20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted November 10, 2018

In a 2014 Christian Post survey of “intolerant liberalism,” half of the 33 examples had to do with same-sex marriage or acceptance of homosexuality. It’s been almost four years, and our recent election season has reshuffled what issues are uppermost in the public mind. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage aren’t big issues at the moment. Nevertheless, I’d like to revisit same-sex marriage for two reasons, first because within fundamentalist and evangelical circles in the U.S. it still resonates, and it’s good to brush up on the arguments. Second, because I’d like to periodically bring up some of these clueless arguments so that the Right won’t be able to get away from the hateful stuff they’ve said.

I keep thinking that conservatives will throw in the towel and begin to worry about other issues, maybe ones that actually matter. How about energy independence or improving conditions for America’s poorest citizens? Instead of sending soldiers to guard the border, why not construct a guest worker program so that laws could be upheld and the economy could benefit from legal foreign workers? Conservative politicians: if your constituents reward posturing on empty political issues, couldn’t you also count on them to reward you when you actually address society’s substantive problems?

Let’s take a look at one Christian pundit who’s keeping the anti-same-sex marriage candle burning. Frank Turek is one of the fish in this “traditional marriage” pond, but that pond is drying up. I’d like to preserve what he said in 2014 so that it can be used to plague him in the future. Much of the following is in response to some of his articles (one, two, three, four, five).

Here are those popular arguments against same-sex marriage.

1. Activist judges!

In Frank’s dictionary, “activist judge” actually means “a judge who doesn’t do what I want.”

Activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states!

Yeah, that’s how the legal system works sometimes. Very few laws are put in place by direct vote of the citizens, and sometimes judges are the last step in the process.

Frantic Frank imagines the sky falling with these “unelected judges” rampaging through society and overturning laws, but the Constitution defines the separation of powers that form the checks and balances between the branches of government. Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by senators who are elected. Judges can be impeached. The Constitution can be amended. I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur to be used when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.

For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

But surely that’s not true for Frank. He’s okay with public opinion—which is good, because even at the time of his writing in 2014, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed the public strongly in favor of same-sex marriage by 56% to 37%, with the gap continuing to grow. Look at the trend from the Gallup poll:

And now in 2018, three years after the Obergefell decision made it legal nationwide, we’ve seen that the sky hasn’t fallen as predicted. The public split in favor of same-sex marriage has grown dramatically to 67% for vs. 31% against.

2. But we’re already equal!

Frank next denies that there’s a problem.

Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal, with the white folks constrained just like everyone else—in fact, more so. That’s fair, so what’s to complain about? I wonder how Frank can fault the logic in the racial category but not identical logic in the sexuality category.

It’s amazing that he anticipates no consequences from his base after saying something so bigoted, but then George Wallace’s “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” from 1963 didn’t have major negative consequences.

Not immediately, anyway.

Frank’s assurance that things are fair and he’s not prejudiced sounds hollow when his proposal doesn’t inconvenience him. He wanted to shut off an option that could benefit millions of Americans, but that’s okay because he’s not one of them. Here’s an idea, Frank: how about if people with odd Social Security numbers can only marry people with even numbers and vice versa? Everyone is constrained by the same rules, so it’s fair, right? Is someone you care about inconvenienced yet?

If you say that that’s a stupid rule, you’re getting an idea of what some people say about your claim above.

3. But you can’t redefine marriage!

Been there, redefined that. Don’t imagine that marriage has been a constant since Adam and Eve. Just considering marriage in the U.S., rules against interracial marriage were struck down in 17 states in 1967. Marital rape has been a crime in all states since 1993. “Head and Master” laws, which allowed the husband to have the final say in household decisions (including selling jointly held property without the wife’s knowledge or consent), were overturned in all states by 1979. Adultery and divorce have also been redefined.

Even now, requirements vary by state. What’s the age of consent? Can you marry your cousin? Is a blood test or Social Security Number required? What’s the waiting period? Residency requirements? Requirements for divorced persons? Let’s not pretend that marriage is fixed.

4. I’m not a bigot!

Frank rejects the comparison of laws against same-sex marriage with racist or sexist laws.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage.

We can agree that laws that precluded citizens from voting were wrong. They thought it was okay back then, but society changes. Frank presumably has no problem with society evolving and improving. That’s good, because it’s changed again to accept same-sex marriage.

Continued in part 2.

Heterosexuality is not normal,
just common.
— seen on the internet

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/5/15.)

Image credit: Wikipedia

.

"I read it and I see nothing there that is a credible challenge to my ..."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming (that is, climate changed caused by human industrial activity)."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"3 independent sources from respected historians? I'm sold!"

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"OK, Agreement !! Unicorns, Bigfoot, Jesus, Easter Bunny...All of us should believe in these creatures ..."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ephemerol

    Or alternatively:

    1. Yes, but…it’s none of your business.
    2. Yes, but…it’s also none of your business.
    3. Yes, but…it’s still none of your business.
    4. How many times do I have to say it’s none of your fucking business, Frank?

    To be continued.

    • Venavis

      This

    • TheBookOfDavid

      1. If you object in principle to activist judges, then first stop promoting your own for confirmation to federal bench positions.

      2. The law, in its infinite majesty, permits ingrates like Frank Turek the same freedom to marry a same-sex partner that a homosexual man enjoys.

      3. There is no objective, universal, or unchanging definition of marriage Frank, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. Just for laughs, you’re invited to cite the bible in your refutation.

      4. “I am not a bigot, but…”

    • Cozmo the Magician

      leme alone,
      SQUIRELLLS!

  • Jim Jones

    > Activist judges won’t honor the ballot box.

    If the ballot box ruled, POC would still have no or few rights.

    • The white supremacists whined “Activist judges” when the Supreme Court overturned segregation laws. (This was from “The Southern Manifesto”.)

    • lady_black

      There are certain things you just cannot vote on. Who your neighbor marries is one of them.

      • Some guy

        Good to know. I feel my hetero marriage is much more threatened by one religious/political buttinski than by all the same-sex couples in the world.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      They too busy stopping Hillary from stealing my vote.

      Oh wait , was that LAST WEEK?

      I need more beer

  • Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal, with the white folks constrained just like everyone else—in fact, more so.

    In fact, the second part was used in the 1880’s case Pace v Alabama when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld anti-miscegenation laws. (In fact, Justice Harlen, who dissented in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson decision [which gave us the phrase “separate, yet equal”], upheld the anti-miscegenation laws.)

    5. SSM is offensive

    Get over it!

  • lady_black

    Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. It’s a man-made institution, so it operates by man-made rules. The rules are very few. The two people have to be adults, not already married, and not closely related (varies by state). No further rules are needed.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      And none of those rules have been constant throughout the history of marriage.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      I”d add the further rule that both spouses must consent to the marriage.

      • mordred

        Stop right there. Thats not how YHWH defined marriage! You can’t disregard biblical values like this!

        If you start with that, who knows where it’s gonna end? You might end up with abolishing slavery!

        • Good point. How “YHWH defined marriage” is one man and one or more women.

        • Greg G.

          Sometimes it was one man and one or more cousins.

        • Some guy

          Just look how inbred everyone would have been from the start if Genesis were true. (Admittedly, though, that might have explained a lot.)

        • Greg G.

          Apparently, the human population has less genetic diversity than the chimpanzee population.

        • TinnyWhistler

          Ah, but genetic diseases only exist because of sin. It was a-ok for people way back when but God in his infinite wisdom mentioned you shouldn’t marry your mom (but you can marry your daughter) by the time Exodus rolled around.

        • I think you can’t marry your mom because she’s spoken for. Sex rules were all about men’s property rights (don’t mess with a man’s women) and paternity (I ain’t gonna pay to raise some other joker’s kid).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Also, inheritance. They didn’t want a loada bastards pitching up at the door and claiming a piece of the pie after the dirty auld bugger had popped his clogs. Because back in the day, those good Christian noblemen gave zero fucks for the Decalogue when it came to keeping their cocks in their drawers.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Was marriage even a thing back in them days though?

          The reason why there are no marriage ceremonies in the Bible is because marriage did not involve a ceremony. Marriage in the Bible simply consists of a man and woman, with the consent of the woman’s father or guardian, living together and attempting procreation.

          No vows, no priest, no ritual, no prayer, no pronouncement, no license, no registration.

          It’s just the name given to two people shagging each other.

          Jacob ends up married to Leah because he gives her one in a dark tent and apparently he did it by mistake…sounds a bit like rape to me…and who else was in the tent with them that he believed he was riding?

        • Greg G.

          I think consummation was more important than ceremony.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It would seem that the first shag was the ceremony and consummation all rolled into one.

        • Greg G.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

          The Wikipedia article says that in some places, consummation is required for civil law and common law marriages to become official. Even Catholics can get their marriage annulled if it is not consummated.

          Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage.

          That theologian’s last name made me giggle like Beavis & Butthead.

        • epicurus

          Grade schoolmust have hell for him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I had a lad in my section during my army days called Paul Hardon…another called Phil Staines…whose nickname was Swampy….P. Staines…get it? No kidding.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jacob ends up married to both Rachel and Leah…so polygamy wasn’t an issue.

          I’m pretty sure I’d know the difference, even in a dark tent…but maybe “things” were done different in biblical times.

        • Greg G.

          Didn’t she have a veil? They didn’t have electric lights and probably some good wine. Jacob wouldn’t have had a chance.

          But he got even. He was to get the striped and spotted livestock so he arranged that best livestock ate and drank in front of sticks with the bark peeled off in stripes so he ended up with the best stock. Genetics worked differently back then.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Didn’t she have a veil? They didn’t have electric lights and probably some good wine. Jacob wouldn’t have had a chance.

          Even with a bag on her head and a bottle of vodka in him. To be that pished I didn’t know, I’d have problems getting it up.

          It goes the same with Lot and his daughters. Maybe things were different when filled with the “spirit” of the Lord.

        • Cynthia

          The story of Lot is basically ancient propaganda to literally call their enemies – who are still neighbors and culturally similar – (Moabites and Ammonites) a bunch of bastards.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye, that’s one interpretation…but there was some twisted thought process that went into that bit of propaganda, then to think it was okay to write about it in that way the story played out.

          Another interpretation is that the story sets part of the scene for the incest laws of Leviticus. There was quite a bit of incest going on in the early days of the OT. When the patriarchs are engaging in all sorts of sexual debauchery, a reason for knocking it on the head needs setting up.

          Whatever the message behind the yarn, it seems very contrived…and the OT righteous were not all that righteous by today’s standards. So much for all the objective morality bullshit being spewed by the holy rollers. It’s not like an omniscient entity wouldn’t know this state of affairs ahead of time.

          How the religious buy into this crap in this day and age, is beyond my comprehension.

        • Greg G.

          It’s one of those cases where pointing a finger at others leaves three fingers pointing at yourself:

          1. Lot offered his daughters to the mob instead of protecting them.
          2. He got drunk, committed incest, and got them pregnant.
          3. He blamed his daughters for seducing him with the alcohol, twice.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And YahwehJesus rewarded the whole edifice with the daughters getting preggers with a boy a piece, so it would appear he was grand with the whole idea.

        • Greg G.

          The older daughter’s son was the father of the Moabites. The younger daughter’s son aas the father of the Ammonites.

          Sounds fictional to me.

        • TheNuszAbides

          totally covered in a lost Pauline Epistle explicitly detailing the Nu Kovenant!

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          In the case of Jacob, his wives were sisters. What could pillow talk have been like?

          “Hey, Rachel, before you were my kid sister but now…

          https://i.imgflip.com/nqaq.gif

          … and also we’re now…

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=vajango%2bsisters&amp=true

        • TinnyWhistler

          I’ve started asking people to point out where in human history God first makes ANY case against polygamy when they start talking about “natural law” and “God’s plan for marriage”

        • Ignorant Amos

          And in the case of Solomon…Hundreds more…and even hundreds more fancy women adulteresses…what ta fuck happened to the rule book for Solomon?

        • The clearest support for polygamy IMO is with David. God is whining at him for being a dick, and he said that he had given David all of Saul’s women and would’ve happily given him more.

          God is A-OK with polygamy.

        • Some guy

          Yeah, let’s get back to the good old days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNAvSvAEd9g

      • Cozmo the Magician

        consent. yah, SUUUUURE I read that somewhere.

      • lady_black

        Since marriage is an agreement, OF COURSE!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          But at some points it was an agreement between a man and his wife’s father.

        • lady_black

          Yes it was. But I’m looking at places where same sex marriage is legal, and it’s not like that any of those places.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Just saying it should be in the list of rules, since it wasn’t a given in the past.

        • Joe

          At some point the groom kidnapped the bride and had to fight off her family who had come to claim her back. With swords.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          It’s a shame kids these days have no respect for the old traditions.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          《chills》 Your comment reminds me of the old men at the end of ‘The Lottery’.

        • Greg G.

          Swords? You were lucky. We had to use blades of grass.

        • Joe

          Luxury!

      • epicurus

        Yes, here is a page(s) from Owen Chadwick’s History of Christianity that says the bar for marriage in the old old days was pretty low – just saying you took a person as a spouse (consent) could be enough:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98da0eda1083433ea6b0d8476d6e06b490a50f958f7df38ba93b83b20f708893.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d767124b5c4a73ec5eab484ce76fc4735b41e819aa4832578100f9bdc3d7eff.jpg

        • My understanding is that marriage became a Christian sacrament in about that time because the church wanted the power to allow and deny marriages between powerful people. Marriages were often part of political partnerships, and this allowed the church some power in preventing the ones they didn’t like.

        • Kevin K

          Probably about the same time the church decided priests shouldn’t marry — so that all of their accumulated property would stay in La Cosa Nostra.

        • Carol Lynn

          Nah, that was a political bargain in the 12th Century. The Church owned about a third of the land, mostly from devout lords willing it to them for expiation of their sins, so the kings and lords got iffy about letting priests’ kids inherit it outside the recognized fealty structure. The Church retained political power, and a path to upward mobility for the those not necessarily noble, and gave up inheritance rights in the Church land for their own offspring. Celibacy was all along an ideal for the most devout, not something the clergy was actually practicing until much, much later. I assume they framed it in much more high-faluting language at the time but in hindsight that’s what the bargain looks like.

        • Kevin K

          Now I feel bad, because I could have researched that for myself instead of presenting a “just so” story. Thanks for the useful info.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Glad am so like ya.

    • I Came To Bring The Paine

      Those marriage rules are relatively recent.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      And yet, RAPE is a wonderfull thing. Says many religions. Pick a book. ANY book.

      • lady_black

        True dat. That was one of the reasons I became an atheist.

    • Ignorant Amos

      And those rules only apply to one country…elsewhere the rules are different.

      • lady_black

        Sometimes, only to one state!

  • Anthrotheist

    41 million Americans! In 2014? OMG! That’s, like, almost 13% of the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!! I don’t know how democracy can possibly exist when 13% of society votes against a social issue!

    Also, 100% of Americans could vote against freedom of speech, and that would mean nothing regarding the constitutional right to free speech. At most it would indicate that a national referendum would be in order to amend the constitution. There is no constitutional basis for denying same-sex couples the right to participate in legal civil marriage, despite conservatives’ attempts to introduce such amendments.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      Shut up, and stop making more gay kids….. Umm, lemme try again.

  • eric

    Off topic rant…

    Instead of sending soldiers to guard the border, why not construct a guest worker program so that laws could be upheld and the economy could benefit from legal foreign workers?

    Similarly, significantly boosting the number of immigration judges, PDs and DAs could knock the asylum adjudication process to a week or less for probably 95% of applications. This would greatly reduce the cost and extent of holding facilities, and allow us to place applicants in reasonable accommodations. GOPers would like that economic migrants couldn’t use the process to sneak in. The short wait time might even lower the number of applications as a deterrence measure. OTOH, Dems would like that the US is no longer punishing people for legal behavior (it’s legal to cross the border anywhere and apply for asylum), and that truly worthy asylum seekers can get in relatively quickly.

    But, let’s face it, the GOP will never go for such solutions. They want hardball punishment. That’s not merely a means for them to control illegal immigration, it’s an ends. They want to make potential brown immigrants feel unwelcome so they’ll go away. Any solution that reduces illegal immigration but yet encourages or even merely allows hispanics into the country legally is not something they’re interested in. They want a Wall between the US and Mexico. Capital W, both literal and figurative, with only goods and American tourists flowing between.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      need more poor people to stuff their pockets. After all, why should they want sluts making more babies?

  • Cozmo the Magician

    Let the trolls jump in. Piss on them. But you and I know what being HUMAN is all about. My imaginary pet Dragon will spit on them.

  • skl

    This is a curious topic, seems countercultural in a way.
    Over the last 50 years or so, for society in general, marriage has increasingly decreased in popularity and in perceived
    importance. Yet in the last 10 years or so, we see this counter current of certain
    people apparently elevating the importance of marriage and even fighting to attain it.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Nope.

      Marriage has decreased in *prevalence* among certain groups, mostly the poor and the young.

      Those who DO marry are more secure in themselves and their careers, and ready to make a commitment to living together long term, rather than just ‘legitimizing’ a baby that would otherwise be born out of wedlock, due to the lifelong penalties of the slut-shaming YOUR KIND gleefully practice.

    • Herald Newman

      Even if this is true, how exactly is this an relevant to SSM? I really don’t understand your point?

      • Ignorant Amos

        I really don’t understand your point?

        Colour me unsurprised…very little skl writes is largely not understandable.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Nothing makes you value your own marriage like seeing other people have to fight to gain the right to theirs.

    • Kit Hadley-Day

      it’s funny how people want to be treated like people isn’t it

  • Herald Newman

    Conservative politicians: if your constituents reward posturing on empty political issues, couldn’t you also count on them to reward you when you actually address society’s substantive problems?

    I think you may be seriously overestimating the capacities of conservative voters, and what resonates with them. 😉

  • epicurus

    Funny (and yet not) how quiet most Christians are on divorce – something that is talked about a lot in the bible, none of it good.

    • Divorce is an attack on marriage, not same-sex marriage.

      • epicurus

        Stand up comedian Ron James once said something along the lines of “ If the sanctity of marriage can withstand the shit kicking of a 50% divorce rate, a few guys tying the knot with each other isn’t going to hurt it.”

  • RichardSRussell

    I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur to be used when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.

    To me, an “activist judge” is one who’s willing to torture history, legal precedent, logic, biology, the English language, and common sense by claiming that the term “people” includes corporations and “free speech” includes free spending. I wonder if Frank Turek sees it the same way.

    • Michael Neville

      When the first corporation goes to prison then I’ll accept corporations as people.

      • Or is executed by lethal injection.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’d accept execution by bankruptcy and dissolution.

        • Cynthia Brown Christ

          I don’t think they should get out of paying their bills through the bankruptcy laws though!

          Let them pay their bills and then dissolve.

    • quinsha

      When a CEO is tried for murder for deliberately running his corporation into the ground, then I will accept that corporations are people.

      • Kit Hadley-Day

        or when a company sues its ceo for abuse.

        • Greg G.

          Or when a CEO pays hush money to his corporation.

      • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

        Robert Reich: “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” (source)

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    funny how its judicial activism to decide the homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else, but deciding that companies should is just peachy

  • Ignorant Amos

    This just screened on national news at ITV….

    An ITV News undercover investigation exposes the UK church that claims God can fix gay people

    https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-12/an-itv-news-undercover-investigation-exposes-the-uk-church-that-claims-you-dont-have-to-be-gay/

    Absolute madness…they walk amongst us.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      DammitSoMuch….makes me want to put those who advocate for this into a counter-indoctrination that would change *their* orientation but leave them hating themselves.

    • Sample1

      Over the course of their meeting, Pastor Gbenga told our reporter “something shifted” in the process of his life…

      Pretty sure we know what shifted. Baha.

      Mike

  • Don Rowlett

    There may or may not be some bible verses that prohibit sex between two people of the same gender, but there are no verses that condemn or prohibit marriage between them.

  • JBSchmidt

    Lots of straw man arguments.

    1) Aren’t liberals decrying the exact same thing with Trumps appoints? That they will legislate through the bench on things like gay marriage and abortion. Not sure what your point is if both sides do it.
    2) You never really addressed his point, simply through up a straw man. Isn’t marriage equal open to all as an act between people of opposite sex? Instead of make false arguments regarding race, why not argue to remove government from it at all?
    3) Again, you aren’t really making a case against you point, simply arguing against something that is not. Marriage in the US has always been defined as 1 man/1woman. Sure there are good and bad laws surrounding that, but the base assumption has always existed. It has always been heterosexual. If you want something different, call it something different.
    4) I addressed this as above.

    • Otto

      It does not appear that you even know what a straw man is…a straw man is when a person misrepresents his oppositions position and then argues against the misrepresentation, and despite your accusation nowhere do you show that is what Bob has done.

      >>>”Isn’t marriage equal open to all as an act between people of opposite sex?”

      Sure it was, but for what reason should it be defined that way? For what reason should it remain that way that isn’t tied to some religion? ‘Voter’ was defined as a white male land owner at one time…things change.

      • JBSchmidt

        Curious, there is no one who is currently advocating for marriage as a heterosexual relationship that is also advocating for any form of segregation, yet Bob seems to only argue against segregation. So in fact, he is presenting a misrepresentation of the situation and then arguing against it.

        Historically speaking, within the context of the US, when has marriage been assumed anything other than heterosexual, religious or not? Explain why it must be changed in order to appease a rather small portion of society? There is no ban on the relationship. The vast majority of marriages have nothing really to do with religion. Why would they even want to associate with it?

        You again bring up race, no one is prohibiting anything, that is a false comparison.

        • Otto

          But what Bob is saying is that just like there is not a rational legal basis for segregation there is also not a rational legal basis for not allowing gay people to marry each other. Saying as much is not a straw man.

          >>>”Explain why it must be changed in order to appease a rather small portion of society?”

          Gay marriage in no way infringes on the rights of majority, so I see no reason why the legal right to marry should not include more than just heterosexual relationships.

          >>>”You again bring up race, no one is prohibiting anything, that is a false comparison.”

          It is comparing a situation where rights were expanded to include more people, how is this not comparable?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Gay marriage in no way infringes on the rights of majority”

          My guess is that JBS subscribes to the zero-sum model of rights…the more people have them, the less they’re worth.

          When rationally, the exact opposite is true.

          Such exclusive ‘rights’ are actually *privileges*, which JBS & HIS KIND seem loathe to relinquish.

        • Damien Priestly

          You are not serious, right? Why would anyone want to associate with marriage? — Marriage has huge repercussions for wills, estates, child guardianship, trusts, power of attorney, housing law, taxes, etc, etc. Same-sex marriage hurts nobody and helps lot lots people !!

          Historically speaking slavery was assumed to be legal and unchangeable too.

        • Cynthia Brown Christ

          Exactly! I don’t understand how a person can have such deep opinions against some part of marriage without even understanding all the ramifications, justifications, protections, laws, and rights that marriage encompass..

        • Curious, there is no one who is currently advocating for marriage as a heterosexual relationship that is also advocating for any form of segregation

          There is no one currently advocating against human/alien marriage, so we’re all good, right?

          Bob seems to only argue against segregation.

          Bob is pointing out that just in his lifetime, marriage has been redefined many times. Not a hard concept.

          If it’s been redefined many times, don’t get hysterical if it’s being redefined again.

          Historically speaking, within the context of the US, when has marriage been assumed anything other than heterosexual, religious or not?

          Historically speaking, within the context of the US, when has marriage been assumed anything other than an institution that states could keep racially pure? The answer, of course, is that marriage could be so constrained until 1967. Not anymore.

          If constraining marriage by race can be prohibited, maybe constraining marriage by sexual orientation (which is an inherent trait, like race) ought also be prohibited.

          Explain why it must be changed in order to appease a rather small portion of society?

          Because it’s unfair. You really need to have this explained to you? This hurts you not one bit, but it helps a minority of people. The last 50 years have had a number of steps where society has helped (or stopped hurting) a minority of people. You and I can’t participate in the Civil Rights movement of the ‘60s in 2018, but we have our own lesser civil rights problem that we can work to correct.

          There is no ban on the relationship.

          You’d be OK with roles swapped, where same-sex marriage was legal but straight marriages weren’t? If not, why not?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do ya never get the feeling that dealing with these sorts like JBS, is equivalent to battering yer head against a brick wall?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If enough of us assail the brick wall, even with our noggins, it’ll eventually fall.

          WE regenerate…the wall can’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If enough of us assail the brick wall, even with our noggins, it’ll eventually fall.

          Ya’d like ta think so, wouldn’t ya? With some of these individuals, the wall is so thick, it seems like it is impenetrable. Good news is, I’ve read enough accounts of very thick theist walls, that eventually couldn’t withstand the rationality of enough critical thinking heads, that gives me enough have hope, that even the thickest of walls can be breached.

          WE regenerate…the wall can’t.

          A wouldn’t put it quite like that, but a see what yer getting at.

          I’d call it erosion over time, which we are actually witnessing, but it is a very slow moving process…at least slower than I’d like it to be.

        • Cynthia Brown Christ

          Yep. Trying to communicate with people who don’t want to learn more about a topic during the discussion is frustrating.

          It is a waste of time to attempt to discuss with that person. However, other folks on the fence can read the discussion and maybe come around to the right side!

        • Cynthia Brown Christ

          I meant the correct side, incase the word “right” was misread.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye, indeed….Always consider the lurker…it’s our duty.

        • Lark62

          Through much of American history, the man controlled all property in the marriage. A husband could sell all of his wife’s property and keep the proceeds and she had no recourse.

          Until approx 1970s, it was legal for a man to rape his wife.

          Marriage changes all the time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Never mind all that nonsense…what’s really important in the fuckwit mindwankery is that gay sex is “icky”, so no rubber stamp on it that is the institution that is the bond of marriage, should be allowed…that makes baby Jesus will cry.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Don’t bother trying to use history.

          The US also had slavery (and stopped that), prevented nonlandowners from voting (and changed that), prevented women from voting (and changed that), allowed child labor at the expense of the child’s development to live a full and rich life (and we changed that).

          “We’ve always done it this way” is NOT a valid defense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But, but, but,…whatabout the buybull and Christian values? //s

    • eric

      He’s not making up false arguments regarding race; racists in the ’50s argued that laws against mixed race marriages were constitutional because marriage was equal and open to all…to marry people of the same race. Your exact argument is just a rehash of the arguments used in Loving vs. Virginia by the people opposed to mixed race marriages. That argument lost. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the exact argument you’re using was legally invalid.

      Marriage in the US has always been defined as 1 man/1woman.

      Nope, you don’t know your history, do you? The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed in 1862. Prior to that, polygamy was legal in the US, and practiced by some citizens (most famously by the early Mormons).

      • Davis v. Beason, the Supreme Court decision against polygamy, was in 1890.

    • Damien Priestly

      Not true on #3 — not always. Since 2004 same-sex marriage has been legal in a state, then more states legalized it…in 2015 SSM became legal in all states. All words, like marriage have the meaning we give to them…that meaning changes over time.

      Your other points 1, 2 — are basically whining…You have to live in a world where same-sex couples can be married….about time you started to deal with it !!

    • 1) Aren’t liberals decrying the exact same thing with Trumps appoints?

      I hear “They’re legislating from the bench!” only from the Right, though that’s just my perspective.

      Isn’t marriage equal open to all as an act between people of opposite sex?

      Right, though you’re just repeating what the post says. This is just “Everyone’s free to do things the way I like it. You can opt out, so what’s the problem?” If you don’t think that’s unfair, then I’m not sure where to go with this.

      Instead of make false arguments regarding race, why not argue to remove government from it at all?

      What false argument?

      Sure, maybe getting government out of marriage is an idea, but that’s a different topic.

      3) Again, you aren’t really making a case against you point, simply arguing against something that is not.

      No idea how this is relevant. The point is that “marriage has been a constant since Genesis!” is BS.

      Marriage in the US has always been defined as 1 man/1woman.

      Marriage has been defined in lots of ways, including not 1 man, 1 woman. In fact, I wrote a post summarizing the different ways. In fact, it’s this one. You should read it.

      • JBSchmidt

        You are incorrect. I was able to find that same quote used by prominent Democrats regarding judges.

        Can you actually argue that marriage is not equally available to both genders? As an example, access to home buying is available to all. If one chooses too or is in a position too only rent, would you still argue that we call them home owners?

        The false argument is simple. You are representing the act of marriage, held as one woman/one man, as segregation. When in fact it is equally accessible to both genders. Further the vast majority of Jim Crow laws were enacted by Dems, not the right. This includes interracial marriage laws. I grant that this is not consistent in all states, but it is more consistent that the GOP/political right stood for integration then is it to claim the opposite. So you are both misrepresenting the basis of the argument on marriage and the misrepresenting the historical nature of people taking that view. Thus it is a false argument.

        I never claimed marriage is the same since Genesis. However, in the US, culturally speaking it has. You include all sorts of irrelevant and improper laws, but none change the idea that from a cultural perspective the US saw marriage as one man/one woman. That is why even in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Democratic front runner claimed to be standing against changing marriage. This also includes Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act. Not sure how you can argue the US had culturally seen marriage as something other then one man/one woman. Simply showing that a court mandated same sex marriage doesn’t change the cultural history.

        If you wish to build a case that the people were wrong on marriage and the court system was right, can you do so without misrepresenting it as segregation or misrepresenting Christians/GOP as racists?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Can you actually argue that marriage is not equally available to both genders?

          If marriage is defined as a union with a consenting adult whom you love and find sexually attractive, and wish to spend your life with, then a lack of equal marriage means this would NOT be available to the LGBTQ community.

          If you *don’t* define marriage that way, why don’t you? Do you take perverse pleasure in denying people who are different from you their basic human rights?

        • al kimeea

          Yep

        • MadScientist1023

          Prior to Obergefell, there was significant gender discrimination in marriage. Because of a person’s gender, they were discriminated against in terms of who they could marry. For instance, my sister would be legally permitted to marry my fiance, but I would have been barred from doing so due to my gender. My options for marriage were thus legally restricted due to nothing other than my gender. Hypothetically, were I to get sexual reassignment surgery and legally become a woman, I would have then been eligible to marry my fiance.

          Your home buying analogy is flawed. If marriage pre-Obergefell were like buying a home, it would be akin to a realtor saying “You are welcome to buy or rent a home, but because you’re a man, only half of all homes on the market are available for you to buy or rent.” That’s what you’re calling equality.

          Marriage has changed in the US, both culturally and legally. It was much more heavily gendered in the past. Wives used to be considered property of their husbands. Beating one’s wife was legally permitted. Wives weren’t legally allowed to refuse to have sex with their husbands, and husbands couldn’t be charged with raping their wives. Married women being allowed to work outside the home is also a historically recent development. And the concept of equality between genders? That’s practically brand new. Honestly, same-sex marriage is nothing but the capstone in the movement to equalize the legal role husband and wife in a marriage. Once there became no real legal distinction between the two, in terms of what a husband was allowed to do and what a wife was allowed to do, the only logical conclusion was to allow marriage where it didn’t matter if there was no husband or no wife.

        • JBSchmidt

          Rape within marriage or women as property are all wrong, but also red herrings. Much of that in the US was rare and focused on a already bad marriages and bad men. I would argue that you still have marriages where those bad behaviors are still present. Oddly enough, you demonize marriage for its past atrocities, yet demand entrance?????

          To be fair, there was no gender discrimination in marriage. Prior to Obergefell 100% of men and 100% of women were allowed to get married if you accept the terms. There was no discrimination. Just as 100% of adults can buy a house if they accept the terms. Throughout history, home ownership has meant one thing even as different improper laws have been enacted and rescinded. Having that history, can a person now be determined to be a home owner if they don’t own a home? What if I rent an apartment, but really feel like a home owner. I can claim home ownership? Why not do so to equalize the distinction between those that own homes vs those that rent?

          Explain how two men or two women getting married has any effect on women’s equality in a heterosexual relationship? Each relationship is based on the agreement of those involved.

        • Ignorant Amos

          … if you accept the terms.

          Whose terms?

          The current terms in the US?

          The new terms are already being accepted. You lost. Wake up and smell the coffee, numbnuts.

          Explain how two men or two women getting married has any effect on women’s equality in a heterosexual relationship?

          I can’t believe we are having to deal with someone with your level of idiocy.

          Each relationship is based on the agreement of those involved.

          Indeed, in compliance with the laws. At the moment the laws are better in some places (the US), while poor in other places (Northern Ireland), which is not as bad as other places (Iran). So regardless of what those involved agree on. The law matters.

        • MadScientist1023

          Women’s status as property was legal fact for much of our history, as was legal abuse and rape. Marital rape wasn’t even a crime in some parts of the country until the 1990s. The fact that only bad men in bad marriages perpetrated this is irrelevant. The fact is that it happened, and the law was perfectly fine with it. Until the mid 19th century, beating his wife was considered a perfectly legal and acceptable means for a husband to assert his authority over his wife. Nowadays, a wife can file charges, get restraining orders issued, use it as grounds for divorce, and even potentially get her husband arrested for domestic violence and/or assault.

          This is the history of marriage. If you perceive that as demonization, so be it. It doesn’t change the objective historical facts. I’m not demanding entrance. I already have it.

          Let’s unpack one thing you said:
          “Prior to Obergefell 100% of men and 100% of women were allowed to get married if you accept the terms.”
          Note the phrase “if you accept the terms”. The problem is that you can say the exact same thing, no matter what the *terms* are. The terms could be that the other person has to be the opposite gender, the same race, the same religion, the same age, the same class, etc. You could place all of these restrictions on who you are allowed to marry, make the exact statement, and it would be just as accurate. The right to marry is meaningless without the freedom to marry the person of your choice.

          I’ll try to explain the last point, but it might be over your head. Two men or two women getting married has no effect on women’s equality in heterosexual relationships. It is an effect *of* it, not *on* it. It follows gender equality. It is the logical last step. It is the tail end of the gender equality movement. It is a consequence, not a cause.
          When there was a set of clear roles in marriage, a husband who heads the house, and a wife who always comes second, then same-sex marriage was inconceivable. How could you possibly have a marriage of two equals? That wasn’t what marriage was for most of US history. As that changed over time, and marriage evolved into a relationship between two equal entities, the reason it had to have a clear husband and a clear wife disappeared. Once husband and wife became equal, having two husbands or two wives was a short jump.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Eloquently put.

        • MadScientist1023

          Thank you

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Rape within marriage or women as property are all wrong, but also red herrings.”

          Pre-1967, you couldn’t have said that, because they weren’t illegal.

          We CHANGED marriage, to treat women (somewhat) more as PEOPLE.

          So they’re not red herrings, they’re evidence that marriage has changed, meaning it can change again while remaing marriage.

        • Rape within marriage or women as property are all wrong, but also red herrings.

          They’re all part of the larger definition of marriage. The definition of marriage was the topic being discussed. So no, not red herrings.

          To be fair, there was no gender discrimination in marriage. Prior to Obergefell 100% of men and 100% of women were allowed to get married if you accept the terms.

          And you’ve seen the simple transform of your sentence to one where everyone is treated equally—anyone can marry someone of their own race. Fair, right?

        • Otto

          If you wish to build an argument that gay people should not be allowed to be married can you actually provide a valid legal reason? All you have done is incorrectly proclaim marriage has always been the same, and even though it has been pointed out to you numerous times that is not the case you still keep going back to it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is not the first time the JBSchmidt Bigoted Sectarian Circus has been in town…he spews the same old, same old, and it is still tired old nonsense,

        • Otto

          It just amazes me that no argument other than… ‘well I don’t like it’ …. is offered. That is not a valid legal argument

        • Just be glad he didn’t overtly use the “icky” argument, though I’m guessing that’s what’s behind it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He doesn’t need to say it, because it is obvious that the “icky” argument is all that he has…it’s pathetic, and it’s no less pathetic this time around, than it was the last time he dropped by and made it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you think that by fucking off to Croydon and pressing the “reset button” your bigoted bullshit will have been forgot about or will be anymore persuasive ya dickhead?

          You are incorrect. I was able to find that same quote used by prominent Democrats regarding judges.

          And yet you fail to provide such quote…not that it matters. This is obfuscation.

          Can you actually argue that marriage is not equally available to both genders?

          It is already, it was changed to be inclusive. You lost…suck it up and move on ya Dime Bar.

          Marriage being equally available to both genders was not the issue. Marriage being available to both genders to chose which gender they wished to marry, is the issue. When, and where, that has been addressed, better equality and human rights have improved.

          The point is that there are fuckwits out there that want it changed back to the way they believe YahwehJesus would want it, back in the past…in Stupidsville…not thinking for one minute that if one believes in nonsense like an omnipotent being, it could get things done the way it wanted, without ignorant meddling minions who continually assert no one can know the mind of their god, and this is the method their god may have chosen.

          As an example, access to home buying is available to all. If one chooses too or is in a position too only rent, would you still argue that we call them home owners?

          Ah….the shite analogy…didn’t take long.

          The false argument is simple. You are representing the act of marriage, held as one woman/one man, as segregation.

          And it is, when it is defined as limited between only males marrying females. It is setting homosexuals apart from others in the same way the colour of ones skin set them apart from others. Go check a dictionary ffs.

          segregate…to keep one group of people apart from another and treat them differently, especially because of race, sex, or religion

          When in fact it is equally accessible to both genders.

          Not if ya were black back in the day. Not if you were homosexual back in the day. Swap black and homosexual to see how your fucked up sectarian bigotry plays out. Thankfully things are moving along in the correct direction…though not for the knuckle-dragging community.

          Further the vast majority of Jim Crow laws were enacted by Dems, not the right. This includes interracial marriage laws. I grant that this is not consistent in all states, but it is more consistent that the GOP/political right stood for integration then is it to claim the opposite.

          You’ve completely missed the point of the analogy…no surprise there then.

          Whataboutism…if your point is that Democrats are guilty of stupid shite at a given point and time…yeah, whateva…so what?

          So you are both misrepresenting the basis of the argument on marriage and the misrepresenting the historical nature of people taking that view.

          Nope…but clear up what you think is the confusion we are all suffering from, we all adore being educated here. What is the basis of the argument on marriage that you think is being misrepresented, it certainly isn’t clear from your comments so far?

          Thus it is a false argument.

          That denying equal rights to folk because of the colour of their skin is bad. In the same way denying equal rights to folk because of their sexual orientation is bad. Where is the falsity in that statement?

          I never claimed marriage is the same since Genesis.

          Good thing too…because that would’ve been stupid. But you don’t get it anyway. The definition of marriage has been continuing to evolve since the concept was thought up. When it was decided to make one of those changes to include SSM, you appear to have got bent all out of shape, but you can’t give a reasonable explanation without coming over a sectarianly bigoted cunt in the process. Please…I know you’ve been asked this in the past…explain exactly your reasons why it can’t be changed to include SSM? Your narrow mindedness is not a valid explanation.

          However, in the US, culturally speaking it has.

          No…no…NO….it hasn’t…your are talking out yer arse. Culturally speaking…

          Marriage isn’t what it used to be.

          As America has evolved over the centuries, so too has the institution of marriage.

          In colonial times, marriage was largely a matter of property and reproduction.

          When a colonial woman married, she gave up any legal right as an individual. She was legally bound to obey her husband, just as she would obey God.

          …the only thing that hadn’t changed, culturally speaking, was the equality of genders to marry the same gender…but even that change has been made. Your bigoted worldview lost.

          You include all sorts of irrelevant and improper laws, but none change the idea that from a cultural perspective the US saw marriage as one man/one woman.

          Irrelevant only because you are a stupid dolt and are unable to see the relevance.

          That is why even in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Democratic front runner claimed to be standing against changing marriage. This also includes Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act.

          So what?

          Not sure how you can argue the US had culturally seen marriage as something other then one man/one woman.

          Not an argument being made. Take yer straw man and cram it. What is being argued is that cultural norms change. Hence the analogy Bob used that you are too stupid to see. What was the cultural norm in the past is irrelevant, try grasping that detail and it’ll go a long way to enhancing you comprehension skills that you demonstrate to have very little of having.

          Simply showing that a court mandated same sex marriage doesn’t change the cultural history.

          Uhhhmmm! That’s exactly what it does. Do you practice to be this dumb?

          You are hanging on here by yer fingernails for grim death with this “culturally held” fuckwittery. Let it go and die peacefully. It’s a done deal already. The OP is just showing how much out of pace with reality that some Christian fuckwits really are, guess what camp you are in?

          If you wish to build a case that the people were wrong on marriage and the court system was right, can you do so without misrepresenting it as segregation or misrepresenting Christians/GOP as racists?

          Not what is being asserted, though many Christians and Republicans are indeed racists, so a Venn diagram would have plenty of Christian homophobic Republicans, who would fall into the racist section of the following.

          Since you failed to grasp the point of comparing segregation of one minority group, with the segregation of another minority group…and why it was wrong then, and why it is wrong now…even though it was once the cultural norm, there is very little hope for you.

          If you are a Christian, a homophobe, and a Republican, and am going out on a limb here and suggest you are going by your comments, Bob’s case is made by your interaction on this thread.

        • You are incorrect. I was able to find that same quote used by prominent Democrats regarding judges as recently as Neil Gorsuch.

          Incorrect about what? If you’re saying that there was a democrat who, one or more times, said, “activist judges”? Sure, I get that. Not what I’m talking about.

          What I want is consistency from Turek–that’s the topic. I’ll believe that he’s truly angry at activist judges when he shows that it’s activism across the political spectrum, not just things that annoy him personally.

          Can you actually argue that marriage is not equally available to both genders? As an example, access to home buying is available to all.

          That’s a good example. Let’s make home buying available only to straight people. Fair?

