Same-sex Marriage.

[_Fence Sitter]

Have you noticed that your arguments against marriage equality are essentially the same arguments raised to support laws against interracial marriage? No doubt had we had this conversation in the 50s, you would side with the racists.

And were also used against 19th century Mormons practicing polygamy. No doubt Wade would have been at the forefront, in the late 19th century, defending the sanctity of marriage against the evils of polygamy.

[_Bazooka]

I only had a moment this morning before heading out of town for a couple of days, and I thought that since the issue of same-sex marriage was raised tangentially on another thread, I would start a new thread on the topic.

As fodder for the discussion, may I offer a series of brief articles I have written on the unintended negative consequences of SSM, starting here: "Leftist LUNCs (Law of Unintended Negative Consequences)--Same Sex Marriage: Intro."

Feel free to respond in my absence. I will engage in the discussion when I return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, what's your take on why the God of Mormonism prompted President Monson to fight for Proposition 8 so vigorously, yet since then has told Him to back off? The most recent example is in Hawaii, but you can refer to New Zealand, France the UK etc. Why do you think God lost in California, and why since then has He decided not to fight again?

[_Chap]

Further on the evil consequences of 'liberal' sex education:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

Learning Dutch lessons on teen pregnancy

By Laura Donnelly

12:01AM GMT 30 Dec 2007

Holland has the lowest rate of children born to teenage mothers across Western Europe - six times lower than Britain's statistics at the opposite end of the league table, writes Laura Donnelly.

When teenagers do fall pregnant, those in the Netherlands are slightly more likely than their counterparts in the UK to have abortions. But the gap between the number of births to teenage mothers is better explained by the lower levels of sexual activity in Holland before the age of consent.

In the UK, the average teenager loses his or her virginity at the age of 16½ - more than a year before the Dutch average, while young people in the Netherlands are far more likely than their British peers to use contraception.

Liberal campaigners in this country point to Holland's permissive health policies, including compulsory sex education in schools from the age of five, as being key to its success. While schools are free to design their own programmes, some of the most shocking initiatives have included condom demonstrations for 10?year?olds, trips to sex shops for older teenagers, and cartoon videos on how to masturbate.

But advocates of the Dutch approach say the practical demonstrations are just a tiny part of their agenda, which encourages teens to discuss the moral and emotional implications of sex. Typical debates include reasons to have sex, what to say if a boy refuses to wear a condom and how to maintain self-respect.

Dutch campaigners say Britain's schools tick the box for sex education by providing biology lessons and free condoms, without arming teenage girls with the confidence to say no to unwanted advances, or to care for their sexual health.

A study of teenagers in Holland and Britain found that while boys and girls in the Netherlands gave "love and commitment" as their primary reason for losing their virginity, as did girls in this country, British boys were more strongly influenced by peer pressure, opportunity and physical attraction. Further British research showed that one-third of teenage girls lost their virginity to please a boyfriend, while more than half had experienced unprotected sex.

You did notice this bit?

Dutch campaigners say Britain's schools tick the box for sex education by providing biology lessons and free condoms, without arming teenage girls with the confidence to say no to unwanted advances, or to care for their sexual health.

Note that the evil Dutch liberals teach girls how to say 'No', and are proud of the fact that their kids have first sex on average later than other kids, as well as being less likely to get pregnant.

Clear signs that Satan is behind all this.

[_ludwigm]

Further on the evil consequences of 'liberal' sex education:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

Dutch lessons

I can second this. Three of our twenty gandchildren live in the Netherlands. They know far more than their parents - my daughter and son-in-law - had known in the same age.

Note that the evil Dutch liberals teach girls how to say 'No', and are proud of the fact that their kids have first sex on average later than other kids, as well as being less likely to get pregnant.

Well, I know nothing about this. That three are all boys...

Clear signs that Satan is behind all this.

[_wenglund]

The introduction contained the premise of your argument.
Take away the premise, and your argument fails.

As the author of the piece, and the one person who is intimately aware of what the introduction contained, I can authoritatively guarantee that you are incorrect. Sorry.

Have you noticed that your arguments against marriage equality are essentially the same arguments raised to support laws against interracial marriage? No doubt had we had this conversation in the 50s, you would side with the racists.

As I already painstakingly explained to Darth J in this thread, my blog posts were not intended to be an argument against same-sex marriage or the ruse of "marriage equality." Rather, they are intended to spell out the unintended negative consequences of promoting and legalizing SSM, as the title of the blog makes clear.

And, in no rational way do the list of unintended negative consequences apply to interracial marriage. Quite the contrary. You, of course, are free to go beyond making a bald assertion and attempt to substantiate your claim. Good luck with that.

Finally, I take considerable exception to your false insinuation that I am racist or associated with racism. If you continue to employ these kinds of unwarranted bully techniques, I will put you on ignore. I can respect your passion expression of your point of view, but there is no call for level serious and false allegation. Such is no replacement for a reasoned response, and is often employed for want of a reasoned response.

No. Because those issue you raised are outside the scope of "marriage equality." Liberals are opposed to marriage laws seeking to discriminate based on race, ethnic origins, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

In other words, in terms of marriage, liberals are in favor of discriminating in favor of select classifications but not for other kinds of relationships. That is no more "marriage equality" than discriminating solely in favor of tradition marriage. Equality means everyone and everything is treated exactly the same, not selectively discriminating for these relationships and not those.

Have you ever heard a liberal complain that laws against bank robbery discriminating against bank robbers? Funny how liberals have an innate ability to see a line that distinguishes between homosexuals and pedophiles that conservative just can't see when they raise these stupid stupid arguments.

Actually, this conservative has the innate ability to see lines of distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals as well as between homosexuals and pedophiles, which is why I get just how remarkably stupid the "marriage equality" argument is. Even certain liberals get this, which is why they believe that gay marriage isn't enough, and that marriage should be availed equally to other relationships. (See the documentation at my blog)

In Wade's nanny world, would each child be fitted with a government issued chastity belt, where the key is delivered to the state approved spouse and the conclusion of a state sanctioned heterosexual wedding?

No. Obviously.

Liberals believe in freedom, education, and free access to birth control and abortions. Do you really want to compare liberal bastions of Oregon and Mass. to conservative Texas, and Alabama?

I would be more than pleased to compare the entire set of conservative counties throughout the nation to liberal counties. Would you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I would be more than pleased to compare the entire set of conservative counties throughout the nation to liberal counties. Would you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, Wade. Let's compare.

And you will find that, taken as a whole, liberal counties/state keep the conservative counties/states afloat financially.

It's just one of the many interesting facts that you'll find if you do an honest evaluation. Here's another one: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... servatives

[_wenglund]

My wife and I were noticing something very peculiar Wade. Seemingly, after every state that has legalized same-sex marriages, our heterosexual marriage has greatly improved. We laugh and talk together more frequently, go on dates, are kinder and more considerate of each other. Hell, I even do the dishes half the week. It is like I am even more heterosexual than before. My heterosexuality has been fortified and strengthened in some inexplainable way!

Thank you gays and gay marriage! Keep up the good work.

I am pleased for you and your wife.

However, as I made clear in my blog posts, my concern isn't with the impact (momentary or prolonged, superficial or indepth) on a few individual marriages, but the impact on the institution as a whole, and other societal elements related thereto. This holds principally true for a broad range of social issues. I suspect that there will be people overjoyed to learn of a meth lab opening near their neighborhood, but that overjoy is not the a sound basis for legalizing those labs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tchild]

I am pleased for you and your wife.

However, as I made clear in my blog posts, my concern isn't with the impact (momentary or prolonged, superficial or indepth) on a few individual marriages, but the impact on the institution as a whole, and other societal elements related thereto. This holds principally true for a broad range of social issues. I suspect that there will be people overjoyed to learn of a meth lab opening near their neighborhood, but that overjoy is not the a sound basis for legalizing those labs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you Wade.

However, using a meth lab is probably not the best analogy. How about a Pot grow in a state that has legalized and regulated the growing and sale of marijuana? That makes a nice analogy.

Meth is illegal, gay marriage is not.

[_wenglund]

Further on the evil consequences of 'liberal' sex education:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html

Learning Dutch lessons on teen pregnancy

By Laura Donnelly

12:01AM GMT 30 Dec 2007

Holland has the lowest rate of children born to teenage mothers across Western Europe - six times lower than Britain's statistics at the opposite end of the league table, writes Laura Donnelly.

When teenagers do fall pregnant, those in the Netherlands are slightly more likely than their counterparts in the UK to have abortions. But the gap between the number of births to teenage mothers is better explained by the lower levels of sexual activity in Holland before the age of consent.

In the UK, the average teenager loses his or her virginity at the age of 16½ - more than a year before the Dutch average, while young people in the Netherlands are far more likely than their British peers to use contraception.

Liberal campaigners in this country point to Holland's permissive health policies, including compulsory sex education in schools from the age of five, as being key to its success. While schools are free to design their own programmes, some of the most shocking initiatives have included condom demonstrations for 10?year?olds, trips to sex shops for older teenagers, and cartoon videos on how to masturbate.

But advocates of the Dutch approach say the practical demonstrations are just a tiny part of their agenda, which encourages teens to discuss the moral and emotional implications of sex. Typical debates include reasons to have sex, what to say if a boy refuses to wear a condom and how to maintain self-respect.

Dutch campaigners say Britain's schools tick the box for sex education by providing biology lessons and free condoms, without arming teenage girls with the confidence to say no to unwanted advances, or to care for their sexual health.

A study of teenagers in Holland and Britain found that while boys and girls in the Netherlands gave "love and commitment" as their primary reason for losing their virginity, as did girls in this country, British boys were more strongly influenced by peer pressure, opportunity and physical attraction. Further British research showed that one-third of teenage girls lost their virginity to please a boyfriend, while more than half had experienced unprotected sex.

You did notice this bit?

Dutch campaigners say Britain's schools tick the box for sex education by providing biology lessons and free condoms, without arming teenage girls with the confidence to say no to unwanted advances, or to care for their sexual health.

Note that the evil Dutch liberals teach girls how to say 'No', and are proud of the fact that their kids have first sex on average later than other kids, as well as being less likely to get pregnant.

Clear signs that Satan is behind all this.

I am all for arming young girls with the confidence to say "no" and to care for their sexual health. I guess, to your way of thinking, this means that Satan is behind my thinking. Interesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Thank you Wade.

However, using a meth lab is probably not the best analogy. How about a Pot grow in a state that has legalized and regulated the growing and sale of marijuana? That makes a nice analogy.

Meth is illegal, gay marriage is not.

That is fine as long as you understand the principle I intended to convey.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-