In response to:

Sweet Reason

Michael2677 Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 10:15 AM
The left engages in reality by consensus, not as it is. This idea goes back to the French Revolution. If enough people say gay "marriage" is,so then it must be. This gives you license to live in the world as you want it to be, not as it is. That concept has always back-fired. The Trotski quote should be invoked more often, especially arond here.
kozzzer Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 10:29 AM
You do not have to believe it is acceptable, just that in a free society with a limited govt it should be legal.
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 10:32 AM
Why exactly should something unacceptable be legal?
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 10:43 AM
It seems clear to me that kozzer was referring to "acceptable" as a personal judgement. In that context, acceptability is a highly fluid concept. What is acceptable to one person may or may not be acceptable to another. Legality is, in a way, a statement of group acceptance of a concept.
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 11:31 AM
"What is acceptable to one person may or may not be acceptable to another."

Which is why there needs to be an objective standard. By this standard, homosexuality is unacceptable.
ladisney Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 12:58 PM
Really? So if a lot of people decide sex with young boys or wife beating or public sexual displays or dog fights? Why or why not! Limited government does not equal license to do anything you want. The government of the founders was limited but the idea of men marrying men would not have been acceptable.
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 1:05 PM
"So if a lot of people decide sex with young boys or wife beating or public sexual displays or dog fights..."

The desire to do something, however strong, does not automatically create the right to do it. That's an elementary concept that's tragically lost by much of our generation.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 2:06 PM
Actually, that explains why you WANT an objective standard. It may even be the case that having one would be better. But the fact remains that there isn't one. It might help you to realize that your personal belief in a particualr objective standard is still subjective.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 2:11 PM
The circumstances you describe all impinge on the rights of unwilling participants. Homosexuality does not. I agree the founders would not have agreed with the idea of homosexual marriage: so? They would also not agree that women should be allowed to vote, that America should have a standing army, or that black men should be free. We should not be bound by the moral sensibilities of men born in the 17th century.
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 2:16 PM
"that explains why you WANT an objective standard.... But the fact remains that there isn't one."

Sorry, Jack, it exists whether you want it to or not. And obviously it's inconvenient for you that it does.

"The circumstances you describe all impinge on the rights of unwilling participants. Homosexuality does not."

Sex with young boys could easily not either. Incest does not. Polyamory does not. In other words, you have no actual point here.

"We should not be bound by the moral sensibilities of men born in the 17th century."

There are so many more reasons not to endorse homosexuality than that. Typically, you only acknowledge the reasons you can find a way argue with.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 04, 2013 3:38 PM
If such an objctive standard exists, then you have evidence for it? I'd b einterested in seeign that. SO would a lot of people.

Sexual relation with young boys is by definition non-consensual. Incest was not mentioned in teh post to which I replied. Nor was was polyamory. WHy would you bring them up now? My reference to men of the 17th century was a direct response to the suggestion that the founding fathers would not have approved of homosexuality.

WHat you consider an objective standard is merely your acceptance of a subjective standard posited by someone else. In your closed system, that seems objective. From the outside, you are just parroting someone else's standard and SAYING its objective.

Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Bob Morrison.

Much of the Internet exploded in wrath over Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas greetings to the Roman curia. Delivered in those historic halls painted by Renaissance artists, the Pope’s address was given to those tasked with administering the Vatican State and serving the Catholic faithful worldwide.

“Rant!” “Hateful!” “Outrageous!” These were some of the milder expletives cast at the Pope—the ones we didn’t have to delete. This storm of abuse arose because of a papal statement extolling marriage and the natural family.

Let us carefully note what is happening here....