Homosexual Marriage

[Rationalskeptic]

This topic is devoted to the question: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

Some people think that gays are bad. Others think that they are not necessarily bad. Some people think that gay marriage is "morally wrong," others think that it is not wrong. Some think that giving gays equal rights will incourage an inferior institution. Others disagree. Some people think that the law should discourage that which they think is morally wrong, even when it does not involve agressing against the rights of others. Others disagree. Some think that there should be no gay marriage because gays are "disgusting." Others find that this does not matter. Some think that making laws protecting gays will add budgetary problems to our state and federal governments, and will hurt the rights of non-gay individuals. Others either disagree that gay marriage does, or that this is important. Some think that gay marriage should not be a legal status because it hurts "marriage." Others think that this is silly.

So what do you think on this controvercy. I have shown you most of what this issue covers. Have a fun debate.

[Euphrates]

Wow, you finally address my posts. I should have realized that you would respond to this stuff after the many posts I made with relevant data and argument...

Data and argument... right...

Oh, well, the ship is sinking and all I get to dal with are rats. Lets begin with rat #1.

Where do I begin?... First, claiming irrelevance and proving irrelevance are two separate things.

I agree, that's why I showed the relevance in earlier posts - which you ignored. If you are suddenly reading my posts, please don't troll and start from the beginning.

I notice you're not making an argument and you're not pointing to any specific posts where you prove relevance. I have read all your posts and I normally get a good chuckle, but I rarely see a reason to respond to nonsense.

You can say that drug use is irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate, but I have argued that they are causally related.

Yes, you claimed they were causally related. You didn't show they were related.

Wow, that's not true at all. I summarized the argument in Post 285:
"My argument is that the homosexual community (as a whole) will grow if same-sex marriage is legalized, and because the homosexual community has a significantly higher rate of drug use, the rate of drug use in America will rise as the homosexual community grows."

It is simple logic. The XY society has P rate of drug use. The Xs in the XY society do drugs more often than the Ys. If the size of the X population grows relative to the Y population, the rate of drug use in the XY society will increase.

I'm not a tutor, so if you can't follow, maybe try a simpler debate.

It was a causal fallacy. You argued that since the gay population had a larger use of drugs, that if they married, more married people would be using drugs...

Wait, no you didn't even argue that - you claimed that somehow drug use would RISE!!!!! How? Why, if the gays are already doing drugs, then they marry, would MORE people be doing drugs?

It is so inane it boggles the mind. And you never addressed this.

Your position is based on a misunderstanding of my argument. I try to avoid addressing straw men.

Have you refuted that argument? Of course not.

I did, and again just now. I believe that makes this the third time. In fact, I added other counter arguments that you didn't address.

Screaming "How?" and "Why?" aren't refutations when I already explained how and why. You'd have to address the reasons I presented.

But calling it irrelevant is easier than addressing it substantially.

Well, I've addressed it 3 times, and added that hetero marriage does not have a drug use restriction, so it wouldn't make sense for gay marriage to have one.

No, marriage does not have a drug use restriction. Gay marriage wouldn't have one either. But if we're going to redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriages we shouldn't turn a blind eye to some of its impacts.

Second, if all it took was a minor amount of reflection to see that my arguments are irrelevant, why did it take so long for someone to make a relevance argument?

Red herring and ridiculous. The amount of time it takes for there to be a reasonable response (according to you) is not an indication of the strength of the argument. This is known as a "WTF Fallacy".

I didn't realize a question could be a fallacy. Oh wait... it can't.

That was a poor dodge. I'd still like an answer.

Third, where did I claim or argue that gay marriage would or could become the norm?

I will look, if I am wrong, I will take this out. It is hardly important to the larger pwning you've been receiving.

Pwning? Are you 12? Turns out, none of what you've said is "hardly important" to this debate.

Show me.

Please read my previous posts that you ignored so I don't have to report you for being a troll. If, after reading them, you can respond to each one, showing me where I didn't address a point you felt was important, please do, but making a blanket statement that I didn't reply is disingenuous and frowned upon.

LOL, show you where you didn't address an important point? You want me to show you where something didn't happen?

I notice that you didn't show me. Nor did you point to a place where you think you have already showed me. So I'll repeat my request... SHOW ME.

I have to wonder why you claim that no one responds to your points, yet we have been responding for pages and pages. Whil you have been ignoring and/or simply re-iterating your initial assertion with no more evidence or argument.

If I argue that hot dogs are better than hamburgers and you respond with empty claims of fallacies and end up talking about licorice, we could end up with pages and pages of "responses" while I keep reiterating my initial argument.

Let's be fair whenever possible as long as we aren't sacrificing safety, security, or stability.

Yes, and how does gay marriage threatedn - in realistic terms - those things?

Have you been reading this thread? Possible societal collapse kind of threatens national security and safety. Promiscuity threatens stability and safety (increased STDs, increased single parent homes, etc.). Increased drug use threatens stability and safety and security. Are these things not obvious to you?

(By the way, none of this is new. I said all this before.)

If fairness by itself was reason enough to enact policies there wouldn't be laws outlawing incestuous relationships.

I agree, but what does incest have to do with gay marriage. We are talking about marriage - remember? Not Red Herrings.

Wow, do yourself a favor and look up "red herring". Now maybe you can actually address the point I made instead of dodging it so terribly. I made an argument linking incest to the issue of fairness. Address it or concede it.

Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

All three. You ignored my previous posts. You disregarded my previous posts. You contradict yourself, because you are suggesting you didn't.

You think your previous posts are examples of evidence? That's cute.

I don't think you understand what a contradiction is.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to get married!?!? When did that happen?

Can you prove it?

Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

This is where you are being disingenuous. You should know that we are talking about gay people marrying each other.

What you are doing is smarmy and bad form.

However, I realize you have no other response.

So... you can't prove it? Is pointing out your lack of evidence "bad form"?

Yeah, how ridiculous of me to expect more than posturing from you. As if "you must be joking" now counts as evidence.

And this response has what kind of substance???

I am pointing out your lack of evidence and substance.

That's a substantial point to make... one you aren't disputing.

Sure, let me water it down for you. The basis for the relevance argument is an imaginary debate standard.

Relevance in debate - any substantial debate - is crucial. Otherwise, what are we talking about if it isn't relevant,

But, again, I realize why you would diminish relevance when your position lacks so much of it.

I agree that relevance is very important. But the basis for the relevance argument being made by micatala (and leached onto by you) is imaginary rubbish.

Hey... nice claims. I notice you haven't actually addressed my argument. Go figure.

The court cases are relevant and you know it. Why wouldn't they be?

The argument I made is that courts rule with opinions and many courts have given opinions on the issue of same-sex marriage. You show me one, and I can show you another. The constitutionality debate is not the same as the public policy debate. Micatala has introduced constitutionality because the case for same-sex marriage is broken.

So, let's recap. The only real claim you have tried to bring back is that you feel that gay marriage would be detrimental to society in a way that incest is.

That's sooooome misreading you've got there. I didn't link incest to same-sex marriage. I used incest as an example to support my argument that sometimes fairness gets outweighed. I have also been arguing that the harms of same-sex marriage would outweigh fairness, but not in the same way as incest.

However, see your error? Incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't illegal.

Do you see your error? I'm not comparing incest to homosexuality.

Straw man. Look it up.

The HUGE flaw in your argument is that you make claims as if homosexuality itself is a danger and should somehow be illegal.

This is why I normally ignore you. Show me where I said that homosexuality should be illegal. That "HUGE flaw" is a straw man (I hope you looked it up).

Let's face it, E, you made your assertions and have spent the last 30 pages claiming your assertion haven't been responded to.

Maybe you'll want to respond to them at some point. Oh, and try responding to the arguments, not the assertions... the arguments are the support of assertions. Maybe that's your problem. Or maybe you just can't follow my argument.

[Euphrates]

What, then, are the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage? Well, one argument is that the status quo is unfair because same-sex marriage is illegal. When asked to point out what is unfair, sometimes someone will point to a "right" that doesn't exist, and sometimes someone will point to a "right" this is applied equally to all people. Is there evidence of this supposed unfairness? No.

You may not see it, but our courts did. It was argued that to deny a same-sex couple the recognition of their marriage merely because they were same-sex was to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Such discrimination is not justified.

Some courts have seen it like that, and others have seen it differently. A state court's opinion doesn't count more than another state court's opinion. Some states have been passing laws "protecting" marriage (explicitly defining it as being between a male and a female) and those laws have not been found unconstitutional. I am more than willing to grant that there are differences of opinion. If you want to make an argument that the unfairness of the status quo is unjustified, please do. You can start by addressing the argument I made that the "unfairness" argument only carries weight in this debate if the harms presented don't exist.

You have tried to characterize others arguments as imposing a "fictional or imaginary debate standard." If that is true, you are doing the same thing here.

One does not have to prove the harms don't exist to show there is unfairness.

Straw man.

I agree that not legalizing same-sex marriage would not be completely fair. But you haven't shown that what little "fairness" would be gained outweighs the harms I've presented.

Ample evidence has been provided through court decisions, citations of the constitution, and other arguments to show there is unfairness. I see you disagree, and that is fine, but it is silly to pretend there is no case to be made for unfairness.

NO ONE IS DENYING THE UNFAIRNESS.

Show me where I have denied it.

Show me or admit that you're wrong. I won't let this go until you do one or the other. I'm done letting you get away with lying.

Now, as I have said before, we can weigh the potential harms against the unfairness. When I say "the harms are irrelevant" I am not saying they do not exist, that is your spin. What I have said is:

- the types of harms you point to have been found in the past to be of little consequence compared to allowing people to pursue happiness. This has been repeatedly affirmed through decisions specific to marriage. You have not even addressed this point. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the freedom to marry is an essential component of pursuing happiness.

So, the harms exist, but they are "irrelevant" because they weigh very little when compared to the freedom to pursue happiness?

When we're trying to weigh out the pros and cons, ANY issue that has ANY weight gets put on the scales. I propose that any weight makes them relevant. If they were irrelevant, they wouldn't even be on the scale.

Now all you need to do is prove that the status quo prevents people from pursuing happiness. A court decision won't cut it because it's just one court's opinion based on their interpretation of state or local law. And you have not even tried to prove that the status quo prevents some people the freedom to marry.

As I said before:
"Is a same-sex couple in Texas currently restricted from pursuing happiness because the state of Texas does not grant them the legal ability to marry each other? They live together, go shopping together, sleep together, have joint ownership of their cars and their home, legally have the same last name, went through a lovely commitment ceremony with their friends and family, and have an adopted child. If interviewed would they say that Texas prevents them from pursuing happiness?... only because they do not have a marriage license?!?!?!"

