Facebook memes follow-up

I thought I’d post this comment and my response that resulted from the Facebook memes post.  Looks like I have another fan.

Your “logic” is irrevocobly flawed. I’m just curious, when was it that you “proved” your civil right to marry a woman? When was it that African Americans “proved” their civil right to freedom? When did they “prove” their civil right to equal treatment? And what did they do to prove it? As was the case with slavery, just because something is done a certain way for a long time, doesn’t make it the “correct” or “only” way. If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on? If the Bible doesn’t influence our judicial system, what do you propose as an argument in the Supreme Court, against it? Will you argue that gay people haven’t sucessfully proven their civil right to marry? Establishing a burden of proof does not apply to civil rights.

I would love to read your rebuttle, because I am honestly trying to understand your thought process. Sadly, I’m sure you will not allow this comment to be posted, because it rationally and coherently refutes your reasoning. I have found that Conservative bloggers tend to deny the comments that are based on facts, when the facts aren’t in their favor. I truly hope you aren’t as cowardly as the rest.

Regarding conservative blogs moderating you, please hold off on martyr status until you do some self-reflection. Your comment here was an extended straw-man argument about religious views. Ironically, your anti-religion bigotry and prejudices fit much better with the pictured meme than our view about real marriage. It is self-serving on your part to go to conservative blogs with your fallacious rants and then pre-emptively call them cowards for not wanting to discuss things with you. If I try to avoid an irrational crank at work I’m being wise, not cowardly.

If you want to gain some credibility here, please provide links to where you have made comments like this to theological liberals (read: fake Christians) who advocate for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.” You may also want to consider how I didn’t make religious arguments, I made secular ones.

If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting opposing gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. . . .

You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?

You might also want to consider how the 1st Amendment protects religious speech and does not prohibit it. As with the Obama administration, you have it backwards. My religion teaches me that it is wrong to beat up atheists and steal their property. Using your logic I’d have to be silent on that in the public square or even vote the opposite, lest I “force” my religious views on atheists.

Now to a couple of your arguments:

I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on?

That’s a clever rhetorical trick you play there, and sadly enough, it works on many people. You concede my key point that by nature and design gay couples can’t produce children, but you simultaneously pretend that I haven’t made any secular arguments. Not so fast. Since we both agree on that fact, you should ask why government is involved in any personal relationships. The government does not regulate my love for my wife, nor does it need to. It is only involved because the obvious ideal, supported by countless studies and common sense, is that a child be raised by his mother and father, as well as the scientific fact that children are produced by unions of one man and one woman. Even Darwinists should see the merits of that.

And I didn’t use the term “traditional,” you inserted that. Words mean things, and throughout history the term marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have some dictionaries bowed to pressure and modified it. And your overly broad argument also justifies polygamy and incest and is already being used by pedophiles. After all, if you are changing the definition of marriage why do you get to pull up the drawbridge after you’ve made your preferred change? Why won’t you let others change the laws to suit their desires?

And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children.

Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Since you brought up the religion topic I thought I’d share a summary of what the one true God says about marriage and parenting:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Also see this secular case against “same-sex marriage” as well as these:

Problems with pro-gay theology  

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology     

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

9 thoughts on “Facebook memes follow-up

  1. If my argument is “fallacious”, why are you unable to provide a shred of evidence to prove me wrong? Our debate concerns the legality of gay marriage in a court of law, yet you didn’t even bother to address ANY of the points I made regarding our Constitution, and the role civil rights plays in the argument. The only thing you mentioned was:

    “You might also want to consider how the 1st Amendment protects religious speech and does not prohibit it. As with the Obama administration, you have it backwards. My religion teaches me that it is wrong to beat up atheists and steal their property. Using your logic I’d have to be silent on that in the public square or even vote the opposite, lest I “force” my religious views on atheists.”

    First of all, we aren’t speaking of a person’s right to religious speech. Obviously, I know people have a right to free speech; religious or otherwise. Again, you refuse to respond to what I actually wrote, which is religion’s influence on our judicial system. We aren’t arguing whether or not you can speak out against it, we are arguing the LEGALITY of it. We are assessing the likelihood of gay marriage becoming legal. I KNOW your religion condemns it. I ALREADY KNOW THAT. I was asking for you to provide evidence from our Constitution, or the laws created from it, that support your claim.

