Posted on 07/10/2010 8:02:05 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
A Massachusetts rulings finding the federal law banning gay marriage unconstitutional is just one more tier being kicked in on the institution of marriage. This particular tier is over health benefits for significant others. Nothing offensive about that, right?
When it comes to marriage, what’s all the fuss? We’ve been told for decades it’s just a piece of paper. It’s just an institution put in place by a patriarchal culture to keep women down. It’s the height of hypocrisy because of a sky high divorce rate. The Left has had an all out assault on marriage for about fifty years and now that it’s been beaten to a bloody pulp, they apparently want to remake it in their image.
The rub is, marriage is an ideal, something to aspire to–not to bring down to the lowest common denominator. The real issue of keeping a wedding between a guy and a gal is not to discriminate against gays, people in love with their pets, or unhealthy relationships with avatars. There’s a point to marriage, and it’s not the dress, the flowers, or the thousand dollar cake. It’s not even starry-eyed romance.
It’s children.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Libertarians would point out, I think correctly, that if marriage had to do only between you, your spouse and your church (or between you you and your spouse), and GOVERNMENT were NOT involved at all in ANY way — that there would be no controversy. “Live and let live and mind your own business.”
“Scratch the surface of an endemic problem — famine, illness, poverty — and you invariably find a politician at the source.” — Simon Carr, in his review of The Mystery of Capital by Hernando de Soto
So often “Libertarianism” is the flimsiet cover for being a pervert — my experience from NY to Seattle to L.A to Miami.
Are you calling me a pervert, or just incapable of addressing an argument with rational, relevant points?
Even if what you say is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), that does NOT invalidate what I said, nor that the founding fathers (many of whom were libertarian in sensibilities) envisioned a world without government-authorized busybodies -- something that I can visualize, and something, perhaps, that you never, ever have.
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:
Turing thinks machines think. Turing lies with men. Therefore, machines don't think.
(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)
A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes ?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.
A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."
Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic ?"
There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem." Or "I don't care if other people say you're [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."
Attacks don't have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: "I used to think that way when I was your age." "You're new here, aren't you ?" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you ?" "What drives you to make such a statement ?" "If you'd just listen.." "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to be heard.)
Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, "Even you should understand my next point."
Oddly, the stupidity attack is sometimes reversed. For example, dismissing a comment with "Well, you're just smarter than the rest of us." (In Britain, that might be put as "too clever by half".) This is Dismissal By Differentness. It is related to Not Invented Here and Changing The Subject.
Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.
-- from A LIST OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS
While I'm not thrilled with the ruling, some of the judge's rationales are not without merit, especially his 10th Amendment assertions.
I've read the Constitution a few times, and I can't find the word marriage in there at all. Seems to me, the 10th Amendment clearly applies and it should exclude the federal government from sticking its nose under the collective marriage tent, just like it's excluded from local zoning laws.
If you're going to call yourself a Conservative, and you really mean it, you have to applaud this ruling (at least insofar as the assertion of the 10th Amendment), even though you may not like its practical outcome. That's called intellectual honesty.
I see what you’re saying and I find it interesting,
but I don’t believe that’s what I did — I think that Libertarianism is fundamentally amoral and anti-moral, so what I said is relevant.
Not you personally, obviously. I think that Libertarianism as amovement is fundamentally amoral and anti-moral.
Last year, Bob lost his wife of 45 years, and he’s been in love with her friend Carol for longer than that. Carol has been widowed 5 years now. Bob & Carol are past 70 and Bob is seriously thinking of proposing marriage to the woman he has adored since high school.
It’s not always about the children!
I doubt the rump rangers and carpet munchers would spend much time on something with no monetary benefit to them.
Libertarian = Liberals that like guns, but don’t want to pay taxes.
Thank you. You have just met a libertarian who is (a) not a pervert, and (b) an adamant stickler for his moral code, which is pro-human life, and that means pro-liberty, pro-private property, pro-personal autonomy, and in favor of discouraging perversion and disgusting behavior by PERSUASION ONLY -- because of the flagrant misuse of such discouraging powers by governments. Just like many of the founding fathers. I have always tried to set a good example of extreme personal responsibility for my children and grandchildren, all of whom I'm very proud to say have followed my example and done well. May you meet many more like me. Perhaps you can check out http://www.rlc.org
Thanks to atheistic worldviews like postmodernism, secular humanism, and Marxism.
The rub is, marriage is an ideal, something to aspire to–not to bring down to the lowest common denominator
Christian sociology is based on the proposition that both the individual and the social order are important to God, mankind, and society. Marriage is a God ordained institution. And God ordained social institutions to teach love, respect, discipline, work,and community.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.