Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[cwald]

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.

Very well. Since you acknowledged it is an OPINION, and not a statement of fact.

I have no problem with people who express a different opinion than mine.

[wenglund]

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 straw men usually are ridiculous. But, then, I can't see that you can muster any better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

Your straw men usually are ridiculous. But, then, I can't see that you can muster any better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you capable of discussion without throwing in cheapshots? Did you really need the second sentence to make your point?

[Zakuska]

Myth #n:

Dispite the sensational knee-jerk reporting of the media. Nothing that Dan Cathy said was "Anti-Gay marriage".

Of course nothing makes for a better headline and sells more papers/ads than a good old Gay Marriage contrived contraversy.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

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.

Myth #21: Gay issues (not to be errantly confused with "Gay rights"--see the busting of myth #6) are just about threats, and there is no threat; whereas, in actual fact the issue is also about the absence of net benefits in relation to costs (as pointed out in the busting of myth #10). And, there are also threats--not the least of which is to religious freedom, the beginnings of which were manifest during the Chick-Fil-A debacle. There are also potential threats in governments and societies promoting behaviors that are at above average risk for mental/emotional illness, certain physical illnesses, lack of long-term commitment, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

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

Actually no they don't "switch sides", they cease a behavior by not drinking Alcohol.

[california boy]

california boy,

Counting rulings seems to me to be besides the point. There are many cases where the courts have ruled for the constitutionality of DOMA (many more than the recent 4 cases). And, as always, there are counter-arguments against the recent rulings against DOMA (notably, the previous cases, which were often ignored or misunderstood by the judges). Besides which, it wouldn't matter if there were only 1 or 100 rulings against DOMA; it all comes down to (as you pointed out) the Supreme Court.

I am not suggesting anything. I am only giving a link to what is happening in Federal Courts concerning DOMA, We both agree, it comes down to the Supreme Court. But for wade to suggest that there has never been a legitimate legal argument for SSM or DOMA is, well as you can see, ridiculous. His myths are just that, myths.

[wenglund]

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.

Actually, this is an extended version of myth #7: People with SSA can't have a healthy, sexually satisfying, relationship/marriages with someone of the opposite sex.

It is busted by people with SSA like Joshua in his FAIR presentation I linked to in the OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

There might be a "Physiological" argument for LGBT proponents to consider.

[wenglund]

But for wade to suggest that there has never been a legitimate legal argument for SSM or DOMA is, well as you can see, ridiculous. His myths are just that, myths.

Ironically, speaking of myths, you are falsely putting words into my mouth (nowhere will you find me saying that there has never been a legitimate legal argument for SSM). Please stop it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I'm not suggesting that, of course; you are perverting the truth.

I'm suggesting that between the two choices, marriage preserves civilization better than an alternative contrivance of reproduction and adoption. That is why marriage is an institution and other arrangements are not.

Of course reproduction and adoption take place without marriage, but that is really not a sound (efficient, effective) way to build the future. Adoption is generally very laudable, but not the preferred format, since the circumstances resulting in it are initially very risky for the survival of the child, who is he future of the civilization.

I don't disagree with your statement. It is a strong argument to allow anyone who wants to participate in marriage to do so. Encouraging people to not get married and live together seems to be a bad public policy.

[wenglund]

The strongest argument against gay marriage seems to be that it is against personal religious beliefs. "We don't want gay marriage because God doesn't want gay marriage." But the fact is, no one is asking churches or anyone who does not wish to participate in a gay marriage to do so.

Myth #22: The prevailing and strongest arguments against gay issues are those that are religious and that invoke God; whereas there has been precious little, if any, mention of God and religion in the legislative arguments for enacting laws like DOMA, or in the legal arguments challenging those laws or other SSM cases.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Encouraging people to not get married and live together......

Because this is what those who disagree with SSM are saying.....

[wenglund]

Are you capable of discussion without throwing in cheapshots? Did you really need the second sentence to make your point?

If you are going to violate the rules about board nannying, it wouldn't reflect as poorly on you if you weren't so selective in expressing your self-righteous indignation, particularly in such an ironically cheap-shot way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Because this is what those who disagree with SSM are saying.....

Myth #23? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Verum]

Actually, this is an extended version of myth #7: People with SSA can't have a healthy, sexually satisfying, relationship/marriages with someone of the opposite sex.

It is busted by people with SSA like Joshua in his FAIR presentation I linked to in the OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Anomalies (some that are still early in their journey as well) are not myth busters.

I say anomalies because its goes against what many mental heath studies have produced about this.

[ERayR]

The strongest argument against gay marriage seems to be that it is against personal religious beliefs. "We don't want gay marriage because God doesn't want gay marriage." But the fact is, no one is asking churches or anyone who does not wish to participate in a gay marriage to do so.

Nope the strongest argument against homosexual marriage is that it is a non-reproductive dead end path for humanity.

[wenglund]

Myth #n:

Dispite the sensational knee-jerk reporting of the media. Nothing that Dan Cathy said was "Anti-Gay marriage".

Of course nothing makes for a better headline and sells more papers/ads than a good old Gay Marriage contrived contraversy.

This is a more specific version of myth #2: People are anti-gay if they are against SSM [or in favor or reserving marriage to between and man and a women].

Though you are correct to insinuate that this myth has been amply busted via the public reaction to the CFA debacle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2012 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

Your straw men usually are ridiculous. But, then, I can't see that you can muster any better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fine, Wade. I respectfully retract my statement. No monogamous and committed gay couple does any harm to American society and do not contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization.

[Damien the Leper]

Ironically, speaking of myths, you are falsely putting words into my mouth (nowhere will you find me saying that there has never been a legitimate legal argument for SSM). Please stop it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then perhaps you can give a good extended example of the opposite position from you. Think of it as writing part of an argumentative paper for English 102.

[california boy]

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.

Australia: Tasmania to legislate for equal marriage rights if federal bill fails

Premier Lara Giddings supported a motion to that effect at the Australian Labor Party conference for the state of Tasmania at the weekend.

Ms Giddings said: “This was a last area of discrimination that was left, and we fundamentally believe that it’s wrong that people do not have the same choices in life that the rest of us take for granted when it comes to marriage.

“The time has now come for marriage equality to be part of our community.”

The Australian Labor Party and Greens control 15 of the 25 seats in the Australian parliament’s House of Assembly. The Liberals control the remaining 10. The parliament endorsed marriage equality in a vote in September last year.

[Damien the Leper]

If you are going to violate the rules about board nannying, it wouldn't reflect as poorly on you if you weren't so selective in expressing your self-righteous indignation, particularly in such an ironically cheap-shot way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I like the consistency of your pious condescending attitude.

[wenglund]

Anomalies (some that are still early in their journey as well) are not myth busters.

I say anomalies because its goes against what many mental heath studies have produced about this.

From what I can tell, the things I referred to are not anomalies, but have been demonstrated over time via studies by mental health professionals. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Ironically, speaking of myths, you are falsely putting words into my mouth (nowhere will you find me saying that there has never been a legitimate legal argument for SSM). Please stop it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If that is what your point was, then I am in complete agreement. Gay marriage has firm legal arguments. It is why I believe it will be legal in this country in the near future.

[wenglund]

No monogamous and committed gay couple does any harm to American society and do not contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization.

Assuming that is true (it is open to vigorous debate), it isn't, or at least it shouldn't be relevant to the SSM debate--which isn't about the alleged threat, if any, of committed gay couples, but about the cost/benefits (state interest) of changing the long-standing and rationally justified legal definition of marriage to include gay couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-