    It goes without saying that our Constitution protects your right to “religious speech”, but whether you acknowledge it or not, there IS a separation between church and state:

    **”The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”
    **”Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.”
    -http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

    Again, I will ask you, WHAT IS YOUR SECULAR ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE AGAINST THE LEGALITY OF GAY MARRIAGE? Why have you not addressed your statement that I was responding to in the first place? What court cases have you found that required a person to show “proof”, in order to be awarded a certain civil right? And what did they do to provide “proof”? If your entire argument against the meme you posted, was that gay people have failed to “prove” their civil right to marry, then you should be able to provide several court cases, (or just one!) that required someone to show proof, in order to be awarded a civil right. AGAIN, tell me how you “proved” your civil right to marry your wife. Tell me how slaves “proved” their civil right to freedom. Tell me how women “proved” their civil right to vote. Your entire argument hinges on your ability to answer these questions, because if you can’t, then your statement is a big fat lie.

    “You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?”

    What is un-Constitutional about someone advocating for same sex marriage? Please cite where in the Constitution, it supports your claim that people advocating for same sex marriage, are committing “un-Constitutional intrusion”. What and who are they “intruding” on? Having opposing beliefs doesn’t constitute intrusion.

    “That’s a clever rhetorical trick you play there, and sadly enough, it works on many people. You concede my key point that by nature and design gay couples can’t produce children, but you simultaneously pretend that I haven’t made any secular arguments. Not so fast. Since we both agree on that fact, you should ask why government is involved in any personal relationships. The government does not regulate my love for my wife, nor does it need to. It is only involved because the obvious ideal, supported by countless studies and common sense, is that a child be raised by his mother and father, as well as the scientific fact that children are produced by unions of one man and one woman. Even Darwinists should see the merits of that.”

    Ha. How ironic that you would accuse ME of playing “clever rhetorical tricks”. Fine. You DID make the secular “argument” that gay couples can’t have children. I suppose, I was mistaken in assuming everyone knew that already. As I said before, lots of unions don’t produce children. So please explain to me the difference between the two. Do you propose dissolving unions that can’t/do not want to produce children? If a gay union doesn’t produce children, and neither does an infertile one, one that simply isn’t inclined to pro-create, one involving people too old, etc., what is the difference? Why should some people who are unable to procreate be allowed to marry, and others aren’t. If the inability to procreate is your argument, you would have to advocate against all unions of that nature, otherwise, your point is moot. I find it hilarious that I even have to address THIS fact, but here goes. The government IS involved in your relationship, and every other married Americans, because they are the very ones that validate a marriage. Saying vows in a church doesn’t mean you’re legally married. If you don’t go to a court house and file for a marriage license FROM THE GOVERNMENT, you aren’t legally married. You are afforded no rights as a spouse, whether it be financial, custodial, or otherwise.

    “And I didn’t use the term “traditional,” you inserted that. Words mean things, and throughout history the term marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have some dictionaries bowed to pressure and modified it. And your overly broad argument also justifies polygamy and incest and is already being used by pedophiles. After all, if you are changing the definition of marriage why do you get to pull up the drawbridge after you’ve made your preferred change? Why won’t you let others change the laws to suit their desires?”

    Yet another smokescreen…I never claimed you used the word “traditional”. It was placed in quotes by me, because you obviously believe it is the only kind of marriage, and while I disagree, I still realize that heterosexual marriage is obviously the most “popular”, or “traditional” type of marriage. As for what I like to call “A supposed Christian’s go to argument against gay marriage”, no one proposed decreasing the legal age of marriage. Gay marriage is between two consenting ADULTS. EXACTLY like heterosexual marriage. No children, no animals, and no household appliances will be afforded marriages. Just consenting adults. As for polygmy, I honestly could care less how many wives a man has, or how many husbands a woman has. Personally, for me, one nagging spouse is plenty, but I can’t pretend to know much on the subject. You should really call your choice for the next POTUS. I heard he knows a little something about it.

    “Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.”

    I completely agree. Now, what does this have to do with two consenting adults, signing a paper confirming their commitment to each other? I must have missed the relevancy.

    “Regarding conservative blogs moderating you, please hold off on martyr status until you do some self-reflection. Your comment here was an extended straw-man argument about religious views. Ironically, your anti-religion bigotry and prejudices fit much better with the pictured meme than our view about real marriage. It is self-serving on your part to go to conservative blogs with your fallacious rants and then pre-emptively call them cowards for not wanting to discuss things with you. If I try to avoid an irrational crank at work I’m being wise, not cowardly.”
    I am in no way anti-religion, I am anti-lying hypocrite. As I stated before, I have absolutely no problem with your opposition to gay marriage. You are exercising your freedom of religion, and that is well within your rights. What I do have an issue with, is your attempt to pass off your position as somehow “secular”, yet you failed to provide a single piece of evidence to validate your claim. Not only did you fail to provide evidence, you didn’t even attempt to address gay marriage’s relationship to civil rights, and the fact THAT IT WAS YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. (with the exception of your religious beliefs of course)

    Me calling you a coward, WAS pre-emptive. Since I believe there are two of you posting on this blog, the other person could very well be one of the cowards I’m referring to. Several months ago, I made a comment on a post made by you, or the other person (your wife perhaps?) who posts to this blog. It was on Feb 18, and the title was “The Fourth Most Despicable Thing Planned Parenthood Does” After reading the article full of blatant lies and twisted truths, I posted this comment:
    rightissowrong on February 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm said:
    Lies Lies Lies Lies.
    Reply ↓

    eMatters
on February 19, 2012 at 8:26 pm said: 

Gee, since you said so without offering a single fact or argument . . .
And they say the Left doesn’t know how to debate.

