The Saturday “GOP is the Gay (marriage) Old Party” thread

posted at 8:31 am on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Sadly for all of us, the world failed to be utterly destroyed by either Sequestration Freaky Friday or any additional visits of world shattering comets. (At least on the first pass, that is.) So we may as well tempt fate and toss another stick of dynamite on the fire.

For a long time now, opposition to gay marriage has been one of the cornerstones of the conservative platform, libertarian circles aside. But with the sudden splash of cold water to the face that came with the last election, the drums in the deepest recesses of Moria have been growing louder. And some of the drumming is coming from Cato.

With the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cato Institute has joined the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) on an amicus brief that focuses on supporting marriage equality under the Equal Protection Clause. Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of “any person” within U.S. jurisdiction.

Bilbo’s old sword began to glow a bit more when George Scoville sat down at his keyboard.

Republican lawmakers stand athwart marriage equality at their peril

Craig Stowell always suspected his brother might be gay, and he made sure to let his brother know he would love him no matter what if his brother ever came out to the family. It was the right thing to do. But Stowell didn’t become involved in political fights for marriage equality until Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature introduced HB 437 in 2011 to repeal the Granite State’s 2010 law conferring the same state protections on same-sex marriages that traditional marriages enjoy. (The legislature had tried previously — and failed — to repeal New Hampshire’s 2006 law protecting civil unions between gay couples.) Gay marriage proponents defeated HB 437 in 2012.

“When I look at my brother,” the New Hampshire Republican politico and Iraq War veteran told me over the phone, “I can’t help but want him to have the same rights I have.” As support for marriage equality continues to grow across the country, Republican lawmakers should embrace the opportunity to become leaders on the issue.

Long time Hot Air favorite Liz Mair has weighed in as well.

There are plenty of bad reasons to support gay marriage running around today, depending on where your priorities settle out. Yes, I could point out the increasing demographic shift which shows that younger voters support the idea across party lines more than they oppose it. But if the only reason you have to support gay marriage is a fear of losing yet another election or five, that doesn’t come across as a very sincere, heartfelt position.

The “big tent” argument carries considerably more appeal, since there’s obviously nothing wrong with a party serving as a forum for diverse opinions to be vigorously debated. But again… when brought up as the only positive factor in favor of the idea, it still seems to carry with it a bit of hypocritical seasoning. Welcoming people you clearly oppose on one of their fundamental issues simply for the purpose of trying to talk them out of it is small “d” democratic in nature, but lacks a certain esprit de corps.

In the end, the only pitch I would make on this subject is the same one I’ve had for years. It’s not that I particularly give a hoot who gets married to whom, nor the spiritual implications of any given union. Those are matters for the individuals to wrestle to the ground between themselves and their higher power. No, in the end the only thing which moves the needle on this for me is the conviction that the government – pretty much at any level – has no license to be involved in the business of marriage. And yes, that includes the oft foisted compromise we hear of it being “a state level issue.” (This, in my opinion, is the last refuge of people who don’t want to oppose or support gay marriage openly for fear of electoral retribution, but want to hang on to credentials with the conservative base.)

If we don’t want the government expanding its reach into every aspect of our lives and restricting itself to its proper and necessary functions, leaving the private matters of the individual up to them, there seems to be little else to say. If Uncle Sam came to your door trying to tell you who you must marry, I’d be right there defending you against them. But they’re not in this case. And why is marriage locked into the tax code and so many other aspects of law to begin with, making it all the harder to extract? I can understand credits for raising the next generation of children – yes, even adopted ones – but why for a spouse? Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

It’s not an even deal for the citizens in the end. And if it turns out that accepting such a concept winds up stopping another drubbing at the polls, well that’s just a bonus. You may now commence breaking out the flamethrowers


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Maybe we misunderstood Karmis intent.

It does appear though that Karmi is arguing for lower ages of consent and more understanding

CW on August 24, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Yes. Puberty should be a key in deciding. Maybe puberty is why Muslims keep girls in burkas – grin. Anyway, the world is sane so I am clearly insane…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Nope, I guess we took him meaning correctly.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Why are you bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with gay marriage? If you want to talk about lowering the age of consent then wait for a thread on that topic or try to steer and open thread in that direction.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Why are you bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with gay marriage? If you want to talk about lowering the age of consent then wait for a thread on that topic or try to steer and open thread in that direction.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Because so many claim that the fears of it riding the coattails of the Gay Rights movement is unfounded. Do you see a reason why one should not? I mean, it’s not like calling someone a hater or a homophobe just to shut down the conversation.

I can’t for the life of me understand why it is so hard to just condemn. If you’re a gay man, you can’t be happy with the kind of comment libfreeordie made.

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Because so many claim that the fears of it riding the coattails of the Gay Rights movement is unfounded.

What you’re saying in terms of the gay marriage debate is an appeal to probability logical fallacy, which is a non sequitur. You can fear it all you want, your fear is just stupid.

Do you see a reason why one should not?

It’s stupid and based on fallacious reasoning.

I mean, it’s not like calling someone a hater or a homophobe just to shut down the conversation.

