, there is no emotive difference.
Again, some married citizens are allowed to license the civil contract with their male spouses, why aren't all of them allowed to do so?
As you've shown the only way you can answer this to the answer you want involves trying to have pedantic exclusions that just reveal themselves as rationalizations for a desired answer:
"Parts"? People are allowed to license the contract without the proper parts both absolutely and relatively without the bat of an eye.
"They aren't married" - Fine show a single thing about the individual that is qualitatively different. Brain chemistry? No. Emotive desire? No. What they want out of the relationship? No.
"They weren't designed for it" Here we get close to the answer - you think they are voiding their warranty - that some designer specifically excluded them from marriage. Same bizarre reasoning that lead the ancestors to thinking the earth was the center of the universe and the like.
Sorry, bring this designer over for tea someday and I might concede this point but until then its a mere religious belief that many don't share, and in the US We all get the right to equal protection under the law regardless if we don't share it.
Is this really all you've got?
Oshtur – Let’s review the timeline:
ReplyDelete4/27/2009 7:49 am - your IP address hit my profile (also again at 8:17 am), you deleted your first comment (8:39 am) on this post “Polls Don’t Reveal Right and Wrong”. No other IP addresses except mine hit my blog on 4/27.
4/27 12:45 pm - I close my post that my views on rights and equality match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. For more "in-depth analysis" of my reasons, I provided six links.
4/27 1:01 pm - You comment that my "closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact."
However, the links I supplied with my reasons had NOT been accessed meaning Oshtur Vishanti had dismissed my views without even reading my reasons.4/27 11:35 pm - I ask you if you had "bother[ed] to read the links I supplied?"
4/28 9:06 am - You responded as follows:
- In response to whether you had read the links, you replied, "This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained". You further stated that "rationalizations elsewhere are of no interest to me in this discussion." - Then, Oshtur, you claimed that I had "failed presenting [my] case."
Yet, the links I provided still had NOT been accessed - meaning you had simply ignored my case. 4/28 at 9:44 am - For the first time - a full 21 hours after you had already dismissed my case WITHOUT reading my reasons - you accessed one of the provided links (MLK) ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html.
It is nearly 40 minutes after you dismissed my arguments a second time.
BOTTOM LINE: Oshtur Vishanti, you simply dismissed my arguments twice BEFORE ever actually making an effort to read them.4/28 at 9:45 am – you viewed the equal protection link ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/equal-protection-under-law.html4/28 at 9:58 am – your IP once again accessed the MLK link ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html4/28 at 23:40 - I pointed out that you didn't even read my links so you had no basis for your prior dismissal of as having "no basis in reality or fact". Nor any evidence that I was giving rationalizations or red herrings. In fact, you had no evidence against my position on equality and rights at all except an a priori (i.e. before the evidence) view to reject any reasons for my position and a willingness to say anything to protect your precious beliefs.
4/29 at 7:40 am – you FINALLY access three of the other links I listed:
ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/coretta-scott-king-and-same-sex.html ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/equal-protection-under-law.html ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/gays-cant-marry-myth.html(You must be an exceptional reader to go through all three links all in one minute's time).
4/29 at 7:40 am – you access the link ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-whence-do-rights-come-martin.html4/29 at 8:12 am - in response to my calling you on refusing to read my links, you stated: "I did? No I said they were of no interest to this discussion. I did read them, I just wasn't falling for the high school debate tactic of trying to bury the opposition in doing your research for you, particularly when there is so little of use in the links. I read them, they are unconvincing". And when, Oshtur, did you read them? You read them AFTER you had already dismissed them and only because I caught you in your bias. So you had no basis on which to judge. You simply ignored any evidence because, after all, on 4/28 at 9:06 am, Oshtur, you stated they were "of no interest to me". You read them only AFTER the fact and now you are saying anything you can to cover your butt.
You didn't read those links AND THEN determine they were unconvincing as you claimed.
You had decided they were unconvincing BEFORE you had even examined them. Your problem, Oshtur, is that you lied.
You simply dismissed my evidence without bothering to even look at it. And when you were caught, you tried to lie your way out of your deception.
In ignoring my evidence and then making up claims to the contrary, you demonstrated you are intellectually dishonest.In lying to cover your deceit, you demonstrated you are no respecter of Truth.In trying to justify your lies, you demonstrated that you are not to be trusted or believed thereby damaging your credibility.Your actions demonstrate that you are willing to
- make any statement,
- in any context,
- in order to make yourself appear morally superior
- logic and evidence be damned
Congratulations.
nContx Access Log for time period of March 26, 2009 and April 29, 2009 19:15 http://home.comcast.net/~ncontx/logs.htm
Ah, make the issue the one other than the actual discussion, how much more of an admission to failure can there be?
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't read all of them - they are just self-indulgent expansions on the stuff you leave elsewhere and here. I read enough the first time to figure that out. I don't know about the accuracy of the blogger logging system but I did look at the first couple the first time you posted them.
But what does it matter? You are the man who misrepresents what people say in this very reply chain - you are hardly the person to be being pedantically worrying about when I knew your links contained nothing of what you say they contain.
Burying people in useless references is again a common tactic by those who can't support their arguments. If you can make your case make it here. If you can't make it here it just isn't likely you can make it anywhere.
