Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[Tacenda]

Cal, my objective is not to be nasty or mean, but to address something that is real and plays a significant role in the gay world, which has been swept under the rug. It is not healthy and it needs to be addressed by the gay culture itself.

When we are talking about consciously choosing to allow our passions to have free reign, we are talking about a very unhealthy choice. The problem is that it is just so common among this subset of our society. Do you disagree with that?

It would be better if we heard the gay culture talking about the need for chastity or at least to control one's passions. Silence is all we hear because they consciously choose and support not controlling one's passions. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected.

I agree with Cal, what you said was quite mean, to the extreme. I want to ask you...what about the sins of those that took concubines in the bible, and what about the heterosexuals that wife swap and do other unmentionables? Or the FLDS sects that abuse women and children in the name of religion? Compared with the examples I set down, the gay lifestyle is fairly tame. And the majority just want do what the rest of us have that aren't gay, and live moral clean lives in the sanctity of marriage.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[california boy]

I hate to break it to you, California Boy, but many of the pro-gay arguments are strained and repetitive. You seem to look at your side with rose colored glasses.

I don't disagree. To me it is simply an issue of discrimination. And that issue is the only one that matter since that issue is the one that will go before the Supreme Court.

[wenglund]

You're not thinking critically, Wade. I know of no Philosophy of Logic or Philosophy of Ethics professor, and I know quite a few in more than 5 states that would agree with your brand of 'critical thinking'. I'm intending to give authority to my position by citing who I know. I'm trying demonstrate that you have a uniquely flawed and grossly distorted idea of what thinking critically is.

Given your abysmal track record, you are one of the last people on the board I would trust to accurately judge what is critical or not. Even in your attempt to yet again dismiss my comments, you committed the fallacy of appeal to authority (adding to the barrage of fallacies you committed in your previous dismissive post). Instead of using reason to assess my comments on their own merits (which would be the critical thinking thing to do), you ignored what I said and simply appealed to a host of faceless alleged experts who supposedly don't agree with my "brand" of critical thinking (whatever you may imagine it to be).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

superficial

There is evidently a severe lack of understanding or appreciation of why institutions like traditional marriage have taken root. When the time comes that same sex partners can procreate and raise offspring as effectively and efficiently as heterosexual partners, then establishing same sex “marriage” as a norm might make some sense, all religious considerations aside. The current state of things requires a tremendous outlay of resources to imitate authentic marriage and family life, and just to meet a couple’s personal desire that has nothing to do with perpetuating civilization. It is superficial and short-sighted to think this can be done by treating all permutations of human relations with equal value in relation to the greater need and confusing this with individual rights and preferences.

[CV75]

fair treatment and equality

A poor but expensive imitation is neither fairness nor equality, and only parasitizes the authentic standard.

[CV75]

I don't disagree. To me it is simply an issue of discrimination. And that issue is the only one that matter since that issue is the one that will go before the Supreme Court.

And it matters when one’s individual rights is taken to be more important than one’s responsibility to his society.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is a fundamental reason why you are loosing this battle..

This is wishful thinking. Chick Fil A anyone?I think it is you and your crowd that is losing the battle.

[wenglund]

Furthermore, you demonstrate a lack of care for 'collateral damage' caused by such spiritual, ethical and moral violence and thereby asserting your position as some sort of superior line of thinking. Such an assertion is delusional at best but damaging at worse. You sacrifice mercy and charity for some peculiarly audacious thought process. Is this what you did in your now defunct and reprehensible "think tank" concerning homosexuality, Wade? Is this an attempt to correct a distastrously epic failure?

This is the flip side to myth #27 above. I appreciate you underscoring my point.

I'm sure that in your own eloquently malevolent and malicious way you'll come up with another myth to satisfy your narcissistic, arrogant and self-aggrandizing need for self gratification, self glorification and some poor example of intellectual/rational/ethical/logical superiority while smugly smiling so kindly at yourself in the mirror and patting yourself on the back for a job well done.

ETA: This isn't an ad hominem. I'm thinking critically about the character of Wade Englund and the message he is trying to portray. If anyone perceives this post as a personal attack then that is YOUR problem and not mine.

Your close in your prediction, but I view your vacuous rant as a variation of myths 1 and 2. Instead of engaging what I have said, you resorted dubious labeling, demonstrating yet again, and consistently, that you can do no better because you have no better. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Do you really think that accusing people of being "Kool Aid drinkers" is a good way to convince them that you are a "critical thinker"? Hmm?

No. It should have no bearing. People should be drawn to think critically for critical thinking sake (because it works in their and everyone else's interest) and not because someone correctly observed that they were drinking Kool-Aid. To do otherwise would not be critical thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund

[happy]

I don't disagree. To me it is simply an issue of discrimination. And that issue is the only one that matter since that issue is the one that will go before the Supreme Court.

Is a gynecologist discriminatory? Is a woman's restroom discriminatory? How about a black scholarship? We have a lot of institutions and concepts that focus on a particular group. Marriage is one of those. Your creating a dangerous war on definitions and I think it will backfire.

[california boy]

When the time comes that same sex partners can procreate and raise offspring as effectively and efficiently as heterosexual partners, then establishing same sex “marriage” as a norm might make some sense, all religious considerations aside.

When the time comes when procreation becomes a requirement of marriage, then you may have a point. Until that time, it is just discrimination.

[wenglund]

CFR that the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, which explicitly said its ruling didn't apply to SSM. Come on Wade. SSM was not even an issue when this court case was decided. I already know that you are not going to reply to this CFR. While you love to make statements like this, and we have seen plenty of these kinds of distortions of the truth in your little myth escapades, we all know you won't answer this CFR.

Yet, here I am answering the CFR. I was mistaken, and confused two related cases. The case I had in mined wasn't Romer v. Evans, but Lawrence v. Texas, the former factoring into the decision of the latter. Here is the reference to what I had in mind (it is a part of O-Connor's concurring opinion):

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

However, you are incorrect that SSM wasn't even an issue in 1996 when Romer v. Evans was decided. "The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest." (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Is a gynecologist discriminatory? Is a woman's restroom discriminatory? How about a black scholarship? We have a lot of institutions and concepts that focus on a particular group. Marriage is one of those. Your creating a dangerous war on definitions and I think it will backfire.

Lets go back to the definition of discrimination. Evidently you missed this post. This is what I get when I type the word discrimination into my dictionary on my computer.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|noun1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

No I did not add or change anything to that definition. The dictionary uses discrimination against homosexuals as an example of the first and most common use of the word.

I think you are talking about the second less common, but still valid definition of discrimination.

2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste :those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [asadj. ] discrimination learning.

Hope that clears up your confusion on the definition of discrimination.

[happy]

Hope that clears up your confusion on the definition of discrimination.

You dodged the question. Please try again with more tact.

[pmccombs1]

Let's call this myth #25: since existing marriages have their problems, we shouldn't worry about opening legal marriage up to SS couples.

First of all, this myth falsely assumes that we as a society can't concern ourselves with both, and that we haven't or aren't taking steps to curb the existing marital problems. We have, and we are (no small portion of exisitning marital laws are intended for that purpose).

Second, it fails to consider that by adding to the marital roles a demographic that is statistically at greater risk for domestic violence, infidelity, and non-durable relationships, that this will add even more to the existing problems with marriages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Myth #25? Doubtful. It's a matter of justice, as I see it. If the "traditional" marriage is already largely a thing of myth and legend, as I claim, then it is an injustice to raise an ideal that we already don't live up to and seek to impose it in one particular case. It's a very un-Christian sort of casuistry. "Physician, heal thyself," and motes and beams and whatnot.

Additionally, if SSM is symptomatic of a Marriage that has declined over the years (becoming increasingly abstract and less binding on those involved), then addressing the symptom (SSM) with a palliative (legislation) is counterproductive. If you kill the symptoms of a disease, you can never know when a person is really healed. Systemic evil is that which cannot be detected; a cancer at the core of things that goes untreated because we are regulating symptoms.

Therefore the correct response when a systemic problem with Marriage and families is revealed by the appearance of alternate marriages and alternate families, is not to attack the alternate marriages, but to fix Marriage. Then you end up with a healthy system where the alternates no longer belong--when we have taken off our blindfolds and started driving straight, then we can properly say that the blind can't have drivers licenses, and nobody raises a stink because it makes perfect sense at that point. Right now, it's very unclear and appears unjust to many people (understandably so, in my opinion) that we insist on prohibiting SSM.

Finally, I question your claims for the same-sex demographic. While the Conservative FRC publishes reports that apparently support them, progressive-leaning "think tanks" (such as AARDVARC) are quick to debunk those studies and make their own claims that put SS relationships more or less on equal footing with heterosexual ones. Whose experts to believe? I suppose whomever our bias predisposes us to believe.

[california boy]

Yet, here I am answering the CFR. I was mistaken, and confused two related cases. The case I had in mined wasn't Romer v. Evans, but Lawrence v. Texas, the former factoring into the decision of the latter. Here is the reference to what I had in mind (it is a part of O-Connor's concurring opinion):

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

However, you are incorrect that SSM wasn't even an issue in 1996 when Romer v. Evans was decided. "The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest." (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well now you are mixing apples with oranges here. Romer VS Evans is a ruling about marriage. Lawrence vs Texas is a

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause

The Supreme Court is making it clear that this ruling is not about marriage. Their statement makes that perfectly clear. Well at least I thought it was perfectly clear. The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case brought to them concerning gay marriage, and they have yet to rule on gay mariage.

I stand corrected on the issue of timing of the Romer case. Thanks.

[california boy]

You dodged the question. Please try again with more tact.

I don't know what you are expecting here. You are relying on only part of the definition of discrimination to support your point. Sorry but you can't ignore the main definition of what discrimination is and still make your case. Wade won't like this. He is looking for critical thinking here

[Calm]

What I fear is that there is a pendulum that swings in our society. And right now that pendulum is almost violently bent into the liberal side of things. And what I fear is when it finally breaks and swings back the other way. I worry there will be a backlash that even normal conservatives will be shocked by.

I am curious as to where you see the historical evidence for a "pendulum" effect. Not questioning it (at least not yet ), just wanting to understand your position.

[CV75]

When the time comes when procreation becomes a requirement of marriage, then you may have a point. Until that time, it is just discrimination.

LOL--that ain't the point! Please explain why you aren’t acknowledging the connection between institutionalizing a norm and the vitality of its civilization.

Why do you not acknowledge that a civilization can only continue as people are born and raised to thrive in it, and while there are other people doing other things with sex, babies and family life, only authentic marriage is worthy of institutional status? Yes, there are other elements to a civilization that may or may not be institutionalized, but this is the most obvious essential and fundamental requirement.

Homosexual relationships are not the norm, and while tolerated and the participating individuals' rights must be respected, these relationshps are not recognized at the institution level simply because they don’t serve the greater good. You seem to focus only on legitimizing a poor imitation of marriage for personal and least relevant reasons. The judges will consider this in terms of constitutionality.

[happy]

I don't know what you are expecting here. You are relying on only part of the definition of discrimination to support your point. Sorry but you can't ignore the main definition of what discrimination is and still make your case. Wade won't like this. He is looking for critical thinking here

Yes, will you participating in critical thinking soon?

[Calm]

Racial discrimination isn't even a correct term because the correct term is prejudice.

A very minor nitpick...there are cases where "racial discrimination" is a correct term such as "discriminating" in dealing with medical issues due to one "race's" higher frequency of suffering from certain disorders. ("Race" is in quotes because it is a problematic term in and of itself.)

When talking about judgments about personal characteristics of a racial group's member, then "prejudice" should be the preferred term to be clear on what is going on with that judgment. However, "discriminates" describes what is being done, while "prejudice" describes why and I think this is why there has been a lot of overlap. For example these two sentences are not identical, but focus on slightly different issues: "The club discriminates against blacks by barring them from joining" vs. "the club is prejudiced against blacks as seen by their barring them from joining." The first describes an action, the second describes an attitude.

Anyway...an off topic diversion....no need to respond....

[Calm]

And the majority just want do what the rest of us have that aren't gay, and live moral clean lives in the sanctity of marriage.

How would you respond to studies that demonstrate that in long term homosexual relationships, sexual fidelity is not considered an essential part of the relationship (as it is an expectation in most heterosexual long term relationships even outside of marriage)? (IIRC, there was a study done in Europe on over a hundred long term homosexual relationships that showed within 3-5 years the majority of relationships had sexual activity outside of the primary relationship...in fact my memory says that there wasn't one relationship that hadn't, but that might be faulty, I am trying to remember enough details to track the study down, perhaps someone else remembers more details?) Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

LOL--that ain't the point! Please explain why you aren’t acknowledging the connection between institutionalizing a norm and the vitality of its civilization.

Why do you not acknowledge that a civilization can only continue as people are born and raised to thrive in it, and while there are other people doing other things with sex, babies and family life, only authentic marriage is worthy of institutional status? Yes, there are other elements to a civilization that may or may not be institutionalized, but this is the most obvious essential and fundamental requirement.

Homosexual relationships are not the norm, and while tolerated and the participating individuals' rights must be respected, these relationshps are not recognized at the institution level simply because they don’t serve the greater good. You seem to focus only on legitimizing a poor imitation of marriage for personal and least relevant reasons. The judges will consider this in terms of constitutionality.

When the time comes when procreation becomes a requirement of marriage, then you may have a point. Until that time, it is just discrimination. Sorry but that is my point. The institution of marriage is more than just a baby factory. Different marriage goals serve different needs. Not all of them are related to procreation.

I am more than happy to admit that we need heterosexual couples to bring children into this world. I didn't know there was a shortage of such occurrences.

I also am happy to admit that civilization thrives when there is diversity. We should all be invited to the party. We all have value, even those homosexuals that are not the norm.

[wenglund]

Is everyone so frustrated and desperate that they are willing to throw up on the wall any superficial argument they can think of in HOPES that one of them will stick. Most of these ridiculous statements have been around since prop 8. Fortunately people have had enough time to think about them that they no longer are buying into their faulty premise. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

This is kind of my point in chronicling the propagandistic myths perpetrated by gay activist. I am glad to find you starting to see this.

And that is the core of your problem in this debate.

Given what has actually been demonstrated in this thread, you have confused the parties with the problem.

There is a fundamental reason why you are loosing this battle.

Yes. As I have actually demonstrated, the problem is a lack of critical thinking and a vulnerability to emotive propaganda--a point that you and others continue to unwittingly underscore.

It is simply this. People in America do not support or like discrimination. Sometimes it takes a long time for the country to realize that all the superficial reasons for discriminating are not enough to continue this practice, but eventually America gets it right.

This brings us to another significant myth:

Myth #28: The gay agenda in general, and SSM efforts in particular, is about equality and non-discrimination.

Whereas, in actual fact it is about normalizing, through governmental sanctions, perverse and destructive behaviors.

For one, it isn't that we in America dislike discrimination per se (most, if not all, of our laws discriminate in one form or another--happy provided just a few examples), it is that we don't like discrimination that doesn't make sense and which work against our collective best interest. This is why only certain forms of discrimination have been targeted, such as woman's suffrage and racial discrimination.

In the first case, compelling arguments were made that it was in our collective interest to not deny women the right to vote, while still discriminating against and denying the right to vote to other classes of people (children of minority age, felons, non-citizens, etc.). It wasn't about equality or ending discrimination per se, otherwise children and felons and non-citizens would have been given the right to vote.

The same, in part, was true of the second case. Strong arguments were made that it was in our interest not to segregate schools based on race, while still segregating schools based on age and educational attainment (segregating grade schools from junior high and high school and college and post-graduate schools), by region/districts, by school size (divisions A through AAAA), etc..

It was also deemed in our interest to not segregate by race in restaurants and public transportation and theaters, etc., even though we were fine with discriminating in those same places/things based on smoker/non-smoker.

Furthermore, strong and sensible arguments were also made to not discriminate in the workplace based on race, though we are still fine with discriminating based on educational and skill qualifications and legal certifications, etc..

The same is not true with certain gay issues like SSM--which is why, in part, people in the civil rights movement object to gays comparing their circumstances to that of black (see the busting of myth #16).

As I have pointed out time and again, gay activist have yet to make a sensible case that it is in our collective interest to selectively extend legal marriage to them. Instead, they purport to be about eliminating discrimination and seeking equality in legal marriage, while fully accepting, or not advocating against, discrimination against children, incestual relations, polygamous or polygynous relations, etc. In truth, they aren't realy against discrimination and for equality, except selectively where it affects them and what they want.

Again, it is about normalizing perverse and destructive behaviors, and gay activist are selectively using the pretense of discrimination and equality to bamboozle people. This is why it is important to utilize critical thinking skills to see through the ruse, since what they want hasn't, at best, been demonstrated to be in our collective interest, and at worst may reasonably be viewed as contrary to our interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I hate to break it to you, California Boy, but many of the pro-gay arguments are strained and repetitive.

No more so than the other side. It actually breaks my heart to see some of the ugly things that are claimed, and believed, about gays. Most of those claims (if one believes they have anything to do with simply being gay) are the real "myths".