          Or we can go back to the example you want to avoid, mixed-race marriage. Say that everyone is allowed to marry someone of their own race. That’s not biased, right?

          The false argument is simple. You are representing the act of marriage, held as one woman/one man, as segregation. When in fact it is equally accessible to both genders.

          So if everyone is equally constrained or freed, you’re good? Let’s return to the good old days and say that everyone must marry within their race. Everyone’s equally constrained, so that must be fair in your book, right?

          Further the vast majority of Jim Crow laws were enacted by Dems, not the right.

          Which is relevant how?

          “Democrat” is a changeable thing. You’re not winning points here.

          I never claimed marriage is the same since Genesis. However, in the US, culturally speaking it has.

          What is “culturally speaking”? Is this “speaking with selective amnesia”? I’ve listed the rather substantial changes in my own lifetime in the US.

          You include all sorts of irrelevant and improper laws, but none change the idea that from a cultural perspective the US saw marriage as one man/one woman.

          And we’re back to square 1.

          Yeah, I get it. Homos are icky. Not a problem—don’t engage in homosexual sex. Or, turn that around and consider that there’s a lot more “sodomy” going in among straight couples simply because there are vastly more of them.

          Your PR problem is that you’re pushing back against marriage–two people publicly declaring their love together. You blunder into that with a stop sign in your hand and you wonder why people think that you’re a hateful asshole? Why don’t you focus on something that actually is bad? This is your chance to show a little Christian charity and compassion.

          Not sure how you can argue the US had culturally seen marriage as something other then one man/one woman.

          I never did, Mr. Clueless. I’m simply saying that the argument, “Marriage has had an unchanging definition since Day 1!!” is a laughably bad argument. And yet people on the Right still make it.

          Simply showing that a court mandated same sex marriage doesn’t change the cultural history.

          Which is also true for laws against mixed-race marriage. I predict that, as barbaric as those (recent) laws seem today, laws against same-sex marriage will seem just as primitive 30 years from now. Read the polls.

        • JBSchmidt

          That is my point. Activism is seen across the political spectrum. Isn’t that big fight against Gorsuch and the biggest object to Kavanaugh prior to the claims of sexual misconduct? That abortion would be illegal and women would be dying in alleyways? Kinda sounds like ‘sky is falling’ to me. So either you can claim that there is no activism and stand against the fear the liberals have about Trump nominations or you have to agree with him that it happens.

          Your ‘straight person’ home buying analogy is incorrect. Marriage made no judgement of orientation. If you chose to not have heterosexual relations, they don’t get married. Same as a house. If you chose not to own property, don’t buy.

          Mixed race arguments is a red herring. Marriage is open equally to both genders.

          Those aren’t the same Democrats? Interesting, you should ask a black GOP member that. Race history is valid as an argument to persecute Frank, the GOP and Christians, but nevermind that white GOP Christians were the ones standing up for black people.

          Never said anything poor against homosexuals. Those are your words.

          So marriage is just a love contract? Then why is it so important.

          So, challenging your logic is non-Christian and hateful. However, there is far more hate directed at me on this page, then anything I have said.

          Have I challenged the laws that favor of same sex marriage or said they were wrong? Simply pointing out that your argument against Frank is incorrect. 1) If both sides scream about activist judges, your accusation against Frank is little more than finger pointing. 2) If 100% of the public can engage in an act if they chose, it can’t be segregationist/racist/or whatever ‘ist you want. 3) Racism is the default go to for liberals. Which is really more an ad hominem attack then a valid point. 4) Show me culturally where prior to DOMA, the US as a whole viewed sex as something more that 1m/1w (all your herrings don’t change that at its core it has always been 1m/1w). If you can’t, then aren’t you redefining terms?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That abortion would be illegal and women would be dying in alleyways?

          Except that we have the evidence from when abortion in the US was illegal. Or those places where abortion still is illegal. As examples of that being exactly what happens ffs.

          Marriage made no judgement of orientation.

          The law and the culture and religious fuckwits did…that’s why it wasn’t allowed for those that wanted it, but couldn’t. That’s why the culture has changed, the law has changed, and those that are lesser fuckwits in their religion chamged.

          If you chose to not have heterosexual relations, they don’t get married.

          What of those that are gay and want to be married…for x,y & z reasons that have fuck all to do with your homophobic bigotry?

          Same as a house. If you chose not to own property, don’t buy.

          See this is where you have a major malfunction in your critical thinking skills. Sexual orientation is not a choice like buying a house. The legalities that come as part and parcel of being married mean some people want the institution. Or maybe the only reason is to show commitment to each other in a loving relationship. You don’t get to decide.

          So marriage is just a love contract? Then why is it so important.

          Dumbarse. Even if that’s all it is…why it is important to those that seek it, has fuck all to do with you…thank fuck.

          So, challenging your logic is non-Christian and hateful.

          Nope…your repetitive stupidity on this issue is non-Christian and your position on this issue is hateful.

          However, there is far more hate directed at me on this page, then anything I have said.

          Yah think? That said…narrow minded, stupid, sectarian, homophobic, religious, bigots, will have that effect on some of us…well me at least.

          The status quo is now what it is and it gets right on your narrow minded, stupid, sectarian, homophobic, religious, bigoted wick…and that makes me smile. Suck it up.

        • Otto

          >>>”So marriage is just a love contract? Then why is it so important.”

          Marriage is a legal contract and that is why it is so important. Your spouse can make decisions for you that supersede other blood relatives (to whom those decisions would defer to without marriage), and that is one reason why it is very important for gay people to be able to legally get married.

          So are you ever going to actually present a rational point as to why you are against it or are you just going to keep blathering about how you think Bob is wrong, even though your criticisms have been soundly defeated numerous times?

        • So either you can claim that there is no activism and stand against the fear the liberals have about Trump nominations or you have to agree with him that it happens.

          I’ll type slower this time. Let me know if that helps. Turek’s argument against activist judges would make some sense if he would list rulings that he dislikes and that he likes that were caused by activist judges. When they’re all in the dislike category, that makes me conclude that “activist judges” is a smokescreen.

          Mixed race arguments is a red herring. Marriage is open equally to both genders.

          In the 60s, same-sex marriage was a red herring. Marriage was constrained equally across races. What’s not to like if white folks are constrained just the same as black folks?

          So marriage is just a love contract? Then why is it so important.

          You lost me.

          So, challenging your logic is non-Christian and hateful.

          No, being hateful is being “non-Christian and hateful.”

          However, there is far more hate directed at me on this page, then anything I have said.

          Well, “fuck you, homosexuals who want same-sex marriage” is kinda what you said. That’s pretty hateful.

          They’re not asking for anything all that surprising. You have marriage? They’d like to share it with you, too. Your heart is two sizes too small so that you can’t expand the pie? It doesn’t cost you anything.

          1) If both sides scream about activist judges, your accusation against Frank is little more than finger pointing.

          You don’t understand my argument. It’s explained above.

          2) If 100% of the public can engage in an act if they chose, it can’t be segregationist/racist/or whatever ‘ist you want.

          Bring back anti-miscegeny laws! If they were good enough for great-great-grandpappy, they should be good enough for us today. Black folks and white folks could enter into race-constrained marriage equally. Can I get a “Kumbaya”??

          3) Racism is the default go to for liberals.

          Yeah. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Pro tip: next time, don’t allow yourself to be exposed in this manner if you don’t like people pointing it out.

          4) Show me culturally where prior to DOMA, the US as a whole viewed sex as something more that 1m/1w (all your herrings don’t change that at its core it has always been 1m/1w). If you can’t, then aren’t you redefining terms?

          And I could take any aspect of the changed definition of marriage listed in the post (polygamy, mixed-race marriage, definition of divorce, marital rape) and work that into your demand. That didn’t matter—the definition of marriage changed. So, assuming we’re all on the same page that the definition isn’t cast in stone and that fundamental things can change about it, same-sex marriage has changed it yet again. And note that the definition has expanded to bring in more people. That’s what loving people do. The hateful ones want to constraint it or refuse to share the pie.

          Seriously, you need to get some good arguments. There are 3 more parts to this post series, so bring your A game. Maybe you can invite your friends.

        • JBSchmidt

          “he would list rulings that he dislikes and that he likes that were caused by activist judges”
          -How many would he need to acknowledge? When you argue against a ruling, say Hobby Lobby, did you spend large amounts of page space reviewing the great work of the judge you disagreed with? Explaining how exemplary they had been in the past?

          “Marriage was constrained equally across races.”
          -I guess that is one way to look at at. All the bad associated with marriage through the years does not change that it was man and woman. The US fixed it issues with segregation, protected women from abusive men, protected offspring by stopping incest and again protected women by banning polygamy. None of that changes that the US was attempting to keep it 1m/1w. So I fail to see the point of these arguments. These are ‘changes’ in the sense that were instituted to protect individuals, but none altered the culturally accepted definition of 1m/1w. In fact, polygamy refined it.

          “Well, “fuck you, homosexuals who want same-sex marriage” is kinda what you said.”
          -Actually I kinda said nothing of the sort. It does warm my soul to know you care enough to slander me.

          “Bring back anti-miscegeny laws!”
          -I guess. It was largely a Democratic law to begin with so I could see why you as Democrat might resurrect it. However, doing so then makes it racist and counter to the point I was making.

          “They’re not asking for anything all that surprising. You have marriage? They’d like to share it with you, too. Your heart is two sizes too small so that you can’t expand the pie? It doesn’t cost you anything.”
          -We all have marriage as it has consistently been defined in the US. What is asked is no longer marriage, it is a demand to be recognized.

        • -How many would he need to acknowledge?

          Let’s start with one. So far, it’s zero. Turek’s “activist judges” is just a fig leaf for “rulings I dislike.”

          All the bad associated with marriage through the years does not change that it was man and woman.

          Lots of things have been changed with “marriage,” but only recently was this one changed. So what? Is this a bigger change than the others? If so, prove it.

          So I fail to see the point of these arguments.

          Right, because your mind is closed. You’ve seen many things that have changed, and straight/same-sex is just one more thing. You seem to think, without giving any justification, that 1m/1w is more fundamental—and that’s just me trying to infer what you’re trying to say. Is that the case? If so, show why that’s a bigger deal than the other changes.

          “Well, “fuck you, homosexuals who want same-sex marriage” is kinda what you said.”
          -Actually I kinda said nothing of the sort. It does warm my soul to know you care enough to slander me.

          That’s precisely the message I’m getting from your comments, so no, not a slander. Help me see how this isn’t what you’re saying.

          It was largely a Democratic law to begin with so I could see why you as Democrat

          Fun trivia! But you’re having a heckuva time staying on topic as is, so let’s focus please.

          -We all have marriage as it has consistently been defined in the US. What is asked is no longer marriage

          Which applies to same-sex marriage just like it did for mixed-race marriage.

          Same tired arguments over and over, eh? We’ll have to do this again sometime. This has been fun.

        • JBSchmidt

          If the current court was brought a case involving abortion. It was determined that it is gender biased. There is an inequality between minority abortions and white abortions. There is a plausibility that safety numbers have been falsified and women are bring harmed during the process at higher rates then reported. The court determines that Roe v Wade was unconstitutional and refers it back to the states.

          Now we can establish that it is not equal, could be racist, is harming women and over the course of its existence abortion laws have been altered. I would assume that you would be fine with this ruling.

        • Otto

          Failed at your argument so now you have to switch topics eh?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re still failing CONSENT.

          A woman seeking an abortion has the CONSENT to do what she wants with her own body. Any conceptus can seek other lodgings, but it can’t demand the unwilling use of HER organs.

          If there’s a race-based differential in abortions, first demonstrate it, then offer your hypothesis for *why*…be sure to bring evidence.

          Marriage is about CONSENT, and YOUR KIND fail because you want to horn into *other* consenting adults’ lives.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Same tired arguments over and over, eh? We’ll have to do this again sometime. This has been fun.

          Yes they are, no I don’t believe we should, no it hasn’t.

          JBS is the worst sort of troll…his position gets decimated, so he pisses off to Croydon for an extended period of time. Long enough that he thinks the audience will have changed. He smacks the “rest button” ignoring everything previously rebutted. Then returns here with the “same tired arguments over and over”. That shit is intelligence insulting at the very least.

          Or maybe the dickhead just tours blogs with his inane drivel and is too stupid to realise he has been here before.

          Fun sapping asinine Dime Bar.

        • Michael Neville

          the US was attempting to keep it 1m/1w

          No, some homophobic bigots were trying to keep it 1 man/1 woman. The dogwhistle they used was “Gawd thinks butt sechs is icky!” But in real life they meant “we think butt sechs is icky!” One of the things I most dislike about fundamentalist Christians is their use of God as an excuse for their hatred. Christianity is supposed to be about love but certain Christians are known to the rest of us for their hatred.

        • Michael Neville

          “Bring back anti-miscegeny laws!”
          -I guess. It was largely a Democratic law to begin with so I could see why you as Democrat might resurrect it.

          Since you appear to be a simple-minded person I’ll give you a simple-minded explanation. In the 19th Century the Democratic Party was the conservative party and the Republican Party was the liberal party. From about 1890 to after World War I, the two parties switched ideologies so now the Democrats are liberals and the Republicans are conservatives.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Simple-minded?

          You flatterer you!

        • Yeah, but, no but … but it was Democrats.

          Checkmate, atheists!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          /s

          😉

        • Greg G.

          It was largely a Democratic law to begin with so I could see why you as Democrat might resurrect it.

          There is nothing wrong with switching political parties when a party is no longer in favor of your positions. It is rather stupid to not do so – immediately!

          You don’t even have to watch Fox News if they are just trying to scare you into voting for the choices that the filthy rich people own.

        • eric

          All the bad associated with marriage through the years does not change
          that it was man and woman. The US fixed it issues with segregation,
          protected women from abusive men, protected offspring by stopping incest
          and again protected women by banning polygamy….

          Now you’re just being a comedian. You realize that in a single paragraph you claimed US marriage has always been monogamous AND admitted that the US at one point made polygamy illegal?

          Its like you’re not even bothering to lay out a consistent argument.

        • eric

          2) If 100% of the public can engage in an act if they chose, it can’t be segregationist/racist/or whatever ‘ist you want

          Yes, it very clearly can be racist. Prior to civil rights laws, 100% of the population could marry with in their own race. Yet this is clearly segregationist, because while Angel could marry Billie, she could not marry Carey – if Billie and Angel were both black, and Carey was white. Your logic opposing gay marriage is exactly the same argument. You want to say Angel can marry Billie, but she cannot marry Carey – if Carey is a girl.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Everything sounds better in the original Klingon.

          “we killed our gods”

        • LastManOnEarth

          They were too much trouble.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          The way the Klingons have ‘evolved’ over the many instances of the ST universes is always fun. But I REALLY like Worf. The scene in ‘Trials and Tribalations’ where he says ‘we don’t talk about them’ was a riot.

        • eric

          Can you actually argue that marriage is not equally available to both genders?

          (Absent gay marriage laws) I am not free to marry someone my sister is free to marry. Her choice is not equally available to me.

          And, as I pointed out below, your argument is exactly the same argument racists used to oppose Loving vs. Virginia. After all, when there’s a law forbidding blacks from marrying whites, the right to marry within ones’ own race is still equally available to all races. This logic – your logic – was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.

          Not sure how you can argue the US had culturally seen marriage as something other then one man/one woman

          Polygamy was only outlawed in the 1860s. The US was founded on July 4th, 1776. Since 1860s /= 1776, you are just factually and historically, wrong. For almost the first hundred years of the US as a country, the US government “saw” marriage as including polygamous relationships.
          This is really not hard to grasp. I don’t know why you continue to promote this obviously wrong idea; anyone with half a brain can look up the history of marriage in the US and find out that polygamy was only outlawed in the mid 1800s.

        • bman

          re: “….anyone with half a brain can look up the history of marriage in the US
          and find out that polygamy was only outlawed in the mid 1800s.”

          So, which states allowed polygamy by law?

    • Greg G.

      Isn’t marriage equal open to all as an act between people of opposite sex?

      Everybody is free to marry anybody they want to marry as long as you get to choose who they cannot marry.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        /s

      • Donalbain

        Mr and Mrs Loving were not prevented from marrying . They were perfectly free to marry someone of the correct race.

        • Greg G.

          Freedom means getting to decide who is the correct race. Freedom that is limited to a constrained range of marriage partners is meaningless freedom. It’s insignificant. We should want robust freedom.

        • And how do you feel about that? Are you OK with that law?

        • Donalbain

          I was being sarcastic.

        • Greg G.

          I was hoping you were. That is were the “/s” comes in handy. I forgot to add it to my post but HEWBT did it for me.

        • Donalbain

          I have moral objections to /s

        • Greg G.

          Then you are a good person.

        • bman

          re: “Mr and Mrs Loving were not prevented from marrying . They were perfectly free to marry someone of the correct race.”

          They were prevented from marrying because of their race.

        • Donalbain correctly characterized the racist viewpoint, that it was fair since everyone was burdened.

          It’s pretty embarrassing that Frank makes the same argument against same-sex marriage.

        • bman

          re: “It’s pretty embarrassing that Frank makes the same argument against same-sex marriage.”
          —-
          That is merely an outward similarity.

          Marriage restrictions that have a rational basis are fair when applied to everyone, whereas marriage restrictions that have no rational basis (such as the race of the partners) are unfair even if applied to everyone.

        • Frank said, “Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

          Why are you OK with that but not “Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of their race”?

        • bman

          Franksaid, “Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has thesame equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

          Why are you OK with that but not “Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of their race”?

          I am not OK with a legal marriage restriction based on race because it is irrational in the first place, but I am OK with Franks statement because it is rational to restrict marriage to opposite sex partners.

        • Lots of people 50 years ago thought that it was quite rational to restrict marriage based on race. The Bible has loads of prohibitions against marrying from those other tribes.

          You say it’s irrational; the Bible disagrees. I agree with you, but don’t think that there’s only one viewpoint.

        • bman

          “Lots of people 50 years ago thought that it was quite rational to restrict marriage based on race…You say it’s irrational…I agree with you, but don’t think that there’s only one viewpoint.

          The law of non-contradiction applies here.

          Wikipedia describes it thusly, “In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC)…states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true, e. g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.

          So, the issue is not whether “there is only one viewpoint,” but the issue is that “there can be only one correct viewpoint.”

          “…The Bible has loads of prohibitions against marrying from those other tribes. You say it’s irrational; the Bible disagrees.

          Contra your claim, I see a difference between a marriage restriction based solely on race versus the Bible’s restriction of marriage with other tribes.

          In my view, marriage restrictions in the Bible presume the moral decadence of other tribes would have an immoral influence on Israel generationally as a society, which is a different kind of restriction compared to one that is simply about racial biology.

          There are numerous articles online that explain this. For example, see article, Interracial marriage in the Bible.

        • Contra your claim, I see a difference between a marriage restriction based solely on race versus the Bible’s restriction of marriage with other tribes.

          And contra yours, the Bible says quite a bit about mixed-race marriages (inter-tribal marriages, if you prefer) and nothing about homosexual marriages.

          In my view, marriage restrictions in the Bible presume the moral decadence of other tribes would have an immoral influence on Israel generationally as a society

          No, not moral. God whining about all of Solomon’s ladies makes the issue clear: “[Solomon’s] wives tempted him to follow other gods.” Your article makes the same point with Deut. 7:1-6. God didn’t like the competition. Since there’s no objective truth about the claims for Yahweh over those for any other Mesopotamian god, the Bible had to have rules like this to tip the playing field in its favor.

        • bman

          ” ….the Bible says…nothing about homosexual marriages.”

          It also says nothing about three men getting married.

          No, not moral….Your article makes the same point with Deut. 7:1-6. God didn’t like the competition.

          That is still a moral issue because the worship of other gods is itself a departure from right moral principle, and the root cause of every form of immorality.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That is still a moral issue because the worship of other gods is itself a departure from right moral principle, and the root cause of every form of immorality.

          Don’t talk poppycock. It is only a moral issue from the in-group perspective ya dolt. It only became a moral issue when Judaism moved from polytheism to monotheism. The whole parcel of crap is relative. It’s also anachronistic, because if there was only one god, and that one god knew it was the only god, then worrying about minions worshiping a non-existent god, is no more different than minions turning atheist.

          It’s called apostasy. When believers defect, the coffers deplete and so the snake oil peddlers that suck in the gullible suffer accordingly. So they invented rules that were intended to frighten the minions to stay put. It isn’t a hard concept given a bit of thought. There are lots of examples of the same in other religions. Shunning a defector is a real thing.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

          ETA link

        • Raging Bee

          What rational purpose does the latter restriction serve, that the former does not?

        • bman

          “What rational purpose does the [opposite sex restriction] serve, that the [same race restriction] does not?

          I added brackets to show how I understand your question.

          I think the opposite-sex restriction orients society socio-morally toward natural human rights and principles of justice, but the same-race restriction orients society socio-morally away from natural human rights and principles of justice.

          A same-race restriction also supports my first premise that, “A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm society.”

          Premise 1: A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm society.
          Premise 2: A same race restriction wrongly redefines marriage socio-morally
          Conclusion: A same race restriction will harm society

        • Susan

          Premise 1

          Why all the pretentious nonsense? You don’t care whether your structure is valid or whether you can prove your premises. You tried this yesterday, Greg G. showed that your argument was not valid and when I pressed you to prove your premises, you were unable to.

          And rather than acknowledge that, or at least address it, you jumped ship and here you are again hitting the Reset Button.

          Why not just keep it simple? You are trying to suggest that extending the right to marry will harm society.

          State that clearly (as it’s obvious that’s what you’re implying) and then supportit.

        • bman

          ….Greg G. showed that your argument was not valid and when I pressed you to prove your premises, you were unable to….

          You seem to use the word “valid” to mean “using premises that have been proved,” and you seem to view my argument as not valid because I did not prove my premises.

          I reply that “validity” does not depend on what is proved.

          Wikipedia’s article on Valid Logic confirms that, “It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument’s conclusion.”

        • Susan

          You seem to use the word “valid” to mean “using premises that have been proved,

          No. Greg G. explained why your argument wasn’t valid.

          I granted its validity for the sake of argument to give you a chance to prove your premises.

          Which you couldn’t.

          Stop lecturing people on syllogisms. We know how they work. You don’t have a sound argument.

          Stop wasting comment space pretending to have some logical system in place and cut to the chase.

          You are suggesting that giving marital rights to homosexuals will harm society.

          You have been suggesting it for over a dozen comments now and when called on to demonstrate it, you don’t.

          Either make your case or stop insinuating.

        • bman

          “No. Greg G. explained why your argument wasn’t valid.”

          Greg essentially claimed that, but I am saying the criteria he used is not required for validity (i.e., that I must prove my unstated assumptions in premise 1).

          From my perspective, since a premise does not need to be proved to have validity, then unstated assumptions don’t need to be proved to have validity .

        • Susan

          the criterita he uses is not required for validity

          When you have an unstated assumption in the premises, both statements can be true and the conclusion false. So, no. It is not valid.

          But that’s irrelevant because you already said that you can’t prove your premises, so even if your structure were valid (a problem that you skirted by blocking Greg G.) you are unable to prove your premises.

          So, I’m going to say it again. STOP wasting everyone’s time with silly syllogisms that are not sound .

          And lectures on syllogisms. It’s a dodge and a clumsy one.

          And make your case. How many comments now bman? You’ve provided nothing but vile insinuations and exactly nothing to support it.

          Let’s try this:

          bman: “Extending marriage rights to homosexuals will harm society.”

          Now, support it or admit you have no case.

        • bman

          “When you have an unstated assumption in the premises, both statements can be true and the conclusion false. So, no. It is not valid.

          Can you provide a reference that confirms unstated assumptions always allow for that?

          If a conclusion logically results from [a true unstated presumption in the premises], I am inclined to think the [true unstated assumption] is logically implicit in the conclusion too, though it would remain unstated.

          Since the true assumption is not actually stated in the conclusion, I agree it could be misinterpreted as facially ambiguous or false, but the conclusion would actually be true and non-ambiguous because the implicit unstated assumption prevents that when understood as part of the conclusion.

          That said, I think Gregg’s rebuttal, which you describe, contains a logic error.

          I refer to where he said, “If [bman’s] understanding is wrong, then
          society could be improved by some redefinition of marriage, even if it is not correct.”

          That could result if my understanding is wrong, but isn’t this supposed to be about whether the conclusion would be true if the premises were true? How does one have “true premises” [if bman’s understanding is presumed wrong]?

          Doesn’t that amount to “false premises with a false conclusion” and not “true premises with a false conclusion” as you described it?

          It also seems to me that Gregg essentially redefines, “a wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage” to mean [an understanding of marriage that appears incorrect but is morally right in the final analysis and ahead of society’s wrong understanding] which conveniently redefines my premise in such a way that it can’t mean [actually] wrong, which is what I assumed “wrong” to mean.

          And since he replaces my unstated assumption with his, it should not be charged against my argument.

        • Susan

          This is absurd. Around 30 comments and you still have provided nothing to demonstrate that extending marriage rights is harmful.

          You’ve already admitted that you can’t prove your premises.

          You do not have a sound argument.

          You’ll have to use another strategy.

          Stop weaselling and make your case.

        • bman

          “This is absurd. Around 30 comments and you still have provided nothing
          to demonstrate that extending marriage rights is harmful.”

          I think you should take some credit for the many comments since you repeatedly made charges that warranted those responses.

          And if I “already admitted” I can’t prove my premises why do you ask me to do what I already said I can’t do?

          To clarify, I did not flatly say I could not prove my premises. Rather, I said (1) I did not think I could prove they are necessarily true, but you keep framing that as admitting I can’t prove my premises. That ignores what I did say, namely, that (2) I think I could persuade a fair minded jury my premises are more credible compared against your opposing premises.

          Since you declined to accept my challenge, why do you keep acting like you are waiting on me to prove my case?

          From my perspective, I am waiting on you to simply state a premise you think is more credible that could negate mine if it was true. I am not even asking you to prove the premise but to merely state it, but that seems more than you are willing to do.

          You say I do not have a sound argument. I accept that. However, I think I have a stronger argument that is more credible than your counter argument, if you ever got around to making one, that is.

          You say I need another strategy. This reply explains what my strategy is.

        • Susan

          I think you should take some credit for many of the comments as you repeatedly made charges

          I repeatedly asked you to prove your premises. You didn’t. I repeatedly asked you to stop using a pointless syllogism and to stop lecturing us on syllogisms. You didn’t.

          I repeatedly asked you to show the harm you claim exists in extending marriage rights to homosexuals. You didn’t.

          So, all the credit goes to you.

          You say that I do not have a sound argument.

          You said that you do not have a sound argument as you can’t prove your premises are necessarily true. Stop wasting time with pointless syllogisms and make your case.

          I think I have a stronger argument that is more credible

          In your imagination, so far. You have yet to provide any sort of argument. I keep inviting you to do so. Begging you to do so and you don’t. Either show your argument or stop wasting commenting space pretending you have one.

          than your counter argument

          I haven’t provided a counter argument. Pretending I have or that I need to when you present a syllogism is just wrong. It is your responsbility to show that your premises are necessarily true if you choose that structure. You can’t so it’s over. You’ll need to try another strategy.

          This reply explains what my strategy is.

          Weaselling and shifting the burden. It needs no explanation.

          I will ask you again, “What harm does extending marriage rights do to society?”

        • bman

          Looks likes another repeat of all you said before, and so please refer to what I said before as my response.

        • Greg G.

          Can you provide a reference that confirms unstated assumptions always allow for that?

          You were shown that by reductio ad absurdum. If the SSM is flawed but better than what precedes it, it will do less harm and be an improvement.

          Doesn’t that amount to “false premises with a false conclusion” and not “true premises with a false conclusion” as you described it?

          Your assumption is that your view of marriage is good and not harmful. So the first premise could be true while it is harmful. So even if SSM incorrectly redefines marriage, it could still benefit society by reducing the harm done by your definition of marriage.

          You just cannot conceive of the idea that you are wrong so you are blind to the logic.

          It also seems to me that Gregg essentially redefines, “a wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage” to mean [an understanding of marriage that appears incorrect but is morally right in the final analysis and ahead of society’s wrong understanding] which conveniently redefines my premise in such a way that it can’t mean [actually] wrong, which is what I assumed “wrong” to mean.

          I will simplify it for you. The SSM definition of marriage could still be wrong but less wrong than your definition.

          Perhaps the correct definition of marriage could allow more than two people, which would benefit a society in the aftermath of war that has caused a gender imbalance.

        • Natureboi

          (a problem that you skirted by blocking Greg G.)

          He blocked me when I backed him into a logic corner that he couldn’t get out of.

          These people will manipulate and justify until they reach a threshold of logic and cognitive dissonance.
          That’s when they cower and shut down the discussion.
          It’s a loser’s tactic.

        • epeeist

          You seem to use the word “valid” to mean “using premises that have been proved,”

          In logic “valid” means that the form of the argument is correct, thus:

          P1: All dogs are green;

          P2: Anything that is green is a fish;

          C: Therefore, all dogs are fish.

          is a valid argument. However it is not sound because the premisses are not true.

        • bman

          “…is a valid argument. However it is not sound because the premisses are not true.”

          That is how I understand it also.

        • Raging Bee

          You still haven’t answered my question: what rational purpose does a ban on same-sex marriage serve?

        • Susan

          What rational purpose

          None, but bman is going to dodge, weave and put on a pretentious performance. What he will not do is answer your question.

          He attempted another syllogism yesterday and abandoned ship when pressed. Check his commenting history.

          Now, he’s doing it again.

        • Natureboi

          it is rational to restrict marriage to opposite sex partners.

          Why?

        • bman

          re: “Why are you OK with that but not “Everyone already has equal marriage
          rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of their
          race”?”

          I answered this before but I would like to clarify a bit further.

          I note, first, your question depends on using a [fill-in-the-blank] word formula.

          Both sample statements use the formula, “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [fill in the qualifer].”

          We agree the statement becomes irrational if [of the same race ]is the added qualifier.

          However, that does not mean adding [a different qualifer] must also make the statement irrational.

          Indeed, a rational statement results if we fill in the blank with a rational qualifier.

          Some examples:
          a. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [in the adult age range].”
          b. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [not closely related].”
          c. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [of the opposite sex].

          All of those statements use the same formula as the [same race] example, but adding [a rational qualifier] makes the statements rational.

          Furthermore, Frank essentially said the same thing in his article, “To say that people with homosexual desires do not have equal [marriage] rights would be like saying people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal [marriage] rights.”

          A racial restriction denies mixed race couples their human right to marry, but no one is denied a human right to marry because siblings can’t marry, or denied a human right to marry because three men (or two men) can’t marry.

        • I note, first, your question depends on using a [fill-in-the-blank] word formula.

          That’s right. Frank’s anti-gay statement is of the same form as the anti-race statement.

          We agree the statement becomes irrational if [of the same race ]is the added qualifier.

          Not irrational, just morally wrong.

          Indeed, a rational statement results if we fill in the blank with a rational qualifier.
          Some examples:
          a. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [in the adult age range].”
          b. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [not closely related].”
          c. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [of the opposite sex].

          “One of these things is not like the other.” Can you guess which one?

          Which is the one that doesn’t cause harm? I bet you’re smart enough to figure it out!

        • bman

          “That’s right. Frank’s anti-gay statement is of the same form as the anti-race statement.”

          Statements A and B, which you seem to accept as OK, also have the same form as the same-race statement.

          Having the same form, therefore, does not mean a marriage restriction is akin to racism.

          “One of these things is not like the other. Can you guess which one? Which is the one that doesn’t cause harm? I bet you’re smart enough to figure it out!”

          Regarding “which one causes harm,” some will claim they are harmed by any existing marriage restriction.

          A woman with children by five lovers would see a monogamy restriction as a harm, because she can’t be married to all five men at the same time. A brother and sister might say they are harmed by the marriage restriction that prevents close relatives from marrying. Those who want to marry below the legal age of consent might say the age restriction causes them harm.

          Since any restriction can be perceived as causing harm, the relevant question is not “which one causes harm,” but which marriage restriction causes “unjustifiable” harm, a case you have yet to make.

          As for, “one of these things is not like the other” I see all three items (A, B, C) as similar to each other when viewed as “justifiable marriage restrictions,” and I see a [same race restriction] as the only mismatch because it is the only clause that entails an unjustifiable marriage restriction.

          In sum, although Frank’s statement has the same form as the same-race statement it also has the same form as the morally justifiable statements A and B, and that negates your form argument.

        • Regarding “which one causes harm,” some will claim they are harmed by any existing marriage restriction.

          Which is a topic for another day. We could talk about lots of things, but let’s stay on topic.

          No one in this conversation has a problem with restrictions on marriage. “Marriage” isn’t defined as “everything.”

          Since any restriction can be perceived as causing harm

          Again, let’s focus on the issue. You gave 3 options. Does a 40-yo man marrying a 12-yo girl cause harm? Most people say yes. Does a man marrying his sister cause harm? Most people say yes. Does a man marrying another man cause harm? Lots of people say yes, but I await the evidence. (I’m assuming “It makes me feel icky” and “It’s not my cup of tea” and “My straight marriage would be damaged” are not actual evidence.)

          the relevant question is not “which one causes harm,” but which marriage restriction causes “unjustifiable” harm, a case you have yet to make.

          My question is a simple one, What harm does SSM cause?

        • bman

          “Does a man marrying another man cause harm? Lots of people say yes, but I await the evidence….My question is a simple one, What harm does SSM cause?”

          The following article lists various harms of institutionalizing same sex marriage.

          Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

        • I began to read. “Marriage is all about making babies” and blah blah blah. Same old tired BS.

          If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.

        • bman

          I began to read. “Marriage is all about making babies” and blah blah blah. Same old tired BS. If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.”

          If the points in the article are true or even probably true then ssm poses long term socio-cultural harm to society.

        • Greg G.

          The article ends with:

          KEY TAKEAWAYS
          1. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

          2. Government can treat people equally and respect their liberty without redefining marriage.

          3. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

          1. Some men are sterile. Some women are sterile. Some are too old. Marriage is about a relationship. Children are not the purpose of marriage.

          2. There are other factors involved in marriage. Divorces happen. The government must define how joint property is divided in a divorce so it must define what a marriage is. A spouse can make life and death decisions for the other so marriage must be defined for that.

          3. Complete bullshit. It is the parents’ marriage that matters for the children. The neighbors’ marriage doesn’t matter.

          The article is special pleading by bigots for bigots.

        • bman

          1. Some men are sterile. Some women are sterile. Some are too old.
          Marriage is about a relationship. Children are not the purpose of
          marriage.

          The state’s interest in regulating marriage is to bring all sexual intercourse between men and women into a legal and socio-moral environment that facilitates orderly and responsible procreation and stable family structure for children.

          3. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

          “….It is the parents’ marriage that matters for the children. The neighbors’ marriage doesn’t matter.”

          The author did not mean “the neighbor’s marriage” would distance marriage from the needs of children.

          Rather, the author is saying that “redefining marriage” would eventually re-educate everyone from childhood to adulthood with a public concept of marriage that was detached from the needs of children, which would effectively distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

        • Greg G.

          The state’s interest in regulating marriage is to bring all sexual intercourse between men and women into a legal and socio-moral environment that facilitates orderly and responsible procreation and stable family structure for children.

          The state gives tax breaks to married people and for dependents to promote families. The state cannot force people to have children. People can have children without the benefit of marriage. Children benefit from good parents whether the parents are married or not while bad parents are detrimental to children and a bad relationship can make them bad parents, which is worse the more the children are exposed to it.

          The author did not mean “the neighbor’s marriage” would distance marriage from the needs of children.

          “Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children” is ridiculous. Children are affected by the relationship between their parents. Redefining marriage for others does not affect the parents’ relationship not the relationship to the children. That statement can only be referring to other people’s marriages.

          Rather, the author is saying that “redefining marriage” would eventually re-educate everyone from childhood to adulthood with a public concept of marriage that was detached from the needs of children, which would effectively distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

          You have a limited concept of marriage and relationships. Spouses stay together because they love each other and sometimes for the benefit of the children, not because they are married.

        • bman

          “The state cannot force people to have children.”

          Strawman. I said the state “facilitates” procreation across the entire population by regulating marriage. I did not say it “forces” people to have children.

          “People can have children without the benefit of marriage.”

          Yes, but having children without marriage is also the formula for creating all kinds of social ills on a population scale.

          On a population scale, the acceptance of having unmarried sex and children out of wedlock is a major contributing factor to high teen pregnancy rates, STDs, high abortion rates, single parent homes on welfare, cycles of divorce and remarriage, unsafe households for children due to revolving boyfriends in the home, an improper environment for child development, children raised without fathers, high rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, a poorly educated and unskilled work force, and a weakening of the nation where it can’t compete globally with other nations because it must import skilled workers from outside, etc.

          That is why society needs marriage and why it needs to educate children on a population scale to become adults with the correct socio-moral understanding of marriage.

          And its why society truly can’t afford to redefine marriage as you define it.

          A major harm of ssm is that it redefines the socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage around adult desires, and that wrong moral understanding will contriubute to long term cycles of social ills with no foreseeable solution.

        • Greg G.

          Strawman. I said the state “facilitates” procreation across the entire population by regulating marriage. I did not say it “forces” people to have children.

          So marriages that do not produce children do not inhibit those that do produce children in any way.

          Yes, but having children without marriage is also the formula for creating all kinds of social ills on a population scale.

          Poor parents are poor parents whether they are married or not. The problem is not solved by marriage.

          On a population scale, the acceptance of having unmarried sex and children out of wedlock is a major contributing factor to high teen pregnancy rates, STDs, high abortion rates, single parent homes on welfare, cycles of divorce and remarriage, unsafe households for children due to revolving boyfriends in the home, an improper environment for child development, children raised without fathers, high rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, a poorly educated and unskilled work force, and a weakening of the nation where it can’t compete globally with other nations because it must import skilled workers from outside, etc.

          That is why society needs marriage and why it needs to educate children on a population scale to become adults with the correct socio-moral understanding of marriage.

          The leading cause of divorce is marriage. If marriage can solve those problems, then you should be encouraging people to get married to people they want to be married to and who that is will never be any of your business.

          And its why society truly can’t afford to redefine marriage as you define it.

          Your argumentation is irrelevant or in favor of a redefinition of marriage. You are just to bigoted to see it.

          A major harm of ssm is that it redefines the socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage around adult desires, and that wrong moral understanding will contriubute to long term cycles of social ills with no foreseeable solution.

          A marriage is between two people. maybe more. Their marriage will be what they want. You do not get to tell married couples how to be married. Mind your own business and you will be much happier.

          Freedom means people do not have to make you happy. That is your job.

        • bman

          “A marriage is between two people. maybe more. Their marriage will be what they want. You do not get to tell married couples how to be married. Freedom means people do not have to make you happy.

          Your view of marriage [wrongly] presumes that partners have the freedom to define marriage any way they want (three men can marry for example under your model), but my view [rightly] presumes marriage is a public institution that partners enter but do not define themselves.

          The New Funk and Wagnalls Encylopedia (1955 edition) explains:

          Marriage is essentially a social practice, entered into through a public act, and reflects the purposes and character of the society in which its found.

          You appear to argue for a novel individualized concept of marriage that has no basis in sociological history.

        • Greg G.

          Your view of marriage [wrongly] presumes that partners have the freedom to define marriage any way they want (three men can marry for example under your model), but my view [rightly] presumes marriage is a public institution that partners enter but do not define themselves.

          Governments usually recognizes two people in a marriage. In the Bible and in the Far East, multiple wives have been permitted. The men liked it more than the women. In Vietnam, a man could have more than one wife until the French outlawed it after WWII. But that shifted the balance of power to the women as they had the threat of turning him over to the law if he mistreated them. After the war, there was a great gender imbalance so it was better to share a husband for the women.

          You appear to argue for a novel individualized concept of marriage that has no basis in sociological history.

          I think you are settling on one type of marriage that seems to follow from the Bible.

          Abraham had sons by two women, Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac had Esau and Jacob. According to Genesis 26:34; 28:9, Esau had three wives:
          Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite
          Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite
          Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael

          According to Genesis 36:2-3, Esau’s wives were:
          Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
          Oholibamah, daughter of Anah daughter of Zibeon the Hivite
          Basemath, daughter of Ishmael

          Either way, he was married to a cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother.

          Jacob fell in love with his cousin Rachel, who was his mother’s brother’s daughter. He agreed to be an indentured servant and would receive his daughter’s hand in marriage at the end. Laban, the father, pulled a switcheroo, and substituted a different cousin, Leah. Then made Jacob start over and he got to marry Rachel in the end. He also married Zilpah and Bilhah. He had six sons with Leah and two each with the other three.

          Solomon, called the wisest person of all time, had hundreds of wives and concubines.

          We can find other individual concepts of marriage that do have a basis in sociological history.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The New Funk and Wagnalls Encylopedia (1955 edition) explains:

          Seriously? Ya crazy Dime Bar!

          Give us a break…”New” in “1955”…social practices change, for the better is usually the case. Back in 1955 same sex relationships were illegal and punishment was either imprisonment or chemical castration. One of the last centuries most genius human beings and likely responsible for the allies winning WWII, was driven to suicide [assassination/accident?] because of the backward “social practices” of the day and religiously motivated bigots like you. That man was Alan Turing.

          Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, when by the Labouchere Amendment, “gross indecency” was a criminal offence in the UK. He accepted chemical castration treatment, with DES, as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, 16 days before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined his death as suicide, but it has been noted that the known evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning. In 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for “the appalling way he was treated”. Queen Elizabeth II granted him a posthumous pardon in 2013. The Alan Turing law is now an informal term for a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.

          It was a national disgrace how the man was treated at the time. So ya cram yer “social practices” trope where the sun don’t shine.

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092

          Back in 1955, spousal rape was also a legal social practice, as was beating ones children with a weapon. Both bad “social practices” we’ve moved away from, but not everywhere.

          It used to be deemed a good “social practice” to burn folk at the stake for a number of woo-woo infringements and child marriages, but we’ve moved on from that nonsense too.

          Thankfully, it’s only bigoted idiots that quote from something like “The New Funk and Wagnalls Encylopedia (1955 edition), the rest of us have moved on.

          Thankfully there are more up-to-date research that demonstrates you are talking shite.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Studies

          The thing is, your silliness is moot…the world, at least the more rational parts, have, or are in the process of legalizing SSM, to the consternation of dinosaurs such as yourself, bit of a bummer for the knuckle-dragging bigoted christers, anno…but there ya go.

          In 2001, the Netherlands[b] became the first country to establish same-sex marriage by law. Since then same-sex marriage has also been established by law in Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[c] (2013), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[e] (2015), Ireland (2015), Colombia (2016), Finland (2017), Malta (2017), Germany (2017), Australia (2017) and Austria (2019). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is performed in several states and recognized in all thirty-one states.[a] In the United Kingdom same-sex marriage has been established law in England, Wales, and Scotland, but not yet in Northern Ireland.

          It’s only a matter of time here in Northern Ireland. The government here is top heavy with creotards and christer bigots…but it won’t be forever.

          Anyway, as irksome as this all may be to you, shouldn’t you be encouraging it, as many christer commentators see it as a sign of impending end times, heralding in Armageddon and the return of your Lord of Heaven?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tLZiNNXOI

          Bunch of fucking bigoted idiots.

        • Greg G.

          Give us a break…”New” in “1955”.

          I noticed “1955” but overlooked the “New”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That bigoted rocket is away with the fairies.

        • epeeist

          That bigoted rocket is away with the fairies.

          This is Teresa May you are talking about yes?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haha…the fairies being those 10 creotard duppers she relies on of course.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Freedom means people do not have to make you happy. That is your job.

          Why do these buck-eejits insist on pitching up on sites such as these in order to spew out their ignorant bigotry, when a quick Google will show them they are just plain wrong, and in doing so, save them making embarrassing arseholes of themselves.

          The definition of marriage is not a one size fits all, as bman is trying to enforce. Even a cursory look at Wiki would be an education to the fool.

          Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage). The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions, but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A marriage ceremony is known as a wedding.

          Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by gender, socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns of the infringement of women’s rights, or the infringement of children’s rights (both female and male children), and because of international law. Around the world, primarily in developed democracies, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. These trends coincide with the broader human rights movement.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

        • Pofarmer

          This dude really needs to get out more.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I said the state “facilitates” responsible sex and procreation across the entire population by regulating marriage.

          I’ve read some garbage in my time….and that’s right up there with the best of it.

          Yes, but having children without marriage is also the formula for creating all kinds of social ills on a population scale.

          And exactly what has that got to do with folk in SSM?

          As I’ve noticed a pattern, you give simplified and generalized, unsupported assertions to very complex matters. Cohabiting parents come in a number of different guises.

          It’s too simple to compare married relationships with unmarried relationships and state one is better than the other. There are good and bad in both and the impacting factors are complicated.

          As we’ve seen, the link between parental cohabitation and child wellbeing depends on the type of cohabiting parent family and the age of the child. Children who are born to cohabiting parents appear to experience enduring negative outcomes. Yet stable cohabiting two biological parent families seem to offer many of the same health, cognitive, and behavioral benefits that stable married biological parent families provide. Cohabiting rather than married stepparent families are associated with more negative indicators of child wellbeing among young children, but not among adolescents. Certainly, there are exceptions to these conclusions. Further study that focuses on recent birth cohorts of children is warranted.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4768758/

          On a population scale, the acceptance of having unmarried sex and children out of wedlock is a major contributing factor to high teen pregnancy rates, STDs, high abortion rates, single parent homes on welfare, cycles of divorce and remarriage, unsafe households for children due to revolving boyfriends in the home, an improper environment for child development, children raised without fathers, high rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, a poorly educated and unskilled work force, and a weakening of the nation where it can’t compete globally with other nations because it must import skilled workers from outside, etc.

          None of which, if true as you’ve presented it, is even relevant to the same sex marriage discussion…so pah!

          That is why society needs marriage and why it needs to educate children on a population scale to become adults with the correct socio-moral understanding of marriage.

          And by that, you mean your narrow-minded bigoted christer version of correct socio-moral understanding of marriage? Amarite?

          And its why society truly can’t afford to redefine marriage as you define it.

          Too late…hard cheese…you’ve lost. It’s done already.

          A major harm of ssm is that it redefines the socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage around adult desires, and that wrong moral understanding will contribute to long term cycles of social ills with no foreseeable solution.

          Absolute unsubstantiated ballix from an ignorant or stupid religious bigot.

        • bman

          re: “Absolute unsubstantiated ballix from an ignorant or stupid religious bigot.”
          —-
          Due to rather intense snark and vulgarity in your posts, with the expectation that you will continue in that mode if I respond, I decline to respond further to your posts.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not a problem ya homophobic bigot…I already know you’ve got nothing…my comments are for the benefit of the not-entrenched among the lurkers…and for the shits and giggles some of the regulars might get.

        • bman

          Blocking user due to intense uncharitable approach and vulgarity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaaaaahahaha….You’re a dickhead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just block ya fucking moron…no need for the self centred declaration…nothing uncharitable about it…you are a homophobic bigot…as for vulgarity, grow a skin, it’s common parlance ffs.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Later to be demonstrated a liar….baby Jesus weeps.

        • Joslyn Renfrey

          [On a population scale, the acceptance of having unmarried sex and children out of wedlock is a major contributing factor to high teen pregnancy rates, STDs, high abortion rates, single parent homes on welfare, cycles of divorce and remarriage, unsafe households for children due to revolving boyfriends in the home, an improper environment for child development, children raised without fathers, high rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, a poorly educated and unskilled work force, and a weakening of the nation where it can’t compete globally with other nations because it must import skilled workers from outside, etc.

          A major harm of ssm is that it redefines the socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage around adult desires, and that wrong moral understanding will contribute to long term cycles of social ills with no foreseeable solution.]

          That is… an awfully large number of claims of causality that have been made. Do you have citations?

        • bman

          re: “That is… an awfully large number of claims of causality that have been made. Do you have citations?”

          I did not give citations because I think my claim is facially credible in the absence of supporting evidence.

          For example, suppose someone made the opposite claim, “There is no causality between the social ills listed and the social acceptance of unmarried sex/unmarried childbirth.”

          To me, that claim lacks facial credibility in the absence of supporting evidence, whereas my claim is facially credible in the absence of supporting evidence.

          That said, I found this article which seems to be a good starting point for finding relevant citations and research Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates

          Excerpt:

          “Of all adolescents, those in intact married families are the least likely to commit delinquent acts. Children of single-parent homes are more likely to be abused, have emotional problems, engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.

          Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into
          adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.”

        • Joslyn Renfrey

          [I did not give citations because I think my claim is facially credible in the absence of supporting evidence.]
          This isn’t how you conduct a conversation. In statistics, a lack of causality is the default hypothesis.

          [That said, I found this article which seems to be a good starting point for finding relevant citations and research Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates]
          Would this not be an argument for two men marriages in the way that it is posed as a problem of fatherlessness? More fathers are better?

          Otherwise this article does not seem to concern marriage (which would be more relevant to your original causal claims), only the comparison of multi-parent households to single-parent households, which, sharing the labor of child-raising seems like a pretty obvious way to reduce stress on single parents.

          Indeed, speaking from experience, my mum has had less stress during the raising of me and my siblings since finding a more compatible partner from my birth father, who is kind of a deadbeat who minimized his interaction with his children.

        • bman

          This isn’t how you conduct a conversation. In statistics, a lack of causality is the default hypothesis.

          I think that approach may apply in a rigid context of hypothesis testing, but the general rule of thumb for me is that common sense statements and established tradition have a presumption of validity until proved false by compelling argument, rather than the idea they are presumed false until proved with evidence.

          Would this not be an argument for two men marriages in the way that it
          is posed as a problem of fatherlessness? More fathers are better?

          In that case, why stop at two? Is having three married fathers better than having a married father and mother?

          “Otherwise this article does not seem to concern marriage (which would be
          more relevant to your original causal claims), only the comparison of
          multi-parent households to single-parent households, which, sharing the
          labor of child-raising seems like a pretty obvious way to reduce stress
          on single parents.”

          How do you reconcile that with this excerpt, “…children of intact married families
          are the least likely to engage in serious violent delinquency compared
          to children of single-mother, single-father, and mother-stepfather
          families.”

          If you were correct that it was not concerned with marrige but with multi-parent versus single parent, why would the article distinguish between “intact married families” and “mother-stepfather families” since both could have been viewed simply as multi-parent families?

        • Greg G.

          And this, “According to a 1990 report from the Department of Justice, more often than not, missing and “throwaway” children come from single-parent families, families with step parents, and cohabiting-adult families.”

          In other words, “throwaway children” come from poor parents.

          Is your solution to the problem to force homosexuals into unhappy heterosexual marriages?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And his go-to citation is like his 50’s fuckwittery…superseded by more recent research.

        • Greg G.

          He uses a dictionary from when my grandparents were younger than I am now.

        • Joslyn Renfrey

          [I think that approach may apply in a rigid context of hypothesis testing, but the general rule of thumb for me is that common sense statements and established tradition have a presumption of validity until proved false by compelling argument, rather than the idea they are presumed false until proved with evidence.]

          Its not common sense among us that having sex out of wedlock causes all the social ills you described.

          [In that case, why stop at two? Is having three married fathers better than having a married father and mother?]

          Why not have more than 2 parental figures? Indeed, my stepfather is a lot more engaged with myself than my birth father.

          [How do you reconcile that with this excerpt, “…children of intact married families are the least likely to engage in serious violent delinquency compared to children of single-mother, single-father, and mother-stepfather families.”

          And this, “According to a 1990 report from the Department of Justice, more often than not, missing and “throwaway” children come from single-parent families, families with step parents, and cohabiting-adult families.”]

          Well, for one, I don’t know if the article they cite for the first paragraph actually does measure the incidence of violence for children for mother-stepfather families, let alone trying to establish causality as apart from environmental effects (lest we allow more dubious conclusions that the alt-right like to make about black folks and disabled folks).

          Negative effects are also associated with being raised by parents of other marginalized minorities too, but we can’t separate those effects from environment and discrimination. We need causality, not correlation.

          For two, the second paragraph doesn’t cite anything.

        • bman

          Its not common sense among us that having sex out of wedlock causes all the social ills you described.

          Not sure who you mean by “us.” However, you seem to identify as a cultural marxist in your profile and as a transgender female.

          A brief search on the term “cultural marxism” produced some interesting definitions.

          An author named James Scott says:

          “Cultural Marxism, now called Political Correctness is a loaded gun that one puts to their own head. The narrative illusion normalizes the abnormal and is an elitist weapon over minions for citizen vs. citizen policing for establishment control.”

          Another definition of cultural marxism says,

          Cultural marxism: A social and political movement that promotes unreason and irrationality through the guise of various ’causes’, often promoted
          by so-called ‘social justice warriors’. These causes and their proponents are often contradictory and are almost never rooted in fact. Indeed, true argument or discussion with proponents of these causes is almost impossible, as most attempts at discourse descend quickly into shouting, name-calling and chanting of slogans.

          I bring this up because the “common sense” of a cultural marxist and transgender person would not be respresentative of common sense of the average person, which would negate your claim regarding common sense.

        • Joslyn Renfrey

          Actually I was making fun of nazi propaganda with that identification:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

          I thought that calling myself “cultural marxist scum” might be an indicator that I don’t take the concept seriously.

          – and I was not talking about my common sense (if “common” sense could reasonably be talked about in a single case), but, by the word “us”, the common sense of the commenters here more generally.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So crap pulled from yer arsehole….who’d have thought it?

        • Pofarmer

          Nearly everything you typed there is just – wrong. I mean, provably, factually incorrect. Maybe philosophically defensible, but balderdash in practice. You could do worse than reading here. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html Because for most of the societies in question, the same answers hold.

        • A single mother is a lesbian. She could have a legal marriage partner and create a better environment for the child(ren).

          But no–anti-SSM people just care about the ickiness, not about the children. It’s a smokescreen.

        • Raging Bee

          You’ve reworded the author’s claims, but they’re still clearly false; as is your allegation regarding “the state’s interest in regulating marriage.” Allowing SSM does NOT degrade the state’s ability to regulate marriage for the benefit of any children, natural or adopted.

        • bman

          Allowing SSM does NOT degrade the state’s ability to regulate marriage for the benefit of any children, natural or adopted.

          It degrades the state’s ability to regulate childbirth with marriage now that SSM law has detached marriage from sexual morality and procreation, and it degrades the ability of society to provide children a married father who stays in the home since it essentially tells men any adult (female or some other man) qualifies as a second parent.

        • Raging Bee

          “Conventional” marriage doesn’t guarantee any of those things either. So again, you have no reason to ban SSM.

        • bman

          “Conventional” marriage doesn’t guarantee any of those things either. So again, you have no reason to ban SSM.

          The moral code of society and law was once able to to provide children with married fathers who remained with the family. The sexual revolution misled society to abandon its moral code, which resulted in ssm law “officially” telling society that fathers aren’t essential in the home..

        • Susan

          The moral code of society and law was once able to to provide children with married fathers who remained with the family.

          I haven’t seen any sort of spike in “married fathers who remain with the family” leaving their families since marriage rights were extended to homosexuals. Do you have any evidence that there is?

          You seem to be yearning for a time when men could rape and beat their wives (and children) at will, and not be prosecuted. A time when women had no control over their own finances or bodies. A time when being black in the US meant you had to stay in your own neighbourhood and only take the jobs that reflected the station of your blackness. A time when priests could abuse children as much as they wanted without the state getting involved.

          You forget that the “moral code” often meant honouring “king” and/or “country” above the family and that that meant men going to war and never coming back. It also meant men being forced to take potentially fatal jobs just to feed their families and one day, not coming back.

          The history of the human race involves a lot of children raised without fathers.

          Many factors contribute to that problem.

          But extending marriage rights to homosexuals doesn’t seem to be among those factors.

          Can you provide any metrics that will show a connection?

        • bman

          Can you provide any metrics that will show a connection?

          The argument is not based on “metrics,” but is based on rational theory that changes in law eventually change social norms.

          Here is a relevant quote from the articleMarriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It:

          Insofar as society weakens the rational foundation for marriage norms, fewer people would live them out, and fewer people would reap the benefits of the marriage institution. This would affect not only spouses, but also the well-being of their children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children, but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

        • Susan

          The article is not based on “metrics”.

          But the right to marry has been extended to homosexuals for a long time now, in many places. Why don’t the metrics show children being harmed because of that change in law?

          The article is loaded with editorial terms that are unjustified.

          Insofar as society weakens the rational foundation for marriage

          This assumes that there is a single foundation for marriage and that it’s rational. And that extending marriage rights to homosexuals weakens something.

          it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

          That doesn’t seem to stop fathers who want to be fathers from being fathers.

          “Rationalizing” does not equal “rational”.

          You are suggesting that providing rights to homosexuals will harm children.

          So far, you have been unable to support it.

        • bman

          “That doesn’t seem to stop fathers who want to be fathers from being fathers.

          That misses the point that redefining marriage will send a message to many men that they don’t need to marry because they are not vitally needed as fathers.

          I refer you this article that does a good job at anticipating your questions, to include your request for metrcs.

          Some excerpts:

          “…..based on data from nations and US states
          that have adopted same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to predict that,
          over a generation, a forced redefinition of marriage would produce at
          least a 5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates. That would
          result in an increase of nearly 1.3 million never-married women, and an
          increase of nearly 600,000 functionally fatherless children.”

          “Evidence from states and nations that have legalized same-sex marriage
          confirms the danger that redefining marriage poses to children of
          heterosexuals. For example, statistical analysis
          of experience in the Netherlands—the first nation to legalize same-sex
          marriage—showed, after controlling for other factors, that the
          nationwide annual decline in opposite-sex marriage rates for Netherlands
          women aged eighteen to twenty-two went from 2.8 percent to 7.8
          percent—a net decline of 5 percent. When the population was further
          subdivided, the net decline in the marriage rate was even greater among
          some populations: a decline of 31.8 percent for young women in the four
          largest (and least religious) urban areas, and a 13.4 percent decline
          for young women who were born in the Netherlands.”

        • Susan

          That misses the point that redefining marriage will send a message to many men that they don’t need to marry because they are not vitally needed as fathers.

          I don’t see any connection at all.

          Nor any evidence that extending marriage rights to homosexuals has had any impact on how men behave as fathers.

          You haven’t shown the connection nor any evidence.

          that does a good job at anticipating your questions

          But it doesn’t seem to notice that where gay people have marriage rights, that there is no evidence that it affects the behaviour of heterosexual men in their roles as fathers.

          It’s religious BS. Bigotry bound up in imaginary beings.

        • Pofarmer

          I thought this was apropos here. I stole it from another thread.

          Logic is a systematic method of reasoning that allows us arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence.

        • Cynthia

          We have near-perfect conditions that replicate a controlled experiment. Since same-sex marriage was legalized in different places at different times, and since the earliest jurisdictions go back more than 10 years, we can crunch the data and see if there is any clear association between same-sex marriage being legal and other things that affect families. So far, there is nothing.

          I was impressed when conservative writer David Frum reverses his opposition to same-sex marriage by admitting that reality didn’t support the dire predictions. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.marriage/index.html

        • bman

          “I don’t see any connection at all.”

          I think that is possibly because you only accept deductive argument without giving due weight to inductive reasoning.

          It also seems you are using the same kind of mistaken approach that the political left typically uses where it dismisses the potential sociological harm of some new leftist social policy, only to be proved they were very wrong decades later.

          This article provides a brief review on that.

          The author shows occurrences where [leftists] did not foresee any connection to social harm, even though conservatives were able to correctly predict it.

        • Susan

          I think that is possibly because you only accept deductive argument without giving due weight to inductive reasoning.

          You’ve got to be kidding. I begged you repeatedly to stop using syllogisms and to stop lecturing us on syllogisms and to make a clear claim and to support it. I asked you to show the harm that gay marriage would do to society/children.

          That is, I specifically asked you to use inductive reasoning. I counted over thirty comments where you did everything but.

          So, where did you come up with the conclusion that I only accept deductive arguments and don’t give weight to inductive reasoning?

          NO. The reason I don’t see any connection is that you haven’t shown a connection.

          I’m not going to read a great, long article that might contain the point you think you are making.

          You already made me read an article from the Witherspoon Institute who used the infamous Regnerus study.

          If you are going to provide evidence in inductive reasoning, it’s bad form when it’s fake.

          For goodness’ sake. That article suggested that fewer Dutch women were getting married between 18-22 because of gay marriage.

        • bman

          Since you rejected the inductive reasoning used in both articles [not referring to my inductive reasoning which I agree I did not yet offer but was referring to theirs] I suggested that perhaps you were only accepting deductive arguments, or that you couldn’t see the connection due to a [leftist] approach.

          Most likely, you don’t need the article to understand the parallel I intended, but I think most people would find that article very insightful and worth saving the link for later.

          Regarding your claim that I haven’t shown a connection or provide any evidence, I think that mistates the case. While I did not offer my own argument, I showed a connection and provided you evidence when I quoted from and referenced the two articles.

          The fact you rejected them as being qualified does not mean nothing was offered.

          To me, your summary of prior events seems one sided, and seems to marginalize my side of that exchange. It would be too lengthy, however, for me to revisit my side in a chonological sequence.

          I simply call your attention to these facts: (1) I said my argument was tentative (2) I explained the order of events (step 1 and step 2) I was following (3) I said I think I can offer more credible evidence than you could offer (if you proposed a counter argument) but you refused (4) you kept pressing me to use “your” order of events but I refused (5) you never provided the reference to prove your claim on “unstated assumptions,” nor did you logically rebut my counter argument to your claim on that (6) at one point you affirmed my argument was valid but later backtracked (7) I did not claim to have a formally sound argument (8) I said I did not think I could prove my premises were “necessarily true (9) I referred you to my discussion with nb as where my arguments were being posted.

          On Regnerus, he responded to Cheng and company here.

          Excerpt:

          “To their credit, the authors helpfully pointed out a handful of cases that were questionable—respondents whose unlikely answers to other questions (like height, weight, etc.) suggest they weren’t being honest survey-takers. Such a critique is certainly fair and welcome; it’s part of the long-term process of cleaning and clarification in any dataset of substantial size. And removing those questionable cases actually strengthened my original analytic conclusions—and the authors say so: “. . . these adjustments have minimal effect on the outcomes . . . these corrections actually increase the number of significant differences . . .”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your argument is a lot of ballix. You’re a bigoted homophobic idiot. Do one already.

        • Raging Bee

          Instead of quibbling about inductive vs. deductive reasoning, why don’t you show us some actual evidence of harm done by the legalization of same-sex marriage, anywhere on Earth? Not just predictions of harm, actual empirical evidence of real harm? Do you have this, or do you not?

        • Susan

          Since you rejected the inductive reasoning used in both articles

          I rejected the reasoning in the first article and explained why. I also explained why I didn’t bother to read the second article.

          I suggested that perhaps you were only accepting deductive arguments

          Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

          or that you couldn’t see the connection due to a [leftist] approach.

          No. I couldn’t see the connection because there isn’t one there to see. The fact that I need justification to withhold rights from my fellow citizens does not make me a “leftist”.

          Not letting a convicted child rapist work at my local daycare is justified.

          Excluding homosexuals from marriage benefits and responsibilities is not justified. Until you justify it.

          As to Regnerus’s excerpt (and his entire response on Witherspoon), it fails to address the fatal flaws in his study. It is a bogus study based on many methodological errors that are made clear in the link I provided.

          That your principal point is that fathers won’t be fathers if gay people have marriage rights is also bogus.

          There is no evidence of that.

          It is horrifying though that Dutch women between the ages of 18 and 22 are less likely to be married than they once were and it’s all because of the gayz.

          Someone needs to do something about that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No. I couldn’t see the connection because there isn’t one there to see. The fact that I need justification to withhold rights from my fellow citizens does not make me a “leftist”.

          And the arsehole doesn’t think that is insulting?

        • bman

          Since you rejected the inductive reasoning used in both articles…

          “I rejected the reasoning in the first article and explained why. I also explained why I didn’t bother to read the second article.”

          By “both” I meant the two articles I quoted from. I also offered a third, but did not quote from it, which is the one I thought you did not read.

          The first article was Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It from the Heritage Foundation. Here is the key point from that.

          “…it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

          From my perspective, your response was much less substantive than the excerpt.

          You said, “That doesn’t seem to stop fathers who want to be fathers from being fathers.”

          That response misses the point. The excerpt means redefined marriage law will educate all males beginning at childhood that children do just fine without a father in the home since any multi-parent arrangement will do.

          The natural result of that kind of public message is to normalize a society where fewer fathers marry or stay married for the sake of their children.

        • Susan

          The excerpt means redefined marriage law will educate all males beginning at childhood that children do just fine without a father in the home since any multi-parent arrangement will do

          Except it doesn’t.

          The natural result of that kind of public message is to normalize a society where fewer fathers marry or stay married for the sake of their children.

          Nope. .

        • bman

          Nope.

          The excerpt statement has more explanatory power than your “nope” statement, which makes the excerpt the more credible of the two statements.

        • Susan

          The excerpt statement has more explanatory power than your “nope” statement, which makes the excerpt the more credible of the two statements

          No. The reason I said “Nope.” is because the excerpt has no explanatory power.

          If you would like to show how it does, help yourself.

          In the meantime, “Nope.” is the appropriate response.

        • Greg G.

          When a heterosexual man is considering a divorce from his wife, the mother of his children, one thing he does not enter his mind is marriages in distant states, marriages in the next town over, or the marriage status of the neighbors.

          A homosexual man in a heterosexual marriage might consider SSM in his decision to divorce his female wife, whom he married due to family and social pressures.

          If SSM was accepted and common place, there would be fewer fathers leaving their wife and children seeking their happiness if they could have pursued it without pressure to conform by marrying a woman.

        • ildi

          The traditional model of marriage is based on a strongly gendered division of labor between a breadwinning man and a homemaking mom. Husbands bring home the bacon. Wives cook it. In these marriages, often underpinned by religious faith, duty and obligation to both spouse and children feature strongly. In their ideal form, traditional marriages also institutionalize sex. Couples wait until the wedding night to consummate their relationship, and then remain sexually faithful to each other for life.

          Attempting to restore this kind of marriage is a fool’s errand. The British politician David Willetts says that conservatives are susceptible to “bring backery” of one kind or another. Many conservative commentators on marriage fall prey this temptation: To restore marriage, they say, we need to bring back traditional values about sex and gender; bring back “marriageable” men; and bring back moms and housewives.

          It is too late. Attitudes to sex, feminist advances, and labor market economics have dealt fatal blows to the traditional model of marriage.

          Most Americans support marriage, most Americans want to get married, and most Americans do get married. Why then is the institution atrophying among those with least education and lowest incomes?

          A lack of “marriageable” men is a common explanation. It is clear that the labor market prospects of poorly-educated men are dire. But the language itself betrays inherent conservatism. “Marriageability” here means, principally, breadwinning potential. Nobody ever apparently worries about the “marriageability” of a woman: Presumably she just has to be fertile.

          Here, the traditional marriage needs to be turned on its head. In many low-income families, it is the mother who has the best chance in the labor market. But this doesn’t make men redundant. It means men need to start doing the “women’s work” of raising kids. Although there is a lingering determinism about parenting and gender roles, recent evidence—in particular from Ohio State University sociologist Douglas B. Downey—suggests that women have no inherent competitive advantage in the parenting stakes.

          The children who can benefit most from high levels of parental investment, from both mom and dad, are the poorest. HIP marriages are an elite invention that could make the greatest difference in the poorest communities, if only attitudes can be shifted. Our central problem is not the slow retreat of the idea of traditional marriage. It is the stubborn persistence of the idea of traditional marriage among those people for whom it has lost almost all rationale.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/how-to-save-marriage-in-america/283732/
          [edit not sure link was working]

        • bman

          “The traditional model of marriage is based on a strongly gendered division of labor between a breadwinning man and a homemaking mom….Attempting to restore this kind of marriage is a fool’s errand.”

          The excerpt you cited presumes marriage can’t return to the “strongly gendered division of labor between a breadwinning man and a homemaking mom.”

          However, that is not my focus, and its not what comes to mind when I hear the words “traditional marriage.”

          I argue that Western society is caught in a down spiral of moral decline that must be solved because it poses a serious threat to ordered liberty that is essential to a free society.

          In 1798 the second President of the United States, John Adams, said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

          I think that warning applies today. I think it can only be solved by restoring a moral norm to society where marriage rates between men and women are stable and robust, where fathers stay married to their wives for life, and and where divorce rates, sexual immorality, abortions, unwed pregancies are outside the norm.

          If that socio-moral marriage norm is restored, I think any “division of labor problem” will probably work out by itself.

        • The country was in a downward moral spiral in the 1850s when the venerable institution of slavery was attacked, but we seem to have come out better from that incident. How do you know the same isn’t true here?

          where fathers stay married to their wives for life, and and where divorce rates, sexual immorality, abortions, unwed pregancies are outside the norm.

          Then focus on changes to society that will provide stable jobs and healthcare so that marriages can endure. Don’t like abortions? Then make sure that contraception is easy to get and sex education is thorough and accurate.

          For being so concerned about moral issues, I’m amazed that you don’t lead with actions that would improve the situation.

        • ildi

          I think it can only be solved by restoring a moral norm to society where marriage rates between men and women are stable and robust, where fathers stay married to their wives for life and where divorce rates, sexual immorality, abortions, unwed pregnancies are outside the norm

          The point is, this is just your definition of society’s moral norm – the point of reading what, you know, actual historians and sociologists have to say about it is that this has only been the “moral norm” in an unrepresentative time and place. You started off with the premise that SSM harms children, which you’ve never actually demonstrated; now you’ve moved to arguing that forced marriage and pregnancy provides the best environment for children, which you also haven’t demonstrated is the case. In fact, data show the opposite, but I’m not going to spend time digging for it, because “won’t somebody please think of the children!” is not really what you’re on about here.

        • bman

          re: “The point is, this is just your definition of society’s moral norm…”
          —-
          I mentioned the moral marriage norm in the context of a solution to a problem.

          Can you propose a better solution than a stable husband-wife marriage norm that will provide a robust foundation for healthy child development on a population scale, and that can be passed on from one generation to the next?

        • You’re saying, “Can you imagine a better family situation than the absolute best family situation?” No, I can’t. Focus on improving society so that more families have healthier environments.

          You’re tilting at windmills here–if a woman realizes that she’s a lesbian and is a single mom after a divorce, “a man in the family” ain’t gonna happen. She could maybe marry a woman, and that might improve the family a lot, but you’re determined to prohibit that.

          Kinda makes you a dick, doesn’t it?

        • bman

          You’re saying, “Can you imagine a better family situation than the
          absolute best family situation?” No, I can’t.

          I am saying society needs to rebuild a stable moral norm similar to what it had in the past, so that, in future generations, fathers and mothers marry and stay married, and raise their children together.

          I am saying it hurts future generations of children when society does not uphold and promote that moral norm.

        • You want to turn back the clock to the time when “racial purity” was a marriage standard?

          And I notice that you ran from my question about the single mom who’s now a lesbian. You want to prevent her marriage, a marriage that would strengthen her family. You wind up the bad guy in that scenario.

        • bman

          “You want to turn back the clock to the time when “racial purity” was a marriage standard?

          My comment was about restoring a stable and robust husband-wife marriage norm.

          I am sure you could have found a more rational interpretation for my statement without having to resort to racist innunedo.

          And I notice that you ran from my question about the single mom who’s now a lesbian. You want to prevent her marriage, a marriage that would strengthen her family. You wind up the bad guy in that scenario.

          To explain by analogy, suppose the lesbian discovers she is bisexual and wants a three-partner marriage with her existing husband, herself, and another female in order to “strengthen her family.”

          I think most voters would oppose that because they understand the monogamy norm is vitally important to the health and well being of society now and for future generations.

          My opposition to ssm-law is similar. I think ssm-law harms the husband-wife marriage norm, and also harms the monogamy norm, and that both norms are vitally important to the health and well being of society now and for future generations.

        • My comment was about restoring a stable and robust husband-wife marriage norm.

          That seems arbitrary. Why not biblical marriage—polygamy, concubines, sex slaves, and the like? Or are you one of those who think that the Bible has nothing to say about modern morality?

          To explain by analogy, suppose the lesbian discovers she is bisexual and wants a three-partner marriage with her existing husband, herself, and another female in order to “strengthen her family.”

          Sure, you could bypass the question yet again, or you could answer it. No? Can’t do that? Shows the weakness in your position too blatantly?

          I think most voters would oppose that

          “Most voters”?? Uh, well, that doesn’t seem like where you’d want to go, but sure, let’s go with “most voters.” Most voters want same-sex marriage legal in the US.

          I think ssm-law harms the husband-wife marriage norm, and also harms the monogamy norm, and that both norms are vitally important to the health and well being of society now and for future generations.

          Fascinating. My wife and I have been married for 38 years. Two kids. And you say there’s a threat to my marriage? Tell me more. How does a gay marriage (several of which I’ve attended) affect my marriage in the least??

        • bman

          “Sure, you could bypass the question yet again, or you could answer it.
          No? Can’t do that? Shows the weakness in your position too blatantly?”

          I answered it.

          Just as voters who protect the monogamy norm are not bad guys, we who protect the husband-wife marriage norm are not either.

        • Susan

          I answered it.

          Where did you do that? I only saw in your comment history that you changed the subject. i.e. that you brought up another political issue that isn’t on the books and counted on our concerns about the consequences about that issue if it enters the queue.

          You neither answered Bob’s question nor addressed the consequentialism that your implications invoke.

          Just as voters who protect the monogamy norm are not bad guys

          Who are these voters? What do they vote for? Is monogamy beneficial? Yes. Is enforced monogamy, no matter what the circumstances beneficial? Not necessarily. Is monogamy between homosexuals beneficial? Yes. But you’re against it.

          We protect the husband-wife marriage norm

          No. I don’t see you doing anything to protect marriages between a man and a woman. Once you make that the only acceptable relationship pattern, you start meddling with what men and women can do in their monogamous relationship. “Norms” are not necessarily healthy and “healthy” is not necessarily normal.

          But let’s get back to your endless and endlessly unsupported implication that providing civil rights for homosexuals harms children.

          Thousands and thousands of comments and you haven’t provided a single thing to support it.

          Hint: Worrying that it might make men leave their families is not support. You have to show it.

          Also, you ignored my point about the RCC and the harm they do to children and still get away with and the harm done to children by threatening them and/or people they love with eternal torment without worrying if they can support those claims.

          If you were sincerely worried about harm to children, you would have looked for at least correlation by now, and shown it, and then, looked for causation and shown it. You haven’t done either.

          Also, you’d be all over your church for protecting and enabling child rapists to this day. And for threatening children and/or the people they care about with eternal torment that is completely unsupported.

          Don’t pretend it’s “about the children”.

        • I answered it.

          Did you? It sure didn’t look like it.

          So answer it again. Here’s my challenge: a single mom is now a lesbian. You want to prevent her marriage, a marriage that would strengthen her family. So, in other words, you are against improving families.

          Defend yourself.

        • bman

          re: “So, in other words, you are against improving families.”

          Same answer as before.
          Just as protecting the monogamy norm is not “against improving families,” even though it prevents non-monogamous marriages, protecting the husband-wife norm is not “against improving families” even though it prevents non husband-wife marriages.
          Since those two norms protect families on a population scale, the net effect of defending them is to protect families on a population scale.

        • Gibberish. Thank you.

        • bman

          re: “Gibberish. Thank you.”

          That is one alternative. The other is that you do not believe monogamy and husband-wife marriage protect family stability on a population scale.

        • I’m straight-married. There’s no disturbance in the force proportional to the number of gay marriages performed in my county, state, or country. One or a thousand, I simply can’t tell. Therefore, it affects me not at all. Therefore, I’m fine with it–if it makes someone else happy and it takes nothing from me, what’s not to like?

        • TS (unami)

          +100k, @BobSeidensticker:disqus 🙂

        • 😀

        • Rudy R

          Bob, been following your discussion with bman and have a thought. To steal a comedy sketch from Bill Maher, “I don’t know for a fact…I just know that it’s true that Conservative theists simply lack the empathy gene for those people they don’t know. Liberal theists seem to have this gene. Conservatives simply cannot walk a mile in a Gay’s shoes. Sen Rob Portman was vehemently was against Gay rights and marriage until his son outed himself. Then he was all for his son’s Gay rights. I could name other well-known Conservatives who made that change. I’m willing to bet bman is a Conservative that does not have close family members or friends who are Gay.

        • Brilliant! In fact, I’ve written a post about that; I called it the Portman Effect—when thinking through an opportunity to prevent bias doesn’t do it for you, but when that person pops up in your own family, suddenly you get it.

          Humans are both very good at imagining a hypothetical situation and acting on the results of that thought experiment and very bad at it.

          bman, if you’re listening, what interactions with homosexuals have you had in your life?

        • Greg G.

          if it makes someone else happy

          Puritanism is like that. Nobody could possibly be happier than a Puritan. If someone is happy but not a Puritan, they must be stopped.

        • bman

          There’s no disturbance in the force proportional to the number of gay marriages performed in my county, state, or country.

          I don’t claim that harm to the marriage norm would come from increased numbers of gay marriages.

          Rather, I claim ssm law will harm the marriage norm by the message it sends to heterosexual society – that children do not need a married mother and father, which is also like saying marriage is not morally important to society any longer.

          The number of gay marriages is not the issue but the issue is the effect ssm law would have on society’s view of marriage.

          Consider, also, that future generations will be more affected by that message than the present generation because the present generation was raised to believe differently, but future generations will be raised from the cradle to believe the ssm-law message.

        • I claim ssm law will harm the marriage norm by the message it sends to heterosexual society – that child ren do not need a married mother and father, which is also like saying marriage is not morally important to society any longer.

          Uh, yeah—single mothers and fathers make clear that children do not need a married mother and father. Studies do show the obvious, though, that a second parent is a big plus.

          Where did this connection that marriage = children come from? I guess anti-choice advocates brainstorming things that are easier for straight couples and then morphing your definition of marriage to say that that’s what it’s all about? Show me in the marriage vows the part about having children. And explain again the part about how it makes sense for you to stand in the way of a lesbian single mother getting that second parent.

          The number of gay marriages is not the issue but the issue is the effect ssm law would have on society’s view of marriage.

          Yes, society would see an expanded view of marriage, just like it saw it after Loving v. Virginia (1967). Society is becoming more generous—good thing.

          Consider, also, that future generations will be more affected by that message than the present generation because the present generation was raised to believe differently, but future generations will be raised under the ssm-law message.

          That’s how it works. The majority of Americans in the 50s, I believe, thought that laws against mixed-race marriage made sense. Young people today don’t know that time, and they see mixed-race married couples as just part of the background. The same transition is happening with SSM, as you dinosaurs die off. That’s a good thing.

          BTW, triggered by a comment from someone else, what is your personal interaction with homosexuals? Do you know any, work with any? Have you attended a SSM ceremony? Etc. Maybe God will use homosexuals within society to change your heart of stone to a heart of flesh.

        • bman

          re: “Uh, yeah—single mothers and fathers make clear that children do not need a married mother and father. ”

          Make that the public-law message future society believes, and you can expect more single parent homes and less numbers of homes with a married father and mother.

        • Thanks for sidestepping all the parts of the comment that gave you difficulty. I wouldn’t want you to challenge your beliefs.

          People already see single mothers, and we have a balancing act to praise them for their more-difficult role but also encourage 2-parent households. How is this new? Your arguments suck if this is what you lead with.

        • bman

          “Thanks for sidestepping all the parts of the comment that gave you difficulty. I wouldn’t want you to challenge your beliefs.”

          They were red herrings so I ignored them.

          Anyway, here is a brief response:

          “Where did this connection that marriage = children come from?” – Virtually every known civilization has linked marriage with responsible child birth.

          “Show me in the marriage vows the part about having children.” – Since humans can’t control what happens in the womb, how can they vow to have children?

          “And explain again the part about how it makes sense for you to stand in
          the way of a lesbian single mother getting that second parent.” – Key word there is “again.” It shows I already answered that before.

          “….what is your personal interaction with homosexuals” – That attempts to make me the subject of discussion, which amounts to ad homimen fallacy. The discussion should focus on the argument, not the person making the argument .

        • “Thanks for sidestepping all the parts of the comment that gave you difficulty. I wouldn’t want you to challenge your beliefs.”
          They were red herrings so I ignored them.

          Cute answer! I’m never very good at thinking up bullshit ways to hide my scampering away from a compelling argument. I’ll have to remember that retort if I ever do that.

          Anyway, here is a brief response:

          Wait, what? I thought they were red herrings.

          “Where did this connection that marriage = children come from?” – Virtually every known civilization has linked marriage with responsible child birth.

          Then I guess the good ol’ U. S. of A is breaking new ground. Neither the marriage license you sign with the state (any state) nor the marriage vows in the traditional wedding has any mention of child birth.

          “Show me in the marriage vows the part about having children.” – Since humans can’t control what happens in the womb, how can they vow to have children?

          (1) So you’re admitting that I’m right. Next time, just come out and say so, like an adult.

          (2) If there actually were a connection (there’s not, and you’re just weaving lies out of bullshit), you could think of a dozen ways to work it in. A promise to raise children in a certain way, if you do have them; a declaration that the marriage is void after the couple becomes too old to have children (or when they become empty nesters); a promise to try to have them, with the marriage voided if you don’t deliver; a mandatory fertility test beforehand; etc.

          That none of this exists makes clear that your imagined child/marriage connection is a lie.

          “And explain again the part about how it makes sense for you to stand in
          the way of a lesbian single mother getting that second parent.” – Key word there is “again.” It shows I already answered that before.

          Then share it with us again so you can brag. You got nothin’. You’re pro-marriage except when you’re not. You’re pro-child except when you’re not. The only consistent thing about every aspect of your position is homophobia. Just come out and say that you hate fags or that they make you feel icky or that you have latent homosexual attraction or that you watch gay porn or whatever so we can drop this issue and move on.

          “….what is your personal interaction with homosexuals” – That attempts to make me the subject of discussion, which amounts to ad homimen fallacy. The discussion should focus on the argument, not the person making the argument .

          More evasion. Noted.

        • bman

          Wait, what? I thought they were red herrings.

          That did not change , even though I answered them.

          Then I guess the good ol’ U. S. of A is breaking new ground.

          Yes, and that is also why we say marriage was not “expanded” but “redefined” to something different.

          “That none of this exists makes clear that your imagined child/marriage connection is a lie.

          The mere fact you call it an imagined lie shows you are unfamiliar with marriage law, marriage history, and marriage morality.

          Some excerpts:

          In Poe v. Harlan Justice Harlan wrote:

          “…the very inclusion of the category of morality among [legitimate] state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community…but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well [i.e., moral norms]…The laws regarding marriage …provide when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, [that means marriage law aimed at regulating sex and procreation] as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices…confining sexuality to lawful marriage..”

          In Murphy v. Ramsey, and quoted in Davis v. Beason,

          “…no legislation can be supposed more [morally] wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth…than…[law based on] the idea of the family…springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranteeof that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. ”

          And this excerpt from Wikipedia on marriage in ancient Rome,

          “The word matrimonium, the root for the English word “matrimony”, defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother),it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens”

          Then share it with us again..

          No need to repeat it.

        • That did not change , even though I answered them.

          Golly. What a guy.

          Then I guess the good ol’ U. S. of A is breaking new ground.
          We seem to agree on that point. It is also why we say marriage was not “expanded” but “redefined” to something different.

          We agree? We’d better clarify what we now agree on. You said, “Virtually every known civilization has linked marriage with responsible child birth.” And then I said, “Neither the marriage license you sign with the state (any state) nor the marriage vows in the traditional wedding has any mention of child birth.”

          So you’re agreeing that the US is unlike “virtually every known civilization.” Now that we have that done, I suggest you move on to understand the wedding vows and license in other countries. Do they link “marriage with responsible child birth”? Show us.

          In Poe v. Harlan

          Huh? You mean Poe v. Ullman (1961)?

          Justice Harlan wrote:

          In 1961, most children were being raised in mother/father families. There were other families—single parent, child living with relatives, child as a runaway, child living with an unmarried homosexual couple, and so on. Harlan is ignoring the exceptions (which I don’t particularly mind in this context) and observing that children usually grow up living with a married couple. He’s not saying they should or making any other moral demand. He’d be shocked by SSM, I’m sure, but so what? He was from a different time, and society changes. That his viewpoint is outmoded is evidence when he mentions laws against adultery, fornication, and sodomy.

          Times have changed, Justice Harlan.

          ”Then share it with us again..”
          No need to repeat it.

          I’m sure you’re right—it wouldn’t strengthen your position, if your other arguments are any indication.

        • bman

          Info: I edited my previous post slightly about twenty minutes after I first posted it. I mention that because you responded to the first posting. The edited version clarified a few statements, but the sense is basically the same. At that time no one had yet responded.

          So you’re agreeing that the US is unlike “virtually every known civilization.”

          I agree that has become the case now that ssm is national law.

          ” I suggest you move on to understand the
          wedding vows and license in other countries. Do they link “marriage with responsible child birth”? Show us.

          I haven’t researched the vows or the license terms in other countries.

          However, if we use the US (prior to ssm law) as a proxy, the traditional vows do not mention childbirth, and the license applications in various states probably don’t mention childbirth.

          That does not mean there is no connection. It only means we must look to case law, legal presumptions (that explain why only opposite sex partners can have a marriage license, and why closely related partners are denied a marriage license), plus the historical, sociological, and religious connections to marriage.

          Huh? You mean Poe v. Ullman (1961)?

          Correction noted. Editing error on my part.

          [Justice Harlan’s] not saying they should or making any other moral demand. He’d be shocked by SSM, I’m sure, but so what? He was from a different time, and society changes.

          Your original claim was that the connection between marriage and responsible sex/procreation was an imagined lie. The quotations from Harlan and others refuted that charge by showing the connection was historically understood.

          As for now being a different time, I am arguing about the connection with marriage law before ssm law changed it.

          Your claim is moot that Harlan is not making any moral demand. He explained the moral principles behind marriage law, and did not need to make a demand to do that.

          “He was from a different time, and society changes. That his viewpoint is outmoded is evidence when he mentions laws against adultery, fornication, and sodomy.

          Social change due to moral decline is not a fitting standard for what is moral, or how people should conduct themsevles sexually.

          Harlan describes the morality of sex and marriage as it was before the moral decline brought about by the sexual revolution.

        • So you’re agreeing that the US is unlike “virtually every known civilization.”
          I agree that has become the case now that ssm is national law.

          Wow—you’re a moving target, aren’t you? I have no idea what you’re saying here since it changes with each post. Jesus doesn’t like liars.

          Your argument that marriage is always tied to having children fails.

          I haven’t researched the vows or the license terms in other countries.

          Then don’t make sweeping claims about “virtually every known civilization.”

          However, if we use the US (prior to ssm law) as a proxy, the traditional vows do not mention childbirth, and the license applications in various states probably don’t mention childbirth.

          Correct. Dial back the inherent connection in your mind between the two.

          That does not mean there is no connection.

          Flailing around yet again? I’ll type slow so you’ll understand: when someone gets married, they make promises, but none of those have anything to do with having children. Drop the argument.

          And while you do, I’ll highlight the fact that your opposition to SSM when it would turn a single parent into a couple (and improve a child’s life) reveals your hypocrisy. No, apparently it’s not all about the children.

          Your original claim was that the connection between marriage and responsible sex/procreation was an imagined lie. The quotations from Harlan and others refuted that charge by showing the connection was historically understood.

          Wrong again. As I made clear, Harlan was simply observing that most children would be raised in a 2-parent family. Yup, that’s true. That doesn’t create an obligation.

          Harlan describes the morality of sex and marriage as it was before the moral decline brought about by the sexual revolution.

          And yet that’s not what he says. Sad.

        • bman

          “Your argument that marriage is always tied to having children fails.”

          If you think I said marriage law always requires having children, I never said that.

        • Read the marriage license couples sign or the marriage vows they say. That is where you find out what marriage is.

          The “but marriage is all about the babeez!!” argument is bullshit. Drop it.

        • bman

          It seems you are arguing against something I am not saying.

          Can you please state what you think I am claiming?

        • Susan

          Can you please state what you think I’m claiming?

          How about you just state what you are claiming in clear English?

        • bman

          re: “I have no idea what you’re saying here since it changes with each post. Jesus doesn’t like liars.”

          From John 18: 37, “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

          Jesus requires truth, as you claim.

          In the interest of truth, fair play also requires that you prove there was a lie or retract your claim.

          Therefore, please quote my statement verbatim that you claim is a lie and prove the statement was false, or retract your accusation.

        • it’s the collection of your statements, a moving target that appears to be deliberate.

          But hey, it worked! I completely forgot what we were talking about!

        • bman

          re: “it’s the collection of your statements, a moving target that appears to be deliberate.

          Different facets of the same diamond.

        • Ah, yes–a diamond. That’s the comparison I was groping for.

        • bman

          re: “Ah, yes–a diamond. That’s the comparison I was groping for.”

          The analogy means a collection of statements can describe different aspects of the same truth.

        • Susan

          The analogy means a collection of statements can describe different aspects of the same truth.

          Bob understands the analogy. He was being sarcastic. He was implying that it’s a terrible analogy.

          Analogies won’t help you if you provide no foundation for claiming something is part of a “truth”.

        • Susan

          I completely forgot what we were talking about!

          It’s easy. Providing civil rights to fellow citizens will harm children.

          In his thousands of comments on Disqus, he keeps insinuating it, but can’t show it.

          His little victories are that he thinks he almost got you!

          He pretended it’s your burden to show that he’s wrong.

          Of course, it’s not. But that’s what happens when you make honest efforts to engage with bman.

          He interprets that as your duty to prove him wrong.

          Fuck.

        • Susan

          In the interest of truth

          You’re not interested in truth. Not so far, anyway.

          fair play also requires that you prove there was a lie or retract your claim

          No. That is burden shifting. No one has to prove there is “a lie”. We just have to note that you haven’t supported your “truth” claim. Stop bullshitting. People have been extremely charitable for a very long time and your comment history on the Disqus internet (and your comment history here) shows that you have nothing to support your nasty insinuation that providing rights to our fellow citizens will harm children.

          please quote my statement verbatim that you claim is a lie and prove the statement was false, or retract your accusation.

          It’s so pathetic, bman. Bob didn’t claim a lie and he has no burden to claim your statement is false.

          But that’s all you have, isn’t it? No support for your claim.

          And after many charitable attempts from your interlocutors (suggestions about how to frame your argument, requests that you support your argument and much more), all you have is your wet-noodle coup de gras: “Prove I’m wrong”.

          Come back to us when you’ve studied logic and evidence from sources that take those ideas seriously. Instead of anti-civil rights sources based on belief in Yahwhehjesus.

          Show… your… work.

          Fuck.

        • Grimlock

          On a totally unrelated note, I’m still waiting for a response from you to a couple of responses I made to you two weeks ago. I suspect you don’t mean to implicitly concede the points made.

        • Phil

          “moral decline brought about by the sexual revolution” Can you explain what was/is immoral and how it went into decline?

        • Natureboi

          I am arguing about the connection with marriage law before ssm law changed it.

          How has allowing ssm changed marriage law?

        • Greg G.

          I answered it.

          It is very easy to post a link to where you answered it. Claiming to have answered it when you simply replied to the post is not the same as supporting your claim.

        • Susan

          Can you propose a better solution than a stable husband-wife marriage norm

          Well..let’s see…some of the things that make that a good solution are that having a strong family unit is beneficial to children.

          So, having two parents is beneficial to children.

          The problem with that is that people who believe in apparently imaginary and unsupported deities that men in robes who wave incense around believe in , keep propogating this accusation that all sorts of social ills are caused by the gayz.

          So two men or two women who form a family unit and provide a a stable family unit for children are so disordered (because men in robes who wave incense around say it will be the ruin of children and society), that the children are treated badly and given false information about the legitimacy of their family.

          This used to be the case of “mixed-race marriages” (whatever that means.) ” But think of the children” while I clutch at my pearls.

          You have to show that two men or two women who form a stable family are not as capable as a man and a woman who form a stable family. But you haven’t been able to. And in societies where equal rights are provided for homosexuals, there is no data that shows that homosexuals can’t form a strong family unit that benefits children.

          If there were, you would have provided it.

          But you don’t seem to care. You just believe down in your bellyhole that men in robes waving incense around are speaking on behalf of an (apparently) imaginary deity.

          But they’re not.

          They are just men in robes waving incense around until you can show otherwise.

          In the meantime, until you can show actual harm that is being done to children (like… I don’t know… priests raping children for centuries and defying secular protections for those children, and being protected by the political and financial power of the RCC when they do so… or… say… teaching children that they and people they love will burn forever if they don’t accept that message…)

          then fuck off until you can support your nasty insinuations, you indoctrinated bigot.

        • bman

          re:… you indoctrinated bigot.
          —-
          Don’t blame me for what you misread into my question.

          The problem is how to get fathers and mothers to marry and stay married so it is the norm from one generation to the next.

          Anyway, you know I block users for vulgarity and for making accusatory statements so don’t accuse me of using that as an excuse. It was your responsibility to remain civil.

          User blocked for vulgarity and unjustified, uncharitable, accusatory comments that are based on a prejudiced misrepresentation of my statements.

        • Susan

          Don’t blame me for what you misread into my question.

          I didn’t misread a thing. You have never supported your claim that providing equal rights to homosexuals harms children. One can see from your commenting history that you repeat the same things over and over again, that you have for thousands of comments, and that you don’t care if you can show that they’re true.

          Even when people have gently provided ways in which to do so if you can, that you can’t.

          Face it. You can’t. If you were honest, you’d begin there.

          One can also see that doesn’t seem to bother you, and that you dodge and weave until you’re cornered, until all you have is links to disreputable sources who lie about climate change, biology, and sociology, evolution and scepticism. They lie and lie and lie and their lying is demonstrable.

          What you haven’t ever done is shown a link between homosexuals having civil rights and harm to children.

          I can show a link between believing men in robes who wave incense around, claiming to speak for an (apparently) imaginary deity harming children. I gave only two examples.

          There are more.

          Here are the two I gave:

          1) Creating an institution that has the power and uses it to rape children and get away with it.

          and

          2) Threatening children with eternal torment and the people they love with eternal torment when there is no support for that claim except what the cult says.

          you know I block users for vulgarity and for making accusatory statements

          I know you prefer to block people rather than deal with their points.

          I know you prefer to deprive perfectly good and capable people of civil rights when you can’t show that providing those civil rights harms anyone.

          I know you support an institution that claims to hold moral ground while they protect child rapists and threaten children (and the people those children love) with eternal torment, when there is no basis for that threat.

          And I know you justify your inability to respond to that because a perfectly civilized adult on the internet used a perfectly harmless combination of four letters that means you can excuse yourself from all responsibility.

          To that, I say:

          Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck.

          And go fuck yourself on the way out.

          (Gasp)

        • Pofarmer

          So, it’s unevidenced bile so what?

        • Raging Bee

          The argument is not based on “metrics,” but is based on rational theory that changes in law eventually change social norms.

          In other words, it’s based on nothing but unfounded speculation, with no one making any attempt to verify whether the predictions of dire consequences are coming true at all. Which means you still have nothing.

        • Pofarmer

          The mind just boggles at the stupid. Nice job.

        • Raging Bee

          The “sexual revolution” did no such thing; and SSM does not “officially tell” fathers anything.

        • Susan

          If the points in the article are true

          If monkeys fly out of my ass…

          then ssm poses long term socio-cultural harm to society

          It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It won’t.

          No more harm than osm.

          If you can show it, do it.

          That is, if you’re going to play clever with deductive arguments, prove your premises.

        • bman

          re: “…prove your premises.”

          Here is a tentative argument.

          Premise 1: A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm society.
          Premise 2: Ssm wrongly redefines marriage socio-morally.
          Conclusion: Ssm will harm society.

        • Greg G.

          You didn’t prove your premises and it even if you did, the conclusion doesn’t follow until you prove the unstated assumption in Premise 1. You have to prove that the socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage is better than the redefinition of marriage by SSM. It could be that your socio-moral understanding of sex and marriage is wrong and SSM would make things better than your definition. But if SSM correctly redefines marriage, then we should do it.

          Your argumentation so far has shown that you do not have any good arguments so you are grasping at straws.

        • bman

          re: “You didn’t prove your premises and it even if you did, the conclusion doesn’t follow until you prove the unstated assumption in Premise 1.”

          I stated my premises to open the discussion. I delay proving them until later as discussion develops.

          I disagree with your claim, however, that “the conclusion does not follow” until premise 1 is proved.

          In logic, a conclusion is said to be “valid” that follows necessarily from the premises given, regardless of whether the premises are proved or not.

          If a premise is false, however, such a conclusion is viewed as valid but the argument is viewed as “unsound,” and if the premises are true the conclusion is viewed as valid and the argument viewed as “sound” and conclusively true.

          So, the question at this point is not whether my premises are true, but the question is whether the conclusion “would” be true if the premises were true.

        • Greg G.

          I disagree with your claim, however, that “the conclusion does not follow” until premise 1 is proved.

          I said “until you prove the unstated assumption in Premise 1.” Your unstated assumption is basically your conclusion. You are assuming that your “socio-moral understanding of marriage” is not wrong. If your understanding is wrong, then society could be improved by some redefinition of marriage, even if it is not correct.

          Premise 1. A wrong nutritional diet will harm society’s health.
          Premise 2. A diet consisting of 20% fat redefines society’s nutritional diet.
          Conclusion: A diet consisting of 20% fat will harm society’s health.

          Premise 1 is true, Premise 2 is probably true, but the conclusion doesn’t follow because we do not know how much fat is in the current nutritional diet. 20% fat might be a great improvement or it might be worse.

          You have to assume that your idea of marriage is better than SSM so it will be circular. Others think a concept of marriage with greater freedom is an improvement, especially over the opinion that marriage is just for sex and babies.

          If you are embracing a Bible model, see 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul doesn’t think anybody should marry unless they just want to fuck. He thought the Messiah was coming really, really soon so pregnancy wouldn’t matter and you wouldn’t be raising a family. Paul didn’t say much about children and families.

        • bman

          Ignoring your post due to your use of vulgarity.

        • Greg G.

          Ignoring your post due to your use of vulgarity.

          Hahahahahaha! Tone trolling a response is the opposite of ignoring it.

          Your bigotry is far more vulgar than the word “fuck”. Trying to deny other people rights the way you do is far more vulgar than the word “fuck”.

          Good thing I didn’t say “mattress”.

          https://youtu.be/rGEeLtqtNvU

        • bman

          Blocking user due to vulgarity.

        • TheNuszAbides

          “I did ask you not to say mattress, didn’t I? Now I’ve got to stand in the tea chest …”

          possibly my very first favorite sketch (if it wasn’t Crunchy Frog).

        • Greg G.

          I can’t even begin to narrow down a top ten list of MP skits.

        • Raging Bee

          Noting your lame excuse to avoid acknowledging comments that refute your bogus arguments.

        • Greg G.

          He blocked me, which is like burying your head in the sand. I can respond, you know, for the lurkers, and he is the only person who can’t see it, well besides anyone else who has blocked me. Only one other person said they were blocking me but he actually did not. I think blocking was a little too complex for that guy.

        • Susan

          I delay proving them until later as discussion develops.

          All right then. Here is my tentative argument.

          1) People who lecture people on the internet about basic deductive logic instead of supporting their premises are choosing to be obfuscating poo poo heads.

          2) bman is lecturing people on the internet about basic deductive logic instead of supporting his premises.

          C) bman is choosing to be an obfuscating poo poo head.

        • bman

          re: “All right then. Here is my tentative argument…”
          —-
          Since you did not support your premises, it seems your argument also applies to you.

          Anyway, a delay in supporting my premises makes sense to me because the first issue is whether the conclusion would be true if the premises were true.

          It would be inefficient for me to immediately support my premises before there is agreement on that.

          Therefore, your first premise should instead read,

          1) People who lecture people on the internet about basic deductive logic
          while delaying support for their premises are not choosing to obfuscate if they have a rational basis for doing so.

        • Susan

          Since you did not support your premises, it seems your argument also applies to you.

          Yes, bman. That is the point. 🙂

          the first issue is whether the conclusion would be true if the premises were true.

          Yes, which is why I asked you to support your premises way back and you still haven’t done that. Let’s cut to the chase.

          Support your premises and stop stalling. (And blocking people for saying “fuck”. I notice that has allowed you to ignore Greg’s very thorough response by claiming offense. Your statements have offended the heck out of me but I haven’t blocked you. I think your statements are genuinely harmful, while Greg typing “fuck” causes no harm to anyone. But I digress… )

          Support your premises.

        • bman

          “Your statements have offended the heck out of me but I haven’t blocked you.

          There is a difference. In G’s case there was continued incivility after I had objected, which warranted the block. By contrast, there has been no incivility on my part that would warrant you to block me.

          Yes, which is why I asked you to support your premises way back and you still haven’t done that.

          The question I am asking is whether you agree the conclusion would be true if the premises were true. I believe we should agree or disagree on the wording first before proceeding to prove or disprove the premises.

          Not sure if you are answering “yes” to that question or if you mean “yes” that you asked me to “prove” my premises.

          Also, my argument is essentially a nutshell summarization of the article I referenced when you first responded, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.

          You can obtain a general sense in advance of how I intend to support my premises by reading that article.

          Here is the order of events I am looking for before I support my premises:

          Step 1 is for both parties to agree the conclusion would validly result from my premises as worded. That does not mean the premises are true but only that the conclusion would result from them as they are worded.

          Step 2 is we need to know what premises you hold in opposition to mine. No need for you to prove them initially, but I need to understand what your counter-claim is. To clarify, my first premise says, “A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm society.” Since you seem to oppose that, it suggests you are claiming, “a wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will not harm society,” etc.

          After those two steps have been completed I will be ready to support my premises in opposition to yours.

        • Susan

          There is a difference.

          Yes, there is. Greg G. thoroughly responded to your “tentative argument” point by point and showed that it was thoroughly circular and he used the word “fuck” in context.

          It’s in the dictionary. It’s slang. Milions and millions of very civil grownups use it when it’s appropriate.

          https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fuck

          When he objected to your dodge, you blocked him. That is uncivil behaviour in discussion. He responded thoughtfully and thoroughly and your response was inappropriate and rude.

          Not sure if you are answering “yes” to that question or if you mean “yes” that you asked me to “prove” my premises.

          Both. Why do you think I asked you originally and continue to ask you to prove your premises? People here know what a syllogism is. Our responses should have made that obvious.

          We can skip Step 1 now, OK? So, when are you going to get around to proving your premises?

          Step 2 is we need to know what premises you hold in opposition to mine

          .

          No, no, no. It is not my deductive argument. I don’t have to falsify your premises. That is not how deductive arguments work. The soundness of your argument relies on your premises being true.

          So many comments now and it’s beginning to look like you hadn’t thought about that part. .

          So, here we go…

          Prove your premises.

        • bman

          “He responded thoughtfully and thoroughly…”

          Your narrative seems to focus on the post that had the first use of vulgarity. In general, I think that post can be called a reasonable response on his part, except for the instance of vulgarity .

          I did not block him for that post. I replied by saying I was not responding due to the vulgarity. That put the ball in his court.

          If he replied by saying he would edit out the vulgarity, I would have then responded to the arguments in his post.

          He instead responded in a second post with doubling down on the vulgarity.

          There is nothing in that second post that merits being called civil or “thoughtful and thorough,” which is when I blocked him.

          No, no, no. It is not my deductive argument. I don’t have to falsify your premises.

          I don’t think I can prove my argument to be necessarily true.

          Rather, I think I can persaude a fair minded jury that my argument is more credible than the opposing view.

        • Susan

          In general think that post can be called a reasonable response on his part

          Yes, and it was bad form to ignore his reasonable points. Really bad form. To dismiss a well written and thoughtful post because he used the word “fuck” is both childish and rude.

          It did give you another opportunity to avoid having to make any sort of case though. And it meant you didn’t have to respond to the problems with the circularity in your argument.

          I don’t think I can prove my argument to be necessarily true.

          Then, why the lecture on deductive logic?

          I think I can show its is more credible than an opposing view.

          Then, skip the syllogisms and the lectures on syllogisms and do so.

        • bman

          “…it was bad form to ignore his reasonable points. Really bad form. To dismiss a well written and thoughtful post because he used [vulgarity] is both childish and rude.”

          You seem determined to focus on the first post, but it was not until the second uncharitable post that I chose the block option.

          Then, why the lecture on deductive logic?

          As you may recall, the context was that I wanted to reach the step 1 agreement.

          G said the conclusion could not “follow” from the premises until I proved the premises. I explained that a conclusion can validly follow premises even if they are not proved.

          In an article on Valid logic, Wikipedia says, “It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument’s conclusion.”

          So, I wanted G to understand that a conclusion can validly follow from premises even if no proof was offered for the truth of those premises.

        • Greg G.

          So, I wanted G to understand that a conclusion can validly follow from premises even if no proof was offered for the truth of those premises.

          I pointed out that you had an unstated assumption in the premises so that both premises could be true and the conclusion would be false. That is the reductio ad absurdum method.

          You are using a fallacious argument to push your bigotry. How many of your other beliefs are based on fallacious bigotry?

        • Ignorant Amos

          From the same Wiki page…

          All cups are green.
          Socrates is a cup.
          Therefore, Socrates is green.

          …which is a valid argument, while still a lot of nonsense.

          The rhubarb bman is a moron.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your arsehole’s argument is not sound.

          Validity of deduction is not affected by the truth of the premise or the truth of the conclusion. The following deduction is perfectly valid:

          All animals live on Mars.
          All humans are animals.
          Therefore, all humans live on Mars.

          The problem with the argument is that it is not sound. In order for a deductive argument to be sound, the deduction must be valid and all the premises true.

        • Greg G.

          You still haven’t addressed my argument. You are using an irrelevancy as an excuse to didge it. Your response is that the argument can be ignored because the person who made the argument said “fuck”. You are committing the ad hominem fallacy.

          Be an adult.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Be an adult.

          Bwaaahahahahaha….dat’s funny.

        • Raging Bee

          I don’t think I can prove my argument to be necessarily true.

          We KNOW you can’t.

        • bman

          re: “We KNOW you can’t.”

          I also said I think I can provide credible argument.

          Are you also saying, “We know you can’t,” to that?

        • Raging Bee

          Until you prove otherwise, yes.

        • bman

          Rather, you don’t know that until you hear the arguments.

          The discussion with NB seems to be where those arguments are beginning to develop.

        • Raging Bee

          We know you’re making vague half-promises of arguments to come, and bringing nothing to the table. It’s like you’re trying to bluff with money you don’t even have, and then trying to say we can’t call your bluff until you have the money to bluff with. And it doesn’t work: we’re calling your bluff, and you have nothing.

        • bman

          I referred you to the discussion with NB. Currently, I have a post that is being held up in modertion that introduces new material to the discussion.

        • Raging Bee

          Citation, please?

        • bman

          re: “Citation, please?”
          —-
          At that time the post was in moderation so I referred you to the discussion with nb.

          I was referring to the post where I quoted various court cases on the legal and moral understanding of marriage.

        • Susan

          I also said that I think I can provide credible argument.

          Yes, you’ve said that several times. What you haven’t done is attempt to provide a credible argument.

          Please do so, now.

        • bman

          re: “Please do so, now.”

          Those arguments are now being developed in my discussion with NB.

        • Raging Bee

          You said that three days ago, and I still haven’t seen any sign of “development” of any arguments on your part. Unless, of course, that’s a reference to how an obvious bluff “developed” into a shabby retreat.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s in the dictionary. It’s slang. Milions and millions of very civil grownups use it when it’s appropriate.

          I was well versed in the usage growing up….it was just about everywhere in the working class districts I grew up in…but as a spotty 17 year old recruit, it was then that I got a real education of it’s use in barrack room language.

          The word was used to induce stress during military recruit training and became a dominant element of an English military dialect identified by Tom Wolfe as Army creole. A succinct example of the flexibility of the word is its use as almost every word in a sentence.

          But it isn’t only used by the lowly commoner…states persons and royalty use it too. The Queen’s husband is on record using it a number of times in public. And it’s usage is protected under the 1st and 14th amendments in the US.

          i think bman is using it as an excuse to weasel out of addressing elements that decimate his religiously bigoted fuckwittery.

        • Greg G.

          The question I am asking is whether you agree the conclusion would be true if the premises were true. I believe we should agree or disagree on the wording first before proceeding to prove or disprove the premises.

          I already showed that even if the premises were true, the conclusion might not be true. Even if SSM incorrectly redefines marriage, it could be a benefit over your wrong definition of marriage.

          Grow up. Act like an adult.

        • Susan

          I already showed that even if the premises were true, the conclusion might not be true.

          I agree. The argument isn’t valid. But I pretended it was because I wanted bman to get to the point.

          After filling up countless comment boxes, bman has done nothing to support the statement that extending marriage rights to homosexuals will cause harm. Nothing.

          He seems to want to create the illusion that his bigotry has some sort of logical basis but when it comes to addressing the logic, he has nothing.

          He’s using the terminology to make his thinking look intellectual and reason-based but it’s just empty posturing and nothing more. He wants to lecture us on deductive logic to create the facade that there’s something clever in there that is beyond our skills but isn’t interested in how it actually works.

          I hate that. It’s pompous and dishonest.

        • Raging Bee

          He IS acting like an adult — specifically the redneck uncle trying to make his obsolete opinions sound rational and edumicated.

        • Greg G.

          He has that Cargo Cult Logic technique down pat. He knows the words “premise” and “conclusion” but no idea how to construct a logical sequence.

        • Raging Bee

          By contrast, there has been no incivility on my part that would warrant you to block me.

          Wordy rationalizations of bigotry, and endless dishonest waffling when asked to back up your bigoted claims, aren’t very civil either. Neither is your demonstrated refusal to acknowledge the harmful real consequences of your sort of bigotry for real people.

        • bman

          Wordy rationalizations of bigotry, and endless dishonest waffling..

          You shouldn’t blame me for your uncharitable interpretations of my statements.

        • Raging Bee

          We can certainly blame you for making statements that can’t reasonably be interpreted any other way.

        • bman

          re: “We can certainly blame you for making statements that can’t reasonably be interpreted any other way.”

          That doesn’t apply because my comments can be reasonably interpreted in a more rational way.

          What you are doing is “uncharitable interpretation.”

          The Wikipedia article “Principle of Charity” explains:

          “….the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation….the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available….”it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject’s sayings.”

        • Sophotroph

          Keep building those little planes out of bamboo. I’m sure the winged gods will be along shortly to shower you in riches.

        • bman

          non substantive comment

        • Susan

          non substantive comment

          You’ve got to be kidding.

          You‘re accusing people of non substantive comments?

          Again, you’re not reading for context.

          You have a lot of nerve insisting on charitable interpretations. People have charitably asked you to make a case for your desire to withhold rights from homosexuals and you haven’t. You’ve attempted syllogisms which add up to nothing. You’ve lectured us on syllogisms when you weren’t even capable of noticing that people were responding to validity and necessarily true premises. After blocking Greg G. for using the word “fuck” in context when he addressed the problem with the validity of your syllogism, you then finally after much “gentle” nudging (it was like pulling teeth) outright admitted you couldn’t prove your premises.

          (stopping for air)

          Finally, after about forty back and forths in which you provided nothing of substance, you finally linked to an article by the Witherspoon Institute who are famous for not caring about facts and for using a debunked study (loaded with methodological flaws). The article seemed to want to draw a link between a decrease in Dutch women between the ages of 18 and 22 getting married and gay people having the right to marry.

          You have ignored most of the questions people asked you, ignored the problems with the lack of logic or evidence that people have pointed out, and most of all, you have yet to show any connection between gay marriage and harm to children.

          And you have the audacity to bring up the principle of charity (something many of us here extended many, many times when they asked you to support your claims) when Sophotroph reacted?

          So far all you have is little planes of bamboo. That is not a comment without substance.

          We are familiar with syllogisms. We are familiar with the principle of charity. Something you would have noticed if you were paying attention to the responses that came your way.

          Provide something of substance and stop lecturing people.

          You have yet to demonstrate that your opposition to gay marriage has roots in anything but bigotry fed by unsupported superstitious belief. No matter how many times you were charitably asked to support your position.

          So please, no lectures on charity or substance.

        • bman

          You’ve got to be kidding. You’re accusing people of non substantive comments?

          Rather, I am saying that specific post was non-substantive.

        • bman

          “….you finally linked to an article by the Witherspoon Institute who are famous for not caring about facts and for using a debunked study (loaded with methodological flaws). The article seemed to want to draw a link between a decrease in Dutch women between the ages of 18 and 22 getting married and gay people having the right to marry.”

          I view that as a “rationalization” on your part so you can summarily dismiss the article.

        • Susan

          I view that as a “rationalization” on your part so you can summarily dismiss the article.

          The article’s nonsense. If there’s something specific in there that you’d like me to address, please present it.

          After dozens of comments in which you did nothing to support your position, now you’ve sent me to read walls of goo that do nothing to support your position.

        • bman

          “The article’s nonsense.”

          Once again a simple comparison between your nay-say statement vs the article, will show the article has more explanatory power than your nay-say statement.

        • Susan

          Once again a simple comparison between your nay-say statement vs the article, will show the article has more explanatory power than your nay-say statement.

          No. Once again, the reason I said the article is nonsense, is because it is nonsense.

          If you would like to show how it isn’t nonsense, I would be delighted to consider your contribution.

          You’re the guy who hemmed and hawed and dodged and weaved for approximately thirty comments and then finally, when we kept pressing you to make a case, linked us to articles that make no case at all.

          I am not obligated to fisk an entire article of nonsense before I have the right to say it’s nonsense.

          There is no case, there. If you think it’s there, make it.

          Just bleating “letting teh gayz get married will harm children” is not a case.

          For you or for the people who wrote the article.

        • bman

          Once again a simple comparison between your nay-say statement vs the article, will show the article has more explanatory power than your nay-say statement.

          No. Once again, the reason I said the article is nonsense, is because it is nonsense.

          The article describes a legal brief by 100 scholars that was submitted to the US Supreme Court that officially provided the court with statistical research, facts, theory, and predictions.

          By default, you would need something more substantive than calling it “nonsense” to overcome the facts, figures, and correlations that were described in the article.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The article describes a legal brief by 100 scholars that was submitted to the US Supreme Court that officially provided the court with statistical research, facts, theory, and predictions.

          Scholars in what field of expertise? Marriage counselors? Wise up. And yet provided with such “statistical research, facts, theory, and predictions”, SCOTUS rejected it, why is that do ya think? Is it because it was a bunch of fear mongering nonsense by a bunch of homophobic bigots?

          By default, you would need something more substantive than calling it “nonsense” to overcome the facts, figures, and correlations that were described in the article.

          Well…here’s one….

          “As the brief demonstrates, based on data from nations and US states that have adopted same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to predict that, over a generation, a forced redefinition of marriage would produce at least a 5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates. That would result in an increase of nearly 1.3 million never-married women, and an increase of nearly 600,000 functionally fatherless children.

          Correlation does not imply causation.

          https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-prime-life/201503/is-marriage-in-decline

          So there’s one item of nonsense refuted.

          That is why states have traditionally supported man-woman marriage, an institution that has historically and universally been linked to procreation, marking the boundaries where sexual reproduction is socially commended.

          Depends where and when one was living. The ancient Greeks did marry for the reason of procreation…and that’s the only reason.

          Like most ancient governing bodies, Athens didn’t legally define marriage for its citizens. Producing offspring was pretty much the only reason to get hitched — as one man put it, “We keep hetaerae (courtesans) for pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our body, and wives for the bearing of legitimate children and to keep watch over our house” — because the state did control movement of wealth through inheritance. It was so important to keep property within the family, Coontz writes, that a girl whose father died without leaving another male heir could be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she had to divorce her current husband.

          Marriage wasn’t even considered the most ideal union, at least according to the elite members of society. That honor went to — drumroll, please — homosexual partnerships, since married men and women weren’t expected to provide emotional fulfillment for one another.

          https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763

          This underlying message helps achieve a principal purpose of marriage: any children born will have a known mother and father who have the responsibility to care for them.

          Balderdash.

          Key Facts about Unmarried Americans

          http://www.unmarried.org/press-room/briefing-kit/

          Even ancient Greek and Roman societies understood this. Despite encouraging same-sex intimate relations, they limited marriage to man-woman unions.

          Yeah…but as we’ve already seen, to maintain property rights and inheritance, nothing else. So more ignorant nonsense.

          That’ll do for now with your bigoted tripe.

          Edited to amend formatting.

        • Your article looks like homophobic nonsense. What am I missing? Give me the one or two points you find compelling.

          https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14822/

        • bman

          re: “Give me the one or two points you find compelling.”

          I will start with the opening claim.

          The article claims that redefining marriage, “from a gendered to a genderless
          institution would send the message that society no longer needs men to
          bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy,
          well-adjusted children”

          I find it more rational to think it “would” do that than to think it “would not.” One reason is because of the general principle that law has the power to shape social morality for good or for ill.

        • That’s correct–you don’t need a man in the family to raise happy, well-adjusted children. Single mothers have been raising well-adjusted children for millennia. It would likely help to have a man, though not always. And there are lots of other factors besides the presence of a man.

          Do you think this is news to anyone?

        • bman

          re:”…you don’t need a man in the family to raise happy, well-adjusted children.”

          The article is essentially saying your statement will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes if its promoted on a population scale, and that ssm law does just that.

          Premise 1: If Bob’s message is promoted in public law, it will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes.

          Premise 2: Ssm promotes Bob’s message in public law.

          Conclusion: Ssm law will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes.

        • You’ll have to explain how two men allowed to marry increases the # of fatherless homes.

          If it’s all about the children, then declare to us that you’re delighted with SSM as long as no children are involved.

        • bman

          “You’ll have to explain how two men allowed to marry increases the # of fatherless homes.”

          That misses the point the article makes, that the increase in fatherless homes would be reflected in heterosexual norms.

          If it’s all about the children, then declare to us that you’re delighted with SSM as long as no children are involved.

          That misses the point also. The marriage norm is still harmed by ssm law even if some same sex marriages don’t involve children.

        • Right–I’m asking you for the argument. What causes an increase in fatherless homes?

          The marriage norm is still harmed by ssm law even if some same sex marriages don’t involve children.

          Just come out and say it–you think gays are icky. That’s, at bottom, the problem.

        • bman

          Per Wikipedia,

          “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”)…is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.

        • So I say that you’re stupid and so therefore SSM is fine? No, that’s not quite it.

          I’m trying to get you to make and defend a sensible argument. Stop running away.

        • Greg G.

          Bob addressed the argument you try to make at https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/11/20-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-rebutted/#comment-4311011025

          You haven’t supported your premises yet for weeks. Citing ad hominem when your argument has been addressed is a form of ad hominem when you cite it instead of supporting you argument.

        • Greg G.

          –you think gays are icky. That’s, at bottom, the problem.

          ISWYDT.

        • Nah, just an accident. (Or was it … ?)

        • ildi

          The article is essentially saying your statement will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes if its promoted on a population scale, and the ssm law does just that.

          I checked out some of the “scholarly” work presented in Schaerr’s amicus brief and I fixed his chart in Appendix B:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed56ddcea32acd447571590dfad3bddeb42dac21c559c5a7df56d2be63a23d4a.jpg
          The good news is, marriage rates have stayed pretty much the same as they were before states started to legalize same-sex marriage:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d98f421af4c38616a746b08ba9a29f98448c5173980328299724901b7513949.jpg

        • ildi
        • bman

          re: “I checked out some of the “scholarly” work presented in Schaerr’s amicus brief and I fixed his chart in Appendix B:”

          Please explain why you made the change.

        • ildi

          Please explain why you made the change.

          Note that it’s the same data, just not presented in a misleading way. In the chart presented in the brief the truncated y-axis makes the differences look more dramatic than they really are. The y-axis should start at zero. Second, the dates are hidden by putting all the Pre-SSM years on one spot instead, you know, the actual year before same-sex marriage was legalized. Again, I think this was done to make a nice downward wave in the chart. When you see the chart with the dates actually represented, the lines are all spread out and the changes are not nearly as impressive looking. I notice I didn’t use the same units as the brief, updated that for better comparison:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/50e4a3f30987e3741e2e87879929b35798781f13f5ffdec1b7ec843d28badf8f.jpg
          It is also disingenuous to only show data for opposite-sex marriages because the findings in particular for the Massachusetts data were that marriage stayed the same when all marriages are counted. If there had even been a trend of a decline in hetero marriages when SSM became legal (which is not really supported by numbers provided in the brief when presented properly), the assumption can be drawn that people who want the benefits and social conventions of marriage now have the option of marrying a same-sex beloved. I would argue that people living their authentic lives are better parents and role models for their children than closeted gays living lives of deception.

          It is important to note that apparent and appears are the key words here; there has been no statistical analysis conducted on any of this data so what appears to be changes on a chart may not be statistically significant. Schaerr himself said he was just theorizing. Personally, I would be reluctant to formulate the basis for laws based on the sketchy amount of information provided in this particular brief.

        • bman

          re: “Note that it’s the same data, just not presented in a misleading way.”
          —-
          I accept that your newest graph uses correct protocol now that you updated the vertical scale, that it is the more neutral presentation, and that the pdf graph was designed to highlight the decline.

          That said, I think your graph, neutral as it is, is unable to convey the signifiance of the decline in visual terms, as described in the verbal analyis of the data. I think their graph does a better job communicating the verbal analysis than does yours.

          Excerpts:
          “…the opposite-sex marriage rate for each of these four SSM states is the lowest recorded in each state’s history…”

          “Over the entire period, Vermont experienced a 5.1% drop, Iowa a 9.2% decline, Connecticut a 7.3% decrease, and Massachusetts an 8.9% reduction in their respective opposite-sex marriage rates in the last year for which data are available, compared to the year just prior to adopting same-sex marriage. However… the marriage rate in the United States remained stable.”

          “Three of the states have never seen opposite-sex marriages rise to their pre-same-sex marriage level. One state (Massachusetts) saw an initial decline, then a fleeting increase, but then a further decline below pre-SSM levels. ”

          Note, also, your graph shows an easily perceptible down-shift initially for Vermont and Iowa of 4 nominal points that keeps getting lower for Iowa, and there is a final decline of 5 nominal points for Massachussetts.

          Your graph, however, makes Vermont’s decline more perceptible than Massachussetts’ even though Massachusetts had the greater decline percentage wise (8.9) compared to Vermont ( 5.1). I think their graph is more visually reflective of that.

          “It is also disingenuous to only show data for opposite-sex marriages
          because the findings in particular for the Massachusetts data were that
          marriage stayed the same when all marriages are counted.”

          The authors answered that, “the [approach ildi suggests] is misleading because [it]count[s] same-sex marriages in their marriage totals, boosting their overall numbers.”

          “It is important to note that apparent and appears are the
          key words here; there has been no statistical analysis conducted on any
          of this data so what appears to be changes on a chart may not be
          statistically significant.”

          The authors answered that with conservative predictions of the data,

          “The logic is simple and intuitive: Fewer opposite-sex marriages means more unmarried women, which in turn means fewer children born, more children born to unmarried mothers, and more children aborted.”

          And,

          “Currently, there are 28.9 abortions per 1,000 unmarried women per year (in contrast to a rate of 6.1 for married women). One can calculate the total number of abortions over an unmarried woman’s childbearing years by averaging this rate over her assumed 30-year fertility period. Thus, un-married women average .87 abortions during their lifetime. So, with 1.275 million women never get-ting married, nearly 900,000 children of the next generation will be aborted—children that would have been born if their mothers had married. This is similar in magnitude to the entire cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined being aborted over the next generation. And again, this is a conservative prediction…”

        • ildi

          I was pointing out that when you see “Lying With Charts” being used, it should set off your spidey senses. There are so many other things wrong with their assumptions-you can’t demonstrate a trend with two points! I don’t know why you’re so focused on this one legal document that was published in 2015 – hasn’t the Witherspoon Institute investigated this further, now what we’re four years out from when they made their predictions? Oh, that’s right, they’re a religious legal think tank, not a research institute. If there were any studies, I would bet the Witherspoon Institute would be jumping to report on it… *crickets*

          (sigh) Ok, though reading it makes my eyeballs bleed, I went back to the Schaerr brief to find the source of their opposite-sex marriage rates to try and figure out why there seem to be a dearth of data points, and he cites this study as the source for the numbers: Dinno A, Whitney C (2013) Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65730.
          https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065730

          Shocked/not shocked to read the abstract conclusion:

          A deleterious effect on rates of opposite sex marriage has been argued to be a motivating factor for both the withholding and the elimination of existing rights of same sex couples to marry by policy makers–including presiding justices of current litigation over the rights of same sex couples to legally marry. Such claims do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence, and we conclude that rates of opposite sex marriages are not affected by legalization of same sex civil unions or same sex marriages.

