Really Really Bad Arguments

I don’t actually think they’re treating homosexuals as non-persons. I think they really just don’t consider homosexual “love” to be equivalent, generally speaking, to heterosexual “love”. They’re wrong, but that seems to be what they genuinely believe.

I found the NR essay interesting as the most direct effort I’ve seen to describe why the institution of marriage is threatened by gay rights.

In foisting same-sex marriage on Iowa, the state’s supreme court opined in a footnote that the idea that it is best for children to have mothers and fathers married to each other is merely based on “stereotype.”

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.

I guess the antecedent to “That” in the final sentence is the idea that there are other arrangements for children that are as good as the traditional family. You let the gays get married, and soon there will be all kinds of tolerance for divorce and single parenthood and whatnot.

That’s what is so annoying about those who are opposed to “changing the definition of marriage” — normalizing divorce was a much more radical change than gay marriage, as far as I can tell. If you wanted to return to traditional marriage, that’s what you try to undo.

As far as National Review is concerned, homosexuals can go to hell.

In other news, water is wet. But don’t tell Andrew, the shock might kill him.

Erf. Now an insensitivity failure on my part. Just forget I exist.

At the risk of oversimplifying, demonizing etc., the obvious analogy is to the NR’s attitude toward civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s. In addition to the distaste that Buckley had for black people of any class–but particularly for the poor black people who made up the foot soldiers of that movement–was the notion that “your equality diminishes me.” Which Buckley then spun into the death of Western civilization, the need to acquit White Citizens Council members who went a little too far in keeping blacks in their place, etc. etc. As Casey Stengel said, you can look it up.

who doesn’t believe that on some level people steer, morally, by emotional attraction-repulsion drive?

Well, the problem is that you and everyone else ultimately rests all of your moral beliefs on the same icky feeling. Why object to cannibalism? There’s no real reason, it’s just icky. Why object to the mere consumption of child p**n? Icky. Heck, why object to anything that harms another human being (murder, theft, etc.)? Because harm makes you feel icky.

The only disagreement over gay marriage is that you don’t feel the same ickiness that other people feel. You don’t, however, have any really objective or rational reason behind your preferences as to ickiness. None of us do.

Functional,
It seems to me that there is a disanalogy between the reasons why people find cannibalism and child molestation morally objective and the ostensible reasons people give for thinking gay marriage is morally objectionable. Namely, there are other reasons to consider cannibalism and child molestation morally objectionable besides icky-ness (in fact, icky-ness is a hanger-on: it is irrelevant to the reasons cannibalism is morally objectionable). However, I have not seen a cogent moral objection to gay marriage; some have seen “It’s icky!” as a moral argument (hence Holbo’s point).

I have to agree with Russell that it can’t be just about the squeamishness some people feel when they contemplate same-sex relations. If it really were, you might imagine proponents of same-sex marriage launching a campaign to remind people of how squeamish they might feel about what their opposite-sex couple neighbors are up to.

Having said that, though, I’d also add that we probably do underestimate the importance of feelings of disgust when we account for why people think the way they do. I am convinced, for example, that a lot of what we are inclined to term ‘homophobia’–fear of homosexuality–is really more a reaction to feelings of disgust about whatever it is the ‘homophobe’ imagines ‘those people’ get up to in their bedrooms, and not a fear of same-sex relations in the abstract. (That it’s none of their damned business is quite beside the point.)

I’d even be willing to hypothesize that squeamishness about any sexual behavior that deviates from they consider ‘normal’ is accountable for much of the opposition to same-sex marriage among those who are not, or not particularly, religious.

Is that a common presumption?

This is an example of interpreting too charitably. It’s not just a matter of ickyness. Conservatives have a political system that depends on hierarchy. They literally can’t manage to continue within a society that does not have reminders that some people are inherently better than others. That’s why they’re fighting on things like this to the last gasp.

functional – I don’t think it’s a very common view about metaethics to say that morality just comes down to feelings of ickyness (though I suppose some might read Allan Gibbard as saying that). Instead you can note that decision making comes down to motivations of individuals, so that there’s a reason (from someone’s perspective, if not your own) not to do something, if someone doesn’t want you to do it. If someone’s desires about their own person are more meaningful than their desires about others, then you can fairly naturally get fairly strong reasons against non-consensual harm, without having to appeal to “ick”. Although you do have to appeal to the fact that the people being harmed feel bad about being harmed, you’re also appealing to a separate fact that their desires about themselves count more than the desires of others to harm them – it’s not just one person’s ick versus another person’s yay.

JRQ: That’s a great bit of exegesis, I think.

One of the interesting things in anti-gay arguments is the shifting number of non-straight people they imply. When the issue at hand is something like equal access to housing, then we’re told that it’s irrelevant because there are so few LGBTs in the first place and it would be a huge burden on everyone for the sake of a trivial few. When it’s marriage, then there’s an implicit horde of LGBTs just waiting to rush out and ruin marriage for all.

Actually, a recent law and court case in the U.S. appear to have criminalized pornographic comic books with drawings that depict underage people. So no children need to have been harmed for the child porn to exist.

Right, there was a whole Supreme Court case about “virtual” child you-know-what. The Supreme Court struck down Congress’s attempt to regulate it. So enough with the false claim that child p**** necessarily involves molestation.

And talk about not getting the point:

, let me remind you that making child p**n is a horrendous crime not because it is icky but because it involves non-consensual acts.

OK, and why should anyone object to non-consensual acts in the first place? Because non-consensual acts harm people? And why should anyone object to this funny notion called “harm”? It makes you feel icky for someone to be harmed. That’s why. [Hint: If you want to continue the chain of reasoning as to why you object to harm, feel free. Whatever premise you end up with, the only reason you believe it is because the alternative makes you feel icky.]

Yes, in my home country as well, fictional characters have to abide by certain laws. I am quite uncertain about whether I support these laws or not, but I don’t think their existence affect significantly the larger (and almost trivial) point that most of what we object morally to comes from the fact that it involves non-consensual acts.

Z, if all you mean by the word “moral” is “the things that I have elsewhere defined to be moral,” then fine. But that just raises the question, “well, why define the word ‘moral’ that way?” Obviously, it’s because you like some conduct and dislike other conduct. And why? [Keep going here as long as you like.] Because it makes you feel icky for such conduct to occur

You can’t get over this problem just by defining it away.

Obviously, it’s because you like some conduct and dislike other conduct. And why?

I go hungry if people steal my food. I don’t see an “ick” there.

I actually heard about it in connection with Lost Girls. The law is the PROTECT Act, and there’s an article about the guy arrested charged for possession of manga here.

I think that many people’s negative reactions to homosexuality goes further than “ick”.

