Cloudy and ambiguous language can be ethically perilous.
In deciding whether to legalize same-sex marriage, it is not sufficient to take into account just what individuals want, much as we might empathize with their claims. We must also consider a wide range of factors relevant to the impact on society of doing so - especially the impact on children's rights, in general.
Why Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Call it ‘Marriage Equality’
Why Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Call it ‘Marriage Equality’
“The same-sex marriage debate is yet one more example of the conflict between, on the one hand, individuals' rights to autonomy and choice, and, on the other, the good of society, both present and future.” Well, that’s certainly clear enough!
In another article, however, she does correctly identify the underlying issue at the heart of the marriage debate:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articl...
“And committed same-sex couples have the right to the same financial, legal and inter-personal protections as do committed opposite-sex couples.”
This is what numerous state and local laws refused to grant to same-sex couples, in the name of religious or cultural values or, as above, the “good of society”. If states had been willing to provide an equivalent path to such protections, even under a name other than “marriage,” the issue likely would not have reached the Supreme Court; and if it had, the Court would likely have ruled differently.
All the other legal arguments you make are a sub-set of government's interference in the first place and the assumption that rights and privileges and recognitions originate with government. What should have happened is that marriage licenses themselves should have been ruled a violation of the Constitution - a separation of Church and State. Then marriages would have remained what they have always been: a thing for religion to worry about.
I think I have discovered that there might be a quantum entanglement, right from inception between mothers and fathers with their children.
If that turns out to be accurate, it definitely proves our point.
Quantum entanglement exists between many entities, biological or otherwise, that are related in some way. It cannot be properly employed to derive a moral code that bestows special privileges on persons recognized by the state to be in certain types of relationships.
And if marriage is “only for procreation”, I guess it should be illegal for couples over 50 years old to get married.
Yes, of course, it was a state issue...but all this nonsense has gone way to far...tired of the language being use against us.
I agree with your last sentence...laughing...that's when things go sour...
I have yet to hear any evidence that gays do a worse job at raising children than heterosexuals.
And there have certainly been other societies in history with gay marriage, or at least arrangements that can be so interpreted. The 300 who lost at Thermopylae, for one.
Yes. And regardless of which groups do better on average, it's not worthwhile to figure it out and then to discriminate by group membership. If gov't is going to get involved in evaluating parents, it should evaluate the factors of merit directly, not by group membership.
Or is it that non-entangled particles are acting and eventually producing brains, minds, and little ones to care for and the desire to argue about something?
Perhaps you are using entanglement to refer to the entangled mess within the ovum while the DNA is intermixed. It is quite a complex process.
Yes it's electrochemical and in creating an entanglement between sperm/father, egg/mother (yet to be proven and hopefully seen) has nothing to do with DNA, (and hopefully not the mess in the ovum...joking of course).
Even a plant seed shows a spark of light (electricity) at the start of germination.
Pretty interesting I'd say.
I'm sure we'll more about it in the future.
Yes it's electrochemical and in creating an entanglement between sperm/father, egg/mother (yet to be proven and hopefully seen) has nothing to do with DNA, (and hopefully not the mess in the ovum...joking of course).
Even a plant seed shows a spark of light (electricity) at the start of germination.
Pretty interesting I'd say.
I'm sure we'll more about it in the future.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
I do not see that the penetration of an ovum by a sperm will show the visible zinc sparks unless treated by "a membrane impermeant derivative of the zinc fluorophore FluoZin-3" which makes the zink sparks visible, The sparks are a release of zink atoms from the ovum membrane when penetrated by the first sperm and last for many minutes. That could be the mechanism to disable other sperm from penetrating the membrane.
Thanks for bring that up.
Confounding our language should offend us, not make us fearful to have a discussion.
We also should consider the "be what ever you will" anything goes problem...need some reasonable rules to keep things running smoothly...remember the article about how demonocracies fail when they get toooooo demoncrapic?...order breaks down.
Besides, what do these creatures have against electricity?...remember the N/S thing?
used to obscure for a political purpose when the real meaning would be unacceptable.
So, this kind of talk is unethical as it is intended to mislead.
When I read AS for the first time I was impressed by Rand's skill at describing how this worked-
words such as fair and progress are used to cover up the intention which is the reverse of the emotional feel you get at first reading.
Fair means unfair to favor some group.
Progress means regression.
Likewise marriage equality means destroying the concept of marriage and the benefits it brings in order to create social and economic chaos and get people into communes.
While on this I will mention a law that my state has on the books-
The Potato Marketing Board, you might think the government wants to help sell potatoes, wrong.
