The same sex marriage proponents never answered the most relevant and important question at the debate: If they can change the definition of marriage now, what prevents other people from doing the same thing in the future?
Weekly apologetics cartoons for the faithful, the faithless, and the full-of-its.
Well, this proponent has stated many times that the goal is to achieve legal equality for all and not just some franchised citizens. It is in contrast to us achieving this legal equality that the antagonists of same sex marriage must justify and it is here that the courts have found no compelling reasons to deny legal equality.
You can try to make this a religious issue all you want and claim all kinds of directions from your god against same sex couples from entering marriage contracts but lacking any compelling reasons in reality (other than contrary religious belief) to bolster your case to maintain this discrimination in law is a guaranteed losing position. This is why nearly 4 out of every 5 people (including people from many different religious backgrounds in Western countries) do not agree with continuing this shameful case of legal discrimination.
Marriage was created between men and women in order to maintain a family institution. Don’t pretend that in ancient times, that homosexuals were marrying, maintaining committed relationships and families, and were later excluded from marriage due to discrimination. They were living an “alternative lifestyle” and were happy to be what they say as the “confines” of conventional (natural) relationships. Even many homosexuals today look in disdain and disgust at “breeders” and their traditions–including marriage.
Just because in only the past couple decades media programming is telling homosexuals that they are being “discriminated against” and purposefully being excluded from marriage–something they should not desire and envy–does not make it the truth. You can basically program people to see discrimination in ANYTHING–including things that they had never wanted or even thought about before.
Women were programmed to believe that they needed to work and if they are at home (doing the most important job in the world, i.e., raising a child), that they are being “degraded” and “oppressed.” Fast forward to today where women are not only working to help keep the family afloat (because now the income of both men and women have been devalued due to so many more workers available), they are still expected to cook, clean, and raise the children as well (when they get home from work, that is). Progress…
“Marriage was created between men and women in order to maintain a family institution”
Cite please.
Our friend Dagoods posted on this issue on Crossexamined this weekend.
“Where is the legal argument for this proposition? Again, American marriage law is silent regarding children. If it was a purpose—indeed a “primary” purpose!—the law would make reference to children within its prescriptions. Marriage confers certain rights/benefits upon participants—estate rights, land rights, financial tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc.—NONE of which have to do with children. None. Zero. Zip.
Parents of children (regardless of marital status) have duties & responsibilities regarding their children. The legal duties and benefits are prescribed OUTSIDE the marriage statute. Again, if I father a child, the law utilized to determine parenting time, custody and visitation, is irrespective of my marital status with the child’s mother.
The state requires responsibility for children for parents who are not married to each other. Single people can adopt children. The Marriage statue has no provision regarding children.
What I see are those opposed to same gender marriage constantly asserting about “marriage’s purpose” with children, yet the very law we utilize to get married is silent on the issue. Because 1) children are not a necessary component of marriage, 2) rights and responsibilities regarding children are dealt with irrespective of the parent’s marital status and 3) the laws do not require people to be married to have children.”
““Marriage was created between men and women in order to maintain a family institution”
Cite please.”
How do you “cite” sources for an ancient tradition? It’s common sense. And you never bothered to explain how this ancient tradition that was geared towards establishing a commitment between men and women and their families was being exclusionary and discriminatory toward homosexuals.
I’m not speaking of laws, so it is irrelevant to respond to Dagoods’ quote. Tildeb thinks that it is the “right” of others to redefine marriage because it’s “discriminatory.” He needs to prove that when marriage was created between men and women in ancient times (which has endured to today) that it was created, not to create a sacred bond to keep men and women (and their future families together), but to discriminate and leave homosexuals out of what comes naturally to them as well.
As I had mentioned before, homosexuals have “civil unions,” but that is not enough for those who are politically motivated because it does not change the definition of MARRIAGE. Unless you begin to question the whole idea of marriage, you will not be able to do away with it.
This is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the reality of Hollywood and the media in general. It’s never really about about “equality,” it’s about “subversion” on a “massive level.” When you get rid of traditions, you can more easily control people as the people will not look towards themselves and their traditions to tell them what is right and what to do, they will look towards their governments and the media to tell them what is right and what to do.
