As if this were not entirely predictable…

As I have consistently said ever since I first heard the term “gay marriage” some 15-20 years ago, this argument would be inevitable, and while I could certainly be wrong about this–because we don’t adopt every silly idea that comes along the pike (remember the “nuclear freeze”?)–it seems likely to me that this concept will trace a familiar path: first, it is roundly dismissed. Then, it begins to gain credibility as a “topic for discussion”. Then, increasingly, it begins to become accepted by some, then by more, and then one day, a restaurant executive says that he is proudly married to only one person, and he is denounced by third-rate political hacks and the Huffington Post calls him a bigot.

Or something like that…

76 responses »

Comment navigation

  1. Esdraelon says:

    As it turned out, since the Proponents (i.e., those trying to defend Prop 8 ) presented essentially no studies, the ‘scientific case’ was easily ‘won’ by the homosexuals.

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2010/11/prop-8-decision-%E2%80%94-triumph-of-scientifically-proven-sameness/

  2. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:03 am

    “The Fact of the matter is that you have not presented ONE single thing to discount the original post.”

    I showed why allowing same-sex civil marriage is NOT a “slippery slope” to polygamous marriage, because the constitutional case against polygamous marriage is entirely different than for same sex marriage.

    “You dispute the science,”

    What “science” have I disputed? I have yet to see you present anything that would be classified as a scientific finding.

    “since you keep bring up your ‘peer reviewed papers’….here’s another one you can try”

    If there was supposed to be a reference there, it didn’t show up.

    I’ve noticed you tend to make a lot of “noise” but you don’t really say much. Just a lot if innuendo and unfounded claims. EX: what “quasi-bogus” research conclusions are you talking about? and how have you determined that they are “quasi-bogus”

    “most of these studies purport to ‘prove’ that the outcomes and consequences of homosexuality are no different than the outcomes and consequences of heterosexuality.”

    Do you have any evidence to disproved these (yet again unspecified) studies?

    and to clarify “science” is the study of nature. Scientific studies are how researchers share and improve our knowledge of science. “Peer-review” is a method (generally considered limitus test) to authenticate/validate/improve ccv the study. Peer-review isn’t perfect, but it is the best method out there for validating scientific research.

  3. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:28 am

    “homosexual sympathizers have generated more pro-gay conclusions based on social science studies than conclusions in studies that refute their ‘proof.’”

    And again, do you have any evidence that the studies produced by these “homosexual sympathizers” are flawed, or made incorrect conclusions? Or are they just “wrong” because you don’t like their results?

    Funny how having more research results showing there is nothing wrong with homosexuality than those showing the opposite leads you to imply there is some sort of conspiracy, rather than the more logical conclusion.

  4. Esdraelon says:

    There is only ONE conclusion generated by ‘homosexual sympathizers’ with regard to so-called ‘social-science’ as pertaining to ‘nothing wrong with homosexuality’ and that conclusion is that there is ‘nothing wrong with homosexuality’, disregarding the horde of evidence to the contrary….if you want me to go into that evidence, feel free to continue….

  5. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:33 pm

    “disregarding the horde of evidence to the contrary….if you want me to go into that evidence”

    Provided you have actual evidence and not more offensive and bigoted mis-representations about gays from the likes of Fischer, FRI, FOF, AFA etc.

    I’ve been asking you for evidence for quite some time, but all you ever do is provide even more unsubstantiated claims.

  6. Esdraelon says:

    “Provided you have actual evidence and not more offensive and bigoted mis-representations about gays from the likes of Fischer, FRI, FOF, AFA etc.

    I’ve been asking you for evidence for quite some time, but all you ever do is provide even more unsubstantiated claims.”

    LOL! I can only shake my head since your own is ensconced so tightly in the sand.

    But back to the original post, since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post, I assume you don’t have any. and fall back on hyperbole yourself in defense…….

  7. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Friday September 14th 2012 at 9:48 am

    Are you going to provide this evidence you claim to have (or answer any of my questions about your claims), or are you just going to stoop to ad-hominem attacks and hope no one notices you can’t actually support your claims.

    “since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post,since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post,”

    Specifically what evidence are you asking for? Byron’s post was a bit rambling and ill-defined, so perhaps you can be a little more specific in what you are asking for.

  8. Esdraelon says:

    Since you’ve already set definite parameters for the ‘evidence’ you will accept, ie, pro-homosexual, don’t insult my intelligence.

    And if you have to ask the question: “Specifically what evidence are you asking for?” If you don’t have a clue after 30 posts, I don’t think I can offer you any remedy….

  9. Esdraelon says:

    And to suggest that you have your head in the sand, or are clueless after 30+ posts, is not an ‘attack’, simply an observation…..

    Setting a parameter for what you personally will accept as ‘evidence’ and crucifying every messenger that fails your stipulation is a bit trite…and besides I HAVE given that evidence…evidence that I fully understand the average person agrees with so I certainly am not losing sleep….

  10. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Friday September 14th 2012 at 2:04 pm

    “Since you’ve already set definite parameters for the ‘evidence’ you will accept, ie, pro-homosexual, ”

    I never set any such parameter. The only requirement I have is that it meet peer-review standards and not simply based on some bigots ramblings.

    ““Specifically what evidence are you asking for?” If you don’t have a clue after 30 posts, I don’t think I can offer you any remedy….”

    You can try a simple sentence or 2 to explain what specifically what evidence you are asking for. Let me give you an example :

    You said “by publishing quasi-bogus conclusions appended to empirical studies ”

    I asked for the titles to the studies you are referring to and how you determined the conclusions were “quasi-bogus” (to which you still haven’t responded as well as many other requests I’ve made for you to provide more details about your claims).

  11. Esdraelon says:

    Pro-homosexual ‘per-reviewed papers’? ROFL!

  12. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Monday September 17th 2012 at 6:14 am

    I’m guessing this means you aren’t going to support the claims you made. I suspected as much. Your problem is you are getting most (all) of your information from anti-gay sources like American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Institute, Brian Fischer, Tony Perkins, etc. These people and organizations are distorting, mis-representing and even lying about the research into sexual orientation. Since these mis-representations match with your own prejudices you simply accept them without question (“drink the kool-aid”).

    However, when someone actually presses you for evidence of your incorrect claims, you can’t provide any, because you don’t have any. Instead, you resort to making even more unsupportable claims and ad-hominem attacks in a childish attempt to deflect from the fact that you can’t support what you have said.

    In the future, I will simply point out when you say something incorrect, but I won’t bother trying to engage you in any sort of rational debate. You are incapable of it.

  13. Esdraelon says:

    Oh, but they Have been supported….from ‘anti-gay’ sources like American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Institute, Brian Fischer, Tony Perkins, etc. These people and organizations are distorting, mis-representing and even lying about the research into sexual orientation.

    I note you simply accuse but not substantiate where they are misrepresenting or lying…..sort of the pot calling the kettle black…..:-)

    A bit more on the ‘slippery slope’….

    http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/incest-and-pedophilia-new-frontier

    Cassavetes is selling his film “Yellow,” which stars his ex-wife Heather Wahlquist as a beautiful woman addicted to pain pills. She travels back home to Oklahoma after being expelled from her teaching job in Los Angeles for “having broom closet sex on Parent Night.” On her way home, she stops to visit her brother in prison. It results in a incest scene that we’re told is “tender and affecting and signals no judgment of the relationship.”

    Cassavetes told Waxman at The Wrap, “I have no experience with incest…We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want. Who gives a [bleep] if people judge you?”

    Then he arrived at what became the headline of the article: “I’m not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you’re not having kids – Who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister, it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

    In a very real sense, he’s right. This is where the slippery slope leads. Cassavetes said he wanted to portray a modern woman who is, in his words, “a rock star” and “a mess.” He wanted “an exaggerated version of a girl who came from a place where different things are acceptable.” In reality, he wanted a beautiful woman that viewers would find sympathetic, and then throw this shocking, “tender” incest scene in their face.

    Don’t think critics won’t like it. A reviewer on Indiewire called this movie “officially the most refreshing breath of air” at the Toronto film festival. “So far there is no news on distribution or when this thing is coming out, but as soon as it does, go out, don’t take it too seriously and have a little fun with it.”

    Don’t take the incest scene too seriously? Have fun with it? What – chuckle?

  14. ken says:

    Btw, Byron, you still never answered my questions:

    what is wrong with polygamous marriage ?

    why don’t you think it should be allowed?

    • Byron says:

      Sorry this has taken some time, Ken. It’s not a subject I’ve thought about much, to be candid with you; my first answer, which doesn’t help you, is that I think that it is not the ideal arrangement as designed by God–and that, for me, is enough, but I understand that you are asking for “secular” arguments, and I’ve never really thought about that subject a whole lot, why society ought to disallow it. It does seem to me, practically speaking, that it entails a redefinition of the love relationship; there is a fundamental difference between a relationship of exclusivity and one of…well, non-exclusivity, but that doesn’t really answer why it ought to be illegal. I did a little searching on the web for some thought-provoking things, and one site I came across suggested that women’s rights, in practice, suffer significantly in countries where polygamy is legalized, and I don’t discount that possibility. And as I’ve said before, I personally think for at least a couple of reasons that it is a more “natural” (weird to use that word in this context) redefinition of marriage than gay marriage. Summing up this weak argument, I don’t think that it’s best for society to recognize such marriages legally, but I do recognize that my arguments aren’t as solid–at this point–as perhaps they might be, absent my personal appeal to God’s design.

  15. ken says:

    So the one secular reason you came up with as to why polygamous civil marriage should not be allowed is due to a concern over women’s rights. In my own arguments against polygamous civil marriage I express this as a fairness issue. However, this reason (nor any of the others I described in the link to Warren’s blog) have anything to do with gay marriage. Those issues don’t arise with gay marriage.

    Gay marriage and polygamous marriage have nothing in common, other than they are both not allowed in the US and both opposed by similar groups of people. But the REASONS why they are not allowed are very different. And that is why there is not “slippery slope” argument from gay marriage to polygamous marriage (or from inter-racial marriage to polygamous marriage).

    But it is a convenient distraction from actually having to address the issues of gay marriage.

    • Byron says:

      I would disagree, Ken, with your quick dismissal of a slippery slope, because I wouldn’t base my argument on the same grounds that you might think. It’s not that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are similar, but rather this: once marriage is redefined from the one standard definition it has held (granting those rare exceptions as I have), we open the door to not one, but potentially many such redefinitions. The arguments for those redefinitions may differ in ways beyond the ones you and I might think of, but the “slippery slope” is just this simple: if marriage becomes something other than the one-man/one-woman arrangement it always has, what natural stopping point is there? It seems arbitrary to me that we’d stop at a number (2), at least as arbitrary as stopping at heterosexual arrangements such as are maintained in polygamy. That’s my point.

  16. ken says:

    “once marriage is redefined from the one standard definition it has held (granting those rare exceptions as I have), we open the door to not one, but potentially many such redefinitions. ”

    It already has been re-defined (i.e. changed) from what it has been to what it is now. And these changes have come about by law, court rulings and changing social values.

    “if marriage becomes something other than the one-man/one-woman arrangement it always has, what natural stopping point is there?”

    it hasn’t always been “one-man/one-woman” that is a fiction. And the “stopping point” is the US Constitution, i.e. do the government restrictions on who can marry meet constitutionally valid criteria.

    • Byron says:

      Ken, I think we’ve been down this road before, and we must agree to disagree on these points (though for the record, I have and continue to grant “rare exceptions” to “one-man/one-woman”, which would seem to render moot your point that it is a fiction. Strictly speaking, you are right; practically speaking, I would suggest otherwise).

  17. ken says:

    Yes, we have been through the one man/one woman issue before. However, the new issue I’m bringing up is that gay marriage and polygamous marriage are very different and more importantly the reasons for denying polygamous marriage have nothing to do with gay marriage. And that is why there is no “slippery slope.”

    Do you believe there is a “slippery slope” from civil inter-racial marriage to civil polygamous marriage?

    • Byron says:

      Ken, I thought I’d answered this one, about the slippery slope…maybe you just don’t agree, but I tried to make it clear: I don’t disagree that the reasons for denying one might be different from denying another, but I see the slippery slope consisting of the simple fact that once “one-man/one-woman”, the (nearly!) universal definition of marriage (and the only one ever operative in this country save for outlaw Mormon territories, I guess) is abandoned–for whatever other definition (for that matter it could be polygamy FIRST, and the slope could potentially be just as slippery)–then the entire enterprise is opened to re-examination.

      To your second question, the answer is “no”, because (as I’ve also argued before), I don’t see the former as a redefinition, because the one-man/one-woman construct is still operative. To try to find a hypothetical, I’d say that if there were several different one-man/one-woman combinations that had been prohibited by law (say, in addition to black/white, white/Oriental, white/Hispanic, or what-have-you), then the overturning of sanctions against one of those would seem to open up a slippery slope to doing the same with the others. But simply put, opening up the institution of marriage to “mixed-heritage” one-man/one-woman couples is a very different thing from saying that one man can marry five women, in that the latter, as I see it, redefines the institution.

  18. ken says:

    Marriage (both religious and civil, but as I’ve said my interest is in civil marriage), has had many criteria throughout history for who was allowed to marry: religion, citizenship, age, race, consanguinity, number, gender, etc. You argue that gender (and indirectly number) is the unchangeable criteria. To change the gender requirement is to “redefine” marriage, but changing anything else is not a “redefinition”. However, I have yet to hear a reason for why gender is the significant criteria that cannot change, but not any of the others, except maybe the number.

    And when pressed for a reason why the gender cannot be changed for civil marriage, most people have no argument for that. Or rather arguments that don’t match reality. Ex. “because same sex couples can’t have children together”, but many couples that can’t have children are allowed to marry. And a lot of times, the opponents use the slippery slope argument to some other form of marriage (ex. polygamy). Mostly that form of argument is really saying: “I don’t have a good reason to deny same-sex marriage, so I want to talk about this other type of marriage instead.”

    Now, I’d like to address byron’s comments specifically. When I asked him to explain why he didn’t think polygamous marriage shouldn’t be allowed, he couldn’t really articulate any non-religious reasons. When people can’t articulate reasons for being opposed to something, that is a good indication that they are basing their opinion on prejudices about that something rather than knowledge about it. Now, there is nothing wrong about making initial decisions based on prejudices (pre-conceived notions), we actually need that to survive. The problem is when people refuse to let go of those prejudices when confronted with more accurate information.

Comment navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s