"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!

[TheDude]

Why do "Dave and Brad" have to prove anything to you in the first place? That is the better question.

 

[shagdrum]

who are Dave and Brad?

 

[fossten]

Why do "Dave and Brad" have to prove anything to you in the first place? That is the better question.

Because "Adam and Steve" are demanding a special set of rights. If you'd read Shag's evidence on burden of proof when making major changes to society's rules, you wouldn't be asking this question. Please pay attention.

 

[TheDude]

Because "Adam and Steve" are demanding a special set of rights. If you'd read Shag's evidence on burden of proof when making major changes to society's rules, you wouldn't be asking this question. Please pay attention.

Hypothetically speaking, they're two people who want to be married just like any other two people who are married, both of them having a penis shouldn't be an issue of "special rights". In fact, the only people making it an issue are the nay-sayers.

 

[TheDude]

who are Dave and Brad?

A hypothetical pair of homos who want to be married and feel they shouldn't have to prove anything to straight people.

On that note though, what should they have to prove to satisfy this "burden of proof"? Their love for each other? Their commitment? Undying loyalty? What would satisfy?

 

[fossten]

A hypothetical pair of homos who want to be married and feel they shouldn't have to prove anything to straight people.

On that note though, what should they have to prove to satisfy this "burden of proof"? Their love for each other? Their commitment? Undying loyalty? What would satisfy?

Dude. You're not reading the thread. Shag has already gone into this in great detail. For you to re-ask the same question is disrespectful if not downright lazy, and if I were Shag I wouldn't waste time responding. Again, read the thread, most notably the last 2 pages.

 

[ford nut]

I assume you are trying to imply that my argument is a false analogy. However that is not the case in regards to my argument to counter your claim that the burden of proof dictated by the precautionary principle is a "catch 22".

LOL... nope all I was saying is it hasent happend so no facts.

And how can you claim that there is "no burden of proof"?! If there is no burden of proof then there is no argument or debate. A burden of proof is inherent and implied in any debatable disagreement.".

You can disagree on a opinion you can never prove to someone there opinion is wrong.

The question then comes down to where the burden of proof should lay. Both sides want the burden of proof in their favor, but there is a logical place for the burden of proof and illogical places for that burden.

Again none needed.

Then how can you not logically put the burden of proof against change in order to avoid unnecessary reckless change that causes irreversible and severe damage to society?

Again you can't prove something that hasent happened yet.

That is part of my point; you can't do a full cost/benefit analysis on a proposed change at this level (maybe I didn't make that clear, sorry). That is why you approach that change with caution and logically set the burden of proof against that change.

I think this is already been done old USA didnt jump into gay marraige over night.

You can look at some of the potential costs and benefits, but not all. That is why places where that proposed change has been tried are very relevant to the discussion.

Relevant yes but no proof on what will happen in the good old USA

I am not trying to make anything harder. I am trying to keep it as rational and reasonable as possible; keeping out emotional thinking and irrational fallacious arguments.

Impossible to do when your dealing with people and opinions.

You can't demand a link for every statement a person makes that you don't agree with. No one is that fastidious (and this is coming from one of the most fastidious people on this forum).

LOL I think this is a attempt at a insult but I will take it as a complement

Besides, what if they got their info from a book, or other non-internet source? They cannot meet your demand for a link, and thus cannot meet the artificially high burden of proof you impose on opposing points of view.

If you wanna challenge a claim it is one thing, but demanding a link is something else.

In demanding a link for every statement or claim you disagree with, you are the one making this harder then it needs to be by disingenuously and illogically raising the burden of proof to an absurd level.

I would think if anybody is going to post a comment under the belief its fact a link should be included.

So...you intentionally chose to use an ad homenim argument?

Nope I just knew it was comming its one of your big three.

A: There is no spamming being done by me. You have yet to show any examples that meet the definition of forum spamming.

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it.

You spam Kurtz and still do.

B: You still haven't shown a logical reason for your irrational disregard of Kurtz. If you are going to hold that position, even in the face of the fact that it is a fallacious and invalid reason to disregard Kurtz, then it is obvious that you cannot be reasoned with and expected to hold a rational discussion

I am not going to spam the same argument over and over.

So, you will disregard Kurtz for ad homenim reasons, but you won't disregard Slate?! Slate has been shown to be very biased in there reporting; cherry picking information and what not. This article you cite is a prime example. It is very apparent you have an unjustifiable double standard here.

Ok lets toss um both out

The claims in the article you cite are fully explainable by Kurtz from the article I cited.

Here is what Kurtz said:

Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then [Denmark legalizing gay marriage in 1989], marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent.

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Spedale's report of lower divorce rates and higher marriage rates in post-gay marriage Denmark is thus misleading. Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America. In Scandinavian demography, what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family dissolution rate.

The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate. Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.​

Spam

The Slate article doesn't account for the unique circumstances in these countries. It effectively takes the statistics out of context and, by implication, places them in the context of American society and societal norms.

Kurtz makes an effort to place the statistics in the context of the country from where the statistics are from. Now who is showing a lack of intellectual integrity; Kurtz or Slate?

Both

The Slate article is also vague on where it is getting its statistics from, while Kurtz spells out in the article where his info comes from. By your own standard of demanding a source be cited for a claim (usually in the form of a link), Slate is discredited and Kurtz is not.

It is also rather apparent that Slate is cherry picking it's info. Slate is intentionally taking stats out of context, and only citing cherry picked stats to paint a picture that fits their agenda. Not empirically drawing a conclusion based on an full and accurate representation of the facts in context. Kurtz, on the other hand appears to be doing just that.

Kurtz is doing the same thing to fit his agenda.

If both are substance-less opinions, as you imply, then why even cite the LA Times op-ed? It has no substance. This further strengthens the impression of an unjustified double standard on your part.

I made a clear answer to this.

The view I spelled out is very logically connected and based on facts (in context and accurately represented).

It also nullifies and dispels your claim that there is no logical connection between gay marriage and marriage becoming outdated.

I dissagree.

It wasn't a cheap shot. It was an appeal to your intellectual integrity (and by extension, your character) to stop making fallacious arguments.

However, unless you are being facetious (and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one), your continued seemingly intentional and habitual use of fallacious arguments and reasoning is suggesting that you have no intellectual integrity to appeal to, at least in the area of gay marriage.

FYI; that is not a cheap shot. That is a reasonable conclusion drawn from the actions you have taken in this thread.

Cheap shot plain and simple shag.

Fossten is correct in characterizing my pointing out of fallacious arguments as an attempt to keep people honest and make for a better and more reasonable debate. I don't think that most people make fallacious arguments intentionally; it is simply an easy trap to fall into, myself included. When you realize what arguments are fallacious and what to watch out for, you can make better arguments.

When people continue making the same argument after it has been shown to be fallacious and invalid, I start to think they are making it intentionally and have a total disregard for the fallacious nature of their arguments. This suggests to me that they lack intellectual integrity.

Your intentional and habitual disregard of Kurtz due solely to ad homenim reasoning, and your continued attempts to shift or obfuscate the burden of proof fall under that view, at the moment.

I disregard Kurtz because he is twisting fact for his far right agenda.
I just plain and simple disregard Fossten

So I can't inject myself into your debate with halo001, but you can inject yourself into the debate between myself and hrmwrm; as you did in post number 160 (which was the same post you responded to halo001 in)? Another unjustified double standard, it seems.

I never said you couldnt all I said is let him do his own bidding let him be a big boy.

FYI; halo001's quote from that article did provide a fact. he responded to your question of "Do you have any proof ? What percent of marriages are held in a church?" with the quote of, ""All of this in a nation where 74 percent of marriages still occur in church," pondered syndicated New York Times ethics and religion columnist Mike McManus."

He provided all he needed to. Your response was to ignore the fact he provided and refuse to acknowledge it. you simply chose to fallaciously raise the burden of proof to an absurd level by saying, "Its ten years old and nothing there to back up the claim keep looking." The fact that it is ten years old doesn't discredit it, and you are trying to shift the burden of proof to an absurd level.

Yet you cite a Slate article that cites statistics for over ten years ago (at points) as well as not citing the study(s) from where they got there information. But when Kurtz does meet the burden of proof you made up to counter halo001's fact, you disregard him in favor of an article that can't meet your burden of proof.

It is rather obvious that you just disingenuously and intentionally chose to fallaciously raise the burden of proof on halo001 so you could disregard it because you didn't want to accept it. You did the same thing with Kurtz but don't hold any article you cite to the same standard.

Shag the Kurtz link http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Is dated 02/02/2004 the slate is dated May 20, 2004 around the same time right that is a little different then 10 years ago

And please try to shorten it up a little.

^^^^^^*owned*

How old are you ?

 

[fossten]

Ford nut, with all due respect, you're acting like a troll.

 

[ford nut]

Since when did you become a forum moderator?

And it appears you like to have the last word, much like a woman. I'd rather be me.

Keep swinging, hrmwrm. It's amusing watching you getting taken apart.

Those are desperate words.

Shag is simply producing well thought out replies to the haphazard, idle statements of others including you. The problem is that you (and others) throw out these generalized, flawed one-liner talking points that are supposed to pass for OMGWTFBBQPWN arguments, and Shag isn't having any of it.

As I've said and he's said, if you don't like getting your arguments critiqued, work on your ability to argue. I admit I could use a bit of work on my own arguments. Shag is literally doing us all a favor by keeping us accountable for the way we present our points.

Slate is a joke

Most of his posts are busy countering the bullcrap spewed by you and hrmwrm. I have yet to see any of your posts in this thread actually reach a point, let alone prove one.

You should be thankful for his posts. You might learn something if you actually read them with an open mind. Your posts, on the other hand, are too short winded, and light on facts and logic.

Oh, and Christianity may be a joke to you. It's your prerogative to think so. I will leave you with this to consider - whether you believe it or not, this will happen one day:

Revelation 20:11-15

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Philippians 2: 9-11

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

^^^^^^*owned*

Dude. You're not reading the thread. Shag has already gone into this in great detail. For you to re-ask the same question is disrespectful if not downright lazy, and if I were Shag I wouldn't waste time responding. Again, read the thread, most notably the last 2 pages.

Ford nut, with all due respect, you're acting like a troll.

Hummm whos the troll ?

 

[shagdrum]

LOL... nope all I was saying is it hasn't happened so no facts.

A: If there are no facts (as you claim), then logic falls on the side of forbidding gay marriage...

B: It has happened in other countries, and that provides more then enough info to suggest that Gay marriage has much more negatives then positives...

You can disagree on a opinion you can never prove to someone there opinion is wrong.

True, ultimately you can help someone convince themselves that they are wrong, due to human nature. However there is a necessity of reasonableness and intellectual integrity on both people's part.

You claim here (given it's placement in your post) is supposed to be a response to my claim of, "If there is no burden of proof then there is no argument or debate. A burden of proof is inherent and implied in any debatable disagreement.".

How is it at all a rational response to that claim? It isn't responding to it at all. It doesn't in any way even attempt to prove or disprove my claim. It only serves as a red herring that obfuscates here...

Again you can't prove something that hasn't happened yet.

You are once again attempting to obfuscate here through equivocation which shifts the burden of proof.

There are a few definitions of prove...

Here is the definition that (by implication) you are using:

to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.​

Your definition is only applicable in situations where the burden of proof is neutral and observable facts and empirical conclusions are necessitated, as in a scientific experiment.

Here is the definition that is applicable to this forum, arguments in general and then political debate as a whole:

to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:​

A better phrasing of that definition can be found here:

To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.​

The argument alone, is enough to prove something. What is important is if the argument is valid (logical) and sound (based on true premises).

You are assuming a standard of proof that is only valid when the burden of proof is neutral and empirical evidence is mandatory. Considering the claim you are responding to (Then how can you not logically put the burden of proof against change in order to avoid unnecessary reckless change that causes irreversible and severe damage to society?) is seems you are using this argument to effectively imply that the burden of proof should not be against change. Can you say circular reasoning? Mix that with subtle equivocation to shift the burden of proof and you have the argument you just gave.

I think this is already been done old USA didn't jump into gay marriage over night.

?? Could you clarify this please?

Relevant yes but no proof on what will happen in the good old USA

It is more then enough proof to prove the premise that gay marriage destroys marriage to be sound. which is all that is necessary.

Impossible to do when your dealing with people and opinions.

I will admit it is an uphill battle, in the context of this forum. But a general expectation of intellectual integrity and reasonableness in any debate is hardly absurd, unless you are arguing with a kid.

I would think if anybody is going to post a comment under the belief it's fact a link should be included.

It isn't absurd to ask for (not demand) a link if one is available. But you can't realistically ask for a link if they got the info from a non-internet source. And if they can't give a link, you can't assume on that alone that the info is false. Maybe they don't have the time to get a link, maybe the source isn't internet based... in order to logically assume that the info is false, you would need to eliminate all those possibilities.

