Those defending the traditional and historic understanding of marriage have often been asked by same-sex marriage advocates to provide one good reason why marriage should not include same-sex couples. There are more than just one good reason, some being that:
1) There is NO good reason to include same-sex couples. No one has ever provided a good reason why these should be included. "Why not?" as a reason just won't do it.
2) There is no legitimate public interest in any same-sex relationship that is commensurable to the public interest in opposite-sex romantic or sexual relationships.
3) Same-sex marriage would disrupt, change and supplant the cultural assumptions of an historic institution.
4) As any same-sex relationships, same-sex couples are not included in the statutory classification denoting eligibility to marry for reasons number 1 and 2 above.
5) Same-sex marriage imposes another definition on the institution of marriage.
6) Same-sex marriage imposes another standard of public morality
……etc.
Importantly, however, the reasons to support and defend the majority civilizations' traditional understanding of marriage against any attempts to undermine this – as the institutionalization of same-sex marriage would do – are also philosophical and aesthetic in nature.
The traditional understanding of marriage as a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power upholds a model, especially in Western civilization, that represents the cultural ideal of sexuality and beauty for the sexual relationship. Because this is an ideal, it must necessarily be unique.
Wanting to supplant this traditional ideal, homosexual activist propose an alternative cultural "ideal" that, at its core, is two consenting adults united in a bond that confers legal rights, benefits and privileges. On its face, this "ideal" is utterly pedestrian. It is also arbitrary. Lacking in inspiration and aesthetic power, this is an "ideal" that is no ideal at all, in spite of homosexuals' attempts to dress it up as a bond of love, care and mutual sharing of two persons.
It is arbitrary for specifying "two" This has likely been done by gay rights activists to make the pill of same-sex marriage easier to swallow, as the idea of "two consenting adults" piggy-backs on the cultural assumptions and the special place of honor that society has always had for the union of a man and a woman, the only "two" who are truly significant, as these two comprise the two essential and necessary beings for recreating new life.
There is nothing necessary or essential about "two", however, for the same-sex relationship. This, naturally, opens to challenge the ideal of two consenting adults. Why just two? Where is the ideal or necessity in that?
Like lipstick on a pig, the attempts by gay activists to dress up this new cultural "ideal" as a bond of love, care and mutual sharing almost seems inspirational and aesthetically pleasing at first, until one realizes that people can pretty much love, care and share with pretty much anything they want. For homosexuals to remedy this by imposing conceptual restraints so as to exclude all who do not fit the conceptual model that homosexuals have conveniently imagined for themselves only robs this "ideal" of any claim to credibility and highlights more and more its arbitrary character. It seems just too tailor made for serving the political purposes of the homosexual lobby.
People of all cultures and civilizations are attached to their historic ideals, values and traditions, and the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power is one of these. To replace this revered ideal held in such high honor and esteem by all civilizations with the notion that two consenting adults united in a bond that merely confers legal rights, benefits and privileges is any sort of ideal equal or superior to the one that it supplants is an affront and an outrage to human dignity and worth!
The life and power of a civilization arises from the deep well of the spirit that animates a people. When this well runs dry and the inspiration giving life to its ideals degenerates into mere legalities and specious technicalities where it really becomes just a question of "what's in it for me", then this is a civilization that is exhausted and at the end of its road. Gay rights activists are helping to chart this course to decline for America and the West, and that is not only sad, but it is something that should raise the hackles of any decent person.
So it is important for the spiritual life of a nation, of America and the other Western nations, to renew with the spirit that gave it life; to honor what is honorable; to venerate what is timeless; to worship what is sacred, and to begin setting the course right again by upholding the ideal that is the sacred institution of marriage as the life-giving relationship of a man and a woman who are both ultimately united by God.
7) Legal recognition of SSM will result in more children, not less, growing up without a father.
