The Time Has Come To End ALL Discrimination in Marriage

by lewwaters

As predicted in 2009, as the debates on SB 5688 and R-71 were raging and supporters of enhanced domestic partnership were crying they were not incremental steps towards full-blown same-sex marriage, a bill was introduced February 14, 2011 to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington State.

HB 1963, “Concerning civil marriages” was introduced by openly gay Democrat representative of the 49th legislative district, Jim Moeller and immediately gained the support of 41 fellow Democrats, giving the bill 42 sponsors out of the 56 Democrats in the house.

Likewise, openly gay Democrat senator Ed Murray introduced SB 5793, “Addressing civil marriage equality” in the senate. It too immediately gained the sponsorship of 14 out of the 27 fellow Democrats in the senate.

No Republicans have signed on to sponsor in either house at the time of this writing.

Believe it or not, I’d like to support these bills, but cannot in good conscience as they still discriminate.

If you look on page 3 of the bill, Marriage is redefined as “Marriage is a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.”

On page 4, it shows a broader list of prohibitions,

(1)Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
(a) When either party thereto has a spouse living at the time of such marriage; or
(b) When the spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole
or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law.
(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s
daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any
woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son,
brother’s son or sister’s son.
(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in
this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), or
(2) of this section.

Of note, according to section (3) above, if marriage of kin closer than second cousin, whole or half blood is recognized in another jurisdiction, it will be valid in Washington State too, even though Washington citizens in that category may not legally marry.

I have to question, why are any of these discriminatory prohibitions still to be retained? If kin closer than second cousin would be recognized as valid if they were married in say, Kentucky or West Virginia, or wherever, why prohibit such marriage in Washington State? That is still discrimination, right?

After all, what harm is it to others if cousins, siblings or even parent and child of legal age marry? It can’t possibly have any effect on the marriage of others.

And, why an arbitrary age limit of 18? As previously noted, many of these same Democrats are sponsoring a bill to allow 14 year-olds to vote in school board elections. We all know that inevitably, that will be broadened once passed to vote in other elections.

We have been told for years that young and mid-teens having sex is normal and what they do, haven’t we? If they are mature enough to vote and make their own decisions in sexual matters, aren’t they mature enough to marry?

Other more enlightened nations have made moves to legalize incestuous relationships between consenting of age parents and siblings. They have cast off the prudishness of Puritans. Nations like France, Spain and Portugal no longer prosecute consenting adults for incest and other nations like New Zealand, Switzerland and Romania have made suggestions to end the Puritanical ban on incest between consenting adults.

Why must America remain mired in such a narrow minded view when much of the rest of the world has seen the light and opened their eyes to ending discrimination in all walks of life?

What possible business is it of others if first cousins, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons or even a group of 4 or5 or more people marry? It doesn’t affect your marriage, does it? What possible harm is there in others declaring their love openly by a civil union of marriage?

It’s nobody else’s business and does nothing to denigrate your marriage, so why continue the discrimination?

Discrimination should not be justified on the basis of numbers supporting it, either. The overall majority in the South favored continuing the discrimination against Blacks and that was ended, as it should have been. Discrimination is not a numbers game, Wrong is wrong and discrimination is wrong, for any reason. It isn’t about numbers; it’s about any 2 or more people openly and freely declaring their love for each other.

I call upon representative Moeller and senator Murray to amend their bills and push for complete and open allowance of any civil union of marriage that any 2 or more people desire. It is high time any and all discrimination in marriage be ended, once and for all.

If they are unwilling to end all discrimination, they should withdraw these bills and leave marriage alone until such time they are willing to do so.

Bigotry for any reason is wrong and it is time things were corrected.

47 Comments to “The Time Has Come To End ALL Discrimination in Marriage”

  1. I love goats.

    Like

  2. No reason not too.

    You should be allowed to marry one, just as long as the goat doesn’t show any opposition to it.

    Like

  3. Not marry “one”
    Many goats.
    Many happy goats.
    One kid named Cabrito.

    Like

  4. No comment necessary from me. Congratulations on a fine post, Lew. Couldn’t have written one that defines the opposition to Same-Sex Marriage if I had written it myself. You have made the argument for the support of Same-Sex Marriage so much easier. We just show people your post, and ask them…are you like THIS GUY?

    Heh…thanks for the giggles…..

    Like

  5. Why Greg Owens, are you going to sit back and just keep excusing discrimination? You think I’m just joking?

    It’s an idea long past its time. End all discrimination and allow whoever and whatever their due.

    Anything less is just wrong!

    Like

  6. I just think you are hilarious! And the notion that you think you have power in using my real name….heh..LOL. I use the same pseudonym across multiple blogs so that people can readily identify my posts…not so I can remain anonymous. I’ve been using that name since I was 15 and on the old CB radio….it has a couple of references in it that people that know me can recognize…

    You are a funny guy, Lew. Surprised that anyone besides Victoria Taft takes you even a little bit seriously….

    Really…wanna be THAT GUY? Vote against same-sex marriage….Heh…LOL.

    Like

  7. I use my real name, Greg and you have yours in your email, so what’s the problem?

    I would gladly vote for this bill if it came on the ballot, if it is amended to fully end marital discrimination.

    What are you, some sort of religious prude stuck in the dark ages?

    Why would you or anyone on the left oppose ending all discrimination between any number of consenting adults?

    Like

  8. Striker991,
    It’s always interesting that whenever the arguments advocates use to justify same-sex marriage as applied to ALL relationships equally, as Lew did, same-sex marriage advocates assert that it is ridiculous or funny.

    Of course, that is not a refutation of Lew’s argument. It is a dismissal.

    Isn’t it funny that no culture and none of the greatest thinkers in history has ever taken same-sex marriage “even a little bit seriously….”

    Yet, marriage between siblings, cousins, and multiple people (e.g. polygamy), or even with children were taken seriously at various times in history. All these had one common denominator: male and female.

    Male- male and female-female was rejected.

    Funny isn’t it.

    Larry Rambousek

    Like

  9. Larry, I cannot fathom the thinking of a liberal, who advocates and calls for an end to discrimination while justifying discrimination.

    They are the ones who for year have been saying all that really matters is the love people have for each other. yet, present that love in a manner with a historical foundation and they become the most hard headed bigots imaginable.

    Go figure.

    Like

  10. I bow to your mad skilz.

    Like

  11. No mad skilz involved. Just a desire to see fairness spread and everybody in love being treated equal.

    Isn’t that what liberals keep saying they want?

    But, call for it and they reject it.

    You just can’t please a liberal, I guess.

    Like

  12. Lew, You’re absolutely correct in you’re assessment. But as one spends more time on this subject and reading the advocates you realize the same-sex marriage movement was never about “being able to marry whomever you love” or “marriage equality”.

    It’s sole purpose is to normalize homosexuality. Force people to accept that behavior and relationships. What better way to do that than to equate same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.

    The principles they espouse are only sound bites they use to appease citizens without actually defending their positions.

    And when one applies their principles EQUALLY to ALL Relationships they try to ridicule and marginalize you. Because if all relationships are equal then homosexual relationships aren’t any more special than any other type of relationship like polyamory or polygamy, etc.

    So Striker991 doesn’t even bother to argue why you are wrong, he just tries to diminsh you by portraying you as “funny” and “unserious”. And when you associated his fake ID with his real name he accuses you of using “power” even though he engages in the classic power play: making up ad hominems to silnce th opposition so his undefensible weak position wins by default.

    You wrote an excellent piece the shines the light on the darkness of the same-sex marriage bigoted heart.

    You should submi it to the Columbian’s Local View column.

    Like

  13. Funny thing is, Larry, I saved quite a few of the discussions from a couple years and use only the words of the liberals in advocating opening all mariage to anybody for any reason.

    And seeing them opposing it now is just too funny.

    I’ve been making the same argument on the Columbian and even there, those “enlightened” liberals don’t want real equality or allowing others to freely express the love they have for each other.

    As you said, it is not and never was about “love,” but forced acceptance and normalization.

    Like

  14. Wool sweaters, socks, clothes.
    Drink milk.
    Goats warm in Winter.
    Goats climb trees, provide shade in Summer.
    Goats don’t need funeral, barbecue.
    I love many many many goats.

    Like

  15. Actually, wool comes from sheep.

    But, they are okay too.

    Like

  16. Well, Lew, it was excellently written. I would encourage you to seriously consider submitting it to The Columbian’s Local View. You might have to shorten it by 200 words but it would be a good piece.

    Even if John Laird of the “It’s a mere piece of paper” foolishness doesn’t print it, he’ll come face to face with his own hypocrisy.

