Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[wenglund]

Other than your obvious spin on what you want the outcome to be, essentially you are saying the same thing as I am. At the end of the day, the justices decision will either be, it is not discrimination to prevent gays from marrying or The law will no longer discriminate against gay marriage. How they arrive at that decision is definitely based on how they interpret some of the issues you bring up.

You cannot in any rational sense interpret my comments in that way--speaking of spins.

Instead, you would have to completely ignore my salient points, and simply go on blindly and deafly repeating your mythical mantra.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

Well if that is your point, then I am just going to have to disagree with you. Not allowing gays to marry is indeed causing REAL discrimination issues. It is causing real economic issues to gay couples as well that only occur because the couple happens to be gay. Do you need examples?

How is not allowing them to marry causing real economic issues? Can you spell this out a little, before I respond?

[CV75]

Well if that is your point, then I am just going to have to disagree with you. Not allowing gays to marry is indeed causing REAL discrimination issues. It is causing real economic issues to gay couples as well that only occur because the couple happens to be gay. Do you need examples?

Marriage laws are actually not written at all for the benefit of society. You can murder your wife and kids and still get married. You can be a serial divorcee and still get married no matter how many children are left alone. You can be a crack addict and be married. KYour supposition that marriage laws are designed for the benefit of society are flawed.

You still keep overlooking the reasons why the marriage laws are in place, and the rationale and history of the marriage institution. This is a frighteningly thick blind spot for you. Of course people mess up, and do horrible, illegal things before, in and after marriage and without marriage, and regardless of their sexual orientation, but those are individual and not institutional decisions unrelated to marriage or marriage, tax and insurance laws. And eligibility for breaking any law is perfectly non-discriminatory--how wonderful is that?

The marriage laws are not denying tax and insurance benefits to homosexual, they are defining those who can marry. The tax and insurance laws deny crtain benefits by extending them only to married individuals. That's where your so-called discrimination (which it isn't) issue really is. And neither set of laws has a prejudicial or unjust basis.

[wenglund]

It's okay to discriminate against individual behavior that is directly harming someone else.

It's, generally, not okay to discriminate against a whole group of people, because of the real or perceived harm of one or many, in that group.

It is, of course, okay to discriminate against a group like children or people who are visually impaired, if allowing them certain privileges (like driving) would create a danger to themselves and society.

I think we just need to use a little common sense, when we want to discriminate, making sure our desire to discriminate is based on something solid....and not just based on our prejudices.

Too often people are looking at this issue exactly the opposite from the way it rightly should be. They tend think of discrimination only in terms of it being against a class of people, whereas, in this case it is discrimination (if you want to call it that) in favor of a class of people. The government has for centuries discriminated in favor of adult heterosexual couple because the argument was persuasively made that promoting marital relations between a man and a woman was in the governments interest. In order to make sense for the government to also extend this positive discrimination to other classes of people, like homosexuals and children, a persuasive case needs to be made that it would also be in the governments interest to do so there as well. Until then, the long-standing positive governmental discrimination in favor of adult heterosexual couples, is just and sensible as is. It is no more unjust or wrongly prejudicial to positively discriminate in the case of marriage as it would be to do the same in cases of empowerment zones, student loans, government grants, tax incentives, etc,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Gay marriage is not about the definition of a word.

This is blatantly false.

It is about equality under the law.

This is now a blatant myth, as previously demonstrated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, traditional/legal definitions have very often been found "unjust", by the courts, even when they have been very long standing. Separate but equal was found to be unjust, after many decades of being imposed. Length of time or that something is longstanding "tradition", doesn't automatically mean it is fair or just under the constitution.

Even if so (it can be confusing to refer to things like "separate but equal" as "definitions"), it is irrelevant in the case of the legal definition of marriage and current marital laws. As indicated, they aren't unjust (see my comments above), and the point about "traditional" is three-fold: 1) it provide authoritative and interpretive context; 2) It underscores the fact that the current legal definition is the status quo, and that it is gay advocates who are attempting to change it; and 3) it is the "tradition" that the courts used to deem marriage (as currently defined) a fundamental right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 10, 2012 by wenglund

[DH]

Busted Propaganda:

1. People are homophobic if they are against SSM or other pro-gay issues.

Well, "homophobic" means afraid of gays. Those who oppose SSM and other pro-gay issues may not be afraid of gays, but instead may object to those issues on moral grounds and/or because they hate gays.

While theoretically you could oppose pro-gay issues but not feel hatred in your heart towards gay people, that doesn't give a lot of comfort to gays. It's rather like opposing civil rights measures on the grounds of "states' rights" while claiming you don't hate blacks--the blacks will still feel hated by you.

2. People are anti-gay if they are against SSM.

3. People are hateful if they prefer that legalized marriage be reserved between a man and a woman.

See above.

4. The high rate of suicides among gays is due to _______ (anything other than homosexual behavior--i.e. having gay sex at an early age and having more same-sex partners)

You're just wrong on this. As others have said, many of the suicides are caused by the bullying of gays. This makes perfect sense, and I don't doubt that straight kids who are bullied are also more likely to kill themselves, except they're not bullied as often as gays.

5. It is unhealthy to suppress same-sex behaviors or to attempt to change same-sex desires, values, etc.

Can you voluntarily change from straight to gay? Seriously, before you tell others to change, think about trying to change your sexual orientation.

6. SSM is a right--fundamental, civil, human, or otherwise.

No more--and no less--than "one man + one woman" marriage is a right.

7. People with SSA can't have a healthy, sexually satisfying, relationship/marriages with someone of the opposite sex.

I wonder if you're thinking of that gay fellow who recently announced to the world that he's gay, but happily married to a woman, and they have kids? I don't discount the possibility that some gays may be able to make that work, but I really don't think all, or most, of them could reasonably be expected to. In fact, that man himself said he doesn't think it would work for everybody.

Again, do a thought experiment and reverse the situation. If you're straight, imagine yourself marrying someone of the same sex, to whom you're not sexually attracted at all, and think of what kind of a marriage you'd have. You might be best friends, have good times together, even adopt children and find satisfaction raising them. But sexually satisfied? Probably not. Of course, marriage is about a lot more than just sex, you might argue, and you'd be right. But still, the sex drive is a powerful God-given part of us, and an important part of most marriages. So just think about what it would be like to not have that as part of your marriage before you go recommending ti to others. The Church itself doesn't push marriage with opposite-sex partners on homosexuals anymore. I suppose they saw too much hurt and disappointment, and too many divorces, resulting from that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're welcome.

[Libs]

Even if so (it can be confusing to refer to things like "separate but equal" as "definitions")

In the case of ss marriage, it shouldn't be confusing and it is relevant, because many States have tried to set up an equivalent, in the form of civil unions, which keeps the traditional definition of marriage intact...but, unfortunately, only perpetuates a separate, but very "unequal" status.

[wenglund]

Well, "homophobic" means afraid of gays. Those who oppose SSM and other pro-gay issues may not be afraid of gays, but instead may object to those issues on moral grounds and/or because they hate gays.

While theoretically you could oppose pro-gay issues but not feel hatred in your heart towards gay people, that doesn't give a lot of comfort to gays. It's rather like opposing civil rights measures on the grounds of "states' rights" while claiming you don't hate blacks--the blacks will still feel hated by you.

Your missing the point of the busted myth. The term "homophobic" isn't being employed for diagnostic and treatment purposes as it is intended, but rather as a propaganda ploy consisting of false stereotypes intended to prejudicially and unjustly (speaking of discrimination) smear and dismiss opposing views in lieu of reasoned argumentation--presumably because they don't have any.

You're just wrong on this. As others have said, many of the suicides are caused by the bullying of gays. This makes perfect sense, and I don't doubt that straight kids who are bullied are also more likely to kill themselves, except they're not bullied as often as gays.

Bullying is a hot topic in the news and on talk show these days, and so it is not surprising that people, such as yourself, who seem prone to buying uncritically into the trends in pop culture, would focus on this as the primary cause of suicides. It is just that, in scientific terms, and as a general rule, it isn't that great in terms of explanatory power.

Think about it. Homosexuality has become increasingly more accepted in society. If so, then one may reasonably expect that the rate of bullying of homosexuals would have also declined. Yet, suicide rates among homosexuals have continued to climb. The question is, why the inverse relationship?

But, as indicated several times in previous posts, I am not interested in pursuing the tangent of why homosexuals have a disproportional rate of suicides. Rather, my point is that they do.

Can you voluntarily change from straight to gay? Seriously, before you tell others to change, think about trying to change your sexual orientation.

Please read the article I linked in my opening post. I am not speaking to changing attractions--since, as I pointed out several times already in this thread, it isn't relevant to the public policy issues in question. The myths I have pointed out are in regards to homosexual desires (not to be confused with attraction) and more particularly homosexual behaviors.

No more--and no less--than "one man + one woman" marriage is a right

Wrong. The supreme court has not only declared it a right (granted by the government), but they declared it a basic or fundamental right due to its long history and it being vital to the survival of the society.

I wonder if you're thinking of that gay fellow who recently announced to the world that he's gay, but happily married to a woman, and they have kids? I don't discount the possibility that some gays may be able to make that work, but I really don't think all, or most, of them could reasonably be expected to. In fact, that man himself said he doesn't think it would work for everybody.

Please read the linked article.

Again, do a thought experiment and reverse the situation. If you're straight, imagine yourself marrying someone of the same sex, to whom you're not sexually attracted at all, and think of what kind of a marriage you'd have. You might be best friends, have good times together, even adopt children and find satisfaction raising them. But sexually satisfied? Probably not. Of course, marriage is about a lot more than just sex, you might argue, and you'd be right. But still, the sex drive is a powerful God-given part of us, and an important part of most marriages. So just think about what it would be like to not have that as part of your marriage before you go recommending ti to others. The Church itself doesn't push marriage with opposite-sex partners on homosexuals anymore. I suppose they saw too much hurt and disappointment, and too many divorces, resulting from that.

Again, you are missing the point. The myth I was busting is that "people with SSA can't have a healthy, sexually satisfying, relationship/marriages with someone of the opposite sex." To varying degrees they can. This is not to say that all gays can have a sexually satisfying relationship with people of the opposite sex.

The importance in busting this myth is to point out that homosexuals are as much at liberty and have just as much of a right to legal marriage as it is currently defined. They, too, can take advantage of the sensible governmental incentive to enter into the most evolutionarily advanced and socially advantageous familial structure, though there is nothing forcing them to do so. They can, if they so choose, and work together towards that end, have a mutually beneficial, legally sanctioned marriage with a person of the opposite sex.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In the case of ss marriage, it shouldn't be confusing and it is relevant, because many States have tried to set up an equivalent, in the form of civil unions, which keeps the traditional definition of marriage intact...but, unfortunately, only perpetuates a separate, but very "unequal" status.

Even if so, you are inadvertently confusing the "status" with the "definition". Still, the point being, the traditional legal definition of marriage is not unjust, regardless of the alleged "very 'unequal' status." Inequality of status is the very point of laws that positively discriminate (such as empowerment zones, tax incentives, and the like). As explained, the government provides unequal incentives with the intent of advancing specific state interests. They have a well established (legislatively and judicially) rational basis for doing so, and it is not unjust for them to have done so now and for centuries, in regards to legal marriage.

If only more people would understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Even if so, you are inadvertently confusing the "status" with the "definition". Still, the point being, the traditional legal definition of marriage is not unjust, regardless of the alleged "very 'unequal' status." Inequality of status is the very point of laws that positively discriminate (such as empowerment zones, tax incentives, and the like). As explained, the government provides unequal incentives with the intent of advancing specific state interests. They have a well established (legislatively and judicially) rational basis for doing so, and it is not unjust for them to have done so now and for centuries, in regards to legal marriage.

If only more people would understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That might be a valid view, Wade, I really don't know, since I'm not a lawyer. Like I said, the courts will have to figure this one out. But, my guess is, from things I have read, that the "state interest" in promoting marriage, between a man and a woman, is not really any different from their interest in promoting marriage between ss couples (many of whom have children). Promoting stable relationships, especially where children are involved, has always been in the state's (and our communities') best interest. Even stable relationships, without children, are in the state's best interest, I would think.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Libs

[Zeta-Flux]

Promoting stable relationships, especially where children are involved, is always be in the state's (and our communities') best interest.

Would you not say that opposite-sex couples are uniquely situated in that respect?

[california boy]

Try re-reading my post. Your comments do not match what I said at all. And as long as you have boy and girl bathrooms, then yes, we have separate but equal.

Boy and girl bathrooms have nothing to do with being treated equally under the laws of this country. You are now reverting back to the second meaning of the word discrimination. Remember, we have already discussed the difference between prejudicial treatment and judgement?

Those that want to prevent gays from marrying see a continual and constant shift of public opinion and legal rulings towards equality for every American. It may not be on every battle, but it certainly is going that way in the long haul. They like to try and blame the decline in morals or maybe television or the evil media or what ever other factor they can villainies to account for this trend. The truth is, they throw up ridiculous arguments because there are no real reasons to prevent gays from marrying except deep seated prejudice and their religious beliefs. When someone argues that it is ok to discriminate against gay because we have separate bathrooms, people just kind of shake their heads and reevaluate their prejudice against gays. Most people can recognize the difference between not allowing a minority group to marry and the fact that we have separate bathrooms.

[california boy]

Whoa hold up there a minute discrimination is a perfectly good word and is not bad at all until you start adding qualifiers like unjust or prejudicial to the front of it to make it seem ominous. Prejudicial in itself is not bad either but when ominous qualifiers are added it seems bad..

Discrimination before the addition of qualifiers means:

dis·crim·i·na·tion

   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] discriminating.

2.

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination

Discriminating then means making a distinction for or against. I particularly like #3. I discriminate every day, in many ways and between many things. I have had a few people misuse my generosity. I have had some who have hurt my family. These people I discriminate against. There are also things I discriminate for and against. What I take great pains not to do is to discriminate unfairly against a person.

The definition I posted was simply the one given in my computer dictionary word for word. If you don't like the way the dictionary defines discrimination, you are going to have to take that up with the publishers of the dictionary, not me..

I have two problems with your post. Why didn't you include the first usage of the word in your post? Maybe you don't know this as well but the order that the dictionary puts the definitions is based on the most popular usage of the word.

Second. evidently you don't quite understand how the dictionary works. I guess I will have to explain this to you. When a dictionary gives several definitions of a word, it does so because the word can be used in different contexts to mean different things. You don't just choose what definition you like better. The difference usages means the word had different meanings. And like I have stated repeatedly, the usage I am using for discrimiination is the first definition. Now you are dismissed for recess.

[california boy]

How is not allowing them to marry causing real economic issues? Can you spell this out a little, before I respond?

I am surprised you do not know what I am talking about Zeta, I thought you would be well informed on this issue. There are literally hundreds of ways the government and corporations use to determine benefits. A FEW of them are how taxes are filed as a joint return rather than separate returns, how health coverage is extended to spouses and not to room mates, how inheritance tax is aplied etc.

[california boy]

The marriage laws are not denying tax and insurance benefits to homosexual, they are defining those who can marry. The tax and insurance laws deny crtain benefits by extending them only to married individuals. That's where your so-called discrimination (which it isn't) issue really is. And neither set of laws has a prejudicial or unjust basis.

Bingo. Now you can appreciate one of the reasons why gays should be given the equal right to marry. You may think it is perfectly ok and not a big deal to have to go through probate when a partner dies or have to pay inheritance tax if you are the surviving partner, but then you aren't the one being discriminated against.

These are the things that most Americans find are problematic with not allowing gays to marry. And these are the things that are shifting public opinion towards allowing gay marriage.

When the government say to a whole minority you can not participate in these tax laws simply because gay and can't marry, then how can you call it anything but prejudicial towards gays???

[Libs]

Your missing the point of the busted myth. The term "homophobic" isn't being employed for diagnostic and treatment purposes as it is intended, but rather as a propaganda ploy consisting of false stereotypes intended to prejudicially and unjustly (speaking of discrimination) smear and dismiss opposing views in lieu of reasoned argumentation--presumably because they don't have any.

Believe me, they have very good arguments. Some of them have been presented here. And, I think it's very unfair to presume a negative motivation, when you really don't know what is in their heart and minds. That is exactly the same ploy that you are decrying, when it is done to you....when people assume that you are a "homophobe" just because you are against legalizing ss marriage. That is a "myth" that both sides seem to employ....second guessing motivations.

[Deborah]

We're still talking about definitions? Seriously? I have the right to discriminate against anything or anyone I like. I don't have the right to mistreat them because of how I feel. Making laws regarding marriage, which is a sacred sacrament for most people, isn't mistreating anyone, especially when there are other ways to assure legal rights and protections.

I agree with what was said previously, the government should stay out of marriage period, either in performing it or defining it. If we want government involved it should be only for those non-religious people who want a legal union to give them legal rights and protections.

[DavidB]

My experience is the disinformation happens on both sides of the debate.

on a different note....

I agree with what was said previously, the government should stay out of marriage period, either in performing it or defining it. If we want government involved it should be only for those non-religious people who want a legal union to give them legal rights and protections.

For those who believe this, how is a "legal union" with all the same rights as "traditional marriage" but for the use of the title marriage any different than legalizing ssm?

[Zeta-Flux]

I am surprised you do not know what I am talking about Zeta, I thought you would be well informed on this issue. There are literally hundreds of ways the government and corporations use to determine benefits. A FEW of them are how taxes are filed as a joint return rather than separate returns, how health coverage is extended to spouses and not to room mates, how inheritance tax is aplied etc.

california boy,

Those same economic issues apply to any non-married pair of people. You claimed that there were "REAL discrimination issues." But the examples you just raised are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

[USU78]

If there is a problems with the screenings, then fix that. The people I have known, who have adopted, went through very rigorous screenings. The point is, homosexuality, alone, is not a good reason to screen someone out.

And you've demonstrated that homosexual adoption is benign . . . exactly how?

Fact is, you cannot. The data aren't in yet.

The data, however, for lack of mother AND father in the home ARE in.

And the numbers are devastating.

We're messing with children in order to feed the narcissism of the selfish.

Terrible policy.

[wenglund]

That might be a valid view, Wade, I really don't know, since I'm not a lawyer. Like I said, the courts will have to figure this one out. But, my guess is, from things I have read, that the "state interest" in promoting marriage, between a man and a woman, is not really any different from their interest in promoting marriage between ss couples (many of whom have children). Promoting stable relationships, especially where children are involved, has always been in the state's (and our communities') best interest. Even stable relationships, without children, are in the state's best interest, I would think.

The point isn't just to encourage stable relationships. It is primarily to encourage the "optimum" type of relationship.

Think of it as analogous to parents wanting their children to go to college because they figure that a college education will give the children the best chance for success. So, the parents offer incentives to their children, like graduation presents. However, if one of their children decides to drop out of high school to become a plumber, and later claims that the parents are discriminating against him, and he demands to be treated equally, and claims that he has a right to be called a graduate and to receive the incentives of graduation. Would this make sense to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Believe me, they have very good arguments. Some of them have been presented here.

There is a difference between good arguments and persuasive propaganda. Because of the dearth of critical thinking these days, people are buying in wholesale to some very banal arguments. See my "college graduate" analogy above. Metaphorically, people have been persuaded by the plumber son's inane propaganda.

And, I think it's very unfair to presume a negative motivation, when you really don't know what is in their heart and minds. That is exactly the same ploy that you are decrying, when it is done to you....when people assume that you are a "homophobe" just because you are against legalizing ss marriage. That is a "myth" that both sides seem to employ....second guessing motivations.

You are also missing the point. Second guessing the motives, even reasonably as the case may be, is a distant second to the main issue--which, in case you missed it, is that: the term 'homophobic' isn't being employed for diagnostic and treatment purposes as intended, but rather as a propaganda ploy consisting of false stereotypes that prejudice and unjustly (speaking of discrimination) smear and dismiss opposing views in lieu of reasoned argumentation.

Sorry, but your attempt at tu quoque is not only fallacious, but false.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sleeper Cell]

Bingo. Now you can appreciate one of the reasons why gays should be given the equal right to marry. You may think it is perfectly ok and not a big deal to have to go through probate when a partner dies or have to pay inheritance tax if you are the surviving partner, but then you aren't the one being discriminated against.

These are the things that most Americans find are problematic with not allowing gays to marry. And these are the things that are shifting public opinion towards allowing gay marriage.

When the government say to a whole minority you can not participate in these tax laws simply because gay and can't marry, then how can you call it anything but prejudicial towards gays???

These tax benefits can easily be extended to gay couples without changing the definition of marriage.

Incidentally, do you favor extending these benefits to those in other types of domestic relationships? For example, why shouldn’t a couple consisting of an adult son living with -- and caring for -- an elderly parent receive the same benefits you want to extend to gay couples?

[wenglund]

These tax benefits can easily be extended to gay couples without changing the definition of marriage.

Incidentally, do you favor extending these benefits to those in other types of domestic relationships? For example, why shouldn’t a couple consisting of an adult son living with -- and caring for -- an elderly parent receive the same benefits you want to extend to gay couples?

As indicted in In Re Marriage (The California Supreme Court case in regards to Prop 22--the predecessor of Prop , t isn't about the benefits (which were already available to SS couples by way of civil unions). Instead, it was about homosexuals "having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple."

In other words, it is ultimately about normalizing homosexuality--Libs protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Last night I saw a preview for a new sitcom called, not coincidentally, "The New Normal," featuring a gay couple and a surrogate. This is the latest in lengthy attempt by Hollywood to normalize homosexuals: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/media/gay-on-tv-its-all-in-the-family.html

Thanks, -Wade Englund-