So light your hair on fire and exit stage right if that's your thing Larry, but you still can't support your case, you can't refute my points and if your going away with your tail between your legs makes you feel better have at it. Rest assured, even reading tiny parts of the Book of Larry is sufficient to realize there is no honesty or revelation there.
After being caught lying, Oshtur, what reason is there to trust what you say?
ReplyDeleteYou simply dismiss my arguments out of hand and when caught you lie to cover up that fact. And that is supposed to be an admission of failure on my part?!?
Right.
You state that you “didn't read all of them - they are just self-indulgent expansions on the stuff you leave elsewhere and here. I read enough the first time to figure that out. I don't know about the accuracy of the blogger logging system but I did look at the first couple the first time you posted them.”But, Oshtur, you didn’t access ANY of those links so trying to say you did is just another lie to cover your tracks. Yet, when I pointed out that you had not accessed those links, you stated on 4/28 9:06 am (nearly 21 hours AFTER you had already dismissed my reasons without reviewing them: "This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained – your rationalizations elsewhere are of no interest to me in this discussion." When caught you then try to state that you read some but not all the links even though the links had not been accessed before you had simply dismissed them.
You can say whatever you want but the fact remains, by dismissing my reasons out of hand you showed that you aren't intellectually honest.
As you have already demonstrated your words don’t need to be true, they just need to appear to make you sound morally superior. That’s what a liar does, Oshtur, makes statements to try to make themselves morally superior.
So say whatever you need to make yourself feel good. I consider the source.
You can say whatever you want but the fact remains, by dismissing my reasons out of hand you showed that you aren't intellectually honest.Larry, you don't know what 'intellectually honest' means obviously. Not wanting to be drawn away from the discussion with links to information not important enough to repeat has nothing to do with honesty but practicality. You have no idea how many times I have seen these tactics used.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the issue is you can't refute any of my issues that I have brought up right here in this thread - you are instead trying to divert the discussion with red herring after red herring.
Face it Larry, your point of view is not supportable, at least by you. You are trying to rationalize a religious prejudice secularly and make it sound reasonable but you just end up trying to pound square pegs into the the round holes.
You have a right to your religious biases, but have failed in providing an other than religious backing to the discussion. Again,
✰ our country was founded on the principle of equal treatment of all citizens fundamental rights,
✰ people marry for the same reasons and by the same mechanisms regardless of the gender of their spouse.
✰ the citizens and society are better off if as many adults are married as possible, regardless of if they all breed, if they all raise children, of the gender of their spouse.
You can believe differently for religious reasons but other citizens that don't share your religion have a right to live their lives regardless.
One aspie to another you need to be more focused on what you are discussing.
Oshtur,
ReplyDeleteYou state: ”Larry, you don't know what 'intellectually honest' means obviously. Not wanting to be drawn away from the discussion with links to information not important enough to repeat has nothing to do with honesty but practicality. You have no idea how many times I have seen these tactics used.”Intellectually honest means you don’t have to lie or ignore another’s reasons, Oshtur. Two things you did.
4/27/2009 6:00 am- In my original post, I quoted you in which you referred to marriage “equality”.
4/27 12:45 pm - I close my comment that my views on rights and equality match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. For more "in-depth analysis" of my reasons, I provided six links.
It would seem that a discussion of rights and equality would be extremely important to the discussion of marriage “equality”, Oshtur. Not Important. LOL.
4/27 1:01 pm - You comment that my "closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact."
However, the links I supplied with my reasons had NOT been accessed meaning that you had dismissed my views without even reading my reasons. 4/27 11:35 pm - I ask you if you had "bother[ed] to read the links I supplied?"
4/28 9:06 am - You responded as follows:
- In response to whether you had read the links, you replied, "This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained". You further stated that "rationalizations elsewhere are of no interest to me in this discussion." - Then, Oshtur, you claimed that I had "failed presenting [my] case."
Yet, the links I provided still had NOT been accessed - meaning you had simply ignored my case. 4/28 at 9:44 am - For the first time - a full 21 hours after you had already dismissed my case WITHOUT reading my reasons - you accessed one of the provided links (MLK) ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html.
It is nearly 40 minutes after you dismissed my arguments a second time.
That’s twice you simply dismissed my arguments BEFORE ever actually making an effort to read them. So in the context of marriage “equality” you state the links to my reasons supporting my view of rights and equality are not important.
Golly, geez whiz, Oshtur, how would you know its "not important" since you hadn’t accessed those links yet? How would you know if I am repeating since you hadn’t accessed those links yet? And who are you Oshtur to determine someone’s reasons are unimportant when you have simply dismissed it.
Must I secure your prior permission before submitting any reasons supporting my position, oh Great and Mighty Oshtur?!?
If you have such good arguments, one wonders why you must use such underhanded methods as ignoring another’s evidence and lying.
Yet, the links I provided still had NOT been accessed - meaning you had simply ignored my case.No, just insisted that if there are important enough for you to present they are important enough to be presented here.
ReplyDeleteIf you have such good arguments, one wonders why you must use such underhanded methods as ignoring another’s evidence and lying.You presented no evidence you presented links to tiresome diatribes and demagoguery. Again, if you are in a discussion you don't tell someone 'go look up what I have said before' you say it again!
