[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
I can’t find where the cali legislature acted at all. Prop 22 was passed 61-39. The cali SC stepped in and struck it down.
Please show where and when the legislature acted at all on this matter after prop 22.
Seems that there is a new proposition - Prop 8 - on the ballot that is worded exactly like 22 but is an actual amendment to the cali constitution.
I know it’s a wiki link, but it contained all the info I was looking for - except any action by the legislature after Prop 22.
So please - show me where the legislature acted on this.
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”. [/quote]
Well, there is lots of “inequality” as it pertains to positive rights. Equality in negative rights does not automatically produce equality in negative rights. That is the difference - and it is a crucial one.
[quote]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]
No, for two reasons: (1) the law must always be overinclusive as a practical matter, and (2) the purpose of marriage is still served by the marriage where someone is infertile and must “go surrogate” or adopt: the marriage still serves to keep the other fertile partner from gallavanting around and having kids out of wedlock, one of the important functions of marriage.
Already did, but naturally, you want to start over again. In another thread, cropped from several posts:
[i]Incorrect - and this has been covered in the pages you can’t be bothered to read. Mixed-race marriages are a completely different animal, because the concern over them - rightly or wrongly - was whether it was a good idea for races to mix.
The institution of marriage w/r/t mixed-races was not the issue, because it continued to provide the social benefits related to binary heterosexual unions related to child bearing/rearing, sexual jealousy, etc.
…
You offer a red herring - the first of many. The analogy is a bad one, because the argument wasn’t that mixed-race marriages would destroy marriage broadly as an institution in society, but would negatively impact racial purity, etc.
But you miss the point - there is nothing “irrational” about not wanting interracial marriages. It is perfectly rational to want to protect racial purity if you think that it is a moral good to protect racial purity.
You see, we didn’t change our mind on mixed-race marriages because they were “irrational” - we changed our minds on the moral worth of preserving racial purity.
Again, here is where you come up short - the situations aren’t the same. It isn’t a matter of being “irrational” - it is a matter of pegging certain public policy to moral goods.
As such, you must present an argument that satisfies the same “moral good” question that interracial marriages did - and you haven’t come close.[/i]
The right at issue was not marriage, it was the right to not have the state prohibit the mixing of races.
You haven’t produced an argument why government benefits equals the moral good of racial integration and tearing down legal barriers that protect racial supremacy in society, so the analogy is bunk.
Then why tell Zap that polygamy is irrelevant to your Crusade when the opposite is true?
Polygamy has inherent problems, but it suffers the same fate that gay marriage does - it threatens to undermine traditional marriage by virtue of its existence.
They are two sides of the same coin - each one takes one “variable” of traditional marriage and changes it: one is number of partners, one is gender of partners.
Both should be resisted in the name of protecting and strengthening the venerable institution of marriage, the one that actually serves a purpose other than therapeutic sentimentalism.
Soon, a comprehensive reply to your torturing of science in the name of your ideology, but first, supper.
But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?
Ask a better preliminary question - why are there kids that nobody wants? Why are there children born not being raised by their biological parents? If there are multitudes of children in need of a home, ask a better question - why are they in this predicament in the first place?
We should hacking at the root, not the branch, of the problem.[/quote]
Sure, but in the meantime, couldn’t a gay couple raise a child with no detriment to its mental faculties.
Besides, parents die leaving their children parentless often enough for us to understand that is not necessarily a “societal” issue that needs to be solved.
Ok, I have held back for a while, but I have to interject here.
I recently went through my annual Cultural Awareness Training, where we are told to accept everyone of all different cultures. No problems here. Suddenly, being Gay has now become a culture, and I’m sapposed to just accept it.
I was wondering, when did being Gay become a culture? I know, one of the defintions of culture is the behaviors and beliefs/ characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group ie: the youth culture; the drug culture.
Here is my predicament, and maybe you all can figure this out. If one is Gay, they can always decide tomorrow I will not be gay. If you have a different skin color, you can’t just decide to change it. So, is it really fair?
One can change their mind to fit in. So, what’s the deal? I just don’t get it. This is a serious question and not ment to poke anyone or demean anyone. Just a serious question. I have my own ideas about gays and forcing their agenda on society.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Here is my predicament, and maybe you all can figure this out. If one is Gay, they can always decide tomorrow I will not be gay.[/quote]
I don’t know where you got that idea. I’m gay, and I could no more decide to be straight than you could decide to be gay.
Regardless, let’s say sexual orientation was a choice for everyone. What would that matter? Relgion is a choice, and yet people are expected to respect religious differences.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Relgion is a choice, and yet people are expected to respect religious differences.
[/quote]
Which also should be a personal thing that the government doesn’t get involved in. There is a concept of separation of church and state – let us carry that concept to every facet of society and we would all be much happier.
I should be free to discriminate against Scientologists as much as I discriminate against Satanists – or even gay people if I want.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?
First, it’s not me saying it. I’m sharing the conclusions of the medical and mental health organizations that have actually conducted the scientific research on the issue.
More lies…statistically there have not been enough children raised solely by two gay parents to come to any sort of conclusion.
forlife knows that no one is going to check his information…But I did…
[/quote]
As to Forlife’s recitation that “correlation does not imply causation”:
You continue to parrot something you heard in a class or in a seminar somewhere, and it is getting tired. Science certainly cares about correlations that suggest a causation - in fact, we wouldn’t even have “science” if it didn’t.
Let’s start at the beginning of your nonsense.
First, I cobbled this from Wikipedia, as it saves me the typing:
[i]The conventional dictum that “correlation does not imply causation” means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables.
This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).[/i]
How interesting. A step further:
[i]In the strictest sense, it is always correct to say “Correlation does not imply causation”. However, the word “imply” in casual use loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; correlation is needed for causation to be proved.
However, in logic, the technical use of the word “implies” means
* to be a [u][b]sufficient[/b][/u] circumstance.
This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p —> q. That is “if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows.”
[u][b]In contrast, the everyday English meaning of “imply” is
* To indicate or suggest.[/u][/b]
[b]To say that “Correlation does not suggest causation” is false: A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests some causal relationship (or implies it, in the casual sense of the word).
[/b]What correlation does not do is prove causation. Arguments that assert this suffer from the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.[/i]
Nasty bit of truth, that. The issue is that “imply”, strictly used in a statistical vernacular, means something different than “suggest”, as it often does in common usage.
Correlation most certainly can suggest causation, depsite your hysterical protestations the contrary that correlations are absolutely meaningless.
Don’t take my word for it:
[i] One thing you’ll constantly hear in discussions is “correlation does not imply causation”. Causation isn’t really a mathematical notion - and that’s the root of that confusion. Correlation means that as one value changes, another variable changes in the same way.
Causation means that when one value changes, it causes the other to change. There is a very big difference between causation and correlation…
The catch - and it’s a big one - is that correlation does strongly suggest a causal relationship. (There’s a Yale professor of statistics who’s famous for saying something close to “Correlation is not the same thing as causation - but it’s a darn good hint!”. )
It may not be the case that X causes Y or Y causes X - but if there’s a strong correlation between them, [u][b]you should suspect that there’s a causal relationship. It may be that both X and Y are dependent on some third factor (is in the vaccine case).
But too often, the mantra “correlation does not imply causation” is a hand-waving way of dismissing data that the speaker doesn’t feel like dealing with.[/b][/u][/i]
Well stated, and let’s be honest - that is exactly what we are seeing here. Gay marriage opponents offer some unfavorable correlations w/r/t gay marriage in Scandinavia, suggesting “there is a good hint” that gay marriage may be causing problems with traditional marriage.
That has been the argument since it was first rolled out by BostonBarrister (I think it was him) - the suspicion, based on the correlations, of a causal relationship, and thus the next step would be to investigate further and see if there is a mechanism that would explain it.
But, we get the classic Foflife defense - what the professor here notes is “a hand-waving of dismissing data that Forlife doesn’t feel like dealing with”. Instead of recognizing those correlations as possibly damning, you burst out into a tantrum about how correlations are essentially meaningless for purposes of trying to determine causation.
Completely, irrefutably, and patently [u]false[/u] - and your game is up.
More:
[i]I shed an invisible tear whenever I hear “correlation does not imply causation” . . Of course, there�??s truth to it. It saddens me because:
It’s dismissive. It is often used to dismiss data from which something can be learned. The life-saving notion that smoking causes lung cancer was almost entirely built on correlations. For too long, these correlations were dismissed.
It’s misleading. In real life, nothing unfailingly implies causation. In my experience, every data set has more than one interpretation. To “imply” causation requires diverse approaches and correlations are often among them.
It’s a missed opportunity �?? namely, an opportunity to make a more nuanced statement about what we can learn from the data.
It’s dogmatic . . . Some correlations, such as those from “natural experiments,” imply causation much more than others. I suspect it does more harm than good to lump all of them together.[/i]
Now, to the other side of your hypocrisy. Despite the fact that there is no proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait - only correlative data - suddenly you love and adore the idea that important “probabilities” can be fairly extrapolated from an area of science where we have no proof.
When it suits you, correlations as good suggestions of proof are Forlife’s best friend forever - when correlations raise a point that maybe, just maybe gay marriage might be bad for traditional marriage, you become the shrieking child with your fingers in your ears saying such idiotic things as “correlations mean nothing!!!”
You should note, I personally think there are some decent correlations that suggest homosexuality has a genetic component. The difference is - I think correlations provide useful information in hunting conclusions.
You, on the other hand, continue to be a rabid ideologue making some of the most outrageous claims about “science” we have ever seen on these boards.
It smells of desperation - and that makes sense: you can’t even concede the slightest position on your side of the Crusade. You won’t for a second even admit there might be a possibility that alternative marriage arrangements could harm the existing institution.
It is embarrassing to behold - and it actually hurts your cause more than it helps.
And this is why I raise the issue of “intellectual dishonesty” - not to impugn your motives necessarily, but to highlight the fact that you won’t (or can’t) be objective on the issue.
You’ve already admitted that you can’t have an open mind on the issue - and now we see proof.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?[/quote]
You, sir, don’t think very much do you?
Just because homosexuality isn’t totally genetic, doesn’t make it any more likely for a child raised by gays to be gay. Empirical evidence suggests it has no bearing. So… what the hell are you talking about?
Gay people certainly weren’t raised by gay parents. In fact, I challenge you to find ONE anecdotal piece of evidence supporting that claim.
For most of us, we don’t choose who we find attractive. They simply are.
But you were married and had children by your former wife…that means you found women attractive…But now you find men attractive. And maybe someday you’ll once again find women attractive.
Yea, it’s a choice.
Bullshitter.[/quote]
So I assume you could still choose to be attracted to 6 year olds with pig tails like you did in kindergarten, yes?
For most of us, we don’t choose who we find attractive. They simply are.
But you were married and had children by your former wife…that means you found women attractive…But now you find men attractive. And maybe someday you’ll once again find women attractive.
Yea, it’s a choice.
Bullshitter.
So I assume you could still choose to be attracted to 6 year olds with pig tails like you did in kindergarten, yes?
Christian.
[/quote]
So are you now equating homosexuality with child molestation?
You’re treading on the same ice as forlife’s insinuation that homosexuality is a mental condition like PTSD.
If you guys are going to argue for the gay side - maybe stop comparing it to stupid shit.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Ok, I have held back for a while, but I have to interject here.
I recently went through my annual Cultural Awareness Training, where we are told to accept everyone of all different cultures. No problems here. Suddenly, being Gay has now become a culture, and I’m sapposed to just accept it.
I was wondering, when did being Gay become a culture? I know, one of the defintions of culture is the behaviors and beliefs/ characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group ie: the youth culture; the drug culture.
Here is my predicament, and maybe you all can figure this out. If one is Gay, they can always decide tomorrow I will not be gay. If you have a different skin color, you can’t just decide to change it. So, is it really fair?
One can change their mind to fit in. So, what’s the deal? I just don’t get it. This is a serious question and not ment to poke anyone or demean anyone. Just a serious question. I have my own ideas about gays and forcing their agenda on society.[/quote]
Culture, or in this case subcultures are defined along faultlines which delineate groups from each other. As you alluded to yourself, this can go along (among others) ethnic, linguistic, religious faultlines. Beside the point that the science with regards to sexual orientation seems to indicate that you can’t just change it by force of will, your social role (including your choice of partner) is influenced by the (sub)cultural groups you belong to.
But - your membership is not always defined by factors which are irreversible. Membership to a religious group can be changed - and you may leave your community; but having this choice doesn’t mean your previous religious group doesn’t constitute a valid subculture.
Now, ‘gay sub-culture’ is defined strongly by a shared specific interest in finding a partner that fulfils certain criteria (the same sex as yours), and it is defined by its attitudes towards the society around it; you will have people signifying their membership by displaying certain behaviours, style of clothing and attitudes (criticism of which often starts discussions about ‘teh ghey’ even in these forums), or political/social activism.
So, in a nutshell - it’s irrelevant if what makes you part of a cultural group is reversible or not; if a reasonably large group within society starts defining itself as a subculture, and is recognised as such by society around it - it becomes one. How ever heavy handed your cultural awareness training may have been - and I’ve seen some bad stuff myself - they are right to bring it up.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Politics should not enter into science, but it does.[/quote]
I agree with you. However, science has built in safeguards against these biases, which raw opinion does not. Scientific studies must be peer-reviewed in order to be published in respected journals, and unless the claims can be replicated under the same conditions, they are suspect. Collectively, over time and a large number of studies finding the same results, increasing confidence can be placed in the conclusions drawn from the research.
The claims of Copernicus were subject to scientific investigation, just as the claims of the Catholic church were. Over a number of years, the accumulated evidence made it clear that Copernicus was correct.
It would be foolish to place the personal opinion of medieval Catholics at the same level as the consensual conclusions of the scientific community on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Science has clearly shown that it does, and the conclusions of science trump personal opinion.
Science isn’t perfect and it does sometimes get things wrong, but it usually corrects itself and is the best tool we have for understanding objective truth.