The aftermath of telling women that they need to earn money to have any value in society? Lower incomes for everyone, both parents needed to work to support the family, more children having to raise themselves, and women working two jobs–one at work and one at home. Did anyone foresee these results at the time? No–it looked like a clear-cut “equality” issue for the majority that are easily inculcated.
What about redefining marriage? Looks like a clear-cut “equality” issue to the majority now, right? The aftermath of these changes remains to be seen.
“It was far easier for families in the past for a family to survive on just dad’s income. The cost of living has risen far faster than incomes, meaning many more families now need two breadwinners, hence mums forced to work too. I can vouch for this from personal experience.”
True. That is a serious problem and increasing the numbers of available workers in the job market will only exacerbate the problem. But perhaps by devaluing women talking care of the home and the family, this made the transition to suppressed wages coupled with price inflation easier by the populace to handle without a riot.
“As for open marriages, I don’t really get the connection, but I don’t believe there’s any current law against married people agreeing with each other to sleep with other people.”
They are “discriminated against” when it comes to court cases. The courts do not favor spouses that “cheat” or sleep around–they favor the spouse making the accusations (as long as they have the evidence to back up their accusations).
When you redefine marriage, you are redefining everything for everyone else as well–child custody cases, what should constitute who is responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, if women should even be favored when it comes to custody cases, what qualifies as a stable home, etc.
Very, very good questions. The redefinition of marriage entails so much more than just a change in the definition for two people. There are all the other things that your questions point toward: stable home; child custody; parental preference in custody cases; divorce; etc.
“The redefinition of marriage entails so much more than just a change in the definition for two people.”
Yes, this is true. Whenever I pose your same questions about polygamy, I never get a response. I wonder why.
Sorry that I went off topic, but tildeb brought up the evolution issue. I have one more point to bring up there: Have you noticed that “Godzilla” was there to sell us the erroneous posture of the T.rex in the 1950′s and Jurassic Park was there in the 1990′s to sell us the current (more than likely erroneous) posture of the T.rex?
“The LEGAL institution of marriage HAS no integrity if it does not respect the principle of legal EQUALITY.”
I assume that, in the name of “equality” you are also for marriages that involve multiple women/men, i.e. polygamy. Am I right, tildeb?
tildeb, I’m listening, but I heard very little appeals to “God” or “religious belief” in the debate. Can you cite one? (I’ll go back and listen to it again. It deserves repeated listenings, but I’ll listen to it for appeals to make sure.) Even Peter Williams, a Catholic, was arguing for the protection of the traditional definition of marriage by appealing to evolutionary theory of its origins among homo sapiens. The times that I recall David Robertson mentioning religion was in the context of religious freedom to deny performing ceremonies if they disagreed with the people getting married.
What about the statistics from the other side? David Robertson mentions a few prominent homosexual leaders who were against same-sex marriage. He even cited statistics which show, I think, that only 45% of homosexuals themselves see marriage as an important issue. He also points out (paraphrased) the hypocrisy of so-called rich progressives and politicians who focus nearly only on the same-sex marriage issue in order to make the world a better place, yet ignore starvation and all sorts of other more pressing issues in the world. Besides, in the debate, the issue of public opinion, which you mention in your last sentence, was addressed. David and Peter (and I think a couple of audience members) claimed that the reason their government won’t hold a referendum on this issue — even though the MSPs there claimed to do only what voters want — is because it would show that the majority of people don’t want to redefine marriage.
But one question:
If marriage is redefined now, what principle is in place to prevent it from being redefined again years from now by other groups? (This questions was asked about 3 times throughout the debate.)
Joshua
“How do you “cite” sources for an ancient tradition? It’s common sense”
In other words, it’s a baseless assertion. If you can’t manage a source, instead just explain why you’re so confident in your claim and why anyone else should accept it.
Then please address Dagoods’ point.
“I’m not speaking of laws”
Well the debate concerns the law, so it’s kind of relevant to look at the existing laws.
And why should Tildeb demonstrate that marriage was originally intended to be discriminatory? It’s irrelevant whether that was an intention or an unintentional by-product. The claim was that CURRENT laws ARE discriminatory.
Marriage has had many different forms and purposes over the years – property, political (eg joining of tribes), romantic, and yes procreation. But for a debate about current marriage laws, Dagoods’ point is absolutely pertinent.
“The aftermath of telling women that they need to earn money to have any value in society? ”
You seem to think women are easily brainwashed! It was far easier for families in the past for a family to survive on just dad’s income. The cost of living has risen far faster than incomes, meaning many more families now need two breadwinners, hence mums forced to work too. I can vouch for this from personal experience.
“But perhaps by devaluing women talking care of the home and the family”
Sure, if that’s what you need to believe in order to avoid changing your view on any issue, no matter how much counter-evidence is offered to you, why not!
“The aftermath of telling women that they need to earn money to have any value in society? Lower incomes for everyone”
Please supply evidence that the former led to the latter, not the other way around.
“David Robertson mentions a few prominent homosexual leaders who were against same-sex marriage. He even cited statistics which show, I think, that only 45% of homosexuals themselves see marriage as an important issue.”
Neither of these are arguments against allowing SSM.
“If marriage is redefined now, what principle is in place to prevent it from being redefined again years from now by other groups?”
Michigan amended its opening statute on Marriage to state, “Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.”
If Michigan was able to emend it’s statute on Marriage to state that, what principle is in place to prevent it from being amended again years from now against other groups? Perhaps to prevent older or infertile couples marrying, given that they cannot have children.
I mention in another post how defining same-sex unions as “marriages” will affect future of court cases for EVERYONE. I placed my responses at the bottom, since that’s what you asked for.
And who said it was an argument against it? Nevertheless, that so many people, yourself included, get so upset over this one small issue when, in reality, only a minority of homosexuals themselves see it as important (so a minority within a minority) is an interesting note. It’s sort of a like a cartoon of a little old woman being helped across the road by a boy scout. The caption reads, “But I didn’t want to go across the road!”
Nobody was talking about Michigan marriage laws. Besides, the sentence you quoted refers to “its children”, which is a reference to children that are part of the society in general, which, typically, only come from a heterosexual couple.
Did you watch the debate? Thought it was interesting that I didn’t see you or tildeb touch David Robertson’s quotation of Labor MP Ben Bradshaw saying “[Gay marriage] isn’t a priority for the gay community which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships. This is pure politics.” [33:20]
There were other meaningful quotations that I’d like to see you address, too I’ve taken the time to transcribe them for your consideration:
And Peter D. Williams was even arguing from the evolutionary perspective on the origins of marriage in defense of it being best to be defined as it is, one man and one woman.
Let me ask again: If marriage is redefined now, what principle is in place to prevent it from being redefined again years from now by other groups? (The two examples you gave are still 1 man and 1 woman.)
Joshua
Josh asks If marriage is redefined now, what principle is in place to prevent it from being redefined again years from now by other groups?
What principle? I thought I made it clear: legal equality. It’s a rather strong principle with a long history in western jurisprudence.
Can legislators pass laws that impede this principle? Sure (that’s why we have marriage discrimination!), but when challenged in court, the ensuing legislation does not hold up to reasonable cause (failing to show how and why this discrimination aids the public good), which is why the ‘traditional marriage’ side continues to lose and lose and lose.
The only reason to continue to impose inequality regarding SSM is this sense that the sexual component is icky and that’s why god doesn’t allow it. Of course, god doesn’t seem to allow lots of human actions, behaviours, feelings, and thoughts without cosmic condemnation but the ‘traditional marriage’ folk like to cherry pick their divine advocacy issues in law rather selectively. You just don’t find barbers under the same level of public pressure (and special ballot propositions) to legally stop them from interfering with the natural and god-pleasing corners of beards, for example, or fishers morally pilloried for hauling in and selling – for the purposes of immoral human consumption – shell fish. The list of what displeases the christian and jewish and islamic gods is very long, as most people know, but the line for stopping icky sex from being legally accepted really must be drawn, presumably. That there are no good legal reasons for doing so seems a rather trivial afterthought to most people against the state recognizing marriage by those who happen to be of the same gender, and this is why the discussions around maintaining legal discrimination talk about everything but. These folk don’t seem to think legal equality matters when it comes to imposing their gods’ wishes on the rest of us.
