Homosexual Marriage

[Rationalskeptic]

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

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

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

[micatala]

Several pages ago I said that this topic has apparently clouded some people's ability to use reason. I provided a significant amount of evidence proving this. None of it was refuted. With every response you continue to stoke the fires that are incinerating your credibility.

Stoke away:

Unfortunately for you, people can actually go back and read what has been posted and see that the reality is quite opposite as what you portray here.

I am relying on the fact that people can look back at what has been said.

In addition, while Euphrates is certainly free to quote his own posts in response to new arguments that have been made, he clearly has not addressed much of the arguments against his position. In fact, he seems to have given up addressing the most relevant arguments against his position, pretending he has already refuted them.

Pretending... lol. It's right there for anyone to read.

When presented with these arguments, his response has often been to LOL, not exactly a substantive response.

Fuel to the fire.

I'm afraid you don't understand how this works. When you say something like "he just LOLs at my arguments," anyone can look back and read the substantive refutations I have given and know that you are not being honest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but your deceptive tactics are now just annoying. A glance into past pages of this debate proves that you were wrong and you continue to be wrong. If I were you, I'd try to salvage what is left of my credibility, but you can keep stoking the fires if you'd like.

I think I have been around the forum long enough to know how things work. Also, although I certainly allow I am an imperfect person and there is no doubt such imperfections are reflected in this long thread, I am quite confident a review of the thread by any objective observer will show your accusations of dishonesty and deception are without merit.





However, to keep things simple, out of the several arguments Euphrates has not even attempted to address, and this is only from 3 pages back, I will offer the following.

At any rate, let's get onto whether Euphrates notion of the purposes of the government and its role in marriage hold water.


The SCOTUS decision in Loving vs. Virginia included the following.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

This case struck down Virginia's anti-miscegination laws. Note the statement on marriage being one of the basic civil rights of man. If the government denies gays the right to marry, they are denying them one of the "basic civil rights of man."

Now, in this case the court holds racial differences are no grounds for preventing marriage. And yet, if we follow Euphrates logic, we should prevent interracial marriage if it causes harms like higher promiscuity, higher drug abuse, lower birth rates.


Consider http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

2.(2008) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."

Drug use is higher for blacks than any other racial group, except for those for people reporting two or more races. By Euphrates criteria, we should forbid interracial marriage since interracial individuals show higher rates of drug abuse.

Thus, as I have argued, we have evidence that marriage is considered a basic civil right, and that the government of the U.S. puts a high priority on this basic liberty.


We also have evidence that children of interracial couples have higher rates of drug abuse, almost twice as high, as the overall population.


Now, Euphrates has said:

Euphrates wrote:

I'm saying the government shouldn't encourage people to get involved in a lifestyle that has significantly higher rates of drug use and abuse. No matter what that lifestyle is.

I have argued in the past that Euphrates position is inconsistent in that he does not apply his own criteria for denying gay marriage to other groups.

Following Euphrates's own argument, based on the statistics above, we should not allow interracial marriage since the children of such unions have higher rates of drug abuse then the general population, and we would be encouraging this by sanctioning the interracial marriage.



Obviously Euphrates can answer for himself whether he thinks banning interracial marriage on one of the same bases he has for denying gay marriage is justified.







Whether he answers or not, as far as I am aware, neither SCOTUS nor any legislature in the land has seen fit to attempt to enact a ban on interracial marriage on the basis of increased drug usage in the last four decades.

I think we can see that Euphrates argument that we should ban gay marriage on the basis that it would increase drug usage is, to say the least, without merit.



Also, . . .

Everything that I would need to say to refute the points being offered have already been said. All I would need to do is quote myself. No new arguments are being presented. (From Post #320)

*************************

. . . anyone can look back and read the substantive refutations I have given and know that you are not being honest.

Now, if Euphrates has addressed this particular point previously, as he has stated he has, perhaps he can point us to where?

[Ooberman]

Stoke away:
...
I am relying on the fact that people can look back at what has been said.
...
Pretending... lol. It's right there for anyone to read.
...
Fuel to the fire.
...
I'm afraid you don't understand how this works. When you say something like "he just LOLs at my arguments," anyone can look back and read the substantive refutations I have given and know that you are not being honest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but your deceptive tactics are now just annoying. A glance into past pages of this debate proves that you were wrong and you continue to be wrong. If I were you, I'd try to salvage what is left of my credibility, but you can keep stoking the fires if you'd like.

This is the way the thread ends
This is the way the thread ends
This is the way the thread ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.




