Welcome To The



WELCOME GUESTS! Make Your Opinions Known! Join the NFBB. It's Free and Easy.
Members can comment on topics or start their own topic.
Please Read The Board Welcome & Rules in Announcements. Then Introduce Yourself in the Chat Forum Shooting the Bull.



NEW! Want your own blog? We are now exploring FREE blog hosting for members. Click here for details.



The NFBB has one of the most informative politics and elections forums on the internet with articles and commentary compiled from numerous sources!
New, current articles added daily - many not found in the "mainstream" media.
Let the NFBB be your go-to source for what's happening in politics today.



 
Forums
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Hoosier Daddy

Avatar / Picture

Blogger
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #1 

Same-sex marriage is a scam. 

By Hoosier Daddy
May 17, 2015

Polls by homosexual organizations show that only about 2% of homosexuals have any interest in monogamous relationships, let alone marriage.  Since homosexuals, themselves, comprise a mere 2% of the U.S. population, and only 2% of that 2% (about 128,000 people in the entire U.S.) is interested in having only one partner, how did "gay" marriage become one of the most important issues for the left?

Simple: Same-sex marriage is not really about marriage at all. It’s about acceptance.

Up to the 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder. Then, the “gay” activists began disrupting APA meetings and demanding that be changed. In 1971, a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. "We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered," shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. "For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate."

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality." Activists distributed the home addresses of APA members and began sending threatening mail.

Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. It was not a medical decision, but a purely political one….and one opposed by the majority of the APA’s membership.  Only a third of the APA membership voted to approve the resolution….but the board went ahead with it, regardless. For more information and details on this action by the APA, go here:  http://tinyurl.com/koac8co

Homosexuals believed that removing homosexuality from the DSM IV as a mental disorder would give them the legitimacy and acceptance that they craved.  They soon discovered that they were wrong. Polls showed no change in the public’s acceptance of homosexuality as “normal.”

It wasn’t long after that a homosexual activist decided that the problem was that the psychiatrist-created term “homosexual” invoked a negative image in the minds of ordinary people.  It conjured mental images of the perverted acts that homosexuals perform.  So, he decided that henceforth homosexuals should be called “gay.”  “Gay”, he felt, invoked a positive image of happy, frolicking people. The media, always accommodating to any protected minority, immediately latched onto “gay” as a substitute for homosexual and began promoting the term.

Another activist conjured up the term "homophobia" to use as a pejorative against anyone who says states any unflattering facts about homosexuals.  The term is silly and senseless - literally meaning "an irrational fear of people who are the same."  However, the media, once again pandering to one of their pet minorities, immediately promoted this nonsensical term just as they did with the word 'gay.'

Unfortunately for the homosexual activists, none of these created the acceptance they were desperate for. 

Finally, and more recently, they believed if an authority like the U.S.  government should declare that homosexuals could marry just like heterosexuals, then who could claim that homosexuals are not normal?

And THAT is the impetus of the same-sex marriage movement.  It’s not about “love” or rights – it’s not even about marriage - whether it is right or wrong, it’s about ACCEPTANCE.

Copyright 2015 by the Hoosier Daddy Blog.  May be reprinted if source is linked.

0
Badesumofu

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
it’s about ACCEPTANCE


No shit it's about acceptance! I never got why this even bothered you so much. I won't rehash it further since I missed my chance to try to convince you.
0
keninva

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 734
Reply with quote  #3 
I have to admit that at first it did bother me because I felt and still feel that marriage is a rite of the church. The sad part is in the late nineteenth century people didn't have such a keen eye on the whole separation of church and state thing and marriage became a legal term and today most people believe it's a legal term when it is in fact a term and rite of the church. 

Now if they wanted to really make things right then what they need to do is get rid of the word/.term "marriage" and everyone, regardless of gender pairings gets a matrimonial license. Then you go get married according to whatever the canton of your chosen religion. The down side is many will simply reject gays right off sighting their cantons of Religion and some will embrace you with open arms. Such is life.

However, what happened is people are now trying to simply take that away from people using religion as a free pass for hate.

