1 - 10 Next
Again, with the e.e. cummings impersonation. Cummings sucked. Your "homage" to him is even worse. Why not try abusing Emily Dickinson's memory for a while instead?
I was about to say the same thing...Being a grammar cop is bad enough...being a grammar cop when YOU are the one who doesn't know how to use the word...something only a liberal could do.
"False. All societies had a bedrock concept of 'family', but for many long-lived societies that family was polygamous or a group. " Yes. But it has never neen "same sex".
Nah...oppostion to mix-race marriage was never primarily religious. In fact, the opposite is, broadly speaking, true. It was almost exclusively religious groups and people who opposed slavery, fought for civil rights, and battled Jim Crow - Such as thre REVEREND King. In fact, for most of the period between the Nation's founding and WWII, opposition to racism was EXCLUSIVELY religious. Both "science" and civil authority was unabashedly racist. I am an agnostic myself, and I find folks like you embarrassing. Why must our lack of faith translate into ridicule and flat-out-hatred of religious people? You undermine your own case every time you spit venom at Christians.
Actually, the fastest growing American demographic are the Mormons. They currently have higher fertility rates than any "minority"
Here's how "it would work". The foundation of a civilization is the nuclear family. Redefining "family" until it is unrecognizable undermines this foundation, exacerbating certain destructive trends. "Family" has always been held as different, both "above" and more fundemental, than civil law, and thus has been the only stable platform on which to build a civil society. Government recognition of homosexual trysts as "marriage" further destabilizes and delegitimizes this unique role of the family in a society. Will "same sex marriage" singlehandedly bring down Western Civilization? No. Is it another nail in the coffin? Most certainly.
So, like it or not, this is an experiment that has never been tried. Whether or not it will be "harmless" will be for future historians (probably Islamic or Chinese, since we'll likely be extinct) to determine.
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on that. Even in very "gay friendly" classical civilizations like ancient Greece and late Imperial Rome, there is little evidence of "marriage" between members of the same sex. With the exception of single Hellenistic amphora that depicts a male / male pair (and this is somewhat ambiguous), there is NO evidence. Many notable Romans, such as the Emperor Hadrian, engaged in long term and apparently "committed" homosexual relationships, but they MARRIED women. As the exceedingly creepy Greek aphorism stated: "Men for friendship, women for marriage, boys for fun".
I wish I could be this sanguine about it. But those polls were taken a little while ago, while liberals were still working on "the War on Women". Yes, public opinion changes that fast. We are on the third generation of an apolitical majority. These people have no values, no deep thoughts and will adopt whatever position their favorite celebrity tells them to have . Those celebrities are telling them "Gay marriage is good...I know because my hairdresser and make-up man tell me so!" If Brad Pitt suddenly changed his mind about Adam 'n Steve, so would mass-polling. Until then, we've lost.
I think she's probably right. That's why they aren't able to "win" on gun control, despite extreme events...There is no indentity group being "victimized" so no bigotry witch-hunt, so no liberal victory. If we on the right could get past our fear of being labelled "haters", we'd be dangerous.
1 - 10 Next