That's a rather speculative argument your making. We don't know exactly what was and wasn't said between the bikers and the driver. The bikers alleged this dude was giving quite a bit of back and forth and we don't know exactly what threat is made to provoke him driving over the bikes and escalating the whole thing. I never said that this was caused by lane splitting I was using it as an example from my own experience to make a point about some car drivers attitude and behaviour towards us.

The impression I get (and this is just a hunch like anyone else's including YOURS) is that this dude was talking shit and the bikers initially stopped him to make it clear he was in no position to be making threats (which lets face it would have been a foolish move for anyone). It's entirely possible that this whole thing could have been diffused at that point (and maybe not we don't get to see or hear the altercation).
Maybe this dude was just scared and calling the police, maybe he was directly antagonizing them as he did so as the bikers claim.

At no point have I done anything but condemn the bikers actions, I was merely trying to elucidate a different perspective and find a more informative angle than just "these bikers be dicks". They are people too (albeit ones of dubious moral character)


Are you familiar with the concept of holding two irreconcilable truths simultaneously to gain a deeper insight?

That's what I was doing here, I'm sorry I failed to make that more clear to you (language alone can be a clumsy way to communicate)

There's a veritable mountain of historic, behavioural and situational factors at work here, one of them is the basic resentment and animosity you subconsciously accumulate against a certain kind of car driver by simply being a biker. Other include mob dynamics, lifelong neuroses and inhibition control etc. etc.

When we say things like "fag gangs with knives" and make no attempt to understand their behaviour we get nowhere. In fact its worse than that, we go backwards as the simplistic black and white level untermensch/ubermensch relationship serves simply to fuel the same kind of situation in the future. That distinction exists but only works if derived dialectically rather than dualistically. (to paraphrase you need to be a bigger less emotionally compromised man/woman than these people or it will continue to happen. It's not a matter of who's right and wrong so much as "what failed and why?".)

I keep trying to not disagree with you because to a large extent I don't, I just don't believe in fixed perspectives. Your not wrong, but it does not invalidate the majority of what I'm trying to say/do. This is how higher synthesees or argument and understanding are derived. Someone had to chime in for the other side otherwise no-ones ideas have a chance to expand, on this occasion the duty fell to me and Chingy (not for the 1st time).

Dialectic logic > Aristotelian Logic

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

What is it about gleeful diffusion interjected in particular that ruffles you? Playful banter when you have a room fulla straight men on subjects most are unqualified to argue, well, it's fair game and all-Often a hearty remedy for absolutism of any kind is a valve tweaked a few degrees right or left-Absolution comes later

diffuse cleavage thumbnail

I invite one of the two woman who spend more time on here than half the account-holders combined, to block both the Petsami.com and RussianDashCam.com websites in their browsers, and spend some of their sifting-time cleaning the place up

(Hold the potpourri and lampe bergers' and no scented-diffusers, please!)

Moron eh?

He saw a situation and reacted in an exemplary fashion.

One man killing another, he doesn't know why, nor does he know what the attacker has for him-Knife?? Gun?? Fuck It-Look for best way to diffuse and confuse and perhaps save the life of the poor guy on the floor without getting yourself injured.

His reaction and response was hands-down, the best besides the people who actually tried to stop it rather than flee with their ass and head up inna cell-phone.

You're thinking way too hard about air-quality over a man's life here, Orz...

Oh, and the guy who photographs the scene and leaves???-Pricelessly insane.!

Y'know, the guy had balls. If he'd advanced towards my vehicle with rage or malice aforethought in his eyes....uh, I am in a running, 2Klbs vehicle aimed at your attitude and the possibility exists that one may chose metal-to-douche to diffuse any injury to myself.

"Two potentially mortal situations were diffused this week in Houston, Texas by responsible citizens with concealed carry endorsements."

Ok I will accept this as soon as you compare this data to the data you find of accidental shootings. It's a numbers game, and you're wrong. More harm than good.

Old hat.