Nope I just knew it was coming its one of your big three.

:lol: Oh really! What are those "big three"?

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

You spam Kurtz and still do.

Lets look at the definition from the website you give.

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.​

While the definition you cite for spam is exceedingly broad, there is nothing in it that would suggest that what I am doing is spam. Most spam, according to this definition, is due to financial reasons, which my citing of Kurtz and his arguments is not.

It is also clear that spam would not be overly relevant to the focus of the area it is being posted in. My citing of Kurtz's argument is very relevant to the discussion in this thread.

I am also not in any way "flooding the internet" here.

It is clear that your claims of me spamming go well beyond even the broad definition of spam that you laid out.

Lets look at a more specific definition of spamming that has more relevance to the context here; specifically forum spamming:

Spam is the posting of advertisements, abusive, or unneeded messages on Internet forums. It is generally posted by automated spambots.​

The posting of Kurtz here by me is in no way "advertisements, abusive or uneeded messages" and is not posted by automated spambots.

It is very clear that your usage of the word spam in regards to my citing of Kurtz here is flat out wrong, but then again, I have no doubt you know that.

It is also clear that weather or not I am spamming (in the way you are using the term), it says nothing about the relevance, validity or soundness (and ultimate truthfulness or falseness) of Kurtz's claims. It is only and ad hominem personal attack on me.

I am not going to spam the same argument over and over.

You keep intentionally misusing that term. I am not asking you to "spam" here. I am asking you to give a logical reason for disregarding Kurtz (which you haven't done yet).

Both [Kurtz and Slate are showing a lack of intellectual integrity]

I have already shown how Slate is doing that. Care to show how Kurtz is doing that? FYI; your Slate article doesn't do that.

Kurtz is doing the same thing to fit his agenda. {cherry picking info, intentionally taking stats out of context, and not empirically drawing a conclusion based on an full and accurate representation of the facts in context.]

Again, wanna give some proof? I have shown how Kurtz is intentionally working to put the stats in context. The Slate attempts to underhandedly discredit Kurtz by showing a different interpretation of selective stats that are taken out of context. Your Slate article doesn't in any way discredit Kurtz or his conclusions, as the Slate article is inherently misrepresenting the fact and exhibiting a lack of intellectual honesty, while Kurtz is doing the exact opposite.

I dissagree [to the claim that The view I spelled out is very logically connected and based on facts (in context and accurately represented) and nullifies and dispels your claim that there is no logical connection between gay marriage and marriage becoming outdated]

Yes, but you can't give a rational and logical reason for that disagreement.

Cheap shot plain and simple shag.

Drawing a reasonable conclusion that is relevant to this thread drawn from the actions you have taken in this thread is a cheap shot? Hows that?

I disregard Kurtz because he is twisting facts for his far right agenda.

Again, you need to provide evidence for your claim (which you haven't). Otherwise this is simply speculation to irrationally disregard Kurtz.

I never said you couldn't all I said is let him do his own bidding let him be a big boy.

I am not preventing him from doing so. I am simply giving him support and calling your irrational and disingenuous disregard of his fact for what it is, and taking that action of yours into consideration when constructing my response to you.

Shag the Kurtz link http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Is dated 02/02/2004 the slate is dated May 20, 2004 around the same time right that is a little different then 10 years ago

Go back and re-read what I said. I never said that the article was ten years old, I said that some of the stats it cites are from over ten years old, which was more then enough reason for you to disregard halo001's fact but you still cite the Slate article as relevant, which demonstrates inconstancy and a double standard on your part.

Kurtz's article also meets the standard that you claim halo001's fact doesn't (showing facts that are more relevant then ten years ago), but you still disregard it.

 

[shagdrum]

Hummm whos the troll ?

Does that somehow disprove Fossten's claim of your acting like a troll?

 

[TheDude]

Dude. You're not reading the thread. Shag has already gone into this in great detail. For you to re-ask the same question is disrespectful if not downright lazy, and if I were Shag I wouldn't waste time responding. Again, read the thread, most notably the last 2 pages.

Dude, just shut-up already. You're not Shagdrum, so it doesn't matter what you would or wouldn't do here.

Do feel free to answer my question from your point of view if you like, in fact, it would have been nicer if you just did that in the first place instead of whined.

 

[fossten]

Dude, just shut-up already. You're not Shagdrum, so it doesn't matter what you would or wouldn't do here.

