| # | Author | Message |
411
| DAR
Wed 6/4/2008 9:48a | Well in a way Doug is right. Gay marriages will be subject to the same problems that a heterosexual marriage could face. |
412
| Dabob2
Wed 6/4/2008 10:01a | That doesn't make Doug right. Of course gay marriages will be (and already are) subject to the same problems. But that just points to why they should be treated equally - which is exactly what Doug argues against. |
413
| jdub
Wed 6/4/2008 6:07p | <1. Who does the proposing, can it be either person?>
Yes. Just like with opposite sex couples.
<2. Does both men get separate bachelor or both women separate bachelorette parties?>
"Does" both men or both women WANT separate parties? "Does" they want parties at all? The answer to these questions shall decide the answer to yours.
<3. Who's big day is it? When it's a man and woman we know it's the woman's day.>
"Who's" big day it is shall depend on who's most excited about the ceremony, perhaps--
--but it shall be a huge and long-overdue day for EVERYONE.
|
414
| DouglasDubh
Wed 6/4/2008 6:37p | <I didn't get the facts wrong.>
Yes, you did.
<Man up, for once.>
I've stated what I believe. If you want to go ahead and continue to distort it, I can't stop you.
<He shows declining rates of marriage in Holland. Then he says that because gay marriage happened at the same time, it was a contributing factor.>
Not quite. He goes through all the possible factors, and explains why they are not contributing factors. That's the way you show cause.
<For me, proof is required of something negative if we're going to deny equal protection under the law.>
I think proof of something positive should be required if we're going to redefine marriage, but I'm willing to settle for evidence that no harm will be done. So far, I haven't seen it.
<I can present evidence to the contrary - no negative effects in Massachusetts>
Please do.
|
415
| DouglasDubh
Wed 6/4/2008 6:37p | <Sme people have gotten divorces since gay marriage has been legalized in MA. So, using the Kurtz methodology, gay marriage must be a factor.>
That's not the Kurtz methodology.
|
416
| SingleParkPassholder
Thu 6/5/2008 5:14a | "..but I'm willing to settle for evidence that no harm will be done. So far, I haven't seen it."
How's your own marriage? Good? Got any evidence it's been harmed by gays marrying?
|
417
| DouglasDubh
Thu 6/5/2008 5:52a | See post 174. |
418
| SingleParkPassholder
Thu 6/5/2008 5:56a | That's an empty argument. If no existing marriages are harmed, you've got nothing. If anything, the more marriages there are the more the institution is strengthened.
|
419
| DouglasDubh
Thu 6/5/2008 6:00a | Wrong again. |
420
| X-san
Thu 6/5/2008 6:21a | Douglas, what is your opinion about homosexuals?
What do you think about homosexuality in general?
Just curious. |