There’s a whole lot of people on the religious right, including frathouses full of horny heteros, who think that gays are a predatory lot, and that homosexuality is (rather than being something you are born with, or otherwise come by naturally) an acquired condition, spread by seduction and/or gay sex–and one whose “victims” are compelled to perpetuate the cycle. I call it the “vampire theory of human sexuality“. And, in the spirit of this blog posting, it’s a really, really, really bad argument, one that never gets uttered in any serious public policy forum, but which I think under-girds the attitudes of many a homophobe.

if all you mean by the word “moral” is “the things that I have elsewhere defined to be moral,” then fine

If you read what I wrote, you will see that this is not how I defined “moral”, and I strongly deny that there is any circularity in the definition I have provided (I don’t deny they are a bit naïve, but I tried to stick to simple things, and I think my definitions work reasonably well). To sum up: being bad is doing to others things they don’t want to have them done. Honestly, this is not so hard to understand, and again, there is absolutely no “icky factor” involved. I find incredibly icky that your pseudonym is functional (I am just that way), yet it is not immoral (according to my definition); I find it really funny and not at all icky to slap people in the face, yet this is immoral (according to my definition, and under the hypothesis that the people in question don’t want to be slapped in the face).

You can dispute that these definitions are too naïve, and I might agree, but you cannot in good faith stipulate they are circular, that they involved what I (Z) like or don’t like or that they involve ickiness.

Not to say, again, that there is no merit in the “icky factor theory of morality” at all. As I admitted in my first reply, there are some elements of our laws which are unmotivated within my framework, and which are perfectly well explained by ickiness.

Unfortunately, the icky debate is too tempting to stay out of. Seems to me that the two sides are talking past one another in many ways. On the one hand, the notion that there are no ultimately justifiable transcendental foundations for our moral claims (including, for the sake of argument, how one ought to define morality, although maybe I’m already being circular here) is not new nor is it without merit. On the other, the notion that we can conclude “aha! that must mean that the ultimate foundation is icky-feeling!” seems unwarranted for precisely the reasons appealed to in the former argument. I guess what I want to insert here is that to grant the impossibility of establishing moral truths is not at the same time to say that all morality is based on icky-feeling or subjective feelings of disgust. The latter seems to be an empirical claim, and the former to be a metaphysical claim, and the two need not be connected.

So in fact, any legally prohibited child p*** does necessarily involve molestation. If it’s not using real children, it’s not illegal (see Alan Moore’s Lost Girls, for example) and it’s completely irrelevant here.

Can we say “missing the point” even more spectacularly? I didn’t refer to “legally prohibited” child p***. My point is exactly the same if you confine it to the virtual stuff that’s not illegal. Is virtual computer-drawn child p*** wrong? If so . . . icky.

Z: To sum up: being bad is doing to others things they don’t want to have them done.

OK, fine, but why is it bad to do THAT? At some point, you have to fall upon an unproven and unprovable and completely pre-rational feeling that something is wrong — call it “ickiness,” call it “that’s just how I see it,” call it whatever you like, but it is most definitely on the same level as any other feeling of “ickiness.” At some point, all moral judgments boil down to something that you just “know” to be true. You have no right — no right at all — to pretend that this is a justificatory problem unique to opponents of gay marriage. It’s ubiquitous.

Nuclear family – Christianity – monogamy go together in the same way that cousin marriage — Islam — polygamy go together, I think that’s part of the fear among Christians.

Also goat-fucking. I’m against that, too.

Functional –

So (I guess) you’re saying that the “ickiness” you’re talking about doesn’t necessarily have any qualities that we normally associate with ickiness – it’s just a categorization of principles we accept with no logical rationalization. Is your point that ultimately our ethics are reduced to principles that can’t be rationally justified? If so, I imagine that few people would disagree with you.

There’s nothing written in stone about the two parent nuclear family household.

bjk gets it. The only question is, in the interest of two-parent nuclear family households, should we permit gay marriage? Or should we mandate it for every gay person? Or just limit the marriage mandate to gay people with children?

Gay marriage isn’t the problem – that’s just a red herring. Divorce is the problem.

OK, fine, but why is it bad to do THAT? At some point, you have to fall upon an unproven and unprovable and completely pre-rational feeling that something is wrong—call it “ickiness,” call it “that’s just how I see it,” call it whatever you like, but it is most definitely on the same level as any other feeling of “ickiness.” At some point, all moral judgments boil down to something that you just “know” to be true. You have no right—no right at all—to pretend that this is a justificatory problem unique to opponents of gay marriage. It’s ubiquitous.

There are Contractarian arguments that work. Basically, that what is moral is what a group of primarily self-interested agents would choose to be considered “wrong” in a social contract. This line of reasoning also meshes well with a lot of our intuitions about morality.

For example:
I’m opposed to murder being moral because I value my life, and see how a social standard which allowed murder would make my life unlivable. I have many self-regarding reasons to want to live in a society where I can go about my day without being murdered. (And, I want to live in a stable society… And people can’t live together peaceably if anyone can kill them without worry.) So I can make a case to other people who don’t want to be murdered that we ought to see it as wrong.

Of course, I’m also programmed to feel murder is “icky” based on my upbringing and impulses. But that’s not WHY I consider murder immoral. The ick-factor motivates my moral behavior but it’s not a source of moral justification.

Gay marriage is different than murder. Opponents have been raised to have a moral ick-factor towards gay marriage… But they can’t justify that ick-factor based on secular reasoning — the reason they feel gay marriage is gross is “the Bible and my culture tell me so.” So, when they try to come up with non-religious reasons for their opposition, they are either ridiculous (“Gay marriage destroys civilization”), appeal to other ick-factors (“if two men can marry, why not a man and a dog, EWWW”) or are premised on straight-supremacy (“marriage is a privledge for those of us who are better, ie straight”).

Though I’m sure there are certainly plenty of people who oppose equal marriage rights due to their perception of gay sex as icky, surely some religious opponents of gay marriage believe what they claim to believe: that God made marriage a sacrament, that He made it for one man and one woman (that’s not the way it shows up in the Hebrew Bible, of course, but never mind….), and that, therefore, the state shouldn’t sanction marriage between a man and a woman.

Now there are some real problems with this argument, especially in the final step (why should state sanction matter here at all when churches are still free to refuse to marry whomever they want to refuse to marry? what happened to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?). But it’s certainly not such an internally irrational argument that it’s implausible to believe that people actually hold it.

The biggest problems with it–beyond the question of why the role of the state should be of such importance–involve not its internal logic, but its utterly irrational premises. But I think we in contemporary American society generally try to avoid calling attention to the irrationality of people’s religious beliefs (let alone pointing out that those beliefs actually harm other people’s lives), so it’s in a sense more polite to simply say that they find teh gay icky.

Indeed, what do I have against societal suicide, if that’s the sum total of individual choices? Maybe we should experiment with all sorts of societal forms, including extinction. The teleology implicit in the conventional conception of marriage is indeed limiting . . . once we start to separating societal forms and functions, the possibilities are truly liberating. We don’t know what might result, but we’ll never find out if we don’t try . . .

At some point, all moral judgments boil down to something that you just “know” to be true.

I think the above is basically right…

You have no right—no right at all—to pretend that this is a justificatory problem unique to opponents of gay marriage. It’s ubiquitous.

…but this is not. What you’re arguing is:

1) All moral systems must have axioms.
2) Axioms are by definition unprovable.
3) Therefore, no set of axioms is any more valid than another.

But moral axioms must have some empirical basis. An axiom that says “suffering harm is bad” is something that virtually every human being “knows to be true”. An axiom that says “having sex with someone of the same gender is bad” is something that is nowhere near universal and is pretty clearly heavily influenced by culture. It’s not reasonable to treat those two axioms as equally valid.