If have something to say then say it, don't refer me to failed sayings of the past. Really Larry, I will no more read your past musings at your insistence than I would expect you to reference my years worth at the Faith and Freedom Network forums. If it isn't important enough for you to repeat it isn't important enough for me to know.
4/27/2009 6:00 am- In my original post, I quoted you, Oshtur, in which you referred to marriage “equality”.
ReplyDelete4/27/2009 7:49 am - your IP address hit my profile (also again at 8:17 am), you deleted your first comment (8:39 am) on this post “Polls Don’t Reveal Right and Wrong”. No other IP addresses except mine hit my blog on 4/27.
4/27 12:45 pm - I close my post that my views on rights and equality match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. For more "in-depth analysis" of my reasons, I provided six links.
4/27 1:01 pm - You comment that my "closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact."
However, the links I supplied with my reasons had NOT been accessed meaning Oshtur Vishanti had dismissed my views without even reading my reasons.4/27 11:35 pm - I ask you if you had "bother[ed] to read the links I supplied?"
4/28 9:06 am - You responded as follows:
- In response to whether you had read the links, you replied, "This is our discussion here, read your links or not, our discussion is self contained". You further stated that "rationalizations elsewhere are of no interest to me in this discussion." - Then, Oshtur, you claimed that I had "failed presenting [my] case."
Yet, the links I provided still had NOT been accessed - meaning you had simply ignored my case. 4/28 at 9:44 am - For the first time - a full 21 hours after you had already dismissed my case WITHOUT reading my reasons - you accessed one of the provided links (MLK) ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html.
It is nearly 40 minutes after you dismissed my arguments a second time.
BOTTOM LINE: Oshtur Vishanti, you simply dismissed my arguments twice BEFORE ever actually making an effort to read them.4/29 at 8:12 am - in response to my calling you on refusing to read my links, you stated: "I did? No I said they were of no interest to this discussion. I did read them, I just wasn't falling for the high school debate tactic of trying to bury the opposition in doing your research for you, particularly when there is so little of use in the links. I read them, they are unconvincing". As the evidence shows, Oshtur, did not read the links until AFTER you had already dismissed them
Oshtur had decided they were unconvincing BEFORE he had even examined them. Oshtur lied.
You simply dismissed my evidence without bothering to even look at it. And when you were caught, you lied to distract from your deception.
Oshtur ignored my evidence and then made up claims to the contrary.
Oshtur lied to cover up the dismal.
Oshtur, then tried to justify the lies
Sorry, Oshtur, but what a proven liar says about me doesn’t really bother me.
nContx Access Log for time period of March 26, 2009 and April 29, 2009 19:15: http://home.comcast.net/~ncontx/logs.htm
Larry, you can't be this slow:
ReplyDeleteYou simply dismissed my evidence without bothering to even look at it.Because you didn't bother to present them - links are not a presentation - if it isn't worth saying in the conversation you are currently in it isn't worth my knowing. You can present links to back up something you say, you can't just say 'oh I've answered that before, go read this vaguely related link.' Well not successfully anyway.
Again, look at this - you can't refute what I say so you obsess in this unrelated issue. Its pretty obvious you know the links led to failed rationalizations because you are terrified of repeating them in this forum.
Again, Larry, if you have something to say, say it here. If it isn't worth saying here, it isn't important enough for me to know.
Of course I can guess that you will not present your case here because I have read the links, I have seen their shadows in your Faith and Freedom notes, and your reasoning is flawed. Present it in the context of the current discussion and I will explain in detail just how it is flawed.
Again, Larry focus - if you think you are right then explain why you are, don't hide red herrings and meta-conversations.
I did explain, Oshtur. You chose to dismiss out of hand and then lie about it.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your football, Lucy.
Take care.
I did explain, Oshtur. You chose to dismiss out of hand and then lie about it.No I answered everything you presented here and I didn't lie - one odd thing about your list is it doesn't seem to show any accessing from my iPhone which is odd since so many times it was.
ReplyDeleteBut whatever 'Lucy' - you have losing arguments and pretty obviously you know it.
Live in your delusions as you will - as you can see from the real world trends everyone's caught on to your little dodges and they don't fool anyone any more.
take care.
Oshtur stated: one odd thing about your list is it doesn't seem to show any accessing from my iPhone which is odd since so many times it was.Okay, Oshtur, iPhone uses Safari which is all over the logs.
ReplyDelete1) All you have to do, Oshtur, is provide objective evidence that you actually accessed the links sometime between the time I posted them and BEFORE the time you dismissed them as having “no rational basis”.
Here's the timeline again:
4/27 12:45 pm - I close my post that my views on rights and equality match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. For more "in-depth analysis" of my reasons, I provided six links.
4/27 1:01 pm - You comment that my "closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact."
However, the links I supplied with my reasons had NOT been accessed meaning Oshtur Vishanti had dismissed my views without even reading my reasons.
That’s all you have to do, Oshtur, provide evidence in that 16 minute time span that shows you actually accessed those links.2) Of course, you can also explain how you read and contemplated my arguments AND made 2 posts (the other one at 12:54 pm – 9 minutes after I posted my links) consisting of 459 words ALL within the span of 16 minutes.Absent objective evidence that you accessed those links between 12:45 pm and 1:01 pm on April 27 then one can only conclude that you dismissed the reasons for my position WITHOUT actually having read them.
And that you lied when you said you had read them before you commented on them.
It’s time to put your evidence where your posts are, Oshtur.
Pony up.
Ha! Check your blog every couple months whether you need to or not.
ReplyDeleteI already have 'ponyed up' you have provided nothing other than self-referential links to unrelated materials.
I mean you have yet to prove a single one of your points and are afraid to even sift out the relevant parts and put them here.
I could post links about how people are attracted to gender, not 'opposites' or 'sames' how gay male brains act like straight womans in many manners of aspects which would strongly allude to it just being a variant of the majority presentation of commonly held biological pathways but what's the point? Its obvious you know you have no case because you are obsessed with off-topic discussion.
Your reasons aren't founded on empirical data, same as your notes, as all of them make clear. You can't have a rational discussion on this subject because your arguments aren't based on rational facts.
I don't have to be psychic to know your links aren't worth the time to click them if the just go to more of the same. I've read them - they are ramblings that toss out more red herrings than there are in the sea - you have a particular point you want addressed bring it up here don't just point me to your diary and say 'the answers are all there'.
I mean you talk of 'morality' of polls - its completely moral to be gay, if you think otherwise that's your right but every other citizen has a right to disagree with you. Your morality is for YOU not anyone else. We have laws to identify things we consider universally 'immoral' and being gay is 100% legal, a right in fact as per the SCOTUS.
Again, 66% of Washingtonians support equal rights for all married couples, even if it has to be under 2 different contracts, which is in keeping with what the state supreme court said in the Reynolds verdict, AND the California Supreme Court did on its Prop 8 ruling.
At most you can force the state to reserve the usage of a mere word, but the rights that go with it belong to everyone under one contract name or another. Polls may not reveal 'right or wrong' but equal rights is one thing that every American should hold as 'right' poll or no poll.
My apologies for not checking my blog but I have been out of town for most of the past month or so taking care of my grandmother, which has a much higher priority than blogging. Given that you responded in 24 minutes to my comments, though, it appears you’ve been waiting in anticipation many days. So I can understand your frustration.
ReplyDeleteMy request for you to “pony up”, Oshtur, was in the context of you providing evidence that you accessed my links between the time I posted those links on 4/27 at 12:45 pm and the time you dismissed those same links 16 minutes later (4/27 at 1:01 pm) WITHOUT actually having accessed said links!
To claim you “already ponyed up” evidence in reference to me not proving my point is to try to divert attention from the fact that you pre-judged my views. You simply dismissed them out of hand. And then you lied about it.
So, in fact, you did NOT “pony up”. To portray that you did reinforces your intellectual dishonesty.
BTW - Are we to assume, Oshtur, that if you had actually read those links that you wouldn’t relish in presenting the evidence of your visit during those 16 minutes in order to refute my evidence?
Your football is out of air, Lucy.
My request for you to “pony up”, Oshtur, was in the context of you providing evidence...
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHA! So your red herring about links that proved to have nothing relevant to the topic at hand is ALL you're interested in? Not that actual topic? We have nothing to discuss - obviously you know you can't defend your position, just as you've always failed over at Faith and Freedom.
Have a good life Larry - like it or not equal rights for all citizens and their right to marry will be here soon - with guys like you on your side there can be no other result.
Well these are interesting assertions, Oshtur, but you have provided no evidence to support your assertions. For example, you partially quote me: “My request for you to “pony up”, Oshtur, was in the context of you providing evidence...”
ReplyDeleteThen you claim: ”So your red herring about links that proved to have nothing relevant to the topic at hand is ALL you're interested in? Not that actual topic? We have nothing to discuss - obviously you know you can't defend your position, just as you've always failed over at Faith and Freedom.
Let me help with the evidence you failed to provide with regard to your claim
4/27/2009 6:00 am- In my original post to which you are commenting, I quoted you, Oshtur, in which you referred to marriage “equality”.
4/27 12:45 pm - I close one of my comments saying that my views on rights and “true equality” match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. I then write, “For a more in-depth analysis see the following” and listed six links:
The Injustice of Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/injustice-of-same-sex-marriage.html
Martin Luther King’s View on Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/martin-luther-kings-view-on-same-sex.html
Coretta Scott King and Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/coretta-scott-king-and-same-sex.html
Equal Protection Under the Law
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/equal-protection-under-law.html
The "Gays Can't Marry" Myth
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2008/06/gays-cant-marry-myth.html
From Whence Do Rights Come? - Martin Luther King Day 2009
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/01/from-whence-do-rights-come-martin.html
So each of these links do indeed address the topic at hand in this post, “marriage equality”. So your charge that I committed a red-herring fallacy and not addressing the topic at hand is false!
Oh, and what was your reaction to those links, Oshtur? You refused to access those links, simply ignoring my reasons with the dismissal that it is “pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact” ( 4/27 1:01 pm). This comment was made a full 21 hours BEFORE you ever accessed those links.
