If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex

By Nicholas Snyder
Published: Oct. 21, 2006. 3451 views

I challenge anyone to reply with a logical reason why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married, because the only argument I have heard so far is marrige is a religious tradition between a man and a women. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Some people find pornography offensive but pornography isn't illegal, and do you know why' Because it isn't the government's job to regulate taste, and it certainly isn't the government's job to discriminate against same sex couples who want to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

Marriage is a legal status for everybody, and a religious union for some. In other words, you don't need to have a religious affiliation to get married in the legal sense. Isn't marriage supposed to be able two people who love each other' People who don't really love each other get married all the time and nobody seems offended by that; I wonder why'

Tags:

Submitted by gordman on Mon, 11/05/2007 - 11:17.

I think you are being a

I think you are being a little manipulative in your challenge... Why shouldn't people same sex get married? Well I guess answering this question is quite difficult. I guess the only way we can find the right argument is to think about why should they actually marry, every one of us has the right to be happy, I am not being supportive, I am just being rational, they have a different sexual orientation and we should understand that. Besides, I have seen gay successful marriages and I also saw hetero couples with serious marriage problems...

Submitted by Dawud Muhammad on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 23:08.

I don't believe in it; this is why..do you hate me?

In the name of God, the Compassionate and the Merciful: For some time now, I have wondered if, in a secular society, can morality exist without the guiding influence of Religion, whether that religion is Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It is clear that because of secularism and liberalism, many people are lead astray from the correct path which Allah (swt) intended for mankind. But can this include homosexual behaviour? Obviously, for the Western secular world, it does. But as if this is not enough insult for those who are religious, the gay lobby will tell us that we are not to invoke religion. Even some, professing to be wise, have said that we are "not to judge", yet they have insulted those who believe, calling us "bigots" for their faith alone. But we cannot say one thing as members of a religious community, then turn around and betray our belief simply because the secular society wishes us to do so. A homosexual marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of Allah (swt) because the Tawrat commands that man is to multiply and have dominion over the Earth; and thus a union of two men or two women which is incapable of performing the duty is unholy. Moreover, the perversions of homosexuality and lesbianism finds a great resort and refuge in the Western countries where it is accepted and legalized by the laws of these countries that put man in a position even worse than animals under the pretext of protecting human rights. In such countries that credit civilization and progress to itself, those people are free to establish their own unions, clubs and forums where they can gather together to discuss their problems and work for further forms of perversion and deviation. To accept such ignominies as a substitute for the natural human relation between males and females is no more than a big leap towards chaos and following animal instincts. The outcome of accepting such manias will be no less than more destruction, disgrace and degradation brought to the face of mankind. This act of accepting such perversion is a fierce attack against the rights of women and deep involvement in filthiness. There is no doubt that this act, which goes against the pure human nature created by Allah, by making men content with men and women with women, destroying families, adversely affecting the birth rate, causing the spread of killer diseases, harming the innocent when children are raped, and generally spreading corruption on earth, should be uprooted and stamped out." Thinking of the wisdom behind prohibiting homosexuality and lesbianism, the following can be said: First, such acts lead to the spread of passivity among the young generation and destroy their morality, since they cannot practice such perversion except after taking some drugs to create for themselves a virtual atmosphere where they feel fake joy. Sufficient unto any person to feel that his manhood is lost. Second, it destroys the lives of married women whose husbands leave them in pursuit of this perversion and they, in turn, try to find a way to satisfy their sexual needs. In such case, the whole society will be no more than chaos. It is because of all these things that Almighty Allah prohibited homosexuality. In the Noble Qur’?Ã‚Â¢n, Allah tells his followers that homosexuality is forbidden. Allah explains to us their punishment in this life. He says: "And Lut, when he said to his tribe: "Do you commit an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in all the worlds? You come with lust to men instead of women. You are indeed a depraved tribe." The only answer of his tribe was to say: "Expel them from your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!" So We rescued him and his family-except for his wife. She was one of those who stayed behind. We rained down a rain upon them. See the final fate of the evildoers!" (Sura al-Araf , v. 80-84) "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! (Sura As-Su'ara, v. 165-166) "Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!" (Sura An-Naml 55-58) I agree that perhaps in a secular society, religious views need not be heard in a court of law nor before lawmakers. But let secularism deal with the problems of secularism, and let religion deal with the problems of religion. For me, it is perfectly legitimate for religious institutions to defend their beliefs and creeds through such a manner and decree the mannef of belief for follwers. If the atheists and secularists can let this be, then I think that there will be more agreement between religious people and the former. Allah knows best.

Submitted by duncanpj on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 22:19.

Hate? Not at all. I just disagree.

I very much agree with you that one should "let secularism deal with the problems of secularism, and let the religion deal with the problems of religion." However, when one mixes secular practices with religious practices, who wins? Many gay couples desire to get married not to form a union under God, but to receive certain benefits entitled to married couples, which includes, but is not limited to: Access to Military Stores Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Bereavement Leave Immigration Insurance Breaks Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Sick Leave to Care for Partner Social Security Survivor Benefits Sick Leave to Care for Partner Tax Breaks Veteran’s Discounts Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison (According to a report given to the Office of the General Council of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are over 1,000 such benefits.) So here we encounter a problem. Marriage, an institute of the church, has somehow managed to become a mixture of secularism and religion. Being an institute of the church and solely of the church (supposedly), it has somehow managed to accrue benefits from the government; therefore, it is no longer only a religious or only a secular issue, but a combination of the two, and one cannot simply dismiss the fact that non-religious arguments have weight. If it is indeed a mixture of the two, then you cannot simply ignore a secular perspective. However, I am not here to introduce new secular ideas, but merely to correct a few mistakes you made in your thinking. Someone with a "pro-religious" perspective such as yourself could claim that same-sex marriage should be "uprooted and stamped out" because it goes against God by "destroying families, adversely affecting the birth rate, causing the spread of killer diseases, harming the innocent when children are raped, and generally spreading corruption on earth." Now, I can't speak much about the corruption part of your statement, since I find that measuring such an idea would be a waste of my time; however, I did find a few flaws in your argument. I thought it interesting that you claim that it destroys families. It's a good thing that that never happens in ordinary marriages, or else your argument might hold some weight. Persons in a "normal" marriage have enough difficulty holding families together (with about a 48% divorce rate in 2005) that one could claim that ALL marriages have the potential to destroy a family. Why should a same-sex marriage be any different? Further in your post you claimed that it "destroys the lives of married women whose husbands leave them in pursuit of this perversion." You seem to be implying that this occurs in all same-sex marriages, and such an implication is so outrageous that it is on the same level as the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all gay men enter a marriage with a woman and then leave her for another man. In fact, if there was not so much of a negative connotation involved in same-sex marriages, it is highly unlikely that the man would have felt pressured into marrying her in the first place. Additionally, men leaving women for other men is no different than men leaving women for other women. Or were you implying that this is alright, as long as it is not homosexual? Secondly, I was appalled to discover that same-sex marriages "adversely affected the birth rate." This piece of information was news to me, considering that the population of the United States grows by 1.6 million per year, even with all that homosexuality going on (as if the U.S. needs more people). Maybe countries like China and India should look into same-sex marriages; at least then they wouldn't have to regulate the number of children one is allowed to have. Thirdly, if you claim that same-sex marriages enhance the spread of killer diseases then, using this claim, one can infer that Africa has the highest number of gays in the entire world. This, as we know, is most likely not true. AIDS and HIV may have been spread to the U.S. through the gay community, but it is no longer solely an issue of the gay community. Just because you do not get married to someone of the same sex doesn't mean you can't get AIDS. Anyone can get AIDS and AIDS is no longer spread by gays. Heterosexuals as well as homosexuals can encounter this "killer disease" in their endeavors, and it no longer makes a difference which sexual orientation you prefer. Furthermore, I found it appalling that you think that child molestation is related to same-sex marriages. A gay couple has no more inclination to rape a child than does a heterosexual couple, because being a homosexual doesn't make you a pedophile, coincidentally. In fact, a vast majority of the cases of child rape occur not in the households of same-sex marriages, but in households with both a mother and a father; therefore, heterosexuality poses more of a threat to the welfare of children than does homosexuality. To say that same-sex marriages are harmful when innocent children are raped is that same as saying that regular marriages are harmful when innocent children are raped. And why stop there? ANYTHING IS HARMFUL WHEN INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE RAPED. I, at least, think that anyone can make that statement with confidence. Lastly, you claimed that gays "cannot practice such perversion except after taking some drugs to create for themselves a virtual atmosphere where they can feel joy." I don't know where you got this information, but it is absolutely wrong. Drugs don't make people homosexual, and drugs aren't the reason that people practice homosexuality. Maybe sometimes, once in a while, occasionally, someone will use drugs and practice homosexual acts, but that is not to say that they were unable to practice such acts before the use of drugs. I would feel comfortable in saying that a greater number of people use drugs and practice heterosexual intercourse than do homosexual intercourse. Just a thought, though. I am not interested in your religious views, and as a result I will make no comment on your beliefs there. That is your business, and I have no right or reason to argue with you; however, I feel that it is unfair that you make such audacious claims about gay marriage that are untrue. Going off on a tangent, I think that it is unfair that many benefits involved with marriage are denied to people of the same sex simply because marriage is an institute of the church. If it is an institute of the church, why isn't the church paying these benefits? It is never a good idea to mix church and state, and when one does, one can run into problems such as these. Which holds more weight, secularism or religion? Obviously they contradict each other when practiced at once. I'm not sure first-hand whether Allah knows best or not, but I can state with a fair amount of certainty that the U.S. government doesn't.

Submitted by Andrea Weiand on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 13:05.

slander

I will not argue with your religious reasoning for disagreeing with homosexuality. That is your own personal belief, and I have no right or reason to try and dispute it. However, some of your factual reasoning is wrong, and is absolutely slanderous and misleading. You say homosexuality is "destroying families, adversely affecting the birth rate, causing the spread of killer diseases, harming the innocent when children are raped, and generally spreading corruption on earth, should be uprooted and stamped out" Homosexuals are perfectly capable of having families, and though they are not traditional (is that why you say the family is being destroyed? Because there are many other demographic groups that do not have traditional families either) Homosexual couples do have healthy and happy families, and sometimes choose to adopt or naturally have children. Bringing me to my next point. There is no evidence to homosexuality 'adversely' affecting the birthrate. As I said above, many homosexual couples choose to have children in one way or another. You probably need to take that up with the hetersexual couples who are choosing not to have children more than you do with homosexuals. I'm pretty sure the human population on earth is in absolutely no danger of being wiped out at this moment. People the world over are looking for solutions to overpopulation. Speaking of solutions throughout the world, the largest population with killer diseases (I assume you are referring to AIDS mostly?) is in Africa, where the disease is prevalent not because of homosexuality, but because people have no knowledge of protection. I think the issue with the spread of AIDS in the United States is not due to homosexuality specifically, but lack of common sense about protection from STDs. However, none of these are the biggest bone I have to pick with you. Your claim that homosexuals are chiefly responsible for the rape of young children is blatantly wrong. A very large majority of child molesters (95% according to the FBI) identify as heterosexual men. Most of these men know the child in some way, and most are related to the child (fathers, brothers, uncles). My last point is, you cannot call for something as essential to a person's identity as their sexual orientation to be "stamped out". It is these attitudes that I fear may regress our society back to that of the beginning of the 20th century. My point is, that you cannot blame everything going wrong in society on a single minority group based on MISCONCEPTIONS. I am asking that everyone please look at the facts before they judge another person. Have we not learned through the events of the past (and even recent events and discussions on campus) that acceptance and tolerance must be practiced in order for a society as diverse as ours to be civilized and thrive? I am not asking anyone to give up their religious beliefs, but I do believe that whatever your religion is, there is some idea of acceptance, tolerance, and love that must be followed.

Submitted by MikeMaio on Thu, 10/26/2006 - 09:27.

Re: I'm not sure that argument holds up

Ceaf: My goal wasn't to argue that gay marriage promotes certain desirable values while polygamy doesn't. The point I was making is that acknowledging that the government is not and should not be neutral on such matters allows one to support gay marriage and oppose polygamy while remianing logically consistent. That way, you can argue for gay marriage on its merits while believing that polygamy should be banned because it's bad or something. By the same token, someone could use the same basic argument structure I presented in my previous post to argue in favor of polygamy and against gay marriage without hypocrisy. You can have a nice debate about whether or not the hypothetical argument I made for gay marriage in my other post applies to polygamists as well, but the point is that anyone making such an argument is not in a position where defending gay marriage forces him to defend polygamy in order to remain consistent.

