The announcement came on what amounts to the first day of the general election for governor, a race where Mr. Corbett, a Republican, is seen as vulnerable. On Tuesday, businessman Tom Wolf, who supports gay-marriage rights, won the Democratic primary.
Mr. Corbett's announcement was a fresh sign that the politics of gay marriage are rapidly changing. A string of Republican governors have now declined to either appeal or criticize similar rulings in their own states, including Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico.
२१ मे, २०१४
GOP Governor Tom Corbett declines to appeal the federal district court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.
"I continue to maintain the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman," he says, but "My duties as governor require that I follow the laws as interpreted by the courts and make a judgment as to the likelihood of a successful appeal."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
Corbett has made some over tough decisions and many are wondering if voters will punish him for it. I certainly wouldn't expect a Democrat to make any.
It's sort of like the popularity of organized crime.
Nobody wants to take the hit from opposing it.
Or Islam, for that matter, works that way.
I know three gay couples – a youthful couple, a middle age one and an elderly couple. The young ones were married in California 3 or 4 years ago. They all love each other. They seem to have the same problems and the same blessings as straight married couples. The young ones have adopted a child and I am confident that the kid will be raised well. It is in a loving, nurturing environment.
I used to be very against gay marriage. But I happened to participate in a debate that was the beginning of the changing of my mind. The main point of us who were opposed really just added up to, "It just isn't right."
I started realizing that for me that couldn't be a good reason to stigmatize, incarcerate or for other negative sanctions to be imposed. I thought, I researched and I could find no credible reason to be opposed. After awhile I changed my mind.
Marriage is an institution in our society, an institution that comes with benefits that are emotional, legal and monetary. I do not believe we have the moral right to deny a significant portion of our society access to that institution.
It's an idea whose time has come. The politicians are only acquiescing to their constituents.
Apparently, after "marriage equality" is all wrapped up, we'll move on to "surrogacy equality," in which equality demands that gay couples be allowed to procreate (that is purchase children) via surrogacy. http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/05/19/surrogacys-strange-bedfellows/
"The politicians are only acquiescing to their constituents"
No, their constituents voted down gay marriage; the politicians are acquiescing to judges.
The story of same-sex marriage is one of good lawyering and horrendous judging. As with legal abortion rights, one can agree with the public policy position while, at the same time, lament the way in which the policy was imposed on society. (I had written "adopted by". "Imposed on" is more accurate.)
grackle said:
Marriage is an institution in our society, an institution that comes with benefits that are emotional, legal and monetary.
***************************
I voted for SSM in WA state. I would agree with this statement if you edit out the word "emotional". A chill went down my spine every time I heard the "gays need marriage to dignify their unions" argument. Governments can grant tangibles through marriage such as money, property and it helps the state determine who is responsible for dependents.
But this desperate, serf-like yearning to be deemed "dignified" by state bureaucrats? It implies the state has the power to grant intangible feelings of value to something one already values! Why do couples in same sex relationships give so much power over how they **feel** about their own relationships to a bunch of politicians and low-grade, civil service lifers? I call bullshit on that - dignity (an emotional benefit) is INHERENT in ANY devoted, loving relationship where the parties involved put their partner's interests over their own - regardless of legal union or the absence of it.
I fully embrace the arguments for gaining the tangible benefits. But it is shameful that citizens born in a county such as the US meekly, and spinelessly, approach the all encompassing government womb, on bent knee, hoping to be knighted with the sword of dignity via marriage. Its pathetic.
SS couples can get married in my state, and my one vote helped that along. But I'll never have the same respect I previously had for ANYONE engaged in any kind of social justice advocacy for the gay and lesbian community, due to the inordinate level of state worship common in such individuals. Anyone that eager to relinquish their inherent dignity doesn't deserve any respect.
No, their constituents voted down gay marriage; the politicians are acquiescing to judges.
Can it be claimed that deciding not to appeal is acquiescing to judges? I'm thinking that Corbett could appeal and be damned to the judges. The judges cannot prevent an appeal.
So why doesn't he appeal? Is he afraid the judges will lock him up? I don't think so. Public opinion is rapidly changing in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps Corbett is merely getting ahead of the issue. I believe a tipping point has been reached.
http://tinyurl.com/kl2tldo
Or maybe he had an epiphany but realizes he could alienate an important bloc of constituents by admitting to it at this time. Or maybe he thinks an appeal will get nowhere.
