The Brutality of Reason Example

By Ironcross One-One

Slicing and dicing things into pieces small enough
to be fed to Liberals, Kooks and Anti-Americans.
When feeding Kooks and Anti-Americans
I suggest a potato gun.
Example

If you are the emotional liberal type, this mindspace will make you uncomfortable. If you think my logic or facts are faulty, lets discuss it. When your findings disagree with my findings, that is dialogue. But using rhetoric to disagree with science is demogoguery. No demogoguery! I usually refrain from insults, but occasionally, ignorance and liberal hypocrisy bring out the worst in me.

Name:
Location: Edge of Nowhere, Washington, United States

Military Jumper, Diver, Motorcycle Rider, Air Traffic Control and Demolitions Man. I build furniture and cabinets and can frame, roof, wire, plumb and finish a house. Can weld steel, drive heavy equipment, build pole barns and mortared rock walls. Have written one bad novel and one brilliant thesis. And I play the guitar.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Gay Marriage (Again)

It has come to my attention that the gay lobby will soon begin a nation-wide information campaign to redefine marriage into something it has never been. Something called the Full Page Project, They will attempt to make it sound like standing against an unproven practice of questionable benefit and of substantial possible risk is discriminatory and unfair. They will attempt to use false arguments, questionable science, hypocrisy and emotionalism to swing your opinion. Don't fall for it. This will appear as a full page ad buy in newspapers across the land. I originally found it over at Kentucky Fried Adventures". In the meantime she's asked me to remove the quotes from her blog from my site. In the interest of civility, I complied. I'll paraphrase. Apparently, we may have stumbled onto something that the strategists didn't want publicized.
It starts out referring to you as fellow Americans,
Just 8 weeks ago we red-staters were backward hicks, (remember "How can 61 Million be so stupid?) but now we're all one big happy family, because they want your help.
Then it points out that these are hard times for gay and lesbian Americans. The elections went badly for them and their agenda was set back. It says that gay people are not free to marry.
Nice try, but it's not true. Gays are not denied the freedom to marry. They have the exact same right to marry as a straight person. No person gay or straight can marry a person of the same sex. But gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex. People voted to keep the definition of marriage as it is.
It points out that they are angry and sad and fearful of what the future may hold.
Angry? who cares! Many of us are saddened and fearful at the number of unborn that are slaughtered each year. Stop it with the "we're afraid for our families" crap. No harm is going to come to your families. Nice try, one is far more likely to come to violence in the womb than harmed for being gay.

It reminds us that gays and lesbians are human beings as well as Americans, Gays pay taxes, go to school, work hard, worship, support our communities, and obey the law. In fact they are people just like you. They just want to be understood..

Well... if you say so - but I'm a little fuzzy on that "obey the law" thing. Out there in California when you were lined up for blocks for marriage licenses that were being issued "against that law", we witnessed your willingness to obey the law. That's why we acted to strengthen the protection of marriage, because we know your methods of obeying the law.
We are then reminded that gays and lesbians want the same things most Americans want: to commit to a soul mate, see those bonds deepen... etc, and maybe even raise children. Naturally, they also want to commit to that great institution that validates bonds, strengthens families, and grants legal rights: Marriage.

If there is a soul mate then there must be a soul. This smacks of Theism. Blue Staters better stay away from that one. As soon as we get Theism close to rights and government, we have to start taking down christmas trees. Does it smack of hypocrisy for a movement so closely aligned with the ACLU to invoke Theism as a reason to change a law. It's a nice try, though. No, you don't want marriage. Marriage already has a definition. You want to make marriage into something it has never been. You want to use America as a test case for a practice of questionable value and have the sanction of the public for the experiment.
Then is speaks about the “sanctity of marriage” and says that "love and commitment is the essence of that sanctity", and that denying the commitment of two people in love does not protect sanctity but violates human dignity.