ReplyDelete8) allowing same-sex couples to conceive offspring together means allowing human manufacturing and genetic engineering and would not only be unethical to attempt and test and research, but, if allowed, would undermine the basis of equality and dignity and cause international animosity and dischord like we have never seen before.
ReplyDelete1) There is NO good reason to include same-sex couples. No one has ever provided a good reason why these should be included. "Why not?" as a reason just won't do it.
ReplyDeleteIf we do not afford those who wish to marry someone they love simply because they are the same sex the liberty to do so we are in violation of the pursuit of happiness which is held as an inalienable right.
2) There is no legitimate public interest in any same-sex relationship that is commensurable to the public interest in opposite-sex romantic or sexual relationships.
All throughout history we have great romantic stories, one such story is the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the oldest surviving pieces of literature. Ever seen the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa? Gay people are worthy of being treated as equals and it's time we do so. In fact we already have started in some of the more enlightened states and countries.
3) Same-sex marriage would disrupt, change and supplant the cultural assumptions of an historic institution.
Same sex marriages have not and do not disrupt the lives of those around them by their nature alone, this is an unprovable assumption or speculation.
4) As any same-sex relationships, same-sex couples are not included in the statutory classification denoting eligibility to marry for reasons number 1 and 2 above.
Yes we are, it matters where you live.
5) Same-sex marriage imposes another definition on the institution of marriage.
Heterosexual people's right remain unchanged as a result of elavating GLBT people to the level of equal in marriage. Sorry Roberto, your points are not based on facts, they are merely opinions, that's why they are so easily refuted.
6) Same-sex marriage imposes another standard of public morality
You start off with the worn and tired "private purpose of marriage" argument, and then you proceed to the "love and pursuit of happiness"argument.
ReplyDeleteLike lipstick on a pig, your attempts to dress up this new cultural "ideal" as a bond of love, caring and mutual sharing almost seems inspirational and aesthetically pleasing at first, until one realizes that people can pretty much love, care and share with pretty much anything they want.
The public purpose of marriage is NOT to validate, sanctify or legitimize the love relationships of individuals. That is a private concern, not a public concern.
Gays want public sanction and legitimacy for their lifestyles, and will use government power to acquire it. This is what same-sex marriage is all about. It is not about marriage!
It is about power and leverage!
I would expect you could do better than petty insults as a reply, but perhaps not. Let your words ring in the ears of the just.
ReplyDeletePetty insults…… hmmm. Anyone see petty insults?
ReplyDelete"If we do not afford those who wish to marry someone they love simply because they are the same sex the liberty to do so we are in violation of the pursuit of happiness which is held as an inalienable right."
ReplyDeleteLet's take the same argument and change it slightly so that it continues to remain valid:
If we do not afford those who wish to marry someone they love simply because one is a hamster the liberty to do so we are in violation of the pursuit of happiness which is held as an inalienable right.
Don't you feel foolish now?
Just to repeat some points from the article I posted before, John:
ReplyDeleteThe limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality.
Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.
Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then.
as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'"
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
And:
ReplyDeleteBut as a matter of principle, it is probably a bad idea to let someone go mucking around with social arrangements, such as the way we treat unwed parenthood, if their idea about that institution is that "it just growed".
My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways,
And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.
All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision.
The italicized statements are not mine, they come from a post I have linked to many times and finally placed here in its entirety. Sometimes I find others who express the points I've tried to make in far better words than I can. Of course, most who push for neutered marriage just pretend they either have not read them or that they don't get the point, because they want to be able to keep using the same lame statements ("I just don't see how....", "It's just about equality and dignity", "Tell me how neutered marriage hurts YOUR marriage", blah, blah, blah) as if nobody has pointed out how lame they are.
ReplyDeleteJohn: ...this is an unprovable assumption or speculation.
ReplyDeleteAgain, John, the burden of proof is on you, not us. And with a test measured in generations, not just six years.
