Is there a rational, non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?
O’Reilly and his anti-gay-marriage guest can’t come up with one.
-
Your ad here.
Your ad here.
O’Reilly and his anti-gay-marriage guest can’t come up with one.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
How about this one: Is there a rational non religious reason why gays want to change something they were never even involved with throughout history?
May 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I take it that your answer to my question, then, is “no”.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Conservatives are generally about defending institutions. Plain and simple. And frankly there’s probably a few dozen other issues that are of more vital importance which are ignored by the MSM and the establishment on both sides. Which is why the “parties” are being overshadowed by the independents. This just looks like one of those little “divisive” mechanisms to get people at each other’s throats and distract them from the high crimes and misdemeanors happening on a daily basis in DC. It’s a perfect issue to get the “thoughtful and considerate” folks on one side and the “intolerants” on the other. I’m calling BS on the whole thing because some of the fire and brimstone preachers are homosexuals.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Even people who are of the “live and let live” variety (like myself) have difficulty with the “rule of law” and Constitutionality ect… and the shaky legal ground of this in both California and Massachusetts. I’ve said the same thing for a while now. Why don’t the “leaders” get on the same page with the rank and file and see how far they get with “civil unions”?
May 31st, 2008 at 8:54 am
This was a good interview.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I’ll give O’Reilly some credit for not swearing at the guy.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
GOOD POINT CAPTAIN!
June 1st, 2008 at 9:11 am
The leftists continue to spout this tripe as it fits perfectly into the socialist agenda.
The PEOPLE voted this alleged “issue” down, and a couple of activist judges usurped their constitutional authority in the usual leftist/activist manner by over ruling the will of the people.
You want a good reason why this is wrong? One not based on religion? How about this….I’ll answer your question with another question…….
When is the last time a girl got another girl pregnant? When is the last time a male got another male preganant?
You wanted a reason, well there it is. NATURE. You know….the same nature the left wing moonbats are constantly trying to save from the evils of global warming and man-made disasters. Isn’t it odd that “nature” only counts when it supports an agenda?
Here’s a newsflash for you….homosexuality is ABNORMAL. If it WERE normal, the rest of us may never have been born. Despite the deafening efforts to normalize this behavior, the facts are simple; men and women continue the species.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
You’re nuts SgtMac.
Your argument labels any man-woman married couple who DOESN’T have a child as “unnatural”.
Since procreation is the only reason to get married, why not just make marriage an automatic legally binding contract that comes into existence when a child is born?
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. It exists in nature, thus it is natural.
Isn’t it odd that “nature” only counts when it supports an agenda?
June 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
SgtMac
Do you think O’Reilly is a leftists with a socialist agenda?
June 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“why not just make marriage an automatic legally binding contract that comes into existence when a child is born?”
That’s a good idea, especially since — given modern DNA analysis — we can be absolutely sure who the father and mother are. (No, you can’t be sure that the person giving birth is the mother.)
Of course, we’d end up with some pretty complicated marriages involving large numbers of people. Especially if this was applied to the current population. There’d be a lot of men and women out there who’d suddenly be involved in several marriages.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Hey Mr. Munck… good to see you. The last time I saw your name in print was over at right-thinking.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Yeah, Lee banned me. I dared to suggest that other people work as long or longer hours than he did.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Bob
Welcome to Controlcongress!
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Captain - I’m nuts? OK. Fair enough. If you say so.
I’ll assume by your claim “this exists in nature” means the issue hits close to home. Are you a product of the “nature” you speak of? If so, you’d be the most unique individual on the planet.
You can blur the lines as much as you think is necessary, but pre-creation is a product of heterosexual relationships, plain and simple. Now I expect you’ll blather on about IVF and clones and the like, but the fact is that it takes certain aspects of males and females to pro-create. I know you leftist twits like to hedge on things like this, but somethings are what they are despite your penchant for attempting to justify your silliness by defining what one means by “is.”
Now, please provide examples of homosexuals producing members of the human race without an intermediary…and let’s keep the “jokes” to a minimum here and focus on the issue.
John - Like you, O’Reilly is a rube who supports ridiculous things like government provided healthcare and more government programs. Also like you, he’s against free markets. Heeeeeyyy…….wait a minute……also like you he blames “Big Oil” for the price of gasoline…HEY! Are you really O’Reilly?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sgt Mac
What would you call Peachcare?
What would you call Medicare?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
What has that got to do with anything?
These are welfare programs pure and simple and you support both. Are you sure you’re not really O’Reilly?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
There are a whole bunch of reasons why having non-reproducing adults in the tribe is a survival trait. They are, in large part, the same reason that it’s beneficial to have living grandparents, even though they’re past reproduction age. If it weren’t a survival trait, we would have evolved to have parents die at about the time that their offspring became independent of them.