    The only downside is we won’t get to see the look on his face. 😉

    Like

  17. Anony Mouse: Is your favorite movie “The Men Who Stare at Goats”?

    Like

  18. Larry, their policy is to not publish anything previously posted, especially on blog sites. We aren’t all that popular with the published media crowd, for some reason.

    My thoughts are all over the article with this, so they have the information if they wish to go with it.

    My bet is they will join in with other liberals and ignore it or ridicule it.

    You know liberals 😉

    Like

  19. Cashmere wool from goats
    Softer than human baby butt or woman.
    No movies in desert. Good movie?

    Like

  20. To each their own.

    The left wants it all to be good, so,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Like

  21. “Isn’t it funny that no culture and none of the greatest thinkers in history has ever taken same-sex marriage “even a little bit seriously….”

    Isn’t it funny that people write things and expect them to be true without any research. Chinese, African, and Native-American cultures all have had ceremonies regarded as same-sex marriage at times in their history. And, same-sex bonding was accepted, and sometimes advocated by such great thinkers as Socrates and Plato.

    Next.

    And I do think Lew is hilarious. I read his blog for entertainment. It often times makes me giggle…

    Yep…are you sure you want to be like THIS GUY? Vote against Same-Sex marriage and you can be! Buy a ticket, and you, too, can ride the dangerous slippery slope!

    Heh…LOL.

    BTW…I am FAR from liberal, as anyone that knows me will testify; basic human rights are politically blind.

    Like

  22. “basic human rights are politically blind.”

    I couldn’t agree more, Greg.

    That’s why I am astonished that the political left is now pushing to deny others their civil human rights to legal marriage.

    As manthou states on the Columbian, “Love makes a family.” “If our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters want to further seal their civil union to marriage, it does not diminish us.”

    I agree. Giving others their civil & human rights will not diminish us either.

    Like

  23. One more thing, Larry…you should read a book called “Things Fall Apart”, detailing the destruction that the “Christianization” of many cultures that were perfectly fine has imparted upon them. You also probably fail to realize the history of your own religion, and the customs and mores at the time it was created, including the politics involved in the creation of the Bible, specifically the New Testament.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, Larry…but not your own facts.

    Like

  24. Greg, this isn’t about religion, but fairness and equality for all.

    Doesn’t your Bible make mention of men with many wives and concubines, set forth by G-d?

    Who did the offspring of Adam and Eve mate with to fill the earth in your Bible? It could only have been female siblings, if the account is correct.

    I don’t understand why advocates of same-sex marriage want to continue discrimination against others.

    Like

  25. Not about religion, Lew?

    Name 5 reasons outside of religion that a committed, monogamous homosexual couple shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    Like

  26. There are no reasons, Greg. The long held traditional walls and barriers to marriage should be removed, for all, not just some.

    And why include monogamy? Isn’t that old fashioned? Some in Europe are seeing the light.

    Name one reason, outside of religion, that same-sex marriage should not be brothers, sisters, parent and adult child.

    If we are prepared to change the long held tradition of marriage, it must be for all, not just some.

    As long as it is consensual and of age of consent, it should be allowed, no restrictions!

    Like

  27. “Name one reason, outside of religion, that same-sex marriage should not be brothers, sisters, parent and adult child.”

    Lew, are you really that uninformed? (See I can use the polite form of writing once in a while).

    Are you really unfamiliar with recessive genetics? Pretty huge practical, scientific reasons there for not allowing incestuous relations, dontcha think? Nothing related to religion there, that’s for sure….

    As for polygamy? Why not…as long as it is consensual and the participants and the results thereof don’t end up on the welfare rolls…

    As far as pedophilia, aside from the pure moral implications, there are currently laws on the books as to who may legally enter into a contract, and it doesn’t include minors (nor animals for that matter). And, since marriage is a contract in the eyes of the state, those matters are moot.

    Really, Lew…that’s all you got? Come ride the slippery slope! Get your tickets now! Come be like THAT GUY!

    Heh…LOL

    Like

  28. Tell me you didn’t go to college not learn that recessive genetics won’t have a whole lot of effect on the civil union of 2 gay brothers, Greg.

    Europe is challenging the age-old ban on incestuous relationships.

    Brother-sister couple challenges German incest law

    All In The Family: Brother, Sister, Lovers

    It was even once acceptable for brother-sister marriage in ancient Roman Egypt.

    While there is some evidence of offspring from such a union suffering genetically, surely you do not advocate banning marriage to those with a known family history of genetic diseases, do you?

