Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (543427)	2/20/2004 10:26:39 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Dear me, your entire post is based on lies. I never once claimed what you have said I claimed. Instead of addressing the issue squarely, you literally distort my position and then ridicule the distortion. You ought not lie. I think I once engaged you on this issue previously and you resorted to the same dishonest tactics. Now you claimed that since I have not proven that homosexual marriage directly causes the end of marriage, that means homosexual marriage in fact did not change the trend in marriage toward weakness. I pointed out to you that your thinking is flawed because homosexual marriage could well have changed the trend, despite my failure to prove causality. Rather than address this point, you have now lied, claiming that I said that since I have not proven that homosexual marriage causes weakness in marriage, you must prove it does not. You are lying, or you are terribly feeble minded. Anyone who reads this discussion honestly will see your dishonesty. Using your logic, I may declare the following: Bush causes cancer. Prove he doesn't. You have just got to be an AIDS sufferer. You're one of those people who are intellectual enough to know the difference between showing a cause and effect… Yes. I am indeed– and you are not. You and the author assert a cause/effect, provide no data, and challenge to disprove. We do not. You ought to stop so many lies. We instead freely acknowledge that the trend in weakening marriage in Scandinavia existed prior to public acknowledgement of homosexual marriage/unions. We do not even claim homosexuality caused the trend. So there is no need to prove this causality when it is not the point in the first place. The author contends that the public acknowledgement of these unions depends upon an environment wherein marriage is weakening and that once homosexual unions are accepted, they become change agents, sealing marriages’ doom as a social institution. And he showed more than enough evidence to support his claim. Read the article and stop lying. I read the Kurtz article. Well if your lies against me is any indicator, you refused to understand the point the author has made. Return and read it again, this time honestly. Why is it unreasonable to think that homosexual marriage can help preserve, even strengthen, the institute of marriage? It comes down to what you think marriage is all about. Well one reason is that where homosexual marriage has existed, marriage has practically vanished. So obviously homosexual marriage has not demonstrated an ability to strengthen marriage. Another reason is that for homosexual marriage to exist, a fundamental alteration in the traditional meaning of marriage is required. So since homosexual marriage actually depends upon such an alteration, it is just stupid to posit that it will then work to preserve the tradition that disallowed it in the first friggin’ place. I know this is way the hell over your head, but deal with it. There is no society, none, zilch, on the face of the earth that has accepted homosexuality and that is experiencing a reversal of the trend toward marriage dissolution. Marriage, IMHO, is about a commitment between consenting, loving partners in an emotional and physical relationship. So then we are a polygamist society. This opinion of yours has no grounding in nature at all. It is having exactly the effect on America that Kurtz predicted it would. And here is the real danger: Scandinavia is quite homogenous relative to America. It has practically no underclass because it consists largely of welfare states. So the negative effects of the Scandinavian loss of the family are being buffered by the state, which makes them take longer to express in society. But in an American context, with a large underclass, what you are trying to create here will be catastrophic. You have been warned. No one reading this can honestly claim the truth has not been set before you. Of course with leftists the word “honest” has lost all meaning, along with such words as “marriage”, “God”, “Love” and “morality.” To some, it seems that marriage is simply about procreation and/or biology. That is what marriage is to ALL people because ALL people depend upon it. Marriage is not merely the signing of a piece of paper. In nature it takes place the very minute a man unites himself with a woman. When society acknowledges this, it acknowledges itself. Which is right? Which is 'more moral'? The marriage scheme that resulted in you and in every single human on earth is obviously “right” and more “moral” than a scheme that has no basis in anything. Kurtz shows absolutely no connection between gay marriage and some greater moral marriage decay. He did. You are just lying. Read the article and stop distorting it. He leaves out the fact that many gay couples DO raise children, so his argument that gay marriage drives a wedge between marriage and parenthood collapes. This is just dang stOOpid. The children that homosexuals adopt don’t just squirt out of the homosexuals’ rectums. They come from heterosexual couplings, couplings that very likely were destroyed with the “help” of homosexual marriage. The cause/effect is between secularism and nonmarital birthrates, yet he slips in gay marriage as related to birthrates using...what logic? Kurtz was clear to demonstrate that in cultures where marriages are for the most part intact, homosexual marriage is scorned. He also showed that in cultures where marriage is generally viewed as a requirement for having children, homosexual marriage is scorned. So then it is reasonable to posit that if Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high (i.e. marriage and child-raising are not already detached), homosexual marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. That is the logic – and it is quite good, based upon the trends to which he referred in his article. You simply need to read it honestly, and weep if you have to. He merely links the two by proximity, and not by the use of any logic. Riiight. You need to read it honestly. Hmm, maybe I was over optimistic when I said there was hope for you... Hey, I am not the one here defending a guy’s sticking his penis into another guy’s rectum and calling it a “marriage” that all Americans must be forced by law to socially respect. You are making this patently sick and absurd claim. So if there is anyone who is without hope, it is you.