Of course, a same-sex bonded pair starts out younger and stronger than grandparents are, and so better able to take care of orphaned children. This is a solid explanation of why we seem to have evolved to have a small percentage of the population be gay.
Survival of the species isn’t ONLY determined by the ability to produce newborns; there are a lot of other, possibly more important, factors. (Though of course that one is an absolute necessity for the tribe as a whole.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Bob - give me a break! The premise of your alleged argument doesn’t pass the smell test.
If there were no procreation, there wouldn’t be any people, hence no tribes, no gay people, no grandparents. Therefore;
1. Heterosexuality is NORMAL as its primary goal at its most basic level is the continuation of the species.
2. Homosexuality is ABNORMAL because it does NOTHING for society as a whole. In fact, it causes the species to die out.
When you get down to the basics, it’s really quite simple. Mankind has survived these many thousand years NOT because of homosexuals, but because of normal people. Any attempt to “normalize” this behavior is simply a losing argument. We are not asexual, nor are we homosexual by nature. Therefore, normality (nature), by definition MUST be heterosexual. Anything else is a choice and not hard-wired into us.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sgt Mac: “The premise of your alleged argument doesn’t pass the smell test. … If there were no procreation, there wouldn’t be any people”
Did you notice the last sentence of my 9:57am message, the one in parentheses? I don’t really understand how you can call my argument bogus when you apparently didn’t make any effort to understand it.
“Homosexuality is ABNORMAL because it does NOTHING for society as a whole.”
That’s just flat-out not true. As one example put simplistically, it provides spare or “emergency backup” child-raising units. Any society, but especially a primitive tribe, is going to lose parents to various dangers, leaving orphans. Also, the high rate at which humans can reproduce may result in more children than a single couple can handle. Gay couples have both the ability and the inclination to step in and raise those orphans and extras, increasing the probability that the tribe as a whole will survive. Grandparents don’t fill that role because they don’t have the strength and energy to be primary child-raisers. Their role is to supplement the younger couples.
We see this kind of thing all through nature. As an extreme example, a beehive has only one female capable of reproduction and a tiny number of males. The great majority of the population exists and is necessary to support them.
There are other examples in human society and nature, but I sense that you’re not interested in hearing arguments against your basic prejudice and won’t give them any consideration. So I won’t bother.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
Bob - You won’t bother? My that’s awfully generous of you considering you refuse to admit that homosexuality does nothing for society at society’s most basic level.
Again I’ll ask the basic question;
Where in human history has a child resulted from a homosexual relationship? Please don’t give me the IVF/Surrogate/Adoption thesis here, the question is far more basic.
If, as you say, “there are other examples in human society and nature” is true, please provide the MOST BASIC example of two homosexuals PRODUCING an off-spring with no intermediary.
Admit it Bob, your argument is rubbish, seasoned generously with codswallop. In other words it’s a load of crap because it’s an opinion, but certainly NOT a fact.
Normalizing abnormal behavior is a cornerstone of the left-wing agenda. Obviously you’ve swallowed this tripe hook. line and sinker.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
“you refuse to admit that homosexuality does nothing for society at society’s most basic level.”
I gave you one way that it does. You didn’t refute it, just said that I hadn’t, that it wasn’t a fact. Explain how my point about “spare child-raising pairs” isn’t a fact.
“Where in human history has a child resulted from a homosexual relationship?”
If, in a primitive setting, its parents die and there’s no one to raise it, the child dies. If there’s a (childless) gay pair willing to raise it, the child lives. The result is a living, growing child where otherwise one would not exist.
Let’s see you address that argument.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Bob - on some level you seem like a reasonable person. However, that is the single most ridiculous argument ever attempted to support homosexuality.
You said “If, in a primitive setting, its parents die and there’s no one to raise it, the child dies. If there’s a (childless) gay pair willing to raise it, the child lives. The result is a living, growing child where otherwise one would not exist.” My response to that is simple; if frogs had wings they wouldn’t womp their butts on the lillypad every time they hopped.
Please address the BASIC issue; when in human history has a homosexual pair PRODUCED (not cared for/fed/educated/etc/etc), but PRODUCED a child? The answer is NEVER. Therefore, as I wrote a few posts back, in NATURE, heterosexuality is normal because it takes more than simply “two to tango.” It takes a MALE and a FEMALE - John and Mary, Ethel and Fred, Lucy and Ricky - NOT Adam and Ralph, Jean and Joan or Stella and Susan. THAT is the point.
At our most basic level, we are here to continue a species. Homosexuals do not add to that aim as they cannot produce offspring.
As to your other argument that a gay pair raised a child, that is a far cry from producing a child.
It appears you’re attempting to “blur” the issue on this and I can only assume it’s because you’ve either been converted to, or bought in to leftist thinking.
Some things are what they are, and procreation is one of those things. That is an indisputable fact.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“My response to that is simple; if frogs had wings they wouldn’t womp their butts on the lillypad every time they hopped.”
And that’s your entire argument against my point. Amazing.
I’m at somewhat of a loss as to whether you just don’t understand my argument or do understand it but are unable to come up with any counterarguments. I can’t believe that you’re writing multiple posts simply to convince me that only a male/female pair can bear a child; you couldn’t be THAT dumb.
One possible conclusion is that you don’t assign any social value to anything other than creating children. The greatest human female in all of history is the one who gave birth to the greatest number of children (even if they all died in infancy); the greatest human male is the one who fathered the largest number of children. Anyone who has never fathered or mothered a child is worthless. (That’s pretty harsh; you’re blasting such people as George Washington, Mother Teresa, Immanuel Kant, and Florence Nightingale.)
I’m pretty sure you do understand me, but are trying to duck the issue with bombast and dither. I’ve looked at some of your other comments on this blog, and that seems to be par for the course.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“At our most basic level, we are here to continue a species. Homosexuals do not add to that aim as they cannot produce offspring.”
But I’ve outlined a way in which they do contribute to the continuation of the species.
(My comments seem to await moderation on some occasions and post immediately on others. Is this something I’m doing?)
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
(Humm. If I display this page from my Linux server, I see my comment at 3:19 pm but not the larger one at 3:15 pm, which shows on this machine as “awaiting moderation.” I wonder which way this comment will go.)
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Bob
SORRY!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Bob - get off your high horse - PLEASE! Don’t patronize me with this drivel. The BASIC (let me say that again as you clearly didn’t get it either of the other times I said it) THE BASIC issue is procreation Bob despite your reluctance to admit it.
How’s this for simplicity Bob; if everyone was homosexual, the human race would die out. Simple enough for you? I imagine even a self-agrandizing jackass like yourself can understand that.
Your point was to avoid the basic point. NOWHERE did I say that gays were unable to raise children - and I wasn’t “harsh” as you put it with anyone. People like Mother Theresa CHOSE to remain childless and for one reason or another the others were also childless. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE and you’re to arrogant to admit it.
The issue is very simple; from a societal point of view, homosexuals CANNOT continue the species through procreation. Like it or not Bob, that’s a biological fact, despite your “dithering.”
As for your comment regarding my other posts, all I can say is that’s a relief. With moronic jackasses like you espousing socialism at every turn, it makes me feel very good to prove you wrong on virtually every turn. Now have a nice day.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Do you guys think “Mr. French” from “Family Affair” was gay?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“At our most basic level, we are here to continue a species. Homosexuals do not add to that aim as they cannot produce offspring.”
Your logic is wrong.
“THE BASIC issue is procreation”
Who says it is? You? I say that the BASIC issue is the survival of the species, not just the creation of infants. You say that too, several times, several times in several ways; I’ve quoted one of them above. But for some reason the only thing you’re willing to admit is important to the survival of the species is childbirth.
“if everyone was homosexual, the human race would die out.”
If everyone were unable to gather or raise food, the human race would die out. I would take that to mean that the people who gather or raise food are important to the survival of the species. Do you disagree? Do you disagree because eating is not a “BASIC issue?”
Remember, you said: “Homosexuality is ABNORMAL because it does NOTHING for society as a whole.”
I showed that it did indeed do something very useful for society as a whole. That’s what you’re refusing to consider, because it shows you were wrong.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
No Bob, I’m not wrong. You continue to cloud the issue. Your foolish example of gathering food has absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality being abnormal. I suspect you failed out of law school making arguements like that.
As you leftists are so fond of reminding the rest of us, we have to “save the whales, seals, polar bears, spotted owls, speckled frogs, crested newts, etc etc.” ad nauseum.
The same BASIC premise holds true for human beings. In order to “save” them as you say, it is basic to procreate. Homosexuals can’t do that. Therfore (please read this carefully as it applies to those same “nearly extinct” species mentioned earlier), it would be ABNORMAL for them NOT to procreate. If there’s nobody left, there’s nobody to save. It’s really that simple Bob.
Using the left-wing definition of “normal” would lead to the extinction of the species. Therefore, by definition it MUST be abnormal. Got it now?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
“Using the left-wing definition of “normal” would lead to the extinction of the species.”
No, it’s your definition of “normal” that’s incorrect. “Normal” doesn’t mean “universal” or “exclusive.” Some sheep are black; that’s normal. “Black sheep are normal” doesn’t mean that all sheep are black, or even that the majority of them are black.
I suspect that you often mean “natural” when you say “normal;” that’s the word that captain_menace used originally. Of course, homosexuality is both natural and normal. And that sentence doesn’t imply that everyone is homosexual, as you seem to believe it does.
No law school. Physics, and then computer science.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I take it that SgtMac has abandoned his strange definitions on this one.