Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[wenglund]

Also, I find people trying to merge the homosexual rights issues with race issues very dishonest. I feel these are apples and oranges from each other.

That should be a myth.

Indeed!! Let's call it myth #16: Racial issue are essentially the same as sexual desire and sexual behavior issues; whereas, in actual fact, they are quite different, as implicitly (by virtue of suspect classifications) and explicitly stated as such by the courts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

If it were biological, then there wouldn't be people who switch sides.

Maybe if the claim is purely biological the existence of those who "switch sides" might be problematic, however I am thinking you really mean "genetic" as biological influences can change over a lifetime and thus biology could result in a change of sexual orientation, such as what happens when someone experiences depression due to a change in brain chemicals.

[cwald]

If it were biological, then there wouldn't be people who switch sides.

Wrong. You obviously don't understand the issue.

[happy]

Could you expand on this argument? I don't find it very persuasive. For example, alcoholism is (partly) biological, and yet people switch sides.

And yet there is a lot of choice in following the temptations of alcohol.

[wenglund]

A motion for a Myth #16: An integrated system of institutionalized reproduction, cohabitation and adoption is just as efficient and effective as the institution of marriage. It is even preferable because it represents external approval of one’s sense of pride in his sexuality, which is a separate and more important issue than preserving civilization.

Let's call that myth #17 since myth #16 is about equating race with sexual desire/behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Indeed!! Let's call it myth #16: Racial issue are essentially the same as sexual desire and sexual behavior issues; whereas, in actual fact, they are quite different, as implicitly (by virtue of suspect classifications) and explicitly stated as such by the courts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this one might be better stated as all forms of discrimination are equal or something along those lines.

Or maybe discrimination based on behaviour should be judged the same as discrimination based in nonbehavioural attributes.

Edited August 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

wenglund,

I appreciated your initial post, where you outlined some myths. I'm not sure it is conducive to discourse to point out weaknesses in others arguments by labeling those weaknesses as myths (especially as it isn't clear they don't disagree).

I respect your feedback. However, the intent here isn't to promote discourse since, in my opinion (based on more than a decade interacting on the topic), it may not be very effectual until people learn to think and assess thing more critically and can cut through the propaganda (emoting, false or fallacious assertions and argumentation, etc.)--which is my intent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[happy]

I think this one might be better stated as all forms of discrimination are equal or something along those lines.

Or maybe discrimination based on behaviour should be judged the same as discrimination based in nonbehavioural attributes.

The core argument is that race does not cause behavior. Sexual orientation does. Society does have a right to judge behaviors, but not skin color. Otherwise as alcohol is mentioned, if you can not judge behavior based on perceived biological influences, you have to treat alcoholism as a lifestyle.

[Libs]

SS attraction is a biological issue, which is what makes it similar to race.

Even those (ss attracted) who manage to stay in heterosexual relationships will tell you their basic attractions have not changed. They don't change.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Libs

[cwald]

CFR? Are you being serious? Every conversation throughout the United States has ended with the Liberals calling every traditional marriage supporter a homophobe or a bigot. Are you intentionally trying to be difficult or have you been living under a rock?

I will gladly rescind my CFR if you will rescind your gross hyperbole misuse of the word "majority" in post 36, and the word 'every" in this post. Otherwise please provide documentation to support your claim. It is the board rules that you do so.

[wenglund]

I think this one might be better stated as all forms of discrimination are equal or something along those lines.

Or maybe discrimination based on behaviour should be judged the same as discrimination based in nonbehavioural attributes.

Either works fine for me. [thumbs up]

The point being, to discourage people from dysfunctionally over-generalizing and make them aware of critical and controlling nuances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[happy]

I will gladly rescind my CFR if you will rescind your gross hyperbole misuse of the word "majority" in post 36, and the word 'every" in this post. Otherwise please provide documentation to support your claim. It is the board rules that you do so.

I am going to ignore your request unless a moderator suggests otherwise. I think you are abusing the CFR "rule" to silence an opinion you do not agree with.

[Damien the Leper]

Anti-gay Propaganda:

h t t p://www.funnyordie.com/videos/32e288da0b/gay-marriage-propaganda-from-better-than-the-machine

The Idiots

6 Big Arguments and why they fail:

Gay marriage violates tradition.

Yes, most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds if not thousands of years. But tradition is a mixed bag. It includes slavery and grotesque exploitation of workers, or course, the denial of rights to women and the execution of those who committed thought and property crimes.

Traditionally, we treated illnesses with ineffective or dangerous mumbo jumbo, cast aside the disabled and righteously persecuted those with differing religious views.

Integrating a society and expanding human rights has always shattered tradition, and we have consistently been better off for it.

Gay couples can't produce children.

Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all.

But that's not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows prisoners to marry even when they're likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples getting married , imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework of marriage.

Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads.

I had an impassioned email argument on just this point last week with an old friend who otherwise supports full equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"My intuitive sense and common sense tells me there are benefits to heterosexual two-parent situations," he wrote. "Legions of people with years of parenting wisdom think there is a difference between two dads or moms, and one of each. The burden of proof is on those who want to set aside the widely accepted norm."

First, no, when it comes to denying a basic right to a class of people, the burden of proof falls on those who rely on intuition and common sense – which, I'm just sayin', happen to be the support pillars of all forms of bigotry – rather than evidence.

Benefits? Harms? Quantify them or stand down.

Making that case won't be easy. Studies show little developmental or social difference between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by homosexual parents. In fact on 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found that children of lesbians scored better in such areas as self esteem, behavior and academic peformance than children of straight parents.

Second, even if we concede for the sake of discussion that a stable, loving male-female couple is the gold standard for parenting, it's otherwise offensive to deny those who fall short of the gold standard the right to marry.

For instance, even if data-mining researchers could demonstrate a strong probability that cetain pairings would produce suboptimal parents --- couples without high school diplomas, say, or couples with a 30-year gap in their ages or couples with three or more divorces between them -- we would never think of denying such couples marriage licenses.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy.

The practical and philosophical arguments pro and con for multiple-partner marriages (hey, you want to talk about tradition!) are largely distinct from the arguments pro and con about marriage equality. Historians find, for instance, that it destabilizes a society when some men take many wives and leave large numbers of other men without the opportunity to mate.

Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the basic idea of two people agreeing to unite for life and taking on the responsibilities and privileges of that agreement.

Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn't slid helplessly down the slope to legalize them both.

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage.

I almost didn't include this argument on the list because it's faded so dramatically in recent years as country after country, state after state has allowed gays and lesbians to marry with no measurable detriment to straight marriage or conventional families.

If anything, philosophically, the fervor with which same-sex couples demand to be granted the dignity and respect of legal marriage underscores the value of marriage and ought to remind us straight couples not to take it lightly or for granted.

Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged.

I will not debate the morality of various forms of private sexual conduct between consenting adults and neither should our lawmakers.

To me, immoral conduct is that which harms others, period. To you or your religious tradition, it may encompass much more, and that's fine. Advocates aren't asking you or your officiants to bless gay marriage, celebrate it or even, in your heart, to like it. They're asking you to recognize the line America tries to maintain between personal morality and the judgment of the law; between what's your business and what's none of your business.

Homosexual conduct itself has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003. And if anything, encouraging same-sex couples to commit to one another for life will decrease promiscuous behavior among gay people, should that be of particular concern.

Source for these lies and myths.

[Damien the Leper]

I am going to ignore your request unless a moderator suggests otherwise. I think you are abusing the CFR "rule" to silence an opinion you do not agree with.

I'm going to agree with you here. A silly little opinion is unworthy of a CFR or further attention to determine its legitimacy.

:good:

Edited August 7, 2012 by Valentinus

[USU78]

There is a very good reason why people that support gay marriage have these attitudes.

A terrible argument . . . tu quoque . . . and fails in the slightest to assert any measurable benefit from SSM.

And this is why burdens of proof, properly placed, are placed as they are: the asserter of something new in the world ought to bear the burden of demonstrating its usefulness.

Switching the burden of proof, as the contemptibly tendentious courts have done, solves nothing and makes people bear grudges for decades and ages. See, e.g., malingering objections to abortion pretty much on demand.

[CV75]

Here’s a myth; not instituting same-sex “marriage” takes away a gay person’s ability to have reproductive and/or non-reproductive sex, cohabitate, adopt, and otherwise have a meaningful and loving life-long relationship that has a positive impact on society, all of which are maximally manifest in tax and employee benefits.

[Damien the Leper]

Here’s a myth; not instituting same-sex “marriage” takes away a gay person’s ability to have reproductive and/or non-reproductive sex, cohabitate, adopt, and otherwise have a meaningful and loving life-long relationship that has a positive impact on society, all of which are maximally manifest in tax and employee benefits.

Right. Because a buddy of mine's two gay dads have hurt American society and Western Civilization so much. Come on! This is ridiculous.

[wenglund]

The core argument is that race does not cause behavior. Sexual orientation does.

In Josua's FAIR presentation that I linked to in the OP, he makes an excellent point about distinguishing between sexual attraction and sexual desire, which are too often conflated or errantly combined under the phrase "sexual orientation." He used the analogy of having an attraction to sweets, but a desire to eat healthy. He is attracted to his same sex, but his desire was to have a family. His SSA didn't cause him to have gay sex (he was obedient to God's commandments), nor did it prevent him from fulfilling his desire to have a family. In fact, he busted what I will call:

Myth #18: If you have SSA, then you should have gay sex. Dysfunctional attractions do not necessitate dysfunctional behaviors--alcoholism doesn't necessitate drinking alcohol, and may even warrant sobriety.

The problem, as you may have noticed, with a lot of the discussion on gay issues, is that they tend to be divorced from the salient question of what is in people's best interest. I believe this is intentional, to some degree, because homosexual behavior is, in many respects and on balance, dis-beneficial, and so in order to promote the behavior or lifestyle, the dis-benefits need to be swept under the rug.

If so, then it is our interest as a society, to pick up the rug and point out what is under it.

By the way, I haven't read the material you mentioned earlier in the thread, though I plan to look into it. It is probably not all that different from the book "Thinking Like a Communist," or books written post 1980 by David Horowitz, particularly: "The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

I have expressed the following fear many times on this board, its predecessor, its predecessor, and its predecessor back in the good ol' aol days . . . about the time the 2nd Star Trek TV series started making subtle pro-homosexual arguments in its story lines.

The nightmare that was drag queens attempting to scale the fence at the LA Temple in order to storm and desecrate a place of holiness in the midst of Sodom during the protests against Prop 8's passage will surely one day, unless we fight tooth and nail every yard of real estate, leaving no fight unfought, lead to bigot-inspired and government [i.e. court] imposed desecration of all US temples, forcing us into yet another exodus . . . maybe to Australia this time. I'd like to think the Canadians or Mexicans would take us in, but I have sincere doubts.

[Libs]

USU, I think you will find, when gay rights have been established, there will be no threat. Most people just want to live their lives, as they choose, and allow others to live theirs.

[Libs]

Although, I have to add, there will always be the occasional crack pot....on either side.

[CV75]

Anti-gay Propaganda:

I think the following "anti-gay propaganda" points are ctually valid under the premises that civilizations can only continue with sexual reproduction and optimal survival of offspring, and that institutions that elevate these objectives are better than those that do not.

Gay marriage violates tradition. Gay couples can't produce children. Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads. (Rather, gay “marriage” does not entail or value sexual reproduction and relies on adoption for fostering offspring, which requires offspring to first face risk).

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage. (Rather, resources displaced into SSM as an institution that does not produce children or keep children from risk before adoption reduces resources available to traditional marriage, which better ensures the civilization’s future).

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy. (Rather, legalizing SSM will put us on a slippery slope of institutionalizing other non-norms that do not ensure civilization’s future).

Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged. (Rather, homosexual behavior does not ensure civilization’s future and so should not be institutionalized).

[wenglund]

SS attraction is a biological issue, which is what makes it similar to race.

Even those (ss attracted) who manage to stay in heterosexual relationships will tell you their basic attractions have not changed. They don't change.

Myth #19: Public issues like SSM are about SSA; whereas in actual fact they are about same-sex desires/behaviors. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage, and reserving legal marriages to between a man and a woman, is in no way an attempt to change the attractions of gays. As indicated in the busting of the unnumbered myth (let's call it myth #20), "as Joshua pointed out, the question of nurture/nature is of no meaningful significance or relevances, and this because gay [public policy] issues are about behaviors, not attractions."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Right. Because a buddy of mine's two gay dads have hurt American society and Western Civilization so much. Come on! This is ridiculous.

Your buddy's gay dads contribute only two small drops to a larger problem which would become even larger if institutionalized with SS"M". Civilization depends on sexual reproduction and protection/survival of offfspring. This is why traditional marriage as a distinct institution is essential and SS"M" is not. I'll refer you to my posts on teh last 2-3 pages that get into this in more detail.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CV75

[USU78]

USU, I think you will find, when gay rights have been established, there will be no threat. Most people just want to live their lives, as they choose, and allow others to live theirs.

When the point of the fight is the drama of the fight, getting what you want is never enough.

"We'll never ask domestic partnerships, we just want to be able to visit our sick loved ones in the hospital."

"We'll never ask for civil unions, we just want to form domestic partnerships."

"We'll never ask for marriage, we just want to form civil unions."

At each step along the way, your predecessors-in-interest, Libs, argued that attacks on the temples would never be the endgame, though I argued that it is the inevitable and necessary consequence of this line of inquiry.

How long until, "We don't want to disenfranchise Mormons and compel gay marriages in the Celestial Rooms of your temples, we just want to keep track of how many fire alarms you have in the bathrooms" becomes "Stand aside for the commandant of the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force."