quote:I used to favor a state's right to decide individually, maybe 6 or 7 years ago.
And seriously, is there anyone on this forum who used to support SSM and now opposes it? Does anyone who has made that switch?
Ryan Anderson on Marriage
23,814 Views |
276 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by SapperAg
quote:quote:not according to Gallup
Bigtatum.
The difference is that you hate me and call me a 'locust' and I pity you because you are so far removed from the truth. BTW - my view, is still the majority in these United States and my view has been upheld virtually every time a state has put it to a vote.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
Little do you know, Seamaster is impervious to facts and data!
quote:
And seriously, is there anyone on this forum who used to support SSM and now opposes it? Does anyone who has made that switch?
I used to not support ssm but that was before I started posting here. I think it's been a long time since anybody moved from supporting ssm to opposing it. That basically doesn't happen in America. Opposition to ssm will never be higher than it is today and that number will shrink as these people die off and aren't replaced.
Seamaster is doing his best though to breed enough anti ssm kids to swing the dial back to injustice.
quote:ill tell you people like tatum hurt the chances of having my full support of SSM. I'm am sure that I would get along with BB and much better than Tatum.
And seriously, is there anyone on this forum who used to support SSM and now opposes it? Does anyone who has made that switch?
quote:This is the part that really bothers me about a poster like seamaster. Multiple posters have refuted a litany of his claims on this very thread, but he just won't respond to them. Instead he will latch on to some little corner of an argument he thinks he can still will while ignoring the mountains of evidence against him. You can't cure a seamaster with facts because his worldview isn't built around them.
not according to Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
Little do you know, Seamaster is impervious to facts and data!
quote:quote:ill tell you people like tatum hurt the chances of having my full support of SSM. I'm am sure that I would get along with BB and much better than Tatum.
And seriously, is there anyone on this forum who used to support SSM and now opposes it? Does anyone who has made that switch?
If your support for liberty and equality hinge on not liking me then I really doubt you'd ever support ssm. It sounds like you're just making that up to take a jab at me. It's honestly disgusting that anybody would ever attach their support for liberty and equality to their feelings about random supporters for a policy. I guarantee you there are people I would love and hate on both sides of the issue. It would be idiotic for that to be a key deciding point on the policy. The mentality does make a bit of sense coming from somebody on the side that likes to dehumanize gays to help them cope with their subhuman treatment of homosexuals.
quote:
Yes, many of the children of farmers would stick around longer. That doesn't change what I said. Children would often get sent out of the household (even the children of peasants). This was considered normal and even beneficial.
Though you are correct about people becoming adults at an earlier age, people are far more transient now than at any point in human history. And though children did move on, throughout most of western history, the vast majority stayed in the same villages surrounded by extended family and clan for their entire lives. When they did migrate, it was usually with family members.
quote:That is also false. Instead, I am yelled at and told I am in the dark ages and a 'locust' because I am so controversial to suggest that family should be Mom + Dad + Kids. How awful that I wouldn't think that any other arrangement, including those which violate natural law, are just as valid. Please name a single instance where anything I have said has been 'refuted.' And, by 'refuted' I don't mean table pounding and name calling. I mean actual facts presented that 'refute' a key argument against gay 'marriage.'
Multiple posters have refuted a litany of his claims on this very thread,
And, while some polls are close currently remind me...which states have voted on gay marriage and approved of it? Which have voted against gay marriage and decided, at the voting booth, that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman?
quote:You're kidding right?
Please name a single instance where anything I have said has been 'refuted.' And, by 'refuted' I don't mean table pounding and name calling. I mean actual facts presented that 'refute' a key argument against gay 'marriage.'
Read the thread. Here I'll hold your hand for you, just a handful of counterpoints that you refused to address:
How is this another "shoe" to do this? How does my being married make your marriage less meaningful? If your gay neighbors, brothers/sisters, and children marrying somehow has some impact on your marriage, you don't have much of one to begin with, if you ask me.
m not going to let you just throw this out there without backing it up somehow. How, specifically will my being married **** up a generation of Americans. I want specific examples, not vague generalities. Will my marriage cause people to go insane? Will it make them shoot up movie theaters? Will they develop eating disorders, or start listening to Nickelback? What specific things will start happening to non-gay people once I am legally married in every state?
If you're going to play the slippery slope card, you've got to go look back up that slope instead of only looking down it. This slope started sloping when the government got involved in regulating marriage relationships. It really tilted downward when it started letting the races intermarry.
Again, please provide specific examples of how this is so. How specifically will your marriage be less meaningful, to the point of being meaningLESS? If you suddenly became a widower, and 10 years later wanted to re-marry someone you loved, are you really telling me that the fact that I'm existing out in the world somewhere, married to a man, would make you not want to marry her anymore? Again, I submit that says a lot more about you as a person than it does about the role of marriage in society and law.
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of this country for over a decade. It still has not happened. Not one time.
This is the most ridiculous argument out of a vast pile of ridiculous arguments. How does me being married result in someone else deciding not to have children? Again, be specific. How do these two things correlate, in any way, much less to such a degree as to cause a "precipitous" decline in birth rates?
I'll take my steak and beers right now, actually. We've already got an example of this in Massachusetts, where marriage equality has existed for almost 12 years.
CDC marriage rates by state
quote:
Remember when the government rid itself of anti-miscegenation laws and then forced churches to marry blacks and whites? Me neither.
quote:That's just a quick snippet from the last couple pages
not according to Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
quote:
> am yelled at and told I am in the dark ages and a 'locust' because I am so controversial to suggest that family should be Mom + Dad + Kids
You don't suggest crap. You demand it be stipulated by law. Again, no one has any problem with your traditional marriage, it's just your inane arguments for prohibition of gay marriage. You are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between the two.
quote:
How awful that I wouldn't think that any other arrangement, including those which violate natural law, are just as valid
I don't think you know what "natural law" is. Describe how those violate "natural law".
quote:
nd, while some polls are close currently remind me
See this is what I'm talking about. You were just shown a reputable poll where your worldview was clearly down 13% and had a clear trend that shows it dying with the younger generations, just like civil rights, unlike your claim that it would last like roe v wade. About 80% of 18-29s reject your view and it's growing in all demographics. Not only is it not that close but you are getting crushed by the trend. So you can look to past polls and votes all you want, the fact is opinions have changed because we've had the debates over and over and you've lost over and over.
You've yet to make one solid argument against gay marriage on any of the litany of threads you've started on the subject. Go on, give me your number one argument on why it should prohibited?
Agggrad08....
Beer Baron's reply to me that you quoted at the start of your previous refutes nothing I said. It merely challenges that my predictions are valid but it does not refute them.
How does BB getting married result in fewer children? Because gay marriage is just one more notch against marriage as marriage has always been - the bedrock institution where children are procreated and, ideally, have a stable rearing by both parents. Fewer heterosexuals will be marrying in the future and gay 'marriage' will just be one reason why marriage losses its appeal. That's my prediction. Now, refuting that is actually not possible right now because its a prediction. We can look to other countries, however, where gay marriage has been legal for a long time and those countries all reflect lower marriage rates as a whole. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Nor have I ever compare this interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is always perfectly fine.
In nearly every US state that BB cited the marriage rate has....dropped. Its dropping overall and I suggest that the erosion of the meaning of marriage is a big reason why.
How gay marriage violates natural law: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-30/news/ct-met-gay-marriage-natural-law-20121230_1_natural-law-natural-law-marriage-fairness-act
Finally, again, you can show me a poll that the 'tide is shifting' and it may be shifting but I will point you to nearly every state that has every voted on it and guess what, gay marriage losses nearly every time.
Beer Baron's reply to me that you quoted at the start of your previous refutes nothing I said. It merely challenges that my predictions are valid but it does not refute them.
How does BB getting married result in fewer children? Because gay marriage is just one more notch against marriage as marriage has always been - the bedrock institution where children are procreated and, ideally, have a stable rearing by both parents. Fewer heterosexuals will be marrying in the future and gay 'marriage' will just be one reason why marriage losses its appeal. That's my prediction. Now, refuting that is actually not possible right now because its a prediction. We can look to other countries, however, where gay marriage has been legal for a long time and those countries all reflect lower marriage rates as a whole. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Nor have I ever compare this interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is always perfectly fine.
