Why dialogue with activists is impossible: Disagreement = hate

You see, nothing I’ve written suggests that I believe homosexuals are not human; and it’s not just my opinion that suggests same-sex sexual relationships are unhealthy physically and mentally: research and statistics bear this out.  But this is the activist way of thinking.  Either they truly believe that believing such relationships are immoral is the same as believing gays are not human — which suggests that they have been conditioned to believe they are victims whenever there is disagreement.  Or this is an intentional line of propaganda.  One that demonizes anyone who opposes them and paints their detractors as evil and oppressive.

Personally, I wonder if these individuals are actually trying to change the minds of people like me.  One would think they’d want to offer compelling reasons for people like me to change our views on same-sex sexual relationships rather than name-calling and accusations.

Either way, this is why there can be no productive dialogue with people who espouse the activist / victim mentality.

Comments

  1. The health, mental or otherwise of LGBT has zero correlation with regards to their “right”, human or civil, right to marry. I mean this is the pot calling the kettle black, no? 51% of all heterosexual marriages in your “christian” founded nation end in divorce. Should we ban this? I mean if these people were “healthy” why such a ridiculous rate of divorce. Oh wait it’s…let me guess….the disgusting liberal agenda?
    Can you make an argument against same sex marriage that you can’t extract from your religious scriptures? Who is the christian right to tell other people they can’t marry? I mean this flies in the face of the whole “smaller, less intrusive government, libertarian” ideals that conservatives have to contend with when they take this philosophy into this social issue. It’s really not that hard. Nobody is asking for your blessing regarding the “morality” of their personal relationships. It is irrelevant to the issue. What you opine, think or feel regarding same sex marriage has zero to do with their right to marry.

    • Nash

      I guess it’s a good thing that opposition to same-sex marriage doesn’t hinge on the individual health of gays and lesbians or divorce rates then, huh
      And this is not the first time you’ve asked for arguments opposing same-sex marriage which aren’t religiously grounded. This is also not the first time I’ve informed you that NONE of my arguments against same-sex marriage are done so from a religious basis. You can look here…again for my arguments.

      Lastly, you are absolutely wrong about not seeking approval for their relationships. That is exactly what is being sought.

  2. Nash,
    Long before I was a Christian I knew homosexual behavior was absolutely deviant and perverse, so my belief had nothing to do with religion. My belief about marriage being only between members of the opposite sex also has nothing to do with religion – it has to do with the definition of marriage, as well as what marriage has been throughout history.

    Just because people who want to have sex with people of their own gender, that doesn’t mean we should redefine what marriage is. Nor should those of us who disagree with it be forced to accept it or be punished for not doing so.

  3. Yeah, I’ve encountered this disagree = hate attitude many times. It seems to be a default state.

    Funny to be reading this today, considering an incident my husband had this morning. He was playing WoW and another player who has become a friend both on and off the game had invited someone to join their guild. The other guildies welcomed the guy, as customary, and play commenced. During chat, the guy started talking about being gay. This has happened before. For some reason, a lot of gay players seem to find it really important to immediately tell everyone else in the group that they’re gay, as if anyone there really wants to know who they like to f***. Fair enough. As convo continued, he kept ranting about it, and it wasn’t just that he was gay, but everyone there HAD TO APPROVE OF HIM FOR IT… blah blah blah. Okay. Irritating, annoying, unnecessary. People just want to play the friggin’ game, not listen to this. I guess he wasn’t getting the reaction he wanted or something, because he then started spouting anti-religion hate. That happens surprisingly often on WoW. The guy was virulent.

    My husband ended up taking his toon and leaving the guild. He just wants to play; he doesn’t need to put up with that garbage and, as you say, you just can’t dialogue with that sort of mentality.

  4. Of course it is important for the activist to demonize the opposition when it is clear that it is far easier to do that than to rebut the opponent’s argument or to defend his own position.

  5. John,

    I am still continuing to go through your posts regarding homosexuality, but I just thought to start out with I might highlight what seems to me to be flawed reasoning in your case against gay marriage.

    I personally think your statistics and interpretation thereof are incredibly problematic and illogical.

    But to start off with I will set that aside and, for the sake of argument, assume that all your statistics and interpretations were true.

    Your argument centers around the claim that the state’s interest in marriage is based on the desire to promote healthy and stable families which lead to better societal outcomes.

    Because you believe the evidence points to homosexuals being more promiscuous, less monogamous, more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases, etc. they should not be presented as the ideal, or healthiest family units for promotion… Let me know if I made any important mistakes in my representation of your position.

    So my question to you would be, if I showed you statistics arguing that black people had lower levels of monogamy, latino’s were more promiscuous, or more Christians abused their children, asian’s had more STD’s, etc… Or any other such statistics that you think represent or lead to poor relationships, families, etc., would that mean that whomever belonged to this sub-optimal group should not be allowed to legally marry? Why or why not?

    • Do you have such stats? or is this a thought experiment?