Do feel free to answer my question from your point of view if you like, in fact, it would have been nicer if you just did that in the first place instead of whined.

Nobody's whining, and your mischaracterization of my post is a red herring. I simply pointed out that your question has already been answered. If you don't understand that, then I feel sorry for you. If you just don't want to scroll back a page or two, then you're lazy. If you're being deliberately obtuse, then you're trolling.

 

[shagdrum]

A hypothetical pair of homos who want to be married and feel they shouldn't have to prove anything to straight people.

Ok, that makes sense. Let me clarify what I was talking about...

On an individual level, they have nothing to prove, IMO. If they wanna commit to each other and call that a marriage, that is fine by me. I would hope that they are happy. I personally have no problem with them receiving all the same legal benefits as a hetero married couple as well, and I would think most of society here in American wouldn't have a problem with that. Well, maybe Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptists nuts...

Where I make the distinction is when "Dave and Brad" or "Adam and Steve" or whoever expect the rest of society to recognize there relationship (both legally and through societal standards and norms) as a marriage, in the same sense of a marriage between two hetero people.

When they are expecting society to change to accommodate them, that is where it is on them to prove to society that it should do so.

On that note though, what should they have to prove to satisfy this "burden of proof"? Their love for each other? Their commitment? Undying loyalty? What would satisfy?

What they have to do is rationally and reasonably convince society that it should change to accommodate them and that the potential (and likely) costs of doing so are less then the possible benefits.

Basically, they have to spell out to the rest of society through rational, reasonable and intellectually honest means that this change is not only warranted, but justifiable and a net benefit to society (or at least a net wash, after all potential and likely cost and benefits are considered).

That is the basic method for Amending the Constitution, which is what should ultimately be done (one way or the other) to settle this.

Convincing people isn't going to be done through disingenuous attempts to discredit and/or marginalize any opposing points of view, or attempts to flat out ignore and disregard any criticisms raised. You have to understand the opposing argument to be able to logically counter it.

Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear that the majority of people actively supporting gay marriage are not interesting in hearing any opposing points of view; let alone thoroughly understanding it and having a reasonable debate to counter it. All they seem to do is actively work to disregard and marginalize any opposition to their agenda.

Tammy Bruce is the former head of the LA chapter of NOW, and describes herself as, "an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist", a "lifelong Democrat" and a "Classical Liberal".

As a feminist and a gay activist as well as someone notorious for bucking PC culture (IMO, due to her fierce intellectual integrity), Bruce has a unique perspective on this issue. She spells out a pretty clear and accurate picture in this article she wrote on gay marriage. Here are a few excerpts...

...American society remains committed to equality, but it’s apparent that we don’t like the aftermath of taking our traditions for granted. So, yes, we’ve decided to maintain the idea of “marriage” as it has stood, while finding another way to guarantee the rights of gay people...

...you have the reckless law-breaking behavior of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom bestowing marriage licenses on gay couples. A few of my gay friends have voiced their support for this. I reminded these friends, who are also pro-choice, that Fresno, California has a pro-life mayor. How would they feel if that mayor decided to ignore the law and keep women from accessing their legal abortion rights?

They heard me, but it was disturbing that I had to put this into perspective...

...Society has been the benevolent parent for a very long time. And it has been amazing, and a testament to the American character, that despite being a people of faith who have legitimate concerns about the gay lifestyle, Americans have made this the best place on Earth for gays and lesbians, where we are free to live incomparably rich lives.

Now, when Americans have said through polls and voting, that they do not want to give up the meaning of marriage but support a comparable alternative, how do the gay elite respond? When you ask for one cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo...

...In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and the label du jour “bigots.” Once again, the left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood...​

While I would disagree with some of the specifics, I think she demonstrate a very honest and realistic understanding of this issue.

the only people making it an issue are the nay-sayers.

I would not agree with that statement. Most of society consistently comes down against gay marriage when it is up for a vote; as in the 2004 and 2006 elections. The only way that any law has come down on the side of gay marriage is by going through the courts. This suggests judicial activism to impose an agenda that most of society is against. Thus, it is those supporting gay marriage who are the ones making an issue out of this, it would seem.

If you wanna run with the equal rights analogy (which I would consider in general a false analogy, but will run with for the sake of demonstrating this point), look how the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's was passed. It wasn't by going through the courts to re-interpret the law to favor their agenda. It was by convincing the rest of society that the laws should be changed through an Amendment.

The way the pro-gay marriage movement is arguing, it is never going to convince those who oppose their point of view because it is not trying to convince them, but instead attack and marginalize them to cause them to be disregarded while working around the necessity to convince them by going through the courts to impose their agenda on the rest of society, who disagrees with that agenda.

Hope that clarifies things for ya. Sorry for being rather "long-winded". I think it is becoming my "trademark"...

 

[fossten]

I think your trademark is "thorough." Don't let trolls convince you otherwise.

 

[ford nut]

Does that somehow disprove Fossten's claim of your acting like a troll?

It was easy to prove fossen is a troll, I feel no need dispove his unfounded claim

 

[fossten]

Troll: Definition

A Troll is a person who just loves to waste, either intentionally or unintentionally, the time of other people on a newsgroup, group, or other Internet Forum. A troll tells people to do this or do that, to go yonder, etc. because they are too good to do the work themselves. Never will a troll put any effort into their replies. And, if you actually believe these people you will end up wasting a considerable amount of time going on a wild goose chase.

 

[TheDude]

Shagdrum,

You said that you (and most of America) have no problem with gay couples receiving the same exact benefits of a hetero married couple, so obviously, you don't feel that would be the negative hit on American society which you claim gay-marriage would have. (correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did say you 'd have no problem)

So then, what is left, the simple fact that they want to have a marriage license to back up them saying "we're married" like a hetero couple? Rather petty and clearly shows a bigoted standpoint, a "they want to be like us!" attitude. Because what is marriage besides a set of legal rights granted after a ceremony (which is optional) and filling of paperwork? Some claim a spiritual connection*, which in that case, wouldn't (logically) be affected by anothers marriage.

As far as the gay community proving that gay-marriages wouldn't be a negative, Massachusetts isn't crumbling and though it is still early in California, there is no reason to indicate that the state will suffer in some way because of a few extra marriage certificates.

*If you stand on the ground that gay-marriage will somehow contaminate the "sanctity" of hetero-marriage via some osmosis-like effect, there is no way to prove or disprove that, it's a rather silly concept too. Of note, Las Vegas and it's $50.00/5-minute marriages have done more damage to the institute of marriage than anything else.

 

[fossten]

Rather petty and clearly shows a bigoted standpoint

You are often so quick to call people bigots. It's a rather distasteful character trait. If you had left out that remark, your post would have appeared thoughtful and inquisitive. Instead, it's tainted with your ad hominem which, by the way, is ridiculous.

Definition of a bigot: Anyone who is arguing with a liberal.

 

[TheDude]

You're funny. The only other person I've accused of having a bigoted view on something (mind you, not making a blanket "you're a bigot" statement) has been you I think. So you fail with your "often quick to call people bigots" remark, as it certainly isn't something I do at a whim. I'll take the rest as a compliment, thank you, even though you're attemtping a character assassination.

 

[fossten]

You're funny. The only other person I've accused of having a bigoted view on something (mind you, not making a blanket "you're a bigot" statement) has been you I think. So you fail with your "often quick to call people bigots" remark, as it certainly isn't something I do at a whim. I'll take the rest as a compliment, thank you, even though you're attemtping a character assassination.

I don't know whether or not you do it at a whim, but you do throw it out here more than anybody else does. As far as character assassination, I call em as I see em. You calling Shag a bigot is quite distasteful, I'm certain not only to me. The fact that you've called me a bigot in the past only strengthens my point. If you can't make an argument without ad hominem, then (as you put it) shut-up already.

 

[ford nut]

You are often so quick to call people bigots. It's a rather distasteful character trait. If you had left out that remark, your post would have appeared thoughtful and inquisitive. Instead, it's tainted with your ad hominem which, by the way, is ridiculous.

Definition of a bigot: Anyone who is arguing with a liberal.

95DevilleNS said he was showing a bigoted standpoint.
I didnt read it a saying

shagdrum your a bigot

fossten you are doing what you do best draging this thread away from were it should be.

 

[shagdrum]

You said that you (and most of America) have no problem with gay couples receiving the same exact benefits of a hetero married couple, so obviously, you don't feel that would be the negative hit on American society which you claim gay-marriage would have. (correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did say you 'd have no problem)

On no, you are right. I have no problems with gay unions (which the vast majority of society has no problem with), and if the gay couple in question wants to consider that a marriage, great. I hope they are happy. I would think that is the way most of society views it.

I have no problem with these unions being recognized as the legal equivalent of marriage in every way.

The problem is when they demand that it be recognized by the rest of society as marriage, necessitating a redefining of marriage. Most of society tends to agree with my view on this...

Rather petty and clearly shows a bigoted standpoint, a "they want to be like us!" attitude. Because what is marriage besides a set of legal rights granted after a ceremony (which is optional) and filling of paperwork? Some claim a spiritual connection*, which in that case, wouldn't (logically) be affected by anothers marriage.

There is more to in then that. I think I have spelled that out rather clear in this very long debate...

Marriage is about more then just a dedication of love and commitment, or an emotional and/or spiritual bond. I have show a number of times in this thread how it is at least as much about procreation and the raising of children, traditionally.

When marriage has been redefined to allow for gay marriage in other countries (not just gay unions), you see more then enough evidence to strongly suggest that the idea of marriage has been separated from the idea of parenthood. Marriage rates drop, divorce rates climb and illegitimacy rates increase. In the long run you will see crime rates increase (due mostly to illegitimacy and the kind of life that leads to), and more of a burden on society as a whole due to the fallout from gay marriage.

It is not a "bigoted" view, or based in a fear of "them being like us". If marriage didn't have that parenthood component attached to it to begin with, and wouldn't be shown to have the fallout it has been shown to have, I would see no real objection to to gay marriage, and you would probably see most of society on board with it as well.

It seems that the side advocating gay marriage largely wants to avoid discussing those factors, instead oversimplifying the opposing point of view as only claiming that gay marriage is a "threat to the institution of marriage", (without any expansion or explanation of what that means), while characterizing it simply as an issue of civil rights like the movement in the 1960's (without examining the flaws in that claim). On the few occasions that those objections are examined at all by the pro-gay marriage side, they usually cherry-pick info, mischaracterize the person or persons actual argument and often taking the info and claims out of context.

In short, the pro-gay marriage side tends to try to downplay and ignore any opposing arguments, or attempts to make flawed and fallacious arguments to counter the criticisms. All the while spinning the issue to most favor their side.

They cannot convince anyone through those methods, and in fact only strengthen the divide. That is why the courts and judicial activism become necessary to their agenda.

As far as the gay community proving that gay-marriages wouldn't be a negative, Massachusetts isn't crumbling and though it is still early in California, there is no reason to indicate that the state will suffer in some way because of a few extra marriage certificates.

That is a good point. Massachusetts and California have effectively become quazi-social experiments for the rest of the country. There has not been enough time to tell if there is going to be the same effect on marriage there as in other countries that have allowed gay marriage.

If those negative effects do take hold in say the next ten years, the effects are going to be drastic and very hard (if not impossible) to reverse. That is why the burden of proof for any change on a societal level has to be very high and why social experiments are a bad idea; any unforeseen negative consequences (which are a real possibility with any unknown change at this level; a variable as opposed to the known constant of the status quo) can be very far reaching, severe and irreversible.

There is also the issue of how gay marriage came about; through judicial activism, in the face of the majority of voters in both instances, if I remember correctly. It is attempting to force an agenda on society, not convince society of that agenda and get them on board with it. That type of change is imposed on society as in a monarchy, socialist, fascist or otherwise totalitarian state. It goes against everything a democracy stands for and purposely circumvents the democratic process. Any change that avoids that democratic and constitutionally mandated process (on this level) in this country is flat out wrong.

There is also the fact that most of society in those two states (judging by the voting record) is against gay marriage. That fact may effectively make those states more resistant to the negative effects on marriage then other countries that have democratically accepted gay marriage willingly.

That combined with the fact that those two states are simply states in the larger society of America that is by and large against gay marriage may very well help mitigate any damage to marriage that would otherwise be caused...

If you stand on the ground that gay-marriage will somehow contaminate the "sanctity" of hetero-marriage via some osmosis-like effect, there is no way to prove or disprove that, it's a rather silly concept too. Of note, Las Vegas and it's $50.00/5-minute marriages have done more damage to the institute of marriage than anything else. [so far...]

You have a point there. As Tammy Bruce points out in that article I cited:

How seriously can any of us take the president’s vow to “protect the sanctity of marriage” when Britney Spears indulges in it for 5 minutes in Vegas? Marriage has become a television reality game show.

And protecting children? Before amending the Constitution, perhaps the Feds should make divorce a little harder to get. It’s divorce that is ruining children’s lives at the moment, not a couple of lesbians who want to get married (no matter how scary some of those pictures were out of San Francisco).

If George W. Bush is serious about “saving the institution” he has his hands full and he’s running late. ​

*Really, if you haven't read that article, I would highly recommend taking the time to do so.*

Still Bruce points out the that "Marriage is worth protecting, in more ways than one." in her preface to that final statement she makes.

Just because marriage isn't what it should be doesn't me it can't be broken down much further and drawn farther into the abyss through gay marriage, causing much more damage to society along the way. It is not a silly concept it is a cautionary out look, which would be necessitated even more due to the fact that marriage in the country is already highly damage. The protection of marriage is more important now then ever; stop the downward trend (which gay marriage would continue and increase).

You can prove the negative effects of gay marriage on marriage and children enough to meet the burden of proof logically dictated by the precautionary principle. You cannot empirically prove it though direct observation, but that is not the type of proof called for on this issue, considering where the burden of proof logically falls. The type proof called for can be found in this definition, namely:

To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.​

By that standard of proof, the damage to marriage caused by gay marriage is easily demonstrable.

To reiterate:
What needs to be shown by gay marriage advocates is that gay marriage will not harm marriage in general, in spite of the evidence that shows that it would. This is not going to be done by downplaying the claims (calling them "silly"), demanding a higher level of proof (saying that those claims cannot be "proven"), clouding the issue (pointing out that high divorce rates have damaged the institution of marriage more then gay marriage in this country), or any other clever, but ultimately fallacious (intentionally or unintentionally) arguments.

The argument against gay marriage is a very valid one. What the pro-gay marriage side needs to do is show that it is unsound by demonstrating that the premise it is based on (gay marriage will severely damage, if not destroy marriage as a whole) is false. Not downplaying and ignoring that premise.

 

[TheDude]

Shag,

I understand the argument, but from a logical standpoint, there is no reason to believe that allowing gay-marriage would somehow stop hetero couples that wanted to be married from suddenly saying "no, if two men or women are doing it, we don't want to be part of that institution now", which in turn would further illegitimacy and crime rates etc. etc. etc.

Granted, you might few the odd-ball or two that would state they're cancelling their wedding because Tina and Sara down the street hitched up and are taking some sort or moral stand against it, but do you seriously see this happening on even a minuscule scale?

All the data shows otherwise, divorce rates in Mass have dropped and are (or were in 2006) the lowest in the country, now, not sure if allowing gay-marriage had some intrinsic affect on this somehow, but it does indicate that it didn't have a negative affect.

 

[shagdrum]

but from a logical standpoint, there is no reason to believe that allowing gay-marriage would somehow stop hetero couples that wanted to be married from suddenly saying "no, if two men or women are doing it, we don't want to be part of that institution now", which in turn would further illegitimacy and crime rates etc. etc. etc.

That isn't quite the argument. There are a few steps between allowing gay marriage and marriage loosing its meaning to society. I thought they were rather clear. My mistake. Let me spell them out...

When marriage is redefined to allow for gay marriage, marriage is separated from the idea of parenthood and looses its seriousness to society as a whole. People are more casual about getting married (not taking it as a serious commitiment). As this trend continues less people get married (so less people are getting divorced), illegitimacy rates increase and marriage eventually looses its meaning to society.

All the data shows otherwise,

not really. It can be taken out of context, cherry-picked and spun to show that. But objectively, it supports my view.

divorce rates in Mass have dropped and are (or were in 2006) the lowest in the country, now, not sure if allowing gay-marriage had some intrinsic affect on this somehow, but it does indicate that it didn't have a negative affect.

It is far too soon for that stat to indicate much of anything yet, with regards to gay marriage. Other factors are also relevant; illegitimacy rates, marriage rates, ect. What is the context of that statistic?

Due to the early nature of that stat, it is going to be more a reflection of divorce of marriages entered into from before gay marriage was allowed. So the connection to the redefining of marriage is questionable at best. It cannot be expected, with any degree of accuracy, to say anything either way yet about the effect of gay marriage.

If I remember correctly, there was also an issue of if homosexual are legally allowed to get a divorce (though I don't have the time right now to go find that story).

So it is really hard (kind of a stretch) to draw much of any conclusion either way, yet, from Mass as to the effects of gay marriage there.