Seems reasonable enough to me to be honest

Donald Trump brags of achievements and promises NRA: I’ll defend gun rights

His oath was to defend the Constitution, wasn’t it? Part of which is the Second Amendment?

59 comments on “Seems reasonable enough to me to be honest

  1. To distinguish himself from his predecessor, who took the same oath*.

    *With his fingers crossed behind his back.

  2. I see no movement on Reciprocal Carry.

    If the Fruits and Nuts who make up the Democrat base can force Gay marriage on everyone, I do not see why the Republican[*] House, together with the Republican[*] Senate and the Republican[*] President cannot force everyone to respect other people’s right to concealed carry.

    [*] For some value of “Republican”

    See also the half a billion dollars being given to Planned Parenthood.

  3. Actually, the “oath to defend the Constitution” only applies to the paper it’s written on. In article 17, section xviii, it clearly states that, if someone tries to steal the Constitution, the president “shall engage him in hand-to-hand combat over a pit full of crocodiles”.

  4. Maybe the Republicans should pass a law insisting that everyone qualified to do so should carry a gun at all times.

  5. …can force Gay marriage on everyone,…

    How so – have you been made to marry someone of your gender? If not, how has gay marriage been “forced” on you? While I think the ‘gay lobby’ has gone too far in ignoring freedom to not associate (wedding cake bakers being the obvious case in point), I don’t see that Frank and Mike down the street getting married has had much effect on you at all.

  6. This is the Guardian. For them, as for pre-reformation Catholic priests and all Muslim ones the texts mean whatever the priest wants them to say.
    As to dearieme, that is current law in Switzerland where everyone does national service and takes their assualt rifle home afterwards. It was the law in England and may still be (been a dead letter for ages, might well have been removed in the last decade) though the compulsory English weapon is/was the longbow.

  7. “Maybe the Republicans should pass a law insisting that everyone qualified to do so should carry a gun at all times.”

    They’ll have to let me carry after I’ve had a drink or two.

    Federalist 28 and 29 make it clear that keeping and bearing arms is not just a right, it is a duty.
    With roots in the English yeomanry. So mandating being armed has some merit.

  8. “…though the compulsory English weapon is/was the longbow.”

    Which pretty much removes the ‘concealed carry’ option.

  9. Dr C–” I don’t see that Frank and Mike down the street getting married has had much effect on you at all.”

    Homo habitat arrangements are of zero consequence.

    But undermining the basis of marriage and thus the family is of vast interest to the scum of the left. Who care absolutely nothing about the domestic bliss or otherwise of gayboys but are trying to undermine and thus overthrow Western Civilisation.

  10. “..brags of his achievements..”

    The language is quite instructive here compared to:

    “Obama listed his achievements on Tuesday night..”

    It’s just pure leftist disdain for America and hatred of President Trump shining through. Although to be fair, Jenkins wouldn’t describe himself as a leftist, he’s certainly no conservative.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/12/ignore-prohecies-trump-obama-much-in-common-america-ability-to-stay-same

  11. Serious question.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    But not all presidents want to preserve the constitution in aspic. So what counts as “preserving, protecting and defending” it?

    If a prez said he loves the constitution but just wants to fix a couple of faults that have emerged that make it less workable or relevant today, rending the constitution fit for the 21st century so we can all get a couple of more hundred years life out of it, is that okay? For example the glaring faults that the Supreme Court can overrule government actions, and that the president isn’t elected for life and is therefore unable to give the strong long-term leadership America needs to compete with China?

    Just how much of the constitution do you need to want to defend and preserve to fulfil your oath? Just the “important” parts? And who decides what’s important?

  12. The Constitution – wisely – contains change processes. Hence changing it is Constitutional; you support it by following the processes.

  13. Additionally, dearime, several states have permitless carry. Their people are not required to carry, but certainly MAY without specific permission from government.

  14. Mr Ecks, how does a couple of guys who get married impact on your marriage or capacity to marry in the future? It doesn’t.
    Unless you feel so threatened by someone else getting married that you break up your own marriage?

  15. Perverse as ever Martin.

    It undermines the legal situation of marriage as as one man/one woman for the purposes of reproduction and creating families. That is–it attacks the basis of the entire structure of society.

    What odd folk get up to is their business. But it should not be used to create a legal framework that serves the left by pissing on the bedrock of Western society.

    https://www.c4m.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/secondreadingbriefing.pdf

  16. It seems to me that the state should register and uphold coupledom through civil contract not marriage; gay and straight. Everybody equal. It’s a contract, no more.

    Marriage can be for civil organisations such as the churches and squirrel worshippers. Those that want can ‘marry’ who they want. Some types of marriages will be laughed at, others will inspire respect due to centuries of tradition and for upholding certain values.

    Nobody should be obliged to go against their squirrel worshipping beliefs. Not bakers, not anybody.

