April 5, 2013
-
Stance on “Gay Marriage”
The responses to my last entry were pretty good, so I wanted to write a follow up entry just to clarify a few additional points.
For the record, I do not support anti-sodomy laws or legislation. I hate paternalism and nanny-states, and I have been on the bad side of paternalism myself more than once, so I can symphathise with people who are not hurting anyone else (even if they are hurting themselves), not wanting the government to be up in their business. Whatever people choose to do in their own house, whether it’s homosexuality, S&M, multiple partners, or inanimate objects, is not any of my business or concern. The only place I would definitively draw a legal line in the sand is with children, because children are incapable of defending themselves or engaging in such behaviors with informed consent.
That being said, the “gay marriage” issue is not one that I sympathise with or support. What the whole concept of “gay marriage” amounts to is calling a dog a duck. They are both animals, yes, but a dog is not the same thing as a duck. A dog is qualitatively and quantitatively different from a duck, and calling them by the same name does no make them the same thing, neither does it help anyone to have a concrete, objective, or scientific understanding of reality. It only confuses things. The impetus/motvations, methodology, and consequences/results of homosexuality are entirely different from any type of heterosexual relationship. The difference is both a matter of psychology and plumbing.
I don’t care if homosexuals want to have any kind of ceremony, or call themselves whatever they want, but again, that does not make it so, and I am not going to recognize it. Also, it is not acceptable for the state to force businesses or any other private individual to recognize it. It is not acceptable for them to force insurance agencies to treat it as marriage if they do not wish to, nor is it acceptable for the state to force landlords or businesses to treat it as such. If they want to do so on their own, then fine, but if they do not wish to do so and are forced to do so then that is a violation of private ownership of property, freedom of speech, and (depending on the circumstances) religion. No one should be forced to violate their personal convictions to appease someone else’s feelings. My freedom of speech and property rights do not end where your feelings begin.
Marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman. Anything else is something else. Homosexuality and zoophilia are something else entirely. If there is going to be a legally recognized union then at the very least it should be referred to by a different name. In addition, it should be optional whether businesses and private individuals recognize it or not. That is the main thing.
You can call discrimination if you want, but really what it’s about is special recognition. The same arguments for why homosexuality should have the label of marriage slapped on it and for why others should be forced to give lip service and legal service in spite of their personal beliefs and convictions are equally applicable to incest, polygamy, and polyandry, and partially applicable to beastiality and pediastry. Of course when being subjective partial or full applicability don’t really matter. All are forms of sexual deviance, and if were really about ”equality” and treating alternative lifestyles as legitimate, then all would be recognized. The fact that they want to single out one type of alternative lifestyle/sexual deviance for special recognition indicates to me that this is not about equality, but about browbeating and control.
Actually I would accept legalization of polygamy before “gay marriage” and in fact it could be argued that polygamy would at least cut down on bastardy and welfare, as wealthy alpha males would be free to form official legal unions with more women, thus providing an alternative support base to more women who might otherwise rely on government. Also, at least there would be a man in the house.
I cannot help but notice that the majority of arguments over “gay mariage” tend to be focused or centered around the opposition. There we have it.
Don’t come to me for rights, because I cannot give or take them. Don’t come to me for special recognition, because I’m not down with the cause. The most I can offer is to give you your space while you allow me to have mine. There is no reason for people with different moral persuasions to step on eachother’s toes, unless one is trying to force their beliefs on the other.
One final note, and this is getting back to my previous entry. Just because the white supremacists and other racist groups want to equate race mixing with homosexuality or call it perverted does not make it so. They don’t set the standard for what is moral, true, or acceptable, and their ideology is just as forceful and anti-human as the left wing ideology that morality is defined by legislation and that it is acceptable to force their views on everyone else. Same MO.
That’s all I have to say for now. Hopefully that clarifies everything.
Comments (18)
I agree that no one should be forced to do business with anyone they don’t choose to. If that causes problems for others then those others can do business elsewhere…The same goes for hiring, firing, pay raises, and promotions. If I want to reward an employee for his/here good work, attitude, friendliness, or whatever, I am not cheating those whose performance is not as good. If my gut feeling about an applicant is that he/she will not be a good fit, I would not be doing them a favor by putting them in a bad place for them.
A person does not lose his/her rights just because of owning/operating a business. These “feel good” laws and regulations don’t feel good to those whose rights are being trampled on.
