Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

CurveLight

Rookie
Oct 16, 2009
9,768
317
0
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.
 
Personally I don't care who marries who.
But your post is only going to attract those that already agree and piss off those that don't.
I might be the only one that simply doesn't care......eat what you want and I'll do the same.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Personally I don't care who marries who.
But your post is only going to attract those that already agree and piss off those that don't.
I might be the only one that simply doesn't care......eat what you want and I'll do the same.


I'm optimistic opponents will approach the challenge with honesty and a genuine attempt to explain how their causation argument is seriously depleted by the available info.
 
Rove, newt, Rush, since the homo's are the ones destroying the sanctity of marriage, do you have a comment on your divorces.
 
Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

That's a lower tiered argument. The focus has always been creating fear by claiming SSM would ruin "real" marriage. That is based on the circular position the absence of traditional marriage is invariably the presence of an extinct society.
 
You call it a lower-tiered argument. I say it's the whole basis of their point of view. In their minds, homosexuality is just plain wrong and any move which seems to legitimize it is to be opposed. It's no more complicated than that.
 
how about we just get the government totally out of controlling who can or cant get married and remove all legal attachments to marriage
return it to the religions to decide what is and isnt marriage and have the states do legal contracts only
 
Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.
 
Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.

Giving women the vote would send a message that its OK to be of the 'lesser sex'. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for women voting so I could be wrong.
 
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.

Are there any facts in this post that need to be addressed? Are there any at all?
 
Why do some gays want to marry each other anyway? (And not all gays think same-sex marriage should be legal.) They used to make fun of marriage.

Because the gay agenda is that homosexuality should be perceived as not merely normal and a choice but a preferred choice.
 
I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.
 
Last edited:
I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top