Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage

[Granite]

I get depressed posting on TOL:

• Because no one reads the OP articles and debates them.
• Because I get liberals firing questions not in earnest, but to derail the conversation.

First of all, enough of this "liberal" malarkey. That has zero to do with the discussion.

You've painted yourself into a corner and are too stubborn to admit you've made mistakes. You refuse to answer questions. You refuse to debate. And when you finally realize you're in over your head you whine and try to end the discussion completely. Your little act here has gotten incredibly old and incredibly boring.

Put up, or shut up. If you're so interested in having a discussion, do it. Otherwise, find a Kleenex and go somewhere else.

 

[Rusha]

I get depressed posting on TOL:

Because no one reads the OP articles and debates them.

I ALWAYS read the OP and just happen to disagree with most of what your comments and claims.

Because I get liberals firing questions not in earnest, but to derail the conversation.

My question was in earnest. You made the statement that a couple's marriage should only end via death.

I gave you legitimate samples of just THAT happening. Do you really not understand how dismissive and hostile your replies are towards those who have been the victim of child and domestic abuse?

 

[GFR7]

I ALWAYS read the OP and just happen to disagree with most of what your comments and claims.



My question was in earnest. You made the statement that a couple's marriage should only end via death.

I gave you legitimate samples of just THAT happening. Do you really not understand how dismissive and hostile your replies are towards those who have been the victim of child and domestic abuse?

No, of course in cases of violence and abuse - where no cure or radical change is pending - this would not hold.

 

[TracerBullet]

Really important piece from Public Discourse.

The poor are always harmed.

But of course gay advocates have little concern for the poor and for their children. :nono:


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14822/

I(t never ceases to amaze how low those wanting to promote hate and discrimination will stoop

 

[TracerBullet]

the purpose of marriage
is
to protect the child

we must remember that

but not the children of same gendered couples.

 

[TracerBullet]

I don't need to let you know: My ideology is coherent. You're the one who cannot grasp it.

your double standard is not coherent it is in fact a logical fallacy

 

[Rusha]

So feel free to tell us what a spouse should have to deal with before being granted a divorce?

Death.

No, of course in cases of violence and abuse - where no cure or radical change is pending - this would not hold.

Then why did you state *death*? Also, adultery, alcoholism and drug addiction is also problems that put the rest the other members of the family at risk.

Love and honor should mean mutual respect and meeting one another half way. It leads to harmony. Two parent households without any harmony, peace and security are far more damaging than a single parent either doing it all or sharing the responsibilities in a relationship that is no longer hostile.

 

[TracerBullet]

GFR7 linked a quality article. Sadly, once again, I doubt anyone read it :sigh:

I doubt you read as it's all fluff and nondsense.


For instance:

As the brief demonstrates, based on data from nations and US states that have adopted same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to predict that, over a generation, a forced redefinition of marriage would produce at least a 5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates.

What data is this? How is (or how could) a causative connection to marriage equality established?

According to the marriage scholars’ brief,

Just who are these "scholars"? And what qualifies someone to be a 'marriage scholar'?

mandatory same-sex marriage would create a substantial risk of reduced heterosexual marriage rates— (because it) would undermine some of the key, secular norms that, among other things, encourage heterosexuals to marry.

What key secular norms?

That is why states have traditionally supported man-woman marriage,

Unsupported assertion

an institution that has historically and universally been linked to procreation,

False

Of course, marriage provides benefits to adults as well. But these are secondary to the main purpose of an institution that, in the words of revered psychologist Bronislaw Malinowski, is “primarily designed by the needs of offspring, by the dependence of the children upon their parents.” Indeed, as the religious skeptic Bertrand Russell candidly observed, “But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex.”

I thought marriage was about raising children, not it seems marriage is about sex. so which is it?

 

[GFR7]

First of all, enough of this "liberal" malarkey. That has zero to do with the discussion.

You've painted yourself into a corner and are too stubborn to admit you've made mistakes. You refuse to answer questions. You refuse to debate. And when you finally realize you're in over your head you whine and try to end the discussion completely. Your little act here has gotten incredibly old and incredibly boring.

Put up, or shut up. If you're so interested in having a discussion, do it. Otherwise, find a Kleenex and go somewhere else.

I am not refusing to debate. But we've gone over and over - on numerous threads - the worn-out adoption/infertility arguments. I responded, I linked scholarly pieces, and it's never enough for you.

There IS a solid ant-gay marriage argument, which still allows for heterosexual infertile couples to marry; you just don't like it.

 

[Rusha]

I thought marriage was about raising children, not it seems marriage is about sex. so which is it?

Perhaps for some it's about companionship or security. The problem is that they have the desire to define marriage for OTHER couples whose needs do not or may not match their own.

 

[Rusha]

There IS a solid ant-gay marriage argument, which still allows for heterosexual infertile couples to marry; you just don't like it.

IF that were the case, you wouldn't always have to bring up the inability to for homosexual couples to produce biological children with one another.

 

[Granite]

I am not refusing to debate. But we've gone over and over - on numerous threads - the worn-out adoption/infertility arguments. I responded, I linked scholarly pieces, and it's never enough for you.

There IS a solid ant-gay marriage argument, which still allows for heterosexual infertile couples to marry; you just don't like it.

Sure you are. And then you take offense when people point out your ridiculous comments, which then makes you move goalposts (your flippant "death" exchange with Rusha on this thread and your idiotic Lewinsky Diary Bonehead Recollection of the Year are classic cases in point). That's not a debate, GFR. That's you being bored and wasting the time of everyone around you. You're either not being honest, or you're not being clear. When asked about the purpose of marriage you omitted couples who adopt, or who choose not to have children, or couples who biologically cannot bear children. That you didn't actually say what you mean tells me you didn't think your answer through. Now you're being petulant. That's not my problem. It's yours. TOLers can't read your mind, believe it or not. Say what you mean, or just don't bother saying anything at all. It'll save everybody the time.

 

[GFR7]

Sure you are. And then you take offense when people point out your ridiculous comments, which then makes you move goalposts (your flippant "death" exchange with Rusha on this thread and your idiotic Lewinsky Diary Bonehead Recollection of the Year are classic cases in point). That's not a debate, GFR. That's you being bored and wasting the time of everyone around you. You're either not being honest, or you're not being clear. When asked about the purpose of marriage you omitted couples who adopt, or who choose not to have children, or couples who biologically cannot bear children. That you didn't actually say what you mean tells me you didn't think your answer through. Now you're being petulant. That's not my problem. It's yours. TOLers can't read your mind, believe it or not. Say what you mean, or just don't bother saying anything at all. It'll save everybody the time.

But I have addressed the fertility issue - in vain!!! For months and months, I am worn out with it all.

 

[Granite]

But I have addressed the fertility issue - in vain!!! For months and months, I am worn out with it all.

I see, so from now on we'll just assume when you say "procreation" you don't actually mean what you said. :yawn:

Not everyone here's intimately familiar with your opinion on every subject, GFR, your high opinion of yourself notwithstanding.

If you're so worn out, there's the door.

 

[GFR7]

I see, so from now on we'll just assume when you say "procreation" you don't actually mean what you said. :yawn:

Not everyone here's intimately familiar with your opinion on every subject, GFR, your high opinion of yourself notwithstanding.

If you're so worn out, there's the door.

I'm not leaving, and you can't make me.

Here is the best site supporting traditional marriage:

http://discussingmarriage.org/

Here is the best article showing why infertile straight couples are not the same as gay couples:

The Objection from Infertility

I have gone over and over the 10 main points of that thesis, and no one seems to have the ability to grasp the coherent logic in it.

 

[Granite]

I'm not leaving, and you can't make me.

Don't worry, I wasn't that optimistic.:chuckle:

Here is the best site supporting traditional marriage:

Been there, done that.

Here is the best article showing why infertile straight couples are not the same as gay couples:

No one said they were. You're completely missing the point.

 

[GFR7]

And yes, it is always the SAME posters - those I've explained the points to - who keep dragging out this threadbare issue. lain:

 

[Sitamun]

I'm not leaving, and you can't make me.

Here is the best site supporting traditional marriage:

http://discussingmarriage.org/

Here is the best article showing why infertile straight couples are not the same as gay couples:

The Objection from Infertility

I have gone over and over the 10 main points of that thesis, and no one seems to have the ability jto grasp the coherent logic in it.

The reason we keep bringing it up, well me at least, I'm not going to presume for the others automatically is because the two links are hogwash. There is no real scientific proof to their claims, they are just using their own end ideas and working backwards to prove their aims with nothing to really back it up.

 

[GFR7]

No one said they were. You're completely missing the point.

No, you are.

Older couples and infertile couples can marry without causing harm; gays cannot. For logical reasons.

Your wishing it were not so changes nothing.

 

[GFR7]

The reason we keep bringing it up, well me at least, I'm not going to presume for the others automatically is because the two links are hogwash. There is no real scientific proof to their claims, they are just using their own end ideas and working backwards to prove their aims with nothing to really back it up.

Could be said about the other side as well.