I think the fight against was lost when civil unions became OK. Twelve states so far with Illinois being the latest. That allowed a substantial amount of straight people to get used to the concept of gay couples. For many the fear factor faded away.
Selective exclusion has consequences. The Democrats never learned the lesson, and the Republicans are too weak to oppose progressive dysfunction.
@grackle - It sounds like you've "grown". It also sounds like you've emoted, but not thought all that deeply about the question. No one was talking about incarcerating or imposing sanctions on same-sex couples. Nor were they trying to prevent same-sex couples from declaring their commitment to each other in public ceremonies or prevent churches from performing same-sex marriages.
The question was whether the tax and other incentives created to strengthen traditional marriages should be conveyed to same sex couples. The argument against doing so (apart from the additional monetary costs) is that expanding the pool of those who can receive the benefits naturally reduces the incentive to marry and stay married.
Before you (or anyone else) scoffs at such an affect, let me note two things: First, there are several academic studies that have found a correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and a reduction in the number of heterosexual marriages. (The studies looked at stats from European countries that were among the first to legalize same-sex unions.)
Second, in the 1960's, social conservatives warned that LBJ's Great Society programs would increase births outside of marriage. Those warnings were scoffed at by those who could not fathom how paying a single women more welfare money if she had children would increase out of wedlock births. Having a child was simply too large a decision to be impacted by a few dollars a month. Social conservatives also warned that no-fault divorces would lead to more divorces. Again, they were scoffed at by those who knew better. Social conservatives warned that legalized abortion would lead to more abortions and the weakening of the family. Again, they were scoffed at. Today, social conservatives warnings about same-sex marriage are being scoffed at by those who lack the imagination to see how a change in incentives might affect human behavior.
Perhaps the social conservatives are, this time, wrong. Let's all hope so.
As for me, I'm not wise enough to know how this will all play out. I just wish we could have had an honest debate about the issue.
The thing is marriage is on the decline, equality advocates claim it is an important institution but most people think it is obsolete.
In 2010, 40% of Americans thought marriage is obsolete.
Marriage isn't for adoption. Help parents parent, don't take away their babies.
The thing is marriage is on the decline, equality advocates claim it is an important institution but most people think it is obsolete.
In 2010, 40% of Americans thought marriage is obsolete.
Marriage isn't for adoption. Help parents parent, don't take away their babies.
The thing is marriage is on the decline, equality advocates claim it is an important institution but most people think it is obsolete.
In 2010, 40% of Americans thought marriage is obsolete.
Marriage isn't for adoption. Help parents parent, don't take away their babies.
This is the most persuasive argument I've seen as to why marriage should be between a man and a woman. However I have no problem with civil unions between consenting adults.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/08/the-rise-of-the-same-sex-marriage-dissidents/
etbass:
That's true. In California, a single prejudiced judge disenfranchised the Democrat voting bloc, including a majority black and Hispanic population.
A string of Republican governors have now declined to either appeal or criticize similar rulings
I miss the days when legislatures made the laws.....
I think we're in the middle of a huge experiment. I hope it works. All of history suggests caution, and the 'lalala I can't hear you, hater' arguments won't change the outcome, whatever it may be. Meanwhile, the Duggars are trying for their 20th kid. They won't be as gay-friendly as the middle-of-the-road-states-rights-labaratories-of-democracy people who are being swept aside.
What is the basis of morality ?
How can we justify altruistic, sacrificial behavior ?
Why shouldn't we do whatever we feel like doing ?
Whenever traditions are discarded this way it destroys the hold of all traditions, the sometimes arbitrary rules that keep things going.
Such a huge break means that all is broken, that the the young lads have no duties, and that we old men are all chumps for having restrained ourselves. There no longer is a justification for loyalty to family or social roles or posterity. The only thing that keeps us from purely self-serving behavior is the law, and that is a weak thing.
I used to be very against gay marriage. But I happened to participate in a debate that was the beginning of the changing of my mind. The main point of us who were opposed really just added up to, "It just isn't right."
I've been pro gay civil unions since near the beginning. But I remain opposed to gay marriage because of how those are pushing it are pushing it
If it comes to gay rights, I have no problem granting them, but not at the expense of making traditional marriage proponents bigots for defending traditional marriage.