Nice try, but love and commitment is not the essence of the sanctity of marriage. Sanctus is the root word of sanctity and it comes from the Greek - holy. If marriage has sanctity then it must come from the source of all holiness. Can there be holiness if there is no God? I'm a little confused. Also if a man loves a 13 year old boy, does love and commitment sanctify them? When my 13 year old daughter wants to marry her 15 year old boyfriend, am I violating human dignity to deny it? Poppycock. The public has the right and the responsibility to discourage unhealthy practices.
It laments that because they cannot marry one another, they are not legally considered a family, and suffer real consequences:
That's because a family starts with a man and a woman. Get that part right and the rest is easy.
· Don't have the right to visit or make medical decisions for a partner in the hospital.
You could if you set up a living will that authorized it. I cannot make medical decisions for my wife without a living will. I can't even see her medical records without her written permission. See! you're equal already.
· Only the gay parent is allowed to make medical decisions or receive life-saving information for a child.The partner is not.
Gay people do not have children in the classic sense. One of them has a child using the genetic contribution of another not necessarily involved in the relationship. At best this is the equivalent of a step-parent relationship. A clear second-best to a natural parent relationship. Step parental rights are limited with respect to medical decisions too. Welcome to the club. There is only one parent in this situation the other is not a parent. The other person is the just the love interest of the parent.
· They can lose property as a result of estate law, such as homes, property, or other assets.

Then you better get a better estate attorney, the one you have isn't very good. Married people have to use them, why should you be special.
· Cannot collect Social Security spousal benefits, even though they pay into the system.

That's because you chosen to live a lifestyle that is not covered under the system. Unmarried people of the opposite sex have the same treatment. You want to be married? Find someone of the opposite sex and get married.
· Often pay high estate taxes, even though the property might pass tax-free to a surviving spouse.

Then you better get a better estate attorney, the one you have isn't very good. Married people have to use them, why should you be special.
· Cannot sponsor the immigration of a foreigner to the United States for marriage, which means we must choose between our partner and our citizenship.
Straight People often have complexities dealing with immigration law and an alien love interest. It's not some easy automatic thing.
Next they accuse you of having immoral positions because denying their "families" what they want can't possibly be right.

You do not have families. You have associations of people looking for some kind of artificial family status through a government stamp. Family already has a definition. If an elephant, a badger and a trout want to call themselves a family, it doesn't make them one.
Then they point out how marriage itself is in crisis and that so many fail - especially in the top 10 red states. But Massachusetts, the enlightened utopia of gay rights, has a low divorce rate.

Sounds good, But what are the top ten red states? How does a state make it to the FBIs top ten list? What percentage of people in Massachusetts get married, and at what age do they do it? What is the out of wedlock birthrate in Massachusetts?Lets examine the science before we blindly accept it. If marriage is in trouble, it's because it has been diluted from being a lifetime commitment that provided the safest environment for raising children into a temporary government stamp on a relationship that was expected to last longer than the ones before or after. Maybe we need to eliminate no-fault divorce.
Next, it opines that the government has no right to tell consenting adults whom they can or cannot marry. and that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that all Americans are equal under the law. We just want the rights the Constitution guarantees.
As I said before, you already are treated exactly the same. Striaght people can't marry people of the same sex either. You know, liberals seem to be OK with the government telling people whether they can allow smoking in a bar. If government interference extends to that level of detail, then it certainly includes the definition of marriage. You are already treated equally - we covered this. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Go find someone of the opposite sex and get married.
It points out that gay and lesbian families include over 1 million children, and that there are legitimate, well-respected studies report that they are just as happy, healthy, and well-adjusted as other children. They feel they deserve the same rights.

There are other well respected studies that say that your well respected studies are a bunch of duplicitous hogwash. Hands down, the far healthiest environment for children is the home centered in both natural parents. We've been through this before - you aren't families. The whole point of this exercise is to attempt to achieve family status.
Then they claim that they are treated as second-class, and ask you to open your hearts and minds and hear their plight. So that one day we all be an American family that excludes no one.

Translated "As soon as you stop being protective of thousands of years of tradition and success and let us have our way and let our culture infect your culture, then we'll all be happy."
It closes: "Our prayer is that this day will come soon".
When you pray for these rights, exactly who do you pray to? Most of the gays I've known claim agnosticism or atheism. But that's a nice touch to pull at the heartstrings of those red-state soccer moms.

This is great. It's a classic case of manipulating the information sphere in order to achieve an objective. If all the facts and points were true, then it would even be honest...

There's nothing moralistic about this position. There are traditions that work and are worth preserving, and there are some behaviors that are healthier than others.

Where is the government interest? I'll tell you. Population is an element of national power. The public has an interest in having the healthiest, happiest, best educated, and emotionally stable population. There is a single model for raising children that clearly has the highest probability of producing this population. It's not perfect, but it has the lowest "catastrophic" failure rate. All others are inferior.