The reaction of the people of California, New York, and many other states on the "results" of Massachusetts shows that 6 year experiment is a shambles also.
ReplyDeleteRoberto, if I called your statements "worn and tired", would you consider that insulting or complementing? Would you be offended if I tried to compare the love you have for your spouse to the love of a hampster? This is openly demeaning, you should know better than to speak like this.
ReplyDelete"Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."
You need to raise the level of your honesty if we are going to have a productive dialog, you know full well you are insulting and you should refrain.
"Again, John, the burden of proof is on you, not us."
No RK, when you make a statement it is your responsibility to provide the proof of its truth when your audience asks. I challenge the statement Roberto made, he needs to come up with his supporting facts.
On Lawn, the results on Massachusetts led to five other states accepting same sex marriage as their own law. Sorry, but if you want to claim social harm you need to bring your proof. That is what we form logical opinions on, isn't it? ;)
What is see here is a lot of emotion and opinion but no facts to support them. I'll wait to see the facts you bring into the discussion...
John: Would you be offended if I tried to compare the love you have for your spouse to the love of a hampster?
ReplyDeleteRoberto did not do that, and you know it, John. He was simply showing the weakness of your argument that "if we do not afford those who wish to marry someone they love the liberty to do so simply because (fill in the blank)....we are in violation of the pursuit of happiness which is held as an inalienable right". And, please note, you have not yet demonstrated how Roberto's example harms society, the burden of proof you demand for us. Your defense of retaining other restrictions on marriage amounts to "Because it's illegal", which by your own standards is not an answer at all.
Many who went into interracial marriages years ago probably would've also felt insulted, at least at that time, by any implication that their marriages were "comparable" to same-sex marriages.
No RK, when you make a statement it is your responsibility to provide the proof of its truth when your audience asks. I challenge the statement Roberto made, he needs to come up with his supporting facts.
No. When you propose a radical change to a highly complex universal system which has never been seen long-term in any culture in history the burden of proof is on you, the proponent of the change. Otherwise it is like putting an untested chemical into the atmosphere. (Please don't change the word "untested" into "poisonous" so that you can claim "insult").
And please read the article I earlier posted in its entirety.
Interesting,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Mr Hosty thinks he is immune to criticism because he finds it personally insulting. Yet he finds it fun to insult others. I'm not the only one to noticed the overtones when he called me personally a "vermin" who he loved hunting with a rifle.
When that is pointed out, he again quickly defends himself that people have to be nice to him.
Just more evidence, folks, of Mr Hosty showing the world just how "equal" he wants things to be.
When we bring up concerns about the meaning of marriage, he dismisses them outright -- with hosty-lity :)
Reminds me of a song...
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs a helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy, he must be happy,
he must be happy in his world
We're only making plans for Nigel
He has his future in a fist of steel
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel's whole future is as good as sealed
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy, he must be happy,
He must be happy in his world
Nigel is nice spoken and he loves to speak
And he likes to be spoken to
Nigel is happy in his world
Nigel is happy in his world
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs a helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy, he must be happy,
he must be happy in his world
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
On Lawn, the results on Massachusetts led to five other states accepting same sex marriage as their own law. Sorry, but if you want to claim social harm you need to bring your proof. That is what we form logical opinions on, isn't it? ;)
ReplyDeleteWell enough. Yet the results also lead 30 states to make laws against it by the additional and personal work of the people themselves.
Convincing some state legislatures, the same people who envy the Big Dig boon-doggle and Massachusetts health care snafu, is pretty anemic in comparison.
But you go ahead and celebrate everything you have, we all know you need all the consolation you can get.
Pity it comes at the expense of others equality and freedom.
One more note on facts,
ReplyDeleteThere are years worth of facts noted in our archives. Perhaps Mr Hosty can show one that he has every adequately refuted?
No, he can't. As Op-Ed pointed out Mr Hosty is the person who asks "Why not" then ignores all the answers because he just wants to do it anyway.