It could be that Corbett doesn't want to be responsible for SSM being imposed on the entire Third Circuit or even the country.
FWIW, I think the tipping point has been reached. SoCons may choose to fight a rearguard action, but that's all it is. It's too bad that in most cases this change came via the courts and not via the will of a convinved majority.
That said, I don't expect that this will become the next abortion issue. Some religious folk will continute to oppose gay unions, but not with the same ferocity as is brought to bear when someone believes that murder is being committed.
That strikes me as the right balance. I've long advocated for a Civil Union for everyone, as that is a Union sanctioned by the state. What people are really arguing about is access to Federal Government benefits.
As it is a Union sanctioned by the State, given our 1st Amendment Freedom to practice our individual religions, then that seems to be the way to go.
As a Marriage is sanctioned by God, that's a church matter. Separate and distinct from a government, and infinitely more important. But in this country, if you can find a church that will perform such a rite, go for it.
I just don't like forced acceptance. Indeed, I am supposed to celebrate the idea of gay marriage (as opposed to just celebrate the union of people I know) and if I don't, I'm labeled a bigot.
How about just acceptance?
Corbett has bigger fish to fry.
Repubs should now push legalization of polygamy. And hold anyone who doesn't support it to the same standard as lefties hold those who oppose gay marriage. They're bigots opposed to marriage equality.
Recchief wrote:
As a Marriage is sanctioned by God, that's a church matter. Separate and distinct from a government, and infinitely more important. But in this country, if you can find a church that will perform such a rite, go for it.
but don't force a church to perform the rite if they don't want to. Or force a Christian baker to bake a cake. Make it a civil matter with no compulsion for those who don't agree.
When our society falls apart and civil war comes again, grackle and althouse and others will say, "No one could have seen this coming!"
" I hope it works."
Lot's of people hoped for Obama too, and his change.
Hope is for fools and suckers. Go put your money in the stock market using a strategy of hope and see how that all works out.
Holdfast wrote:
hat said, I don't expect that this will become the next abortion issue. Some religious folk will continute to oppose gay unions, but not with the same ferocity as is brought to bear when someone believes that murder is being committed.
what evangelicals should do is have the top 500 churches come out in support of gay civil unions, so long as they are not obligated to participate and they get it in writing they will not be coerced in any way to participate.
Really, that is the stopping point for most who are opposed. Just don't change marriage and don't force churches that oppose to participate. Make it clear that its a civil union and a civil union only (unless some churches felel like its ok to participate). And then let's move on already.
Both sides are right on this. Gays are wrong in how they are pushing gay marriage, but they are right in that if they are denied rights they should have them.
And religious folks are wrong in that they are opposed to a union that they should care about, so long as it doesn't involve them, but they are right in defending traditional marriage from the charge that they are bigots for supporting marriage as it has been defined.
Surely the two sides can come to a middle ground. If though, in order to provide gay rights I have to oversee the gay rights movement turn into brownshirts right before my eyes, then I'll side with the evangelicals in support of traditional marriage.
@grackle - It sounds like you've "grown".
The scare quotes tell me the above is NOT a compliment.
It also sounds like you've emoted, but not thought all that deeply about the question.
I do not believe emotion played much of a part in my turnaround. Furthermore, the implication that my thought on the subject was shallow is in itself shallow. How could anyone know this? It's an unfounded assumption by the commentor.
No one was talking about incarcerating or imposing sanctions on same-sex couples.
Let me explain: My comment was about an informal internet debate several years ago(much like the debate on this blog) in which I participated in opposition to SSM. Some in opposition during this debate made it clear that they were eager to have laws passed to make SSM illegal. My distaste for the vehemence in their attitude toward SSM, even though I was myself at that time opposed to SSM, was one of the factors that led to my reevaluation on the subject.
In my comment I was not relating anything other than what occurred during that debate and my subsequent change of mind. The commentor seems to have misread my comment to mean that I was asserting that politicians wanted to pass laws to make SSM a felony or some such. I was referring to a personal experience, not a national debate.
Nor were they trying to prevent same-sex couples from declaring their commitment to each other in public ceremonies or prevent churches from performing same-sex marriages.
I never said "they" were. It seems that the commentor is referring to the national debate that has been going on in magazines, newspapers, the halls of Congress, etc., while I am referring to a personal experience that began years ago after an informal debate on a blog.
