Search this Site

  • Google

    WWW
    selwynduke.typepad.com

« Generation Zero | Main | Engineering Oblivion: Eugenics, the Remaking of Man and Unmaking of Morality »

August 15, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

yoyo

Talk about sophistry and a lack of historical perspective. So the millenium of 2nd 3rd and 4th legal marriages never occured? So the weddings between slaves that were never accepted as legal dont count. What selwyn has done with his switch and bait is to ignore what marriage means and why we even bother. If marriage is to formalise a link between individuals, to announce that not just their heart but alos their finances are linked, there is no real reason to keep gay people from marrying. If marriage is only about the propogation of children and ensuring heritage, then barren people should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is a purely religous ceremony, for the parish and community, no cross religious marriages should be allowed but otherwise go for it.

Selwyn define your terms because the world is sweeping this crap away.

Philip France

Some more fallacies of this facile and specious argument are what answers are there to the following questions regarding faux marriage (?):

Who is the husband and who is the wife?

Who is the bride and who is the groom?

Who surrenders his or her last name to the other and on what basis is this determined? Who is the “pitcher” and who is the “catcher”?

How can one reconcile the Biblical allegory of Christ being the bridegroom of his church and his church being his bride?

This is a theater of absurdity. Selwyn is absolutely correct in his assertions in this article. I will go further. It is likely that the overturn of California’s Prop 8 will stand and that we will have what Selwyn accurately describes as “faux marriages”. After this point, such a marriage might be legally recognized, however this does not change the truth that the faux marriages are truthfully illegitimate. It is a fiction. As Selwyn Duke put it most poignantly and logically, it the undefinition of a term that describes a concept that is rooted in the potential for the propagation of a species in an environment that is wholesome to the advancement of the species. And NOT the EXACT opposite.

As is usual with the liberal/leftist vs. Conservative in the war of ideas and ideals, you may very well win every battle, but in the end you lose the war. Truth is Truth. Lies are lies. Fiction is fiction. Despite the setback, I will light up my victory cigar an patiently await the fullness of time.

Robert Berger

Selwyn,as usual,your arguments are specious to the nth degree. If conservatives don't like judge Walker's decision,tough noogies.
Judges make decisions some people don't like all the time. If every judge were impeached and removed from office,as many conservatives would like to see for Walker,it would be impossible to keep judges in office.
The fact remains that proposition 8 is not a moral or right thing at all. Its advocates claim that its pupose is to"protect" marriage,as if it needed to be protected at all.
What really need to be protected are the rights of gay people. Don't be misled by proposition 8. It's just a smokescreen for homophobia,and it must not stand.
If it passes,it will just open up the slippery slope to eroding the rights of homosexuals,which is the true agenda of so many conservatives,and ultimately to
their possible persecution.
And any one who says that there's no such thiong as homophobia is an idiot.It's very real. Denying the existence of homophobia is as stupid and reprehensible as denying the existence of anti-semitism. They're both equaly bad.
Judge Walker is a very honest jurist and has shown rare courage in a time when homophobia is rampant in America disguised as religious piety.We need more jurists with his rare integrity.

Philip France

Robert,

You are an insane lunatic. I can only imagine what drugs you are taking, the least of which must be medical marijuana but I fear that your delsuions are induced by far more serious psychotropic drugs such as lithium.

Judge Vaughn Walker is a radical homosexual who should have recused himself from hearing this case, if he were honest. Liberals and leftists are NEVER honest. They merchandise in lies, mis-truths and half-truths.

He did not interpret law, as is his role. He legislated. This is gross legal malfeasance and he should be impeached. PERIOD.

A knothead like you does not realize that every atrocity that Hitler and his Nazis accomplished was technically legal under German law. He got away with so much infliction of torture and horror because he appointed judges who did the same as what what Judge Vaughn Walker has done. This is the direction toward which your worldview points. This worldview will also have idiots like you to be the first to be executed.

You are a hopeless and despicable moron. You are in grave need of psychological counseling. You are the exact subject of the book that I am presently reading: The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. PhD.

May God have mercy on your tormented and tortured soul.

yoyo

Philip, that was an absurd non-response to Robert. Haven't you learnt that any poor fool that uses the Nazis to buttress a poor argument on the net has already lost? It's called godwins law.

By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc.

I know you get all moist reading selwyns latest but this one is weaker than most. At no point does he address the major points, where is the benefit for proceding with a discrimination, what is the negative impact of allowing gay people to marry.

Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage so why the hell is it a big deal to bigots if two loving adults want the same legal status as two other adults. Hell britany Spears managed the whole 30 hour marriage in los vegas, do you really feel that the committed relationship of two women who have raised children together nursed each others aging parents etc is worth less than that?

I'm sorry about the snarky tone philip but sometimes your blind alleigance to selwyn is more cultish than cute.

Philip France

Dearest Yoyo,

You are demonstrating yet again that you are living proof that the are more horse’s asses in the world than there are horses. As evidence, I shall deconstruct your most recent insane post. Here goes:

You say, “Haven't you learnt that any poor fool that uses the Nazis to buttress a poor argument on the net has already lost? It's called godwins law.”

I say: Oh, is that history understood? Under godwin’s law? Sounds to me like you favor cutting out your own tongue than violate an unwritten law of Internet dialog. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the famous quote that those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it, Perhaps you enjoy misery or take pleasure in the suffering of others. What a fool you are. You pray to your godwin, I’ll pray to mine.