    The civil union of marriage is about much more than procreation, Greg. If it were only about that, wouldn’t heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce be denied marriage as well?

    Yes, pedophilia is a crime and most likely will remain that way for now.

    But, we encourage younger citizens to enjoy sex, provide them with birth control measures from many schools and even push to help younger females gain abortions without parental knoweldge or consent. Surely if they are mature enough to make such decisions for themselves there should be a discussion on lowering the age of consent for other relations, possibly even marriage, right?

    Tell me you are not one of those abstinence only fanatics.

    By removing all current restrictions to marriage, Greg, there is no slippery slope to worry about, its all out there, its all legal, its all good. Everybody is happy, everybody is recognized and everybody enjoys completely equal rights.

    What more could we ask for as we travel into the 21st century?

    Why not join with me and call upon the legislature to remove all marital restrictions currently on the books?

    It’s the right thing to do.

    Like

  29. Be careful, there, Lew. When you and Victoria Taft use sarcasm to pretend to support the opposite position of what you actually do, it’s going to backfire…not a lot of brain cells floating in that pool…..

    🙂

    Like

  30. So Greg, you advocate continuing to discriminate against others in a loving relationship?

    Why shouldn’t all others who are of the legal age of consent enjoy the recognition of marriage, if gays are to?

    Please explain why discrimination is acceptable in those cases.

    If we asre ready to change marriage to suit gays, we should be ready to change marriage to suit everybody desiring it.

    Like

  31. Striker991,
    I agree with you that your statement of 2/17/11 @ 1:36 pm: “We are not entitled to our own facts.” But that also includes you.

    You assert that “Isn’t it funny that people write things and expect them to be true without any research. Chinese, African, and Native-American cultures all have had ceremonies regarded as same-sex marriage at times in their history. And, same-sex bonding was accepted, and sometimes advocated by such great thinkers as Socrates and Plato.”

    Really, please cite the sources for your these “facts”!

    Secondly, even if you prove that in some instances same-sex relationships were called marriage you completely ignored the point that marriage between opposite-sex marriages INCLUDING “siblings, cousins, and multiple people (e.g. polygamy)” as I mentioned 2/15 @10:06 pm. was far and above more pervasive throughout history than same-sex marriage. These examples of opposite-sex marriages are rejected by same-sex marriage advocates. “You are entitled to your own opinion”, Striker991 “…but not your own facts” nor ignoring those facts that are inconvenient to the position you have already determined to hold.

    Thirdly, Lew used the very same arguments the same-sex marriage advocates use against traditional marriage. Now, because those arguments are used to justify relationships that you, Striker991, do not approve. If those are legitimate arguments than they need to be applied to ALL relationships EQUALLY. Instead you ignore them stepping into the shoes of the vey traditionalists you wish to condemn thereby revealing your own intolerance and bigotry.

    Fourth, I will add the book called “Things Fall Apart” to my reading list. As for your comment: “You also probably fail to realize the history of your own religion …” where in my comments did I even remotely appeal to Christianity, God, or anything supernatural? I didn’t. So why do you bring it up at all unless you have an anti-Christian bigotry and stooped to that hatred to cover the fact that you refuse to answer the challenges to your position.

    BTW, Striker991, you need to read up on Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung to understand that atheism caused the worst carnage in human history.

    Like

  32. Striker991 2/17 @ 1:36 pm,
    You claim “basic human rights are politically blind”. That is a claim of universality that relies on a transcendent source.

    Second, it says rights are in our humanity but that only makes sense if we can know what is human. That implies that humans are made a certain way. And this certain way we are made is what reveals our rights. Human beings have a sexual nature that male sexual organs are made for female sexual organs and visa versa.

    But homosexual sexual orientation says the person has a sexual desire for a member of the same sex but the physical sexual organs for a member of the opposite sex. Homosexual acts introduce an inherent contradiction.

    Claiming a “basic human right”, like same-sex marriage, is grounded in this inherent contradiction ultimately makes human rights meaningless because anything is allowable as long as one has the will and the power to make it happen. So while all human beings share human rights, such as the right to life, based on their inherent humanness, there is not right to base public policy on an inherent contradiction between the nature of the human being and a desired behavior.

    Like

  33. “Second, it says rights are in our humanity but that only makes sense if we can know what is human. That implies that humans are made a certain way. And this certain way we are made is what reveals our rights. Human beings have a sexual nature that male sexual organs are made for female sexual organs and visa versa.”

