tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post5224650417569972007..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: They cite cases so it can't be activismRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-3936131960186827972008-05-22T20:56:00.000-05:002008-05-22T20:56:00.000-05:00Anon, Rick just dedicated a rather long post to my...Anon, Rick just dedicated a rather long post to my question because it is quite relevant.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how you find the temerity to suggest questioning how marriage is damaged is irrelevant when that's your side's main argument against extending marriage to gays.<BR/><BR/>Your question about my children is entirely irrelevant. Whether I or you teach my children that being gay is ok, or not ok, doesn't make a bit of difference in determining whether marriage rights should be extended. I plan to teach my sons that veganism is sick and wrong, but you won't find me advocating that it be banned.<BR/><BR/>Do you understand that?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-91192779229570131942008-05-21T10:37:00.000-05:002008-05-21T10:37:00.000-05:00Rick - I do not know why my comment showed up thre...Rick - <BR/><BR/>I do not know why my comment showed up three times. You can delete a couple if you like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-6313452745585733082008-05-21T10:35:00.001-05:002008-05-21T10:35:00.001-05:00tosa - We both know why you cannot answer my quest...tosa - <BR/><BR/>We both know why you cannot answer my question. <BR/><BR/>Your question is ignorred by everyone you ask because it's irrelevant. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals and do not fall under the same definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-71113946987206327862008-05-21T10:35:00.000-05:002008-05-21T10:35:00.000-05:00tosa - We both know why you cannot answer my quest...tosa - <BR/><BR/>We both know why you cannot answer my question. <BR/><BR/>Your question is ignorred by everyone you ask because it's irrelevant. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals and do not fall under the same definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-17781464174517870862008-05-21T10:33:00.000-05:002008-05-21T10:33:00.000-05:00tosa - We both know why you cannot answer my quest...tosa - <BR/><BR/>We both know why you cannot answer my question. <BR/><BR/>Your question is ignorred by everyone you ask because it's irrelevant. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals and do not fall under the same definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-15226580329726719162008-05-20T20:41:00.000-05:002008-05-20T20:41:00.000-05:00Anon 7:10 AM, with all due respect your question i...Anon 7:10 AM, with all due respect your question is irrelevant to this issue. Suffice to say that I'm probably going to raise my children to be as moral as you would yours, outside of any religious indoctrination.<BR/><BR/>Would you like to take at the question I asked first and which is relevant to this issue: on what can the claim that granting marriage benefits and privileges to gays will harm marriage as an instituion be justified?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-68012506959125500852008-05-20T20:37:00.000-05:002008-05-20T20:37:00.000-05:00Tosamalignancy? Classy. I refer to you as a movie ...Tosamalignancy? Classy. I refer to you as a movie character and you refer to me as something deadly.<BR/><BR/>Anyway I find it odd that you say you make no claim about whether homosexuality is a choice and then you disparage the idea that it's not a choice.<BR/><BR/>And my premise rests on the theory that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not.<BR/><BR/>You still have not provided any reasoning behind your proclamation that granting marriage benefits and privileges to gays will have an effect the moral climate in the United States. <BR/><BR/>As I've been arguing this with people like you for nearly 10 years and not gotten an answer from any of them, I'm not holding my breath.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-59514025941822241872008-05-20T07:10:00.000-05:002008-05-20T07:10:00.000-05:00tosavoter - you did not answer my question; how ar...tosavoter - <BR/><BR/>you did not answer my question; how are you raising your children? <BR/><BR/>Not once have I raised a religious viewpoint.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-47066994868620111202008-05-19T23:21:00.000-05:002008-05-19T23:21:00.000-05:00General Ripper saidlol<I>General Ripper said</I><BR/><BR/>lolillusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-78404628058946079422008-05-19T20:35:00.000-05:002008-05-19T20:35:00.000-05:00Wrong again, TosaMalignancy.I make no claims about...Wrong again, TosaMalignancy.<BR/><BR/>I make no claims about whether homosexuality is a choice.<BR/><BR/>My argument rests on the physical differences between girls and boys.<BR/><BR/>Your argument would seem to rest on the non-peer-reviewed theory that homosexuality is 'inborn,' or 'not a choice.'<BR/><BR/>In other words, Tosa, I believe my eyeballs. YOU believe in the Tooth Fairy.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-25878949483723020332008-05-19T18:57:00.000-05:002008-05-19T18:57:00.000-05:00Anon asked,"tosavoter - I take it that you are rai...Anon asked,<BR/><BR/>"tosavoter - <BR/><BR/>I take it that you are raising your children to be whatever they want to be, hetro, homo, pedo, besto, biga, poly, etc..<BR/><BR/>There's no difference, right?"<BR/><BR/>LOL. The slippery slope fallacy. Seen it a million times.<BR/><BR/>As you consider my response ask yourself: who got the ball rolling on the slope of government benefits for different kind of relationships? It was us heteros of course.<BR/><BR/>Government treats us all as individuals and no gays or horse fetishists or TV-marriers are asking for any of this.<BR/><BR/>Of course there is a difference. The first two don't matter, the rest do.<BR/><BR/>Is that determination somewhat arbitrary? Sure. No less or more so than yours. You can claim yours has some kind of firm basis in religion but the fact is the religion you practice is as arbitrary as anything else. <BR/><BR/>Now I answered your question, how about tacking some of mine?<BR/><BR/>Explain in detail how granting marriage benefits to gays harms hetero marriage or the moral fabric of America. Be specific.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-70083101536727505352008-05-19T18:52:00.000-05:002008-05-19T18:52:00.000-05:00General Ripper said,"Wrong.My statement does NOT "...General Ripper said,<BR/><BR/>"Wrong.<BR/><BR/>My statement does NOT "rest" on that premise whatsoever."<BR/><BR/>Yes it does; it's the very reason you give why gay marriage and interracial marriage are different.<BR/><BR/>"It rests on the physical realities."<BR/><BR/>Like what? Ability to procreate? Hetero married couples often cannot or will not procreate. Are you prepared to deny them marriage benefits?<BR/><BR/>Gender? So what?<BR/><BR/>"Beyond that, anomalies (whether physical or psychological) are irrelevant to "essence." Anomalies are "accidents.""<BR/><BR/>And how are you certain an anomaly is involved.<BR/><BR/>"But you now choose to deny that essence matters, as well. That's in the same category as denying gravity."<BR/><BR/>Not if your definition or opinion of essense is irrelevant, which it is.<BR/><BR/>"Your red-herring yammer about 'no-fault divorce' not applying to homosexuals is irrelevant, too. I never claimed that it DID apply to homosexuals."<BR/><BR/>Then why did YOU bring it up? You say no fault divorce has led to moral decline and so would granting marriage benefits to gays. Hence the two must be linked somehow since apparently to you they're factors with some kind of similar property. <BR/><BR/>So again, actually explain how granting homosexuals marriage benefits would contribute to the moral decline of America by furthering what heteros have already done themselves?<BR/><BR/>FYI this is what I meant when I said people like you use very flimsy and illogical arguments to mask your base opinion. It's transparent whether you want it to be or not.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38070278516568771172008-05-19T11:32:00.000-05:002008-05-19T11:32:00.000-05:00tosavoter - I take it that you are raising your ch...tosavoter - <BR/><BR/>I take it that you are raising your children to be whatever they want to be, hetro, homo, pedo, besto, biga, poly, etc..<BR/><BR/>There's no difference, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-12468722453587850812008-05-19T08:27:00.000-05:002008-05-19T08:27:00.000-05:00I note that Jay is perfectly happy to wallow in no...I note that Jay is perfectly happy to wallow in non-sequiturs, too!<BR/><BR/>The ocean is wet, Jay. So homosexuals should not get married.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-90902796418876575042008-05-19T08:25:00.000-05:002008-05-19T08:25:00.000-05:00That rests on the premise that sexual orietnation ...<I>That rests on the premise that sexual orietnation is strictly a choice, which has not been proven</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong.<BR/><BR/>My statement does NOT "rest" on that premise whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>It rests on the physical realities. Beyond that, anomalies (whether physical or psychological) are irrelevant to "essence." Anomalies are "accidents."<BR/><BR/>But you now choose to deny that essence matters, as well. That's in the same category as denying gravity.<BR/><BR/>Your red-herring yammer about 'no-fault divorce' not applying to homosexuals is irrelevant, too. I never claimed that it DID apply to homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>Following your logic, I note that the sky is blue for all peoples.<BR/><BR/>That settles that!Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-65448170094005132592008-05-18T21:33:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:33:00.000-05:00"But no-fault divorce DID have an effect on the so...<I>"But no-fault divorce DID have an effect on the social ecology as a whole."<BR/><BR/>But no-fault divorce currently only applies to heterosexuals, so where is the link with homosexuals?</I><BR/>The answer lies in the old double standard: Dad29 can make arguments from history, but you can't, you dirty hippie freak.Jay Bullockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303687624670151530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-7452065055556085092008-05-18T21:13:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:13:00.000-05:00Anon said,"This is about a wayward court changing ...Anon said,<BR/><BR/>"This is about a wayward court changing what has been commonly known about marriage since it's beginng as between a man and a woman. "<BR/><BR/>So what. Courts have previously changed what was commonly known about interracial marriage or segregation. You need more than that.<BR/><BR/>"Any principaled person can discern the difference and knows that this court had no authority to make this change. "<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but I reject out of hand the idea that anyone is genuinely principled when it comes to judicial activism. Find me a conservative that doesn't cheer it when it goes their way (Bush v. Gore? Could the Constitution be any clearer on the role of states in choosing electors?) and I'll show you an endangered species. <BR/><BR/>"Strict constructionism" and "activist judges" are partisan creations - prepackaged products to be sold to voters.<BR/><BR/>Would you like to take up the challenge Dad would not? Explain why granting gays marriage benefits would affect the downward trend of hetero marriage?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-59474477351050541422008-05-18T21:09:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:09:00.000-05:00General Ripper said,"The proposition that "acciden...General Ripper said,<BR/><BR/>"The proposition that "accident" and "essence" are interchangeable is void, thus the argument that gay 'marriage' and miscegenation are identical is also void."<BR/><BR/>That rests on the premise that sexual orietnation is strictly a choice, which has not been proven.<BR/><BR/>It also rests on the premise that whether it's an essence or an accident matters. I don't see how it does.<BR/><BR/>"But no-fault divorce DID have an effect on the social ecology as a whole."<BR/><BR/>But no-fault divorce currently only applies to heterosexuals, so where is the link with homosexuals?<BR/><BR/>How does preventing gays from getting "married" reverse the trends that have resulted from no-fault divorce?<BR/><BR/>You are linking hetero and homosexuals together when you consier the "social ecology", which leads directly back to my question: what affect on heteros either way would granting gay marriage create?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-76352356577122094992008-05-18T18:35:00.000-05:002008-05-18T18:35:00.000-05:00Another Tosa:Your 'challenge' is a red herring.It'...Another Tosa:<BR/><BR/>Your 'challenge' is a red herring.<BR/><BR/>It's not MY marriage, nor yours, nor Rick's.<BR/><BR/>It's the ecology of society. As Rick pointed out, 'no-fault' divorce does not "affect" his marriage (nor yours, I suspect) directly. But no-fault divorce DID have an effect on the social ecology as a whole.<BR/><BR/>It's not US we're arguing about; that "arguing over US" happens to be the fixation of those pushing gay 'marriage.'<BR/><BR/>It's the entire USA--or perhaps the West's social ecology.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-26205762682889089722008-05-18T16:12:00.000-05:002008-05-18T16:12:00.000-05:00Tosa, briefly, "essence" is that which is immutabl...Tosa, briefly, "essence" is that which is immutable--i.e., "male-ness" and "female-ness."<BR/><BR/>"Accident" pertains to color--black, white, yellow.<BR/><BR/>"Accidental" color does not change the "essence" of male/female, nor human being.<BR/><BR/>But "essence" cannot be changed.<BR/><BR/>The proposition that "accident" and "essence" are interchangeable is void, thus the argument that gay 'marriage' and miscegenation are identical is also void.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-50620239678742764202008-05-18T15:15:00.000-05:002008-05-18T15:15:00.000-05:00Anothertosavoter - This is about a wayward court c...Anothertosavoter - <BR/><BR/>This is about a wayward court changing what has been commonly known about marriage since it's beginng as between a man and a woman. <BR/><BR/>Any principaled person can discern the difference and knows that this court had no authority to make this change. <BR/><BR/>Appointed Judges like this are a shame to our judicial system and are the reason that no changes should be made here in Wisconsin to how we elect judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-66930734968637769552008-05-18T12:03:00.000-05:002008-05-18T12:03:00.000-05:00"Rick said clearly that his decision has "nothing ..."Rick said clearly that his decision has "nothing to do with moral judgments about homosexuality." I don't see how these libs can twist that into something other than what he said."<BR/><BR/>I don't think Rick puts forward these arguments while consciously thinking, "here's a bunch of crap I can use to hide my true opinion". He's smarter and more ethical than that.<BR/><BR/>I think however the arguments he and others have come up with, while they believe them to have merit, do stem from their opinion of homosexuality. If the issue was something he did not find morally repugnant I wonder if he'd be opposed to it at all.<BR/><BR/>"Personally, I oppose homosexuality because it is immoral and unnatural. "<BR/><BR/>That's your right. How you find it unnatural after thousands of years of human history is mystery to me but oh well. I find smoking unnatural and disgusting - shall we ban it? Shall we have different laws for smokers than for non-smokers? Shall non-smokers get additional benefits from the government?<BR/><BR/>Why do you favor social engineering in this instance?<BR/><BR/>"To attack the author and construing his words into thoughts that are not his is a cheap attack and so typical of the radical Left."<BR/><BR/>First of all partisan hacks left and right resort to cheap attacks. Mine is not a "cheap attack". I'm not accusing Rick of lying, I'm suggesting regardless of how genuinely he believes his arguments, those arguments are weak and the basis for them is his opinion of homosexuality whether he admits it or not.<BR/><BR/>And by the way I'm not left or right. If anything I'm a pragmatist or at worst a technocrat.<BR/><BR/>Care to take up my challenge and explain how redefining marriage would affect your marriage or anyone else's?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-74538919176506662822008-05-18T11:47:00.000-05:002008-05-18T11:47:00.000-05:00"TosaVoter, you should learn that there is a diffe..."TosaVoter, you should learn that there is a difference between 'essence' and 'accident.'"<BR/><BR/>Explain it in detail as it relates to this issue.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31103595040247652882008-05-18T07:42:00.000-05:002008-05-18T07:42:00.000-05:00TosaVoter, you should learn that there is a differ...TosaVoter, you should learn that there is a difference between 'essence' and 'accident.'<BR/><BR/>It's a distinction that Nick has trouble with, too.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-9249746520702551112008-05-18T07:24:00.000-05:002008-05-18T07:24:00.000-05:00Rick said clearly that his decision has "nothing t...Rick said clearly that his decision has "nothing to do with moral judgments about homosexuality." I don't see how these libs can twist that into something other than what he said.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I oppose homosexuality because it is immoral and unnatural. <BR/><BR/>To attack the author and construing his words into thoughts that are not his is a cheap attack and so typical of the radical Left. Take a hike and push that garbage elsewhere.Stephen Chadwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17485704702735166388noreply@blogger.com