    • Well, what I would say is that you broke up the traits of same-sex sexual relationships into isolated traits and spread them out individually. However, if one particular demographic were to exhibit all the identical traits as same-sex sexual relationships, I would be opposed to redefining marriage and changing the laws to reflect the dangerous lifestyle as completely natural, normal, and healthy.

    • The only thing we even have to look at is what marriage really is. And first and foremost it is the union of opposite-sex people. That is all it has ever been until people began to kowtow to 2% of the population whose lifestyle is one of perversion. Biology 101 demonstrates that sexual intercourse is to be between male and female. You don’t even have to bring in a religious argument.

      If you say same-sex coupling should be okay, then you have no logical basis to deny any other sexual union of people or people and animals, etc. Nor do you have a moral basis other than your own beliefs/opinions.

  6. John,

    I am posing it as a hypothetical… Although I am guessing it won’t come as a surprise that single parent households, crime rates, etc. have often been higher in certain minority populations. Not to mention, I doubt it would be hard to find many demographics that are statistically skewed if you parse out the data enough.

    Before getting into the specifics of statistics I was trying to asserts in if this was a principle you would applie to any category of person, or solely homosexuals. Like I said, I find your statistics and your interpretation of them problematic as well, but I think the argument is a poor one besides that.

    Do you have an answer to my question?

  7. It seems to me that if you have one group (20-something straight men, for instance) that has traditionally been MORE promiscuous, the answer lies in PROMOTING marriage amongst that group, not denying them marriage.

    I have to agree with Austin: It would seem the argument you’re suggesting (gay folk are more promiscuous – even IF it were true) is an argument in support of encouraging marriage and monogamy, not against it.

    Rationally speaking.

    • The difference with same sex marriage is we are seeking to change current laws to accommodate a demographic. Marriage has naturally been recognized as an opposite sex long-term coupling.

      But Dan, your history with the way you discuss same-sex marriage, your participation will be limited. Feel free to test the waters.

  8. John…

    But Dan, your history with the way you discuss same-sex marriage, your participation will be limited. Feel free to test the waters.

    I would just reference your post title: Why Dialog with Activists is Impossible…

    I simply offered what, to most of us, is a rational argument: IF there is a group that has tended towards licentiousness, the answer is encouraging monogamous relationships/marriages. If you set aside any activism, that IS a rational response. In what way is encouraging monogamy/marriage NOT a rational response to the problem of licentious living?

    That is an entirely rational response. IF you set aside any activism on your part.

  9. @John Barron,

    So if African Americans could be shown to have a certain level of promiscuity, infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases, and whichever other specific criteria you wish to specify (maybe you could present the appropriate list), then it would be in the state’s interest to deny them the ability to legally marry… Or maybe only let them marry within their race? How do you decide on which traits and how large statistically they must be to warrant legally prohibiting marriage?

    And don’t worry, I will get to the fact that your use of statistics was not very rigorous (to say the least) soon. I am just curious if you could explain the criteria and magnitudes you require for disqualifying a group of people from this legal status.

    I am also curious, if lesbians differed statistically than gay males, would that mean one should be allowed to marry and not the other?

    And I hope the “argument” some use that we should not change the law because it has always been that way won’t be an issue, as that is obviously just the naturalistic fallacy.

  10. Glenn Chatfield,

    “The only thing we even have to look at is what marriage really is. And first and foremost it is the union of opposite-sex people. That is all it has ever been until people began to kowtow to 2% of the population whose lifestyle is one of perversion.”

    Even if marriage contract style relationships had always been this way (which they haven’t if you bother to read some history) it would not really matter as that is the naturalistic fallacy. If hypothetically priests had historically always molested children that wouldn’t mean that we should keep it that way, no matter how old or popular the tradition was. I think it is somewhat of a sign of desperation when people resort to saying “things should not change because they have always been this way!” Which is made neither more or less dubious by the fact that it isn’t even true.

    “Biology 101 demonstrates that sexual intercourse is to be between male and female.”

    Again, even if true (and once again not so much) that would be irrelevant. Naturalistic fallacy. And exactly where in biology 101 does it demonstrate that intercourse is between male and female only? I don’t know if you believe in evolution, but biologically our closest living relatives are the chimpanzees and pigmy chimpanzees (Bonobos). Bonobos have been observed engaging in almost any sexual arrangement, and regularly have same-sex relations.

    This does not make it right or wrong however, because that would be a fallacious inference.

    “If you say same-sex coupling should be okay, then you have no logical basis to deny any other sexual union of people or people and animals, etc. Nor do you have a moral basis other than your own beliefs/opinions.”

    How do you figure? I have not much trouble at all coming up with rational reasons for prohibiting various sexual unions.

    Underage children are regularly legally restricted from the activities of adults as it is believed that persons below certain ages are less able to consent to activities due to their not fully developed cognitive capacities and difficulty in assessing risk and outcomes, among other things. Animals cannot consent to sexual intercourse. I don’t know why you think changing the legal status of one group requires changing the legal status of all?

    • atmt

      Except in very, very rare occurrences where someone previously in history decided that marriage was not to be as designed, no civilized society has ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. The very phrase is an oxymoron. The Greek and Roman empires fell partly because of the rampant sexual immorality and deviancy.

