Google "has gay marriage had a negative impact in europe" (or simlar), the hits vary, some support your view (aka Kurtz's), some don't, so you claiming other people cherry-pick is dishonest.
It is only "dishonest" if you assume both Kurtz and his critiques are cherry picking, which has hardly been shown to be the case. Accusations do not equal facts.
I have already shown one example of Kurtz countering one of his critiques by pointing out that they were taking stats out of context and he put them into context to show.
What we have is a claim that gay-marriage will have a negative impact on the institution of hetero-marriage, ergo it shouldn't be allowed and the gay community is held responsible to prove that it wouldn't (essentially asked to prove a negative) if they expect society to accept it.
That is a little oversimplified but,more or less, yes. That is the way the Framers set up the Constitution (through the amendment process) to work when it comes to changes like this.
It is also the only logical way to approach such change, as dicated by the precautionary principle.
It's a cowardly and dishonest approach, they would have no way to disprove/prove such a claim unless gay-marriage were first allowed and then the outcome was observed and dissected. You know this.
"cowardly and dishonest"...
More attempts at demonization and marginalization. Just because you can mock the burden of proof doesn't necessitate it's move. Nice try...
There is nothing "dishonest" here, and you know it. You just can't consider the possibility that you might be wrong on this, can you.
If you can't disprove the claim, then you don't allow the chance. Society isn't a science project; you don't conduct experiments with the results being what is important so you can draw empirical conclusions and the consequences are meaningless. The consequences are far more important then having a means to draw empirical conclusions.
This is a social and political debate, with far more broad reaching and potentially irreversible consequences then any scientific experiment. More caution is necessitated.
The funny thing, gay-marrige has been allowed on a small scale for 4+ years now regardless of doom and gloom claims and it hasn't impacted hetero-marriage, even on a small scale. Straight people are still getting married and still having children on par with pre gay-marriage (divorce/marriage rates have been in slight decline far longer than 2003), talk about real-time proof for the U.S., there it is.
More proof by assertion.
I have pointed out a number of times in this thread that 4 years is hardly enough time to draw any conclusions either way. In addition, there are plenty of reasons that Massachusetts may be more resistant to that change. It is also questionable weather Massachusetts is an accurate and relevant analogy to the United States.
You have yet to say anything about those critiques. You simply keep bringing up the fact that Mass has had gay marriage for 4 years, and ignoring those critiques. Textbook proof by assertion.
So you can continue claiming others are making fallacies, acting childish, being dishonest and you're the only one with clear objective view,
I have not simply "claimed" fallacious arguments, childishness and dishhonesty. You guys have demonstrated that, and I have effectively shown a spot light on it to make your actions clear for what they are.
but gay-marriage is happening in the U.S. and the data observed doesn't support your view.
A: That doesn't disprove the critiques of making fallacious arguments, acting childish and being dishonest. Another non sequiter
B: The "data observed" in Mass or California is not enough to support or disprove any view yet
Edit: Here's one example I found in google that counters each of Kurtz's claims:
Fully Story Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
FYI: This article is by Badgett and has already been pointed out in post 166. I have been rather busy and haven't had a chance to develop a response yet concerning the whole Badgett/Kurtz thing.