Nothing bothers me more than seemingly intelligent (and not so intelligent) people making specious arguments in defense of their beliefs, in the guise of some "empirical truth."
Case in point the so-called "debate" over same-sex marriages. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court took up the issue last year, same-sex marriages have eclipsed all other news items "save the Democrat primary," including the conflict in Iraq. Everyone with an opinion, including myself, has weighed in on the issue; protests in support and opposition abound; and state legislatures are scrambling to write new laws and change constitutions.
But back to the point ... There seem to be as many ad hominem arguments opposing same-sex marriages as there are all-stars for the Yankees to sign (sorry Yankees fans). However, for brevity's sake, I'll attempt to cover just a few of them.
The uniqueness
of marriage
This is a phrase being used by the Campaign For California Families, et al, as they remain strident in their efforts to stop the onslaught of same-sex marriages currently taking place in the Golden State. There is nothing unique about marriage. It has existed for millennia, for varying reasons and in a number of forms, both recognized and unrecognized by respective local governments. Over 2 million marriages occur every year, with a divorce rate nearly half the marriage rate.
Homosexuality
will increase
Since when does a law, or lack thereof, determine one's sexual orientation? One doesn't suddenly become "gay" because same-sex marriages become legal everywhere. Homosexuality has existed for ages, and will continue to exist independent of its acceptance and/or recognition by the state.
Opponents of
same-sex marriage outnumber supporters
So? A few hundred years ago, opponents of the abolition of slavery likely outnumbered supporters of slavery. Did that make those opponents correct? This is one of the most hackneyed, and weakest arguments roaming the media by those supporting a ban on same-sex marriages. This implies the preference of mob rule to force the belief of a majority on a minority.
Defend the sanctity of marriage
Ah, the ubiquitous line of same-sex marriage opponents, and one apparently worthy of a State of the Union address. What exactly is being defended? From whom? This vague phrase is mere groupthink implying that there is some sort of "national marriage" to protect. Since marriage is an agreement among individuals, the sole "defenders" of marriage are the parties of the marriage, not the courts, the president, government or the "masses." The parties of a marriage determine its sacredness, or lack thereof; and based on the divorce rates in the US, it's a flip of the coin.
The concept of marriage will be meaningless
This is perhaps the saddest argument in opposition to same-sex marriages. It suggests that these individuals derive the meaning of their marriages from others with whom they disagree. My wife and I have and continually define our marriage on our own terms, regardless of the social trend du jour or majority opinion. If heterosexuals let homosexuals or anyone else define their marriages, then they have deeper issues to worry about.
It's not God's way
This basis for opposition is understandable, as many people believe that their respective religions forbid homosexual behavior.
However, what should not be acceptable is the attempt by a majority to impose its religious or moral edicts on the masses. When this happens elsewhere, many here in the US call that "tyranny" and "oppression."The opposition to same-sex marriages has taken many forms, with many positions, including erroneous comparisons to pedophilia -- a separate and sickening issue. While it is fine to disagree on the issue, one must be wary of mob rule -- or democracy, as it were -- determining the fate of a nation. So, are homosexuals destroying marriage? Certainly not! Moreover, looking at the statistics, heterosexuals have been doing a good job destroying their own marriages without assistance.
Sean Turner is a member of the Project 21 Advisory Council of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us, GOPUSA.com, MensNewsDaily.com, and a contributor to a number of news and political Web sites.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with