Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[Bradski]

It really *sounds *as if you were saying there’s no such thing as objective morality.

It sounded* exactly* like I was saying it, because that was exactly what I said. But that doesn’t mean that the term ‘objective’ has no meaning in relation to matters that don’t concern morals.

If someone says A caused B, but B preceded A, then, totally irrespective of what A and B are, they are objectively wrong in making the statement. Or to put it another way, that the statement is wrong is an objective fact.

However, if they say that homosexuals were responsible for Nazism, then that is not an absolute statement or an objective fact. In fact, it’s what we might term a ‘farcical’ statement (and possibly objectionable). But then, that’s just my personal opinion and so is therefore relative.

 

[PRmerger]

It sounded* exactly* like I was saying it, because that was exactly what I said. But that doesn’t mean that the term ‘objective’ has no meaning in relation to matters that don’t concern morals.

LOL!

So morality doesn’t have an objectivity to it, but everything else that deals with truth does?

Really?

 

[Bradski]

LOL!

So morality doesn’t have an objectivity to it, but everything else that deals with truth does?

Really?

We crossed posts there. And we’ve done this before. All moral statements are relative to the situation. And excuse me if I opt out of any further discussion along this line. As I said, we’ve done this before and we’d only end up repeating ourselves.

 

[Bradski]

I find this posturing from both you and Bradski that the issue is settled to be not only premature but also revelatory of the fact that your positions are far from being unbiased – which used to be a hallmark of rigorous analysis. Not so much any more, it seems.

If we happen to be in the majority, then we are sheep. If we suggest that that the matter is effectively settled, then we are posturing. Now if we have personally made our minds up on who has the better arguments, we are biased.

The term ad hominem is thrown around way too often in forums. But would you agree that those terms noted above might render the claim applicable?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If we happen to be in the majority, then we are sheep. If we suggest that that the matter is effectively settled, then we are posturing. Now if we have personally made our minds up on who has the better arguments, we are biased.

The term ad hominem is thrown around way too often in forums. But would you agree that those terms noted above might render the claim applicable?

Arguments? Plural? Really?

Which arguments for same sex “marriage” do you find effective? Not the infertility argument, surely?

Besides that, please provide a revised definition of the legal term “marriage” that you think could possibly hold up legally that would permit two gay or lesbian individuals to marry that would, under the same terms and conditions not, on non-arbitrary grounds, permit spinster sisters to marry?

Further, you need to give warrant for including non-procreative sex in the definition, again, for non-arbitrary reasons. What about two lesbian sisters? Under what reasonable grounds would you claim two lesbian women, but not two lesbian sisters should have a “right” to marry? Two gay men, but not two gay brothers? Hello?

 

[Bradski]

Further, you need to give warrant for including non-procreative sex in the definition, again, for non-arbitrary reasons. What about two lesbian sisters? Under what reasonable grounds would you claim two lesbian women, but not two lesbian sisters should have a “right” to marry? Two gay men, but not two gay brothers? Hello?

Marriage to me means committing to a lifetime with another person in an intimate relationship forsaking all others. Tough gig, if you think about it. But lots of people seem keen on the idea. Some people like to make it official and have the paperwork squared away as well. Some people like to invite all their friends and relations to celebrate the fact. I’m not too fussed about the last two, but that’s what the term ‘marriage’ would appear to be in the context in which we are using it.

Two siblings, or a mother and son or any permutation thereof of close family relatives, already, and obviously, have a lifetime relationship and it doesn’t make sense to forsake your dad for your mum, so I don’t see the need for a marriage as described above.

If they want to celebrate the fact that they are mother and son or sister and sister and declare their love for each other, then it might be a good opportunity for a nice sit-down meal, a few speeches and lots to drink at someone else’s expense, but I see no need to expand the definition of marriage to include people who are already in a relationship.

And my marriage definition does not include any mention of sex. I could care less what people like to do in the bedroom, on the couch or anywhere it takes their fancy.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Your notion that Nazi Germany was some sort of homosexual paradise is a fantasy. According to the article in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

This is not the place for the complex issue of homosexuals allegedly persecuted by the Nazis. I read the whole of the Pink Swastika and the issue is complex. Many supporters of Roehm who were gay were sent to prison and even killed for being part of a planned coup. Suffice to say there is plenty of revisionism going on to cover up what really happened and as usual to make out homosexuals as victims.
defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

"Holocaust survivor Eugen Zuckerman wrote the following in a letter to the New York Post, protesting the portrayal of homosexuals as Nazi victims in the New York Holocaust museum.
‘As a Jewish ex-inmate of several concentration camps, including Mauthausen, and as one who grew up in Berlin from the late 1920s until October 1939 and knows the history that led to the internment of gay men in concentration camps, I am opposed to a memorial to homosexuals…The first thousands of homosexuals interned were all members of the Sturm Abteilung (SA), the Nazi Storm Troopers…Thus, if we add up the numbers, it appears that very few of the millions of European homosexuals were ever sent to concentration camps and of those who were, only a fraction were interned for purely sexual reasons. If, of the 5,000-15,000 homosexuals interned, the “first thousands” were SA Brownshirts and many others were non-homosexuals falsely charged with homosexuality, it is possible that mere dozens or hundreds were actually sent to camps for homosexuality over the twelve years of Nazi rule.’
Survivor Stephan Ross says that many homosexuals were released without any requirement of military service: ‘All they [those accused of homosexuality] had to do to get out [of the camp] was to sign a paper to say that they had been rehabilitated and wouldn’t do it [engage in homosexual behavior] anymore…They were not targeted to die. Not like we were.’
“…many of the non-effeminate homosexuals interned in Nazi work camps were former Storm Troopers whose allegiance had been to Ernst Roehm and not to Hitler. When “Roehm’s Avengers” began killing SS leaders in retaliation…Himmler cracked down on these homosexual former SA soldiers and many were sent to the camps. (This would account for many of the incidents of sadism and brutality.)”

 

[Bradski]

I read the whole of the Pink Swastika and the issue is complex.

A very quick browse at the pages to which you linked finds these diamonds of thoughtful and considered opinion:

Increasingly, as they emerge from the closet, today’s “gays” do bear a striking resemblance to yesterday’s Nazis.

And now, knowing the extent to which German “gays” contributed to the success of the Nazi movement, how should we interpret a looming “gay” swastika over America?

And the same amoral thinking which allows them to consider homosexuality as a “normal” option may also make them dangerously susceptible to the next Hitler.

Has sexual perversion led to increasing violence in America? Fortunately, to this point America has not experienced the wide-scale atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany, but the actions of certain male homosexuals in recent history are reminiscent of the worst SS butchers.

This garbage belongs in the gutter. It is beneath contempt. If this is how low you need to go to make a point, then your desperation shows to all right minded people that you have lost already. Anybody who associates themselves with this tripe should feel ashamed.

So all I have to say is - keep up the good work, Zam. You are doing a fine job.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

A very quick browse at the pages to which you linked finds these diamonds of thoughtful and considered opinion.

Indeed you just skimmed over it, while I read the whole book that is well researched with references one can check.

Increasingly, as they emerge from the closet, today’s “gays” do bear a striking resemblance to yesterday’s Nazis.

If it waddles and quacks, it should be a duck. If the result is imploding the family and using draconian means to accomplish it, it must be radical social engineering. Not everyone is interested in tearing down society now and back then but the rank and file are being preempted while not doing a thing about it, or at least, register some kind of disapproval.

And now, knowing the extent to which German “gays” contributed to the success of the Nazi movement, how should we interpret a looming “gay” swastika over America? And the same amoral thinking which allows them to consider homosexuality as a “normal” option may also make them dangerously susceptible to the next Hitler. Has sexual perversion led to increasing violence in America? Fortunately, to this point America has not experienced the wide-scale atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany, but the actions of certain male homosexuals in recent history are reminiscent of the worst SS butchers.

Now the movement is mainly ruining people’s livelihoods and silencing criticism. But judging by a certain attraction to S & M, violence is not exactly out of the handbook.

 

[frobert]

Explicit language about sexual activities around children literally exploded after the institution of same sex marriage in Massachusetts. A whole supportive system in the schools had to be put in place to make this not only legal, but devoutly accepted. What happened after 2004 was not only to study of risks of adolescents but reinforce the official sexuality in the schools and in fact in any area of society where the government has anything to do or say:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

What do you expect when you promote a hate group whose sole purpose is to incite hate?

Hate group designation

Since March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)* has listed MassResistance as an active anti-gay hate group.[3][12][26]

In 1996 MassResistance’s leader, Brian Camenker claimed that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth actually were “put together by homosexual activists to normalize homosexuality”. MassResistance also asserted that groups such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which support school anti-bullying programs, actually want to “lure children into homosexuality and, very possibly, sadomasochism”.[3]

MassResistance has also insisted that gays were “trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals”, later adding, “They [gays and lesbians] are pushing perversion on our kids”.[3]

MassResistance has made claims that no homosexuals died in the The Holocaust of World War II, that the “pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests”, and that “gays are dangerous to kids”. They have also made comments regarding “skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence”[3][27] and called a gay pride event a “depraved” display that featured “a great deal of obviously disturbed, dysfunctional, and extremely self-centered people whose aim was to push their agenda”.[3]

On its website, MassResistance has rebuked the SPLC, writing “The SPLC has created and advertises its bizarre and offensive list of those it labels “hate groups”, “extremists”, and “domestic terrorists” that even includes the Tea Party”.[28]

• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. It is noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militias and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups—organizations that in its opinion “attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

 

[zamyrabyrd]

What do you expect when you promote a hate group whose sole purpose is to incite hate?

• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. It is noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militias and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups—organizations that in its opinion “attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

Mass Resistance is just about as hateful as the Spanish Pro Family Organization who was fined 100,000 euro for defending children. Just keep shouting hate, hate, have your two minutes of hate but it won’t change who are the haters and who is being hated.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Hatred is as hatred does”. Don’t get me started on the SPLC.

 

[frobert]

Mass Resistance is just about as hateful as the Spanish Pro Family Organization who was fined 100,000 euro for defending children. Just keep shouting hate, hate, have your two minutes of hate but it won’t change who are the haters and who is being hated.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Hatred is as hatred does”. Don’t get me started on the SPLC.

Not withstanding Forest Gump, if you want to defend hate that is your choice,

BTW You seem to be confusing the Spanish Pro Family Organization with the Spanish Television Network.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Not withstanding Forest Gump, if you want to defend hate that is your choice, BTW You seem to be confusing the Spanish Pro Family Organization with the Spanish Television Network.

I warned you not to get me started on the SPLC.
If you make an accusation of “hate”, be prepared to prove it. Otherwise it is a slur, even slander. The SPLC doesn’t mind throwing the word onto other mild pro family organizations like Abiding Truth Ministries who get smeared with the hate allegation. Slandering institutions that don’t toe their social and political line was the pretext for a murderous attack on the Family Research Council

americansfortruth.com/2015/03/31/splcs-hate-racket-exposed-in-new-wnd-whistleblower-issue/#more-21260

"… a confessed domestic terrorist admitted to FBI investigators he was inspired to violently attack the Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative Christian group headquartered for three decades in Washington, D.C., after seeing the FRC identified on the Law Center’s notorious “hate map.”

On Aug. 15, 2012, a man went into an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., and shot a building manager – shattering the major bones in his left arm. The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, wanted to kill as many people in the building as he could. Fortunately, his rampage of violence was cut short by the man he shot, Leo Johnson, before he could become a mass murderer of the employees at the Family Research Council.

With genuine mega-threats to the American homeland looming daily from murderous, genocidal jihadists, why the fixation on phantom “rightwing extremists”?

Meet the Southern Poverty Law Center. This super-wealthy public-interest law firm headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., which decades ago made a name for itself by fighting the Ku Klux Klan, today presents itself as the nation’s premier defender of civil liberties and protector of the innocent from violent extremism. Behind this veil, however, today’s SPLC is revealed to be the wellspring and dominant think tank for outrageously defamatory leftwing attacks on individuals and organizations that embrace traditional Judeo-Christian values.

The group’s primary modus operandi? Demonize and defame mainstream conservatives, Christians and Jews by lumping them together with genuine haters like neo-Nazi Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Then highly publicize those “Hatewatch” lists and “Hate Maps,” soliciting millions of dollars in donations to help SPLC combat all those supposed rightwing “haters” and “extremists” out there.

Recently, the bubble of illusion surrounding the SPLC burst for millions of Americans when the supposed civil rights organization attacked Dr. Benjamin Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon and likely 2016 GOP presidential contender, by adding him to its “extremist watch list.” Ironically, the soft-spoken, high-achieving, adversity-overcoming Carson is widely considered one of the most positive role models for young black males in modern America.

So, what was Carson’s offense, for which he was – just like many other individuals and organizations before him, including WND – cast as a hateful and potentially dangerous rightwing “extremist” by the SPLC?

Fasten your seat belts: Dr. Carson stated, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

 

[PRmerger]

We crossed posts there. And we’ve done this before. All moral statements are relative to the situation. And excuse me if I opt out of any further discussion along this line. As I said, we’ve done this before and we’d only end up repeating ourselves.

Well, that is to be expected. Not to be snarky to my favorite CAF atheist, but of course you would opt out of this discussion.

When one’s position is “There is such thing as objective wrong, except when I say there’s no such thing as objective wrong”, the only option with discussions that point out the inconsistency is to say, “I won’t discuss this anymore.”

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It just occurred to me that it is possible to justify discrimination on the basis that there is no objective wrong. (I know you didn’t say it but I am trying to save space…)

“There is such thing as objective wrong, except when I say there’s no such thing as objective wrong”

 

[PRmerger]

It just occurred to me that it is possible to justify discrimination on the basis that there is no objective wrong. (I know you didn’t say it but I am trying to save space…)

Of course. Without objective morality, all things are merely opinion.

And no one would ever say it’s wrong to like mashed turnips over minced parsnips, right? That would be absurd, because one’s opinions and preferences can’t be objectively wrong.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Of course. Without objective morality, all things are merely opinion. And no one would ever say it’s wrong to like mashed turnips over minced parsnips, right? That would be absurd, because one’s opinions and preferences can’t be objectively wrong.

Liking something is different from acting on one’s preferences. But seriously who actually prefers mashed turnips over anything?

 

[PRmerger]

Liking something is different from acting on one’s preferences.

I don’t know what your point is.

But seriously who actually prefers mashed turnips over anything?

I know, right?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I don’t know what your point is.

The point is the preferences and by extension, so-called orientations, have been magnified to the status of sacred.

 

[frobert]

I warned you not to get me started on the SPLC.
If you make an accusation of “hate”, be prepared to prove it.

As I said if you wish to defend hate groups its your choice.

SPLC Statement on Dr. Ben Carson