Comments on: Same-sex marriage conversation: What do we know? Part 2

By: Nemario

Nemario — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:24:29 +0000

It’s because they’re allowed to mary that the MRSA report was able to be compiled by the zip codes. We’ll just continue to see what kinds of “problems” occur. Of course then it will be too late.

By: Evan

Evan — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:21:47 +0000

Jayhuck, probably neither did polygamy create serious problems as yet, still we think it is not appropriate. What about group marriage? Should we open our minds to whatever possible type of marriage may be proposed that does not “create problems”? Is “not creating problems” a criterion? I think not.

Seen in this light, I agree with the argument that marriage integrates reproduction or its possibility (by nature, not by state of health).

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:42:11 +0000

RK –

Perhaps I’ve already said this, but in case you hadn’t noticed, gay marriages are already taking place in this country and many others, and no real problems have been created by these marriages.

By: R.K.

R.K. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:56:59 +0000

Note the use of two common pro-SSM arguments.

The “institution” of marriage has gone through many changes, both in purpose and in the numbers of members permitted. (The implication being that it has adapted to all of them fine).

The other “argument”:

What kind of “disaster” did you have in mind? A 50% failure rate, perhaps?

I think straight marriage is pretty much a disaster, especially for the children of those straights whose “till death do us part” proves to be a huge lie. (The implication, of course, being that because marriage is already in bad shape, another redefinition couldn’t possibly hurt it).

Note the total contradiction between these two lines of argument.

By: R.K.

R.K. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:08:26 +0000

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/25/against-gay-marriage/

All the articles linked to should be read by anyone interested