DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

why do you keep using race as a crutch? race is not the same thing as homosexuality.

 

lol. i bet you thought 'freedom fries' was a good idea too.

 

There seems to be a great deal of interest in the use of the phrase "child abuse".

For me, I'm not referring to the "haul your ass to jail and send the kid to CPS" type abuse. I'm referring to the unintentional warping of an otherwise innocent mind. That's not child abuse per the standard written in the law books, but it is child abuse from the perspective of teaching an incredibly impressionable child to be a bigot; to forego the mantra of liberty and freedom for all peoples simply due to the outdated and ugly views of the parents.

It's all in the approach, to borrow judoka's phrase. If I told my child that she must believe in the god of the bible, that would be abusive. She might spend years trying to figure out why she believes that and what it means. Worse yet if she tries then to undo that belief. If, however, I told my daughter that I believe and this is why, but that she can decide for herself what path she chooses to take - that's different.

It's all in the rigidity. Teaching your child an arbitrarily rigid stance on something as arbitrary as bigotry is abusive. Your child has no concept of "arbitrary" or "subjective". You are abusing that ignorance.


I hope this clears it up for you, Judoka.

 

I'm having a hard time taking your posts seriously as they have yet to really display any logic or consistency.

 

I am not going to raise someone else's kids. I am a teacher, a martial arts instructor, and deal with young adults all the time. In my own ways I teach my values to my students but they come from families who have raised them, saw to their education and loved them. I can give them a different experience from what their parents have but I cannot and should not take the place of their parents. Ultimately they decide what their own values are.

Let me give you a personal example. In Judo we bow all the time but there have been problems with students from very religious backgrounds who believe that they can only bow before God and bowing to another person is idolatry. I believe bowing is very important to Judo and has no religious overtones but is a sign of respect to each of us as fellow Judoka and humans. As a Judo instructor I can tell them my beliefs but its not up to me to say that a devout Muslim family has abused their children by teaching that bowing to people is wrong even though it means they can't do Judo.

We live in a marketplace of ideas and parents have a right to teach their values to their children and we as teachers and fellow members of society to argue against those values. Those are not in conflict.

 

ah yes, standard e-debate procedure. Deny that your opponent's argument lacks 'logic' and 'consistency' or call them 'stupid' while labeling others 'unamerican.' Countdown to invocation of Godwin's law in 3...2...1

Unlike you, however, I have a healthy respect for the rule of law which this country is founded upon. Until DOMA is overturned (and given the ridiculousness of article 1 it shouldn't be too hard) I respect that it is indeed the law of the land. And because I have such a healthy respect for the rule of law, I do not recognize the need to enforce equality when such equality does not exist. No matter what people would have you believe, homosexual "marriage" is not the same as heterosexual marriage. Can gay people love each other just as much as straight people? Sure. But the government's job is not to require love as a base criteria for marriage. It is only a contract between men and women of certain ages. Is that logical and consistent enough for you?

 

no it iz legal, that is y u iz getting OAND on netz.

 

koko:

So your arguments are based entirely on the fact that DOMA exists as a law at this point in time? In other words, you would support anything provided it was "law"?



That's absurd.



Enjoy your evening.

 

onoes inb4 motivational with 'pwned' in big red letters

 

We are playing a bit fast and loose with the term "abuse" and I don't believe that BJ meant it in terms of hauling someone off to jail. Even so I still disagree with the use of the term to imply a psychological harm. I'm not going to deny that there has been a lot of harm done to children from teaching belief systems that they were unable to live up to but I have a hard time accusing someone of abusing their child even in the psychological sense without knowing more and without considering how I would want to bring up my children.

I don't have kids but I know its not an easy thing to raise them. I also know that many children haven't lived up to the expectations that their parents have set for them. Is it abuse then when kids grow up to not be what their parents wanted them to be?

When and if I have kids I will certainly want to impart my values to them. If they can't live up to them I would hope I would still love them and accept them even while I might be dissapointed.