No one has the right to another’s property or business without the consent of the owner – not even the “right” to be considered married within a non-marriage situation. I know it’s hard for some to realize it, but we all would be better off without government micromanagement of our lives.
@quest4god@revelife - Well said brother, I couldn’t agree more. I definitely believe that the purpose of this legislation is not to expand freedom on any level, but to expand contro. They are working on getting rid of our 2nd and 1st ammendment. The “gay marriage” is an attack on the 1st ammendment.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - The purpose isn’t to expand control, but to eliminate dissent against homosexuality and force its acceptance.
@soccerdadforlife - It’s never just the stated motive. We are dealing with the end times here and an impetus toward world government and totalitarianism. Everything they do serves a greater purpose.
If your problem is with marriage effecting insurance companies’ policies and other things then change the laws so that straight people can’t collect on their spouse’s insurance policy either. Or decide whether their spouse is buried or cremated or where they’re buried, or inherit their home and possessions automatically or be legally considered their closest family member and be able to make emergency medical decisions and visit them in the hospital. And, and, and… But you aren’t offensive that straight people have all those rights (and over a thousand more) You just don’t like it when gay people have the same rights.
And gay “marriage” has nothing to do with marriage, nobody’s saying a church has to marry two gay people or you have to go to the wedding or that there even has to be a wedding. It’s about all the laws we’ve bound to marriage over the years only applying to straight couples. So your bluster about how you have to morally accept gay people is nonsense. Gay people don’t care if you personally accept them.
@quest4god@revelife - So we should go back to the days of whites only businesses and schools? And refusing minorities food, water and gas in remote rural areas effectively stranding and possibly killing them? There’s a reason certain businesses aren’t allowed to refuse someone service – before those laws were passed it was a passive form of lynching someone.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - How do you figure that?
@soccerdadforlife - Gay people having equal rights no more makes you have to accept them and agree with their lifestyle than vegans having equal rights means you have to be vegan. That other people having the rights you enjoy every day is a “threat” to you is paranoid and stupid.
@agnophilo - Read the specific rights named by our founding fathers. They don’t include making everyone carbon copies of one another. Some things that must be earned are tangible or not tangible but come from our efforts only. Those who aspire to things beyond the guaranteed rights must invest time, money, and sweat to earn them. (And all able-bodied people are expected, in a moral society, to earn their own way without doing it at the expense of the rights (read: tax money) of others.
@quest4god@revelife - So then petition the government to take away the tax breaks, benefits and legal protections you get for being married, because my taxes currently pay for those. Are you “robbing” me and violating my rights? If I don’t believe in marriage does that mean you don’t have the right to inherit your spouse’s possessions, retain custody of any children, visit her in the hospital, collect life insurance etc, etc? This “taxes are stealing” mantra is always applied hypocritically, what it really means is “taxes are stealing unless I personally agree with how the tax money is spent”. But we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. We decide democratically what the tax rate is and what the taxes are used for.
And the law treating everyone the same and making everyone identical are two different things. You honestly think some people shouldn’t have the same rights as others? Just gays? Or blacks, jews and women too?
@agnophilo - The concept of “rights” has gone far beyond the real rights we can expect. As far as the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, those the government is supposed to protect, not provide. We are getting what we asked for (unfortunately): a government which involves itself in every area of our lives, restricting where we are not restricting others, etc.
I have often said, and will continue to say that the government may charge for each and every legitimate service it provides, dividing the bill for those things equally among the citizens. Tax money provides a mountain of cash which is eyed greedily by those who want to use it for power and wealth they do not deserve.
I decided to delete my last comment because I want to amend it.
I am indifferent to homosexuality and heterosexuality, which is irrelevant to forming a morally consistent political opinion (note: I’m not saying that in response to anyone in particular))
I do not think that private contracts should infer public obligations. Marriage is a private contract which infringes on the rights of others, i.e. tax breaks which others have to compensate; insurance companies which are forced to give a discount; landlords who cannot discriminate. Nobody should be forced to recognize or make special privileges for anyone else unless there is a contract HE signed and consented to, stating such. If an insurance company doesn’t offer a good price for a joint plan, then that couple (or triple, or whatever) can bring their business elsewhere. Homosexuals should also have the right to deny insurance coverage to heterosexuals; and blacks housing to asians; people with children a lease to people without. They would also suffer the consequences of such poor business practices, as most people including myself would find them despicable.
