Five Things Destroying Traditional Marriage (Besides the Gays)

Comments

This is one major reason Portland is in trouble. These type of completely biased articles that practically praise the fact that traditional marriages are in trouble do nothing to help society. If Sarah would do a little research, she would find that communities with strong traditional family populations do the best. When you chase away families, as Portland liberals have done for too far long now, then you get selfish people who are uninterested in supporting schools or parks and instead support their numerous addictions. Sarah seems absolutely hostile toward traditional families. Families start and frequent businesses. They are the most healthy segment of society. When you look at gay men and the FACT that they are 50 times more likely than a heterosexual male to spread HIV and AIDS, then they have no business having a voice in redefining a tradition they DID NOT CREATE. Lesbians support their brother's extremely dangerous lifestyle and promiscuity with inaction and apathy. I will support civil unions with all the bells and whistles and that's it. Back off the negative slamming of marriage by people like Sarah Mirk and I bet those numbers dramatically change. Marriage isn't a joke and it isn't for alternative sexuality practitioners to redefine for people who defined the tradition. The traditional family. Civil unions are the only compromise here and I will never vote for gay marriage knowing just how dishonest the liberal zealots have become regarding the matter. Bring on 2014 Basic Rights Oregon. People like me are sick of the lies. You want to attack marriage because you hate religion, then you can go somewhere else. I won't be voting for it and I will do my best to get the truth out there.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Wow, I don't know where you got that at all. If this article was hostile towards anything, it was hostile towards dysfunctional marriage, where people are bound together not because they want to create a loving, stable family unit, but rather out of shame and desperation. Truly, is that version of marriage that anyone really wants to promote? If you genuinely care about marriage as an institution, you should support the idea that it is something people "commit to when they actually want to, not out of a sense of obligation or necessity," as Sarah said. I'd rather have fewer marriages that actually come from honest, deliberate decisions to create families rather than more marriages borne from social pressure or financial necessity. The latter may be "tradition," but it's certainly one that doesn't make for strong families, strong communities, or happy human beings.

Laura Hudson on July 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM

At this point I have 9 dislikes and no credible responses. Could it be nobody can dispute my post? I'm not here to lie to you people. I want answers. Like why people who think like Sarah Mirk think it's ok to taunt people who believe in traditional marriage. Like why liberals want to chase families away from Portland. Like why liberals didn't recall a politician that lied to get elected because of an inappropriate relationship with a minor of the same sex. Like why our schools are in serious trouble and our parks have closed almost all the facilities because of budgetary mismanagement.

I want answers. I don't hate you, libbies. Just give me answers. Or at the very least, open up the dialogue instead of lying to people or making excuses for those who do lie to all of us.. I want my city to thrive. I want peace between all communities. That will only happen if people stop lying and get on with the business of being fucking bad ass again. Please tell me why I'm wrong.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

@stjohnrules--this country and its systems have been broken since infancy. one day majority hindsight will view your words the way this country once saw "I'm not down with slavery or anything, but blacks and whites shouldn't mix". actually for most of us your comment already sounds ugly.

on July 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM

@stjohnsrules

The reason no one is offering a credible counterpoint is because you don't understand what the author is saying. The only difference between what you think and what she thinks is that you somehow think LGBT "influence" has negative effects; you're drawn a bizarre but all-too-common us/them line instead of realizing hey regardless of sexuality, gender, preference, etc. we're all part of the SAME community and the author also wants funding for schools, parks, etc. As for the spread of HIV, well, you should probably brush on some history. Regardless of whether or not something is a fact, the reasons for that are usually much, much more complex than the alleged fact itself.

