Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
click here to read article
Prot was spouting lines from the movie “K-pax” where the main character “Prot” is a psychiatric patient played by Kevin Spacey. The plot synopsis from IMDB:
After being arrested at Grand Central Station in New York City, a man calling himself Prot (Spacey), who claims to have travelled to Earth from his home planet of K-PAX, is taken to the Manhattan Psychiatric Centre because he is believed to be mentally ill.
After a month on Thorazine with no results, Mark Powell (Bridges), a psychiatrist, meets with Prot and decides to treat him. Prot seems peaceful and is extremely knowledgeable, even baffling astrophysicists with his uncanny knowledge of astronomy. However, when Prot has a seemingly violent episode at Dr Powell’s house, Dr Powell proceeds with regression therapy to find out more about Prot’s past. The therapy leads Dr Powell to discover an emotionally painful history, linked to a man named Robert Porter. Time is running out, as Prot says he will be returning to K-Pax in a few days; and Dr Powell tries to help get to the truth.
Meanwhile, Prot meets the other patients of the Psychiatric Centre and takes it upon himself to help them, in his own way. Is Prot really from outer space or is he deluded?
Besides, when they are gone, it leaves more room for the rest of us. :-)
Alrighty then. The poster was a loony.
Or drunk or just finished watching the movie or both. LOL
I think he took a particular liking to you. My guess is he’s a retread who was ZOTted while sparring with you in the past. Any clue who he might have been?
Thanks. I am singularly ignorant of entertainment stuff. The only time I had a TV since I was 17 was a couple of years when Klintoon was sullying the Oval Office. Got to see him lie on TV!
Pretty much the same with movies.
I don’t want him to loike me!
No clue, there have been so many...
LJ, any ideas about identity? As 50mm said, he zeroed in on you.
Too bad I’m not organized. I could have made a list of banned trolls with comments about them.
Really no clue. I know I’ve gotten a lot of them mad at me, though.
Perhaps he’s someone who posts on some of those forums that talk stink about FR?
there a reason you pinged me ???
Btw, notice his tagline? It changed with every post. The last one was “prot is gone.”
I think that most of those have shut down.
Have we stumbled upon Kevin Spacey’s fun time?
I saw that. The taglines were also quotes from the movie. I saw the movie.
I understood the quotes to be from something. Looking at the tags I’d say he committed suicide. Just a really weird incident.
Notice how he picked News Week to speak his mind. The transformation is Complete.
Parsifal. Third person.
Polygamy more often means polygyny (multiple wives) but in some rarer instances it means polyandry (multiple husbands). In polyandrous marriages, the husbands are most likely brothers. They have one wife in common. If a man can't be a father, at least he can be an uncle. One of the goals in such a union is to limit offspring due to scarcity of resources (land, etc.).
Yeah. It was weird enough to be Parsy. Was he banned?
Most polygamous cultures or cultures that allowed it seem from my reading to have polygyny - more than one wife per husband. I didn’t know that word.
Even in ancient Hindu culture or Vedic culture it was mostly royalty who had multiple wives - they could afford it. I never read of multiple husbands in the OT, not that I am a scholar!
that was found only in ONE perhaps two cultures and is village level rare. as in dying out.
Multiple wives still provides the norm because it was entirely based on children or preventing widows from starving. It provided legal protections for the children of those offspring. It was not the cutsey delusion of the harem.
He was either banned or threatened with banning if he didn’t stop.
It was on the eligibility threads.
Parsival was not banned. Self-imposed exile a few months back.
50, who misses Parsy’s postscripts.
sorry, I didn’t mean for you to take offense. just wanted you to know that johnnycap was zotted. also realize you believe in the powers of redemption. may God bless and keep you.
no problem, Blessings back to you & yours...
thanks Gilbo 3. see you around here, and there.
He was annoying on the Obama eligibility threads.
Thanks, I tried doing a search for his name but the search function for “user” didn’t work for some reason.
I sure as heck don’t miss his leftist droolings!
I liked him when he wasn’t on the eligibility threads. He got nasty on those.
That’s okay... I met him too much on the eligibility threads to ever be amused by him again. At first when I ran into him he didn’t bother me.
But then he got like the Undead man in Perelandra by CS Lewis.
I have been busy today and have not had opportunity to read the rest of posts made on this thread. So I apologize up front IF I repeat any other posts.
Your claim above is result of what got set in motion long ago, because it was stated from our beginning that there are unalienable RIGHTs *LIFE* *LIBERTY* *PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS* endowed by the Creator that NO man/government can take or (give).
The state was by design 'we the people' not a state or 'god' that decided by their supreme decision what is or is not endowed by the Creator that is *LIFE* *LIBERTY* or *PURSUIT of HAPPINESS*... The state cannot put into print what is obscene, they claim they know it when they see it and a crucifix in urine is protected art. Some of these perverse minds have no problem putting on 'we the people' the burden to fund some of this hogwash.
IT is the state - or some peoples 'god' that is usurping power and authority to claim the word marriage can include two males or two females... That is the height of perversion and against what the Creator established and it will not stand for long.
See now personally speaking I could care less what people do behind closed doors, but this is NOT what this discussion has deteriorated down to, it is NOW the state playing god by changing the very meanings of words. AND in the California case ruling against the very foundation that set in motion the preservation of maintaining all 'rights' for each and every individual... the will of the people.
Where is the *LIFE*, the *LIBERTY* or even the *PURSUIT of HAPPINESS* in the homosexual lifestyle.... but hey it is their choice for short termed good time but they can at least quit their belly aching, muck rolling, and demanding the rest of US approve of their perverse flesh lifestyles as if it is normal and should be add to the list of RIGHTS.
I keep hearing/reading that Darwin theory is about the survival of the fittest.... so then given this educational doctrine, why is the political side of a functioning society playing god in protecting activity that obviously is unfit to survive all on its own.
Sheesh - I said good night because it was almost 1am for me and now I am accused of decietful discourse for not answering?
Three hours later and no response?
I will gladly post some thoughts that occured to me overnight on this if you and the others are at least willing to read through them - if you instead just think I’m some homo radical sleeper agent, I will keep my promise made earlier to the Admin Mod and refrain from further posting on this topic.
Gay marriage is one of those efforts of left wing social engineering will hurt the independence and strength of our society. It is like kicking out the foot stool. There is nothing anyone can say to me to accept that it is good for our society to permit homo activists to re-engineer marriage, families and heterosexual relationships. WE have already seen what lesbians do with sexual legal power over heterosexuals.
The feminist movement was hugely damaging on it’s radical end and it was Dykes running that game. Remember sexual harassment laws where Dykes policed heterosexual flirtation in the workplace and in public? The laws that have striped heterosexual dads of their rights in family courts - that is the work of Dyke social engineering. At one point they were calling all sex between a man and a woman male sexual aggression.
Look at what is happening in our schools. We have homosexuals writing children’s sex education and it includes every porn act known to homosexual man. As young as six they are teaching children to copulate, in Montana, yet.
No argument you could make would be able to erase the knowledge and observations I have of homosexuals acting out destructively with sexual social engineering legal power.
The judge who wrote the decision in California also claimed it was “hate” to be against homosexuality and that is a direct attack on religious freedom and homos will be able to use to persecute Christians and anyone else who does not approve of any sexual behavior they care to enforce on the public.
The question is why does the government have any interest in any two peoples relationship at all.. and the answer is they don’t.
With one exception.
Heterosexual unions create offspring and the state does have a vested interest in its next generation of citizenry. Homosexual unions do no, they can do whatever they want to each other and they won’t produce offspring, so there is no vested interest in the state to care in any way about their union.
So to argue the state is violating homosexuals rights, by not sanctioning their unions is idiotic. There is no interest in the state for their union at all, and frankly as a heterosexual married man, I want no involvement from the state in my union either. However, to claim that they have no interest at all in the next generation of citizenry is foolish as well.
As I already said, if the state abolished marriage tommorrow, I’d still be married, the paper from the state means NOTHING, because my marriage is before God, not a judge.
Again, homosexuals are not being denied any rights by legislatures who do not pass laws recognizing their unions, as you say, a contract can exist between two people with no need for government involvment... inheritence, power of attorney, etc can be handle by contracts of two parties, so they are not being discriminated against, nor are their rights being violated.
About the only constitutional right
I wasn’t on FR.
You did not reply to any of my factual posts, that’s what I was referring to, while you did reply to other people.
You do not make your position clear. If you do, then it’s possible to have a discussion. If you do not clearly state your own position, such discussion is meaningless, all about poersonalities/posting styles and other useless junk.
Now that’s a freaky chair. Not very comfortable, I’d say! lol
He claims to be just passing through.
I don’t believe him.
He’s in league with the cats.
Thank you for the civil reply!
I think it is better we drop the line of discussion -
The discussion itself tends to be laden with emotion over reason and, I have seen a few areas where my line of reasoning leads to legal implications I find unacceptable and want to think about this a bit ... I would hope that others may do so as well (on both sides of the Government involvment in marriage argument, I could personally care less whether a gay living arrangement is called “marriage” as that, in the end, is just a word).
Mr. Olsen says, “So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand”
There is a fourth class: single people. Equality for all. End discrimination by ending government marriage and civil unions.
What would happen if government withdrew from the marriage business and the civil union business?
Would people stop falling in love?
Would people stop having beautiful weddings?
Would churches stop marrying people?
Would people stop living together in caring committed relationships?
Would people stop forming families?
Would people stop making babies?
Would parents stop caring for their children?
Would people stop doing the things that we associate with fulfilling marriages?
Does the government policy of providing Social Security benefits to 65 year old spouses who would not otherwise qualify, weigh on the decision of a couple in their 20s to marry?
Are the bundle of default marriage laws, such as spousal inheritance, superior to specific legal documents such as wills?
What percentage of married couples have a critical need for the government financial perks given to couples with government marriage licenses?
What is the governments definition of marriage? Not who can get married , but what marriage itself is? How can the government accuse the marriage of a Russian woman to a US citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States as being a sham? What about the brief Las Vegas marriage of Britney Spears?
What vows of love do government marriage licenses require?
Do marriage laws prevent multiple sex partners, disease, incest, or statutory rape?
Should there be separation of church and state?
Should single people get equal government benefits?
How many times have you had to show your government marriage certificate?
Shades of G.K. Chesterton in your satire.
Compare this quote from The Man Who Was Thursday:
"We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."