Comments on: Now is the time to “Rally” behind SB 27

By: Perry

Perry — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:44:16 +0000

I guess this is the real David Anderson. David, I am just amazed at your position on this issue. How sad!

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:38:14 +0000

Maybe you should check Black’s instead my friend.

By: Perry

Perry — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:13:41 +0000

Rick, you need to check your Webster’s, David too. Nowhere in the meaning of the word “marriage” is the meaning you just assigned to it, nor the meaning David has invented as well.

With you two guys it’s all about ideology, otherwise known as religion. I don’t buy it!

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:06:05 +0000

“And Rick, a civil union ceremony would choose the words appropriate to the occasion..”

Fine, but that isn’t marriage. Words have meaning, and a marriage requires a husband and a wife.

By: TPN

TPN — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:37:54 +0000

6 to 100 thousand years of human custom

LOL. Let’s just say I wouldn’t hire you as an accountant or a statistician, David.

By: Perry

Perry — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:17:51 +0000

And David, be grateful that you were not born homosexual, otherwise you would feel the wrath of the David Anderson’s of this world. Is this the real David Anderson speaking here?

By: Hube

Hube — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:55:06 +0000

Perry: Pot meet Kettle, eh?

By: Perry

Perry — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:42:33 +0000

You still have not answered the fundamental question, David!

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:41:53 +0000

We have prevailed. We will win every ballot vote put up anywhere in the nation.

We have showed that if marriage is anything then it is nothing. It is a unique institution which predated government and radically redefining it demands overwhelming evidence of a public good. It is not about the good of the many, but the feelings of a few. The quote I gave by the chief justice of Quebec illustrates this fact. It is about remaking the social order not equal rights.

The truth is Tim and I don’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on those who would change 6 to 100 thousand years of human custom. The same people who told us no fault divorce would be fine are the same ones telling us that redefining marriage is great. There is not a bit of proof to support them. There are preliminary statistics from the few places which have started experimenting with gay marriage. Rates of marriage are down and divorce is up. Illegitimacy is up, and family stability is down. I admit it is too early to tell so why don’t we wait 50 years and i will discuss it then.

By: Perry

Perry — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:32:19 +0000

David, the argument you folks are making is that allowing gay marriage destroys traditional marriage between a man and a woman. You say that traditional marriage must be protected.

You have been asked numerous times to delineate exactly how traditional marriage would be destroyed; neither you or Tim have answered that question, because you have no answer to it.

The examples you just gave do not address this question either. They are merely anecdotal incidences in which there is a dispute involving other issues having nothing to do with destroying traditional marriage.

Thus, you have not prevailed in this debate, because you have not answered the fundamental question raised by your own objection to gay marriage.