on July 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Thank you for the response, Laura, but I'm not afraid to admit you might be a little naive about the intentions of articles such as these. They promote heterosexual marriage failure so gay marriage can pass. I noticed you danced around the subject in your response. Trust me, I'm not trying to be hostile toward you. I just want answers. This type of mindset is absolutely destroying our community. Liberals have become so greedy and selfish it is horrendous. We are now not "Keeping Portland Weird". We are now "Keeping Families Away". Government mismanagement and lies. No one is being held accountable. Why? Similar ideologies? I call bullshit. This type of article is absolutely hostile to families that might otherwise relocate here because it sends a message. We are a liberal dictatorship. We are not interested in other opinions about how to fix things because it doesn't fit our strict position on ________________. Liberals now delight in the division. Fuck the excuses. It's time for liberals to piss or get off the pot. Do something positive for ALL OF US or step aside to give someone else a chance. That goes for local, state and national levels. And leave marriage alone for the traditional families, not for people who think it's trendy to play house. That goes for single people from any sexual preference, including heterosexuals.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM

People don't engage you in discussion, SJR, because you are clearly a mentally unstable lunatic. Case in point, your repeated assertion that supporting gay marriage means hating religion. When I responded that I am a Christian and my church not only supports gay marriage but also ordains gay and lesbians pastors, you simply called me a liar.

There's just no point in arguing with crazy trolls on the internet. For all of our sakes, I just hope you get the help you need soon. And I will pray for you. Believe it or not, that stuff works.

Drunk & Write on July 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM

@gay, maybe: Commit to a lifestyle already. Also, comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is absurd. I have ZERO problem with interracial marriage because it can promote a strong family unit. Good luck trying to make me look racist with your lies, though. Trust me, I'm much smarter than that.

@lamaga: I never started the us vs. them mentality. IMHO, this has everything to do with the gay community exacting revenge for being demonized by religious people. They think if they can destroy traditional marriage, it will be payback for all the years of being ostracized by a conservative society. I won't ever support one group attacking another no matter what their ideology is, conservative or liberal. If we're all a part of the same community, why are liberals so hostile toward people who don't share their views? One can only look around at the comment sections here to see I'm not kidding. Part of successful unity, once again, IMHO, is to be fair to everyone, not cause conflict and division in society. Gay marriage is going to far. The gay community COULD settle for civil unions with all the benefits married people get. But they don't. They won't. And I think that is antagonistic and wrong. That is why I won't vote for it come 2014. Basic Rights Oregon can knock it off already.

Thanks for being respectful, people. I mean no harm. I want this kind of honest dialogue.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

How does a gay couple getting married affect heterosexuals? It seems that legalizing gay marriage does more to benefit "ALL OF US" (as it helps homosexuals and does nothing negative to heterosexuals), than banning it does (as that hurts homosexuals and does nothing to heterosexuals). If you think marriage holds value only because gays are excluded from it, I think you need to re-think your views of marriage. I for one can say that homosexuals in no way affect my heterosexual relationship.

on July 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

She didn't praise traditional marriage failing. She's saying we're getting married for different reasons. And by your logic lesbians must be SAINTS since they adopt the unwanted babies and have a very low rate of HIV transmission. Communities with 'high rates traditional marriage do the best', how exactly? More homeowners, higher salaries, overall sense of well being? Our FEDERAL spending on Education is 4%, parks are 2% and our war spending is 26%!! That wasn't the 'liberal homos' voting for THAT ratio. Stop watching Faux news. Although, I am going to start calling myself an 'alternative sexuality practitioner.'

When I google your assertion of gay males being 50 times more likely to spread HIV/AIDS, I come up with a lot of bullshit hate sites about the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, but in reality while according to the CDC the numbers for gay men ARE disproportional to heterosexual HIV transition it's not 50 TIMES, it's double. Heterosexual Black women also have a disproportional HIV/AIDS transmission rates, about the same as gay Hispanics. Are we going to deny Black women the right to marry based on their HIV transmission rates? I'm sure we would if you had your utopia.

P.S. in Native societies (OH NO, MORE BROWN PEOPLE!) '2 spirits' were accepted and could get married, often were the shamans of the village and performed the weddings for the villages. So yeah we kind of DID help create marriage.