      Marriage is not just a “tradition,” it is a societal institution which is the foundation of society itself. Same-sex unions provide nothing in the way of promoting society and everything in the way of corrupting it.

      Evolution is a fraud. And humans are not animals.

      You have just demonstrated that the only reason you can find to prohibit other sexual unions is nothing more than your opinion; anyone can come up with their own “rational reasons” why a man shouldn’t have sex with a goat. Even “consent” is just your opinion of what should be proper. Give me a standard of reference – the ultimate true standard of morality.

      Um, hello! Basic biology – the physiology of the human body – demonstrates that the primary function of sex is procreation. The parts don’t fit except male to female; only females can conceive, etc. This is NOT irrelevant. It proves homosexual behavior is deviant.

  11. John…

    My last comment still stands. Laws should not be changed to facilitate and sanction and give their seal of approval to physically and mentally and emotionally destructive relationships.

    ? Laws should not be changed to give a “seal of approval” to destructive relationships?

    Okay, then how is that an argument against ENCOURAGING healthy, monogamous, married relationships?

    If we agree that serial, polyamorous relationships with multiple partners and no commitments is unhealthy/destructive, isn’t the rational answer then in DISCOURAGING those (whether it’s young straight guys or older lesbians or whoever) and encouraging faithful, monogamous marriages?

    If not, why not?

  12. John…

    The only thing they dont have is the government saying their sexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship. And it isn’t, that can be seen plainly once you omit the political correctness.

    Well, on one hand, no relationship is “equal” to another relationships… they are all unique.

    On the other hand, how is a gay couple, getting up in the morning together, fixing breakfast for their kids together and sending them off to school with a hug and a kiss, then going off to work (after sharing their own kiss), coming home, fixing dinner together, playing, doing homework and going to bed together… How is that marriage NOT equal to or similar to any other straight marriage? Do you have anything to support that conclusion?

    I think that, if you set aside the anti-gay activism, you would have to conclude that there is no substantive difference between married folk, gay or straight.

  13. John…

    And you’re trying to suggest that that is the typical gay sexual partnership?

    100% of the gay relationships I know are like that. But we’re not talking about “typical.” We’re talking about ideal. Do we as a society want to promote good ideals or not? I think we do.

    So, if they “typical” young straight man wants to have sex with 100 women a month (and that’s probably a safe assumption), does that mean we should ignore that, or should we encourage young straight men to forego their more base desires and press, instead, for a healthier model: Faithful, monogamous marriage? I think obviously, the responsible thing is to encourage young straight men towards faithful monogamous marriage relationships.

    John…

    Are you also suggesting that laws need to be changed for them to do those things?

    I’m suggesting that we do this already with young straight people, by societally promoting marriage, by the legitimacy we grant marriage in state-ordained weddings. If we do it for one group, what rational reason would we have for NOT doing it for another group?

    On the other hand, if we want to not get the state involved in the business of promoting marriage, then let’s stop promoting it at the state level in straight and gay relationships. But it’s fundamentally irrational and unjust (if you set aside the activist mindset) to suggest we should support/promote healthy marriage relationships for one group and not the other.

    Where am I mistaken? What possible reason would we have for promoting marriage as we do for one group and not another?

  14. Glenn…

    it is a societal institution which is the foundation of society itself.

    Slavery was a societal institution that was a huge foundation of societies past. It was, nonetheless, wrong.

    Polygamy was a societal institution that was a foundation of societies past. Most of us think now, Biblical support notwithstanding, that it is less-than-ideal.

    The decimation of an enemy – men, women and children – has been a foundational aspect of societies past. It is, nonetheless, wrong.

    Just because something was “foundational” or institutionalized in societies past does not make it a good thing or something to replicate in our society. Things CAN get better, societies CAN learn to make better choices and this, from a purely rational point of view (and if you set aside your activist mindset), this is just a logical progression to make.

    On what possible bases would we NOT encourage faithful, monogamous marriages?

    • Here goes Dan again, bringing in comparisons of apples and oranges.

      Well, Dan, since you claim to be a Christian, then I can use the Bible with you, even knowing you don’t accept what it says. But the fact is, GOD instituted marriage and stated what it was – one man and one woman. The fact that sinful people abused that institution over the centuries does not alter the fact of what it is. God also has condemned homosexual behavior soundly – and that is not a “hunch,” or “opinion,” or anything else but 100% fact which you deny because it doesn’t fit with your agenda or the God you have designed out of your imagination.

      The only way to prevent society from careening down the moral cliff is to stop sanctioning sexual immorality of ever sort; adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, etc.

  15. I DO believe the Bible and I understand that YOUR interpretation of it is that God “instituted” marriage and “defined” it as being between one man and one woman. That is fine, that is your interpretation. But not everyone agrees with your hunches about God’s opinion on the matter. So, let’s set aside for now your hunches and opinions about what God wants…

    And I’d ask and hope that you can agree that, just because societies have institutionalized and had as “foundational” some behavior does not make that behavior good or moral or desirable, right?

    Regardless of your opinions of societal norms and what God thinks about gay folk, the question that is being raised is, what RATIONAL reason would we have for not promoting healthy, monogamous marriages in society?

    • Dan,

      Until the past few decades of people trying to “prove” the Bible doesn’t say what it says, every Jew and Christian throughout history understood the correct interpretation of the passages in scripture dealing with marriage or homosexual behavior. It is not my “hunch.” It is fact. But liberal apostates like you don’t want to be bothered with facts.

      Healthy, monogamous marriages cannot by definition include same-sex relationships. And there is no such thing as a healthy same-sex relationship.

      I’m done with you, because I don’t argue with a fool. So you can have the last word (as usual) and keep blaspheming God.

  16. Glenn…

    Healthy, monogamous marriages cannot by definition include same-sex relationships. And there is no such thing as a healthy same-sex relationship.

    Real world facts demonstrate objectively your failure here. But it would seem you have a problem differentiating between facts (when you suggest that your interpretation is “factual,” when it is only an opinion) and opinions, and therein lies your difficulty.

    I’ve asked for any rational reason to oppose promoting healthy, monogamous marriages, gay or straight, and you’ve offered nothing other than your opinion (unsupported and easily disproved) that “nuh-uh! I say it can’t happen so it can’t happen…”

    You’re welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    • Dan, actually the real world shows that homosexuals are exponentially more likely to have diseases and psychological problems than heterosexuals. Your problem is you hold up the ideal same sex couple as though it is the rule and not the exception, and the facts dont bear that out. You think that just offering the institution of marriage will cure all their woes, but this also isnt borne out. They can already make lifelong monogamous commitments to eachother regardless of the laws, and they dont seem to be doing that now do they. Even in states where same sex marriage is legal, gays are not flocking to marriage either. Relative to their population, very few gays take advantage of state sanctioned marriage. So on all fronts you’re wrong.

  17. Glenn…

    I’m done with you, because I don’t argue with a fool.

    Thus demonstrating for us why it is impossible to dialog with activists.

    Thanks for the demonstration.

    • Dan,
      You make it so difficult!
      You are the one with opinions only without any facts. Every time you are given facts – including from the Bible, from science, from the medical field – you always claim they are just hunches, opinions, etc. “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” is your method of operating, demonstrated on blog after blog, after blog.

      As to your last comment, which is why I just had to respond to a fool – I am not an activist, so therefore nothing has been demonstrated on my side except that you are impossible to dialog with because you refuse to accept any truth or facts presented.

  18. “The Bible ‘defines’ marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

    That is objectivley speaking, an opinion. A demonstrably mistaken opinion, at that, but an opinion, nonetheless.

    “Some gay marriage relationships are monogamous, emotionally and physically healthy.”

    That is objectively speaking, a demonstrable fact.

    “Healthy, monogamous marriages cannot by definition include same-sex relationships.”

    That is an opinion, one that is easily shown to be mistaken by a look at the facts.

    Does that help you, Glenn?

    • Dan,
      You have been provided many times in the past with specific Bible passages defining marriage as between a man and a woman. THAT IS A FACT. You refuse to accept what the Bible says and claim it’s just OUR interpretation, even though that has been the interpretation for thousands of years until liberal homosexualists began finding “new” understanding. If it’s new, it’s not true.

      Homosexual behavior is NEVER emotionally or physically heathy. This FACT has been demonstrated to you by medical studies over and over again. But you label YOUR opinion, which is contrary to all the experts’, as fact. Everyone else is wrong except for Dan and his homosexualist ilk.

      The FACTS do indeed state that same-sex relationships cannot be defined as “marriage” any more than a dandelion can be defined as a rose or a square defined as a circle. You just can’t change the definition of words to suit your personal agenda.

  19. @John,

    I am a little confused as to why you almost never actually answer the questions I ask? And often don’t even respond to the arguments I make. I find it helpful for me to ask after typing a response, if I was the original poster, would this response address all my questions and arguments?

    Before I respond more fully, you emphasize the fact that it involves a *change in law* as if that is one of the stumbling blocks. Are you saying if it already was legal for gays to marry you would be fine with it? Or not have an argument? Also, why won’t you answer the question regarding if African American’s had the same demographic statistics as homosexuals?

  20. Dan,
    I forgot one way in which same-sex relationships are ALWAYS unhealthy, and that is in the spiritual realm. They are spiritually unhealthy due to the fact that they are unrepentant in practicing a sexual behavior God has in no uncertain terms declared to be an abomination in his sight – and that is not a hunch or opinion, it is what the Bible says and what any non-biased objective reading of it understands. So if one is refusing to repent of sin before God, that person lives a spiritually unhealthy life. Therefore, homosexual behavior being a gross sin which God found worthy of capital punishment, any person practicing that sin without repentance and turning away from it is not walking with God.

    That is not an opinion or hunch or just my interpretation of the Bible. It is the 100% fact that has been taught and understood by the best Christian minds for 2000 years.

    But we all understand that you think they are all wrong.

  21. Just to clarify so that you do not think I am going off on a tangent or unnecessary arguments.

    I am trying to establish whether your criteria apply to all persons and populations, or whether this argument is solely in regards to homosexuality, which is a form of logical fallacy known as special pleading.

    Secondly I want to clarify what approximately are the parameters of this argument? If gays and lesbians were only promiscuous, would that be enough to disqualify them? How promiscuous do they need to be in order for it to be reasonable for the state to exclude them? On average 5 partners in a life? 10? Etc. Is it the combination of promiscuity and STD’s? etc. etc. etc.

    Why I need to know this is because I want to make sure you have some sense of what your own standards are so when I present statistical data you will not (and I am not suggesting you would do so intentionally) move the goal post. If there is no standard there is nothing with which to judge the data.

  22. John…

    actually the real world shows that homosexuals are exponentially more likely to have diseases and psychological problems than heterosexuals. Your problem is you hold up the ideal same sex couple as though it is the rule and not the exception

    Actually, if they WERE the exception (and getting to Austin’s questions), it would seem to only emphasize how important promoting marriage is. Again, your argument (gay folk are promiscuous) even if it were true, only serves to promote MY position (we ought to encourage monogamous marriages) and undermine your position.

    So again, what rational reason would we have for NOT promoting healthy, monogamous marriages? That is the question you all seem unable to answer, perhaps exactly because you are anti-marriage activists and thereby blinded to reasonable questions/holes in your arguments?

  23. Glenn…

    That is not an opinion or hunch or just my interpretation of the Bible. It is the 100% fact that has been taught and understood by the best Christian minds for 2000 years.

    You DO understand, don’t you, that even if 100% of 100 million people hold an opinion about behavior X, that does not make the opinion a fact? And that it doesn’t make the opinion moral or rational?

    Glenn, until you begin to be able to distinguish accurately between fact and opinion, you will make little traction in promoting your irrational prejudices.

    • Dan,
      No, I’m not claiming number equal truth, but when everyone says 2+2=4 and someone says, “no, it equals 5,” I think people shouldn’t be jumping on the bandwagon of 5. The Bible is perspicuous in what it says about marriage and what it says about homosexuality. To claim otherwise is dishonest bias.

      It is you who has an irrational prejudice about what the Bible clearly teaches. I have no prejudices except against sin.

  24. So, on what RATIONAL basis would we NOT encourage faithful, monogamous marriages for all folk, Glenn?

    Why not just offer straightforward answers to direct questions?

    • Dan,
      Yes, a rational basis encourages faithful, monogamous marriages for all. And everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is.

      You can’t make your statement and then include same-sex fake marriage as a rational marriage. It is irrational, it is perverse, it is an abomination, and does not meet the biblical definition of marriage, let alone the historical definition of marriage which is a union of opposite-sex people. Homosexual unions will never be equal to heterosexual unions by any measurement because that is not how the human body was designed.

      Every answer I have give has been “straight-forward,” yet you marginalize it with your asinine claims of “hunches,” “opinions,” “your interpretations,” etc.

  25. John,

    I guess I will get to the statistics then since you don’t seem to want to present your criteria and standards right now. I am not sure how to come to a reasonable evaluation of the data without this, but oh well.

    I figure I will go through the statistics one at a time at first. The first should be easy. I agree with you that incidences of STD’s and especially HIV are much higher… Amongst gay men. This is certainly true.

    However, as of 2004 the CDC said they had NOT ONE documented case of a woman contracting HIV from lesbian sexual activity. In general lesbians are below average in the contraction of most sexually transmitted diseases.

    So, just looking at this criteria to start with, until all the other data is looked at, does this mean the state should discourage gay male relationships but greatly promote lesbian relationships?

    • Austintx

      You can go through stats if you want. It doesn’t much matter though. As I’ve said they are ultimately moot, and I gather you wouldn’t be willing to include lesbians but not gay men. Also whether certain races have higher instances of disease is irrelevant (and not special pleading) because they are not inherent to blacks that have sex with other blacks the same way it is inherent with men who have sex with other men.

      In the end government supports natural marriage for the protection of women and children and so to bring up the next generation. Marriage provides children with both natural parents, which has need shown to be in the best interest of the child overall.

      Did you have any thoughts on the links I posted?

  26. John, I am wondering if it would be helpful if you could put your objection to marriage equity in one sentence, like: “I think gay folk should not be allowed to marry one another because gay folk are too promiscuous, statistically speaking, and this would undermine marriage as a whole…” or, “I think gay folk shouldn’t marry because they tend to prone to diseases and thus, it is a health hazard…” Like that. Could you do that?

    Because, as it stands now, I’m not sure what your objection is to gay folk being married.

    Another way of looking at it is this: If it were demonstrated that encouraging gay folk in faithful, monogamous marriage were to result in 50% fewer diseases and 25% more fidelity, would you support it then? If not, what would it take for you to support it and why?

    I just can see NO downside to encouraging faithful, monogamous, healthy relationships – ESPECIALLY if a given group (young straight men, gay folk, whoever) were more promiscuous, statistically speaking. If you could answer those questions, it might help make more sense.

    Conversely, if you are unable to answer these questions, perhaps you can see why your “side” is losing this argument…

  27. Perhaps you can understand that it sounds like you’re saying, “It doesn’t matter what facts you can present to me – the numbers, statistics, etc in the real world – you can’t convince me that encouraging faithful marriage relationships in this one group is a good thing because… well, because I’m an activist and you can’t dialog with an activist…”?

  28. John,

    I did not think this discussion was about what I or anyone else would prefer or not. As for me, I am simply trying to demonstrate the multitude of flaws present in arguments against gay marriage and trying to find out wether or not these criticisms are legitimate, can be responded to, etc. so that I can better discover what conclusions the best facts and arguments support. I was merely pointing out that according to one of the criteria YOU set out (not me) the conclusion would be in favor of lesbian marriage and opposed to the marriage of gay men. Which leaves you with 4 choices. Deny the conclusion by presenting a counter argument as to why my assessment was flawed. Accept that this is the conclusion this reasoning leads to and accept the conclusion. Consider the conclusion non-sensical and attempt to salvage the argument by modifying it. Except that the conclusion is non-sensical and consider it evidence against the argument and thus it should be abandoned.

    Now this was addressing only a single statistic so far. If you do not want to defend your statistical argument, then I can just stop here, I have just seen you in various places criticize others for not addressing the evidence.

    The arguments you linked to differed from the statistical argument for sure, as I was focusing on that I had yet to address them.

    But here it goes. First of all I will address your argument that this is not a matter of equal protect, equality under the law, because the law applies equally to everyone. No one can legally marry a member of the same sex whether gay or straight, so the law applies “equally” to gay and straight alike.

    I am curious, did you know that this was EXACTLY the same case made in cases such as Loving vs. the State of Virginia in order to defend anti-miscegenation laws? After all laws against racial mixing apply equally to all races, a white person is just as equally unable to marry outside their race as a black person, so no inequality right?

    Do you think the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring this a violation of the equal protection clause, and if not, how is your argument substantively different?

  29. John,

    Yes, I read them both multiple times. Did you read my comment?

    It responded to your claim:

    “But the same-sex marriage supporters mantra is “equal rights”. However, the advocates for same-sex marriage already have equal rights[….] homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. What same-sex marriage advocates do not like is that they also have the same restrictions. Rights aren’t the issue.”

    Could you read my comment and answer my question please, I would greatly appreciate it.

    • But you keep trying to refer to health stats as the only relevant factor, I’m not sure why the isolation, but I also didnt really see where you addressed my two posts hilighting why the “equal rights” mantra is misguided. What am I missing?

  30. John,

    I am not sure why it is hard to answer any of my questions, is there something about the way they are phrased that causes confusion?

    Your exact same argument:

    “So what is the disparity of rights? That standard applies to everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike. If the standard is equally applied, then no rights have been violated.”

    Was used to claim anti-miscegenation laws did not violate equal protection laws either.

    Now I am making an assumption that you oppose miscegenation laws, if you do not let me know. Assuming you agree that miscegenation laws violate Equal Protection (the legal equivalent of “equal rights”), how can you remain consistent and oppose one and support the other?

    Obviously anyone can come up with an ad hoc reason to argue for any position, the problem is it is very difficult to come up with a coherent and logical argument that is consistent and not merely changing standards and rules depending on what’s the topic.

    • One’s skin color is of no significance to coupling as it relates to marriage, i.e., to produce and foster the next generations. Why is it so difficult to understand/accept that the government has a stake in fostering long-term relationships that produce the next generation? They have a stake in incentivizing men and women: fathers and mothers to be legally bound to provide for their children a mother and father, which by all accounts is the idea family structure for raising children. This is not new information which is why I find it puzzling that you focus in aspects that hold little significance to the issue, except for its rhetorical and emotional value.

  31. John,

    “One’s skin color is of no significance to coupling as it relates to marriage”

    It is my view that one’s sexual preferences is of no significance as it relates to marriage. And why won’t you answer the equal protection question? This response does nothing to present why one should be protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (this is off the top of my head, but I believe it is the 14th) and the other should not.

    “I.e. to produce and foster the next generations.”

    You make much of the fact in one of your posts that the marriage contract says nothing about whether the couple is in love, etc. therefore that is irrelevant to the institution of marriage.

    “There are no questions on the marriage licence asking if the parties are in love, or attracted to one another, or if the couple even plans on having a sexual relationship.”

    There is also nothing in the marriage contract asking how many children you are planning to have. True, many married couple have biological children, many do not, and many adopt. So?

    “Why is it so difficult to understand/accept that the government has a stake in fostering long-term relationships that produce the next generation?”

    I personally think we would be fine if the government had no involvement with institutionalized marriage. As long as we do have such an involvement it shouldn’t be up to the government to choose which marriages are appropriate or not, except when there is a compelling state interest to do so. Legally something along the lines of “strict scrutiny.” In other words there should be reason to believe significant and disproportionate harm would result without said restriction.

    “They have a stake in incentivizing men and women: fathers and mothers to be legally bound to provide for their children a mother and father, which by all accounts is the idea family structure for raising children.”

    What is your evidence for this claim? Certainly there is research showing that single parent households tend to have more difficulties than two parent households, but can you provide your evidence that same-sex parents are on average more delinquent?

    “This is not new information which is why I find it puzzling that you focus in aspects that hold little significance to the issue, except for its rhetorical and emotional value.”

    I don’t think trying to find out whether your argument is consistent or full of ad hoc assertions and special pleading is merely a matter of “rhetorical and emotional value.”

    If you dislike having to present arguments in a logical and coherent fashion then I am not sure what the purpose of such discussions and debates would be.

    • I cant account for your inability to accept my points. I also cant make you see how ones gender does have an impact on the ability produce the next generation. I also cannot force you to understand that if everyone is under the same laws with the same restrictions, then equality exists. Perhaps you could offer an argument for why the govt should take feeling and sexual attraction into account when issuing marriage licences. And argue that the state should care about ones love.

  32. @John,

    “I cant account for your inability to accept my points.”

    Maybe it is because you seem reluctant to defend them against counter arguments.

    “I also cant make you see how ones gender does have an impact on the ability produce the next generation.”

    We both agree that heterosexual intercourse is the only “natural” way to produce a child, if that is what you mean… But allowing gays to marry isn’t going to make people stop having children, is it? So what are you arguing?

    “I also cannot force you to understand that if everyone is under the same laws with the same restrictions, then equality exists.”

    So you disagree with the Supreme Court that anti-miscegenation laws violate equal protection? That appears to be what is being said, so correct me if I am wrong. If so, then upon what basis would you dispute anti-miscegenation laws?

    I seem to be having difficulty convincing you that arguments must be consistent and not ad hoc and changed to fit whatever you want it to case by case.

    I am not saying same-sex marriage is identical to mixed race marriages. What I am saying is that one of your arguments could apply equally (and in fact WAS applied equally) to miscegenation laws.

    “Perhaps you could offer an argument for why the govt should take feeling and sexual attraction into account when issuing marriage licences. And argue that the state should care about ones love.”

    I never argued that the government should. I simply believe that they should abide by the same principal of equal protection here that they have in cases such as Loving v. Virginia…. And so far, as far as I can see your arguments are something along the lines of: this is different, gays can’t have children through sexual intercourse with their partners, they make worse parents (which I would appreciate you pointing me to evidence of this claim, if you have it), that statistically they make worse candidates for marriage (an argument you some not to want to discuss anymore), and the argument I have not gotten around to addressing yet that “they already can marry.”

    And just saying that homosexuality is different and listing differences is not an argument against equal protection unless you explain how it applies.

    Am I leaving something out?

    And again, if it isn’t at least in part a matter of equal protection, then how do you remain consistent (I am assuming you wish to remain logically consistent right?) and defend one and not the other (mixed race marriages and homosexual marriages that is)….

    So far I can’t say I have honestly even seen an ATTEMPT at a response to this… I.e. my argument.

    If you think you can win a debate by simply ignoring any opposing argument, I don’t know what to tell you.

    • I think perhaps my reluctance to keep going is that I’ve made multiple cases against same sex marriage in previous posts. I dont particular find any motivation to repeat myself in comment sections at essay length. As it is, you may have very well brought up good points previously, but I have likely missed them because your comments are so long. I rarely read comments that are longer than a paragraph and barely skim. If you want me to stay engaged, succinct comments with one issue at a time is always best. I also hate fisking, which you seem fond of, which is OK, because most people dont care, and have no problem — it’s just a personal pet peeve of mine.

      I’m not dodging or ignoring, but having belabored my views over and again in posts and comments with another samesex marriage supporter (Dan Traube), I easily grow tired of repeating myself…over…and over…and over…and over…

      Like I said, not sure what else I can offer to you. I wouldnt blame you if you threw up your hands and claimed I gave up, because like I said, I have made my views known in multiple places, multiple times. I hate repeating myself, and you have made me repeat this point also.

  33. John, when someone raises what seems like to them legitimate questions that point to what seems to them to be holes in your argument/reasoning and you just keep ignoring the question and responding to different points altogether, do you see how that looks like you’re dodging questions and that it SEEMS like you don’t have answers to the holes in your argument and can’t really answer them and that is why you’re apparently dodging the questions?

    For instance, I asked a simple question that I thought would help clarify what specifically you’re objecting to. I asked…

    I am wondering if it would be helpful if you could put your objection to marriage equity in one sentence, like: “I think gay folk should not be allowed to marry one another because gay folk are too promiscuous, statistically speaking, and this would undermine marriage as a whole…” or, “I think gay folk shouldn’t marry because they tend to prone to diseases and thus, it is a health hazard…” Like that. Could you do that?

    If you could just specifically answer that question, then we could raise our problems with your actual position or, if your position is logically sound, agree with your actual conclusion, but you’d have to address the question, first.

    I also asked…

    Another way of looking at it is this: If it were demonstrated that encouraging gay folk in faithful, monogamous marriage were to result in 50% fewer diseases and 25% more fidelity, would you support it then? If not, what would it take for you to support it and why?

    Would it be possible to get direct answers to those questions?

    My guess is that ultimately you don’t have any objective, consistent rational responses to these questions, and that it boils down to, “I think God would not approve of gay folk marrying, therefore, based on that opinion about what God wants, I am opposed to it…” as opposed to anything more solid and less religious. But you tell me.

  34. John…

    I wouldnt blame you if you threw up your hands and claimed I gave up, because like I said, I have made my views known in multiple places, multiple times.

    Well, by and large, that is what people are doing, throwing up our hands and choosing to ignore as irrelevant those who would ban a rationally moral conclusion like, “It’s good to support and encourage marriage.” But it’s not like answering some of these questions would involve a huge amount of effort. In the time it took you to write that paragraph above, you could have easily answered any one of the questions Austin or I asked of you.

    If you all are ceding the fight, then that’s fine and good, but you can’t act like we haven’t tried to engage you in conversation on this and admit that you lost the argument not because we’re too stubborn to look at facts, but simply because you wouldn’t engage in conversation with give and take, and that you chose not to address the holes in your arguments.

    • Dan

      you have been answered so many times here and other places, I pretty much ignore you on this topic. There’s no use beating a dead horse with you.

      If you and Austintx think I’m wrong, then, well, you think I’m wrong. If you think my arguments are incomplete, then, well, you think they’re incomplete. But that is not the same as ignoring your questions.

      Austintx’s legitimate questions have been answered in other posts and comments. It seems, rather, that he and you are not compelled by them. That isn’t something I have any control over. It only seems like dodging if you ignore that the questions have already been addressed. I don’t need to further repeat my position against same-sex marriage any more than I have done HERE. It seems like you want to discuss the topic as though it is new ground each time. I can only assume (since we have been over this literally dozens of times) that you want to make it seem as though it is new ground being avoided for new onlookers. This is when you ALWAYS double down on the “why wont you discuss this with me…” baloney. You wait for new commenters then join the discussion as though you’ve never been here and never been addressed before. Enough already.

  35. I fully admit I have not read every one of your posts and all their associated comments on the issue of homosexuality… And I am a little reluctant to do so in a timely manner if you are not even going to read my comments thoroughly.

    And obviously you are under no obligation to debate these issues with me, and I do appreciate the time you have put in responding to me.

    I also have multiple times said that if you have a post that responds to an argument or question of mine you can feel free to direct me to it, I do not wish to make you re-write every argument you have already made.

    It is a little disingenuous to say you have responded to my questions and comments when you admit to not even reading many of them and simply link me to a post that in no way addresses my concerns.

    Again, if you have already responded to my questions feel free to direct me to them, but please at least read my comments and only direct me if it ACTUALLY is in response to my comments more than tangentially.

  36. For instance I have nowhere seen a response to my criticism and questions regarding your “equality” argument.

    I have no where seen you reply to my questions regarding “equal protection” clause as it relates to miscegenation.

    I have no where seen a response to my question regarding the ethical status of cells in the earliest stages of embryonic development.

  37. So then when he asked for why I believe there is a difference between a single human cell like a skin cell and a fertilized egg and I pointed him to my post “Get a life part 2” 3 times that didn’t count. Oh, and when he asked why I don’t support same sex marriage and I pointed him to “what is marriage, and authorized personnel only” those didn’t count either.

    I did point him more than once, but like I noted he was obviously unconvinced, that’s not the same as not answering.

    You have no excuse however. You don’t have the right to say you don’t know where I stand because you’ve been here for almost 2 years asking the same questions whenever a new person comments. You pretend like we’ve never been over this before so you can make it look like I’m evading. In this way you are pretty much lying. You can’t pretend you haven’t done this whole “who me…?” Act before. Too many people have seen it.

  38. And this is why you’ve lost the argument, John.

  39. Like I said, you don’t have to discuss or defend your position in a dialogue. No problem.

    Don’t pretend like you have responded to my questions/comments/arguments/etc…. I should clarify, you have responded to a COUPLE of things, but not the majority.

    Which is fine, you have no obligation to, it is rather obvious you aren’t terribly concerned to… As your last comment makes it rather clear you have not even really been paying much attention to the discussion.

    For instance the fact that you say you repeatedly pointed me to the post “Get a Life Part 2” in order to respond to my skin cell question… A question I only asked ONCE! Yet never ONCE managed to respond to my questions regarding embryonic cells!

    I could go on and on… But that would just lower the likelihood that you will read any of this, so I will stop.

    • Austintx

      I thought I told you I don’t k ow enough about the scenario you presented. Is it possible to do what you said in the hypothetical? Where can I read up on the possibility? I can’t answer what I don’t know about. If I didn’t say this then its my fault. So link me to something that suggests what you hypothesise is possible.

  40. It’s a thought experiment… I thought that was clear when I started out presentations with statements such as “Let us say we are sitting in a womb observing a zygote (obviously a thought experiment :)”

    It is likely possible… But I don’t no what purpose it would serve.

  41. and where might one find this “research and statistics” you speak of?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: