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

.

"Mind you there is one of my favourite sci-fi short stories in which mathematics is ..."

The Argument from Mathematics Doesn’t Add ..."
"God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover and the presence of existence makes an absolute ..."

The Argument from Mathematics Doesn’t Add ..."
"the will is only createdWhy should I believe the "will" was "created"?God is the fundamental ..."

The Argument from Mathematics Doesn’t Add ..."
"You still haven't proven anything ABOUT this prime mover. You clearly have no clue what ..."

The Argument from Mathematics Doesn’t Add ..."

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.

        • 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?”

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.”