Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You've not put up any debate against marriage for all yet. I'm still waiting.

Even if that were true, I don't have to. The burden is on you to show why forcing a major league football team to allow a crippled, 5'6” 110lb wannabe to play linebacker and violating a person's First Amendment rights are good for society.

It's nice to be able to agree with you on something, Inglorious. This is an outrage which hasn't caught the attention of the media downunder. Which major league football team is being compelled to do this?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You've not put up any debate against marriage for all yet. I'm still waiting.

Even if that were true, I don't have to. The burden is on you to show why forcing a major league football team to allow a crippled, 5'6” 110lb wannabe to play linebacker and violating a person's First Amendment rights are good for society.

No the burden of proof is for you to say to a gay couple why thy can't have the same rights and privileges as other lifetime partnerships.
There is no First Amendment violation, unless you live on another planet.
But since you mention the first amendment, the advent of gay marriage addresses a long infringement of human rights against homosexuals.
As far as I can tell this question has nothing to do with "football".

The Inglorious One wrote: Even if that were true, I don't have to. The burden is on you to show why forcing a major league football team to allow a crippled, 5'6” 110lb wannabe to play linebacker and violating a person's First Amendment rights are good for society.

where did this happen

and

what does thsi have to do with same sex marriage

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You've not put up any debate against marriage for all yet. I'm still waiting.

Even if that were true, I don't have to. The burden is on you to show why forcing a major league football team to allow a crippled, 5'6” 110lb wannabe to play linebacker and violating a person's First Amendment rights are good for society.

No the burden of proof is for you to say to a gay couple why thy can't have the same rights and privileges as other lifetime partnerships.
There is no First Amendment violation, unless you live on another planet.
But since you mention the first amendment, the advent of gay marriage addresses a long infringement of human rights against homosexuals.
As far as I can tell this question has nothing to do with "football".

'Gay couple'? What does that mean? 'Couples' don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Homosexuals have every right to marry and always have, but marriage is by custom and definition between members of the opposite sex. That's what it is. You can't change that by fiat. It's ludicrous.

[Edited by iMod]

Melchior wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Even if that were true, I don't have to. The burden is on you to show why forcing a major league football team to allow a crippled, 5'6” 110lb wannabe to play linebacker and violating a person's First Amendment rights are good for society.

No the burden of proof is for you to say to a gay couple why thy can't have the same rights and privileges as other lifetime partnerships.
There is no First Amendment violation, unless you live on another planet.
But since you mention the first amendment, the advent of gay marriage addresses a long infringement of human rights against homosexuals.
As far as I can tell this question has nothing to do with "football".

'Gay couple'? What does that mean? 'Couples' don't have rights, dumbass. Individuals have rights. Homosexuals have every right to marry and always have, but marriage is by custom and definition between members of the opposite sex. That's what it is. You can't change that by fiat. It's ludicrous.

Flying used to be for the birds. Now you can go in a fucking plane.
Government used to be the King and his appointed ministers.
One upon a time marriage was irreversible.
Things change. Get over it!
You are ludicrous.
Human society says what custom is and you have been voted out.
If you can think of a reason why homosexual couples should bot be allowed the same privileges of inheritance that other couples have then, speak up. Otherwise STFU.
Have you even got one objection that is not simply your homophobia showing?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Go ahead, hit me with your best shot!

The Inglorious One wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:You already lost with that "fear" comment. It proves you are not a serious thinker.

Not at all, but this comment of yours proves you're a poser and an idiot, and yes, fearful! Because you know the writings on the wall, that is, that you'll lose against the SOB.

If you say so.

Ignore the meat of my argument, and comment on my bravado, my hot air, that'll show me! NOT!!!
You have no MORAL high ground in this matter, my friend! I do!!!! And so do all the homosexuals!!!

Tell me about yourself, I think we need to make a law that says your type are not allowed to marry, but especially not breed, because we don't need no stinkin' little Hitlers running around! If you have any children I hope they were rebelling long before their teens, try from birth! Because you're certainly no model that anyone should aspire to become!!! You can take your fear and thus hate for people that are different and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. I mean, you were obviously born handicapped, mentally, yet in all honesty, I'd still defend your right to marry, while watching you like a hawk to make sure you didn't hurt anyone for their belief system, color, creed, religion, handicap, etc!

Life is a miracle my friend, in all it's diversity, revel in it, bask in its rays, as you'll surely miss it, seeing it fading into obscurity one day!!! Mark my words, it creeps up on EVERYONE, whether they like it or not!

And so your minds eye has been beaten! But I'll love you just the same, with your acceptance of ALL miraculous life!!!

My wife said she agrees, she'll love you just the same in that case too!

Peace, my wayward friend!

Melchior wrote:... You can't change that by fiat.

Au contraire, it CAN be changed by fiat and HAS been changed by fiat.

It's ludicrous.

Why so?

What say everyone? Which side of the argument won, that of a dictatorship, totalitarianism, where some are picked out as being different, and then tread upon.

Or the freedom that allows everyone the same benefits of law, to live their, all to short life, being as happy as their unselfish selves can muster, in a world that all too often delivers 'natural' heartache to the innocent, those things beyond ones control?

I vote for the love of life, in all it's diversity!

Peace, my fellow brothers and sisters of this magnificent universe, Peace!


Edit: Punctuation.

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:... You can't change that by fiat.

Au contraire, it CAN be changed by fiat and HAS been changed by fiat.

It's ludicrous.

Why so?

This supreme court makes Julius Caesar look like a lamb. They have far exceeded their constitutional authority.

[Edited by iMod]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What say everyone? Which side of the argument won, that of a dictatorship, totalitarianism, where some are picked out as being different, and then tread upon.

Or the freedom that allows everyone the same benefits of law, to live their all to short life, being as happy as their unselfish selves can muster, in a world that all too often delivers 'natural' heartache to the innocent, those things beyond ones control?

I vote for the love of life, in all it's diversity!

Peace, my fellow brothers and sisters of this magnificent universe, Peace!

I don't see even the ghost of an argument here.

Melchior wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:... You can't change that by fiat.

Au contraire, it CAN be changed by fiat and HAS been changed by fiat.

It's ludicrous.

Why so?

This supreme court makes Julius Caesar look like a lamb. They have far exceeded their constitutional authority.

Sure thing. But back to the point, why do you say that gay marriage is "ludicrous"? There must be some reason. Is it just funny looking to see two people of the same sex saying vows to each other? Or is there some danger in it that we should all be concerned about?

Melchior wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What say everyone? Which side of the argument won, that of a dictatorship, totalitarianism, where some are picked out as being different, and then tread upon.

Or the freedom that allows everyone the same benefits of law, to live their all to short life, being as happy as their unselfish selves can muster, in a world that all too often delivers 'natural' heartache to the innocent, those things beyond ones control?

I vote for the love of life, in all it's diversity!

Peace, my fellow brothers and sisters of this magnificent universe, Peace!

I don't see even the ghost of an argument here.

And contained in this single sentence of yours, I see far less! Anyone else see anything?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Melchior wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What say everyone? Which side of the argument won, that of a dictatorship, totalitarianism, where some are picked out as being different, and then tread upon.

Or the freedom that allows everyone the same benefits of law, to live their all to short life, being as happy as their unselfish selves can muster, in a world that all too often delivers 'natural' heartache to the innocent, those things beyond ones control?

I vote for the love of life, in all it's diversity!

Peace, my fellow brothers and sisters of this magnificent universe, Peace!

I don't see even the ghost of an argument here.

And contained in this single sentence of yours, I see far less! Anyone else see anything?

Nothing here. Still waiting for M to grace me with a response to my question above.

Gary Childress wrote: Sure thing. But back to the point, why do you say that gay marriage is "ludicrous"? There must be some reason. Is it just funny looking to see two people of the same sex saying vows to each other? Or is there some danger in it that we should all be concerned about?

Ah the shock of the new. Odd things appear funny. After a while odd things become normal. Personally I'm still shocked that anyone would get married at all. If you love a person then making a contract with them with the government seems like a betrayal to me.
However, as I know some gay people, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against them marrying rather than keeping it for straight couples.
Have you asked yourself why you find it amusing? Or were you just reporting on Melchiors' derision?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Sure thing. But back to the point, why do you say that gay marriage is "ludicrous"? There must be some reason. Is it just funny looking to see two people of the same sex saying vows to each other? Or is there some danger in it that we should all be concerned about?

Ah the shock of the new. Odd things appear funny. After a while odd things become normal. Personally I'm still shocked that anyone would get married at all. If you love a person then making a contract with them with the government seems like a betrayal to me.
However, as I know some gay people, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against them marrying rather than keeping it for straight couples.
Have you asked yourself why you find it amusing? Or were you just reporting on Melchiors' derision?

I'm asking M to clarify why he thinks it's "ludicrous". As far as my own views on gay marriage I haven't really given it a great deal of deliberation. It seems perfectly fine to me prima facie, however, I could certainly be wrong.