    LOL! This is one of the most rediculous statements I have ever read in my life! Humans are one of the most diverse species on the planet. Which way, Larry? Your way? Good grief. There are so many biological differences in humans that I am sure that many haven’t even been discovered yet. The most obvious examples are androgeny and Hermaphrodites. Don’t seem to fit the mold, do they? Are they not human, according to Larry?

    You make Lew seem almost reasonable….guess we have a new “That Guy.”

    You crack me up, you guys. You funny, funny guys. Sheesh. No wonder people have a hard time taking conservatives seriously. It is terribly, terribly sad, though, really.

    Like

  34. So, Greg, Striker or whatever in the hell you are, even as diverse as humans are, you still advocate discriminating against some in civil marriage?

    Why not honor that diversity you claim and support an end to all restrictions to civil marriage?

    Why do you supporters of same-sex marriage support continued discrimination where a change would have no effect on you or your families?

    What is so ridiculous to you in ending all discriminatory restrictions to civil marriage?

    Like

  35. Striker991 quoted Larry Rambousek (from 2/15 @ 11:13 pm): “Second, it says rights are in our humanity but that only makes sense if we can know what is human. That implies that humans are made a certain way. And this certain way we are made is what reveals our rights. Human beings have a sexual nature that male sexual organs are made for female sexual organs and visa versa.”

    To which Striker991 responded (2/24 @ 4:15 p.m.): “LOL! This is one of the most rediculous statements I have ever read in my life! Humans are one of the most diverse species on the planet. Which way, Larry? Your way? Good grief. There are so many biological differences in humans that I am sure that many haven’t even been discovered yet. The most obvious examples are androgeny and Hermaphrodites. Don’t seem to fit the mold, do they? Are they not human, according to Larry?”

    Striker991/Greg Owens – I actually addressed this very question in the last sentence of my post.

    I stated: “So while all human beings share human rights, such as the right to life, based on their inherent humanness, there is not right to base public policy on an inherent contradiction between the nature of the human being and a desired behavior.”

    So yes, everyone has human rights based on their inherent humanness including homosexuals and “androgeny and Hermaphrodites”.

    Further, my statement: “Human beings have a sexual nature that male sexual organs are made for female sexual organs and visa versa” has nothing to do with the humanity of homosexuals or “androgeny and Hermaphrodites”? It refers to the nature of human SEXUALity in relationship to homoSEXUALs, as the context of my post (which you ignored) made clear in the context of public policy.

    Reproductive medicine is based on the fact of the design to human sexuality. Rolling out exceptions that some human beings have both male and female sexual organs says nothing about whether male sexual organs are made for female sexual organs.

    If you think it does then provide evidence to support your conclusion.

    All this doesn’t explain your beef with Lew. His position accepts the arguments of advocates for the basic “human right” of same-sex marriage. He simply applied those same “human right” arguments EQUALLY to ALL relationships.

    Yet you still object!

    If you think Lew and I are wrong, Greg, fine. Then 1) you should have NO problems explaining what determines a claim is an actual human rights claim.

    Then apply that criteria to Lew’s questions (which at the time I post this you have not done). I list Lew’s questions here again for your convenience:
    2) Why do you still advocate discriminating against some in civil marriage?
    3) Why not honor that diversity you claim and support an end to all restrictions to civil marriage?
    4) Why do you supporters of same-sex marriage support continued discrimination where a change would have no effect on you or your families?
    5) What is so ridiculous to you in ending all discriminatory restrictions to civil marriage?

    BTW – You still haven’t provided the evidence to support your claim that “Chinese, African, and Native-American cultures all have had ceremonies regarded as same-sex marriage at times in their history. And, same-sex bonding was accepted, and sometimes advocated by such great thinkers as Socrates and Plato.”
    6) What are your sources for your “facts”?

    There you go, Striker991/Greg Owens. Six basic questions.

    Will you answer them or continue to ignore them?

    Like

  36. Forgive me for using Wikipedia, but I don’t have a lot of time right now to do all of your research for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

    South Africa currently allows same-sex marriage.

    As far as Socrates and Plato, read a book for god’s sake…

    And, Lew is just being facetious…not playing that game.

    Again, Larry, you make Lew seem almost reasonable. You are way over-the-top.

    You are the one that stated one’s “humanness” is due to humans being made a certain way. You never did clarify, Larry, which way is that? A human according to Larry…?