Submitted by Debra Lewis on Thu, 10/26/2006 - 08:52.

So...

I'm pro-gay marriage (I don't think its any of the government's damn business who I want to marry, so long as its to an adult- they should just protect children, and, obviously, outlaw incest because it produces freaky mutant children). One thing about this debate that always bothers me, though, is part of the 'slippery slope' theory: that it will lead to polygamy. Maybe this is stupid, but why is polygamy bad? I kind of figure its the person's decision; if someone's marrying another adult, then why does the government think that they have the right to tell him what to do? I'm old-school republican, though, and I think the government should keep their noses out of most things (don't take this to mean that I want anarchy and think that I should be allowed to, like, take potshots from the clocktower. I just don't think the government should over-regulate the citizens). Anyway, what's wrong with polygamy? I'm honestly curious.

Submitted by MikeMaio on Wed, 10/25/2006 - 17:26.

A better from of the pro-gay-marriage argument

The slippery slope arguments about gay marriage always strike me as fallacious. People like Rick Santorum have said that allowing gay marriage would lead to the toleration of man-dog sex and the like. Claims that accepting gay marriage would eventually force us to accept bestiality, getting rid of the age of consent, and incest are without merit, so I won't bother refuting them fully here. Suffice it to say that likening gay marriage to any of the above is problematic because gay marriage doesn't involve inherently unequal power relationships. Anyone interested in a fuller refutation should read Andrew Sullivan's writings on the issue. Polygamy is a bit trickier, though. There is a bit of hypocrisy in how liberals argue in favor of gay marriage but are silent on the question of polygamy, but as I'll show, there's a way around it. Liberals (i.e. those who believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own version of the good life and that the government should remain neutral on the question of what constitutes the good society) typically argue that gay marriage should be allowed because people should be free to choose what sorts of romantic relationships they enter into and that the government should not make a judgement on what a good lifestyle is. It is entirely possible to make the claim that polygamy should be allowed on exactly the same grounds - as long as those who enter into polygamous relationships are consenting adults. That's why I think the usual liberal argument, while still fairly compelling to me personally, is not the right way to approach the issue. Here's how the slippery slope objection can be avoided, and here's what the argument might look like: The government should not be neutral with respect to what constitutes a "good" relationship. It should honor traditional marriage because of the historic role marriage has played in promoting stable families as well as a set of values (fidelity, a sense of mutual sacrifice, responsibility, selflessness, etc.) that are essential to maintaining a healthy society and democracy. However, the government now needs to honor same-sex marriages too because of their promise to foster the very same values. When we no longer require that the government remain neutral, it is possible to make an argument that polygamy should not be allowed simply because it is "bad." The other advantage is that the above argument implicitly adresses the economic objections to gay marriage. If the tax code is thought to incentivize marriage because marriage is desirable, then gay couples should receive incentives to marry if gay marriages are desirable too. As for the objection that gay adoption would slow the maturation of adopted daughters: when the choice is between two loving parents and a foster home, I don't think it's a difficult decision to make.

Submitted by lewisc on Wed, 10/25/2006 - 19:48.

I'm not sure this argument holds up

"It should honor traditional marriage because of the historic role marriage has played in promoting stable families as well as a set of values (fidelity, a sense of mutual sacrifice, responsibility, selflessness, etc.) that are essential to maintaining a healthy society and democracy. However, the government now needs to honor same-sex marriages too because of their promise to foster the very same values." Well, that's great, but I still don't see how that rules out polygamy, since seven sufficiently committed people can make that promise as easily as two can.

Submitted by Sean Tierney on Tue, 10/24/2006 - 23:57.

still defending a side i don't agree with...

