juansavage1

I agree that most churches don't risk alienating people who are caught up in the world created by the people here mocking Christians. That being said, all of the straight ones have marriage counseling and keep positive pressure on couples to work things out. 

One thing that I'm fond of doing when making generalizations is to look at facts. It's not too hard with the internet. Try it. 

http://divorce.com/divorce-rates-church-attendance/

 

Despite the claims that church attendance does not improve the risk of divorce for Christians, a report in USA Today cites a sociologist who says the numbers depend on what kind of Christians are being discussed. When University of Connecticut sociologist and author, Bradley Wright looked at divorce statistics for evangelical Christians, he says the numbers show church attendance has a big influence on the overall rate of divorce. Wright pointed to the National Survey of Families and Households and found that Americans who attend religious services at least twice a month were one third less likely to get divorced than those with no religious affiliation whose divorce rate is the same as the national average at around 50%. When Wright looked at the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, he found that adherents of religions including Christianity have a divorce rate that is 8% lower than the national average at about 42%.

Wright’s recent book, “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites and Other Lies You’ve Been Told” stress the point that the divorce rates for Christians are not the same as the general population and that being a “committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.” When Wright examined the statistics he found that 60% of evangelical Christians who do not attend church had been divorced or separated and the divorce rate for evangelical Christians who do attend church was only 38%. Wright concludes that the lower numbers mean Christian pastors can preach to their flocks about the value of marriage more effectively and that the idea that Christians are no different from anyone else when it comes to divorce is not true if you consider Christians who attend church regularly. As the overall national divorce rate continues to hover near 50%, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Wright’s hypothesis holds up over the next decade.

 

These pastors aren't stupid MT.

 

50% of marriages end up in divorce.  Why would any pastor want to speak out against divorce in the same manner that they do against homosexuality?

You hit upon a good point. When things get far afield, you can't say anything anymore. For example, single mothers are now a powerful voting block and make up a sizable chunk of the Dem party. Again: congratulations, leftists. 

I don't buy the sanctity of marriage argument with the number of divorces in this great country.

Who started the divorce movement in the late 60s and 70s? Christians or the same people who want SSM? SSM is really the last battle in a movement started in the 19th century. 

The value of marriage in society has depreciated over the centuries when people got some wild hair up their ass that it needed to be for "love" instead of traditionally marrying for political or financial reasons. Prearranged marriages we determined for the good of both families, not the indulgence of lustful teens that have no concept of the stability of the family unit and introduced strangers into the fold that may interrupt the path to a better social status. By promising a child to another family and accepting theirs unto your own there is a contractual bond tying families together base on mutual trust, the couple will sort out their feelings later but would stay together because of a valued family commitment.

 

That is what Juan would like us all to return to, the age of dowries, social order and bartering your children.

This is a logical fallacy. Are those the only two choices? Please police your thinking if you care about real discussion. 

To the first point, no. But this is a common ploy anti-gay people use: "gay marriage means anything goes." Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults. It has meaning as a societally sanctioned union. For some it has religious connotations, for others more cultural or symbolic or personal. But the point is, it has cultural and societal meaning.

 

What's wrong with changing (or evolving) from the past? When Rosa Parks sat down in the front of the bus, I'm sure some said "That's a different way of looking at it than in the past." I think the message will say: "Gay people are equal citizens, and homosexuality is not considered wrong or amoral."

If your argument isn't that anything should go as long as nobody is forced to marry nor accept that definition, then don't make that argument. That is what you said earlier. Also, don't blame people for using YOUR logic and rationale for forms of marriage that you don't like. 

It's a new, different definition that the government will force people to accept. The government will also exclude some types of relationships from marriage. 

Again, when you make that argument with your friends, don't make it freedom versus oppression, make it the virtues of male-female marriage only versus sex-neutral marriage. 

Your argument that if gay people marry, there'd be less hard-to-place kids in foster care is a real argument. I don't think it would make any difference since places with gay marriage actually have less marriage, but at least it's an honest argument. 

Why do SJWs claim asians as their own. Those mother****ers are more privileged than the evil white man.

For every 80 cents we make, they make a dollar.

 

Down with the asian patriarchy!

If you read the minutes of the Meeting of the Man, white people decided to let Asians get higher SAT scores than them in 1972. 

Juan, you're side-stepping here. How does gay marriage force you into anything? Do you have to marry a man? Are you a priest that has to marry gay people? All you "have to" do is accept that gay people can now get married. And to be honest, you don't even have to accept it. You can disagree with it until the day you die. But you know what? And entire group of people has recently been upgraded to equal rights in terms of marriage. I'd say that is a big step forward for human rights.

 

Again, it isn't a matter of laws having to reflect my own personal beliefs - although like everyone, my beliefs are what I think is most true. There are plenty of instances where my own personal beliefs aren't reflected by law. But the law is meant to serve and protect as many people as possible, to extend liberties to all within certain parameters.

