The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Silhouette]

Like I said earlier, his claim is wrong. My proof is what I posted about the divorce rates....So the question than becomes, "how would gay marriage negatively impact marriage as a whole"?...For starters, many gays reject the common definitions of marriage. Studies show that most gay marriage(especially among gay men) are not monogamous. Will the advent of overtly open marriage cause a rift in traditional marriage? I guess we'll see....Another point is that if marriage is "watered" down, by letting anyone marry, then why marry at all, I mean, what's the point?...Simply put, we have no idea what might happen. If people would have realized that welfare would kill the family unit, would they have done things differently?..We now have our lab test set up. We'll find out....Mark

But that is also against the law. You don't use children as lab rats. The hard law of infants and contracts when it comes to their necessities (a boy a father, a girl a mother) in the example of the promise to them for thousands of years in the marriage contract is that if there's ever a question even if the new proposal could be harmful to them (or not), the burden has not been met. Any new contract that might pose a demise to a necessity for a child is also void. No gay person has ever proven that systematically depriving a child of a mother or father for life is good for them.

Moreover, gay marriage takes it one step further. Since marriage was created to provide children with both a mother and father as role models and providers on a regular basis (kids come in both girls and boys), "gay marriage" is the antithesis of marriage. Gay marriage guts and nullifies the entire purpose for the reason of the creation of marriage from day #1. Whereas its original purpose was to remedy the ills of boys stuck without fathers or girls stuck without mothers...gay marriage GUARANTEES this situation for 50% of the kids involved, 100% of the time...for life...without the possibility of parole for the child stuck in this "legal prison". Gay marriage is literally, as far as the original enjoyments children had for thousands of years, "Anti-marriage".

States gain no benefits...indeed only losses from boys systematically stripped of a father for life or girls systematically stripped of a mother for life. So Obergefell requires states to "pay up" (tax breaks) for guaranteed malformed citizens according to our ancient understanding and common sense that boys without fathers and girls without mothers suffer. And also, we have the amicus briefs verifying that (link in my signature) and of course the 2010 Prince's Trust Youth Survey, the largest of its kind. That link is in the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Yes, for whoever voted "funny" for the post at the top finds it "funny" that children are harmed by gay marriage. One more reason not to have it imposed on children...it involves people who clearly don't give a shit about children..

 

[mdk]

^^ Yes, for whoever voted "funny" for the post at the top finds it "funny" that children are harmed by gay marriage. One more reason not to have it imposed on children...it involves people who clearly don't give a shit about children..

I find it funny that you keep repeating the same tired bullshit every single day to no avail. Spare me the sanctimonious bullshit, you only care about children if you can find a way to harm to gay people and if you can't they are practically dead to you. You're irrelevant. Learn it, than live it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such thing >> The hard law of infants and contracts when it comes to their necessities (a boy a father, a girl a mother) in the example of the promise to them for thousands of years in the marriage contract is that if there's ever a question even if the new proposal could be harmful to them (or not), the burden has not been met.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, so I'm missing something.

Has someone convinced him this is going to work?
.

I bet when it comes to the 2A, he's very "pro-Constitution".

Yep. But, if "rights" are your litmus test, then you SHOULD NOT DENY any form of marriage you can think of.

So, are you for "anything goes"?

If not, you are EXACTLY the same as I am, only with a slightly different moral code.

Mark

I'm for anything goes... as long as it's A) consenting adults and B) isn't between people who are already directly related.

The first is simple, a minor can't consent to marriage, the second is mainly for biological reasons but also that people who are directly related, (ie brother, sister, mother, father etc) shouldn't need to get married for any reason anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

There will be no proof. They say that 3000 people a year die from second hand smoke, and yet it cannot be proven. You won't find "second hand smoke" on any death certificate.

However, when someone says that "it will not affect my marriage", well, thats a fallacy. As a society, any change in norms affects the body. When society made divorce "mainstream", every couple in America could have stated that it "doesn't affect their marriage".

However, we did discover(thru a skyrocketing divorce rate) that it did indeed affect SOMEONE'S marriage.

So, your claim is wrong.

Mark

Divorce could affect people's marriage because suddenly they have a get out clause. It doesn't necessarily mean that this made their marriage any worse or not. The problem would still be with the interaction between two people.

However gay marriage doesn't affect anyone's marriage who is straight. How could it? If a man were going to leave his wife to be with another man, he could do so without gay marriage or with gay marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

Mark, your opinion is not self-evident truth.

When an opinion is backed by facts, the truth tends to come out. Now, if I wouldn't have backed up my opinions with facts, then you would be correct.

Mark

Your opinion backed by your opinion of the facts is not likely to produce that for which you hope. I am correct, yes.

Nope. if you cannot follow the logic of the facts, then that is your choice. See the problem here Jake? Today, unless you can get certified proof of something, coming up with logical reasons don't hold water.

Thats weak thinking, IMO.

If you have a better explanation of what's happening, then lay it out. Saying my opinion of the facts are wrong means nothing without you clarifying why they might be wrong.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

We don't? Then marriage is just a word. If marriage can mean anything, it can mean nothing. And THAT my friends is how gay marriage can destroy your marriage, or someone like you.

BTW, quite a few gays describe monogamy as coming home to the same partner every night, while sleeping around when they want to. Is this your definition as well?

Mark

If your marriage can be destroyed by the actions of the others than perhaps you spend more time your worrying about your marriage instead of mine.

No, that isn't my opinion in the least. I am wonderfully happy with my husband.

Data shows that marriages were destroyed by making divorce more society friendly.

Do you disagree with that?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Okay, so I'm missing something.

Has someone convinced him this is going to work?
.

I bet when it comes to the 2A, he's very "pro-Constitution".

Yep. But, if "rights" are your litmus test, then you SHOULD NOT DENY any form of marriage you can think of.

So, are you for "anything goes"?

If not, you are EXACTLY the same as I am, only with a slightly different moral code.

Mark

I'm for anything goes... as long as it's A) consenting adults and B) isn't between people who are already directly related.

The first is simple, a minor can't consent to marriage, the second is mainly for biological reasons but also that people who are directly related, (ie brother, sister, mother, father etc) shouldn't need to get married for any reason anyway.

So, your "morals" won't allow you to condone marriage to a minor?

Tell me, what the right age for marriage is?

Amazing that society can put constraints on people to buttress what you believe, but when other try to do it, they are called bigots.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

There will be no proof. They say that 3000 people a year die from second hand smoke, and yet it cannot be proven. You won't find "second hand smoke" on any death certificate.

However, when someone says that "it will not affect my marriage", well, thats a fallacy. As a society, any change in norms affects the body. When society made divorce "mainstream", every couple in America could have stated that it "doesn't affect their marriage".

However, we did discover(thru a skyrocketing divorce rate) that it did indeed affect SOMEONE'S marriage.

So, your claim is wrong.

Mark

Divorce could affect people's marriage because suddenly they have a get out clause. It doesn't necessarily mean that this made their marriage any worse or not. The problem would still be with the interaction between two people.

However gay marriage doesn't affect anyone's marriage who is straight. How could it? If a man were going to leave his wife to be with another man, he could do so without gay marriage or with gay marriage.

I have already given possibilities in this thread. I'm not the fastest typist, so I would rather not repeat myself.

Mark

 

[mdk]

Hint: almost all men are not monogamous by nature.

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

We don't? Then marriage is just a word. If marriage can mean anything, it can mean nothing. And THAT my friends is how gay marriage can destroy your marriage, or someone like you.

BTW, quite a few gays describe monogamy as coming home to the same partner every night, while sleeping around when they want to. Is this your definition as well?

Mark

If your marriage can be destroyed by the actions of the others than perhaps you spend more time your worrying about your marriage instead of mine.

No, that isn't my opinion in the least. I am wonderfully happy with my husband.

Data shows that marriages were destroyed by making divorce more society friendly.

Do you disagree with that?

Mark

How does another couple getting a divorce effect your marriage? Hint: It doesn't. We are not going to stop gays from marrying b/c heterosexuals started divorcing each other more frequently.

 

[80zephyr]

And? the gays never intended to be monogamous, or even to try to be. It amazes me that people wanted to give them the right to marry while the entire time, the gays were thumbing their nose at the very institution they were trying to enter.

Mark

Some gay people are monogamous and some are not. I've been with my husband for almost 15 years and I am still relatively young. Besides, we don't base access to marriage in country on the promiscuity of others.

We don't? Then marriage is just a word. If marriage can mean anything, it can mean nothing. And THAT my friends is how gay marriage can destroy your marriage, or someone like you.

BTW, quite a few gays describe monogamy as coming home to the same partner every night, while sleeping around when they want to. Is this your definition as well?

Mark

If your marriage can be destroyed by the actions of the others than perhaps you spend more time your worrying about your marriage instead of mine.

No, that isn't my opinion in the least. I am wonderfully happy with my husband.

Data shows that marriages were destroyed by making divorce more society friendly.

Do you disagree with that?

Mark

How does another couple getting a divorce effect your marriage? Hint: It doesn't. We are not going to stop gays from marrying b/c heterosexuals started divorcing each other more frequently.

Of course it does. Unless you have another explanation, it is rather obvious, is it not?

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, your logical reasons are easy to follow and have been countered easily above. You have every right to your opinion, Mark, but that opinion has very little weight because your analysis has been weak. Gays getting married do not affect your marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

Mar, your logical reasons are easy to follow and have been countered easily above. You have every right to your opinion, Mark, but that opinion has very little weight because your analysis has been weak.

Not good enough Jake. First, you have to explain why, and then come up with an alternate explanation. If you can't, then you are just casting stones.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mar, your logical reasons are easy to follow and have been countered easily above. You have every right to your opinion, Mark, but that opinion has very little weight because your analysis has been weak.

Not good enough Jake. First, you have to explain why, and then come up with an alternate explanation. If you can't, then you are just casting stones. Mark

Mark, the answers were clearly explained above. They are incontrovertible. You are justing nuh uh. So, no, you don't get "just once more." That's over for you, Mark.

 

[80zephyr]

Mar, your logical reasons are easy to follow and have been countered easily above. You have every right to your opinion, Mark, but that opinion has very little weight because your analysis has been weak.

Not good enough Jake. First, you have to explain why, and then come up with an alternate explanation. If you can't, then you are just casting stones. Mark

Mark, the answers were clearly explained above. They are incontrovertible. You are justing nuh uh. So, no, you don't get "just once more." That's over for you, Mark.

What answers? Did anyone here explain to me why divorces skyrocketed when divorce became socially acceptable? Did it affect my marriage? No. Did it affect marriage? Undoubtedly.

Asking it it only affected MY marriage is silly. Its like saying that if the black plague didn't hurt my family, it doesn't exist. Its nonsense.

So, explain the difference.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Coincidence or causation, Mark. Let's see some proof first that such happened and second LGBT marriage caused it.

 

[Silhouette]

Coincidence or causation, Mark. Let's see some proof first that such happened and second LGBT marriage caused it.

1. Obergefell happened.

2. Resulting in situations where children suffer worse than divorce. In gay marriage, children are cut clean away from either a mother or father for life. Not so in divorce. Ergo: even divorce is more humane to children than gay marriage. Marriage was invented exactly to remedy all the lesser situations children found themselves in which resulted in them missing either a father or mother for life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, that is pathetic argumentation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

From your link:

The psychiatrist George Little, writing in the 1942 issue of Psychoanalytic Review theorized that since blacks served as a "sexual symbol in the white man's life," whites who had difficulty functioning sexually might seek a black mate

In a case like this, it would be a deviancy. However, sex between to well adjusted adults would not be considered a deviancy. Anything can be a deviancy, depending on the circumstance.

Mark

You still ignore your own definition: "Sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of that excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the learned societal norms (paraphilia)."

A black man dipping his wick into a white woman was considered a sexual deviancy - at the time.

What you consider it now is irrelevant because, by your own definition, it is in the context of the societal norms - at the time.


>>>>