Gay Marriage

[wekin1]

You make a good point Dadvocate but I would submit that we live in a world where intense thought is not the norm. Therefore, what has been most effective is the "slogans" that consist of a few catchy words in order for people to remember them at a later time. Similar t advertising.

However, with that said, those who have the mass captive audiences should take the time to craft a way to clearly articulate an arguement as you describe. Such as during a debate. Mike Huckabee, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are good examples of it.

I think BOTH approaches are needed in order to be most effective.

[dadvocate]

Unfortunately, we also live in a video-borne world of sound bytes (pun intended). In the mid-70's, I used to do AV tutorial programs for a consulting company specializing in computer analysis, somewhat in its infancy back then. It was a startup division in the company, so I had to get as much input about the new idea of audio-visual interactive learning as quickly as possible. One of the more amazing facts I learned was from a US Navy study that determined that the average span of attention for a single image was ten seconds. This was a survey of raw recruits, NonComs and Annapolis graduates, some with many years of experience and high rank. And what we have become used to in the last 30+ years of video games, SFX, etc. is style over substance in Super Bowl spots of hundreds of thousands of dollars for 15-second blurbs.

Bill Clinton is the perfect example. He had the members of Congress debating if "is" means "is." He looked straight in the camera and swore, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Where was this guy when I was in the back seat of my parents' Oldsmobile at 17? "See, honey, the President says it isn't sex, go ahead." The problem is that a convincing lie in a short, slick production is still a lie. The easier thing to do yet is to merely change the names of the parameters, so as to make the basis for your propaganda more viable. This is where the LGBT message, and agenda, shades its inherent fallacies. And it is also the most common form of information we digest.

Fewer and fewer people want to wrestle with logical syllogisms in a magazine article of a couple of pages, especially when a snappy retort on CNN or FoxNews will suffice. And the Global Marketplace is a very complex scenario to sum up in 30 secs or less. The issue of gay marriage not only has people arguing toward different ends, but from stances of Absolute Truth, Modernism, Marxism and Post-Modernism, using similar dialogue with different connotations. It's scary.

[wekin1]

Okay, I hear what you are saying but what would your solution be to all of this?

I personally believe that if there is a war on all fronts, then both sides need soldiers. If the gay movement is attacking at all levels, then there has to be a counter to it at all levels, right?

Ultimately though, I also agree that we are in a sound-bite world and fewer and fewer want to figure it all out.

As such, it is important that the counter message be logical, reasonable and truthful but also done in a quick-hitting way. If not, the counter message will be lost.

[BEARLEFT]

I TYPE IN CAPS BECAUSE IT IS EASIER AND FASTER. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT INTERNET PROTOCAL.
GOODNESS, IF I WORRIED ABOUT THINGS TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING I WOULD GO INSANE.

YOU CAN LABEL THINGS IN ANY WAY YOU CHOOSE BUT IT STILL COMES DOWN TO PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT LIFESTYLE THEY WILL LEAD AND NOT BEING RIDICULED AND BERATED FOR LIVING IT OUT.

I'M NOT GAY BUT I SUPPORT THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO BE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I MORALLY AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT. IF WE ARE A FREE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, THEN LET'S LET PEOPLE BE FREE INDEED.

IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS OF ANY GENDER WANTS TO HOOK UP WHY PUNISH THEM BY MAKING THEM OUTCASTS? JUST LEAVE THEM TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. IF PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT, THEN ALL THE PROTESTING AND ACTIVISM WOULD LOSE ITS EFFECT BECAUSE GAY PEOPLE WOULDN'T ALWAYS FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED AND WOULD BE LESS OUTRAGED.

[OnHoldAZ]

IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS OF ANY GENDER WANTS TO HOOK UP WHY PUNISH THEM BY MAKING THEM OUTCASTS? JUST LEAVE THEM TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. IF PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT, THEN ALL THE PROTESTING AND ACTIVISM WOULD LOSE ITS EFFECT BECAUSE GAY PEOPLE WOULDN'T ALWAYS FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED AND WOULD BE LESS OUTRAGED.

You know if they didn't run around trying to SHOVE their "choices" in everyone’s face..............................it probably would not bother near as many people. But it's always funny how those who choose to act a spectacle complain when people comment on what they are doing, especially when what they are doing is Meant to draw others attention...................

The they want to cry because the general public will not pay enough for their sexual activities as they spread Aids among themselves and they ask for "special" recognition" while crying that they are not just treated like everyone else...................PUKE!!!

Always being attacked? Which propaganda video's are you watching?

[OnHoldAZ]

Similarly, the Federalist Papers, however often they have have been quoted in Supreme Court decisions, began as a series of editorial-style newspaper submissions in support of New York State's ratification of the Bill of Rights-less Constitution. The awareness of their authorship does not confer upon them any more legitimacy, in law, than the anti-Federalist arguments of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, which were fewer and not bound as a volume. Jefferson was in France during ratification. Ben Franklin's opinion was that the Constitution was flawed, but might be the best it could be. However, none of these opinions is legally more than that, opinion.

That's some pretty fuzzy logic......................The Federalist Papers have Legitimacy Conferred upon them - because then Constitution PASSED. The Authors were EXPLAINING why they wrote different parts of the Constitution and what the INTENT of the Constitution was.

The Anti-Federalists papers have little meaning - because they lost and the Constitution was adopted........................

Your logic works for examples like:
We should be speaking German - even though they lost WWI and WWII, they tried..................................those who did not want the Constitution passed, lost - you can read their opinion all day long and with $5 you can get a cup of Coffee at Starbucks. But the Supreme Court in an attempt to interpret the Constitution SHOULD be looking at what the authors INTENT was – not those who tried and FAILED to stop it from passing……………………….