tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post3197252231625557502..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Homosexuality as a species of Narcissism: Why same-sex marriage is becoming so popularMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59834673403033224422016-11-21T14:33:30.491-05:002016-11-21T14:33:30.491-05:00The Order of the Universe is yin and yang, opposit...The Order of the Universe is yin and yang, opposites which attract and create life. While heterosexuals can also be narcissistic in their mutual attraction, homosexuality violates this order to an extreme. <br /><br />You write a very good article, many thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-42677584540276633222011-07-25T10:45:09.838-04:002011-07-25T10:45:09.838-04:00Lee said...
So then you reject the notion that som...Lee said...<br /><i>So then you reject the notion that someone could sincerely believe in upholding and defending the Constitution. </i><br /><br />On the contrary, in any case where the vote is not unanimous, both sides believe they are upholding and defending thd Constitution. Both the majority and the dissenter in Plessy vs. Ferguson believed they were upholding Constitutional principles. <One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19100633143424017302011-07-23T10:38:56.520-04:002011-07-23T10:38:56.520-04:00> Tomato, tomato.
More like cause and effect.
...> Tomato, tomato.<br /><br />More like cause and effect.<br /><br />> If he were not blindly partisan, he'd acknowledge that "activism" is merely code for "I disagree". There is no such thing as judicial activism, just findings people don't like.<br /><br />So then you reject the notion that someone could sincerely believe in upholding and defending the Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34516866072017455982011-07-21T13:50:00.960-04:002011-07-21T13:50:00.960-04:00For me, it works the other way: if Sowell says it,...<i>For me, it works the other way: if Sowell says it, I want to hear it.</i><br /><br />Tomato, tomato.<br /><br /><i>If he were as blindly partisan as you seem to be suggesting, why would he have written about the history of conservative judicial activism at all?</i><br /><br />If he were not blindly partisan, he'd acknowledge that "activism" is merely code for "I disagree&One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-89393314791074426772011-07-20T13:04:06.319-04:002011-07-20T13:04:06.319-04:00> He will tell you what you want to hear.
For ...> He will tell you what you want to hear.<br /><br />For me, it works the other way: if Sowell says it, I want to hear it.<br /><br />If he were as blindly partisan as you seem to be suggesting, why would he have written about the history of conservative judicial activism at all?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-80593424439490974712011-07-20T12:58:39.722-04:002011-07-20T12:58:39.722-04:00Lee said...
I'm relying on Thomas Sowell as my...Lee said...<br /><i>I'm relying on Thomas Sowell as my authority on that issue, </i><br /><br />He will tell you what you want to hear.<br /><br />The truth is that today, as always, both conservatives and liberals use and ignore te "original intent" whenever they see fit.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-26473948560387988092011-07-20T10:38:21.113-04:002011-07-20T10:38:21.113-04:00'Since you're the one who first pontificat...'Since you're the one who first pontificated about what the "definition of marriage" is or was, it's your responsibility to you to clarify your use of the term, not mine to come up with an alternative definition.'<br /><br />I never pontificated on, nor proposed a 'definition of marriage' myself. My whole point was that the very idea of an immutable 'Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63364643975298004982011-07-20T09:54:56.017-04:002011-07-20T09:54:56.017-04:00Seamus - then what is the 'definition of marri...<i>Seamus - then what is the 'definition of marriage' and why should it not include unions between people of the same sex?</i><br /><br />Since you're the one who first pontificated about what the "definition of marriage" is or was, it's your responsibility to you to clarify your use of the term, not mine to come up with an alternative definition. It is, however, Seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065227784774273923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79549830831401943052011-07-20T09:38:08.696-04:002011-07-20T09:38:08.696-04:00I agree that, before the Warren Court, there was a...I agree that, before the Warren Court, there was a lot of judicial activism from the conservatives, though I'm not familiar with many specifics. I'm relying on Thomas Sowell as my authority on that issue, see his discussion in his book, "Knowledge and Decisions."<br /><br />Since the Warren Court, however, the pendulum has swung the other way with a vengeance.<br /><br />Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47581239491009196572011-07-20T09:06:46.485-04:002011-07-20T09:06:46.485-04:00Lee said...
That's why liberal judges invented...Lee said...<br /><i>That's why liberal judges invented "emanations of penumbras."</i><br /><br />Conservative justices have been subverting the Constitution at least since Plessy vs. Ferguson. The notion that conservatives are the ones who really believe in the Constitution si demagoguery, not serious debate.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64126196089000743182011-07-19T14:40:24.818-04:002011-07-19T14:40:24.818-04:00> Equal protection is in the Constitution, whic...> Equal protection is in the Constitution, which is difficult to amend.<br /><br />That's why liberal judges invented "emanations of penumbras."Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-46604705630419338922011-07-19T14:20:53.205-04:002011-07-19T14:20:53.205-04:00Lee,
"what is stopping anyone else from simp...Lee,<br /><br />"what is stopping anyone else from simply changing any inconvenient definition? What about "equal protection"?"<br /><br />Equal protection is in the Constitution, which is difficult to amend.<br /><br />"So not only do you have to expand the definition of marriage, you must as well maintain that the Constitution protects groups based on sexual attraction.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41935241098782505042011-07-19T13:23:50.478-04:002011-07-19T13:23:50.478-04:00Seamus said...
Good grief. No, the "definitio...Seamus said...<br /><i>Good grief. No, the "definition of marriage" did not depend on skin color. Certain regulations enacted in certain jurisdictions restricted legal marriage to those between people of the same race, but that wasn't an attempt to "define" marriage. </i><br /><br />Seamus makes an excellent point here. Changing the laws regarding marriage is not changingOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-39409727803550084602011-07-19T13:14:05.018-04:002011-07-19T13:14:05.018-04:00Lee said...
... precursors of Darwinism -- the ide...Lee said...<br /><i>... precursors of Darwinism -- the idea that the children would become greater than the parents. </i><br /><br />I have no idea what "Darwinism" teaches, bt the Theory of Evolution does not teach that children tend to become "greater" than their parents (whatever "greater" is supposed to mean).One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9426789095976757342011-07-19T13:11:06.657-04:002011-07-19T13:11:06.657-04:00In other words, the purpose of reproductive organs...<i>In other words, the purpose of reproductive organs is not reproduction.<br /><br />Got it.</i><br /><br />More like reproduction is one of the many consequences of the proper use of sexual organs, other consequences still being active in homosexual relaitonships.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-18303036229469086162011-07-19T12:25:31.911-04:002011-07-19T12:25:31.911-04:00'I have no idea why you, of all people, are fi...'I have no idea why you, of all people, are fighting the notion that marriage evolved. '<br /><br />I am fighting the notion of using the term 'evolved' in this debate because it is not pertinent. Of course, ultimately - if you adhere to materialism as I tentatively do - everything could be said to have evolved. But that simply reduces the statement to a tautology. <br /><br />TheSingringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-66888347193615975682011-07-19T11:50:42.266-04:002011-07-19T11:50:42.266-04:00I have no idea why you, of all people, are fightin...I have no idea why you, of all people, are fighting the notion that marriage evolved. Anything is allowed, I suppose, if it allows you to contradict something I said. I guess air is wrong if I breathe it.<br /><br />But whether marriage evolved or not, I don't see how "ordained by man" contradicts "evolved."<br /><br />Doesn't matter for my purposes. Let's use Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17950504388238352222011-07-19T10:40:07.269-04:002011-07-19T10:40:07.269-04:00'So now you are maintaining that your incessan...'So now you are maintaining that your incessant use of question-begging epithets constitutes sound argument? And it is somehow irrational of me to notice?'<br /><br />And this kind of post is supposed to constitute your argument that gay marriage is detrimental to society...how exactly?<br /><br />'It evolved. Or it was ordained by God, and I don't think you want to go there, do Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-44129805282589754542011-07-19T10:26:11.015-04:002011-07-19T10:26:11.015-04:00> You can't depend on the dictionary as a d...> You can't depend on the dictionary as a defense. <br /><br />If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your agenda, what is stopping anyone else from simply changing any inconvenient definition? What about "equal protection"?<br /><br />As marriage is defined, gays have the same right to marry as straights: the right to seek for a mate of the opposite sex.<br /><brLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-24375742428131256662011-07-19T10:16:05.344-04:002011-07-19T10:16:05.344-04:00Seamus - then what is the 'definition of marri...Seamus - then what is the 'definition of marriage' and why should it not include unions between people of the same sex?Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59615513718274777562011-07-19T10:04:48.527-04:002011-07-19T10:04:48.527-04:00The 'definition of marriage' used to be th...<i>The 'definition of marriage' used to be that whoever was marrying had to be of the same skin colour.</i><br /><br />Good grief. No, the "definition of marriage" did not depend on skin color. Certain regulations enacted in certain jurisdictions restricted legal marriage to those between people of the same race, but that wasn't an attempt to "define" marriage. Seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065227784774273923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-57853773192568078092011-07-19T09:52:38.671-04:002011-07-19T09:52:38.671-04:00This is the request:
'Specifically, what agen...This is the request:<br /><br />'Specifically, what agenda are you talking about and what about it displeases you? Maybe you have some really solid arguments and some good evidence to show that this perceived agenda is damaging to society and is causing a lot of problems? I'd like to hear about it.<br /><br />I said it above: It is trivially easy to convert someone like me in this matter Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-3721430460155199782011-07-19T09:36:53.067-04:002011-07-19T09:36:53.067-04:00Lee,
"Remove the change in the definition of...Lee,<br /><br />"Remove the change in the definition of marriage, and there is no equal protection issue."<br /><br />You can't depend on the dictionary as a defense. If the state is going to make gender based laws, it has to have a rational basis for doing so if those laws are challenged. And I'm still waiting for Martin to actually give a rational basis, rather than merely KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-15838461818609479282011-07-19T09:22:53.080-04:002011-07-19T09:22:53.080-04:00> Lee, what is your obsession with the 'def...> Lee, what is your obsession with the 'definition of marriage'? <br /><br />Why don't we talk about your obsession with question-begging epithets?<br /><br />> The 'definition of marriage' used to be that whoever was marrying had to be of the same skin colour. <br /><br />So you are another one of those who believe that marriage evolved arbitrarily with regard to sex.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-5134231408062503512011-07-19T09:08:43.408-04:002011-07-19T09:08:43.408-04:00'Your whole spiel is dependent on the definiti...'Your whole spiel is dependent on the definition of marriage changing from what it was, to what now suits your agenda.'<br /><br />Lee, what is your obsession with the 'definition of marriage'? <br /><br />The 'definition of marriage' used to be that whoever was marrying had to be of the same skin colour. There apparently were societies in the past where the 'Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.com