Re: Gay Marriage Arguments.

Left this comment in response to a blog about why it’s just and good and wonderful to oppose other people having the same rights as you, and how people who support gay rights are “me” centered which is why they don’t understand the position of people who are “jesus” centered ::gag::

Anyway, here is my response:

Two things – one, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Which means you can’t outlaw something merely because it goes against your religious beliefs, you must also have a secular basis for the law. And two, even if you wish to make america a theocracy your position is still staggeringly hypocritical because you don’t outlaw divorce, trimming one’s facial hair, women having short hair or speaking in churches or hundreds of other things that are explicitly forbidden in the bible. To apply the bible’s edicts selectively (and usually when it impacts someone else’s life and not your own) while saying “how dare you not follow the bible” is the height of hypocrisy.

And it’s not about being “me” centered, if it were nobody but gay people would support gay marriage. It’s about being a human being and having a capacity for empathy which allows you to not be “me” centered but to instead imagine yourself in someone else’s position and care about not just you you you and only concern yourself with things you personally have gone through or are going through. The people who support gay rights (including the over 1,100 rights and benefits denied to gay couples which straight couples enjoy) are supporting it out of a sense of fairness and compassion, out of a sense of “do unto others what you would have them do unto you”. And the people who oppose gay rights are doing so out of a misguided and hypocritical sense of duty, or just bigotry in many cases.

Also the whole “we’re defending marriage” thing is nonsense. In no way does a gay person being married somehow undermine (or have anything to do with) your relationship, and if that’s how it works why not outlaw divorce or adultery? Wouldn’t your neighbor cheating on their spouse “undermine” your marriage too? Or is it just when fags do something?

This is another layer of the hypocrisy of your position, there is literally nothing a straight couple can do that is so horrible their right to marry is ever taken away. I could beat my wife, murder her, rape our children, get remarried and divorced a hundred times, committing adultery each time and nobody would even suggest that my right to marry should be taken away. I could get married to someone I met five minutes before while intoxicated and nobody would suggest that this is a “threat” to their marriage. I could get married by an elvis impersonator in a drive-through wedding chapel to someone I don’t even like just for the tax write-off, and nobody is ever going to suggest that you need to be “protected” from my actions that don’t even affect you.

But two gay people who love each other and want to make a lifelong monogamous commitment? Ammend the constitution immediately!

It’s like phrases like “illegal immigrant” and “anchor baby” only being used to vilify non-white immigrants. When is the last time you heard of a canadian who had a child while living in the US on a visa being accused of having an “anchor baby”?

Hypocrisy and bigotry. And in the name of jesus, that never gets old.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Re: Gay Marriage Arguments.

  1. TheSutraDude says:

    Well said and excellent points. 

  2. I completely agree. Kudos on a fantastic argument!

  3. SKANLYN says:

    Maybe we’re not officially a theocracy but we have a Constitution that’s based on Biblical laws found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Those laws clearly prohibit gay marriage.

  4. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Marriage isn’t a right, but over a thousand legal rights and benefits have been tied to it by laws over the year, from inheritance to insurance benefits to tax rates to who decides where you’re buried or if you’re cremated to who decides who can visit you in the hospital, who has custody of your kids when you die etc.@TheSutraDude – @momofjenmatt – @holeinyoursoul – @Midnight_Masochist – @pixie696 – Thank you : )@SKANLYN – Please show me where it says this in the constitution.  Because I recall it saying explicitly that laws cannot restrict or promote any religious belief.

  5. I believe in Jesus and I support gay marriage.  Not my place to judge and our constitution gives us Freedom of Religion, so why should we ban it if there are religious people out there who don’t believe in the bible?

  6. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Paying taxes all your life and getting what those taxes pay for when you need it isn’t a “handout”, and mindlessly repeating conservative talking points doesn’t make you smart.@hesacontradiction – Even if everyone in america were christian one person’s christianity should not be forced on anyone else.  “Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”- Barack Obama

  7. locomotiv says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – please think..i told you this morning..that gender is relative..how can we be so sure that a man is a man and a woman is a woman at 100% unless we check their underwears so to speak..with your argument, every person who get married would have to pass a medical test to prove they are male or female…

  8. agnophilo says:

    @locomotiv – Well it is right there on the birth certificate actually.I’m pro gay marriage but that’s not a great argument.  Same sex marriage not being legal isn’t hard or impractical to enforce.

  9. locomotiv says:

    i really think that marriage should be genderless…it unites people in love and also it protects citizens in legal matters…

  10. locomotiv says:

    @agnophilo – the gender is on the birth certificate but it does not prove it…i’m not sure what you mean by it’s right there on the certificate…

  11. locomotiv says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – wait for me to decipher and absorb what you just said..it could take me a while..i will return…

  12. locomotiv says:

    when i said relative i meant that gender should not be an issue nowadays when people want to marry..i know that male is male and female is female, but and.. and even if we embrace same couple marriage there will be enough people on this planet..i cannot emphasise enough that it’s impossible to know that when we have a human in front of us he or she is the gender they say they are…these rules about gender are despotic, unfair and ancient…i personnally dont think that homosexuality is a disorder…and even if it was a disorder why could they not marry…it’s all about freedom and we want flexibility..we want to embrace differences..and heterosexuality is a difference as well as homosexuality for that matter.. 

  13. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – The Constitution is essentially a summary of what’s in the Bible. Back when it was written the forefather’s didn’t mention it gay marriage because it would have been stating the obvious. I do agree with you, however, that humanity seems to have lost its moral compass so we probably need an Amendment at this point to explicitly ban it.

  14. Oh and don’t forget the “marriage is for procreation” nonsense. I heard one of your Supreme Court justices asked if that meant a man and a woman over 55 could not marry! Great post!

  15. PPhilip says:

    Thank goodness that we do not follow the rules Jesus prefers at times. I believe Jesus stated that people can get married but should stay married and not divorce and remarry.I suppose the smart religious radicals should force marriage to be permanent and not treated so friviously. Instead we have adultery and divorce which do not glorify the holy sacredness of marriage.Canada has a strange law that permits sodomy but there should only be two consulting adults present. I suppose orgies would threaten marriage more than gay marriages.

  16. I liked this post, as it gave some real answers, and then I read the comments. Big mistake, I’m sorry, OP, for having to endure all this bigotry.

  17. Sometimes it seems that both the state and church are all too eager to get into our bedrooms and dictate what we can and can’t get up to. Yet so many of those purporting to know best are exposed as being the biggest hypocrits of all.

  18. This debate fascinates me. All the reason, all the logic, all the coherent thought is on one side (the one you espouse). On the other side, we see a frayed old washing line with a sad assortment of dirty, idiotic misconceptions and prejudices hung out on it to dry. It’s like watching Manchester United play a primary school 2nd eleven.

  19. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – “Government isn’t committed nor is it required to return the taxpayer’s “investment.”  Once we give our money to the government, it’s gone.”So you think living in someplace with no government, infrastructure, safe drinking water, safe food, civil rights etc where hardly anybody can read, write or do math is worth not paying taxes?  You honestly think you’re being ripped off?  Go live in a country without a government and see if the local warlord treats you better than the IRS.  You act as though it’s even remotely possible that life, with big or small government, would ever be 100% fair.  As though we should only build roads with tax dollars if everybody gets to drive on each road the same number of times.  The world you imagine is impossible.”That’s why people like me advocate constitutionally limited government,” While wanting the government to be the religious morality penis police.”low taxes, judicious regulation only, and rights as they are defined in the Declaration of Independence:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness consistent with “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”Actually you made that phrase up, what the declaration actually says is:”…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.Which of us is promoting equality and which of us isn’t?@locomotiv – I don’t think marriage should be genderless, I personally find a lot of meaning in the gender differences between men and women and am glad that’s a part of my biology.  But I’m not everybody, so telling you who you can or can’t marry is like making you drink tea instead of coffee because I like it better.  I would have to be incredibly arrogant and inconsiderate to even think of doing such a thing.@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – “If everyone were homosexual than the human race would go extinct.  That is proof that homosexuality is a sexual disorder, not a source of human rights.”If everyone were impotent the human race would go extinct.  Should impotent men not be allowed to marry by law?  And isn’t this a bit hypocritical coming from a guy who pretended to be a woman for years on the internet?”Also, if gender is relative as you say, than marriage would have to be legalized for every sexual preference under the sun, not just homosexuality.”Every sexual preference should be legalized (though not every sexual act, ie rape and other forms of assault).”Gay rights advocates here on Xanga assure me daily that the “slippery slope” does not exist and that marriage is only for hetero and homosexuals.”I don’t think child molestation is ever going to be legalized because gay people can marry.  Polygamy might someday, but I don’t particularly care as long as nobody’s being harmed.”Do you disagree with that?  Or are gays being used as patsies for the express purpose of destroying marriage all together?”As I said in the blog, how does someone you don’t even know destroy the sanctity of your marriage?@locomotiv – The person you’re talking to is loborn, an infamous troll.@SKANLYN – So the constitution is based on leviticus and deuteronomy?  Here’s the first amendment:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”Give me passages in from those books that say the same thing, or even anything close.  Good luck.@EmilyandAtticus – Yeah, this echoes what I said to loborn when he made the same argument.  One thing I hate about organized religion is you can keep flushing the toilet and bad arguments just never go down.@PPhilip – We’re going the same way, gay marriage will eventually be legal but polygamy will still be illegal.  Also the supreme court only abolished anti-“sodomy” laws not too long ago, in the early 2000’s.  When george bush was governor of texas in that state two men holding hands in public could be thrown in jail.@angelwingfive – Just to clarify I’m not gay, but yes it is bigotry.  Fortunately the two people advocating it in the comments are both basically professional trolls who I think are acting out of a pathological need for attention rather than genuine ideology.@holeinyoursoul – Yeah, loborn is advocating small government while saying it should be the penis police.@somewittyhandle – The sports reference is lost on me but I get what you mean.  It is ridiculously one-sided.  Normally I would say it’s a lock that that kind of nonsense won’t win in a court of law but the supreme court is actually kind of ridiculous in terms of how partisan they can be.  They ruled awhile back that corporations are people and have civil rights, and that news organizations can legally force their reporters to lie to the public with impunity because otherwise it would violate the free speech rights of the parent corporation.  Then they gave individuals, unions and corporations the right to unlimited, untraceable campaign contributions, funneling billions of dollars annually in legal bribes into our already broken political system.So we’ll see…

  20. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – This country was founded as a Christian nation. When the Constitution refers to not respecting the establishment of a religion it means “other” religions. The forefathers didn’t want to waste government resources prosecuting people for practicing crazy religions like Islam and Hinduism but they also didn’t want the country to turn into some third world cesspool with people praying to cows so they prohibited government funded paganism.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @SKANLYN – Yeah, so simply quote the parts of the constitution that actually say any of this and I will concede that your position is correct.  But you can’t, because it doesn’t, which is why it’s not.

  22. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – As I said, you are correct. We need an Amendment to state what was once the obvious.

  23. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – “A constitutionally limited federal government is only allowed to spend money on law enforcement and military.”No, it would be allowed to (to quote the constitution):”…lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”.Are you lying or did you just not know that the term “welfare” comes from the constitution?”Just think, if the feds weren’t wasting money on “infrastructure” we’d most likely have developed super transport technologies that leave fossil fuels in the ground.”What specific technologies do you think we would have and why?  The government spent money on horses too, that didn’t stop us from getting cars.”We landed on the Moon in 1969 and haven’t done squat since.” Unless this is what you’re typing this on, that’s not true.  A the most powerful supercomputer in the year we went to the moon has a fraction of the power of my ipod (which isn’t even a very recent model).  People who say “it took us ten years to put a man on the moon but we haven’t put a man on mars in 40 years” need to remember that mars isn’t 4 times as far away, it’s 140 times as far away.  If we put a man on mars a hundred years after we put a man on the moon that means the rate of technological advance is actually increasing dramatically, which it is.”There’s a reason for that: The government got involved in poverty programs, deficit spending, money laundering for the Democrat Party, abortion funding, education, the renegade EPA, you name it; all to buy votes, not to solve any problems.”The government did not start spending money on poverty for the first time in 1969, and your claim that there is a causal relationship to the jumble of things you just mentioned is as yet unfounded.  It’s heavy on ideology and light on logic.”If the we had a 3% income tax rate and a federal government that just defended us and enforced the law, the average American would be buried in riches and hypertechnology.”You know that there was a time when there was no income tax at all right?  That was in the days of horse drawn carriages – not exactly “hypertechnology”.  And the average american was not “buried in riches”, slavery had not yet been abolished.”As it is, the world hasn’t changed for 30 years.”  Here is a google image search for the year 1970.  How many of the images look modern to you?  Apparently where you live disco is still “in”.”Before the Democrats took over, a 30 year period in America brought total change and unbelievable riches and undreamed of technological development.”In the last 3 decades we have had 3 democrats and 3 republicans in the white house, and over the same time the partisan control of the US senate has been similarly evenly divided.

  24. agnophilo says:

    @SKANLYN – So in your mind something is “constitutional” if it’s in your head and nowhere in the constitution?

  25. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – No, you made a claim about the constitution and I corrected it by quoting the actual constitution.  Again, thanks for reminding me why I don’t talk to you.

  26. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – You said all the government can spend money on is law enforcement, the bit I quoted said defense (which includes law enforcement and military spending) and to promote the common welfare, ie welfare spending.  Building roads, feeding the poor and whatever else people decide is needed.

  27. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – “Common welfare does not mean welfare spending.”Spending money to “promote the general welfare” is by definition welfare spending.”And the reason it doesn’t is because the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on “the Laws and of Nature and Nature’s God.”You are confusing a letter meant to appeal to a king who was supposedly ordained by the god of the bible with a document outlining the laws of our country.”Taking assets from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it is stealing.  That means that government poverty programs are a preach of Natural Law.”Well, they shouldn’t have put it in the constitution then.”Charity is the duty of the private citizen not the government.  Building roads with taxpayer assets not only theft, it is an intrusion into the private market and a violation of states’ and individual rights.”How is it an intrusion into the private market to hire private companies to do something for which there was no private sector demand?  Is NASA unconstitutional too?”Liberals need to start thinking outside the box.  Imagine a world without cars or the internal combustion engine.  As long as the government subsidizes roads it subsidizes the auto industry.”We already have cars without internal combustion engines, and liberals are exclusively the ones promoting the technology.  In fact, we’ve had them since the days of the first cars.  New technologies are often only profitable after a long period of initial development, which is often only possible with government funding.  We would not have had the private space companies putting sattelites into orbit without decades of NASA contracts and decades of military rocket testing before that.”As long as the government subsidizes the automobile industry there is little insentive to develop technology that goes past the automobile.”What technology did you have in mind exactly?

  28. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – Dude I already said I agree with you. We both support a constitutional amendment explicitly prohibiting a marriage between any parties other than one man and one woman.

  29. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – “General” refers to everybody.  Welfare only benefits the politician while crippling the poor and stealing the hard earned assets of wealth producers.”Having a social safety net protects everybody the same way the army protects everybody, though that doesn’t guarantee that if we get invade everyone will need the exact same amount of protection.  By your logic if florida gets invaded then the army is “stealing” your tax dollars and giving a “handout” to floridians.”Anyway you look at it, government poverty programs are a dangerous, malevolent scam.  They have no business in just government.”Any way you look at it?  You are literally saying you cannot conceive of any other way of looking at it than your own.  You’re describing your own narrow-mindedness.”Beyond cars means BEYOND cars.”It’s not unreasonable to ask you to clarify what you meant.”I’m talking about nanotechnology that produces anything anyone wants.  That eliminates all trucking, all shopping, all commuter traffic jams and redefines work.”I don’t see how it would eliminate commuting, and we would still need to transport material for the simple reason that not every element is equally common everywhere.  Plus it’s not like nanites could hollow out the ground under buildings to make things.  At least initially there would need to be some serious allocation of resources.”I’m talking about a total redefinition of society.  That’s what “hope and change” really means.  When Obama says that phrase he’s just flim flamming the stupid.”And as for us getting to nano technology slower, the exact opposite is true, the rate at which computers are getting smaller is astonishingly consistent and right on track to have nanites in the coming decades (if the trend continues).

  30. agnophilo says:

    @SKANLYN – No you didn’t and no we don’t.  I don’t see how you could’ve gotten the impression that I agree with you other than by not reading a single thing I’ve said (including the blog).

  31. I’m ashamed because I think of Jesus when I’m beating off. That’s why I rail against gays.Clearly you side with a Southern racist and not with the Founding Fathers when it comes to the meaning of “welfare.”

  32. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – Do you like to argue so much that you change your opinion when people agree with you or are you just psychotic?

  33. agnophilo says:

    @ImNotUglyWellOkYesIAm – Trolling a troll, really?@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove – Yes, Lyndon B Johnson was a democrat and a racist.  So was his republican successor richard nixon who frequently used the N word (on tape).  And that something makes a politician popular does not mean it has no merit or that it hurts anybody.  As for the second part of your comment, given that it mirrors the other comment that was posted before it, I can only conclude that the anti-troll is also yourself.  You really need to get a constructive hobby.@SKANLYN – Neither, I’ve been perfectly consistent.  Please quote what you think is a contradiction or reversal.  You may have been confused by the in-line nature of the blog which quotes the person I was arguing with and leaves my responses unquoted.

  34. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – Oh, okay, after re-reading I see you weren’t really disagreeing with me, you were sarcastically lamenting the way people no longer have an inherent sense of right and wrong so we have to spell everything out in Laws and Constitutional Amendments if we are to expect any kind of moral decency in society.

  35. agnophilo says:

    @SKANLYN – No, I was criticizing you for saying that something is unconstitutional despite what the constitution actually says because of what you personally believe.  In other words, for being a megalomaniac.  The idea that laws are subjective and not what is actually written down in legal decisions and bills and constitutions is ridiculous.

  36. SKANLYN says:

    @agnophilo – But you agree we need to Constitutionally protect marriage as the the institution God intended it to be.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s