Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Assaults On The Definition Of Marriage

July 4, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: The rapid unrelenting assaults on the definition of marriage understandably make many concerned....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(122)

Monkeyboy

Jul-17-13 1:25 PM

Why aren't you working on the causes for the decline of traditional marriage that I listed, the obvious ones, instead of wringing your hands over what might possibly happen in the future? I would say you should have your hands full with what is wrong with traditional marriage now yet you choose to ignore it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

Jul-17-13 1:22 PM

It is still the slippery slope. Slippery slope questions deserve no more answer than, "we will address that if it happens but it has nothing to do with the merits of the current situation".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-16-13 3:24 PM

So, at what poitn does the definition of marriage stop expanding? It's just a question, not a judgment on anything or anyone. Can you answer it?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

Jul-16-13 1:34 PM

If you really cared about traditional marriage you would be writing scolding letters-to-the-editor about adultery, divorce and out-of-wedlock births yet you continue to obsess about same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court has ruled. Case closed, yet you continue tilting at the windmill. Why don't you try doing something constructive for the community rather than always being the voice of divisiveness?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

Jul-16-13 1:24 PM

Beware the lame slippery slope arguments, Mel!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-15-13 6:22 PM

Monkey, you say,"Nobody is pushing for undoing marriage's definition, just expanding it." So, at what point does it stop expanding?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-13-13 5:24 PM

Further proof we have not fully evolved from monkeys.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

Jul-13-13 11:55 AM

What I am going to say, Mel, is that slippery slope arguments are for the desperate who have no better arguments to offer.

Divorce, out-of-wedlock births and adultery are what is destroying traditional marriage yet you don't have the guts to write a letter about those things because they are so prevalent in our society. Nobody is pushing for undoing marriage's definition, just expanding it. You are simply trying to create hysteria over nothing to push your political agenda and force your conservative religious views on the greater society. Saying that same-sex marriage is an assault on traditional marriage is dishonest.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-12-13 6:41 PM

Religion held people together so well, Hitler and Stalin had to destroy it and make the government the religion. Just BHO and his ho ho's now.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-12-13 4:27 PM

If there were people saying that out-of-wedlock births are good for society as marriage is and divorce is also as good as marriage, then I would. What's the point of even arguing against something that doesn;t even exist? Is there a movement afoot to make divorce something that is good for society or out of wedlock births just as good for society as marriage is?

Besides, a major issue with me is the utter lack of logic used to justify undoing the definition of marriage. I don't have to point the logical phoniness being perpetrated by divorce as there is in undoing the definition of marriage. For example, you can't knock the logic I use in my letter to expose the shallow logic of those pushing for undoing marriage's definition. What are you going to say, Monkeyboy, to those who want to use the same logic for their relationships the homosexuals have used to justify theirs?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-12-13 4:16 PM

Em, that's a lot of arbitrary rhetoric I see in your response. It's your opinion that it is prejudice. Just point out the paragraph and/or sentences in my letter which are prejudice. I don;t know what you mean when you say that I'm being prejudice in my letter when you refuse to point out the sentence and/or paragraph that is prejudice. When you write down the wiki's definition of prejudice, that is not pointing out the sentence and/or paragraph in my letter that you insinuate is bigoted/prejudice. I answer your question by disagreeing with you that I'm prejudice. You say that I'm prejudice. That's your opinion. Now can you specifically point it out by noting the sentences and paragraphs in the letter that are prejudicial?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

Jul-12-13 2:14 PM

Rev Mel, I'm still waiting for a scolding letter about the 50+% rate of divorce or the 40+% out-of-wedlock birthrate destroying traditional marriage. Why is it that you choose to ignore the main reasons for the decline of traditional marriage and try to blame it on same-sex marriage if not because of bigotry?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-11-13 5:37 PM

If bigotry is prejudging people Em you are certainly a bigot.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-11-13 1:17 PM

I see you dodged my question as quickly as I seemingly dodged yours, apologeticsnow, but in truth, I answered what you asked. You ask where is the bigotry, I ask that bigotry is defined by prejudice and asked where your letter was prejudging LGB people. It's in there, plain to see if you look honestly, but that's the last thing you seem to be able to, or want to, do when discussing this subject.

Your poor manipulation of the Socratic method is very obvious. I won't fall into your rhetorical traps. I will, however, point them out now and then, just to show others how intellectually bankrupt your animosity and aversion to LGBT people really is.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-10-13 10:03 PM

prejudging what?

Is my letter bigoted and if so, exactly what?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-10-13 4:37 PM

Wikipedia presents things pretty clearly:

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics." ht tp://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Bigotry

The operative word is "prejudice," isn't it? So, you tell us, Rev. - is there anything in your letter that illustrates prejudgment?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-09-13 9:09 PM

Em, so nothing in my letter was in any way bigoted, right?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-08-13 11:53 PM

Another educational tidbit:

"Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A (marriage equality) is under discussion. Topic B (who is calling whom a bigot) is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-08-13 11:22 PM

Far from throwing that term around to anyone who disagrees with me, I haven't called anyone a bigot. Read my posts again. Slowly. Think about it. Do you need to have the dictionary definition posted again? Did you not read or did you forget the definition?

50s4ever, my inner, core identity is NOT a profession. What does that have to do with marriage equality anyway?

Seadog, a person's sexual orientation does not have much to do with their gender identity. Trans people come in straight, gay, bi and asexual versions, just like cisgender people. It's judged by who they really are (their target, not assigned sex) and who they are romantically attracted to.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jul-08-13 9:35 PM

As Em, henryH and others who agree with them label us whose opinions disagree with theirs, would they kindly point out a bigoted statement or paragraph in this letter and explain exactly why it is bigoted?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jul-08-13 5:37 PM

I said you didn't hear those words much. I didn't say you didn't hear them. Surely you have to admit that you hear them more now than you used to.

"Loudly called out." That sounds a bit harsh. Was he called a bigot? What was he called? Saying he was called out means nothing.

As far as my position, quite comfortable with it. But you never know, a few years or even months from now, I might be on here calling people names who dare believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jul-08-13 5:21 PM

Yes Em you prove over and over you are a bigot. Since it's your profession I guess you officially changed to LTBG putting gay at the tail end of the acronym and your favs up front?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-08-13 4:49 PM

"The day before Obama changed his mind on gay marriage neither one of us was intolerant. The day he changed his mind, that made me intolerant to some. Again, why?"

"Emelye-True, many were called intolerant before Obama changed his mind. But I don't remember him being called a bigot, hater and all those other things like many are called today who believe marraige is between a man and a woman."

This tactic is known as "moving the goalposts." One comment is refuted and then a similar but more extreme comment is introduced as being a reason the refutation was invalid. It's a fallacy and indicates a losing position.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Emelye

Jul-08-13 4:43 PM

If you didn't hear those words before Mr Obama changed his mind then you weren't listening, bluesman.

I suppose he wasn't called a hater because he did a lot of other things for the LTBG community that didn't involve marriage equality but when he angered the community he was very loudly called out. Of course, who called Mr Obama what and when isn't the point, is it? The point was about your willing ignorance of the fact that anti-gay people and organizations used very bigoted language and rhetoric, earning the title of bigots.

If someone says bigoted things and promotes bigoted policies then why shouldn't people call them a bigot?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

Jul-08-13 4:16 PM

Emelye-True, many were called intolerant before Obama changed his mind. But I don't remember him being called a bigot, hater and all those other things like many are called today who believe marraige is between a man and a woman. You didn't hear those words much until the big three (Obama, Biden and Hillary) changed their minds.

Name one person who called Obama a hater because he opposed gay marriage.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 122 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web