I don't hate gay people, but I don't believe the behavior is healthy either. And if we as a government are going to discourage smoking, drinking, obesity and whatever else, then certainly other risky behaviors need scrutiny. While lesbians suffer less lifestyle associated disease risk than gay men, there are indications that suicide risk, drug abuse and other factors are about the same.

Why do we ban gay marriage?

As Hillary says: We do it for the children.

3 Comments:

Blogger John Holt said...

First.

I didn't give you permission to post this. So I'd highly appreciate you not quoting without permission.

Second.

Glad you like my blog. Thank you. I didn't write any of that letter, I am just part of the steering committee for the nonprofit. I would not have been half so whiny or so long. I'll reply to your message in a bit, after deciding whether you're worth the high blood pressure.

Third.

Your post seems in direct contradiction to what you ask of your readers. You seem to ask for a logical, reason-based reaction to your posts, but then you give some half-wit diatribe based on moralistic taunting. The republican arguments I DO listen to that are against gay marriage are based in civil liberties arguments. That makes sense to me. The government doesn't have the right to crawl in bed with me. Not for abortion, not based on who I sleep with. Giving states that power hands over too many reins to men we elect for their civic morality, which doesn't necessary have to nor need to match up exactly with mine.

It's a matter of handing over the wrong power to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. I've got my own varied and passionate arguments for why we should not deny some people rights that we give others based on sexuality, but that's not a logical appeal to an argument about law and rhetoric and federalism. So I'll keep them to myself, and save that rant for my journals, not my blog.

I appreciate your feedback, no matter how much I adamantly disagree with you. I also appreciate you removing the material you took off my blog immediately.

8:36 PM  
Blogger John Holt said...

First.

I didn't give you permission to post this. So I'd highly appreciate you not quoting without permission.

Second.

Glad you like my blog. Thank you. I didn't write any of that letter, I am just part of the steering committee for the nonprofit. I would not have been half so whiny or so long. I'll reply to your message in a bit, after deciding whether you're worth the high blood pressure.

Third.

Your post seems in direct contradiction to what you ask of your readers. You seem to ask for a logical, reason-based reaction to your posts, but then you give some half-wit diatribe based on moralistic taunting. The republican arguments I DO listen to that are against gay marriage are based in civil liberties arguments. That makes sense to me. The government doesn't have the right to crawl in bed with me. Not for abortion, not based on who I sleep with. Giving states that power will hand over the reins to men we elect for their CIVIC morality, which doesn't necessary have to nor need to match up exactly with my personal moral opinions.

It's a matter of handing over the wrong power to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. I've got my own varied and passionate arguments for why we should not deny some people rights that we give others based on sexuality, but that's not a logical appeal to an argument about law and rhetoric and federalism, which was what I thought your whole blog was about. So I'll keep them to myself, and save that rant for my journals, not my blog.

I appreciate your feedback, no matter how much I adamantly disagree with you. I also appreciate you removing the material you took off my blog immediately.

8:38 PM  
Blogger ironcross11 said...

In the interest of good relations, I complied. I have taken the quoted material down and "paraphrased"

My gay friends and a (gay) relative and I have something in common. We have both been immunized for the full spectrum of hepatitis. Me... because of the places I go and the hazards thereof. Them... because of their sexual practices.

I do not want to see them abused, prosecuted or persecuted. I also don't want to see any more of them die of HIV related illness.

There are many studies that show that gays and lesbians suffer higher risk factors for a number of things - but I also understand that some of those might go away if societal pressures were eliminated. But there are no studies that I know of that indicate that the natural father-mother two parent home is equalled by any other model.

My son worked in a restaurant in Arlington. Good looking kid, and constantly hit on by old men, even though he was under-age.

I'm worried by that whole NAMBLA thing - where does it all stop.? There are people who would like to see no limits of any kind on sexual practice. Incest, Animals, Underage, you name it. It's consenting adults today, are we naive enough to think that it will stop there?

Should the government subsidize unhealthy behaviors? I don't believe we should ban smoking - but I don't think we should subsidize it either. Same thing for the gay lifestyle.

This isn't moralistic - it's about traditions that work, behaviors and consequences.

11:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright © 2005 Michael A. Breeden