Calling someone a homophobe can be based on evidence (i.e.: Someone could admit to not liking gay people). That’s distinctly different than a fallacious argument.

I can’t for the life of me understand why it is so hard to just condemn.

Why what’s so hard to condemn? Using fallacious arguments? That’s easy to condemn because it’s stupid and a distraction.

If you’re a gay man, you can’t be happy with the kind of comment libfreeordie made.

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Find a gay man and ask him. But it doesn’t have anything to do with a discussion on legalizing gay marriage.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I hope that didn’t take long because nothing you wrote is germane to what I asked or simply your opinion.

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:51 PM

But I guess you’d like your comment to make it okay to use invectives like homophobe in order to shut down a conversation without addressing people’s concerns about the direction society is going.

Here’s a thought.

If you really want to constrain conversation to the narrow limits of what you can or can’t defend, I suggest it would be fair if in turn, you avoid calling folks, “homophobes” until a thread specifically comes up about homophobes. … until a thread comes up about latency. … until a thread comes up about haters. … until a thread comes up about “the usual suspects”.

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Pointing out your entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning isn’t germane to your argument? Actually, it pretty much undercuts your entire argument and shows you have no point.

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 10:54 PM

I think I’ve only ever called one person directly a homophobe and that was after that person said that they don’t like gay people.

But I see what you did there, or rather what you tried to do. Initially you were trying to bring a separate and unrelated issue (lowering the age of consent) into a thread that’s about supporting the legalization of gay marriage. Those two issues are separate because one does not necessarily follow from the other. That’s not like admitting to being a homophobe and then being called one.

If you failed Logic 101 I’m happy to explain in more detail what you’ve done wrong.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM

alchemist19 on March 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM

I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think it’s okay to be so insulting. Now, you called my comments stupid and you make these innuedos that I’ve failed “something, all the while dancing around a pretty simple question.

I know this is very difficult to address. But as someone who is on record as a person that supports civil unions in order for non-traditional couples to protect each other and demonstrate their commitment to each other, I wouldn’t imagine I’d be that offensive to discuss other concerns with that I had in a more civil manner. I’ve never spoken down against any specific aspect of the gay lifestlye and been as respectful as one can be in exchanges. I have been called every name in the book in return and even told that people making comments to me, wished harm to come to me. I’ve read comments all around conversations I’ve had about the “patient souls” that debate with me while I’ve been called those names and threatened.

Why is it so hard for the gay commenters on this site to read the examples I give in comments made and simply state that they condemn lowering the age of consent?

Otherwise, most of your comment in psychology terms is, “Reaction Formation”. You’ve decided the subject is immaterial to the thread you addressing it isn’t necessary. It’s a form of rationalization. I get that from my students.

Unless you think lowering the age of consent is an appropriate direction society to move, what would be so hard about assuaging my concerns?

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Too hard to answer?

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:08 AM

hawkdriver on March 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM

I can empathize with you if you’ve been insulted but that’s something you should really take that up with the people who’ve insulted you. It’s not really germane to a discussion with me though (unless I’ve insulted you personally somewhere, and if I have I’m happy to go back and take a look at it.)

I draw a line between attacking a person and attacking their point and my intention was the latter; good people make bad arguments and bad people make good arguments. I did heap a fair amount of scorn on your point about lowering the age of consent, but none of that is directed at you as a person. Your bringing up the issue of the age of consent in response to a thread that deals with the legality of gay marriage indicates to me that you’re trying to link those two issues when no such link exists. If your goal is to link those two (i.e.: Legalizing gay marriage will mean the age of consent is going to be lowered) then that is an appeal to probability logical fallacy. That is what I took your comments to mean on account of you bringing the random, unrelated issue of consent age into the thread. Were you not trying to link those disparate issues?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Too hard to answer?

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Phone call. :)

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 12:19 AM

The bottom line after all your mimicking of my comment content, is that you can’t answer the question.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:39 AM

You can’t even indulge my impertinence.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:41 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:39 AM

I thought you were trying to mimic mine as best you could. Sincerest form of flattery and whatnot. :-)

I never answered the question about the age of consent because I haven’t really put a great deal of thought into it on account of it not being discussed as a serious issue that’s likely to be dealt with anytime soon, and it’s totally off topic and I dislike it when threads start to digress.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 12:39 AM

And are you implying that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the age of consent being lowered?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 1:03 AM

I thought you were trying to mimic mine as best you could. Sincerest form of flattery and whatnot. :-)

Well, I know it’s neat to see a new word and get a chance to use it so I’m not offended. I worry you don’t see that you’re doing it. It’s not a big deal.

I never answered the question about the age of consent because I haven’t really put a great deal of thought into it on account of it not being discussed as a serious issue that’s likely to be dealt with anytime soon, and it’s totally off topic and I dislike it when threads start to digress.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM

Sorry, but I find it hard to buy that. My opinion is that you’re just refusing to answer a simple question because it validates what many say they are concerned with. I mean, most people have an opinion. I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea. And really, I’m at the point where I’m leaning toward not taking you serious at all. Exchanging comments here isn’t a game for me. I asked a question to an open forum about a concern. That many voice but your side seems to feel no desire to answer. As if something in your intent is being hidden. No one seems to be able to answer without making a game out of it.

I’ll just assume you think it would be alright to lower the age of consent.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 1:25 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 1:25 AM

I try to engage people in and open, honest, intellectual discussion and either persuade or be persuaded. The facts and the truth are my only weapons and if they’re not enough for you then there’s not much I can do. I’ve learned my lesson about getting too into a discussion on social policy where I haven’t thoroughly and properly considered the issue (coincidentally it was my early opposition to gay marriage where I got in trouble on this) and so now if someone’s going into something completely off-the-wall that’s way outside of what’s being talked about as far as current issues go I don’t like to jump in with both feet before I’ve really had a chance to consider my position. You’re a lot less likely to say things you’re going to regret if you take the time to think through what you’re saying. If you want to take that and jump to a conclusion just to support a narrative of yours then I can’t stop you even if what you’re doing wrong.

In case you missed it, are you implying that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the age of consent being lowered?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 1:35 AM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 1:35 AM

Nice dodge but not convincing. Sorry. Again, I know it’s hard to not say too much of what you believe. I completely understand.

I’ll try again with someone I can take seriously.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 AM

When I pointed out your use of a logical fallacy, that your entire argument was garbage and refused to say anything stupid for you to try and deflect attention onto you figured out you were trapped and beat a hasty strategic retreat. I’ll give you this, you figured out to do that way faster than some. But your dodge wasn’t even a nice one.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM

I don’t buy into that speculation that if we allow gay marriage, we’re gonna have to take the rest of the so-called “gay agenda” wholesale. I mean, we didn’t succumb to the Black Panthers and their agenda when we allowed interracial marriages and struck down Jim Crow, did we?

I trust our lawmakers and the voting public will keep a level head and keep the children and churches in mind while working gay marriage or civil unions into the system. There should definitely be legal protections for churches and business, sure. But let’s not deny same-sex couples equal marriage benefits just because some people are gonna keep wanting their way for everything. It’s like cancelling recess for the entire class because one kid acted up. We’re not in elementary school anymore.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 2:04 AM

When I pointed out your use of a logical fallacy, that your entire argument was garbage and refused to say anything stupid for you to try and deflect attention onto you figured out you were trapped and beat a hasty strategic retreat. I’ll give you this, you figured out to do that way faster than some. But your dodge wasn’t even a nice one.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM

No, you simply refused to answer a question. It’s a game here to see how long you can string along not addressing the focal point of an exchange.

I provided a ton of comments from people right here advocating lowering the age of consent. Something gay rights proponents say is not happening. Clearly I’ve demonstrated proof of my concern. You call it a fallacious argument because it’s embarrassing for you to talk about. What you’re doing is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut.

You simply confirm my suspicions that the believe is more wide spread than just those that have gone on record.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

My friend, those churches and businesses are being sued as we write. That is already happening and has been for some time.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

“belief”

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I provided a ton of comments from people right here advocating lowering the age of consent. – hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM

You provided two posters libfreeordie and Karmi who made questionable statements about the lowering the age of consent. Libfreeordie said he was 17 and pursued an older gay male in his thirties and did not see anything wrong with a 45 year old and a 16 year having sex. I don’t agree with him. But then I do think that some heterosexual golddiggers certainly would. I don’t know what the heck Karmi is talking about. Perhaps he or she is do is just playing games. As for the age of consent in the United States it does vary from 14 all the way up to 18. Here is the list:

STATE
AGE
Alabama
16
Alaska
16
Arizona
18
Arkansas
16
California
18
Colorado
15
Connecticut
15
D.C.
16
Delaware
16
Florida
16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia
16
Hawaii
14
Idaho
14
Illinois
16/17
Indiana
16
Iowa
18
Kansas
16
Kentucky
16 – [1]
Louisiana
17
Maine
16
Maryland
16
Massachusetts
16/18
Michigan
16
Minnesota
16
Mississippi
16 – [2]
Missouri
17
Montana
16
Nebraska
16
Nevada
16
New Hampshire
16/18
New Jersey
16/18
New Mexico
17
New York
17
North Carolina
16
North Dakota
18
Ohio
16
Oklahoma
16
Oregon
18
Pennsylvania
16
Rhode Island
16
South Carolina
14/16
South Dakota
16
Tennessee
18
Texas
17
Utah
16/18
Vermont
16
Virginia
15
Washington
16
West Virginia
16
Wisconsin
18
Wyoming
16
Puerto Rico
18

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

There are many more commenters than just two and it’s more than “questionable comments”. Those two also specifically called for lowering the age of consent.

What’s so hard about saying that’s wrong.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 3:55 PM

No, you simply refused to answer a question. It’s a game here to see how long you can string along not addressing the focal point of an exchange.

The focal point is you don’t have a point because if you’re saying legalizing gay marriage is going to lead to a lowering of the age of consent then that’s a logically fallacious argument, and if you’re not saying legalizing gay marriage will lead to a lowering of the age of consent then you’re trying to distract from the issue of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized.

I provided a ton of comments from people right here advocating lowering the age of consent.

By “a ton” you mean “statements from two people”. That’s anecdotal evidence and the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. I think Social Security and Medicare should be ended. I can probably find one other person on Hot Gas who agrees with me. Is that the position of everyone on the right? No.

Something gay rights proponents say is not happening.

Mainly because it’s not, or at least you’ve not presented any evidence that it’s a necessary outcome from legalizing gay marriage. We struck down all the sodomy laws and the age of consent has stuck. Heterosexuals who want to have sex and/or marry young haven’t had much success in lowering the age of consent laws. Yet here you sit seeming to (because you won’t say if it’s your intention or not) saying that gay marriage will be what pushes consent laws off the books all thanks to two (TWO!) anecdotal statements.

Clearly I’ve demonstrated proof of my concern.

You’ve demonstrated you have a concern and I’ve demonstrated it’s a baseless one.

You call it a fallacious argument because it’s embarrassing for you to talk about.

No, I called it a fallacious argument because it is a fallacious argument. Google “appeal to probability logical fallacy” and check for yourself.

What you’re doing is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut.

Or tantamount to showing which one of us passed Logic 101 and which prefers to keep digging the hole they’re in a little bit deeper. See above.

You simply confirm my suspicions that the believe is more wide spread than just those that have gone on record.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM

And you’ve confirmed my suspicion that you have a penchant for non sequiturs.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM

There are many more commenters than just two and it’s more than “questionable comments”. Those two also specifically called for lowering the age of consent.

What’s so hard about saying that’s wrong. – hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Hawkdriver, after looking at the long list of age of consent in our 50 states it varies from all the way from 14 to 18. I ask you, where should it be set? Frankly, I think 14 is way too low and 18 is too high. I don’t think that 19 year old male should go jail for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in California. The flaming liberal state of California’s age of consent is 18. Conservative Idaho’s age of consent is 14.

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

You are trying to say that pedophilia is its own orientation, correct? This means they are not homo or hetro but just pedo. I frankly find that quite dangerous thinking. I, however disagree with that thinking. I think pedophiles are homo or hetero with a mental condition which makes the attracted to children. So whether or not their homo or hetero with “orientation to children” is irrelevant. The reason I think this is dangerous is this kind of thinking is the first line to pedo getting the “I can’t help I have an orientation” line of defense.

I’ve heard of suggestions by psychologists & psychiatrists that pedophilia is a distinct orientation all its own, but am not that familiar with this nor do I know if any consensus has been reached on that score. It really doesn’t matter IMO because whether it is a distinct orientation or not it clearly is a “mental condition”, despite attempts by a radical few to argue otherwise, and some may find this ironic but I also agree with labelling it a “sexual deviance” – with all the pejorative sense this term holds. I am somewhat sympathetic with someone’s else struggles right up to the point that children are placed in danger and then it evaporates completely. As for using this as a defense, I’m not aware of this ever being tried but really it wouldn’t matter if pedophilia is a distinct orientation or not. Any such defense would have to overcome laws on competency and whether the defendant was capable of understanding “right from wrong” at the time they committed their crime. I suppose some lawyer could spin a great tale but I doubt many juries would find much sympathy with an abused child as the victim.

Agreed, but I would also say the reverse is also true. No one would be called a bigot if they were to object strongly to a hetero man taking a group of girls out camping unsupervised. Yet when someone does it with the Boy Scouts and a gay male the bigot word is thrown out all over the place.

Note your use of the word “unsupervised” above. It would unwise to put any leader by themselves with children regardless of their orientation, not only for the sake of the kids but to protect the leader from false accusations. Smart men both gay and straight have known this for years now, which is why they’ll try to avoid situations like being alone in a room with a female co-worker with the door closed.

First off, I am not in the least religious, so as far as what the religious right does; I could care less.

Ok, I’m used to dealing with a different crowd on Hot Air when it comes to these discussions.

Furthermore, when I did exactly what you espouse above, you said and I quote.. “I couldn’t impose my views on others.”
melle1228 on March 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I meant in terms of the law.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:27 PM

My friend, those churches and businesses are being sued as we write. That is already happening and has been for some time.

hawkdriver on March 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Which churches in the USA are being sued and for what reason? Please provide specific examples.

As for businesses, even without SSM some are being sued for violating anti-discrimination statutes in various jurisdictions for refusing service based solely on sexual orientation. These same statutes also prohibit such discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. I seriously question whether this would bother you as much if say a gay-owned business refused service to a customer based solely on their religion. Or scratch that, let’s say any business and not just a gay-owned one.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Hawkdriver, after looking at the long list of age of consent in our 50 states it varies from all the way from 14 to 18. I ask you, where should it be set? Frankly, I think 14 is way too low and 18 is too high. I don’t think that 19 year old male should go jail for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in California. The flaming liberal state of California’s age of consent is 18. Conservative Idaho’s age of consent is 14.

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

By the same token, I’d be very uncomfortable with a 30 or 40 year old person having sexual relations with someone 14-17 regardless of the age of consent law.