__________________
"It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments." then Senator Obama, "Meet The Press" - Sunday, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST
0
allixpeeke

New Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #4 
Government Is a Scam: A Rejoinder to “Hoosier Daddy” on the Issue of Same-sex Marriage
By Alexander S. Peak
9 August 2016

“Hoosier Daddy” (a nom de plume of a conservative blogger) has, on 17 May 2015, written a piece he titled “Same-sex marriage is a scam.” Intending to be a scathing review, it falls flat, coming across as a dull diatribe that fails to appreciate its own irrelevance to the actual topic it aims to critique. Below, I respond to its criticisms and claims.

I

“Hoosier Daddy” writes, “Polls by homosexual organizations show that only about 2% of homosexuals have any interest in monogamous relationships, let alone marriage.”

Whether this is true or not, it is irrelevant. Central planners have no right to regulate marriage regardless how how many homosexuals—and regardless of how many people in general—are (A) interested in marriage and (B) interested in freedom of association.

Let us privatise marriage. Let us abolish all prohibitions on same-sex marriage, all prohibitions on interracial marriage, and all prohibitions on noncoercive polygamy. Let us abolish all breach-of-promise requirements and all alimony requirements. Let us abolish the licensing of marriage. Let us erect a wall of separation between marriage and state.

Let us do this, not because homosexuals “do” or “do not” care about marriage qua an institution in which they wish to personally participate, but because it is the right thing to do. Even if the number of homosexuals who desire to marry were zero, the state would still have no right to regulate marriage.

II

“Hoosier Daddy” writes, “[H]ow did ‘gay’ marriage become one of the most important issues for the left?”

Considering that libertarianism (including anarcho-“capitalism”) is left-wing and that authoritarianism (including state communism) is right-wing, one must respond that the most important issues of the left are and have always been opposition to slavery (an institution that can only exist insofar as it is protected by the state) and to initiation of war.

That said, same-sex marriage is an important issue, as are all issues where the state prejudicially relegates some segment of society to the status of second-class citizens, as are all issues where the state infringes upon freedom of association and freedom of contract by assuming for itself the power to define the nature of the associations of its subjects and which of its subjects may enter contractual relationships with others, as are all issues where the state infringes upon freedom of religion by converting what many regard as religious institutions into political ones, as are all issues where the state attempts to engage in social engineering.

As the 2016 party platform of these United States’ only left-wing political party correctly informs us, “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”

III

“Hoosier Daddy” writes, “Same-sex marriage is not really about marriage at all. It’s about acceptance.”

What is same-sex—and, for that matter, all—marriage really “about”? The answer is this: nothing more and nothing less than exactly and precisely whatever it is that those entering the marriage, and no one else, wish it to be about.

“Hoosier Daddy” says that same-sex marriage is “about” acceptance. What he actually intends to say, however, is that the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage is about acceptance.

Is this observation wrong? Actually, no, it is not. The drive to repeal statist controls over society and economy is always about acceptance: acceptance of the live-and-let-live ethos; acceptance of the notion that central planning and social engineering are unnecessary, misguided, and ultimately destructive; acceptance of the conviction that society need not be ruled by what Bookchin aptly called “a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preëmpt the control of society from the people” in order for it to flourish; acceptance of the dictates of right-reason and the ideal that the human spirit should be set free.

Alas, although true, this is not exactly what “Hoosier Daddy” means to say, either. No, what “Hoosier Daddy” intends to convey is the view that the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage is about promoting acceptance of homosexuals. It’s not, of course; it is about promoting social justice in the true sense of the term (as opposed to the sense as perverted by social democrats and democratic socialists). But, this nevertheless begs the question: even if the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage were about promoting acceptance of homosexuals, what is so wrong with that?

Why exactly is this author trying to imply that there is something untoward about tolerance? Tolerance is merely respecting the natural, inalienable, equal right of one’s neighbour to live her or his own life freely and in accord with her or his own values, provided that she or he never initiate, or threaten to initiate, force or fraud against the person or justly-acquired property of another. What can one have against respecting the innate equality of each individual, in not condoning the subjugation of those whose qualities in some way differ from one’s own? Mutual tolerance is what live-and-let-live is all about. Indeed, there is no easier way to encourage one’s neighbour to be tolerant of oneself than to be tolerant in return.

Acceptance is hardly the bogeyman “Hoosier Daddy” attempts to make it out to be.

IV

After this, “Hoosier Daddy” spends four paragraphs bemoaning a story about homosexuals attempting to either persuade or force the American Psychiatric Association (A.P.A.) to decategorise homosexuality as a mental disorder and another three paragraphs bemoaning a story about homosexuals marketing themselves. But, even if every word of these seven paragraph is absolutely true, they bear no relevance in any way, shape, or form to the question of whether or not the state has the right to dictate the terms of marriage. The state has no such right.

The state, observes Rothbard, “is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large.” The state commits actions that, were they to be committed by any other person or group, would be automatically recognised by society as criminal invasions upon the person or justly-acquired property of its victims. The state is a criminal band, and deserved to be treated as such. Like any other criminal band, it has no right to exist, let alone to do anything else, including, but not limited to, dictating the terms of marriage. Instrumentally, we need but ask ourselves, would anyone else in society, other than the state, if she or he were to forcibly dictate to her or his neighbours the terms of their marriage, be viewed as anything but a thug and a scoundrel?

There is no reason to give the state a pass. Even modern believers in the supposed legitimacy of the state have no reason to suggest that it is the right of the state to do this. After all, believers in the legitimacy of the state have but two possible arguments upon which to rest said belief: either the alleged divine “right” of king or ruler one the one hand, or the consent of the governed on the other. As there is no way to objectively prove one way or another whether or not divinity exists, there is no rational reason to believe in the former justification of government, leaving us, therefore, with only the consent of the governed as any sort of defendable foundation. But, insofar as government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, we must acknowledge that government cannot derive a given just power from the consent of the governed unless the governed already have this just power to start with. In other words, authority can only be granted by those who have it. Wherefore no one in the state of nature has the right, the legitimate authority, to forcibly dictate to her or his neighbours the terms of their marriage, no one can grant this authority to government, and the government, therefore, cannot justly possess this power. Insofar as any state possesses this power, it is an abuse and an usurpation, and we are behoved, insofar as we value justice and morality, and insofar as we are capable of doing so, to strip the state of this power, as well as of any and all other usurpatory power it may possess. At this point, the only remaining recourse one who wishes to object to this conclusion may attempt to offer, qua objection, is the surmission that this line of reasoning, if taken to its logical conclusion, is actually as much a recipe for anarchy as one finds in my previous paragraph. Still, this observation—which I am not unhappy to admit actually is an accurate one—nevertheless fails to provide any actual objection to the principle under consideration itself; after all, it gives no reason for assuming there is anything undesirable about recipes for anarchy (cf. Doherty, Rothbard on that other recipe for anarchy, the Declaration of Independence).

With that out of the way, although those seven paragraphs that “Hoosier Daddy” wrote effectively constitute a red herring, that does not mean there are not points within them that deserves responses.

V

“Hoosier Daddy” maintains that the A.P.A. did not wish to decategorise homosexuality as a mental disorder, but was pressured into doing so nonetheless. But, the matter of whether or not homosexuality actually is a true mental disorder is contingent on neither whether or not the A.P.A. recognises it as such nor on what conditions ultimately led the A.P.A. to decategorise it as such. Even if it were the case that the A.P.A. still, to this day, regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder, that would not a true mental disorder make. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder (insofar as we regard the term disorder to deserve the negative connotation it has), and this is true regardless of how the A.P.A. chooses to categorise it.

But this is not just a red herring, it is a red herring within a red herring, an irrelevancy within an irrelevancy. For, even if homosexuality were a “mental disorder,” the state would still lack the right to dictate the terms of any marriage.

VI

“Hoosier Daddy” tells us that some activists went so far as to send threatening letters to members of the A.P.A. What “Hoosier Daddy” does not tell us, however, is the nature of these threats. Were these violent threats or nonviolent threats? After all, if a letter were to say, "You better decategorise homosexuality as a mental disorder or I’ll start going around wearing a pink armband," this would constitute a threat, albeit a rather innocuous one.

Still, let us go ahead and assume, for sake of argument, not only that these letters were real, but also that the threats in them were of the violent variety. Obviously, we can easily condemn the individual criminal brutes who infringed upon the natural rights of others by way of violent threat without resorting to collectivistically condemning all homosexuals everywhere—a point with which I have no doubt “Hoosier Daddy” readily agrees. And thus, we should. But, was there ever any doubt that we should? No.

In any event and with that said, this, too, is ultimately irrelevant. Even if a handful of homosexuals did thuggishly send violently threatening letter to various A.P.A. members in the 1970s, this does not change the fact that the state does not now have, and has never had, a right to dictate the terms of any marriage.

VII

“Hoosier Daddy” writes, “It wasn’t long after that a homosexual activist decided that the problem was that the psychiatrist-created term ‘homosexual’ invoked a negative image in the minds of ordinary people. It conjured mental images of the perverted acts that homosexuals perform. So, he decided that henceforth homosexuals should be called ‘gay.’ ‘Gay’, he felt, invoked a positive image of happy, frolicking people.”

In short, “Hoosier Daddy” is saying that a homosexual activist attempted to augment the reputation of homosexuals through rebranding, through attempting to use a basic and ubiquitous marketing tactic whose aim was to make the product (in this case the homosexual) something society would find more appreciable.

Now, are we to really condemn homosexuals for this? For trying to present the product in the best possible light? If we are, then whom should we not condemn? What business, political party, or entertainer has not done the exact same thing? Of course, even if the only person in history to have ever done this was the aforementioned homosexual activist, it still would not be something worth condemning—it truly does not matter.

And now I present the obligatory comment on relevancy: this, too, is completely irrelevant. Regardless of whether a homosexual activist attempted the rebranding technique, regardless of whether it was effective, and regardless of whether a single other entity in history also employed this technique, the pure, incontrovertible fact remains that this in no way gives to the state or indicates that the state possesses or has ever possessed a right to dictate the terms of any marriage.

VIII

Finally, “Hoosier Daddy” concludes, “Finally, and more recently, they believed if an authority like the U.S. government should declare that homosexuals could marry just like heterosexuals, then who could claim that homosexuals are not normal?

“And THAT is the impetus of the same-sex marriage movement. It’s not about “love” or rights – it’s not even about marriage - whether it is right or wrong, it’s about ACCEPTANCE.”


First, this erroneously assumes that all defenders and proponents of same-sex marriage desire for the government of these United States to “declare that homosexuals [may] marry” (emphasis added). This is not the case, as my very existence proves.

Second, “Hoosier Daddy” argues that the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage are not about love, rights, or marriage, that acceptance was the sole concern. Yet, he has failed utterly in making this point. Even if we concede that acceptance is a motivation, even if we concede that it is the prime motivation, absolutely nothing in this piece gives its reader the slightest hint of a reason why love, rights, and even the desire to marry cannot also constitute motivating factors alongside acceptance.

Third, even if “Hoosier Daddy” were right that the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage was not about love, rights, and marriage, that acceptance was the sole concern—he’s not, of course, but even if he were—in what sense does that make same-sex marriage a “scam”? Not only does “Hoosier Daddy” fail to give any reason to suggest why his conclusion would be correct, he fails likewise to give any reason to suggest why his title would be correct.

And fourth, even if “Hoosier Daddy” were right that the drive to repeal statist prohibitions on same-sex marriage was not about love, rights, and marriage—he’s not, of course, but even if he were—that would be just yet another irrelevancy at the end of a long train of irrelevancies, for, and I feel I may have said this already: the state does not, and cannot, possess any right whatsoever to dictate the terms of any marriage—period. Again, and in conclusion, insofar as any state does possess this power, insofar as we are capable, and insofar as we value justice and morality, we are behoved to strip the state of this power.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!