The Slippery Slope
Given all of the talk here and elsewhere regarding the slippery slope of homosexual marriage, it is appropriate to discuss this slippery slope in more detail.
Beginning with the traditional ideal of marriage meaning one man and one woman bound for life as the ideal, the start of the slippery slope is actually NOT gay marriage. It is actually fornication. By making fornication a social norm during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s we eliminated one of the key motivators for marriage itself; the motivation to have an accepted sexual relationship. To quote an old saying “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” This done, the seeds were laid for the eventual destruction of the traditional family.
The sexual revolution has it’s roots in the feminist movement, when, under the guidance of the likes of Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt, women became convinced that in order to be equal to men they needed to behave like men. Thus, the classic masculine feminist arose, as well as lesser breed of feminist that maintained her feminine identity while choosing to behave like a man sexually. The end result of which was the free love movement epitomized by the Hippies. Men, horndogs that we all admit to being, were only too happy to oblige the desires of these women to be as promiscuous as men wanted them to be in the first place. And why not? The very thing young men frequently desire most, a promiscuous sexual lifestyle, suddenly became a realizable dream for everyman.
Following these movements came the no-fault divorce. This further degraded and devalued the family by allowing an easy out from the legally binding contract of marriage for any or no reason whatsoever. Prior to this atrocity the only reasons legally acceptable for a divorce were adultery, abuse, or abandonment. In al of these cases the aggrieved party was awarded everything the couple had once shared, including any children resultant from the union. This was, naturally, a great deterrent to men in particular as far as adultery and abandonment went because men really hate having everything they worked for their whole live stripped away. With the no-fault divorce the rules were completely changed until the standard practice has now become just split it all and fight over the kids no matter what happened unless you have a prenuptial agreement. Incidentally, prenuptial agreements are actually invalid in many states now because they are perceived to increase the divorce rate.
Immediately following the no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution came a dramatic rise in single parenthood, which was followed by changes in the welfare rules to favor single parents over married couples. This eventually became a cultural norm that has many women thinking that as long they have their children they don’t need a husband. Whether this is true or not the fact remains that all children need a loving father to develop properly both socially and emotionally. An immediate result of this is the rise in misogynistic attitudes and maltreatment of women in demographic groups that have a lot of boys growing up without fathers, as well as increased homosexuality among that same group of boys due to their internalizing and sexualizing the ideal of a loving male figure that they never had while growing up. It has also resulted in massive numbers of women who have never learned how a loving man treats a woman because they never saw their daddy treat mommy in any way. They grow up confused and frequently unable to respond properly to loving advances by men, and frequently wind up being taken advantage of sexually and abused by their male partners.
Following all of this devaluation of the traditional family unit we now have the homosexual marriage movement. So far this movement has first gained acceptance by demanding a thing called a “civil union”, which is exactly like a marriage in all but name in order to make it more palatable to the general population. This is followed by actual marriage in both title and deed.
The next step, as we are seeing in the Netherlands, is polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy is defined as one man with multiple wives, or one woman with multiple husbands. Polyamory is defined as a group of people who are married into a relationship where everyone is married to everyone, and typically everyone is having sex with everyone. This same movement is just starting to get traction here in the US, primarily through bisexual interest groups and a sub-sect of the Unitarian Church. They intend to use almost the exact same tactics and legal arguments to get these two atrocities forced on an unwilling public as the homosexual activists have to promote their agenda. They also expect to be met with equal success, and they are probably right. What nobody is really talking about now is how when this institution comes to pas, if indeed it does, how it will utterly destroy the legal institution of marriage by creating a massive legal mess regarding the rights of individuals in marriage and divorce since the current system in utterly incapable of handling the unique problems of a polygamous or polyamorous marriage falling apart. On top of that, the very idea of traditional marriage will likely become an outdated notion in favor of a more pluralistic sexual and familial view. This is the point where the traditional family is truly destroyed.
It doesn’t end there though. The next logical step is the legalization of incest, since history has shown that polygamy breeds incest. This will happen because for polygamy and ployamory to be legalized the legal definition of a marriage will have to be so generalized as to the persons involved in the marriage that it cannot by necessity exclude blood relations.
The next step is, of course, pedophilia. Since marriage and sexuality will have become so pluralized by this point it will be thought to be legally unconscionable to deny a six-year old his or her right to marry a man or woman he or she loves, including mommy or daddy.
The next step is beastial marriages. The whole idea of sex and marriage being muddled beyond by this time will result in demands by beastiacs for legal rights and protections of marriage for their relationships with the animals they are having sexual relations with. These rights will be granted.
The final step in the utter destruction of marriage and families is the legalization of marriage to both inanimate objects and the dead. And institution so convoluted I choose not to wrap my mind around it at this time.
This is the slippery slope of the destruction of marriage and families from beginning to end. As you can see, we are already on it, and the only way not to go farther down it is to stop it here, and to stop it now. This is why people like me are wholly opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexual civil unions, and any other legal institution that legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle. We are fighting for our families and for the American way of life as much as we are fighting for our morals and even our religions. It is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
Beginning with the traditional ideal of marriage meaning one man and one woman bound for life as the ideal, the start of the slippery slope is actually NOT gay marriage. It is actually fornication. By making fornication a social norm during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s we eliminated one of the key motivators for marriage itself; the motivation to have an accepted sexual relationship. To quote an old saying “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” This done, the seeds were laid for the eventual destruction of the traditional family.
The sexual revolution has it’s roots in the feminist movement, when, under the guidance of the likes of Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt, women became convinced that in order to be equal to men they needed to behave like men. Thus, the classic masculine feminist arose, as well as lesser breed of feminist that maintained her feminine identity while choosing to behave like a man sexually. The end result of which was the free love movement epitomized by the Hippies. Men, horndogs that we all admit to being, were only too happy to oblige the desires of these women to be as promiscuous as men wanted them to be in the first place. And why not? The very thing young men frequently desire most, a promiscuous sexual lifestyle, suddenly became a realizable dream for everyman.
Following these movements came the no-fault divorce. This further degraded and devalued the family by allowing an easy out from the legally binding contract of marriage for any or no reason whatsoever. Prior to this atrocity the only reasons legally acceptable for a divorce were adultery, abuse, or abandonment. In al of these cases the aggrieved party was awarded everything the couple had once shared, including any children resultant from the union. This was, naturally, a great deterrent to men in particular as far as adultery and abandonment went because men really hate having everything they worked for their whole live stripped away. With the no-fault divorce the rules were completely changed until the standard practice has now become just split it all and fight over the kids no matter what happened unless you have a prenuptial agreement. Incidentally, prenuptial agreements are actually invalid in many states now because they are perceived to increase the divorce rate.