“bjk, but does this cause you to be morally disapproving of couples that adopt orphaned children? That is, do you want to go up to them and say: you are setting a bad and shameful example? If not, then what’s your point?”

John, why do you limit adoptive families to couples? As you know, many adoptive parents are single, and they are heroes. Of course, the orphans would be better off with a mother and a father. That’s why marriage exists, not so adults can have weddings.

The only coherent argument against gay marriage I’ve encountered enshrines Holbo’s 1 and denies his 2. In this view it’s critical that the entirety of society supports the divine plan, and any deviation threatens its collapse. This is, of course, the authoritarian mindset (see Altemeyer) and does not admit to argument. Tolerance, under that aspect, means that we godless may not object to their proselytizing, even when we’re paying for it.

However, I have a nephew, as godless as I am but less liberal, married, has a son, who opposes gay marriage because it contravenes tradition. I argued with him for hours without enlightening either of us, perhaps because his elder brother in law had already had at him twice. The tentative familial consensus is that his problem is merely homophobia, and JRQ’s image of the polluted font seems apt.

Rich Puchalsky,

I think you are confusing child pornography with obscenity, which can overlap but each lacks First Amendment protection for different reasons. Obscenity can be banned for offending community standards regardless of whether any real people were used in it. Child pornography can be banned because of the harms to children, and the Supreme Court says it has to involve real children, not just images thereof. Again, see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition:

By prohibiting child pornography that does not depict an actual child, the statute goes beyond New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which distinguished child pornography from other sexually explicit speech because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process. See id., at 758. As a general rule, pornography can be banned only if obscene, but under Ferber, pornography showing minors can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene under the definition set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Ferber recognized that “[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be banned as obscene, does not reflect the State’s particular and more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children.” 458 U.S., at 761.

functional,

If you’re not talking about legal prohibitions, then your point is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because the argument about same-sex marriage is not whether people are allowed to dislike it, but whether it should be legally prohibited. Gay people don’t give a damn about what you think of their relationships so long as the law recognizes and protects them. There’s undoubtedly lots of stuff I do that you’d find “icky,” but until you try to criminalize that stuff, or otherwise make me less of an equal citizen because I do it, you can take your opinion and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Once you get the law involved, on the other hand, I have to give a damn. You think my collection of porn is “icky”? Whatever, piss off. You’re coming to my house to seize it and put me in jail under color of law? I had better be ready.

I find these two angles helpful in focusing the argument:

“The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met…”

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

**

August 1, 2003

REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER

BILL MAHER: And it does seem especially hypocritical since 9/11, when we are so crowing about freedom in this country. Freedom, freedom, freedom – but not the freedom to love who you want to love?

Okay, let me ask you this Congressman [Barney Frank (D-MA)], if gay people were allowed all the rights and privileges that anybody else could have, in other words, they could get the insurance and they could get everything else, but you couldn’t get the name “marriage,” would you go for that?

BARNEY FRANK: Oh, I would, yeah. If there were all the legal rights – remember, gay and lesbian people pay taxes and what we’re saying is, we should be eligible for all the benefits that are supported by the taxes we pay. If people want to create a situation which there is the full legal rights that go with being married, and the price of that was to call it something else, I’m not big on what you call things. And so that would not concern me at all.

What I’m looking for is the right, as I said, two people in love who want to join to their emotional commitment a legal and moral financial responsibility for each other, and if you wanted to call it something else, we can even have a contest.

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_080103.htm (expired link)

CK —

You seem to understand a simple argument. Thanks for that.

That said, I don’t really mean to argue the following:

1) All moral systems must have axioms.
2) Axioms are by definition unprovable.
3) Therefore, no set of axioms is any more valid than another.

1 and 2 are fine. 3 goes a little too far. I’d phrase 3 like this:

“Because no moral axioms are provable, don’t be quite so smug and gleeful, don’ t act like it’s an earth-shattering novelty, to find out that opponents of gay marriage can’t prove their axioms. Neither can you. All you can ultimately say is that you like your axioms better.”

Don C., as you may be aware, Kolasinski’s argument is another really, really bad argument. Among other things, it assumes that the only reason for state-sanctioned marriage relates to reproduction. Gay people aren’t infertile, people were plenty fertile before state-sponsored marriage ever existed, there is no demonstrable state interest in subsidizing reproduction, and Kolasinksi makes a poor argument that marriage is, or gay marriage would be, costly to the government.

Kolasinski also says it’s not feasible to limit marriage to the fertile for practical reasons of identifying the infertile, but there are plenty of non-fertile groups – say post-menopausal women or people with vasectomies – who could be excluded by law. Why does he not favor this?

There’s also persistent confusion between “marriage” and “state-sponsored marriage.” He seems to want to ascribe the benefits of marriage to state-sponsored marriage, but makes no case that this is so – and in fact explicitly denies that state-sponsored marriage helps people form stable relationships even as, elsewhere, he says that the whole purpose of state-sponsored marriage is to create stable families. Gibberish.

Here, he tips his hand:

When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

So his gripe has nothing to do with gay marriage – his gripe is with hetero divorce.

More gibberish:

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example

And if a state must recognize a marriage because it will produce the maximum number of children, on what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example?

How can someone make an argument this clueless?

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

Oh. That’s how.

upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example

Math.

That seems like a fatuous answer, but if you’re serious …

I am. I can also distinguish between qualitative and quantitative criteria.

But, and this is the important part, I recognize that no one is born a polygamist. Since the issue is equal protection, it’s the analogy that was fatuous.

functional,

“they can move in together”
Not if the housing regulations where they live limit the number of “unrelated” persons who can live in a household. Without legally-recognized marriage, they have no claim to being related.

“they can have children”
They can have biological children if they have the cooperation of people in the private sector (who in many states are allowed to discriminate on the basis of both sexual orientation and marital status); they can’t adopt or foster children in several states.

Your beliefs about what is open to same-sex couples without marriage recognition is nice but not consistent with reality.

Moreover, you still don’t address the fact that your claims about the “ick” factor are irrelevant here unless the “ick” has been put into law. Moral objections can go on until the end of time; Catholics still find divorce “icky.” No one cares about their opinion because it’s not instituted in the law and therefore doesn’t constrain those who think differently. In contrast, those who find same-sex relationships “icky” do have their views instituted in the law.

They’re not “prohibiting” private marriage ceremonies; they’re just refusing to recognize such ceremonies. Refusal to recognize isn’t the same as prohibition. No one goes to jail for having a commitment ceremony.

Not if the housing regulations where they live limit the number of “unrelated” persons who can live in a household.

Are there any housing regulations that limit the number of “unrelated” persons to one? That’s the only such housing regulation that would prevent gays from living together in groups of two.

Anyway, this isn’t what I wanted to debate. My main point (which you do not and cannot refute) is that any law (or moral decision) ultimately rests on some unprovable intuition or feeling.

“Refusal to recognize isn’t the same as prohibition. No one goes to jail for having a commitment ceremony.”

Nor do they get the same legal benefits, therefore…….

“My main point (which you do not and cannot refute) is that any law (or moral decision) ultimately rests on some unprovable intuition or feeling.”

You need a new topic of debate then, as that one is self refuting to any one that is aware of more than 1/2 dozen laws and not worth the effort; something you can ponder over the next time you get a speeding ticket for example. Unless of course you mean law in a way other than “any” and limited to those that are “moral” based, but even then…….

No one goes to jail for having a commitment ceremony.

(shrug) But they would go to jail for claiming they are “married” on their taxes.

Anyway, this isn’t what I wanted to debate. My main point (which you do not and cannot refute) is that any law (or moral decision) ultimately rests on some unprovable intuition or feeling.

You think that functional travels the Internet, posting this on every single forum mentioning public policy?

salient, I believe you are referring to the famous “Socrates’ Stick,” which is one of those philosophical metaphors like “Occam’s Razor.” The usage in this case would be: “functional needs to be beaten with Socrates Stick.”

This is not to be confused with “Socrates’ Schtick,” which was asking dumb questions.

The gay marriage debate is about whether the rest of society should give gay marriage official recognition.

No, just the state. The “rest of society” can hoard ammunition on their compounds and wait for the almost-certainly-immanent apocalypse. Looks like they have a head start.

“any law (or moral decision) ultimately rests on some unprovable intuition or feeling.”

Here you go again. There’s a big difference between the law and moral decisions. The law applies to everyone; moral decisions apply only to the person making them. Your repeated conflation, as with bringing up child porn and then backing away saying, “Oh no, I didn’t mean the laws against child porn, I just meant the moral disgust toward child porn,” is really weak.

“According to a 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, fully 79% of Christians in the U.S. say they believe that Christ will return to Earth someday. There is less agreement among Christians, however, over the timing and circumstances of his return.”
@ http://tinyurl.com/cx78ak

Are polls similar to schticks?

Jholbo at 68 – “I don’t think that’s it. What most people believe is 1) “that God made marriage a sacrament, that He made it for one man and one woman” and 2) I have no business imposing my religious beliefs on others. The state ought to be neutral as possible on questions of religious conscience. The question is: why are people opposed to same-sex marriage when they believe both 1 & 2.”

“I have no business imposing my religious beliefs on others” – Talk about gaming the question. You might as well ask if conversion by threat of death is considered ok.

“Do I have the right to create laws based on moral beliefs, even if those beliefs are religious in origin?” – That question will get quite a few yes answers. How is passing laws based on morality from the Koran, Bible, Torah, Bhaqawat Geeta, etc inherently less just than passing laws based on the morality from Kant, Socrates, Plato, Hobbs, Lock, etc?

How is passing laws based on morality from the Koran, Bible, Torah, Bhaqawat Geeta, etc inherently less just than passing laws based on the morality from Kant, Socrates, Plato, Hobbs, Lock, etc?

I don’t know about “inherently”, but laws based on moral principles derived from religious texts presuppose an article of faith, whereas laws deriving from rationalist texts (I leave you to judge if the philosophers you quote satisfy this criterion) strive to appeal to arguments whose validity is supposedly recognized by everyone. If you tell me that killing is bad because the Bible says so, and if I reply that I don’t believe what is written in the Bible, what do you do? Are you going to give up on trying to convince me that killing is bad?

This is why I think even if, perhaps especially if, your own moral code derives from beliefs in some religion, you should try to expose it in terms accessible to anyone (perhaps especially, because if you are convinced that your moral code derives from a supreme being, then presumably you have a strong moral duty to propagate this moral code).

Having read this thread …. When reading the local news this afternoon it took me 3 times to see the “tr___”

“For many ministers, navigating the “I do” question is tricky. St. Timothys United Methodist Church accepts members of all sexual orientations and gender identities but will not sanctify same-sex unions.

“The official stance of the church is that homosexual acts are not compatible with the teachings of Jesus,” said the Rev. Dick Clark.

“…but who wants to live in an institution?”

Will no one speak in favor of abolishing marriage and the family? It strikes me as outrageous presumption for anyone to lobby on behalf of whether the state (and, of course, capital, because this is ultimately an economic debate as well) should tell me who, how and when to fuck. This whole discussion is predicated on an acceptance of patriarchy that I find extremely distasteful, to say the least. The only reason I would vote for gay marriage is that the opponents are far more inimical to my liberty than the proponents. But that’s often not saying much at all.

Politicalfootball wrote:

“In a more sensible country, Barney Frank would be considered a political centrist.”

That’s either hilarious, or chilling.

Say what you will (and have) about Kolasinski, but please answer his question:

What state interest do homosexual marriages serve?

If homosexual marriage advocates can answer that one persuasively, then the rest is will be a foregone conclusion, if not… status quo.

BTW, by what process should the definition of marriage be changed (innovated)?

” Same-sex marriage is good largely because lots of people want to get married to people of the same sex. So it’s in their interest to do so, and the state has no overriding interest in stopping them, obviously. That’s the big ticket item right there. Other stuff is comparatively secondary.”

If simple self-interest is the ‘biggest ticket’ secular argument homosexual marriage advocates have, it’s highly unlikely to persuade enough voters to change the definition of marriage.

Folks have all kinds of selfish interests that the state (society) restricts and/or doesn’t promote.

I hope you can do better.

Don C., I think you would be more comfortable in another country. The United States of America isn’t for the likes of you.

Walt (bully),

What state interest do you believe homosexual “marriage” serves?

Why not take the opportunity to attempt a more persuasive secular argument for homosexual marriage?

Don, for reasons I described (and which you make a special show of not rebutting), Kosalinski’s practical arguments make no sense from the ground up. Holbo has made a more philosophical point.

Now you can (as you again have made a special show of doing) ignore the content of our answers, but that’s not an argument (as they say), that’s contradiction. If you’re looking for an argument that can’t be contradicted, obviously you’re going to be frustrated. As fractional rightly proposes above, even the injunction against murder is subject to contradiction.

Don C: What function of marriage do you think doesn’t apply to same-sex couples? Keeping in mind here that fertility-related answers don’t apply, since there’s no fertility or childbearing requirement for marriage in the actually existing US.

Those of us who think marriage should be available to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples think it serves the same mix of interests for all – encouraging stability in relationships, regularizing inheritance, providing a default flow of authority in matters like medical directives, and on and on. In practice, marriage is a tangled mix of personal and business considerations, all of which apply whoever the partners in a particular couple are.

(And “couple” is the reason I’d support well-crafted efforts to move for multi-partner marriages but am not rolling them in to this particular step. Going from a guaranteed fixed number to variable vastly complicates the flow-of-authority issues, and I haven’t yet seen any very good legal framework that could reliably cover the ground. I believe it can be done, just haven’t seen it yet.)

Meanwhile, back at marriage of the monogamous sort…people fall in love and sometimes want to formalize that, they mingle property, they have children, raise their own biological heirs and children they adopt or provide foster care for, they have wills and inheritances to leave, they wish to have the authority in matters pertaining to their spouse when the spouse is incapacitated, the list goes on and on. And I don’t yet know of anything here that’s somehow auto-magically different based on which sex the partners are.

“Gay marriage” is therefore kind of a misleading handle. There are no gay marriages for which legal sanction is being sought. There are just people who want to take part in the actually existing legal institution of marriage, and it seems to me that as loving, committed couples they’re at least as entitled to it as anyone else wanting to be married.

Anyway, if you’re going to accept Kolasinski’s rather incoherent argument, he identifies a state interest here. If the state must recognize a marriage simply because of its procreational potential:

upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example

Well? If procreation is the sole state interest in state-sponsored marriage, why is procreation practiced among two people – to adopt Kolasinki’s logic – “more worthy of state sanction than … between three, or five?” Plainly (to Kolasinski) the state must oppose polygamy, and therefore must support gay marriage, lest the state provide the rationale for travel down that slippery slope.

Okay, okay – Kolasinki is a nut, and his arguments are both internally contradictory and don’t correspond to observed reality – but I’m not the one who introduced him to this thread, and I’m finding his piece entertaining to examine.

Here are some good arguments I’ve heard:
Gays can’t have kids so they can’t be married- Just like how it’s illegal for infertile people and people who don’t want kids to get married
It would be too hard to change the definition of marriage- California hasn’t already done this a few times and we already wasted too much time securing all those other silly civil rights for blacks
It would make marriage less sacred- Then other married couples, like Britney Speares and Kevin Fedorline, wouldn’t feel that their marriage was as special

But they can have their civil unions; its the same thing, just a different name- Seperate institution but equal rights, what a novel idea!

Righteous Bubba,

It needs to be a politically persuasive answer.

Simple selfish interest, as asserted in this thread, isn’t politically persuasive enough to win the majority of voters you’ll need to redefine marriage in America.

You’ll have to do better, if in fact your goal is political persuasion, and not (as it appears) political thuggery.

Don C: So, why do homosexual “marriage” advocates (radicals) continue their bullying? Because I take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seriously. Likewise with promoting the general welfare.

When I was growing up, part of the standard religious rap against gay people was that they were, as a group, flighty and unstable, neither interested in nor capable of sustaining lasting relationships like normal people. Now here we have GLBT people who clearly do seek to form – or did, long ago, form – lasting relationships for which they’d like the usual protections. Since I think lasting relationships and administration of legal matters with as little fuss as possible are both good things, I say, “By all means, of course.” I find it downright odd that anyone claiming to care about social stability would seek to bar a whole class of otherwise eligible people from one of the major stabilizing institutions.

And that’s about all the replying to Don C. I intend to do, unless something fresh comes up.

jholbo,

Beyond the label “marriage”, what do you (advocates) find dissatisfactory about, say, California’s Domestic Partner Law, which states, in part:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Whoops, one of my links got truncated. But the one that survives is itself link-rich.

I’ll let someone else explain why civil unions don’t help much in crisis situations.

If the state confirms unions, and the church marriages, why should some members of some churches be allowed to deny that right for other members of other churches? Thus the state prohibition of a religious act.

If California Presbyterians want to sanction marriages on top of the states unions what state service is performed by not allowing it? Why such insecurity on your part by sharing a label? Wouldn’t it be better to adapt your label to that of say “G_d Fearing Marriage,” to indicate those who have chose to go beyond the everyday variety; the ones where all kids grow up straight and above average, show proper respect and deference, engage only in post ceremony [missionary only] intercourse, and never ever divorce or meet hookers of any gender in cheap motels? It’s only a label, right?

MarkUp: It is. It’s just not Religiously persuasive except for [largely] Unitarians and other insipid splinterist. I seriously doubt that if the argument was adequate enough for 51% or even 66% you’d agree as to its then being “persuasive.”

Very true. I’ve run into that same sort of argument in libertarian circles a lot, that if something fails to convince the most stalwart, unmoveable, not necessarily honest or consistent resister, then it’s not really popular or democratic. Pretty much always, they regard every other cause’s stalwarts as obvious troublemakers, particularly when they’re getting in the way of some corporate steamrollering; the symmetry either doesn’t occur to them or is dismissed because of the dismisser’s stipulated specialness.

Don C, when I proposed Barney Frank as a sensible centrist on this issue, you were appalled and said so – but as always, ostentasiously refusing to provide the reasoning for your assertion. Now you are holding Rep. Frank up as sensible on this issue, in contrast to the 40% or so of the public that takes a more permissive view of gay marriage – again, without saying why.

You propose that the state enforce “the normal male-female balance” without recognizing that this is, in fact, impossible by definition. If the state has to enforce it, it ain’t “normal.” (For my part, I think “normal” is overrated, but this is your standard we’re talking about.)

As for a “politically persuasive answer,” you don’t say why this is relevant to anything preceding in this conversation, but are you saying that you support gay marriage in Vermont and anyplace else where the political system allows it?

Of course you’re not saying that. As with Barney Frank, you’re just flinging poo, striking out in whatever random direction can muddle the argument. You aren’t even rising to the low level of the National Review or Kolasinski. You aren’t even giving us, in our host’s words, a “really, really bad argument” – just contradiction and misdirection.

Perezoso: This doesn’t solve the problem of what to do when action is necessary and information is limited. People needing immediate medical help, for instance (particularly when they’re outside their home jurisdiction) – who makes decisions on their behalf? There’s a whole lot of things for which marriage provides a generally useful default assumption. There has to be some set of defaults, because “let’s never do anything without firmly evaluating this particular person’s choice” isn’t really feasible.

Even in non-crisis matters, having the defaults vastly reduces the necessary size and complexity of administration, while still allowing people to specify overriding preferences when they have them. Assuming nothing would put us in the same legal and legalistic hell as the idea that we can abolish regulation of pollution and the like and replacing it all with lawsuits – it’s a huge waste, and an unnecessary source of stress and misunderstanding.

Footnote to my previous: A lot of straight people found the Terry Schiavo case not just morally appalling but just plain weird in how far the courts indulged bigoted parents’ efforts to override the normal prerogatives of a marriage they disapproved of. Many fewer GLBT people were boggled that way, because it’s depressingly common in the experience of non-straight partners, and in the absence of legal default protections, it’s really easy for courts to side with hateful relatives rather than actually loved and chosen partners. It’s an example of why persisting on marriage rather than some other-named equivalent is important – to make that kind of thing less routine in more people’s lives.

Politicalfootball: “are you saying that you support gay marriage in Vermont and anyplace else where the political system allows it? Of course you’re not saying that… you’re just flinging poo, striking out in whatever random direction can muddle the argument.”

The aggressive presumptions, defensive projections and displaced intolerances shown by you and other bullies in this thread only reemphasizes your need for a better argument than your own small selfish interests.

I’ve never argued against Vermont or any other state that has, by the will of its people, redefined its own marriage laws.

Your reflexive and bigoted hetero-phobic attitudes are unsurprising at best, not to mention self-defeating.

You present as incapable of self-critical thinking and refuse to examine the unpersuasive nature of your own selfish arguments.

But, again, I don’t think you are interested in persuasion. Petulant indignation, demonization and rhetorical coercion are your immature playgrounds.

Good luck.

Jholbo: “If it literally is just a matter of a word, I don’t much care. The main thing is to secure to these people all the practical advantages of marriage…”

So, what is your major malfunction with California’s Domestic Partner law?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Remember, I’m not the change agent arguing for marriage to be redefined by the state, you (all) are.

Simple selfish interest won’t win the argument.

Neither will thuggishness, be it in this thread’s rhetoric, or actual (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/5ln8km & blacklists).

You can do better.