He's ignored all the facts in this matter, and often (hilariously) points out facts which work against his own arguments :)
On Lawn, do you ever sway from ad hominem attacks long enough to have a meaningful discussion?
ReplyDeleteOK boys, let's try something different. In all honesty there are better places I could be spending my time, this is obviously not the most influential or best read blog out there. More clearly we all know from the comments bar on the home screen there are few comments here outside of the rabble made from those who run this blog. It is in all meaning of the expression this blog is the "echo chamber" On Lawn has accused other blogs to be.
I've spent more than three years try to talk sense into those here only to be met with absolute unmovable bigotry said in a fashion that tries to spin all responsibility back and the GLBT society. We clearly cannot come to an understanding on these issues.
I would be interested in talking about what we CAN do together. Is anyone game? I'm not likely to stay and chat overwise, this blog is too slow and I deem it a waste of my time. Sorry, that's just the truth spoken so we can get it into the light. Had you not tried to offend my intelligence with your posting under multiple names at KTN I doubt I would have given you the attention I already have.
This is the part where you usually declare victory and claim I am running off because I cannot outargue you or some similar crap like that. Very witty, too bad no one is visiting here to see such stellar intelect like the "logic black belt", lol!
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in talking about what we CAN do together.
ReplyDeleteA lot, it seems. You both for separating marriage and conception rights, though to a different degree: you both think it would be OK for a married couple to be prohibited from conceiving together with their own genes, but only Opine thinks that it's OK for a couple that is allowed to conceive together to be prohibited from marrying. (I think that all marriages should be allowed to conceive with their own genes, and all couples that are allowed to conceive should be allowed to marry.) You both are opposed to laws against adult consensual incest, I think. (I'm for them.)
This is the part where JHG ignores me, and On Lawn says he already answered and I am a laughing stock and incapable of understanding his nuanced position.
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteDo you ever sway from accusing others of ad-hominem (which seems to be nothing more than your inability to accept legitimate criticism) to have a meaningful discussion?
The problem here is not that we don't reply to your points ad-nauseum, as far as I can tell your playbook is simply played out.
Also, while you and John Howard and Arturo comment here frequently I can hardly imagine that you really think this is an echo chamber. We promote the free exchange of ideas, and criticism of those ideas. You've offered criticism, and we've never complained -- we just show you to be wrong, over and over again :)
Or, you do that for us. I'm still laughing over your silly demand that we couldn't document 20 events of hate crime against heterosexuals ... only a few posts before you present just such evidence. Also presenting that the category of hate crimes against sexual orientation not only includes victimization of heterosexuals, but that homosexuals by other homosexuals (gays vs lesbians).
Or who could forget your charge that marriage kept women as chattel. To which you provided the very evidence to show that where women were chattel, marriage was actually the spear-head to more equal treatment of those women -- not the other way around. Not to mention pointing to a story where "chattel" even though the story itself discredited that presumption.
Mr Howard, no you aren't the laughing stock. Mr Hosty's antics are. You are simply overbearing.
Okay, having dispelled yet another passive-aggressive hosty-lity, let me take on the other question...
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty, are you prepared to support a government institution which explicitely supports the equal rights and responsibilities for the three parties involved in procreation (mother, father, child)?
If not then why not?
I've already told you I support a program which recognizes the commitment behind all legal forms of adult bonding. That is precisely what you tell us your view of your own marriage is.
Can you support ours?
JHG has shown that his rhetoric is not worth the pixels. This concession was made when JHG deleted his own comments that he had contributed to an extensive discussion in which his viewpoint was expressly the topic.
ReplyDeleteHis concession has been compounded first by his utter failure to explain his actions; and second by his repeated return to tell us how much he hopes his words will remain on-the-record. Without fail he whines and complains about his self-inflicted wounds.
Amusingly, this serves a purpose that he undoubtedly does not intend.