 

It is so simple: laws are meant to be as universal as possible, while still reflecting contemporary social mores and ethics which change over time. You seem to have a hard time with that last part - the changing nature of social mores and ethics. But imagine if they didn't change. Imagine if blacks and women didn't gain the right to vote. What bemuses me is that people who are against gay marriage can't see that this is a contemporary manifestation of civil rights, and that they are behind the times.

So, following your logic, the government shouldn't have any restrictions on marriage at all. Marriage is what the individual's belief's are. As long as it doesn't force anybody to marry. What you're saying is that marriage isn't any thing except what the individual thinks it is and, therefore, has no real purpose- as far as the government is concerned, at least. Is that correct?

That's a different way of looking at it than in the past, isn't it? How do you think that new message will affect society? Should schools teach kids that marriage is whatever individuals think it is? Is that attitude related to the collapse of marriage in much of the West? 

"There will be more and new and wonderful kinds of love that won't affect anybody or society."

Juan's reality reads like a Bill O'Reilly popup book.

Do you have any thought at the pop up book level? Let's have it. 

"Well, how does gay marriage affect your marriage and...uh...love wins...and...no discrimination."

It may or may not be a good idea to change the name. The complicating factor is that this is being discussed in the context of the culture war.

Pissed off?

Angry cons like to imagine that everyone else is as angry as they are. Assumption for assumption.

This is an example of another phony argument. Are you against anger?

For a guy that complains a lot about generalizations you sure generalize a lot.

I'm guessing that it was just a trick. To be against generalization in principal is true ignorance. The trick is to make good, true, and relevant generalizations.

Not sure if Juan is a troll but he sure pushes the right buttons around here.

 

Some people are so pissed off they can't even think straight.

First, I appreciate the non-insulting replies and attempts at serious discussion (over an issue I actually hate talking about)

People get more upset at the truth than a lie. You don't even have to be angry or insulting. Just point out facts. The simple fact of the matter is that in any gay relationship, the children will be separated- by design, not tragedy- from either their mother or their father. A further fact is that society can no longer use terms like "the nuclear family" or even suggest that children are the natural result of sexual union and marriage. 

We have completely deconstructed family and sex. Congratulations.  

"But you can still marry a woman"

Yes, but I'm talking about societal values and momentum, not what you or I can do. 

You're more dramatic than any of my homo family or friends.

Well, it's more complicated when it's an opposite-sex couple. The children are likely the product of their love. There's also the fact that it's important for men and women to be with each other because they complement each other, make each other better. 

Why would anybody use a racial insult as the the name of THEIR team? My guess is that it was never intended as an insult. 

Who said no Indian names? Can you tell the difference between these two names: "Sioux" and "Redskin"?

Is calling somebody a "person of color" racist? 

Sorry Juan, I don't buy your argument. Gay marriage can serve the same purpose as straight marriage, even without procreation. Why? Because of adoption. According to the CCAI, there are almost 400,000 children in the foster care system without permanent homes, and 153 million worldwide. If, in your mind, the primary purpose of marriage is to make babies, why not allow gay marriage to offer more potentially stable homes? 

 

As of April this year, there were approximately 400,000 gay marriages (an interesting coincidence), a number that is rising quickly. Not all gay married couples adopt, but neither do all straight couples re-produce. By your logic reproduction should be mandated if you are married, otherwise it is "emotion-only."

 

Anyhow, my guess is that you'll come back with "but its better for children to have a man and a woman as parents." Even if that is true (which I don't necessarily think it is), it is better to have loving parents than no parents.

 

But here's the point: when you get to the root of being against gay marriage, logic doesn't stand up. It is entirely ideological/religious, emotional, and irrational. In fact, by being against gay marriage you're essentially saying that foster children are better off in the system than in a permanent (gay) home.

I bet you the number of children in foster care will remain the same. 

It wasn't long ago that people on the left said that marriage itself was illogical and/or evil and only a system of oppression. Why the sudden turn around? 

For those not committed to social revolution, you've been fooled. Gay marriage is absurd. You know who thinks it's absurd? Gay people. Gay people marry much less than straight people, abuse and "cheat" each other more, and divorce more. Why? Because, it's not a serious thing. Their feelings are serious, but their dedication to the institution isn't. 

If a man and a woman split up or aren't devoted to each other, it's a mini-tragedy for society. If two dudes split up, it's just sad for them. 

My guess is that if there were no Indian names, Indians would complain about the lack of Indian names. This is all about perception. Because it focused on that, the ESPN article was actually pretty good. If nobody thinks the names are racist, which I think nobody did until it became a thing, nobody would care. Did any of you think about it denigrating Indians as you were growing up? 

Also, who's complaining? Is it the same people who are protesting the Halloween costumes? Yes. Why? Complaint is their Oxygen. If Monster Inc was about SJWs, instead of screams or laughter, the society would be run on bitching about stupid things. It's also about SJWs creating sides in which their smelly asses are the virtuous. 

Thanks for that cutting journalism from ESPN. My mind is now made up.

Do people think that those supporting the team name as is hate Indians? 

Juan, there is a simple logic here that you are evading.

 

Gay marriage = equal rights for gay people + moral discomfort for some Americans

No gay marriage = non-equal rights for gay people + moral satisfaction for some Americans

 

Is that moral satisfaction really worth not giving an entire demographic of American citizens equal rights to what you and I have? Does gay marriage affect you in any way other than providing you with moral discomfort?

No gay marriage means that marriage makes sense and is an institution to move the country forward, as it's the pairing of two sexes that need each other and make families. 

Gay marriage means that marriage is nothing more than emotion, people who really like each other and may or may not like to bone. 

You're wrong that it discriminates against people who like the same sex, since they're not barred from participating in marriage. You're right that it discriminates in favor of conjugal marriage and against sterile by design, emotion-only marriage. 

This has to be the most ignorant and stupid thing anyone has ever posted here.

 

Now at least I know Juan is a troll.

JS: What is it that I'm ignorant of? 

Nate: Lesbians happen to excel at woodworking. What Dwarves are to mining, lesbians are to carpentry and whittling. 

JS: That's why I come here- to learn from Nate. 

You don't see the difference? Think about it, Geoff.

There's only a difference because they say there is, at this moment. I can EASILY see a movement start to rename OK and all the liberals here will say that it's the obvious right thing to do.

How many stupid things are going on right now that nobody thought possible a few years ago.

Respectfully, any law codifies a belief. You believe marriage is this and I think its that. One of our definitions is what the government accepts and excludes.

Having straight marriage didn't force anybody to do anything and didn't prevent people from considering themselves married or having a ceremony. It just said what the government would accept.

Juan, you're side-stepping here. How does gay marriage force you into anything? Do you have to marry a man? Are you a priest that has to marry gay people? All you "have to" do is accept that gay people can now get married. And to be honest, you don't even have to accept it. You can disagree with it until the day you die. But you know what? And entire group of people has recently been upgraded to equal rights in terms of marriage. I'd say that is a big step forward for human rights.

Again, it isn't a matter of laws having to reflect my own personal beliefs - although like everyone, my beliefs are what I think is most true. There are plenty of instances where my own personal beliefs aren't reflected by law. But the law is meant to serve and protect as many people as possible, to extend liberties to all within certain parameters.

It is so simple: laws are meant to be as universal as possible, while still reflecting contemporary social mores and ethics which change over time. You seem to have a hard time with that last part - the changing nature of social mores and ethics. But imagine if they didn't change. Imagine if blacks and women didn't gain the right to vote. What bemuses me is that people who are against gay marriage can't see that this is a contemporary manifestation of civil rights, and that they are behind the times.

I think objecting to a mascot is fine. I would object to some things. I think the main issue is that what they're fighting for isn't cut and dried issues like a name, but things that are unnameable and  unsolvable. It's like protesting over people not being nice enough. Well, what should we do? Should we make people smile 2 times per minute? Should we have a niceness board? Fire administrators who did nothing to make people nicer? Have five niceness sub-deans? Can't people claim that the lack of niceness makes them feel uncomfortable? 

This only makes sense if you look at the ideology of the people protesting. 

Well, not quite. What I mean is that the country's laws should allow for a wide variety of lifestyles and ideologies all under the broad umbrella of the ideas and spirit of what this country was founded upon. Specifically, laws shouldn't force the beliefs of adherents of one ideology onto those to hold said beliefs - except when such beliefs are widely accepted as part of the society's ethics (e.g. murder is illegal).

 

Gay marriage is a perfect example. Gay people getting married doesn't impact people that don't agree with it, except on the level of moral offense. But it doesn't in any way impact the freedoms of those who oppose it. But prohibiting gay marriage does impact gay people, and for what? Moral satisfaction for those opposed?

 

That said, I do think that specific churches and priests should have the right to not marry a gay couple, just as I think a specific baker should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose. But on a legal level? The law is meant to support a wide variety of lifestyles and choices, not just cater to the morality of a specific group.

First, this is one of the few serious, non-insulting posts disagreeing with me. I don't mind non-serious. Insulting bothers me. Thanks.

Now:

Can you come up with a law that doesn't force a belief? Your gay "marriage" law forces that belief that marriage is between two people so you can't use that one.

Can you come up with a reason any expansion of marriage would impact other people (which would allow for infinite permutations of marriage)? 

I don't want to start this again, but you should modify your claim to: "I don't think we should allow for any belief I don't believe in, nor consider any impact I don't think is important."