Immediately following the no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution came a dramatic rise in single parenthood, which was followed by changes in the welfare rules to favor single parents over married couples. This eventually became a cultural norm that has many women thinking that as long they have their children they don’t need a husband. Whether this is true or not the fact remains that all children need a loving father to develop properly both socially and emotionally. An immediate result of this is the rise in misogynistic attitudes and maltreatment of women in demographic groups that have a lot of boys growing up without fathers, as well as increased homosexuality among that same group of boys due to their internalizing and sexualizing the ideal of a loving male figure that they never had while growing up. It has also resulted in massive numbers of women who have never learned how a loving man treats a woman because they never saw their daddy treat mommy in any way. They grow up confused and frequently unable to respond properly to loving advances by men, and frequently wind up being taken advantage of sexually and abused by their male partners.
Following all of this devaluation of the traditional family unit we now have the homosexual marriage movement. So far this movement has first gained acceptance by demanding a thing called a “civil union”, which is exactly like a marriage in all but name in order to make it more palatable to the general population. This is followed by actual marriage in both title and deed.
The next step, as we are seeing in the Netherlands, is polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy is defined as one man with multiple wives, or one woman with multiple husbands. Polyamory is defined as a group of people who are married into a relationship where everyone is married to everyone, and typically everyone is having sex with everyone. This same movement is just starting to get traction here in the US, primarily through bisexual interest groups and a sub-sect of the Unitarian Church. They intend to use almost the exact same tactics and legal arguments to get these two atrocities forced on an unwilling public as the homosexual activists have to promote their agenda. They also expect to be met with equal success, and they are probably right. What nobody is really talking about now is how when this institution comes to pas, if indeed it does, how it will utterly destroy the legal institution of marriage by creating a massive legal mess regarding the rights of individuals in marriage and divorce since the current system in utterly incapable of handling the unique problems of a polygamous or polyamorous marriage falling apart. On top of that, the very idea of traditional marriage will likely become an outdated notion in favor of a more pluralistic sexual and familial view. This is the point where the traditional family is truly destroyed.
It doesn’t end there though. The next logical step is the legalization of incest, since history has shown that polygamy breeds incest. This will happen because for polygamy and ployamory to be legalized the legal definition of a marriage will have to be so generalized as to the persons involved in the marriage that it cannot by necessity exclude blood relations.
The next step is, of course, pedophilia. Since marriage and sexuality will have become so pluralized by this point it will be thought to be legally unconscionable to deny a six-year old his or her right to marry a man or woman he or she loves, including mommy or daddy.
The next step is beastial marriages. The whole idea of sex and marriage being muddled beyond by this time will result in demands by beastiacs for legal rights and protections of marriage for their relationships with the animals they are having sexual relations with. These rights will be granted.
The final step in the utter destruction of marriage and families is the legalization of marriage to both inanimate objects and the dead. And institution so convoluted I choose not to wrap my mind around it at this time.
This is the slippery slope of the destruction of marriage and families from beginning to end. As you can see, we are already on it, and the only way not to go farther down it is to stop it here, and to stop it now. This is why people like me are wholly opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexual civil unions, and any other legal institution that legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle. We are fighting for our families and for the American way of life as much as we are fighting for our morals and even our religions. It is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
6:36 PM
55 Comments:
We have already lost daniel, you miss that. The sinmple fact is that there is never a slipperly slope that hasn't come true. It always proceeds along in the name of "progress". Some progress is good, some is bad. Compare to the fall of Rome. We are at the time of Casesar, the only thing missing is a coup for total control. Although the odds of that happening publically are low, they still had the senate as a puppet house which is what our senate is turning into.
The funny part is the only correction to the slipery slopes is large scale revolution. Many people will die, many will be hurt in an attempt to revert society into a proper society. Not now, but within the next 200-400 years. It wont take as long as it has with other civilizations simply because we have mass information sharing now...But it will happen.
Historia est vitae magistra
By
Haximus, at 9:45 PM
You’re right, Daniel, it is a classic slippery slope fallacy you’ve created here and it seems to be liberally peppered with post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies as well. Let’s clear up the latter first, in case I’m seeing something that isn’t there. Are you saying that allowing homosexual marriage will cause polygamy to be allowed (and so on down the chain; each step causing the next) or are they both independent of each other and caused by some underlying progressive permissiveness in society? If the former, then you will need to explain the mechanism by which gay marriage causes polygamy and the mechanisms for each of the other steps as well. Then, if we know the mechanism, we can disable it. If this were the result of some underlying permissiveness, then wouldn’t it be better to attack the cause of this progressive permissiveness rather than the symptoms?
Daniel: As you can see, we are already on it, and the only way not to go farther down it is to stop it here, and to stop it now.
Here’s where your slippery slope argument falls down. Stop where? Stop after no fault divorce, but before gay marriage? This is a purely arbitrary point based on your religious convictions, isn’t it? Or is there some specific reason why we can stop here, but not stop after gay marriage and before polygamy? How about after polygamy, but before interspecies marriage? Why couldn’t we stop there instead? What is it that would allow us to stop here that would not allow us to stop anywhere else we choose? Why couldn’t we have stopped before no fault divorce, for instance?
No need to answer that last question; haximus has the answer: there has never been a slippery slope that hasn’t come true. It’s a simple fact, don’t you know. Well, okay, there was that domino theory of Indochina where everyone just knew that if we let Vietnam fall to the Communists then what was to stop Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and even Japan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand being taken over by those pinko commies as well. That one didn’t come true, but don’t worry, haximus, I don’t think anyone noticed.
By
Anonymous, at 4:39 AM
". Are you saying that allowing homosexual marriage will cause polygamy to be allowed (and so on down the chain; each step causing the next) or are they both independent of each other and caused by some underlying progressive permissiveness in society?"
Yes, and yes.
First, being that the gay marriage debate has been framed as an equal rights issue the argument has equal application to all other groups who want equal marriage rights under the law, at least, that is how the law will percieve it. Second, we wouldn't even be where we are now if society hadn't become, in some ways, too permissive for our own good. As each step is achieved the next step will become less reprehensible in the minds of inreasingly permissive population, tereby allowing each step to occur.
Admittedly, not all slippery slopes are the result of permissiveness. The slippery slope rearding guns in England has gone so far that the British parliament is currently considering a law banning the carrying of knives. That is another liberal darling that has resulted in a slipery slope that has gone way to far. Within the US we only need to look at the smoking situation and the increasingly oppressive laws and taxes surrounding that issue to see a slippery slope gone as far as it's critics warned years ago.
As far pickng an arbitrary stopping point along the slippery slope goes, at each step along the slope it becomes progressively more difficult to stop a slippery slope, and even more difficult to reverse it. If we stop the destruction of teh American family here then we have a much better chance of restoring the honor and integrity of marriage by eliminating the no-fault divorce and, hopefuly, reducing or eliinating fornication and adultery than we will have if we alow ourselves to slip further down the slope.
I do not agree with Haximus that we have already lost. Everywhere that a Constitutional option to ban homosexual marriage has been offered to the people, the people have voted to ban that atrocity by very wide margins, even in the most liberal states to attempt it thus far. I am convinced that a Constittuinal amendment at the federal level will be overwhelmingly passed if the people are ever given a chance to ratify it, it will do so even if the amendment also bans civil unions, which it should do. The only thing standing in the way of tis amendment is the unified Democrat opposition to the amendment in the US Congress that is borne of nothing more than simple opposition to the Republican party. This is an example of how the politics of power and partisanship work against the good of the nation, but that is a different subject entirely.
Either way, my logic on this topic is sound, and has been proven sound by the progression down this slippery we have been seeing in the netherlands where the first polyamorous civil union has been legally performed betwen an man and his 2 bisexual "wives". It takes a special kind of blindness and denial to refuse to accept what is being played out right in fron of your eyes.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:07 AM
Great point, Daniel! I agree with you. And why can't a "slippery slope" argument be used?
It seems to have been quite a slippery slope from the time when marriage actually meant something. Now it's a good (and unusual) thing if the person you're shacking up with is your fiance.
"Progress" is by definition a slippery slope.
By
Rebekah, at 6:53 AM
Would people in the early 1900's (or even in the '50s) have ever dreamed that there would ever be such a thing as legal gay marriage? Or would they ever have thought that homosexuality as a whole would be so acceptable? That wasn't too long ago. The slippery slope argument is very valid.
By
MJ, at 8:41 AM
The "slippery slope" arguement is even more than valid... it happens to be a fact. It is the pure and simple truth. Lieberals can deny it all they want, as they deny all facts, but it won't change a thing.
Excellent post, and very well written. Thank you for it.
And thanks for coming by to wish me well. I'm doing a bit better today, and trying to visit everyone who stopped by to wish me well.
By
Gayle, at 9:50 AM
For the record, since some of us may never have had a logics class or studied logic:
In logic, you have some argument types that are called "fallacies" because they are not legitimate arguments. An ad hominem fallacy, for example, is when person A is arguing for X and person B attacks A as being soft on crime or a communist, etc. In other words, B is not dealing with the argument but attacking the opponent. It is a logical fallacy.
The Slippery Slope fallacy is illegitimate because the consequences claimed are not actually logical consequences of the opponent's position. Rather, the opponent's position is "connected" to the unacceptable consequences by some other means.
Now, slippery slope is different than some other fallacies because the argument may NOT be fallacious, nonetheless using the slippery slope argument is logically in bad form. Rather than being a totally invalid argument (which it may or may not be), it is a WEAK argument, especially without some quantifiable reason(s) to connect the slippery slope points.
That's all from Dr. Logic today, class.
By
Dan Trabue, at 9:52 AM
I get so tired of the argument that there has always been fornication, adultery, homosexuality and it was commonplace. True it was there due to our sin nature, but it was not commonplace nor accepted as a normal way to live. You have stated the issues clearly here. We are indeed on a slippery slope. We do need to stop sliding down and crawl our way back up.
By
juanitagf, at 10:00 AM
jgf-
I am curious what would happen to your thoughts when you don't have the preconceived of original sin. Then you might think that that fornication, adulterous behavior, and homosexuality might, in fact, be natural.
Then lets look at the ancient Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and some Indian cultures. These all had some homosexual norms. I am out of time now, but I just thought that I would throw that out there.
By
Anonymous, at 11:14 AM
Daniel: An excellent and internally-consistent argument. Not only do I not object to the slippery-slope argument, I happen to think that you're largely correct about this, at least in terms of what lies up-slope. However, I still disagree.
As I've already argued, I don't buy the notion that legitimizing pedophilia and bestiality are logical next steps down this road. There is, in fact, a clear distinction between those who can and those who cannot enter into a binding legal contract, and that distinction is made on a much more objective basis than whether or not you or I approve of the subject's choice of lifestyle.
Now, there's one thing in particular that I must comment on:
"As far picking an arbitrary stopping point along the slippery slope goes, at each step along the slope it becomes progressively more difficult to stop a slippery slope, and even more difficult to reverse it."
This is, again, a statement with which I basically agree. But I have to point out that "picking an arbitrary stopping point" is exactly what this anti-gay-marriage movement contemplates.
As you've implicitly argued here, gay marriage is at worst a symptom of a larger problem, that problem being an erosion of respect for the institution of marriage.
So I ask you, where are the widespread political campaigns and interest groups opposed to rushing into marriage? Where are the anti-adultery amendments? Where are the laws preventing marriages of political or financial convenience?
Answer: they will never materialize.
After all, the greedy, horny old white men who run this country are never going to deny themselves the privilege of being able to run around on their wives, get good lawyers to help them come out ahead in the divorce, and then marry somebody half their age and start the cycle over again. Not gonna happen.
Those old white men are, however, perfectly willing to play on the queasiness that them queers inspire in many a gut -- to scapegoat homosexuals and make them the butt of a token campaign in support of the pseudomorality that "conservative" "leaders" employ to mask their agenda of greed.
One other thing: Do you think this is about liberals wanting to permit gay marriage, or encourage it? This is an important distinction. Permitting people to live as they choose is what liberty is all about. Encouraging people to live a certain way is social engineering, even when you're trying to encourage people to live a way that they lived in the past. If you believe that legislative force can put society right, aren't you advocating interventionist government? This certainly isn't market-based or particularly conservative -- it's saying that, since this is what the majority wants, this is what everybody must adhere to.
"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority." --James Madison
By
catastrophile, at 1:16 PM
Daniel,
What you have written here is what many others like myself have always believed as well. Especially in regards to your statement regarding the feminist movement. Personally I believe the feminist movement is most to blame for why the traditional family/marriage has gone down hill, but that's a topic for another time.
What gets me the most is when people try to bring up civil rights and/or womens rights and try to compare them to the supposed rights of homosexuals. We have no control over what skin color or gender we are born w/. Homosexuality has NOT at all been proven to be something someone is born w/. Therefore there should be no "special rights" given to people that for one reason or another have choosen to live that lifestyle.