You vomited the following: “By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc. “
I say: “My poor grasp of logic”? Oh really? I will take you on and debate with you on any intellectual subject and allow the group to decide on whose logic is backed by substance and fact and whose is backed merely by whim, whimsy and infantile emotion and every day of the week. Logic me this, O Ye of Little Logic: If homosexual couples are considered normal and on the par with the rest of the earth and ALL of history, how long would our species have survived? It is clearly YOU that have a poor grasp of logic.
You say: “At no point does he address the major points, where is the benefit for proceding with a discrimination, what is the negative impact of allowing gay people to marry.”
I say: How are homosexuals being discriminated against? They are not. California’s law recognizes only a marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual can legally enter into such a union. They have this right that is shared by all citizens. What they seek is an abnormal and inhuman right to call something that it is clearly not what something else is. It is a violation of DEFINITION. I have no problem with David Fitzpatrick sodomizing Patrick Fitzdavid per se. It is their private business. Wouldn’t you love to launder their bedsheets? But when they want to ascribe the principle that for centuries stood as the vehicle for the propagation of the human species, well that is calling something that which it is clearly and abundantly not.
You say: “Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage”
I say: Where do you get this crap from? What sources can you cite to legitimize this claim? Or are you just another Robert Berger who writes his/her own history and then declares it as fact?
You say: “so why the hell is it a big deal to bigots if two loving adults want the same legal status as two other adults”
I say: How DARE you infer that I am a bigot. It is more likely that you are a filthy slut and whore than I am a bigot. I love all of humanity, homosexuals included. You are too childish and infantile to understand the answer to your own question. The answer lies in definition and the meaning of words and the respect of foundations. The word “marriage” implicitly implies that one man and one woman agree to become one personally, politically and economically. Certain benefits apply for the promotion of such behavior because such behavior results in the propagation of our species. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplishment this within the resources of that relationship. That is the error. That is the lie to which you have bitten the lure. A homosexual relationship CANNOT, in and of itself, have the potential for procreation and the propagation of the species. As such, any union of homosexuals cannot, repeat CANNOT be considered “married”. It is plain and simple logic, oh Silly One.
To put this more plainly, a black homosexual man has the legal right to marry a white lesbian woman. He/she has the same right as anybody and everybody. The faux marriage of a homosexual couple is not a marriage at all. It CANNOT be, ipso facto. Tell me please, would you rather believe a lie because believing so makes you socially acceptable or do you have more faith in eternal truths and the facts and realities you see with your very own eyes?
Lastly, you opine (and oh so egregiously): “I'm sorry about the snarky tone philip but sometimes your blind alleigance to selwyn is more cultish than cute.
I say: despite your fantasies, I have no need to present myself as “cute”. In fact, far from it. I happen to live a prosperous and comfortable life. My disdain is toward those who intend to usurp my comfortable existence, which I have earned through the sweat of my body and my brow, and give a portion of my own industry to unknown beings who do not earn. That is political malfeasance at its core. Lastly, it is utterly illogical to confer equal status to same-sex/homosexual unions on legal, moral and logical grounds to that of men and women by mere virtue that such a union radically defies the laws of nature and of nature’s God. To this, you have no rational argument, whatsoever.

Gary

The issue at stake in this matter of words is leaving the weight IN. When the weight is IN the original word has its original meaning. Gays should get their own word. Oh! I almost forgot! They have their own word. It's homosexual. But they would rather remove the weight from the word marriage so that they can destroy its meaning and destroy a whole society. Truth bears weight, but truth has no meaning if homosexuals have their way. Truth is also a penis and a vagina and if that is not truth, pray tell, what is?

yoyo

Wow, we did get some outright hatred from you here Philbaby. I wont stoop to the slut/whore remarks - your attitude to women can stand on your own words. Let's take it back a notch and just check the inconsistancies in your logic.

Your Quote"The word “marriage” implicitly implies that one man and one woman agree to become one personally, politically and economically. Certain benefits apply for the promotion of such behavior because such behavior results in the propagation of our species. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplishment(sic) this within the resources of that relationship. That is the error.

Therefore as I clearly pointed out under YOUR definition, barren people should not marry.

Again we have this little gem from you You vomited the following: “By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc.
So clearly you (and your mentor)think
the judge cannot be impartial in a matter involving gay marriage because he is gay, yet a heterosexual judge can be involved in denying nonheterosexual people marriage even tho he is heterosexual. If you can find anyway of parsing that to make it logical, you should also be able to argue that the sun rises in the west.

Next delightful argument from you questions a few basic facts You say(me): “Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage”
I say: Where do you get this crap from? What sources can you cite to legitimize this claim?

Of course, I can give you chapter and verse on this, PEW studies etc but what amazes and distresses me is that you think the opposite...
So YOU are stating that: catholics DONT want barren people to marry, that the majority of americans DONT believe in divorce and that southern american DONT believe in inter racial marriage.

PLEASE find me even the smallest study that accepts even one of your arguments above.

Americans are NOT as rascist as YOU are stating or anti divorce or bigoted.

Finally, I'll leave your last quote to stand alone... I have no problem with David Fitzpatrick sodomizing Patrick Fitzdavid per se. It is their private business. Wouldn’t you love to launder their bedsheets?

MMM, can't possibly think why anyone would think you have a major problem with gay men???

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

July 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31