Comments on: Marriage Fight

By: Cheat Seeking Missiles » The Assault On Marriage: Brad Pitt Brigade

Cheat Seeking Missiles » The Assault On Marriage: Brad Pitt Brigade — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:08:11 +0000

[...] a mere pittance following the ACLU’s contribution of $1.2 million to the No-on-8 campaign to turn back the vote of the people and bring gay marriages of all sorts [...]

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:56:47 +0000

Great comments in this post, did somebody mention earchquakes

By: Karl Lembke

Karl Lembke — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:46:18 +0000

Yup, mostly the paragraph breaks. I like to spare the readers having to wade through a huge block of text. On a minor note, the superscript codes on the “TM” after Multiculturalism went away. More irritating than disastrous, but before I hit the “submit” button, I did see them. I did I did I did I did!

By: Laer

Laer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:55:05 +0000

Keep commenting, Karl – WYSIWYG or not. I’m assuming your harumph was directed to paragraph breaks, but the intent of the post remained very clear.

By: Karl Lembke

Karl Lembke — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:51:33 +0000

Harumph.So much for WYSIWYG

By: Karl Lembke

Karl Lembke — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:48:56 +0000

As I mentioned on my own blog back in 2005, one of the big problems opponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) (and now, supporters of California Prop face is the lack of an obvious, non-religious smoking gun.The vast majority of the arguments against SSM are based on religious tradition, and sometimes cultural tradition. To those who don’t believe in these traditions, or who have absorbed the doctrines of MulticulturalismTM, what one culture’s traditions say, or what one religion’s scriptures say, is taken as “one person’s opinion”. The other argument – that redefining marriage away from the “standard model” harms the culture that allows it – is much harder to make. As I said, there’s no smoking gun. When SSM is enacted into law, or legislated from the bench, nothing much happens. The sky doesn’t fall. The oceans don’t rise and cover our cities. Earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, and other disasters don’t happen any more frequently after the change than before. Barbarians don’t storm the gates. Life goes on as before.I believe the effects of enacting SSM into law will be slow, taking place over decades and generations. It will be on a par with the demographic changes Mark Steyn sees in America Alone. His thesis is that western countries are experiencing declining birth rates. In a few generations, these countries will be effectively depopulated. This is dismissed with the assertion that birth rates can easily climb again.Except it doesn’t seem to work that way.Likewise, major cultures that allow SSM are rare. Those who support SSM assert the reason for this rarity is that no one in recorded history was smart enough to think of changing the law to allow it, or enough of a leader to persuade the stupid masses to allow it. Those who oppose SSM suspect that it may be a factor that keeps cultures from becoming major, or even causes major cultures to become minor, or nonexistent. In a way, it’s a kind of natural selection. Cultures that are “fit” grow. Cultures that are less “fit” decline. Both of these can take years, decades, or even centuries. When a feature is held in common by all the “fit” cultures we can think of, it seems to me, it’s a feature we change at our peril.

By: Cheat Seeking Missiles » Sunday Scan

Cheat Seeking Missiles » Sunday Scan — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:31:51 +0000

[...] commenter 11B40 had a lot to say about my post yesterday on Prop 8, which would put an end to gay marriage in California. We are [...]

By: heather

heather — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:14:37 +0000

Prop 8 is a propostion stating that marriage should only be between a man and woman. I support prop 8 because that is the way marriage should be – between two people that can create children. Same relationships cannot do this. Everything in nature supports a male and a female being able to reproduce. This is the natural way – the way it is intended to be.

By: wayne

wayne — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:42:17 +0000

One this redefinition of rights question that is being claimed ... I've linked to your post from this article ... Right of Same Sex Marriage = Newspeak • Yes on 8 protects rights

By: 11B40

11B40 — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:19:57 +0000

Greetings:The problem with the homosexual rights political agenda is the homosex.One of their early victories, back in the ’70s, was getting the American Psychological Association to vote to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual. Subsequent victories include the smear tactics of “homophobia” and the banishment of any variants of the word “homosexual” from the media.The reason why homosexuality was proscribed was because of the effects of the homosex.If you think you can win arguments about homosexual behavior and “lifestyles” while excluding homosex from the discussion, I believe you are sadly mistaken.We are ensconced in the age of the tyranny of the minorities. These activist groups have become too practiced at manipulating legislators and judges to support their agenda. There is no group or individual responsible for protecting our culture as a whole. Each minority group comes after its slice or two of the cultural salami. Any guesses about what will be left?If you haven’t seen it already, google “Up Your Alley Fair” and see some different results of the homosexual rights agenda, that they and the media friends don’t think need to be brought to anyone’s attention. Not very pretty, not something most people would want to see on their block.