|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2004 05:21:54 PM · #201 |
There are many many many quotes I have thought of replying to, I just happened to choose this one because it caught my eye.
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Gay marraiges and unions multiplied will cause economic distress...it wont right now because its not a big enough event. The idea being this, if we need workers to populate plants, factories, and businesses a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot create children by themselves without help. However, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, adoptions are options. These are extremely costly options. The society ends up paying for workers instead of getting them for free, as with heterosexual marriages. I realize that most of you will think this is bunk only because you refuse to look towards the future if this really is legalized...take a second to look at it. |
If I read this correctly, can I assume that you would be keen to disallow marriages between heterosexuals who do not intend to procreate? Since the result would be the same... Just curious.
-----------------
To view marriage as useful only for procreation seems to be a narrow viewpoint. Stable, long term, mutually supportive unions between people lead to stable, mutually supportive and successful societies.
My (inter-racial) marriage would not have been permissable in some societies even relatively recently because there was a belief that it would destabilize society. That's not proved to be the case.
And when Mousie asks for respect, I don't believe he's asking you to respect him in the sense of respecting his personality (which you don't know) or respecting his intellect, or respecting his fashion sense, or anything else - just respect his rights to live his life as he sees fit.
And, call me blasphemous, but I truly don't believe that a compassionate God could ever have a problem with people loving each other, supporting each other, providing a stable environment for each other... regardless of what gender each partner is.
Some rather randomly put together thoughts in a thread I wasn't intending to participate in...
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 17:31:15.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:23:28 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
also, surprised you wrote that. christians believe there is only one God.
Originally posted by achiral:
all i would have to say is we're probably not thinking of the same God |
|
what i mean is jews and muslims and christians believe in different gods, in the sense of how they achieve salvation...I agree all christians believe in the same God, but it comes down to whether or not you accept the Bible, and ALL of it, as the true word of God, not just pick parts out that you like. that's more of what i am getting at
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:23:53 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Secondly, if you allow this, you must allow marraiges to dogs, dead people, light posts, gas pumps and whatever else "I" really love...I say these things not to trivialize the love between those homosexuals. |
Yes, this is a perfectly valid argument, seeing as how based on history alone, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens when we succumb to a radical new cause. Why, thanks to the wacky, liberal establishment of women’s lib—i am now forced to go into my very well paying and competitive salaried job everyday and work side by side with equally well paid dogs, dead people, light posts and gas pumps. This is because, as you know, historically—by allowing the institution of all these crazy ideas—such as allowing women to be treated as equals, or allowing african american people to be treated as equals—they of course opened the door to all sorts of unspeakable things.
i find fear of change and the unknown to be a sad thing. |
Alecia, you rock - I'm sorry if it's disrespectful to anyone but your post had me snorting out loud!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:28:42 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Wow!
Reading this thread, one thing I'm really blown away by are all the people that seem to think they're entitled to speak for God.
"God gags at .. "
"God weeps when .. "
"It breaks God's heart .. "
Give me a break! Did you get an email from Him? Are you watching Him on closed-circuit TV? Yeah right!
Gotta hand it to you, you are some presumptuous pups to think you can speak for God!! |
Maybe this will help you understand better what a Christain believes to be true. The Bible is fully true in all it's writings and assertions. We also believe that is the infalible Word of God. I hold to the inerrancy of the human writers and that seems to be a fundamental view of most Christians..not all. Therefore since homosexuality is addressed in the Bible and we believe that the Bible is the Word or Word's of God if you will, it is safe to say as his followers that we can speak for God and his teachings through the life and death of Christ. As for Achirals comment regarding the belief in different gods...there is no doubt you are mistaken in your assumption he believes in multiple gods, instead he believes in the Christian God, who we believe to be the only God, however you don't adhere to that, so your assumption of "god" is fundamentally different. Thus making your post a cheap shot at something you clearly understand, but you felt the need to take it anyway. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:29:10 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Secondly, if you allow this, you must allow marraiges to dogs, dead people, light posts, gas pumps and whatever else "I" really love...I say these things not to trivialize the love between those homosexuals. |
Yes, this is a perfectly valid argument, seeing as how based on history alone, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens when we succumb to a radical new cause. Why, thanks to the wacky, liberal establishment of women’s lib—i am now forced to go into my very well paying and competitive salaried job everyday and work side by side with equally well paid dogs, dead people, light posts and gas pumps. This is because, as you know, historically—by allowing the institution of all these crazy ideas—such as allowing women to be treated as equals, or allowing african american people to be treated as equals—they of course opened the door to all sorts of unspeakable things.
i find fear of change and the unknown to be a sad thing. |
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:29:29 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by tjuneau13:
I really think people need to view the Legal aspect of a union between two people and the Religious meaning of a marriage as separate things. The State should view unions between two consenting Adults equally - Your religion and church can choose to accept(or not) them how they want. |
I agree with this...
I believe that in a nation where state and religion are separate that there should be no discrimination regarding civil unions.
Since religions are essentially a shared group of beliefs between a number of people who choose to believe them, I don't think anyone should legislate as to what religions must do/ accept. That's their own lookout.
But as for Christians/ other religions claiming the word "marriage" as terminology that can only be used by them - I disagree.
I'd be happy to use terms such as Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage if that would make people happier, but I see no reason why my union should have to be called by another name because a certain group of people think they own rights to the word.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:45:27 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
It has not been proven to be genetic, it also has conversely not been proven to be a choice. How you can claim that is a definitely a choice and always been a choice eludes me. Unless you are implicitly saying you were once gay and then decided that being straight would be a better idea and you therefore decided to go with it...
Yes, gay people have the choice not to pursure relationships with people of the same sex, but just like heterosexual people have the choice to not pursue relationships with members of the opposite sex.
Saying it is a choice implys gay people can try dating women if they want to, why not. But you wouldn't think twice about dating a man because the idea is repulsive to you and you are not attracted to other men. If dating men is totally not an option for you, how can you not equally envision a situation where a man has no desire to date women because they are not attracted to them?
Why is this concept so hard for many people to grasp? |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:48:44 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I'd be happy to use terms such as Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage if that would make people happier, but I see no reason why my union should have to be called by another name because a certain group of people think they own rights to the word. |
I agree - I was just using the example because people seem to get so caught up on the wording - figured maybe if we separate the two issues it might help. I believe the State should not discriminate against people and to make laws that specifically do so is just plain wrong (imho) - A church can choose to discriminate as its beliefs dictate.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:54:12 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
If marriage is dying, why do you want to stop more people from getting married? I'm sick and tired of heterosexuals blaming loving gay couples for their own problems. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Wouldn't the solution be to reinforce people's *commitment* to marriage, not prevent people from marrying?
And frankly, why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right? I could throw link after link at you making the case for gay marriage, but you wouldn't be convinced by that either. What's your point? |
Kind of a closed-minded, intollerant response.... |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:57:39 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by sylandrix:
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
It has not been proven to be genetic, it also has conversely not been proven to be a choice. How you can claim that is a definitely a choice and always been a choice eludes me. Unless you are implicitly saying you were once gay and then decided that being straight would be a better idea and you therefore decided to go with it...
Yes, gay people have the choice not to pursure relationships with people of the same sex, but just like heterosexual people have the choice to not pursue relationships with members of the opposite sex.
Saying it is a choice implys gay people can try dating women if they want to, why not. But you wouldn't think twice about dating a man because the idea is repulsive to you and you are not attracted to other men. If dating men is totally not an option for you, how can you not equally envision a situation where a man has no desire to date women because they are not attracted to them?
Why is this concept so hard for many people to grasp? |
what i'm getting at by going a little further is this...it seems like homosexuals are using this phrase "i was born gay" too much. now, a lot of people have bought into this line of thought even though there is no evidence to support it. connected with this idea of being born gay is the idea that if someone is truly born gay, and have no control over that aspect of their life, then yes they should be equally protected under the law. but as of now there is no proof.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:00:23 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If marriage is dying, why do you want to stop more people from getting married? I'm sick and tired of heterosexuals blaming loving gay couples for their own problems. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Wouldn't the solution be to reinforce people's *commitment* to marriage, not prevent people from marrying?
And frankly, why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right? I could throw link after link at you making the case for gay marriage, but you wouldn't be convinced by that either. What's your point? |
Kind of a closed-minded, intollerant response.... |
Kind of a response that does not address my point.
Seriously, why should I trust that article? How is not trusting an unverified, potentially biased source intolerant? What am I not tolerating, specifically? It's fine to say what you have, but why haven't you backed it up at all?
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:01:09 PM · #212 |
I'm not an expert on the bible by any means, and I probably shouldn't have pretended to be. However, throughout the bible servents are refered to quite often. What do you think those servents were?
If the bible says sex outside of marrage is wrong (thanks for the correction) would you back a constitutional ammendment to ban it? Do you look down on people that have, and do, do it the same as you do a homosexual? They are talking about a consititutional ammendment on this! Right to free speech, right to bear arms, no rights to marry someone of the sex. This is not a constitutional issue by any means.
By the way, the mayor of SanFran has broken no laws, thus his order is still standing, he is not in jail nor has he been removed from office and all the marrages still stand (dispite arnold's protests). As Mayor he has that power on a city level.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:09:11 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by achiral:
[quote=Alecia] [quote=SirBiggsALot]
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
not really ach. (although i am biting my tongue about the nature v/s nurture thing)---my point in that post was only about the ludicrous associations made. i have no issues with other people's opinions. i do however, have a problem with the basic fear that goes along with them. and to compare the issue of gay marriage to marrying a lampost, et al--well, that's just not very rational.
all i am saying is that fear plays a predominant role in the way we view and think about things that are different than us, and that perhaps we should not assume the worst possible scenario of utter anarchy--and not assume that a complete collapse of the fabric (moral and otherwise) of society will ensue from our acceptance of any of these changing ideals. as has aleady been mentioned several times--with other and past radical movements--history has proven that once everything settles down, things seem to work out just fine. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:09:19 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
I was *so* waiting for someone to bring this up. Thank you.
Being Christian is a choice. I can choose to be Christian or not. People here have even made it clear that they were once Christian and now are not, by their own choice. Other people find God and become Christian, or even switch religions if it suits them.
Religion is consitutionally *protected* as a choice. So why, even *if* sexual preference is a choice, is it any less important a choice than one's religion? Both have life-long consequences, and both form a major part of one's identity.
I had known *years* before I ever became intimate with *anyone* that I was gay. I don't believe it's a choice, but whether it's a choice or not is irrelavent!
Do you people never cease in your quest to make me feel unwanted?
- Mousie, who wouldn't chose to be like you if you paid him |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:12:32 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Once again, you sound very very bitter...and honestly, you pushing all your negative religious experiences on my shoulders is like an African American lynch mob showing up at my door because I'm white therefore making slavery all my fault. |
Sidenote: I'm black, and find the quote above extra offensive, what would anyone want with you? Much of the black community wanted a simple appology. It took the US about 150 years to simply say "Sorry we raped, killed and enslaved your ansestors for hunreds of years." To this day the a large protion of black community is suffering from the "worker bee" way of thinking....anyway, that's a diffrent thread... |
The comment was made to illustrate my frustration with another member's accusation. I apologize for me using the example, it was in bad taste, Geocide and I hadn't seen your post until just now. The trend of the day is to take things out of context, so I do apologize but you also completely butchered what Achiral and I had been saying so I'll just consider you and I even at this point. We've both thoroughly offended one another, so let's agree to disagree? |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:19:52 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
I was *so* waiting for someone to bring this up. Thank you.
Being Christian is a choice. I can choose to be Christian or not. People here have even made it clear that they were once Christian and now are not, by their own choice. Other people find God and become Christian, or even switch religions if it suits them.
Religion is consitutionally *protected* as a choice. So why, even *if* sexual preference is a choice, is it any less important a choice than one's religion? Both have life-long consequences, and both form a major part of one's identity.
I had known *years* before I ever became intimate with *anyone* that I was gay. I don't believe it's a choice, but whether it's a choice or not is irrelavent!
Do you people never cease in your quest to make me feel unwanted?
- Mousie, who wouldn't chose to be like you if you paid him |
sorry mousie, those last two lines is gut wrenching. Let me make two quick points before I'm otu for the day 1] the Bible says once you're a Christian saved by the Grace of God you can't undo it, you can pretend like it never happened, but you're still 'saved' through the blood of Christ 2] No one here doesn't 'want' you. Not everyone wants your lifestyle, but you're a living breathing, loving human being formed in the image of God [back to my beliefs, sigh, I know, I'm sorry, but it's who I am] and not only does He love you, but unconditionally so do we all. Be as gay as you want, people very close to me are gay and I would only change that fact for their own happiness, not for mine..sigh okay, I can see too late now just how upset you are about this whole thread...and you'll probably post about my condescending bullshit, but that's okay, you don't want my pity, that I know as well, but does pity have to be the same thing as simply 'caring'?
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 18:25:12. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:28:09 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
I was *so* waiting for someone to bring this up. Thank you.
Being Christian is a choice. I can choose to be Christian or not. People here have even made it clear that they were once Christian and now are not, by their own choice. Other people find God and become Christian, or even switch religions if it suits them.
Religion is consitutionally *protected* as a choice. So why, even *if* sexual preference is a choice, is it any less important a choice than one's religion? Both have life-long consequences, and both form a major part of one's identity.
I had known *years* before I ever became intimate with *anyone* that I was gay. I don't believe it's a choice, but whether it's a choice or not is irrelavent!
Do you people never cease in your quest to make me feel unwanted?
- Mousie, who wouldn't chose to be like you if you paid him |
Ok, now we are going here? Now you have taken this debate to mean that you are not wanted by those of us that disagree with you? I certainly never said such thing and do not think that way. I don't remember reading about any other member who said such a thing either. Let me see if I got this straight because more and more assumptions are continuing to be added to the mix here. If I don't agree with a gay lifestyle (or whatever you prefer to call it) then I am a homophobe, a bigot, and now it also means you are not wanted by those that don't agree with you? There were more assumptions but I am trying to keep this simple. So because you believe one way and I believe another way it has to mean all of this other stuff instead of just a constuctive debate? That's amazing and pretty sad to find out. I have lots of friends with all kinds of different persuasions then mine and, amazingly, we can still get along just fine. We do it because we don't throw all of this other nonsense into the mix. I just disagree with you on this one topic, that's all, nothing more.
T
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:31:01 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by achiral:
what i'm getting at by going a little further is this...it seems like homosexuals are using this phrase "i was born gay" too much. now, a lot of people have bought into this line of thought even though there is no evidence to support it. connected with this idea of being born gay is the idea that if someone is truly born gay, and have no control over that aspect of their life, then yes they should be equally protected under the law. but as of now there is no proof. |
gay people are saying they are born gay.
(some, definitely not all) straight people are saying it's a choice.
don't you think the gay people are the ones who are kinda in the know about this? whether or not it's been scientifically proven is beside the point; why is it so hard for people to take our word for it? i mean, did you CHOOSE to be straight? did you sit down at one point in time and say to yourself "boobies make me hot." i'm guessing no. you just KNEW because it's hard-coded into your system. same for me.
some people like chocolate ice cream. some like strawberry. no one conciously makes a choice as to why -- it's just the way your system reacts to the different flavors.
to say that gay people are an anomaly is fine -- not all anomalies are bad things. to say that they are WRONG because they are different from the norm is NOT fine.
this gets back to my point about life vs. lifestyle. comments like TimJ frustrate me (and I'm not directing anything directly at you, Tim), because people constantly confuse "life" vs "lifestyle." being homosexual is part of my LIFE, not a choice. a LIFESTYLE is built around choices, such as where to live, who to hang out with, what to wear, what to watch on TV.
so if you want to not like certain people because they "act" gay, for instance, that's fine. that's your choice. for you to extrapolate from that and say "that guy is a flaming homosexual, therefore i don't like homosexuals at all" is, in my opinion, an unfortunate, closed-minded attitude. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:33:37 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by timj351:
If I don't agree with a gay lifestyle (or whatever you prefer to call it) then I am a homophobe, a bigot, and now it also means you are not wanted by those that don't agree with you? |
perhaps it would help (it would certainly help me) if you could define what you mean by you "don't agree" with a gay lifestyle? you don't like guys in hot pants? or you think that homosexuality is immoral by nature?
i'm honestly asking because i want to understand where you're coming from. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:56:14 PM · #220 |
You know, after all the rhetoric in this thread - I've had a change of heart. Gays obviously aren't human and shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they are a dangerous menace to society and I'm sure they're actively working to bring ruin to the American economy. They should be collected into camps, gassed, and then thrown in mass graves. Then the American economy will be safe and I can sleep safe at night knowing my child won't catch gay.
Thanks for the enlightenment! Praise the Lord! |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:03:57 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by mbardeen:
You know, after all the rhetoric in this thread - I've had a change of heart. Gays obviously aren't human and shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they are a dangerous menace to society and I'm sure they're actively working to bring ruin to the American economy. They should be collected into camps, gassed, and then thrown in mass graves. Then the American economy will be safe and I can sleep safe at night knowing my child won't catch gay.
Thanks for the enlightenment! Praise the Lord! |
Plus, God won't have to gag. Don't forget that part, it's an important one. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:05:27 PM · #222 |
First of all, you dont know jack sh_t about me or even my relationship with achiral, who in spite of the fact that we differ on certain perspectives, i consider a friend, so there goes your assessment of that situation.
i was actually asking why he, being a christian, would even make a statement like 'depends on whatever god you're into' .. If he feels empowered to 'speak for God', then clearly he's speaking for the God he believes in, and since I know he's a christian, I wondered why he made such an odd statement.
Which comes back to my original point: I think that having the presumption to speak for God is totally blasphemous. Sure, quote me your religious book, but saying "God gags at .. " is totally blasphemous, and not only that, it's a huge assumption that I don't think anyone deserves to be able to make.
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Originally posted by achiral:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:10:16 PM · #223 |
actually, speaking of physical and genetic bases for being homosexual, researchers HAVE in fact found fundamental physical differences in the hypothalmus (a part of the brain) of gay and straight individuals. The first groundbreaking work was performed by LeVay and has been continued by others.
Here's the google search to get you started:
//www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=hippocampus+homosexual+LeVay
Alot of this work has gone a long way towards showing that it's not actually just some deviant choice these people are making.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:10:58.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:14:48 PM · #224 |
from Muckpond: "perhaps it would help (it would certainly help me) if you could define what you mean by you "don't agree" with a gay lifestyle? you don't like guys in hot pants? or you think that homosexuality is immoral by nature?
i'm honestly asking because i want to understand where you're coming from."
Ok, I will try to make it clearer. There is a lot of presumptions being thrown around in this forum from those that are gay toward hetrosexuals and particularily to Christians. Words like bigot and homophobe. Now it is being said that gays are not wanted. I just want to emphasize that, from me pesonally, this is not true. I simply believe that a marriage is meant to be between a man and woman and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. It is in this context that I don't agree with homosexuality. It is simply what I believe and that is all. I'm not passing judgement (that is for God only) I am just stating a belief which is not the same thing as a fact (many people don't make this distinction). It isn't an issue of acceptance, it isn't an issue of equal rights, and it isn't an issue of fear. Maybe it is those things for some people but it isn't for me. If you want to get stuck on semantics than fine. I choose to use the word "lifestyle" because it comes from my believe that being gay is a choice. Many will disagree, fine. If you want to insert another word like "life" than so be it but it doesn't change what I am trying to say. I would hope that these subjects wouldn't turn personal but they inevitably do, regrettably. I want to assure that I do not want to hurt anyones fealings here and that I do respect everything that has been said. Many of of just have different viewpoints and I just wish that it could be kept in perspective. I would like to think that we could still go and have a good time photographing some place or anything else that we might have in common. Who knows, sometimes isues like this destroy everything else. nuff said, new topic please
T
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:16:29.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:16:36 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If marriage is dying, why do you want to stop more people from getting married? I'm sick and tired of heterosexuals blaming loving gay couples for their own problems. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Wouldn't the solution be to reinforce people's *commitment* to marriage, not prevent people from marrying?
And frankly, why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right? I could throw link after link at you making the case for gay marriage, but you wouldn't be convinced by that either. What's your point? |
Kind of a closed-minded, intollerant response.... |
Kind of a response that does not address my point.
Seriously, why should I trust that article? How is not trusting an unverified, potentially biased source intolerant? What am I not tolerating, specifically? It's fine to say what you have, but why haven't you backed it up at all? |
That article sites numerous sources to back up its assertions. Much of what it says embodies what I believe gay marriage (and not in a vacuum - its just one milestone in a long slide) will lead to. If *you* want to walk a mile in *my* shoes, as you asked all of us to do in yours at the beginning of this thread, maybe you could read that article to the end and give it some serious consideration, instead of dismissing it for having commited such crimes as being an "American paper" (gasp) or carrying a "slant to the right" (now that's a real sin). This strikes me as "closed-minded" (dismissing it without, as far as I can tell, even reading it) and "intolerant" (belittling any viewpoint which is politically or ideologically contrary to your own).
The basic premise is maybe a bit misstated: It's not necessarily that gay marriage in and of itself is the single cause of the death knell of marriage. It's just one more step in lessening the sanctity of marriage. And the strength behind it is that it uses a live model to study - the experiences of Scandanavia over the last 20 years or so. That takes it beyond class-room theorizing (gay marriage could/would/should/might "strengthen" marriage), to real-world results - it has done nothing of the kind.
Some other tidbits from the article:
- Gay marriages in Scandanavia are, statistically, miniscule. In other words, it seems gay folks are less interested in getting married than in pissing off the "establishment" for telling them they can't.
- Gay marriage was not only forced upon a resistant country (Norway), but the issue apparently tore appart the church there.
- The entire progression (the diminishing of marriage) has led to a majority of children being born out of wedlock. Whether you believe the effects of this are good or bad, there can be no arguement that this affects all of society, not just homosexuals. (Oops, sorry: "...not just Mousie.") :)
FWIW, you can accept all the facts in that article and come to an entirely opposite conclusion than mine (and, though somewhat thinly veiled, I assume the author's): you can still argue that the results are good. (You'd be wrong, but...) The end of this slide is the dissolution of not just marriage, but the family. Children become wards of the state - returned to their birth parents (or maybe not) for a few hours on nights and weekends, but otherwise raised and indoctrinated by the government. It's also a socialist economy, with the majority of wealth controlled by the state. You may find this a possitive affect. (Again, you'd be wrong, but...)
And, also, FWIW, the war has already been decided, it's just the battles that remain to play out. The trump cards, so to speak, are already enthroned on the courtroom benches. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:34:08 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:34:08 PM EDT.
|