In nearly every US state that BB cited the marriage rate has....dropped. Its dropping overall and I suggest that the erosion of the meaning of marriage is a big reason why.
How gay marriage violates natural law: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-30/news/ct-met-gay-marriage-natural-law-20121230_1_natural-law-natural-law-marriage-fairness-act
Finally, again, you can show me a poll that the 'tide is shifting' and it may be shifting but I will point you to nearly every state that has every voted on it and guess what, gay marriage losses nearly every time.
You are aware that we've got massive amounts of data that suggest wealthier, more well off more educated people have fewer kids. As we've seen the west attain a higher quality of life we've seen lower birth rates. Your association to gay marriage is simply made up nonsense. Never once has a couple said to themselves "I would have a kid if it weren't for those gays."
As for gays riding marriage or the luster of it. Hogwash. Gays can't degrade the institution anymore than we straights already have. It's just not as important to life these days. We support ourselves easier. Our society is far less dependent on marital ties and status that we saw in earlier caste societies.
It's just as ridiculous to suggest a couple is not getting married because of some gay getting married elsewhere as it would be to suggest hot dogs are losing popularity because gays eat them.
As for gays riding marriage or the luster of it. Hogwash. Gays can't degrade the institution anymore than we straights already have. It's just not as important to life these days. We support ourselves easier. Our society is far less dependent on marital ties and status that we saw in earlier caste societies.
It's just as ridiculous to suggest a couple is not getting married because of some gay getting married elsewhere as it would be to suggest hot dogs are losing popularity because gays eat them.
quote:
We can look to other countries, however, where gay marriage has been legal for a long time and those countries all reflect lower marriage rates as a whole. Coincidence? I don't think so.
There are many reasons why people in "advanced" countries have quit having children. The trend has been downward for decades in every first world country, including America. This trend started long before gay marriage.
The third world is where our population explosion comes from. Of course, the first world is filling itself with immigrants from the third and our governments are all corporate shills hell bound on economic disparity between haves and have nots, so you may have plenty to worry about besides gay marriage in the near future.
Places like Sweden, where 20% of the population is now non-Swedish (and growing rapidly, almost all from Africa and Islam), might see the pendulum swing on the issue of gay marriage. So take heart.
Also your argument that voting is somehow a better metric for public opinion than polling is rather silly. Many of the elections you could site are several years old over a period where we've seen a large shift in opinion. Further, it's obvious why such elections would favor your side. Old people vote in large numbers. Old people are more likely to not support gay marriage. Young people don't vote very much in these elections. Your sides arguments are so pathetically desperate. Your view is literally dying out. You've lost the argument. You're only hope is to breed your way back to injustice and you're sure trying.
quote:It refutes the reasoning provided to support them. You can't disprove what you have stated since many are vapid predictions, but you can show how poorly thought and unevidenced they are. And you provided no counter reasoning at all.
Beer Baron's reply to me that you quoted at the start of your previous refutes nothing I said. It merely challenges that my predictions are valid but it does not refute them.
quote:This doesn't follow and it's baseless. This is what your mind can't seem to fathom. How is gay marriage a notch against marriage? Demonstrate this, and show rationally how it will lead to few traditional marriages and few children within those marriages. It's incredibly poorly thought.
How does BB getting married result in fewer children? Because gay marriage is just one more notch against marriage as marriage has always been - the bedrock institution where children are procreated
quote:I really wonder if you are closet gay sometimes. I'm straight and in no way will gays getting married influence my thoughts on marrying a woman. Will it influence your thoughts on marrying your wife and staying married? Who is this hypothetical person who won't get married since gays marry?
and, ideally, have a stable rearing by both parents. Fewer heterosexuals will be marrying in the future and gay 'marriage' will just be one reason why marriage losses its appeal.
quote:It's laughable. Just as your prediction that churches in america will be forced to marry gays. Where they forced to marry black to white? Are they forced to marry black to white today?
