"Why gay marriage opponents have lost"

Why gay marriage opponents have lost
http://americablog.com/2014/10/gay-marriage-opponents-lost.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting discourse from a Conservative blogger for all to read. Indeed, the right continues to present arguments that are religion-based while not everyone in this country is religious. They continue to use arguments that would be fine if we were governed under a Theocracy only we're not. Therefore, conservatives have lost their steam as well as their edge as they find that between 55 and 59 percent of Americans now Approve of Same-Sex Marriage. And knowing that, it makes it pretty hard to continue fighting a losing battle which is why so many have now thrown in the towel.

 

Good, logical article. Thanks

 

I think the desire to keep homosexuals from marrying was based on the rumors that homosexuals were perverts. And it also relied on them staying in the closet. When homosexuals decided to become known people saw the truth. Homosexuals were their fiends and neighbors even family members. It's easy to divorce yourself from something if the only thing you hear is what people tell you. But once light is shed upon it, it's really difficult to do so.

Which is why you hear some people saying that homosexuals should just not talk about it. That want silence so people with agendas can control the information.

The propaganda has been proven false. That doesn't stop some people from parroting it. But repeating canards that have been proven wrong really makes people look like idiots.

 

This is what I've been saying for over ten years now.

They relied on numbers to justify the double standard in treatment of gays. Well that still doesn't fly in court. But the courts seemed to sense that ruling in favor of gay marriage wouldn't go over until the tides changed. Guess what? We just had to wait and start the ball rolling. That was Massachusets.

It took a long time but we kept working. Kept fighting. DOMA and he Windsor case was the real lynch pin. After that there was so much momentum the tide had turned.

Now it's pretty much all down hill.

 

my religious reasons are my private reasons, and I don't use them to argue against gay marriages....


the reasons I use against gay marriages are economic and consistent in the reasons why I also oppose incestuous marriages between consenting adults, and against polygomy invovling consenting adults, and even applies to why I argue against monopolies....



but that entire explanation I just typed out will be read by the gay supporters as "blah blah, I'm a bigot, blah blah, my homophobia"


you WANT my reasons to be because of my Christianity.

 

Neither did any of the states defending traditional marriage in court. Revealing the author avoids the arguments actually made in court.

 

And as numerous people have pointed out, same sex marriage doesn't effect you economically.

- - - Updated - - -

The arguments made in court lost. That's why over 30 states now have no same sex marriage bans.

 

Who needs courts to interpret the constitution, if instead their role is to interpret public opinion?

 

Well, they were dismissed as not the states actual arguments. They didn't lose. The courts denied that the states had limited marriage to men and women to improve the well being of children and falsely alleged that the states instead limited marriage to men and women in order to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.
Would be like you giving a long list of positive descriptions of your wifes personality and character as to why you chose to marry her, and I point to her rather large breasts and claim that you instead married her for the large tits, and insist you justify your decision to marry your wife because of her large breasts, and when you cant, declare that your arguments for marrying your wife have lost. When in fact, it was only your arguments in defense of my strawman that have lost. Your actual arguments, based upon her positive character and personality were all, very good arguments, I couldn't defeat. That's why I had to insist those were not your genuine arguments, and instead assign to you the argument that you married your wife for the big tits.

 

Actually not a single word in your statement is correct. It's actually a proven lie you've been called on every time youve posted it.

Actually it's nothing like that at all.

What it's like in the real world is the courts keep telling you you have to,have a governmental interest served by the denial of any right. If you want to ban same sex couples from marriage, you have to demonstrate an interest that is served by their EXCLUSION. That something else included is good is not an argument.

That's why you keep losing.

 

You're the one who wants them to work on public opinion with you and others calling their rulings a usurpation of the will of the people.

 

Nope, you are confused. My arguments are based upon the constitution and the thousands of years of the history of marriage. Public opinion is irrelevant to both.

 

[SUP][/SUP]

Good for you that you believe that. But you should know by now that the only opinions that carry any weight are those of judges, who overwhelmingly disagree with you.

 

Are you proposing to remove the judicial power from the established government as it was established by our forefathers? The SCOTUS ARE interpreting the constitution. . .but our forefather have clearly stated that the Constitution was not written in stone and should be a living document that evolves with the need of the people (including the people interpretation of what fairness and equal rights represent at any specific time).

One among many examples: We no longer allow slavery, and we do recognize equal rights for interracial marriages.

By the way. . .today's "traditional marriage" has almost NOTHING to do with "marriage" thousands of years ago! In fact, polygamy has been illegals for several decades, the bride fathers no longer expect to receive a few sheep in exchange for "selling" his daughter, and any woman could obtain a divorce or declare the marriage nul if the husband where to take several concubines!

Get real!

 

Thousands of years of history is an argument from tradition which is just crap. The constitution is exactly why gay marriage is being legalized.

Sorry. You've lost.

 

It's a logical fallacy that has no standing in court whatsoever. Again, he should know that.

 

That's the thing...he does know. He just doesn't want to accept reality.

 

Can't blame the little guy for trying sputtering out fallacy after fallacy is simply the death rattle.

 

Actually your arguments aren't based on the constitution. That's why you keep losing.

Legal marriage has only existed in the US for about 240 years. So stating thousands of years is really stupid.

 

Nope, its an argument form reality. The thousands of years of history of marriage, shows that marriage is limited to men and women because only men and women procreate. As opposed to as alleged, to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. NOT that it should remain that way because of those thousands years, which would be an argument from tradition. But instead that it IS so limited because only men and women procreate. Possibly you don't understand the concept of arguing from tradition, but I suspect instead you haven't yet even begun to comprehend my argument.

 

Such contorted logic. You claim that you aren't making an argument from tradition or history, yet you feel the need to say marriage has been a certain way for "thousands of years" because you believe it defeats the arguments put forward by attorneys challenging the state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage - which were only enacted over the past two decades?

The bans were put in place for no other reason than to injure same-sex couples. That's the conclusion around 30 district and appellate judges have come to. Their opinions count, yours doesn't.

 

Yet the bans on same sex marriage were only put into place when gays started to seek marriage out?

I find that suspicious. That, to me and the judges that have ruled in favor of gay marriage, seems to point out that the purpose of the bans was to injure gays.

Also you seem to selectively forget that marriage has been many many things besides one man and one woman. Marriage used to be one man and many women. It used to be a father selling his daughter. They used to be arranged by the family with the children being married having no choice.

So again, your argument from tradition is utter crap.

 

Nonsense. The same "bans" as you call they were already in the statutes. They just duplicated what was already in practice, into their Constitutions.

Multiple marriages, each and every one of them between a man and a woman. Not sure of your point.

Always his daughter, and never his son. And always to a man and never to a woman. So not sure of your point. And in ancient Mesopotamia, a refund of the price paid for the bride was due if she didn't produce a child.

 

Why do you bring incest and polygamy into this? They are not legal....and if millions of them want these marriages. They can start a movement but until then it is just a red herrin

- - - Updated - - -

What is your signature supposed to mean?