Reply ↓

    THEN, I did as you requested. I responded with a lengthy comment, filled with evidence to prove every “point” you made in your post, to be either a blatant lie, or an obvious manipulation of words or ideas. My response wasn’t rude or inappropriate in any way, it was simply factual. Would you like to see that response? Well you can’t. Would you like to know why? Because you or your wife refused to approve the comment. But I’m sure you already know that. Here is my proof that me calling you, or your wife a coward was a fair assessment.

    This is the comment I made, regarding the facts you asked for to back up my original comment of “lies lies lies lies”:

    rightissowrong on February 21, 2012 at 12:11 am said:
    Oh no…why is my comment still in moderation? You’re not going to allow your readers to refute my claims? Make me sound stupid? Tell me I’m going to hell?
    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Ghandi
    Finally you reply, except something seems amiss…whatever could it be? Oh wait…I know…my second comment didn’t make it past moderation, yet somehow my third did. You knew full well what comment I was referring to, when I asked why it was still being moderated. It was the comment that provided confirmable proof of your deception and lies. So, even though you refused to publish my comment, you instead, went ahead and gave yourself permission to give me a Bible lesson. If you felt compelled to, AND had the time to respond to two of the comments I made, one before, and one after the one you refused to post, what was your excuse for not publishing and responding to the other one? Clearly you felt I was worth responding to since you took the time to do it twice, what made the other one so different? Truth. I gave you what you asked for. Truth and facts to back it up. You realized that there was no way for you to twist and manipulate words this time, no way for you to evade the actual topic. So, like a coward, you refused to publish it. Unfortunately, I was brand new to Word Press, and I wasn’t aware that I couldn’t review comments I made that weren’t accepted. But, since it was based on factual information, I should be able to form an almost identical response in very little time. I know for sure you won’t approve this comment, and most likely you will block me from your page, but no worries. I’m going to do a post of my own, on Word Press and beyond, allowing people to decide for themselves. I’ll even post YOUR side of the argument, because that is usually what people. Well, at least when they aren’t liars.

    Reply ↓

    eMatters
on February 21, 2012 at 8:11 am said: 

Oh no…why is my comment still in moderation? You’re not going to allow your readers to refute my claims? Make me sound stupid? Tell me I’m going to hell?

I’ve been busy. And let’s just say that people who leave comments like “lies lies lies lies” don’t jump to the top of my priority list. History has shown them to be troll-like in nature and not the best candidates for mature dialogue. 
I will respond to one of your comments shortly. Whether it makes you sound stupid will depend on whether what you wrote sounds stupid.
If you want to know God’s design for what determines your eternal destination, I’ll be glad to share that. Short version: You are a sinner in need of a Savior. If you trust in what Jesus did for you then not only will all your sins be forgiven but Jesus’ perfect righteousness will be imputed to your account. If you don’t accept that pardon then you’ll be punished eternally for your countless sins and rebellion against a perfect and holy God.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Ghandi

First, Gandhi was overrated — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/was-mahatma-gandhi-really-a-good-person/ .
Second, people miss the irony of his statement. While appearing to be humble, it is actually the height of arrogance. He obviously feels superior to all Christians. And if he didn’t trust in Jesus for his salvation then he hadn’t learned enough about the real Jesus to assess that.
Jesus was God in flesh, so of course Christians will fall short of the ideal. But Gandhi thought he was good enough to meet God’s standards on his own. Epic fail.
That non-believers throw around the Gandhi quote to feel superior as well is symptomatic of their problem.



    The issue of gay marriage is set to be heard in the Supreme Court, within the year. Enjoy your delusion while you can, equality is right around the corner.

    • Wow! And I mean, “Wow!” And you wonder why people ban you from their blogs? I’ll answer your questions as a courtesy but you’ll want to save your keystrokes after that.

      If my argument is “fallacious”, why are you unable to provide a shred of evidence to prove me wrong?

      I did offer evidence, but you simultaneously conceded it then ignored it and pretended I didn’t offer it. I pointed out your trick and you ignored that, too. That may be why people aren’t interested in dialogue with you.

      Our debate concerns the legality of gay marriage in a court of law, yet you didn’t even bother to address ANY of the points I made regarding our Constitution, and the role civil rights plays in the argument.

      Sexual preferences aren’t civil rights.

      Again, I will ask you, WHAT IS YOUR SECULAR ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE AGAINST THE LEGALITY OF GAY MARRIAGE?

      Again, I addressed that and you ignored it. How convenient.

      What court cases have you found that required a person to show “proof”, in order to be awarded a certain civil right?

      You commit a major fallacy here and then you repeat it many times, which doesn’t make it any less fallacious. Sexual preferences are not civil rights. You can’t just make up a civil right, you have to provide reasons for it — otherwise, any pedophile, thief, murderer, etc. could claim civil rights status. Using your logic, they don’t have to prove it. That is ridiculous.

      Tell me how women “proved” their civil right to vote. Your entire argument hinges on your ability to answer these questions, because if you can’t, then your statement is a big fat lie.

      Uh, the 19th Amendment? (Did I really have to type that?)

      And have you heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

      “You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?”

      What is un-Constitutional about someone advocating for same sex marriage? Please cite where in the Constitution, it supports your claim that people advocating for same sex marriage, are committing “un-Constitutional intrusion”. What and who are they “intruding” on? Having opposing beliefs doesn’t constitute intrusion.

      You (deliberately?) missed the point. You have gone on at length about why religious views are irrelevant to opposing SSM. You are wrong, of course, but that’s a different topic. My point is simply that if you want to play that card then to be consistent you’d oppose religious arguments from either side. But you don’t, which makes you a hypocrite.

      You DID make the secular “argument” that gay couples can’t have children. I suppose, I was mistaken in assuming everyone knew that already.

      LOL. You did it again. You take my primary argument and pretend that since everyone knows it then it doesn’t factor into the debate. My point is simply that for the gov’t to get involved in relationships there has to be an important reason. They have been involved in real marriages because by nature and design children are created by those units and they are the only relationships that can provide a mother and a father to children. Countless studies show this as the ideal, so the gov’t has good reasons to encourage their stability.

      As I said before, lots of unions don’t produce children. So please explain to me the difference between the two. Do you propose dissolving unions that can’t/do not want to produce children?

      Please note that I didn’t say that they must produce children, only that children are always produced by one man and one woman. And again, only those relationships can provide a mother and a father.

      “Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.”

      I completely agree. Now, what does this have to do with two consenting adults, signing a paper confirming their commitment to each other? I must have missed the relevancy.

      The point is that those consenting adults don’t need the gov’t to be involved in their relationship. If you commit to be friends with someone do you need the gov’t to approve it?

      —–

      Re. your previous comments — that explains things! I guess I’m glad you are a regular reader. But I’ll be candid: I like dialogue and am glad to try and persuade those with an open mind, but you don’t appear to qualify. God has blessed me with time, but it isn’t unlimited in this life so I choose to use it with discretion.

      And it is illuminating that a pro-abort like you would justify killing innocent but unwanted human beings for any reason yet whine like a little kid when blog comments get moderated. I pray that you will reconsider your views. Eternity is a might long time.

    • I noticed you left another long comment even after I suggested that you not waste your keystrokes. I glanced at the first part and realized you were just launching into another fallacy-laced personal attack. I deleted it without reading more. I don’t have time for such unproductive conversations. I wish you the best and hope you’ll keep reading.

  2. Well done, ematters!, but any “discussion” with a liberal is much the same as slamming your head against a wall. And that’s because they’re so blinded by an illogical ideology that they’re incapable of discerning truth and facts from their own propaganda.
    Many (if not most – aka, the Democrat convention!) seem to have a true hate for God and godly values — but will eagerly and viciously defend the ungodly. They decide that murdering the innocent unborn is a “right” while taking the life of a convicted murdered is wrong. They defend muslim terrorist and “respect” for their religion while they malign Christianity. Simply put, they’re ‘spiritually insane’ — if that goes untreated (it is the default human setting) it leads to believing in radical ‘liberalism’, Marxist and all anti-God values. They preach tolerance when they are not; they blusters “liar!” and “hate speech”, while they tell themselves how honest and real they are. Discussion is a waste of time. Their main goal is to make themselves feel superior and just, while condemning ‘right’.

    • “Well done, ematters!, but any “discussion” with a CONSERVATIVE is much the same as slamming your head against a wall. And that’s because they’re so blinded by an illogical ideology that they’re incapable of discerning truth and facts from their own propaganda.”

      I don’t agree with the quote I parsed/altered from RightyPunditry above, but all it took was one word and you get the exact same mentality that you’ll see on most leftist blogs. Ideologues are ideologues–right is no different from left.

      The rest of RightyPunditry’s comments could be seen as high comedy/parody material on “progressive” blogs, just as you quote from liberal blogs for your own mockery among your coterie. Neither side can claim any moral high ground.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s