The Dumbest Thing You've Ever Read
In my dumb class, someone posted this in the class web forum:
In response to certain individual who claimed our country was built on seperation of church and state, I will clear the record. Our country was not founded on seperation of church and state. It was an invention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists out of context, but since the Supreme Court made the ruling based on a faulty premise, a precedent was created. "Seperation of Church and State" became the new precedent in which numerous court cases would look back to. Now on the subject of gay marriage, 2% or less of the population is said to be gay. "So many "shocked" by much lower recent numbers reported in Alan Guttmacher-sponsored study of men aged 20-39, which estimated that only 1.1% of men had had only male homosexual partners within the last 10 years. (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html) and the infidelity rate of gay or lesbian relationships are over 80 percent per year while fewer than 20 percent of straight couples fall into the unfaithful trap. With these terrible numbers why should one who is gay marry?
Oh wow where to begin. Ok first off, separation of church and state. Nowhere in the Constitution is God mentioned, nowhere is religion is mentioned, nowhere is faith mentioned. The only place where religion is mentioned at all is in the First Amendment where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There's no ambivalence about it, the founding fathers really didn't want religion to be a trump factor on policy making or decisions. It's not that they didn't want people to have religion, it's just that they didn't want the US to have religion. As for the sources quoted by the poster, check out the Family Research Institute. "The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family". Threaten the traditional family? More on this later.
According to Madison, a government is not only supposed to restrain itself, but restrain the people. Through this principle many laws have been passed protecting citizens from one another. Take speeding for example: speeding is not intrinsically wrong, but the government has passed traffic laws to protect other citizens from a drivers careless behavior toward another citizens well being. Same sex relationships have been proven to not be healthy. Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others are all sexually transmitted diseases that are almost exclusively associated with homosexuals. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;) The psychological effect is also intense. Herbert Hendin, M.D. sums up it quite well:
"The extreme vulnerability to rejection of suicidal homosexuals may have an important social component as well. With all its sexual and social activity, the "gay life" provides no more than an alienated and isolated existence for many homosexuals. Continuity of relationships between two homosexuals is rare, although many homosexuals spend a lifetime seeking it. For those who do seek it, any relationship that offers that possibility is apt to be intensely over invested rather quickly. Since such relationships usually lack social or family support, rejection or disappointment signifies not merely abandonment but despair over the inability to escape emotional isolation." (M.D. Hendin, Herbert, 146)
He's right about Madison's theory of government, but his evidence is crap. He lists all kinds of diseases that are "almost exclusively associated with homosexuals". Let's take a look at it all. Anal cancer is rare at best. It's about as rare as Tay-Sachs Disease, but the author doesn't suggest we isloate Ashkenazic Jews. Chlamydia trachtomtatis, which apparently affects only female reproductive organs. How is THAT associated with gay males? Cryptosporidiosis which he mistakenly calls Cryptosporidium. A parasite that lives in the intestine and is usually spread through sharing pools, hot tub or other water with infected individuals. Giardiasis seems to be the same deal. Herpes. Well, this says that male to female is the most common form of transmission. Okay, you get the point. But if you want to do more research, welcome to the CDC: HIV, HPV, Isospora belli [which appears to be solely tropcial], Microspordia what little I could find, gonorrhea, syphilis, and Hepatitis B and C. If you go through all of these, you'll notice that none of these are more spread by homosexuals. Hell, herpes is more commonly transmitted from male to female, and yet heterosexual sex is not a great health risk in and of itself. The Dr. Herber Hendin quote from the book Suicide in America uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R) which was published in 1987 and replaced in 1994 by the DSM-IV, which removed homosexuality as a social disorder. So when he says gays more likely to have a social disorder, to his definitions, they already have one.
On the basis that the government protects its citizens from these terrible effects homosexual behaviors have on its citizens, I would agree to protect traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is the building blocks of society. If a gay couple were to adopt a child, the "family" would be very dysfunctional. Not only is the chance of infidelity 80% more likely to happen, but the couple is more likely to not last more than a year.
