1 - 10 Next
Why should I move to Europe? I am simply pointing out that even in a leftist, hyper-secularized part of the world, some are still able to see reason when it comes to claiming something to be a right.
Go back and read my post. I did give you the reason. If you choose to not believe it, don't. But don't claim I did not give address your question. Just saying to someone "your arguments fails" over and over again doesn't make any of your pronouncements true. Its very simple but you refuse to accept it. Children are best raised in a union between a man and a woman. Where each gender is able to contribute to the upbringing and development of those children. So it is in the state's interest to encourage the union that is most beneficial for the well being of children and hence society. Marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. The fact that there will be opposite sex unions that will not produce children is not a reason to re-define marriage. You keep insinuating this and the claim is absurd. Throughout history most marital unions have produced children otherwise most of us would not be here now. In Europe where marriage has been degraded in so many ways, the native populations are not reproducing at rates fast enough to replace their dying off populations. Its that simple. Where is the 'Animus'? The "dislike." It's disingenuous to continue repeating the same false charge over and over again with someone you disagree with. Its almost as if you are trying to convince yourself of your own assertion.
You either did NOT read my post carefully, or you did and are simply being intellectually dishonest. Where in my post did I state explicitly some form of aversion or 'animus' or even 'dislike' of homosexuals? I didn't. You conveniently ignored all I wrote about governments rational interest in maintaining and preserving male -female marriage. You are allowed to construct strawman arguments. You are not allowed to pretend that they are what I argued.
I think you rightly point out that there are 'rational' forms of discrimination that are even enshrined in law. Insurance companies can charge some groups of people higher premiums because of the group they belong to. They are higher risk. Men cannot join some female only health clubs, etc. I think where you error is in discounting the rational government public interest that the government has in supporting marital unions that are made up of one man and one woman and where there is the potential for offspring. It's a red-herring to say 'well, some people are incapable of biological children.' Bottom line is, they still male and female. If these types of couples were the only ones getting married, society would likely be in a perilous position because where would future populations come from? co-habituating couples? couples using surrogates or in-vitrio fertilization? It has been largely established that children are best raised in a functional (versus dysfunctional) nuclear family made of a male father and a female mother. Recent 'studies' claiming otherwise are highly questionable and have even been questioned by some social scientists such as Robert Lopez who themselves are bisexual and who were raised by same sex 'parents.' Because a lot of heterosexuals have failed at marriage is no reason to redefine something that until the last 20 years or so has always involved opposite sex union. Many heterosexuals have not failed at marriage and have raised healthy children. Not perfectly, but well enough to leave a foundation for future generations. They should not be ignored as if they don't exist.
Also, one source has stated: Incidentally, even the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require nations to recognize same-sex marriage. One source states that "One reason the European Court said it reached its decision was based on the fact that there is no ‘European consensus’ regarding same-sex marriage. Ten countries recognize it, while 37 European nations do not, and the Court concluded that the debate should continue..."
In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron, spearheaded the passage of the Marriage Act, that legalized SSM in Britain, this in spite of the following: -There was no commitment to redefining marriage in the 2010 Conservative manifesto, so voters had no reason to expect it. -The Bill was never included in the Queen's speech. -Over 650,000 people signed a petition against re-defining marriage. -A majority of Conservative MPs voted against the bill. -A series of amendments to protect conscience were rejected. -The initial consultation suggested that same-sex 'weddings' in religious services would not be allowed - but this was later relaxed. -In judging the response to its consultation, the government effectively ignored those who signed the Coalition for Marriage petition (despite earlier assurances that they would be taken into account) but at the same time included bulk responses that were pro-same-sex 'marriage' - leading to huge distortion. -If all petitions had been included, 83% would have been against the redefinition of marriage. -If all petitions had been excluded, 64% of consultation responses would have been against. But by excluding petition responses which were against redefinition, while including those that were for re-definition, the government managed to produce a figure that suggested 53% were in favor of same-sex 'marriage'! So the result for Cameron doing what he said was the 'conservative' thing to do and support SSM? Former grassroots members have left the Conservative Party because David Cameron pushed the same-sex 'marriage' law through parliament, according to leading party activists. The fall in subscriptions has led to a major loss of income for the Conservative Party. I think it is a fiction to think that people will flock to the Republican parties in droves because the 'social issue' of SSM is 'off the table.' This is likely what Cameron thought would happen in the UK, and it has backfired on him, with people leaving in droves to support the UKIP party.
Ashley, years ago, the LA Times, believe it or not, of all newspapers, wrote that many students attending schools in the California UC system were being hurt because of the pervasive left wing bias that existed on campus and within the classrooms. Students attending any college campus are done a tremendous disservice when the professors and university officials refuse to be fair minded and balanced in the presentation of any subject. It amounts to being indoctrination in a leftist, 'progressive' worldview versus being a healthy safe environment where different and opposing viewpoints are given an equal chance to be expressed and heard.
Several years ago, in Sweden, militant atheists attempted to force hotel chains there to get rid of the Gideon bibles that many of the hotels had in their rooms. Ironically, the public outcry over this was so loud that the militant atheists backed down. Now this is in Sweden of all places, which similar to France and Denmark, probably has one of the highest percentage of atheists and agnostics in Europe, but somehow, even this society realized how outrageous it was to try and force hotels from simply having the Bibles in the hotel rooms for guest if they wanted to look at them. From a reasonable person on the street perspective, removal of these bibles because it amounts to 'an endorsement of a particular religion' really is just anti-Christian bigotry acting out.
Again, as I said, I wasn't trying to change your mind, I think 'proof' is a loaded word, as it exist in different forms. Mathematics, law, etc. People who believe or don't believe in 'string theory' would each argue that they each have 'proof' for their position. I actually don't totally disagree with what you described as natural selection because I think it can correspond to some aspects of what many consider to be micro-evolution, or variation within species. I don't believe in one species morphing into another and don't believe that the fossil record truly bears this out and that their is more 'faith' in that certain things took place than there is truly incontrovertible evidence for. Biologists like Dawkins seem to be the most rabid about defending this but when you get into the other scientific disciplines, you get people who have doubts. It's ok to have doubts. Science should not be a closed system that will tolerate no dissent from the 'consensus'. But that's besides my original point that I stand by: public education is NOT values neutral and anyone claiming it is misinformed,
By natural selection, I don't know exactly what you are referring to? Micro-evolution with variation within species or the Darwinian idea of all life forms evolving through unguided processes and having one common ancestor? If its the latter, there are many, though I understand not the majority, of scientists who have serious doubts about that hypothesis, that doesn't mean they have a 'better explanation' but they do have serious reservations that have nothing to do with religion, but I doubt these people would ever be given an opportunity to air this in the controlled academic setting where they could risk losing access to grants, tenure, etc. The orthodoxy would not accept it. But if you are convinced of it, nothing I can say will change your mind about it, that's not really my intent anyway. The point I am making is that we should not make the pretense that public education is 'values neutral' because it is not. A materialistic worldview pervades it undergirded by a type of philosophical naturalism. To be intellectually honest and consistent, drawing a 'hard line' would require expunging the pervading worldview in public education now, or being open minded enough and allowing courses to be taught that allow for discussion of viewpoints that differ from the 'consensus' view in social or even the hard sciences, which would not even reference religion. Even Richard Dawkins said once that he did not dismiss the idea of ID, only that he believed if it ever did take place it was not a deity but a form of extra-terrestrial life form that would have been responsible.
1 - 10 Next