    And this despite my agreement with Mr. Ecks. The leftist assault on the family is one of the most serious assaults on our culture and civilization. That’s why they take it so seriously.

  17. “What odd folk get up to is their business. But it should not be used to create a legal framework that serves the left by pissing on the bedrock of Western society.”

    Its also a blunt tool used to bludgeon Christianity. After all, the gheys will never forgive the finger waggers.

  18. “It undermines the legal situation of marriage as as one man/one woman for the purposes of reproduction and creating families. That is–it attacks the basis of the entire structure of society.”

    Already undermined. Under religious law, sex and sexual pleasure were only for the purposes of reproduction within marriage, which was why masturbation carried the death penalty, and pornography and prostitution were illegal. But internet porn is now legal and so easily accessible that teenage boys can get hold of it. The internet is obviously a leftist plot to corrupt Western Society, and must be opposed forthwith!

    Now lets see you show some consistency, and start campaigning for wanking, porn, and prostitutes to be outlawed. They, too, are leftist plots to overthrow ‘Traditional’ civilisation. How totalitarian do you think you can get before anyone notices?

    This would also imply that the infertile men and women should not marry and adopt, either. I don’t see any major push here to oppose/ban adoption, though. Did you all somehow miss that dire threat to Western Civilisation?

  19. Masturbation: The death penalty? Grave sin but I was never threatened with death.

    In a functioning healthy society there is room for a lot of unusual stuff that doesn’t threaten the way things are done, because it has no ulterior motive.

    But I have just had 30 years of leftist friends telling me that the traditional family is dangerous and the source of all sorts of evil,

    All useful idiots parroting others. Do you not believe that western civilization is under attack, both from within and from without (and the without is now also within).

    To destroy western civilization and ‘return’ to Utopia the family (among many other things) must be destroyed. Your children belong to the state. It’s all in the handbook.

    And as far as I am concerned you can wank yourself to death. No sweat.

  20. “Mr Ecks
    May 6, 2018 at 9:26 am

    But undermining the basis of marriage and thus the family is of vast interest to the scum of the left.”

    Yes, absolutely. Let’s go back to covenant marriages and undissolvable contracts. Only the mighty state is wise enough to decide if you should be allowed out of your partnerships.

    As for the forcing;

    1. ‘Undermining’ is not forcing.

    2. You’re no more forced to recognized gay marriages than I have been to recognize straight ones. As a single man I spent 20 years in the military getting my nosed rubbed in the fact that they considered me a lesser member because I was not married. Seeing the benefits and privileges accorded to married members that were denied single sailors. When you say ‘undermining’ you mean ‘giving the state privileges you enjoy to people you don’t approve of’.

    3. The ‘basis of marriage’ is irrelevant. Creating a family, creating a new economic unit (the household) by combining resources (basically every professional partnership ever), love/companionship. All the basis of marriage and all just as applicable to teh geys as to the rest of us.

  21. As for Christianity and gays – I realise that Sunday School would not have dwelt on the topic, but is Jesus reported as saying anything about gays? I don’t mean to ask whether a shyster could twist his reported words into something about gays, but is there anything that’s plainly about gays reported in M, M, L & J?

  22. “In a functioning healthy society there is room for a lot of unusual stuff that doesn’t threaten the way things are done, because it has no ulterior motive.”

    Yes. Agreed. This is exactly my point. It doesn’t threaten Western Civilisation to allow “unusual stuff”. In fact, that’s rather what modern Western Civilisation is all about.

    “But I have just had 30 years of leftist friends telling me that the traditional family is dangerous and the source of all sorts of evil,”

    So why are you not attacking the leftists who tell you so? Why are you attacking gay marriage?

    If people want a traditional family, then they should be allowed to do so because it does nobody else any harm. By exactly the same principle if people want a gay marriage, then they should be allowed to do so because it does nobody else any harm. To deny the right to one is to deny the right to the other.

    What it comes down to is: does society have the right and duty to impose a particular way of life, set of morals, code of behaviour on other people, even when it’s “a lot of unusual stuff that doesn’t threaten the way things are done”; or should they butt out of what’s None Of Their Business?

    I think the leftists ought to butt out of interfering with people wanting traditional families, because marriage and family life are None of Their Business. But if this is the principle we operate by, then we need to be consistent about it.

    If you think society has the authoritarian right to regulate in detail even the marriages of its individual members, then it has as much right to outlaw traditional marriage as it does gay marriage. We voted the government in that passed these laws. That’s how an authoritarian society works.

    The leftists are just trying to provoke you into reacting so they can use that to justify cracking down on you. They’re trying to preserve society’s right to dictate, and defeat the ‘Butt Out It’s None Of Your Business’ principle, by instead getting society to switch targets from gays to the people who were formerly dictating to them. But that’s got nothing to do with all the sympathy groups – the poor, women, the disabled, blacks, gays, etc. – they shelter their manipulations behind. Don’t aim all your fire at the decoy.