He does not stray far from the talking points of the SSM campaign; but that's because he runs away from the actual disagreement that SSMers have with marriage defenders.
The numbered items of the original blogpost have not been refuted by self-important JHG.
On item #1 he falsely equated same-sex with homosexual. Meanwhile it is obvious that opposite-sex is not the equivalent of marriagable. So he ran aways from this item.
His reaction to item #2 avoided providing a legitimate public interest. So JHG fled again.
In his reply to item #3 JHG asserted as "unprovable" what his own rhetoric insists: that the cultural assumptions of an historic institution are destroyed by SSM arugmentation.
Repeatedly JHG has insisted that whatever distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage is unjust. He counts on the defeat of the assumptions that Roberto invoked.
On this one JHG stuffed a foot in his mouth and hopped away in a slow hurry. Uphill. Mumbling about the lack of good taste in the discussion.
His reaction to item #4 is a misdirection.
Note that in Massachusetts the marriage statutes still include the man-woman criterion. The abuse of judicial review is key to the merger of SSM with marriage in any jurisdiction that has imposed such a merger. That contradicts the pro-SSM complaint about the arbitrary use of governmental power.
Items #5 and #6 are left unanswered by JHG.
He has run so far away from these items that we can see only his tiny siloutte against the horizon -- his hands waving about. He stuffed another foot in his mouth and tumbled down the hillside. No one pushed him. He has no one else to blame but himself.
Running away from the actual disagreement is what the SSM campaign, and its argumentation, does best. JHG is imitative of this.
Thanks Chairm...
ReplyDeleteI missed his counter points before. I think they deserve even more treatment, though your treatment is very well done.
If we do not afford those who wish to marry someone they love simply because they are the same sex the liberty to do so we are in violation of the pursuit of happiness which is held as an inalienable right.
Your point hits the nail on the head, in that he has to this point only supported homosexual couples and not all same-sex couples who love each other. There are many loving but platonic relationships which are just as committed and just as nurturing, and even just as long lived, for instance.
But even more fundamental is that Mr Hosty is simply wrong. Its because of what a couple means who loves and commits to each other and the child they potentially create that makes it a marriage. A same-sex relationship, as noble as it is, is lacks that capacity and in fact works against it in their own household.
Simple fact is, if they want to get married they would. But Hosty's hostility towards marriage means he has to re-define it so that he can call himself married -- to the detriment of all those who rely on marriage to ensure equality between the sexes and those they create together.
Gay people are worthy of being treated as equals and it's time we do so. In fact we already have started in some of the more enlightened states and countries.
People? Sure. Homosexuality as the same as heterosexuality? Mr Hosty ether needs a birds-and-bees talk or he's being willfully ignorant. The difference is between shooting a bullet, and throwing one. Heterosexuals have far more capacity to ruin children's lives than any homosexuals who do not have children together. And for heterosexuals, they are doing the children a favor to act in the full nature of their parenthood. Homosexuals are doing so at the cost of breaking up a child from their real mother and father, which has got to hurt when a child finds out half their genes disavowed them so this all-male or all-female marriage could pretend to be heterosexuals.
What a way to put the adult needs above the kids. Sorry that isn't what marriage is about.
Roberto: >> "Same-sex marriage would disrupt, change and supplant the cultural assumptions of an historic institution."
ReplyDeleteHosty: > Same sex marriages have not and do not disrupt the lives of those around them by their nature alone, this is an unprovable assumption or speculation.
The difference here, as Chairm points out, is between individual lives and the social constructs we use to define them.
Two gays living next door is not in and of itself disruptive. Redefining marriage, as Mr Hosty has insisted throughout his time on Opine, as the adult centered affirmation of romance is continuing the harm from no-fault divorce. The harm that has done to marriage is observable in the sharp increase in divorce, and lower marriage rates since it was adopted.
Marriage is not a government hallmark basket of goodies to help affirm two adults who feel googly-eyed towards each other. Nor is the government in a position to regulate what "love" is worthy or not. To make marriage into such an institution is inviting a very strong regulation of our bedrooms.
And it invites the government to support people being very careless about their real obligations to the mother or father of the children they co-created. Take Governor McGreevey as an example of this. He sued to have his wife completely removed from visiting their kids -- because she disagreed with him cheating in her with a man.
Yes we are, it matters where you live.
What it matters about where you live is that some states have completely removed what marriage is and replaced it with the homosexual model of relationships (the care-free adult bonding model) and called any direct recognition of responsible procreation (the family bonding model) to be the moral equivalent of white supremacy.
Roberto is absolutely right, and the fact that some states have had to create a different program aslo called "marriage" only underlines that point even stronger.
Heterosexual people's right remain unchanged as a result of elavating GLBT people to the level of equal in marriage. Sorry Roberto, your points are not based on facts, they are merely opinions, that's why they are so easily refuted.
Of course, GLBT people are not equal in level to marriage. Just look at sites like ex-gay watch which stalk gays who really do get married. They do not treat them as equals at all.
Mr Hosty does not treat them as equals either. He has stated that no intelligent person, or state agency, should recognize the importance of responsible procreation. (Hence my post above calling him on that fact).
Call this one an easily discredited, bald faced lie. The facts are presented, the evidence lined up, and your claim of equality is shown to be a very special treatment of gays which no other group of segregationists have been allowed to enjoy in the US since the establishment of the civil rights movement.
John Hosty-Grinnell wrote: "Roberto, if I called your statements "worn and tired", would you consider that insulting or complementing? Would you be offended if I tried to compare the love you have for your spouse to the love of a hampster? This is openly demeaning, you should know better than to speak like this. "
ReplyDeleteJohn, If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate even the mildest of criticism, then what are you doing on these forums?
Btw, it's "complimenting" and "hamster".
John Hosty-Grinnell wrote: "Same sex marriages have not and do not disrupt the lives of those around them by their nature alone, this is an unprovable assumption or speculation."
Others on this thread had already pointed out both the hamster fallacy and the gay neighbor fallacy, so I don't have to add to it.
But you should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing up those hackneyed arguments.
"Do you ever sway from accusing others of ad-hominem"
ReplyDeleteYes, when they are not used. ;)
"Can you support ours?"
I already said I support full inclusion where no one is left behind with less than equal rights. Why do you pretend not to know this?
These are the same old tired answers you give each and every time we talk, this is why it is not worth my time to talk with you. While we could be talking what we could do together constructively, but you are not interested in progress, you're interested in holding onto yesterday.
There is nothing here but attacks against the past, nothing about what we can do or grow into as a society. Furthermore the fact that it is only opiners and John Howard talking day after day shows just how useless this blog is as an avenue to reach the public.
Sorry guys, make all the petty insults against me you want (and you will undoubtedly) but that is not going to keep me here talk to you. You know what to do if you want me to stay; open up a new thread and discuss what we CAN do together, and what rules we see as mutually beneficial.
"Btw, it's "complimenting" and "hamster"."
Thanks for proving just how petty this blog can be. ;)
Me: >> "Do you ever sway from accusing others of ad-hominem"
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty: > Yes, when they are not used. ;)
False, that hasn't stopped you from accusing us in this thread.
I already said I support full inclusion [...]
And now that you answered the question you wanted to answer, how about answering the one that was asked ;) ?
Mr Hosty, are you prepared to support a government institution which explicitly supports the equal rights and responsibilities for the three parties involved in procreation (mother, father, child)?
That is inclusive of everyone except people who do not want to promote recognition of equal rights in procreation. People who, say, want only men to head the household and hire women out to abandon their children to them for profit.
If you want to include those people, that is the same as simply not recognizing recognition of equal rights in each marriage any more.
So which of those do you promote? Including non-equality in the arrangement or promoting equal recognition of rights between the mother, father and potential child in each marriage?
Roberto: > "John, If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate even the mildest of criticism, then what are you doing on these forums?
"Btw, it's 'complimenting" and "hamster"."
Mr Hosty: > Thanks for proving just how petty this blog can be.
Wow, I'm actually happy when people correct me. Then I learn better and can do better.
Your back-slap at correct and useful criticism is showing just how thin skinned you really are. Sure its a little thing, but a thank-you is more appropriate than more of your passive-aggressive hosty-lities.
Straining at spelling corrections and swallowing camels. From his most recent comment, lets see what petty really is...
* it is not worth my time to talk with you
* you are not interested in progress, you're interested in holding onto yesterday.
You do what you need to Mr Hosty. If leaving is your best play, then no one will stop you. We'd love you to stick around. You and John Howard do a great job of showing just who you are and what you are up to.
Your play book is played out. You know we are more grounded in human rights recognition and equality than you are. If you require us from moving from that platform for the sake of your own marital-intolerance and prejudice against women, then you really are going to be left frustrated.
The concerns of men-women and children are too important to be called 'petty' by the likes of your small little voice.
My problem with this blog is that is does not concentrate on the matters it brings up. All too often comments focus of the visitors and trying to discredit them instead of their ideas and beliefs. You are proving this more with each nasty little dig you send out, thanks, because in actuality it discredits you when read by someone who understands socratic logic.
ReplyDeleteIt's a slow Monday, I'll check back to see what other antics you have for me... ;)
My problem with this blog is that is does not concentrate on the matters it brings up.
ReplyDeleteThere's one I haven't heard before. My favorite to date is not unrelated. I remember Fannie saying it was boring when I didn't add commentary. An odd way to criticize when I let the facts speak for themselves.
Yours seems to be an rather odd way to criticize that we are too diverse in the subjects we allow readers to lead us into -- an allowance we've forwarded to you and will continue to afford the readership.
All too often comments focus of the visitors and trying to discredit them instead of their ideas and beliefs.
In this thread, in particular, you've over-personalized criticism and scrutiny of your points.
I mean really, we've addressed all your points and your retorts to date are stuff like...
* Very witty, too bad no one is visiting here to see such stellar intelect like the "logic black belt", lol!
* It is in all meaning of the expression this blog is the "echo chamber" [ed: how he can complain about Opine being an echo chamber and too often freely allow and respond to other points of view, I don't know ;) ]
* What is see here is a lot of emotion and opinion but no facts to support them. [ed: again compare with his reaction to us requiring him to back up his position, following...]
* tries to spin all responsibility back and the GLBT society.
* Had you not tried to offend my intelligence with your posting [...]
* It's a slow Monday, I'll check back to see what other antics you have for me... ;)
These are all interesting avenues to discuss, especially how it continues to show your hypocritical behavior, but I'll admit they do not make much difference in the debate.
_______________
So can we proceed constructively? The question remains...
Mr Hosty, are you prepared to support a government institution which explicitly supports the equal rights and responsibilities for the three parties involved in procreation (mother, father, child)?
That is inclusive of everyone except people who do not want to promote recognition of equal rights in procreation. People who, say, want only men to head the household and hire women out to abandon their children to them for profit.
If you want to include those people, that is the same as simply not recognizing recognition of equal rights in each marriage any more.
So which of those do you promote? Including non-equality in the arrangement or promoting equal recognition of rights between the mother, father and potential child in each marriage?
Contrary to JHG, this blogsite is about marriage and marriage is about the past and the future.
ReplyDeleteSSM is anomalous and ahistorical. It is anti-thetical to the past and the future of marriage.
JHG deleted his own words in the past and has shown less respect for his own stated standards with each reappearance he makes here. That is not an insult. That is merely an observation of his behavior -- past and present -- the pattern for which makes his future behavior all-too-predictable.