The Board has the job of setting prices, of restricting production by defining varieties as well as quantities, and police have the power to stop vehicles carrying more than (about) 40 lb of potatoes. The real purpose of course is to protect existing growers and stop newcomers. (Orren Boyle!).
Some good news- the police have not used that power to set-up road blocks for potato searches, and that law is to be rescinded.
So if A=A, and B=B, then X must equal Y, because D=D...
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. What would Plato say??
Our culture (still) values free speech, the right to own property, and the individual v. the herd.
All the institutions of our culture are under attack by what are called the progressives. They found they could not destroy some, eg. marriage and the universities, so they attack in a different way by distortion.
Government welfare depts recognize polygamous liaisons as marriage so payments are made. We see claims that mothers, daughters, fathers and sons can marry tho' so far only in groups of two; but there has been at least one instance of a so-called marriage of a person with themselves.
To recognize individual rights means accepting any freely chosen relation between consenting adults as ok for them. That right does not extend to claiming relationship A is the same as and equal to relationship Not A.
So Grandma Bruce wants to marry her/his adult grandchildren siblings Brenda and Bert, well let them do what they want, but give it a suitable name, the word marriage has already been taken for something else.
Equality is not the aim, what they want is to change the language we use to destroy its usefulness in communication.
(See 1984 as well as Atlas Shrugged).
Using your analogy, Atlas should be thrown in the trash because there was no Taggart Transcontinental, nor a Hammond Motors, nor Rearden Steel... Even if they were alternate names for UP, or Packard, or Carnegie (later Bethlehem) Steel because using assumed or made up names, rather than being brilliant, destroyed those industries and the world.
See how silly that is? I bet you don't. Because nobody likes to have their preconceived notions challenged, and most will fight it tooth and nail, even if they're using false logic as their proof. Hell, when I was still a card carrying pinko socialist Leninist-Marxist scumball (and I was), I used to do just that - no matter what someone said, I had the quick, correct-thinking rebuttal to their statement... and would defend it to the bitter end. Thank whoever I was open minded enough to see truth in front of me when it was shown to me... and be able to change from a false doctrine full of lies meant to skew thoughts to rational objectivism - because the truth always shows itself, not theough propaganda, but through example. A really does equal A.
I DO know - after doing a lot of research, and actually meeting some of these folk (no, they do not scare me, as they do some people) - that not one straight marriage has been destroyed by 2 same sex (or even 2 transsexual) people from getting married. As far as I know it's still illegal to marry close blood relatives, or your farm livestock, or your shoe.
But it's not illegal for 2 people whose lifestyle, sexuality, or gender may not please you, to follow the law as it is written and get married, and enjoy the same benefits as anyone else. Just as it's now legal for people of different races to marry (at one time that was illegal because it was "an affront to society" and would cause all the things people accuse same sex marriage of). And I do know that interracial marriage, rather than destroying children, give them a stable home to grow up in, and so far it hasn't created cases of marrying sheep, or children.
With out that crap, can you imagine where mankind might be now if we had developed self introspection a few 1000 years sooner?
We should face it though, the "moral majority", now a minority made this an issue with foolish religious reasons for objecting, and that made it inevitable that a small minority was able to make such an issue of this thing, I'd prefer to ignore.
Ever actually look up how many people's lives were ruined because they had 2 sme sex parents? Not the made up socialist claptrap, but actual facts? Or better, how many straight couples got divorced, killed their spouses, etc, because of who some absolute stranger falls in love with and marries?
I tend to look at rational fact over what someone tells me I should believe. Especially when it has to do with other people's private lives.
And That falls right into being Objective because they have made it so we can't be...
"In deciding whether to legalize same-sex marriage, it is not sufficient to take into account just what individuals want, much as we might empathize with their claims. We must also consider a wide range of factors relevant to the impact on society of doing so - especially the impact on children's rights, in general.
Why Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Call it ‘Marriage Equality’ "
Sorry, Carl. You cannot say A then say it's not about A. To do so is self-contradictory to reality. THAT you can ask Ayn Rand.
Lucky and Dean Strikeris are one of the few that understood.
Such has rendered clear communication virtually impossible. e.g. what do "liberal" and "conservative" mean anymore? Language has become so muddy!
"Marriage" would have religious roots. Those came to have effects on tax "laws" which give some edge to the married. That likely has triggered this nonsense we might call a "sexual revolution" today.
Individuality is lost when our Rulers decree. Why does mankind fall for that?
Language confounded, goes all the way back to Babylon and it was initiated by the Rulers...not the apologist version. However...it's really taken on a real subversive effect upon us, disempowering some severely so we can't, not only be rational and objective, but makes it harder for more than half of society to ascend into conscious disciplined thought and behavior.
That's what I call...tipping the paradigm upside down...now we scarcely know which way is up.