But , of course, I’ve already provided all this evidence and you chose to ignore it. In fact, in your reply to my comment you only used part of my quote, “My request for you to “pony up”, Oshtur, was in the context of you providing evidence...”. The rest of my statement is “that you accessed my links between the time I posted those links on 4/27 at 12:45 pm and the time you dismissed those same links 16 minutes later (4/27 at 1:01 pm) WITHOUT actually having accessed said links!”
So, once again, you ignored the evidence that points out your intellectual dishonesty of ignoring someone else’s evidence.
This makes your claim about this being a discussion, laughable at best. If you, Oshtur, were interested in a discussion you wouldn’t ignore evidence against your position. You wouldn’t lie. You might disagree but you wouldn’t commit acts of intellectual dishonesty like you did.
You chose to ignore my reasons. Then you chose to lie. In doing so, you made your acts the topic at hand because you demonstrated that you will make up any claim, including saying things that you know to be untrue if you think it will make you and your position look better.
If you don’t like the light of Truth on the darkness of your heart and tactics then start being intellectually honest. It’s that simple.
BTW, Oshtur, If your position is so strong, why must you lie?
This makes your claim about this being a discussion, laughable at best. If you, Oshtur, were interested in a discussion you wouldn’t ignore evidence against your position.
ReplyDeleteI have ignored no such evidence, as you know. Your links are all irrelevant to the points I brought up in my first reply, links to rambling messages that contain nothing important enough for you to repeat.
So each of these links do indeed address the topic at hand in this post, “marriage equality”.
But that was neither the topic of this post that you wrote nor mentioned in my reply, correct?
That means trying to segue the conversation into being about marriage equality is a classic red herring.
But , of course, I’ve already provided all this evidence and you chose to ignore it.
No I stand by my assertion, the links were irrelevant to both the note you wrote and the reply I left.
You wouldn’t lie.
I didn't lie - they are irrelevant to the note you left and contain nothing to do with the your note or my reply. Again, if you can find a bit that does address my points I brought up please present it - right here. That you can't and just neurotically repeat my prescience about their irrelevancy shows you know you have no defendable position.
You might disagree but you wouldn’t commit acts of intellectual dishonesty like you did.
I have read them - they are irrelevant to both your post and my reply, and as it turns out its obvious they are irrelevant just from your reticence to actually bring up anything they contain in this note. Again, its common tactic of the 'intellectually dishonest' to try and bolster their position by allusions to external sources that supposedly support their positions. You posted ones on topics not even currently under discussion - just trying to muddy the water because you can't defend your position here.
Again, I'm an old hand at this - my statements were accurate whether I accessed your links, used a Ouija board, Time Machine or had a magical entity whisper the truth in my ear. (or the real situation that I thought I had looked at your articles having read so many of your rambling notes on F&FN that touched on similar issues.)
Whatever - that I was right and you can't actually defend the positions but keep bringing up the red herring shows you yourself know you have no point.
Let me repost the topics I brought up:
Marriage is good, regardless of the gender combination of the couple.
You want to have the government acknowledge only our opinion when its mandate is to acknowledge both of our opinions, especially on topics that pertain to religion. That to do as you suggest would be immoral and unAmerican.
You then start rambling about 'marriage equality' because you obviously can't deal with the issues I've brought up and provide links to, not external resources, but just more blathering about irrelevant topics that whenever its read reveals itself to be off topic, self-serving, dependent on dogmatic assumptions, and not worth the time for you to even repeat in the actual discussion.
Again, if you think they are relevant to the discussion prove me wrong - quote the part that deals with any of the issues you brought up in your blog note or in my reply.
Can't? You've made that obvious over the span of months.
Ha!
1) My original post commented on this statement: ” Remember 66% of Washington state residents support marriage equality or civil unions per the recent University of Washington poll. You are on the losing side here when it comes to saying the state must ONLY pay attention to your view point.
ReplyDeleteSo “marriage equality” was part of my post regardless of whether your first reply referred to it or not. Further, “marriage equality” is the fundamental question at hand regarding same-sex marriage so it is pertinent contrary to your assertion that “[marriage equality] was neither the topic of this post that you wrote nor mentioned in my reply, correct?.
2) Oshtur, you state: “I didn't lie - they are irrelevant to the note you left and contain nothing to do with the your note or my reply. Again, if you can find a bit that does address my points I brought up please present it - right here” and you repeat assertions like “Marriage is good, regardless of the gender combination of the couple” and that my view is “as about as immoral and un-American as one can get.”
You originally made these comments on 4/27 at 8:06 am. At 12:43 pm, I explicitly addressed your claim that “same-sex marriage is good.” You may not agree with the arguments that I presented but that doesn’t mean I didn’t present them.
In the 12:45 pm response, I explicitly restate your quote that my view is ”immoral and un-American.” Within this context I responded that my view of ”True rights and true equality follows in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the Founders, and the Declaration of Independence. I then provided the evidence via links to support my claim. Thus, I directly answered your charge that I am “un-American” thereby refuting your claim that these are irrelevant.
3) You state: “if you can find a bit that does address my points I brought up please present it - right here. That you can't and just neurotically repeat my prescience about their irrelevancy shows you know you have no defendable position.”
Again, I already responded to your assertions in my 12:43 pm and 12:45 pm posts. Did you ignore those in your prescience also? You can read my responses there.
4)
4/27 12:45 pm - I posted the comments that my views on rights and equality match those of Martin Luther King, Lincoln, and the Founders. I provided the six links for more "in-depth analysis".
4/27 1:01 pm - You comment that my "closing paragraph is pure dogma that has no basis in reality or fact." However, you hadn’t access ANY of the links yet
4/28 at 9:44 am - You finally accessed those links for the first time a full 21 hours after you had already dismissed my case WITHOUT reading my reasons! And your excuse is: “my statements were accurate whether I accessed your links, used a Ouija board, Time Machine or had a magical entity whisper the truth in my ear. (or the real situation that I thought I had looked at your articles having read so many of your rambling notes on F&FN that touched on similar issues.”
4/29 at 8:12 am - in response to being caught refusing to read my links, you stated: "I did read them, … I read them, they are unconvincing".
Trying to portray that you had read them and then found them unconvincing is a lie, Oshtur. You rejected them BEFORE you read them and then made up excuses to cover up your dishonesty.
5) In your latest post, you again claim you didn’t lie (6/19 2:11 am) and that what really happened is “I thought I had looked at your articles having read so many of your rambling notes on F&FN that touched on similar issues.”.
4/27 12:45 pm - I posted the links.
4/27 1:01 pm - 16 minutes later you claim my view has “no basis in reality or fact.” Are you saying that in those 16 minutes that you had thought you had clicked those links but you actually hadn’t? Really? HAHAHA!
BTW – is Oshtur Vishanti your real name or do you use that pseudonym so that your intellectual dishonesty doesn’t tarnish your real name?
ReplyDelete“So “marriage equality” was part of my post regardless of whether your first reply referred to it or not."
ReplyDeleteOh so because I mentioned ‘marriage equality’ on an entirely different blog, and you cut and paste it here but didn’t mention it in the context of your blog entry, I didn’t reference it in my reply, it is suddenly relevant enough to justify a flurry of ‘links’?
Ok fine, lets see if a single one of these links bring up anything new?
“The Injustice of Same-sex Marriage” and “From Whence Do Rights Come?” are virtually identical posts. The hinge around the presumptions that the god of Abraham is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and that American rights come from that god. To support this it quotes a single minister as if they could set the framework of American rights even if he had wanted to do so.
He can’t and doesn’t and, according to his wife, didn’t even support the point you are trying to make. (Which you would know she says he would if you had just done a few seconds of Google for your several ‘King’ related links.)
So then we come to the closely related ‘‘Gay’s Can’t Marry’ Myth’ and ‘Equal Protection Under the Law’ links.
Even the Iowa Supreme Court saw through these as childish pedantry that has no basis in reality:
“It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all.” - Varnum v. Brien
You are confusing the civil contract with actual marriage. Marriage is a natural right that derives from our biology. We already allow other citizens to marry men and women, the whole point of the equality of the term ‘marriage equality’ is that all citizens should have equal right to do this. Ignoring that other citizens also marry men and women is contrived and obviously wrong in a nation dedicated to equal access to government for all citizens.
We see the continuing trail of errors here:
“They are born with a sexual desire for the same sex. The unstated truth is that they are also born with the sexual organs for the opposite sex. This fact is ignored because it reveals the inherent contradiction with which homosexuals are born.”
They are born with ability to have sexual desire to males and or females, same as everyone else. That that attraction ends up being towards ‘same’ or ‘opposite’ is an observation, not the actual biological attraction in play.
Sexual organs aren’t ‘for’ anyone other than the person they belong to and they work just fine for many purposes no matter what the gender of the anyone else involved. The fact is ignored because its not a fact but again a very limited and convenient presumption on your part.
“Clearly, every relationship is not similarly situated. Same-sex marriage advocates implicitly concede this fact every time they refuse equal protection to polygamy and polyamory.”
Which of course isn’t true at all. Marriage Equality is about all citizens being able to do what other citizens can already do, marry a male or female spouse regardless of the citizen’s own gender. Everyone being able to do the same thing, not everyone can do anything.
I stand by my contention - your arguments both at F&FN and here are convenient rationalizations that don’t stand the test of anyone. Your links contributed nothing of substance to the discussion other than reveal you have no American basis for your contentions. The Iowa State Supreme Court sees through your deceptions, Coretta King saw through them, why oh why can’t you?
So again, your links about 'marriage equality' had nothing of substance in them and are irrelevant to your original blog entry completely which was what I was discussing, not a reference to a reference as you ultimately decided on.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, Oshtur Vishanti isn't my real name, its a name created for Faith & Freedom Network which I used for consistency there and here since it was 'Oshtur Vishanti' that you quoted.
Back to the blog entry now - neither your blog entry or your ineffectual blog entries of day's past make your case, such as it was at all. But considering you thought they were actually relevant its most likely you just have no case at all.
Oshtur, you quote me: “So “marriage equality” was part of my post regardless of whether your first reply referred to it or not."
ReplyDeleteThen you reply: "Oh so because I mentioned ‘marriage equality’ on an entirely different blog, and you cut and paste it here but didn’t mention it in the context of your blog entry, I didn’t reference it in my reply, it is suddenly relevant enough to justify a flurry of ‘links’?"
1) The links I provided was in direct relation to your charge that my view was un-American. Therefore those links are only irrelevant if your charge is irrelevant.
2) You only quoted one sentence out of my paragraph. Here’s the sentence immediately following the one you quoted: ” Further, “marriage equality” is the fundamental question at hand regarding same-sex marriage so it is pertinent contrary to your assertion that “[marriage equality] was neither the topic of this post that you wrote nor mentioned in my reply, correct?”
Thus, you ignored the very argument that refutes your charge. In other words, you had to take my words out of context in order to charge me with taking you out of context. LOL.
3) The charge that I used your quote out of context was made by you before and refuted. In fact, the evidence you provided as the context for your quote was taken out of context by you. See my post of 4/27/2009 at 11:28 pm.
Oshtur stated: “The Injustice of Same-sex Marriage” and “From Whence Do Rights Come?” are virtually identical posts. The hinge around the presumptions that the god of Abraham is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and that American rights come from that god. To support this it quotes a single minister as if they could set the framework of American rights even if he had wanted to do so.
ReplyDeleteThese are interesting assertions, Oshtur, but you did not provide any evidence to support your claims. The following questions will help you provide that evidence:
- Who was that “single” minister (answer: Martin Luther King, Jr. the leader of the civil rights movement).
- Is looking to the leader of a movement to see how he grounds that movement wrong? To whom should we look?
- Why was he writing the “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”? (Note: You’ll have to actually read the letter)
- Where in this letter (or in any of my links) where we discuss trying to “set the framework of American rights”? In fact, King was explaining how his movement aligned with the Founder’s “framework of American rights.”
- Why are you disagreeing with the principles upon which King based his civil rights movement?
- “Single” minister?!? Please explain who are the following: Ralph Abernathy, James Lawson, Ralph Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James Dabbs
- To whom was the “letter from the Birmingham Jail” addressed?
- What did the Founders mean by the phrase “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”?
- Where do rights come from?
- Who was the Creator who endows us with unalienable rights?
- What makes these rights unalienable such that no one can violate them without repercussions?
Oh and provide your evidence from primary source material.
Oshtur stated:He can’t and doesn’t and, according to his wife, didn’t even support the point you are trying to make. (Which you would know she says he would if you had just done a few seconds of Google for your several ‘King’ related links.)
Another assertion, Oshtur, without any supporting evidence. Further, I addressed your very assertion in my link “Coretta Scott King and Same-sex marriage” which you accessed at 8:11:54 am on June 23. Curiously, you have no problem referencing my other links but here you ignored my argument and simply reiterated a claim I have already refuted.
Here is the link again: ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/coretta-scott-king-and-same-sex.html
- If you think I haven’t addressed Mrs. King’s claims then please provide her actual statements AND the reasons she gives in support of her statement!
- Dr. King provided a principle to discern between just and unjust laws then applied that principle to segregation laws (which I discussed in the link The Injustice of Same-sex Marriage
http://ncontx.blogspot.com/2009/04/injustice-of-same-sex-marriage.html. )
- What evidence did Mrs. King provide that Dr. King would only apply that principle in certain instances? What was Dr. King’s criteria by which to judge those instances?
Oshtur,
ReplyDeleteYou quote the Iowa Supreme Court (Varnum v. Brien).
1) This is the same court that violated its oath to uphold the state constitution by legislating same-sex marriage from the bench.
If they are willing to violate their oath then how do you know they didn’t violate the constitution in their opinion?
2) The court claims that they are viewing civil Marriage in the “complete context of marriage, including intimacy.”
- Why do they not define the complete context of marriage?
- If marriage includes intimacy then on what grounds do they deny civil marriage to 3 women?
- Is the court saying 3 women cannot have intimacy?
- In the complete context of marriage: “civil marriage with one person is as unappealing to a polygamist as civil marriage with multiple spouses is to a monogamist. Thus, the right of a polygamist under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with one person is no right at all.”
3) Further, the Minnesota Supreme Court saw through the childish pedantry of the Iowa Court: “ in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". - Baker v. Nelson
Oshtur stated: They are born with ability to have sexual desire to males and or females, same as everyone else. That that attraction ends up being towards ‘same’ or ‘opposite’ is an observation, not the actual biological attraction in play.
ReplyDeleteReally. What evidence supports your assertion?
Oshtur stated: Sexual organs aren’t ‘for’ anyone other than the person they belong to and they work just fine for many purposes no matter what the gender of the anyone else involved. The fact is ignored because its not a fact but again a very limited and convenient presumption on your part.
Another assertion. Please provide supporting evidence.
In response to my statement: “Clearly, every relationship is not similarly situated. Same-sex marriage advocates implicitly concede this fact every time they refuse equal protection to polygamy and polyamory”
you, Oshtur, claim: Which of course isn’t true at all. Marriage Equality is about all citizens being able to do what other citizens can already do, marry a male or female spouse regardless of the citizen’s own gender. Everyone being able to do the same thing, not everyone can do anything.
Let’s see.
All citizens are already able to marry someone of the opposite gender.
No citizen is able to marry someone of the same gender.
Everyone has exactly the same right. Everyone has marriage equality. Same-sex marriage advocates want to change the definition to allow what they want but refuse to allow that same privilege.
