PDA

View Full Version : Illinois Senate approves civil unions, measure heads to governor



ralph wiggum
12-01-2010, 03:11 PM
Civil unions for same-sex couples would be allowed in Illinois under historic legislation the state Senate swiftly sent today to Gov. Pat Quinn, who is expected to sign the measure.

The bill would give gay couples the chance to enjoy several of the same rights as married couples, ranging from legal rights on probate matters to visiting a partner in a hospital that won’t allow anyone but relatives into a patient’s room.

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, was one of many referencing Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as she urged colleagues to join her in “bending the moral arc of justice.” “This is a legacy vote,” Steans said. “It makes a statement about the justice for which we stand.”

But Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora, questioned, “Why civil unions now?” when the state reels from high unemployment, home foreclosures, a huge state debt and social services in disarray.

“We are the incompetence laughing stock of government mismanagement and misplaced priorities, and our one-party (Democratic) leadership spends our time on homosexual civil unions,” Lauzen said.

LINK (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/12/illinois-senate-debates-civil-union-measure.html)

AmPat
12-01-2010, 06:50 PM
Next battle, marrying your dog.

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Next battle, marrying your dog.

Nope. Polygamy. Give it time.

wilbur
12-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Nope. Polygamy. Give it time.

Why is polygamy bad?

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 11:54 AM
Why is polygamy bad?

So, you acknowledge that it will lead to polygamy?

Polygamy is bad for a number of reasons.

First, marriage is a zero-sum game. If one man can marry one woman, and the ratio of men to women is roughly equal, then there's no problem. If, OTOH, one man can marry multiple women, then other men cannot marry at all. Surplus single males with no prospects for family are socially disruptive. Many of the suicide bombers and radicals in the Islamic world are educated young men from affluent backgrounds who tend to be second or third sons, and whose marriage prospects are therefore not a priority for their families. Remember that in polygamous cultures, the proof that a man can support a wife is the "bride price" which his family pays to hers. That leads to the next issue.

Second, polygamy is exploitive of women, who become a commodity. In every polygamous culture, the status of women is lower than that of men. And far more men will seek multiple wives than women will seek multiple husbands. Affluent men will prove that they can support a wife by paying her family, while men of fewer means will not be able to do so. Thus, financial incentives will drive families to guard their daughters and keep them under close watch (virginity becomes a critical factor in polygamous cultures).

Third, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages. If a man with multiple wives divorces one of them, how much of the marital property is hers, as opposed to the other wives'? Inheritance becomes equally convoluted, with estates getting divided among far more children, with eventual dissolution of large holdings. There's a reason that polygamous cultures tend towards poverty.

Fourth, polygamy provides and unstable home environment for raising children. Wives in polygamous relationships cannot count on the stability of their marriages and tend to see their future security through their children, rather than through their own or their husband's efforts. This leads to constant intrigue. Multiple women, competing for their children's status within the household, create a culture of conflict and mistrust which is common in tribal cultures. Harems are notorious for their political machinations. This creates a culture of conspiracy and manipulation, rather than a culture of trust.

wilbur
12-02-2010, 12:02 PM
So, you acknowledge that it will lead to polygamy?

No, of course not.



Polygamy is bad for a number of reasons.

First, marriage is a zero-sum game. If one man can marry one woman, and the ratio of men to women is roughly equal, then there's no problem. If, OTOH, one man can marry multiple women, then other men cannot marry at all. Surplus single males with no prospects for family are socially disruptive. Many of the suicide bombers and radicals in the Islamic world are educated young men from affluent backgrounds who tend to be second or third sons, and whose marriage prospects are therefore not a priority for their families. Remember that in polygamous cultures, the proof that a man can support a wife is the "bride price" which his family pays to hers. That leads to the next issue.

Second, polygamy is exploitive of women, who become a commodity. In every polygamous culture, the status of women is lower than that of men. And far more men will seek multiple wives than women will seek multiple husbands. Affluent men will prove that they can support a wife by paying her family, while men of fewer means will not be able to do so. Thus, financial incentives will drive families to guard their daughters and keep them under close watch (virginity becomes a critical factor in polygamous cultures).

Third, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages. If a man with multiple wives divorces one of them, how much of the marital property is hers, as opposed to the other wives'? Inheritance becomes equally convoluted, with estates getting divided among far more children, with eventual dissolution of large holdings. There's a reason that polygamous cultures tend towards poverty.

Fourth, polygamy provides and unstable home environment for raising children. Wives in polygamous relationships cannot count on the stability of their marriages and tend to see their future security through their children, rather than through their own or their husband's efforts. This leads to constant intrigue. Multiple women, competing for their children's status within the household, create a culture of conflict and mistrust which is common in tribal cultures. Harems are notorious for their political machinations. This creates a culture of conspiracy and manipulation, rather than a culture of trust.

So it should be obvious, from all your carefully crafted responses, that same-sex marriage is completely dissimilar to polygamy in every respect.

I congratulate you for so aptly demonstrating why the case for polygamy is not strengthened one bit (and why the case against it isn't diminished one iota) by homosexual marriage/civil-unions.

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 03:23 PM
No, of course not.


So it should be obvious, from all your carefully crafted responses, that same-sex marriage is completely dissimilar to polygamy in every respect.

Except for the most important respect, that both deviate from the basic definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Once you accept that this is no longer the defining characteristic, the floodgates open, and all manner of unions become tolerable. Or, to put it another way, once you accept that marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman, what grounds would you have to argue against polygamy?


I congratulate you for so aptly demonstrating why the case for polygamy is not strengthened one bit (and why the case against it isn't diminished one iota) by homosexual marriage/civil-unions.

Your congratulations are premature. I have demonstrated a greater understanding of why marriage must be maintained as a union between one man and one woman, not demonstrating your straw man argument. I have previously demonstrated that the erosion of traditional marriage can and will lead to further erosions, and that gay marriage and polygamy are simply milestones on the continuum of that erosion. Your response to my explanations and citations has been the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking "Does not!" over and over at the top of your lungs until the argument is over, then declaring victory.

wilbur
12-02-2010, 04:19 PM
Except for the most important respect, that both deviate from the basic definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Once you accept that this is no longer the defining characteristic, the floodgates open, and all manner of unions become tolerable. Or, to put it another way, once you accept that marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman, what grounds would you have to argue against polygamy?


Well, first off... same-sex marriage does not redefine marriage to be its own negation. One man, one woman does not become NOT one man, one woman. It redefines marriage to One adult, one adult. That, of course, still rules out polygamy.

But aside from that, I'll still give you four good reasons against polygamy that will exist, regardless of the legality of same-sex marriage. I'm pretty sure you will agree with these reasons too (they should sound familiar).



1) First, marriage is a zero-sum game... If, OTOH, one man can marry multiple women, then other men cannot marry at all. Surplus single males with no prospects for family are socially disruptive...

2) Second, polygamy is exploitive of women, who become a commodity. In every polygamous culture, the status of women is lower than that of men....

3) Third, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages... There's a reason that polygamous cultures tend towards poverty.

4) Fourth, polygamy provides and unstable home environment for raising children. Wives in polygamous relationships cannot count on the stability of their marriages... Multiple women, competing for their children's status within the household, create a culture of conflict and mistrust which is common in tribal cultures.


See your first reply to me for the full versions of each of those four reasons.

Same-sex marriage will not cause a surplus of single males, so reason #1 does not apply to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not exploitive of women, or any particular gender, so point #2 does not apply to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage will cause no confusion about marital property and inheritance, unlike polygamy, so point #3 does not apply to same-sex marriage. And finally, with same-sex marriage, in the rare instances where there are children, there will not be multiple women competing for their children's status within the household, so point #4 does not apply to same-sex marriage either.

In each instance, the reason you offer only applies to marriages containing 3 or more people. You say that you offered reasons that defend the idea that marriage needs to be between one man and one woman. But this is wrong. Your arguments only defend the idea that marriage should be between two people, and not 3 or more.

The reasons you offer against polygamy are legitimate concerns. But they stand on their own, regardless of the legality of any other form of marriage. These reasons do not magically disappear when and if you legalize same-sex marriage. You have not given us any reason to believe that these objections to polygamy can be overcome, if same-sex marriage is legalized.



Your congratulations are premature. I have demonstrated a greater understanding of why marriage must be maintained as a union between one man and one woman, not demonstrating your straw man argument.


Straw-man actually has a meaning. You don't get to win an argument simply because you're the first to shout "straw-man". A straw-man requires two things: A) a misrepresented version of an argument (usually) in a weaker form that the original B) a rebuttal against this weaker argument.

Unless you can explicitly cite where A and B occurred, you must withdrawal your straw-man accusation, thank you very much.




I have previously demonstrated that the erosion of traditional marriage can and will lead to further erosions, and that gay marriage and polygamy are simply milestones on the continuum of that erosion. Your response to my explanations and citations has been the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking "Does not!" over and over at the top of your lungs until the argument is over, then declaring victory.

I remember a wildly absurd, laughable and imaginative hypothetical scenario where you tried to draw a connection between same-sex marriage an pedophilia marriage.

Now you've seem to up the stakes of that ludicrous hypothetical by suggesting that it's not only a mere possibility, but that it is a certainty. Well, I'm sorry, but that leaves you with a burden of proof, and so far you haven't offered any, except bare assertion.

AmPat
12-02-2010, 05:31 PM
Why is polygamy bad?

Exponential headaches?

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 06:02 PM
Well, first off... same-sex marriage does not redefine marriage to be its own negation. One man, one woman does not become NOT one man, one woman. It redefines marriage to One adult, one adult. That, of course, still rules out polygamy.

Until the next group comes along and demands equal consideration. After all, a gay couple cannot reproduce without an outside party of the opposite sex. How long will it be before two men and a woman try to claim equal parenting rights? Or a man and two women? Once you break the dam, you can't suddenly plug up parts of it. What will your argument be against those demands when you have eliminated the core tenet of western marriage?


Same-sex marriage will not cause a surplus of single males, so reason #1 does not apply to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not exploitive of women, or any particular gender, so point #2 does not apply to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage will cause no confusion about marital property and inheritance, unlike polygamy, so point #3 does not apply to same-sex marriage. And finally, with same-sex marriage, in the rare instances where there are children, there will not be multiple women competing for their children's status within the household, so point #4 does not apply to same-sex marriage either.
You have an annoyingly selective logic. I never claimed that the arguments opposing same sex marriage were the same as those opposing polygamy, merely that the erosion of traditional norms of marriage would weaken the institution until anything that any consenting adults wanted to call a marriage would become one. It is you who insists on seeing them as the same issue. This is like arguing that since theft and murder are both crimes, the steps that prevent one should also prevent the other. In fact, gay marriage and polygamy are not the same in terms of their immediate outcomes, but they are both consequences of the erosion of the norms of marriage. And, in fact, even though they are fundamentally different in some ways, they do entail some of the same consequences.

First, same sex marriage between men who want children requires surrogate mothers. It is harder to imagine a more exploitive situation than two men renting a woman's womb for their use, and then casting her to the curb. And, yes, married couples do it, as well, but it is the exception, not the rule. With gay marriage, it will be the rule. As for the inheritance issues, the fact of third party insemination/gestation complicates it more than you can imagine. The rules of child support put biological fathers in jeopardy, since courts have ruled that a custodial parent cannot abrogate a father's responsibilities, because the responsibilities are to the child, not the parent. If I donate sperm and die, does my biological child have a claim on my estate? Where does that child rate compared to children that I raised? Compared to my spouse? Does the child of a surrogate mother have any claim on her estate?


In each instance, the reason you offer only applies to marriages containing 3 or more people. You say that you offered reasons that defend the idea that marriage needs to be between one man and one woman. But this is wrong. Your arguments only defend the idea that marriage should be between two people, and not 3 or more.

But, as I have repeatedly said, and you have ignored, childbirth requires two genders. If a couple has only one gender, then procreation demands a third party, one with rights and obligations which cannot be abrogated.


The reasons you offer against polygamy are legitimate concerns. But they stand on their own, regardless of the legality of any other form of marriage. These reasons do not magically disappear when and if you legalize same-sex marriage. You have not given us any reason to believe that these objections to polygamy can be overcome, if same-sex marriage is legalized.

Polyamorous groups claim that my arguments are illegitimate. Whose side will you take up when they are the darlings of the progressive elites?


Straw-man actually has a meaning. You don't get to win an argument simply because you're the first to shout "straw-man". A straw-man requires two things: A) a misrepresented version of an argument (usually) in a weaker form that the original B) a rebuttal against this weaker argument.

Unless you can explicitly cite where A and B occurred, you must withdrawal your straw-man accusation, thank you very much.

Okay: You have claimed I have argued that gay marriage equals polygamy, and therefore, if an argument that undermines polygamy does not undermine gay marriage, then gay marriage must therefore be valid. I have never claimed that gay marriage equals polygamy. Therefore, I repeat that you are engaging in a straw man argument, and that it is invalid. You may (I won't tell you what you "must" do) withdraw at any time. And you're welcome.


I remember a wildly absurd, laughable and imaginative hypothetical scenario where you tried to draw a connection between same-sex marriage an pedophilia marriage.

Now you've seem to be standing behind that ludicrous hypothetical by suggesting that it's not only a mere possibility, but that it is a certainty. Well, I'm sorry, but that leaves you with a burden of proof, and so far you haven't offered any, except bare assertion.
Funny, but I recall a lucid, logical sequence of hypothetical events in which gay marriage could lead to pedophila marriage. Let's go back and see who's right. In the inanimate object marriage thread, I wrote:


You have made a fallacy. In order for same-sex marriage to lead to object marriage, you assume that the core objections to it must also apply to every aspect of every other type of marriage that will come down the pike. You are viewing X and Y, but you are failing to see the rest of the alphabet. The correct analysis is: If A is true, then B is very likely true. If B is true, then C is very likely true. If C is true, then D is true, and if D is true, then you can make the case for E... Eventually, A leads to Y, not because it is a direct cause, but because the precedent established by A leads to B, which leads to C, etc. In the case of gay marriage, the precedent is that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman and that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that this be extended to those who wish to marry within the same sex. Since marriage is no longer defined as one man and one woman, we have done two things; First, we have accepted that the traditional definition of marriage is no longer valid (freeing the activists to begin redefining marriage to suit their agendas) and we have established that everyone has the right to demand that their particular form of marriage be recognized and sanctioned by the state. This is not a frivolous point. Precedent defines law to a greater degree than the original intent of the legislators. This set of precedents leads to arguments that marriage can be between multiple consenting adults. The Equal Protection clause will be used to support this, since the religious prohibitions on polygamy are strictly Judeo-Christian. Moslems, pagans, animists and various other groups will be able to argue that this discriminates against their tribal/religious practices and traditions. We have seen this applied in Europe, where the recognition of Sharia law has resulted in de facto recognition of polygamous marriages. Welcome to step B. In addition, Islam permits marriage by minors as young as nine years old. Consent is required only on the part of the parents. Again, religious tradition becomes enshrined in law by precedent. We have gone from A to B to C. Having established that consent is not an issue, nor is age an impediment, we now have pedophilia protected by law so long as it is part of marriage. Of course, what the married claim as a right cannot be denied to the unmarried (that 14th Amendment again), so now we see that pedophilia becomes permitted outside of marriage. NAMBLA's mainstreaming becomes step D. Also, keep in mind that in Arab tribal cultures, a form of endogamy exists in which first cousins marry. The acceptance of Sharia brings us to minors married without consent as well as the acceptance of far closer familial relations within marriage than ever before accepted, and it takes very little in the way of argument for siblings to demand the same rights as cousins. Let's call the breaking of this incest taboo step E. Since marriage is now open to any sentients, we can bring PETA to the table to argue that animals are capable of complex emotional commitments and that they should have the same rights as people. The elimination of a requirement for the expression of consent and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman leads to bestiality. Welcome to step F. Step E is the animists demanding the same rights for objects, based on their religious principles that those objects have souls.

Here we have seven degrees of separation from gay marriage to inanimate object marriage, not because gay marriage and inanimate object marriage share the same principles, but because the precedent established by gay marriage undermines one of the key definitions of marriage and opens the gate to further redefinitions which arise from the logical fallacies of the first decision.

Frankly, I'd forgotten how well thought out it was, if I do say so myself. Of course, you will disagree, but if the original thread is any indication, you will not be able to refute the arguments.

Madisonian
12-02-2010, 06:07 PM
So here are my questions.
Are "civil unions" limited to same sex unrelated persons?
How does is work for so-called bi-sexuals? Is it one civil union or two?
Can you be married to one person and civilly unioned to another?
Can I civilly union my brother, sister, mother or father to provide them health benefits if they cannot afford them?
If Joe is bi-sexual and civilly unioned to Jack and Jane, can Jane be civilly unioned to Jill if she is bi-sexual as well?

I personally could not care less whom has relations with who, as long as they are consenting adults. I may think they are a bit twisted, as I do some heterosexual couples. As long as they keep it their business and don't make it mine.

AmPat
12-02-2010, 06:08 PM
Wilbur will still deny the slippery slope effect. Once the skippys get to sashay openly in the military, it is only a matter of time before polygamy, bestiality, and liberalism are considered normal.

wilbur
12-03-2010, 11:31 AM
Until the next group comes along and demands equal consideration. After all, a gay couple cannot reproduce without an outside party of the opposite sex. How long will it be before two men and a woman try to claim equal parenting rights? Or a man and two women? Once you break the dam, you can't suddenly plug up parts of it. What will your argument be against those demands when you have eliminated the core tenet of western marriage?


You have an annoyingly selective logic. I never claimed that the arguments opposing same sex marriage were the same as those opposing polygamy, merely that the erosion of traditional norms of marriage would weaken the institution until anything that any consenting adults wanted to call a marriage would become one. It is you who insists on seeing them as the same issue. This is like arguing that since theft and murder are both crimes, the steps that prevent one should also prevent the other. In fact, gay marriage and polygamy are not the same in terms of their immediate outcomes, but they are both consequences of the erosion of the norms of marriage. And, in fact, even though they are fundamentally different in some ways, they do entail some of the same consequences.

First, same sex marriage between men who want children requires surrogate mothers. It is harder to imagine a more exploitive situation than two men renting a woman's womb for their use, and then casting her to the curb. And, yes, married couples do it, as well, but it is the exception, not the rule. With gay marriage, it will be the rule. As for the inheritance issues, the fact of third party insemination/gestation complicates it more than you can imagine. The rules of child support put biological fathers in jeopardy, since courts have ruled that a custodial parent cannot abrogate a father's responsibilities, because the responsibilities are to the child, not the parent. If I donate sperm and die, does my biological child have a claim on my estate? Where does that child rate compared to children that I raised? Compared to my spouse? Does the child of a surrogate mother have any claim on her estate?

