[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yes, that’s what I call the HIV incidence amongst male homosexuals: a harm to society.[/quote]
If that truly is your concern, you ought to favor a legally binding long term commitment which encourages gay men to stay together instead of sleeping around.
At worst, gay marriage keeps the STD rate constant. At best, it reduces it. Nobody would argue that it increases the STD rate.
Not to mention the general benefits to the couple and society as a result of the stability provided through marriage/civil unions.
[quote]Are you similarly fairminded and honest in recognizing the role of both factors?
Yes.[/quote]
Glad to hear it, contrary to some of the others in this thread that insist there is not a genetic factor in sexual orientation.
I addressed this point earlier. Nobody is saying genetics automatically makes something morally right. The point is that people don’t choose their sexual orientation and can’t change it, at least in part due to genetic factors. Given that, there is no reason to oppose gay marriage (which unlike murder doesn’t harm society), and several good reasons to support it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Legislatures don’t speak for the will of the people. They speak for themselves, as evidenced by the cali legislature acting at the direction of the court instead of how the people voted.
[/quote]
So now you’re arguing legislatures aren’t elected to express the will of the people?
And you’re wrong about the California legislature. They didn’t pass a law favoring gay marriage under the direction of the Supreme Court. The judiciary can’t declare what should or should not be passed, they can only interpret the existing laws. The Supreme Court ruled that gays have the right to marry under the existing Constitution, but the gay marriage bill passed by the legislature preceded this ruling.
Dude, take a step back and look at your source. Narth is a political organization specifically dedicated to the eradication of homosexuality from society.
You can’t compare what they say to the scientific conclusions unanimously reached by every major medical and mental health organization.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You obviously don’t know a thing about science. Scientific conclusions are highly faddish, and scientists are highly prone to groupthink, and scientists with theories outside the current dogma, (despite their merit or support), are often marginalized.
[/quote]
It’s amusing how whenever I get into these discussions, science always gets criticized as being nothing but a political machine. People ignore the peer-reviewed published data from decades of scientific research, and equate this with political agendas.
The difference between science and personal opinion is that science can back up its claims. You can do the same research following the same methodology, and you will find the same objective results.
Of course, when people don’t like the conclusions reached by science it is natural for them to dismiss those conclusions out of hand. Nobody likes it when science runs contrary to their personal beliefs. It’s Copernicus all over again.
I addressed this point earlier. Nobody is saying genetics automatically makes something morally right. The point is that people don’t choose their sexual orientation and can’t change it, at least in part due to genetic factors . Given that, there is no reason to oppose gay marriage (which unlike murder doesn’t harm society), and several good reasons to support it.[/quote]
I’m probably missing your point here, but I doubt that people who have murderous inclinations chose to kill people knowing they will be locked up for it. I always highly doubt that they can change it, considering we would never have known about it in the first place then. Same line of thinking could be used to justify murder?
I’m going to try one more time. Three strikes and you’re out.
Forget about any comparisons with gay marriage. Got it?
I’m asking you to evaluate the following statement solely on its own merits. Do you agree with the underlying logic in the following statement, when it comes to mixed race marriage? If not, why not?
Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m going to try one more time. Three strikes and you’re out.
Forget about any comparisons with gay marriage. Got it?
I’m asking you to evaluate the following statement solely on its own merits. Do you agree with the underlying logic in the following statement, when it comes to mixed race marriage? If not, why not?
Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.[/quote]
I have already answered this, you just don’t like my answer.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m going to try one more time. Three strikes and you’re out.
Forget about any comparisons with gay marriage. Got it?
I’m asking you to evaluate the following statement solely on its own merits. Do you agree with the underlying logic in the following statement, when it comes to mixed race marriage? If not, why not?
Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.[/quote]
That’s only strike one for me, I wasn’t quoted before was I?..
Well, before I answer- Would white men already have the right to marry black women, or would it also be granted in this statement?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
99% of all police work is done after a crime has already been committed.[/quote]
I specifically included both crime prevention and criminal prosecution in my earlier posts. It doesn’t matter how much time the police spend on one vs. the other. The point is that the government plays a role in enforcing the law, and in holding criminals accountable for breaking it. Without that infrastructure, our society would quickly degenerate into chaos.
Relationships don’t require laws, but they can benefit from laws. Marriage is a set of responsibilities/benefits that provides stability to the relationship. Without those responsibilities/benefits provided by the government, relationships would be more likely to disintegrate and society as a whole would be less stable.
Again, I never said otherwise. What I said was that the characteristic being discriminated needs to be evaluated before you can determine whether the discrimination is morally justified.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have already answered this, you just don’t like my answer. [/quote]
No you haven’t answered it. You have only compared it to gay marriage. You haven’t said a thing about whether the statement is logically supportable or not, on its own merits.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
I’m probably missing your point here, but I doubt that people who have murderous inclinations chose to kill people knowing they will be locked up for it. I always highly doubt that they can change it, considering we would never have known about it in the first place then. Same line of thinking could be used to justify murder?
[/quote]
I was saying that murder is unacceptable because it causes harm to others. Gay marriage doesn’t cause harm to others, and in fact helps both the couple and society through the stability it provides.
It’s not enough just to show that a trait is genetic. You also have to show that the trait doesn’t inherently harm people, which murder clearly does.
[quote]RebornTN wrote: Black men have the right to marry someone of the same race, just as white men do. Therefore black and white men have the same rights. Granting black men the right to marry white women would be a case of “special rights”.
Well, before I answer- Would white men already have the right to marry black women, or would it also be granted in this statement?[/quote]
The statement only allows people to marry others of the same race. Do you see anything logically wrong with it?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
In general yes. I do not like the fact that the government gets it’s hands into everything.[/quote]
I can see where you’re coming from, although I have a different perspective. At least you are consistent in wanting the government out of all marriage, whether gay or straight.
I agree the government can’t magically solve problems that exist in a relationship, and sometimes those problems are significant enough to warrant divorce. However, I also think couples sometimes break up unnecessarily during rough times, and that the responsibilities/benefits associated with marriage help encourage people to ride out those rough times. It’s not a guarantee, but it does provide more social stability overall.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect - there is a vast difference between the kinds of rights.[/quote]
I never said otherwise. What I’m contending is your assertion that equality only matters when it comes to “negative rights”, and not when it comes to “positive rights”.
Does that mean you oppose straight couples having a child through a surrogate parent when one of them is infertile?
How about straight couples adopting that otherwise would be raised in a foster facility?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forlife wants the comparison to interracial marriage to stick - even though it is not a good parallel - because he thinks it helps him.[/quote]
Just because you claim it is not a good parallel doesn’t make it true. You are welcome to show why the statement is logical for mixed race couples, but is not logical for gay couples.
I’ve directly addressed polygamy numerous times, as you know very well. I believe that unless polygamy is shown to be inherently harmful, it should be allowed just as gay marriage should be allowed.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And now we see why where intellectual dishonesty is a concern.[/quote]
Again, let’s please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the points being made and not attack one another’s motivations or character.
You didn’t show any such thing. Correlations imply nothing about causation. You give lip service to this fundamental maxim of statistics, but then you ignore it by saying that correlations do in fact imply something about causation.
And even if they did, you continue to cherry pick your data and ignore the positive correlations between gay marriage and positive social outcomes. You can’t have it both ways. Either correlation says something about causation, or it doesn’t (hint: it doesn’t).
You’re confusing probabilities with fundamental principles of statistical inference. A probability is just that: the likelihood that rejecting the null hypothesis is justified. What you don’t seem to understand is that correlations say nothing about whether or not a null hypothesis about causality can be rejected. Nada. Zilch. It is a zero probability until proper causal research can be done. It is impossible to draw any causal conclusions based on correlations alone.
Wrong. I said correlations say nothing about causality, which you can read in any introductory statistics textbook. There were no “probabilities” that I disagreed with, because it is impossible to draw any conclusions about such probabilities based on correlation data alone.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Fine. If orientation cannot be changed (yet), the self-destructive behavior associated with it (promiscuity, disease transmission, suicidality,…) certainly can. [/quote]
If marriage reduces self-destructive behavior in gays, would you support it?