Austin on July 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

@D&W. YOU are hostile toward me because of my views. As far as your comment goes, I never called you a liar. I simply suggested you could be lying. Since there is no credible way to check your religious affiliation then I cannot simply accept your statements at face value. Hostility toward me doesn't make you right. I want to make an actual difference. I've been critical toward people who I believe are doing harm to Portland. But that doesn't mean that I believe people can't change. Not for me and my consistent challenges, but their neighbors with families. For the old black woman on Mississippi who has been taken advantage of by liberal extremists. For the gay community. For the tweekers in Felony Flats. For the homeless heroin addicts downtown. For the gang members in NE. For the people who need jobs. For the kids who are lacking a proper school environment. We have serious challenges that are not being met because people want to elect trendy token politicians who have their head shoved so far up their own ass they smell their own breath.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM

@domdom :"How does a gay couple getting married affect heterosexuals?"

I explained that fully in my first post. Please read.

@Austin. I just looked at the updated numbers and not much has changed. This is from THE ACTUAL CDC SITE. In case I wasn't being clear:

Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all races
continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. CDC’s most recent data show that between 2006 and 2009,
the number of new infections that occur each year increased among young MSM — driven by an alarming 48 percent
increase among young, black MSM 13 to 29 years old. These data clearly show the urgent need to expand access to proven
HIV prevention programs for gay and bisexual men, and to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
1 The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).
t While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).

Don't sit there and call me a liar. I just fucking burned you. If you are only interested in promoting your dangerous lifestyle, then you won't win. Now, how about a suggestion to stop the high transmission of AIDS for gay men? That is a solution I would be interested in. Because I care about everyone in the community, even if they have lost their way.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

"You're a liar, D&W."
Posted by stjohnsrules on 6/27/2012 at 4:50 PM

"As far as your comment goes, I never called you a liar."
Posted by stjohnsrules on 7/17/2012 at 12:39 PM

I suppose we can agree that one of us is a documented liar.

Drunk & Write on July 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Why don't you post the actual thread? D&W? You have something to hide?

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM

People like D&W want to demonize me for not following the liberal extremist mindset. They attack without any good cause and yet never offer any solutions or compromise, as I have. Civil Unions are the answer. I would support civil unions with all the public benefits afforded to married people. Does that make me a "homophobe" or a "bigot"? I don't hate gay people and I want Portland to be a better place for everyone, not just for the ideological zealots bent on shutting down the dialogue. That is what the stupid among us do best. Shout down the other side until everyone is forced to pick a side. No one is going to force me to think a certain way. No matter how hard they try.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

@stjohnrules: I did read your first post, and it does not answer that question. Homosexuals won't stop being gay because gay marriage is illegal. If your HIV/AIDS facts are correct, that won't stop because gays can't get married. Gays don't want to get married because they think it's a joke, they want to get married for the same reasons as heterosexuals (and that's a big list of reasons).

The traditional marriage doesn't exist anymore. History will tell you that marriages used to be pre-arranged, were not established on a foundation of love, and were done for money and status. Women were married from puberty and were having babies every year if healthy enough. Polygamy existed in numerous societies throughout history. People like me (a heterosexual) helped create traditional marriage no more than modern homosexuals. Sarah's whole point is that "traditional marriage" is changing because of factors unrelated to homosexuals. Gays have nothing to do with the fact that I am cohabitating instead of marrying. I would blame that on birth control and women's economic growth (as Sarah mentions), not because gays are marrying.

People used to make the exact same argument you are right now but with relation to interracial marriages - it wasn't "traditional", it was ruining society, etc. History disproved them as it will disprove you.

Also with regards to your HIV/AIDS facts, African American women are significantly more likely to get AIDS than white women (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/06/aids.usa). Does that mean they should be excluded from marriage? In Swaziland 26% of adults and 50% of adults in their 20s are infected with HIV (http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7365-065.pdf), should they be excluded from marriage? Should white, heterosexual people who dropped out of high school be excluded? There are plenty of heterosexual people who would prove far worse for a neighborhood than a gay couple. Either way, gays wouldn't get "worse" by your measures because they're suddenly allowed to marry.

on July 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

@stjohnsrule "Civil Unions are the answer. I would support civil unions with all the public benefits afforded to married people."