But, as I have repeatedly said, and you have ignored, childbirth requires two genders. If a couple has only one gender, then procreation demands a third party, one with rights and obligations which cannot be abrogated.

Polyamorous groups claim that my arguments are illegitimate. Whose side will you take up when they are the darlings of the progressive elites?

Okay: You have claimed I have argued that gay marriage equals polygamy, and therefore, if an argument that undermines polygamy does not undermine gay marriage, then gay marriage must therefore be valid. I have never claimed that gay marriage equals polygamy. Therefore, I repeat that you are engaging in a straw man argument, and that it is invalid. You may (I won't tell you what you "must" do) withdraw at any time. And you're welcome.

Funny, but I recall a lucid, logical sequence of hypothetical events in which gay marriage could lead to pedophila marriage. Let's go back and see who's right. In the inanimate object marriage thread, I wrote:

Frankly, I'd forgotten how well thought out it was, if I do say so myself. Of course, you will disagree, but if the original thread is any indication, you will not be able to refute the arguments.

Let's recap and focus, because things are getting all over the place.

Your first post implied that polygamy would be inevitable, when/if same-sex marriage is ever introduced. I asked why polygamy was so bad. You offered four good reasons to oppose polygamy. I took no issue with those reasons. I noted that not one of those four good reasons is relevant to same-sex marriage, in any way. Additionally, I noted that same-sex marriage cannot strengthen the case for (or diminish your argument against) polygamy, since same-sex marriage does nothing to overcome those four concerns of yours (concerns which would surely be of interest to any court or legislature ruling on or considering polygamy).** The take-home message of all this is supposed to be that same-sex marriage will matter little in the polygamy debate.

Then in a subsequent post (after the post where you carefully laid out several reasons to oppose polygamy), you pull a maneuver that I am still baffled by, when you ask:



Or, to put it another way, once you accept that marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman, what grounds would you have to argue against polygamy?


What grounds!? You just told us!! You spent at least 5-10 minutes of your time or more explaining those grounds, in response to my question, "Why is polygamy bad?". So, I just copied and pasted your points back to you in response.

I spent some more time highlighting the fact your arguments against polygamy are irrelevant to same-sex marriage.

Then somewhere in there you suggest that I am treating the issues as equivalent, because they are both forms of marriage. This suggests that you are profoundly misunderstanding this conversation (in a very ironic way). It has been your position from post one that polygamy and same-sex marriage are inexorably linked, so that should one be allowed, the other must be too. I am arguing *against* that position. And of course, you all but defeated your own argument by laying out your four reasons. Good stuff.

Now each one of your points alone could give us legitimate reason to prohibit plural marriages. Each one could give a legislature or court enough ammo to shoot it down, should they ever have too - gay marriage or not. All of them combined (and more) all but make it certain that polygamy has little chance of ever succeeding.

As for your little scenario, it is absurd because you so casually skip and jump over entire canyons of difference between the different forms of marriage (again, ironic since you claimed I was the one who keeps treating them as equivalents). You act as if equal protection has unlimited flexibility and power to topple mountains of well established law that touches some our most fundamental human rights. You yourself provided a couple arguments against polygamy, predicated on human rights concerns. So its reasonable to think that your little scenario short circuits, even on the first step. DOA.

But what happens if it doesn't? How likely is it that all the steps in your chain will actually play out, in some order? Well, if we give each step a %50 probability to occur (which I think is *highly generous*), given the occurrence of previous step then the probability of all seven steps occurring is:

P(X) = .5^7 = 0.008

Which roughly equals %1. One whole percent. What happens if we up the chance at each step to %75?

P(X) = .75^7 = .1334

Ok, there we up our chances to a whopping %13. Within the realm of possibility, but still very unlikely. Consider your scenario sunk.

Now, as for your points about childbirth and surrogate mothers and all that... I just have to offer a big WTF. I don't know where it came from or why you are even talking about it.


**Note, those two points at the end are what got me accused of a "straw-man". But as you can see, I was only offering my own conclusions based on your outline of objections to polygamy. I did not recapitulate and rebut any argument of yours in a weaker form. Therefore, the straw-man accusation is a false one.

wilbur
12-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Wilbur will still deny the slippery slope effect. Once the skippys get to sashay openly in the military, it is only a matter of time before polygamy, bestiality, and liberalism are considered normal.

#1 - liberalism is considered normal

Slippery slopes are really just sloppy, vague claims about probability. Given that A occurs, then what is the probability that B will occur, etc.

Well, we can actually deal with those sorts of claims using *actual* probability theory. And I just did. See below.

lacarnut
12-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Wilbur will still deny the slippery slope effect. Once the skippys get to sashay openly in the military, it is only a matter of time before polygamy, bestiality, and liberalism are considered normal.

I will be laughing my ass of when State Income Tax or Inheritance Tax grabs these misfits by the pocketbook.

lacarnut
12-03-2010, 11:53 AM
#1 - liberalism is considered normal

.

Most right thinking people consider it a disease. Why have liberals changed their name from Liberals to Progressives? Answer, it is a derogatory word. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

AmPat
12-03-2010, 02:28 PM
#1 - liberalism is considered normal

Slippery slopes are really just sloppy, vague claims about probability. Given that A occurs, then what is the probability that B will occur, etc.

Well, we can actually deal with those sorts of claims using *actual* probability theory. And I just did. See below.

Liberalism is not normal. Normal is what liberals desire to change. Therefore, any attempt to shift from normal is naturally considered anti-normal.

As for marriage:
We have a normal standard of marriage and that is one man married to one woman. If you are talking about changing that to include ANY other union, we are ALREADY on that slippery slope you are desperately trying to deny.

wilbur
12-03-2010, 02:49 PM
Liberalism is not normal. Normal is what liberals desire to change. Therefore, any attempt to shift from normal is naturally considered anti-normal.

As for marriage:
We have a normal standard of marriage and that is one man married to one woman. If you are talking about changing that to include ANY other union, we are ALREADY on that slippery slope you are desperately trying to deny.

Deny? You, nor anyone else, has made an even remotely plausible "slippery slope" case at all. Same-sex marriage simply won't make polygamy any more likely.

There simply is no relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy... neither the reasons for or against either are the same, nor are their consequences on society the same - - as Odysseus has so "aptly" (though accidentally) demonstrated

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-03-2010, 05:39 PM
Deny? You, nor anyone else, has made an even remotely plausible "slippery slope" case at all. Same-sex marriage simply won't make polygamy any more likely.

There simply is no relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy... neither the reasons for or against either are the same, nor are their consequences on society the same - - as Odysseus has so "aptly" (though accidentally) demonstrated

No morals :(

RobJohnson
12-03-2010, 06:11 PM
Does Wilbur have a husband?

AmPat
12-04-2010, 01:07 AM
Does Wilbur have a husband?

Likely. Right now though, he's busy seeing the Wizard about a brain.

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 12:52 PM
Let's recap and focus, because things are getting all over the place.
Then stay on topic. You're the one who raised the previous post.

Your first post implied that polygamy would be inevitable, when/if same-sex marriage is ever introduced. I asked why polygamy was so bad. You offered four good reasons to oppose polygamy. I took no issue with those reasons. I noted that not one of those four good reasons is relevant to same-sex marriage, in any way. Additionally, I noted that same-sex marriage cannot strengthen the case for (or diminish your argument against) polygamy, since same-sex marriage does nothing to overcome those four concerns of yours (concerns which would surely be of interest to any court or legislature ruling on or considering polygamy).** The take-home message of all this is supposed to be that same-sex marriage will matter little in the polygamy debate.
I didn't imply it. I said it. The radical redefinition of marriage will erode it, opening up the floodgates to a whole host of other ills. It is this that you ignore.


What grounds!? You just told us!! You spent at least 5-10 minutes of your time or more explaining those grounds, in response to my question, "Why is polygamy bad?". So, I just copied and pasted your points back to you in response.
Those are the reasons that I would use. You are assuming that the advocates of polygamy will fight on a level playing field. They will not. They will use the same faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and attempts at intimidation that you use to advance gay marriage. Their counterarguments, which you claim that you don't find compelling today, wil be just as wrong then, but that won't stop you you from making them. How will you do it? First, you will bastardize the language of the debate. Just as you use same-sex marriage rather than gay or homosexual marriage, polygamy will be rendered a taboo word, replaced by polyamory, which describes both polygamous and polyandrous marriages, and blurs the fact that women will be far less likely to want multiple mates than men. When that happens, the other arguments will also be blurred. For example:

I argued that polygamy creates surplus men. But, polyamory doesn't necessarily, does it? it will be argued that it doesn't have to be the case, that women will be free to marry multiple men, even though the odds on that are, shall we say, remote? Even the gay marriage debate will support my argument, as it will be seen that more women will have sought permanent unions with other women than men will have sought with men, and male/male marriages will be of shorter duration on average, but raising gay marriage as an example will be denounced as bigotry.

I stated that Polygamy exploits women, but feminists will argue that they are just as likely to engage in polyandry as men will engage in polygamy, and that they should have the same right to do so as Muslim men. They will cite precedents in European law, which gives de-facto recognition of Islamic polygamy through welfare and housing policies as binding, and sympathetic judges will rule in their favor and eventually, they will win if not reversed by legislatures and ballot initiatives, and the gay activists will join it. It may or may not succeed, but it will be tried. Those who oppose their arguments and cite the Islamic cases will be accused of advocating Sharia, even as they are arguing against it.

As previously stated, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages, but as I also stated before (and as you don't seem to understand it, I will eventually have to restate it in detail, but that's what I get for overestimating your cognitive abilities), it becomes convoluted when you add childbirth to gay couplings, because of the presence of third parties. Inheritance and custodial rights are based on paternity. When you muddle paternity, you muddle the surrounding issues of rights. Advocates will argue that the changes which will have occurred as a result of gay marriage will have paved the way for further changes. They will also argue that these legal issues can be addressed. They will be wrong, but it won't matter. The introduction of third parties to inseminate or gestate will advance the polyamorous debate.

Again, as stated, polygamy provides an unstable home environment for raising children. Advocates will argue that more parents equals more stability, and downplay the failures of third-party parenting arrangements such as day-care, polygamous households in other nations, and especially the presence of males who are not-blood relations of children (a key indicator of sexual abuse in children) and the like, and accuse anyone who cites them of bigotry. Instead, they will repeat the "It takes a village" soundbite, advance those rare instances of communal child-rearing in the animal kingdom and present the bonobos as examples of how people should be acting.

Ten years from now, those will be the talking points, and you will be making them as passionately as you are now making the gay marriage taling points. And, before you deny it, remember that when gay conduct was normalized over the last several decades, we were assured by people on your side of the debate that gay marriage would never be on the table, and that we were insane for even raising it as an argument.


I spent some more time highlighting the fact your arguments against polygamy are irrelevant to same-sex marriage.

Then somewhere in there you suggest that I am treating the issues as equivalent, because they are both forms of marriage. This suggests that you are profoundly misunderstanding this conversation (in a very ironic way). It has been your position from post one that polygamy and same-sex marriage are inexorably linked, so that should one be allowed, the other must be too. I am arguing *against* that position. And of course, you all but defeated your own argument by laying out your four reasons. Good stuff.
You are, as always, declaring victory prematurely, and deliberately mistating my arguments to do so. I am not arguing that gay marriage and polygamy are inexorably linked, I am arguing that all marriages are inexorably linked, and that destroying the fundamental definition of marriage will result in multiple chaotic interpretations, and that our expanded and elastic defitinitions of rights will result in, not just the legalization and sanction of gay marriage, but of the legalization and sanction of all sorts of forms of marriage.


Now each one of your points alone could give us legitimate reason to prohibit plural marriages. Each one could give a legislature or court enough ammo to shoot it down, should they ever have too - gay marriage or not. All of them combined (and more) all but make it certain that polygamy has little chance of ever succeeding.
On the contrary, as I stated above, the simple fact of the redefinition of marriage away from its most basic form, one man/one woman, opens the floodgates to other, more radical interpretations, all of which share the one critical common element, which is that they are not marriages as previously defined. Rather than arguing against polygamy, look at how the arguments for gay marriage also support polygamy:

Fairness: Gays argue that it is not fair that only heterosexuals should enjoy the rights of marriage. Polygamists will argue that it is unfair that only Christian/Western concepts of marriage are recognized. They will cite Asian and Middle Eastern polygamous traditions as being the equal of western traditions, and Islamic. Bhuddist and other polygamous religious traditions as being the equal of Judeo-Christian traditions.

Children: Gay marriage advocates argue that those heterosexual marriages that do not produce children are not automatically barred (although failure to produce children is one of the few criteria for anullment that the Catholic Church allows). Once gay marriage is sanctioned, the advocates of polygamy can argue that polygamous marriages are far more likely to produce children than gay marriages, and should therfore be sanctioned.

Intellectual drivel: Gay marriage advocates cite all sorts of idiocies in advance of their agenda, from queer studies arguments against heteronormativity to arguments that it harms nothing and therefore ought to be allowed. The intellectual class will cite similar arguments in support of polygamy, including citations of ancient Judeo-Christian polygamous practices, in order to undermine anti-polygamy arguments.

In short, although on the surface, the gay and polygamous marriage arguments may seem different, the arguments that support the former also allow the advancement of the latter.

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 12:53 PM
As for your little scenario, it is absurd because you so casually skip and jump over entire canyons of difference between the different forms of marriage (again, ironic since you claimed I was the one who keeps treating them as equivalents). You act as if equal protection has unlimited flexibility and power to topple mountains of well established law that touches some our most fundamental human rights. You yourself provided a couple arguments against polygamy, predicated on human rights concerns. So its reasonable to think that your little scenario short circuits, even on the first step. DOA.

But what happens if it doesn't? How likely is it that all the steps in your chain will actually play out, in some order? Well, if we give each step a %50 probability to occur (which I think is *highly generous*), given the occurrence of previous step then the probability of all seven steps occurring is:

P(X) = .5^7 = 0.008

Which roughly equals %1. One whole percent. What happens if we up the chance at each step to %75?

P(X) = .75^7 = .1334

Ok, there we up our chances to a whopping %13. Within the realm of possibility, but still very unlikely. Consider your scenario sunk.

Oh, Wilbur, you are such a monumental BS artist...

Your formula assumes that each event has equal likelyhood, and that each event must have a causative relationship to the next one. The obliteration of marriage as a union between one man and one woman dramatically increases the likelyhood of state-sanctioned polygamy. The sanction of two variations in marriage substantially increases the likelyhood of a third variation, until you end up without any accepted defiinition, in which case anything goes. Thus, rather than P(X) = .5^7 = 0.008, the formula should be expressed as P(X1) = .50, P(X2) = .75, P(X3) = .875, P(X4) = .9358, etc., with each iteration of P(X) cascading the effect. The odds that one snowball will cause an avalanche are remote, but once it reaches a certain momentum, the odds increase exponentially.


Now, as for your points about childbirth and surrogate mothers and all that... I just have to offer a big WTF. I don't know where it came from or why you are even talking about it.
That's because you lack a fundamental understanding of what the purpose of marriage is. The function of marriage isn't to bring people together in order to satisfy their emotional needs, it's to provide the most stable unit possible for the creation and raising of children. As the family unit becomes more and more fractured by redifinition, we end up with more and more situations in which children are being raised in sub-optimal conditions. No-fault divorce, which redefined marriage from a sacred bond to a simple contract, resulted in an explosion of single-parent households, with the associated pathologies of increased abuse and neglect, crime and poverty, as fathers were deemed irrelevent. The advent of birth control increased the likelyhood of premarital and extramarital sex, which further reduced incentives to get married and stay married (and no, I'm not advocating that we return to banning contraception, I'm simply pointing out the consequence of it). Feminism, with its emphasis on removing women from the home and thrusting them into the workplace, had the result of delaying marriage and childbirth for tens of millions of women, which has had implications well beyond marriage (just look at the actuarial tables for Social Security's impending crash for an example).

The point, which you either willfully ignore, or are not capable of grasping, is that families are the basic component of a functioning society, and every trend that erodes the stability of families has ripple effects that go way beyond them. Gay marriage is another pebble in the water, albeit a big one. Its ripples will destabilize other areas in ways that you refuse to acknowledge, and which will eventually result in a complete breakdown, not only of families, but of the society that depends upon them.


**Note, those two points at the end are what got me accused of a "straw-man". But as you can see, I was only offering my own conclusions based on your outline of objections to polygamy. I did not recapitulate and rebut any argument of yours in a weaker form. Therefore, the straw-man accusation is a false one.

Bull. A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. By claiming that I was equating polygamy with gay marriage, and then demonstrating that the arguments that undermine polygamy didn't undermine gay marriage, you were pulling off a classic straw man argument. And you didn't fool anyone.

AmPat
12-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Position A:
One man and one woman
..............................Position B:
..............................One Man and One Man
.................................................. ........ Position C:
.................................................. .........One man and two Women
.................................................. ........................................Position D;
.................................................. ........................................One Wilbur and One Horse


Looks kinda like a slope, huh? It's probably a slippery one.

Rockntractor
12-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Position A:
One man and one woman
..............................Position B:
..............................One Man and One Man
.................................................. ........ Position C:
.................................................. .........One man and two Women
.................................................. ........................................Position D;
.................................................. ........................................One Wilbur and One Horse


Looks kinda like a slope, huh? It's probably a slippery one.

The poor horse will fall asleep if Wilbur does this like he posts! He'll probably just hump its leg!

lacarnut
12-04-2010, 01:47 PM
The poor horse will fall asleep if Wilbur does this like he posts! He'll probably just hump its leg!

You just gave me my laugh for the day.:)

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 02:38 PM
The poor horse will fall asleep if Wilbur does this like he posts! He'll probably just hump its leg!

Wasn't Mr. Ed owned by a guy named Wilbur? Hmmmmmm... :D

m00
12-04-2010, 04:39 PM
What I don't understand is why people who claim to be conservatives think that government should be in the "marriage business" at all, straight or gay.

Why is it any of government's business that two people are in an "officially government approved marriage" vs "common law marriage" vs "living together"? Why do we need a license from the government, and a special government endorsed status?

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 05:02 PM
What I don't understand is why people who claim to be conservatives think that government should be in the "marriage business" at all, straight or gay.

Why is it any of government's business that two people are in an "officially government approved marriage" vs "common law marriage" vs "living together"? Why do we need a license from the government, and a special government endorsed status?

