Comments on: Gay Spanish Soldiers to Wed

By: charles austin

charles austin — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:10:25 +0000

Then again, since we are positing "extreme" hypotheticals, if it does cause the destruction of countless heterosexual marraiges, can we count on the MSM to report that?

FWIW, I'm in favor of civil unions for gay men and women but find your hyperbole underwhelming. Isn't it possible for people to believe gay marraige is wrong without being evil or wishing for wanton destruction?

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:11:35 +0000

Sarcasm is print is difficult sometimes. Apologies for confusion. For the record: I'd prefer that the state was not involved in the institution of marriage, save that of enforcing contracts. However, as long as the state is involved, I am firmly on the side of allowing homosexual couples to wed.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:38:17 +0000

On second reading - okay, finally detected sarcasm mode on.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:04:44 +0000

Hey Michael, at least I can laugh at my own expense. Show me where the sarcasm was in this entire rant? I think the OP was serious about that, or if not such a big deal, why even bother posting?

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:41:53 +0000

These would be part of the same military for which the recreation of the battle of Trafalgar was re-cast as being between the 'red' and 'blue' sides so as not to hurt the feeling of the French and Spanish that they lost?

You also missed the obvious slide of events for the Spanish Military.

1) Lose their Armada
2) Lose their colonies
3) Get their butt kicked in Cuba by an asthmatic fat man with glasses
4) Get their but kicked in Manila by a man whose most memorable quote was an order expressed as a lawn party invitation
5) Loan their country out as the military testing ground for the two biggest loser political ideologies of the 20th century
6) Now have the marriage of two of their privates as the social event of the season after the gay pride parade

They haven't hit bottom yet. They are just a super power getting ready to explode on the scene.

By: Michael Demmons

Michael Demmons — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:38:29 +0000

Obviously, DC Loser (apt nickname, by the way) has no appreciation sor sarcasm. Sheesh.

By: kent

kent — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:37:35 +0000

Of course, what the godless MSM wonâ��t tell you is the follow-up stories about the countless numbers of heterosexual marriages that will be destroyed utterly by the marriage of these two Albertos. Not to mention that they wonâ��t mention the fact that this marriage may, single-handedly, completely and utterly destroy the Spanish military.

Straw man.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:15:15 +0000

...this marriage may, single-handedly, completely and utterly destroy the Spanish military.

As opposed to, raping and killing a teenage girl, and then murdering her family in cold blood? This whole issue is stupid compared to the really important issues in the military.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:05:48 +0000

Whatever: The Harm Principle is not moral relativism; it's the premise of a unified system of morality. Indeed, it's the exact opposite of moral relativism, which holds that there is no fixed morality because right and wrong are entirely a mtter of perspective.

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:25:22 +0000

Well if you are against something simply because of some arbitrary "principal" rather then any harm it might cause then aren't you being a bit of a dick? I have values, but in those cases where my values conflict with those of others I don't seek to use the police power of the government to impose them on others unless there is real harm being done, like in the case of murder or rape. Whne is come to who get's to be married to each other I simply don't care, and no one else should either.

By: whatever

whatever — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:41:56 +0000

Does something have to "destroy" something else to be against it? Or can you be against something just because of the principle of the thing? Can someone have values based on principle?

Knapp believes that only way to be against something if it causes "harm" to one another. It is a slippery slope just another example of moral relativism.

By: Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Attila — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Gay Marriage! Oh, no! The sky is falling!