California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Asking to be "enlightened," when you are not able to accept facts is an "oxymoron-ic" request.

@cicerone imposter,

Same elderly baby nonsense.

My being "not able to accept facts" is another assertion which excuses you from enlightening me and is intended to obscure the obvious fact that you can't.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I can't understand why the LGBT lobby is in favour of contraception and abortion. One might think that if they wanted to raise children that others didn't want they would like to see more babies available for adoption.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Here's an issue that remains a mystery to you: why LGBT's are in favor of contraception and abortion. Have you ever heard of "infanticide?" How about unwanted baby, because the woman/girl is too young?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

How can a female have a baby and be "too young" to an evolutionist? That's an utterly ridiculous idea.

I have heard of infanticide. Having been an infant myself I don't agree with it. I've been a foetus too which is why I don't agree with abortion which, as far as I'm concerned, is the same thing even if the USSC says it isn't.

What can I do about an august body of old codgers splitting hairs with a stopwatch in hand.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote

Quote:

How can a female have a baby and be "too young" to an evolutionist? That's an utterly ridiculous idea.

It is an utterly ridiculous idea, because you thought it up all on your own.

Your combination of words in one sentence just doesn't make any sense.

1 Reply

Thanks to Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage”

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/02/10/Romney_I_Saved_My_State_From_Being_Vegas_of_Gay_Marriage/

Comment: Romney, no thanks!

0 Replies

Once Romney the maroon left Massachusetts, gay marriage stopped being any sort of controversy. It only ever was because opportunistic politicians and zealots like him stirred the pot. The state Supreme Court ruled that under our state constitution it was unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. So we started issuing marriage licenses to couples. There was no vote on it. You don't vote on rights. A right is a right. The Boston Globe did a survey shortly after the SJC decision, and support for gay marriage polled in the high 60%s. No fuss. A dozen or so state politicians loudly opposed equal rights and fulminated endlessly. In the next election, all but one were voted out. There was no great public campaign or anything to raise awareness. The voters just quietly did the right thing. That shut the anti political forces down pretty thoroughly. Some of the usual rabid groups have tried to get referendums on the ballot, or a constituional convention. They've never gotten even enough support to get anything on the ballot.

Romney wisely decided to seek other pastures, cause he had no future left in Massachusetts. National voters in 2008 wisely didn't give him enough support to get on the national ticket. Now it turns out that a majority of the people in the country are consistently where we were half a dozen years ago, supporting equal marriage rights. It's time to once again prove to Mitt that he ain't presidential material, and he's out of step with the country. And hopefully, in spite of his own egomania, this time he'll get the message.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You wrote
Quote:

How can a female have a baby and be "too young" to an evolutionist? That's an utterly ridiculous idea.

It is an utterly ridiculous idea, because you thought it up all on your own.

Your combination of words in one sentence just doesn't make any sense.

Of course they make sense. Where in evolution is there a female animal fecundated who is "too young"?

I didn't think up the idea all on my own at all. It's obvious. Ask any stud farm manager or kennel maid. Ask any zoologist. Ask your postman.

You are saying these things to hide your confusion. "Too young" is a Christian idea. I keep telling you that you are all closet Christians. A real anti-IDer would never say a pregnant human female is "too young". Her biology is proof that she is old enough.

Veblen said that the illegitimacy rate represents the triumph of the hormones over the proprietaries. You have cited the proprietaries in saying "too young" and science (biology included) has nothing to say about proprietaries.

So you're up a gum tree. Using biology one minute and then using Christian proprietaries the next depending which argument you happen to be trying to make at the time. Anti-IDer you are not. You're a bullshitter.

1 Reply

It's got nothing to do with Xianity. Humans produce infants that are helpless for years and require extensive and intensive nurturing. That's part of our adaptation to survive. A 13 year old, with or without a 14 year old baby daddy, is not equipped physically, emotionally, psychologically,or economically, to support a child. That's what "too young" means. Nothing to do with religion. You're on your own wild goose chase as usual on this one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

"Too young" is a Christian idea.

Was it the young boys who were raped by the priest the first Christians to come up with this idea?

1 Reply

I can't believe how many racists there still are in the world today... This is such a sad commentary on our times.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

We still have a very long way to go. Smile

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
"Too young" is a Christian idea.

Was it the young boys who were raped by the priest the first Christians to come up with this idea?

I believe it was a great need for liberty and freedom FROM religion that opened the consciousness about the evils of pedophilia. A person below the age of consent cannot make an informed decision about their own sexuality. God needs not be brought into the argument, simply that sexual identity must be un-coerced and free to follow its own course and destiny.

The fact that first century liberty and Christianity coincided were most likely the convergence of rampantly decadent societies such as the "Romans" that met with overtly theistic and legalistic societies such as the orthodox "Jews"...

Thus a solution was needed to tame both, these harsh "religious" laws and these wild and abandoned immoral societies. The person of Jesus seems to be the epicenter of this societal change and our modern secular constitution and declarations are forged out of the result. Jesus embodied both the secular and the theological to in the end free us from such theistic and/or run away liberal culture. The result is neither law or liberty but "the law of liberty".

This law of liberty seems oxymoronic yet when liberty itself becomes a law then both worlds, law and liberty are represented in equality within an age of reason.

In the end God becomes the scapegoat and humanity is given a reprieve from unscrupulous religious zealot lawmakers, heartless priests, hypocrite clergy, imams and the likes who use religion or raw power for "evil"...

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

A 13 year old, with or without a 14 year old baby daddy, is not equipped physically, emotionally, psychologically,or economically, to support a child.

So evolution got it wrong with humans. How do you know that a 13 year old, with or without a 14 year old baby daddy, is not equipped physically, emotionally, psychologically,or economically, to support a child. Neither is a 25 year old if she's on her own with it as you have so conveniently assumed your 13 year old to be. You have used your own social and economic setting to define a principle and forgotten that there are many other settings.

And I don't think you have understood the argument. Not that I'm not used to that sort of thing.

I too think a 13 year old is too young to be a mother. But an evolutionist, so militant that he agitates to alter teaching practices in the schools of a Superpower, cannot allow himself such unscientific and anti-evolutionary indulgencies. The fact of the conception proves the lass is old enough.

You can't keep trying to undermine tradition and practice using terms you are deriving from the very same tradition and practice. There's no way a pregnant lass can be too young from an evolutionary perspective. And you have no idea whether the offspring will be any better or any worse than the offspring of a 25 year old from any physical, emotional, psychological,or economic points of view.

You're using cliches Jack.

And what does "support a child" mean?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think that Thomas Jefferson would be pretty scathing about Judge Reinhardt overturning Prop 8 citing the Constitution were he to be here to see it.

1 Reply

New Jersey's Stephen Sweeney Predicts Gay Marriage Bill Will Pass

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10919&MediaType=1&Category=26

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I think that Thomas Jefferson would be pretty scathing about Judge Reinhardt overturning Prop 8 citing the Constitution were he to be here to see it.

There you go projecting your own prejudice on others again...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Nope-- I read some quotes from TJ's letters and speeches. He might not have liked the "swinish multitude" but he wrote to Edward Carrington--

Quote:

If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves.

He wrote in similar fashion regarding the non-farming urbanites.

Quote:

...the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any State to that of its husband-men, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption.

Judge Reinhardt is well enclosed in the "other classes of citizens".

Where is my projection? Where is my prejudice? Reinhardt seems guilty of both being a judge and a serious city person. And citing the Constitution, which TJ was one of the main 7 Founding Fathers of, to explicitly contradict his policy is projection and prejudice.

Will you respond to this. Making things up about me is baby shite.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Nope-- I read some quotes from TJ's letters and speeches. He might not have liked the "swinish multitude" but he wrote to Edward Carrington--

Quote:
If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves.

He wrote in similar fashion regarding the non-farming urbanites.

Quote:
...the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any State to that of its husband-men, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption.

Judge Reinhardt is well enclosed in the "other classes of citizens".

Where is my projection? Where is my prejudice? Reinhardt seems guilty of both being a judge and a serious city person. And citing the Constitution, which TJ was one of the main 7 Founding Fathers of, to explicitly contradict his policy is projection and prejudice.

Will you respond to this. Making things up about me is baby shite.

Was it not Jefferson who had a liaison with his slave Sally Hemings? It seem his own personal ideas on marriage were quite liberal to say the least... This fact leaves me to question your integrity while you project your phobias on him.

Also, do you consider that Abe Lincoln while lying in the arms of his male lover might have more than once considered the thought of marriage equality?

1 Reply

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know