SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kevin Rose who wrote (543195)2/20/2004 4:40:54 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Finally, a hint of intellectual honesty.

Which is infinitely more than I have received from any leftist at any time, you included of course.

There is no causality between gay marriage and the 'breakdown' of marriage. In other words, gay marriage does not directly change the trend of marriage as an institution - period.

I never claimed it did change the trend (dear me). And you err here in claiming that a lack of proof of causality is itself proof that a change of trend is not created by homosexual marriage. That is sloppy thinking. It could certainly be that the trend in some cases was flowing toward “marriage strength”, but that the introduction of homosexuality caused it to shift toward weakness. I do not make this argument, I simply here point out how ignorant of reason you are. At this point, I have acknowledged that we have no “proof” that homosexual marriage alone destroys marriage, but that when it is introduced into a society it indisputably becomes a major force in locking in the trend of marriage decay, destroying marriage and weakening families. It is the knife that finishes off the sick, but potentially recovering patient.

So, the logic is that if the state recognizes gay marriages, people will be less inclined to get married? Just where is the 'data' to support that? Just where is the LOGIC to support that?

You dishonestly restate the argument here. Read the Kurtz article, this time honestly. The logic is excellent. It is unreasonable to think that homosexual marriage can actually help preserve traditional marriage when it is made possible only through a philosophy that detaches marriage from its traditional meaning. It certainly helps to fix the destruction of marriage. Read the article closely and honestly to see how it works. Kurtz does a fabulous job. You just refuse to see the truth.

Conveniently, the author cites some of the cause/effects of the rate of nonmarital births in these countries, then somehow leaps to gay marriage as a "major" cause.

Stop lying. He doesn’t “somehow” leaps anywhere. Read the friggin’ article honestly.

Take an example. It rains a lot in a rain forest. The rain causes erosion. Also, there is a high incidence of malaria. Using your logic, one can draw a cause/effect between erosion and malaria. Get it?

That is such a pot of leftist stupidity and/or lies. You need to read this article honestly. What Kurtz does is altogether different. In keeping with your analogy, Kurtz does something like this:

1. It storms a lot in a rain forest.
2. There is malaria in the region
3. Mosquitos grow only because of the abundance of rain, since the rain creates many standing pools of water.
4, Where mosquitoes exist, malaria skyrockets. The mosquitoes do not necessarily cause the malaria, but they certainly spread it, which causes unfathomable destruction.

Kurtz has made this point with wondrous clarity. Read the article with honesty.

You talk a lot about honesty and lying in your posts. I wonder if you will ever come to grips with how your homophobia is distorting your perspective.

Yeah, this coming from a guy who whines about Coulter's insults. Leftists are such lying hypocrites.

I doubt it, but there is always hope for you...

Which is much more than I can say for you…



To: Kevin Rose who wrote (543195)2/20/2004 11:36:48 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
"Finally, a hint of intellectual honesty. There is no causality between gay marriage and the 'breakdown' of marriage. In other words, gay marriage does not directly change the trend of marriage as an institution - period."

I'll chirp in here Kevin. First, I think you may be out of your league in the debating department with JP. And I know it is terribly frustrating for the left when someone has a different opinion on something. But that said, can't you see that your statement above is absurd? I don't necesarily want to delve into every aspect of the argument between you and JP, but how iyo does the lack of "causality" PROVE that gay marriage "does not directly change the trend of marriage as an institution".

I think you KNOW that this does not PROVE anything - period.

So JP's assertion that some of your "arguments" are dishonest has some merit. Unless you really do think that a lack of causality is proof of anything. But I don't think you do.

Do you?