You're right approach has a lot to do it with it which is why I am very hesitant to say something is philosophical or psychological abuse when we don't know for certain how that will end up being expressed.

 

I can't believe you just equated bowing before Judo to potentially telling a gay kid he'll go to hell if he ever loves who he loves.

Or maybe I can.

I'm not teaching a class here so I don't face the problem of a teacher overstepping his bounds. I'm in a debate forum arguing points I believe to be true. If you don't like it, report me or put me on ignore. I'm not likely to conform to your standards of politeness, largely because I believe they are silly.

But your example of religion dictating that these kids can't bow proves beyond all proof for me that you don't have any idea what I'm talking about. No kid ever killed himself because he wasn't allowed to bow to you Judoka. Plenty have died of the shame that a parent like Landlord Landry has instilled.

I will speak out against that sort of parenting here until I'm banned and then I'll speak out against it somewhere else. I couldn't care less whether or not you approve.

 

Because they are exactly the same in one important way: Bigotry has been acceptable towards both before it wasn't. In every single area, what gays are going through now blacks went through before. And in every area, there was someone like you defending his right to discriminate.

And in each of those areas the change came from people pointing out how wrong that bigotry was. That's what I'm doing here. You're the guy in the black hat that makes it necessary. If it wasn't you it would have been somebody else. If you don't learn it from me (I'm perhaps not the most persuasive guy, swinging my hammer all over the place) I hope you'll learn elsewhere the error of your ways. Eventually. For your kids' sake if not your own.

 

No. But the law has survived quite a few challenges, and the SC has declined to hear arguments on it. So there you go. Not all laws are good; however the lack of action by the SC is fairly telling. Whether I personally believe in the underlying principle, that marriage is between a man and a woman, is irrelevant.

 

This gets weirder and weirder.

So you don't support gay marriage because the supreme court has declined to hear arguments regarding DOMA? Or, more globally, your principles, and the principles of this country, are irrelevant if the law is written in opposition to them? What the heck are you trying to say? That the law, even if unjust, is the proverbial "end of the line"? Are you serious?

 

See, that's the thing. The supreme court is the arbiter of what the 'principles of this country' are about. That's why they are a co-equal branch of the government. My argument does center around DOMA; this has always been the case barring a few sidetracks. I'm not sure why you're so confused about this...was I not clear before that the law is equitable? I believe that the lack of action by the SC underlines this point.

 

Thank god they never make mistakes. Let's ask Dred Scott about it for further clarification...

Their fallibility makes your claims of "it's the law, therefore it's cool to hate the gays!" silly.

Yes, I know that was childish. I'm channeling Sam Fisher through my chardonnay glass.

Because I got enbroiled in this thread after the BJ commentary began and all I saw from you was nonsensical silliness. E.g.: Claiming someone "can't" teach their kids something. My apologies for not dutifully reading your previous posts - but I believe some amount of understanding is due me given the context and content of the "sidetracks".

It was clear, but ridiculous. The lack of action means nothing. It only serves to highlight BJ's assertion that the current politics of gay marriage favor the bigoted.

 

it's not bigotry though.

I'd like you to show me one instance of a black man who stopped being black. even for a minute.

so, because a person has decided to be gay, I now have to not only live with that decision, I have to accept the fact that their marriage has the same definition, same exact meaning as mine, and at least according to you, I have to teach my kids that it's perfectly fine to regard such a decision as moral and just. Your delusion is entertaining.

 

You got a deal. Right after you show me someone who stopped being gay.

 

seriously?

if you need someone else to post that for you, then this debate is null and void.

 

dred scott was resolved by amendments 13 and 14 to the constitution. I believe the SC would rule the same way today if those two were not in the constitution. While the SC is fallible, there are 9 of them and they are generally pretty smart people who have studied a lot of law. They don't toss out laws because they think they're "not cool."

ok

Surely you jest.