With all the advances this world has made in deciphering DNA, how come there has been no "gay" gene found? I'm totally against cloning, but I might make an exception to test this theory; wouldn't it be very interesting to have a person that claims to be homosexual cloned, take the clone and raise it in a completely different social, economical, and psychological backround and see if it turns out gay as well. My bet is that it wouldn't. Because homosexuality has nothing to do w/ genetics and everything to do w/ the social/psychological environment a person has been exposed too.
By
Corie, at 1:17 PM
Let me make a minor correction: "Picking an arbitrary stopping point is exactly what this anti-gay-marriage movement contemplates" is not quite what I meant to say. That is the stated purpose, but the continuation of the thought is this:
If gay marriage is merely a symptom of a larger problem, "fixing" it will not, in fact, represent any sort of "stopping point" on the slope. It will merely represent one point of rigidity, while the avalanche proceeds unchecked everywhere else.
Indeed, fighting and dying on this arbitrary and insignificant (in terms of actual impact on the institution of marriage) hill only serves to distract and divert from the more important battles which, as I've already argued, the codgers leading this drive aren't interested in fighting.
By
catastrophile, at 1:35 PM
You're being overly judgmental. Why there's a particularly attractive earthworm in my garden I was thinking of marrying!
By
Anonymous, at 1:45 PM
Okay, Rightwingprof, as soon as your little friend can get a credit card or buy cigarettes, you can marry it. Fair?
By
catastrophile, at 2:03 PM
Daniel: If we stop the destruction of teh American family here then we have a much better chance of restoring the honor and integrity of marriage by eliminating the no-fault divorce and, hopefuly, reducing or eliinating fornication and adultery than we will have if we alow ourselves to slip further down the slope.
I see, but then you are creating another slippery slope. If we eliminate no fault divorce then the logical next step is to eliminate divorce entirely. After all, don’t the marriage vows say “until death do us part” so once you are married, you should stay married. And then, yes, the logical next step after that is to prohibit premarital sex and the only way to be sure of that is to stop people living together before marriage—far too permissive. Then, of course, we can raise the age of majority back to 21. Who ever thought it was a good idea to drop it to 18? The logical next step is to go back to arranged marriages—these young people can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Now that the population is used to these greater restrictions being placed on their lives in small steps, it’s time for the Government to introduce other restrictions, like gun control. This has been on the agenda for years and you just know they want to do this. It won’t happen overnight, of course; it will be a slippery slope. First it will be machine guns, then sub-machine guns, then automatic weapons, rifles, shotguns, and handguns and, why stop there, let’s ban knives as well. It’s happened in the UK. Is that what you really want, rebekah, to live in a world without guns?
Don’t anyone bother arguing against me on this: it’s a slippery slope. As haximus and Gayle have pointed out, they always come true.
Oh, and I thought this was priceless:
With all the advances this world has made in deciphering DNA, how come there has been no "gay" gene found?
I just couldn’t help replacing the word ‘gay’ with ‘stupidity’ when I read it.
By
Anonymous, at 2:54 PM
cjb, like all things you post here, you miss the point. The domino theory was valid in a global consequence considering as communist regimes came to power in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua during the 1970s.
Paul, without original sin, tell me how homosexuality makes sense in scientific terms. Since without religion there is only science, tell me what makes homosexuality happens then? Also note the fact that homosexuality came after the peak of those civilizations, not at their conception, or there would have never been those empires at all.
And lastly, catastrophile, it has been well documented that you can get a credit card for a non-human for a while, thus they are all fair game to you I see?
By
Haximus, at 3:05 PM
Haximus: The domino theory was valid in a global consequence considering as communist regimes came to power in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua during the 1970s.
Are any of those countries in Indochina? The domino theory is a slippery slope argument that states that if one country falls to Communism then other countries in that region will also fall to Communism. In the case of Indochina, only Vietnam and Laos remain Communist so this slippery slope argument turned out not to be true. It clearly refutes your assertion: “The sinmple fact is that there is never a slipperly slope that hasn't come true.”
By
Anonymous, at 3:31 PM
Haximus, I believe that the homosexuality was a social norm well before the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and remained so all the way until they were taken under Roman control. The Romans up to that point had engaged in homosexual behavior, and this continued in Greece under their rule for quite some more time. It did not just come during the decline. In fact, many say that it was during the large growth of Greece when homosexuality really took off. When more and more men, who were the dominant sex of the time, left their wives at home and met in the social gathering places, they increasingly engaged in these homosexual acts. It was seen more as an activity in which one engaged rather than a defining attribute. A quick not from a sociological standpoint, one island under Greece's control used homosexuality as a method of population control.
For a unique scientific view, simply look at the bonobo monkeys. Considered to be the closest relatives to humans (alongside the common chimpanzee), some scientists even want to reclassify them to put them in the Homo genus. Anyway, these monkeys have been observed participating in oral sex, face-to-face genital sex, and tongue kissing. They use sex as a greeting and conciliatory act. And all of these acts are participated in by two males, two females, or one male and one female. The females actually engage in this the most, and quite frequently. It should also be noted that these animals possess the capacity for some complex thought, foresight, and self-awareness. It would then appear that these animals, with this mental capacity, are perfectly happy engaging in acts which bring them pleasure at minimal expense. With each mother only reproducing once every five to six years, apparently they get restless. So it does appear that homosexual behaviors can appear in nature.
Obviously, these monkeys still engage in sex with others of the opposite sex. But why is it that we, as humans, cannot declare a preference? Each of us does not need to reproduce on our own. Surely there are plenty of people being born every second to ensure that we will quickly run out of room on this planet as it is.
And I will say that though I remain unconvinced on the "destructive nature" of homosexuality, I don't understand how alleged promiscuity of gays can therefore negate the validity and love of every single gay couple. I have quite a few gay friends who are incredibly responsible and respectful of relationships in which they engage.
Again, I hate to run, but I really have to get sleep before classes tomorrow.
By
Anonymous, at 8:42 PM
haximus: "catastrophile, it has been well documented that you can get a credit card for a non-human for a while, thus they are all fair game to you I see?"
I assume you mean "by fraud." A lot can be done by fraud, but contracts predicated on fraud are also not legally binding. (Too bad we can't say the same about elections.)
By
catastrophile, at 9:06 PM
I love how your source contradicts your own statement cjb, keep up the good work!
paul, the simple fact remains that homosexuality is an aberration of nature. If every single being in a species turned to a homosexual lifestlye, the entire speceis would die out. Biologically, naturally, homosexuality does not make sense, and does not work. But even then in your example you point out that the observed monkeys are not exclusive in their homosexuality, but it is done as a communal form of expression.
Maybe also you need to brush up on your history because the roman empire did not start as a huge empire, it had modest startings as city states and expanded, it was not a normal practice of homosexuality in the baths until well into the rise of the empire. The same is true of every other example you mentioned.
By
Haximus, at 9:15 PM
catastrophile, before it was outlawed as a practice, animals and minors were frequently sent "pre-approved" credit cards that only needed activiation. No fraud involved, simply the fact that credit companies pushed out their cards onto people.
This happened quite a bit during the mid to late 90's, yet you refuse to believe that and then bring up how the fraud in the oregon governor election...
By
Haximus, at 9:17 PM
haximus: 'animals and minors were frequently sent "pre-approved" credit cards that only needed activiation'
Sending out advertising indiscriminately is not the same as a bank knowingly signing up an animal for a credit card, any more than "pre-approved" means "approved in advance" -- as anybody who's ever opened one of those junk mailings knows.
What bank would knowingly issue a loan that it had no chance of collecting on? I think you're grasping at straws here. I find it particularly telling that this is the point you chose to argue. Nothing else I wrote caught your attention, huh?
And for the record, I was talking about candidate fraud, not voter fraud, specifically George W. "Humble Foreign Policy" Bush.
By
catastrophile, at 9:30 PM
Haximus: I love how your source contradicts your own statement cjb, keep up the good work!
This is truly pathetic, haximus. You had to totally ignore the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia University Press Encyclopædia and the Houghton Mifflin Dictionary to find one paragraph from Wikipedia (part of which you copied and pasted verbatim into your previous response) that gives a controversial interpretation of the theory. This is another example of your clutching at straws.
Haximus: The sinmple fact is that there is never a slipperly slope that hasn't come true.
No one with an ounce of intelligence could believe that there has never been a slippery slope argument that didn’t come true. Your statement displays a lack of critical thinking and a sloppy and lazy approach to argument. And, for God’s sake, how many times in your life do you have to see the word ‘slippery’ before you learn to spell it correctly.
By
Anonymous, at 12:04 AM
"fact remains that homosexuality is an aberration of nature. If every single being in a species turned to a homosexual lifestlye, the entire speceis would die out."
Of course, the same could be said about Republicans (rim shot!).
The thing is, the majority of folk don't "turn gay," it's a relatively smaller percentage (between 2 - 10%) and at this point in the game, losing 10% of our "baby producers," is not a worry.
By
Dan Trabue, at 3:15 AM
Haximus, I think that you need to check yout the dates that you are so declare as wrong. Simple searches in Wikipedia show that homosexual was rampant in Greece at 480 BC. This is very near the start of the Roman republic, which itself modeled its culture after the Greeks. Then Greece came under the Roman control in about 150 BC. This is still easily in the time of the Republic, and well before the start of the Roman Empire. Homosexuality continued through this entire time. I think that I am in the right here.
And in my example of the bonobos, I did concede that they still had relations with opposite sexes. But then I went on to make the exact same point that Dan just did. It still doesn't occur to me why we as humans cannot declare a simple preference.
By
Anonymous, at 6:20 AM
CJB,
There is a serious flaw in the logic of you argument that one slippery slope leads to another once it is revrsed. You example ran through completely unrelated subjects. The other flaw is the nature and beliefs of the people pushing for each agenda. Gun control, for example, has nothing to do with sexual activity and marriage. Also, gun control, like homosexual marriage, is a liberal agenda, NOT a conservative one like restoring the integrity of marriage. Agendas pushed and opposed by diametrically opposed groups do not cross over as slippery slopes. There are no such examples of this in history.
I also noted that you continually refer to Indochina as if it somehow wrecks the slippery slope argument. The fact that the slope started in Vietnam ended after only 3 more countries fell to comunism does not disrove the sslippery slope, but was itself a slippery slope was stopped at an arbitrary point just like people like me are trying to do with preserving the integrity of marriage. You also completely ignored how the slippery slope regarding Communism was a far larger situation than Indochina that started with the US supporting Communist Russia and allowing to grow into the Soviet Union. The We stood idly by as China fell to Communism. Then various other countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, etc. all subsequently fell to Communism. It took the Cold War to stop that slippery slope, and look at how long THAT lasted.
Paul,
In regards to your argument about homosexuality in Rome and Greece. What you have left out, or are ignorant about, is the attitude surrounding families that developed as homosexuality became more widespread. In short, they became steadily devalued. A quote from a prominent ROman who's name I forgot illustrates this perfectly. "In Rome we have wives for legitimate chldren, mistresses for love, and whores for sex. It's wonderful." Such is the fruit of devaluing the family by allowing the slippery slope to continue. Also, do rememer that Emperor Nero castrated a tenyear-old boy so he could marry him (Eunuchs were not considered men anymore, not women, but it gypassed the law). Also do try to remember how disturbingly common it was for a son to murder his own faher in order to gain the inherritance. This devaluation of the family and family ties, which widepread homosexuality and bisexuality as well as adultery and fornication is what lead to these atrocities as well as the infighting that ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Empire. No nation in history has stayed powerful for long once the family unit was destroyed. Homosexual marriage is a step down the slippery slope of destroying the family unit.
Also, I am familiar with the monkeys you have spoken of. These sexual encounmters almost always start out as fights, and turninto sexual activity. In behavioral terms this apears to be a defense mechanism for maintaining peace with in the pack. By transmuting violence to sex peace is maintained and violent physical injury is avoided. his is an entirely different mechanism than human homosexuality where it starts and ends as sex. Given that, more research should be done into the motivation of these monkeys for their behavior before anyone can reasonably point to them as a bona-fide parrallel to human homosexuality.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:22 AM
I wonder if we have slipped too far to turn back already...
By
The Conservative UAW Guy, at 7:30 AM
I am afraid Haximus is right! :(
By
Gayle, at 7:38 AM
Daniel,
In every account of the decline of the Roman Empire I have heard, not one of them honestly considered homosexuality to be the cause of the decline of the Empire. I have read about how the Empire became too reliant on booty from conquests and eventually couldn't be sustained with the eventual decline in expansion. I have read about how the inflation, heavy taxes on the small farmers and none for the elite, and economic controls enforced by the later rulers led to the economic decline that brought about the end of the Empire. I have also read how their hired mercenaries, paid to defend their borders, eventually turned on them and led to their demise. Others say that the culture merely transformed over the years, and didn't disappear untl much later. Indeed, the eastern Roman Empire remained much past the fall of the western empire. None blamed the lack of a strong family unit or homosexuality for the decline.
The Nero example does nothing, really, except give further evidence that Nero was a disturbed individual, even among Roman emperors. People in the Empire even said that it might be better if Nero had never been born. I guess it also shows that the laws in Ancient Rome weren't quite sufficient.
The entire culture was built on providing all the luxuries possible to the upper class males. This, combined with the incredible greed and lack of enforcement against murders, led to much unrest. I don't think that that was a particularly good model to follow in that respect.
Indeed, homosexual behavior there was often seen as part of that luxurious lifestyle. However, this is not saying that some were not, indeed homosexuals. I would bet that some were indeed gay, and derived more pleasure from it than others. And even though homosexual acts were most prevalent among these upper class men, it does not automatically debase gays as immoral and the cause of the decline of their civilization.
Also, I don't see how it could possibly invalidate a gay couple today which is honestly and sincerely committed to each other. They can create a strong family unit as well, and be just as productive as a heterosexual couple can.
Bonobos indeed use sex as a post-conflict conciliatory act, but they also use it as a greeting and in exchange for favors. I agree that more research should be done, but the fact that they use sex in exchange for material things shows that they place some value in it.
Oh, to say that gay relations start and end at sex is terribly ignorant and disrespectful to all homosexual couples.
By
Anonymous, at 8:40 AM
Daniel: There is a serious flaw in the logic of you argument that one slippery slope leads to another once it is revrsed.
…
Also, gun control, like homosexual marriage, is a liberal agenda, NOT a conservative one like restoring the integrity of marriage.
I’m not arguing that reversing one leads to another; I’m starting a new slippery slope. I laid it out for you. It runs from no fault divorce to arranged marriages. And if you can’t see the common connection of increasing restrictiveness then we can call it two slippery slopes, not one. If you like, we can forget about gun control and stick with the one that you started by positing two of the steps: eliminating no fault divorce and fornication. It’s a slippery slope all right. I’ve stated it as such so it must come true. Are you saying that my slippery slope won’t come true, but yours will? That’s strange; they both seem to be supported by the same amount of evidence.
Daniel: [Indochinese communism] was itself a slippery slope was stopped at an arbitrary point…
...
It took the Cold War to stop that slippery slope [global communism], and look at how long THAT lasted.
Well what do you know; it appears that slippery slopes can be stopped after all and at an arbitrary point no less. They don’t always have to run the full course laid out by their scare mongering proponents. It appears that they were slippery slopes in people’s minds only. Who knew? So is it just possible that your fearful slippery slope will also stop after two or three steps and won’t spiral the world into the destruction of marriage and families as you posit?
By
Anonymous, at 12:19 PM
cjb, it is your contention then that a slippery slope can only happen if it continues ad infinitem?
Oh and attacking someone for making a typo (of which I make many) is a simple way of masking your inability to argue your point. Oh, and maybe yo should study up on your use of the word verbatim since you want to use it to attack me for something that wasnt quoted. In fact the only thing I used was their list of coutnries, but dont let your blind hatred blind you!
Paul, there are many people who say that their country would have been better off if x leader or y leader would have been never born/killed/whatever. Does that make it true? Also, take a look at your history, Rome was not influenced by a gay lifestyle for many many years. In fact even after they conquered the greeks they resented the greek city states for being greek, much like they disliked carthage. Their collapse is attributed by most historians as being from a center of internal unrest, followed by a loss of patriotism as no one went into the military for the glory of Rome but instead a few bucks. When the soliders then marched onto the battlefield they didnt fight for Rome, but for themselves and the barbarians were easily able to conquer such a weak army. Such greed killed the Roman Empire and if you think that greed was the only moral collapse of the Rome, then you know much more about apes than you do people.
By
Haximus, at 6:03 PM
I'd like to say that this is a simple topic, but it isn't. This is one that I am a bit on both sides. Experience has shown that Homosexuals are usually born that way. No gay gene. I don't know what causes it. A small number can be reversed.
Don't any of you have friends that you just knew were different when you were 10 or less. You wanted to play football, or flip baseball cards, but they wanted to play with girls and girl type games. They grew up to be gay. Who told them to be that way when the rest of the family was 'normal?'
I'm for these folks not being discriminated against, and maybe some legal protections that may already be there, but marriage, oh brother.
I suppose that there is somewhat of a slippary slope because once you lead in a direction, you don't know how far it will go. Marriage was for man and woman, and that is where it should stay. Change it and you do go towards polygamy and who knows what else.
Just a few things to consider. America has had one of the highest divorce rates for the last 100 years, so I am not sure that legalizing the pill has created that. Also Rome may have had Homosexuality contribute to its decline since it was a symptom of some of its depravity, but in its later years, it was largely a Christian Empire. It mostly fell due to the rise and fall cycle, and also due to the fact that the competition caught up militarily.
So maybe our answer is tolerance and enforcing the rights we already have as citizens, but not special rights.
By
Rick's Corner, at 6:51 PM
Rick, are you telling me that anyone who grows up not acting a certain way will be gay? There are a number of gays who didnt want to do the girlie things, more so in fact that they are the jocks. And to the opposite, I lived my entire childhood with girls as my friends, doing "girlie things" if you will, and yet I am not gay. To claim that "you know" who will be gay is very closed minded and simply wrong.
By
Haximus, at 8:25 PM
My thanks to the conservative from Rick's Corner! A little logic goes a long way (not far enough, but at least he's being a bit reasonable.)
I'll note one thing that Rick said:
"So maybe our answer is tolerance and enforcing the rights we already have as citizens, but not special rights."
Here! Here! No giving any special rights to one group (like giving them tax breaks and other incentives) for forming a legal union of lifelong commitment that we don't give to other groups.
Once we give special rights to some couples and not others, then we'll have people demanding special tax breaks for their dogs they breed and pretty soon, cats and dogs will be living together and Mass Hysteria will ensue!
By
Dan Trabue, at 8:40 PM
And I will repeat, since the yammering continues, from a couple of Logical Fallacies sources:
"And slippery slope is even more dangerous (less likely to be valid) than a post-hoc argument... With slippery slope, we not only have to establish causation but predict the occurrence of the events as well."
"So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies."
[or was that last argument against slippery slope arguments a slippery slope argument itself...?]
By
Dan Trabue, at 8:40 PM
Like Haximus, I too spent more tim ewith girls playing their games than I did with boys as a child. By th elogic Rick has presented I should be Gay, and yet I am not.
There IS one thing that adds some legitimacy to his argument however. It is the way people react to these "diferent" kids. Th etomboys and the gentle boys. As impressionable as children are when they are very young, it is very possible to convince them to be something, or that they are something that they are not. Ask around to people who grew up this way. Almost all of them will admit to being the victims of repeated accusations and taunts as to them supposedly being homosexuals. Psychological studies have proven that, given this circumstance, a certain percentage of these children will come to believe that the accusations are true and will begin to act accordingly. This is one of the ways homosexuals are made, not born.
CJB,
There is still a logical fallac in your reverse slippery slope argument. To slip down a slope you must, by definition, be going down into worse territory. Restoring traditions that worked very well and were successful for millenia is not a slippery slope but restoration. Every step along the road to greater restctiveness in marriage that you have presented is a return to a way of life with a proven track record of great success. (I know there are individual cases that are the exception to the rule, don't waste your time blathering on about them as if they were the rule.) EVen today, those same systems you are dispairaging continue to be great success stories in the parts of the world where are practice, regarding the integrity of the familt, and provided divorce is no easy matter. (So don't waste your time talking about the oppression of women by Muslims because they have a religiously instituted no-fault divorce that the man can instigate at a whim, and they also have religiously instituted oppression of women.)
I would point out that marriages involving mail order brides have a 75% success rate (25% divorce rate) in the US according the last statistics I saw, which was a few years ago, and the typical divorce rate in the US, using our curent courtship system, is 50% (only 50% success). Mail order brides are arranged marriages, and they are succeeding at a greater rate than standard American mariages are. consider this before you dispairage arranged marriages.
Okay, since what I have said just begs the question, I will answer it ahead of time. I have no problem whatsoever with arranged marriages. Yes, if my parents had arranged my marriage I would have worked just as hard to make it work as I do to make the marriage I do have work. And yes, I trust my parents to make a good choice for a wife for me.
As far as the argument goes regarding a rise in homosexuality as population density increases, there are other behaviors that also increase. A short list includes: murder, robbery, theft, asault, rape, prostitution, and vandalism. This shows that rather than providing evidence of natural population control through altered sexual desires as population density increases, what we really have is just more proof that as population density increases all forms of depravity and criminal behavior become more common. This is not a phenomenon that is friendly to the homosexual lifestyle.
Is anyone else but me noticing hoe Dan T. is proving my point about how the homosexual marriage debate is being framed as matter of civil rights rather than what is truly right? have I not already posited tha it is this position that will result in the further legitimization under the law of ALL sexually depraved lifestyles? Under the law, finding that there is no justification for restricting marriage rights to a minority sexual group legally opens the door for the legalization of every form of depravity in marriage that I have mentioned in this post.
Finally, back to CJB,
You totally missed what it took to stop the slippery slope of spreading Communism worldwide. IT TOOK THE COLD WAR! You remember that don't you? Or are you too young to remember nuclear bomb drills? The entire world lived with the threat of complete annihilation for over 50 years just so we could stop the spread of Communism. Lets do try to stop the destruction of marriage before it takes something similarly drastic to restore it.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:40 PM
Haximus: cjb, it is your contention then that a slippery slope can only happen if it continues ad infinitem?
I said nothing of the sort. Ad infinitum means to continue forever. I said run its full course, which implies coming to an end. For the Indochina slippery slope to have come true as predicted, all of Indochina plus Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand would now have to be communist countries. For Daniel’s slippery slope to come true as predicted, it must end with the destruction of marriage and families. Saying “ad infinitem” is another straw man on your part and, incidentally, yet another spelling mistake, not a typo.
Haximus: Oh and attacking someone for making a typo (of which I make many) is a simple way of masking your inability to argue your point.
Calling it a typo is a simple way of masking your inability to spell. A typo would be occasionally writing ‘slipprey’ or ‘slipperty’. Writing ‘slipperly’ every time you write the word shows that this is how you think the word is spelled, which says something about your ability to learn and think. You’ve probably read English words for most of your life and yet you still haven’t learnt how to spell them correctly.
Wikipedia: regimes came to power in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua during the 1970s.
Haximus: regimes came to power in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua during the 1970s.
Go to the OED and look up ‘verbatim’. It means: “in exactly the same words as were used originally”. And you flatter yourself if you think I could care enough to hate you. I simply think you are a person who has trouble learning and reasoning.
Daniel: By th elogic Rick has presented I should be Gay, and yet I am not.
Horsefeathers. Nowhere did Rick say that every effeminate boy grows up to be gay. What is it with you people and your straw men?
Daniel: I have no problem whatsoever with arranged marriages.
You know, there may be some people in the world who would disagree with you here. In fact, many would see my slippery slope as a definite slide into worse territory. But that’s beside the point. The point is that it is a slippery slope and therefore must come true. Unless, of course, not all slippery slopes come true…
I’m tired of this. I wasn’t being serious in proposing that slippery slope. I was trying to point out how using a slippery slope argument is inadvisable; an argument that fell on deaf ears. Dan said it best when he pointed out that using a slippery slope is a weak argument. What’s worse, it’s underhanded because it is designed to play on people’s fears. If you have something against gay marriage then show us why it is wrong per se without resorting to these underhanded tactics in an effort to make your case.
By
Anonymous, at 2:02 AM
I think you missed my point. It was that sexual orientation is generally not something that can be controlled by the individual. In some cases, yes. Overall, no. There are usually signs that someone will be same sex oriented when young, but it is not 100%.
Too often the gay community asks for rights that no other group does, and sometimes for things the general society will not allow for anyway. Sometimes the conservative community is branded as intollerant, yet in countries that the left seems to champion, gays there are tortured and put in jail.
I am not so bold to say that it is perverted or an aberration, but that often the gay community now gets into its own intollerance when it wants the majority to bend the rules to make others think their lifestyle is just the same, and that accepted practices like marriage which have been the way they are for centuries can or should be changed to suit their purposes.
By
Rick's Corner, at 2:14 AM
cjb said:
"You’ve probably read English words for most of your life and yet you still haven’t learnt how to spell them correctly."
Or, sometimes a typo is just a typo. And sometimes spelling isn't someone's forte.
My dad's a genius, an engineer, great at all kinds of reasoning.
But he's a rotten speller.
I agree with most all your points cjb and, myself, I have this tendency to get annoyed at misspellings. Nonetheless, I think you ought to back off on this small point. T'ain't worth it and it distracts from the case at hand.
