Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 317:
Line 317: + + + + +
→SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage: Well, that's what it is.
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::All three of your points are false, and this is not a debate page. Try [[Debate:Should America permit same-sex marriage?]].
:::#Your "inability to see a motive" does not imply that the effect will be harmless. A drunk usually doesn't want to have a fatal car accident.
:::#A desire to be subsidized for something does not validate that thing. Many drug addicts wish the government would give them free heroin.
:::#If there were a refutation, you would have given it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:08, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)