In response to:

The Opposite of the Civil Rights Movement

matt261 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 12:18 PM
"The second is to reduce the threat of epidemic-level, taxpayer-crushing, out-of-wedlock births." Considering the current rate of out-of-wedlock births, we're already at the "epidemic level." Perhaps more attention should be paid to this issue, even though, by common sense, it is a purely heterosexual failing.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 12:57 PM
I don't see how banning gay marriage will change out-of-wedlock births. I agree that it is an epidemic, but I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage. I think it has a lot to do with bad policies and laws that make marriage so unappealing as well as a generation of young adults who are immature and uneducated on making relationships work.
eddie again Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 1:56 PM
it is not about banning gay marriage. gay marriage is an oxymoron.

if you wish to discuss changing the definition of marriage and advocate for changing it, you are free to do so.

the problem is that under the currently accepted definition of marriage, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. there is no equal protection argument unless the definition of marriage is changed.
Jack2894 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 2:02 PM
Eddie, that is factually untrue, Several nations and several states in the US already include gay couples in the definition. Obviously, there is no single "currently accepted definition" of marriage
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 3:31 PM
No, just a single "correct" definition of it.
Jack2894 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 5:02 PM
No, there is only the definition you prefer. Conservatives have a hellacious hard time telling the difference between a fact and an opinion.
NewJAl Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:32 PM
We have gone around like this before.
A hand is a hand,a foot a foot, a man a man and a woman a woman.
There are always exceptions, but there is a universally accepted definitions.
Word games can be played, of course.
Entertaining to some personalities, I suppose.
Make everything murky, then there can be no disagreement.
What a wonderful World that would be.
Run to the roundhouse, Jack, they can't corner you there.
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 12:29 PM
People with same-sex attractions may have sexual issues, but they don't have a monopoly on them.

NOTE: This is the first column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013.

Those who remember the old version of the SAT might recall the analogy section: “This is to that as that is to this.”

The SAT no longer requires students to demonstrate aptitude in reasoning through this vital cognitive exercise—unfortunate because so many Americans find it difficult to recognize false analogies. And no group has exploited this deficiency more than politicians.

Adam Cohen observed in a 2005 New York Times piece: “Intentionally misleading comparisons are becoming the dominant mode of public discourse....