Oshtur, you state: “And no, Oshtur Vishanti isn't my real name, its a name created for Faith & Freedom Network which I used for consistency there and here since it was 'Oshtur Vishanti' that you quoted.”
ReplyDeleteOf course, my question was whether “you use that pseudonym so that your intellectual dishonesty doesn’t tarnish your real name.” My question has nothing to do with you being consistent. It has to do with why you use a pseudonym at all!
All your answer says is that you consistently hide behind the pseudonym so as not to tarnish your real name with your intellectual dishonesty.
1) This is the same court that violated its oath to uphold the state constitution by legislating same-sex marriage from the bench.
ReplyDeleteNo they recognized that people of both genders marry men or women. There is only marriage and it applies to all.
Why do they not define the complete context of marriage?
Ask them - maybe they feel they did by including the mere contract with intimacy.
If marriage includes intimacy then on what grounds do they deny civil marriage to 3 women?
Because there is no reason to think that anyone could ONLY experience intimacy with a group of 3, there is ample evidence that citizens can only do so with a particular gendered partner.
Is the court saying 3 women cannot have intimacy?
No that would be a foolish assumption.
"In the complete context of marriage: “civil marriage with one person is as unappealing to a polygamist as civil marriage with multiple spouses is to a monogamist. Thus, the right of a polygamist under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with one person is no right at all.”
Which is of course untrue since the polygamists routinely start out with only one spouse. The idea that having intimacy with only one spouse is a unappealing as their having a spouse of the same gender is nonsensical and I know you know this.
in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
And yet they don't identify what that distinction is.
Really. What evidence supports your assertion
ReplyDeleteAll the evidence we have. There has not been found a single biological attraction mechanism that depends on the gender of the actor on the target. Pheromones, Visual, tactile. Nothing can be found in one gender that can not also be found in the other.
Another assertion. Please provide supporting evidence.
You can go look up your own porn. People of same and opposite genders get by with the organs they have quite satisfactorily. You're the one that's painted yourself into this corner - please indicate a gender combination that doesn't work just fine for the owners...
All citizens are already able to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Which is a relationships not a qualitative feature. Either adult unrelated men are suitable spouses are they aren't. I've never met an individual that is objectively 'opposite', have you?
[b]Everyone has exactly the same right. Everyone has marriage equality. Same-sex marriage advocates want to change the definition to allow what they want but refuse to allow that same privilege. [/b]
No the definition is already changed - what's wanted is the licensing restrictions on a civil contract to be changed so that all people who marry adult unrelated men can instead of just a special right for some citizens, ditto for women.
[b]Where in this letter (or in any of my links) where we discuss trying to “set the framework of American rights”? In fact, King was explaining how his movement aligned with the Founder’s “framework of American rights.” [/b]
ReplyDeleteA framework put together by Deists, Freemasons, FreeThinkers, Atheists, Quakers, and even a few Christians too. Again, people projected many things on to the past but the American past was not a dogmatic Christian one.
[b]What did the Founders mean by the phrase “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”?[/b]
In the Declaration of Independence written by the Deist Thomas Jefferson it is referring to the Deist Creator who made the universe and has not interfered with it from the moment of its creation.
[b]- Where do rights come from?[/b]
From the Deist Creator, i.e. from the universe in which humans evolved.
[b]Who was the Creator who endows us with unalienable rights?[/b]
Same answer as above.
[b]What makes these rights unalienable such that no one can violate them without repercussions?[/b]
That's not what unalienable means - they mean they are rights that can not be set aside by the individual, they are part and parcel of their being - be like trying to have 'up' without having 'down'.
[b]Oh and provide your evidence from primary source material.[/b]
Well we know that Thomas Jefferson was the sole author of the Declaration of Independence and he was a Deist was wrote to several friends that in the superstition of Christianity he could find no redeeming feature. No one would try to present that Mr Jefferson was writing from a Christian perspective.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist identified as such by himself and those that knew him and Deists are not Christian, but I would guess you already knew that hence the flurry of questions.
[b]The links I provided was in direct relation to your charge that my view was un-American. Therefore those links are only irrelevant if your charge is irrelevant.[/b]
ReplyDeleteYou do remember that what I said is right here to the left of what I'm typing now, right? Let me refresh:
[i]Slavery was immoral - it was telling some that they didn't have the same rights as other people, that they could be forced to subsidize the life styles of another by the force of law without just equity.
Same situation here - you want gay married citizens and their spouses to pay taxes for other married couples to access yet have the government ignore their marriages.
About as immoral AND unAmerican as you can get.[/i]
Exactly what of those links spoke about forced subsidy and lack of equity? I stand by my observation that they were and are irrelevant to the discussion.
[b] Here’s the sentence immediately following the one you quoted: [/b]
Again, the text is right there - the sentence is not the one following the one I quoted. Your desperation is showing.
[b] In fact, the evidence you provided as the context for your quote was taken out of context by you. See my post of 4/27/2009 at 11:28 pm. [/b]
Where you made it clear you didn't understand the context.
[b]All your answer says is that you consistently hide behind the pseudonym so as not to tarnish your real name with your intellectual dishonesty. [/b]
ReplyDeletethis for the guy who has yet to make a single point.
I'm not concerned