Perezoso: People I know and like have lost custody of their children thanks to court support of homophobic grandparents and in-laws, and other people I know and like have been denied the right to make end-of-life choices on behalf of incapacitated loved ones likewise. Extending the protection of marriage won’t stop all that; these rights are abused and denied in cases involving straight couples too. But it will help. It moves in the direction of a more consistent presumption that people committed to each other are committed to each other, with the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

If I could see a way to protecting more of the people I care about via the abolition of a default status, I’d certainly be willing to consider it. But I see what life is like now for people outside the bubble of presumption, and it looks pretty bad to me whenever some outsider’s whim may intrude.

Don C: Out of curiosity…do you mind setting some context? Are there any changes to existing social boundaries you ever approve of? I don’t mean that in a sneering way, by the way. How do you feel about racial civil rights, for instance, or the abolition of the marital rape defense? Do you oppose no-fault divorce with the depth of conviction you oppose marriage for same-sex couples? It matters, because if you just don’t really ever want to see anything you can consider social engineering, then there’s nothing particular distinctive about the merits of this case, and the argument would need to be about whether American society is or was ever at a sort of Pareto optimum.

Here’s your dilemma guys (as shown in the video http://tinyurl.com/5ln8km):

On the one hand, homosexual ‘marriage’ advocates brandish placards with: “I AM A VICTIM OF H8”.

While, on the other hand, their comrades menacingly wave placards with: “GO TO HELL MORMONS”.

I’ve attempted in this thread to extract the best possible secular argument from your homosexual “marriage” advocate perspective, but the best one (thus far) is nothing more than simple selfish interest, and reflexive and bullying presumptions as to my perspective (which is irrelevant to the outcome, so I’ll not play that game).

You can do better. Please try…

Since self-interest doesn’t impress you, nor does actual other people’s well-being, Don, surely you won’t have any principled objection if we drag you off to forced labor for a few years, and deny you the right to work in any skilled occupation. That’s all just self-interest too, really, and you’re presumably demonstrating the level of concern for others you deem appropriate.

Some of us hew to a higher standard, which is why we’re interested in consistent treatment regardless of whether it bears directly on us or not, and why we favor actions that clearly lead to greater well-being for more people in society. Since “society” has no unitary existence, the measure of its well-being is the sum of its members’ well-being. We like happy supportive couples, successful kids, and a bunch of other things that don’t seem to interest you. But you’re always welcome to join us, if (like the Grinch) you ever find your heart a few sizes larger.

”I’ve attempted in this thread to extract the best possible…”

You can do better. Please try…

That’s your argument in a nutshell, claiming that while you have tried others have not. There are words to describe that, but that would be thuggish…

Young’s Literal Translation
Yea, thou hast not heard, Yea, thou hast not known, Yea, from that time not opened hath thine ear, For I have known thou dealest treacherously, And ‘Transgressor from the belly,’ One is crying to thee. Isaiah 48:8. 48:9 might be read as well.

Don C: I’m pretty satisfied with the way things are going, though I wish the pace were faster. Since I have a basic grasp of federalism and the operations of democratic republics, I’m fine with both legislative rulings and judicial ones that treat marriage as a matter of equal opportunity for all couples. But then I don’t see this as a redefinition, any more than I think “citizen” was fundamentally redefined by female suffrage, the post-Civil War amendments, and the like – I see it as a matter of saying “yeah, this really is an equal thing, and those prohibitions on some classes’ participation were arbitrary and unjustified”. Same deal here. There is no gay marriage; there are only same-sex couples marrying exactly the way opposite-sex ones do.

Like others here, I have no problem with any religious or social group saying they disapprove of some marriages, refusing to perform them, all that stuff. Dissent and the selective practice by private groups are fine. It’s just that I approve of others not having to refrain because of your disapproval. Nobody is entitled to live without having to recognize that the republic is also for people they don’t like and wish would go away or at least hide.

In the real world outside this blog, right now, there are American couples suffering needlessly because of objections by people like you. I would like to see a federal law or ruling that would sweep all of that away at once, because their rights to equal protection of the laws matter more than your jitters. But since this Congress and Supreme Court are, to put it mildly, unlikely to do that, I’m happy to see as much progress on the state level as possible, and I regard every branch’s path to the affirmation of equal standing in marriage as a good one.

Okay, I really am done. It’s obvious that Don will never give a, er, straight answer to the sort of question he’s demanding of others, and I have relatives and friends to go have fun with.

Hey, Don C! Three strikes so far, but I still haven’t given up on you:

are you saying that you support gay marriage in Vermont and anyplace else where the political system allows it?

Hey PF!

Out of curiosity,

What’s your opinion of homosexual “marriage” activists who complain: “I AM A VICTIM OF H8” while their comrades menace: “GO TO HELL MORMONS”?

When Don C. first posted I was tempted to reply but decided I’d let someone else take a swing first, sensing a troll. The exchanges above validate my intuition.

First, “compelling state interest” is one of three prongs used in a “strict scrutiny” analysis of governmental action impinging upon either a fundamental constitutional right or state action involving a protected class (such as race). Other posters are correct in that Don C. has reversed the burden of proof and that this standard for judicial review has nothing to do with the question posed (unless Don C. would like to include gays as a protected class but I doubt that).

Second, I note Don C.’s repeated attempts to portray other posters as intolerant or as bullies for contradicting him. This is a common tactic used by religious opponents of SSM; to portray the Christian majority in America as victimized by intolerance. A curious position to take when seeking to impose particular religious beliefs upon society as a whole.

Don, I can’t tell if you are asking for an argument that will convince you that SSM should be allowed (I don’t think anything will convince you) or whether you are asking for a politically/socially persuasive reason for SSM. For the latter, how about this: it is the right and moral thing to do. I count among my friends and co-workers gay couples who have been together for decades, leading lives of love and social responsibility. Some have adopted children (including children orphaned by US military adventures) while others have raised children from previous relationships. And, to steal from the Who. the kids are alright. Some of these couples are themselves religious, others are secular. All of them deserve the same civil rights as male-female couples who shoot meth, live in filth, and sexually abuse their children.

Don, feel free to characterize me as a bully and intolerant. Not being a Christian I feel free to slap back rather than turn the other cheek.

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement, and I forgive you for your reflexive (inaccurate) presumptions about my perspectives.

But Don C, how can I be making inaccurate presumptions about your perspective when you confirm my presumption? Let’s do this again. I asked this question:

are you saying that you support gay marriage in Vermont and anyplace else where the political system allows it?

And I presumed this answer:

Of course you’re not saying that

You made a big show of being theatrically offended by this, while flamboyantly refusing to give an actual answer to the question. After repeated requests, you finally provide an answer, and here it is:

Supporting or opposing homosexual “marriage” is not my concern.

So I was right all along! You weren’t saying that you supported gay marriage in Vermont! As I described quite precisely (with particular note to the bold-face I’ve added:

Of course you’re not saying that. As with Barney Frank, you’re just flinging poo, striking out in whatever random direction can muddle the argument. You aren’t even rising to the low level of the National Review or Kolasinski. You aren’t even giving us, in our host’s words, a “really, really bad argument” – just contradiction and misdirection.

And you confirm it! You’ve got no argument at all on the subject.

I’ve got to admit, though, even though you provided the answer I anticipated, I still find it unsatisfying – even though you’ve confirmed that you were flinging poo, I still think that flinging poo is a bad thing.

So I’ll ask for a little clarity here: Do you really think that supporting or opposing homosexual marriage is not your concern? If so, why do you care if anybody else supports or opposes it? What is the purpose of your presence in this conversation?

Guys,

I represent the status quo in this argument. The burden is not on me, but on those (ya’ll) who want change.

The best argument that ya’ll have presented is simple selfish interest.

I think you need to do better than that, if you want to impact “progressive” change.

Ya’ll don’t like that I and the majority of Americans disagree with you… that’s fine, but it won’t win you the political argument.

You need to do better.

But, from what I’ve seen in this thread and in others like it around the web, I think it unlikely you’ll get there anytime soon.

Good Luck ya’ll!

John Holbo: “you haven’t really explained what you think is wrong with ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.”

Plessy v. Ferguson; Roe v. Wade; Lawrence v. Texas; etc.

“You, apparently, see [Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness] as ‘simple selfishness’.”

Nope, I see your fundamental (failure) argument to redefine marriage relying on nothing more than selfish interest.

“what is stopping our argument is simply your indifference to certain rather traditional American values.”

Nope, what is stopping your self-interested “polymorphous perversity/change agent” argument is majority votes.

The question remains: what will you (radical advocates) do to persuade enough Americans to ‘change’ sides to your selfishness on the issue of homosexual “marriage?

Don C. is just Fitz with better spelling.

Welcome Nabokov!

3 questions that will assist you in distilling your argument (good luck!):

What state interest do you believe homosexual “marriage” would serve?

Have you read California’s Domestic Partner law?

By what process do you believe the word marriage should be legally redefined in America?

Don, you for got the “nah, nah, nanah nah” at the end of your post.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum

There are people with rigid personalities to whom gay marriage doesn’t “compute”. There’s a lot of overlap with the religious authoritarians, but the sets aren’t exactly equal. All their lives, they’ve thought of marriage as a union of man and woman; redefine it to equal man and man, or woman and woman, and their brain breaks. Subtract the homophobes and fundamentalists; there remains a sizable minority that are fine with “civil unions” (or similar term) between gays that offer the same rights and responsibilities as marriage.

For example, if someone gets sick, their partner gets to call the shots; they can’t be overruled by the family of the ill even if they are the same gender. I think of Kevin Rudd, an Anglican prude that’s against gay marriage but seems to support civil unions to some extent. He’s not an out-and-out-homophobe – he appointed Penny Wong to his cabinet, despite her limitations[*]. But he obviously feels uncomfortable with “gay marriage”.

I was hoping Don C was that sort of person, but no. Too much passive aggressive behaviour from him (such as calling people bullies because they disagree with him).

[* Nothing to do with her sexuality. It’s her disastrous Emissions Trading Scheme that concerns me.]

JM wrote: “But, and this is the important part, I recognize that no one is born a polygamist.”

Really. How do you know this? Certainly many people regularly fail, despite good intentions, to remain constrained by their monogamous relationships (and others do so without good intentions). This despite the fact that our culture encourages monogamy. And, viewed cross-culturally, polygamy is quite common. If having strong, perhaps uncontrollable desires for sex with others of the same sex is a part of a person’s essence, why would not strong perhaps uncontrollable desires for multiple sexual partners be so?

No, Don, that’s right. A majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage. Congratulations, you found the one issue in which you are in lockstep with the country. But that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing your “state interest” theory, which a majority of Americans would also oppose, since it violates the principles our country was founded on. We don’t have to convince anyone that gay marriage has to satisfy a state interest, since you’re the only person in America who thinks that’s the relevant standard. It amazes me that any American citizen (which I’m presuming you are) is that poorly informed as to the philosophical underpinnings of the American system of government. You should hang out on Hollywood Boulevard so that Jay Leno can pick you for one of those Jaywalking segments.

”It amazes me that any American citizen (which I’m presuming you are) is that poorly informed as to the philosophical underpinnings of the American system of government.”

You must live a life of constant amazement then. Don has a script that says we live in a democracy where the majority rules; he is in the majority on this issue based on a couple of votes and a few periodic polls so he rules, as did Pharaoh, as did Honorius. Quite simple really, as is he.

Even the “ick” factor is a cover for something else. Despite the pretended revulsion for “gay” sex acts, the fact is that homosexuals do nothing sexually that heterosexuals don’t do. One only has to look at the amatuer porn posted by gays and straights alike on sites like xtube.

The real motivation of those opposed to gay rights is simply meanness. They opponents are bullies. They like being able to look down on others. They enjoy the fact that they have “special rights” that gay people don’t. In other words, the opponents of gay rights are not nice people. One doesn’t have to demonize them to realize that they lack the kind of moral compass one gains from being able to empathize with others not like oneself.

Those on the left constantly insist on labeling those with whom they disagree as somehow mentally deficient. Spreading around accusations like ‘homophobia’ and ‘xenophobia’ is just a less harsh version of the old Soviet practice of consigning to psychiatric wards those who dissented from the workers paradise.

Over the long-term, the polls have moved massively toward allowing gay marriage. In California, Prop. 8 is likely to be reversed by the voters in one of the next several elections. It only passed by a 5 point margin, and after disproportionate tons of dough spent by the homophobes.

On the other hand this thread is, in fact, what classic tyranny of the majority looks like.

Because the minority can’t express itself? Because the minority is really representing the status quo? Because the minority has designs upon the dictionary? Because, uh, because?

It’s a Zen koan, Righteous Bubba. Meditate on it for another five minutes, and you’ll achieve Enlightenment.

End italic. Please, here.

1. The state interest in marriage is to encourage support systems outside close blood family in order to reduce the likelihood that someone will instead become a burden on the state. For example, if my spouse is an only child and his elderly mother needs assistance (either money sent to maintain her, or a place to live), he is more likely to be able to incorporate her care into his life if he has a spouse, because the spouse will be able to share in the financial and practical requirements of such care. People without such family structures are more vulnerable to falling back on the state. It’s in the state’s interest to maximize alternatives to the state in assuring citizens’ welfare. Granting recognition of marriage is a minimal cost to the state that creates significant benefits.

2. For every argument that same-sex couples ought to be satisfied with domestic partnerships and civil unions, I always wonder what the arguer would think of having interracial relationships shuffled into such a separate-but-equal grouping.

My position is that of observer.

I’ve observed that the best argument in this thread for the redefinition (downward) of marriage is nothing more than simple selfish interest, an unpersuasive argument which can be applied to countless selfish desires that remain restricted or prohibited by the state.

I’ve observed intolerance masquerading as enlightenment.

I’ve observed the hypocritical projection of the “tyranny of the majority” in a thread that claims to abhor such demonstrations of “H8”.

I am not “arguing for the preservation of a way of life”, I am, if anything, arguing in favor of the most democratic political process possible i.e., the will of the People (*not* the fashionable diktats of unaccountable/unelected/activist judges).

I appreciate and respect many of your views, however the tendency towards defensive rhetorical bullying (not to mention the actual bullying seen in the video linked up-thread) presents as symptomatic of homosexual “marriage” proponents whenever their selfish arguments fail to persuade the needed will of the People (majority) to their side.

Both Vermont *AND* California have, in my view, handled their respective political processes appropriately and their outcomes, while different on the surface (just because of a word), their outcomes are the same: equal rights under their laws.

Homosexual “marriage” advocates have threatened churches. So, what’s to stop these deep-pocketed activist organizations from threatening and/or pursuing lawsuits against churches that refused, based on their 1st Amendment free exercise protections, to perform a “marriage” ceremony for homosexual partnerships?

Follow the money, as they say…

Traditional marriage ain’t broke (it’s just been viciously attacked by modern culture’s polymorphous perversity, atheism, no-fault divorce and an abundance of wealth that has allowed selfishness to reign over sacrifice to family structure), so attempts to “fix” it by defining it downward, or defining perversity upward as the case may be, are in my view reckless and not beneficial to American society as a whole.

A delectable irony is that Barney Frank’s rationality has flummoxed the irrational advocates’ radicalism.

One trusts that ya’ll can see that and at least have a chuckle at your own expense.

Or, just laugh at your opponents because laughter is good medicine, and worrying doesn’t increase one’s lifespan.

Hasta Luego!

I’m adding extra points for Don C.’s now frequently demonstrated ability to flag he’s made what he thinks is a conclusive point and no longer needs to return to this thread – only to keep returning.

Another deftly handled display of an attribute so common to really really bad arguers.

You’ll certainly get a high distinction if you respond Don.

Don C., if you’re an observer, you’re not an unbiased one. Not even Calif. Prop 8 supporters think their win was “decisive,” as you have characterized it. And “marriage” could hardly be defined further “downward” than heterosexuals have already taken it.

Traditional marriage ain’t broke (it’s just been viciously attacked by modern culture’s polymorphous perversity, atheism, no-fault divorce and an abundance of wealth that has allowed selfishness to reign over sacrifice to family structure), so attempts to “fix” it by defining it downward, or defining perversity upward as the case may be, are in my view reckless and not beneficial to American society as a whole.

Speaking only for myself, I am hereby resolved to do my best to put an end to this “abundance of wealth” problem. I expect thanks from Don C.

Leave marriages to churches and mosques, and out of the hands of the government. The government should be concerned with legal intricacies of ‘civil unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships’ or whatever you want to call them – regardless of gender, sexual preferences, and even the number of participants. If, say, 7 men and 5 women want to form a civil union, why shouldn’t they be able to sign a contract? And if the government doesn’t want to give them the tax breaks it gives to the one-man-one-woman civil union, that should be discussed rationally, not within the utterly idiotic framework of “what is the definition of ‘marriage’.”

What’s so controversial here that requires 200+ comments?

RB: “Speaking only for myself, I am hereby resolved to do my best to put an end to this ‘abundance of wealth’ problem.”

Selfish! ;)

Pith:

“The simulacrum is true.”

Bob Peters wrote:

“This secular value system is also reflected in the ‘sexual revolution,’ which is the driving force behind the push for ‘gay marriage;’ and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

“It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

“I would add that if conservative media’s irresponsible talk of revolution can ‘poison weak minds,’ the liberal entertainment media’s irresponsible portrayal of mayhem can also poison weak minds.”

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html

You introduced Bob Peters to this thread.

No doubt the “class” can benefit from your views as to any inaccuracies or untruthfulness in his words.

Good luck.

”You introduced Bob Peters to this thread.”

Very good once again Don. That’s twice today! I smell a gold star coming your way. Keep it up. Likely did not dawn on you then that I already had some knowledge of his words.

“not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the…”

Moral Majority? The Contemporary Conservative movement [say Nixon on.. or go back to Ike or forward to GHW Bush or the Newt/Rush gen if you like]. I noticed that the stronger the Graham Crusades grew so grew the Gay movement. Jerry Falwell seemed to propel not only Gay activism but the industry of prostitution as well. Come to think of it, ever since that radical Jesus fella gays have become more and more emboldened. Could have something to do with hanging with only guys for the most part. Of course we can’t blame that completely on him as there just were not very many women back then according to The book. But back to Peters, you are right the class could benefit from that but as there are none….. c’mon boy you can do better than that, like you did sweeping McKinney aside, or did I need to add video for the word challenged?

Homosexual couplings are not and have never been a legal definition of marriage. The arguments against redefinition continue to win decisively. Therefore, homosexual “marriage” advocates need better arguments.

Pithiness through haiku:

Faulty syllogism
Derived from faulty premise
Makes bad argument.

Great groupthink-echo-chamber you’ve got going here guys.

You really do need to apply a modicum of self-criticism and self-refutation if you hope to ever improve your argument for homosexual “marriage”.

But, clearly, that is not ya’ll’s goal.

But, clearly, that is not ya’ll’s goal.

My’s goal is to get y’all to bid us all a final farewell (and really really mean it this time) and slam the door on your way out at least a half-dozen more times before the end of the day.

Now, dance for me, monkey! Dance!

“It’s ironic, because he’s selflessly offering his advice to everyone else, but everyone seems to think that he’s an attention-hungry troll.”

Well there is irony, that’s for sure. None of us has any idea about how “selfless” his act of “advising” is or where any real advice in his comments lay. Yes there is difficulty selling the whole gay marriage idea to the “majority” – at the current rate it will take some time yet before it encompasses the nation, but it is moving. No one has disputed that, but based on his selfless advice to date, regardless of if he is doing DA’s duty, he is a trolling dude.

grateful to Almighty God for our freedom

Itself unconstitutional.

Some of us are not arguing that the state recognize all marriage, hetero, and non-hetero. The word itself connotes religious tradition: civil unions for all a better solution. Not exactly same as No on prop. 8–8 should not have been put to a vote (the rage should be directed not at the hordes of xtians and other monotheists who voted for it, but for the justices who allowed it to be placed on the ballot). We’re arguing that that state has no business being involved in ANY civil union, cohabitation contract, domestic partnership, etc., unless agreed to.

Uh, the First Amendment of US Constitution, and the separation clause–which does not recognize the jurisdiction of God, or gods (I suspect you will now find some trivial religious language from a founder or prayer or something, but that does not at all overcome the Sep-Clause).

…I see, Don. So, “because it would make no one’s life worse and many people’s lives better” is, for you, an insufficient argument for change. I shall bear this in mind. I shall also bear in mind that the inherent moral rightness of extending equality to more citizens, altruism, and wanting people they care about to be happy have never been arguments that have changed people’s minds on issues, ever. That said, the arguments for gay marriage:

-form a more perfect union (I for one consider it my duty as a citizen to improve the state of the state insofar as I am able)
-establish justice (see also: decision in Iowa, for a detailed explanation of why restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unjust)
-ensure domestic tranquility (I don’t like having to keep having this argument any more than you do; less, probably)
-provide for the common defense (…okay, I’m just reaching here)
-promote the general welfare (Math time! Effect on opposite-sex couples: 0. Effect on same-sex couples: +. Net result: +!)
-secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity (because it’s not just self-interest. For those of us who are capable of empathy, it’s the interest of generations who shouldn’t have to be unhappy just because we couldn’t get our shit together and give them equal rights.)

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar…Nah, I must be thinking of something else. I mean, what kind of nation would consider goals like that important?

I’m still interested in hearing how JM knows no one is born a polygamist.