Because governments make law and impose taxes.

Tax law, for example, allows married couples to file jointly at a lower combined rate. It doesn't allow that for cohabiting couples, brothers and sisters in the same household or any other relationships, just married couples. Should government be neutral on joint taxation? And if so, then how does government go about taxing couples? Applying joint filling rules to all couples who share a domicile, even siblings, would have significant impacts on revenues. But if government ends joint filing, then it is penalyzing married couples who have one person making more than the other. What is the just alternative?

How about child welfare laws? Adoption favors married couples, who have a legal status that binds them together, over singles or cohabiting singles, who don't.

Military law recognizes spousal obligations, and commanders can compel Soldiers to pay child support and alimony, but cannot compel cohabiting partners to do that. Should a commander have that much power over a Soldier that he can compel him/her to pay for nephews or nieces if they live with a sibling's family?

Marriage is recognized by governments because marriage predates governments, and the institutional rules predate most legal codes. Government doesn't get to define marriage, it simply recognizes what was already there, which is another argument against allowing our elites to casually redefine the work of centuries. This is why Wilbur pisses me off. When confronted with potentially catastrophic outcomes from the radical redefinition of an ancient institution, he derides any concerns as bigotry and claims a level of certainty that would require omniscience. His arrogance is the halmark of every social engineer that ever had a plan that was supposed to guarantee heaven on Earth, but ended up providing hell.

wilbur
12-07-2010, 12:17 PM
Oh, Wilbur, you are such a monumental BS artist...

Your formula assumes that each event has equal likelyhood, and that each event must have a causative relationship to the next one. The obliteration of marriage as a union between one man and one woman dramatically increases the likelyhood of state-sanctioned polygamy. The sanction of two variations in marriage substantially increases the likelyhood of a third variation, until you end up without any accepted defiinition, in which case anything goes. Thus, rather than P(X) = .5^7 = 0.008, the formula should be expressed as P(X1) = .50, P(X2) = .75, P(X3) = .875, P(X4) = .9358, etc., with each iteration of P(X) cascading the effect. The odds that one snowball will cause an avalanche are remote, but once it reaches a certain momentum, the odds increase exponentially.

The purpose of my calculation was to show just how improbable your scenario actually is. I want to reiterate that calculations were based on the actual details of your scenario, with no additional assumptions, aside from the estimated value of P at each step (50%/75%). Its worth reiterating, that I disagree with the largest assumption in your scenario, that same-sex marriage increases the chances for polygamy (and that polygamy increases the chances of pedophilic marriage, etc). But even granting your assumption, for the sake of argument, I showed that your scenario is incredibly improbable.

Your objections to my calculation are as follows:

1) The calculation assumes equal likelihood, when the chances should increase with each iteration



My calculations granted, for the sake of argument, your claim that success at each step in the chain, will up the probability of the next step in the chain. The fact of the matter is, that some steps in your chain have a near 0% chance of success in normal circumstances (such as pedophilic marriage, object marriage). But in keeping true to your scenario, maybe we can say pedophilic marriage is cascaded on up to a 50%/75% chance of success, from the nearly 0% chance of success it has now, if same-sex marriage ever happens. And that's what my calculation did.

Maybe this will show you just how generous .50 and .75 really are. I would estimate the actual initial p-values for each form of marriage to be as follows. Let's say that the initial p-values represent the chance of success in the next 10-15 years.


P(same-sex) = .50
P(polygamy) = .15
P(pedophilic) = .0001

When I did the calculation for your scenario, I assumed that the chances that polygamy succeeds are increased from .15 to .50, given the success of same-sex marriage. We can write this like:


P(polygamy|same-sex) = .50

Additionally, the chances that pedophilic marriage will succeed is increased greatly, given polygamy:


P(pedophilic|polygamy) = .50

So the values *are* cascading, and quite absurdly generously. In other words, I put your scenario into its best light, and it still falls flat on its face.


2) The calculation assumed a causal relationship between each step.


I'm flabbergasted. You better hope there is some sort of causal relationship, because that's exactly what your scenario assumed and what your entire case against same-sex marriage depends on. If you concede that there is no causal relationship, you've once again defeated your own argument, and conceded to me.

But whether there is or isn't, it is no matter to my calculation. I used simple conditional probability. Conditional probability does not require or imply causality. It works for *independent* samples (like coin flips). To apply conditional probability to your scenario, all we have to do is make some reasonable estimates of p-values for each step. We then multiply them all together to get the final p-value for the chain occurring. That is what I did.



That's because you lack a fundamental understanding of what the purpose of marriage is. The function of marriage isn't to bring people together in order to satisfy their emotional needs, it's to provide the most stable unit possible for the creation and raising of children. As the family unit becomes more and more fractured by redifinition, we end up with more and more situations in which children are being raised in sub-optimal conditions. No-fault divorce, which redefined marriage from a sacred bond to a simple contract, resulted in an explosion of single-parent households, with the associated pathologies of increased abuse and neglect, crime and poverty, as fathers were deemed irrelevent. The advent of birth control increased the likelyhood of premarital and extramarital sex, which further reduced incentives to get married and stay married (and no, I'm not advocating that we return to banning contraception, I'm simply pointing out the consequence of it). Feminism, with its emphasis on removing women from the home and thrusting them into the workplace, had the result of delaying marriage and childbirth for tens of millions of women, which has had implications well beyond marriage (just look at the actuarial tables for Social Security's impending crash for an example).

The point, which you either willfully ignore, or are not capable of grasping, is that families are the basic component of a functioning society, and every trend that erodes the stability of families has ripple effects that go way beyond them. Gay marriage is another pebble in the water, albeit a big one. Its ripples will destabilize other areas in ways that you refuse to acknowledge, and which will eventually result in a complete breakdown, not only of families, but of the society that depends upon them.

I do understand the many and varied purposes of marriage.

My argument is that the primary and most significant objections to polygamy do not lose any potency, even with the recognition of same-sex marriages. Polygamy is a totally different beast than same-sex marriage. In fact, when compared to other forms of marriage, same-sex marriage most resembles traditional heterosexual marriage. Existing law regulating marital issues will work seamlessly in the case of same-sex marriage. This is not so for plural marriages, pedophilic marriages, etc. Because of same-sex marriage's resemblance to heterosexual marriage, we have every reason to think that it will come with all the same societal benefits (like family stability), that heterosexual marriages can provide. Same-sex marriage leaves the basic household unit essentially unchanged, unlike other forms of marriage.

I'll touch on this more in my next reply (where you've sailed so far over the edge, that I simply have to believe you aren't even considering what you type, and are just trying to drown the discussion under oceans of nonsense words), but let me just reiterate our respective positions here. Once again, here are the initial p-value estimates for each marriage type, under normal circumstances.


P(same-sex) = .50
P(polygamy) = .15
P(pedophilic) = .0001

It is your argument that the success of same-sex marriage will up the probability that polygamy will succeed. In other words, you propose that:


P(polygamy|same-sex) = ~.50 (or some other higher probability)
P(pedophilic|polygamy) = ~.50 (or some other higher probability)

It is my argument that same-sex marriage will have little to no effect on the chances of success of polygamy. In other words:


P(polygamy|same-sex) = ~.16 (up from .15)


Bull. A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. By claiming that I was equating polygamy with gay marriage, and then demonstrating that the arguments that undermine polygamy didn't undermine gay marriage, you were pulling off a classic straw man argument. And you didn't fool anyone.

Keep trying to wipe that egg off your face, you're only making it worse. ;) All I did before you threw out the straw-man accusation was to suggest that your arguments against polygamy provided a strong defense against it, even if same-sex marriage were to be recognized. My own argument, not a misrepresented version of yours.

Zathras
12-07-2010, 01:54 PM
Heh heh, I just love watching the Major take apart poor widdle wilbur's postings apart with facts and truth...it's like watching John Williams conducting the London Symphony Orchestra playing the theme to Star Wars. It's a thing of beauty.

wilbur
12-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Heh heh, I just love watching the Major take apart poor widdle wilbur's postings apart with facts and truth...it's like watching John Williams conducting the London Symphony Orchestra playing the theme to Star Wars. It's a thing of beauty.

You're embarrassing yourself, and so is the poor major - he's contradicted himself so many times at this point I've lost count.

wilbur
12-07-2010, 03:29 PM
Then stay on topic. You're the one who raised the previous post.

I wasn't referring to my own posts, which have been narrowly targeted on the topic relevant to me, when I said things were getting all over the place. Anyways...


I didn't imply it. I said it. The radical redefinition of marriage will erode it, opening up the floodgates to a whole host of other ills. It is this that you ignore.

Those are the reasons that I would use. You are assuming that the advocates of polygamy will fight on a level playing field. They will not. They will use the same faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and attempts at intimidation that you use to advance gay marriage. Their counterarguments, which you claim that you don't find compelling today, wil be just as wrong then, but that won't stop you you from making them. How will you do it? First, you will bastardize the language of the debate. Just as you use same-sex marriage rather than gay or homosexual marriage, polygamy will be rendered a taboo word, replaced by polyamory, which describes both polygamous and polyandrous marriages, and blurs the fact that women will be far less likely to want multiple mates than men. When that happens, the other arguments will also be blurred. For example:

Just apply your reasoning to an issue like miscegenation. Nobody in their right mind would argue against something like miscegenation, using this reasoning. "Hey, well... we would allow interracial marriages, but we're afraid same-sex couples who want to marry might use the same arguments". And guess what? They do use the same arguments, because the issues are extremely similar.

It doesn't actually matter *one bit* what arguments a polygamist opportunist might attempt to use to his advantage. A polygamist will take advantage of any and every argument he can devise - just like any advocate for any other position or belief. You can literally say this about any argument, for any conceivable position, in all of history.

What matters is the argument's probability of success. At the very least, the arguments must overcome the most powerful objections to the position in question. Its not an argument to say that "group X can use the same arguments". They need to be able to use those arguments successfully.


I argued that polygamy creates surplus men. But, polyamory doesn't necessarily, does it? it will be argued that it doesn't have to be the case, that women will be free to marry multiple men, even though the odds on that are, shall we say, remote?

No society in history has had anything close to an equal balance between women-led plural marriages and single male/multiple female marriages, so its just not even remotely plausible that this really awful "strategy" can aid polygamists, at all. So maybe they'll argue it (again, who cares), but it aint likely to work.

Same-sex marriage does not relate to this argument at all, however, so I'm afraid its irrelevant, either way.


Even the gay marriage debate will support my argument, as it will be seen that more women will have sought permanent unions with other women than men will have sought with men, and male/male marriages will be of shorter duration on average, but raising gay marriage as an example will be denounced as bigotry.

So you are saying that:


a) there will be greater number of female/female same-sex marriages than male/male
b) this will create a surplus of men, which - as you posited earlier - leads to societal instability.
c) polygamists will use this to argue that the a surplus of single men is OK, according to the precedent set by same-sex marriage

Well, that is both ridiculous and self-defeating. Heterosexual males pose a stability problem in polygamous societies because of lack of available heterosexual mates. When two lesbians get married, it doesnt remove any potential mates from the heterosexual mating pool, or the homosexual male mating pool. A disparity between single lesbians and single homosexual males simply doest matter. Homosexual males are going to start destabalizing society because they have no lesbians to marry?!?

This is another just absolutely terrible strategy which simply *cannot* help polygamists. Really, I'm scratching my head over this....


I stated that Polygamy exploits women, but feminists will argue that they are just as likely to engage in polyandry as men will engage in polygamy, and that they should have the same right to do so as Muslim men. They will cite precedents in European law, which gives de-facto recognition of Islamic polygamy through welfare and housing policies as binding, and sympathetic judges will rule in their favor and eventually, they will win if not reversed by legislatures and ballot initiatives, and the gay activists will join it. It may or may not succeed, but it will be tried. Those who oppose their arguments and cite the Islamic cases will be accused of advocating Sharia, even as they are arguing against it.

So you're saying that feminists and Muslims will vehemently argue for polygamy, citing religious freedom and woman's rights. Got it, but this is irrelevant to same-sex marriage, completely.

I see no evidence that homosexuals are united in their views on polygamy, or that they would automatically endorse it. Pure speculation, for which you've offered zero evidence.


As previously stated, marital property becomes hopelessly convoluted in polygamous marriages, but as I also stated before (and as you don't seem to understand it, I will eventually have to restate it in detail, but that's what I get for overestimating your cognitive abilities), it becomes convoluted when you add childbirth to gay couplings, because of the presence of third parties. Inheritance and custodial rights are based on paternity. When you muddle paternity, you muddle the surrounding issues of rights. Advocates will argue that the changes which will have occurred as a result of gay marriage will have paved the way for further changes. They will also argue that these legal issues can be addressed. They will be wrong, but it won't matter. The introduction of third parties to inseminate or gestate will advance the polyamorous debate.

If any estimation is in err, it was not of my cognitive abilities, but in your ability to lay out your case which is getting muddier, and less clear by the letter.

Now this is getting even sillier.

Surrogate motherhood is only need for male/male same-sex marriages. Lesbians can just go to a sperm bank, like any female alive today. And call me crazy, but it seems really reasonable to think that male/male homosexual couples will be really, really unlikely to fight for the right to invite a woman into their marriage.

"Third parties" in custody battles are issues that our courts see all the time, with heterosexual relationships. There's simply nothing for same-sex marriage to change here.

This is just more wild speculation, which we have every reason to dismiss as poorly conceived and improbable.


Again, as stated, polygamy provides an unstable home environment for raising children. Advocates will argue that more parents equals more stability, and downplay the failures of third-party parenting arrangements such as day-care, polygamous households in other nations, and especially the presence of males who are not-blood relations of children (a key indicator of sexual abuse in children) and the like, and accuse anyone who cites them of bigotry. Instead, they will repeat the "It takes a village" soundbite, advance those rare instances of communal child-rearing in the animal kingdom and present the bonobos as examples of how people should be acting.

Yet another point that is totally disconnected and irrelevant to the debate at hand. Same-sex marriage simply isnt a factor here.


Ten years from now, those will be the talking points, and you will be making them as passionately as you are now making the gay marriage taling points. And, before you deny it, remember that when gay conduct was normalized over the last several decades, we were assured by people on your side of the debate that gay marriage would never be on the table, and that we were insane for even raising it as an argument.

The rights of homosexuals are not, and never have been, contingent upon some imaginary promise to never raise the issue of same-sex marriage. I must have missed that deal, when all the straights got together with the gays and said "OK - we'll all accept you, just as long as you don't ever try to get married!". What sanctimonious bullshit.


You are, as always, declaring victory prematurely, and deliberately mistating my arguments to do so. I am not arguing that gay marriage and polygamy are inexorably linked, I am arguing that all marriages are inexorably linked,


Same-sex marriage and polygamy are both included in the set of things called 'marriage', so you are contradicting yourself.


and that destroying the fundamental definition of marriage will result in multiple chaotic interpretations, and that our expanded and elastic defitinitions of rights will result in, not just the legalization and sanction of gay marriage, but of the legalization and sanction of all sorts of forms of marriage.

"Destroying the fundamental definition"... sheesh. The problem with your whole case is that there are *many* reasons beyond the mere definition of the term "marriage" to oppose all these other forms of it.

stay tuned for more..

lacarnut
12-07-2010, 04:37 PM
You're embarrassing yourself, and so is the poor major - he's contradicted himself so many times at this point I've lost count.

You have got it ass backward. The Major has destroyed your feeble posts.

Zathras
12-07-2010, 11:16 PM
You have got it ass backward. The Major has destroyed your feeble posts.

Too bad widdle wilbur is too stupid to recognise this fact and continues to provide entertainment with his idiocy.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 12:21 AM
You have got it ass backward. The Major has destroyed your feeble posts.

Pray tell, what are some particular points where you think his arguments succeed over mine?

Let's hear it.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 12:27 AM
Pray tell, what are some particular points where you think his arguments succeed over mine?

Let's hear it.

All of them, and you haven't a prayer.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 12:33 AM
All of them, and you haven't a prayer.

Heh - lets be honest here - you don't even have the attention span to read it all.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 12:37 AM
Heh - lets be honest here - you don't even have the attention span to read it all.
Huh, what! Hey you woke me up.:mad:

lacarnut
12-08-2010, 12:50 AM
Pray tell, what are some particular points where you think his arguments succeed over mine?

Let's hear it.

I would have to hire a typist that types 120wpm for several hours to debunk your nutty ideas on marriage, civil unions, etc.

RobJohnson
12-08-2010, 02:34 AM
I would have to hire a typist that types 120wpm for several hours to debunk your nutty ideas on marriage, civil unions, etc.


Perfect! :)

RobJohnson
12-08-2010, 02:41 AM
So here are my questions.
Are "civil unions" limited to same sex unrelated persons?
How does is work for so-called bi-sexuals? Is it one civil union or two?
Can you be married to one person and civilly unioned to another?
Can I civilly union my brother, sister, mother or father to provide them health benefits if they cannot afford them?
If Joe is bi-sexual and civilly unioned to Jack and Jane, can Jane be civilly unioned to Jill if she is bi-sexual as well?

I personally could not care less whom has relations with who, as long as they are consenting adults. I may think they are a bit twisted, as I do some heterosexual couples. As long as they keep it their business and don't make it mine.

Good points, this is one more way to drive health care cost up for those of us that work and pay for insurance....the children 27 and under rule has already foreced many companies to drop coverage for employees, a small business has no chance...unless they pass on the cost to the consumer....then who benefits other then the homos and the state when they no longer have 26 year olds on Medicaid, but they are now on Daddy's policy at John Deere...lets force more jobs to Mexico and overseas...

I dated a girl with multiple personality disorder it was like group sex every night! :D

Zathras
12-08-2010, 04:36 AM
All of them, and you haven't a prayer.

QFT.

Zathras
12-08-2010, 04:38 AM
Heh - lets be honest here - you don't even have the attention span to read it all.

Sorry, I have better things to do than read the drivel of an America hating douchebag.

txradioguy
12-08-2010, 07:54 AM
Sorry, I have better things to do than read the drivel of an America hating douchebag.

It's the same crap he's been posting at CC as well. The funny part is that at one point over there he became so longwinded and was bloviating so much the Libtard troll actually ended up contradicting himself.

:rolleyes:

wilbur
12-08-2010, 08:09 AM
Sorry, I have better things to do than read the drivel of an America hating douchebag.

Hahaha, so you admit you are giving the Major a virtual reach around without even having read the posts of his opposition.

Classic CU.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 08:11 AM
It's the same crap he's been posting at CC as well. The funny part is that at one point over there he became so longwinded and was bloviating so much the Libtard troll actually ended up contradicting himself.