    LOL….That Guy….Heh

    Like

  37. Am I really being facetious?

    I sent this off to Moeller, Jacks, Pridemore, Gregoire, Ed Murray, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and all and am waiting on a reply.

    I am serious in that I wish to see the bills rewritten, or amended, to end all discrimination in civil marriage.

    No one, not even you, has presented any logical reasons why marriage should not be extended to siblings, multiple peoples, parent/adult child or any consenting adults.

    Doesn’t true fairness and ending all discrimination dictate it?

    Like

  38. To Striker991/Greg Owens

    Larry – 2/15 @ 10:06 p.m.: “Isn’t it funny that no culture and none of the greatest thinkers in history has ever taken same-sex marriage “even a little bit seriously….”

    Striker991 – 2/17 @1:28 p.m.: “Isn’t it funny that people write things and expect them to be true without any research. Chinese, African, and Native-American cultures all have had ceremonies regarded as same-sex marriage at times in their history. And, same-sex bonding was accepted, and sometimes advocated by such great thinkers as Socrates and Plato.”

    Striker991 – 2/25 @ 10:32 am: “Forgive me for using Wikipedia, but I don’t have a lot of time right now to do all of your research for you.

    There is no need to apologize “for using Wikipedia” unless you know that their information can be suspect. So it is interesting that you would use a suspect source given your lack of time to verify their sources.

    Further, the area you linked references the Roman Empire with “It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases.”

    The article calls same-sex marriage “a so-called marriage” that had “no legal standing in Roman law”. Meaning, there were same-sex relationships but it was not the same as marriage.

    The article doesn’t detail the accounts of the Chinese ceremonies so it isn’t clear whether these relationships were considered the same as marriage.

    Claiming that engaging in same-sex relationships is the same as same-sex marriage is an equivocation.

    South Africa may represent current status but it is insignificant in regards to all of human history and all cultures.

    Striker991/Greg Owens: “As far as Socrates and Plato, read a book for god’s sake…”

    No Striker. You made the claim, you read a book. Supply the quotes and cite the source to support YOUR claim. Otherwise your claim fails for lack of supporting evidence.

    But let’s say that all this evidence proves beyond a doubt that same-sex MARRIAGES occurred throughout history and various cultures. But so has polygamy, polyamory, incestuous, and between adults and children.

    This is a point Lew has continually made yet you have dismissed him that he is ridiculous and funny and, at the time I post this, refusing to answer his questions. Why is that?

    Like

  39. Striker991 stated (2/25 @10:32 am): “You are the one that stated one’s “humanness” is due to humans being made a certain way. You never did clarify, Larry, which way is that? A human according to Larry…?”

    Striker991/Greg Owens – Perhaps you should go back and read my entire 195 word post of 2/20 @ 11:13 pm rather paraphrasing to create a strawman.

    Let’s just take the very last sentence of that post: “So while all human beings share human rights, such as the right to life, based on their inherent humanness, there is not right to base public policy on an inherent contradiction between the nature of the human being and a desired behavior.”

    So – meaning therefore (for that reason). This clearly links what came before as support for the conclusion thereby providing the CONTEXT.

    Human – 1) of, relating to, or characteristic of humans; 2) consisting of humans; 3a) having human form or attributes

    -ness means “: state : condition : quality : degree ”

    inherent – involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

    contradiction – a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therefore
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanness
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ness
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

    So “inherent humanness” means the constitution or essential character of the quality of human form or attributes. It’s an ontological statement. And the word “So” ties this concluding sentence to the reasons that came before.

    Human beings (i.e. those having the characteristic of human form or attributes) share human rights (i.e. just claims that is grounded in the characteristic of human form or attributes) such as the right to life (thus I cite an example), based on their inherent (i.e. constitution or essential character of the) humanness (i.e. the state, quality, condition of having human form or attributes), there is not a right (i.e. a just claim) to base public policy on an inherent (i.e. . constitution or essential character of) contradiction (i.e. proposition that asserts both the truth and falsity of) between the nature (i.e. sexual nature in the context of the post) of the human being (i.e. those having the characteristic of human form or attributes) and a desired behavior.

    I assumed that you would be able to understand that language without me breaking everything down for you but perhaps I was wrong.

    You think that stating there is no human rights claim based on the contradiction that exists between, for example, a male’s physical sexual organs and his desire for sex with another male is “way over-the-top”.

    That, however, is only a distinction that can be made by comparing my position on human rights with an objective standard of human rights which you hold. Yet when asked to define what determines a true human right claim, you have refused! And you have refused to apply that criteria to Lew’s questions. Yet, if your distinction is to hold then you MUST know this.

    So, once again, here is your chance to show how far off base we really are Striker991/Greg Owens. If your position is so strong you’ll answer the questions which I repeat here for you convenience.

    1) you should have NO problems explaining what determines a claim is an actual human rights claim.
    Then apply that criteria to Lew’s questions (which at the time I post this you have not done). I list Lew’s questions here again for your convenience:

    2) Why do you still advocate discriminating against some in civil marriage?
    3) Why not honor that diversity you claim and support an end to all restrictions to civil marriage?
    4) Why do you supporters of same-sex marriage support continued discrimination where a change would have no effect on you or your families?
    5) What is so ridiculous to you in ending all discriminatory restrictions to civil marriage?

    Let’ see the strength of your position based on rationality, Striker991/Greg Owens.

    Like

  40. Larry…with all of your useless pontification, it can be summed up neatly. 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law…meaning, simply, what applies to one, must be equally applied to all.

    And I am still not playing Lew’s game, nor your copy-cat antics (can’t find your own game, Larry?). He wonders why no one responds to him…because he, like you, is “That Guy.”

    LOL Heh.

    Like

  41. I find it quite funny that you think this is “just a game,” Greg and don’t wish to extend that “equal protection for all” to others.

    Maybe it isn’t quite the “all” you label it?

    Isn’t that pretty close to the definition of a “bigot?”

    Like

  42. Striker991/Greg Owens – And what exactly is the 14th Amendment’s foundation that grounds it such that we know it is not a violation of objective human rights? You never answer that.

    Lew cut to the issue’s heart by applying the very same criteria in which advocates justify same-sex marriage to other relationships. You ridiculed and demeaned him to distract from your refusal to answer fundamental questions.

    So “what applies to one, must be equally applied to all” is just lip-service to you. As Lew said “Maybe it isn’t quite the “all” you label it?”

    The definition of bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.”
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

    Of which Striker991/Greg Owens’ discrimination and intolerance toward relationships of which he doesn’t approve is a prime example.

    Like

  43. You guys crack me up…thinking there is some power in “outing” me by using my real name.

    And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

    Really.

    Hey…it’s “Those Guys”.

    Heh. LOL.

    Like

  44. Personally, I could give a crap who you really are, Greg is the name you chose for your email.

    It’s your bigoted views towards other loving people that disturbs me. That and your obvious double standard towards those that don’t fit within your narrow view of who should receive equal rights.

    Do you care to ever address anything actually said?

    Or do you just intend to keep showing what a pompous ass you are?

    Like

  45. When you decide to stop playing this silly game that is getting rather old and stale, people may start taking you seriously. Until then, everyone knows what your real opinions and views are, and will continue to ignore you.

    Give my love to Victoria; I hope she is able to find suitable employment when KPAM completes its implosion.

    I have had enough fun here for now…thanks for the laughs!

    Like

  46. I see, if your ilk advocates equal rights, it’s all good.

    But when I step up and demand equal rights across the board for all consenting people, it’s just a “sily game?”

    Quite telling on teh cry to “end discrimination for all” and “Equal rights for all” we usually see from you.

    But, we now see who the real bigots are.

    And you still have yet to present a solid logical reason why other consenting adults should not marry, just more of your bigoted actions.

    Don’t worry about KPAM, I imagine they are going to surprise you.

    Like

  47. Striker991 Says: March 2, 2011 at 5:27 pm: “You guys crack me up…thinking there is some power in “outing” me by using my real name.”

    Striker991/Greg Owens – I would have thought you would have wanted your real name associated with your self-proclaimed “pummeling” of “Those Guys”. So why the objection in using your real name?

    Or is it that you’d rather not have your real name tarnished by the revelation of your bigotry towards those in relationships of which you disapprove.

    Evidently you think there is some power in hiding behind the ambiguity of a false identity to provide cover for your bigotry.

    And to show we are actually engaged in a “silly game’ would require you to make an actual argument (i.e. reasons that support this conclusion). You haven’t done so.

    Your proclamations of ridicule toward Lew and I does not make it true. It only shows your need to change the subject because your position is so weak that your refuse to answer the basic questions of applying rights equally to all.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: