This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Czar's Profile

Czar's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Czar

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - last commented 08 September 2011 02:27 PM

More Discussions by Czar

Latest Comments by Czar

Go to: Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Czar's Avatar Jump to comment 113 by Czar

I am certainly pro-life. This issue, to me, is 1000x more important than gay marriage because it does impact living beings in the worst way possible.

Comment 105 by sanban :

Czar, what about the other type of legislation Rachel Maddow condemned? What do you think ought to be the state's place wrt matters of reproduction?

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:44:29 UTC | #876976

Go to: Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Czar's Avatar Jump to comment 112 by Czar

I am not a homophobe. I believe gays should have every right with which I have been endowed. I believe they should have equal opportunity. However, we are disputing what marriage is and the reasons for which benefits should be conferred onto gay couples. In both of these respects, I see reasons for marriage to be conjugal and no reason for the state to grant benefits to gay couples, as it would be arbitrary not to also extend these benefits to mere friendships or polygamist relationships. The only objective dividing line is procreation and procreative type marriages, which certainly reciprocates benefits to the state.

Comment 101 by Cartomancer :

I've just realised what it is that gets me so furious about bigots like our trollish Romanov friend. It's not just their homophobia, it's the coldly clinical and deeply dismissive way they try to reduce an important social and cultural equality issue, on which massive amounts of real human suffering or well-being hang, to... what?

A footling technical quibble about the definitions of words.

Well we are not standing for it. Attention all bigots and homophobes of such a persuasion: this is not arguing semantics for the fun of it. This is not some sophomoric nit-picking exercise in trying to apply an arbitrary suite of meanings to words and then following the consequences of your fevered lexicographical masturbations to their logical extremes. This is about something that actually MATTERS. It's about the happiness of real, living, breathing, feeling human beings who deserve to be treated with the same respect, equality and cultural affirmation that their fellows do.

If you find yourself spewing a kind of tortured scholastic apologia about how you think words should be defined, while ignoring the painful suffering and belittlement of millions, you have lost not only the argument but any claim to being considered a moral human being.

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:33:31 UTC | #876974

Go to: Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Czar's Avatar Jump to comment 111 by Czar

I don't live in NY. Glad I don't. Its quite the Libertine society. And I am fine with them legalizing SSM. I take a states rights position on it.

Comment 98 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 97 by Red Dog :

Where is the harm to anyone else if two gay adults get married.

Well, for one, Jesus wouldn't like it. He might cry. And we can't disappoint Jesus. Or else!!!!

And if Czar is still around - how has your life changed since gay marriage was legalised in the great state of NY? Do you lose sleep over it? State benefits? Federal funds? A holiday home in the Catskills? I only ask because since that legislation passed in Albany, the lives of many gay people has improved, and they are happier for it. Yet you seem to want to take this happiness away from people. So it must have a direct, and adverse, effect on your life for you to want to, yes?

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:28:06 UTC | #876973

Go to: Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Czar's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by Czar

Already answered:

Individual arbitrary medical impediments are contingent subsidiary complications which are parenthetically incapable of determining the necessary, sine qua non, nature of marriage nor the eligibility of an individual who is sterile from marrying. For sterile couples still foster healthy relationships which are founded upon procreative type acts--such is the polemic of the traditionalist. Undeniably, these objections are, in principal, unpredicted and incidental. Moreover, specific anatomical and personal incongruities do not institute conjunctive conceptual or definitional difference. Such a declaration is, in essence, epistemically disjunctive to the ontology of marriage and, therefore, pragmatically inapplicable to the point you're trying to establish. The definition of a man is no less a definitive if he is suffering from an eye impediment. For the eye's principle rational purpose and function is that of sight; nor does the apple with a worm in it affect our conceptual or definitive understanding of what an apple is. Moreover, for you to suppose that marriage is a fundamental right begs the question. I suggest you first define what marriage is before suggesting that it is a fundamental human right implemented within the American constitution while there are distinct categorical differences between just and unjust forms of discrimination.

Comment 89 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 69 by Czar :

This is why I said procreative in type and not necessarily in effect. The state would still have an interest in recognizing these unions because they encourage and facilitate unions which are procreative by nature.

By this rationale, a heterosexual couple, who are infertile, should not be allowed to marry. Correct?

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:26:32 UTC | #876972

Go to: Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Czar's Avatar Jump to comment 109 by Czar

No, don't be an ignorant liberal now. Read on the evidence:

"One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 per- cent if the relationship lasted five years."

"Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most exten- sive survey of sex in America found that “a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact.”99 The sur- vey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.100"

Comment 84 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 70 by Czar :

Plus, its not at all the case that homosexual unions are monogamous on a systemic basis.

Poor Czar, after all your attempts at civil discourse and argumentation, it turns out you're just another homophobic bigot, who spends way too much time thinking about other peoples' sex lives.

To paraphrase Cyndi Lauper: "And I can see your true colors shining through."

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:25:30 UTC | #876971

More Comments by Czar