tildeb, I’m not sure how carefully you read my previous comments or listened to the debate or if you even watched it. If you did, cite for us one example where either Peter or David appealed to God or the Bible as their defense of marriage. Besides, why don’t you address David Robertson’s quotations from gay activists? Here’s an example:
I won’t take a lot of time to address the last paragraph of your previous comment. If you were listening carefully to the opposition, you would have heard them say in no uncertain terms the following, which undermines the bulk of your criticism:
You see, their debate wasn’t what you mischaracterized it as; it wasn’t about appeals to God or how “icky” homosexual behavior is.
Joshua
The LEGAL institution of marriage HAS no integrity if it does not respect the principle of legal EQUALITY.
By appealing to discriminatory marriage as a tradition, one is in deed appealing to its religious history alone. That’s EXACTLY what the court decisions keep telling you, over and over. None are so deaf as those who refuse to hear, so to speak. The discriminatory legal position of traditional marriage has no other basis! That you refuse to recognize (least of all to understand) this central and fatal problem to your argument is not my concern. It’s yours… and those sympathetic to maintaining its legal discrimination. The fallout from your support of legal discrimination – meaning traditional marriage in this case – continues to adversely affect the legal equal rights of real people in real life, paid for by others so that you can continue to feel that your religious beliefs are respected in law and imposed by law in a discriminatory fashion on others… not for any good reasons (as the courts continue to show) but because you feel you deserve to define legal privilege based on the piousness of your religious beliefs (or by its code word ‘tradition’). You demonstrate your lack of respect owed to the principle of legal equality – perhaps that’s why its meaning seems to continue to elude you – by appealing to discriminatory tradition as if that is in any way an equivalent principle… meaning you set aside the very principle you want others to hold regarding your legal rights to speak out without censure to try to deny to others this same principle when it comes to their legal marriage.
If you wish to call ALL marriages nothing more and nothing less than a civil union, then I can live with that. But you can’t have it both ways and think yourself principled.
Re-read the quote from Peter D. Williams that I took the time to transcribe to make sure that you guys read:
You’ve yet to cite one instance of when they cite a religious text or appeal to God to defend marriage. As I told you before, Peter D. Williams is not appealing to religion or even religious history. He’s pulling out your beloved theory — evolution. He does so throughout the whole debate, arguing from an evolutionary theory of the origin of marriage as to why it should remain defined as is and not change.
Watch the debate again.
Joshua
Well, I noticed that when those in support of gay marriage were asked to provide a grounding principle during the debate, neither MP mentioned the principle of equality. Maybe they should’ve asked you to be on their debate team?
I think to do so would have shown the bankruptcy of their position, since Peter D. Williams’s question didn’t leave them any wiggle room:
The MPs just went on to ramble about how mean ol’ Peter shouldn’t talk about extreme cases (which is what they consider polygamy claims), to which Peter Williams replied that there is already a push for redefining marriage to include polygamy using the same principle used by the pro-gay marriage community — the principle being: “We are loud and we demand it”, which is about the only principle the MPs would admit guide them in their decision making process (which was met with a great burst of laughter from the audience).
Joshua
“If you wish to call ALL marriages nothing more and nothing less than a civil union, then I can live with that.”
Well, first we’d have to define what a “civil union” is. If it is held to the exact same standards/meaning as marriage is/has, then there would be no problem with a name change. The only thing is that it would leave out homosexual unions.
Don’t pretend that in ancient times, marriage was created between men and women in order to maintain a family institution.
Appeals to airy-fairy “tradition” do not justify bigotry. If gay people want to get married then let them get married. If you don’t like it then don’t marry a gay person. Stop sniffing people’s bed sheets in the name of your magical, invisible sky friend.
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
“Don’t pretend that in ancient times, marriage was created between men and women in order to maintain a family institution.”
I don’t need to pretend–it’s the truth. Don’t pretend it was created for men and women due to hatred and bigotry.
“Appeals to airy-fairy “tradition” do not justify bigotry. If gay people want to get married then let them get married. If you don’t like it then don’t marry a gay person. Stop sniffing people’s bed sheets in the name of your magical, invisible sky friend.”
Appeals to airy-fairy “tradition” do not justify bigotry. If polygamists want to get married then let them get married. If you don’t like it then don’t marry a polygamist/multiple partners. Stop sniffing people’s bed sheets in the name of your magical, invisible sky friend.
“only a minority of homosexuals themselves see it as important (so a minority within a minority)”
Which still amounts to millions of people in the US alone, rendering your point moot. And if it’s so unimportant, one might as well ask why YOU “get so upset over this one small issue” then.
Given the huge statistics for straight divorce (almost half of marriages end in divorce, I believe), you could make an argument that a similar percentage of straight people don’t take marriage seriously either. This isn’t an argument for abolishing marriage altogether.
Well, it seems no matter what points (not arguments!) I attempt to make, you are going to label them “moot”, “a strawman”, etc. I guess any minority, no matter how small, should be able to push to rewrite laws to suit their little click. Oh well.
By the way, we weren’t discussing the problems that heterosexual marriages face. You know marriage isn’t easy. It’s a lot of work. And people are lazy. Besides, speaking as a Christian, unfaithfulness / adultery is just as seriously wrong and potentially harmful as homosexuality (STD, unwanted pregnancies, etc.).
But, then again, maybe we should stop being so old-fashioned and remove all barriers that would interfere with two people loving each other even if they are already married, right?
Joshua
Here’s another quote for you and tildeb to consider:
“So this isn’t about me imposing my views. This is actually about one group trying to impose their views on everyone else by redefining a basic, social institution — for what?”
True. That is usually the way that those imposing their views upon others try to get what they want: play the victim.
Hey, our synapticcohesion has achieved fame over at Why Evolution is True as one of three stellar examples of creationists who make one mistake after another, who – in the case of criticizing paleontological explanations about Lucy, for example – is demonstrably “misleading—probably deliberately so. I believe that he knows better, and is spouting creationist drivel. The thing is, though, that he sounds convincing to those who don’t know anything about Lucy. The lesson (not needed by anyone here) is that if you hear “scientific” evidence adduced by a creationist, be sure to check it out.
That is very sound advice.
Coyne is a professor of genetics at the university of Chicago and a widely respected and highly sought after science communicator with a very popular web site (WEIT). That synapticcohesion thinks himself in the same professional scientific league is also rather telling when he seems oblivious to the fact that Jerry actually took the time to respond to his ignorant claims and actually wrote to other experts to verify data. Jerry then posted synapticcohesion’s comments “for educational and sociological reasons: to display the mindset and tactics of those who reject modern biology in favor of a two-thousand-year-old manual for goatherds.”
Do check out the comments. They, too, make for some penetrating observations.
He is not a professor of genetics, but a professor in the Dept. of ecology and evolution with a PhD in evolutionary biology. His concentration was in biology and he has also taught zoology. Get it right.
Not that these details matter as one can be a geneticist, chemist, molecular biologist, physicist, zoologist, geologist, botanist, archeologist, etc.–but that still doesn’t prove evolution on a “macro” scale (bacteria to apes, or even apes to humans) to be true or even plausible. The conveniently wonderful thing is that it CAN’T ever be proven as no one would ever be able to live the “millions” and “billions” years required to see if the wild conjectures made using fossil “evidence” (remains) hold any merit.
I haven’t read the article thoroughly, but I am in no rush–especially considering that I have been prevented from providing any response to any of the claims being made.
Take the T.rex example again. Back when scientists (until the 1990′s) were asserting that the T.rex had a Godzilla-like posture, most scientists would likely have told you that this assertion is factual, backed by evidence and analytical data, and it is “not open to debate.” What happened to all the “experts” who were supposed to KNOW everything based in the fossil evidence? How something stood? Walked? We just ASSUME that there are scientists and experts out there that would know based on the “fossil evidence”–so we never bothered to question it. But, alas, we find out much later that such a posture would be implausible as it is an unbalanced posture and would have resulted in great orthopedic stress and damage on the body (i.e., not a viable posture for any animal, much less one that weighed 5-7 tons). Yet a child may have looked at that very skeletal representation and had seen something “wrong” with it within an instant.
Did we learn any lesson from this? No! We STILL never bother to question anything presented to us by the “All-Knowing” scientific establishment (i.e., “Lucy”). We still assume that there are scientists out there who will know all about the posture and gait of long-extinct creatures based on the limited anatomical data of organisms that either existed in the more recent observable (documented) past, or that continue to exist today. Unfortunately that is not true and more often than not, your guess is a good as theirs. Sometimes yours is better.
Synapticcohesion tells me to “get it right” when I called Coyne a ‘professor of genetics’, so I’ve highlighted in bold – for ease of reading comprehension – why Jerry often refers to his specialty in evolutionary biology as “a geneticist”.
From Coyne’s book Why Evolution Is True:
“Jerry A. Coyne has been a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution for the past twenty years, where he specializes in evolutionary genetics and the origin of new species.
Genetics is his specialty in the broader field of evolutionary biology, synapticconfusion.
From Coyne’s faculty page:
“Although we work on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics, the laboratory’s main focus is on the original problem raised by Darwin: the origin of species. Our aim is to understand this process through the genetic patterns it produces. By estimating the numbers, locations, and effects of genes causing reproductive isolation in Drosophila (hybrid sterility, mating discrimination, etc.), we hope to understand whether speciation involves many or only a few genes, whether genetic drift plays a significant role in the process, and whether the movement of transposable elements causes hybrid sterility and inviability. Most of our studies require classical genetic analysis involving crosses among distinct species, but we also collaborate with other groups to construct DNA-based phylogenies of these species, and to use molecular markers for quantitative-trait-locus (QTL) mapping of genes causing reproductive isolation and morphological differences between species. We are also engaged in a variety of other projects, including the dynamics of chromosome evolution and various aspects of the ecological genetics of Drosophila.
His lab’s specialty is genetics, synapticconfusion.
But thanks for highlighting yet again how similar in expertise the two of you are, so similar, in fact, that you feel comfortable telling one of the world’s foremost experts in evolutionary genetics why he’s doing his professional business wrong.
Methinks there is a Jerry A. Coyne stalker and his name is tildeb.
You’d be wrong. I am a fan of Jerry Coyne and what he writes because he is very knowledgeable about evolution, an excellent communicator, and in a position where he can openly say what he thinks. (I found his book excellent, BTW.) His multiple daily posts are varied, clear, concise, and very informative, while his website has attracted a first rate (and highly scholarly) readership. In other words, it’s a learning place for me.
“Fan” is short for “fanatic.”
Nice link tildeb. And oh dear Synaptic, and weak burn on the ‘fan is short for fanatic’ equivocation. The origin of a word isn’t the same as as current usage.
NAA quotes the law is about imposing things on others for the good of society.
This is where the courts have consistently found that there is no evidence to suggest that SSM causes harm to the public good. What is being imposed is a discriminatory law that denies marriage on the basis of gender rather than public harm.
NAA quotes But I’m not actually arguing in favor of opposing anything.
Sure you are: you arguing in favour of opposing marriage based on a gender qualification with no good reasons to back that qualification up.
NAA quotes The irony about this whole debate is because it really isn’t about equality at all. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definitional core of marriage from our evolutionary history.
Says who? If we are speaking of human history then there all kinds of marriages that are defined (at their core) differently than between one man and one woman. Other than history, I (and the speaker) have no clue what the evolutionary term means here.
NAA quotes This is not about equality for the very simple reason that anyone has access to that basic institution.
The term ‘anyone’ and ‘equality’ are not synonyms here because the ‘equality’ term comes with the very notion of a mandatory qualification under review: gender. Replace it with ‘race’ and you’ll quickly see the problem that renders this antiquated and struck down notion of ‘equal but different’. Yes, all of us can marry a person of the opposite gender, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not the gender qualification is legitimate, in the same way everyone was equally allowed to marry someone of the same race but everyone was equally denied the right to marry someone of a different race. The racial qualification was struck down by the courts because it could not be shown to serve a public good to discriminate against those who wanted to marry someone of a different race. The same problem of a discriminatory law is similarly exposed with the gender qualification… a qualification that carries with it no good reasons that it in any way, shape, or fashion, can be shown to enhance the public good nor any evidence that eliminating the qualification will result in harm to the public good. In fact, there is compelling evidence in jurisdictions that have dropped the legal gender requirement that the public good is actually enhanced.
Did you watch the debate, tildeb?
I’m not sure someone quoting my quotation of Peter Williams could say, “…I (and the speaker) have no clue what the evolutionary term means here” if they had watched the debate. That statement was 45 minutes into it!
At least watch the opening statements before getting riled up.
Joshua
“Well, it seems no matter what points (not arguments!) I attempt to make, you are going to label them “moot”, “a strawman”, etc. I guess any minority, no matter how small…”
Injustice is injustice. We protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is a weak argument to say that you judge the numbers to be too small to warrant proper treatment. By the 1-2% estimation you gave of the population being gay, that gives a possible 7 million gays in the US. That’s more gays than Jews. Are you saying that Jews are too small a minority to deserve equal treatment? Obviously not.
And yes, if you make a strawman argument – claim to be quoting an argument that no-one has actually made, then I’ll call you on it. And if you object that a number of people is too small, when it still amounts to millions of people, then I’ll call your objection moot.
Well, Andy, there’s a difference between stating a fact and making an argument. Me mentioning the very few people actually interested in gay marriage was “a note”; I was stating a fact. So maybe you should ask the old lady if she wants to cross the street before you force her to? Maybe also examine marriage statistics in countries where gay marriage is already legal? Did it make any difference?
Of course, I did notice that you didn’t really touch on Peter Williams’s points or David Robertson’s. So, let me ask the obvious one last time (you failed to answer it last time): Did you watch the debate? So, let’s hear you address just one of Peter’s arguments instead of the strawman chant. Here, I’ve even gone to trouble of transcribing it for you. Notice, too, that Peter appeals to your beloved theory of evolution as the justification for not redefining marriage:
Joshua
“So maybe you should ask the old lady if she wants to cross the street before you force her to?”
Who’s being forced to do anything, or suggesting they should be forced to? Didn’t you quote that half of gays don’t see gay marriage as an ‘important issue’ (a subjective term to start with), or something like that? I don’t get what significance this is supposed to have – that leaves millions of gays who DO see it as an importance issue.
Don’t get your old lady analogy – no-one’s forcing her to cross the road, but it would be odd to suggest that because half the old ladies in any given street aren’t interested in crossing it, that has any bearing on whether old ladies should be ALLOWED to cross the street.
“So, let me ask the obvious one last time (you failed to answer it last time)”
Again, regardless of how many of your points I address or answer, you’ll always obsess over me not addressing every single one. I’m trying to focus on particular points. Your points should stand up on their own.
“After all, everyone has the same right already.”
As Tildeb points out, this argument was used in favour of laws against inter-racial marriage. Would you be convinced by a law that prevented you from being married to your wife, on the basis that you had the same rights to be married to other Caucasians as everyone else? In fact, Tildeb has pretty well dealt with the rest of that quote there.
I’m really confused as to why you would say something like that. You know I gave up trying to get you to answer questions long ago. But try a little humility for once. Actually watch the debate before you consider your conclusion the only right one.
By the way, we’re not talking interracial marriage; I’m not interested in another red herring in this thread. Besides, if you had actually watched the debate, you would have heard this point brought up.
Joshua
“By the way, we’re not talking interracial marriage; I’m not interested in another red herring in this thread. ”
But you’re the one who keeps talking about gay marriage leading to bestiality and pedophilia!
“You know I gave up trying to get you to answer questions long ago. ”
Well I’ve not given up trying to answer all your questions, but I get the impression that you’re always sure that you’re just one answer away from stumping me, or Tildeb or whoever. If you could JUST get us to answer one more question, you’d have us. You can’t imagine how we could possibly have an answer to question x. Then we answer and the sky doesn’t fall…
Read my lips: MARRIAGE PRECEDED THE CONCEPTS OF RACE AND RACISM. PRECEDED THE SO-CALLED ANTI-MISCEGENATION LAWS CREATED TO EXCLUDE HUMAN BEINGS FROM MARRYING EACH OTHER BASED ON SUPERFICIAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
Thus Josh is right about the “red herring” you keep unabashedly raising. Whole ethnic groups have been created by people of different “racial groups” marrying each other before people were separated into racial groups, so your point is moot. Give it up, Andy. You lose. Good day, sir.
“MARRIAGE PRECEDED THE CONCEPTS OF RACE AND RACISM”
Not only is that an unsupported assertion, it’s also moot anyway – utterly irrelevant to the point. Thus Josh is WRONG about the point I’m making. The red herrings here references to ‘redefining’ marriage, rather than just allowing same sex couples the right to enjoy it, and the argument that allowing SSM has any legal bearing on allowing any other laws.
Also genius, I can’t read your lips on the internet. So: ‘Give it up yourself. I win, you lose. Good day to you too’. (See how easy those ‘kiss-off’ lines are?). Why not head back to Coyne’s site and have another go arguing science with scientists?
Andy, how do you know that I have some special plan to try to “stump people”? You don’t.
Truth be told, I ask questions because that’s what I do all day as a teacher. It’s much better way to promote conversation than just continually making statements. (And I think I need to be asking more questions than statements, too.) To be fair, your comments do sometimes contain questions, but they are usually rhetorical. I ask questions so that you’ll answer them and your answers are recorded here for both myself and visitors to consider. But, as other visitors can attest, you often leave questions unanswered. For example, I asked you twice in this very thread whether or not you even watched the debate that this thread is attached to (consider this a third time). It’s not some sinister plan to stump you or to give myself some juvenile pleasure that I asked a question that someone couldn’t answer. (Incidentally, there are plenty of questions I can’t answer – Would you admit as much about yourself?) It’s a pretty basic requirement to comment. I mean, tildeb went off on an adjective in one of my comments where I was quoting one of the speakers, Peter Williams, 45 minutes into the debate. Had he actually watched the debate (I’m not sure he has either), he would have found the term defined in the opening statements.
Basically, I beg you to consider that maybe some other people know some things, too.
Joshua
“Why not head back to Coyne’s site and have another go arguing science with scientists?”
We weren’t debating science, we were debating pseudoscience. A belief system that is unsupported by evidence. Big difference.
Let’s see if I got this straight: those world renowned scientists at WEIT and contacted by Coyne to verify his data while trying to educate our misguided friend are all arguing in favour of pseudoscience,,, while the creationist synapticcohesion is representing the real science.
Of course. Why didn’t I see it before?
How can I call him synapticconfusion when I so obviously lack any compelling reasons to do so?
tilderp, I never claimed to be representing “real science.” I’m simply disputing pseudoscience, citing the lack of evidence and use of faulty conjectures as “evidence.”
Tell me tilderp: Does one need to be a doctor to be able to identify quackery?
Well, unlike all these widely published and professional experts, you seem uniquely capable of identify the difference between science and pseudoscience. This implies that your expertise offers you a clarity as well as insight unavailable to those who have dedicated their lives to these pursuits. But you have no colossal arrogance. You are full of humility that the Designer (Blessed Be His Name) has revealed his intelligent design to you but somehow hidden it from those dullards who have spent lifetimes studying this ‘pseudoscience’. And you assume nothing untoward in your assumption that you have something meaningful to tell these scientists. You see what they don’t. You have criticisms they’ve never encountered. You have conclusions that better suit the evidence. Whatever you do, don’t for a moment presume they can tell you anything that might in some way reveal some disparity between reality and your religious beliefs in POOF!ism. They, not you, are the ones in need of straightening out.
Good grief.
For once you are making some sense, tildeb.
“Does one need to be a doctor to be able to identify quackery?”
I’d certainly expect someone to have quite some expertise if they wanted to, say, claim the entire germ theory of disease is pseudoscience.