Again, the statistics come from a biased source if ever there was a biased source. It is true that society is built on marriage, since after all people cohere together first to mate, then to have children and thus a family. Families cohere to form societies and they want either more stuff or defend their own stuff, so they form a government. Families make more people stable, but more on that later.
As [MidnightRanter] stated in his essay "The Romans fell apart because laws were not applied equally and people felt there was a favored class and this tore people apart. For Hallowell, if people don't have a good moral backing, they can't be good, productive citizens." I shall take this a step further. Rome fell apart not only because of unequality in the application of the laws, but because of the state of the family. Society is based on all the families in a given country. If the family becomes weak, citizens become apathetic, and the country begins to collapse. During the cold war, the Russians knew this to be true. They knew if they were to disrupt American society in this way, the United States would Collapse.
In conclusion, the government should not grant same sex marriage, because of the harmful nature of the behavior not only mentally but physically as well. Also gays should not be free to marry because of the adverse effects it has on the immeadiate surroundings in the community, but also against the American Society as a whole. Provisions can be made by the government to restore certain rights homosexuals desire, but the government should not take away from the sanctity of marriage.
Well, yes, the family does provide a stablizing influence on people. Married people live longer, are more likely to vote and more likely to hold office in government. In short, married people make better citizens. As shown in the past, the family unit, and its sanctity, will survive the inclusion of same sex marriages. A marriage between a man and a woman will not suddenly become worthless because homosexuals are allowed to marry. Mr. and Mrs. Smith will not turn to each other one night and decide their marriage is weaker because of the neighbor's wedding. The only time two people's love can affect outsiders is when the outsiders decide to involve themselves in it.
Madison said the best way for a republic to survive is to have as diverse a population as possible, so many voices are heard and ideas come from compromise as many ideas as possible. The less you disenfranchise people, the more they speak about issues that affect them. This, in turn, creates a more stable republic since the laws are not excluding a portion of the population. It does not matter how small the population is, it only matters if they are discriminated against. According to recent census data, 1% of Americans are Muslims. It would be wrong to say they cannot be married because "they" do not share the same views on marriage as it has been traditionally defined in the US. The measure of a working republic is the way they treat the view of minorities. Indeed, the fair treatment of minorities is the sina qua non of a democracy.
Democracies are not run by numbers and medical necessities. We are not the Spartans testing all newborns and then dashing those who fail on the rocks below. We do not execute those who have terminal diseases because they may be a health risk. All citizens have rights and privileges, even those who may or may not be bad for society. It is only when a citizen creates problems through actions that society moves to stop him or her. This is both a Hobbes and Locke point of view since person is breaking the social contract and harming others. Society has a right and duty to act in those cases. Who exactly is harmed when two men get married? Upsetting someone’s beliefs about the family is not harm as Hobbes would define it. Now, if to do so they had to make one couple get divorced, then that would be harm. Otherwise, Catholics could be upset at red meat being served on Fridays, Jews could be upset that trefe foods are for sale, Muslims could be offended that haram foods are for sale and so forth. We all have religious beliefs, even if those are the lack of belief in religion. Offending my beliefs is not harm, it's a fact of dealing with other people.
There is no doubt that society will have to adapt and change to socially accept gay marriage. There should also be no doubt that in order for a democracy to survive it must be able to change. Again, for Madison’s view, having more people means more groups keeping each other in check. Married homosexuals will have views on issues and different takes on marriage. They, possibly, will act to strengthen the laws concerning marriages. Those who have recently gotten rights often act more vigorously to defend them since they remember a time before they had such rights. Society will change. Society will either grant more rights to individuals or it will die. That is also what happened to Rome: laws were applied inequitably, the people complained, nothing was done and Rome fell apart. The granting of more rights that directly harm no one should never be stopped in a democratic republic. Discussion is necessary, but to block rights because one group believes it is evil is the antithesis of how a republic should work.
If society seeks to contain the rights of some, it is only a matter time before society moves to contain the rights of all.
So it is written, so do I see it.
In response to certain individual who claimed our country was built on seperation of church and state, I will clear the record. Our country was not founded on seperation of church and state. It was an invention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists out of context, but since the Supreme Court made the ruling based on a faulty premise, a precedent was created. "Seperation of Church and State" became the new precedent in which numerous court cases would look back to. Now on the subject of gay marriage, 2% or less of the population is said to be gay. "So many "shocked" by much lower recent numbers reported in Alan Guttmacher-sponsored study of men aged 20-39, which estimated that only 1.1% of men had had only male homosexual partners within the last 10 years. (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html) and the infidelity rate of gay or lesbian relationships are over 80 percent per year while fewer than 20 percent of straight couples fall into the unfaithful trap. With these terrible numbers why should one who is gay marry?
Oh wow where to begin. Ok first off, separation of church and state. Nowhere in the Constitution is God mentioned, nowhere is religion is mentioned, nowhere is faith mentioned. The only place where religion is mentioned at all is in the First Amendment where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There's no ambivalence about it, the founding fathers really didn't want religion to be a trump factor on policy making or decisions. It's not that they didn't want people to have religion, it's just that they didn't want the US to have religion. As for the sources quoted by the poster, check out the Family Research Institute. "The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family". Threaten the traditional family? More on this later.
According to Madison, a government is not only supposed to restrain itself, but restrain the people. Through this principle many laws have been passed protecting citizens from one another. Take speeding for example: speeding is not intrinsically wrong, but the government has passed traffic laws to protect other citizens from a drivers careless behavior toward another citizens well being. Same sex relationships have been proven to not be healthy. Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others are all sexually transmitted diseases that are almost exclusively associated with homosexuals. (www.netdoctor.co.uk; www.gayhealthchannel.com;) The psychological effect is also intense. Herbert Hendin, M.D. sums up it quite well:
"The extreme vulnerability to rejection of suicidal homosexuals may have an important social component as well. With all its sexual and social activity, the "gay life" provides no more than an alienated and isolated existence for many homosexuals. Continuity of relationships between two homosexuals is rare, although many homosexuals spend a lifetime seeking it. For those who do seek it, any relationship that offers that possibility is apt to be intensely over invested rather quickly. Since such relationships usually lack social or family support, rejection or disappointment signifies not merely abandonment but despair over the inability to escape emotional isolation." (M.D. Hendin, Herbert, 146)
He's right about Madison's theory of government, but his evidence is crap. He lists all kinds of diseases that are "almost exclusively associated with homosexuals". Let's take a look at it all. Anal cancer is rare at best. It's about as rare as Tay-Sachs Disease, but the author doesn't suggest we isloate Ashkenazic Jews. Chlamydia trachtomtatis, which apparently affects only female reproductive organs. How is THAT associated with gay males? Cryptosporidiosis which he mistakenly calls Cryptosporidium. A parasite that lives in the intestine and is usually spread through sharing pools, hot tub or other water with infected individuals. Giardiasis seems to be the same deal. Herpes. Well, this says that male to female is the most common form of transmission. Okay, you get the point. But if you want to do more research, welcome to the CDC: HIV, HPV, Isospora belli [which appears to be solely tropcial], Microspordia what little I could find, gonorrhea, syphilis, and Hepatitis B and C. If you go through all of these, you'll notice that none of these are more spread by homosexuals. Hell, herpes is more commonly transmitted from male to female, and yet heterosexual sex is not a great health risk in and of itself. The Dr. Herber Hendin quote from the book Suicide in America uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R) which was published in 1987 and replaced in 1994 by the DSM-IV, which removed homosexuality as a social disorder. So when he says gays more likely to have a social disorder, to his definitions, they already have one.
On the basis that the government protects its citizens from these terrible effects homosexual behaviors have on its citizens, I would agree to protect traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is the building blocks of society. If a gay couple were to adopt a child, the "family" would be very dysfunctional. Not only is the chance of infidelity 80% more likely to happen, but the couple is more likely to not last more than a year.
Again, the statistics come from a biased source if ever there was a biased source. It is true that society is built on marriage, since after all people cohere together first to mate, then to have children and thus a family. Families cohere to form societies and they want either more stuff or defend their own stuff, so they form a government. Families make more people stable, but more on that later.
As [MidnightRanter] stated in his essay "The Romans fell apart because laws were not applied equally and people felt there was a favored class and this tore people apart. For Hallowell, if people don't have a good moral backing, they can't be good, productive citizens." I shall take this a step further. Rome fell apart not only because of unequality in the application of the laws, but because of the state of the family. Society is based on all the families in a given country. If the family becomes weak, citizens become apathetic, and the country begins to collapse. During the cold war, the Russians knew this to be true. They knew if they were to disrupt American society in this way, the United States would Collapse.
In conclusion, the government should not grant same sex marriage, because of the harmful nature of the behavior not only mentally but physically as well. Also gays should not be free to marry because of the adverse effects it has on the immeadiate surroundings in the community, but also against the American Society as a whole. Provisions can be made by the government to restore certain rights homosexuals desire, but the government should not take away from the sanctity of marriage.
Well, yes, the family does provide a stablizing influence on people. Married people live longer, are more likely to vote and more likely to hold office in government. In short, married people make better citizens. As shown in the past, the family unit, and its sanctity, will survive the inclusion of same sex marriages. A marriage between a man and a woman will not suddenly become worthless because homosexuals are allowed to marry. Mr. and Mrs. Smith will not turn to each other one night and decide their marriage is weaker because of the neighbor's wedding. The only time two people's love can affect outsiders is when the outsiders decide to involve themselves in it.
Madison said the best way for a republic to survive is to have as diverse a population as possible, so many voices are heard and ideas come from compromise as many ideas as possible. The less you disenfranchise people, the more they speak about issues that affect them. This, in turn, creates a more stable republic since the laws are not excluding a portion of the population. It does not matter how small the population is, it only matters if they are discriminated against. According to recent census data, 1% of Americans are Muslims. It would be wrong to say they cannot be married because "they" do not share the same views on marriage as it has been traditionally defined in the US. The measure of a working republic is the way they treat the view of minorities. Indeed, the fair treatment of minorities is the sina qua non of a democracy.
Democracies are not run by numbers and medical necessities. We are not the Spartans testing all newborns and then dashing those who fail on the rocks below. We do not execute those who have terminal diseases because they may be a health risk. All citizens have rights and privileges, even those who may or may not be bad for society. It is only when a citizen creates problems through actions that society moves to stop him or her. This is both a Hobbes and Locke point of view since person is breaking the social contract and harming others. Society has a right and duty to act in those cases. Who exactly is harmed when two men get married? Upsetting someone’s beliefs about the family is not harm as Hobbes would define it. Now, if to do so they had to make one couple get divorced, then that would be harm. Otherwise, Catholics could be upset at red meat being served on Fridays, Jews could be upset that trefe foods are for sale, Muslims could be offended that haram foods are for sale and so forth. We all have religious beliefs, even if those are the lack of belief in religion. Offending my beliefs is not harm, it's a fact of dealing with other people.
There is no doubt that society will have to adapt and change to socially accept gay marriage. There should also be no doubt that in order for a democracy to survive it must be able to change. Again, for Madison’s view, having more people means more groups keeping each other in check. Married homosexuals will have views on issues and different takes on marriage. They, possibly, will act to strengthen the laws concerning marriages. Those who have recently gotten rights often act more vigorously to defend them since they remember a time before they had such rights. Society will change. Society will either grant more rights to individuals or it will die. That is also what happened to Rome: laws were applied inequitably, the people complained, nothing was done and Rome fell apart. The granting of more rights that directly harm no one should never be stopped in a democratic republic. Discussion is necessary, but to block rights because one group believes it is evil is the antithesis of how a republic should work.
If society seeks to contain the rights of some, it is only a matter time before society moves to contain the rights of all.
So it is written, so do I see it.