  23. Then fucking call it gay marriage. Not ‘marriage.’ Apply for a gay marriage license. The state should make them available.

    Donald Trump says ‘I’ll defend gun rights.’

    NiV (Russian for ‘women with beards’) says “To deny the right to one is to deny the right to the other.”

    OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID FALSE DICHOTOMY.

    And HTF did he get there from Trump supporting gun rights?

  24. “I realise that Sunday School would not have dwelt on the topic, but is Jesus reported as saying anything about gays?”

    No. There are a few references in the NT using the Greek word “porneia” which seems to have meant prostitution/adultery – for example Acts 15:28-29, where the vast bulk of OT rules and prescriptions are dumped, wholesale – but some people have translated it as “sexual immorality” and included masturbation as part of that.

    But there are a lot of things that the religious do or forbid that are not mentioned in the Bible. I can’t remember the bit where Jesus said it was totally OK for the Pope to live in a palace filled with gold and priceless art treasures either, but what do I know? He’s got Papal Infallibility and God’s phone number, so I’m sure he knows what he’s doing.

    But that’s off topic. Such commentators as have explained their reasoning generally classify masturbation as a form of homosexuality – a man having sex with a man (himself), was to be put to death by Mosaic law. (Leviticus 20:13. Along with astrologers and spiritualists, of course.) The prescription was perceived as being generally against any act that gave sexual pleasure without a chance of procreation, such as coitus interuptus, for which Onan was condemned (Genesis 38).

    The early Christian Church had others things to worry about, and didn’t seem to bother about such stuff. It was only later when the more Puritanical style Authoritarianism took over that they got a bit more harsh about it (although not as harsh as Moses).

    It was considered a diagnosable mental illness in the DSM until 1968.

    Societies change, and not always for the worse. One of those most responsible for the West’s modern success is the flowering of freedom, despite those fighting to maintain the old authoritarianism.

  25. Agagammon–Common Law is not entirely the states creature. Unbreakable marriage–no . But nor should fuckwits be able to just piss about with something that tries to give structure and stability to vast numbers. Or increasingly doesn’t thanks to the left .

    The rest of your points are semi-daft.

    Of course undermining is not forcing. If the marxscum could force their will they wouldn’t be arsing about undermining would they?

    Whether I or anybody else “recognises” gay marriage is irrelevant. The lawdogs and the costumed thugs do and that is where the muscle is.

    Since the married generally provide stable families then the benefits of marriage should be more than being single. If you give a shit about the future. Loners and losers do not a future make.

    “All the basis of marriage and all just as applicable to teh geys as to the rest of us.”

    Err…no. The only thing to emerge from male orifices are belching and turds in case you haven’t noticed.

    The return of NiV the billion word windbag. Back at the old and tired game of chunking down to some ludicrous outcome and claiming such nonsense invalidates the original argument.

    ” This is exactly my point. It doesn’t threaten Western Civilisation to allow “unusual stuff”. In fact, that’s rather what modern Western Civilisation is all about.”

    Bullshit. Attacking the family more–already under attack by the shite of socialism from every possible angle–is indeed a threat. Why bother with GM then since the civil partnership does it all legally speaking? Answer–to damage said family as much as possible. Enter leftist stooge NiV. As ever.

    “By exactly the same principle if people want a gay marriage, then they should be allowed to do so because it does nobody else any harm. To deny the right to one is to deny the right to the other.”

    When homosexuals produce kids out of their arseholes then you can say that crap and have it be true. The antics of individuals don’t matter. But sticking a relationship that cannot do what marriage does into the same laws as marriage has been done for one reason– to serve the scum of the left. As always NiV you are on site as the left’s creature.

    “But if this is the principle we operate by, then we need to be consistent about it.”

    When baby’s emerge from homosexual’s rectums then come back with the argument NiV. Until then the two are NOT equivalent.

    “If you think society has the authoritarian right to regulate in detail even the marriages of its individual members, then it has as much right to outlaw traditional marriage as it does gay marriage. We voted the government in that passed these laws. That’s how an authoritarian society works.”

    The Church defined marriage long before the state got in on the act. Vile as the state is it is not telling you directly how to behave (under CM it is with the expansion of “domestic abuse” bullshit but leave that for another time) but saying –from Christian rules and common law– what the framework is. The end needs to be that stable families endure. The increasing collapse of that under welfarism, easy divorce ( too easy once you have kids) has all too obvious social effects in our increasingly low and scummy society.

  26. “Then fucking call it gay marriage. Not ‘marriage.’”

    You don’t have the power or right to dictate that to the rest of us.

  27. “One of those most responsible for the West’s modern success is the flowering of freedom, despite those fighting to maintain the old authoritarianism.”

    Freedom is one thing.

    The encouragement of low, scummy, faithless and feckless behaviour is another. The only freedom the left want is the freedom to be a fucked-up feckless fuckwit loser and that is the one that will endure the longest under their rule.

