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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS