Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[wenglund]

So, what is your argument? Will commitment between people increase or decrease if same-sex marriage is legalized? You cite statistics from Europe purporting to show that marriage rates decline after same-sex marriages are legalized and that same-sex couple aren't interested, anyway. Are you now saying that you don't really mean that? Please clarify.

 

Not that this is directly relevant to the topic of this thread, but my blog series on SSM isn't so much an argument as it is an informal expose. What I am exposing are the unintended negative consequences of legalizing SSM. The actual vs intended impact of SSM on committed relationships is just one of a number of unintended consequences. This makes sense since, to my understanding, generally speaking the SSM movement wasn't primarily about promoting commitment. In my experience, there was relatively little mention of promoting commitment in the on-line discussion I have been privy to.

 

And, the noted impact in regards to commitment wasn't just in terms of the number of people entering into committed relationships. It also included changes in what is meant by "committed relationships" and the failure of SSM in reducing social ills through committed relationships as intended.

 

Yes, among many citations, I cited various statistics (including those from parts of Europe) showing the decline in marital rates (traditional and SS) following the legalization of SS relations. And while I suggested that the SSM movement (not to be equated with "promotion of committed relationships") was a contributing factor in the decline, I also clarified that it wasn't the only factor, and may not have been the primary contributing factor.

 

More important, these statistics and others weren't so much cited to demonstrate the deleterious impact of SSM on committed relations in general, but more particularly on the fundamental structure of society, and the traditional family in particular.

 

What I am saying is that your characterization of my SSM LUNC was "no small distortion/over-simplification."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

So Wade doesn't automatically equate "marriage" with "commitment".  I think that is wise given how some people (heterosexuals and  homosexual) enter into marriage these days, often with an expectation that it has a limited shelf life, starting off with arrangements to ensure that when it ends as expected, they will be fully protected financially, etc.

 

It will be interesting (sad as well) when SSM is around long enough so that stats on divorce can be compared as in how long do such marriages last and the rate of success versus failure, do open marriages stay intact if not sexually faithful longer than closed/sexually exclusive marriages, etc...will they be the same, better or worse.

 

It will indeed be interesting to watch; however, given Wade's data, it's impossible to conclude one way or the other whether commitment levels will increase, or even whether these unintended consequences will materialize.

[california boy]

Not that this is directly relevant to the topic of this thread, but my blog series on SSM isn't so much an argument as it is an informal expose. What I am exposing are the unintended negative consequences of legalizing SSM. The actual vs intended impact of SSM on committed relationships is just one of a number of unintended consequences. This makes sense since, to my understanding, generally speaking the SSM movement wasn't primarily about promoting commitment. In my experience, there was relatively little mention of promoting commitment in the on-line discussion I have been privy to.

 

And, the noted impact in regards to commitment wasn't just in terms of the number of people entering into committed relationships. It also included changes in what is meant by "committed relationships" and the failure of SSM in reducing social ills through committed relationships as intended.

 

Yes, among many citations, I cited various statistics (including those from parts of Europe) showing the decline in marital rates (traditional and SS) following the legalization of SS relations. And while I suggested that the SSM movement (not to be equated with "promotion of committed relationships") was a contributing factor in the decline, I also clarified that it wasn't the only factor, and may not have been the primary contributing factor.

 

More important, these statistics and others weren't so much cited to demonstrate the deleterious impact of SSM on committed relations in general, but more particularly on the fundamental structure of society, and the traditional family in particular.

 

What I am saying is that your characterization of my SSM LUNC was "no small distortion/over-simplification."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So is your claim that there was no or little drop in marriage rates in Europe until SSM was legalized?  Because it is my understanding that marriage rates have been steadily coming down for decades.

[wenglund]

For those who missed it, here's Wade's piece on how legalizing same-sex marriage will actually increase promiscuity and its attendant social ills.

 

http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06/same-sex-marriage-spike-in-social-ills.html

 

The idea seems to be that homosexuals don't believe in marital fidelity, so even though they will be "married," there's no attendant increase in commitment and fidelity, which will spill over into heterosexual trends. In fact, legalizing gay marriage will encourage infidelity and attendant social problems.

 

To quote Wade: "As such, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't diminish infidelity and social problems common to unmarried homosexuals, but may have even encourage it by giving homosexual infidelity the legitimizing label of "marriage."

 

But I'm sure this is just another deliberate misunderstanding of Wade's point.

 

Aside from ripping it from its context, that isn't such a bad understanding of the isolated passage of the re-linked LUNC post. It is just not anywhere close to matching the characterization of my SSM Blog series you stated earlier. But, feel free to keep dancing.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

So is your claim that there was no or little drop in marriage rates in Europe until SSM was legalized?  Because it is my understanding that marriage rates have been steadily coming down for decades.

 

He's doing an "informal expose," so his statistics don't actually have to support anything.

[Stone holm]

Not that this is directly relevant to the topic of this thread, but my blog series on SSM isn't so much an argument as it is an informal expose. What I am exposing are the unintended negative consequences of legalizing SSM. The actual vs intended impact of SSM on committed relationships is just one of a number of unintended consequences. This makes sense since, to my understanding, generally speaking the SSM movement wasn't primarily about promoting commitment. In my experience, there was relatively little mention of promoting commitment in the on-line discussion I have been privy to.

 

And, the noted impact in regards to commitment wasn't just in terms of the number of people entering into committed relationships. It also included changes in what is meant by "committed relationships" and the failure of SSM in reducing social ills through committed relationships as intended.

 

Yes, among many citations, I cited various statistics (including those from parts of Europe) showing the decline in marital rates (traditional and SS) following the legalization of SS relations. And while I suggested that the SSM movement (not to be equated with "promotion of committed relationships") was a contributing factor in the decline, I also clarified that it wasn't the only factor, and may not have been the primary contributing factor.

 

More important, these statistics and others weren't so much cited to demonstrate the deleterious impact of SSM on committed relations in general, but more particularly on the fundamental structure of society, and the traditional family in particular.

 

What I am saying is that your characterization of my SSM LUNC was "no small distortion/over-simplification."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure what is going on in Europe, most likely the problem is the same as here that Europe's small family businesses are being overwhelmed by corporate franchises . But the anecdotal evidence out here is that SSM has little or no effect on heterosexual relationships, but is having an impact on the gay community.

[wenglund]

So is your claim that there was no or little drop in marriage rates in Europe until SSM was legalized?  Because it is my understanding that marriage rates have been steadily coming down for decades.

 

Read the blog if you are interested. My position is stated pretty clear. I prefer not to run this thread further down the rabbit hole of JKW's mis-characterization.

 

[This applies to Stone holm's post as well]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 6, 2013 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

Not sure what is going on in Europe, most likely the problem is the same as here that Europe's small family businesses are being overwhelmed by corporate franchises . But the anecdotal evidence out here is that SSM has little or no effect on heterosexual relationships, but is having an impact on the gay community.

 

Evidence from Vermont and Sweden cited on Wade's page shows that, when given the opportunity, gays have taken advantage of legal marriage and civil union in numbers much higher than their heterosexual counterparts, so apparently the desire for a committed, stable, legally recognized relationship is there. If you're right about anecdotal evidence, it's having some impact on the nature of the committed relationships themselves, which is a good thing.

 

But yes, marriage is in decline for a number of reasons, none of which have much to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

[wenglund]

He's doing an "informal expose," so his statistics don't actually have to support anything.

 

So you say.

 

I, on the other hand, find the statistics to be of value in supporting what I am informally exposing.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

So you say.

 

I, on the other hand, find the statistics to be of value in supporting what I am informally exposing.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Except you were repeatedly shown how your data actually shows the opposite of what you claimed, so it doesn't support your expose, informally or not.

[Stone holm]

Evidence from Vermont and Sweden cited on Wade's page shows that, when given the opportunity, gays have taken advantage of legal marriage and civil union in numbers much higher than their heterosexual counterparts, so apparently the desire for a committed, stable, legally recognized relationship is there. If you're right about anecdotal evidence, it's having some impact on the nature of the committed relationships themselves, which is a good thing.

 

But yes, marriage is in decline for a number of reasons, none of which have much to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

It appears to me that Wade is trying to make the argument that the gay culture which was established in the pre plague years in pockets of America where it became overt infects the main culture and causes infidelity . I suppose that is possible, but here in Vermont I have seen no evidence of that, in fact the wilder aspects of the former gay culture have mellowed out as they have not been ostracized and have blended in. I suspect that what is likely to occur over time is that much of the behavior associated with the gay culture will dissipate and the insular nature of their community will break down. As for the fate of the traditional nuclear family, that has much more to do with how we structure our economy than it has to do with railing against gays, porography or abortion. If we can bring back family businesses and the middle class, then things will settle down, if not then our basic social unit whether it is headed by a SS couple or an HS couple is going to morph into something different. As a result, IMNSHO, the Church needs to focus on the cause not the symptoms.

[jkwilliams]

It appears to me that Wade is trying to make the argument that the gay culture which was established in the pre plague years in pockets of America where it became overt infects the main culture and causes infidelity . I suppose that is possible, but here in Vermont I have seen no evidence of that, in fact the wilder aspects of the former gay culture have mellowed out as they have not been ostracized and have blended in. I suspect that what is likely to occur over time is that much of the behavior associated with the gay culture will dissipate and the insular nature of their community will break down. As for the fate of the traditional nuclear family, that has much more to do with how we structure our economy than it has to do with railing against gays, porography or abortion. If we can bring back family businesses and the middle class, then things will settle down, if not then our basic social unit whether it is headed by a SS couple or an HS couple is going to morph into something different. As a result, IMNSHO, the Church needs to focus on the cause not the symptoms.

 

Absolutely agree. The nature of the family is largely dependent on economic realities. In the 19th century, women worked because they had to, and there was no expectation of a "stay at home mom" focused solely on homemaking. Lucy Mack Smith is a good example of this. The "nuclear family" of mid-20th century America is again a reflection of economic conditions, and no amount of railing against gays or pornography is going to make that family structure fit in a world in which economic reality forces most women to work.

[Stone holm]

Absolutely agree. The nature of the family is largely dependent on economic realities. In the 19th century, women worked because they had to, and there was no expectation of a "stay at home mom" focused solely on homemaking. Lucy Mack Smith is a good example of this. The "nuclear family" of mid-20th century America is again a reflection of economic conditions, and no amount of railing against gays or pornography is going to make that family structure fit in a world in which economic reality forces most women to work.

It is more than just forcing the woman to work outside the home, it's forcing the parents to have jobs working for separate employers. Both mother and father and children worked together in family businesses, or worked in a community or neighborhood where the employer knew their family. Only in certain urban areas was there the anonymity that you have today.

[Analytics]

I’d like to propose that this thread be renamed:

 

Blaming My Failure to Win the Debate on “Word Manipulation” Rather Than the Intrinsic Weakness of My Arguments

[Scott Lloyd]

I’d like to propose that this thread be renamed:

 

Blaming My Failure to Win the Debate on “Word Manipulation” Rather Than the Intrinsic Weakness of My Arguments

Perhaps in this arbitrary renaming of the thread, we see an example of the word manipulation that it decries.

[Scott Lloyd]

It occurs to me that in presenting this paradigm, Wade is in actuality giving an example of the age-old craft of sophistry, which one on-line dictionary defines in this way:

 

a.  a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading

b.  the art of using such arguments

[Rob Osborn]

A popular word manipulation technique that has been actively employed in recent decades is the redefining of words. This technique has been necessitated because certain ideas don't make sense or aren't as appealing, etc., under the old definition, and so the definitions are changed to make certain ideas seem sensible or appealing, etc.

 

For example, for centuries, if not millennium, the word "marriage" (generally and legally) has essentially referred to the relationship between a man and a women. Granted, there have been variations on this theme (polygamy, common law, open, non-interracial, etc.), but the same essential theme.

 

Under the longstanding definition, the notion of homosexual marriage is/was oxymoronic, and it would have been inane to include homosexual relationships under the banner of "marriage rights" and "marriage equality." Within the longstanding definition of "marriage," the notion of SSM made no sense and had no chance in the marketplace of ideas.

 

However, to give the idea of SSM a leg up, this necessitated redefining the term more generally to include other combinations of consenting adults. The old definition needed to be manipulated and turned on its head to include relationships that had previously been implicitly, if not explicitly, excluded.

 

This redefinition of the word "marriage" has been widely successful for its proponents, even to the point of gaining leverage in public opinion and the highest courts of the land, though the full cost of the manipulation are yet to be seen.

 

Another example manipulating words through redefinition is the term "Christian." Over the last several decades, certain vocal Evangelicals have recognized that their religious ideas may have been less appealing than some of their Christian competitors, and so they have attempted to level the playing field, and perhaps gain advantage, by de-Christianizing some of their competitors, and this through supplanting the generally accepted definition with their own idiosyncratic definition. 

 

This second example hasn't been as successful in the marketplace of ideas as the first, but it has still been somewhat successful in certain spheres.

 

Other examples include redefining words like anti-Mormon, apostate, sin, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

i don't know how many times over the years I have been labled a bigot and homophobic and done so in a way to make my arguments hateful, weak, and not in popular standing with morality views.

The truth of it is that it is a direct attack on what is good, what is moral and what is right. We as christians should stand tall in the face of intentional moral decay. I would like to see a new trend to call all those who support traditional marriage between man and woman as "heros" or even "champions" or "fearless". Its time for us to rain voices down as a voice of a thousand thunders against what we already know is wrong.

Why is it that we are beginning to shelter and even embrace the ungodly and yet call it godly? Why is it that people with high moral fiber are now being labeled as he enemy? Enemy to who though?

[california boy]

i don't know how many times over the years I have been labled a bigot and homophobic and done so in a way to make my arguments hateful, weak, and not in popular standing with morality views.

The truth of it is that it is a direct attack on what is good, what is moral and what is right. We as christians should stand tall in the face of intentional moral decay. I would like to see a new trend to call all those who support traditional marriage between man and woman as "heros" or even "champions" or "fearless". Its time for us to rain voices down as a voice of a thousand thunders against what we already know is wrong.

Why is it that we are beginning to shelter and even embrace the ungodly and yet call it godly? Why is it that people with high moral fiber are now being labeled as he enemy? Enemy to who though?

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  Will gays become more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Will hetero couples become "more moral" if gays are not allowed to marry? Do straight couples stop committing adultery and divorce if gays are not allowed to marry?  Certainly you would be worthy of the title "hero" if you actually did something to make the country more moral.  So just what would that be?

[cdowis]

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  

 

 

A legal relationship does not change the immorality of a homosexual sexual relationship.

Edited November 6, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  Will gays become more moral if they are not allowed to marry?

Gays are not being denied marriage!  It is as available to them as it is to anyone else.  They don't really want marriage. They want to change the meaning of marriage into something that it isn't.

 

If they succeed, will it make their homosexual relationships "more moral"?

[Stone holm]

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  Will gays become more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Will hetero couples become "more moral" if gays are not allowed to marry? Do straight couples stop committing adultery and divorce if gays are not allowed to marry?  Certainly you would be worthy of the title "hero" if you actually did something to make the country more moral.  So just what would that be?

 

Not more moral, more tragic for a variety of reasons -- one it means they have committed to ongoing religiously immoral acts,  two it means that they are investing a lot of themselves in a relationship that has no eternal future and only eternal damage, and three it means they have put a legal obstacle in their path to repentance because in order to repent they will now need to become involved in a divorce proceeding.  On a purely secular and legal basis, I agree with you -- having gays in a committed and long term relationship creates stability in society and helps, like heterosexual unions, to curb the spread of STD's -- but these do not overcome the eternally tragic situation involved in SSM.

[Tacenda]

Gays are not being denied marriage! It is as available to them as it is to anyone else. They don't really want marriage. They want to change the meaning of marriage into something that it isn't.

If they succeed, will it make their homosexual relationships "more moral"?

Much more to it than that. They need family ties for a number of things, such as permission for medical care, home purchases, taxes and so much more.  And this is from an outsider looking in and lack of understanding of the full picture.  

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

Except you were repeatedly shown how your data actually shows the opposite of what you claimed, so it doesn't support your expose, informally or not.

 

Again, so you say. I obviously disagree. But, enough of this tangent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

i don't know how many times over the years I have been labled a bigot and homophobic and done so in a way to make my arguments hateful, weak, and not in popular standing with morality views.

The truth of it is that it is a direct attack on what is good, what is moral and what is right. We as christians should stand tall in the face of intentional moral decay. I would like to see a new trend to call all those who support traditional marriage between man and woman as "heros" or even "champions" or "fearless". Its time for us to rain voices down as a voice of a thousand thunders against what we already know is wrong.

Why is it that we are beginning to shelter and even embrace the ungodly and yet call it godly? Why is it that people with high moral fiber are now being labeled as he enemy? Enemy to who though?

 

I'm not the enemy of the God. I am the enemy of any that would use their God as a weapon against others.

[california boy]

My post was in response to this statement by Roy

 

The truth of it is that it is a direct attack on what is good, what is moral and what is right.

 

 

Wade started this thread trying desperately to pretend that the reason gay marriage is succeeding in this country is because of manipulation of language.  He is trying to pretend that it is through deception or through fooling people by the manipulation of the language as the reason why this has happened.  

 

The truth is, the reason why gay marriage is succeeding is because there are really no legal arguments against it.  We get such silly reasons as "they already have the right to marry," which the majority of people in this country just aren't buying.  It is pretty clear to them that gays have not had the right to marry.  

 

We also get the argument that they are changing the definition of marriage.  Well so what.  As has been pointed out, changing of definitions is a natural evolution of the English language.  If that were not so, we would still be using the same dictionary from the 1800's.  Yet a new dictionary is published every year.  Yes language changes that much.

 

Some try to argue that preventing gays from marrying is a moral fight, yet they fail to explain how stopping gays from marrying makes anyone less moral.  

 

Cdows is right 

A legal relationship does not change the immorality of a homosexual sexual relationship

 Marriage is that legal relationship.  Gays will still be immoral whether they are married or not. Heterosexuals will still be immoral whether gays are married or not.   It does not change the situation for them or for anyone else.

 

The only argument against gay marriage is a religious belief argument.  The trouble with that argument is you are talking about a churches belief and not a general public belief.  Mormons can believe what they want.  Gay marriage also does not change or force Mormons or any other religion to change their personal beliefs.  It is not a reason to legally prevent gay marriage.

 

No, it is not language manipulation that is the downfall of the discussion of gay marriage.  It is the civil rights of gay Americans that is the reason gay marriage is succeeding.  Americans are very hesitant to deny the civil rights of it's citizens.  And so are the courts.  They have heard the arguments against gay marriage and have dismissed them as not being a strong enough reason to trump a persons civil rights.