So I heard Rush Limbaugh....
- Thread starter Bevo Incognito
- Start date
seems you might just argue that it doesn't matter whether or not animals consent as they don't consent between each other for anything. the important thing may just be a commitment that a person would treat their marriage pet "tenderly" or at least more tenderly than is common in that species.
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
BI- I do not disagree that the "concept" of traditional marriage gets hurt by our high rate of divorce.
However, that is not what Rush is talking about and, I suspect, you know that but just couldn't resist a chance to slam the guy and any defender of traditional marriage that has had divorces.
I think Rush is a pompous jerk and find his show un-entertaining. But, he is talking about the subtle political/social manipulation of the legal definition of the term marriage. That is his argument, not the copncept of marriage, the legal definition. he says marriage is currently defined as being between one man and one woman. That is the legal definition. As far as I know, all of Rush's marriages have involved exactly one man and one woman.
It is not hypocritical, at all, for Rush to make this argument. He thinks conservatives are losing the battle over the definition. Instead of one man one woman, it might become two people committed to each other.
Personally, I think it should change.
However, that is not what Rush is talking about and, I suspect, you know that but just couldn't resist a chance to slam the guy and any defender of traditional marriage that has had divorces.
I think Rush is a pompous jerk and find his show un-entertaining. But, he is talking about the subtle political/social manipulation of the legal definition of the term marriage. That is his argument, not the copncept of marriage, the legal definition. he says marriage is currently defined as being between one man and one woman. That is the legal definition. As far as I know, all of Rush's marriages have involved exactly one man and one woman.
It is not hypocritical, at all, for Rush to make this argument. He thinks conservatives are losing the battle over the definition. Instead of one man one woman, it might become two people committed to each other.
Personally, I think it should change.
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
Speaking for myself here, but I hope BI's sentiments would echo those of mine, here it goes:
Sensible question, why do any of you give a flying **** who, what, when, where, etc. anyone chooses to wed? I thought this was the land of the "free", if so, then why not let those who seeks out such liberation the "freedom" to do so. How does it infringes on your personal life whether it is a hetero or homo couple? The alarming rate of over 50% of marriages in the states, currently only reserved for hetero couples, ending in divorce is telling and bombastic. If Britney Spears can be married for 72 hours, denying somebody the right to do such is a little disfranchising don't you think?
Perhaps you bible thumpers are too proud of your religion and try to impose its teachings unto others when they couldn't care less about it, be careful, pride goes before a fall, check your proverbs.
I look at the current "change of heart" from Rob Portman, who now favors same sex marriages, or as I like to call it, equality for all, because his gay son has personally affected him and has "forced" him to have a change of heart. On one hand I say bravo, on the other, I say **** you! Why did it had to take something personal for you before you caved on something that was so important to you? Where was the sympathy for millions of others when you were actively, vigorously, denying the same rights that you now are seeking for your own son? Call it change of heart or whatever you want, I call it ******* ******** and hypocrisy. Some of you sanctimonious ******** truly live in a bubble it seems at times, don't, it is a beautiful place out there, enjoy it. You're not gonna get aids, become a "***", see an influx of those who "decided" to become gay either. If you bible thumpers are really proud of your beliefs, then let me ask, knowing that Eve was conceived out of a rib of Adam, theoretically, aren't we all "gay"? Set aside what you believe the bible says about the purpose of "marriage", which is procreation, if that was the case, I have a lot of religious friends who I should start berating and degrading. They see marriage not only for the purpose of procreation, they see it as social engineering. We all want to be loved, want someone to grow old with, be miserable with, steal half of our **** when you are caught ******* pornstars, etc. I guess that would be my definition of a "traditional marriage".
I am too lazy to add more, but like it or not, it is coming *******, best get use to it pimpin', as they shout at their parades "we're queer, we're here" and that will never change.
Sensible question, why do any of you give a flying **** who, what, when, where, etc. anyone chooses to wed? I thought this was the land of the "free", if so, then why not let those who seeks out such liberation the "freedom" to do so. How does it infringes on your personal life whether it is a hetero or homo couple? The alarming rate of over 50% of marriages in the states, currently only reserved for hetero couples, ending in divorce is telling and bombastic. If Britney Spears can be married for 72 hours, denying somebody the right to do such is a little disfranchising don't you think?
Perhaps you bible thumpers are too proud of your religion and try to impose its teachings unto others when they couldn't care less about it, be careful, pride goes before a fall, check your proverbs.
