An example of why some are opposed to gay marriage

[jimnyc]

Ok, that's cool Dan!

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
First off, it wasn't me who wrote the article, so save your sarcasm for the author.

Secondly, you've done absolutely nothing to dispute the article except offer an alternative. I think the article is a bit more credible at this point.

That was hardly worth a "nice try".

If you are going to post an article written by someone else to prove your point, then take responsibility for it.

The article is a sad attempt to blame gays for the failure of heterosexual relationships. If marriages between men and women are so fragile that gays having formal unions can destroy them, they wouldn't have survived in any case - unless divorce were forbidden by law.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
If you are going to post an article written by someone else to prove your point, then take responsibility for it.

The article is a sad attempt to blame gays for the failure of heterosexual relationships. If marriages between men and women are so fragile that gays having formal unions can destroy them, they wouldn't have survived in any case - unless divorce were forbidden by law.

I agree with the article and do take responsibility for posting it. Pointing your sarcasm at me as if I was the writer is stupid. Learn to comprehend the difference.

Either way, you've still shown absolutely nothing to dispute what he wrote other than your disagreement.

 

[wonderwench]

I find the author's reasoning to be very similar to the use of statistics by Big D.

Correlation does not prove causality.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's painfully obvious that you haven't figured out just why you're really opposed to it either.

You still havent figured out how to read yet have you? I mean seriously. ive posted my reasons for opposing gay marriage even more often here than ive posted how i know God lives. i understnad not wanting to listen to something that opposes your personal views.

BTW try to have a sense of humor sometimes.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I find the author's reasoning to be very similar to the use of statistics by Big D.

Correlation does not prove causality.

And I noticed you could never dispute Big D's numbers either. Belittle him and his stats all you like, but the facts remain the same. Same thing here. You laugh off the article and offer your own version of events without disputing the article.

 

[Avatar4321]

The article is a sad attempt to blame gays for the failure of heterosexual relationships. If marriages between men and women are so fragile that gays having formal unions can destroy them, they wouldn't have survived in any case - unless divorce were forbidden by law.

The reason divorce isnt forbidden by law is that there are some men and some women who abuse their spouses and cheat on them breaking the covenant. it provides a way for those innocent in the relation to break from it. But no fault divorces should be forbiden by law.

Once again gay marriage doesnt threaten individual unions. it threatens the institution of marriage. If you redefine marriage, the institution is weakened. We already have problems with divorce and dead beat dads we dont need to add more problems to it with gay marriage.

I noticed that you are arguing that its the welfare system thats causing the marriage problems in scandinavia and not the gay marriage. While i doubt that the welfare system factors in, i am more inclined to think that the welfare system is a symptom of the failure of marriage rather than the cause. Watch what happens in the US if gay marriage is permitted. marriage will have more problems and we will see our welfare problems worsen rather than get better. Democrats will use the breakdown of marriage to further expand the government and provide more benefits. Just wait and see.

 

[wonderwench]

There is no debate with someone who misuses statistics. I, and many others here, pointed out that there are other factors and influences besides race that he ignores.

So be it. You are doing the same.

But again I ask: If heterosexual relationships are so fragile that the existence of homosexuality can disrupt them, how on earth did humans multiply into the billions?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I noticed that you are arguing that its the welfare system thats causing the marriage problems in scandinavia and not the gay marriage. While i doubt that the welfare system factors in, i am more inclined to think that the welfare system is a symptom of the failure of marriage rather than the cause. Watch what happens in the US if gay marriage is permitted. marriage will have more problems and we will see our welfare problems worsen rather than get better. Democrats will use the breakdown of marriage to further expand the government and provide more benefits. Just wait and see.

Well stated

 

[acludem]

First of all the source you use Jimmy is from a fervent right-wing publication that cites NO real numbers, and NO real evidence. They rely on hearsay and bad logic. The marriage rate in Europe as a whole is down, including in countries where gay marriage and/or civil unions are still illegal. Then again, the marriage rate in the U.S. is down too, and the divorce rate is way, way up. This article has absolutely no evidence, and I mean NO evidence to support the original claim that gay marriage has harmed heterosexual marriage. The main source is someone from the Hoover Insitute, a right-wing think tank who wrote an article 15 years ago, which as a political science student I can tell you is massively out of date. The original article was published in the ultra-conservative Weekly Standard.

When reading such material, you have to consider the source. I don't find the source credible, nor do I find any compelling logic or facts in this article.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

There is no debate with someone who misuses statistics. I, and many others here, pointed out that there are other factors and influences besides race that he ignores.

No different than the way those arguing with him ignore the statistical facts.

So be it. You are doing the same.

Why do I get the feeling that would be your reply to anyone you can't seem to get to lean towards your beliefs?

But again I ask: If heterosexual relationships are so fragile that the existence of homosexuality can disrupt them, how on earth did humans multiply into the billions?