  28. “The Church defined marriage long before the state got in on the act.”

    The Church doesn’t have the power or right to dictate that to the rest of us, either.

  29. “The only freedom the left want is the freedom to be a fucked-up feckless fuckwit loser”

    Never mind what freedom the effin’ left want! They’re irrelevant to this. What freedom do *you* want people to have? Do you want to *deny* people the freedom to be be “a fucked-up feckless fuckwit loser”?

    His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

  30. Again you chunk down to a ludicrous fuckwit, fucked-up, feckless “conclusion”.

    There is a clear difference between “allowing” anything and scheming to encourage and enable destructive loser fuckwittery. Or standing by like a dickhead while others do such scheming knowing all the while their ultimate aim is the destruction of everything worthwhile in Western Civilisation.

  31. Martin – “how does a couple of guys who get married impact on your marriage or capacity to marry in the future? It doesn’t.”

    It does. It changes the social context in which marriage takes place. It devalues it. Marriage collapses everywhere Gay “marriage” is introduced. Because, frankly, marriages are Gay enough, what with the cake and the white dresses and the Church, without being turned into something from Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

    “Unless you feel so threatened by someone else getting married that you break up your own marriage?”

    This would be stronger if it wasn’t for the fact that legalising divorce did have the same impact. It changed the social context of marriage. And hence a lot of people had their marriage break up and everyone is threatened by it. We need young men to marry. They won’t if it is demeaned further.

    And that is ignoring the fact that the Gays do not want to get married – there is no real demand for it in the Gay community – they just want to use the full force of the law to bludgeon the rest of us out of existence. They will destroy what is left of the Conservative movement if they have their way.

    NiV – “Already undermined. Under religious law, sex and sexual pleasure were only for the purposes of reproduction within marriage, which was why masturbation carried the death penalty, and pornography and prostitution were illegal.”

    And in the Department of Making Sh1t Up, here comes NIV. I agree it is already undermined – but who ever punished masturbation with death?

    “But internet porn is now legal and so easily accessible that teenage boys can get hold of it. The internet is obviously a leftist plot to corrupt Western Society, and must be opposed forthwith!”

    Indeed. However on the bright side thanks to the feminists internet porn will not be legal for long and teenage boys will not be able to get hold of it. Record numbers of young men are not having sex by the way. Porn is having an impact.

    “How totalitarian do you think you can get before anyone notices?”

    I do not think that Britain was totalitarian when it prosecuted Fanny Hill. Why do you make such a thoroughly stupid claim?

  32. Agammamon – “Yes, absolutely. Let’s go back to covenant marriages and undissolvable contracts. Only the mighty state is wise enough to decide if you should be allowed out of your partnerships.”

    Good plan. Actually only the might state is wise enough to decide if you can get out of your partnerships – that is what divorce is. But if you mean we should go back to a situation where even the State could not do that – see Henry VIII for instance – then by all means, why not? Sounds like an excellent idea.

    “1. ‘Undermining’ is not forcing.”

    But people are forced to pretend Gay marriage is a marriage like any other or they are fired, sued, or jailed.

    “2. You’re no more forced to recognized gay marriages than I have been to recognize straight ones.”

    And indeed you have been forced to recognise straight ones. At least implicitly. So what?

    “When you say ‘undermining’ you mean ‘giving the state privileges you enjoy to people you don’t approve of’.”

    Of course. But that would not be a problem if it was not for the fact that they fully intend to bully the rest of us. Cake shop makers for instance. The Churches. They wish to destroy us by hiding behind this specious language of rights.

    “3. The ‘basis of marriage’ is irrelevant. Creating a family, creating a new economic unit (the household) by combining resources (basically every professional partnership ever), love/companionship. All the basis of marriage and all just as applicable to teh geys as to the rest of us.”

    No it isn’t. Because Gays do not do marriage. Marriage requires a man and a woman. Gays do not create families. They mock them. Nor am I particularly convinced about the love and companionship but if they do some of that, it is very different love and companionship. Already we can see the definition of marriage change and the ground shift beneath our feet because you insist on something that until about three minutes ago everyone agreed was false – marriage requires a man and a woman and Gays cannot marry.

  33. NiV – “Yes. Agreed. This is exactly my point. It doesn’t threaten Western Civilisation to allow “unusual stuff”. In fact, that’s rather what modern Western Civilisation is all about.”

    That is like the proverbial Irishman who jumped off the Empire State and was heard, as he hurled past the 23rd Floor, saying “So far, so good”. Modern Western civilisation is in terminal decline. Glorying in its debasement and ruination is stupid.

    “So why are you not attacking the leftists who tell you so? Why are you attacking gay marriage?”

    Because no one took them seriously until they started interrupting Mass?

    “If people want a traditional family, then they should be allowed to do so because it does nobody else any harm. By exactly the same principle if people want a gay marriage, then they should be allowed to do so because it does nobody else any harm. To deny the right to one is to deny the right to the other.”

    Nonsense. For one thing Gay marriage does other people harm. Everywhere that allows Gay marriage sees a rapid collapse in actual marriages. When people are fired for refusing to state that they believe in Gay marriage it does harm. Gays do not want to get married. Some activists want to bludgeon the rest of us into submission. The solution to that is not to give in to their demands.

    “What it comes down to is: does society have the right and duty to impose a particular way of life, set of morals, code of behaviour on other people, even when it’s “a lot of unusual stuff that doesn’t threaten the way things are done”; or should they butt out of what’s None Of Their Business?”

    If it is none of their business they should butt out. But marriage, or the lack of it, has huge social costs. We are all paying for the decline of marriage. Jails are full of people who come from broken homes. So are the mental asylums and dole queues. Marriage is a vital interest to all of us and none of us benefit from having it further debased. Society is not required to impose a social code, although it does, but it is foolishness to destroying a functioning civil society-based social code just because some activists want to destroy Western civilisation.

    “But if this is the principle we operate by, then we need to be consistent about it.”

    You assume that the two are alike and they are not. You cannot compare marriage with the mockery of the Gay community. The state has an interest in supporting the former – and an interest in banning the latter.

    “If you think society has the authoritarian right to regulate in detail even the marriages of its individual members, then it has as much right to outlaw traditional marriage as it does gay marriage.”

    Marriage is part of Natural Law. A state cannot ban it even if they wanted to. And people have tried. But if you reject that view, then yes, the state has such a power. So what?

    “We voted the government in that passed these laws. That’s how an authoritarian society works.”

    Did we? All over the West unelected Courts have imposed these laws on most people. The voters have rejected them.

    “The leftists are just trying to provoke you into reacting so they can use that to justify cracking down on you.”

    Sure, it is a win-win for them.

    NiV – “No. There are a few references in the NT using the Greek word “porneia” which seems to have meant prostitution/adultery”

    Every mention of marriage Jesus made was in the context of a heterosexual marriage. For instance Mark 10

    6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    And the NT is very clear about Gays in general:

    Romans 1:24-27 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    “Such commentators as have explained their reasoning generally classify masturbation as a form of homosexuality”

    Who precisely? Masturbation is usually called the sin of Onan. Who was not having sex with a man. As usual you are making sh!t up. Well that is not fair. You think you know because you are so very clever. But you don’t because you have not read a damn thing except your other precious little friends.

    “The prescription was perceived as being generally against any act that gave sexual pleasure without a chance of procreation, such as coitus interuptus, for which Onan was condemned (Genesis 38).”

    Again, perceived by whom? Making sh!t up.

    “The early Christian Church had others things to worry about, and didn’t seem to bother about such stuff.”

    Strange that Saint Paul got around to mentioning it then isn’t it? It is almost as if the Church was concerned about such things from the moment it came into an independent existence. But that would not allow your arrogant little friends to claim they are really Christians and Christians are not.

    “It was considered a diagnosable mental illness in the DSM until 1968.”

    Because it is. Most psychiatrists still think so.

    “Societies change, and not always for the worse. One of those most responsible for the West’s modern success is the flowering of freedom, despite those fighting to maintain the old authoritarianism.”

    The West was successful when it locked homosexuals up and refused to even consider the idea of Gay marriage. It has been a lot less successful the more generous they are to Gays. I suggest we reverse that decline.

    NiV – “You don’t have the power or right to dictate that to the rest of us.”

    Yet.

    NiV – “The Church doesn’t have the power or right to dictate that to the rest of us, either.”

    No but you cannot flout Natural Law for long either.

    NiV – “Do you want to *deny* people the freedom to be be “a fucked-up feckless fuckwit loser”?”

    If it causes me serious damage, sure. We could leave the schizophrenic to sleep on the streets and be abused by everyone. Or we could provide them with safety and a warm bed at night. I prefer the latter.

    “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

    So the mentally ill continue to sleep on the streets because helping them is a crime.

    However this is irrelevant because Gay people do not want to be married. They want to force the rest of us into submission. I am not inclined to agree. The mentally ill belong in a secure mental facility. Not writing laws.

  34. So after all that, nobody has quoted any gospel reports of Jesus speaking about gays.

    “Marriage is part of Natural Law.” Are harems part of Natural Law?

    “Natural Law” seems to me to fall into the same category as “Human Rights” – an absurd fiction used to defend a position unsupported by logic or evidence. It’s much like the the man in the pub saying “everybody knows that …” or “it stands to reason that …” which are at least less pompous.

  35. dearieme – “So after all that, nobody has quoted any gospel reports of Jesus speaking about gays.”

    Neither for the good or the bad. But Jesus does make it clear that men are supposed to marry women. Not other men.

    “Are harems part of Natural Law?”

    That is an interesting question. It seems that they are natural to human beings which suggests so. But that they also are a lot of work and create a great deal of unhappiness. Which suggests not.

    ““Natural Law” seems to me to fall into the same category as “Human Rights” – an absurd fiction used to defend a position unsupported by logic or evidence.”

    I can see why you think that. I come from the other end having being brought up in the belief that all society is infinitely malleable. But evidence convinced me otherwise. There does seem to be a Natural Law. We can ban slavery for instance but we cannot get rid of it. As humans, by their very nature, are slaves and slave-makers. Likewise you can pretend that marriage is not important, and it is just a piece of paper. But all the evidence says otherwise.

  36. dearieme – ““Natural Law” seems to me to fall into the same category as “Human Rights” – an absurd fiction used to defend a position unsupported by logic or evidence.”

    Perhaps a better example would be Israel’s kibbutz which were founded by Marxists in the main, who believed in positivism – that is, the idea that all social arrangements are malleable and are just social conventions.

    What we find is that children raised communally do not want to marry each other. There is an inherent incest-prevention mechanism. They also found that mothers were not that keen on their children going away. Gradually pretty much all Kibbutz gave up communal raising, the children stayed at home, the collective life disappeared and now they are mostly upmarket semi-rural housing estates.

    Natural law (or perhaps Human nature if you prefer that term) won. Marxism lost. I think it would be foolish to deny that there is such a thing as Natural Law.

  37. “Likewise you can pretend that marriage is not important, and it is just a piece of paper.” Not that I would, but there are plenty who do. Isn’t that their nature?

    One thing that could be natural is repeated attempts consciously to change human nature – kibbutzim, as you say, monasteries and nunneries, Spartan arrangements, the early Mormons, the Moslem use of castrati, the Ottoman slaughter of siblings, priestly celibacy, food taboos, the incest of the pharaohs, the vestal virgins, temple prostitutes, and so on and on, apparently ad infinitum. You could add boarding schools, I suppose.

  38. dearieme – “Isn’t that their nature?”

    It is certainly the dream. But even Stalin, by the mid-30s, realised what a massive cost all this pretense was and so quietly made divorce harder, abortion and homosexuality illegal, patriotism fashionable and children appropriately respectful again. Niv just pushes the nonsense he does because he is not in power and he does not have to pay for the damage. We all do.

    “One thing that could be natural is repeated attempts consciously to change human nature – kibbutzim, as you say, monasteries and nunneries, Spartan arrangements, the early Mormons, the Moslem use of castrati, the Ottoman slaughter of siblings, priestly celibacy, food taboos, the incest of the pharaohs, the vestal virgins, temple prostitutes, and so on and on, apparently ad infinitum. You could add boarding schools, I suppose.”

    Is it ad infinitum? I would say that one thing is true of humans – we are all remarkably the same, all over the world, regardless of skin colour or culture. Castrati are a little bit out of left field, but all the rest either did not last or did not exist. We all seem to be a little interested in celibacy and it turns up time and time again. Especially for women. We tend not to like our brothers, but we like them more than our cousins and those more than anyone else. I doubt Royal incest produced a lot of children.

    In the end what is interesting about people is how little the social relations between people, especially concerning sex, really change all that much across cultures.

  39. “Women with beards” means there is no reality: everything is mutable. NiV lives in a surreal world, where anything HE wants is fine.

    When there is no reality, there is no basis for discussion. In the good old days, people detached from reality were institutionalized. Now, they troll web forums.

  40. A large proportion of the world’s population has been subject for thousands of years to the caste system. Is that natural? It it isn’t, how has it thrived so long? if it is, why are the rest of us spared it?

  41. Further: slavery. It seems to have been entirely normal in culture after culture, civilisation after civilisation. Then a bunch of Quakers and Evangelical Anglicans took it into their 18th century heads that it was simply wrong. Eventually abolitionism triumphed in most of the world.

    Now, is owning slaves OK by Natural Law, or isn’t it?

  42. dearieme – “A large proportion of the world’s population has been subject for thousands of years to the caste system. Is that natural? It it isn’t, how has it thrived so long? if it is, why are the rest of us spared it?”

    Has it? The jury is still out although it does seem that in India the caste system may have imposed endogamy for a long time. Is it natural? I would think not. But it seems stable enough.

    dearieme – “Eventually abolitionism triumphed in most of the world. Now, is owning slaves OK by Natural Law, or isn’t it?”

    Did it? That is odd because the Twentieth century saw more slavery than any period before. Both Stalin and Hitler, each, managed to enslave more people than the entire Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade did in 400 years. We cannot call them slaves, but that is what they are. Slavery is just inherent in the human condition. It is not going away. So at the moment it is illegal. It won’t be forever – although governments do seem to prefer to have a monopoly.

  43. Infanticide of handicapped children, often by neglect: Natural Law or not? Undoubtedly common in Britain until giving birth in hospital became the norm.

    Abortion: Natural Law or not?

    Partial birth abortion – the recent American technique of letting the baby’s head emerge and then penetrating the skull and sucking the brain out: Natural Law or not?

    Marriage shortly after puberty? Marriage before puberty?

    Father/parents have complete ownership of child including control over life and death: Natural Law? The courts have the right to intervene: Natural Law?

    Moslem marriage customs: Natural Law or not?

    Driving on the left: Natural Law, obviously.

  44. The Leftards think reality is an invention of conservatives for the purpose of tricking people.

  45. Having read through this nonsense it seems that there are just two main sides. Those who want perversions to have legal recognition on the basis that no one is directly harmed and those who want them suppressed due to the indirect harm.

    For myself, I’ll be happy to take the gay marriage arguments more seriously when I hear those same justifications applied to sibling marriage and child-parent marriage. Because freedom.

  46. dearieme – “Infanticide of handicapped children, often by neglect: Natural Law or not? Undoubtedly common in Britain until giving birth in hospital became the norm.”

    Undoubtedly? There is a weasel word if ever I saw one. What makes you think that? Infanticide? There is an obvious economic interest on the part of the parents and people clearly do abandon infants all the time. But most people, most places, frown very much on that sort of thing. That suggests it is against the Natural Law. Can you allow the infanticide of infants and not end up gassing all your Jews? I would think not.

    “Abortion: Natural Law or not?”

    Most people object to it in most cultures.

    “Partial birth abortion – the recent American technique of letting the baby’s head emerge and then penetrating the skull and sucking the brain out: Natural Law or not?”

    Too soon to be sure but I would say it is a sub-clause of the above. The visceral disgust it provokes in most people would suggest so.

    “Marriage shortly after puberty? Marriage before puberty?”

    If you arrange a marriage you must do so when the bride is young. So perfectly normal to do so young. But I would think that before puberty brought health risks without any benefit so most people would be opposed.

    “Father/parents have complete ownership of child including control over life and death: Natural Law? The courts have the right to intervene: Natural Law?”

    Perhaps both.

    “Moslem marriage customs: Natural Law or not?”

    Which ones?

    “Driving on the left: Natural Law, obviously.”

    Obviously. Driving is an interesting example of how boring we as a species really are. A lot of people are chaotic and refuse to obey the road rules, as in London for instance, but nowhere in the world does anyone order the traffic in a radically different way. If you can drive in London nowhere else will be a huge surprise. But perhaps that is not our nature, it is that the British drew up the road rules first.

  47. ““Women with beards” means there is no reality: everything is mutable. NiV lives in a surreal world, where anything HE wants is fine.”

    In a reality where some women *do* have beards, as is well known, you would have to have a warped view of reality to deny it.

    And being “fine” is not about whether *I* want it, or whether YOU want it, or whether the MARXISTS want it, but whether it does harm.

    Your issue is that YOU don’t want it, because that’s how you was conditioned when you was young, and you’re simply upset that you’re not allowed to impose your viewpoint on everyone else.

    “For myself, I’ll be happy to take the gay marriage arguments more seriously when I hear those same justifications applied to sibling marriage and child-parent marriage. Because freedom.”

    OK. Sibling marriage and parent-child marriage when the child is an adult I don’t have a problem with, although kids would be a problem because of the high risk of genetic recessives causing deformities. That’s the harm principle again.

    With child marriage the issue is with informed consent. Generally, a guardian is considered able to give consent on a child’s behalf, but there are lots of conflict-of-interest issues in cases where parents’ interests are also involved. It would need safeguards – again, because of the harm principle. But a formal, non-sexual marriage (because harm, again) with everyone’s enthusiastic consent to allow, for example, financial support or inheritance rules to apply or to bring peace between warring nations could well be in both parties best interests.

    Thus, for example, I’ve no particular moral objections to the kids getting hitched in Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet.

    I even once noted that since corporations are legal persons, it would raise some interesting questions if companies could get married, to each other and to people. Married couples are allowed to share resources in ways the tax man would otherwise not allow. (Although obviously if it ever happened, the tax man would change those rules.)

    Social norms are applied by a sort of imprinting process when young. Whatever rules are enforced in society when a child is young, those become the “natural” and unchanging moral laws of the universe for that child, and violations of them ever afterwards evoke a visceral discomfort. Thus each society has its own set of rules it considers natural, but all societies have such rules and enforce them by the same methods.

    Conflicts arise when groups with different rules come into contact. There’s a process of compromise and negotiation by which differences are ironed out, but it takes time, and usually it’s only the next generation who are comfortable with the result. The same applies to the conflict between the parent’s generation and their children’s. The rules change over time.

    If you can get past the visceral reaction that applies in *our* society, (and if you’re not a libertarian, which of course no society is,) there’s nothing actually very difficult about intra-family marriage and child marriage, and history shows many other cultures where it’s considered normal. (Like with Romeo and Juliet.) It’s well within the range of normal human variation. Nobody would have to make religious rules about it if it wasn’t.

    It’s very parochial – kind of like the stereotype Englishman abroad who thinks everyone in the world can understand English if you shout it at foreigners very slowly, like they’re an idiot.

  48. there’s nothing actually very difficult about intra-family marriage and child marriage

    So Niv is defending incest and child abuse now.

  49. “Undoubtedly? There is a weasel word if ever I saw one.” Nope; recounted to me by a doctor who worked there about the measurable consequence of a maternity wing opening in a rural area.

    I might have had my doubts if what he said had been the opposite of the common belief of my parent’s generation. But it was entirely consistent.

  50. “The ‘women do have beards’ defense.”

    WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you still trying to pretend that none of them do?

    What’s you’re explanation for all the examples I’ve given you, then? Do you think there’s some sort of conspiracy to fake the evidence?

    “So Niv is defending incest and child abuse now.”

    So SMFS didn’t read what I actually wrote.

  51. You are disconnected from reality, NiV.

    Your assertions are momentary beliefs, like neutrinos. Whizzing by, signifying nothing.

  52. @ NiV
    “This would also imply that the infertile men and women should not marry and adopt, either.”
    IDIOCY – no-one in Old Testament Israel could know that they were infertile (except men who had been gelded) before they were married and tried to produce offspring.
    Orphans were adopted (usually by the next-of-kin but childless couples were a frequent alternative).

  53. @ NiV
    I have no problem with Civil Contracts between those of the same gender, but Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, just as 4 is defined as 2+2.
    If you want to define 4 as 2+3, go ahead but do NOT expect me to agree with you.

  54. @ NiV
    Incest and consent – how do *you* ensure that it is enlightened consent with no subtle pressure? Jaime and Cersei in “The Game of Thrones” is a rare exception. Cleopatra and her brother clearely hated each other.

  55. “ou are disconnected from reality, NiV. Your assertions are momentary beliefs, like neutrinos. Whizzing by, signifying nothing.”

    Do you have any evidence? Or do you think if you keep on making empty assertions that they’ll eventually add up to more than nothing?

    “IDIOCY – no-one in Old Testament Israel could know that they were infertile (except men who had been gelded) before they were married and tried to produce offspring.”

    Who said anything about the old testament? I was responding to the comment: “For myself, I’ll be happy to take the gay marriage arguments more seriously when I hear those same justifications applied to sibling marriage and child-parent marriage. Because freedom.”

    Unless Mr Black is calling this in from 1400 BC by time-telephone, we’re talking about the present day.

    But for what it’s worth, it was perfectly possible even back then to know if the man was impotent or had been injured, for example.

    “I have no problem with Civil Contracts between those of the same gender, but Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, just as 4 is defined as 2+2.”

    This is actually a lot more complicated than non-mathematicians/non-philosophers commonly assume. “4”, “2” and “+” are symbols defined by human convention for certain abstract conceptual ‘objects’ that are manipulated according to a chosen set of rules. However, there are lots of different sorts of objects and many different sets of rules that can be used.

    “4” could be used for the number of elements in a set, or for a geometric length, area, or volume, or for a certain geometric transformation, or for a particular ratio of two other sorts of numbers, or for a set of infinite series, or for a certain standard amount of some measurable quantity in physics (and what’s measurable depends on the physical situation, and all gets a bit fuzzy anyway when it goes quantum).

    There are number systems where “4” is defined but “2” is not. There are number systems that define multiplication but don’t define addition. Modulo 3 arithmetic says 2+2 = 1, and it doesn’t have any number called “4”. And you can’t generally mix them. Two apples plus two metres does not equal four years. In physics, numbers used to measure intensive quantities follow different rules to those for extensive quantities; numbers used for times follow different rules to those used for time differences. The commonly joked-about phrase “two point four children” makes no sense considered as a cardinal number, for the number of children in a particular family, but does as a rational number, for the average number of children per family. Numbers of different types are distinct entities with distinct and incompatible properties, but we give them all the same symbol. What does the symbol “2” really mean, all on its own, shorn of all context?

    The meaning of all symbols depends on context and convention.

    That happens to be *your* definition of marriage, but it’s no longer the one the rest of society uses. Now, we can of course all invent our own private individual meanings for words, and I don’t have a problem with you doing that, but if we do we really do need to specify the context.

    To the extent that there can ever be a single unique “correct” definition, the one defined collectively by the majority of society is generally considered the most useful.

    “Incest and consent – how do *you* ensure that it is enlightened consent with no subtle pressure?”

    How do you ensure enlightened consent in *any* marriage?

    And again, I’m not talking about incest – I specifically excluded that – I’m talking about marriage. If gay people can marry and not have children, so can siblings.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.