:rolleyes:

Funny, it really didn't go that way at all, actually. And you never answered the thread where I called out your doozey comment about how homosexuality disproves evolution.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 08:14 AM
I would have to hire a typist that types 120wpm for several hours to debunk your nutty ideas on marriage, civil unions, etc.

Translation: I got nuthin.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 08:55 AM
Translation: I got nuthin.
Sorry Wilbur, there is more chance that a monkey will type a phone directory, than for you to type something intelligent!

wilbur
12-08-2010, 09:55 AM
Sorry Wilbur, there is more chance that a monkey will type a phone directory, than for you to type something intelligent!

It speaks to your credibility when you can actually point out and demonstrate someone's mistakes. When you just sit back and say "They're there, I swear", its just transparent shit talk, with nothing to back it up. Not fooling anybody there rock/lacarnut/zathras.

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 10:30 AM
What I don't understand is why people who claim to be conservatives think that government should be in the "marriage business" at all, straight or gay.

Why is it any of government's business that two people are in an "officially government approved marriage" vs "common law marriage" vs "living together"? Why do we need a license from the government, and a special government endorsed status?

Exactly. The problem with this law, in my opinion, is that is it excludes heterosexuals and by implication, asexuals.

The tax, survivorship, and guardianship issues can all be solved for everybody by domestic partnerships. In a domestic partnership, your sexual interests (or lack of them) have no basis in law. The partnership applies to the economic and legal status of the partners only. It doesn't care about or even acknowledge any sexual issues. This means that any two competent adults can enter into a partnership for any reason so long as they reside in a shared domicile, merge their financial interests, and agree to make the partnership public. Lovers can do it but more importantly, friends or aging relatives can do it.

A two-person shared economic partnership is infinitely preferable to a single existence in an aging society. Particularly in a society where kinship responsibility is weakened by distance and personality conflicts. Two people can live more securely than one (especially if sexual issues are not the primary motivator). Friends are often much more involved with each other on a daily basis than they are with relatives. Caretakers would have a much more secure and financially less onerous life with a DP.

Now, this doesn't eliminate marriage. For me, marriage is a critical religious state that entails obligations far beyond any financial considerations imposed by the State. Homosexuals are forbidden marriage in my church. Ditto for close relatives, groups of people, animals, etc. I would never acknowledge any of those couplings as being a "marriage" regardless of what the law said.

Nothing at all would prevent a couple from obtaining a domestic partnership in advance of a real marriage ceremony.

wilbur
12-08-2010, 11:35 AM
Exactly. The problem with this law, in my opinion, is that is it excludes heterosexuals and by implication, asexuals.

The tax, survivorship, and guardianship issues can all be solved for everybody by domestic partnerships. In a domestic partnership, your sexual interests (or lack of them) have no basis in law. The partnership applies to the economic and legal status of the partners only. It doesn't care about or even acknowledge any sexual issues. This means that any two competent adults can enter into a partnership for any reason so long as they reside in a shared domicile, merge their financial interests, and agree to make the partnership public. Lovers can do it but more importantly, friends or aging relatives can do it.

A two-person shared economic partnership is infinitely preferable to a single existence in an aging society. Particularly in a society where kinship responsibility is weakened by distance and personality conflicts. Two people can live more securely than one (especially if sexual issues are not the primary motivator). Friends are often much more involved with each other on a daily basis than they are with relatives. Caretakers would have a much more secure and financially less onerous life with a DP.

Now, this doesn't eliminate marriage. For me, marriage is a critical religious state that entails obligations far beyond any financial considerations imposed by the State. Homosexuals are forbidden marriage in my church. Ditto for close relatives, groups of people, animals, etc. I would never acknowledge any of those couplings as being a "marriage" regardless of what the law said.

Nothing at all would prevent a couple from obtaining a domestic partnership in advance of a real marriage ceremony.

This, of course, is the *right* solution. Same-sex marriage is simply a band-aid... because let's face it... this isnt likely to happen.

lacarnut
12-08-2010, 12:15 PM
It speaks to your credibility when you can actually point out and demonstrate someone's mistakes. When you just sit back and say "They're there, I swear", its just transparent shit talk, with nothing to back it up. Not fooling anybody there rock/lacarnut/zathras.

ROTF laughing at your stupidity.

AmPat
12-08-2010, 02:41 PM
Heh - lets be honest here - you don't even have the attention span to read it all.

Nothing to do with attention span, everything to do with efficiency. You post idiotic responses that either ignore the facts, try to change them, litter the field with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts. Your screeds are long and boorish. You either start posting pithy, short, and valid responses or you are doomed to writing on walls that nobody will read.:cool:

wilbur
12-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Nothing to do with attention span, everything to do with efficiency. You post idiotic responses that either ignore the facts, try to change them, litter the field with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts. Your screeds are long and boorish. You either start posting pithy, short, and valid responses or you are doomed to writing on walls that nobody will read.:cool:

See this post: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=342781&postcount=50

Odysseus
12-08-2010, 08:27 PM
The purpose of my calculation was to show just how improbable your scenario actually is. I want to reiterate that calculations were based on the actual details of your scenario, with no additional assumptions, aside from the estimated value of P at each step (50%/75%). Its worth reiterating, that I disagree with the largest assumption in your scenario, that same-sex marriage increases the chances for polygamy (and that polygamy increases the chances of pedophilic marriage, etc). But even granting your assumption, for the sake of argument, I showed that your scenario is incredibly improbable.

No, the purpose of your calculation was to attempt to put a veneer of scientific calculation over your arguments, and I made the mistake of playing along. Treating a behavioral problem mathematically is comparing apples and algorithms. No math formula could have predicted the collapse of black families after the Great Society, or the rise in divorce rates after the advent of no-fault divorce and the birth control pill, even though many observers predicted all of these events. In fact, one of the most obvious cases of failing to predict an unintended consequence is the decimation of gay populations after the removal of most legal restrictions to gay conduct. Even the sheer avalanche of sexually transmitted diseases that accompanied gay liberation could not have provided a prediction of the outbreak of a lethal STD, AIDS, and the subsequent death toll. Probability theory is concerned with analysis of random phenomena, which this is very much not. In fact, I should have simply stated this when you first tried to play mathemagician, instead of playing along.


[indent]I'm flabbergasted. You better hope there is some sort of causal relationship, because that's exactly what your scenario assumed and what your entire case against same-sex marriage depends on. If you concede that there is no causal relationship, you've once again defeated your own argument, and conceded to me.

Allow me to clarify my point. You assume a direct causal relationship between each step that can be quantified by a formula, in which each event has the same order of magnitude as previous effects, and in which each effect's probability is therefore equal. In fact, the various effects can occur simultaneously, sequentially or in any variety thereof, after the definition of marriage as one man/one woman is tossed out. The critical factor is that the radical redefinition of marriage will embolden each pressure group to advance its agenda, with varying degrees of success, but each subsequent successful assault on marriage will further weaken the institution, resulting in more successful assaults down the line.

This is actually a fallacy of probability theory, called a "conditional probability fallacy" in which a series of conditional probabilities of events (or a series of events) is treated as unconditional probabilities, or seeing them as being in the same order of magnitude. The elimination of the definition of marriage, as accepted for the past 2,000 years in the west, will be of far greater magnitude in the subsequent ordering of marriages than the subsequent effects will be. Furthermore, each event that occurs after the initial event will have the previous events' momentum on its side as the advocates seek to impose their new standard. You cannot simply invoke probability theory to predict social outcomes. People are not dice, and societies are not closed systems.


I do understand the many and varied purposes of marriage.
No, you don't. The purpose, singular, of marriage, is to provide a stable environment to raise children. Anything else, no matter how desirable, is an effect, not a cause.


My argument is that the primary and most significant objections to polygamy do not lose any potency, even with the recognition of same-sex marriages. Polygamy is a totally different beast than same-sex marriage. In fact, when compared to other forms of marriage, same-sex marriage most resembles traditional heterosexual marriage. Existing law regulating marital issues will work seamlessly in the case of same-sex marriage. This is not so for plural marriages, pedophilic marriages, etc. Because of same-sex marriage's resemblance to heterosexual marriage, we have every reason to think that it will come with all the same societal benefits (like family stability), that heterosexual marriages can provide. Same-sex marriage leaves the basic household unit essentially unchanged, unlike other forms of marriage.
It only leaves the basic household unit unchanged if you don't see any differences between men and women. Gay marriage bears a superficial resemblance to heterosexual marriage, but that resemblance breaks down when you introduce procreation to the mix. A same-sex union is, by its very nature, sterile, 100% of the time. A heterosexual union is not (and while it can be, it is the exception, rather than the rule).


I'll touch on this more in my next reply (where you've sailed so far over the edge, that I simply have to believe you aren't even considering what you type, and are just trying to drown the discussion under oceans of nonsense words), but let me just reiterate our respective positions here. Once again, here are the initial p-value estimates for each marriage type, under normal circumstances.

As opposed to oceans of nonsensically irrelevant calculations?
Keep trying to wipe that egg off your face, you're only making it worse. ;) All I did before you threw out the straw-man accusation was to suggest that your arguments against polygamy provided a strong defense against it, even if same-sex marriage were to be recognized. My own argument, not a misrepresented version of yours.
My only embarrassment was assuming that you were arguing from good faith. Your "calculations" are based on a logical fallacy, and are not relevant. I shouldn't have fallen into the trap the first time.


I wasn't referring to my own posts, which have been narrowly targeted on the topic relevant to me, when I said things were getting all over the place. Anyways...

Just apply your reasoning to an issue like miscegenation. Nobody in their right mind would argue against something like miscegenation, using this reasoning. "Hey, well... we would allow interracial marriages, but we're afraid same-sex couples who want to marry might use the same arguments". And guess what? They do use the same arguments, because the issues are extremely similar.

This doesn't apply to miscegenation, as the two situations are completely different, a fact that continues to elude you, or which you ignore because your argument's sole appeal is as a civil rights argument, which it is not. The differences between race and sexual behavior have been hashed over repeatedly, but since you fail to grasp them, there is no point in repeating that which you either know but will not admit, or are too dense to grasp. Either way, the point is moot.

More to follow

Odysseus
12-08-2010, 08:28 PM
It doesn't actually matter *one bit* what arguments a polygamist opportunist might attempt to use to his advantage. A polygamist will take advantage of any and every argument he can devise - just like any advocate for any other position or belief. You can literally say this about any argument, for any conceivable position, in all of history.
Yes, just as a gay marriage advocate will try to use the civil rights movement's arguments, despite the lack of similarity between the two. However, it does matter if the grounds for the argument have been established by precedent.


What matters is the argument's probability of success. At the very least, the arguments must overcome the most powerful objections to the position in question. Its not an argument to say that "group X can use the same arguments". They need to be able to use those arguments successfully.
And the more that we move away from the singular definition of marriage, the more creative the arguments in attacking traditional marriage can become. Eventually, any idiocy will prevail because the defending arguments have been rendered intert through repetitive bludgeoning.


No society in history has had anything close to an equal balance between women-led plural marriages and single male/multiple female marriages, so its just not even remotely plausible that this really awful "strategy" can aid polygamists, at all. So maybe they'll argue it (again, who cares), but it aint likely to work.
I didn't say that the argument for polyamory would be valid, only that it would be used and that the elites would be receptive to it, just as they are now receptive to arguments in favor of gay marriage. For example, no society in history has had gay marriage until the last two decades, when it suddenly became the fashion throughout western democracies, so until it was instituted, it would not have been plausible, either. And yet, we are now on the cusp of seeing it implemented despite widespread popular opposition. In fact, when sodomy laws began losing in courts and other gay activities were given judicial approval, those who predicted the advent of gay marriage were ridiculed in the same terms that you use to ridicule me for predicting polygamy. And yet, they were prescient, weren't they?


This is another just absolutely terrible strategy which simply *cannot* help polygamists. Really, I'm scratching my head over this....

Perhaps if you changed your brand of shampoo, you'd scratch less.


So you're saying that feminists and Muslims will vehemently argue for polygamy, citing religious freedom and woman's rights. Got it, but this is irrelevant to same-sex marriage, completely.
It is only relevant in that disparate groups will combine to attack an institution that they despise, just as gays and radical leftists are conspiring to attack the current definition of marriage.


I see no evidence that homosexuals are united in their views on polygamy, or that they would automatically endorse it. Pure speculation, for which you've offered zero evidence.
True, I've offered zero evidence, however, gay activists are inclined to attack societal norms. The Gay Liberation Front considered sexual promiscuity a tactic of liberation, and they considered traditional marriage a heterosexual institution that oppressed them, so it's highly likely that the gay activists will side with the polygamists, especially the "B" part of LGBT.


If any estimation is in err, it was not of my cognitive abilities, but in your ability to lay out your case which is getting muddier, and less clear by the letter.
Now this is getting even sillier.

Surrogate motherhood is only need for male/male same-sex marriages. Lesbians can just go to a sperm bank, like any female alive today. And call me crazy, but it seems really reasonable to think that male/male homosexual couples will be really, really unlikely to fight for the right to invite a woman into their marriage.
It only takes one, Wilbur, and a sympathetic judge. Do you mean to say that no male/male couple will ever sue to have their surrogate mother declared part of their family? And while women can go to a sperm bank, many choose a more intimate connection with the donor, which means that eventually, that, too, is likely to end up in a threesome. And let's not forget the married couple that has their girlfriend (or boyfriend) cohabitating, and would like to formalize the arrangement, especially in the event of a pregnancy. I believe that any or all of these scenarios are likely. You claim that they will never happen. Which of us is right?


"Third parties" in custody battles are issues that our courts see all the time, with heterosexual relationships. There's simply nothing for same-sex marriage to change here.
Except that these third party issues weren't issues prior to the advent of no-fault divorce, were they? In other words, the previous attack on marriage muddled custody significantly. Gay marriage will further muddle things, just as polygamy will. Again, the issue is not gay marriage in a vaccuum, but the ongoing erosion of marriage, which you refuse to acknowledge.


"This is just more wild speculation, which we have every reason to dismiss as poorly conceived and improbable.
So, "third party" issues are both wild speculation and improbable, but our courts see them all of the time? Improbable, but common... Hmmm... In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word, but I do not think that it means what you think it does.


Yet another point that is totally disconnected and irrelevant to the debate at hand. Same-sex marriage simply isnt a factor here.
Except that it lays the groundwork for further erosion of marriage. Other than that, you'd be right, if that weren't the overarching issue.


The rights of homosexuals are not, and never have been, contingent upon some imaginary promise to never raise the issue of same-sex marriage. I must have missed that deal, when all the straights got together with the gays and said "OK - we'll all accept you, just as long as you don't ever try to get married!". What sanctimonious bullshit.

No, there was never a formal agreement. It was more of a, "But, won't this lead to gay marriage?" "NO! That's just hysterical speculation you homophobic bigot!" Sound familiar?


Same-sex marriage and polygamy are both included in the set of things called 'marriage', so you are contradicting yourself.

Good point. I misspoke. I should have said that gay marriage and polygamy are examples of what will pass for marriage when the definition is redefined out of existence. One point for you. You may pat yourself on the back or scratch your head or do whatever it is that you do when you make a valid point, which, admittedly, doesn't happen often.


"Destroying the fundamental definition"... sheesh. The problem with your whole case is that there are *many* reasons beyond the mere definition of the term "marriage" to oppose all these other forms of it.
Yes, but that is the most basic, that marriage is what it is, and the attacks on it entail the radical redefinition of marriage in order to destroy it.


stay tuned for more..
Be still my heart. :rolleyes:

Hahaha, so you admit you are giving the Major a virtual reach around without even having read the posts of his opposition.

Classic CU.

A reach around would imply a sexual act in conjunction with it. It's an erroneous analogy, since you're the only one here who is bent over and taking a reaming.

wilbur
12-13-2010, 10:23 AM
finally taking up the task of dismantling the rest of these....


No, the purpose of your calculation was to attempt to put a veneer of scientific calculation over your arguments, and I made the mistake of playing along. Treating a behavioral problem mathematically is comparing apples and algorithms. No math formula could have predicted the collapse of black families after the Great Society, or the rise in divorce rates after the advent of no-fault divorce and the birth control pill, even though many observers predicted all of these events. In fact, one of the most obvious cases of failing to predict an unintended consequence is the decimation of gay populations after the removal of most legal restrictions to gay conduct. Even the sheer avalanche of sexually transmitted diseases that accompanied gay liberation could not have provided a prediction of the outbreak of a lethal STD, AIDS, and the subsequent death toll. Probability theory is concerned with analysis of random phenomena, which this is very much not. In fact, I should have simply stated this when you first tried to play mathemagician, instead of playing along.


the only aspect of my calculation over which you can legitimately quibble, would be the estimated p-values i assigned at each step. there are no two ways about it, multiplying the p-values at each step is *the way* to model your scenario, with real numbers, just like y=mx+b is the way to plot a straight line on a graph.

you can't actually wave aside the logic behind the calculation, without waving aside the logic behind the scenario.

and the steps can be random, or they can be causally connected - it does not matter for the calculation.



Allow me to clarify my point. You assume a direct causal relationship between each step that can be quantified by a formula, in which each event has the same order of magnitude as previous effects, and in which each effect's probability is therefore equal. In fact, the various effects can occur simultaneously, sequentially or in any variety thereof, after the definition of marriage as one man/one woman is tossed out. The critical factor is that the radical redefinition of marriage will embolden each pressure group to advance its agenda, with varying degrees of success, but each subsequent successful assault on marriage will further weaken the institution, resulting in more successful assaults down the line.

