I have done a bit of research, I had tried to write this earlier with not enough backing to stand behind me. Now I feel I do. With same sex marriage you have the idea of men marrying men and women marrying women. Now, with the change of marriage law, we would have to allow all marriages, including inner and outer species marriages. Here is an eample of what I mean: The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." (Dailey, 2004). Also, gay marriages do not last as long as non-gay marriages. Marriage is supposed to be the everlasting commitment to one another by man and woman. How is that possible when a gay relationship lasts on average only a year and a h
alf (Xidirou, 2003). Also what is the point of marriage when you refuse to be monogamous? The same Dutch study also found that "committed" gays couples have an average of eight sexual partners per year, outside of their relationship. (Xidirou, 2003). Now also keep in mind not only are they the most promiscuous group, but also the most spousal abusive. Homosexual couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as non-married heterosexual couples. Example being that lesbians suffer from higher violence levels then that of married women. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2000)
alf (Xidirou, 2003). Also what is the point of marriage when you refuse to be monogamous? The same Dutch study also found that "committed" gays couples have an average of eight sexual partners per year, outside of their relationship. (Xidirou, 2003). Now also keep in mind not only are they the most promiscuous group, but also the most spousal abusive. Homosexual couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as non-married heterosexual couples. Example being that lesbians suffer from higher violence levels then that of married women. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2000)Off that note I want to write something about children as well. Now I know anyone can be a good parent, and their are a lot of single parents out there, however, I do not feel children should be in the home of abuse, polygomy, or any other bad influence. I am not saying all gays are a bad influence, but as a whole they could be considered one. They want gay marriage legallized as a whole, unfortunately they shall be treated as one. Since we all know reproduction requires both male and female anatomy, gay couples send the wrong message to children. Society depends on heteroseual marriages to provide a "seedbed" of future generations. Seeing as how gays can not reproduce, if they were to have a child in the home it would almost instantly stimulate the thought of not belonging, thus making a gay couple unsuitable for children. Not to mention with the violence and revolving bedroom door theory, it often makes the home dangerous and very unlikely a safe place for a child.
Now another thing on my mind is the saying, "We have gay rights!" Actually, no you don't. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue and should not be conducted as one. Defining marriage as the union between man and woman does not deny any gay from basic civil rights given to any other citizen. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or any other legistation for that matter that does it deny gays any rights. Now you might ask then why can they not get married? Because no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they may so choose. A parent cannot marry their child, two or more spouses, the spouse of another person, or any other species, even if they are in love.
Dailey, T. J., Ph.D. (2004). The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02.
Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
"Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30. Cp. "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
Wow...umm i dnt realy understand still but ppl have defferent beliefs and shit like that so i guess ur opinion matters...?!?
ReplyDeleteyou impress me sometimes bro.... and yeah im still watching
ReplyDeleteSkool is now in session. Let’s go over your paper topic by topic.
ReplyDelete“Now, with the change of marriage law, we would have to allow all marriages, including inner and outer species marriages.”
1. This is called a “Red Herring”. It is a deliberate attempt at using a falsehood to prove your argument buy using the fallacy as support. Why is this statement untrue?
a. Animals can not sign a consent form nor can they consent orally.
b. Animals are not “People” as designated by the constitution. As such they have no rights other then those as protected as property under the constitution.
In other words… You can’t marry your TV and you can’t marry your dog. And on a side note, using a red herring is always a bad idea. Why? Because once it’s discovered it means that either A. You’re an idiot or B. A liar.
This is not getting off on the right foot. You have just started your argument and by the end of the third sentence we don’t know if you are untrustworthy or just simply have a two digit IQ.
But to be fair your just plagiarizing at this point. This is a cut and past hack from Dailey’s article. And no, we won’t call it a “paper”. He is a staff writer for the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. A radical right wing religious based lobby group.
Here is a nifty tip for making a point. You can’t quote radicals of any type and expect to be taken seriously. Could imagine if I told you I had proof that Republican’s were evil and when you asked what my proof was I told you that Nancy Pelosi told me? LOL. OK? Lets’ move on.
“…gay marriages do not last as long as non-gay marriages. Marriage is supposed to be the everlasting commitment to one another by man and woman. How is that possible when a gay relationship lasts on average only a year and a h alf”
ReplyDeleteFirst you have a False Assumption. You are inferring that hetero marriages do in fact last forever when it is self apparent that they do not. Secondly you are Muddying The Waters with the statement that “Marriage is supposed to be…man and woman” That is what this discussion is about, you can not prove an argument with that same argument! Seriously!
“Defining marriage as the union between man and woman does not deny any gay from basic civil rights given to any other citizen. “
ReplyDelete1. If you make a rule that defines something it by default eliminates other possibilities. The more you define it the more you remove other possibilities.
i.e. If you say that 1 + 1 = 2 then you can not say that 1 + 3 = 2. You have by default made a secondary rule that is needed to support your argument.
So yes, you are removing a civil right.
2. Yep, it is a CIVIL right. It isn’t a godly right, or spiritual, it’s one created by a “Civil” state. If you still can’t follow this, pick up dictionary. RIF
“Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or any other legislation for that matter that does it deny gays any rights. Now you might ask then why can they not get married?”
So you agree that they can get married? I mean if it’s not banned then it is legal, that is the way the law works. And if that isn’t the way it works then why do they need to add the wording about “between a man and a woman”
“Homosexual couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as non-married heterosexual couples. Example being that lesbians suffer from higher violence levels then that of married women. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2000)”
ReplyDeleteNow you are just outright lying. I know this as I ACTUALLY READ THAT PAPER! The summary and I quote…
“Research on violence in same-sex relationships
has been limited to studies of small, unrepresen-
tative samples of gay and lesbian couples. Re-
sults from these studies suggest that same-sex
couples are about as violent as heterosexual
couples.”
All this points to the fact that you are not on a search to find out what is really the right answer. You already have your answer and you are looking for arguments to support it. That is your right, it’s still a free country last time I checked.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really want to be a real man and stand on your own two feet, don’t just parrot the words of some hack who is on the dole for the political right. And don’t cherry pick your data from some fact sheet all the while ignoring the BIG BOLD print that says the opposite.
This country was founded by people seeking freedom from religious persecution. On July 4th they put everything they had on the line when they said…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The very first amendment to the constitution, the single most important amendment is
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Yet that is exactly what you are trying to do. You have taken a religious edict and you are trying to force it into other people’s homes. Into their lives, and on their families.
That’s not just wrong, it’s Un-American! It’s why our forefathers left Europe to begin with!
As to the guy who is chewing up your blog. I’m a heterosexual, father of two. Army brat, grew up in the Midwest and an NRA member.
http://www.codeodor.com/images/dont_tread_on_me.gif
lesson 1, to mr. heterosexual army brat from the midwest, in case you skipped high school (which seems to be a possibility considering that you obviously know everything)... (and if you didnt catch that for lack of a sense of humor, that attitude is commonly known as sarcasm)... but as i was saying before... blogs like these are normally used for debates. this meaning that the writer would present a topic and write what you call a paper on this topic. now again, in high school, we called these papers persuasive. yep. that means you are supposed to do whatever you can to convince the reader that your opinion is in fact the best. have i lost you yet? try to keep up;) now after going through school myself as a heterosexual female (had to include that because i didnt want to be left out by not including my personal sexual orientation although it pertains to the topic and opinion of the reader in no way, shape or form. just tryin to keep up with you mr. anonymous:) moving on...
ReplyDeletelesson 2, also for you mr. anonymous. when trying to prove a point, even if trying to prove someone wrong, attitude is key. i know this from experience on debate teams and understanding how to communicate with people. it is NOT a good idea to try winning a debate by making jabs at your opponent such as your two point i.q. and/or liar theory. it simply makes YOU look like a jackass and draws attentions away from your points and facts to your attitude and how much destain people may develop for you. so now, considering that you are so supportive of the rights of the people, and the respect that people should have for each other, i will start addressing you respectfully, as a person, the way you should have addressed the writer.
i cant say that i already knew the statistics that were presented in both of your arguments so i did my own research. i found that domestic violence is in fact just as prevalent in homosexual couples as it is in heterosexual couples. as far as the other statistics, i think that your points were settled.
now my personal opinion. i appreciate all people for who they are, not for the color of their skin, age, gender, or sexual orientation. because i believe that these factors may be part of every persons life, they do not define who you are as a person. therefore i do not oppose gay marriage. i believe that everyone should have the right to love, and be with whoever they wish to be with, as long as that person is of age, has mutual feelings, and as long as it involves another human. research has shown that homosexual tendencies are not always a choice. at an early age, children will already reveal certain traits that give every parent an idea of their sexual orientation. this shows that a certain chemical embalance in a childs brain could affect their sexual orientation which leads me to believe that it is not a choice but a way of life that these people are born with. i can not judge people for having homosexual tendencies because it is now, to me, like judging someone for the color of their skin. both you are born with, and unless you are micheal jackson you cannot change either. however, with my rights as a us citizen to vote, i will choose wisely the ways that i cast my ballots and how they will appeal or affect myself. as a christian i do not believe in supporting gay marriage because it violates every law of marriage in the christian faith. so any other opinions???
I love you niknak
ReplyDeleteNiknak, you kind of missed the bus on this whole thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are trying to insult me for “knowing everything”. As if being smart and successful was a liability. Really? Are you next going to slight me for being just to damn good looking?
Also this isn’t high school. This is the real world. And what you call “persuasive” is also called simply rhetoric. Oh, more informally…. “Bullshit”
Do you understand the difference between rhetoric and logic/dialectic? Google it if you don’t. The short of it is politicians and used car salesmen use rhetoric aka “bullshit” People seeking the truth, use logic.
Your buddy here was proposing that he had done his “research” and was now prepared to speak (Bullshit) on this topic. He even quoted sources. But I called him on it. I pointed out that his first “source” was a hired gun for an extremist right religious group. Not what one would call a reliable source. And secondly I caught him in a bald face lie. The study he was quoting said in fact the opposite. Seriously, how do you defend that?
As to me quoting who I am and where I’m from, it’s about sources. Surely your debate team understood that most basic of fundamentals??? You do understand why my message carries more weight then if it came from a gay man? If you don’t then move on, this pool is too deep for you to swim in.
As to your lesson #2. This is not a popularity contest, trust me, I don’t give a rats ass if you like me. The truth is I have enough friends as it is and the facts are still the facts whether you like them or not.
And don’t give me your “I can’t support them as a Christian”. You will loose this argument. You can’t win any debate with cafeteria style religion and give up on your dramatics. It does not violate “EVERY LAW!” Get a grip! How does being gay affect “Thou shall not steal” law. Or how about the “Do not labor upon the Sabbath”, hell being a gay man would make that whole “Do not covet they neighbors wife” part a slam dunk.
If you are so worried about the gays, then what about these bible laws?
-No work on the Sabbath, the penalty is stoning
-Planting different crops side by side? Stoning!
-Curse your mother or father and... yep, STONING!
-You can’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric. Stoning.
-If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people"
-People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God.
-Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.
-Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle
-Don't cut your hair nor shave. Do you shave your legs?
-If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
-Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. Actually I'm ok with this. Dirty hippies!
-If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.
These, just like the gay is wrong rules all come from Leviticus. They are ALL part of the same set. Either live by all of them or none. Don’t pick and choose and then try to use your “faith” as a shield.
As to the use of Anonymous, it’s what this calls you by default if you don’t have a login. Besides, that, what does my name have to do with the fact that you are picking and choosing what part of the good book you want to use. Once again… you are using the dreaded Red Herring.