@quest4god@revelife - Every citizen will never get equal use of the police, the fire department, get exactly their apportioned use out of roads and highways etc. To expect everyone to equally benefit from tax dollars being spent shows you don’t understand why we pay for things with taxes in the first place – because some things are not practical to pay for on an individual basis. Everybody needs the police, but it’s not practical to pay for their services once you’re the victim of a crime – imagine your spouse is murdered and you go to the police and they say “okay that’ll be $50,000 for the investigation and some basic forensics, expect that cost to double if we find the killer and have to incarcerate them”. That kind of civilization would never work. Your “fair” system would amount to a society where the rich have everything and the poor have nothing, which would make it impossible for anyone born poor to ever have anything no matter how hard they try – which is what we had for thousands of years.
This is why basic things we need as a civilization like law enforcement, roads, clean water, education etc we pay for together. Because if we paid for them separately it would be a nightmare.
As for gay rights, as I said I will believe you when you petition the government to take YOUR rights and benefits away. But to sit back and enjoy them and then say it’s an outrage only when someone else has the same rights and benefits is monstrous. And yes, that does put you in the same moral category of people who did everything they could do to keep blacks, women and other minorities from having an equal place in society.
@Facetiouseloquence - Marriage isn’t “just a contract”, if that were so gay people could get married. It’s a specific kind of legal agreement. Any two people can sign a contract, marriage gives specific rights, entitles someone to specific benefits and priveleges and legally binds two people together as though they were to some degree the same entity. And yes you do have to have government involved at least in recording who is married and who’s not because it determines things like who legally has the right to inherit someone’s things and who is legally responsible for a child. It’s kind of important to keep track of these things and to have some system of rules, which is why marriage is such an old and pervasive system.
@agnophilo - Government protection of the rights and safety of its citizens must be divided between all citizens, because as you said, an individual bill for rescue or military action is much too huge for any one person. But the total of all legitimate government services would be miniscule in comparison with the wasteful, power-extending spending of our government today.
You are not “listening” to me. I do not want “special breaks” using my money or anyone else’s. Your belief that government needs to act as a parent to its citizens is formed from the indoctrination you have received (along with the rest of us). Every new thing added to the list of government “services” creates a thing that seems impossible for the citizens to provide. You have to think outside the box….just because a thing is, does not mean that it ought, or need to be.
If the government began issuing shoes to its citizens, we would be so accustomed to that that we could not imagine how we would ever have shoes, apart from government provision in time
As a side note, I am not sure that you know that my wife has passed away, and my memories of her and our marriage together do not include putting a burden on anyone else. I know that your reference to her is as a general principle, but please find another way to make that kind of point.
Taxes serve the government officials far more than the poor. They are a back-handed method of control and blackmail using the money wrested from those they punish. Charity from private sources is a sign of civilization, but our tax money goes first to those who don’t need it and what’s left doled out to others – and not just to those who cannot provide for themselves. Your faith in the government is acting like faith in the god you claim not to believe in.
@quest4god@revelife -
“Government protection of the rights and
safety of its citizens must be divided between all citizens, because as
you said, an individual bill for rescue or military action is much too
huge for any one person.”
Do you get though that spending an equal amount on every citizen is impossible? Everyone is equally protected by the military in the sense that if chicago gets attacked the military will protect them just as if florida or anywhere else were to be attacked. But if florida gets attacked then obviously they will be the ones in reality receiving the benefit. It is the same with something like food stamps, it is universal in that it is there for anyone who might find themselves unable to afford food, not that everyone will have the same need.
“But the total of all legitimate government
services would be miniscule in comparison with the wasteful,
power-extending spending of our government today.”
I won’t argue that there is corruption and fiscal irresponsibility in congress, but any government that governs 300 million people will have a budget into the of at least hundreds of billions of dollars. The kind of “big” government that worries me is a government that threatens fundamental liberty. We should be concerned with the size of government only as a portion of our economy not in absolute terms.
“You are not
“listening” to me. I do not want “special breaks” using my money or
anyone else’s.”
What is a “special break”?
“Your belief that government needs to act as a parent to
its citizens is formed from the indoctrination you have received (along
with the rest of us). Every new thing added to the list of government
“services” creates a thing that seems impossible for the citizens to
provide. You have to think outside the box….just because a thing is,
does not mean that it ought, or need to be.”
Have you used or benefited from 1) public roads/bridges, 2) highways, 3) medicare/medicaid, 4) the post office, 5) utilities like water, sewer, gas and electric, 6) public libraries, 7) social security, 8, law enforcement, 9) public transportation etc. Out of the above list (just a tiny portion of the services provided by the government) how many have you ever used? How many have you used this week? Today?
“If the government
began issuing shoes to its citizens, we would be so accustomed to that
that we could not imagine how we would ever have shoes, apart from
government provision in time”
The government doesn’t issue shoes to all of it’s citizens, it does things like build roads, which individuals can’t accomplish by themselves. My philosophy of government comes from Abraham Lincoln (a republican btw):
“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.”
Curing cancer isn’t something individuals can do well for themselves. Eliminating poverty isn’t something individuals can do well (or at all) for themselves. This “pull yourself up by your bootstrap” philosophy would be fine if everybody had bootstraps to pull themselves up by. If we didn’t have public education the masses would not magically educate themselves and spontaneously learn to read, write and do math. Some would, but most would not.
“As a side note, I am not sure that
you know that my wife has passed away, and my memories of her and our
marriage together do not include putting a burden on anyone else. I
know that your reference to her is as a general principle, but please
find another way to make that kind of point.”
I didn’t know if you were even married, I apologize. I was speaking generally, if I had known I would have used some other example.
“Taxes serve the
government officials far more than the poor.”
I don’t think that statement is justified.
“They are a back-handed
method of control and blackmail using the money wrested from those they
punish.”
Then why did those evil founding fathers (and the founders of every free society on earth) include them in their constitutions? You say you’re for small government, but you seem to think any form of government at all is evil. I see a corrupt police department and I want to fight the corruption, not burn down the building and abolish law and order. I want government to fulfill it’s purpose, not cease to exist.
“Charity from private sources is a sign of civilization, but our
tax money goes first to those who don’t need it and what’s left doled
out to others – and not just to those who cannot provide for
themselves. Your faith in the government is acting like faith in the
god you claim not to believe in.”
Nowhere did I say the system is perfect, I just think an imperfect system is vastly better than no system at all. If you look at anything in life you will find corruption. Look at any business under a microscope and you’ll find people who work longer and harder for less pay, bad employees, people who steal office supplies, greedy corporate officers, people backstabbing and stealing each others’ ideas and so on – does that mean we should abolish all businesses and become a communist country?
That’s exactly your logic, just applied to businesses instead of government. You are the exact capitalist equivalent to a marxist ideologue who thinks business is evil and must be gotten rid of. Both of you are wrong, we need business and regulation, competition and fair labor laws, innovation and stability. We need both business and government. Business maximizes efficiency and government makes sure that it doesn’t do so by working employees to death and poisoning the water supply. Is government corrupt? Yes. Are businesses corrupt? Yes. Does that mean we should abolish either of them? No.
@agnophilo - “That other people having the rights you enjoy every day is a “threat” to you is paranoid and stupid.”
Again you put words in my mouth. You are simply a liar. I never considered allowing gays to marry to be a threat to me. Liar. Despicable to boot.
Thank you for a reasoned reply. I actually agree that government is needed just as is industry – of whatever type and size. Government, though, is even more susceptible to corruption because they alone have the power to enact and enforce law. I would like to see greater accountability from the gov. We know people who receive grants to conduct “studies” that are not essential to life and that are, if anything, the business of the private sector. We also know that some people who are in need fall through the cracks of bureaucracy while there are people who fraudulently receive money from Uncle Sam. If no congressman could reward himself by sponsoring bills that would result in kickbacks from those who benefit, none of them would become so fabulously rich on the salaries they receive from “public service.” The so-called “champions of the poor” create for themselves prolonged political careers because they do all they can to keep the status quo – the recipients of government doles, not promoting programs to help the poor become self-sufficient. (I know that there are disabled and terminally ill people who will never get off the dole, but government handouts create not a few who see no need of working.)
Thanks again for the conversation.
Yes, I was married to a wonderful woman who passed away 3 years ago. We had/have 8 living children, all working and fairly successful as well as 17 grandchildren and 2 greats.
@soccerdadforlife - You equated gay people having equal rights with totalitarian censorship. You didn’t use the word “threat” but you clearly did say it was a threat. Stop being childish.
@quest4god@revelife - You forgot to tag me, I only saw your reply because of soccerdad4life.
“Thank you for a
reasoned reply.”
You’re welcome.
“I actually agree that government is needed just as is
industry – of whatever type and size.”
You seem to suggest it should barely exist at all.
“Government, though, is even more
susceptible to corruption because they alone have the power to enact
and enforce law.”
“They” don’t have power to do anything, congress has the power to enact laws, and the executive branch has the power to veto them and the supreme court has the power to strike them down as unconstitutional. And the states have the power to amend the constitution to override all of the above. Separation of powers works. It limits the power of each branch of government. Partisan politics does the same, the opposition party limits the power of the party currently in power. As for their ability to do harm, an oligarchy isn’t any better than a dictatorship or an authoritarian socialist state. Power is power, corruption is corruption.
“I would like to see greater accountability from the
gov.”
Who wouldn’t?
“We know people who receive grants to conduct “studies” that are
not essential to life and that are, if anything, the business of the
private sector.”
Countless technologies (to say nothing of medical treatments) that we use today would not have existed without government (often military) funding simply because it’s often not profitable enough to justify the research required to get it to the point where something becomes profitable. For instance space technology wouldn’t have been developed without billions spent on military rocket and aeronautics technology by many governments, and now sattelite communication alone is a 170+ billion dollar a year industry. What we invest in today are the industries of tomorrow. And often we have no way of knowing what will pay off and what won’t.
“We also know that some people who are in need fall
through the cracks of bureaucracy while there are people who
fraudulently receive money from Uncle Sam.”
There is nothing special about government fraud. Fraud is fraud, medicare fraud is no different than private insurance fraud. It is going to exist in everything to some degree. By all means reduce it if possible, but it doesn’t justify these “government is evil” type arguments. By the same logic all businesses are evil, because I’m sure in any office big enough somebody’s stealing pens.
“If no congressman could
reward himself by sponsoring bills that would result in kickbacks from
those who benefit, none of them would become so fabulously rich on the
salaries they receive from “public service.”
I’m going to tell you something you might not know. News Corporation, the company that owns fox news, ordered some of it’s local reporters at one of it’s stations to go on the air and report “facts” about a story they had discovered were not accurate – they told them to lie. The two reporters refused, so they fired them for not lying to their viewers. The reporters sued and it went all the way to the supreme court, where NewsCorp argued that corporations are people and have civil rights and that to not let a news organization misinform the public was a violation of it’s first amendment rights. The supreme court decided in their favor which created the notion of “corporate personhood” and equated money with speech, which paved the way for the citizens united ruling which made it legal for corporations, individuals and unions to give unlimited campaign contributions (ie bribes) to politicians. Our elections went from politicians having multi-million dollar funds to multi-billion dollar funds overnight.
This is, to a large degree, why our political system is so screwed up. In canada by the way it is illegal for a news agency to lie.
“The so-called “champions
of the poor” create for themselves prolonged political careers because
they do all they can to keep the status quo – the recipients of
government doles, not promoting programs to help the poor become
self-sufficient. (I know that there are disabled and terminally ill
people who will never get off the dole, but government handouts create
not a few who see no need of working.)”
There are some people who are lazy and abuse the system but I think the bigger problem is that the poor in this country are on a treadmill – the minimum wage if you adjust it for inflation has been cut in half since 1971, just over the course of the bush administration when republicans controlled congress and refused to adjust the minimum wage for inflation someone on minimum wage saw their wages decrease by 25% while their cost of living went up. This coupled with the skyrocketing cost of healthcare are the two main things driving people into poverty. Medical bills are a major contributing factor to something like 80% of bankruptcies and the majority of cases of homelessness. This “poor people need to stop being lazy” mantra we hear from the right is just another way to maintain the status quo and ignore the piling up problems that are really creating a class of permanently poor people.
“Thanks again for the conversation.”
Likewise.
“Yes,
I was married to a wonderful woman who passed away 3 years ago. We
had/have 8 living children, all working and fairly successful as well as
17 grandchildren and 2 greats.”
I’m sorry to hear about your wife, though it’s nice you have family : )
@agnophilo - That was kind of my point, and why I disagree with it. Thanks for the response, though.
@Facetiouseloquence - That doesn’t make sense. What was your point?
@agnophilo - I would have thought that I had finally advanced to the point where I always remember to tag the person. Sorry for the oversight.
I think you are mature enough to realize that all of your answers are based on your premises and will naturally downplay any objections from the other side…as are mine. We both have points that require looking into and both gloss over what seems unimportant. I do know where you are coming from, but my own premises are well-thought-out also.
It is impossible to remove the emotional element of any conversation where each believes strongly in his basic beliefs, but it has been refreshing to be able to state our cases without resorting to infantile accusations and innuendoes. There is a definite value in hearing the other side.
Thanks!