Because queers were kept where they were supposed to be for so long. The population certainly didn't get this large with any help of those animals!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
First of all the source you use Jimmy is from a fervent right-wing publication that cites NO real numbers, and NO real evidence. They rely on hearsay and bad logic. The marriage rate in Europe as a whole is down, including in countries where gay marriage and/or civil unions are still illegal. Then again, the marriage rate in the U.S. is down too, and the divorce rate is way, way up. This article has absolutely no evidence, and I mean NO evidence to support the original claim that gay marriage has harmed heterosexual marriage. The main source is someone from the Hoover Insitute, a right-wing think tank who wrote an article 15 years ago, which as a political science student I can tell you is massively out of date. The original article was published in the ultra-conservative Weekly Standard.

When reading such material, you have to consider the source. I don't find the source credible, nor do I find any compelling logic or facts in this article.

acludem

You are for gay marriages, of course you disagree with the article. I have no clue about the author, but even if he is a right wing fanatic, what does that have to do with the validity of what he wrote? I find the article extremely compelling and full of logic.

 

[wonderwench]

jim - homosexuality has been around throughout recorded history.

I am not going to continue to discuss this topic with you. You have a large streak of bigotry, which is your perogative. I find it Unamerican, however, to dismiss a portion of the human population for something which is biologically determined.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
jim - homosexuality has been around throughout recorded history.

I am not going to continue to discuss this topic with you. You have a large streak of bigotry, which is your perogative. I find it Unamerican, however, to dismiss a portion of the human population for something which is biologically determined.

Now I'm unamerican because I oppose homosexuality? Get off your high horse, bitch! You just have issues because your sister is a dyke. Not my problem, that's yours. Her and her ilk are a detriment to society. If you think I'm unamerican because I don't condone sick behavior, so be it. I guess the majority of our nation is unamerican too.

 

[wonderwench]

How genteel and civilized.

I find the practise of comdemning individuals for their biological characteristics to be contrary to the foundation of individual rights - and hence Unamerican. If that striked a raw nerve, deal with it.

Your attitude towards homosexuals and minorities is not consistent with treating each person according to their own merits. There are admirable and horrible people in any ethnic or gender group. Much of the discord in the world is based on hatred of one group for another. This is what begets violence and destruction.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
How genteel and civilized.

I find the practise of comdemning individuals for their biological characteristics to be contrary to the foundation of individual rights - and hence Unamerican. If that striked a raw nerve, deal with it.

Your attitude towards homosexuals and minorities is not consistent with treating each person according to their own merits. There are admirable and horrible people in any ethnic or gender group. Much of the discord in the world is based on hatred of one group for another. This is what begets violence and destruction.

I am dealing with it, as is the rest of the nation. The majority want these animals to stay in their closets. An even larger majority think gay marriages are despicable. I have no compassion for those that choose to live like animals.

 

[acludem]

I can still respect a well-written article I disagree with, I have read many, including some written by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who at least try and present evidence and logic. This article is a second-hand repeat of an article written during the Reagan administration. I do believe bigotry is both un-American and un-Democratic. I believe that Democracy requires equal protection under the law, not just protection for those the far-right thinks should be protected. This means all law-abiding citizens should be treated equally by the government, and that the government should not be making laws that specifically discriminate against certain groups. This is why we don't have Jim Crow laws anymore, this is why we gave Women the right to vote, and this is why gay people should be allowed to marry. Democracy means majority rule with protection for the minority. This means that if a majority of the people think homosexuals should be exterminated, we don't start digging mass graves.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
I believe that Democracy requires equal protection under the law, not just protection for those the far-right thinks should be protected.

Are you inferring that it's only the far-right that opposes gay marriage? LOL

Try over 60% of the nation.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Democracy means majority rule with protection for the minority

They have their protection. They have the right to have their filthy relationships and they also have the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, just like normal citizens.

 

[wonderwench]

THE GREATEST DANGERS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS PROCEED FROM THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE MAJORITY.

Democratic republics liable to perish from a misuse of their power, and not from impotence--The governments of the American republics are more centralized and more energetic than those of the monarchies of Europe--Dangers resulting from this--Opinions of Madison and Jefferson upon this point.

GOVERNMENTS usually perish from impotence or from tyranny. In the former case, their power escapes from them; it is wrested from their grasp in the latter. Many observers who have witnessed the anarchy of democratic states have imagined that the government of those states was naturally weak and impotent. The truth is that when war is once begun between parties, the government loses its control over society. But I do not think that a democratic power is naturally without force or resources; say, rather, that it is almost always by the abuse of its force and the misemployment of its resources that it becomes a failure. Anarchy is almost always produced by its tyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength.

It is important not to confuse stability with force, or the greatness of a thing with its duration. In democratic republics the power that directs 5 society is not stable, for it often changes hands and assumes a new direction. But whichever way it turns, its force is almost irresistible. The governments of the American republics appear to me to be as much centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, imagine that they will perish from weakness.6

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.

Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.¯

Jefferson also said: "The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." 7

I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of any other, because I consider him the most powerful advocate democracy has ever had.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm