Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

[CurveLight]

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

"One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces."
Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly speak for all religions....nor all SSM opponents.

Talk about using an extremist view as an example.

The slippery slope argument is no where near the level of the claim gay marriage would destroy traditional marriage. I cited one source and I apologize it was only the largest Christian denomination in the world. Yes there are some atheists against SSM but use a little fucking common sense. It's clear religions are the driving force behind the bigotry.

marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society" - Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, in a February 5, 2004 Wall Street Journal opinion article"

"This is an important victory for those of us who wanted to preserve traditional marriage and to make sure that the mistake of Massachusetts doesn't become the mistake of the entire country" - Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, commenting on a March 30, 2006 Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling barring out of state same sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

"This is only the beginning, if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman" - Brian Camenker, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"Taxpayers and businesses should not be compelled to subsidize either homosexual unions or non-marital heterosexual partnerships, both of which undermine the institutions of marriage and family." - Acting President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Dan Englund, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage." - Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) during the July 2004 U.S. Senate debate on the "Federal Marriage Amendment".

"the sexual revolution led to the decoupling of marriage and procreation; same-sex "marriage" would pull them completely apart, leading to an explosive increase in family collapse...." - Charles Colson, Christianity Today, June 2004

"We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation." - Jerry Falwell, July 14, 2003

"Pro-homosexuality activists try to portray the success of their cause as inevitable. But it is not. The churches can stand against the tide of relativism and libertinism in our culture. And they can help to reverse the tide, restoring marriage to its proper place of honor" - Former President of The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Dianne Knippers, as quoted on the website of Concerned Women For America
After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate and Western Civilization is intact | Politics | AlterNet

 

[CurveLight]

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

Gay couples can adopt and/or get sperm/egg donation.

They need to decide whether or not they are gay. Gay people don't have children. Straight people do.

Say.....wtf? Are you seriously making this claim or is it sarcasm?

 

[CurveLight]

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Marriage has always been religious. In modern times it has become more secularized. Most people have a religious wedding and are legally married secondarily.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[mudwhistle]

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Whatever..........

This is why you get pwned on a regular basis. Instead actual participation you freak out any time you say something that is not exactly accurate. Even if your interpretation of his post is correct (which we already know is not) he would be advocating discrimination against atheists. Also, if you're going to plagiarize, how about giving due credit? (Dolly Parton came up with the "suffer like heteros" part.)

I've never been *pwned*.

I think the problem is you have a piss-poor attitude and suffer from delusions of grandeur.

You go off on tangents and try to steer the discussion directions it doesn't belong.

You deceive and lie about what someone meant when they post and you're argumentative about everything....quite possibly even the color of shit.

I didn't plagiarize anything.

What the fuck is your damage dip-shit?

If you're trying to be an advocate for Same Sex Marriage I would think you would at least try to be nice to those who's attitudes you would like to change. But instead you exemplify the worst that the SSM community offers.

 

[CurveLight]

Whatever..........

This is why you get pwned on a regular basis. Instead actual participation you freak out any time you say something that is not exactly accurate. Even if your interpretation of his post is correct (which we already know is not) he would be advocating discrimination against atheists. Also, if you're going to plagiarize, how about giving due credit? (Dolly Parton came up with the "suffer like heteros" part.)

I've never been *pwned*.

I think the problem is you have a piss-poor attitude and suffer from delusions of grandeur.

You go off on tangents and try to steer the discussion directions it doesn't belong.

You deceive and lie about what someone meant when they post and you're argumentative about everything....quite possibly even the color of shit.

I didn't plagiarize anything.

What the fuck is your damage dip-shit?

If you're trying to be an advocate for Same Sex Marriage I would think you would at least try to be nice to those who's attitudes you would like to change. But instead you exemplify the worst that the SSM community offers.

I'm not trying to change anyone's attitude or positio you dumbass. I'm pointing out false claims made by bigots. I've seen divecon more than once say "marriage is a religious ceremony" but you want to accuse me of lying? Rotfl! Stop whining.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Marriage has always been religious. In modern times it has become more secularized. Most people have a religious wedding and are legally married secondarily.

Why? Because you say so?

You're talking about history, my viewpoint and your viewpoint of it have no bearing. It is simply a fact that marriage is historically a religious matter.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is why you get pwned on a regular basis. Instead actual participation you freak out any time you say something that is not exactly accurate. Even if your interpretation of his post is correct (which we already know is not) he would be advocating discrimination against atheists. Also, if you're going to plagiarize, how about giving due credit? (Dolly Parton came up with the "suffer like heteros" part.)

I've never been *pwned*.

I think the problem is you have a piss-poor attitude and suffer from delusions of grandeur.

You go off on tangents and try to steer the discussion directions it doesn't belong.

You deceive and lie about what someone meant when they post and you're argumentative about everything....quite possibly even the color of shit.

I didn't plagiarize anything.

What the fuck is your damage dip-shit?

If you're trying to be an advocate for Same Sex Marriage I would think you would at least try to be nice to those who's attitudes you would like to change. But instead you exemplify the worst that the SSM community offers.

I'm not trying to change anyone's attitude or positio you dumbass. I'm pointing out false claims made by bigots. I've seen divecon more than once say "marriage is a religious ceremony" but you want to accuse me of lying? Rotfl! Stop whining.

Maybe you should start by changing your bigoted attitude yourself first.

Only thing your pointing out is you're an asshole who can't discuss issues without being a prick.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Gay couples can adopt and/or get sperm/egg donation.

They need to decide whether or not they are gay. Gay people don't have children. Straight people do.

Say.....wtf? Are you seriously making this claim or is it sarcasm?

Let me slightly tweak my comment. Gay COUPLES don't have children.

 

[CurveLight]

Marriage has always been religious. In modern times it has become more secularized. Most people have a religious wedding and are legally married secondarily.

Why? Because you say so?

You're talking about history, my viewpoint and your viewpoint of it have no bearing. It is simply a fact that marriage is historically a religious matter.

That makes no sense without an explanation.

 

[CurveLight]

They need to decide whether or not they are gay. Gay people don't have children. Straight people do.

Say.....wtf? Are you seriously making this claim or is it sarcasm?

Let me slightly tweak my comment. Gay COUPLES don't have children.

Really? There are quite a few gay couples that have children. What's the difference between a surrogate for a hetero versus same sex couple?

 

[CurveLight]

I've never been *pwned*.

I think the problem is you have a piss-poor attitude and suffer from delusions of grandeur.

You go off on tangents and try to steer the discussion directions it doesn't belong.

You deceive and lie about what someone meant when they post and you're argumentative about everything....quite possibly even the color of shit.

I didn't plagiarize anything.

What the fuck is your damage dip-shit?

If you're trying to be an advocate for Same Sex Marriage I would think you would at least try to be nice to those who's attitudes you would like to change. But instead you exemplify the worst that the SSM community offers.

I'm not trying to change anyone's attitude or positio you dumbass. I'm pointing out false claims made by bigots. I've seen divecon more than once say "marriage is a religious ceremony" but you want to accuse me of lying? Rotfl! Stop whining.

Maybe you should start by changing your bigoted attitude yourself first.

Only thing your pointing out is you're an asshole who can't discuss issues without being a prick.

I think kleenex is on sale. How many cases would you like? Stop being such an overly sensitive whiner. If you can't handle it then stop quoting me.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not trying to change anyone's attitude or positio you dumbass. I'm pointing out false claims made by bigots. I've seen divecon more than once say "marriage is a religious ceremony" but you want to accuse me of lying? Rotfl! Stop whining.

Maybe you should start by changing your bigoted attitude yourself first.

Only thing your pointing out is you're an asshole who can't discuss issues without being a prick.

I think kleenex is on sale. How many cases would you like? Stop being such an overly sensitive whiner. If you can't handle it then stop quoting me.

I can handle more then you've ever handled in your life.

I'm just trying to put a mirror up to your face and see if you're aware of your appearance or not.

Guess not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter. It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out. Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

Slippery slope? That's nonsense. Same sex marriage is struggling to get enough public support as it is. What other form of marriage is even close to having enough support to ever be legalized?

 

[mudwhistle]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter. It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out. Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

Slippery slope? That's nonsense. Same sex marriage is struggling to get enough public support as it is. What other form of marriage is even close to having enough support to ever be legalized?

It shouldn't be about who raises the biggest fuss. I thought we were talking equality for all, not making some more equal then others?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

Slippery slope? That's nonsense. Same sex marriage is struggling to get enough public support as it is. What other form of marriage is even close to having enough support to ever be legalized?

It shouldn't be about who raises the biggest fuss. I thought we were talking equality for all, not making some more equal then others?

Allowing same sex couples to marry is giving them equality.

 

[mudwhistle]

Slippery slope? That's nonsense. Same sex marriage is struggling to get enough public support as it is. What other form of marriage is even close to having enough support to ever be legalized?

It shouldn't be about who raises the biggest fuss. I thought we were talking equality for all, not making some more equal then others?

Allowing same sex couples to marry is giving them equality.

No kidding...but then who else is gonna demand equality?

According to you only the people that raise the most hell deserve equality.

 

[Smartt33]

SSM is immoral, against God's creation plan, and cannot be condoned by believers.

God is absolute, and no matter what people believe about Him, He is who He is.

The Word of God, the Bible, is powerful enough to eternally save a soul, but man is free enough to say no to it.

Nothing we do can cause God to love us any less, and nothing we can do can cause God to love us any more. However, God's justice and righteousness will not allow for sin to live in His presence. That is why sin will lead to separation from the presence of God forever. The gifts of forgiveness, grace, and mercy are all because of God's love. He not only made those gifts available, He paid for them personally for us. When we reject them, it does not change His love for us, it does result in the possiblility of an eternal personal relationship
with Him.

Forgetting for the moment your little Falwell diatribe has nothing to do with the OP, I must point out the irony of people who claim to be authorative on the bible yet reveal their ignorance at the same time. The Bible is not the "Word of God." John 1:1-3 defines the Word of God yet you reject it and create your own definition. So tell us, why should anyone believe you respect scripture when you re-define terms defined by scripture?

OK, so you agree that Jesus is the Word, and is God. That is awesome. Now, let's look at one more text. II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (New International Version (©1984)

3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (New Living Translation (©2007)

I have no doubt that this means that the Scriptures are "God's Word."

So, you can try to make it all look wrong, but you missed it on this one for sure.

What I posted above was all scriptural, and that is where I got it from. I never follow Falwell. I have no idea what he preaches.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

It makes no difference how credible you think I am. I don't matter anyway. The truth is, God is the only one who really matters.

 

[mudwhistle]

SSM is immoral, against God's creation plan, and cannot be condoned by believers.

God is absolute, and no matter what people believe about Him, He is who He is.

The Word of God, the Bible, is powerful enough to eternally save a soul, but man is free enough to say no to it.

Nothing we do can cause God to love us any less, and nothing we can do can cause God to love us any more. However, God's justice and righteousness will not allow for sin to live in His presence. That is why sin will lead to separation from the presence of God forever. The gifts of forgiveness, grace, and mercy are all because of God's love. He not only made those gifts available, He paid for them personally for us. When we reject them, it does not change His love for us, it does result in the possiblility of an eternal personal relationship
with Him.

Forgetting for the moment your little Falwell diatribe has nothing to do with the OP, I must point out the irony of people who claim to be authorative on the bible yet reveal their ignorance at the same time. The Bible is not the "Word of God." John 1:1-3 defines the Word of God yet you reject it and create your own definition. So tell us, why should anyone believe you respect scripture when you re-define terms defined by scripture?

OK, so you agree that Jesus is the Word, and is God. That is awesome. Now, let's look at one more text. II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (New International Version (©1984)

3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (New Living Translation (©2007)

I have no doubt that this means that the Scriptures are "God's Word."

So, you can try to make it all look wrong, but you missed it on this one for sure.

What I posted above was all scriptural, and that is where I got it from. I never follow Falwell. I have no idea what he preaches.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

It makes no difference how credible you think I am. I don't matter anyway. The truth is, God is the only one who really matters

That's not true.

We matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It shouldn't be about who raises the biggest fuss. I thought we were talking equality for all, not making some more equal then others?

Allowing same sex couples to marry is giving them equality.

No kidding...but then who else is gonna demand equality?

According to you only the people that raise the most hell deserve equality.

Are you aware of the hell that was raised to get women the vote?

 

[mudwhistle]

Allowing same sex couples to marry is giving them equality.

No kidding...but then who else is gonna demand equality?

According to you only the people that raise the most hell deserve equality.

Are you aware of the hell that was raised to get women the vote?

Yes.....and your point is????

Are you trying to garner sympathy now?