That's my prediction.
quote:Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
now, refuting that is actually not possible right now because its a prediction. We can look to other countries, however, where gay marriage has been legal for a long time and those countries all reflect lower marriage rates as a whole. Coincidence? I don't think so.
You can refute your reasoning even if you cant refute your actual prediction. For some reason this is lost on you. Marriage rates drop in developed and successful nations, it was true long before gay marriage and the data shows no spike after gay marriage. Learn how to identify causes.
quote:Interracial marriage was argued against by people just like you using the exact same sorts of arguments. That's why it's relevant
Nor have I ever compare this interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is always perfectly fine.
.
quote:This has much to due with the loss of stigma of divorce and attitudes toward heterosexual marriage and nothing to do with gays. Again, who is this hypothetical person who cares less about women and marriage because gay marriage is legal?
In nearly every US state that BB cited the marriage rate has....dropped. Its dropping overall and I suggest that the erosion of the meaning of marriage is a big reason why.
quote:This is a weak minded. Polygamy is perfectly normal in nature and nature is perfectly complementary toward it and it creates every bit as much life. Do you think polygamy should be legal based on natural law? Nature says nothing about monogamy at all.
How gay marriage violates natural law: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-30/news/ct-met-gay-marriage-natural-law-20121230_1_natural-law-natural-law-marriage-fairness-act
quote:
Finally, again, you can show me a poll that the 'tide is shifting' and it may be shifting but I will point you to nearly every state that has every voted on it and guess what, gay marriage losses nearly every time.
Gay marriage is legal in most the nation. The votes you are pointing to are before the majority in those states were for it. Now they are in many and overall, and it will continue to grow as evidenced by those polls you are desperate to ignore. So yes, many past votes went your way, enjoy those there won't be many more. Just like with civil rights, it's the older generation clinging to your archaic views. Since they are based in religion not reason, they have little resonance with the younger generations and will die out.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/pol-same-sex-marriage/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
And I'm still waiting for you to provide this:
quote:
"Go on, give me your number one argument on why it should prohibited?
Also, here you go Seamaster. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_74
Ireland also has a referendum coming up in May.
It's over, man.
Ireland also has a referendum coming up in May.
It's over, man.
quote:I alluded to that previously. Marriage has been under attack for a long time and not just by the gay 'marriage' issue. I already said that. Marriage, as institution, has been weekend for decades by easy divorce. Gay 'marriage' is just one more stripe waged on marriage that is particularly harmful because it defines marriage into nothing and codifies an idea that children do not need a father and a mother.
There are many reasons why people in "advanced" countries have quit having children. The trend has been downward for decades in every first world country, including America. This trend started long before gay marriage.
quote:You are wrong. Voting is way more telling that informal polls. People are pressured in polls to be a certain way but when they're voting they tend to speak their true opinions.
Also your argument that voting is somehow a better metric for public opinion than polling is rather silly.
Washington is one state. I can name 36 states that have voted on it the other way.
quote:Simple.
How is gay marriage a notch against marriage?
It defines marriage as something that is not directed towards the procreation of children by default and it codifies for all of society that a father and mother are not needed for a child, which is false.
quote:I wonder if you are heroin abuser sometimes.
I really wonder if you are closet gay sometimes.
See how unhelpful such comments are?
To pile on seamasters woeful natural law nonsense it tally just boils down "marriage is about babies." This is false. There is no requirement to have kids or be able to have kids to get married. Clearly people have kids outside of marriage as well. This is an absurd redefinition of marriage. Marriage binds people together legally and financially. That's what it does. That's what actually happens when you marry. It's essentially forming a domestic entity. That is what happens. That is what marriage does. Marriage doesn't make you have kids. Marriage doesn't make you able to have kids. It's a domestic business contract.
quote:Yet the states did not vote for it. Even liberal California voted NO on Prop 8. The reason gay 'marriage' is legal is because of the courts and in particular activist judges who have an axe to grind and do not respect the will of the people. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court upholds the rights of states to decide this for themselves and many, by large majorities, already have spoken.
Gay marriage is legal in most the nation. The votes you are pointing to are before the majority in those states were for it.
quote:Marriage has long been more about procreation and the marrying of woman past birthing age has been going on a long time. I don't think people are confused about the basic biology of procreation. It's an absurd claim, everyone knows where babies come from.
It defines marriage as something that is not directed towards the procreation of children by default and it codifies for all of society that a father and mother are not needed for a child, which is false.
quote:It's relavent to the overall point which you ran from. Why would gay marriage affect your own view of your wife, women, or marriage?
I wonder if you are heroin abuser sometimes.
See how unhelpful such comments are?
quote:You can brush me aside all you want. I did not make up the natural law argument. Its a valid argument and really has never been refuted other than saying, "No it isn.t" and that is not an argument.
To pile on seamasters woeful natural law nonsense it tally just boils down "marriage is about babies." This is false. There is no requirement to have kids or be able to have kids to get married. Clearly people have kids outside of marriage as well. This is an absurd redefinition of marriage. Marriage binds people together legally and financially. That's what it does. That's what actually happens when you marry. It's essentially forming a domestic entity. That is what happens. That is what marriage does. Marriage doesn't make you have kids. Marriage doesn't make you able to have kids. It's a domestic business contract.
You're right that people have kids out of marriage. I say that is a bad thing and statistics back me up on that.
And you are right, that when the spiritual bond of marriage is erased - due to easy divorce/remarriage - marriage simply becomes a 'legal and financial bond' but you make my point for me. Marriage is supposed to be more than that and it once was and as we chip away at marriage our society gets worse and worse. Generations of children are raised without fathers. This is tragic. If marriage were restored to something beyond just a 'legal and financial' binding than we'd be on the right track.
Heck, if marriage were just a 'legal and financial' binding, I would have no problem with gays getting married or polygamy.
quote:They are starting to now. Again, the opinions are rapidly changing, your worldview is rapidly dying. By vote, and by court gay marriage will be nationally accepted before long. Sure the deep south will be a hold out, but aren't they always.
Yet the states did not vote for it.
The fact is they way demographics look today and have trended to this point you lose your popular support argument. You are simply in denial at this point.
quote:Are you a bot or a human? How many times do I need to repeat myself? Marriage effects all of society. There is no denying that. Nobody can refute that. Marriage has always been the best place for children to be raised - by mother and father. Nothing can refute that. Nobody ever has. No 'study' has ever refuted that. But now you want to codify that all of that does not matter.
Why would gay marriage affect your own view of your wife, women, or marriage?
quote:Which is why its so important for people on the side of truth to speak up and not be silenced by table pounding.
They are starting to now. Again, the opinions are rapidly changing, your worldview is rapidly dying.
quote:quote:You are wrong. Voting is way more telling that informal polls. People are pressured in polls to be a certain way but when they're voting they tend to speak their true opinions.
Also your argument that voting is somehow a better metric for public opinion than polling is rather silly.
Washington is one state. I can name 36 states that have voted on it the other way.
So you really think the polls are wrong and people secretly vote their heart in the booth?
Will you admit you are wrong when old people start dying off and polls continue you shift? There may not be anymore votes which would be good because rights should not be determined by popular opinion.
quote:
I alluded to that previously. Marriage has been under attack for a long time and not just by the gay 'marriage' issue. I already said that. Marriage, as institution, has been weekend for decades by easy divorce. Gay 'marriage' is just one more stripe waged on marriage that is particularly harmful because it defines marriage into nothing and codifies an idea that children do not need a father and a mother.
It's primarily an economic issue. It's unfortunate that third worlders don't quit having kids too. Less people in the world is desirable.
quote:It's not valid, and it has been refuted. And it's not a sound argument as it doesn't lead to supporting monogamy. Basically, you've tried poorly to make this about procreation, but procreation doesn't demand monogamy.
You can brush me aside all you want. I did not make up the natural law argument. Its a valid argument and really has never been refuted other than saying, "No it isn.t" and that is not an argument.
polygamy is much easier to justify by a natural law argument as people are naturally polygamous. There is no natural drive toward monogamy, in fact you have to fight your nature to stay true to your wife/husband.
quote:quote:I alluded to that previously. Marriage has been under attack for a long time and not just by the gay 'marriage' issue. I already said that. Marriage, as institution, has been weekend for decades by easy divorce. Gay 'marriage' is just one more stripe waged on marriage that is particularly harmful because it defines marriage into nothing and codifies an idea that children do not need a father and a mother.
There are many reasons why people in "advanced" countries have quit having children. The trend has been downward for decades in every first world country, including America. This trend started long before gay marriage.
To be clear you are saying people aren't having less kids because they're wealthier and better off. The studies showing this are just finding specious correlation?
The real cause is the vague "attack on marriage" you slide to?
quote:Show a specific line of causation. Actually think.
Are you a bot or a human? How many times do I need to repeat myself? Marriage effects all of society.
quote:I'm not denying that marriage affects society. I'm denying that gay marriage affects rates of child birth, your specific and stupid claim. Actually defend that and stop with these trite vapid talking points.
There is no denying that.
quote:But you have no truth to offer. You have no reason to offer. Your too afraid to even defend your reasons for your "predictions". The one pounding tables is you. How many gay threads have I started? How many has beer baron started? 7th gen? ANYONE? You are the principle source of gay thread in all of texags. Who is pounding tables? Who is making noise? The rest of us are just calmly continuing on with the fact that your arguments are defeated and the public is trending against you.
Which is why its so important for people on the side of truth to speak up and not be silenced by table pounding.
quote:quote:Simple.
How is gay marriage a notch against marriage?
It defines marriage as something that is not directed towards the procreation of children by default and it codifies for all of society that a father and mother are not needed for a child, which is false.
Govt marriage is not about children. Nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing about getting marriage requires you to have a child, be able to have one, make it possible to have one. If you want a procreation contract go make one. Marriage is not at all a procreation contract. As it isn't a procreation contract it doesn't say anything about whether kids have or need a father or a mother.
Also this should be obvious but millions of children have father and mother without marriage. How is that possible? Because marriage isn't a procreation contract or a child rearing contract. It's not.
Please never bring up this pathetic argument again
quote:quote:You can brush me aside all you want. I did not make up the natural law argument. Its a valid argument and really has never been refuted other than saying, "No it isn.t" and that is not an argument.
To pile on seamasters woeful natural law nonsense it tally just boils down "marriage is about babies." This is false. There is no requirement to have kids or be able to have kids to get married. Clearly people have kids outside of marriage as well. This is an absurd redefinition of marriage. Marriage binds people together legally and financially. That's what it does. That's what actually happens when you marry. It's essentially forming a domestic entity. That is what happens. That is what marriage does. Marriage doesn't make you have kids. Marriage doesn't make you able to have kids. It's a domestic business contract.
You're right that people have kids out of marriage. I say that is a bad thing and statistics back me up on that.
And you are right, that when the spiritual bond of marriage is erased - due to easy divorce/remarriage - marriage simply becomes a 'legal and financial bond' but you make my point for me. Marriage is supposed to be more than that and it once was and as we chip away at marriage our society gets worse and worse. Generations of children are raised without fathers. This is tragic. If marriage were restored to something beyond just a 'legal and financial' binding than we'd be on the right track.
Heck, if marriage were just a 'legal and financial' binding, I would have no problem with gays getting married or polygamy.
It's not a valid argument. It's been refuted. It falsely tries to turn marriage into a procreation or child rearing contract. I've pointed out that isn't what marriage is. The argument falls flat.
my marriage is much more. Thankfully government doesn't define my marriage. Thankfully you don't either. My marriage is far more than pumping out litters of Catholics.
Featured Stories
See All
No. 20 Aggies finish Players Era with a 81-77 victory over Rutgers
by Luke Evangelist
Aggies sweep Gamecocks, will carry four-game heater into tourney
by Neil Jhurani
12:07
2h ago
640
24:54
1h ago
868
The TexAgs Tailgate: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Richard Zane