          The full study is available at the link for your reading pleasure. NEXT!

        • I never understood how that argument was supposed to work. How would/could SSM affect straight marriages? bman can’t explain it to me.

        • ildi

          Well, you know, because men will defect en masse to the gay marriage side and because it’s VERY CONTAGIOUS dontchaknow – science says so and then all the women will just become side pieces having abortions and whatnot.

        • So it’s not that gay marriage is yucky–it’s that gay marriage is actually too enticing to be an option on the menu!

        • Susan

          men will defect en masse to the gay marriage side

          I’m not even sure that’s what bman is alluding to.

          It seems to be more like “What’s the point in staying married to my wife and raising my children if teh gayz get to do it to? I have absolutely no motivation to do so.”

          It’s really, really weird and it’s been impossible to get him to make even a logical connection, let alone provide evidence.

          At first, I thought he was new when he attempted syllogisms that he couldn’t prove but preferred to talk about syllogisms rather than make any point at all.

          But his commenting history shows thousands of comments where he’s been doing this for years, and where he doesn’t seem to care that he can make no logical nor evidential connection.

          But he’s a conservative catholic after all. They repeat canards like they repeat the rosary. Repetition has magical power for them.

        • MR

          But he’s a conservative catholic after all.

          This has come to explain so much for me these past couple years.

        • bman

          Well, you know, because men will defect en masse to the gay marriage side and because it’s VERY CONTAGIOUS dontchaknow…

          That misrepresents my argument and it indicates you and Bob have been responding without comprehending my side of the discussion.

          You don’t have to agree with what I say, but you should at least portray what I say correctly.

        • bman

          “I never understood how that argument was supposed to work. How would/could SSM affect straight marriages? bman can’t explain it to me.

          Short memory.

          Here is one explanation I gave,

          Premise 1: If public law promotes Bob’s message [you don’t need a man in the family to raise happy, well-adjusted children] it will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes.

          Premise 2: Ssm public law promotes Bob’s message.

          Conclusion: Ssm public law will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes.

          To clarify, I am not saying that [the same sex marriage of a couple] will cause straights in the neighborhood to not marry.

          Rather, I am saying that [ssm public law] will eventually affect public beliefs about marriage, and that those new beliefs about marriage will lead to reduced heterosexual marriage rates.

        • Short memory.
          Here is one explanation I gave

          And didn’t I already respond? Short memory.

          Premise 1: If public law promotes Bob’s message [you don’t need a man in the family to raise happy, well-adjusted children] it will increase the numbers of children raised in fatherless homes.

          Right—you don’t need a man in the family to raise happy, well-adjusted children. Single moms do it all the time, and we didn’t need SSM to bring this fact to our attention.

          I can’t imagine how the cogs turn in that little brain of yours. So a man is happily married to a woman. Then a lesbian couple with a child move in next door. Soon the guy thinks, “Hey, that kid next door looks just as happy as my own kid. Who knew that lesbians could be good parents? I guess you learn something new every day.” And then he gets divorced.

          Is that how it works? Or maybe this: a guy is engaged to be married, but then he sees the same lesbian couple with the happy child and thinks, “Jeez, who wants to be married now?” and then breaks off the engagement.

          Am I getting closer? This is harder than it looks.

        • bman

          “Is that how it works? Or maybe this: a guy is engaged to be married, but then he sees the same lesbian couple with the happy child and thinks, “Jeez, who wants to be married now?” and then breaks off the engagement.

          I said short memory before, but it really appears that you do not comprehend what I am saying.

          In the very post you just responded to I stated that is not how it works.

          Here it is again:

          To clarify, I am not saying that [the same sex marriage of a couple] will cause straights in the neighborhood to not marry.

          Rather, I am saying that [ssm public law] will eventually affect public beliefs about marriage, and that those new beliefs about marriage will lead to reduced heterosexual marriage rates.

          “Am I getting closer?”

          Quite the opposite.

        • Greg G.

          Rather, I am saying that [ssm public law] will eventually affect public beliefs about marriage, and that those new beliefs about marriage will lead to reduced heterosexual marriage rates.

          It will not make heterosexuals have same sex marriages. All it will do is allow homosexuals to not be pressured into a heterosexual marriage. Do you think it is a good thing for homosexuals to marry someone they are not physically attracted to?

        • Nope–still don’t get it. A SSM won’t cause straights not to marry, but SSM will cause straights to marry less.

          I think I don’t care anymore.

        • bman

          Nope–still don’t get it. A SSM won’t cause straights not to marry, but SSM will cause straights to marry less.

          Principle of charity applies

          Per Wikipedia,

          In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn “it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject’s sayings.”

          Since it would be extremely irrational if I actually made the argument you just described, you should presume you uncharitably misinterpreted my argument somehow (which you indeed did).

          Since I have already explained this several times, it is not my job to explain it further.

          The ball is still in your court to charitably interpret my argument.

        • Principle of charity applies.

          Yup. That’s what I used.

          Since it would be extremely irrational if I actually made the argument you just described, you should presume you uncharitably misinterpreted my argument somehow (which you indeed did).

          Nope. That’s the most sense I could make out of it. By highlighting my interpretation, I’m allowing you to find the problem and clarify.

          Since I have already explained this several times, it is not my job to explain it further.

          Hallelujah!

          The ball is still in your court to charitably interpret my argument.

          And I’ve hit it back. Don’t feel any obligation to respond.

        • bman

          “And I’ve hit it back. Don’t feel any obligation to respond.”

          You only “said” you hit it back, but the ball is in still your court until you charitably interpret my argument.

          As long as you insist you have already done so, we should agree to to end further discussion.

        • Susan

          until you charitably interpret my argument.

          The principle of charity seems to be another term you like to use, but that you don’t seem to have researched.

          It has been applied here generously. To you and your lack of arguments.

          What it does not mean is pretending that someone has an argument when they don’t.

          It does not mean accepting that someone is using logic when they don’t show they are.

          It does not mean ignoring the fact that someone has no evidence and that when asked for evidence, they provide fake evidence. And when that is pointed out to them, that they claim that evidence isn’t important because of the logic they haven’t shown.

          It does mean beginning with the assumption that you are dealing with an intelligent person. (Which we have.) It does mean making efforts to guide them toward better representations of their arguments, whether logical or evidential (which we did).

          When you have no logic and no evidence, charity isn’t going to give that to you.

          Please click on the link I provided. If you are going to use the term, it’s important that you know what it means.

        • Natureboi

          How does allowing gays to marry affect non-gays?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuking rset button. pusjed moron…pishrd..fuck off….you have nothinf….eejit.

        • Natureboi

          Rather, I am saying that [ssm public law] will eventually affect public beliefs about marriage, and that those new beliefs about marriage will lead to reduced heterosexual marriage rates.

          What evidence can you produce to show this isn’t just a LIE?

        • bman

          I was pointing out that when you see “Lying With Charts” being used, it should set off your spidey senses.

          Although misleading charts tend to not start at zero, which makes that a reason to be on guard, I tend to think some cases may warrant not starting at zero. I previously listed some reasons why that might apply to this case.

          I also wonder if your chart would give an impression similar to the brief’s chart if the interval in your chart was changed from a “.5” interval to a “.2” or “.1” interval.

          “…you can’t demonstrate a trend with two points!

          Not sure why you are saying there are only two points.

          “…hasn’t the Witherspoon Institute investigated this further, now what we’re four years out from when they made their predictions?”

          I searched but did not find a newer study. Possibly that might be because Obergefell needs more time to settle before conditions are ripe for a new study.

          “… he cites this study as the source for the numbers….

          Actually, the brief says the journal article was the source for the CT and VT numbers, but that numbers for MA and IA came from those states.

          “I went back to the Schaerr brief ….to try and figure out why there seem to be a dearth of data points…

          It seems the data was limited because only four ssm states had data on the number of opposite sex marriages.

          The journal article made a similar comment, “The academic literature quantitatively assessing the effect of same sex marriage laws on rates of opposite sex marriage in the U.S. is tiny…

          “The full study is available at the link for your reading pleasure. NEXT!

          The brief commented on the study, “That study itself has serious methodological flaws, including only a few years of same-sex marriage (compared to same-sex civil unions), which reduces the statistical ability to find differences, as well as a complete lack of control variables for any state.”

        • Greg G.

          The graphs you are looking at give marriage rates for the overall population which does not consider how many in the population that are not already married. You will be misled if you are not taking population dynamics into account, but misleading people seems to be your purpose.

          The interactive graph of birth rates at https://www.google.com/search?biw=1222&bih=738&ei=Hs1RXPOfE-XYjwSlgJGoCg&q=australian+birth+rate+per+year&oq=australian+birth+rate+per+year&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.9603488.9610790..9611431…0.0..0.134.3180.11j19……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71j0i131j0i67j0i10j0i22i30.mpdQZtt3Txs shows a steady decline from the 1960’s until the 1980s which indicates a diminishing number of 20-somethings in the early 2000s. A decrease in the number of weddings should be expected with a declining number of young people. It has nothing to do with gay marriages.

        • ildi

          Possibly because Obergefell needs more time to settle before conditions are ripe for a new study.

          The brief predicted a five percent decrease in opposite-sex marriage based on data points comparing marriage rates from the year before SSM became legal in that state to the year SSM was legalized. Obergefell legalized SSM for all states in 2015 – where is the comparison to the rates for all the states from 2015 to 2016? (-not that this is good science, just going along with the assumptions in the brief.)

          It seems the data was limited because only four ssm states had data on the number of opposite sex marriages.

          That’s not true. The raw data isn’t provided in the report, but there’s a table addressing specifically the predicted effect on opposite sex marriages from 10 data sets, with N=1071. To refresh your memory, in addition to Massachusetts in 2004, Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa and Vermont in 2009, New Hampshire and DC also legalized SSM in 2009, New York in 2011, and Maine, Maryland and Washington in 2012. (Wonder why Schaerr cherry-picked the four states he included? Hmmm…)
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2e2b736471e5175a23281c9f96ed3774a7e15123b80a88f6aa1447f669a4c89.jpg

          ”That study itself has serious methodological flaws, including only a few years of same-sex marriage (compared to same-sex civil unions, which reduces the statistical ability to find differences, as well as a complete lack of control variables for any state.”

          There goes another irony meter! Schaerr conducts zero statistical analysis in the brief, just throws up a shady misleading chart with 18 data points, with only two data points for Vermont and conveniently skips the other five states and DC when mining the report for numbers, probably because he’s picking the data points that support his narrative. Even a cursory glance at the actual study shows he counted on nobody going to the source to find out he doesn’t know what he’s talking about (to put a generous interpretation on it).

          I would recommend dropping this reference from your repertoire of reasons why SSM scares you so much. The more time passes the more dishonest it starts to make you appear.

        • bman

          ….just throws up a shady misleading chart…

          I think the chart can be explained rationally, and I offered some options, but you seem determined to view it uncharitably.

          Also, the brief did much more than, “just throw up a..chart.”

          Your comment convenienlty ignores the verbal analysis in the main body of the brief, even though it is substantive.

          The brief also reported on data for other nations, and provided intuitive reasoning, and theoretical explanations that give it a significant measure of explanatory power.

          “… where is the comparison to the rates for all the states from 2015 to 2016? … recommend dropping this reference from your repertoire….The more time passes the more dishonest it starts to make you appear.

          We don’t know why another report has not been published, but I think you uncharitably jump to the conclusion of dishonesty, since rational explanations are plausible.

          It seems the data was limited because only four ssm states had data on the number of opposite sex marriages.

          “That’s not true. The raw data isn’t provided in the report, but there’s a table addressing specifically the predicted effect on opposite sex marriages from 10 data sets, with N=1071.”

          That seems to be a potential point in your favor, but the data is what we need.

          Per the brief, “….data for the other states [VT, CT] were obtained from Alexis Dinno & Chelsea Whitney..”

          I searched the report (and the two support documents) but I did not find the source data for VT and CT that the brief mentions. Maybe you can find it, or maybe there is some other supporting document that contains it.

          Anyway, I think we first need to understand how the brief extracted those numbers from the report, or what calculation was used.

          Also, the report offers graphs for the same four states (plus CA). So why did the report target those same states specifically? Not sure, but since it closely matches the four-state pattern used by the brief (excluding CA that is), it seems facially relevant.

          There goes another irony meter!

          Hmm..Susan used that phrase several times. Any connection?

        • ildi

          I think the chart an be explained rationally, and I offered some options, but you seem determined to view it uncharitably.

          I was actually being fairly charitable given that this was merely a hypothesis-generating mechanism in a legal brief, not a scientific study. Your “rational” explanations notwithstanding, it’s clear that not only do you not understand the basics of the scientific method, you have no interest in learning, so I’m not going to continue to go into the weeds with you to explain all the egregious errors made in the brief to buttress the notion that making gay marriage legal has a detrimental effect on opposite sex marriage. In fact, Schaerr himself didn’t make the strong claim that you are, per this interview in 2015: https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-the-new-argument-against-gay-equality-samesex-marriage-kills-20150421-story.html

          “The brief doesn’t even attempt to say conclusively that this reduction in marriage rates has been the result of adopting same-sex marriage,” Schaerr said, though there are “theoretical reasons” such causation might occur.

          Regarding data from other nations, here is a link to the Netherlands study Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and Family Formation by Mircea Trandafir: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-014-0361-2

          Oh, look what the abstract says!

          It has long been debated how legalizing same-sex marriage would affect (different-sex) family formation. In this article, I use data on OECD member countries for the period 1980–2009 to examine the effects of the legal recognition of same-sex couples (through marriage or an alternative institution) on different-sex marriage, divorce, and extramarital births. Estimates from difference-in-difference models indicate that the introduction of same-sex marriage or of alternative institutions has no negative effects on family formation. These findings are robust to a multitude of specification checks, including the construction of counterfactuals using the synthetic control method. In addition, the country-by-country case studies provide evidence of homogeneity of the estimated effects.

          So now we have two studies that Schaerr dug around in without mentioning up front that both studies found the opposite effect from what he is hypothesizing. In my book that is unethical. I’ll take Lying for Jesus™, for 200, Alex!

          But, guess what: big picture, this particular brief is no longer relevant because gay marriage is the law of the land and has been so for four years. A significant decrease in opposite sex marriage rates as a result should be easy enough to demonstrate by now even with cherry-picked data and shady charts. The most “rational” assumption for why it hasn’t been done is because there is no “there” there.

          I reiterate that you continuing to use this hypothesis-generating mess of a brief as “evidence” that opposite sex marriage is harmed by gay marriage is disingenuous at best and frankly, now that you have to ignore the shoddy work done by Schaerr in the brief to do so, flat-out dishonest.

        • bman

          “In fact, Schaerr himself didn’t make the strong claim that you are…”

          I agree with the Schaerr quotation you gave. Its unclear why you think I made a stronger claim.

          Schaerr also commented on that article here, Requiring States to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Will Fundamentally Alter the Marriage “Ecosystem,” Likely Reducing Opposite-Sex Marriage Rates

          “So now we have two studies that Schaerr dug around in without mentioning up front that both studies found the opposite effect from what he is hypothesizing”

          The brief does not expressly say that, but it does make comments that show disagreement with aspects of those studies.

          That brings me to this observation. Your objections do not refute anything in the verbal analysis.

          You seem confined to complaints about protocol while totally ignoring the substantive argument the brief makes.

          A significant decrease in opposite sex marriage rates as a result should be easy enough to demonstrate by now…The most “rational” assumption for why it hasn’t been done is because there is no “there” there.

          Arguably, that is the most plausible assumption. However, an accuser also has the burden to provide evidence, and you offered none even though you suppose evidence must exist from the past four years.

          Since you present yourself as someone trained in scientific method, why not obtain the opposite sex marriage rates for the same four states for the years after the brief and tell us what you find?

        • Susan

          You seem confined to complaints about protocol

          Protocol exists for a reason. It’s so people can’t just make shit up.

          You seem confined to complaints about protocol while totally ignoring the substantive argument the brief makes.

          If you want to call “unsubstantiated”, “substantive”, go ahead. But it doesn’t make it “substantive”.

          Arguably, that is the most plausible assumption.

          No. “Plausibly” has a meaning. It means “likely”. And most plausibly means most likely.

          If you want to claim that something is “most likely”, you have to show it. That means providing evidence. Lying with charts is not providing evidence.

          an accuser also has the burden to provide evidence

          Christ on a cracker, bman, you are making the claim that providing marriage rights to homosexuals will affect heterosexual fathers.

          And you have never, ever in your entire commenting history provide a speck of evidence to support it.

          But you shamelessly persist.

          Stop it. Be honest. You believe that an imaginary god disapproves and that’s all you have.

          If you had anything else, you would have provided it by now.

        • ildi

          There’s nothing wrong with presenting descriptive statistics per se. Here is an example of how it’s done properly, from Gallup, June 2017: In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT Adults Now Married to Same-Sex Spouse
          https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

          Notice the second chart and how the x axis is labelled JAN 28, 2015-JUN 26, 2015 — JUN 27, 2015-JUN 19, 2016 — JUN 20, 2016-JUN 19, 2017:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d906f07219ec3ea0e62707ed83f9eca6f262756fff853df2d5d2ca369c070f2f.jpg
          This is important because gay marriage became legal on June 26, 2015. For comparison, Schaerr couldn’t just use calendar years for his descriptive statistics on state-level rates because this doesn’t account for the different times of year the laws were passed. In fact, if Schaerr had put in the time and effort to collect the state-level data broken down by gay vs. opposite sex marriage, in 2015 he would have been able to collect from 16 states and D.C., as an additional seven had legalized gay marriage in 2013, since he’s cool with only having two points per state, see Vermont in his chart (there’s usually a year lag in published data availability). I’m sure it was a lot easier just to crib from other studies that were able to conduct statistical analysis in the same time frame, contra to his fallacious statement. (As an aside, I’m pretty sure he meant to say rigorous correlation analysis not causation.)

          Back to the Gallup report, it even makes some predictions (gasp!):

          In the first year after the Supreme Court ruled states could not prohibit same-sex marriages, the percentage of LGBT Americans who were married grew nearly two percentage points. In the second year since the ruling, the growth has continued, but at a diminished rate. This suggests an initial burst in the number of same-sex marriages came in response to the legal changes. Now, with those legal changes further in the past, the growth in same-sex marriages may be slower.

          However, growth in the rate of same-sex marriages is likely to continue. Younger adults, many who may not be in a position to marry regardless of their sexual identity, are disproportionately likely to identify as LGBT. As they age, their life situations may change and they may want to get married. Also, as future generations of LGBT adults come of age, having grown up in a time when there were no legal restrictions on same-sex marriage and greatly reduced societal norms against it, they may marry at higher rates than LGBT Americans in generations before them.

          By comparison, what Schaerr did is take his (meagre, cherry-picked) descriptive statistics and made an unjustified assumption from it, namely, that if opposite sex marriage rates are lower the year after gay marriage becomes legal, this is because social norms have been eroded for straight people and fathers are no longer considered necessary. He also has no justification to predict a five percent reduction in opposite sex marriage rates. He then goes right into typical conservative Catholic obsession territory (all roads lead to abortion), predicting the five percent reduction in opposite sex marriage = more unmarried women = 900,000 abortions in the next generation!!!1!!eleventy!!!1!1!!!.

          I realized in looking through this comment thread that Susan, Ignorant Amos, Naturboi and I’ve probably missed others, have already pointed a lot of this out to you, to no avail.

        • bman

          In the article I referenced, Shaerr says,

          “…just as modest reductions in water flow or temperature often substantially alter a biological ecosystem, redefining marriage would fundamentally change that institution — and in so doing likely reduce opposite-sex marriage rates and thereby lead to a host of societal ills.”

          Although your graph makes the same amount of decline seem minor, Schaer argues that a small persistent decline can adversely affect the marriage eco-system.

          He then supports the claim that a shift is coming by saying,

          “same-sex marriage advocates don’t deny that turning marriage into a genderless regime will fundamentally alter the marriage ecosystem… E.J. Graff…declared, “…If it ever] becomes legal, [the] venerable institution [of marriage] will ever stand for sexual choice, cutting the link between sex and diapers.”

          Schaerr clarifies further by identifying five specific norms that will be harmed by ssm law,

          “Nor have these advocates disputed that removing the man-woman definition will undermine several social norms that flow from it, and that are critical to the ecosystem’s success in nurturing children: (1) the value of biological bonding between parents and children; (2) gender diversity in parenting; (3) postponement of procreation until marriage; (4) the social value of creating and raising children; and (5) sexual exclusivity between spouses. All of these norms are founded upon the overarching norm of child-centricity: that adults put the interests of children first, their own second.”

          That is the starting point of the logical argument.

          I find it a credible and persuasive prediction from a logical perspective.

          I also find the opposing claim improbable by comparison (that ssm law will not have a long term negative effect on the norms listed).

          As far as I can tell, your various complaints about scientific protocol do not negate that logical argument.

          The next natural question, then, is how long before the shift in norms is measurable.

          Prior to Shaerr’s brief I often argued, and still argue, that we should expect a significant norm shift after a generation has been raised from the cradle under ssm law ideology, and after the older marriage beliefs of previous generations are no longer being passed on.

          I still find it unlikely that this shift would show up as soon as Shaerr’s numbers suggest because the older marriage beliefs are still here. Therefore, I allow that the early decline in those four states could be due to some other factor.

          Even so, I think the decline in marriage in the Netherlands and that region is related to government social experimentations with marriage law, and that the US will experience a similar result over time, now that ssm law has been nationalizied.

          The point? Even if the decline in OS marriage rates in those four US states is excluded from the argument, Shaerr’s general logic is persuasive.

          “He then goes right into typical conservative Catholic obsession territory (all roads lead to abortion), predicting the five percent reduction in opposite sex marriage = more unmarried women = 900,000 abortions in the next generation!!!1!!eleventy!!!1!1!!!.”

          Your complaint does not negate the mathematical formula used to make that prediction, but that is where you need to go to succesfully challenge the prediction.

          “By comparison, what Schaerr did is take his (meagre, cherry-picked) descriptive statistics and made an unjustified assumption from it, namely, that if opposite sex marriage rates are lower the year after gay marriage becomes legal, this is because social norms have been eroded
          for straight people and fathers are no longer considered necessary.”

          Shaerr suggests a theoretical 5% decline due to ssm law over 30 years, which seems plausible.

          If we allow that as a plausible factor for the sake of argument, the conclusion he reaches seems to follow.

          “I realized in looking through this comment thread that Susan, Ignorant Amos, Naturboi and I’ve probably missed others, have already pointed a lot of this out to you, to no avail.”

          From my perspective, they were stuck in their own narrative without engaging the logical argument.

          Feel free to quote them if you think I missed something substantive on that .

        • Susan

          Did you ever bother to examine ildi’s peer-reviewed link?

          Or any peer-reviewed analysis at all?

          Schaerr clarifies further by identifying five specific norms that will be harmed by ssm law,

          But he doesn’t demonstrate the harm. He is against civil rights for homosexuals because he thinks Yahwehjesus exists. Yahwehjesus is a single supernatural claim whose existence is no better supported than any other supernatural claim. It is no basis for withholding legal rights from fellow citizens.

          I find it a credible and persuasive prediction from a logical perspective.

          But you never show us how it’s credible. Or that there is any “logical perspective”. It’s not sufficient to type “logical perspective” unless you can show it.

          I also find the opposing claim improbable by comparison (that ssm law will not have a long term negative effect on the norms listed).

          There you go, shifting the burden because you have nothing. Except a belief in an unevidenced being. No. If you are going to deprive civil rights to our fellow human beings, you have to show why. It is no one’s obligation to show why not.

          If we allow that as a plausible factor for the sake of argument

          No. That’s not how it works when you deprive fellow citizens of civil rights.

          From my perspective, they were stuck in their own narrative without engaging the logical argument.

          Oh, please. You were the one who never provided a logical argument, let alone one backed up by evidence.

          From my perspective (and the facts support me), you blocked Greg G. for using the word “fuck” in context and never responded to his logic (which made up the nintety-something non-“fuck” part of his argument, you blocked IA for being a little rougher, because he just called shite on your general approach, and now, you’ve ignored all of my attempts to engage you in “logic” and “evidence” (something that most reasonable forms of logic insist on, when you make evidential claims)….

          But now, here you are again doing nothing but offering your opinion without supporting it.

          Fuck.

          =====

          Edit:: 2 minutes later… formatting.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Did you ever bother to examine ildi’s peer-reviewed link?

          Or any peer-reviewed analysis at all?

          Behave yerself missus.

          We are talking about a Roman Catholic woo-woo merchant entrenched in homophobic bigotry…they don’t do critical or rational thinking based on evidence. It’s all about the ickiness of it…bman is a lights off, winceyette nightdress hoist up, and the missionary position kinda guy. Certainly no “dirty talk”…just another deluded eejit.

        • Susan

          no “dirty talk”

          Yesterday, I couldn’t resist putting an extraneous “fuck” at the end of comments to bman and to one to Bob S. about bman.

          It was an irresistible impulse. Must have been the devil at work. .

          🙂

        • Sometimes you must follow the Muse.

        • ildi

          The pretense that there is any scientific evidence for their bigotry really chaps my ass.

        • Susan

          The pretense that there is any scientific evidence for their bigotry really chaps my ass.

          Chaps mine too.

          That it doesn’t seem to bother him that he’s got nothing is very troublesome to me.

          That the evidence does nothing for his position.

          That he likes to use words like “logic” and “harm” and “credible” and “persuasive” and then compounds them with “logically persuasive” and then he accuses people who responded to him on all those topics of being “stuck in their own narrative without engaging logical argument”…

          The nerve.

          The arrogance.

          The ignorance.

          The dishonesty.

          He’s got exactly…

          Nothing.

          And thinks that’s enough to deprive our fellow citizens of equal rights.

          What he really means is that his church is against it.

          But they’re also against secular interference in the child-raping rings their church has supported for so long.

          So, I don’t give a fuck what his church thinks.

        • ildi

          Although your graph makes the same amount of decline seem minor, Schaerr argues that a small persistent decline can adversely affect the marriage eco-system.

          How many times do I have to repeat that Schaerr first has to demonstrate that there is any connection between the rates of opposite sex marriages and the legalization of gay marriage? His data is garbage. He pulled his mathematical formula out of his nether regions. Schaerr is a lawyer, not a scientist, so I don’t really care what his opinions are. I will ignore any more attempts on your part to legitimize his arguments as having any scientific support. If you continue to cite this legal brief as “evidence” that gay marriage has a direct deleterious effect on opposite sex marriage, I can only assume you do so to deceive. (As an aside, peppering your statements with “logical” and “rational” do not automatically make them so…)

          What you seem to be willfully missing here is that legalization of gay marriage is part of the pattern of marriage norms having changed from being an economic and community-strengthening arrangement to one of love-based pair-bonding outside any familial demands or requirements. If we allow people to pick their partners based on their own choices and who they fall in love with, it becomes a legal no-brainer to extend this right to gay people. What you keep insisting are marriage “norms” have only been norms for a few hundred years, if that. Families and communities no longer depend on marriage alliances to support and maintain them. The industrial revolution changed workforce dynamics. Women and children are no longer considered property. Science has revolutionized reproductive control. These genies are highly unlikely to be put back in the bottle. Blame “true love” for the destruction of your vaunted “norms.”

          I could cite more data about declines in marriage rates and their causes, but I don’t think you really care. This is not about decreases in opposite sex marriage rates. My theory about the fervent hysteria surrounding the legalization of gay marriage is that the longer that gay marriage is legal, the more society sees that, unlike how conservatives attempt to portray it, it is not a sexual deviance (which is why I suspect conservatives focus so much on the mechanics of what goes where), but that gay people can and do fall in love, can and do form long-lasting bonds and can and do raise children who are as well-adjusted as children of opposite-sex marriages, in other words, they’re normal.

          Btw, just to show how Schaerr is the master of misrepresentation, E. J Graff wrote a book called What Is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution in 2004 just after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage: http://www.beacon.org/What-Is-Marriage-For-P319.aspx

          In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s historic Goodridge decision, a reissue of the bible of the same-sex marriage movement

          Will same-sex couples destroy “traditional” marriage, soon to be followed by the collapse of all civilization? That charge has been leveled throughout history whenever the marriage rules change. But marriage, as E. J. Graff shows in this lively, fascinating tour through the history of marriage in the West, has always been a social battleground, its rules constantly shifting to fit each era and economy. The marriage debates have been especially tumultuous for the past hundred and fifty years-in ways that lead directly to today’s debate over whether marriage could mean not just Boy + Girl = Babies, but also Girl + Girl = Love.

        • bman

          “How many times do I have to repeat that Schaerr first has to demonstrate that there is any connection between the rates of opposite sex marriages and the legalization of gay marriage?”

          Rather, how many times must you repeat yourself [that a connection must be scientifically demonstrated] before you realize Schaerr is arguing that a “logical connection” exists.

        • ildi

          What are you talking about? Schaerr himself is claiming that there is a scientific basis for his contention that there is a connection. He can speculate all he wants that there may be a possible connection, but he went much further than that. In any event, the guy has clearly shown himself to be unethical in misrepresenting the numbers, the studies and the scholars’ positions. The more you uncritically argue his case, the more you paint yourself with the same brush.

        • bman

          “What are you talking about? Schaerr himself is claiming that there is a
          scientific basis for his contention that there is a connection.

          I mean the logical aspect of his argument stands even if we exclude the statistics.

          In the previous article Schaerr wrote,

          “The only thing these advocates dispute is the first link in the causal
          chain—that redefining marriage will depress opposite-sex marriage rates.
          But that naturally follows from what the advocates do not dispute…”

          And this from the brief, “Under reasonable assumptions….a five percent reduction in the U.S. long-run opposite-sex marriage rate….would likely result in an additional 1.275 million women eschewing marriage over the next fertility cycle (30 years). …The mechanism is simple and intuitive: Fewer opposite-sex marriages means more unmarried women, more children born to un-married mothers, fewer total children born, and more children aborted.”

        • ildi

          I mean the logical aspect of his argument stands if we exclude the statistics.

          HE BASED HIS LOGIC ON THE STATISTICS! What part of this are you having trouble with?

          The mechanism is simple and intuitive: Fewer opposite-sex marriages means more unmarried women, more children born to unwed mothers, fewer total children born, and more children aborted.

          Really? Let’s see how this “intuitive” (such logic! much rational!) mechanism plays out in real life, shall we? Since gay marriage has been legal the longest in Massachusetts, I put together a chart of marriage, birth and abortion rates from 2003 through 2015. I don’t see how one could predict any “intuitive” effects of gay marriage based on these trends:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/84e14c3f6e5ae9f7efbf149be56ec2391a01a7ceee34aa95bd218bae72360088.jpg

        • bman

          re: “HE BASED HIS LOGIC ON THE STATISTICS! What part of this are you having trouble with?”
          —-
          The statistics are used to help validate the logic, but that is not the same as basing his logic on the statistics.

        • ildi

          The statistics are used to help validate the logic, but that is not the same as basing his logic on the statistics.

          Yeah, but when you go the route of faking your data to validate your logic, your credibility is shot (I guess not in your eyes, but then we know why, don’t we?) Also, you have not addressed why current data do not support the predictions of his logic.

        • bman

          “….you have not addressed why current data do not support the predictions of his logic.

          Perhaps I missed it. Did you provide current data on opposite sex marriage rates in the four states mentioned in the brief ?

        • ildi

          Perhaps I missed it.

          I’m referring to the Massachusetts rates from 2003 through 2015. One would think that’s enough of a time span to give us an indication if Schaerr’s “intuitive” arguments have any merit. I took out the birth rates from the chart and added his opposite sex marriage rates (though I don’t trust that weasel to have reported anything with any accuracy). Really all that shows up is an increase in all marriages in 2004, which one would expect given that gay marriage became legal in May of that year, but otherwise marriage rates have stayed pretty flat for the entire period (range of 5.5 – 6.5), and opposite sex marriages are even flatter for the time frame given by Schaerr (in the range of 5.1 – 5.8). In fact, if one assumes a year lag time in planning a wedding for the gay marriage bump to have an effect, the range is flatter than Schaerr’s numbers (5.5 – 5.9). There seems to be no indication that straight people are getting married at a lesser rate.

          Second, even if there is some hidden reduction in opposite sex marriage (e.g., more and more gay marriages over that time frame rather than a flat percent of the total), there is no indication that there is a direct correlation in the number of abortions based on his argument that gay marriage leads to more unmarried women who have lots of abortions. The numbers do go up in 2004-2006, then drop to their lowest rate in this time frame in 2011 before increasing slightly over the rest of the span. Is he suggesting that women had panic abortions the first couple of years they encountered married gay couples?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/775182b3ccc6e9ea565d617ec8ef5df9ce5819ac5298112ec22e97ec8cb7c74e.jpg

        • bman

          “….but otherwise marriage rates have stayed pretty flat for the entire period (range of 5.5 – 6.5)..

          Since the issue is not “marriage rates” but “opposite sex marriage rates,” and since you only show what Schaerr already reported on that, with no new information on OS rates, your argument seems to fall short of what is needed.

          “…and opposite sex marriages are even flatter for the time frame given by Schaerr (in the range of 5.1 – 5.8)

          Your “5.1-5.8” masks that it was a downward trend from 5.8 to 5.1. The chart shows it, of course, but some readers still might miss that.

          You call that range “flat” but Schaerr’s verbal argument says small temperature change in an ecosystem can have major negative impact, and so can small changes in OS rates.

          So, your use of the word “flat” does not engage the verbal argument.

          And given your training in scientific method, why didn’t you update the OS rate all the way to 2015? The lack of update on OS rates seems to confirm Schaerr’s point that the data is not being made readily available.

          “Second, even if there is some hidden reduction in opposite sex marriage (e.g., more and more gay marriages over that time frame rather than a flat percent of the total), there is no indication that there is a direct correlation in the number of abortions based on his argument that gay marriage leads to more unmarried women who have lots of abortions.”

          Your claim seems correct on that for the years you list. A nice piece of comparative research and analysis on your part, too, I think.

          I suppose Schaerr would say his 30 year analysis on the number of abortions used an “average rate” based on historical data, which could play out over the longer haul.

          It seems that rate may be changing, however, because the millennial generation is more pro-life! than their parents were (though you would think just the opposite from listening to how Democratic politicians campaign on abortion rights).

        • ildi

          …Schaerr’s verbal argument says small temperature change in an ecosystem can have major negative impact, and so can small changes in OS rates.

          As I’ve said before, Schaerr is an attorney with no background in the social, behavioral, biological or political sciences who has proven himself to be deceitful when it comes to providing evidence for his positions so his opinions carry no weight. You continue to quote him as if he has any insights into the topic because this way you can pretend this is all about the imminent collapse of western civilization. Your increasing desperation to defend his arguments reflects poorly on your ability to be honest on this topic.

          Back to the actual numbers: I addressed that OS and total marriage rates were trending the same, and there’s no reason to think that this hides a bigger decrease in OS marriages. The data is and was readily available to Schaerr at the time, but it is state-level data and that level of granularity isn’t published on websites but has to be extracted from the raw data. Schaerr seemed to find it easier (and probably cheaper for his client to skip those billable hours) to just cadge a few numbers from existing studies.

          However, lucky for you and Schaerr, I can put your concerns to rest on this particular issue. I found a chart from a 2017 article https://hull.wickedlocal.com/news/20180517/on-14th-anniversary-same-sex-marriage-seen-as-same-old-same-old On 14th anniversary, same-sex marriage seen as ‘same-old, same-old’ that provides opposite sex marriage numbers for the state, and using total population numbers from the mass.gov website I was able to fill in the rest of the chart, per your demand. The results are interesting: Massachusetts data seems to indicate that opposite sex marriage rates are on the increase since Obergefell! You must be so relieved! Maybe straight people are seeing their gay family members and coworkers and neighbors marrying and they think to themselves “if they’re so into it, there must be something to this marriage thing, seeing as how gays are such trendsetters.” Gay marriage is actually SAVING western civilization! /snark
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e06c36338ce721f6e5b1f402c5e0243151c6cf4d25998f1e8add7c3ef219a008.jpg

        • Natureboi

          The mechanism is simple and intuitive: Fewer opposite-sex marriages means more unmarried women, more children born to un-married mothers, fewer total children born, and more children aborted.”

          Please show me evidence this has happened since 2004.

          The please show me the direct correlation due to ssm.

        • bman

          re: “Please show me evidence this has happened since 2004.

          I am saying the argument is intuitvely strong now, even if we must wait a decade or more before evidence develops.

          It is really not much different than saying any new and radical change to public marriage norms would likely result in the eventual decline of the older norms.

        • Natureboi

          I am saying the argument is intuitvely strong now, even if we must wait a decade or more before evidence develops.

          Translation:
          THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

          It is really not much different than saying any new and radical change to public marriage norms would likely result in the eventual decline of the older norms.

          LIKELY?
          We don’t determine who gets or doesn’t get rights based on what likely might happen.

          Listen sir, society does not and can not deny rights based only on meaningless intangible predictions.

          Just be honest and cut all this desperate absurd excuse-making nonsense.
          Your religion is your reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.
          Correct?

        • bman

          I just updated my previous reply so it includes this Shaerr quote from the article you cited, “It is still too new to do a rigorous causation analysis using statistical methods…”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Actually, not so.

          Considering that a lot of children will live in *two* father homes, it could balance out statistically.

          And what is so important about father-full homes? Are you going to outlaw divorce? Force widows to remarry?

          I mean, that’s just *nonsense*…

        • And since Obergefell has already been decided, go through the points and show us that the sky is indeed falling.

        • bman

          re: “And since Obergefell has already been decided, go through the points…”

          The points used in Obergefell were logically and legally refuted in the dissenting opinions of the other four justices.

          Also, some pro-ssmers were disappointed with the foggy reasoning it used. See article A great decision on same-sex marriage – but based on dubious reasoning

          Excerpt: “….for many of us who have supported their cause, the result in today’s case matters more than the reasoning. But the Court’s legal reasoning also deserves attention, both because it is important in its own right, and because it establishes a precedent for future cases. Unfortunately, much of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is based on dubious and sometimes incoherent logic .”

        • Well, heck, if the minority opinion matches yours, then I agree that it was a bad decision.

          So share that with us. Why should SSM be illegal? Before you answer, don’t just give a claim that I’ve refuted in this post series. Show us why my rebuttal was wrong and that argument remains valid.

        • bman

          re: “…don’t just give a claim that I’ve refuted in this post series.”

          Is there a page that lists all articles in the series?

        • This post is #1. Go to the bottom of the post and you’ll see the link for #2, etc.

        • bman

          “This post is #1. Go to the bottom of the post and you’ll see the link for #2, etc.

          I asked because there seems to be no link in #2 for # 3, etc.

          At the bottom of #2 it says, “To be continued,” but I did not find a link attached

          I then decided to change the url for #2 to say #3 instead. I got a page to display, but it did not seem to have a link to #4.

        • Search on this page for “continued in part 2”

        • I see your point. I’ve added the links beyond the first one. Should take an hour or so to propagate through.

        • Susan

          will show the article has more explanatory power

          One additional comment.

          The only thing that shows that the article has explanatory power is to show that the article has explanatory power/

          If you can do that, you get to to claim it.

          No one will argue.

          Until you do, you don’t get to claim it.

        • bman

          re: “Until you do, you don’t get to claim it.”

          I think it obvious that “nope” has less explanatory by default than does an article that offers statistics, facts, and theory.

        • Raging Bee

          Charitable interpretations are necessary the FIRST time we hear a certain argument. This is not the first time we’ve heard your obvious sophistry and found it to be devoid of merit and undeserving of respect or charity.

          If you want charity, at least bring something we haven’t already heard, and heard debunked, too many times before.

        • Greg G.

          He thinks using the word “fuck” in the sense of having sex is “incivil”. He will walk of in a huff.

        • Raging Bee

          I delay proving them until later as discussion develops.

          Here’s a little protip: after your bluff has been called, there’s no “discussion period.” Either you have a winning hand, or you lose. Discussion doesn’t change the result.

        • Susan

          Here is a tentative argument.

          Too full of mush. I’m not about to waste a dozen comment boxes trying to get you to define “wrong” and “socio-moral”.

          What you’re saying is that extending marriage rights to homosexuals will harm society.

          If that is what you’re saying, make your case and provide evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In premise 1, who decides what a “wrong” socio-moral understanding of marriage is, and what constitutes “harm” to society?

          In premise 2, words are defined by their use in common parlance, you don’t get to own the definition of marriage as it applies to your narrow-minded and bigoted worldview. Same sex marriage goes back way before Christianity. And even the Christian version wasn’t always what you think it is today.

          And your conclusion is pure silly pants. The world has not collapsed into hedonistic debauchery as a result of same sex marriage in those places where it has been legalized.

          And the evidence is clear that SSM does not harm society, as a matter of fact, research suggests it actually benefits society.

          But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

          https://theconversation.com/evidence-is-clear-on-the-benefits-of-legalising-same-sex-marriage-82428

          So your whole argument is a parcel of bigoted lies. You have been right royal pwn’d…give it up already….you lost.

          ETA omitted citation.

        • Natureboi

          Conclusion: Ssm will harm society.

          Please demonstrate the “harm” it caused in Massachusetts since ssm was legalized 15 years ago in 2004.

        • Raging Bee

          ARE YOU KIDDING ZOMG THE WHOLE STATE IS IN FLAMES FROM ALL THE HEDONISTIC GAY PAGAN BONFIRES AND SATANIC BABY-ROASTS AND WE DON’T SEE IT ‘CAUSE OF TEH PC-LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO PROMOTE THE GAY AGENDA!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!

        • Natureboi

          God will incur wrath on this abominable state…
          eventually…
          I’m sure…
          some day…
          …just wait.

        • Greg G.

          Don’t you remember 16 years ago when Massachusetts was larger than Texas but the large eastern peninsula sank? Providence kept Rhode Island from going down with it by running it aground.

        • Raging Bee

          Atlantis was part of Massachusetts? Who knew? (And judging from that recent movie, God’s wrath didn’t make the Atlanteans any less gay…)

        • Natureboi

          The oceans aren’t rising…
          America is sinking.

        • Raging Bee

          Premise 2 is unfounded, therefore your conclusion fails.

        • bman

          re: “Premise 2 is unfounded, therefore your conclusion fails.”

          Here we go again. : -)

          I have already answer that argument many times.

          Premise 2 will need to be supported at some point, but the issue now is whether the conclusion would result if the two premsies are true.

        • Raging Bee

          No, that’s not the issue, since neither of the premises have been proven true.

        • bman

          re”: “No, that’s not the issue, since neither of the premises have been proven true.”
          —-
          A tentative argument is like a hypothesis that is formulated before it is tested.

        • Raging Bee

          If it’s refuted and never tested, then it’s just bullshit.

        • bman

          I am not willing to participate in a discussion where vulgarity is used.

        • Raging Bee

          You’re looking for an excuse to flounce, because you know you have nothing.

        • bman

          If you are worried I might use that as an excuse, you can simply avoid the use of vulgarity.

        • Susan

          the issue is now whether the conclusion would result if the two premises are true.

          No, the issue is moot because you can’t prove your premises. You already said that you can’t. You’re wasting our time with pointless syllogisms.

          A smoke screen for an inability to make a case.

        • bman

          re: “Premise 2 is unfounded, therefore your conclusion fails.”

          Here we go again. : -)

          I say that because I have answered different forms of that argument here multiple times.

          Of course, premise 2 will need to be supported at some point, but it is a tentative argument.

          The issue now is whether the conclusion would logically result if the two premises were true.

        • Raging Bee

          So get back to us when you’ve managed to flesh out your “tentative argument” into one that’s actually honest and supports a verifiably true conclusion. Until then, all you have is a “tentative argument” that’s been solidly debunked. Which is to say, you got nothing.

        • ildi

          Right back atcha:

          Premise 1: A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm society.
          Premise 2: Complementarianism wrongly redefines marriage socio-morally.
          Conclusion: Complementarianism will harm society.

        • bman

          re: “Right back atcha:”

          That seems OK as a tentative counter-argument to mine.

        • Grimlock

          Hmm..

          What do you mean by “wrong”? I wonder if you mean “socially harmful”. If so, P1 can be read as “what’s harmful to society is harmful to society”. If so, P2 is simply a different way to phrase the conclusion, and the argument begs the question.

          The term “socio-morally” seems redundant and confusing. You might wanna drop it.

        • bman

          “What do you mean by “wrong”? I wonder if you mean “socially harmful”.

          Here are some tentative definitions:
          Socio-morality – The moral code of a society, especially on sexual morals and marriage.

          A right socio-moral code on marriage – The moral principles on sex and marriage necessary for society to have a strong and robust marriage culture with intact biological families as the pre-dominant norm, that also acts like an immune system to protect future generations morally from harmful socio-sexual ills that would become the norm in the absence of a rightly principled public morality [i.e., high rates of unmarried sex, unmarried childbirth, STDs, irresponsible teen pregancies, abortions, high divorce rates, single parent households, absentee fathers, juvenile deliquency, school violence, homosexual peer pressure among children in public schools, transgender confusion, etc.]

          A wrong socio-morality – An understanding of sex and marriage that prevents a right socio-moral code from protecting society, children, families, and future generations from harmful socio-sexual ills.

          With the definitions stated, I update my tentative argument as follows:

          Premise 1: A wrong socio-moral understanding of marriage will harm good social norms.
          Premise 2: Same sex marriage law wrongly defines marriage socio-morally
          Conclusion: Same sex marriage law will harm good social norms.

        • Grimlock

          Aight. Interesting restatement. A couple of issues, though, just focusing on the stricture and not the soundness.

          1) The moral code of a society is not equivalent to the law of said society. As such, the conclusion doesn’t strictly speaking follow from the premises.

          2) I’m not sure what distinguishes social norms from socio-morality. As such, the first premise seems to boil down to bad social norms results in bad social norms. Assuming a restatement that corrects for (1), it would once again appear that (2) and (3) are functionally identical. I don’t know whether this technically speaking qualifies as begging the question, but it seems close enough to be problematic.

          3) This whole logical structure seems redundant. To put it plainly, it seems you want to argue that allowing same sex marriage is harmful to society. The wrapping just confounds the issue.

        • bman

          1) The moral code of a society is not equivalent to the law of said society. As such, the conclusion doesn’t strictly speaking follow from the premises.

          If the law undermines a right socio-moral code (as I defined it) then the law becomes an agency that harms good behavioral norms by promoting a wrong socio-moral code to society.

          “I’m not sure what distinguishes social norms from socio-morality.”

          A brief web search shows the term “norms” tends to include beliefs and behavior, but I used “socio-morality” to refer to the beliefs and “norms” to refer to the behavior.

          So, where I used the term social norms, interpret that to mean (behavioral) norms, as distinct from the normative moral beliefs of society.

          It looks like I should add the qualifier “behavioral” in the future to make this distinction clearer.

          This excerpt from Wikipedia on Social Norms seems to approximate my current approach, “According to the psychological definition of social norms’ behavioral component, norms have two dimensions: how much a behavior is exhibited, and how much the group [morally] approves of that behavior .

          “This whole logical structure seems redundant. To put it plainly, it seems you want to argue that allowing same sex marriage is harmful to society. The wrapping just confounds the issue.

          I view the wrapping as essential to the argument.

          The argument is not to simply show that ssm is harmful to society, but to show “ssm law” is harmful to society because it adulterates the belief norms concerning sex and marriage, which translates into increases in harmful behavioral patterns, and decreases in beneficial behavioral patterns .

        • Natureboi

          Why is being gay “harmful”?
          How is not being gay “beneficial?”

        • Grimlock

          The argument is not to simply show that ssm is harmful to society, but to show “ssm law” is harmful to society because it adulterates the belief norms concerning sex and marriage, which translates into increases in harmful behavioral patterns, and decreases in beneficial behavioral patterns

          I think you’re trying to cram too much into a simple sylllogism.

          Your position is, then, simply that you think that allowing same sex couples to marry, somehow has negative consequences for a society. Wrapping it in a syllogism doesn’t contribute to “showing” this. Playing with the definitions of words doesn’t do much either.

          You want to argue that allowing two people who happen to be fairly close to each other on the sex spectrum to marry is bad for society.

          Good luck with demonstrating that.

        • Natureboi

          1) Please show me that this has happened in Massachusetts since ssm was legalized there in 2004.
          2) Please explain why homosexuality is “immoral.”

        • igor

          There is a same-sex couple sharing a house down my street. I do not know their marriage status (I am in AU where SSM is legal).

          If they decide to keep their marriage status to themselves, how am I impacted? Answer – I am not impacted in any way.

          How is anybody else imapacted? Answer – not impacted in any way.

          So what are these “good social norms” and specifically how are they impacted by SSM and not impacted by SS-CivilUnion or SS-defacto? And especially if the relationship status is kept a secret.

        • bman

          If they decide to keep their marriage status to themselves, how am I impacted? Answer – I am not impacted in any way.How is anybody else imapacted? Answer – not impacted in any way.

          I essentially agree with you on that point.

          So what are these “good social norms” and specifically how are they impacted by SSM and not impacted by SS-CivilUnion or SS-defacto? And especially if the relationship status is kept a secret.

          I argue that “ssm law” changes everything that connects to marriage even if no one got same sex married. It (ssm law) changes public morality, family law, parental rights, the purpose of birth certificates, education, business, government, freedom of speech, freedom to disagree and still keep your job, etc.

          Consider the case of Trinity Western University in Canada. The high court denied it the right to start a law school simply because it had a Christian code of sexual conduct that said sex is only acceptable within a husband-wife marriage.

        • igor

          Hi bman, I am grateful that sometimes you provide good answers to questions; I am trying to understand your position on this issue so these explanations do help.

          It is indeed the case that “ssm law” results in some changes. You have listed some of these from your perspective, but I think that for these that you have listed, changes due to this specific change (ie to allow SSM) are very minor, if any.

          Arguably there have been more significant changes due to IVF, surrogacy, adoption, single parents, unmarried couples procreating/adopting, divorce/re-marriage to name a few. As for freedoms, there are already constraints on these freedoms to which some people have vigorous objection – the SSM aspects are relatively minor.

          So I am not totally disagreeing with you here, I am saying that perhaps you are exaggerating the significance. And maybe the greatest significance comes from keeping the issue alive in the arena of public discussion. If the issue went quiet, it would be almost entirely ignored/forgotten by alomst everybody. I suggest that it is the opposing activists who keep the issue alive who are causing the issue to be a problem.

          Somaybe you are contributing to creating the problem that you decry/oppose. rgds..

        • epeeist

          There is a same-sex couple sharing a house down my street. I do not know their marriage status

          A man and a woman live in a property a couple of doors down from me, I don’t know their marriage status either. To use a euphemism from a while back, they may be living “over the brush”. As with your example, this impacts me not at all.

          Moral of our two stories, keep your nose out of business that doesn’t concern you.

        • Right–if the article has accurate points, then that’s important. And, to repeat myself, I gave your article a read and was stopped by the first (stupid) argument. Are the remaining arguments as ridiculous? My guess is yes. If you want to bring forward one or two that you think are especially compelling, that would be fine. However, before you do that, you should read this entire post series, because it will likely give my response to any argument you’ll find in that article.

        • Raging Bee

          Those points were debunked by Natureboi, therefore there’s no evidence that SSM poses long term socio-cultural harm to society. QEDuh.

        • Rudy R

          Shall we start listing the various harms of instutionalized opposite sex marriage? Is that the road you wanna go down?

        • Natureboi

          I have read the Heritage Foundation’s “report” on marriage.
          It is full of falsehoods and misleading manipulative fear-invoking nonsense.
          From this “report” I quote:

          1) Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

          WRONG
          If so, then ONLY people who have children should be allowed to marry, and ALL couples who marry MUST have children to keep their marital status. There is NO procreation mandate in any marriage law.
          DEBUNKED.

          2) Government can treat people equally and respect their liberty without redefining marriage.

          WRONG
          If gays are not allowed to marry the person of their choice, they are not treated equally.
          Plain and simple.

          It doesn’t matter how or why one comes to want to have sex with a certain type of person or marry them. Either we are a society that protects your sexual freedom and your liberty to choose your marital partner or we’re not.
          DEBUNKED.

          3) Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

          WRONG.
          It is up to the parents to address the needs of their children. Denying 1138 federal + hundreds of state rights to same-sex couples with children creates a “distance” from the needs of the children of same-sex couples and the couples raising them.
          It is up to the parents to be an “importance” to their children. Denying 1138 federal + hundreds of state rights to same-sex couples with or without children doesn’t affect the “importance” of parents and parenting. It is up to the parents to be an “importance” to their children.
          This statement is false, as prohibiting same-sex marriage actually harms the very children alleged needing to be protected. It is a hypocritical false dichotomy.

          In the last 15 years of same-sex marriage being legal in Massachusetts, NONE of this doom and gloom has played out.
          In the last 15 years of same-sex marriage being legal in Massachusetts, there is no evidence of this so-called “distancing” occurring there due to the inclusion of same-sex couples.

          Either we are a society that protects the needs of all children or we’re not.
          DEBUNKED.

        • bman

          Thank you for your logical response to that article.

          I have encountered those responses before online, in court briefs and, articles elsewhere which effectively debunked your responses, in my opinion.

          For now, I will limit my rebuttal to your comment in item 1, where you rightly say there is no procreation mandate in any marriage law.

          Although your comment on that is correct, it does not debunk the article’s claim for why marriage exists as a public institution.

          To offer an analogy, there is no legal mandate to catch a fish to have a fishing license.

          Does that debunk the claim that the fishing license exists to regulate fish catching? No, it does not.

          Obviously, the fishing license exists to regulate and bring public order to fish catching, even though it does not mandate that anyone must catch a fish.

          Marriage law is similar. The state regulates marriage as a means to give moral and legal order to population growth, and to provide a unique, socially supported, socially approved, protective environment for [sexual intercourse-procreation-having children] that is socially responsible, morally upright, and with human dignity.

        • Raging Bee

          Obviously, the fishing license exists to regulate and bring public order to fish catching, even though it does not mandate that anyone must catch a fish.

          And there’s no reason to discriminate against any general or specific group of people when granting fishing licences. No one says, for example, that letting some group fish “distances” fishing licences from their original purpose. So this does not support your claims about SSM AT ALL.

          I was about to say your analogy was bad, but that’s wrong: it’s a very good analogy, since it proves our point about how arbitrary and invalid a ban on SSM really is.

        • bman

          “I was about to say your analogy was bad, but that’s wrong: it’s a very
          good analogy, since it proves our point about how arbitrary and invalid a
          ban on SSM really is.”

          Even if you use that different aspect of the fishing license to support your argument, the aspect I mentioned still shows what I claimed, “the fishing license exists to regulate and bring public order to fish catching, even though it does not mandate that anyone must catch a fish.”

        • Raging Bee

          I still don’t see how that proves your point: you’re not required to catch ay fish to get a fishing licence; and and you’re not required to make any babies to get married. So where’s the problem with SSM?

        • bman

          I still don’t see how that proves your point: you’re not required to
          catch ay fish to get a fishing licence; and and you’re not required to
          make any babies to get married. So where’s the problem with SSM?

          You seem to have lost track of the reason I used the analogy. NB claimed marriage did not mandate procreation, as if that “debunked” the article I referenced.

          I replied it did not debunk the article because marriage regulated procreation without having to mandate procreation, much like a fishing license regulates fish catching without mandating fish catching.

        • Raging Bee

          I replied it did not debunk the article because marriage regulated procreation without having to mandate procreation…

          Exactly. Which means there’s still no good reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. Just like we don’t prohibit people from marrying after menopause.

        • Raging Bee

          I have encountered those responses before online, in court briefs and, articles elsewhere which effectively debunked your responses, in my opinion.

          Okay, let’s put your opinion to the test: citation required.

        • Natureboi

          Marriage law is similar. The state regulates marriage as a means to give moral and legal order to population growth, and to provide a unique, socially supported, socially approved, protective environment for [sexual intercourse-procreation-having children] that is socially responsible, morally upright, and with human dignity.

          Holy crap.
          There is so much wrong with this statement, I doubt you will be able to explain it all logically and rationally.
          1) Please explain “moral order.”
          2) Please explain “legal order.”
          3) Please explain “unique.”
          4) Please explain “socially supported.”
          5) Please explain “socially approved.”
          6) Please explain “socially responsible,”
          7) Please explain “morally upright.”
          8) And please explain “human dignity.”

          All the above 8 questions MUST be explained in relation to legal marriage.

        • bman

          I replied to your post but it was “detected as spam” and sent to the moderator. I think should wait awhile to allow it to post.

        • Grimlock

          You might want to tag a moderator to call attention to the comment marked as spam. Based on my own experience with getting comments marked as spam (at least four places here on Patheos), Disqus doesn’t necessarily give notice to the moderators automatically.

        • Natureboi

          Try posting one answer at a time.
          Start with 1.

        • bman

          “Start with 1”

          Ok will do. If the earlier version shows up I plan to delete it.

          There is so much wrong with this statement, I doubt you will be able to explain it all logically and rationally.

          Keep in mind the context. I am referring to how marriage was traditionally understood in both law and the culture, before ssm arrived on the scene.

          Note, too, despite your claim “there is so much wrong” with my statement, you did not actually show anything was wrong with it.

          Moving now to your first question:

          1) “Please explain “moral order.”

          That refers to the social norms of society based on shared moral principles held by society.

          If society does not uphold right moral beliefs there is nothing to prevent social norms from degrading into chronic social ills, and there is nothing to prevent those social ills from degrading more as time progresses into worsening social ills.

          There is a serious threat, therefore, from downward spirals of social norms into ever worsening social ills, unless society protects, promotes, and practices a right moral order, where a “right moral order” is one that morally enables good social norms to flourish and keeps harmful social ills minimized.

          In Poe v. Harlan Justice Harlan wrote: (my observations added in [brackets])

          “…the very inclusion of the category of morality [i.e, moral order] among [legitimate] state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community…but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well [i.e., moral norms]…The laws regarding marriage …provide when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, [that means marriage law aimed at regulating sex and procreation] as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices…confining sexuality to lawful marriage..”

          In Maynard v. Hill the court said, “….Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life [has] more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution…”

          In Murphy v. Ramsey, and quoted in Davis v. Beason,

          “…no legislation can be supposed more [morally] wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth…than…[law based on] the idea of the family…springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. ”

          The cases above presume that marriage law brings a good moral order, or a good social norm to society, when opposite-sex-marriage is the only morally and legally approved sexual relationship formally recognized by society.

          Also notice that the court cases say nearly the same thing as point 1 in the article, “Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.”

        • Raging Bee

          Keep in mind the context. I am referring to how marriage was traditionally understood in both law and the culture, before ssm arrived on the scene.

          WHICH “law and the culture?” Hebrew? American? European? Not that “context” is even relevant when we’re talking about fairness, benefits and harms in TODAY’s society.

          Note, too, despite your claim “there is so much wrong” with my statement, you did not actually show anything was wrong with it.

          That obvious falsehood leaves me with very little reason to keep on reading your comments.

          If society does not uphold right moral beliefs there is nothing to prevent social norms from degrading into chronic social ills, and there is nothing to prevent those social ills from degrading more as time progresses into worsening social ills.

          Yes, and anti-gay bigotry is not a “right moral belief,” so getting rid of it, and ending discrimination against innocent people, does nothing to reduce society to chaos. Seriously, that argument of yours has been used to oppose the Abolitionist, civil-rights and women’s rights movements in their entirety! It’s nothing but reactionary fear-mongering in response to ANY significant social change.

          And BTW, your Harlan quote just proves that one person’s vision of a perfect moral order was colored by anti-gay bigotry.

          You still got nothing.

        • bman

          WHICH “law and the culture?” Hebrew? American? European?

          You are not interpreting my posts within the context they were written. If you had you would have understood which law and culture was meant, by the fact I cited US cases on law and culture.

          Not that “context” is even relevant when we’re talking about fairness, benefits and harms in TODAY’s society.

          Context is still relevant. Even if we were talking about whether law and culture was unfair prior to ssm law, (which is not the immediate context) you would need to first show what law and culture taught.

          The immediate context is to show how law and culture linked marriage to procreation prior to ssm law, and that was shown via the court cases mentioned.

          Note, too, despite your claim “there is so much wrong” with my statement, you did not actually show anything was wrong with it.

          “That obvious falsehood leaves me with very little reason to keep on reading your comments.”

          Obvious falsehood? That is just more proof you do not read my comments in context.

          NB claimed there was “so much wrong” with my statement.

          Yet, the post where he said that did not prove anything was wrong with it.

          Although he asked me to explain the meaning of my statement, his request for an explanation did not prove something was actually wrong with my statement.

          So how could you possibly “keep reading” my comments when you aren’t really reading them in the first place?

          The rest of your reply is just more non-contextual “reading” and so I feel no further response is warranted.

        • Raging Bee

          Repeating the same falsehood doesn’t make it less false, or you more credible — especially when the comment in question is still up for all of us to see.

        • bman

          “Repeating the same falsehood doesn’t make it less false, or you more credible — especially when the comment in question is still up for all of us to see.”

          The comment is there for all to see, and so is my explanation on how you did not interpret it contextually.

          Instead of logically rebutting (or accepting) that explanation, as you should have done, you chose to reassert your original interpretation without any substantive argument to support it.

          From my perspective, the block user option will be warranted if you persist in that mode.

        • Raging Bee

          Go ahead and block me — you’ve never been willing to acknowledge my points anyway, so that won’t be a big loss — except to you, because then I’ll be able to refute everything you say, and you’ll be the only one here who DOESN’T see how you’ve been refuted. I’ll get the last word, always, and less time will be wasted sifting through your obvious nonsense. Sounds like a win-win all around!

        • bman

          Blocking user due to repeated uncharitable, accusatory, non-contextual readings, refusal to respond rationally after I explained the context carefully.

        • Raging Bee

          In short, making up excuses to block someone whose points he was obviously never able to address, because “vulgarity” didn’t work with me. Why am I not surprised?

        • Susan

          Blocking user due to repeated uncharitable, accusatory, non-contextual readings

          Glad you got that out of your system.

          But anyone with the ability to scroll up can see that Raging Bee has not been

          1) uncharitable
          2) unreasonably accusatory
          3) stepping outside of context.

          refusal to respond rationally

          4) Nope.

          We can’t read your mind.

          You don’t provide evidence.

          “Context” doesn’t mean you get to invent the rules.

          You haven’t shown harm that is caused to children by extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

          You’ve spent an awful lot of comment space here dodging it and finally flinging feeble articles that don’t show a connection.

          And you block an awful lot of of people when things don’t go according to your plan.

          “Rational” is not the same thing as “not going according to my plan.”

        • Pofarmer

          And you block an awful lot of of people when things don’t go according to your plan.

          Well, that’s an improvement, not that long ago he would have had them burned at the stake.

        • Susan

          not that long ago he would have had them burned at the stake.

          Yes. It really is an improvement. One that makes it all worth it.

        • Greg G.

          Yeah, I hate having to do Houdini escape tricks with my feet on fire.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Religious Arsehole.

        • Susan

          If you had you would have understood which law and culture was meant, by the fact I cited US cases on law and culture.

          You did. But why should anyone assume that one tiny part of the planet in one tiny piece of time got marriage right? And now it should be maintained without question. I think that was Raging Bee’s point. S/he can correct me if I’m wrong.

          That is just more proof you do not read my comments in context.

          As someone whom you’ve accused of preferring deductive arguments over inductive argumens on this subject, you have just exploded some irony meters.

          Raging Bee responded to this statement of yours:

          Note, too, despite your claim “there is so much wrong” with my statement, you did not actually show anything was wrong with it.

          Anyone who can hit an arrow key or left click and scroll can see that s/he did show what was wrong with it.

          So how could you possibly “keep reading” my comments when you aren’t really reading them in the first place?

          Man, that’s another dozen irony meters.

          Give me an example of what it looks like to “read something in context”.

          For instance, if someone repeatedly begs you to give up an obviously flawed syllogism (one that won’t serve you well) and you then lecture then on deductive reasoning while admitting that you can’t prove your premises, and then, after thirty or more comments, you finally make attempts to support your arguments, but the attempts are terrible, and they explain why, and you accuse them of preferring deductive arguments over inductive arguments because they don’t find your inductive arguments strong….

          Who exactly is not reading the context?

          Raging Bee has made polite attempts to engage your logic.

          Has it occurred to you that it’s possible your case is very weak?

        • bman

          Note, too, despite your claim “there is so much wrong” with my statement, you did not actually show anything was wrong with it.

          “Anyone who can hit an arrow key or left click and scroll can see that s/he did show what was wrong with it.”

          Anyone who reads your comment can see you didn’t include any quotation from nb’s post even though that would have been slam dunk proof if you had done so.

          Please quote the excerpt from nbs’ post linked above that allegedly proves your claim.

        • Susan

          Please quote the excerpt from nbs’ post linked above that allegedly proves your claim.

          (sigh)

          His point seems to be that your terms are buried in your assumptions.

          Which is why he asked you to explain them.

          It is an impenetrable fog of unevidenced assumptions.

          Try reading for context. 😉

          Now, your turn. Show a connection between extending marriage rights to homosexuals and harm to children.

          Also, show a connection between extending marriage rights to homosexuals and some sort of causal spike that makes fathers abandon their children.

        • bman

          His point seems to be that your terms are buried in your assumptions. Which is why he asked you to explain them.

          Nb said, “There is so much wrong with this statement, I doubt you will be able to explain it all logically and rationally.”

          Did that prove “there was so much wrong with my statement” that it could not be explained logically and rationally? No.

          Nb was simply not familiar with the terms I used, but that did not prove it was actually wrong for me to use them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          FYI…she…..HE.

          Edit to fix typo…fecking predictive text.

        • bman

          If you had you would have understood which law and culture was meant, by the fact I cited US cases on law and culture.

          “You did. But why should anyone assume that one tiny part of the planet in one tiny piece of time got marriage right?”

          Context applies.

          NB said, “…the above 8 questions MUST be explained in relation to legal marriage.”

          Using your “logic” above, which part of the planet did the phrase “legal marriage” refer to?

          Do you really think nb asked me to answer “in relation to every culture’s definition of legal marriage?

          Even if I had responded with that, I am fairly certain that virtually every known civilization would have marriage laws that presumed marriage was only between a man and woman.

          So, your point about other cultures seems rather pointless.

        • Susan

          You haven’t answered my question.

          virtually every known civilization would have marriage laws that presumed marriage was only between a man and a woman

          No.

          Even if it were true, (and it isn’t), that does nothing to say that extending marriage rights to homosexuals will harm children.

          Either provide evidence for your bigotry, or give up.

        • bman

          You haven’t answered my question.

          You said, “Give me an example of what it looks like to “read something in context”.

          I answered that in principle where I explained how nb’s use of term “legal marriage” warranted my appeal to US courts, contra your non-contextual objection on that.

          Since nb is attempting to refute an article written within US jurisdiction, that context also affects the term “legal marriage.”

          It seems I answered your request in principle, but it also seems you avoided my question on context, “Using your “logic”…which part of the planet did the phrase “legal marriage” refer to?”

          So, the ball is in your court to contextually explain what nb meant by “legal marriage.”

        • Susan

          I said:

          You haven’t answered my question.

          You said:

          You said, “Give me an example of what it looks like to “read something in context”

          You ignored the sentencey thingies that end with a question mark. Those are questions.

          i.e.

          why should anyone assume that one tiny part of the planet in one tiny piece of time got marriage right?

          (which is the question you didn’t answer.)

          Also, another example: (not the question to which I was referring, but one of many you haven’t answered that I and others have asked)

          Has it occurred to you that it’s possible your case is very weak?

          You can ignore that for now. It is obvious that it is weak. But answer the first one, the one I was referring to.

        • bman

          “…which is the question you didn’t answer..

          You asked, “why should anyone assume that one tiny part of the planet in one tiny piece of time got marriage right?”

          I essentially answered that by saying I am fairly certain that marriage laws in virtually every civilization presume a husband-wife union.

          Consider this Wikipedia excerpt on ancient Rome, for example, “The word matrimonium, the root for the English word “matrimony”, defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.”

          Note, however, that your question amounts to a red herring because it draws attention away from the context dispute.

          Yet, the question I asked you about the context of the term “legal marriage” was focused squarely on the context dispute, which you still have not answered.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I essentially answered that by saying I am fairly certain that marriage laws in virtually every civilization presume a husband-wife union.

          But not in this day and age…and guess what? That’s what matters. So more nonsense weaseling.

          And even then, you are still wrong. Go learn something ffs…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

          In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. “In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance,” according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.

          Consider this Wikipedia excerpt on ancient Rome, for example, “The word matrimonium, the root for the English word “matrimony”, defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.”

          Who cares…words are defined by their use in common parlance ya fool.

          Another Wikipedia gives this etymology…

          The word “marriage” derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French, marier (to marry), and ultimately Latin, marītāre, meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for “husband” and in the feminine form for “wife”.[4] The related word “matrimony” derives from the Old French word matremoine, which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium, which combines the two concepts: mater meaning “mother” and the suffix -monium signifying “action, state, or condition”.[5]

          But if we are going to cite a source, let’s try one that is relevant…

          “The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.” ~The American Anthropological Association

          Research findings from 1998–2015 from the University of Virginia, Michigan State University, Florida State University, the University of Amsterdam, the New York State Psychiatric Institute, Stanford University, the University of California-San Francisco, the University of California-Los Angeles, Tufts University, Boston Medical Center, the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, and independent researchers also support the findings of this study.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

          The argument is done…you lost.

        • ildi

          I’ve just started reading Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz – Kirkus Review summary:

          With a host of examples, she considers the long-established system of marriages as they were arranged for economic, social and political advantage. These involved the input of parents, in-laws, siblings, rival nobles, concubines and, after the Middle Ages, popes, bishops and church reformers as well. This system, Coontz finds, remained the norm until the 18th century, when the spread of the market economy and the beginning of the Enlightenment brought profound changes. By the end of that century, the model of a love-based, male-protector marriage was firmly in place, with men and women seen as occupying separate spheres of existence, each dependent on the other and each incomplete without marriage. While the early-20th century saw changes in sexual expressiveness and relations between the sexes, the love-based model persisted, culminating in “the golden age of marriage” in the 1950s. It was, Coontz says, a “unique moment in the history of marriage,” a time when breadwinner husband and stay-at-home mom were considered the norm, and marriage provided the context for the greater part of most people’s lives. While short-lived, the 1950s model has come to be regarded by many as “traditional marriage,” an ideal whose decline is mourned. Coontz, however, exposes that view as shortsighted. Using both story and statistic, she demonstrates that for most of human history marriage has been an alliance held together by outside forces, and that an array of societal transformations continue even now to shape the institution. Just as the long-lived economic/political model can’t be revived, she counsels, neither can the 1950s “traditional” model. In her concluding chapters, she examines the pluses and minuses of contemporary marriage and looks at the value of alternatives.

          https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephanie-coontz/marriage-a-history/

        • a fascinating summary, thanks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye…I’ve read a number of articles in the past that have cited Coontz work. I might have to pick up a copy of her book to get better informed.

          The 1950’s family a.k.a. the proverbial ideal nuclear family.

          The whole nonsense bman is spouting is demonstrably false…but being the gullible religiously motivated bigot he is, he will buy the lies of the snake oil peddler, every time.

        • bman

          Either provide evidence for your bigotry, or give up.

          I view that as an unjustified, uncharitable, accusatory comment based on a non-contextual and prejudiced reading of my comments.

          You ought to practice presumed innocence rather than “guilty until proved innocent.”

        • Susan

          I view that as an unjustified, uncharitable, accusatory comment based on a non-contextual and prejudiced reading of my comments.

          I can’t help how you view it.

          The fact remains that it was like pulling teeth to get you to even address your claim that extending marriage rights and responsibilities to homosexuals would harm society/children.

          And that all you could give us were links to “articles” that don’t show it and that those articles come from a site that has been shown to lie about evidence in all sorts of areas, and that even if they hadn’t been shown to lie about evidence, the articles you provide show no link between giving basic legal marriage rights to homosexuals and harming children.

          If you can show a connection, you are welcome.

          But for all your comments here, you have not shown a thing.

          You ought to practice presumed innocence rather than “guilty until proved innocent.”

          Well, there goes another irony meter.

          Try that with homosexuals whose rights you want to deny. The right to form relationships that are recognized by law, and the right to raise children.

          Anyway, in your case, you’re not on trial. You will not be thrown into prison (no matter how stupid your position is).

          This is a discussion in which you have to support your case.

          And you haven’t. There was no presumption on my part. Early on, I asked you to prove your premises if you want to make a deductive argument. I asked you not to make a deductive argument if you didn’t have one.

          I repeatedly asked you to make an inductive argument if you could, and you haven’t.

          This is not a court of law. You are not on trial.

          Your arguments are. People gave you lots of room and lots of suggestions for providing an argument if you have one.

          But you don’t have one.

          You can blame that on us or you can consider the possibility that you’ve bought into a lot of bad arguments because you already believe them to be true, even if there is no justification for them.

          This is how apologetics thrives. .

        • Pofarmer

          Who the hell was it that was all up in arms about reading comments charitably? This commenter is a sock, because he’s had me blocked from my first comment to him.

        • Susan

          he’s had me blocked from my first comment to him.

          You’re not the only one. The first one I was aware of was Greg G.

          After Greg G. went to great pains to explain why bman’s argument wasn’t valid (when bman was hellbent on using syllogisms, and lecturing us on syllogisms, even though he finally admitted that he couldn’t prove his premises.).

          He called Greg G. out for using the word “fuck: in context and when Greg G/ protested, bman blocked him.

          I guess the word “fuck” in context could send you into such a tizzy that you had to block someone who dared to use it, but you’d think he’d address the problems that Greg G. found in the validity of his argument before doing so. Bman was so committed to logic and syllogisms that you’d think he came here to prove a point.

          But no.

          It’s pretty much the standard appeals to “logic” without showing any and using a case of the vapours when someone who attempts to engage them in their logic uses the wod “fuck” in context.

          And then the standard link to the Witherspoon Institute. (Or Discovery or any bunch of liars that you haven’t questioned.)

          Sorry… I started to wander there. What were you saying?

          Oh, yeah. The selective demand for charity.

          Fuck.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Blocked me after a couple for the crime of “vulgarity”…but it was probably to juke addressing the evidence decimating his nonsense. He did the same with Greg…the difference being, as ya know, I was actually guilty.

        • Greg G.

          He did the same with Greg

          No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

          Oh yeah, well — he did that, yeah.

          Well he had to, didn’t he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law.

        • I’ve seen men tear their own ‘eads off rather than see Dinsdale …

        • Susan

          This commenter is a sock

          Sorry. I missed that point the first time around.

          So, a sock too?

          Nice.

        • bman

          The fact remains…

          I disputed your narrative before by listing 9 facts in this earlier post so I will not repeat the effort here.

          You complain about repeated delays, weak arguments, articles you
          disagree with, insufficient support for my claims, and such.

          Even if your narrative is presumed correct, however, it does not justify the charge of bigotry.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even if your narrative is presumed correct, however, it does not justify the charge of bigotry.

          Your denying a human right to a minority group does that ya eejit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And that all you could give us were links to “articles” that don’t show it and that those articles come from a site that has been shown to lie about evidence in all sorts of areas, and that even if they hadn’t been shown to lie about evidence, the articles you provide show no link between giving basic legal marriage rights to homosexuals and harming children.

          The problem with the whole “children of same sex parenting marriages, fair poorer than those of heterosexual biological parenting marriages” trope, is that right off the bat, most children that have been same sex parents may have already been abandoned by at least one parent, and in many cases both…so the data is already being skewed. There’s plenty of adoption going on too, so while there might be kids that could be a bit worse off than the typical family unit, the alternative is much worse. But it gets even worse than that. I’d like to see the data vis a vis non-biological parents for comparison.

          Anyway…it would appear that arseholes are playing fast and loose with research.

          There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting. Studies suggesting otherwise are skewed

          It behoves any good society to look after the welfare of its children and to ensure that potential harms to those children are researched, quantified and avoided. Paediatricians specialise in child welfare, and it is our responsibility to understand the relevant research data. On review of a large body of research, paediatricians and other experts repeatedly come to the same conclusion: children raised by same-sex parents are no different from those raised by heterosexual parents. Of 79 research studies on this topic, 95% support no difference between same sex or heterosexual parents. However, much attention has been drawn to the results of the outlier 5%, which suggest poorer outcomes in same-sex parented families. It is important to look at these outlier studies in detail.

          While in academia anyone should be able to analyse and publish data, it’s unusual that recent papers reporting outlier outcomes have been led by non-expert authors, including an economist, a sociologist with particular interest in religious matters and an academic whose stated expertise is in faith and religion. One can already see the risk of bias in the interpretation of the data, and close analysis does find methodological flaws in the outlier studies.

          We know that children who experience family breakdown or a single parent don’t tend to do as well as those with stable, married parents. The outlier studies looked at children from families with same-sex attracted parents in the presence of parental separation and compared these to children who have heterosexual, married parents. That is, unlike more robust studies, they incorrectly conflated the married/unmarried issue with same-sex parenting. In fact, as we know that stable, married parents are associated with good child welfare outcomes, it would be beneficial for children from same-sex families to have parents who are married. And we have already seen a positive outcome on children in results from countries where same-sex marriage exists.

          In a concerning, frequently quoted outlier study, an author looked at a series of questions asked of children. The analysis was seriously skewed by the misclassification of questions. Questions which clearly do not describe child abuse were labelled as being associated with child abuse. This led to the false assertion that there are any difference in indicators of abuse between children with same-sex or heterosexual parents.

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/13/there-is-no-harm-caused-by-same-sex-parenting-studies-suggesting-otherwise-are-skewed

          Lying cheating bastards…and bman is one of them.

        • Natureboi

          1)
          Being gay is not “immoral.”
          There is no sex mandate or procreation in any marriage law.
          Same-sex marriage is harmless.
          Marriage exists to protect those entering into it and thier children.
          It does not exist for the purpose to create children.
          Gender is irrelevant when seeking protections and benefits.
          You have failed to show marriage is in any way harmful to anyone.

          Your posts are too long.

        • bman

          re: “Your posts are too long.”

          The alternative is that you are used to short statements or soundbytes that only require a short attention span.

          That does seem typical of today’s smartphone-focused generation more than in previous book-focused generations.

          Have you ever seen a movie where a scientist works on a math problem that has several blackboards filled with logically sequential math equations?

          If it takes 5 blackboards to reach the correct answer, then anything less would be too short because it can’t reach the correct answer.

          We are in a discussion that requires more than short soundbytes and one line slogans to reach the truth of the matter.

          You should allow that some answers may require longer posts, therefore.

        • Natureboi

          You should allow that some answers may require longer posts, therefore.

          Dude…it’s not me.
          They are getting flagged because they are too long.

        • bman

          re: “Dude…it’s not me. They are getting flagged because they are too long.”

          My apologies for misinterpreting your statement. I was thinking about previous complaints from persons who wanted short statements and mistakenly thought this was another case of that.

          I tagged the moderator on it. I think it was flagged after I edited my post and saved it, but not sure.

        • Raging Bee

          I’ve seen some pretty long comments of all sorts getting posted with no flagging or other problems. This guy must have just dumped half an Internet’s worth of copypasta, just to flood the thread with sheer quantity of rubbish in place of actual quality or substance.

          That’s something religious apologists seem to do all the time: post an argument, see it debunked, then pretend his argument was misunderstood and keep on adding wordier and wordier rewordings, just to avoid admitting his original argument was wrong.

          Apologetics: the bluff that keeps on bluffing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve posted some epics myself without any flagging issues…quite a number quite recently.

        • bman

          @BobSeidensticker:disqus
          My post was detected as spam, I think because I edited it to delete a blank line.

          The post beings has the following url and begins with the words, “”Start with 1″ Ok will do. If the earlier version shows up I plan to delete it.”

          Please post the article as moderator if the article is Ok. Thanks

        • done

        • bman

          Thanks!

        • Greg G.

          Just pick any of Bob’s posts and reply there. It’s more likely that he will see it.

        • Grimlock

          In sum, although Frank’s statement has the same form as the same-race statement it also has the same form as the morally justifiable statements A and B, and that negates your form argument.

          Not really. Consider what Turek wrote,

          Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

          This seems to me to be an argument rather like this,

          1. If everyone has the same marriage restriction, then this restriction does not cause a problem with respect to marriage rights.
          2. Everyone has the same marriage restriction X.
          3. The restriction X does not cause a problem with respect to marriage rights.

          This argument does not work when the restriction in question is race. This undercuts the general form of the argument.

          This, then, appears to be sufficient to undercut Turek’s argument.

        • bman

          “This argument does not work when the restriction in question is race. This undercuts the general form of the argument.”

          In my view, the formula work fines unless the restriction is unfair, irrational, or unjust.

          Consider the following statements:
          w. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [in the adult age range].”
          x. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [not closely related].”
          y. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [monogomously]
          z. “Every person has the same equal right to marry someone [only of the same race]

          All use the same formula, and I expect you will agree the formula works fine for w,x,y but that z alone poses a problem.

          If we frame a rule, I think it would go something like this, “the formula works in all cases where the restriction is fair, rational, and just, but fails in all cases where the restriction is unfair, irrational, and unjust.”

          Stated another way, the fact z uses the same formula as w,x,y does not mean those statements used an incorrect formula, but it means that z incorrectly applies the formula.

          Since the OS restriction is fair, just, and rational (as in w,x,y), I think Turek used the formula correctly.

        • ?? If you’re playing “One of these things is not like the other,” z is different because it’s currently not a rule in the West. But it used to be.

          Problem is, you seem to think that it’s some objectively false position to embrace z. It’s not–it used to be obvious, and now it’s obviously terrible.

          And that makes it just like SSM–it was unthinkable 50 years ago, a minority opinion 10 years ago, and the law of the land in many countries now. That’s similar to the progression of z.

        • bman

          “…you seem to think that it’s some objectively false position
          to embrace z. It’s not–it used to be obvious, and now it’s obviously terrible….”

          You seem to think the phrase “objectively false” means something is “obviously false.”

          I reply that something can be objectively false even if it is not obviously false.

          Thus, I would say z was objectively wrong, even in the days when it was not obvious to society that it was wrong.

        • Sure, and the vast majority in the US would’ve thought the opposite just 60 years ago. So morality changes. That’s why SSM is now accepted.

        • bman

          “Sure, and the vast majority in the US would’ve thought the opposite just
          60 years ago. So morality changes. That’s why SSM is now accepted.

          In my view, morality is there to be discovered, but it does not change.

          For example, denial of fundamental human rights is objectively wrong morally even when a culture thinks the opposite.

        • In my view, morality is there to be discovered, but it does not change.

          But how do you know that your opinion about a moral issue is the correct one?

          For example, denial of fundamental human rights is objectively wrong morally even when a culture thinks the opposite.

          That’s weird, because I thought we were in disagreement. I’m glad to hear that you see objection to SSM as the denial of fundamental human rights and therefore morally wrong.

        • bman

          “…how do you know that your opinion about a moral issue is the correct one?”

          Or, how do you know its wrong if someone lies about you?

          Once you accept you can know what it means for you to be wrongly treated, you can also know what it means for someone else to be wrongly treated. Golden rule.

          “I’m glad to hear that you see objection to SSM as the denial of fundamental human rights and therefore morally wrong.”

          That misrepresents my comment by taking it out of context.

          Perhaps you have not yet discovered it is wrong to misrepresent what others say.

          Anyway, see the article Is Same Sex Marriage a “Human Right”?.

          Excerpt:

          “…when the UN Human Rights Committee was asked to offer an opinion as to whether there was a “right to marry” which extended to same sex couples, in Joslin v New Zealand…the Committee said there was not…. After considering the arguments of the parties in detail, the Committee ruled that there was no issue of “discrimination” under art 26 [the equality clause] of the Convention. They said: “…Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term “men and women”, rather than “every human being”, “everyone” and “all persons”. Use of the term “men and women”, rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that..marriage [is] only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.”

        • “…how do you know that your opinion about a moral issue is the correct one?”
          Or, how do you know its wrong if someone lies about you?

          I consult my conscience, just like you do. So much for objective morality, eh? Or are you saying that “Whatever bman instinctively feels is objective moral truth”?

        • Natureboi

          Once you accept you can know what it means for you to be wrongly treated, you can also know what it means for someone else to be wrongly treated. Golden rule.

          Why do you intend to treat gay people wrongly?

        • bman

          re: “Why do you intend to treat gay people wrongly?”

          By that logic, anyone who opposes legal recognition of any alien marriage concept treats the people wrongly who prefer that concept.

          Suppose a woman wants the right to marry five husbands at once. Does it treat her wrongly to oppose legal recognition of that alien marriage concept?

        • Natureboi

          By that logic, anyone who opposes legal recognition of any alien marriage concept treats the people wrongly who prefer that concept.
          Suppose a woman wants the right to marry five husbands at once. Does it treat her wrongly to oppose legal recognition of that alien marriage concept?

          Please answer the question, bman.

        • bman

          If you make the effort to understand my question I think it would answer your question.

        • Natureboi

          If you make the effort to understand my question I think it would answer your question.

          I don’t believe you are truly and deeply concerned for the multiples of women and thier children who will be harmed in polygamous marriages which is why polygamy is illegal.
          It is and always will be illegal because it is harmful.

          Your “slippery slope” argument fails, because society not only can place arbitrary stopping points on rights, society protects people by these stopping points.
          There are reasons for these stopping points, but there is no rational reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.

          So I will ask you yet again:
          Why do you intend to harm gay people?
          Why are you targeting them for discrimination, bman?

        • Natureboi

          By that logic, anyone who opposes legal recognition of any alien marriage concept treats the people wrongly who prefer that concept.

          Your “slippery slope” argument fails, because society not only can place arbitrary stopping points on rights, society protects people by these stopping points.
          There are reasons for these stopping points, but there is no rational reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.

        • Susan

          In my view, morality is there to be discovered, but it does not change.

          As you’ve never provide a thing to support “your view”, there is no reason to take it seriously.

          denial of fundamental human rights

          Give me an example of that. Support it.

          is objectively wrong

          By what standard do you claim it is objectively wrong? For instance, is it OK for someone who believes in one supernatural deity among thousands, one that they can’t show exists… to claim that humans who claim to speak on behalf of that deity are speaking “objectively”?

          even when a culture thinks the opposite.

          Unless the standard by which humans evaluate “morality” is based on “harm to children”.

          Which you insinuate and don’t show. That is, you have never, ever shown it.

          Also, you don’t seem to care about “harm to children” when they get raped by your culture and when your culture teaches them (without justification) that they, and the people they love, will suffer for eternity if they don’t accept your culture’s unevidenced claims.

          How does that work, exactly?

          Show us the “objectiveness”.

        • epeeist

          In my view, morality is there to be discovered, but it does not change.

          And we have just discovered that homosexuality and same sex marriage was never wrong.

        • bman

          re: “And we have just discovered that homosexuality and same sex marriage was never wrong.”

          That does not necessarily follow because civilizations also fall into moral decline just before they collapse.

        • epeeist

          That does not necessarily follow

          True, I haven’t provided a warrant for my claim. But there again you never offered a warrant for your claim that we only discover morality rather than it being a changing social construct.

          because civilizations also fall into moral decline just before they collapse.

          If you are claiming that acceptance of single sex marriage will lead to societal collapse then you need to do rather better than an unsubstantiated assertion.

        • Which is relevant how?

        • Natureboi

          That does not necessarily follow because civilizations also fall into moral decline just before they collapse.

          How would society “collapse” by allowing same-sex marriage?

        • igor

          It may be the case that “civilizations also fall into moral decline just before they collapse”, but given the historical instances of collapsed civilisations in which SSM was not permitted, I fail to see how SSM might lead to the collapse of our civilisation. (I know that this is not exactly what was stated, but I see it as a possible inference)

        • bman

          ” I fail to see how SSM might lead to the collapse of our civilisation. (I know that this is not exactly what was stated, but I see it as a possible inference)

          Marriage defines a civilization morally, religiously, and ideologically. Thus, to adulterate marriage essentially attacks the heart of a civilization.

          If you can’t see the connection, it might help if you imagined how legalized polygamy could potentially change the future of western civilization.

        • igor

          Polygamy seems to have normal in OT times. (eg refer Deut 27:20)

          Yes, if polygamy became legal some of the consequences would be negative for some people. An indication might come from the PRC one-child-policy and the now-current shortage of females – many unmarried males who desperately want a partner. But this discussion is not about polygamy.

          The discussion is about exclusivity in a two-person partnership. I don’t see how this is a form of moral decline that would contribute to the fall of civilisation.

          Rampant infedility, excessive sowing-of-seeds, various wild behaviours and so on may be such a contribution, but I don’t think that stable, exclusive, loving two-person relationships qualify.

        • epeeist

          Marriage defines a civilization morally, religiously, and ideologically.

          Bare assertion, why should I accept this as true?

          Thus, to adulterate marriage essentially attacks the heart of a civilization.

          So how does single sex marriage “adulterate marriage”? Looks like another bare assertion that I needn’t accept as true unless you can warrant your claim.

        • bman

          Marriage defines a civilization morally, religiously, and ideologically.

          “Bare assertion, why should I accept this as true?”

          On the other hand, why should you accept the opposing claim as true, i.e., “Marriage [does not] define a civilization morally, religiously, and ideologically”?

          In other words, which of the two claims has the initial ring of being probably true?

          “So how does single sex marriage “adulterate marriage”?

          To answer that question one must first admit a definition change occurred. Do you agree that marriage has been redefined?

        • epeeist

          On the other hand, why should you accept the opposing claim as true

          You think I am going to fall for an illicit attempt to shift the burden? Your claim, your burden to demonstrate its truth.

          To answer that question one must first admit a definition change occurred.

          And now an attempt to answer a question with another question. Your claim was that single sex marriage “adulterate[s] marriage”, yet you don’t seem to want to demonstrate this for some reason.

        • bman

          You think I am going to fall for an illicit attempt to shift the burden? Your claim, your burden to demonstrate its truth.

          I think that mis-characterizes my response.

          I hoped you would simply state which option you thought was most likely true before the introduction of any evidence.

          Anyway, here are some excerpts from the New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia from 1955. I prefer to quote from it because its not affected by today’s marriage politics.

          “….marriage is inextricably linked with economics, law, and religion…”

          That is saying an inextricable link between marriage and religion exists across all societies.

          So called “civil marriage” is not excluded because it has its moral roots in the religion of a society.

          And this,

          “Marriage is essentially a social practice, entered into through a public act, and reflects “the purposes and character of the society in which its found.”

          Notice, marriage is not simply a private contract. It has a public meaning and purpose that people enter when they marry.

          If, for example, a couple entered marriage expecting to have sexual relations with partners outside the marriage, it does not change the fact they entered a monogamous institution.

          Their deviation from the public purpose of marriage was not sanctioned by society.

          It’s the public meaning and purpose of marriage to society I am addressing, and not whatever private meaning or purpose some private couples may have.

          To answer that question one must first admit a definition change occurred.

          “And now an attempt to answer a question with another question. Your claim was that single sex marriage “adulterate[s] marriage”, yet you don’t seem to want to demonstrate this for some reason.”

          I prefer to defend my view against an opposing position that someone claims.

        • Natureboi

          There is no religion mandate or procreation mandate in any marriage law.
          However, if what you say is true, that marriage is rooted in religion, why is divorce legal?

        • bman

          There is no religion mandate or procreation mandate in any marriage law.

          No, but marriage law, in virtually all societies, recognizes the right of a couple to have sex and procreate once married.

          Consider the fact closely related persons are not permitted to marry.

          That is because marriage would confer socio-legal approval for them to have sex and procreate, and society does not want to approve that kind of sexual relationship, and so it denies marriage.

          On your divorce question, I think a brief web search would show that Protestants treat divorce differently than Catholics.

        • Natureboi

          It does not, but marriage law, in virtually all societies, recognizes the right of a couple to have sex and procreate once married.

          Big deal.
          So what does that have to do with same-sex couples who want the rights, protections and incentives of marriage?
          Why are you so bent on denying them that?
          Punishment?

          Consider the fact closely related persons are not permitted to marry.
          That is because marriage would confer socio-legal approval for them to have sex and procreate, and society does not want to approve that kind of sexual relationship, and so it denies marriage.

          And do you know why?

          On your divorce question, I think a brief web search would show that Protestants treat divorce differently that Catholics.

          Irrelevant.
          There is no religious mandate in ANY marriage law.

          So far, you have FAILED to provide a single rational reason to prohibit gay people from marrying.

        • bman

          re: “So what does that have to do with same-sex couples who want the rights, protections and incentives of marriage?”

          It is irrational for society to recognize the right of two men to sexually procreate together.

        • What’s the problem? You don’t seem to be agitated the the large number of “married” straight couples who aren’t/can’t/won’t procreate. Procreation is obviously just a smokescreen. Why don’t you just give us real reasons or drop your argument?

        • bman

          “You don’t seem to be agitated the the large number of “married” straight couples who aren’t/can’t/won’t procreate.”

          Consider this analogy.

          Some cars are registered that are not functionally drivable, or owners may register a car who have no intention of ever driving it.

          That, however, does not change the state’s purpose for registering cars, which is to regulate the right of motor vehicles to drive on public roadways.

          The registration process still serves the same public purpose despite the disfunctionality of some registered cars, or despite an owner’s intention to never drive a registered car on public roadways.

          Similarly, the public purpose of marriage to socially sanctify genital intercourse/childbirth and family structure for raising children, is not changed because some OS couples are infertile, or some do not intend to have sex or have children.

          When infertile OS couples marry, or OS couples marry who have no intention to have children, they still enter a public institution where society morally and legally sanctifies their right to have genital sexual intercourse, to have children, and to raise a family.

          Their right to do so within marriage is still accepted by society, regardless of their private health problems or private intentions.

          If you say two men should also be allowed to legally marry who can’t have children or who don’t intend to have children, that would require society to morally and legally sanctify men having sex with men to have children, which would make marriage irrational, and legally nullify the moral authority of marriage to regulate sexual reproduction on a population scale.

        • The registration process still serves the same public purpose despite the disfunctionality of some registered cars, or despite an owner’s intention to never drive a registered car on public roadways.

          So the working cars are those marriages that have children, and the nonworking cars are the marriages where the couple is infertile or selfishly refuses to have children. Is that it?

          Similarly, the public purpose of marriage to socially sanctify genital intercourse/childbirth and family structure for raising children

          Despite the fact that neither marriage vows in churches nor the marriage license provided by the state makes any childbearing demand on the couple or highlights childbearing as a good thing or even addresses it.

          We’ve been over this many times. You need to actually provide a foundation for your argument, because you have none. Remember what Jesus said about the man who built his house on sand.

          Their right to do so within marriage is still accepted by society, regardless of their private health problems or private intentions.

          Sure. Similarly, a same-sex couple could have sex or not, they could adopt a child, they could use artificial insemination, or they could bring a child into the family from a previous marriage.

          that would require society to morally and legally sanctify men having sex with men to have children

          Or not.

          legally nullify the moral authority of marriage to regulate sexual reproduction on a population scale.

          What moral authority? This isn’t China. We don’t have a one-child policy.

        • bman

          “We’ve been over this many times. You need to actually provide a foundation for your argument, because you have none

          I have supported the argument I am making.

          I think the problem is that I have not supported the kind of argument you seem to require, where there is some signed promise to procreate, or a wedding vow to that effect.

          As you may recall, I also requested that you clarify what you think my argument was, but you have not as yet clarified that.

        • Yeah, I’m confused as well. You handwave some connection between childbearing and marriage, despite the fact that the wedding vows contain no such connection.

          Your problem is that you’re confusing marriage with sex. It’s sex that makes babies.

        • bman

          re: “Your problem is that you’re confusing marriage with sex. It’s sex that makes babies.”

          There is no confusion on my part regarding that.

          Sex makes babies, but marriage gives social order to having sex and making babies.

        • Susan

          I have supported the argument I am making.

          No. You haven’t. Not at all.

          You have shown no logical connections and have provided no evidence.

          That has been pointed out repeatedly by many commenters here.

          But you ignore their comments, dodge their questions and keep bleating the same non-argument.

          No, bman. You have provided nothing.

          How dare you say you’ve supported your argument?

        • ildi

          Similarly, the public purpose of marriage to socially sanctify genital intercourse/childbirth and family structure for raising children…

          Gotta sneak in the “no buttsekz,” don’t you? The purpose of secular marriage is NOT to sanctify genital intercourse – that’s supposedly Holy Mother Church’s job.

        • bman

          The purpose of secular marriage is NOT to sanctify genital intercourse – that’s supposedly Holy Mother Church’s job.

          I think my claim has much more historical support than yours.

          In Poe v. Ullman Justice Harlan wrote:

          “…the very inclusion of the category of morality among [legitimate] state concerns indicates that [secular] society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community…but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well [i.e., moral norms]…The [secular] laws regarding marriage …provide when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, [that means secular marriage law aimed at regulating sex and procreation] as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices…confining sexuality to lawful marriage..”

        • ildi

          I think my claim has much more historical support than yours.

          I know you’re stuck in a time warp of the 50s and early 60s – but do try to join us in the 21st century, my duck! According to the American Bar Association:

          Finally, it should be noted that “consummation” is not a prerequisite for a valid marriage. There is nothing in the civil law of states that requires sexual relations by the marriage partners in order to make the marriage valid.

          https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/family_law/committees/marriage.authcheckdam.pdf

        • bman

          “There is nothing in the civil law of states that requires sexual
          relations by the marriage partners in order to make the marriage valid.

          That seems overstated.

          Per this article dated 2007, “The Alabama Appeals Court has basically ruled that to be legally married in Alabama, you must consummate that relationship, or your marriage is subject to annulment.”

          And this from a from a California courts website, “Physical incapacity: the parties got married or registered a domestic partnership while 1 of them was “physically incapacitated” (basically, it means that 1 of the spouses or partners was physically incapable of “consummating” the relationship) and the incapacity continues and appears to be “incurable.”

          Various jurisdictions also view it as fraud to marry and then refuse to consummate the
          marriage.

          See article, Do You Need to Consummate a Marriage Legally?

        • ildi

          That seems overstated.

          What, you think the American Bar Association missed these laws and cases when they wrote that? There’s a difference between the expectations a couple have in the marriage and what the law requires of that couple to make the marriage valid. If you marry with the expectation of sexy-times and your spouse never mentioned that it was going to be celibacy 24/7, some courts have called that fraud.

          I also see that you’re a cherry-picker like your role model Schaerr. You conveniently choose not to quote this line from the brief summary paragraph of the Alabama appeals court decision that clarifies the sentence you do quote:

          The court reasoned that an unstated (emphasis mine) intent to never consummate your marriage relationship is a fraud rendering that marriage invalid.

          The last article you link to also specifically says:

          Proof of consummation is no longer a legal requirement for marriage.

          Even in the case of immigration,

          Though the couple need not prove that the marriage was consummated, it is necessary to prove that the two are in a committed relationship and that their marriage is not a sham.

          So, no, still no evidence for your previous statement that the purpose of secular marriage is to sanctify genital intercourse.

        • bman

          “What, you think the American Bar Association missed these laws and cases when they wrote that?

          I suppose they know about the cases. Even so, I think your excerpt does not give readers a complete picture of when non-consummation can invalidate a marriage. The references I cited add information that your excerpt does not convey well, if at all.

          “If you marry with the expectation of sexy-times and your spouse never mentioned that it was going to be celibacy 24/7, some courts have called that fraud.”

          You make the problem about not having “sexy times” as expected. That glosses over the real connection, though.

          It glosses over the connection that genital intercourse goes to the essence of marital rights. Otherwise, a secret intent to never consummate would not be fraud in the first place.

          By analogy, suppose there was a secret intent to marry and never go boating together. Would that be considered fraud? I think not.

          It would not be considered fraud because a secret intent to not go boating together does not go to the essence of what marital rights are, but a secret intent to not have genital intercourse goes to very essence of marital rights.

          Indeed, the fact genital intercourse is called “consummation,” but doing other things together is not, shows that genital intercourse goes to the essence of marriage.

          “I also see that you’re a cherry-picker…You conveniently choose not to quote this line….”The court reasoned that an unstated (emphasis mine) intent to never consummate your marriage relationship is a fraud rendering that marriage invalid.” [and] The last article you link to also specifically says: Proof of consummation is no longer a legal requirement for marriage.

          Since,
          (1) your ABA excerpt said much the same thing as the last line you just quoted, and
          (2) I only needed to show there was another side to consummation than your ABA excerpt, and
          (3) I provided links to the articles,
          I think there was no need for me to quote those lines.

          My whole point of citing those articles was to show there was another side to the issue that your excerpt did not convey. I did not need to encumber my post with lines I was not disputing.

          “So, no, still no evidence for your previous statement that the purpose of secular marriage is to sanctify genital intercourse.”

          I provided evidence when I quoted Justice Harlan.

          You rejected it for being from the 50’s and 60’s but that did not negate it as evidence.

          It is evidence about how marriage was legally and morally understood by parents of baby boomers, by baby boomers, and by their children who are parents of today’s millenial generation.

          It was not like citing evidence from ancient history.

          Also, your point that “Proof of consummation is no longer a legal requirement for marriage” does not negate Jutice Harlan’s excerpt.

          Consummation does not require “proof” in order for marriage to legally and morally sanctify genital intercourse.

          By analogy, a fishing license can legally “sanctify” one’s right to catch fish, even if one never goes fishing, and even though no proof is required that one will catch a fish.

          Marriage is similar. It morally and legally sanctifies the right of a couple to have genital intercourse and procreate together, to the exclusion of all others, even if they choose not to do so, and without requiring proof they will do so.

          As a side note, I don’t think proof of consummation was required when Justice Harlan wrote. If that is correct, then you could not defeat his statement by saying proof is not required today, since that is not even a change from when he wrote. And even if there was a change, the fishing license analogy still applies.

          At this juncture, I think the point stands that my view of marriage has much more historical support than yours. I have provided evidence for my claim via Justice Harlan, but you have not provided substantive counter-evidence for your claim.

        • ildi

          It glosses over the connection that genital intercourse goes to the essence of marital rights

          “Marital rights” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Rather than the archaic definition of a man’s right to stick his penis into his wife whenever he wants, Marital rights refer to the privileges, recognized by the laws of the United States, that people who are married are qualified to benefit from. These rights cover many areas of the law. … Some benefits of being married in the United States are as follows: joint filing of bankruptcy, “next-of-kin” status in emergency medical situations, tax exemptions, right to change last name, social security pension, and $100,000 to the spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty.
          https://www.justipedia.com/definition/6199/marital-right

          I provided evidence when I quoted Justice Harlan.

          What is this obsession with Harlan? He’s ancient history. It was his opinion that the right to privacy only applied to a husband and wife, and that sex and childbearing should be made illegal outside of marriage, but history has proven Justice Harlan wrong. Unmarried couples gained the right to birth control in 1972 (one year after his death). In the 70s illegitimacy laws were also found to violate the equal protection clause. Sodomy laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. Existing state fornication laws would probably be found unconstitutional under the right to privacy, if any of them were enforced.

          You have provided no evidence that the American Bar Association is wrong.

        • bman

          re: “You have provided no evidence that the American Bar Association is wrong.”

          The excerpt says, “consummation is not a prerequisite
          for a valid marriage. There is nothing in the civil law of states that requires sexual relations by the marriage partners in order to make the marriage valid.”

          Even if we supposed they are correct it does not negate Justice Harlan’s observation.

        • ildi

          …it does not negate Justice Harlan’s observation.

          Yes, yes it does. Justice Harlan failed miserably when he predicted that

          The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis.

          – as evidenced by the subsequent cases regarding birth control, abortion, illegitimacy, marital rape, sex between two consenting adults, and gay marriage, some just years after he died. Turns out his definition of traditional marriage does not constitute the deeply-embedded pattern of our social life that he assumed it did, and it is certainly not the basis for Constitutional doctrine.

        • bman

          re: “Yes, yes it does. Justice Harlan failed miserably when he predicted that.”
          —-
          First off, you did not show a conflict between Justice Harlan and your ABA excerpt. Are you done trying to make that argument?

          Second, you did not negate my comment about why it is fraud to marry and secretly intend to not consummate. Why would that be fraud unless a marital right to genital intercourse exists that was defrauded?

          Third, I did not intend Justice Harlan’s comment as a “prediction,” but as a “description” of how marriage was previously understood by law, morality, and society. I think you ought to agree my claims about marriage depict the normal view of marriage held by Americans for generations prior to Justice Harlan’s statement and for some period of time after it.

          Fourth, you beg the question when you claim changes to marriage law prove Justice Harlan wrong. The alternative is that some of the changes were wrongly made. For example, Chief Justice Roberts said this about the same sex marriage ruling, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

        • ildi

          Are you done trying to make that argument?

          What? You’re the one making that argument and bringing Harlan’s opinions re. traditional marriage into the discussion. To refresh your memory, I quoted the American Bar Association in response to your statement that the public purpose of marriage is to socially sanctify genital intercourse. The law does NOT sanctify genital intercourse. Sanctify is a religious term. People can choose or choose not to have physical intimacy, the law does not care. Harlan is wrong that sexual behavior is legally defined by the bounds of marriage, no matter what the case may have been in his time. Whether SCOTUS has determined wrongly that the right to privacy extends to the bedroom is not my call to make.

          Why would it be fraud unless a marital right to genital intercourse exists that was defrauded?

          The expectation of physical intimacy in a romantic relationship codified by marriage is not the same as requiring genital intercourse in order for the marriage to be valid. There is a huge difference between the traditional “husband’s marital right to genital sex” and the assumption that a marriage includes physical intimacy unless agreed to by both parties. I am not a lawyer, but I would not be surprised if some of the “consummation” laws still on the books either redefine consummation to take into account same sex marriages or will just go by the wayside in the same manner as “fornication” and “sodomy” laws have.

          The alternative is the some of the changes were wrongly made.

          I know it’s your heart’s desire to turn the clock back to when women and children were a man’s property, but I don’t see it happening in our current civilization.

          Here is a summary of how the legal definition of marriage has changed: https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hong.pdf

          Marriage as a means of personal self-definition and shared humanity did not originate in the lesbian and gay community. Rather, the reshaping of marriage’s purpose by heterosexual individuals is what permitted marriage equality to be logically and seamlessly extended by Obergefell.

          Unique to Goodridge, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [in 2003] did not ask the question of whether gay and lesbian couples could be excluded from marriage. In so doing, the decision avoided the pitfalls of prior decisions that noted the historical absence of these relationships or were mired in the contemporary moral opprobrium against gay people. Instead, Goodridge’s starting point was “[s]imply put, the government creates civil marriage.” Goodridge’s deft turn reframed the question from a plaintiff same-sex couple asking for an exception to the longstanding history of civilization, to rather examining what the purpose of marriage was for all of us. In answering this question, Goodridge made three notable contributions to the framing of the marriage debate.

          First, Goodridge enumerated the hundreds of private and social advantages that the State conferred on those who married. Marriage was taken outside of the moral and religious debates of the day. Goodridge squarely defended marriage as a public institution that was properly defined by state government.

          Second, Goodridge redefined the personal commitment to marriage to be “the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.” Instead of the linchpin that perpetuates the human race, the act of falling in love with another was seemingly much more pedestrian: a choice that some people made, and others did not.

          Third, Goodridge reimagined how the institution of marriage contributed to society: “Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity . . . .” Of note, a person’s most intimate act of falling in love continued to aggregate into a larger public purpose. The personal decision to marry became a means to stake out an identity. The public impact of such a decision permitted one’s identity to be a shared currency that was recognized and accepted by many.

          The state interest in marriage was no longer an exclusively heterosexual function of procreation or perpetuating the species. Instead, the right to marry became fundamental because it permitted someone to partake in the full range of human experience.

          Gay people thus were granted marriage rights neither because of a shift in gender roles in heterosexual marriages nor as an embrace of a larger LGBT equality movement. Rather, straight people no longer required procreation to occur in marriages; marriages no longer required procreation to bring value to a marital relationship. It is precisely this shift in the societal understanding that marriage no longer required procreation to be its defining element that allowed marriage to be logically—and legally—extended to same-sex couples in a seamless manner.

        • bman

          Your claim, “Sanctify is a religious term,” does not negate my use of the term because the term has multiple applications.

          For example, the word sanctify can also refer to what law or society approves.

          Collins Dictionary: verb If an organization or event sanctifies something, it makes it approved of and respected…[an example would be] a law that sanctifies changes that have already occurred.

          The FreeDictionary: 4. To give social or moral sanction to:…”

          Oxford Dictionaries: “1.3 Cause to be or seem morally right or acceptable. ‘ancient customs that are sanctified by tradition’

        • Natureboi

          It is irrational for society to recognize the right of two men to sexually procreate together.

          What two consenting adults do in the privacy of thier bedrooms is none of your damn business.

          There is NO PROCREATIVE MANDATE in any marriage law.

        • bman

          And do you know why?

          My point is that marriage is denied because marriage is not simply about holding hands.

        • Natureboi

          My point is that marriage is denied because marriage is not simply about holding hands.

          It is about 1138 federal + hundreds of state protections and benefits.
          It’s about social acceptance.
          It is about emotional fulfillment.
          It’s about commitment to one another.
          It is about love.
          It is about exactly all the same things as heterosexual marriage.

          Who are you to decide who is or is not allowed to enjoy all those things?
          Some sort of bully?

          ~~ “And do you know why?” ~~

          You didn’t answer my question.
          Why is sibling marriage prohibited?

        • Susan

          My point is that marriage is denied because marriage is not simply about holding hands.

          You ignored (as is your custom) every point Natureboi made.

          You also failed to answer his question.

          You can’t afford to acknowledge points or answer questions.

          Because you have your catholicyahwehjesus script.

          Acknowledge that polygamy is not the same as an equal contract between two consenting adults.

          Acknowledge that you are unable to show children being harmed by two consenting adults participating in a marriage contract.

          Stop dodging.

          Your superstitious beliefs are your own. They should have no bearing on social contracts.

          They are not strong moral or social theories.

          Smell all the incense you want to on your own personal time. That is your own business.

          But don’t inflict it on your fellow citizens.

        • epeeist

          I hoped you would simply state which option you thought was most likely true before the introduction of any evidence.

          Why should I have to tell you what I would accept in terms of evidence? You are the one making the ontological commitment, it is down to you to produce the evidence and warrant.

          Anyway, here are some excerpts from the New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia from 1955.

          Why should I accept a fragment of a sentence taken out of context from an unknown author from a publication that went out of business some decades back as authoritative?

          So called “civil marriage” is not excluded because it has its moral roots in the religion of a society.

          You seem to be fond of your unsubstantiated assertions. However let’s us assume that this is true for the moment, it doesn’t exclude single-sex marriage either.

          I prefer to defend my view against an opposing position that someone claims.

          So what you are saying is that you cannot justify your assertion that single sex marriage “adulterate[s] marriage”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why should I accept a fragment of a sentence taken out of context from an unknown author from a publication that went out of business some decades back as authoritative?

          Because back in 1955 those were the glory days when homophobic dickheads like bman could fire yer arse into jail for just being gay…or chemically castrate ya. Oh for those there days when the RCC had a bite bigger than it’s bark.

        • igor

          This may have already been stated, in which case I apologise for not spending an hour or two reading..

          Please clarify – is the issue “marriage” or “stable, committed, faithful two-person same-sex relationships”?

          If marriage, then SSM not ok but SS-CivilUnion ok and SS-defacto ok.

          If not marriage then SSM not ok, SS-CivilUnion not ok, SS-defacto not ok.

          Which is it please?.. thanks.

        • Natureboi

          In my view, morality is there to be discovered,

          Why is homosexuality “immoral?”

          For example, denial of fundamental human rights is objectively wrong morally even when a culture thinks the opposite.

          You just admitted denying gay people the right to marry is objectively wrong.
          Thank you!

        • bman

          re: “You just admitted denying gay people the right to marry is objectively wrong.
          Thank you!”

          Denying husband-wife marriage because a partner was gay would deny a fundamental human right, but denying same sex marriage to two men (or more) does not deny a fundamental human right.

        • Natureboi

          Denying husband-wife marriage because a partner was gay would deny a fundamental human right,

          That statement makes no sense.

          but denying same sex marriage to two men (or more) does not deny a fundamental human right.

          Yes it does.
          Marriage brings fundamental human rights into the relationship, such as health insurance, tax incentives, inheritance and survivor benefits and social security transfer benefits automatically. Denying marriage denies these fundamental human rights.

        • bman

          “That statement makes no sense.”

          Then you misintepreted it somehow.

          There are gay people who want to have and raise children in a morally responsible way, and who realize the only way to do that is within a husband-wife marriage.

          To deny them the right to husband-wife marriage would deny them a fundamental human right.

          ….but denying same sex marriage to two men (or more) does not deny a fundamental human right.

          “Yes it does.”

          See the article, Is Same Sex Marriage a “Human Right”?

          Excerpt:

          “…when the UN Human Rights Committee was asked to offer an opinion as to whether there was a “right to marry” which extended to same sex couples, in Joslin v New Zealand…the Committee said there was not…. After considering the arguments of the parties in detail, the Committee ruled that there was no issue of “discrimination” under art 26 [the equality clause] of the Convention. They said: “…Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term “men and women”, rather than “every human being”, “everyone” and “all persons”. Use of the term “men and women”, rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that..marriage [is] only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.”

        • Natureboi

          There are gay people who want to have and raise children in a morally responsible way, and who realize the only way to do that is within a husband-wife marriage.

          Irrelevant to gay people who want to marry.
          Why do you want to prohibit gay couples from marrying?

          See the article,

          Ridiculous nonsense.
          Translation:
          Gay people should not be allowed to have rights because the rights they want don’t apply to them.

          Is this your best reason to deny them the ability to marry?
          Because marriage technically isn’t a right for gays?
          But is for non-gays?

          And this “explanation” is as follows:

          ~~Gay couples don’t have the right to marry because marriage for gays isn’t a right.~~

          Is this the best argument you have?

        • bman

          re: “Is this your best reason to deny them the ability to marry? Because marriage technically isn’t a right for gays?”

          You are losing track of the argument. You claimed ssm was a fundamental human right, and I provided proof that the UN did not regard it as such.

          The issue is not about my best reason to oppose ssm law, but its about the argument about human rights that is currently on the table.

          If you now agree with the UN that ssm is not a fundamental human right, we can proceed to your next argument.

          If you disagree, then you should present some new argument on that.

        • bman

          re: “Why do you want to prohibit gay couples from marrying?”

          Principled opposition to a bad public law is not the same thing as wanting to target a group.

          Consider, for example, that some gays oppose ssm.

          Do you think they want to target gays?

          Or, do you think they probably have a principled reason for opposing ssm?

        • Susan

          Principled opposition to a bad public law is not the same thing as wanting to target a group.

          He didn’t say that. He asked you a simple question.

          Why don’t you answer it?

        • Natureboi

          Principled opposition to a bad public law

          Why is gay couples being allowed to marry “bad?”

          Consider, for example, that some gays oppose ssm

          Irrelevant.

        • bman

          “Why is gay couples being allowed to marry “bad?”

          Wrong question.

          The correct question is “why do some gays oppose ssm law?”

          “Irrelevant.”

          Another non-substantive response.

          If you had answered my question about why some gays oppose ssm law you might have seen how that answered your question.

          Its becoming apparent you are responding from your preferred narrative without giving any substantive thought to my responses.

        • Susan

          Wrong question.

          Of course it’s not the wrong question. You referred to a “bad” public law.

          Another non-substantive response

          *Sound of another irony meter exploding

          you might have seen how that answered your question

          How does it answer his question?

          Its becoming apparent you are responding from your preferred narrative without giving any substantive thought to my responses.

          *Sound of another dozen irony meters exploding.

          You have provided nothing bman.

          Much verbosity and zero substance.

          But that’s catholic apologetics for you.

        • Natureboi

          Principled opposition to a bad public law

          Why is allowing gay couples to marry bad?

          is not the same thing as wanting to target a group.

          What group is being “targeted?”

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Dime Bar needs to know it’s irrelevant what some of da geyz think about marriage, because many heterosexuals, particularly feminists, oppose marriage, period.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage

          So perhaps the archaic institution that is marriage should be binned altogether. That’ll give him the wanky eye.

        • igor

          I am perplexed by this question regarding “that some gays oppose ssm”. There are indeed some who do. And there are some heterosexuals who oppose marriage between a male and a female. This all relates to freedom of opinion and freedom of choice within the legislation.

          There are de facto couples of same sex and of mixed sex. Some lf these do not want to marry and will never marry. That is their right to decide. But that has nothing to do with other couples who want to marry.

          What does this distraction have to do with the topic?

        • bman

          I am perplexed by this question regarding “that some gays oppose ssm”

          The point is that principled opposition to ssm law is not the same thing as wanting to target gays, as seen by the fact some gays oppose ssm law on principled grounds

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya daft prick…fuck marriage altogether in that case….

          Early second wave of feminist literature in the West, specifically opposed to marriage include personalities such as Kate Millett (Sexual Politics, 1969), Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch, 1970), Marilyn French (The Women’s Room, 1977), Jessie Bernard (The Future of Marriage, 1972), and Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 1970).

        • Natureboi

          The point is that principled opposition to ssm law is not the same thing as wanting to target gays, as seen by the fact some gays oppose ssm law on principled grounds

          Wrong.
          You are specifically targeting gays by prohibiting them from marrying.

          Bman, your are hiding behind a thin veil of religion.
          It is for religious purposes only that you are against gay people.
          You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.

        • epeeist

          What does this distraction have to do with the topic?

          Because distraction is all he has got, he is incapable of substantiating his claims.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ohhhps…a see someone has already pointed out to the Coco that many hetero’s oppose marriage.

          They not only oppose marriage, but want it abolished as an institution based on moral principles.

        • Natureboi

          Denying husband-wife marriage because a partner was gay would deny a fundamental human right,

          What the heck does that mean??

          denying same sex marriage to two men — does not deny a fundamental human right.

          Yes it does.

          Marriage is a fundamental human right.

          Therefore, denying a gay couple the right to marry not only denies them this fundamental right and all the rights to protections marriage brings effortlessly, denying a gay couple the right to marry because one of them is of the wrong gender is sex discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

        • Grimlock

          Right. So, changing the logical structure I used above, changes in bold,

          1. If everyone has the same marriage restriction, then this restriction does not cause a problem with respect to marriage rights if the restriction is fair, just, and rational.
          2.1 Everyone has the same marriage restriction X.
          2.2 The restriction X is fair, just, and rational.
          3. The restriction X does not cause a problem with respect to marriage rights.

          At this point, note (2.2). By having that as a premise, you’re simply begging the question against same sex marriage.

          Thus, this argument brings nothing new to the table.

          On another note, I wouldn’t make assumptions about my opinions of polyamorous marriage, if I were you.

          Oh, and it’s worth noting that biological sex ain’t quite binary.

        • bman

          re: ” At this point, note (2.2). By having that as a premise, you’re simply begging the question against same sex marriage.”
          —-
          I think that loses track of the fact I only need to offer a plausible rational defense to rebut the “form argument” made against Turek.

          To review, the argument claimed sameness of form proved an opposite sex restriction was equivalent to a racial restriction.

          My reply, in effect, was that sameness of form does not prove that.

          Since sameness of form did not make w,x,y like a racial restriction, it can’t be said that sameness of form makes an OS restriction like racism either.

          Instead of viewing the OS restriction like z (the racial restriction)the OS restriction can be viewed like w,x,y.

          At this point, I do not have to prove my presumption that the OS restriction is fair, just, and rational like wxy. I only needed to prove that sameness of form does not determine the outcome.

        • Grimlock

          I believe you’re confusing an undercutting objection with a rebuttal.

          Consider. The argument to which Bob responds is that since everyone has the same restriction, the restriction is not problematic.

          As we have now both stated, this general form of argument doesn’t work. This is sufficient to undercut the argument made by Turek.

          It can also be construed as a rebutting objection, i.e. an argument for the opposite position of Turek’s. In that case, as you say, you undercut this by pointing out that there are cases where equal restriction is acceptable. (Which, to be clear, is not to say that the racial restriction was in any way okay. We both agree that it was not.)

          Now, your objection to Bob’s objection succeeds if Bob’s objection is construed as a rebuttal. But it does nothing if Bob’s objection is construed as an undercutting objection.

          Your own objection can be construed as either a rebuttal or an undercutter. I’m inclined to think that it succeeds as the latter, but it fails as the former. (In my previous comment, I treated it as a rebuttal.)

          Do you disagree with any of this?

        • bman

          “I believe you’re confusing an undercutting objection with a rebuttal.

          I had to look that up after you mentioned it. For now, at least, it seems debating that difference complicates the discussion unnecesarily since I can instead say my response “defeated” Bob’s implied conclusion, and thereby avoid a complex side-discussion on the differences between an undercut and a rebuttal.

        • Grimlock

          It really is a rather interesting distinction, but we can leave that aside for now. Let us instead find the bottom line here.

          1) Bob criticized an argument that Turek made. Did you succeed in defeat Bob’s objection to Turek’s argument? No.

          2) You referenced an implied argument by Bob. I presume you mean that Bob made the argument that gay marriage is analogous to interracial marriage. Possibly in the sense that it creates a restriction that is unfair and limits the ability of two people to make each other happy in marriage. Or some such.

          I don’t think you’ve defeated this “implied” argument. Here are two reasons why not.
          a) The reason I sketched out in the ETA section of my previous comment.

          b) Your objection boils down to how you seem to hold that same sex marriage is harmful to society somehow. But that doesn’t remove the harmful effects of not allowing same sex marriage, such as it being restrictive.

          You might argue that the net effect is harmful, but I take it you won’t go as far as to say that every effect would be harmful.

          3) It’s also worth noting that bringing up the alleged harmful effects of same sex marriage in the context of the “we’re already equal” argument implicitly concedes that this argument is nonsense. Why? Because it makes the “we’re already equal part” redundant.

        • bman

          “1) Bob criticized an argument that Turek made. Did you succeed in defeat Bob’s objection to Turek’s argument? No.

          I still think it was defeated but I would like to further understand your claim that it wasn’t.

          So, can you please quote Bob’s objection that you say was not defeated. I would like to see if we agree on what the objection was.

        • Grimlock

          I’ll just refer you to your own previous comment. You treat Bob’s objection as a rebutter, and not as an undercutter.

        • bman

          re: “You treat Bob’s objection as a rebutter, and not as an undercutter.”

          If you recall I bypassed the discussion on rebuttal vs. undercutter by saying my response “defeated” Bob’s implied argument.

        • Grimlock

          Yes, I noticed that you’d prefer to avoid nuance. You’ll note that I’ve previously explained why I don’t think your argument succeeds in a final analysis, regardless of how you want to phrase it.

          I’ll also note that you neglected to follow up on much of my previous comment. And that’s fair enough. But let me ask you a simple question. You’ve already made it clear that you believe that there are negative effects on society by allowing same sex marriage. Do you accept that there are some benefits to society by allowing same sex marriage? (Which is not the same as granting that the net effect is positive.)

        • Raging Bee

          Yeah, that’s always been a question of mine: if same-sex marriage is significantly different from biracial marriage, then why are the same blither-points being used to oppose both?

        • Short memory, I’m guessing, explains it–both in the apologists and in their audience. They can handwave stuff that won’t factcheck, and their flock won’t call them on it.

    • Grimlock

      Quick answers.

      1. Just because the Republicans are pushing ideology on the courts, and some are complaining that Democrats does it, doesn’t actually mean that Democrats are doing it.

      2. Bob set up an analogy, yet you’re not disputing this analogy. If you want to dispute his point, I suggest finding a relevant flaw in the analogy.

      3. Fact: The definition of what constitutes marriage has been changed before.

      Thus, why not change it again? Unless the woman/man part is an essential part of the definition, but I see no part to think that this is so. Nor do you provide one.

      4. You disputed this. That is true. Not, IMNSHO, successfully.

      […] why not argue to remove government from it at all?

      Because, unless I’m entirely mistaken, marriage is a legally binding contract, with privileges granted by – yes – the government?

      Which, I guess, makes it about having access to certain rights. Why should access to those rights be constrained to heterosexual couples?

      • Ignorant Amos

        Quick answers.

        I would just like to add to your take down.

        1. Just because the Republicans are pushing ideology on the courts, and some are complaining that Democrats does it, doesn’t actually mean that Democrats are doing it.

        Even if Democrats were doing it, “whataboutism” is not a valid defence. Though it’s a favoured fallacy tactic of Trump and Christians alike.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

        2. Bob set up an analogy, yet you’re not disputing this analogy. If you want to dispute his point, I suggest finding a relevant flaw in the analogy.

        Holy rollers are shite at analogies. They can’t recognise them, make half decent ones, or know how to address them. JBS doesn’t even realise that marriage in the US was only recently allowed equally between all heterosexual folk, even though #3 explains that prior to 1967 miscegenation in the US was a real thing. Perhaps JBS wants to go back to the pre-1967 definition of marriage in the US?

        3. Fact: The definition of what constitutes marriage has been changed before.

        Numerous times…and if he wants to go biblical, he really will have his work cut out for him. As it is, the legal definition in the US sinks him.

        Thus, why not change it again?

        And as ya know, it’s been done already.

        Definition. The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

        Unless the woman/man part is an essential part of the definition, but I see no part to think that this is so. Nor do you provide one.

        Precisely. JBS needs to learn something about language, words, and their definitions…they change over time and with use in common parlance.

        It was once okay for a man to marry a child…we don’t do that anymore…things change…but some knuckle-draggers can’t get past the “icky” to the love part…the later not being even a consideration at one time.

        Dinosaurs like JBS need to get themselves sorted, or go extinct.

        But the history of American marriage reveals an institution that has long been open to change, and is likely to become more, not less, inclusive.

        http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/marriage/

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Obama was black. So… ummm, SKWIRRELS!

      • Cozmo the Magician

        D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

        He must love that song.

    • Ignorant Amos

      One would think that someone with the ability to use a computer competently enough to post even a stupid comment, they’d have the ability to research the subject they wish to address, just a wee bit enough in order not to look like a dopey eejit, before posting said stupid comment.

      Here, this should’ve been your first port of call… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    • Lark62

      I want judges to make their best call in accordance with the language of legislation and the Constitution of the United States. I want rulings to be fair, and reflect “equal treatment under the law.”

      I do not want judges making judicial decisions to appease a political constituency. This means sometimes I may wish for a different answer, but the ruling will contain justification that conforms to high standards.

      Democrats tend to appoint judges who are fair and competent.

      Republicans tend to appoint judges who will advance political views and treat religious views unequally.

      Ignorance is curable, one just have to care about facts.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Republicans tend to appoint judges who will advance political views and treat religious views unequally.

        Epitomised by Trumps pick for SCOTUS and now his man for the AG’s post…he’s stacking the deck.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          If I was REALLY interested… I would shove a Svengali Deck down his throat. He don’t deserve it. PHHHHT. Bit me donny, you could not even learn the EASIEST card trick I can teach a child. PHHHHHHTTTTT

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Marriage is supposed to be to the consenting adult you want to marry, not just to someone of the opposite sex.

      Also, learn CONSENT, and a lot of your silly so-called objections evaporate.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      I have built in heat and/or AC. Don’t need straw. Think I’ll nap

    • Alan Mill

      Last night I married a lemon with a sorbet. It was divine. And a marriage in a common usage of the word.

      • bman

        re: “Last night I married a lemon with a sorbet. It was divine. And a marriage in a common usage of the word.”

        How do you want readers to apply that to same sex marriage?

        • Greg G.

          If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. If life hands you two lemons, do not make lemonade unless you want a homo-citrus marriage.

        • bman

          re: “If life hands you two lemons, do not make lemonade unless you want a homo-citrus marriage.”


          What about three lemons?

        • Greg G.

          Polycitrusy?

        • Raging Bee

          NO WAY! You gotta have lemon-lime complimentarianism!

        • Greg G.

          I see. Lemon for the yin and lime for the yang.

        • Raging Bee

          No, no, no, CHRISTIAN complementarianism, not that heathen Oriental kind!

    • Raging Bee

      1) Aren’t liberals decrying the exact same thing with Trumps appoints? That they will legislate through the bench on things like gay marriage and abortion. Not sure what your point is if both sides do it.

      I suggest you either grow up or sober up, and try typing that paragraph again.

      Instead of make false arguments regarding race, why not argue to remove government from it at all?

      Because we see value in legal marriage for both the spouses and society in general. That’s why people want to be able to marry whomever they want, as opposed to just living together.

      Marriage in the US has always been defined as 1 man/1woman.

      Just like “persons” in the US used to be defined as white, and nonwhites were defined as inferior.

      If you want something different, call it something different.

      Because it’s NOT different: gay or straight, uniracial or biracial, it’s the same pattern of privileges and obligations, entered into for the same reasons. Why should anyone have to “call it something different” just to suit your prejudices?

  • Kevin K

    I don’t think same-sex marriage is as much of a dog-whistle issue as it used to be. Only the hard-core cling to opposing it on religious grounds. The fact that it’s been law of the land for a few years now and cats and dogs haven’t started living together means the Overton window has shifted.

    But, of course, the political right-wing just used that to get people to the polls. And when that failed, well, it became trans people. And now that issue has died down somewhat, it’s brown people massing at our borders. And since that one failed, it’ll be back to “they’re after your guns”.

    • TinnyWhistler

      Abortion’s still doing a HECK of a lot to motivate votes, I’d argue more than scary brown people. Abortion/birth control/reproductive rights in general can appeal to the “white genocide” nutjobs as well as people who are more moderate in general but honestly believe that the hours-old zygote is an actual human.

    • Greg G.

      FDR said: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

      The Republican Party decided a great way to get out the vote is fear itself.

      • Kevin K

        Absolutely spot on.

    • For some Christian pundits, SSM still pays the bills.

  • bman

    re: “In Frank’s dictionary, “activist judge” actually means “a judge who doesn’t do what I want.”

    Is that your idea of a fair representation of Frank Turek’s view on “activist judges”?

    • Did you not read the post? I said: “I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur to be used when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.”

      There’s your challenge. Show him railing against “activist” judges of all stripes, and then I’ll know he doesn’t have a bias.

      • bman

        re: “There’s your challenge. Show him railing against “activist” judges of all stripes, and then I’ll know he doesn’t have a bias.”
        —-
        Your “challenge” merely poses a false dilemma.

        One can reasonably target a specific type of activist judge without having to specifically target all types of activist judges the same way.

        My point is similar to the principle cited in this court case “… a legislative body may [rationally] choose which evil to regulate first and need not strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way.”

        • I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What’s the false dilemma?

          He’s claiming judges who are biased, but that bias is nonpartisan. If there truly are judicial decisions that are subject to this bias, he should be able to show them to us, and not just the ones that he disagrees with. Until he shows us these biased decisions that he likes, it looks just like this claim of bias is nonsense.

          But you won’t bother pursuing this, so I guess I’m wasting my time.

        • bman

          “I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What’s the false dilemma?”

          Per Wikipedia, ” A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.”

          You impose an either/or situation upon Frank’s definition of an activist judge, i.e., that he either target other types of judical activism too or he cannot rightly define pro-ssm judges as activists.

          I am saying he can rightly define ssm judges as activists based on reasonable grounds, such as a mishandling of standard legal protocol, even if he does not target other cases of judicial activism.

          “But you won’t bother pursuing this, so I guess I’m wasting my time”

          I am pursuing it by discussing it here.

        • I understand what a false dilemma is, thank you. I wanted you to show it to me.

          You impose an either/or situation upon Frank’s definition of an activist judge, i.e., that he either target other types of judical activism too or he cannot credibly define pro-ssm judges as activists.

          Yep, that seems to cover it.

          I am saying he can rightly define ssm judges as activists based on reasonable grounds, such as a mishandling of standard legal protocol

          And he’s done this? Was that in the post that referred to “activist judges”?

          I am pursuing it by discussing it here.

          The slam-dunk argument would be Frank (on his own, without you as his apologist) showing that the obvious fear—that he was using “activist judges” as just a smokescreen when he really meant “judges who don’t do what I’d like”—wasn’t there. He didn’t. And why would he bother? You’re his audience, not me, and you eagerly lap it up. I think he’s a liar (or too stupid to see that he looks like a liar), but I don’t count for this conversation.

        • bman

          “Yep, that seems to cover it.”

          You say that covers it, but you seem to miss my point.

          Your either/or claim meets the definition of false dilemma as was quoted from Wikipedia.

          I am saying he can rightly define ssm judges as activists based on reasonable grounds, such as a mishandling of standard legal protocol

          “And he’s done this? Was that in the post that referred to “activist judges”?”

          When I said, “such as a mishandling of standard legal protocol” I meant that was one example of rational grounds for defining an activist judge.

          I did not mean it was the only rational approach for Frank to define an activist judge.

          Frank gave a different rational argument against activist judges in the article. I refer to the paragraph where he said, “To say [as activist judges do] that people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights would be like saying people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights.”

          That is a rational complaint about how an activist judge ruled.

          Contra your claim, it is not the same as calling a judge activist simply because he dislikes the ruling.

          By the way, the four dissenting justices in the Obergefell ruling, to include the chief justice of the US Supreme Court , list several violations of standard protocol by the majority, just in case you think there were none, or think its only a matter of Frank’s biased opinion.

        • I guess those examples of Frank’s even-handedness just don’t exist.

        • bman

          re: “I guess those examples of Frank’s even-handedness just don’t exist.”
          —–
          The alternative is that you are using an uncharitable approach.

          Wikipeda has an article on that,

          :….the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn “it constrains the interpreter [Bob Seidensticker] to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject’s [Frank’s] sayings.”

        • mike edwards

          Nice

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Analysis has no use for charity.

          Present confounding evidence or accept the reality that presents itself.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What other options are there? The data suggest that Turek only is annoyed by ‘activist’ judges who are liberal / progressive.

          YOU are merely being asked to present data that would confound that hypothesis.

          Do your work.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Your “challenge” merely poses a false dilemma.”

          Nope, it’s a matter of observed behavior, and your challenge to a theory derived from the available data.

          You’re being challenged to present data that would contradict the current theory…and you’re trying to throw sand in the bull’s eyes to confound the argument rather than meeting your burden of proof.

  • Raging Bee

    Oh dear, it looks like comments are getting rearranged at random again. I guess that means Disqus is starting to break down under the load of too many comments on one thread; and this is its way (or maybe the Gods’ way?) of hinting that maybe this debate should be considered over. Oh well, it’s not like bman is ever going to come back with any support for any of his fake-philosophical rubbish anyway…

    • Greg G.

      Each comment runs algorithms and each algorithm is a burden on the browser and the system running it all so Disqus limits the number of posts displayed. When the limit is exceeded, it shows the thread and fills in any leftover spaces with the top of the list. When the thread exceeds the limit, it goes to subthreads and starts omitting followups.

      That is what I have observed when I paid attention to it, not through a systematic analysis. I arrived at a satisfying explanation and quit thinking about it, kinda like becoming a theist.

      • Raging Bee

        Y’know, problems like that wouldn’t arise if Disqus would just go back to single sequential comment threads, instead of those labyrinthine nested subthreads. Just show all the comments in the order in which they were posted. That’ll also reduce the overall number of comments, since each comment will be responding to the whole group, not just to one or another commenter. (That’s how group discussions work in real-space, remember? Every comment is heard by everyone else, and is heard in the order in which it was said.)

        • Greg G.

          That’s how it was when we carved messages on cave walls by torch light and Usenet but people flocked to nested commenting. (SWIDT?)

        • Raging Bee

          And we LIKED it that way!

        • ildi

          I don’t even know how people are able to comment on threads that go above 800 or so. I do miss the old sequential comment days!

        • Greg G.

          Disqus does provide a Recent Comments function that can show up to 25 comments beginning with the last one registered. Sometimes there is a time delay for updates.

          epeeist and I have posted the HTML for it. It’s a simple little file on my phone and a little bit more code in the file on my computers.

        • Susan

          Disqus does provide a Recent Comments function

          Disquspatheos does not. I only have it because you wrote it and epeeist made it idiotproof enough for me to use.

          I have lived by Recent Comments. I couldn’t manage to participate here without it. They keep taking it away and you keep providing a fix.

          But that only works for veterans who whine and get a solution

          That it no longer exists as a standard has made discussion worse.

          If they choose not to make discussions chronological, you would think they could at least provide a “recent comments” feature to everyone. But they don’t.

          But they also don’t deal with Kodie being harassed by trolls or with Russian bots.

          This whole principle they claim of “discussions of faith” doesn’t seem to be very important.

          If it weren’t for Bob soldiering on and many of the regulars figuring out how to navigate a discussion, no matter how imperfect the conditions, there would only be the shell of “discussions of faith”.

          I don’t think it matters. On the internet, the illusion of “discussion” is enough to let them take credit for “discussion”.

        • Sample1

          On the internet, the illusion of “discussion” is enough to let them take credit for “discussion”.

          Good way to put it!

          Mike

        • Sample1

          I’ve never really experienced the wonkiness with Disqus until today. Can’t find some comments I’ve made in my own profile. Then again, perhaps I’ve just been oblivious to the wonkiness because the vast majority of my posts only exist on two sites. OTS and SN.

          I’ve been branching out to Patheos but the wonkiness is almost enough for me to stay put on OTS. Ha.

          Mike

        • Susan

          I’ve never really experienced the wonkiness with Disqus until today.

          It’s been acting wonkier than usual, today. Something’s up.

          I’m sure it will get back to normal, soon. (I hope.)

        • ildi

          I do use that, and it’s great for seeing which posts are active. My problem is, there’s no way I’d be able to comment on a thread that’s active but already has a high number of comments, by high I mean it starts to get janky in the mid-hundreds. I have to reload the page and upload all the 50-comment segments each time somebody commented to see the context, and as far as adding a comment myself – fuhgeddaboudit unless I compose it in Word and paste over with no corrections because typing becomes slow as molasses. I wish I knew how other people comment on those with no problems.

    • Maybe click on “Sort by Best” (or whatever it says in the right at the top of all comments) to try another sorting method?

      • Raging Bee

        It’s not just changing the sort order; it’s taking comments that were responses to other comments, and putting them in the main thread. (I haven’t changed the sort order either.)

      • Susan

        Maybe click on, “Sort by Best”…?

        No. That just seems to be based on upvotes. What Raging Bee is talking about is a conversation based on a normal discussion. That is, in chronological order.

        It’s Patheosdisqus. It’s what we have. It’s a mess but we learn to navigate it the best we can.

        The problem is, that often, the real conversation gets buried.

        Some of the best comments or discussions I’ve read pretty much disappear (as though they never happened) because no one sees them to upvote or to respond.

        • Isn’t the disappearing problem the result of only 50 comments being shown? You can make them all display (by adding 50 at a time) with the Load More Comments button near the bottom.

        • ildi

          Yeah, that’s the only way I can see all the comments in chronological order after about 400 or so, but when the thread gets long enough, hitting Load More so many times is fucking tedious 🙁

          Wanted to add that after a certain number of comments, when I click on the “Show new replyt” link instead of it showing up below the comment it is responding to the thread disappears. Have to re-load the whole page and do the “Load More” to follow threads (or semi- follow along in epeeist’s Recent Comments html tab). I have to give up on extremely long comment sections.

          [sorry, edited to complain some more]

        • Susan

          You can make them all display (by adding 50 at a time)

          I don’t think so. Many of us are working from phones and laptops and the whole thing becomes completely overloaded and cumbersome, to the point that you can’t keep up on the system you’re using with the knowledge you have.

          i.e. It’s not user friendly. It’s got useful bells and whistles but it can’t keep a real time discussion in order.

          Keep in mind, that many of us have nearly no savvy when it comes to computers. You’re dealing with the general population here.

        • Pofarmer

          Or you’ll refresh and suddenly comments appear out of thin air. And the threading is, well, cumbersome, to say the least.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Patheosdisqus’ is the name of my new emo band 😉

      • Raging Bee

        UPDATE: I just sorted by “best,” then went back to “newest,” and that seemed to fix things, at least temporarily. Went to another page, back to this one, had to do it again…oh well, I just take as a sign from the Gods that this conversation is over.

  • igor

    Having numbed my mind reading through this and losing an hour or two of my life, I have just one question for bman –

    What gives you the right to interfere in the lives of anybody else?

    • bman

      re:”What gives you the right to interfere in the lives of anybody else?”

      That presumes everyone has a right to redefine civil marriage with whatever definition of marriage they prefer.

      Using that approach, there is no right for anyone to oppose a law that would allow marriage between two men, three men, or ten men, for that matter.

      • Natureboi

        That presumes everyone has a right to redefine civil marriage with whatever definition of marriage they prefer.
        Using that approach, there is no right for anyone to oppose a law that would allow marriage between two men, three men, or ten men, for that matter.

        Bullshit.
        The can ALWAYS be arbitrary stopping points.

      • Susan

        Using that approach, there is no right for anyone to oppose a law that would allow marriage between two men, three men, or ten men, for that matter.

        You don’t know how laws are made, do you?

        Marriage between three men is an entirely different thing. And it requires its own process. Let me know when someone is petitioning for it and we’ll deal with that, then.

        In the meantime, no.

        You can’t keep predicting scary things for which you have no evidence and calling it a “logical” opposition to human rights.

        Now, back to your claim that providing marriage rights to homosexuals will have an effect on the behaviour of heterosexual fathers.

        Still.. you seem to have… nothing.

        • Sample1

          Good way to phrase it.

          I think the things that religions finds emotionally scary stems from the same evolutionary source as those who find creatures with eight eyes and legs scary.

          It’s like lacking certain knowledge about spiders. So many are not aggressive toward humans and most probably cannot pierce our skin effectively. And the others, when understood and taking the right precautions, should they still be scary?

          Perhaps they will still illicit uncomfortable thoughts for a variety of reasons, but to be scared of a spider, for instance, that cannot harm you or one that can but is avoided or protected against becomes a bit irrational.

          Being scared of marriage rights for others is like saying one may be bitten or lunged at. But when others who want the same marriage rights are understood, where is the poison where is the aggression?

          Those religious who say they have good arguments against equal marriage rights are afraid of something. Ultimately is it about their perception of not doing enough to protect their god from insult and the metaphysical consequences of that? They say they are about others but in reality religions are all about the in group. Me, me, me. How will this affect me? Buy some bug repellent and bite proof clothing why don’t they? It’s essentially what their words imply.

          Dweebs.

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          There are actual spiders that can kill or injure badly. There’s the difference. Now here in Northern Ireland, that risk only comes from an accidentally imported harmful spider in a cargo of fruit for example, which happens extremely rarely, so caution against just about every spider here is indeed irrational, while not so irrational if I was on holiday in Australia where I’m unfamiliar as to which spider is which, and where spiders can cause injury from anything from bee sting pain, to death in rare occasions…so even a bit of cursory attention is warranted. But someone else getting married to whoever the fuck they like under current legislation as is, in the rest of the UK and Ireland, causes me no harm whatsoever. And the sooner those knuckle-dragging religious creotard fuckwits in charge of this place get fucked out of government, we can get on about the business of bringing this place into line with the rest of these islands. Religious bigots grip my fucking shite.

        • Greg G.

          I took a bus tour in Sydney last year. The guide told about the spiders. One of them is not aggressive but if you should happen to stick your finger in its hole in the ground, it would bite. If you call the ambulance, they would tell you to enjoy your last half hour of life.

          The next day, we were at a Buddhist temple far from the city on a hill top. Along the sidewalk was a sign warning to stay away from snakes. Below the sign was a lizard that was worrying my sister-in-law.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2382d5b766f6ecfe15328311136c866b6d6168a583e5e1410cec393391539e46.jpg

          I wanted to catch it, knowing that there are only two venomous lizards in the world. Just as I was about to grab for it, I decided I didn’t want to have a third type of venomous lizard named for me posthumously, so I decided to capture his photo.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Great story.

          It makes me appreciate all those that have went before me who found out about dangerous stuff by trial and error…very often to the detriment of their lives.

        • Greg G.
        • Paleontologists actually do use “thagomizer” for that spiky thing now, inspired by this comic.

          ADDENDUM: (You likely already know; it was FYI for anyone who missed this science class.)

        • Greg G.

          I went to the Museum of Natural History in New York a couple of years ago. They had a display about that cartoon.

      • igor

        Hi bman, I am pleased that you seem to acknowledge that there is such a thing as “civil marriage”. I assume that you also acknowledge that there is another thing that I call “religious marriage” (or maybe more specifically “Christian (Anglican/Catholic/whatever) Religious Marriage”).

        If this is the case, do you think that it is consistent with the Golden Rule if we allow you to abide by your chosen religious definition of marriage and if you allow others to abide by the legislated definition of marriage?

        Do you think that it is reasonable that you are given the right to choose and that everybody is also allowed to choose. In all cases without any interference from anybody else? rgds..

        • bman

          “Do you think that it is reasonable that you are given the right to
          choose and that everybody is also allowed to choose. In all cases
          without any interference from anybody else? rgds..

          I think it is consistent with the golden rule to protect the good moral order of society from subversive ideologies.

          As you may know, marxists came to realize they could not prevail in America unless they divided America from its morality and religion. Ssm essentially does that very thing, which helps create a moral and religious vaccuum that waits to be filled by some ideological system akin to marxism, or even political Islam which is growing fast in Europe.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think it is consistent with the golden rule to protect the good moral order of society from subversive ideologies.

          Demonstrating you have no idea what the golden rule is about…or you would support SSM…and why it fails as a rule for your likes. The platinum rule is much better…you’d have thought YahwehJesus would know that…Oh wait, the “golden” rule is plagiarized….YahwehJesus is a cheating twat.

          ETA for a wee bit of clarity.

        • Cynthia

          I happen to like a different version of the Golden Rule, from Hillel the Elder. He said that what is hateful to you, don’t do to someone else. Similar idea, but without the idea that you can impose what you like on others just because you like it.

          I hate facing discrimination and persecution. Therefore, I don’t want to do that to others. That’s pretty much my thought process on the matter.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I happen to like a different version of the Golden Rule, from Hillel the Elder. He said that what is hateful to you, don’t do to someone else. Similar idea, but without the idea that you can impose what you like on others just because you like it.

          An improvement to be sure.

          I still find that version of the Golden Rule problematic too. It is still about the wants of the doer.

          There’s the Platinum Rule, which is an improvement….“Do unto others as they would want done to them.”

          “Personally I am very fond of strawberries and cream, but I have found that for some strange reason, fish prefer worms. So when I went fishing, I didn’t think about what I wanted. I thought about what they wanted. I didn’t bait the hook with strawberries and cream. Rather, I dangled a worm or grasshopper in front of the fish and said: “Wouldn’t you like to have that?”

          https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/how-the-platinum-rule-trumps-the-golden-rule-every-time.html

          Of course that still only applies to folk I think are deserving of such treatment, that’s not everyone. And it is fraught with it’s own problems.

          Then we have the Titanium Rule…..“Treat others as it is in the highest and best good to treat them.” Not without it’s own issues too.

          I read a piece that sums the issue up…

          This whole relating to other people is so complicated, I guess it can’t be summed up neatly into one rule. I think the Titanium Rule comes the closest, and yet it’s pretty empty of content, in that the highest and best good is something I can spend my whole life discovering and defining, and which will be different in different situations, rather than some concrete thing that never changes. I guess remembering that fluidity and perceptiveness are important keys to correct action is one important step.

          https://medium.com/@kriswilliams/the-golden-rule-platinum-rule-and-titanium-rule-navigating-the-best-way-to-treat-others-5774d78e2db5

          For me it is all about the object the rules are being applied to…complicated is right.

        • Cynthia

          The next part was Hillel the Elder saying “now go and study”. So, it’s a starting point, not an end point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          True….We are always learning.

        • Greg G.

          I am willing to tolerate the Titanium Rule when others use it around me.

        • Susan

          it is consistent with the golden rule to protect the good moral order of society from subversive ideologies.

          Another term you like to use without knowing what it means.

          The Golden Rule is, in its most basic form, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

          It doesn’t talk about “protect(ing) the good moral order of society from subversive ideologies”.

          As you never define, “good” nor “moral”, there is no reason to think that what you want from society is either “good” or “moral”.

          Anyway, it’s not the golden rule.

          “Subversives” gave slaves equal rights, and then when terrorists (for instance, in Mississippi) tried to make laws and used terrorism to undermine those rights, “subversives” fought to entrench those rights.

          “Subversives” also gave rights to little girls and women. Something your church is not fond of.

          The “good, moral order of society” has required the sweat and blood of “subversives”.

          That’s another subject to be dealt with.

          You were just way off about the golden rule.

          Try to focus, bman.

        • Natureboi

          You were just way off about the golden rule.
          Try to focus, bman.

          It would be absurd to presume he is more worried about polygamy than he is about validating homosexuality.
          But since there is no rational reason the invalidate homosexuality, his “throuple” concern is nothing but a ruse and distraction from his obvious abject bigotry.

          Anyone can clearly see through his manipulative pretend worries.
          His goal and agenda is clear and he fails to disguise it under his phony polygamy concerns:
          He is anti-gay.
          And he is manipulative.

        • igor

          My version of the Golden Rule is this:

          “Don’t do to others things that they do not like in the same way that you would have others not do to you things that you do not like.”

          It is the principle of reciprocity.

          It is something that is fundamental to a functional pluralistic liberal multi-faith secular democracy such as the one that you live in. If you prefer the idea of a theocracy, maybe you could say so.

        • bman

          “Don’t do to others things that they do not like in the same way that
          you would have others not do to you things that you do not like.”

          That is fine, but would you use that as an argument to legalize marriage between three men?

        • Natureboi

          That is fine, but would you use that as an argument to legalize marriage between three men?

          There are already arbitrary stopping points in polygamous marriage.
          But let me ask you this:

          Why would three men marrying be a problem with you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Three men marrying is less problematic than one man and two or more women. I don’t get his logic of thought in this rabbit hole line of thinking. Perhaps he’s using the three men trope because he knows the pitfalls in the argument for one man and x number of women.

        • Natureboi

          An interesting note on polygamy:
          Most if not all who come for polygamous marriage do so via religion and religious liberty and not because gays can marry.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed…it’s a bit of a problem in the UK with the Muslim community.

          https://www.muslima.com/en/women/dating/united-kingdom/polygamy/that-accept-polygamy

          And like female genital mutilation, there isn’t much of an appetite to get a grip of it, for fear of offending the offenders.

        • igor

          Nobody is proposing to legalize marriage between three men.

          And I note that you have avoided my original question through the tactic of distractions.

          Again, What gives you the right to interfere in the lives of anybody else?

        • bman

          Nobody is proposing to legalize marriage between three men.

          I was arguing from analogy. However, a trend on that is emerging at the margins. A web search on the term “throuple marriage” may help confirm this.

          And I note that you have avoided my original question through the tactic of distractions. Again, What gives you the right to interfere in the lives of anybody else?

          I believe I answered your question.

          In effect, my response meant you have mis-characterized the case. I am making logical arguments that oppose a public law in a public forum, which is not the same thing as interfering in the lives of others .

          Suppose a public law was being proposed that allowed three men to marry. If I spoke publicly against that public law would you call that, “interfering in the lives of others?”

          Probably not.

        • Natureboi

          Why is polygamy illegal, and has been long before same-sex marriage was legal?

        • bman

          re: “Why is polygamy illegal, and has been long before same-sex marriage was legal?”

          The federal case that ruled polygamy was illegal was Davis v. Beason.

          It stated,

          Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries…[Bigamy and polygamy] tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community….It.. was never intended or supposed that [the 1st] amendment could be invoked as a protection against….good order, and morals of society..

          And this,

          . ….in Murphy v. Ramsey…referring to the act of congress excluding polygamists and bigamists from voting or holding office, the court…said: ‘Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

          A large part of why polygamy is illegal is because the institution of marriage is about the morality of an entire civilization, and marriage is not merely a private moral matter.

        • Natureboi

          the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony;

          There is NO religious or procreation mandate in any marriage law.

          A large part of why polygamy is illegal is because the institution of marriage is about the morality of an entire civilization,

          Wrong.
          It is illegal because it is harmful to the women and children involved.
          Same-sex marriage is harmful to nobody.

          marriage is not merely a private moral matter.

          Bullshit.
          Your marriage is no more my business than my neighbor’s marriage is your business.

          You have failed to provide a single rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

        • Susan

          The federal case that ruled polygamy was illegal was Davis v. Beason.

          No. Polygamy was already illegal. That case was a Supreme Court case in which the ruling was 9-0 that “federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with” the First Amendment.

          You might want to refer to the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act if you want to look for places that it was made illegal.

          Now, this all took place in the 19th century. What you need to ask yourself is why there are still laws against polygamy.

          Because harm. Real harm. Evidential harm. A lack of equality between men and women. Legal and financial inequality. And harm to children.

          Here’s an article that addresses it:

          https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol38_2011/human_rights_spring2011/should_polygamy_be_permitted_in_the_united_states/

          From the article:

          Turning to the obligation to support the children, the polygamist husband has fewer responsibilities than each wife does concerning their children. The wives’ time, emotional attention, and financial resources are available to support the children; only a fraction of the husband’s are. The same is true when divorce or death comes. A typical intestate succession statute leaves one-third to a wife and two-thirds to their children, but when a man has four wives, each wife gets a fourth of a third, or one-twelfth, while he inherits one-third from each wife.

          This is not some abstract theory. Polygamy is legal in many nations, and it is these nations’ laws that show how polygamy works in practice. At Georgetown Law, I direct the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic. Clinic faculty and students have worked with African women’s rights lawyers in many different countries investigating the harms caused by legal polygamy. We have interviewed a broad cross-section of the population in Kenya, Namibia, Swaziland, and Tanzania, and in every country the majority of the people spoke movingly about polygamy’s impact on women and children. They spoke of the inability of men to support more than one wife and children. They spoke of jealousy and hatred as the wives and children fought over sparse economic resources and virtually nonexistent emotional support from the one husband and father.

          So, there you go. Harm.

          Unlike two equal same sex partners with equal rights, power and responsibilities.

          Changing one law doesn’t mean you can willy nilly change all laws. That’s just not how it works.

          There is no reason to prevent two consenting adults access to the equal partnership that legal marriage provides.

          And still good reasons to prevent polygamy because:

          It causes demonstrable harm.

          It’s a different sort of contract. Even if it were legal, it would take a long, long time to write all the laws governing it.

          So, you can take a big, breath because it’s a completely separate issue.

          We are talking about two citizens entering into a standard marriage contract.

          With no foreseeable harm.

          Fake graphs and burden-shifting do nothing to change that.

          You can’t show harm. You just think Yahwehjesus is against it.

        • Natureboi

          In effect, my response meant you have mis-characterized the case. I am making logical arguments that oppose a public law in a public forum, which is not the same thing as interfering in the lives of others .

          WRONG.
          Oh my GOD, bman…you are so off base on this it’s ridiculous!

          Targeting gays for prohibition of rights IS INTERFERRING WITH THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

          Suppose a public law was being proposed that allowed three men to marry.

          Same-sex marriage is MONOGAMOUS.
          Please let go of your absurd unrelated irrelevant slippery slope nonsense.
          You have NO VALID ARGUMENT to justify prohibiting monogamous gay couples to marry.
          NONE.

          Polyygamy will NEVER BE LEGAL.

          Let it go.
          You are manipulative with this non-existent “fear.”

        • bman

          re: “Targeting gays for prohibition of rights IS INTERFERRING WITH THE LIVES OF OTHERS.”

          First, you beg the question because you presume logical argument against redefining marriage is the same thing as “tageting gays.”

          Second, you assert a false dilemma. Is “targeting gays” the only reason one can have for opposing a public law on same sex marriage? Since many different reasons are plausible, you can’t arbitrarily presume that “targeting gays” must be the reason

          Third, the fact gays also oppose ssm on logical grounds shows that same sex marriage can be logically opposed without “targeting gays.”

        • Natureboi

          First, you beg the question because you presume logical argument against redefining marriage is the same thing as “tageting gays.”

          Prohibiting same-sex marriage targets gays.

          Is “targeting gays” the only reason one can have for opposing a public law on same sex marriage? Since many different reasons are plausible, you can’t arbitrarily presume that “targeting gays” must be the reason

          I have asked this hundreds of times:
          Give me just rational reason to prohibit gays from marrying.

          There is NONE.

          the fact gays also oppose ssm on logical grounds shows that same sex marriage can be logically opposed without “targeting gays.”

          Irrelevant.

        • bman

          Please let go of your absurd unrelated irrelevant slippery slope nonsense.

          Rather, how about you stop misportraying my argument?

          I made an argument “by analogy,” which is not the same thing as a slippery slope argument.

        • Natureboi

          I made an argument “by analogy,”

          Your analogy is absurd.
          Your so-called morbid “concern” about “throuple” marriage is blatantly phony.
          It is manipulative.
          It is a non-existent “threat.”
          And it is totally not related to same-sex monogamy.

        • Susan

          I made an argument “by analogy,” which is not the same thing as a slippery slope argument.

          To begin with, you haven’t done a very good job of making that clear. You have phrased it repeatedly (as far as I can tell) as a slippery slope argument.

          Can you show us the distinction and why you evaluate your argument as one from analogy as opposed to a slippery slope?

          Secondly, they are both invalid.

          So, let’s get back to the basics. The stuff you keep avoiding (despite making thousands of comments on Disqus against extending marriage rights to homosexuals).

          You claim it will cause harm. To draw a slippery slope from marriage rights for homosexuals to marriage rights for polygamists is false.

          Because you can show harm for the second and not for the first.

          Also, to attempt an argument from analogy is false for the same reasons.

          Why not try something simple to begin with?

          As I asked you to do dozens of comments ago and as many others have asked you to do.

          State that homosexual marriage harms children.

          Then, support that statement with something other than fake graphs and invalid arguments.

        • bman

          “If you prefer the idea of a theocracy, maybe you could say so.”

          That is like like saying America was a theocracy in previous generations before ssm was legalized.

          America was both religious and believed in Christian morality, but it was not a theocracy.

          My arguments for morality and Christianity do not imply a theocracy, therefore.

        • igor

          So does this mean that you accept that you live in a functional pluralistic liberal multi-faith secular democracy?

        • Cynthia

          Same-sex marriage leads to an increase in political Islam? That’s some weird claim. Valid citation needed.

        • bman

          Same-sex marriage leads to an increase in political Islam? That’s some weird claim. Valid citation needed.

          I’d like to set the stage with two brief statements from 2nd US President John Adams and Benjamin Franklin about what a Constitutional government needs to work properly.

          John Adams: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

          Benjamin Franklin: “…this [Constitutional government]…can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so [morally] corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

          Based on those observations I make this argument:

          Premise 1: A constitutional government cannot be sustained if the morality and religion that bridles human passions has been eroded from public acceptance.

          Premise 2: Same sex marriage law erodes away public acceptance of the morality and religion that bridles human passions

          Conclusion: Same sex marriage law erodes away the sustainability of Constitutional government.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Adams and Franklin were products of their days…remember, slavery and marital rape were the norm at that time.

          You offer yet another syllogism that is a loada ballix. One only has to look at the most successful countries in this respect, to see your nonsense for what it is, pure fuckwittery.

          Countries where SSM is legal and religion is least prevalent are at the top….particularly the Scandanavian countries. While those most religious and prohibiting same sex relationships, never mind marriage, are at the bottom.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index

          So you are talking bigoted religious homophobic bubbles.

          Edited 1 minute after posting.

        • Grimlock

          Say, why would those two quotes be particularly compelling as support of your argument?

        • Natureboi

          Same sex marriage law erodes away the sustainability of Constitutional government.

          How so?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Making shite up again, or parroting someone doing it, at the very least.

        • Greg G.

          Do you ever wonder if bman and Sheryl just get off talking about same sex?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s been known in religious circles…Catholics have a bit of a penchant for it too.

  • ildi

    I guess I don’t understand what argument you’re trying to make by constantly bringing up Justice Harlan’s opinion regarding sex and marriage from 1961 when the discussion we are having is what the law says regarding marriage today. His opinion ended up having no impact on subsequent laws, so he is irrelevant to today’s discussion.

    It appears that you’re side-tracking onto Harlan and the definition of “sanctify” just to try to have the last word, but you can’t hide the fact that you have not given any evidence for your argument that same sex marriage either causes societal harm or violates the concept of marriage as it is understood by the law today (see my link to the Illinois Law Review article.)

    • bman

      “….the discussion we are having is what the law says regarding marriage today.”

      That only describes your side of the argument.

      My side of the argument is that marriage sanctified genital intercourse before ssm law.

      • ildi

        My side of the argument is that marriage sanctified genital intercourse before ssm law.

        Marriage also used to “sanctify” the wife as the property of her husband. How far back did you want to go with this argument?

        • bman

          Marriage also used to “sanctify” the wife as the property of her husband. How far back did you want to go with this argument?

          I want to go back to one day before ssm law.

        • ildi

          I want to go back one day before ssm law

          Well, YEARS before the first ssm law the beliefs that there were marital rights to genital intercourse (see marital rape laws), that marital sex was only for procreation (see birth control laws overturned) and that sex and procreation was only legal within the “sanctity” of the marriage (see fornication, sodomy and illegitimacy laws overturned) had already been dismantled. As Professor Kari Hong points out in the U. of Illinois law review article,

          In the history of social change, it is easy for legal scholars to be reductive in our thinking, to trace shifts from one Supreme Court decision to another. What is lost in this method is that progress usually is not made in full steady strides. To the contrary, state courts show the fits and starts that occur as society grapples with the collateral issues that legal equality ushers in.

          Luckily, it seems you’re on the wrong side of history with this one. Feel free to live your marriage according to your religious dogma, though.

        • bman

          … (see marital rape laws)…

          That means the right to genital intercourse does not include a right to marital rape. It does not mean the socially sanctified right to genital intercourse was eliminated from marriage law.

          To show this another way, I refer you again to the article on the 2007 Alabama case, which is fairly recent.

          “The Alabama Appeals Court has basically ruled that to be legally married in Alabama, you must consummate that relationship, or your marriage is subject to annulment. An annulment is declaring your marriage to be null and void, as if you were never married. The court reasoned that an unstated intent to never consummate your marriage relationship is a fraud rendering that marriage invalid.”

          As you can see from the excerpt, a sanctified right to genital intercourse within marriage was still legally presumed despite the existence of laws against marital rape.

        • ildi

          The Alabama Appeals Court has basically ruled that to be legally married in Alabama, you must consummate that relationship, or your marriage is subject to annulment. An annulment is declaring your marriage to be null and void, as if you were never married. The court reasoned that an unstated intent to never consummate your marriage relationship is a fraud rendering that marriage invalid.

          This is what happens when you rely on someone else’s summary of a case rather than referring to the case itself: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/2060866.PDF

          This was an immigration-related fraud case, and the same finding would apply if this currently happened in a same sex marriage case:

          In support of her petition, Antoinette asserted that Jiri, a native of the Czech Republic, had fraudulently induced her to marry him; that, at the time of the marriage, Jiri had no intention of honoring his marital obligations; and that Jiri had married her only so that he could obtain a “green card,” which would permit him to remain in the United States.

          At that hearing, Antoinette testified that she and Jiri were married on June 5, 2005, after a courtship of only a few months. She also testified that she and Jiri had “honeymooned” by camping in the Smokey Mountains; that, throughout their honeymoon, they had had no sexual relations; and that they had slept in separate tents the entire time. She further testified that, when they returned to live in her home in Baldwin County, Jiri would not share a bedroom with her.

          The trial court entered an order annulling the marriage on May 8, 2007, specifically finding that the parties had not consummated the marriage and had not acted as a married couple, but had acted more as roommates, during their marriage.

          Under long-standing Alabama caselaw, a court may annul a marriage because of fraudulent inducement going to “the essence of the marriage relation.”

          While marriage is a contract attended with many important and peculiar features in which the state is interested, and while it is one of the fundamental elements of social welfare, its transcendent importance would seem to demand that wily and designing people should find it difficult to successfully perpetrate fraud and deceit as inducements to the marriage relation, rather than that such base attempts should be regarded as of trivial importance and be wholly disregarded by the courts.

        • bman

          “This is what happens when you rely on someone else’s summary of a case rather than referring to the case itself..

          Not sure why you see a conflict between the law article summary and the actual court opinion.

          This was an immigration-related fraud case…

          Why does that make a difference?

        • ildi

          While marriage is a contract attended with many important and peculiar features in which the state is interested, and while it is one of the fundamental elements of social welfare, its transcendent importance would seem to demand that wily and designing people should find it difficult to successfully perpetrate fraud and deceit as inducements to the marriage relation, rather than that such base attempts should be regarded as of trivial importance and be wholly disregarded by the courts.

        • bman

          So, how does that defeat something I said?

        • ildi

          I guess in your reductionist view of marriage it doesn’t.