On a related note, I’ve been engaged in some genealogical research lately and have been uncomfortable to find the number of young women marrying older men. I’m talking about 15 or 16 year old girls marrying men in their 20s. This wasn’t that uncommon over a hundred years ago in rural communities. So far we’re talking about places in the South, West and North of the USA as well as Canada from what I’ve found. Different time for sure but it’s still uncomfortable to see.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I’m sorry, but your comments are just a joke. Not worth the time.

And you’re pretty disingenuous. You said you called one guy a homophobe because he called you a name? You’ve actually called quite a few people homophobes. Over respectful comments and questions made to you. Don’t bother calling me on it because I’d be happy to post them.

I’m not going to play your game of inventing conversation that didn’t take place and points you didn’t win or whatever you think you’re doing.

Again, the bottom line is you can’t answer a question. You won’t answer a question. “You” decide it wasn’t pertinate to the thread. Yet you call people a homophobe and invoke the latent dodge charge all the time. What does either of those departures from the comments have to do with any debate you’ve been involved with here. Nothing.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:28 AM

SC.Charlie on March 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM

This is what I’ve talked about before. You’re one of the few people you can count on to restore some faith that people have genuine similar concerns from the gay community in areas where concerns are deep. I know you don’t particularly care to address comments I’ve made. I appreciate you answering.

You and I are in the same boat mostly concerning age. I wish it were 17 or 18 in all of our states. I joined the Army when I was 17 and I was probably too young. Looking back, I really don’t think 17 is any age one should be in the military. Even being old enough mentally to do that, I’m sure I wasn’t ready for a livelong relationship.

As far as relationships, very few teens are living outside their parents homes until they’re 17-18 at least. The idea that libfreeordie was cavorting with a middle aged man as a teenager is just abhorant to me. I cannot even imagine the parents that allowed that to happen. I’m sure there would be a lot of debate about my opinion as to what age is appropriate and it would be hard to argue that there have not been successful long relationships with couples that have joined at some of the ages states allow now. But my God, people on this site are talking about kids being fair game after turning the puberty corner. Others are talking about older adults with younger teens when they’re still of an age where they’d be in their parents home. And it seem revolting to few people. I know there are few comments made.

I do not believe everyone who is gay advocates this. But when you ask anyone about it, it seems like the question is near impossible to answer save for a few such as yourself. In the manner Zekecorlain has talked about it, he conceded in so many words that there is some acceptance of that aim.

You don’t know what you don’t know. To simply ask, appears to put one on the enemy of the movement category.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I seriously question whether this would bother you as much if say a gay-owned business refused service to a customer based solely on their religion. Or scratch that, let’s say any business and not just a gay-owned one.

JohnAGJ on March 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

You would be wrong.

If I went to an atheist photographer and asked him or her to photograph a religious ceremony I was having, I take that chance of objection. If they declined based on not supporting making images of something they truly thought was wrong, I would certainly not sue them for that. If they choose to not promore an activity or behavior, what right do I have to try to force them? On the other hand. Being a contract pilot for the military, I would train anyone sent to me as a professional. If that person were gay it would not matter. They would be trained as well as anyone assigned me in all of my 34 years doing that. If I were of any other mind, it would be discrimination. By the same token, I’m also an artist. When I retire, that is what I’ll do as my last career. If a same sex couple asked me to create an image or sculpture of them, I would have to decline.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:20 AM

Are your convicting convictions to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:21 AM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

Nothing turned up about churches in America being sued because they do not provide same-sex weddings. Perhaps you’d care to give some links?

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Please elaborate.

JohnAGJ on March 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

You would be wrong.

You may think that is true but I remain skeptical that this is really so. When people are turned away from more and more places just because of their faith and you still say this, perhaps then I’ll believe it.

If I went to an atheist photographer and asked him or her to photograph a religious ceremony I was having, I take that chance of objection. If they declined based on not supporting making images of something they truly thought was wrong, I would certainly not sue them for that. If they choose to not promore an activity or behavior, what right do I have to try to force them? On the other hand.

The same right as someone who was refused service because of their race. This goes back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which SCOTUS has upheld more than once as being constitutional. While I personally wouldn’t bother suing in most cases when it came to say a florist or photographer, I sure as heck would when it came to a hotel, gas station, etc. that did likewise.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:20 AM

JohnAGJ on March 7, 2013 at 8:58 AM

First, don’t arrange your reply to make it seem as thought I’ve made a comment that I haven’t.

You would be wrong.

You may think that is true but I remain skeptical that this is really so. When people are turned away from more and more places just because of their faith and you still say this, perhaps then I’ll believe it.

You would be calling me a liar then. I’ve already been turned away from places because I was military. You think it doesn’t already happen?

You comments concerning age of consent are also reasurring. Are your convicting to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Please elaborate.

JohnAGJ on March 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Are you acting like you didn’t see the correction I made? Here, it was right above the comment you left.

Are your convicting convictions to the point where you’d be active in making sure that didn’t happen?

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:59 AM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 4:21 AM

John, these are very easy to Google. If you really cannot find what I’m talking about I’ll post links for you, but I’ve done this before for several people and it really is easy enough to find them yourself.

Nothing turned up about churches in America being sued because they do not provide same-sex weddings. Perhaps you’d care to give some links?

Well, one you’re changing to one specific search. You said earlier you weren’t seeing the lawsuits against churches or business.

Sued for not selling a house to gay wedding franchise.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

If you don’t like my links, here one from a movement website.

The same church is now suing New Jersey.

There are a ton of these and I’m quite sure if you actually look, you’ll find them.

Gay organizations are routinely suing churches, church association and Christian businesses. You can support the tactic if you think that’s what you guys need to be doing. Just don’t say it doesn’t happen.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I’m sorry, but your comments are just a joke. Not worth the time.

I’m just trying to help you learn from your mistakes so you don’t make them again. If that’s not worth your time then it would explain a lot.

And you’re pretty disingenuous. You said you called one guy a homophobe because he called you a name? You’ve actually called quite a few people homophobes. Over respectful comments and questions made to you. Don’t bother calling me on it because I’d be happy to post them.

As I said, to my recollection I’ve only directly called one person on here a homophobe and that was after they said that gay people are lacking any merit and that his fear of gays was not irrational, but rather it was based on facts and years of observations. I stand by my characterization. If there are other examples of me doing it that I’m not remembering then you’re welcome to post it and I’ll take a look at why I said what I said but even if you find an example of me throwing the term around loosely it won’t make your argument any less fallacious.

I’m not going to play your game of inventing conversation that didn’t take place and points you didn’t win or whatever you think you’re doing.

Why would I need to invent “winning” anything? It would be much easier to just point out above where I proved your argument was fallacious if I wanted to “win” one.

Again, the bottom line is you can’t answer a question. You won’t answer a question. “You” decide it wasn’t pertinate to the thread. Yet you call people a homophobe and invoke the latent dodge charge all the time. What does either of those departures from the comments have to do with any debate you’ve been involved with here. Nothing.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 3:28 AM

I’m not sure whether you took my advice to use the Google or not but it seems that just to be on the safe side I’m going to have to do this. I’ll use Wikipedia’s definition rather than a textbook’s so you can check it for yourself “An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case).” Wikipedia even lists an appeal to probability fallacy as being a specific type of non-sequitur, and a non-sequitur is… “Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.” You’ve said (or at least you’ve seemed to be saying because you still refuse to say what your goal with the argument was) that if we legalize gay marriage then the age of consent is going to be lowered. That is not necessarily true. Non sequitur. Fallacious argument.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Hey, look at that! You’ve changed fallacies and moved on from non-sequiturs to the seemingly more common red herring arguments against gay marriage.

Gay marriage is at best incidental in all these examples. These people/groups are all being sued because they have run up against anti-discrimination laws. We actually went through this a way upthread. If you oppose anti-discrimination laws then say so and take up that issue. The gay marriage debate is a separate matter.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM

You always end up insulting and inventing exchanges that never happened.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 1:59 PM

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You claiming a fallacy in my argument doesn’t make it so just because you’ve said it. You do that to nearly everyone you exchange with though. Regardless of the exchange, you simply proclaim, you’ve proven your point. You’ve neither disproved a single thing I’ve stated or introduced a single fact that proving what you’ve said.

So, there’s that.

Your commentary as a whole is a case study in rationalization.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM

You always end up insulting and inventing exchanges that never happened.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The exchange I invented can be found on the 7th comment page of this thread. Relevant comment is here:

alchemist19 on March 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

You claiming a fallacy in my argument doesn’t make it so just because you’ve said it.

True enough. If I had just said “Your argument is fallacious,” then that would be lazy of me even if your argument was in fact fallacious. That’s why I took the time to go through which fallacy you had used and why your argument fit so perfectly into said fallacy.

You do that to nearly everyone you exchange with though.

It’s not my fault that none of the opponents of gay marriage have yet to make an argument that wasn’t fallacious. I’m really hoping someone eventually does.

Regardless of the exchange, you simply proclaim, you’ve proven your point.

I try to take the time to prove my point. Like with you where I explain what the type of fallacy you were employing was and why you can’t logically do that.

You’ve neither disproved a single thing I’ve stated or introduced a single fact that proving what you’ve said.

I’m not trying to disprove your anecdotes, just to show that the conclusion you’ve drawn from them isn’t a logical argument against the legalization of gay marriage. And I’ve done that.

So, there’s that.

There is that.

Your commentary as a whole is a case study in rationalization.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’m not rationalizing anything because I’m not defending anything other than the use of logic in constructing arguments; I’m just explaining in the goriest detail necessary that you don’t have a logical argument. But if we’re trying to figure out who is engaged in defensive excuse-making then I think it’s more likely the one of us who made a fallacious argument (or arguments now that you’ve switched from non-sequiturs to red herrings) and then proclaimed “You always do this!” when taken to task. I understand the temptation to attack the messenger when you can’t attack the message so I don’t really hold it against you. My only hope is that you learn from this experience.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I’m not trying to disprove your anecdotes, just to show that the conclusion you’ve drawn from them isn’t a logical argument against the legalization of gay marriage. And I’ve done that.

First, you haven’t done anything of the kind.

Second, an “anecote” is a short or interesting account, which “may” depict a real incident or person. I’ve offered no anecdote to any of what I have specifically asserted in this thread. I’ve asserted that there’s a growing sentiment to lower the age of concent and that opinion is voiced with support here on Hot Air. I’ve provided ample actually comments made in that regard proving my assertion. Not an anecdote. I was also told by another commenter that they were unaware of any significant activity with gays suing churches or businesses. I’ve proved just a few of the many that can be garnered from a simple search through the internet. Not an anecdote.

Your characterizations of comments are again, nothing more than your own rationalizations. The more you comment, the more you mischaracterize anything I’ve said above.

So, there’s that also. At this point I’m actually starting to scratch my head and wonder why I’m continuting to even entertian the charges you level at me, (and really, anyone here you engage in that manner should ask themselves that) and am back to considering it a classic waste of time other than the fact that I’ve apparently introduced a few new words that you seem to have taken a liking to.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

“actual” comments …

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM

First, you haven’t done anything of the kind.

Did you perform as poorly in reading comprehension as you did in Logic 101?

Second, an “anecote” is a short or interesting account, which “may” depict a real incident or person. I’ve offered no anecdote to any of what I have specifically asserted in this thread.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Two people offered their short personal accounts (anecdotes) of why they believe the age of consent should be lowered and you have extrapolated those two isolated bits of evidence to….

I’ve asserted that there’s a growing sentiment to lower the age of concent and that opinion is voiced with support here on Hot Air. I’ve provided ample actually comments made in that regard proving my assertion.

….. a conclusion that there’s a spreading desire for the age of consent to go down. You clearly oppose that idea and you bring it up in the context of discussion on the legalization of gay marriage. No matter how much you might want everyone to think that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the age of consent going down, no matter how much you yourself may believe it, it’s a conclusion arrived at through fallacious logic.

Not an anecdote.

Citing two short comments on one random website is purely anecdotal. If you search the entire internet and come up with a few more it’s still anecdotal. And if you do manage to turn up something legitimate that shows there’s real movement to lower the age of consent it will all still be a non sequitur in the gay marriage discussion.

I was also told by another commenter that they were unaware of any significant activity with gays suing churches or businesses. I’ve proved just a few of the many that can be garnered from a simple search through the internet.

That you did.

Not an anecdote.

Not an anecdote but still a red herring in the gay marriage discussion.

Your characterizations of comments are again, nothing more than your own rationalizations. The more you comment, the more you mischaracterize anything I’ve said above.

If lowering the age of consent must directly follow legalizing gay marriage then state why and how you know this to be true. If you can do that then it would no longer be a non-sequitur. If I’m mischaracterizing as a red herring your links to groups getting sued for discrimination then explain that.

So, there’s that also. At this point I’m actually starting to scratch my head and wonder why I’m continuting to even entertian the charges you level at me, (and really, anyone here you engage in that manner should ask themselves that) and am back to considering it a classic waste of time other than the fact that I’ve apparently introduced a few new words that you seem to have taken a liking to.

hawkdriver on March 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I’m not leveling charges at you personally, I’m just pointing out how your arguments aren’t logically valid when it comes to the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I’m not leveling charges at you personally, I’m just pointing out how your arguments aren’t logically valid when it comes to the issue of legalizing gay marriage.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

You’re making claims to comments not made. But it’s what you do. You’re either not bright or the most disingenuous commenter here. I’m not even sure what you think you’re reading to come up with the points you’re trying to make.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:48 AM

If lowering the age of consent must directly follow legalizing gay marriage then state why and how you know this to be true. If you can do that then it would no longer be a non-sequitur. If I’m mischaracterizing as a red herring your links to groups getting sued for discrimination then explain that.

Who said this in the first place? Please, just stop. Your comments are offensively inane.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:49 AM

PS al,

Every time you call someone a homophobe it is a nonsequitar and a red herring. But you know that. You’ve had this same conversation with a dozen other folks and you always do the same thing. You think “you” decide what’s fair game to address or not. The questions you can’t answer, well they stem from fallcious agruments you can’t be bothered with. But you try to morph any aspect of the gay rights movement debate by turning the conversation into some poor slob having to defend themselves from you asserting they’re a homophobe or a racist because you equate your “plight” to the civil rights movement of the sixties.

Pathetic. Your entire routine.

I simply asked if you supported lowering the age of consent and you couldn’t answer. You’re afraid to answer.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:56 AM

Who said this in the first place? Please, just stop. Your comments are offensively inane.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:49 AM

I’m just trying to figure out why you have tried so hard to sidetrack the discussion by bringing up wholly unrelated issues of discrimination and consent laws.

Every time you call someone a homophobe it is a nonsequitar and a red herring.

If I were trying to discredit everything someone says strictly because they’re a homophone and I ignore their argument then that’s poisoning the well and that’s a form of a red herring, and that’s why I try to focus on the argument rather than the person making it. For example I’ve not said anything about you as a person; I’m focusing on your fallacious arguments.

But you know that. You’ve had this same conversation with a dozen other folks and you always do the same thing.

I wouldn’t say “dozens” but I have run up against a fair number of people who use logically fallacious arguments in support of their cause. It’s not my fault other people make bad arguments.

You think “you” decide what’s fair game to address or not.

I didn’t write the book on fallacious arguments; I just point them out when I come across them.

The questions you can’t answer, well they stem from fallcious agruments you can’t be bothered with.

If a bad or illogical, fallacious argument has been commenced then there’s no reason to continue down that path. I personally don’t feel the need to contribute to a distraction.

But you try to morph any aspect of the gay rights movement debate by turning the conversation into some poor slob having to defend themselves from you asserting they’re a homophobe or a racist because you equate your “plight” to the civil rights movement of the sixties.

I haven’t called you a homophobe. I don’t think I called melle one. I don’t think I’ve called anyone a racist. I’ll call anyone, poor slob or otherwise, out on their fallacious arguments but that’s because I’m a big fan of logic.

And whose plight am I trying to equate with what because of why? I have to ask because you claimed to know my real secret thoughts on the age of consent and I have no idea what you’re talking about here and if you have a way of knowing what I think better than I do I’m eager to find out what’s going on in my head.

Pathetic. Your entire routine.

If sound, logical arguments aren’t your cup of tea then there’s not much I can do about that. I guess some people have different tastes than me.

I simply asked if you supported lowering the age of consent and you couldn’t answer. You’re afraid to answer.

hawkdriver on March 8, 2013 at 4:56 AM

I could answer if I put some thought into it and really carefully considered the issues. It’s not that I’m afraid, it’s that I’m interested in the topic being discussed, you’re trying to distract from it and I’m trying to understand why you’re so dead-set on sidetracking it into something completely unrelated.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

alchemist19 on March 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Why do you waste your time? Little of what you write is even believable. You’ve called many many people homophobe. Just out of the blue in conversations you’ve had. You’ve also failed to even understand what people were trying to relate to you because you have this God complex that seems to judge what may or not be talked about. Which also become convenient for your agenda. I’m not sure if you just can’t follow a conversation or if you’re being obtuse to promote a false notion you seem to struggle to even make yourself believe. I’m pretty sure that why you resort to just repetition.

Do you believe the age of consent should be lowered or not? I say no. How hard can it be to form an opinion?

hawkdriver on March 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Why do you waste your time?

The perhaps naive hope that you’ll learn from your mistakes.

Little of what you write is even believable.

Really? Like what?

You’ve called many many people homophobe. Just out of the blue in conversations you’ve had.

Depends on your threshold of “many many”. A few to be sure, but even when I have I try not to make that the crux of my argument. If I do then I’m poisoning the well, and it’s also been my experience that most homophobes tend to not make the best, most logical arguments so I can poke holes in the beliefs without a whole lot of effort.

You’ve also failed to even understand what people were trying to relate to you because you have this God complex that seems to judge what may or not be talked about.

If not being swayed by illogical arguments means one has a God complex then we need a lot more God complexes in the world.

Which also become convenient for your agenda.

What’s my agenda again (beyond logic, of course)?

I’m not sure if you just can’t follow a conversation or if you’re being obtuse to promote a false notion you seem to struggle to even make yourself believe.

I can follow a conversation very well. That’s how you dug yourself into this mess.

What false notion am I promoting?

I’m pretty sure that why you resort to just repetition.

I repeat myself because people keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. I’ll shut up about red herrings and non-sequiturs as soon as people stop trying to use them as arguments to support their beliefs.

Do you believe the age of consent should be lowered or not? I say no. How hard can it be to form an opinion?

hawkdriver on March 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Forming an opinion is easy; forming an informed opinion is harder and takes more time. It’s when you rush it that you’re more liable to reach a hasty, perhaps even illogical conclusion you might have avoided if you had stopped to think about it a little more carefully.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I can follow a conversation very well. That’s how you dug yourself into this mess.

What false notion am I promoting?

I’ve dug no mess. I asserted two things that I amply proved with links and comments made by commenters here. You offered opinion and nothing else. That you beat your chest claiming some kind of debate victory is just pathetic. You don’t convince me. Again, maybe you’re jsut trying to convince yourself?

Depends on your threshold of “many many”. A few to be sure, but even when I have I try not to make that the crux of my argument. If I do then I’m poisoning the well, and it’s also been my experience that most homophobes tend to not make the best, most logical arguments so I can poke holes in the beliefs without a whole lot of effort.

Considering your original claim is you only did it once to someone who insulted you, I’d say showing even more than one makes you deceitful. B ut, you’ve said it many times.

I repeat myself because people keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. I’ll shut up about red herrings and non-sequiturs as soon as people stop trying to use them as arguments to support their beliefs.

Like many in your community, you’re narcissistic. You have to repeat yourself, to convince yourself. Because you can’t allow yourself to admit you’re wrong. Even when it’s held in your face.

Forming an opinion is easy; forming an informed opinion is harder and takes more time. It’s when you rush it that you’re more liable to reach a hasty, perhaps even illogical conclusion you might have avoided if you had stopped to think about it a little more carefully.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Cop out. Kinda cowardly. I would bet money you support it.

hawkdriver on March 12, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8