The question was whether the tax and other incentives created to strengthen traditional marriages should be conveyed to same sex couples.
Yes, I am familiar with that question.
The argument against doing so (apart from the additional monetary costs) …
So the commentor would deny SSM couples access to a societal institution because it might cost someone, somewhere, some money? Isn't that a bit vague? Cost to whom? Where's the data to justify the argument?
… is that expanding the pool of those who can receive the benefits naturally reduces the incentive to marry and stay married.
I do not believe people in general marry to "receive benefits." It's my belief, old addle-headed romantic that I am, that falling in love is the main motivator.
And I do not believe that couples in general stay married because of tax incentives, or whatever the commentor means by "incentive."
Readers, ask yourselves this question: If ALL benefits and incentives were suddenly withdrawn would marriage disappear from society?
TO BE CONTINUED ---
CONTINUATION
Before you (or anyone else) scoffs at such an affect, let me note two things: First, there are several academic studies that have found a correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and a reduction in the number of heterosexual marriages. (The studies looked at stats from European countries that were among the first to legalize same-sex unions.)
I'm skeptical of mere correlation. A causal relation must be proven and in social research causation is damned hard to prove.
Here's some examples of things that have a high correlation:
Per capita consumption of beef and deaths caused by lightning.
People who starved to death in US and per capita consumption of margarine
Divorce rate in Alabama and suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation.
http://tinyurl.com/nu2yskq
A few years ago there were some research papers published in respected publications that purported to prove that conservatives were mentally ill. Bunk. All of it was self-serving bunk.
Second, in the 1960's, social conservatives warned that LBJ's Great Society programs would increase births outside of marriage … Social conservatives also warned that no-fault divorces would lead to more divorces … Social conservatives warned that legalized abortion would lead to more abortions and the weakening of the family …
… Today, social conservatives warnings about same-sex marriage are being scoffed at by those who lack the imagination to see how a change in incentives might affect human behavior.
But exactly what ARE the warnings by social conservatives vis-à-vis SSM? What human behavior is going to change because of SSM? The commentor doesn't say. There's a need, I think, for the commentor to be less vague.
There is no middle ground. Either you take the adult centered view of two people or the child center view the promotes the child's need/right to be raised by biological kin.
Take religion out of this. We know the evolutionary importance of father engagement in children. Of course people claim that children being raised by a same-sex couple are well adjusted, but that doesnt change that they either lost one or both parents.
I grew up with gay people having a mom and dad. It is unclear how the American public have become 'zombies' convinced think marriage isn't about children. We really have thrown thousands of years of anthropological concept into the ash heap.
"It's 2014"
Yep.... And haven't you seen the decline of marriage and the concentrated levels of poverty in fatherless communities?
We should be hearing about Wisconsin's ban in the next few months.
It should be interesting to see if Walker walks back his opposition as well. Given yesterday's falling poll and approval numbers, I fully expect him to follow Corbett and 'evolve' ... at least in front of cameras.
What is the point of taking an oath to uphold the laws except when it's politically inconvenient to do so? He might as well be a Democrat-they have no principals. If he had a real change of heart he should try to get the law repealed all the while acting on his oath of office and defend the law in the courts.
I used to be very against gay marriage. But I happened to participate in a debate that was the beginning of the changing of my mind. The main point of us who were opposed really just added up to, "It just isn't right."
Those of you who were opposed just didn't think enough. "A conclusion is what you reach when you get tired of thinking".
Why is gay marriage not right? Because having the definition of marriage sanctioned by the state to include two people of the same sex allows in its elasticity the ability to include more than two people, and two siblings or parent and child. So, polygamy and incest are but just one or two test cases away from a full legal embrace when same sex marriage is legalized. A society's days are numbered when it no longer promotes the building of the basic healthy family unit.
Why is gay marriage not right? Because having the definition of marriage sanctioned by the state to include two people of the same sex allows in its elasticity the ability to include more than two people, and two siblings or parent and child.
I've seen this argument many times over the years. It's specious speculation. I'm not ready to deny access to SSM couples to the institution of marriage on the strength of mere speculation. Much the same faulty reasoning was cited for opposition to most social reforms in American history, reforms that are today accepted without significant question, the abolishing of slavery being one example. The apt cliché: "Giv'em an inch and they'll take a mile!"
Furthermore, what's with this talk of "sanctioned by the state?" Readers, weren't we confidently assured by a previous commentor that such things as sanctions just did not exist?
So, polygamy and incest are but just one or two test cases away from a full legal embrace when same sex marriage is legalized.
Incest will proliferate! Please … Scare tactics. Incest surely exists, no denying that, but I do not believe our courts are likely to begin allowing it because SSM would be legalized. Be brave, my America.
A society's days are numbered when it no longer promotes the building of the basic healthy family unit.
This is the commentor's opinion based on the commentor's personal definition of "healthy family." Pardon me, but I don't allow other people's spurious assumptions to dictate my opinion. I debate, read, think and come to conclusions based on MY informed assumptions, thank you all the same.
There is no middle ground. Either you take the adult centered view of two people or the child center view the promotes the child's need/right to be raised by biological kin.
Child's "right?" I'm all for children being raised by biological parents and/or kin, but what about orphans? Just leave them in the orphanages or consign them to the temporary foster home industry until they reach adulthood, I guess.
We know the evolutionary importance of father engagement in children.
Do we really? Can paleontologists or other scientists in disciplines having to do with evolution be cited? If not, then bullshit.
Of course people claim that children being raised by a same-sex couple are well adjusted, but that doesnt change that they either lost one or both parents.
I'm not understanding the logic of this sentence. It seems incoherent. How could being raised by a SSM couple amount to changing the loss of(or abandonment by) a biological parent?
I grew up with gay people having a mom and dad. It is unclear how the American public have become 'zombies' convinced think marriage isn't about children.
Wading through the awkward construction we realize we've seen this argument before: Marriage is primarily about creating new human beings. The underlying assumption is animalistic because it assumes a family is really only about furthering the race. I am thinking that plenty of childless married couples, such as in my own second marriage, would beg to differ. On the "zombie" reference: Too much viewing of the Walking Dead.
We really have thrown thousands of years of anthropological concept into the ash heap.
Again, we see this strangely authoritarian assertion about anthropology. Is the commentor an anthropologist? I suspect not. No authoritative sources are cited for this rather peculiar viewpoint.
And haven't you seen the decline of marriage and the concentrated levels of poverty in fatherless communities?
There are plenty of "fatherless communities" in the middle and upper income levels. Could it be that being "fatherless" is NOT the culprit here? That maybe, just maybe, the real problem is one-parent households, regardless of which parent is missing.
Grackle - You label concerns that SSM may weaken traditional marriage as specious speculation. You disclaim any study showing a correlation between legalizing SSM and a reduction in heterosexual marriages for failing to prove that the correlation had anything to do with causation. You warn, correctly, that its very hard (if not impossible) for such studies to actually prove anything. In short, you demand opponents SSM prove that SSM will harm society.
Here's the problem: You've gotten the burden of proof wrong. The person arguing for change bears the burden of proving the change would be beneficial. In the 1960's, social conservatives couldn't prove that LBJ's programs would worsen the lot of the poor. It's taken 50 years of experience to accumulate the data that now allows one to prove the argument. It'll take a similar amount of time before we've learned enough about SSM to know whether its affects on society were for good or ill. To date, we have less than two decades of experience in some European countries. That's insufficient data with which to make a definitive examination.
Of course, this is all moot. We never had a serious debate about this in the US. The courts have modified an institution that has existed for millennia without any evidence that the change will do no harm. Nothing either of us say will alter that fact.
Same sex marriage is really popular. So popular and so supported that it must be imposed by judges reading things into constitutions of individual states and the Constitution of the United States that aren't actually there in order to implement create something that doesn't actually exist, at least not without redefing marriage.
Yep, it's so popular that everytime same sex marriage is brought up to popular vote behind closed voting curtains, peopla recognize it as being absurd- and vote it down. So judges impose it, and politicians refuse to impeach them for establishing a judicial tyranny.
But if you are a same sex couple who truly beieves that liberals will support you in all cases, stand outside 19500 Ford Rd. Dearborn, MI 48128 any particular Friday evening and make out in public and see just how much support you will get. Liberal principles (I know that's a contradiction in terms...) will collide.
One further response to Grackle: People do not restrict their arguments depending on the underlying soundness of their claim. Hence, people arguing to maintain an unjust institution may indeed sound just the same as people arguing tos maintain an important (and therefore implicitly just) institution. To breezily equate the arguments of the former with the latter is unfair and frankly, nasty- a passive aggressive way of insulting your discussion partner and avoiding the actual discussion.
It's fiscally responsible. Utah has a case winding up through the courts, we don't need more. (Utah will lose, so even that's a waste of money.)
Grackle - You label concerns that SSM may weaken traditional marriage as specious speculation. You disclaim any study showing a correlation between legalizing SSM and a reduction in heterosexual marriages for failing to prove that the correlation had anything to do with causation.
Readers, the decline in the marriage rate began when divorce started becoming easier. This, rather than SSM, seems to me to be more likely the reason for the decline in the rate of marriage. It began in the 1950s and continued steadily downward through the years, decades before SSM was an issue in the national consciousness. I think it likely that the gradual societal acceptance of cohabitation sans marriage which is now pretty much normalized also had much to do with the decline.
http://tinyurl.com/qzbn8cw
In short, it seems to me that IF the goal is to improve the marriage rate upwards that another slice of society, the gays, being allowed into the institution of marriage would be welcome because that would result in a net growth in marriages, right? But I also suspect that ostensible worries about marriage rates is only a smokescreen, perhaps subconscious, for, "Hey, we don't like the idea of SSM, it's repugnant to us, so we're against it."
You warn, correctly, that its very hard (if not impossible) for such studies to actually prove anything. In short, you demand opponents SSM prove that SSM will harm society.
NO. What I suggest is that opponents of SSM desist from enlisting pseudo-science in their arguments. I further suggest that there can never be any proof in any real scientific sense for this issue for one side or the other. My argument for SSM is not scientific – it's moralistic.
Here's the problem: You've gotten the burden of proof wrong. The person arguing for change bears the burden of proving the change would be beneficial.
The nice thing about a moralistic argument is that doesn't require proofs in the sense that, say, legal arguments do. I suggest the commentor go to the link below, scroll down to "Holder of the burden," and read carefully to the end.
http://tinyurl.com/37dtlqf
… People do not restrict their arguments depending on the underlying soundness of their claim. Hence, people arguing to maintain an unjust institution may indeed sound just the same as people arguing to maintain an important (and therefore implicitly just) institution.
This is rather vague to me. Perhaps if examples were given for an "unjust institution," and for an "implicitly just" institution it would be more clear to me. As of now, without clarification, I will refrain from a rejoinder.
To breezily equate the arguments of the former [unjust institution?] with the latter [implicitly just institution?] is unfair and frankly, nasty- a passive aggressive way of insulting your discussion partner and avoiding the actual discussion.
Unfair? Nasty? Passive aggressive? Insulting? AVOIDING "actual" discussion?
I try to frame my thought as clear as I possibly can. If I am misunderstood I restate or elaborate on my thoughts for the benefit of the discussion.
I am not passive – to the contrary, I freely admit to being mostly aggressive. In truth I use a variety of tactics as called for in these opinion wars. Any opponent always has the option of being aggressive right back.
But I do not believe I have been nasty or insulting in this particular comment section. Quotes are demanded! I want some nasty!!(G. Popovich – circa 2012) Point out to the readers just where I have been insulting.
@grackle
SSM is a result of this decline, that is where we agree. People make the slippery slope arguments, but we are already close to the end of the slide.
I want to go back up the ladder. It will be slow and it won't happen over night.
Are both mom and dad important?
Yes or no?
Matrimony is Latin for 'act of being a mom", and paternity is assumed if married. So yeah, marriage is about kids. Even if we attempted to sever procreation from sex. Nature surprises us with reality and we have children with heterosexual behavior.
If not marriage how do we encourage both parents to parent together without clogging up the family court or systematically the government chasing down dads for child support?
Oh and double check your facts on poverty and fatherless communities.
Grackle, I quote you:
"Much the same faulty reasoning was cited for opposition to most social reforms in American history, reforms that are today accepted without significant question, the abolishing of slavery being one example. The apt cliché: "Giv'em an inch and they'll take a mile!" "
This is incorrect and passively-aggresive nasty. It is incorrect because claims about future problems are not reasons - they are claims. And thus the question is whether or not the claims are supportable. To wit, claiming that inter-racial marriage leads to destruction is not supportable because of the thousands of years of history of inter-racial marriage.