It is noted that Euphrates is unwilling or unable to back up his assertions, or counter any of the counter-arguments.

Unless winepusher has anything new to bring to the table, it seems this thread is done - in favor of gay marriage.

The opponents of gay marriage were unable to make the case that marriage should be a right, limited only to a select group of people that fall within the legal age and consent laws.

[McCulloch]

Marriage is an individual right. To argue that the State [...] has the power to regulate marriage is to effectively cede all individual liberties to the government.

You are overstating the case. The governments' duty to regulate certain activities does not necessarily cede all individual liberties to the government.

I am not overstating the case. Accepting the Kantian ethos as definitive (as we well ought to, given that our political system - liberal democracy - is framed in Kantian terms), to restrict one individual liberty is tantamount to restricting them all.

Did Immanuel Kant say that?
Did he call for the removal of all government restrictions on any of our liberties?
Do you believe that government has no role in, for example, our liberty to trade goods? If I cheat you, that is between you and me and not the government? If I wish to introduce into the marketplace a substance which is toxic and highly addictive, and promote it using my liberty of free speech, as being cool, relaxing and healthy, should I be allowed?

[micatala]

Marriage is an individual right. To argue that the State [...] has the power to regulate marriage is to effectively cede all individual liberties to the government.

You are overstating the case. The governments' duty to regulate certain activities does not necessarily cede all individual liberties to the government.

I am not overstating the case. Accepting the Kantian ethos as definitive (as we well ought to, given that our political system - liberal democracy - is framed in Kantian terms), to restrict one individual liberty is tantamount to restricting them all.

Did Immanuel Kant say that?
Did he call for the removal of all government restrictions on any of our liberties?
Do you believe that government has no role in, for example, our liberty to trade goods? If I cheat you, that is between you and me and not the government? If I wish to introduce into the marketplace a substance which is toxic and highly addictive, and promote it using my liberty of free speech, as being cool, relaxing and healthy, should I be allowed?

I'll have to pass on any commentary on Kant, but I would agree with McCulloch that it is appropriate for governments to regulate marriage as well as other types of contracts between individuals. The government, however, should always have compelling reasons for any regulations.

[Euphrates]

Also, although I certainly allow I am an imperfect person and there is no doubt such imperfections are reflected in this long thread, I am quite confident a review of the thread by any objective observer will show your accusations of dishonesty and deception are without merit.

I have proven such dishonesty and deception... many times. See Post 252 and Post 258 and Post 265 and Post 269 and Post 273 and Post 285 and basically every post of mine after that, including Post 295.

How many times can you be objectively wrong before people just stop listening to you? The arguments I have made I have continued to support with arguments and evidence. Your assertions and arguments have come and gone, shifted and been abandoned. This resembles a common novice debate tactic which I've come to call the spaghetti method: you throw all your spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks.

My only wish is that we could look at the happenings of this thread with factual accuracy. It is clear to me that there has been no attempt to get the facts straight. How many times do I have to show that you've made false claims? How many times do I have to show that you have not provided evidence in support of your claims? How many times are you going to repeat an argument without addressing the refutation?

Even when I point out that you have been factually wrong, you never apologize and you never take it back. I've been approaching this as a debate. That was my mistake. I should have realized this was your soapbox.

I'm counting on reasonable people to do some fact checking and find that your entire position is based on unsupported assertions, refuted arguments, and dishonestly... but you'll always know Ooberman's got your back! lol

[Ooberman]

How many times can you be objectively wrong before people just stop listening to you?

About 180.

The arguments I have made I have continued to support with arguments and evidence. Your assertions and arguments have come and gone, shifted and been abandoned. This resembles a common novice debate tactic which I've come to call the spaghetti method: you throw all your spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks.

My only wish is that we could look at the happenings of this thread with factual accuracy. It is clear to me that there has been no attempt to get the facts straight. How many times do I have to show that you've made false claims? How many times do I have to show that you have not provided evidence in support of your claims? How many times are you going to repeat an argument without addressing the refutation?

Even when I point out that you have been factually wrong, you never apologize and you never take it back. I've been approaching this as a debate. That was my mistake. I should have realized this was your soapbox.

I'm counting on reasonable people to do some fact checking and find that your entire position is based on unsupported assertions, refuted arguments, and dishonestly... but you'll always know Ooberman's got your back! lol

Maybe you can go back and address the responses to your evidence, instead?

The evidence you gave was almost all from biased sources, and wasn't data but opinion pieces on some data. Even the data you provided was highly questionable in how it relates to gay marriage.

Plus, your premises were simply horrible, and no matter how many times they were rebutted you never responded.

For example, you claim that by allowing gay marriage, the population will decrease.

But gay people are already, in general, not having children whether they are married or not! Marriage, civil unions, or friendship bracelets won't change that basic fact.

It's premises like this that make your point irrelevant. Your argument, as we have shown, is without merit. Try again.

[micatala]

Also, although I certainly allow I am an imperfect person and there is no doubt such imperfections are reflected in this long thread, I am quite confident a review of the thread by any objective observer will show your accusations of dishonesty and deception are without merit.

I have proven such dishonesty and deception... many times. See Post 252 and Post 258 and Post 265 and Post 269 and Post 273 and Post 285 and basically every post of mine after that, including Post 295.

How many times can you be objectively wrong before people just stop listening to you? The arguments I have made I have continued to support with arguments and evidence. Your assertions and arguments have come and gone, shifted and been abandoned. This resembles a common novice debate tactic which I've come to call the spaghetti method: you throw all your spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks.

My only wish is that we could look at the happenings of this thread with factual accuracy. It is clear to me that there has been no attempt to get the facts straight. How many times do I have to show that you've made false claims? How many times do I have to show that you have not provided evidence in support of your claims? How many times are you going to repeat an argument without addressing the refutation?

Even when I point out that you have been factually wrong, you never apologize and you never take it back. I've been approaching this as a debate. That was my mistake. I should have realized this was your soapbox.

I'm counting on reasonable people to do some fact checking and find that your entire position is based on unsupported assertions, refuted arguments, and dishonestly... but you'll always know Ooberman's got your back! lol

Well, I went back and looked at Post #252 as well as a few before that and after that. I responded to some of the items in Post #254. I am not going to go back through all the posts you mention to evaluate your claims of dishonesty and deception at this point, and I do not think your accusations are justified, at least with respect to myself, but I would be willing to address one or two of the items you identify in Post #252 that pertain to me.



I will also reiterate that I have provided some new arguments and new evidence in recent posts that have not been addressed. Realizing we all have finite time, I asked you to respond only to one of these at this point, the discussion related to the Loving Vs. Virginia case. This is a substantive point, one of a number I have made in recent posts.





In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

[Ooberman]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

I just have an inconsequential question, but I am curious. Are you, Euphrates, a Mormon? The reason I asked is that I came across a Mormon argument against interracial marriage AND against gay marriage that mentioned the slippery slope that if allowed, suddenly it would become the norm - somehow.

This argument is a puzzle to me - it really sounds like religious fear-mongering and nothing more, and is very unsound so I can't believe (maybe I should) that many religionists use this argument. However, maybe it is part of the Mormon echo chamber?

Just curious.

[micatala]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

I just have an inconsequential question, but I am curious. Are you, Euphrates, a Mormon? The reason I asked is that I came across a Mormon argument against interracial marriage AND against gay marriage that mentioned the slippery slope that if allowed, suddenly it would become the norm - somehow.

This argument is a puzzle to me - it really sounds like religious fear-mongering and nothing more, and is very unsound so I can't believe (maybe I should) that many religionists use this argument. However, maybe it is part of the Mormon echo chamber?

Just curious.

I am not sure how relevant personal religious backgrounds of other members are, and speculating on them is, in my view, at least somewhat rude. If a member volunteers such information on their own, fine, but personal questions and remarks are not really substantive to the debate.

[Ooberman]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

I just have an inconsequential question, but I am curious. Are you, Euphrates, a Mormon? The reason I asked is that I came across a Mormon argument against interracial marriage AND against gay marriage that mentioned the slippery slope that if allowed, suddenly it would become the norm - somehow.

This argument is a puzzle to me - it really sounds like religious fear-mongering and nothing more, and is very unsound so I can't believe (maybe I should) that many religionists use this argument. However, maybe it is part of the Mormon echo chamber?

Just curious.

I am not sure how relevant personal religious backgrounds of other members are, and speculating on them is, in my view, at least somewhat rude. If a member volunteers such information on their own, fine, but personal questions and remarks are not really substantive to the debate.

I don't think it's rude, and I really am curious because of the particular argument he is using. I am wondering if the Mormon church is somehow spreading this and would like to source it.

He can always decline, and I won't push. It has little to do with the effectiveness of his debate, but I feel - for my own curiosity - that it is related to the debate.