By
Dan Trabue, at 6:52 AM
Also, take a look at your history, Rome was not influenced by a gay lifestyle for many many years. In fact even after they conquered the greeks they resented the greek city states for being greek, much like they disliked carthage. Their collapse is attributed by most historians as being from a center of internal unrest, followed by a loss of patriotism as no one went into the military for the glory of Rome but instead a few bucks. When the soliders then marched onto the battlefield they didnt fight for Rome, but for themselves and the barbarians were easily able to conquer such a weak army. Such greed killed the Roman Empire and if you think that greed was the only moral collapse of the Rome, then you know much more about apes than you do people
Hax-
I just want to quickly say that if you had read all of the reasons that I cited for the fall of the Roman Empire, I mainly focused on internal disorder and instability and an uncommitted defensive military at the borders. The quick blerb about Nero was simply to point out that he was not a favored leader of the time, and most were waiting for the next leader to come to power. This was to show that his actions taken with the boy were not exactly accepted by society. And with regards to the moral collapses of the Romans, I did not say that greed was their only downfall. I was saying that the greed of the upper classes and instable economic system did not create a very viable, enduring system.
By
Anonymous, at 8:50 AM
I didn't mean to leave that text in the beginning of that post. I put there for faster reference...
Sorry about that.
That first part was written in an earlier post by Haximus.
By
Anonymous, at 10:39 AM
People don't have a right for everything they want in any society. Marriage is something for a man and a woman. That is one of the slippery slope ideas Daniel was talking about to begin with.
Other than repealing some of the very old sex laws around in some of the states, tell me what rights homosexuals do not have?
By
Rick's Corner, at 11:34 AM
"The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government in 1997, in a 75 page brief prepared for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee enumerated some 1,049 laws giving rights to married heterosexual couples..."
"Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…"
f'r instance...
By
Dan Trabue, at 1:15 PM
cjb, a sad sad personal attack about whether or not something is a typo or not shows the weakness of your position. If used teh very often would you think I didnt know how to spell "the"?
Now you resort to personal attacks on me rather than argue a point. Congradulations, your hatred (and lack of knowledge of latin declensions) have shown your true hateful colors.
By
Haximus, at 3:26 PM
dan, all of those can be accomplished without marriage.
By
Haximus, at 3:30 PM
Haximus,
I’m going to take Dan’s advice and say nothing more about your language skills. So, would you care to respond to my other criticisms of your arguments or are they all to be swept away by your indignity at my criticism of your spelling? I guess we can add spelling to religious beliefs on the list of things that must be given a free pass.
You can get off your high horse with the hatred accusations as well. Why must you extrapolate things to extremes? I don’t hate you. In fact, I can’t think of anyone or anything that I really hate. There are certainly people and ideas for whom I lack respect, but a lack of respect is a far cry from hatred.
By
Anonymous, at 3:51 PM
Hax, thanks.
Paul, some of your stuff is Greek to me.
I just couldn't resist that.
By
Rick's Corner, at 3:53 PM
cjb, I'll respond to you when you come up with something new, so far you have yet to say anything that you havent already said a number of times. I keep coming up with fresh material, you however dont. You resort to personal attacks and insults to try and drive me away. You have no points for me to respond to.
By
Haximus, at 10:18 PM
I believe totally in marriage as a good thing. I would be an idiot to think that a stable family life was a bad idea... But there's a 'but'involved. I am very much in love with somebody who I have been with for almost six years now and he happens to be the same gender as me. We are exactly the same as our other friends who are couples, whether male-male or male-female and any one of the people we know and class as friends or even acquaintances would not disagree. We are getting 'married' soon and is the world going to end because of this? Is marriage going to be destroyed throughout the world? No. If anything happens because of the gay civil partnership law it will be that long term stable relationships will continue to be seen as a good thing for everybody. And narrow-minded people will be upset that we're just as good and our love is as valid as their rather self-satisfied marriages are. They just want gay people to remain in the 'slutty faggot club whore' stereotype because it makes their ridiculous hysteria about us easier to sell to the masses.
By
DanProject76, at 11:06 AM
DP76,
I wish I could wish you happiness and a long life together, but I can't for both moral and societal reasons. On top of that, I have yet to meet a homosexual who is as happy in his or her relationship or lifestyle as most heterosexuals are in theirs. This said it would be a futile wish anyway.
Rather, I will wish you individual happiness and enlightenment, and pray for the best.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 8:46 PM
What right do you have to judge whether I am happy in my relationship or not? I am in a very happy stable relationship, thank you. In a country that is considerably less weird about these things than yours, which I am eternally grateful for. My business is my business and it affects and hurts nobody. Use your hate allowance for people who deserve it like rapists, murderers and paedophiles.
By
DanProject76, at 1:12 PM
dp76, you seem to hold the same hate that you claim dan has...
By
Haximus, at 3:43 PM
Typical hatemongering from the man who cannot defend his position, and refuses to reply to an honest query in the face of neutral facts that have been presented. It gets tiresome when people resort to name calling and bigoted hate speech against people who dissapprove of their behavior.
DP76, you obviously have no idea what the difference is between hate and dissaproval combined with compassion and concern. Hate is those retards who hold protests at the funerals of AIDS victims chanting about how homosexuals will all burn in Hell and that they deserve it. Taking an honest position based on factual evidence, as I have, is not hate, but submitting to the facts. Of course, YOU will say that anyone who disagrees with your lifestyle is a hateful bigot because you cannot defend yourself when an informed person like myself slaps you with factual truths as proven by science. It gets even worse for you when that same person has firsthand experience dealing with large numbers of homosexuals and had the chance to witness every horrible thing you choose to deny.
Of course, to your closed-minded, hateful view that makes me a bigot.
Take off your blinders.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:33 PM
Sorry mate but your 'facts' are just things you wish to believe are true and you dismiss anyone who expresses another side to your arguments. You're more obsessed with gayness that gay people are, which is mildly disturbing and very boring. I don't think I can be bothered with this as it's like talking to a robot. It's an argument that neither side can win.
I don't believe you're anything like those shits who picket funerals and I believe that you think you're a decent human being. You're not a hateful evil person, just horribly misguided. It's the way you were brought up and that's just how you are. We're different and live in different worlds. Mine is one where most people get on with the various kinds of folk who share their space and I don't even have to think about my relationship being different to most other people's. Unlike on hthis blog where it is wrong and sinful and dirty. So long and thanks for all the debate.
By
DanProject76, at 9:02 AM
A person is either pro-'mo or anti 'mo.
A person who is pro 'mo must have had some experience in this area, in order that he speak with any authority.
An anti 'mo person simply has to know better.
So, pro-mo's out there? What experience led you to the side you are on now?
Grin!
By
Anonymous, at 12:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home