Well, like others, I could point out that the original post was objectively invalid, using the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. And that's true. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that allowing gays to marry makes it less likely for heteroloveuals to get married. ZERO. The trends towards fewer people marrying predate gay marriage by DECADES, and can also be seen in countries where gays can't get married. There is absolutely no evidence for the original claim. No red herring, no sleight of hand. Just the truth. But I also find it strange that anti-gays think that a measure of the health of society is "number of people getting married, and staying married, whether they want to or not," rather than actually looking at the health of the people in the society. Of course, they only think that when they can use it to attack gays. The heroes of the conservative movement - Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bob Barr - are often divorced, breaking up their families and homes, leaving their children with an absentee parent. Where is your criticism of them? The red states have a far higher rate of divorce and single-mother families than the blue states. Where is your criticism of THEM? The original point was dishonest, and you are dishonest. You don't care much about families breaking up UNTIL YOU CAN BLAME IT ON THE GAYS. If you want to prove me wrong, please respond to my entire post, and don't take any of it out of context. The Truth About JewsThe Jewish Disproportionate Involvement in Communism By Ian McKinney, (Rev. 3.0, July 24, 2000) One of the most... These defintions, and the analysis that goes with it, are as outdated as treating depression with lobotomies. If you're actually going to quote the American Psychoanalytic buttociation, wouldn't it be more honest to quote something current, or at least to indicate that you're using old outdate information?
|