It is passively-aggresive nasty because of the 'slavery' comparison. Hey, why not bring up Hitler while you're at it? How is "Hitler was wrong about the affects of race-mixing, just as social conservatives are wrong about the effects of same sex marriage" different from what you wrote?
SSM is a result of this decline, that is where we agree. People make the slippery slope arguments, but we are already close to the end of the slide.
I believe SSM's growing acceptance is probably a result of a "decline," all right but NOT of the decline in marriage rates. The SSM issue has come to the fore of the national consciousness too recently and the decline in the marriage rates started too long ago(about 70 years ago!) for the one to plausibly be the cause of the other.
It is evident to me and should also be plain to any impartial reader that there's no slope there to slip down unless the slipper somehow interrupted their slipping for over 50 years. But folks will stubbornly cling to cherished theories even when they are shown to be ridiculous.
The real decline I believe has taken place is in the number of people who fear gayness. Once that psychological hurdle had been overcome other, logical questions arose, such as, "Why should we, as a nation, deny committed gay couples entry into the beneficial institution of marriage?"
Are both mom and dad important? Yes or no?
One tactic folks will employ when they are losing a debate is to try to dictate the nature of the response of those who are winning. Happens almost every time.
Both parents are important because a single-parent household is a reliable predictor for poverty, juvenile delinquency and a host of other social ills.
http://tinyurl.com/pqfvhvh
http://tinyurl.com/nhfxcyu
Matrimony is Latin for 'act of being a mom", and paternity is assumed if married.
Here's another Latin word: impertinens.
It means "irrelevant."
So yeah, marriage is about kids. Even if we attempted to sever procreation from sex. Nature surprises us with reality and we have children with heterosexual behavior.
Sure, but is marriage ONLY "about kids?" Isn't also about love between two committed people? Isn't also about the affectionate sharing of a life together? Isn't it also a bonding together to help one another through life's inevitable turmoil?
If not marriage how do we encourage both parents to parent together without clogging up the family court or systematically the government chasing down dads for child support?
I honestly do not understand the commentor's point with the above. "If not marriage …"?! But I am advocating FOR marriage! I'm in NO WAY against marriage. I'm ALL FOR marriage.
Oh and double check your facts on poverty and fatherless communities.
Catty little reference, vague, cryptic and meaningless. Refute my facts. Point out specific facts I've offered that you can prove to be wrong. Otherwise, bullshit.
Grackle, I quote you:
"Much the same faulty reasoning was cited for opposition to most social reforms in American history, reforms that are today accepted without significant question, the abolishing of slavery being one example. The apt cliché: "Giv'em an inch and they'll take a mile!"
This is incorrect and passively-aggressive nasty.
Wow. This is the commentor's example of "nasty?" I'll reluctantly accept passive-aggressive – but "nasty?"
It is incorrect because claims about future problems are not reasons - they are claims.
??? A "claim" cannot be a product of faulty reasoning? Where does the commentor GET these ideas?
And thus the question is whether or not the claims are supportable.
Ok, I'll bite, at least enough to read further.
To wit, claiming that inter-racial marriage leads to destruction is not supportable because of the thousands of years of history of inter-racial marriage.
OK, I guess, except I cannot figure out from the way the above is written whether the commentor believes it's my claim, a claim of the commentor or just an example of a claim in the general sense …
It is passively-aggresive nasty because of the 'slavery' comparison. Hey, why not bring up Hitler while you're at it?
My rejoinder is: But I DIDN'T "bring up Hitler." The commentor apparently does not realize that the reason not to use Hitler in these mini-debates is because using the example of Hitler is a cliché. It's NOT because using an historical reference to Hitler is necessarily incorrect. Using the historical fact of the abolishing of slavery as an example is not a cliché. It's also correct.
How is "Hitler was wrong about the affects of race-mixing, just as social conservatives are wrong about the effects of same sex marriage" different from what you wrote?
I suspect we have an apples and oranges error in logic here, along with a contradiction, but it's hard to tell. I suggest the commentor rewrite the thought in the form of a statement instead of a question. That usually clarifies meaning. Also, I am not understanding just what part of my several comments the commentor is referring to in the phrase, … what you wrote … Is it just the quote he started this comment with? Or is it some other unquoted part of what I've written? But I'm patient, readers. We'll get through this together!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा