Logic Has Left the Building...

Hey look! It's someone making an almost indistinguishable argument from the last guy. Before we get into this, I'd like to first revisit the doom and gloom scenarios that are always floated as reasons to deny gay people rights. First there was the claim that passing the Matthew Sheppard Act would result in pastors being arrested for preaching the bible, three years latter and not a single pastor has been arrested. Before the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell we were told that it would be disastrous for unit cohesion, troop retention and moral. Turns out it had absolutely no affect on any of that. So now we're being told, according to this article's subtitle,

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children.

So he better produce some fantastic evidence to show how this incidence is somehow different from every other example. But the conversation during the last few weeks on the subject of same-sex marriage has told a different story -- one that appears to be drawing a false connection between supporting true American values like free speech and the institution of marriage, our most fundamental and important social institution. Wait... is marriage not a "true American value?" This sentence is entirely convoluted and does not mean what Birk thinks it does.

I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.

Oh, thank goodness we have Birk here to be the final arbiter of what marriage is about!

The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people.

No, love is entirely immaterial. At no point is love required in any aspect of the legal code, as proving love would be an impossibility. However, the government has a vested interest in providing a legal framework of rights and responsibilities for people who intend to form a mutually dependent familial connection between each other.

With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

That's quite simply false on its face, from four different sides. Firstly, marriage does not, nor will it ever require procreation. Marriage does not even require sex (although lack of sex can be justification for divorce). Secondly, procreation does not require marriage. Frequently, two people procreate without becoming married. Thirdly, gay people can, and do have children via adoption, surrogacy, ect. Fourthly, anyone with even brief glace and marriage law would realize that much of it involves items that have absolutely zero to do with children, which means that marriage does not exist for procreation even just based on the law.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen.

Birk, Birk, Birk, you contradict yourself in the same sentence! If Children have a "right" to a mom and a dad, that would mean that they would always happen. That's what a right is. The right to free speech does not only apply to 1/4th of people, if that's the way it worked, it wouldn't be a right. Children have the right to pursuit of happiness, freedom, ect. but by the definition of what a right is, no one has a right to a mom and a dad. Parents die, which is just one example of how children do not, and can not have a right to a parent.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

There is precisely zero science supporting this. We've actually looked at the "potential long-term effects" and found none. This has been studied multiple times at this point, and, consistently, there has been no actual negative effects found for being raised by two parents of the same sex. Traditionally the way the way around this little problem is for the right to discuss studies showing the children of single parents compared to children raised by two parents. Hence why both Birk and Riley keep bringing up single parents even though they are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Marriage is in trouble right now -- admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced "I am my brother's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself" with "live and let live" and "if it feels good, go ahead and do it."

Yay! Fascism! First off we have a complete failure to understand what "cultural relativity" actually is. We also have a complete failure to understand what "love your neighbor as yourself" means. Instead all this is a kind of assholely way of saying "people have too much freedom, we need less."

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution.

How? People are still getting married. In fact the sheer number of people who have serial marriages shows that we have a remarkable commitment to marriage as a concept. The people who actually are criticizing marriage as a concept are incredibly fringe in our society.

How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids?

This has nothing to do with what is being discussed, nor is it properly supported.

Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Well then, I assume you would support the things that actually would lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage? Such as a wider, stronger social safety net?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation.

How?

Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society.

How?

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent.

But you haven't actually said anything. You've made some vague accusations, ones which you failed to even tie into the topic being discussed, let alone attempt to provide support for.

People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

That does not even make sense. Objectively you are bigots and homophobes. Also, objectively, you are not acknowledging reality. Gay people are already married, which means that the basic reality of marriage is not between one man and one woman.

Don't we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction?

"Some of my best friends are gay..."

Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

Ahh, the tone argument. When someone can't support their argument with facts, they have to go with complaining about the tone that other people use to address them. "Name-calling" is entirely irrelevant to the accuracy of someone's statements. Calling you, Birk, a mentally deficient fuckknob has nothing to do with whether I am correct in every single thing I have said before. Oh, and people who say things that are stupid, are stupid people, and should be called "stupid" so that they might make the choice to be smarter (and it is a choice, ignorance is a choice).

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group.

Logically false. We are discussing, specifically and particularly, excluding large number of people from thousand of rights and benefits. Which, by definition is an attack on them.

All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms.

Like the right to marriage? One which the supreme court has recognized as a "fundamental human right" a dozen times over the past century?

There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

Yes, there is. What part of "fundamental human right" do you not understand, Birk?

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate.

Two things you have completely failed to use...

I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.

And the best way to be promarriage is to exclude people from marriage... wait...