"We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae. Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse. Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy. Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

@Kofi Did you find any yet?
Oh and I think Shineyblurry was more just trying to educate you Messenger, not just answer your questions. So here's my answers for you:

"1) Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"
All of it. Hamas is a globally recognized terrorist group. Hamas has done more to take away the freedom of it's people than it has good. By continuing to push an antisemitic world view and continually calling for the outright destruction of Israel they have done nothing for their people over the last 40 years. If Hamas would actually accept one of the many peace agreements that have been laid forth over that time, we would not be having this discussion. Instead they kill civilians and place launch pads next to playgrounds.
"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Absolutely. like Bicyclerepairman said, even if the borders went back to the 1946 borders the goal isn't borders it is the elimination of Israel entirely and the death of Jews worldwide.
"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"
Bicyclerepairman hit the nail on the head here. But I think that if all the Jews were dead and France ran Israel and kept Palestinians in Gaza they would have a much more difficult battle as it is a lot harder to identify "French" as a race and that diffuses their Nazi themed marketing machine of "BLAME THE JEWS". But I'm sure they would find a way, or slowly push Muslim and Islamic law to become the law of the land in France (Or other European countries for that matter). Something you can not do in Israel currently.
"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?
5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"
These were civilians. Not enemies. Where we can celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden in the United States, we morn when innocents die. Especially children. And if a US soldier kills civilians while in active duty he is prosecuted and sent to jail or possibly even executed. So killing is worse than celebrating, but celebrating the killing of an innocent makes you a terrorist and a blight on humankind. That's not to say that killing of innocents is off the table, lord knows plenty of it happened during World War 1 & 2 and as a measure of war, while I personally find it a disgusting tactic and something to be avoided you can reach a point where drastic actions must be taken.
For example, North Korea. If they should ever get aggressive, with the overwhelming amount of brainwashing that goes on in that country it is very likely that many of the civilians will wind up being killed in any conflict.
But Israel and Palestine should NOT be at that point.

Actually, it would accomplish something.

Just like meditation does. Slows things down, puts things in perspective. Changes the mind -- from anger at losing the Presidency to some sort of acceptance.

Morgan Spurlock did a series on TV, where people would agree to go live for 30 days with folks who they hated without knowing. There was one episode where a Southern Christian man who hated Muslims agreed to spend 30 days with a young Muslim family who observed the praying five times a day thing. Terms of the deal was he had to pray, too.

What struck me most was how that praying changed this Christian fellow. They would get into heated debates, getting wound up, but then it would have to stop for the praying. And the tension would get diffused. Because a moment of calm was enforced.

And that is what I hear here. Romney is telling folks -- stop ranting and raving and hating, and take a moment for positive thoughts.

If everyone did that -- on both sides -- much much would be accomplished.

It's not about "god." It's about literally good intentions.

We need more good intentions.


>> ^Fred_Chopin:

Why is it so important to pray for Obama? What's that gonna accomplish?

I'm often a police sympathizer. In this case I'd be interested in a little bit more context, but doubt it would really change my mind. This response seemed pretty disproportionate to the size of the rally, and you can't help but wonder if that has to do with the content of the rally.

At the same time, if you are the cops going to police the KILL PIGS rally, you probably want to make sure everyone is ready for anything. Unfortunately some precincts don't consider tolerance of mild civil disobedience. In cases like this it could be the most effective way to diffuse the situation. Worst thing that happens is they break a couple windows, set a dumpster on fire, and look like a bunch of assholes. Instead they have photos of you charging mickey mouse and your assault rifles and batons at the police brutality rally. That's some quality police work.

>> ^bmacs27:

Bill Freeman is a really cool guy. I had a chance to have lunch with him, and we were talking about all the work he's doing. He's the kind of guy that just explores things because he thinks they're cool. Like this one project he had where he wanted to take a picture of earth from space using entirely earth based equipment using the reflection off of the moon. Absolutely ridiculous.


The project in question:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/hasinoff/diffuse/

AH HA! I did find a mistake. The data I pulled was for all of Texas, not just Austin (I didn't think it sounded right, 66 gigawatts is high even for a time traveling Delorean). We used closer to 2.7 gigawatts. Even so, as Texas manages its own grid, the original number would most likely still be relevant, though, you could diffuse that across the state among all your power distribution centers. Your still only talking about an hour of power at the theoretical level, and that isn't great when you consider the volatility factor of renewables. But I digress.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.