Then why ban gay marriages??? It will make no difference to society or to your life or the lives of other heterosexuals. For people who agree with gay marriage, it's simply a matter of equality and being treated equally. So far you have failed to give me a reason to believe that gays should be denied marriage but allowed "civil unions with all the public benefits afford to married people".

on July 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Ok, you guys. You're not getting the point. I never said gay marriage should be "illegal" or "banned". I'm here defending traditional marriage from attacks by the left. I've provided a tremendous amount of information relating DIRECTLY to your questions. I did answer your questions. I'm not interested in having my posts cherry-picked to further a cause that I can't stand behind. I'm for civil unions because it is a compromise between two very stubborn and divisive groups. I won't ever support redefining one group's traditions to satisfy another group's jealousy and hostility. What's fair is fair. Marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been historically since forever. Dispute that all you want. I know it's common sense. Don't start bringing me articles from some liberal nutcase in the basement of NYU telling me otherwise because, frankly, everyone with half of a brain knows what I'm saying is accurate. I will support civil unions because it is fair and it is the best compromise. Any more and it is a vindictive and greedy attack on the other side.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM

@stjohnsrules--I wasn't actually calling you racist. I was saying your words are as ugly and antiquated as the words of people who thought they weren't racist because they didn't exactly support slavery; however, they were still fucking racist. So you don't think "those dangerous gays" should be interned? Good for you. Being against gay marriage and saying that shit STILL makes you homophobic as fuck.
So, let me break it down for you: you can't be like I care about everyone and equal rights for all but homosexuals lead a dangerous lifestyle and the liberal agenda SOLELY consists of an absurd desire to promote homosexuality. What? Look up equality. One can't promote "equality" within a community but only for certain members.
As for picking a lifestyle, I've done that. Maybe I'm gay. Maybe I'm straight. Maybe I'm neither. The point is, my opinion on the subject has nothing to do with orientation/preference/or even gender.

on July 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Believe me: posting the whole thread doesn't help your case. If you don't remember, it was the rainbow Oreo ad post. You still haven't acknowledged the documented fact that you are a liar.

But we agree on one more thing: you're probably right that people "with half of a brain" likely do think the way you do.

Drunk & Write on July 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Actually marriage has not always been between a "man and a woman". It has frequently been between a man and several women. And for ages it was against a man and a woman of the same race or same religion. Marriage has transformed significantly throughout history (and especially so in the past century).

on July 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM

DUDE. Marriage has not ONLY been between a man and a woman, historically. The penis/vagina combo doesn't OWN marriage, although you are a significant shareholder. Unless you are only counting anglo-saxon Christian heritage and even then there is exceptions. Here's a link that will give you the history of same-sex unions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sa…

Austin on July 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM

@domdom: I directly answered you. You can provide all the historical and geographical information you want but the information you provided is not directly related to any of my points. I'm not talking about what happened 200 B.C. in Indonesia. I'm not talking about incidents of disease in third world countries that don't have even close to the means that the U.S. does when it come to medicine. Traditional marriage certainly does exist. The truth is, gay men have a problem with self-control, namely they would rather put a partner at risk than actually withhold from sexual activity long enough to get regularly tested. I'm not saying it's fair. I didn't make those numbers up. It's fucking staring gay men right in the face like a big boner. That is why I don't think they have any business redefining a monogamous heterosexual tradition. That is why I believe that this is an attack on marriage, not about simple "equality".

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

We're talking about the U.S., Austin. Please try to bring relevance to your responses. I don't need a history lesson for all of humanity. Just my country, where, until VERY recently in our 236 year history, marriage has NATURALLY been defined as being between a man and a woman for the sake of proper family unity and community strength. Families built this nation. I'm not saying gay people are bad or wrong. I'm saying they are now attacking marriage instead of being content with a new tradition, for all of their own, a civil union. That is something I can support because it is a compromise.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Actually marriage has not been that simple throughout our short history. A 1967 Supreme Court decision made interracial marriage fully legal in the US (that directly affected over a dozen states) and polygamy still exists in the US today. Also, marriage in most cultures had been based on religion - should non-religious people not get married?

on July 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM

@STJ: people demonize you because you think like an idiot.

I'm a registered conservative, I own an M14, I wore purity ring, I've never used drugs or pot, I think hippies smell like shit and flaunting your liberal ways is a pain in the ass. I respect morals tied to values, and traditions based on truth. I'm married to a wonderful man, and think our heterosexual marriage is beautiful and sacred.

But guess what! I don't think same sex marriages are wrong! I think putting them down is wrong. Being a discriminative, backwards tool is wrong. Let the homosexuals get married! Let them enjoy it to the fullest, and live a life built on companionship and trust. Let them live free of fear of people like you who can't get over a new way of life.

Statistics won't save you here. Saying gay men have a problem with self control is a grossly skewed statement. Hormones rush through us like crack and make us feel a certain way toward people we are attracted to. It science, not opinion.

Go post your crap on The Onion, because your just a joke.

on July 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

SJR....so... your argument is that gays/liberals/any gay marriage supporters are attacking the institute of marriage and getting away with it because they're claiming it's about equality?
Okay, but then a hell of a lot of people are attacking the institute of marriage. Not just liberals. Not just people who happen to be gay. I would defend you in the sense that a lot of people ran to attack your initial comment and kind of ganged up on you. But I think you really did go off and say some whack things. You totally used S.Mirk's piece as your own vehicle to go off on your own crusade and you're probably totally enjoying this.

on July 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Checking in on this thread... yep, exactly what I thought was going to happen.

cat & beard on July 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Domdom. Look at all of my posts before you debate me again. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Champion: Are you fucking kidding me? Fred Phelps is the person you're describing, not me. You're exactly type of dishonest person I'm talking about above. You want to shout down the other side instead of reaching a compromise. I'm all for civil unions with all the benefits that are afforded to married people. I will not repeat this again. Calling someone an "idiot" when you know that is really not the case only makes you look impotent and desperate. You can do better, Champ. I believe in you.

fyi100: I don't enjoy division in society. I want people to be responsible and peaceful. Sadly, I don't see much of that in our current, fractious society. I'm just raising awareness. Thanks for being civil and an exception.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I have read all of your posts. You said you don't care about what happened in Indonesia in 200 B.C. and that "in our 236 year history, marriage has NATURALLY been defined as being between a man and a woman". I was simply showing you that I was not talking about Indonesia in 200 B.C. and that the definition of marriage has changed radically in throughout our country's short history. In several states, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL up until 1967 - that's incredibly recent and a huge change to the definition of marriage for millions of people. Stop accusing me of not reading through your posts when I am simply countering your statements about traditional marriage.

on July 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

@st.retard: you don't believe in me! You believe nonsense! You don't even know me, how can you say I'm dishonest!

And I'm not aware of this Fred phelps person. I'm aware of you. Being a pain in the ass. On this blog.

But maybe I'm just lying....

on July 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I responded directly to your post above, domdom. I cannot explain my position any more plainly than that. For your interracial comment, did that include gay people? No. It didn't. You know why? Gay marriage is a current issue. The one major defining principle throughout our country's history is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether it was plural or interracial marriage, this cannot be disputed. Try to understand my point. I don't hate anyone. I'm calling bullshit for VERY specific reasons.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

In Future America, gay marriage is a past issue!

SJR, you already established upthread that you are a liar. No one can ever believe anything you say and you have harmed your cause beyond repair. Your dishonesty on this thread will be the final nail in the coffin of traditional marriage. History books will remember the time you forfeited all credibility for defenders of traditional marriage and the gays won. We are all doomed, and it's all your fault.

Drunk & Write on July 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Wow... I cannot believe you are still on this. Why does the term "marriage" still apply after you've changed issues related to race, class, money, religion, etc., but when you throw in gender, it all falls apart? You say that it has always been between a man and a woman, well for ages it was always defined as people from the same religion or of the same race, whatever (and in some place it still is, even in the USA). You think you could have told people in the 60s that interracial marriage was ok because it's still a man and woman? No. This is the exact same argument, just decades later and with gender instead of race. History will look at you the way it looks at racists and sexists.

Also I'm aware that you are for some reason only concentrating on modern USA (which is baffling as that is not where "traditional marriage" stems from), but same-sex marriage has existed in some extent in several societies throughout history (China, Rome, Greece). I am curious as to when exactly you think "traditional marriage" emerged and why you concentrate only on the gender issue and none of the others. For thousands of year things like status or race mattered just as much as gender does now. In fact I would bet money that some people would have been more accepting of a same-sex relationship than an interracial one. I have only studied racial history, however, and not LGBT history, so I cannot provide evidence for that.

domdom on July 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Oops that should have been posted by domdom. It logged me out.

domdom on July 17, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I wonder if SJR has ever been to a gay wedding... Very tasteful.

Or seen a family of two men raise a child. I went to school with a gal who had two moms. She was just as great as the rest of us, if not slightly more educated as far as acceptance and kindness goes.

But WOOOAAAAHHHH watch out! That girl with two moms could be destroying traditions!!! Oh nooooooooooo......

on July 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Go ahead and minimize it, Amy. It does matter to some people. You care about only group in the argument, gay people. You're ignoring the other. People who support heterosexual marriage. Gay people could be content with a civil union but they want marriage because they are getting revenge for being demonized by religious people. I will never support that. All of you are free to do as you please. Just don't expect people to stand behind you as you support such an attack. Seems to be a great deal of attack by the left these days. That isn't progress. That is division. Call it what it really is. All the excuses and justifications won't escape the real truth.

D&W: You didn't establish me as a liar. You didn't provide the context to back up your post. In this thread alone, people can obviously tell I'm not a liar and that I know what I'm talking about, even if they don't agree with me. You're just mad because I've handed you your own ass all over this site and you can't compete intellectually so you lash out the only way you know how, like a petulant, jealous child.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I know you understand THAT. Now follow someone else around before I get mean.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM

SJR: In the name of civility, please amend statements like this - "The truth is, gay men have a problem with self-control, namely they would rather put a partner at risk than actually withhold from sexual activity long enough to get regularly tested." - to include the fact that you aren't stating a simple "truth" and are making a blanket statement about an entire population of people.

I know many gay men who are in monogamous, long-term, disease-free relationships. Your statement is now inaccurate.

Are you friends with any gay people? Or are you just sitting in your basement analyzing your statistics?

ROM on July 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM

The acceptance you are suggesting isn't a two way street, Champ. What about the people who support traditional marriage? They don't matter? Nooooo. They are dismissed as bigots or homophobes and that is lazy and fucking disgusting considering gay people know all about being called names throughout history. Now gay people and their supporters can sit there and call people names while cowering behind political correctness? You're not proposing anything that is fair. Civil unions are fair. Gay people did not create marriage and given the high incidence of HIV and AIDS transmission in the gay community it is a FACT that gay men are not really interested in commitment at all nor are they really very interested in anyone else's opinion. They want what they want and fuck all until they get it. This isn't about equality. This is an ideological hostile takeover of a long-standing tradition in America to get back at religious people who have demonized them throughout recent history. I'm not saying religious people are right and sure as hell won't ever send a check to Westboro Baptist but I also will never send a check to Basic Rights Oregon for being such negative and divisive neighbors. Come 2014, I will vote against gay marriage. Put civil unions out there instead and I'll support it.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I'm sitting in my living room watching people like you avoid the truth, ROM. I don't say that to be insulting. When you have statistics like I provided above and yes, I do know gay people, both male and female, it paints a very telling picture. Ignore the facts all you want. I know a gay male who is dying of AIDS. He lives near Lloyd Center. Anyone in the gay community will now be able to tell what I'm talking about and what I'm saying is actually the truth. That area is predominately gay. I know the person because he is in my extended family by marriage and I have visited him on a few occasions. It is sad, certainly. But he was absolutely promiscuous. There are other studies available out there that show I'm not lying. I have no ambition to mislead people here. I'm sick of watching people lie to each other. All I want is the truth. Truth is gay people shouldn't be dictating to people or redefining a tradition they did not create. They can have civil unions. That is fair to gay people and traditional marriage supporters.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM

So your traditional marriage is only in US history? Ok, I'm done.

Austin on July 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The one time I don't get in to remind people not to feed the troll, he shits all over the place. Can we please start banning people if they act like this? I'm pretty sick of hearing that all gay people have AIDS and only straight, married people start and patronize businesses. This guy is worse than useless.

eldepeche on July 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I don't think people choose to be gay or fight for equality to get back another people.

on July 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It would make for one boring comment section if everyone just agreed with each other.

Spindles on July 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Do we not all agree that "gay people shouldn't be able to get married because families start and frequent businesses" is a fucking stupid thing to say?

eldepeche on July 17, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Eldepeche: Calling people a troll is useful? That's all you ever say, man. And here's a tip. I know we're in Portland and liberal views are the dominant force here. But you have no fucking right to tell me to shut up or insult me the way you do just because you disagree with me. You follow me around yet you never have an opinion aside from attacking me. That is why I cannot stand people like you. Get a fucking opinion or maybe you're the one who needs to be banned. I will never be forced to think anything, regardless of how low people will go to that end. I've made my point here and I've responded in kind to those with whom I have interacted. When it degrades to simple-minded insults and innuendo, trust me, no one wins.

Champ: Here's some advice. Lose the whole "equality" thing. We are waaaaay beyond that now.

Austin: I'm sorry I didn't quite follow your statement and I don't wish to shut you down. Please be clear and I will be respectful, even if we disagree. I give what I get and you've been cool about shit.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM

SJR: No need to say that I'm avoiding truth. All I said was that I personally know many gay people who are not diseased or promiscuous. And they are not anomalies, and their modus operandi is not to promote a revenge-agenda. They're just normal people. Unfortunately for you if you recognized their existence you would be forced to reevaluate things. And that's HARD.

What if marriage was outlawed for everyone? Do you think it would result in more promiscuity and diseases for everyone? I mean, no one - straight or gay - would feel an institutionally-sanctioned tie another person, and so they would and could freely bone at whim. Seems like at that point we would want to re-implement marriage, so as to rein people in.

And SJR, the truth is that gay people aren't dictating the definition of marriage. A huge amount of straight people support gay marriage. It is being dictated by the masses.

ROM on July 17, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You misrepresented my statement, eldepeche. You're dishonest, as usual. You're only making things worse for yourself. Desperately trying to drum up support for your false accusation makes you look impotent. Like you don't have an argument. Like all you want to do is attack people. Like all you want to do is shut down the dialogue. Why is that? Because I'm WRONG?

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 4:28 PM

1) By talking about the rate of HIV spread among gay men, SJR is deflecting from the topic of smirk's article (i.e. why heterosexual marriage is failing). He does this because he can't make a cogent or empirical arguments about why gay men marrying would adversely affect heterosexual unions.

Instead, he cites the same statistic OVER (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…) and OVER (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…) again; or cites it under his other screenname (BadSteed) OVER (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…) and OVER (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…) and OVER (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…) again.

Even though SEVERAL people have pointed out the LOGICAL FALLACY of denying someone a marriage license because they're sexually "reckless"; he just keeps on making the same fatuous argument.

2) Portland is not driving heterosexual parents away. In fact, since college-educated couples are MORE LIKELY to be married (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/10/07/…) and since Portland has a disproportionate number of people who graduated college (http://zipatlas.com/us/or/portland/zip-cod…), how can the city be driving away married people?

Čẖüñđƴ on July 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

My bad, ROM. Apologies if I offended you as I deal with others who are misrepresenting me and my statements here. Look, I understand where you are coming from and I am sympathetic to gay people. That is why I support civil unions. Why can't gay people leave marriage alone? Is that too much to ask? I'm sick of dishonest people only interested in their own ideology instead of being willing to compromise. You have people fighting so hard from both sides but one side is doing the attacking and the other is constantly having to defend. This isn't simply about equality, as I have stated before. Gay people CAN marry but they have to do it according to the laws we have on the books. And trends come and go. But when one group unfairly attacks another group and then changes things regardless of how the general public feels about it, like in Washington State or the 9th Circuit Court in California, it becomes unfair. Gay people start lying and cheating to get their way. Liberals circumvent our laws and then make demands. They are on the offensive and good people are on the defensive. There are those on the offensive who relish in that role. The negativity. The division. The "Us vs them" mentality of immature youth. Well, I disagree with your assertions that people's minds have changed so drastically lately toward gay marriage. The liberal media certainly cannot be fully trusted to tell us the full truth. The right? Not really. So where does that leave those caught in the middle? With a unique and uncluttered look at the bigger picture.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Anyone here that uses the word "fallacy" is a sheep. It's fun watching them get all buggered up and foamy trying to misrepresent themselves. It's like Corky from "Life Goes On" contracts Tourette's Syndrome. It's sad and funny all in one. God's little punchlines.

That's just for you, Chunderthighs.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I've got every right to insult you. Your claimed substantive views are abhorrent if you believe them, and if you don't, you're just trying to provoke a reaction and destroy any chance of an interesting discussion. My opinion is fuck you.

Protip: if you respond to everything with, "Nope, actually I'm still right," and you're not in the second grade, consider just shutting the fuck up instead.

eldepeche on July 17, 2012 at 4:43 PM

1) So you concede that my well-reasoned and factually-supported response refutes your argument. Great!

2) Aside: are stjohnsrules (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Pr…), badsteed (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Pr…), and Jose Jiminez (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Pr…) the same person? Because they all seem to make the same trite arguments in the same boring way; also they all keep getting their comments pulled or accounts revoked.

Čẖüñđƴ on July 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM

You have NO right to follow or insult people, eldepeche. No matter who you think you are, believe me, you are part of the problem and not the solution.

I don't concede anything, Chunderthighs. What are you trying to win, anyway? You're lying about me. I don't know any Jose Jimenez and I certainly haven't done anything here to be kicked off. You're just mad because I'm not a weak-minded kid that you can yell at and get me to think like you. Frankly, you're never going to win anything that way. Smart people know the difference between common sense and bullshit. I really don't know how you can handle the smell of your own.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM

This guy is like a homicidal, modern-day Holden Caulfield.

"EVERYONE'S A LIAR AND NO ONE SEES HOW BRILLIANT I AM!!!!!! AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!1!!!!"

Drunk & Write on July 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM

This is exactly what I'm talking about and I proved my point that liberals are fucking intolerant and ineffective anymore. It used to be that liberals stood for something good. Now it seems they have devolved into a group of zealots who want to shut down proper discourse instead of actually reaching out to others respectfully. Well, all of you fuckers will turn on each other eventually and eat your own. It's already beginning to happen. That's what happens when you have no moral compass. No values. No direction. Fumbling toward irrelevance. You have no right talking to people about marriage when you're killing each other so horribly often with AIDS. You people have to change that. You're killing each other. Does that fucking compute, eldepeche? Just like it's wrong when gang members kill each other. Yeah, but I'm an asshole for mentioning that. Right? You people don't want to confront the stark reality. At least I live in the real world.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

I like your posts Stjohns, I don't agree with you on this issue, but I appreciate your moxy.

Spindles on July 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Thanks Spindles. I don't expect total agreement. Here's to you and yours.

stjohnsrules on July 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

To SJR @ his haters...
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.
Don't feed the trolls.

Happily EverAfter on July 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

AND GOOD NIGHT.

Alison Hallett on July 19, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Five Things Destroying Traditional Marriage (Besides the Gays)

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

POP QUIZ PDX: Lake Oswego Criminals, TriMet's Drug-Induced Panic, and Choosing Downtown Portland's Amusement Park! 🎢

POP QUIZ PDX: Sassy Trivia About Magic Mushrooms, Boring Football, and Which Is Portland's Sexiest Bridge?

Sassy, Fun Trivia Questions about Local Entitled White Guys, Hollywood in Portland, and... Surprise! You're Marrying a ROBOT! 🤖

POP QUIZ PDX: Featuring Butthole Companies, Butthole Mayors, Butthole Terrorists, and... OMG! So Many Buttholes!

Let's Ruin Twitter for Elon! Let's Ruin Betsy's Campaign! Let's Appreciate Keanu Reeves! Let's Buy the Dinosaur House!

Exit Interview: Portland NAACP’s Outgoing Leadership on Repairing the Organization's Legacy

Support Portland Mercury

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!