I look at the current "change of heart" from Rob Portman, who now favors same sex marriages, or as I like to call it, equality for all, because his gay son has personally affected him and has "forced" him to have a change of heart. On one hand I say bravo, on the other, I say **** you! Why did it had to take something personal for you before you caved on something that was so important to you? Where was the sympathy for millions of others when you were actively, vigorously, denying the same rights that you now are seeking for your own son? Call it change of heart or whatever you want, I call it ******* ******** and hypocrisy. Some of you sanctimonious ******** truly live in a bubble it seems at times, don't, it is a beautiful place out there, enjoy it. You're not gonna get aids, become a "***", see an influx of those who "decided" to become gay either. If you bible thumpers are really proud of your beliefs, then let me ask, knowing that Eve was conceived out of a rib of Adam, theoretically, aren't we all "gay"? Set aside what you believe the bible says about the purpose of "marriage", which is procreation, if that was the case, I have a lot of religious friends who I should start berating and degrading. They see marriage not only for the purpose of procreation, they see it as social engineering. We all want to be loved, want someone to grow old with, be miserable with, steal half of our **** when you are caught ******* pornstars, etc. I guess that would be my definition of a "traditional marriage".
I am too lazy to add more, but like it or not, it is coming *******, best get use to it pimpin', as they shout at their parades "we're queer, we're here" and that will never change.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
I don't have the patience or energy to **** (no homo) with you guys after burying my dad last Monday and a good friend's dad the same week on Saturday. I will end with this, get ******* over it, it is coming, period.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Mop,
Very well, since we have agreed that my personal position is irrelevant to the question of Rush's moral fitness to be the defender of traditional marriage, I'll tell you.
I hold the conservative position that it is not the government's roll to determine what kinds of relationships consenting adults can enter into, but merely to record them ---- if that. Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose and define their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Very well, since we have agreed that my personal position is irrelevant to the question of Rush's moral fitness to be the defender of traditional marriage, I'll tell you.
I hold the conservative position that it is not the government's roll to determine what kinds of relationships consenting adults can enter into, but merely to record them ---- if that. Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose and define their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Larry T. Spider
1,000+ Posts
I think that I have come to the conclusion that marriage in America is whatever people want it to be. In the 1700 and 1800's it was often arranged. Then, it was between two people of the different genders but same race. Later, the race part was dropped. Now, it looks like the gender part is being dropped as well because its what the majority wants or people can see that is whats coming.
Side note: I remember being a child in East Texas in the 80's and interracial marriage was very taboo because it was "against the bible".
Side note: I remember being a child in East Texas in the 80's and interracial marriage was very taboo because it was "against the bible".
C
Coelacanth
Guest
My own position is that marriage is a trilateral contract between person A, person B, and civil society. Just as persons A and B can't be forced to enter into that contract, neither can civil society be compelled to give its stamp of approval. In our federalist system, the individual states convey the will of civil society.
The institution loses validity if one of the parties to the contract is forced against its will to comply. It's a shotgun wedding in that case, and it lacks the legitimacy that civil society provides.
I make a distinction between the idea of "gay marriage", which is a public debate about marriage, and the argument for "marriage equality", which is a legal argument with disastrous long-term Constitutional implications. Marriage equality implies driving religious values from the realm of rational basis.
The institution loses validity if one of the parties to the contract is forced against its will to comply. It's a shotgun wedding in that case, and it lacks the legitimacy that civil society provides.
I make a distinction between the idea of "gay marriage", which is a public debate about marriage, and the argument for "marriage equality", which is a legal argument with disastrous long-term Constitutional implications. Marriage equality implies driving religious values from the realm of rational basis.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
i have been thinking a lot about this issue for quite a while but still am befuddled on a few points.
first of all, i am a libertarian leaning conservative. i think homosexuality is wrong and i think gay marriage is a misnomer but simultaneously understand that people disagree with my take. i also think fornication and adultery are wrong, but don't want laws against them. so how and where do i choose to draw moral lines when it comes to my public policy positions?
well before we go on, i also want to point out that EVERYONE has a similar issue with the law whether or not they have recognized it. we all bring our morality to the table when deciding what we want to allow publicly. some people feel that it is "immoral" for people to be too rich and that we should therefore tax them at a higher rate and give that money to poor people. this is an entirely moral argument for why higher taxation is ok when it comes to the wealthy. on what basis do they establish this morality? It would obviously depend upon the person. regardless, anyone who says "how dare you shove your oppressive sexual morality down my throat" but believes that it is ok to tax the rich at a higher rate to pay for the poor has a bit of a problem with consistency. i am not saying one can not reasonably hold those two positions together, but at least acknowledge that we are all basing our opinions in some areas of the public arena on our own morality.
obviously the same point could be argued about one's position on war, on the death penalty, on abortion etc etc ad nauseum. so why do i have a problem with gay marriage? Because it seems to undermine something that has been very good for society for a few millennia. and say what you want about how much marriage between heterosexuals is struggling (and it is), you still haven't made an argument FOR gay marriage. in fact, you may have only strengthened an argument against it. perhaps we should be taking heterosexual marriage MORE seriously and not assuming that it is not functionally different than two men or two women getting married. it is different for several key reasons. two men will never bring about life and two women will never bring about life. morphologically, it doesn't take a doctor or a biologist to see that female homo sapiens don't sexually fit with other female homo sapiens. the same goes for male homo sapiens. Biblically, the arguments defending homosexuality are pathetic. i have heard them and i find them severely lacking, but i also recognize that a great many people in our secular society could care less about what the Bible says about an issue like this.
so i am left scratching my head. my guess is that MOST gays don't really want to get married, particularly most gay men. i suspect if this passes this year, then 20 years from now, the number of self-described gays and lesbians that are married will be a very small percentage of even their own demographic. sadly, the trend is the same for heterosexual couples. why do i say "sadly?" because study after study has shown that children need both role models in their lives and it is greatly preferable that they are both in their homes. children from broken families just don't do as well. you may not like that fact, but it is true in the general statistical sense. i am from a broken family and i still feel the wound of my parents' divorce 30 years later. i have also pastored for many years and the effect of broken parental relationships on children is profound and severe in a large majority of cases. so it makes me sad that are are getting worse at staying together.
adding gay couples to the mix? i honestly think it DOES make things worse.
first of all, i am a libertarian leaning conservative. i think homosexuality is wrong and i think gay marriage is a misnomer but simultaneously understand that people disagree with my take. i also think fornication and adultery are wrong, but don't want laws against them. so how and where do i choose to draw moral lines when it comes to my public policy positions?
well before we go on, i also want to point out that EVERYONE has a similar issue with the law whether or not they have recognized it. we all bring our morality to the table when deciding what we want to allow publicly. some people feel that it is "immoral" for people to be too rich and that we should therefore tax them at a higher rate and give that money to poor people. this is an entirely moral argument for why higher taxation is ok when it comes to the wealthy. on what basis do they establish this morality? It would obviously depend upon the person. regardless, anyone who says "how dare you shove your oppressive sexual morality down my throat" but believes that it is ok to tax the rich at a higher rate to pay for the poor has a bit of a problem with consistency. i am not saying one can not reasonably hold those two positions together, but at least acknowledge that we are all basing our opinions in some areas of the public arena on our own morality.
obviously the same point could be argued about one's position on war, on the death penalty, on abortion etc etc ad nauseum. so why do i have a problem with gay marriage? Because it seems to undermine something that has been very good for society for a few millennia. and say what you want about how much marriage between heterosexuals is struggling (and it is), you still haven't made an argument FOR gay marriage. in fact, you may have only strengthened an argument against it. perhaps we should be taking heterosexual marriage MORE seriously and not assuming that it is not functionally different than two men or two women getting married. it is different for several key reasons. two men will never bring about life and two women will never bring about life. morphologically, it doesn't take a doctor or a biologist to see that female homo sapiens don't sexually fit with other female homo sapiens. the same goes for male homo sapiens. Biblically, the arguments defending homosexuality are pathetic. i have heard them and i find them severely lacking, but i also recognize that a great many people in our secular society could care less about what the Bible says about an issue like this.
so i am left scratching my head. my guess is that MOST gays don't really want to get married, particularly most gay men. i suspect if this passes this year, then 20 years from now, the number of self-described gays and lesbians that are married will be a very small percentage of even their own demographic. sadly, the trend is the same for heterosexual couples. why do i say "sadly?" because study after study has shown that children need both role models in their lives and it is greatly preferable that they are both in their homes. children from broken families just don't do as well. you may not like that fact, but it is true in the general statistical sense. i am from a broken family and i still feel the wound of my parents' divorce 30 years later. i have also pastored for many years and the effect of broken parental relationships on children is profound and severe in a large majority of cases. so it makes me sad that are are getting worse at staying together.
adding gay couples to the mix? i honestly think it DOES make things worse.
biganakhanhda
500+ Posts
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Roger, that's his MO. He comes on here and calls names and makes abusive comments, and then when he gets called on it he pretends it never happens and tries to act civilly without ever actually addressing his previous behavior. It happens over and over with him.
Lost in the "politeness" is the idea that I should never stand up for a cause I believe in if most people either disagree with me or "see it coming." And I still haven't seen how any posts on here are degrading or belittling. Oh, except for the ones leveled against people who aren't willing to simply go along. I'd say big did plenty of degrading and belittling himself - and continues to do so.
Lost in the "politeness" is the idea that I should never stand up for a cause I believe in if most people either disagree with me or "see it coming." And I still haven't seen how any posts on here are degrading or belittling. Oh, except for the ones leveled against people who aren't willing to simply go along. I'd say big did plenty of degrading and belittling himself - and continues to do so.
Larry T. Spider
1,000+ Posts
What I said:
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 344
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 506
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