- there seems to be no precedent for using the types of harms you point to in developing laws governing marriage in particular, and even if developing law in general.

So? There's no precedent for this being necessary.

It is absolutely fair to ask you to establish that the harms you point to are sufficient to justify banning gay marriage.

Absolutely, and this is how I establish that the harms are more important than "fairness":

On the scales of public policy how much does "fairness" alone weigh? It weighs less than health. Proof: Incest is illegal. Allowing two siblings to get married would be more fair than not allowing them, but we outlaw incestuous relationships because there is a marginally increased chance of birth defects. It weighs less than stability. Proof: Illegal immigration. It would be more fair to allow anyone to enter the country, but we don't. Some people are dangerous and could hurt the stability of our country if allowed to enter, and that potential outweighs being fair. I could go on, but my point is that "fairness" is vital to our nation's principles but weighs very little when compared to harms that can hurt people or jeopardize our society.

Can you prove that the pursuit of happiness and fairness are more important to public policy than security or stability or the public good?

Again, even accepting your argument, you still need to argue why the increased drug use is a large enough problem to justify banning gay marriage. You have not done this, and also have not done this for the promiscuity or the depopulation arguments.

Let's go back to Argumentation 101.

When arguing for a change to the status quo, you must identify harms in the status quo, then propose a plan to change the status quo, then argue for advantages your post-plan world would have over the status quo.

You are arguing for a change to the status quo. That's your position. The only harms you've pointed at are a lack of fairness and limitations to some people's ability to pursue happiness. Your plan is to legalize same-sex marriage (we're not worried about acting agents or any of those details). The advantages you claim are that the world will be more fair and people would be more able to pursue happiness. (Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.)

I have argued against the case you presented. I have argued that lots of people are denied perfect fairness (maybe everyone). It is reasonable to deny fairness IF there are good reasons. I used incest and child-marriage as examples. I also argued that same-sex marriage would present us with problems/harms sufficient to warrant denial of perfect fairness. I have also argued that the marriage status quo doesn't limit people's freedom to pursue happiness. And even if it does limit the pursuit of happiness, cross apply my argument about fairness and use the same examples. The harms of same-sex marriage include more STDs, more single parent homes, more kids in the foster care system, more drugs, a lower birthrate, and a weaker nation. These harms outweigh the precedent set by incest in limiting marriage, and they far outweigh giving more couples a marriage license and making it easier for them to have wills drawn up.

You repeatedly ignore court cases, including supreme court cases, as well as arguments based on other situations where the fairness issue has been weighed against the harms you point to and fairness has been deemed more important.

That happened?! You cited court cases where the court ruled that "fairness" outweighs depopulation, promiscuity, drug use, etc.?

I wonder how I missed that.

2. Gay marriage is unfair. Court rulings have determined it, it is obvious that when one group of people are allowed benefits but another group is not, based on nothing more than their sexual preference, it is unfair.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to get married!?!? When did that happen?

Euphrates continues to think that gays should consider the possibility of marrying someone of the opposite sex fair. Again, we'll just have to disagree on this, but I am most happy to point out that most people would find this completely ridiculous.

So....... you're saying.... homosexuals ARE allowed to get married.

That's what I thought. Maybe you can stop pretending otherwise.

Would Euphrates consider it fair if the law said he could only marry a person of the same sex?

If that was the law for everyone? Yup.

The other, fairly new, argument is that the proposed harms of same-sex marriage shouldn't count. Why, you ask? Because similar harms when used in similar ways haven't been used in similar cases in the past. Why is this necessary to consider the harms?... no one knows.
Is there evidence that this standard exists in the government or in public policy argumentation rules? No. Has anyone ever heard of this standard before? Probably not.

I don't think you know what you are trying to say here. Please rephrase.

Sure, let me water it down for you. The basis for the relevance argument is an imaginary debate standard.

Baloney. The fact that you don't want to address a relevant argument does not make it "an imaginary debate standard."

As far as trying to parse the previous statement, I will just say that legal arguments typically do consider harms and other factors as they apply in similar cases. I think if you look at SCOTUS rulings you will see this. Your "no one knows" is ironic in that we do know because we can see this standard (if I am following you) applied in court cases. You know, the ones you haven't addressed.

No no no no no no no. SCOTUS has no such standard. If they do, SHOW ME. Show me that they believe it is necessary to be shown that similar harms used in similar ways have been used in similar cases in the past. In fact, just show me what is necessary for SCOTUS to consider harms relevant.

Prove it or drop it.

If you think that effects on drug use and promiscuity should be ignored when making public policy decisions, please never run for office.

You are twisting the wording of the questions as posed.

LOL, am I? So you believe that when making a public policy decision we should consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

Or is it P and ~P?

Euphrates' is still misrepresenting my position, which is hard to understand, given I explicitly corrected him on this point in a previous post. [/quote]
I certainly am not meaning to misrepresent your position. Help me out and tell me which of these options you agree with:

A: When making a public policy decision we should consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

OR

B: When making a public policy decision we should not consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

[/quote]


If you had read my statement you would already understand that you are offering a false dichotomy, although I have said A applies but with some caveats. [/quote]
So sometimes A is true and sometimes B is true?

Sometimes when making a public policy decision we should not consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

Like I said before, I sincerely hope you never run for public office.

Now, since you again dodge perfectly legitimate and relevant questions, I'll ask again.


Find ANY law or court ruling, from say within the last 100 years, which uses as one of its rationales some average characteristic of a group that is deemed harmful to the larger society. I will tell you in advance that I do have such an example in mind and will offer it after you have a chance to find your own.

We've seen this tactic from you before. Anyone with eyes and an ability to read can see that I addressed this "perfectly legitimate and relevant" request. Nothing about this debate changes if I find a law that meets your criteria. You are making up debate standards to try and procedurally silence arguments you can't refute.

Well, I certainly have not seen where you addressed the question, and I have seen no indication anyone else has any inkling of where you addressed it either. Perhaps we are all quite non-observant. If the answer is somewhere in the thread, please be so kind as to point it out. I certainly allow it is possible I missed it somewhere along the way.

It's also in the part you quoted. I addressed your request as irrelevant because "Nothing about this debate changes if I find a law that meets your criteria".

And let's add this as further evidence that you aren't really interested in finding truth in this debate. You're demanding that I find information that you apparently already have. But I'm trying to end this tangent and kill your red herring.

Again, if you can't find any examples of these in the past, why on earth should we consider your argument on the possible future of gay marriage to have any merit whatsoever?

Why not? Are you opposed to progress?

I love progress. That is why I am a propenent of gay marriage.

However, you were the one who professed to be attached to the status quo, but is seems this attachment is quite whimsical. You claimed the "tie should go to the status quo" in any given situation, but now when it does not serve your argument you change to a new debate standard.

LOL... are you claiming that I no longer hold the position that in a tie the scales tip in favor of the status quo? That's your implication but I never said anything similar to that.

Also let me point out that you didn't answer my question: Why not?

Now let's admit that there's no need to find laws or court rulings that mirror or are analogous to proposed new policies.

No, let's not. Since future rulings on gay marriage are very likely to use existing laws and past rulings on marriage, these are absolutely relevant. Your attempt to pre-emptively dismiss them, yet again, seems to be nothing more than an attempt to avoid evidence that serves to refute your argument without engaging the actual evidence.

LOL. Now your imaginary debate standard is "evidence" that "refutes" my argument?

An empty response. There is no "imaginary debate standard" here, there is simply evidence of what the status quo is regarding decisions about marriage and related issues that you refuse to address.

Oh, ok... so show me evidence that new policies NEED TO mirror existing policies in their justifications. Precedent is for the judicial system. Public policy is different. So I'd love for you to show me that new policies MUST mirror the justifications used in other existing policies.

Prove it or drop it.

You continue to try and dismiss this evidence by making up debate rules on the fly.

In my campaign to end the lying, I challenge you to prove this claim or admit that it is wrong. Prove that I have made up (invented) new debate rules.

I will not let this go. Prove it or admit that you're wrong.

Oh, and do you really think that new justifications violate the status quo? And since when are *harms* a new justification?

See above. If the harm is found to be irrelevant in the past with respect to larger considerations, it should be in the future.

Oh, that's new. So are you willing to provide evidence for this claim that "the harm is found to be irrelevant in the past with respect to larger considerations"?

I have already done this. See the SCOTUS rulings.

Those ruling do not prove that the harms I have presented have ever been found to be "irrelevant" with respect to larger considerations.

Providing proof requires more than pointing in a direction and saying "Go find it".

So prove it.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between harms being outweighed by the greater good and harms being "found to be irrelevant".

Well, when I have said "found to be irrelevant" above it is based upon courts having weighed the harms you point to against the greater good as represented by personal freedom and the courts deciding the harms are outweighed. THis seems to be nothing more than a semantic argument on your part.

No, in fact, this is a semantic mistake on your part. You say "irrelevant" when you mean "outweighed".

My point is that if restricting access to gays is not an infringement on their right to pursue happiness, which is at any rate at odds with court precedents as applied to other restrictions, then following your logic restricting access to heterosexuals would not be an infringement on their rights either.

Gays are only restricted from marriage in the same ways that heterosexuals are restricted from marriage. So... yes, the current restrictions are not severely infringing upon anyone's freedom to pursue happiness or right to marry.

The futility of your position is proved when you can't provide evidence for your claim OR a reasonable argument in support of it.

This is ridiculous. I have presented evidence in terms of court decisions and you have ignored them without any justifiable reason.

Really? I call this a justifiable reason:
"For every majority opinion there is a dissent. Quoting a decision isn't evidence."

Addressed above. Dissents don't have any relevance as precedence.

And court decisions most certainly are evidence when the issue is the constitutionality of the law or potential laws. How ridiculous can you be.

You are FAR from establishing legal precedent in favor of same-sex marriage.

Is there precedent that DOMA is unconstitutional? No.

What does the Wisconsin State Supreme Court think?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 69919.html

How about those liberals out in Washington?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205743,00.html

And I already mentioned California.

But even with all this being said, we are operating in a debate world where we are arguing about whether or not it would be good to legalize same-sex marriage. If not legalizing it is unconstitutional, then we CAN'T, and the status quo MUST change. But that is a completely separate issue. And the issue of CAN or CANNOT has not been establish by precedent or by argumentation in this thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205743,00.html

I'll ask again, are there any examples you can find of a basic right like voting, marriage, freedom from slavery, free speech, freedom of association, etc. being denied, or if you wish to rephrase restricted, based on average rates or chacteristics of a group?

You can ask as many times as you want, but you still haven't answered my previous response: Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry, and their right to marry is not being restricted ANY MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Prove it, or let it go.

Hmmm, you quoted my call for evidence without actually providing evidence.

I have acknowledged gays do not have the right to marry in most locations as reflected in the law.

The question is do they have a claim to such a right based on other more general rights.

Again, I can see why you want to avoid answering the question. Your continued gyrations only serve to suggest you know that this point is a huge problem for your argument. [/quote]
Again, no evidence.

So I'll see your IOWA and raise you a CALIFORNIA.

Constitutionality is better left for the courts. Iowa's decision doesn't settle the debate.

Well, the Iowa supreme court IS a court so constitutionality is clearly in their purview, especially the constitution of Iowa which is what was in question in that case.

I agree it is only one decision....

If you want to argue that Iowa is right and other states are wrong, go for it... BUT YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT. You're not making an argument. You're just pointing at court decisions and deflecting responsibility for your position.

If you want to make that argument, you can start by refuting my arguments that the status quo is perfectly constitutional.

Can you prove that homosexuals are "severely restricted" from pursuing happiness in the status quo? No (but you can suuuuure claim it. Can you prove that the pursuit of happiness is more important than the security of this nation or the public good? No. Can you prove that homosexuals are denied the right to marry? No. Wow, that's a lot of non-evidence.

I have dealt with all of these previously, if necessary, I will go back in the thread and show you the arguments you seem to be completely ignoring.

I'd love to see:

Proof that the pursuit of happiness is more important than the security of this nation or the public good.

This was addressed previously, and is born out by the SCOTUS cases I cited above.

Show me specifically. (That's how you prove something, by the way.)

AND

Proof that homosexuals are denied the right to marry.

Again, if you consider it fair to tell a gay person they can marry someone they have no interest in marrying and that they should consider that fair, there isn't much more to say.

I'm not talking about "fair"... but I see that (once again) you can't prove what you claim.

AND

Proof that the status quo severely restricts homosexuals' freedom to pursue happiness.

I wonder where the word "severe" came in, but be that as it may, this has been done in the form of court opinions. The courts have repeatedly held that denying a person the freedom to marry restricts their freedom to pursue happiness.

Courts have not repeatedly held that that status quo denies homosexuals the freedom to marry and restricts their freedom to pursue happiness. The cases you're talking about are not analogous to same-sex marriage. They are cases where the proposal was to apply marriage restrictions differently to some people. That's not what's happening here.

For now, I will present you another question, previously posed, which you did not address.

Prior to the abolition of slavery or interracial marriage, would you have said that the rights of blacks were not being violated?? After all, according to the law, they had no right not to be slaves or to marry whites. Same for voting. Would you say women's rights were NOT being violated prior to the enactment of the constitutional amendment?

What is the relevance here?

Some things deserve to get ignored.

Well then you should not object to people ignoring your whole argument, especially as we have provided reasons why most of your argument is without merit and you have simply dismissed an argument that has been shown to be relevant with six words.

Zing. Good one.

How do you hear a challenge like "What is the relevance here" and respond without establishing relevance?... or even trying?

The longer you refuse to engage the question by making flip remarks, the weaker your argument appears.

The longer you pretend that your question is relevant, the more no one will believe you. If you can't establish relevance, don't complain about me ignoring it.

[Euphrates]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

It's a good point, but it would be lost on Euphrates because his argument hinges on the population of his country, the rest of the world be damned, so to speak.

Good point?

Let's castrate our newborns while we're at it. That'll sure fix that darn overpopulation problem.

[Euphrates]

Population growth of Countries with Gay Marriagehttp://tinyurl.com/25e2x2p (all are positive growth)

So, lets take a look at the countries that have legalized gay marriage. All of them saw an INCREASE in population growth after gay marriage was legalized - CONTRARY TO EUPHRATES' CLAIM.

Likewise, for example, when the UAE formed in 1971 and created their Constitution, which includes the provision that homosexuality is illegal - including a death penalty, their rate of population growth went from almost +18% to +2.74% today.

So, according to Euphrates, this is the opposite of what should happen.
Countries with Death Penalty for Homosexuality http://tinyurl.com/277vc4j (all have positive growth, but less each year, despite the contrary expectation from Euphrates hypothesis)

If social evolution took a few years you'd be absolutely right. But significant change takes a long time. I already argued this, but it's probably easier to ignore the argument.

[Ooberman]

Wow, that's not true at all. I summarized the argument in Post 285:
"My argument is that the homosexual community (as a whole) will grow if same-sex marriage is legalized, and because the homosexual community has a significantly higher rate of drug use, the rate of drug use in America will rise as the homosexual community grows."

It is simple logic. The XY society has P rate of drug use. The Xs in the XY society do drugs more often than the Ys. If the size of the X population grows relative to the Y population, the rate of drug use in the XY society will increase.

I'm not a tutor, so if you can't follow, maybe try a simpler debate.

I always laugh when people claim that I should go to the bunny slope when it is obvious their boots are on wrong. Keep up the jokes, you've got the people laughing - even if it's not with you, but at you...

So, yes, and thank you for clearly spelling out your reasoning error.

Y=hetero, with z amount of drug use
X=gay, with z+ amount of drug use

1. XY society (society made of x-types and y-types)
2. If group of X gets larger, then society XY's drug use gets larger.

Fine, so far so good. However, here we go:

1. You have not shown what percentage of people on the cusp will join into gay behavior and whether that will include full immersion (become gay for life), want to marry a gay person, partake in drugs, or any other number of things people (both straight and gay) might choose to do. The percentage is important, since your whole thesis rests on the real change in a societies population. If, after all, only about 1000 people "turn gay" it doesn't have any effect since that number fluctuates well over that number due to death, birth, immigration, flawed census data, etc.

So, not to leave this hanging: you MUST show that the numbers you are talking about are actually true, and significant, not hypothetical. Just using data from other countries that have legalized gay marriage should be enough.

1a. Also, please demonstrate, using data, that people who would not become gay unless gay marriage is enacted, are not using drugs in the first place! Perhaps, these "cuspers" use and abuse drugs just as badly or worse than gay people? What can you tell us about these people who apparently struggle with their sexual identity enough so that they need an act of Congress to determine who they sleep with.

2. You have not shown that people WILL become gay if gay marriage is legalized. Sure, your scenario sounds possible, but we are talking about public policy in which people are being unfairly treated - you admit this. In order to suggest we keep subjecting millions of people to unfair rules, you should come to the table with actual data.

Actual data here means: show the numbers of people who switch from hetero to gay after homosexuality is somehow legitimized by certain legislation. Again, you can show us the data from countries that have legalized gay marriage.

(Pause: Those two are important and are the meat of the matter. If Euphrates cannot show significant and relative data to support his fear, then we can consider it just another irrational fear that people have in this world.

For example, the data suggests about 2-4% of the population is gay. A very small number of that percentage (about 2.1% of the 2-4% of the population in Sweden) actually get married, and they are predominantly women.

Also, if we take some basic studies, in 1940 the population of gays was about 10%, yet today in an age of more acceptance, the population is about 2-5%. LESS! Now, we can't be sure, but we can be sure the number has probably hovered around the same amount for all time.

Also, Iran, where homosexuality is illegal, has a severe problem with drugs.
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/arc ... /Samii.pdf
What reason, if as the President of Iran claims there are no gay people in Iran, can it be, according to Euphrates? Is a majority of Iran secretly gay?
No. It's just that the correlation is tenuous at best, and hardly a reliable measurement.

Also, I have to point out a hilarious offshoot of Euphrates argument: According to Euphrates, gay people are more prone to drug use. Why? Does he explain? Because if he claims they are genetically predisposed, then he must admit they were born that way with little choice - certainly no reason to discriminate.
However, if homosexuality is a learned behavior (as he seems to suggest) then the drug use can simply be addressed by society and we don't have to worry that they are somehow congenital drug users! Which is it, Euphrates? How do you want to play that one?!?!


Bonus points:

3. Gay marriage has actually been shown benefit society.
a. "Legitimizing" gay people (through the legalization of gay marriage) will decrease the amount of children raised to discriminate against them. Less bigots in the world is better.
b. Gay marriage has shown to benefit society by providing a sense of fairness. Fairness is good.
c. Homosexuals benefit society by having more children:
http://tinyurl.com/3ao9xlf
Increasing fecundity is what Euphrates is all about, and so IF Euphrates argues more people will become gay because of gay acceptance, then, by extension, there will be MORE children, not less.
d. I have read a study but can't find it, so consider it a minor point: homosexuals stabilize a community. And, in fact, when there are fewer gay people, more people become gay to compensate. This means that by limiting gay people, you will actually - possibly - create more!
Google: "kin selection hypothesis" and homosexuality. I will try to find the actual study.
e. Gay marriage is beneficial to society for a number of reasons: because of the legitmacy, gay people can become parents and worry less about their children being discriminated against. Healthy, happy children a re a good thing and benefit society.
f. Gay marriage benefits society because it increases the number of married people. Marriage is a good thing, as Euphrates will agree.
g. Gay marriage benefits society because marriage decreases drug use. According to the Claremont Institute, married people are half as likely to use drugs.
Therefore, if Euphrates would like to see a decline in drug use, he should be FOR gay marriage.


4. Euphrates mentions promiscuity in other posts. I still don't understand why this would be an argument for or against anything. Promiscuity is a behavior between consenting adults. So what. If you don't like it, don't do it, but there aren't any laws that touch on promiscuity. It's a personal issue. So, he should explain.

5. I will add, again, that drug use is illegal but that it doesn't keep people from getting married. In fact, you can be drunk, and high as a kite on your wedding day. People get married everyday while on heavy drugs. It's simply not a reason to deny marriage. So, even if Euphrates can show that the statistics show that if gays marry, then more people will use drugs, it isn't a reason for them to not marry! It's an absurd notion.

Made more absurd by the fact that he has not addressed the aforementioned issues which show he has no argument left.



micatala, yes, I agree, it is fantastic the Mormons and others have dropped the religious argument - well, hidden it as if it isn't their real argument - and are using this sham of an argument as if that's all it is about. It makes it so much easier to show how wrong it is to ban gay marriage.

[Kuan]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

It's a good point, but it would be lost on Euphrates because his argument hinges on the population of his country, the rest of the world be damned, so to speak.

Good point?

Let's castrate our newborns while we're at it. That'll sure fix that darn overpopulation problem.

Thats not what I meant, please dont twist my words. I meant that since gay marriages are sterile they cannot procreate therefore somewhat helping out with overpopulation. Also they adopt children which is good because it gives home to children who have no homes.

[Kuan]

micatala, yes, I agree, it is fantastic the Mormons and others have dropped the religious argument - well, hidden it as if it isn't their real argument - and are using this sham of an argument as if that's all it is about. It makes it so much easier to show how wrong it is to ban gay marriage.

Did I bring in religion somehow or was it some other mormon? I can bring in religion and say why homosexuality is immoral, but I have no authorization to control anothers life thats why im not opposed to gay marriage. I dont like it, in fact im homophobic.

[Euphrates]

Wow, that's not true at all. I summarized the argument in Post 285:
"My argument is that the homosexual community (as a whole) will grow if same-sex marriage is legalized, and because the homosexual community has a significantly higher rate of drug use, the rate of drug use in America will rise as the homosexual community grows."

It is simple logic. The XY society has P rate of drug use. The Xs in the XY society do drugs more often than the Ys. If the size of the X population grows relative to the Y population, the rate of drug use in the XY society will increase.

I'm not a tutor, so if you can't follow, maybe try a simpler debate.

I always laugh when people claim that I should go to the bunny slope when it is obvious their boots are on wrong. Keep up the jokes, you've got the people laughing - even if it's not with you, but at you...

So, yes, and thank you for clearly spelling out your reasoning error.

Y=hetero, with z amount of drug use
X=gay, with z+ amount of drug use

1. XY society (society made of x-types and y-types)
2. If group of X gets larger, then society XY's drug use gets larger.

Fine, so far so good.

Well, that's the argument. I thought you were going to show my "reasoning error".

However, here we go:

1. You have not shown what percentage of people on the cusp will join into gay behavior and whether that will include full immersion (become gay for life), want to marry a gay person, partake in drugs, or any other number of things people (both straight and gay) might choose to do. The percentage is important, since your whole thesis rests on the real change in a societies population. If, after all, only about 1000 people "turn gay" it doesn't have any effect since that number fluctuates well over that number due to death, birth, immigration, flawed census data, etc.

So, not to leave this hanging: you MUST show that the numbers you are talking about are actually true, and significant, not hypothetical. Just using data from other countries that have legalized gay marriage should be enough.

My argument is valid but I must provide number details and projected statistics before we can consider it? And those projected figures must be "actually true"?

We don't know how many lives will be saved, so we can't consider that argument.

If that was a debate standard, debate would be dead.

1a. Also, please demonstrate, using data, that people who would not become gay unless gay marriage is enacted, are not using drugs in the first place! Perhaps, these "cuspers" use and abuse drugs just as badly or worse than gay people?

Why would you think that "cuspers" use more drugs than the rest of society? I provided reasons why homosexuals (specifically) use drugs. Those reasons do not apply to people who are not engaging in homosexual behavior.

There is no data about people that are unidentifiable. Your request is unreasonable.

2. You have not shown that people WILL become gay if gay marriage is legalized. Sure, your scenario sounds possible, but we are talking about public policy in which people are being unfairly treated - you admit this. In order to suggest we keep subjecting millions of people to unfair rules, you should come to the table with actual data.

Again, you are being very unreasonable. You are suggesting that I prove what will happen in the future. I can support it with reason and argumentation, but I cannot show you what WILL happen.

Actual data here means: show the numbers of people who switch from hetero to gay after homosexuality is somehow legitimized by certain legislation. Again, you can show us the data from countries that have legalized gay marriage.

To my knowledge, no studies like this have been done.

Also, if we take some basic studies, in 1940 the population of gays was about 10%, yet today in an age of more acceptance, the population is about 2-5%. LESS!

Your source?

Also, Iran, where homosexuality is illegal, has a severe problem with drugs.
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/arc ... /Samii.pdf
What reason, if as the President of Iran claims there are no gay people in Iran, can it be, according to Euphrates?

There are lots of reasons to use drugs.

Also, I have to point out a hilarious offshoot of Euphrates argument: According to Euphrates, gay people are more prone to drug use. Why? Does he explain?

If you have been reading this thread you would know that I have indeed explained why homosexuals use drugs more often than the average Joe. The reasons are social and sexual.

Bonus points:

3. Gay marriage has actually been shown benefit society.
a. "Legitimizing" gay people (through the legalization of gay marriage) will decrease the amount of children raised to discriminate against them. Less bigots in the world is better.

Do you have evidence that families who raise their children to discriminate against homosexuals will stop or will exist less?

b. Gay marriage has shown to benefit society by providing a sense of fairness. Fairness is good.

YAY!

c. Homosexuals benefit society by having more children:
http://tinyurl.com/3ao9xlf
Increasing fecundity is what Euphrates is all about, and so IF Euphrates argues more people will become gay because of gay acceptance, then, by extension, there will be MORE children, not less.

Not only have you misunderstood the pubmed abstract, but you have asserted something without argument. Show me that more gays = more babies.

d. I have read a study but can't find it, so consider it a minor point: homosexuals stabilize a community. And, in fact, when there are fewer gay people, more people become gay to compensate. This means that by limiting gay people, you will actually - possibly - create more!
Google: "kin selection hypothesis" and homosexuality. I will try to find the actual study.

Makes no sense. Evidence or bust, buddy.

e. Gay marriage is beneficial to society for a number of reasons: because of the legitmacy, gay people can become parents and worry less about their children being discriminated against. Healthy, happy children a re a good thing and benefit society.

Proof that gay marriage causes parents to worry about their children less, please?

f. Gay marriage benefits society because it increases the number of married people. Marriage is a good thing, as Euphrates will agree.

Heterosexual marriage has been shown in many studies to be beneficial to society, but I haven't seen any studies showing that same-sex marriage has the same benefits. You could try finding some evidence (or go back and look at the many words spent talking about this already).

g. Gay marriage benefits society because marriage decreases drug use. According to the Claremont Institute, married people are half as likely to use drugs.
Therefore, if Euphrates would like to see a decline in drug use, he should be FOR gay marriage.

This discussion already happened. Studies about "marriage" cannot be applied to same-sex marriage because they are based on heterosexual marriages.

4. Euphrates mentions promiscuity in other posts. I still don't understand why this would be an argument for or against anything. Promiscuity is a behavior between consenting adults. So what. If you don't like it, don't do it, but there aren't any laws that touch on promiscuity. It's a personal issue. So, he should explain.

I have explained. If you don't understand how STDs and single parent homes hurt our society, there's not much I can do for you.

5. I will add, again, that drug use is illegal but that it doesn't keep people from getting married. In fact, you can be drunk, and high as a kite on your wedding day. People get married everyday while on heavy drugs. It's simply not a reason to deny marriage. So, even if Euphrates can show that the statistics show that if gays marry, then more people will use drugs, it isn't a reason for them to not marry! It's an absurd notion.

Drug use can't stop people from getting married. But it should stop a policy from redefining marriage in a way that would increase the rates of drug use.

Made more absurd by the fact that he has not addressed the aforementioned issues which show he has no argument left.

Yup, I've been completely silent about these issues... except for all the time I've spent talking about them.

Wake me when evidence shows up.

[Ooberman]

micatala, yes, I agree, it is fantastic the Mormons and others have dropped the religious argument - well, hidden it as if it isn't their real argument - and are using this sham of an argument as if that's all it is about. It makes it so much easier to show how wrong it is to ban gay marriage.

Did I bring in religion somehow or was it some other mormon? I can bring in religion and say why homosexuality is immoral, but I have no authorization to control anothers life thats why im not opposed to gay marriage. I dont like it, in fact im homophobic.

Oh, sorry, not you - I just watched "8 - The Mormon Proposition" yesterday and also recognize that Euphrates is using the Slippery Slope fallacy that seems to be coming for the Mormon church. They are trying to remove religion from the argument and focusing on the specter of a possible collapse of society. It is fear mongering of the worst kind because it is simply creating fear with no data to support it, but it results in the discrimination of millions of people.

The Catholic Church (who the Mormons approached to take the lead on Prop 8) are well known for their religious argument and people expect it from them. However, the Mormons felt that they would be viewed negatively and hurt their chances to pass Prop 8 (Prop 8 was the California proposition to ban gay marriage.)

The were recently found guilty of trying to influence votes (a HUGE no-no in our separation of church and state style government). Not suprisingly, the Mormon Church claimed to have done nothing wrong, and still doesn't admit it, even though the court found them guilty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opini ... &th&emc=th

During the summer of 2008, we discovered the active involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) in Prop 8. The Mormon Church took over virtually every aspect of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

Mormon families contributed approximately $30 million of the $40 million raised, the Church produced 27 slick commercials, put up an expensive web site, bussed in thousands of volunteers from Utah, had massive phone banks, yet only reported a mere $2078 in non-monetary contributions just three days before the election. Two weeks later I filed a sworn complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against the Mormon Church for not reporting its vast financial involvement.

The Commission prosecuted the case, and conducted an unprecedented 19 month investigation of the Salt Lake City based Church's finances. Three weeks ago the FPPC found the Mormon Church guilty of 13 counts of late reporting and they were fined $5539. That was the first time a religious organization was found guilty of election irregularities in the 36 year history of the FPPC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karg ... 39538.html

(Don't worry about the source, the information is correct and can be cross-verified - I just googled the case and that was the first link to show up. Personally, I don't like the Huff)

It has nothing to do with the debate, but I suspect Euphrates is Mormon, just because he seems to be picking up identical talking points from the Mormon Church.

[Ooberman]

There is no data about people that are unidentifiable. Your request is unreasonable.

Your inability to provide data to support your assertion is noted.

Therefore, as logic goes, you have a bad argument. Your argument only works if its true.

For example, if Hitler were right about Jews being rats and a threat to society, then we would be praising him for eradicating them.

However, like you, he was factually wrong.

So, to quote someone:

Makes no sense. Evidence or bust, buddy.

I notice you ask for evidence, but decline to provide any yourself. I thought you could just show it by argumentation? Shifting the goalposts? Again?

BTW, to all the readers, I can provide the studies or data to support each claim.

For example:
Kin Selection Hypothesis

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201002 ... -view.aspx

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2w6884742855g706/



edit: I want to add that in light of Euphrates' inability to provide actual data to support his premises, we can correctly call his argument and position unsubstantiated and spurious. This is no way to ground a debate on public policy.

However, I have provided salient objections that are key to his argument. If data does not exist, then that is his problem, not mine. I pointed out that even data from countries that have legal gay marriage would do and would provide a point for a justified extrapolation.

At this point, the best Euphrates can claim is, if his premises are true, then he has a very weak argument against gay marriage (weak, because many of his claims are verifiable and have proven to be minimally impactful.