This is actually a fallacy of probability theory, called a "conditional probability fallacy" in which a series of conditional probabilities of events (or a series of events) is treated as unconditional probabilities, or seeing them as being in the same order of magnitude. The elimination of the definition of marriage, as accepted for the past 2,000 years in the west, will be of far greater magnitude in the subsequent ordering of marriages than the subsequent effects will be. Furthermore, each event that occurs after the initial event will have the previous events' momentum on its side as the advocates seek to impose their new standard. You cannot simply invoke probability theory to predict social outcomes. People are not dice, and societies are not closed systems.


probability cares not about whether the outcome is social, or the system is open or closed. the only tricky part about probability is accounting for all the things that might contribute to an element's p-value - which yes... is tricky, especially for complex social issues.

so sure, you might criticize me for being unable to determine all the factors which contribute to the p-values for each form of marriage. please do... because in so doing, you also defeat your own scenario, which most certainly depends knowing all the same determining factors - you just didn't go the extra step of assigning numerical values to them, and just kept it vague.

it bears repeating - my calculation is your scenario, just in a less vague form.

as for your claims that my calculation falls prey to the "conditional probability fallacy", that is just plain false.

whatever you just described is most certainly not the 'conditional probability fallacy'. the conditional probability fallacy occurs when one *assumes* P(A|B) is equivalent to P(B|A).** sometimes the two are equivalent, sometimes they are not. i didn't make any claim like this at all anywhere in my calculation.

i think you are just thrown off because i used 50% and 75% straight across the board. in reality, the probabilities at each step would probably be different - and according to my arguments, much lower - but for ease of demonstration i just decided on a uniform upper boundary, which i generously applied to each step. raising the p-value at each step of the chain to a whopping 75%, for example, seems like a hell of a lot.

so now your complaint seems to be that p-values for some or all of the items can be ratcheted up after one step succeeds, not just the p-value of the successive step, and that my calculation didnt account for that. well, i'm sorry, my calculation is perfectly consistent with that possibility.

consider these initial conditions, where SS = same-sex, PY = polygamy, PD = pedophile, BS = bestiality, OB = object:


P(SS) = .5
P(PY) = .15
P(PD) = .0001
P(OB) = .0001
P(BS) = .001

if SS succeeds, it could result in an increase in all the remaining p-values in the scenario, so that:


P(PY) = .5
P(PD) = .15
P(OB) = .15
P(BS) = .1

then, if PY succeeds, it could also cause an increase in the remaining p-values, so that:


P(PD) = .5
P(OB) = .3
P(BS) = .3

then, PD succeeds, so that:


P(OB) = .5
P(BS) = .45

then, OB succeeds, but perhaps has little effect on the already high p-value of BS:


P(BS) = .5

my calculation was perfectly consistent with that sort of thing going on behind the scenes in order to make your scenario as strong as it can be.

** P(A|B) is read as "given A, the probability that B occurs" and P(B|A) is read as "given B, the probability that A occurs".


No, you don't. The purpose, singular, of marriage, is to provide a stable environment to raise children. Anything else, no matter how desirable, is an effect, not a cause.

ok, so we have it on record from you that there are other desirable effects of marriage, other than providing a stable home environment for children. well, then it seems society might have an interest in encouraging marriage, even in cases where the couple is sterile or of the same gender.

why should we deprive society of these desirable effects, just because children can't be conceived? we certainly don't when it comes to sterile heterosexual couples. in fact, most of us think it absurd to restrict a sterile hetero couple's legal right to be married. so it should be for same-sex couples.



It only leaves the basic household unit unchanged if you don't see any differences between men and women. Gay marriage bears a superficial resemblance to heterosexual marriage, but that resemblance breaks down when you introduce procreation to the mix. A same-sex union is, by its very nature, sterile, 100% of the time. A heterosexual union is not (and while it can be, it is the exception, rather than the rule).


same-sex marriage resembles hetero marriage in every single way *except* gender of the parties involved and procreation (in non-sterile hetero marriage). marriage confers many benefits to the other parties which make for a more stable and secure home unit. sterility simply doesnt change a damn thing.




My only embarrassment was assuming that you were arguing from good faith. Your "calculations" are based on a logical fallacy, and are not relevant. I shouldn't have fallen into the trap the first time.

And as we can see, you are mistaken about the conditional probability fallacy



This doesn't apply to miscegenation, as the two situations are completely different, a fact that continues to elude you, or which you ignore because your argument's sole appeal is as a civil rights argument, which it is not. The differences between race and sexual behavior have been hashed over repeatedly, but since you fail to grasp them, there is no point in repeating that which you either know but will not admit, or are too dense to grasp. Either way, the point is moot.


and polygamy is entirely different from same-sex marriage. but it doesn't matter. you're the one who is concerned with the existence of arguments and emboldened special interest. you claim that the arguments don't have to be sensible or valid, they just have to be used and have some probability of success.

and here we see same-sex marriage arguments, many derived or copied verbatim from the the struggle over miscegenation. we see the same-sex marriage special interest meeting with some success using these arguments. its probable that they will eventually succeed. so it seems that, in order to be consistent with your principles, you should have opposed the legality of interracial marriage.

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 11:37 AM
finally taking up the task of dismantling the rest of these....

the only aspect of my calculation over which you can legitimately quibble, would be the estimated p-values i assigned at each step. there are no two ways about it, multiplying the p-values at each step is *the way* to model your scenario, with real numbers, just like y=mx+b is the way to plot a straight line on a graph.

you can't actually wave aside the logic behind the calculation, without waving aside the logic behind the scenario.

and the steps can be random, or they can be causally connected - it does not matter for the calculation.

Actually, it matters a great deal. Random occurrances are just that: Random. The formulae for random probabilities cannot predict behaviors, even mass behaviors. If they could, public opinion polling would never deviate from election results. In short, your formula is not applicable to the problem.


probability cares not about whether the outcome is social, or the system is open or closed. the only tricky part about probability is accounting for all the things that might contribute to an element's p-value - which yes... is tricky, especially for complex social issues.

so sure, you might criticize me for being unable to determine all the factors which contribute to the p-values for each form of marriage. please do... because in so doing, you also defeat your own scenario, which most certainly depends knowing all the same determining factors - you just didn't go the extra step of assigning numerical values to them, and just kept it vague.

it bears repeating - my calculation is your scenario, just in a less vague form.

as for your claims that my calculation falls prey to the "conditional probability fallacy", that is just plain false.

whatever you just described is most certainly not the 'conditional probability fallacy'. the conditional probability fallacy occurs when one *assumes* P(A|B) is equivalent to P(B|A).** sometimes the two are equivalent, sometimes they are not. i didn't make any claim like this at all anywhere in my calculation.

i think you are just thrown off because i used 50% and 75% straight across the board. in reality, the probabilities at each step would probably be different - and according to my arguments, much lower - but for ease of demonstration i just decided on a uniform upper boundary, which i generously applied to each step. raising the p-value at each step of the chain to a whopping 75%, for example, seems like a hell of a lot.

so your complaint seems to be that p-values for some or all of the items can be ratcheted up after one step succeeds, and not just the successive step, and that my calculation didnt account for that. well, i'm sorry, my calculation is perfectly consistent with that possibility.

Assigning arbitrary values to enhance a flawed application of formulas doesn't mitigate the flaws in your argument. Your formulas can no more predict behavior than someone going back to the advent of the pill could have used them to predict that illegitimacy rates would increase, rather than decrease. It would seem, at first glance, that birth control would decrease out of wedlock births, would it not? But the increase in out of wedlock sex, diminished the importance of marriage to men, who could now have more sexual variety without having to commit to one woman. The causal relationship is obvious in hindsight, but at the time, very few people made that argument. Similarly, the legalization of abortion on demand has had the same effect, although after the experience of changes in sexual conduct after the pill, it became far easier to predict the outcome, but still not mathematically quantifiable. Similarly, the advent of no-fault divorce increased divorce rates, but also suppressed marriage rates, as marriage came to be seen as temporary and therefore diminished in value. Again, not something easily predicted by a formula.

People aren't dice, Wilbur. Our behaviors are more complex and less predictable, and much less random.


ok, so we have it on record from you that there are other desirable effects of marriage, other than providing a stable home environment for children. well, then it seems society might have an interest in encouraging marriage, even in cases where the couple is sterile or of the same gender.

Perhaps, but if they destroy the fundamental purpose of marriage, then they aren't as desirable, are they? You are proposing that we throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.


same-sex marriage resembles hetero marriage in every single way *except* gender of the parties involved and procreation (in non-sterile hetero marriage). marriage confers many benefits to the other parties which make for a more stable and secure home unit. sterility simply doesnt change a damn thing.

One could argue, just as falsely, that polygamy resembles monogamy in every single way "except" the number of people involved. And marriage would confer benefits on cohabiting polyamorous groups which might appear to make for a more stable and secure home unit, and unlike gay marriage, it produces children. In fact, the polygamists would probably have a stronger argument than the gay marriage advocates have, as polygamy has historical and religious sanction, while gay marriage has never existed anywhere. And sterility is a huge factor. In fact, one of the few grounds that even the Catholic Church recognizes as grounds for an anullment is failure to conceive.


and polygamy is entirely different from same-sex marriage. but it doesn't matter. you're the one who is concerned with the existence of arguments and emboldened special interest. you claim that the arguments don't have to be sensible or valid, they just have to be used and have some probability of success.

If sensible arguments alone won the day, we wouldn't have ever had Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. In fact, emotional arguments that appeal to baser motives have an advantage over rational arguments in many debates. The fact is that irrational arguments can win when they have momentum on their side. Prohibition comes to mind, as does gay marriage. The series of successful assaults on marriage since the 1950s has weakened it to the point where almost any argument applies.


and here we see same-sex marriage arguments, many derived or copied verbatim from the the struggle over miscegenation. it seems that, in order to be consistent with your principles, you should have opposed the legality of interracial marriage.

Accusing me of supporting the miscegenation laws is a low blow, even for you, Wilbur. And, I have made it clear that the arguments for one are not valid in the case of the other. It is only you who claims that I am repeating those arguments in order to slander me.

Once again, for the benefit of the Wilburfully obtuse: Race and sexual behavior are radically different criteria. Again, sterility is an issue, because one of the objections of those who opposed repeal of anti-miscegination laws was that the children would be neither white not black, and therefore objects of discrimination under Jim Crow laws. This does not apply to gay marriage, which cannot produce children.

And, the arguments used to undo California's anti-miscegenation law, which were stated in PEREZ V. SHARP, specifically cited marriage and procreation as the fundamentals of the issue.


The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
(Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.

A form of "marriage" in which procreation is physically impossible by its very nature is in absolute opposition to the survival of the human race, as cited, and as such, there is a compelling state interest against granting it recognition as marriages whose primary purpose is procreation.

Let me know when you've had enough.

wilbur
12-13-2010, 12:58 PM
i am glad you seem to have chosen not to continue to argue 'conditional probability fallacy' point anymore. i'll take that to be your concession that the point was ill-conceived and wrongly applied. unfortunately, your remaining line of arguments relating to probability are still just as ill-conceived.


Actually, it matters a great deal. Random occurrances are just that: Random. The formulae for random probabilities cannot predict behaviors, even mass behaviors. If they could, public opinion polling would never deviate from election results. In short, your formula is not applicable to the problem.


completely random or caused, it does not matter. i repeat - it does not matter. again - it does not matter. it doesn't matter! what matters is that there is some probability that one or more outcomes could possibly occur. random or caused. it does not matter here.

and in your scenario, one or more outcomes could possibly occur. we can estimate what their probabilities are, based on a number of beliefs and arguments and what sounds plausible. then we can calculate the likely hood of all of them occurring together.

you are out of your depth here, and are bordering on nonsensical. i'm happy to let you keep digging though.


Assigning arbitrary values to enhance a flawed application of formulas doesn't mitigate the flaws in your argument.

you don't get it.... it was *your scenario*!!! yours! you proposed it, you wrote it, you designed it, you stood by it.

you hand waved all your ad-hoc claims around in a vague manner, so that they had the illusion of plausibility... but we see it falls apart the moment we put even a little rigor to it. i certainly don't think it would play out like your scenario suggests. i deny any significant relationship between the success of same-sex marriage, and the probability that polygamy will be legitimized.

but make no mistake - its *your* scenario, your argument.



Your formulas can no more predict behavior than someone going back to the advent of the pill could have used them to predict that illegitimacy rates would increase, rather than decrease.

well, then neither can your contrived hand-waving.



It would seem, at first glance, that birth control would decrease out of wedlock births, would it not? But the increase in out of wedlock sex, diminished the importance of marriage to men, who could now have more sexual variety without having to commit to one woman. The causal relationship is obvious in hindsight, but at the time, very few people made that argument. Similarly, the legalization of abortion on demand has had the same effect, although after the experience of changes in sexual conduct after the pill, it became far easier to predict the outcome, but still not mathematically quantifiable. Similarly, the advent of no-fault divorce increased divorce rates, but also suppressed marriage rates, as marriage came to be seen as temporary and therefore diminished in value. Again, not something easily predicted by a formula.

your scenario was the formula!!!!! you made the predictions. i just gave them numbers. if you want to say you can't make any reasonable predictions about the effects of same-sex marriage, then fine.

you then must throw out your scenario.


People aren't dice, Wilbur. Our behaviors are more complex and less predictable, and much less random.

complex? yes. predictable? sometimes. random? irrelevant.



Perhaps, but if they destroy the fundamental purpose of marriage, then they aren't as desirable, are they? You are proposing that we throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.


you either have to accept that there are valuable and desirable purposes to marriage besides procreation, or you need to stand by the claim that marriage between two heterosexuals who refuse to (or can't) have children destroys the fundamental purpose of marriage. which is it?

but marriage between two heterosexuals who won't or can't have children doesn't harm the institution of marriage does it? it doesn't "destroy its fundamental purpose" does it?

if it does, then why aren't we requiring a letter of intent to have children, from married couples, before handing out a marriage license. marriage is bigger than child rearing and well *all know it*.



One could argue, just as falsely, that polygamy resembles monogamy in every single way "except" the number of people involved. And marriage would confer benefits on cohabiting polyamorous groups which might appear to make for a more stable and secure home unit, and unlike gay marriage, it produces children. In fact, the polygamists would probably have a stronger argument than the gay marriage advocates have, as polygamy has historical and religious sanction, while gay marriage has never existed anywhere. And sterility is a huge factor. In fact, one of the few grounds that even the Catholic Church recognizes as grounds for an anullment is failure to conceive.


as you have already pointed out, laws regarding transfer of property, cohabitation, domestic disputes, divorce, custody etc are all suited specifically for relationships involving two people, and existing law is not capable of handling these scenarios for polygamous marriages without some major overhaul. same-sex marriage does not have this issue at all.

and if all we give polygamists by enacting same-sex marriage are false arguments... good! who cares!? why should we believe they will succeed?



If sensible arguments alone won the day, we wouldn't have ever had Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. In fact, emotional arguments that appeal to baser motives have an advantage over rational arguments in many debates. The fact is that irrational arguments can win when they have momentum on their side. Prohibition comes to mind, as does gay marriage. The series of successful assaults on marriage since the 1950s has weakened it to the point where almost any argument applies.

Accusing me of supporting the miscegenation laws is a low blow, even for you, Wilbur. And, I have made it clear that the arguments for one are not valid in the case of the other. It is only you who claims that I am repeating those arguments in order to slander me.

Once again, for the benefit of the Wilburfully obtuse: Race and sexual behavior are radically different criteria. Again, sterility is an issue, because one of the objections of those who opposed repeal of anti-miscegination laws was that the children would be neither white not black, and therefore objects of discrimination under Jim Crow laws. This does not apply to gay marriage, which cannot produce children.

And, the arguments used to undo California's anti-miscegenation law, which were stated in PEREZ V. SHARP, specifically cited marriage and procreation as the fundamentals of the issue.


its not slander you doofus, its called a reductio ad absurdem. your principles lead to absurd positions.

i don't think you *actually* support miscegenation laws. i'm arguing that your chief argument against same-sex marriage would have logically required you to oppose the repeal of miscegenation laws. your principles lead to absurdities, therefore we have good reason to reject them.




A form of "marriage" in which procreation is physically impossible by its very nature is in absolute opposition to the survival of the human race, as cited, and as such, there is a compelling state interest against granting it recognition as marriages whose primary purpose is procreation.

oh noes - same-sex marriage will *end* the human race!!! but many children don't have parents and need them - so having a small subset of the population who is willing and able to adopt can be a good thing, for the children and for society.

but lets look at your citation again:


The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
(Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.

you have problems with words. this quote does not say that marriages without procreation pose a threat to the future of the human race. it says that "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race". i'm sure the speaker is well aware of the fact that many marriages produce no children, and probably (i would hope) would say that even those childless marriages help contribute to overall societal stability and can be important to the continued existence of man.

so marriage is a fundamental civil right and it is essential for our continued survival - that lends support to same-sex marriage beautifully. and same-sex marriage advocates use those arguments - with some measure of success too. therefore, if you believe what you type, you should have opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws.

bravo.


Let me know when you've had enough

heh - i'm not the one in bad shape here.

AmPat
12-13-2010, 01:15 PM
See this post: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=342781&postcount=50

Read it the first time. Let's try this again:

Nothing to do with attention span, everything to do with efficiency. You post idiotic responses that either ignore the facts, try to change them, litter the field with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts. Your screeds are long and boorish. You either start posting pithy, short, and valid responses or you are doomed to writing on walls that nobody will read.__________________:cool:

wilbur
12-13-2010, 01:30 PM
Read it the first time. Let's try this again:

Nothing to do with attention span, everything to do with efficiency. You post idiotic responses that either ignore the facts, try to change them, litter the field with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts. Your screeds are long and boorish. You either start posting pithy, short, and valid responses or you are doomed to writing on walls that nobody will read.__________________:cool:

if nobody reads them (by nobody, I assume you mean yourself) then on what grounds do you claim they are boorish, they ignore the facts, filled with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts?!?

you either read my posts and can point out some of the instances of those flaws, or you don't read them and have to basis on which to say anything about them.

if you don't point out any of those flaws - and still feel the need to interject - i can only assume that you don't really see them - you're just trying to appear like you have something substantial to say, when you really don't.

AmPat
12-13-2010, 02:10 PM
if nobody reads them (by nobody, I assume you mean yourself) then on what grounds do you claim they are boorish, they ignore the facts, filled with red herrings, or completely shift the goal posts?!?

you either read my posts and can point out some of the instances of those flaws, or you don't read them and have to basis on which to say anything about them.

if you don't point out any of those flaws - and still feel the need to interject - i can only assume that you don't really see them - you're just trying to appear like you have something substantial to say, when you really don't.

Because I tried. Your boorish writing and screeds have not changed. I guess that is too advanced for your imagination to suppose that if you haven't changed your style, it is most likely the same? :rolleyes:
Here's a little bitter medicine for you, CU's resident poop stirrer:

you're just trying to appear like you have something substantial to say, when you really don't.

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 03:36 PM
i am glad you seem to have chosen not to continue to argue 'conditional probability fallacy' point anymore. i'll take that to be your concession that the point was ill-conceived and wrongly applied. unfortunately, your remaining line of arguments relating to probability are still just as ill-conceived.

No, it's still a fallacy. I have only so much time to deal with you, and the sheer volume of wrongness requires a certain amount of triage.


completely random or caused, it does not matter. i repeat - it does not matter. again - it does not matter. it doesn't matter! what matters is that there is some probability that one or more outcomes could possibly occur. random or caused. it does not matter here.

I see that you have reverted to a childhood argument. Regardless, it does matter, since the causations cannot be quatified.


and in your scenario, one or more outcomes could possibly occur. we can estimate what their probabilities are, based on a number of beliefs and arguments and what sounds plausible. then we can calculate the likely hood of all of them occurring together.

You are making caldulations based on "what sounds plausible" to you. They do not sount plausible to anyone else.


you are out of your depth here, and are bordering on nonsensical. i'm happy to let you keep digging though.

This is what is called "projection."


you don't get it.... it was *your scenario*!!! yours! you proposed it, you wrote it, you designed it, you stood by it.

you hand waved all your ad-hoc claims around in a vague manner, so that they had the illusion of plausibility... but we see it falls apart the moment we put even a little rigor to it. i certainly don't think it would play out like your scenario suggests. i deny any significant relationship between the success of same-sex marriage, and the probability that polygamy will be legitimized.
but make no mistake - its *your* scenario, your argument.


Actually, I typed it. Applying false rigor doesn't invalidate my contentions. You routinely refuse to address the previous attacks on marriage and the effect that they have had on the current debate in order to isolate gay marriage from the continuum of attacks on the definition of marriage.


your scenario was the formula!!!!! you made the predictions. i just gave them numbers. if you want to say you can't make any reasonable predictions about the effects of same-sex marriage, then fine.

Non-responsive. Again, you refuse to address the effects of previous attacks on marriage, using a red herring of your faux numbers in order to disprove a thesis that cannot be quantified. And no, I'm saying that the reasonable predictions are not the same as randomly assigned numerical values.


you then must throw out your scenario.

I'll have to check the rules on CU, but I'm pretty sure that I don't have to. I suspect that you are indulging in the "I'm the boss of you" fallacy. Mods? A decision here?


you either have to accept that there are valuable and desirable purposes to marriage besides procreation, or you need to stand by the claim that marriage between two heterosexuals who refuse to (or can't) have children destroys the fundamental purpose of marriage. which is it?

No, I do not. The primary purpose remains procreation. If two people have to procreate, and cannot (think royalty, for example, where heirs are critical to lineage), then they will seek an anullment. Now, if two people marry in an attempt to have children and cannot, there is no precedent for forcing them to split. It is only the option to split that is open to them, because the church recognizes the primacy of procreation to marriage. The other benefits are secondary considerations, which you are elevating to equality with the primary one.


but marriage between two heterosexuals who won't or can't have children doesn't harm the institution of marriage does it? it doesn't "destroy its fundamental purpose" does it? No, because the potential for procreation is still there.


if it does, then why aren't we requiring a letter of intent to have children, from married couples, before handing out a marriage license. marriage is bigger than child rearing and well *all know it*.
For the same reason that we don't require a breathing license. It's such an obvious fact that only an idiot or an ideologue would deny it.


as you have already pointed out, laws regarding transfer of property, cohabitation, domestic disputes, divorce, custody etc are all suited specifically for relationships involving two people, and existing law is not capable of handling these scenarios for polygamous marriages without some major overhaul.

As you pointed out, the legislatures can easily establish new laws. And, polygamous marriages involve two biological parents per child, even if there are half-brothers and sisters. If anything, a polygamous marriage more closely resembles the kind of serial monogamy that has come into vogue among those who frequently divorce and remarry. In fact, I've long suspected that Sharia will prove very popular in Hollywood.


same-sex marriage does not have this issue at all.

Really? In a lesbian relationship, who is the father?


and if all we give polygamists by enacting same-sex marriage are false arguments... good! who cares!? why should we believe they will succeed?

Because the advocates of gay marriage are using arguments that are just as false and they have never been closer to succeeding.


its not slander you doofus, its called a reductio ad absurdem. your principles lead to absurd positions.
No, your deliberate distortion of my principles leads to absurd (and racist) positions.


i don't think you *actually* support miscegenation laws. i'm arguing that your chief argument against same-sex marriage would have logically required you to oppose the repeal of miscegenation laws. your principles lead to absurdities, therefore we have good reason to reject them.

And, as always, you are wrong.

oh noes - same-sex marriage will *end* the human race!!! but many children don't have parents and need them - so having a small subset of the population who is willing and able to adopt can be a good thing, for the children and for society.

Then let them adopt. But don't pretend to call it a marriage. And, birth rates are declining throughout the western world. Even China is experiencing rapid depopulation. The consequences of these demographic declines are widely varied, from the future insolvency of our financial institutions to things as mundane as plumbing issues (villages that lack sufficient people to maintain usage of sewage lines end up with insufficient pressure to keep those lines flowing, resuling in a need to swap out pipes for narrower ones). Weakened marriage leads to declining birth rates.


but lets look at your citation again:


The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
(Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
you have problems with words. this quote does not say that marriages without procreation pose a threat to the future of the human race. it says that "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race". i'm sure the speaker is well aware of the fact that many marriages produce no children, and probably (i would hope) would say that even those childless marriages help contribute to overall societal stability and can be important to the continued existence of man.
No, I understand words quite well. It is you who doesn't understand that marriage and procreation are part and parcel. Marriage without procreation is barren. Procreation without marriage is anarchy.


so marriage is a fundamental civil right and it is essential for our continued survival - that lends support to same-sex marriage beautifully. and same-sex marriage advocates use those arguments - with some measure of success too. therefore, if you believe what you type, you should have opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws.

The court did not define what a marriage was (an absurdity at the time of the decision). Had they felt the need , it is highly unlikely that any of the judges who voted for the decision would have defined a marriage as any union between two people, regardless of gender, any more than they would have defined it as a union between any two mammals. By imposing the activist's definition of marriage on the court, you are twisting the meaning of the decision.


heh - i'm not the one in bad shape here.
Yes, Wilbur, you're certainly taking a good punch. :rolleyes:
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/BAEDE1F6-C2C7-459B-B1DF-FA5AB60FA132/AX077698.jpg

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 03:49 PM
This needs further addressing:




The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
(Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.

you have problems with words. this quote does not say that marriages without procreation pose a threat to the future of the human race. it says that "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race". i'm sure the speaker is well aware of the fact that many marriages produce no children, and probably (i would hope) would say that even those childless marriages help contribute to overall societal stability and can be important to the continued existence of man.

so marriage is a fundamental civil right and it is essential for our continued survival - that lends support to same-sex marriage beautifully. and same-sex marriage advocates use those arguments - with some measure of success too. therefore, if you believe what you type, you should have opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws.

The right for a man and woman to marry is the fundamental civil right. Without that definition, anything goes. Example:


The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

One can argue that this applies to any sexual act that can result in procreation, including a those with physically precocious children.

Let's focus the emphasis again:


The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

By this logic, zoning is unconstitutional. By that logic, one can argue that any act which produces children is protected, even polygamy.

The court's decision, severed from any rational definition of marriage, can be applied to anything that involves sex. You want an argument ad absurdum? You could justify rape with your logic, since the right to procreate is one of the basic civil rights of man (note that women are not mentioned), or only same sex marriage between men, for the same reason. It is your principles which are so fluid as to defy any definition, and which will therefore allow anything, anytime, anywhere, with anyone.

Zathras
12-13-2010, 04:02 PM
It speaks to your credibility when you can actually point out and demonstrate someone's mistakes. When you just sit back and say "They're there, I swear", its just transparent shit talk, with nothing to back it up. Not fooling anybody there rock/lacarnut/zathras.

Sorry Wee Wilbur but I don't need credibuility to debunk your idiocy when you have absolutely no credibility in the first place. Besides Ody is doing a bang up job ripping your pathetic little arguments apart and me adding on would be pointless, like beating a dead horse or the red headed stepchild that you are.

Oh, and don't bother replying...I have your ignorant, little, America hating ass on ignore.

Zathras
12-13-2010, 04:04 PM
It's the same crap he's been posting at CC as well. The funny part is that at one point over there he became so longwinded and was bloviating so much the Libtard troll actually ended up contradicting himself.

:rolleyes:

What is this fucktard's name over at CC?

Zathras
12-13-2010, 04:07 PM
The court's decision, severed from any rational definition of marriage, can be applied to anything that involves sex. You want an argument ad absurdum? You could justify rape with your logic, since the right to procreate is one of the basic civil rights of man (note that women are not mentioned), or only same sex marriage between men, for the same reason. It is your principles which are so fluid as to defy any definition, and which will therefore allow anything, anytime, anywhere, with anyone.

You know you just made me shudder with the thought of widdle wilbur procreating and infecting the human race with his defective DNA and his spawn. :eek:

wilbur
12-13-2010, 04:14 PM
It is my contention that your continued emphasis on your belief that precedent, possible arguments will empower special interest leads to absurdity.

With the same-sex marriage/polygamy dichotomy, you cited many outlandish possible "arguments" that the polygamy special interest might use and might feel embolden to use, should same-sex marriage ever take hold. Many of the arguments are absurd on their face, even you say as much. But you claim that their validity is irrelevant, as you think the polygamy special interest will wield them with enough effectiveness to accomplish their goals. For this reason, you argue, it is vital to oppose same-sex marriage.

Well, same-sex marriage advocates, correct or not, wield several of the same popular arguments against the old miscegenation laws. And they are making good progress. If you look back at the arguments and the precedent that was established, there is little doubt that the repeal of miscegenation laws have highly influenced the same-sex special interest, in a matter that has allowed them to be successful - whether you agree with their arguments or not. So it seems like you should have considered it just as vital to have opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws.

It looks quite obvious from here, just how frail this argument is, which is that some special interest somewhere will be able to wield invalid, crazy arguments (which aren't even remotely plausible) derived from new established precedent in attempts to aid their cause. Its pretty much a given that somehow, somewhere, there will be some special interest group trying to abuse some newly established precedent to aid whatever their loony cause may be. So not only does it look like your argument would have committed one to oppose miscegenation repeal, but one would have to oppose any change to any existing law, period.

So please give us a good explanation as to why your argument doesn't apply to the same-sex/interracial marriage dichotomy, but it does to the same-sex/polygamy marriage dichotomy.

Cuz it sure looks a lot like inconsistency...

wilbur
12-13-2010, 04:27 PM
The court's decision, severed from any rational definition of marriage, can be applied to anything that involves sex. You want an argument ad absurdum? You could justify rape with your logic, since the right to procreate is one of the basic civil rights of man (note that women are not mentioned), or only same sex marriage between men, for the same reason. It is your principles which are so fluid as to defy any definition, and which will therefore allow anything, anytime, anywhere, with anyone.

Say what? This doesn't make *any* sense. Rape is a non-consensual attack, and necessarily violates the civil rights of another.

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 04:42 PM
It is my contention that your continued emphasis on your belief that precedent, possible arguments will empower special interest leads to absurdity.
It does lead to absurdity. It leads to absurd definitions of marriage that no one in their right mind today would consider valid. But, three decades ago, the same thing was said about gay marriage after the Gay Liberation Front came out.


With the same-sex marriage/polygamy dichotomy, you cited many outlandish possible "arguments" that the polygamy special interest might use and might feel embolden to use, should same-sex marriage ever take hold. Many of the arguments are absurd on their face, even you say as much. But you claim that their validity is irrelevant, as you think the polygamy special interest will wield them with enough effectiveness to accomplish their goals. For this reason, you argue, it is vital to oppose same-sex marriage.
It is vital to oppose all radical redefinitions of marriage. Gay marriage is simply one more nail in the coffin, not a stake through the heart.


Well, same-sex marriage advocates, correct or not, wield several of the same popular arguments against the old miscegenation laws. And they are making good progress. If you look back at the arguments and the precedent that was established, there is little doubt that the repeal of miscegenation laws have highly influenced the same-sex special interest, in a matter that has allowed them to be successful - whether you agree with their arguments or not. So it seems like you should have considered it just as vital to have opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws.
No, because the miscegenation laws didn't represent a valid definition of marriage, and the repeal of those laws did not inure the institution. The institution was not harmed by men and women of different ethnicities marrying. In fact, it can be argued that the introduction of new material to the gene pools benefitted all mankind. Again, and again, and again, since you seem incapable of grasping this fact, miscegenation laws did not recognize a fundamental truth, that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. In fact, they denied this basic truth by creating artificial barriers. But the barriers to gay marriage are not based on bigotry, but on basic human biology. Two men or two women cannot reproduce on their own. The only similarity between the gay marriage and miscegenation debates is that the advocates of gay marriage have, as in all other things, wrapped themselves in the mantra of civil rights, and are ignoring the glaring, obvious and incontrovertical differences between the two in order to exploit a tactical opportunity.


It looks quite obvious from here, just how frail this argument is, which is that some special interest somewhere will be able to wield invalid, crazy arguments (which aren't even remotely plausible) derived from new established precedent in attempts to aid their cause. Its pretty much a given that somehow, somewhere, there will be some special interest group trying to abuse some newly established precedent to aid whatever their loony cause may be. So only does it look like your argument would have committed one to oppose miscegenation repeal, but one would have to oppose any change to any existing law, period.

So please give us a good explanation as to why your argument doesn't apply to the same-sex/interracial marriage dichotomy, but it does to the same-sex/polygamy marriage dichotomy.

Cuz it sure looks a lot like inconsistency...

Only if you are not looking at the obvious. Gay marriage creates a form of marriage that has never existed before. It is a sterile dead end, that depends on invasive behaviors involving third parties in order to procreate. Inter-racial marriage has existed throughout human history, has produced progeny throughout history and is not an inherently sterile dead end. It does not depend on third parties for procreation, and does not require whole new volumes of law in order to accomodate the inheritance and custody issues surrounding those children. An inter-racial marriage is, in every way, a marriage, as defined by law until the self-appointed guardians of the public's morals decided that the founders erred in not conferring a new definition of marriage that accomodated their fabulously trendy friends. A gay marriage is not, in the most critical way, a marriage. And, as I have said before, the gay marriage/polygamy issue is based on the fact that once marriage is redefined to the latest fashionable consensus, there is nothing to prevent further redefinitions, and tremendous pressures to accept them. The argument that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman will open the floodgates to every judge who wants to be seen as being on the cutting edge of societal evolution, and will eliminate most of the constraints against any of the alternative forms of marriage that will be proposed.

Now, I have repeated these arguments ad nauseum (and dealt with you beyond nauseum), and if you continue to pretend that you don't understand them, then I have no more time for your Wilburful ingorance.

wilbur
12-13-2010, 05:07 PM
It does lead to absurdity. It leads to absurd definitions of marriage that no one in their right mind today would consider valid. But, three decades ago, the same thing was said about gay marriage after the Gay Liberation Front came out.

It is vital to oppose all radical redefinitions of marriage. Gay marriage is simply one more nail in the coffin, not a stake through the heart.

No, because the miscegenation laws didn't represent a valid definition of marriage, and the repeal of those laws did not inure the institution. The institution was not harmed by men and women of different ethnicities marrying. In fact, it can be argued that the introduction of new material to the gene pools benefitted all mankind. Again, and again, and again, since you seem incapable of grasping this fact, miscegenation laws did not recognize a fundamental truth, that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. In fact, they denied this basic truth by creating artificial barriers. But the barriers to gay marriage are not based on bigotry, but on basic human biology. Two men or two women cannot reproduce on their own. The only similarity between the gay marriage and miscegenation debates is that the advocates of gay marriage have, as in all other things, wrapped themselves in the mantra of civil rights, and are ignoring the glaring, obvious and incontrovertical differences between the two in order to exploit a tactical opportunity.

Only if you are not looking at the obvious. Gay marriage creates a form of marriage that has never existed before. It is a sterile dead end, that depends on invasive behaviors involving third parties in order to procreate. Inter-racial marriage has existed throughout human history, has produced progeny throughout history and is not an inherently sterile dead end. It does not depend on third parties for procreation, and does not require whole new volumes of law in order to accomodate the inheritance and custody issues surrounding those children. An inter-racial marriage is, in every way, a marriage, as defined by law until the self-appointed guardians of the public's morals decided that the founders erred in not conferring a new definition of marriage that accomodated their fabulously trendy friends. A gay marriage is not, in the most critical way, a marriage. And, as I have said before, the gay marriage/polygamy issue is based on the fact that once marriage is redefined to the latest fashionable consensus, there is nothing to prevent further redefinitions, and tremendous pressures to accept them. The argument that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman will open the floodgates to every judge who wants to be seen as being on the cutting edge of societal evolution, and will eliminate most of the constraints against any of the alternative forms of marriage that will be proposed.

Now, I have repeated these arguments ad nauseum (and dealt with you beyond nauseum), and if you continue to pretend that you don't understand them, then I have no more time for your Wilburful ingorance.

Why are you telling me again the details of why you think the arguments for same-sex marriage, borrowed from miscegenation precedents, are illegitimate and misapplied? That's not what I was asking and is besides the point. Lets try to rephrase:

You wrote earlier:


If sensible arguments alone won the day, we wouldn't have ever had Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. In fact, emotional arguments that appeal to baser motives have an advantage over rational arguments in many debates. The fact is that irrational arguments can win when they have momentum on their side. Prohibition comes to mind, as does gay marriage. The series of successful assaults on marriage since the 1950s has weakened it to the point where almost any argument applies.

So, if consider the above in light of the miscegenation/same-sex marriage dichotomy, it seems like the repeal miscegenation laws provided the same-sex marriage special interest with powerful emotionally persuasive arguments that might ultimately result in the realization of their goals. They might be totally invalid and illegitimate - but your concerned with emotional persuasiveness, not legitimacy. Like it or not, is seems like miscegenation repeal gave the same-sex marriage special interest some emotionally powerful ammo.

So again I ask: Why would you have not opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws on those grounds, yet oppose same-sex marriage on those very same grounds (that polygamists will borrow same-sex special interests emotionally persuasive arguments)?

If you can't provide a good reason, you can logically bite one of two bullets. Either you say that you would oppose miscegenation laws repeal on those grounds, or you can discard the bulk of your argument against same-sex marriage (and then you could argue for or against same-sex marriage, based on the merits or lack-there-of alone, and not based on the potential "arguments" that some other special interest might adopt down the line).

Odysseus
12-13-2010, 06:41 PM
You have an annoying habit of telling me what I have to do when we debate. Again, your opinions are no more binding on me than my toddler's, and she has a far greater chance of getting on the right side of an issue than you do.


Why are you telling me again the details of why you think the arguments for same-sex marriage, borrowed from miscegenation precedents, are illegitimate and misapplied? That's not what I was asking and is besides the point.

Because it is germaine to my arguments. You asked:

So please give us a good explanation as to why your argument doesn't apply to the same-sex/interracial marriage dichotomy, but it does to the same-sex/polygamy marriage dichotomy.

In order to do so, I had to restate both. Not that it matters. Your density is rapidly approaching the end of the periodic table. I could emboss this on a chisel and beat it into your skull with a sledge hammer and it still wouldn't penetrate.


Lets try to rephrase:

Oh, goodie. Another straw man argument?


So, if consider the above in light of the miscegenation/same-sex marriage dichotomy, it seems like the repeal miscegenation laws provided the same-sex marriage special interest with powerful emotionally persuasive arguments that might ultimately result in the realization of their goals. They might be totally invalid and illegitimate - but your concerned with emotional persuasiveness, not legitimacy. Like it or not, is seems like miscegenation repeal gave the same-sex marriage special interest some emotionally powerful ammo.

So again I ask: Why would you have not opposed the repeal of miscegenation laws on those grounds, yet oppose same-sex marriage on those very same grounds (that polygamists will borrow same-sex special interests emotionally persuasive arguments)?

So, what you're saying is that I should have opposed a persuasive, rational, intelligent argument that was valid in order to prevent an irrational argument from being applied? That's a stretch, even for you. The legalization of inter-racial marriage did not do violence to the definition of marriage, it did not impose new definitions on marriage and did not fundamentally alter the basic forms of the institution. The gay marriage arguments, OTOH, do nothing but. Thus, the false arguments and logical fallacies that the gay marriage advocates employ do violence to the definition of marriage and contort it into new forms, which leaves the institution vulnerable in a way that the arguments in opposition to inter-racial marriage did not.


If you can't provide a good reason, you can logically bite one of two bullets. Either you say that you would oppose miscegenation laws repeal on those grounds, or you can discard the bulk of your argument against same-sex marriage (and then you could argue for or against same-sex marriage, based on the merits or lack-there-of alone, and not based on the potential "arguments" that some other special interest might adopt down the line).

May I suggest something that you can bite instead of a bullet?

Again, you are not the arbiter of the validity of my arguments. I have repeatedly explained that inter-racial marriage and gay marriage are radically different. That the invalidation of laws against the former did no violence to marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The invalidation of laws against the latter redefine marriage into anything that is currently trendy, with the result that any subsequent attacks on marriage would be made easier because the basic definition is gone.

Try to think of this another way (or just try to think at all, really). Medical technology has made it possible for babies to survive earlier and earlier premature births. It has also made it possible to conduct later and later abortions without risk to the mother. I would argue that the latter is a corruption of medical knowledge that treats a human life as a non-person, but that the former is a legitimate use of medical technology to enhance and save human life. Would my argument that the availability of later abortions results in a diminuation of the sanctity of human life demand that I oppose all pre-natal research on the ground that it enables more abortions? Of course not. Similarly, my argument that the manipulation of language and the radical redefinition of marriage will further erode the institution does not mean that I oppose all changes to laws governing marriage, only those that will have an obviously negative impact on how future generations view marriage. Which, brings us back to my previous point, which you found incomprehensible, that the arguments for same-sex marriage, borrowed from miscegenation precedents, are illegitimate and misapplied. Got it?

Or, to put it another way, does an inter-racial couple have to appeal to a third party to have a child? Does a gay couple? If you cannot see the difference, then you are being deliberately obtuse, or at least, more than usual.


Say what? This doesn't make *any* sense. Rape is a non-consensual attack, and necessarily violates the civil rights of another.

That is correct. I told you that it was absurd. Rape is a non-consensual attack, and it does violate the civil rights of another, but only if you accept our western definition of what a civil right is. If, OTOH, you throw out our concepts of what is and isn't a right, and establish a right that has never existed, then the right to procreate can trump the right to be secure in our persons.

And no, I am not advocating a right to commit rape, only that the western laws against rape that see women as sovereign beings in charge of their own bodies are based on a concept of individuality that is uniquely western. Sharia Law also bans rape, but defines it radically differently, in the context of tribal and family interests. Thus, a woman in a Sharia court is responsible for her loss of honor, while a woman in a western court is recognized as the victim. Similarly, western marriage is about a man and a woman, regardless of the color, texture or tone of the skin of either party. The definition of gay marriage is one person, and another person, for the moment, and it will continue that way until the trendy sophisticates decide that they want to prove their progressive bona fides yet again.

wilbur
12-13-2010, 09:29 PM
You have an annoying habit of telling me what I have to do when we debate. Again, your opinions are no more binding on me than my toddler's, and she has a far greater chance of getting on the right side of an issue than you do.


Haha, well how's it feel? Now imagine my rather mundane conclusion and multiply it by a million and you'll get an inkling of what its like to talk to you!



Because it is germaine to my arguments. You asked:

In order to do so, I had to restate both. Not that it matters. Your density is rapidly approaching the end of the periodic table. I could emboss this on a chisel and beat it into your skull with a sledge hammer and it still wouldn't penetrate.

Oh, goodie. Another straw man argument?

So, what you're saying is that I should have opposed a persuasive, rational, intelligent argument that was valid in order to prevent an irrational argument from being applied?


Now you are starting to get it. The above statement basically sums up your argument which claims same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. You posited at least 4 rational, strong objections in your first post in this thread, against polygamy. You're case against same-sex marriage depends on us rejecting those 4 persuasive, rational, intelligent, valid arguments against polygamy as inadequate, in order to prevent irrational, invalid arguments (from the polygamy special interest) from being applied to advocate polygamy.

dealing with rest in follow up.

BadCat
12-13-2010, 10:15 PM
Haha, well how's it feel? Now imagine my rather mundane conclusion and multiply it by a million and you'll get an inkling of what its like to talk to you!

Wilbur: I'm a fag. I want to marry my boyfriend, Bruce. We may want to have sex with roosters. You conservatives will LIKE IT and ACCEPT IT or we'll stamp our feet and hold our breath.


That's what it's like talking to YOU, gay boy.

lacarnut
12-13-2010, 10:41 PM
Haha, well how's it feel? Now imagine my rather mundane conclusion and multiply it by a million and you'll get an inkling of what its like to talk to you!

.

That is because the Major kicks your ass 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.

wilbur
12-13-2010, 11:05 PM
Wilbur: I'm a fag. I want to marry my boyfriend, Bruce. We may want to have sex with roosters. You conservatives will LIKE IT and ACCEPT IT or we'll stamp our feet and hold our breath.


That's what it's like talking to YOU, gay boy.


ok.

Odysseus
12-14-2010, 11:11 AM
Haha, well how's it feel? Now imagine my rather mundane conclusion and multiply it by a million and you'll get an inkling of what its like to talk to you!

I don't recall ever telling you how to debate. That's your particular control freakishness at work. Now, you do complain that I assume your positions based on, well, your positions, but you also complain that everyone else here does that, so perhaps I'm not the problem. Regardless, you do not get to set the terms of discussion here. Again, that's the "You're not the boss of me" Fallacy, which entails someone with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance demanding that others debate him on his terms. It is also becoming known around here as the Wilbur Fallacy, for obvious reasons. Not going to happen. Get over it.


Now you are starting to get it. The above statement basically sums up your argument which claims same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. You posited at least 4 rational, strong objections in your first post in this thread, against polygamy. You're case against same-sex marriage depends on us rejecting those 4 persuasive, rational, intelligent, valid arguments against polygamy as inadequate, in order to prevent irrational, invalid arguments (from the polygamy special interest) from being applied to advocate polygamy.

If that is your summation of my position, then apparently, you consider me an idiot, but since that is not my position, it is not applicable. First, as I have said repeatedly, there are arguments against gay marriage that are not dependent on the subsequent destruction of marriage that will result from repeated assaults on the foundations of marriage, but those assaults are critical and to pretend that they will not occur because you don't like them isn't a valid argument. Second, the most basic argument against gay marriage, in a vacuum, if you like, is that a gay marriage does not meet the basic criteria for marriage, that it is not about creating a stable environment for procreating and rasing children, but is only an attempt by activists to normalize their behavior by having the norm redefined to their liking. It is also an attempt to cash in on the benefits that accrue to marriage, but those benefits are almost entirely about familial obligations. For example, we allow a married person to extend his/her employment benefits to a spouse so that the spouse can spend time raising children. A married couple that lacks children is assumed to be capable of having them, and the benefits accrue based on that assumption. A pair of siblings, or a pair of roommates who are not sexually involved does not get that assumption, even if they share a home. Neither do couples who are cohabitating, even if they have children, but who are not married. In other words, only a marriage, a union whose purpose is to procreate, gets that consideration. A gay marriage is, by definition, sterile. Procreation is the exception, not the norm, and is only possible by the interaction of a third party. It is not, therefore, a self-contained family unit and does not meet the criteria for a marriage. Now, if you want to pretend otherwise, that words mean what you want them to mean, and that you can redefine reality however you like, be my guest, but the end result of that is that the redefinition of marriage will not end after it has been corrupted from one man and one woman to two people of any gender, because the fundamental principle of marriage will have been obliterated. But, don't listen to me. Go ahead, and work for the repeal of centuries of law and tradition, just to make yourself feel good about being an enlightened, post-modern individual. Then, wait. When the poligamy advocates begin to gain traction, you can go back to these exchanges and, if you have any semblance of humility, admit that I was right. Of course, the contingency is your possession of humility, so I won't hold my breath.

wilbur
12-14-2010, 02:07 PM
I don't recall ever telling you how to debate. That's your particular control freakishness at work. Now, you do complain that I assume your positions based on, well, your positions, but you also complain that everyone else here does that, so perhaps I'm not the problem. Regardless, you do not get to set the terms of discussion here. Again, that's the "You're not the boss of me" Fallacy, which entails someone with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance demanding that others debate him on his terms. It is also becoming known around here as the Wilbur Fallacy, for obvious reasons. Not going to happen. Get over it.


I'm not so much telling you how to debate, but to respect the rules of logic. When you make several independent arguments against polygamy that do not depend on the definition of marriage, for example - and then proceed to claim that there would be no arguments against polygamy if marriage were redefined... well, that's called a contradiction. And that's what you did in your first and second reply to me, in this thread.

Another appeared in the miscegenation dilemma.

I didn't make up these rules... they aren't mine.

And how soon you forget - just go re-read the beginning of our exchanges on this thread. Once again, I'll provide a recap:

* You provided reasons to oppose polygamy (none of which are affected by the status of same-sex marriage)
* I complimented those reasons, and suggested that they would obviously still be good reasons to oppose polygamy, regardless of the status of same-sex marriage
* You asked on what grounds one could oppose polygamy, if the status of same-sex marriage changed. (contradiction!)
* I simply directed you to the reasons you initially articulated (the thread since that point, has mostly been a dog and pony show where you desperately try to pretend that you have not been resoundingly defeated)
* Then you declared that those didnt matter, because polygamists would overcome all those valid objections, based on arguments they derived from the same-sex marriage crowd. You listed may of these (speculated) arguments.
* I pointed out how each of those arguments was either absurd, or had no connection to same-sex marriage at all. I also pointed out how same-sex marriage was like heterosexual marriage, and dissimilar to polygamy.
* You argued that it didnt matter - despite the differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy, the special interest would be emboldened, and would use all your speculated, but invalid arguments effectively. Here is one instance (there are more) where you forward this argument:




Those are the reasons that I would use. You are assuming that the advocates of polygamy will fight on a level playing field. They will not. They will use the same faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and attempts at intimidation that you use to advance gay marriage. Their counterarguments, which you claim that you don't find compelling today, wil be just as wrong then, but that won't stop you you from making them. How will you do it? First, you will bastardize the language of the debate.


* And later I pointed out how this reasoning could be applied to the same-sex marriage/miscegenation dichotomy, since the same-sex marriage crowd borrows their most persuasive arguments from the miscegenation precedents.

And hundreds of words later, you still don't see the box you put yourself in. Don't tell me about the differences between same-sex marriage and miscegenation - I know them. Don't tell me why you dislike same-sex marriage, I already know why. Tell me why your reasoning - a snippet of which is in the quote above - isnt valid when applied to same-sex marriage/miscegenation, but is valid when it comes to polygamy/same-sex marriage.

You still have not provided an answer... the rest of your post below is a non-sequitur (but I'll have some fun with it anyways.




If that is your summation of my position, then apparently, you consider me an idiot, but since that is not my position, it is not applicable. First, as I have said repeatedly, there are arguments against gay marriage that are not dependent on the subsequent destruction of marriage that will result from repeated assaults on the foundations of marriage, but those assaults are critical and to pretend that they will not occur because you don't like them isn't a valid argument.


I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.


Second, the most basic argument against gay marriage, in a vacuum, if you like, is that a gay marriage does not meet the basic criteria for marriage, that it is not about creating a stable environment for procreating and rasing children, but is only an attempt by activists to normalize their behavior by having the norm redefined to their liking.

You say that like normalizing homosexuality is a bad thing. Its a good thing. It should happen. So yea, a large motivator for same-sex marriage special interest is to be included as equals in our social order. Its not something nefarious. Marriage is a social and civil institution, with roles in our society that go well beyond child rearing (as you well know), and homosexuals rightfully want to be included.

On the other hand, the oppositions recognizes that marriage would be a powerful step towards the legitimization of homosexuality, and that is what really stands behind their motivation to resist. The goal is to keep homosexuals disenfranchised. Now THAT is nefarious.


It is also an attempt to cash in on the benefits that accrue to marriage, but those benefits are almost entirely about familial obligations. For example, we allow a married person to extend his/her employment benefits to a spouse so that the spouse can spend time raising children. A married couple that lacks children is assumed to be capable of having them, and the benefits accrue based on that assumption.

Well then I'm sure you must support rescinding all these marital benefits to married couples without children. After all, we can just as easily issue all these benefits when a couples first birth certificate is issued, rather than when a marriage licence is issued. After all, sterile couples are getting a free-ride.



A pair of siblings, or a pair of roommates who are not sexually involved does not get that assumption, even if they share a home. Neither do couples who are cohabitating, even if they have children, but who are not married. In other words, only a marriage, a union whose purpose is to procreate, gets that consideration. A gay marriage is, by definition, sterile. Procreation is the exception, not the norm, and is only possible by the interaction of a third party. It is not, therefore, a self-contained family unit and does not meet the criteria for a marriage. Now, if you want to pretend otherwise, that words mean what you want them to mean, and that you can redefine reality however you like, be my guest, but the end result of that is that the redefinition of marriage will not end after it has been corrupted from one man and one woman to two people of any gender, because the fundamental principle of marriage will have been obliterated.


I have a little theory... maybe its right, maybe its not, but I'll outline it here.

I think you (or at least the anti-homosexuality/same-sex marriage contingent) are unable to identify with the morals and the worldviews of those who see homosexuality as a civil rights issue. This inability to identify with the morals and worldview causes a confusion. It is assumed that there is no structured morality with in this worldview and that everything is arbitrary and up for grabs by anybody's personal whims. Throw in a little paranoia about post modernism and moral relativism, and its all over.

So it seems plausible to you that, hey... if the definition of marriage can be refined or improved, any and every kind of change is automatically plausible according to this mysterious worldview. But this is simply not the case. There is an undeniable social conscience, with clear principles behind the same-sex marriage movement that values personal autonomy and the right to purse happiness according to one's own nature. But when the opposition peers at it from the outside, its all just so alien that they simply see it as all arbitrary nonsense. It is nothing of the kind.

So no, marriage would not be at serious risk of redefinition at the whims of any arbitrary special interest, especially if those forms of marriage posed serious risk to many people's personal freedom, if same-sex marriage were to come about.

wilbur
12-14-2010, 02:08 PM
But, don't listen to me. Go ahead, and work for the repeal of centuries of law and tradition, just to make yourself feel good about being an enlightened, post-modern individual. Then, wait. When the poligamy advocates begin to gain traction, you can go back to these exchanges and, if you have any semblance of humility, admit that I was right. Of course, the contingency is your possession of humility, so I won't hold my breath.

Well, the same-sex marriage crowd will follow in the footsteps of those like the abolitionists and the segregationists by continuing to fight against centuries of law and tradition. I hope they win.

As for polygamy... well.. it might well see the light of day, one day - its always been that way. Its older than monogamous marriage and steeped in even more historical precedent, after all. If it does see the light of day, same-sex marriage will have had nothing to do with it. I have been estimating a ~.15 chance that it will come about in the next 10-15 years or so. Maybe its a little higher, I don't know. Through the efforts of interested polygamists, that percentage may increase. But same-sex marriage simply isnt a significant factor, since it cannot provide adequate justification for polygamists with which to prevail over the many and varied reasons to object to polygamy (see your first post in this thread as a reference to some of those).

And actually, when you look at a few of the major arguments against same-sex marriage.... you'll find they provide much aid and comfort to the polygamists (note that these arguments aren't speculation about the future - they are used now, and fairly persuasively)

Religious freedom: This argument is cited ad nauseum by people opposing homosexuality for religious reasons. They claim that same-sex marriage would force them to recognize unions that are prohibited by their religion. Religious freedom, of course, has been one of the chief arguments *for* polygamy.

Appeal to Nature: Same-sex marriage opposition often cites the biological reality of the human reproductive system, and argues that homosexuality sits in disharmony with that biological reality. Well, polygamists (and even those who aren't polygamists) go a step further and claim that one man, one woman sits in disharmony with the biological reality of human nature. They cite the difficulty humans have with maintaining monogamy, rates of infidelity, divorce, etc. They cite the fact that women can only carry one child for a nine month period, while one man can impregnate many women in a nine month period. On the grounds of natural harmony, the polygamists have a powerful argument.

Argument from tradition: Polygamy is arguably even more established by tradition than monogamy, and certainly more-so than same-sex marriage. Years and centuries the human race has lived with it. Just as monogamists want to oppose same-sex marriage because of tradition, the polygamist argues for his position, based on tradition.

I suppose you will now have to oppose monogamous marriage - since it sure looks like the first step on a slippery slope to polygamy.

Odysseus
12-14-2010, 04:26 PM
I'm not so much telling you how to debate, but to respect the rules of logic.
I do respect the rules of logic. I just don't consider you the arbiter of those rules.


I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.
And yet, this is the same point that I have repeatedly made. Again, willfully obtuse.


You say that like normalizing homosexuality is a bad thing. Its a good thing. It should happen. So yea, a large motivator for same-sex marriage special interest is to be included as equals in our social order. Its not something nefarious. Marriage is a social and civil institution, with roles in our society that go well beyond child rearing (as you well know), and homosexuals rightfully want to be included.

Why is the normalization of behavior that leads people out of the gene pool, that condemns them to life without progeny a good thing? What you don't get, is that someone can disapprove of homosexuality without hating homosexuals, or that there may be more to life than just the immediate moment.

I don't begrudge gays their pleasures, but I don't have to elevate them to the level of heterosexual responsibilities and the rewards that come from them.


On the other hand, the oppositions recognizes that marriage would be a powerful step towards the legitimization of homosexuality, and that is what really stands behind their motivation to resist. The goal is to keep homosexuals disenfranchised. Now THAT is nefarious.

Ah, so everyone who considers homosexuality less than the ideal state is a nefarious bigot who seeks to disenfranchise gays? Quite an assumption there. And, no one is talking about disenfranchising gays. They will still be able to vote, even if they can't get married.


Well then I'm sure you must support rescinding all these marital benefits to married couples without children. After all, we can just as easily issue all these benefits when a couples first birth certificate is issued, rather than when a marriage licence is issued. After all, sterile couples are getting a free-ride.

No, because the assumption of procreation stands behind the definition of marraige, and marriage should precede procreation, not follow it. A couple that seeks (and fails) to procreate within the defined framework of marriage may someday succeed. But a union of a man and woman is not assumed to be sterile.


I have a little theory... maybe its right, maybe its not, but I'll outline it here.
Without having seen it, I will bet that it entails a vicious attack on the motives of those who disagree with you on this issue. Let's see if I'm right...


I think you (or at least the anti-homosexuality/same-sex marriage contingent) are unable to identify with the morals and the worldviews of those who see homosexuality as a civil rights issue. This inability to identify with the morals and worldview causes a confusion. It is assumed that there is no structured morality with in this worldview and that everything is arbitrary and up for grabs by anybody's personal whims. Throw in a little paranoia about post modernism and moral relativism, and its all over.

And, I was right. What a shock. Paranoid, unable to view civil rights with regard to gays, and, naturally, a bigot by inference. :rolleyes:

I have no problem with gays having the same civil rights that I do. The law permits a gay man to marry any woman who will have him, and to indulge his sexual desires however he chooses outside of marriage. I have no problem with his voting, holding political office or otherwise leading a fulfilling life, but unlike you, I recognize that there are areas where homosexuality will be a problem, such as in the US military, or on Boy Scout outings.

But, let's try another theory. I think that you don't understand the concept of what a right is. I think that there are those who just see a right as an endorsement of any choice that they make, regardless of the consequences. They don't understand that rights carry responsibilities, and that the right of marriage carries the responsibility of bearing, raising and caring for children, and that marriage assumes that those who enter into it are assuming this responsibility. I think that those same people have so distanced themselves from societal norms that they cannot conceive of those norms having a function beyond the frustration of their immediate desires, that those norms exist only as a tool of oppression, nor that what they perceive as oppression is simply reality, which does not bend to their whims.

You know, I like my theory better. In your theory, I'm an ignorant bigot, but in my theory, you're an arrogant child. Since I know that I'm neither ignorant nor bigoted, your theory fails empirically, while we both know that you are arrogant (by your own admission), and anyone who has read your posts will agree with the childishness. Or, as you put it in your previous post:



it does not matter. i repeat - it does not matter. again - it does not matter. it doesn't matter!

That is the voice of an angry, spoiled child having a tantrum. QED.


So it seems plausible to you that, hey... if the definition of marriage can be refined or improved, any and every kind of change is automatically plausible according to this mysterious worldview. But this is simply not the case. There is an undeniable social conscience, with clear principles behind the same-sex marriage movement that values personal autonomy and the right to purse happiness according to one's own nature. But when the opposition peers at it from the outside, its all just so alien that they simply see it as all arbitrary nonsense. It is nothing of the kind.

And every argument that you make can be used by anyone, at any time. Shouldn't polygamists have the right to pursue happiness and personal autonomy according to their own nature? Shouldn't pedophiles have that right? Shouldn't those who enjoy bestiality? After all, once you eliminate any structure, any definitions, any basic concept of why things are the way that they are, you can redefine reality in any way that you want. In other words, it is arbitrary nonsense, with a ridiculous appeal to the moral certitude of a genuine revolution in civil rights, the American Civil Rights Movement. There's no social conscience there, it's just your vanity that demands that you put yourself on a pedestal so that the rest of us can admire you while you preen.


Well, the same-sex marriage crowd will follow in the footsteps of those like the abolitionists and the segregationists by continuing to fight against centuries of law and tradition. I hope they win.

Kind of lost the thread there, didn't you? The abolitionists and segregationists were the opposite sides of the civil right debate, albeit at different times. But, I get your meaning, and I applaud your arrogance and condescension. The abolitionists took up arms and fought the Civil War, and the Anti-Segregationists risked their lives in freedom rides and marches against dogs and fire hoses, while you rail on a bulletin board. Such courage!

[/QUOTE]As for polygamy... well.. it might well see the light of day, one day - its always been that way. Its older than monogamous marriage and steeped in even more historical precedent, after all. If it does see the light of day, same-sex marriage will have had nothing to do with it. I have been estimating a ~.15 chance that it will come about in the next 10-15 years or so. Maybe its a little higher, I don't know. Through the efforts of interested polygamists, that percentage may increase. But same-sex marriage simply isnt a significant factor, since it cannot provide adequate justification for polygamists with which to prevail over the many and varied reasons to object to polygamy (see your first post in this thread as a reference to some of those).

And actually, when you look at a few of the major arguments against same-sex marriage.... you'll find they provide much aid and comfort to the polygamists (note that these arguments aren't speculation about the future - they are used now, and fairly persuasively)

Religious freedom: This argument is cited ad nauseum by people opposing homosexuality for religious reasons. They claim that same-sex marriage would force them to recognize unions that are prohibited by their religion. Religious freedom, of course, has been one of the chief arguments *for* polygamy.

Appeal to Nature: Same-sex marriage opposition often cites the biological reality of the human reproductive system, and argues that homosexuality sits in disharmony with that biological reality. Well, polygamists (and even those who aren't polygamists) go a step further and claim that one man, one woman sits in disharmony with the biological reality of human nature. They cite the difficulty humans have with maintaining monogamy, rates of infidelity, divorce, etc. They cite the fact that women can only carry one child for a nine month period, while one man can impregnate many women in a nine month period. On the grounds of natural harmony, the polygamists have a powerful argument.

Argument from tradition: Polygamy is arguably even more established by tradition than monogamy, and certainly more-so than same-sex marriage. Years and centuries the human race has lived with it. Just as monogamists want to oppose same-sex marriage because of tradition, the polygamist argues for his position, based on tradition.

I suppose you will now have to oppose monogamous marriage - since it sure looks like the first step on a slippery slope to polygamy.[/QUOTE]

wilbur
12-14-2010, 05:30 PM
Why is the normalization of behavior that leads people out of the gene pool, that condemns them to life without progeny a good thing? What you don't get, is that someone can disapprove of homosexuality without hating homosexuals, or that there may be more to life than just the immediate moment.

I don't begrudge gays their pleasures, but I don't have to elevate them to the level of heterosexual responsibilities and the rewards that come from them.


Take note the part in bold:



Ah, so everyone who considers homosexuality less than the ideal state is a nefarious bigot who seeks to disenfranchise gays? Quite an assumption there. And, no one is talking about disenfranchising gays. They will still be able to vote, even if they can't get married.


Ok, so lets see: "I don't have to elevate them to the level of heterosexual responsibilities and the rewards that come from them", followed by "And, no one is talking about disenfranchising gays." (disenfranchise refers to things other than voting)

Looks like another contradiction.


No, because the assumption of procreation stands behind the definition of marraige, and marriage should precede procreation, not follow it. A couple that seeks (and fails) to procreate within the defined framework of marriage may someday succeed. But a union of a man and woman is not assumed to be sterile.

They won't succeed if they are sterile - again, why not just hand out the benefits at childbirth, if that's all they are necessary for? You know why, we all know why... not all marital benefits have much, if anything, to do with children.. they have to do with things such as the transfer of property, medical decisions, and a whole host of others: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States.


Without having seen it, I will bet that it entails a vicious attack on the motives of those who disagree with you on this issue. Let's see if I'm right...

Seek, and ye shall find, I guess...


And, I was right. What a shock. Paranoid, unable to view civil rights with regard to gays, and, naturally, a bigot by inference. :rolleyes:

Well, I havent used the B-word this whole time... but now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen you type about homosexuality and same-sex marriage without unbelievably poisonous rhetoric, as it if never even crossed your mind that homosexuality isnt something to wag your finger at, disapprove of, cast aside, or otherwise look down upon. Ever. You hastily judge them in a negative light (such as when you assumed most male-male sex crimes in the military were caused by homosexuals), and its quite clear you think of them like little more than spoiled children over whom you have authority. You routinely belittle them with stereotypical aspersions, assume they are rapists, or just seeking attention - none of their motives could possibly be genuine or noble.

What's that sound like to you?


I have no problem with gays having the same civil rights that I do. The law permits a gay man to marry any woman who will have him, and to indulge his sexual desires however he chooses outside of marriage. I have no problem with his voting, holding political office or otherwise leading a fulfilling life, but unlike you, I recognize that there are areas where homosexuality will be a problem, such as in the US military, or on Boy Scout outings.

Why, pray tell would homosexuality be a problem on a boy scout outing? Pedophilia might be a problem on a boy scout outing.... homosexuality, not so much.


But, let's try another theory. I think that you don't understand the concept of what a right is. I think that there are those who just see a right as an endorsement of any choice that they make, regardless of the consequences.

I think the consequences of same-sex marriage would be mostly good, that's why I argue for it. They would be especially good for those who are now able to take part in marriages with those whom they love, and pretty much of no consequence to anyone else. Theory falsified.


They don't understand that rights carry responsibilities, and that the right of marriage carries the responsibility of bearing, raising and caring for children, and that marriage assumes that those who enter into it are assuming this responsibility. I think that those same people have so distanced themselves from societal norms that they cannot conceive of those norms having a function beyond the frustration of their immediate desires, that those norms exist only as a tool of oppression, nor that what they perceive as oppression is simply reality, which does not bend to their whims.

I see in the same-sex marriage special-interest, an intense eagerness to bear all the responsibilities of marriage - that's why the fucking fight for it.


You know, I like my theory better. In your theory, I'm an ignorant bigot, but in my theory, you're an arrogant child. Since I know that I'm neither ignorant nor bigoted, your theory fails empirically, while we both know that you are arrogant (by your own admission), and anyone who has read your posts will agree with the childishness. Or, as you put it in your previous post:

That was simply emphasis, not a tantrum. Your arguments about randomness were akin to arguing 2+2=5... there's only so many ways one can reply.



And every argument that you make can be used by anyone, at any time. Shouldn't polygamists have the right to pursue happiness and personal autonomy according to their own nature? Shouldn't pedophiles have that right? Shouldn't those who enjoy bestiality? After all, once you eliminate any structure, any definitions, any basic concept of why things are the way that they are, you can redefine reality in any way that you want. In other words, it is arbitrary nonsense, with a ridiculous appeal to the moral certitude of a genuine revolution in civil rights, the American Civil Rights Movement. There's no social conscience there, it's just your vanity that demands that you put yourself on a pedestal so that the rest of us can admire you while you preen.


See, you take great pains to huff and puff about my little theory, then you say this. This is exactly what I was talking about. You can't identify with the moral grounding in the same-sex marriage debate - it is utterly alien to you - so you consider it arbitrary, and groundless. Well, it isnt. It isn't post modernism... it isn't moral relativism.. it isnt anymore arbitrary than our collective decision long ago to start including black people under the definition of "human being".

Just because you fail identify with the reasoning and motives behind the movement which seeks to equalize homosexuality, doesnt make it arbitrary.

Odysseus
12-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Take note the part in bold:

Ok, so lets see: "I don't have to elevate them to the level of heterosexual responsibilities and the rewards that come from them", followed by "And, no one is talking about disenfranchising gays." (disenfranchise refers to things other than voting)

Looks like another contradiction.
To someone with a convoluted worldview, it would, wouldn't it? First, I said more than voting. Read the post again. Gays have the same rights as straights, and no one is talking about taking that away from them. What you are talking about is creating a new right that has never existed before, and using completely unrelated precedents in order to do so. Again, a marriage between two men, or two women, is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman.


They won't succeed if they are sterile - again, why not just hand out the benefits at childbirth, if that's all they are necessary for? You know why, we all know why... not all marital benefits have much, if anything, to do with children.. they have to do with things such as the transfer of property, medical decisions, and a whole host of others: see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States.
Because the role of marriage is to provide the environment for procreation, which means that you set it up beforehand. As for the rest, most of the rights that are described are contractual in nature. Property can be transferred between gays, and a living will can list anyone as the decision maker. This is why civil unions make sense, because they provide the secondary benefits of marriage without destroying the definition of
marriage. Of course, a civil union, being a new structure, can just as easily apply to any other grouping, including siblings, roommates and even groups of more than two, but at least everyone involved will understand that it isn't a marriage.


Seek, and ye shall find, I guess...
Yeah, like I really had to look hard...:rolleyes:


Well, I havent used the B-word this whole time... but now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen you type about homosexuality and same-sex marriage without unbelievably poisonous rhetoric, as it if never even crossed your mind that homosexuality isnt something to wag your finger at, disapprove of, cast aside, or otherwise look down upon. Ever. You hastily judge them in a negative light (such as when you assumed most male-male sex crimes in the military were caused by homosexuals), and its quite clear you think of them like little more than spoiled children over whom you have authority. You routinely belittle them with stereotypical aspersions, assume they are rapists, or just seeking attention - none of their motives could possibly be genuine or noble. What's that sound like to you?

It sounds like you being shrill and hysterical while you reinterpret what I have said to suit your stereotypical view of those who oppose your enlightened opinion. Besides, even though you haven't used the "B" word
here, you've called me a bigot elsewhere, so it wasn't much of a stretch. As for casting aspersions on motives, when you stop assuming that the sole reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, you can begin casting stones at other glass houses.

And, for the record, at no time have I said that gays are rapists, or that they are seeking attention. I said that male on male rape occurs in same sex situations and that increasing the number of people who are attracted to their own sex in close quarters will increase the incidence of those occurrences (and, generally, when a man rapes another man, I do assume that the rapist is gay, since the definition of homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to his/her own sex). Anyone who argues otherwise is deluding hemselves. I also said that gays are seeking approval for their lifestyle. Sorry, but that's not my problem. One of the critical differences between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement is that, at the end of the day, Martin Luthor King didn't care what Bull Connor thought of him. He just wanted to be able to sit at the lunch counter in peace. But gay activists go far beyond such simple tolerance. The activists attack what they refer to as "heteronormative" standards. It's not enough for them to sit at the lunch counter, they have to dictate the menu. No thanks.


Why, pray tell would homosexuality be a problem on a boy scout outing? Pedophilia might be a problem on a boy scout outing.... homosexuality, not so much.

Would you have a male heterosexual scoutmaster take a girl scout troop into the woods?


I think the consequences of same-sex marriage would be mostly good, that's why I argue for it. They would be especially good for those who are now able to take part in marriages with those whom they love, and pretty much of no consequence to anyone else. Theory falsified.
Why, because you "think" it would be good? It's easy to think that the consequences of gay marriage would be mostly good if you refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees, dismiss them as bigots and shout them down. The theory is therefore not invalidated (or falsified, as I never claimed that it was not my theory, again, try to use the language)


I see in the same-sex marriage special-interest, an intense eagerness to bear all the responsibilities of marriage - that's why the fucking fight for it.
You see many things that you want to see. But, if that were true, then the incidence of gay marriage would be as high as the incidence of straight marriage in those countries that allow it. It's not. And the incidence of infidelity would be the same. It isn't. The incidence of divorce would be the same or lower, but it's not. The incidence of open marriages would be the same, and that isn't, either. Then, there would be similar rates for domestic violence, but it's actually higher for gay couples. Here's a great article on the subject, which I will rip off for excerpts: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Gay "married" couples differ markedly from straight married couples, even when the law does not forbid gay marriage. The areas of most obvious divergence are:

. level of commitment
. relationship duration
. monogamy vs. promiscuity
. relationship commitment
. rates of intimate partner violence

Take a deep breath, Wilbur. That line on the horizon is a tsunami of facts heading your way...

Odysseus
12-16-2010, 06:41 PM
LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples.
>snip<
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_5.gif
Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter.


RELATIONSHIP DURATION
Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
Married Couples
A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_1.gif

The article cites a number of sources that stipulate similar numbers. But for gays, relationships tend to be far shorter.


Male Homosexual Relationships
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_3.gif
Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

So, gay marriages are shorter. Are they more committed? Nope:


MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:
Married couples
A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]
A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]
A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]
Male Homosexuals
Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]
The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif
Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170.

BTW, the preponderance of open relationships in gay "marriages" is a function of polyamorous behavior. That is a direct causal link between gay marriage and polygamy, something that you have repeatedly denied existed.

Odysseus
12-16-2010, 06:41 PM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships
Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_7.gif
Source: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, 30.

In other word, by every objective measure, gay marriage devalues the things that marriage is supposed to do for people, not just the primary issue of child care, but the secondary issues surrounding committed relationships. Gay relationships are shorter (even when sanctioned by marriage), riven by infidelity and far more violent than actual marriages, demonstrating a far lower level of commitment, which also is demonstrated by the lack of gays clamoring to marry, even when they can.


That was simply emphasis, not a tantrum. Your arguments about randomness were akin to arguing 2+2=5... there's only so many ways one can reply.
When my toddler does it, it's a tantrum. And I'm not arguing that 2+2=5. I'm arguing that 1 man+ 1 woman = marriage, 2X men or 2X women = something something else.


See, you take great pains to huff and puff about my little theory, then you say this. This is exactly what I was talking about. You can't identify with the moral grounding in the same-sex marriage debate - it is utterly alien to you - so you consider it arbitrary, and groundless. Well, it isnt.
It isn't post modernism... it isn't moral relativism.. it isnt anymore arbitrary than our collective decision long ago to start including black people under the definition of "human being".

Just because you fail identify with the reasoning and motives behind the movement which seeks to equalize homosexuality, doesnt make it arbitrary.

I do consider it arbitrary and groundless, because it is. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of providing a stable environment for procreation. A gay union is not. Wrapping yourself in the language of the civil rights movement doesn't make your case a civil rights issue. It's a classic red herring. No matter how you twist the arguments, the facts will not change. If a cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.

Wilbur, I'm going away for the weekend. I've got a wife and two wonderful daughters to celebrate the holidays with, and I'm going to spend it not thinking about how little you understand about the dynamics that produced them.