Sidenote: Citizens can't hold back their money from programs they don't like. You don't have the option to just not pay taxes, or else no one would pay them. 1. Even as a proponent of same-sex marriage, I have difficulty saying that it won't open the doors to polygamy. Sure, not statuatory rape or incest, but as I said earlier, the major barrier to legalized polygamy is ultimately the government's use of the "traditional marriage." Polygamy is bad in the kind of unhealthy home environments it tends to lead to, but it's tough to pass a law based on that in America. Actually, I find people who support same-sex marriage but not polygamy to be borderline hypocritical. 2. Reeve: I would like to know more about that study. Right now, the relationship between marriage and crime feels spurious: The kind of people who settle down and marry probably have fewer criminal tendencies than the overall population, so of course married people appear to commit fewer crimes than the average citizen. 3. The reason why non-reproducing straight couples get benefits is because their marriages don’t “confuse” children the way gay marriages would. They in fact promote the idea of heterosexual, monogamous relationships. Tax-breaks, etc. are privileges, not rights, and can be granted or taken away if the government sees fit. 4. As for adopting, I have no idea. I suppose in that case the pro-ban side would argue that since orphanages are a pretty bad option, gay parents are acceptable in specific cases.

Submitted by Andrea Weiand on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 20:43.

Shnick Shnyder I've finally

Shnick Shnyder I've finally found you! You're like the only person I haven't seen around campus or in the bookstore. But anyway... I just wanted to say I completely agree with you on this issue. Why is it any of our business if two people of the same sex want to get married. If it makes them happy and gives them equal rights... why not?

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 01:00.

Slippery Slope is a fallacy

While other issues, such as age, polygamy, and goats, may come up during the debate, there is nothing to justify that allowing gay marriage will result in the legalization of other types of unions or the destruction of all unions, so a slippery slope argument is not really sound. Studies have also shown that married individuals are less likely to commit all types of violent crime, even less so than individuals that merely live together, so one could argue it is in the public's interest. I also find it unlikely that someone would opt for a child to be kept in an orphanage or a foster system and denied being raised by loving parents just because they are of the same gender. Every family in this country is different - better two good parents, whatever their sexuality, than bad parents or no parents. As Cameron asserts in Ferris Beuller's Day Off, he is the unfortunate product of his parents staying together. So, you never know what is in the best interest of the child as it varies so greatly from family to family. As for procreation, married people receive benefits whether they procreate or not, so clearly it is not because of their procreating that they receive them. Also, it should be noted that gay people pay taxes as well. And anyway, everyone pays taxes that potentially benefit people they may not support.

Submitted by Nicholas Snyder on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 00:54.

Thanks Kyle and Sean

Good posts, you bring up some very good points. I am not sure I agree with the slipery slopes idea though because the government has to draw a line somewhere and that line will (hopefully) be drawn before the point where the marginal cost to society becomes greater than the marginal benefit (cost and benefit are not necessarily dollar amounts). For example I don't think incest will ever be legal because it increases the probability that the kids will have medical problems. In this case the cost is increased health care for no benefit that I can see. When you say "age issues" I am assuming you are referring to statutory rape and related laws. I don't think these laws are in any danger because they exist to prevent minors from getting taken advantage of by older people. Minors don't enjoy some of the liberties that adults do, such as drinking alcohol or smoking cigaretts, because as a society we want to prevent minors from making bad decisions that they may not understand the consequences to, and I don't think that ideology is going to change. I will agree that the economic issues are tricky to deal with. I understand that people don't want have their tax money support something that they don't believe in. The only thought I have on this at the moment is that we pay taxes to the government and it is the governments job to decide how to spend it. The only control taxpayers have is their vote. There are a lot of people who didn't want to go to war and their tax money is funding that. The point I am trying to make is that if the government decides to do something then ALL taxpayers bear the burden of the cost whether they agree with the policy or not. If our government decides to allow gay marriage (and I emphasize "if") then everyone's tax money should support it.

Submitted by Kyle Larson on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 20:20.

Economic Reasonings

I agree with the aforementioned points of the 'slippery slope' theory. After all, if you start knocking down walls, the rest will come crumbling. Polygamy, incest, age issues - all of these then become relevant in argument, which would lead to a complete break-down of the union of people at all. However, that's been covered so I won't cover it again. A big issue would also be economics. Yes pornography is a matter of taste but not illegal by the government - but you can't relate that to marriage. With marriage there are all sorts of things the government is involved with; taxes, tax reductions, inheirtance - all sorts of things. Married people are entitled to different benefits at jobs, etc, based on the fact that they can procreate and therefore certain aspects of their income must reflect that. Most people who are against gay marriage will not want to be paying taxes to support those couples. So basically... you're looking at a mass problem of where will all of the money needed come from? There are all sorts of economical issues that I could list out, but there is a brief one just to consider. I'm personally against gay marriage, but I suppose if pushed I'm not against them having some contract that allows inheirtance from one to the other to go more easily. Other than that, they don't deserve any tax breaks/extra taxes, because they cannot naturally pro-create. Yes they could adopt, but I'm against that, as someone else already mentioned - I believe it takes a man and a woman to properly raise a child. Scientific studies for instance have shown that the presence of the father around his daughter can inhibit sexual maturation for several more months to year(s) - things of this nature. Basically - nature intended for man+woman - we shouldn't interfere with that. Not a more natural team in the entire world.

Submitted by Sean Tierney on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 17:28.

until an actual same-sex marraige opponent shows up...

Personally, I SUPPORT the right to a same-sex marriage, but in the interest of logical and well-informed opinion, I’ll take a stab at representing the pro-ban side as best I can… 1. Nicholas, as any quick Google search would’ve told you, there are many reasons why people oppose gay marriage. For starters, there’s the belief that it will lead to a slippery slope in which legalization of polygamy is the inevitable outcome. Why? Because most of the current bans on polygamy ultimately rest on the argument of the “traditional marriage.” By allowing alternatives to traditional marriage, the main obstacle to legal polygamy is removed. (Honestly, though, I believe most pro-ban people are just using this as an excuse for their stance, but it’s still a legitimate concern if you believe legalized polygamy to be bad, which is a debate I’ll leave for another time.) If you don’t think it will be, look at your own comment, “it isn't the government's job to regulate taste.” 2. Another argument is that it messes up the kids by providing them with confusing/contradictory messages on how they should express their sexuality, the argument being that it will psychologically damage children and/or encourage more of them to be gay. (This is important if you consider homosexuality to be a choice and/or the result of infant brain-mapping, and if you believe homosexuality to be bad, which are arguments I DON”T want to get into. Once again, I’m only defending this side out of fairness.) Naturally, the counter-argument is that a lot of straight people make really bad parents as well. However, just because there are bad straight parents doesn’t mean we should add to the problem and allow bad gay parents as well, as gay parents are virtually “inherently bad.”

Submitted by Nicholas Snyder on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 21:16.

Yea

Yea sorry, I was a bit hotile wasn't I. I honestly would like to hear someone argue against it. I edited my original post accordinly, thanks.

Submitted by lewisc on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 15:01.

Bad seeds bear bad fruit

I'm having trouble reconciling statements such as "I am sorry to say that pissing and moaning about how marriage is a religious union between a man and a women doesn't constitue a valid argument," "I find it amusing that some people get their panties in a bunch over same sex marriages," "nuff said," and "QQ elsewhere" with "Intelligent, well thought out replies only please." It's honestly pretty tough for the level of discourse to get any lower after an initial post like this. If you want your work to be treated with respect, it often helps if that work is respectful to your audience.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 16:45.

dodging the issue ceaf

Still, I'd like to see someone try. They could present a logical argument AND raise the level of discourse. That seems like a more impressive, though completely unacheivable giving the impossibility of presenting such an argument, goal than just whining about the way the first argument was presented.

Submitted by lewisc on Sat, 10/21/2006 - 16:52.

No issue has been presented

I don't think it's fair to classify wanting posts to be made in good faith as "whining." The first post (and yours) was presented in such a way that it is clear that whatever argument is made will be followed by the ceremonial movement of the goalposts. Neither of you has the appearance of being interested in honest debate, but rather in maintaining an air of perceived moral superiority. In the words of our esteemed first poster, "QQ elsewhere" if you are more interested in an echo chamber (which, let's be honest, is all that first post was pursuing) instead of civilized debate.

Submitted by molica on Tue, 11/06/2007 - 14:15.

reply

I believe in a marriage even if it's one with problems and why wouldn't i... if i just want sex i can go out but in a marriage you need things working. It's different and btw that's why Marriage Counselors exist on this earth... to help people in need.

Login or Register to leave comments.