Replies

Of course I won the argument, you didn't even attempt to put up a fight. You had no answers to even one of my questions. Pathetic.

" Well, you and your butt buddy are here defending the sodomite religion, aren't you?"

And you resort yet again to 5th grade ad hominem attacks.

In your profile you say,

"The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment..."

Other than your assertion that marriage is based on reproduction (that's purely your assertion), I agree with this statement.

"The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities. "

That is exactly what I have been saying throughout this entire thread. I do not believe that marriage should entail ANY special civil status in regards to taxes and so forth. As a strictly religious rite, it should not give someone a privileged position. It shouldn't be RESTRICTED either, in that the government has no legitimate authority to say what is or isn't a valid marriage, as long as the participants are of age to make contracts and are freely entering into the union. I don't care if it's a polygamous or monogamous marriage either. It's nobody's business but those entering into the union.

Then you say,

"The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault"

Again I agree with this. But then you lose it with,

"Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior."

Here you abdicate your ability to reason what is right and what is wrong without having to resort to a higher power. You commit treason against your own mind.

"Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does."

Which is it? Do women have power to control nature (in this case, their bodies) or not? At least TRY to be consistent.

"So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly. "

Substitute gay marriage, or gambling, or whatever you deem for reproductive rights and you get a position that is purely collectivist. Individuals according to you have no rights whatsoever, regardless of when you used the term earlier. Everything is the whim of the powerful, the will of the superman. There is no rational basis to your actions, just the whichever way your whim takes you. If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want. If not, others tell you what to do. But there is no right, no wrong, only ephemeral feelings and drives. In other words, it is the same thing that drove both Communism and Fascism. Pure, naked, power lust.

Here you abdicate your ability to reason what is right and what is wrong...

I don't make moral judgements, right and wrong are your esoteric hobgoblins, your idolatries of personal conceit...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want.

This is the only logical truth you have uttered. Life is brutish and short, isn't it?

Oh, and by the way, even your false analogy (false cause, non-causa) by invoking the term "Fascism" is innaccurate. The National Socialists weren't Fascists. Another Leftist trick exposed by Ayn Rand, the art of the smear (or schmear if you know what I refer to).