Keyes
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Show me where I have decided anything for anyone. I was giving my opinion. Apparently, to you, my opinion somehow carries the weight of making decisions for others, whereas yours is just simply an opinion. Ok, I get your point: from my point of view, your position has an influence on somebody else's life (the pregnant woman). I didn't realize that from your point of view, mine did too (the "baby"), 'cause I don't consider the embryo as a person, a human being. Gary Kirkham wrote: What does that have to do with anything I think that women, being the ones who carry the fetus, may have a more important opinion on the subject than we have. We are talking also about their body, after all. Gary Kirkham wrote: I believe that the vast majority of abortions come down to someone not wanting to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions I don't think so: I believe each abortion is a drama for the woman doing it, something very hard to decide, to do and to live with. - Are you also against the use of medications as Mifepristone/RU486? :confused:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: We are talking also about their body, after all. No, the fetus is not part of her body in the sense that an arm or a leg is part of the body. In cold scientific terms she is simply a host organism for another, separate, life form. Even the process of birth has been medically described as the mother's body rejecting[^] a foreign object much the same way it would reject a transplanted organ. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Has Alan Keyes always been this irrational, or has his run for Illinois senator made him even moreso? Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, said Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian. His comments came during an interview with SIRIUS satellite radio. Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is." Link[^] ( Does that mean we should prevent old people and infertile couples from marrying - because those would be marriages "based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism"? ) "[Obama] has taken the slaveholder's position." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1190195/posts[^] (For those who don't know, both Keyes and Obama are black.) ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
He'll be voting for segregation next :sigh: The tigress is here :-D
-
KaЯl wrote: We are talking also about their body, after all. No, the fetus is not part of her body in the sense that an arm or a leg is part of the body. In cold scientific terms she is simply a host organism for another, separate, life form. Even the process of birth has been medically described as the mother's body rejecting[^] a foreign object much the same way it would reject a transplanted organ. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
I agree, I didn't mean "their body" in the meaning the fetus is part of it, but their body is the host, not our.
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
-
I simply disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to say that marriage is about protecting children, the product of procreation, therefore marriage is about procreation. Hedonistic or not, marriage of infertile or elderly couples does not require a redefinition of marriage, hence such unions do not represent a threat to marriage from hedonistic forces. The hedonism of homosexuality does represent such a threat because it does reguire such a redefinition - marriage no longer between a man and a woman. It requires changing what marriage is strictly for hedonistic reasons. I don't think there is anything illogical about that at all. (That is not to say I agree with it, however). It is absolutely about stopping "gay marriage", I don't see anyone saying otherwise. Gay's have exactly the same marriage rights that everyone else does - as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: The hedonism of homosexuality does represent such a threat because it does reguire such a redefinition - marriage no longer between a man and a woman. It requires changing what marriage is strictly for hedonistic reasons. Keyes argument is that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children. But, if gays can have children and can adopt children, he can no longer call it hedonistic - what's hedonistic about that, afterall? Now here's the point: you might argue that gay marriage requires a new definition of marriage or creates a bad home environment for children, and is therefore bad, but you cannot argue that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children (because we could allow gays to have children - biological or adopted) or doesn't create the proper upbringing for children (because a bad home environment cannot be categorized as "hedonistic" - a bad home environment is a different type of problem). So, there you have it - you might argue against gay marriage for various reasons (redefinition of marriage is bad, creates a bad home environment, etc), but those are different arguements than "gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children" - an argument that falls flat, though you don't seem to recognize the fact that you are arguing something different than Keyes. You use the word "hedonistic" (like Keyes), but your basis for claiming that gays are hedonistic is totally different (you accept that gays are hedonistic regardless of whether they are married, Keyes says that people who get married without the intention of having children are - as a result - hedonists). So you're not even willing to argue Keyes case, but claim that his argument is somehow rational. :confused: Contrary to what you may think, I'm not making an argument for gay marriage, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of his position. Imagine if Alan Keyes walked up to you and said, "If the world wasn't round, we'd all fall off; therefore, the world is round." You know that his argument isn't logical, but the minute you start to argue against the stupidity of that position someone comes up and starts saying "but the world IS round because... (insert different reason)" That's about where this discussion is. You are arguing against gay marriage, but for different reasons than Keyes, but you won't admit the stupidity of Keyes position because you think it will somehow compromise the "stop gay marriage" movement. Personally, I think
-
Brit wrote: (For those who don't know, both Keyes and Obama are black.) And? Isn't that sad that in a democracy promoting human rights, skin colour could be considered as relevant?
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: Isn't that sad that in a democracy promoting human rights, skin colour could be considered as relevant? In the context of Keyes saying that Obama is like a slavemaster, then skin color does become relevant. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
KaЯl wrote: Isn't that sad that in a democracy promoting human rights, skin colour could be considered as relevant? In the context of Keyes saying that Obama is like a slavemaster, then skin color does become relevant. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
That's what I don't "understand". As written in the second link you provided, "First thing I understand, by the way, is that slavery is not a racial issue; it's an issue of human justice." Slavery wasn't limited to black people only through history, right? My ancesters were probably serfs, attached to the Land and property of their Lord, as were most of european people during the Middle Age and sometimes after. But I probably miss the whole point :suss:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
-
That's what I don't "understand". As written in the second link you provided, "First thing I understand, by the way, is that slavery is not a racial issue; it's an issue of human justice." Slavery wasn't limited to black people only through history, right? My ancesters were probably serfs, attached to the Land and property of their Lord, as were most of european people during the Middle Age and sometimes after. But I probably miss the whole point :suss:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: Slavery wasn't limited to black people only through history, right? In the context of U.S. history it was. KaЯl wrote: My ancesters were probably serfs Were? ;P "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: children deserve a mom and a dad Agreed, but by that reasoning, it would be just as logical to either ban separations, or take away children from separated parents and put them in 'real' families. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: but by that reasoning, it would be just as logical to either ban separations, or take away children from separated parents and put them in 'real' families. Absolutely. I think single family households are generally bad for children. But I just don't think it necessarily follows logically that,therefore, homosexual parents are an improvement. I think society, as a general rule, should encourage and protect the notion that parents should consist of a mom and a dad, regardless of how difficult it might be to have a 100% compliance with that ideal. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
KaЯl wrote: Slavery wasn't limited to black people only through history, right? In the context of U.S. history it was. KaЯl wrote: My ancesters were probably serfs Were? ;P "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The hedonism of homosexuality does represent such a threat because it does reguire such a redefinition - marriage no longer between a man and a woman. It requires changing what marriage is strictly for hedonistic reasons. Keyes argument is that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children. But, if gays can have children and can adopt children, he can no longer call it hedonistic - what's hedonistic about that, afterall? Now here's the point: you might argue that gay marriage requires a new definition of marriage or creates a bad home environment for children, and is therefore bad, but you cannot argue that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children (because we could allow gays to have children - biological or adopted) or doesn't create the proper upbringing for children (because a bad home environment cannot be categorized as "hedonistic" - a bad home environment is a different type of problem). So, there you have it - you might argue against gay marriage for various reasons (redefinition of marriage is bad, creates a bad home environment, etc), but those are different arguements than "gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children" - an argument that falls flat, though you don't seem to recognize the fact that you are arguing something different than Keyes. You use the word "hedonistic" (like Keyes), but your basis for claiming that gays are hedonistic is totally different (you accept that gays are hedonistic regardless of whether they are married, Keyes says that people who get married without the intention of having children are - as a result - hedonists). So you're not even willing to argue Keyes case, but claim that his argument is somehow rational. :confused: Contrary to what you may think, I'm not making an argument for gay marriage, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of his position. Imagine if Alan Keyes walked up to you and said, "If the world wasn't round, we'd all fall off; therefore, the world is round." You know that his argument isn't logical, but the minute you start to argue against the stupidity of that position someone comes up and starts saying "but the world IS round because... (insert different reason)" That's about where this discussion is. You are arguing against gay marriage, but for different reasons than Keyes, but you won't admit the stupidity of Keyes position because you think it will somehow compromise the "stop gay marriage" movement. Personally, I think
Brit wrote: Keyes argument is that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children. I just don't feel that is necessarily what he is saying. He is saying that homosexuals are as biologically capable as anyone else of procreating their own children in the normal way, in a normal marriage. They don't do that because they are hedonistic. IOW, their hedonism is what makes them infertile. Otherwise, they could have children. While I think that logic is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it is inconsitent or stupid. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Brit wrote: Keyes argument is that gay marriage is hedonistic because it doesn't involve children. I just don't feel that is necessarily what he is saying. He is saying that homosexuals are as biologically capable as anyone else of procreating their own children in the normal way, in a normal marriage. They don't do that because they are hedonistic. IOW, their hedonism is what makes them infertile. Otherwise, they could have children. While I think that logic is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it is inconsitent or stupid. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: He is saying that homosexuals are as biologically capable as anyone else of procreating their own children in the normal way, in a normal marriage. They don't do that because they are hedonistic. IOW, their hedonism is what makes them infertile. Otherwise, they could have children. While I think that logic is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it is inconsitent or stupid. Quote: I go through this because that sets up a clear distinction--and it's not a distinction that prevails just between homosexuals and so-called heterosexuals. No. It's the distinction between what we could call an understanding of human sexuality that is based in the end upon hedonism and self-gratification, and an understanding that is based upon the essential acknowledgment of the responsibilities and obligations of procreation. ... The relationship between man and woman can be incidentally about pleasure, but essentially about procreation and family, and things that in fact transcend the immediate gratification of the parties involved. The same-sex relationship is haunted by no such necessities, no such obligations. http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/04_05_14boston.htm[^] * His distinction is between hedonism (sex without the possibility of children) and procreation (sex with the possibility of children where pleasure is merely incidental). According to Keyes, homosexuality is necessarily hedonism because it excludes the possibility of children. Some heterosexual relationships may also be characterized as "selfish hedonism". Men and women who know that they are infertile are in the same boat as homosexuals - their marriages are necessarily "selfish hedonism" because they cannot be about procreation. He also says that the entire contraception industry is about hedonism - also in line with his dichotomy of "sex as hedonism" or "sex as procreation". Whole industries, both in the entertainment media and in the production of all kinds of contraceptive devices and pills and this and that--all based upon, what? All based upon the pursuit of this form of sexual fulfillment, to free oneself from the shadow of procreation, so that it will no longer haunt the relationship, no longer burden the relationship, no longer be there as something which calls one away from the vocation of
-
That's what I don't "understand". As written in the second link you provided, "First thing I understand, by the way, is that slavery is not a racial issue; it's an issue of human justice." Slavery wasn't limited to black people only through history, right? My ancesters were probably serfs, attached to the Land and property of their Lord, as were most of european people during the Middle Age and sometimes after. But I probably miss the whole point :suss:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: That's what I don't "understand". As written in the second link you provided, "First thing I understand, by the way, is that slavery is not a racial issue; it's an issue of human justice." Historically, it is a race issue. By the same token, the word "Nazi" probably gets a greater emotional reaction from Jews than europeans, and europeans more than (say) native americans. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]