US Politics

Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

Shares


Reading Andrew Sullivan this morning, I came across a reference to an organization calling itself the Ruth Institute, which offers a pamphlet offering “77 incontrovertible statements in support of Natural Marriage, all of which defend the premise without delving into ‘religious’ themes.”

I guess the entire organization confuses me. The Ruth Institute’s motto is “One Man for One Woman for Life”,” which suggests that the the leaders of the organization may want to read the Book of Ruth one more time. When I teach it each year in AP Literature (gasp!), I’m pretty sure that Ruth marries two men during her life, Mahlon and Boaz. This isn’t a just a pedanticsampleLrg point—the fact that men and women often remarry after the death of a spouse invalidates many of the “non-religious” claims against gay marriage the site offers.

What’s most stunning about these arguments is not even their vapidity, which this sample ably illustrates. An underlying disregard for reality best characterizes the claims. In a world without divorce, abuse, death, sterility, autonomy, free thought, same sex orientation or logic, some of these claims might have merit, but outside of that world, there’s little defending a document that argues “Same sex marriage routinely places biological parents on the same legal footing with adults who have no genetic relationship to the child.” Damn adoption!

Reading through this site, I was reminded of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in 2009 which guaranteed parental rights for gay parents. Justice Nelson wrote in his concurrence:

Regrettably, this sort of discrimination is both socially acceptable and politically popular. Sadly, this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love who they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children – all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals.”

That those opposed to equal marriage rights are increasingly moving to hide their bigotry under the guise of “rational” arguments “about the children” rather than overt hostility demonstrates the continued movement forward in this country and even this state towards true equal protection under the law and ironically, just how irrational and harmful to children these policies are.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is a seventeen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

89 Comments

  • I agree. It’s just an intel design kind of a lie designed to cover up the religious/superstitious underpinnings.

  • I fail to see any logic to your arguments.  Because something is possible, it does not make something the best possible state.  Because I am destine to someday die, does that make my death good, or the best state for me  (don’t answer that).  The facts of life, (remember that class in kindergarten?) require a male and a female for reproduce, and children naturally have two parents.  I have a mom and a dad don’t you?  If my mom had decided she was gay and left for another woman, my dad is still my dad and my mom is still my mom genetically.  Even in adoption we properly speak of “birth mother’, and mother.   Anyways, if you can’t read, please don’t start call a position you oppose irrational and harmful to children.  Seems you have a very closed minded position.  

    But if it makes you feel better….Sorry to interrupt. 

    • Where did you go to kindergarten? I never  had a facts of life class in my kindergarten. Neither did my kids.

      You must have gone to some strange kindergarten.

      Gay people getting married won’t change the fact that you have a mom and dad, Timt.
      Don’t worry. Be happy.

      i see the logic in Don’s piece. Even if you don’t, timt.

  • Sorry, it was the facts of life, I forgot, it was “Timmy has Two Mommies” that they read to me.  I’ve been confused ever since.

    Help my stupid content noggin out here.  Isn’t the author saying, “because of death, adoption, sexual deviants, and divorce we should set aside natural marriage and embrace what ever works for the parents”?

    I’m probably missing something here.  I had problems in kindergarten you know.

  • No, I’m saying that the arguments advanced in the 77 Truths are nonsense, unless you want to deny childbearing and marriage to a huge percentage of our population.

    Those against gay marriage should just stick with hate and fear.

    • Do those who argue against the equivalence of natural marriage and any other other relationship are not fearful haters, but simply pointing out the obvious that natural marriage is unique in producing the next generation.  

      Just as an example.  Only one “parent” in a sexually deviant relationship can be genetically related to the child.  The other would be a step parent at best.  Don’t you believe that it men and women are different, and that male and female of our species are necessary for procreation?  Should this natural bond between child and parent be severed because one of the parents prefers sexual deviant behavior?  I for one don’t understand why a we need to honor the parents deviant sexual desires, while we deny the children the benefits of a natural family.  

      People cannot deny childbearing and marriage to anyone it seems, but nature does. The parts just don’t fit, and neither do the chromosomes.

  • The only thing “deviant” in this conversation is your irrational hatred of people who are gay. Somehow, I think the religious right might want to message test a bit better–telling people they can’t adopt because if nature and chromosomes get in the way one can’t have children might not play too well.

    • What?  You mean that it doesn’t take a man and a woman to have a baby!  Who is being illogical here?  Are you denying this basic fact of life?  A man and a man cannot have a child together.  That’s nature.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Do you deny this?

  • Can a couple unable to conceive a baby love and care for it? Yes. Can a stepmother love her child? Yes. Can two men love a child? Yes.

    You’re not making an argument that matters.

    • If I am not making an argument that matters, why don’t you just agree to such an obvious fact and we can move on.

    • So you deny that every living human on earth has a natural mother and father!  Wow.  I think you have exposed your own folly.

      • So you don’t believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, who according to legend had a supernatural father.

        You would deny him his right to Jesus since he isn’t the natural father? Since virgin birth isn’t considered natural now, is it? I mean, you weren’t virgin birthed, were you?

    • When someone is afraid to admit an obvious fact, because they fear losing an argument, there position is exposed as a false because it must be based on a false supposition contrary to fact.  If you are going to write a blog slamming someone’s position, maybe you should actually have an honest discussion with those who oppose your close minded position instead of insinuating that they are bigots and haters.  How about you admit what is obviously true to everyone who will ever read this blog?  Children are only produced in male female relationships.

  • Yes, you are correct that children are produced in male-female relationships. Congratulations. That you can’t understand why that is irrelevant says a great deal about your capacity for argument.

    • Pay attention to all the words.  Children are ONLY produced in male/female relationships.  That make this relationship type unique, and essential to the preservation of humanity, society, government, etc.  Because it is unique and necessary, it would against nature for a government to treat it as equivalent to any other relationship in its laws.  Marriage is the ideal, other relationships are not equivalent to this unique relationship.  We believe that humans are equal, but not all relationships are equal.  Justice demands that all be treated equal under the law, but not all behaviors are protected, and some indeed are declared illegal.  

  • Acting like you’ve scored some great rhetorical point by “proving” that biologically men and women produce children makes this a pointless argument.
    There are plenty of non-traditional families that raise children effectively. If we accept your logic, shouldn’t the state forbid those arrangements as well? And artificial conception? Surogacy?

  • Each exception to the ideal can be argued separately.  The state need not forbid any relationship that is not dealing harm to another, particularly children.   Just remember that the exceptions do have the same relationship as a parent to their own genetic offspring.  Remember we are only arguing in support of natural marriage, as opposed to other relationships.

    Unlike any other relationships, the state has a great benefit in stable marriages, and keeping children with their parents.  Of course there will be exceptions, but equating marriage with these exceptions solves nothing.  You yourself admit that marriage is different, so it needs to be treated differently under law.

  • I have a couple of important points I would like to make about this argument:

    First of all, I was raised by two sets of parents. My biological father and his wife, and my biological mother and her partner. Due to this, I would consider my comments to have a strong validity due to their first hand nature. Please correct me if I am wrong Timt and Poggie in assuming you were not raised by lesbians or two gay dads.  

    Timt, you made a clear point that a child is conceived by a man and a woman; I think no one would object with you. You can re-read Pogie’s arguments which clearly do not go against science. The point he was trying to make, and one I would like to support, is that PARENTING, does not solely depend on a man and a woman. I can attest to that considering my upbringing which was well rounded, loving, and incredibly successful. (Do not attempt in your next blog to belittle my family dynamics. That would be both tacky and ridiculous considering you do not know me and therefore, would only be speculation). 

    Second, on the issue of “parenting,” I can also add daily first hand experiences. I am not only the incredibly devoted aunt of a little boy, but I am also a pseudo mother of 120 students every year, all of which I will add, were created by a man and a woman, and many of which are not being properly “parented” even in their mother/father families married families. I cannot even recount the number of students, who regardless of their “natural” families at home, come unfed, dirty, and unloved. Their biological parents do not PARENT them in a loving and respectful manner no matter how many chromosomes match up. 

    Last point: I would have more respect for your argument, and the argument of your fellow “natural marriage” supports if you would not be hypocritical. If children should be raised by their natural biological parents, then end all adoptions, foster homes, teen centers, and orphanages. Make a stand, and stick to the point. At least then the flaws of your argument could not be so easily pointed out. 

  • Good post.  I think we are now getting closer to the point of confusion in understanding of the author of the post.  I don’t find much to disagree with your posts, and you make the important distinction of terms.  Marriage is not parenting, and parenting is not marriage.  They are two different things.  Although I believe that IDEALLY natural families are durable, loving, and productive, I am completely aware that this does not happen in real life.  But the imperfections of reality do not destroy the ideal, or make it necessary to eliminate it.

    I commend you for your pseudo-parenting of your students.  Good on you, keep it up!   But you of course realize that this good work, is not the same being the actual parent of the child who has the ultimate responsibility for raising their children.  You serve a the honorable purpose of assisting those parents.

    You also have important responsibility to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm.  As a government agent you are required to report abuse, so that their parents can be corrected, or even removed as parent instead of allowing abuse.  Those children properly and legal removed from their parents should then be given to those who can demonstrate better potential as parents.

    Ruth institute and myself do believe that there are evils in the world, and innocent victims need to be protected.  We support adoption for the sake of the child.  I have an adopted child who was removed from her parents because of neglect and abuse, and am raising her as my own child to the best of my ability.  But I would be the first to admit, that she would have been better raised by her own parents, if they had been faithfully committed to each other and to her.

    All this is well and good, but the original post was not about parenting, but about marriage.  Natural marriage is a necessary and beneficial estate in our civilization.  Failures of parents do not negate marriage, nor does failure of marriage negate parenthood.

    Real case here in Montana.  A homosexual couple leaves California taking the 4 year old daughter of one of the couple.  The other still has no parental rights for this child.  But then the parent left in California still has parental rights.  So what is the point?  Parental rights to children are always tied to natural genetic ties.  Only through proper family law can this be changed.   This is the exception not the rule.  If we do the opposite we multiply injustice, and subjugate the majority to a false IDEAL.

    Making any other relationship equivalent to natural marriage denies the unique quality of natural marriage.

    • 40% of children in America are born outside of marriage.  “natural marriage” and “civil marriage” are very different.  Natural marriage involves two people having sex and producing a child, and the father staying around long enough to be reasonably assured that his offspring will survive, then impregnating another female.  That’s totally natural.  What you’re arguing for is a social or religious marriage designed to maximize parenting.  That’s why you can’t separate the two – marriage is no better at producing children than any other unprotected heterosexual intercourse.  What a marriage is for is parenting, and you’ve yet to prove any benefit to parenting by a biologically related hetereosexual couple. 

      • Sorry, I don’t see where I have made that point. I also don’t see where I have mention religion. You describe a possible definition for “natural marriage”, which is foreign to me.  Were is the marriage in this natural “primitive” relationship? Maybe we need to define marriage so that we know we are talking about the same thing.

        So, as I don’t think I need to make the case that there is a benefit for parenting by a “biologically related heterosexual couple”, since being biologically related determines whose child is whose.

        I can still make that case easily.  Ask any three year old child not yet subjected to the indoctrination of “Timmy has two Mommies” whether they have a mommy and daddy, or two mommies, and you will get the facts of life, which of course the children prefer.  Does what they want matter?

        • Okay Tim, pretend I didn’t say marriage.  That’s a natural child-producing relationship.  A marriage is not necessary for producing a child; thus, your ‘birds and bees’ argument goes straight out the window. 

          Also, no child at three can tell you who their biological parents are.  They can tell you who parents them, which should give you a good idea which is more important.  Until that child learns some basic biology, they won’t have any idea why a mommy and a daddy are necessary, and if raised with two parents of the same sex, they will not inherently notice that something is ‘amiss’ until they make friends who have two parents of different sexes. 

          • The birds and bees argument is not that marriage produces children, but birds and bees produces the child/parent relationship, and the legal responsibility to care for that child.  My opinion based on my experience is that raising that child will be easier, more enjoyable, and better for the child if there is a strong life long commitment, set by a legal contract and oaths called marriage.  But I am not arguing that point.  

            My point is simple, please try to address it and not keep throwing in red herrings!  

            In a same sex relationship only one of the parents will have legal responsibility for the child, because the other parent of the opposite sex still has parenting responsibility.  In this way, same sex couples relationship can never be equivalent to natural marriage and must not be addressed by the same laws as would happen if we redefined legal marriage.

            Please address this point, and I hate the smell of herring.

          • “In a same sex relationship only one of the parents will have legal
            responsibility for the child, because the other parent of the opposite
            sex still has parenting responsibility.”

            Legal responsibility is determined by the laws.  It is my understanding that lawfully adoptive parents have the same legal rights as biological ones.  Thus, if one parent is biological and the other adoptive, legally there need be no difference; the child doesn’t even need to know until they are older.  The only hindrance here is the law, which my make it difficult to secure legal status as parents to a homosexual couple.  But that is an argument to change the law, not an argument against allowing same-sex families. 

          • Slightly off point again.  Everyone on this website seems to jump to conclusions!  (including myself!)

            I am not arguing against same sex families.  They already exist, and just like single parent homes from divorce or death of spouse, they are not really marriages in the same sense as natural marriage.

            You are right on point when you say you need to change the laws! That is what I am arguing against!

            Why?  Because natural marriage is a unique and foundational relationship that requires a specific set of laws to prevent injustice to parent and child.

            Now here is where I am open to suggestion.  How can you change the marriage laws in a way the strengthens protection of the marriage contract, and defends innocent children while equating homosexual and natural marriage.   This may be possible, but every way I look at it something will be lost in marriage because it is unique, and different from a same sex couple because the parents can and do typically share together mutually related children.

  •  Using Timt’s argument obese people are creating the same hell he describes for same-sex parents. States should prohibit people with BMIs over 26 from having children and those couples should be chemically sterilized.

  • Pogie, I truly cannot convey the amount of respect you deserve for patience in the face of incredible ignorance.

    TimT, you proceed from a completely flawed premise into a circular argument based on a term that neither you nor the Ruth Institute ever adequately establish as fact.

    First, you take your tiny plastic hammer and beat Pogie around the ankles with a ‘scientific fact’ that isn’t fact at all.  Science dictates that zygotes form in the proper unison of genetically compatible chromosomes, naturally occurring in cells of unique type.  Those cells naturally are formed in the male and female of a given species.  That’s the simple science.  Notice, there is no requirement for “man” and “woman” (uniquely human ideological gender constructs), nor is there any requirement or scientific foundation for marriage, also a human construct.  Other primate species are sexually polyamorous.  In truth we are as well, but we have created deeply held societal constraints against such behavior, most often as an expression of property.  Belief in such an illusion is so deeply held that you proceed from such a fantasy immediately into an argument which proves its own conclusion with nothing more than the axiom you assume at the beginning.

    There is no such thing as “natural marriage”.  You, and the Ruth Institute, have taken a poor understanding of science as an axiom by which you can only prove the very axiom you begin with.  You argue that nature dictates a male impregnate a female, and assert the primacy of a social coupling based on that biological ‘fact’.  That’s an assumption that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.  Modern science shows quite clearly that sperm can be introduced to an egg without any societal coupling of donors at all.  As many conservatives are more than happy to suggest, that is unnatural or “deviant” as you would have it, even if it happens in the natural manner that procreation often takes.  To say that’s “unnatural” is the same as to claim that humans cannot fly.  Yet we do that with regularity.  If that’s the Medieval sensibility you wish to bring to the argument, then say so.  You are promoting a lie. 

    Furthermore, as you yourself admit, there is no ‘natural’ compulsion to benefit offspring based on genetic tie.  It serves your argument well to ignore that biology is not sociology, but the more learned will see that lie for what it is.  Simply and politely put, parenting is not boinking*.  That is the great flaw in your circular reasoning.  Boinking can produce a baby.  Good parenting produces a child that grows into a healthy and productive member of our society and continues the species.  Those two things have nothing to do with each other.  If boinking is a requirement for “natural marriage”, then there’s one helluva lot of people out there who will be surprised to find themselves “married”.  You’ve assumed your conclusion based on the very assumption from which you argue.  Boinking that produces a small primate does not mean that “marriage” between those who boink is somehow natural or better for a child, beyond the boinking of course.

    The final flaw in what passes for your reason, Timt, is the idea that alternatives to what you see as “natural marriage” “denies the unique quality” of such a human coupling.  You claim this, and never establish it’s truth at all.  A man and a woman (gender constructs) are not demeaned at all for raising children just because a woman and a woman do it every bit as well.  The only way traditional marriage could be demeaned by accepting non-traditional parenting is if it could be proven that non-traditional parents are incapable of raising children (they’re not), or if you hold traditional couples as somehow (morally) superior to others.  That latter would be a religious stance, not a scientific one.

    • Wow!  So whose primate is it?  If my teacher takes my child home because they think they are the parent I am going to call the police and someone is going to jail for kidnapping!

      I don’t think I understand anything you said.  What I think you are saying is that children can be produced without the sexual act, therefore natural marriage doesn’t exist as the norm.

      Or are you saying that the genes from two men or two women can be used to make a baby through science, therefore this should happen and is good for rich people, or those who are able to shag the government funding for such a procedure?

      • If you can’t understand what I’ve written, you’re in no position to critique it, are you?

        I can’t save you from your own ignorance. That task lies with you, and you alone.

        • You would make a terrible teacher. Any you will never win over others to your superior position unless you learn how to communicate with other primates.  

          Maybe you lonely in your intellect!  Maybe you just baffle with bull.  Anyways, I am sure other understand what I am saying, and decide for themselves.

          • TYPING TOO FAST!  redo:

            You would make a terrible teacher.  Anyway you will never win over others to your superior position unless you learn how to communicate with other primates.

            Maybe you are lonely in your intellect!  Maybe you just baffle with bull.  Anyways, I am sure others understand what I am saying and will decide for themselves.

            (My humble apologies for all typos!)

          • Actually, I was and remain (within the venue of my work) pretty damned good at teaching.  You, however, flee right back into fallacy in order to save face, as you see it.  I have no interest in teaching you.  You’re an idiot, and this is a blog.  My interest is in mocking you by waiving the truth under your nose and watching you wail and scream about it, Ad Hominem being the last recourse of fools.  Others do understand what you’re saying, and if this thread is any indication, they are laughing at you just as I am.  What matters isn’t that anyone understands what you’re saying.  It’s that they understand what I, Pogie and others are saying, and you clearly don’t.

          • Just being a content idiot!  Ignorance is bliss!  Now I think I will just boink the primate standing next me. 

            Gender is a construct!  There is no male or female.  It is all the same.  Do you even grasp how silly and pompous you are?

            There is another thread about what is wrong in education today, and I think this thread has answered that question.  I do not need to speculate on what would happen if a teacher abducted my child.  They already have! And they use the force of law to protect them, complain how they aren’t appreciated, and want more pay and benefits claiming that without it our children will not be “educated”.

            The truth is the teacher and the parent are living in two different worlds.  There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two, and teachers expect parents to pay them to teach their kids values contrary to what the parents would have them live by. This is indoctrination not education!  Utter foolishness.

            I feel like an Indian parent whose child has entered the boarding schools to be forced to hate my parents, my heritage, and my religion!

            And you have the gall to demand a paycheck from my tax dollars!

          • “And you have the gall to demand a paycheck from my tax dollars!”

            I do?  That would be news to me and my employer.  I get none of your tax dollars, kitten.

            “Ignorance is bliss!”

            I think we understand that about you.

            “Now I think I will just boink the primate standing next me.”

            That would most likely be called rape.  Is that an admission?  Inquiring minds want to know …

            “Gender is a construct!  There is no male or female.”

            No.  Apparently you can’t read.  Man and Woman are societal constructs.  Male and female are biology.  That you then claim them as the same is pig ignorant.  Why are you pig-ignorant?  Are you illiterate?  Is that your problem?

            “The truth is the teacher and the parent are living in two different worlds.”

            The overwhelming majority of teachers are parents, moron.  They don’t live in different worlds.  There is this world and the one you create in your head.  How stupid are you?

            “There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two, and
            teachers expect parents to pay them to teach their kids values contrary
            to what the parents would have them live by.”

            Prove it.  I dare you, coward.  Prove your claim.  Prove it.

            “I feel like an Indian parent whose child has entered the boarding schools
            to be forced to hate my parents, my heritage, and my religion!”

            I don’t give a crap about your fee-fees.  Why should I, or anyone?  And what does any of your BS here have to do with the topic of this post?  Nothing.  That’s right.  Nothing.  You hate gay folks, just as Pogie said you did.  You hate teachers.  You just hate.  Well, kitten, no one here gives a damn about your BS.

          • Also, comparing your inability to shelter your children from threats to their inherited ignorance and biases to the intentional destruction of dozens of languages, cultures and religions is not super classy.  

          • STRATEGY:  Ignore the points, attack the character of the person.  Belittle his feelings.  Make him less of a person.  Group together and gang up on him.   Sounds a little “Demonic” to me.

          • Tim, I pretty much decimated every point you tried to make, with no response from you save attack against me.  There is no such thing as “natural marriage”.  Prove that there is before whining that others haven’t completely crushed you in debate.  We really kinda have …

          • Ya know, I was trying to be polite, but I just can’t stomach this crap.  Your pathetic wailing about how GBLT persons can’t be optimal parents is precisely attacking the character of these people.  You are belittling their feelings and assuming that they are less than a person.  You completely disgust me with your mewling about how others are being mean to you when you’ve already relegated others to second class ‘personhood’.  People who do such are less than a person, and that would be you.

            I would enjoy nothing more than seeing a gay parent of a proud and successful child spit on you.  They wouldn’t do that, of course, because they are better people than you ever will be.

          • The black and white group think of this discussion is quite obvious.  I am sorry that you think that I feel that anyone is less than a person.  I don’t believe this, and haven’t said this.  You are simply attributing those thoughts to me.  It’s called “mind reading” and is bad communication.  You always assumed that I had the same argument you heard before.  Well maybe I do, but you didn’t make any points that I didn’t already agree with, but you assumed that didn’t.

            I really don’t think that any of you have listened to me at all.  You claim to be all for diversity, yet when someone tries to communicate another view which is counter to your group think, it is as if he is speaking another language.

            Disagreement is not hate, it is called divergent thinking, which helps is problem solving.  I was hoping to see another side, and another opinion, but instead I learned nothing new.  Liberals debate by giving out labels like hater, and bigot, and close there ears and eyes.

            I was not interested in winning, but in problem solving.  But obviously the only problem is me. I am a subhuman because you labeled me without listening.  You assumed the worst of me and my character, and my motives without even letting me express my real views.

            I don’t fit in your boxes.  You need to work on this if you really want to grow and have a greater impact.  There are real problems in peoples lives, they need real solutions.  They don’t come easy.  But then, you are adults, and probably know that already.

            I’m not worried about you becoming some huge political force.  You are too dogmatic to form coalitions, and your opinions are far from the mainstream.

          • I have asked you, many times, to establish any foundation for the illusion you claim as “natural marriage”.  Through several comments, you have failed.  It is a fiction, much like the Jaberwocky.  It doesn’t exist, just as I’ve argued.  What is “black and white” here is that you haven’t the first clue about what is real.  You blame others for not accepting your fantasy, your fiction, as true.  It isn’t true.  To the delusional, many things are black and white indeed.  It is the inevitable result of your paranoia that others disagree with you because they don’t see where you are deluded.  You really are deluded, and we really do see it.

        • Rob, you’re reply to Timt reminds me of a quotation I read recently:

          “I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.”

  • I had a long eviscerating post, but it won’t appear.  So I’ll just leave the obvious:

    “And you have the gall to demand a paycheck from my tax dollars!”

    I do?  That would come as a surprise to my employers. I would come as a surprise to me as well.  Prove your claim.

    • Bully?  With what have I threatened you.  What power do I have over you?  I come only armed with a reasonable argument.

      Help!  I’m being bashed by a mob!

      • Your argument isn’t reasonable, nor supportable.  I’ve asked you to support it, but you flee directly into Ad Hominem (and Straw Men) while accusing others of using such against you.  Many here have attempted to engage you, but it remains kind of pointless having a battle of whits with the unarmed …

        • I simply disagree with you.  Therefore you label me.  You don’t know anything about me.  I could be someone of very great prestige and academic accolades.  I could be a war hero who defends you to have these thoughts.  I could be a great orator, and with exceptionally high I.Q.  I could be a scientist who works curing the cancer in your body.  I could be a congressman, lawyer or judge.  It doesn’t really matter.  In your own man I myself was a straw man to easily push aside.  A hardened heart is hard to reach.

    • Why yes I did!  Paying attention to details you will notice that the word “demonic” is in quotation marks.  “Demonic” is the title of Ann Coulters latest book about how liberals use mob tactics instead of reasoned discussion to win.  It was all over the news this morning.

  • More subtle rhetoric from the bright intellectual lights of the conservative movement.

    I suspect that Mr. Coulter’s book was only “all over the news” on the channel you watch.

  • This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your excellent post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

  • Can I just say what a aid to search out somebody who truly is aware of what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know how one can bring a difficulty to light and make it important. Extra people have to learn this and understand this facet of the story. I cant imagine youre no more widespread since you definitely have the gift.

  • I am usually to running a blog and i really admire your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your site and hold checking for brand new information.

  • Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to mention that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your weblog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing on your feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!

  • Have you noticed the news has changed its approach recently? What once seemed like a never discussed issue has become more prevelant. Frankly it is about time we see a change.

  • *The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I mean, I know it was my choice to read, but I actually thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you could fix if you werent too busy looking for attention.

  • Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic however I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa? My blog goes over a lot of the same topics as yours and I believe we could greatly benefit from each other. If you happen to be interested feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Fantastic blog by the way!

  • I was more than happy to seek out this web-site.I needed to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I undoubtedly having fun with every little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.

  • I was very happy to search out this net-site.I wanted to thanks on your time for this glorious learn!! I positively enjoying every little little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you weblog post.

  • I was very happy to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this wonderful read!! I positively having fun with every little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you blog post.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: