Saturating my circles.

I am sorry. I have a very strong opinion about this. My point of view stems from the philosophical root of our country (in my opinion), Classical Liberalism, which (in my opinion) requires the absolute division of church and state. (On a very fundamental level where PB is coming from.)

Marriage is a legal construction and through history was largely arranged due to its material benefits to the associated families. The notion of marriage for love (although having roots in greek and roman culture) is in its present form a modern social phenomenon.

Thus we have it as a legal construction which has developed a social definition over time due to societal norms. Now my views as a classical liberal demand that the state does not purposefully influence this social definition. IE, strict separation of church and state.

How can the state influence thought? Through its institutions. Adults tend to be stuck in their ways, and so the concern then comes to how the state influence the thoughts of children. So we come to Xeos' basis for his reasoning. The state should not influence the thinking of our children through public schooling. This is very very true.

Mandating marriage as the union of a man and a woman does just this. Not only does it have this result within schools, but it does this on an absolute macro level. Quite simply, if the basis for the definition of marriage comes from religious views, those views have no business to be even entertained by the state.

Now, this goes both ways (as is the concern of Xeos). All too often we all have had teachers in school who impose their personal viewpoints onto their students. This is the micro level influence of the state. Do note that this occurs not because the state has mandated anything, but because the state has given power to some individual who is abusing it. This problem cannot be fixed by a macro mandate and will persist despite the outcome of the vote. This problem stems from many many complex social issues (lack of honest/intellecutal/moral teachers, lack of honest/intellectual/moral administrations, lack of the will from families to expend the effort required to enforce the aforementioned, etc.). It is a very complicated micro level issue.

Voting for a mandate on the definition of marriage (state intervention on a social definition) is morally unjustified from a classical liberal perspective, and does not even address the primary concern voiced by its proponents (the micro level influence of state empowered individuals).

Now if you are in favor of totalitarian statism (ie, Z), well, then we have other things to talk about.

My totalitarian state does not care who you're boning. In fact, we turn off the cameras during that "special time" because frankly, we don't want to know.

Moreover, the entrenching of anti-homosexual social norms in western culture has its root in state intervention. Specifically in a single state intervention: on August 6, 390 roman emporer Theodosius I declared homosexuality to be illegal, punishable by burning at the stake. Humorously, despite this the state still collected taxes on homosexual brothels.

Perhaps those under religious dementia should sacrifice a lamb...or rabbit ...or your first child to sway (Raptor) Jesus to smite the "gays" and their "marriage". Oh shit I'm sorry is the word sacrifice and smite trademarked by your religion of choice too?


Let's put it into perspective, nobody is askign the following:

1. When a man licks another man's asshole, we will now call that "Holy Communion"

2. When a man drops his balls in another man's mouth, we will now call that "Act of Contrition"

3. When five men ride each other in a circle, we will now call that "Rite of Confession"

Just simply,

4. When a man pledges his life to another man, we will now call that "Marriage"


You're all welcome for the images.

I think this thread just went to 11.

God Bless America!

Peanutbutter wrote:

I think this thread just went to 11.

Why don't you just make 10 louder?

Galt wrote:

Peanutbutter wrote:

I think this thread just went to 11.

Why don't you just make 10 louder?

No... you see this goes to 11, that's one more than 10.

Xeos wrote:

Either way we have already voted on this and won.

Thats the thing, it shouldn't be up to a vote.

- Z - wrote:

My totalitarian state does not care who you're boning. In fact, we turn off the cameras during that "special time" because frankly, we don't want to know.

What if I like being watched?

Peanutbutter wrote:

Galt wrote:

Peanutbutter wrote:

I think this thread just went to 11.

Why don't you just make 10 louder?

No... you see this goes to 11, that's one more than 10.

lol spinal tap