- Thread starter
- #21
DGS49
Big government nannie types like you are species of a type studied throughout the ages.
Lumping together what people do to themselves personally with what harm people do to others makes any supposed specious argument look downright brilliantly genius.
In the 1960's as part of the "War on Poverty," the Federal government implemented a policy that, with great and wise compassion, provided significantly higher poverty stipends to households where there was no husband/father present. And the result was a significant DIS-incentive to marriage, and resulted in a pandemic of bastardy that goes on unaffected, decades after this program was repealed (AFDC).
Not true. Opinion is not fact
No-fault divorce was a logical, non-controversial measure that made it EASIER to get a divorce. Resulted in millions of broken homes that may have survived if it had been a little more difficult to get divorced. Nobody knows.
Not true. Opinion is not fact.
"Gay marriage" promotes the idea that marriage is just a fairly routine, generally impotent contract. Bill and George get married, three years later they hook with other people, who gives a shit? It's only a contract, right? People breach them and terminate them all the time.
Not true. Opinion is not fact
As a matter of public policy, the States need to be promoting marriage as a serious institution that promotes the "general welfare" of the society.
Would not the general welfare include ALL of society, or just a majority comprised of religious bigots with specious and seriously demented arguments?
And footnotally speaking, the pity of the current debate is that Progressives have taken Marriage out of the hands of the elected representatives of the people (the State Legislatures), and turned it over to bastards in black robes, appointed for life, who have about as much in common with ordinary people as...Hillary Clinton.
Not true. Opinion is not fact and a debate does NOT take anything away from anybody. You're totally confused. And Hillary Clinton? Attacking her is NOT an argument against acceptance of same sex marriage as a matter of law or public policy
We are fucked...but what's new?
You are most assuredly fu()ked, but I suspect the causes go far back into your upbringing and childhood
Well Holy Moley Whack-a-doodle-doo -- welcome -- We've been waiting for you!
Big government nannie types like you are species of a type studied throughout the ages.
Lumping together what people do to themselves personally with what harm people do to others makes any supposed specious argument look downright brilliantly genius.
The "doesn't affect me personally" argument is specious. It doesn't affect me personally if my neighbor takes his newborn baby boy down to the creek and drowns him, does it? Doesn't affect me personally if Iran nukes Jerusalem. Doesn't affect me personally if they legalize every chemical that some idiot wants to shove down his mouth or inject into his body.
It wouldn't affect me personally if every Scientologist in the world drank poison Kool-Aid and died.
But MARRIAGE is an institution that has a tremendous impact on the society at large. Any gross change in policy must be considered not only for how it affects a small group of individuals, but for the impact on the overall society.
Marriage is an both a civil institution recognized by the society at large and a religious institution recognized by those in particular sects. A gross change? Same sex partners have been taking/exchanging marriage vows in both civil and religious ceremonies (5 decades at least). When getting married in religious ceremonies it is NONE of your business or mine. It's a religious thing. The state (civil society) is NOT required to recognize religious vows. What impact does another's religious marriage have on you or society? It wouldn't affect me personally if every Scientologist in the world drank poison Kool-Aid and died.
But MARRIAGE is an institution that has a tremendous impact on the society at large. Any gross change in policy must be considered not only for how it affects a small group of individuals, but for the impact on the overall society.
In the 1960's as part of the "War on Poverty," the Federal government implemented a policy that, with great and wise compassion, provided significantly higher poverty stipends to households where there was no husband/father present. And the result was a significant DIS-incentive to marriage, and resulted in a pandemic of bastardy that goes on unaffected, decades after this program was repealed (AFDC).
No-fault divorce was a logical, non-controversial measure that made it EASIER to get a divorce. Resulted in millions of broken homes that may have survived if it had been a little more difficult to get divorced. Nobody knows.
"Gay marriage" promotes the idea that marriage is just a fairly routine, generally impotent contract. Bill and George get married, three years later they hook with other people, who gives a shit? It's only a contract, right? People breach them and terminate them all the time.
Not true. Opinion is not fact
As a matter of public policy, the States need to be promoting marriage as a serious institution that promotes the "general welfare" of the society.
Would not the general welfare include ALL of society, or just a majority comprised of religious bigots with specious and seriously demented arguments?
And footnotally speaking, the pity of the current debate is that Progressives have taken Marriage out of the hands of the elected representatives of the people (the State Legislatures), and turned it over to bastards in black robes, appointed for life, who have about as much in common with ordinary people as...Hillary Clinton.
We are fucked...but what's new?
