Video: Liz Cheney endorses traditional marriage, sparking war of words with gay sister

posted at 10:51 am on November 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m tempted to call this a clever Cheney family ploy to burnish Liz’s conservative credentials ahead of her primary against Mike Enzi, except … Enzi’s opposed to gay marriage too. It may help her pass a tea-party litmus test but it doesn’t actually gain her anything against the incumbent. On the contrary, all the attention to this subject is likely to remind Wyoming conservatives not only that the Cheney family is notably pro-gay among Republican royalty — Dick Cheney’s other daughter is herself married to a woman — but that Liz herself was widely assumed to be pro-SSM based on things she’s said in the past. Either (a) everyone misunderstood her position before, (b) she’s an exceedingly rare example of someone who used to support gay marriage but has since “evolved” in the other direction, or (c) her endorsement of traditional marriage on “Fox News Sunday” is just an empty pander to tea partiers.

Here’s Heather Poe, who’s married to Liz’s sister Mary, responding to her opposition of SSM yesterday on Facebook. I wonder which of the three explanations above she favors.

I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say “I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us.

To have her now say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least

I can’t help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other.

I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.

Mary Cheney, Liz’s sister and Poe’s spouse, replied, “Couldn’t have said it better myself.” Legit sibling feud or campaign charade aimed at highlighting Liz’s ostensible social conservatism? The NYT thinks it’s the former:

The situation has deteriorated so much that the two sisters have not spoken since the summer, and the quarrel threatens to get in the way of something former Vice President Dick Cheney desperately wants — a United States Senate seat for Liz…

People who have spoken to Liz Cheney say she is irritated that her sister is making their dispute public and believes it is hypocritical for Mary Cheney to take such a hard line now, given that she worked for the re-election of President Bush, an opponent of same-sex marriage…

Mary Cheney, 44, said in a phone interview Sunday that she presumed her sister shared her father’s views on marriage, and that view was reinforced because Liz Cheney “was always very supportive” of her relationship with Ms. Poe and the couple’s two children. She learned otherwise in August when Liz Cheney declared, shortly after announcing her Senate candidacy, that she was opposed to same-sex marriage rights. Mary Cheney said it is now “impossible” for the sisters to reconcile as long as Liz Cheney maintains that position.

“What amazes me is that she says she’s running to be a new generation of leader,” Mary Cheney said, citing her 47-year-old sister’s slogan in her campaign against Mr. Enzi, 69. “I’m not sure how sticking to the positions of the last 20 or 30 years is the best way to do that.”

That last paragraph is the killer, since one of Liz’s big headaches in the primary is reassuring primary voters that she’s a bona fide conservative and a bona fide Wyomingite. Enzi and his surrogates, like Rand Paul, have needled her about her east-coast pedigree, knowing that calling her authenticity into question on one point may lead voters to question it on the other. Liz’s counter to all that is that the Senate needs new blood; now here comes Mary Cheney to question whether Liz’s supposed advantage over Enzi — youth and fresh thinking — is much of an advantage after all. Result: Some social-con voters may doubt whether Liz is really as much a supporter of traditional marriage as she says and others may doubt whether she’s really that much different from Enzi. Not a good place to be — especially with Enzi getting good press lately for his early skepticism of ObamaCare and reaching out to tea partiers by publishing op-eds at sites widely read by grassroots conservatives.

Here’s what she said yesterday, and beneath it is what she said in 2009. She never explicitly says in the latter that she supports legalizing gay marriage, but she does say that her “family” endorses the idea that “freedom means freedom for everyone” — the very words that Poe threw back at her in yesterday’s Facebook post. Draw your own conclusions about what her position was at the time.



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

That’s NOT what that scripture is saying, and that’s NOT what Nutstuyu was implying.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 12:13 PM

.
What was Nutstuyu implying/saying?

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM

.
That the ‘intelligent designer/creator’ designed and created the male and female to be specifically complimentary, in the context of the institution of marriage.

Implication: ‘same sex marriage’ is a perversion in the eyes of the original designer/creator.
.

It’s pretty clear, that verse was to show how God made man and woman, and that they marry and become one…and homosexuals don’t do that…so they are in conflict with God’s orders.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM

.
But, is it clear to you … that God was showing the reader that He designed man and woman to be complimentary (implying that same-sex sexual relationships are a perversion), OR ….. is it only clear to you that Nutstuyu is trying to ‘misinterpret’ the scripture to use it as a ‘false-weapon’ against you, in this debate?
.

And I simply added that, if any person doesn’t marry, is that against that verse as well. Again, tell me what was implied there.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM

.
On your part, you’re implying that Nutstuyu is erroneously interpreting and using that scripture.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM

.
You’re obviously not Catholic.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

.
No, I don’t belong to the “Vatican faithful”.
.

The Church is very important.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

.
For the purpose of ….. what ? !

Wait a minute … gotta back-up ……… what is the “church” to you?

For myself, the church is collectively all those persons, living and dead, who have accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
But belonging to a ‘local church body’ is NOT the important ingredient upon where, and by which you get “born again/saved”.

The local church bodies (all denominations) are physical rallying points for Christian believers in the local area to do the work of the ministry, and receive ministry as is needed.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Okay, we agree on that … but on what grounds/basis will you (or I) be “judged”?

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM

.
By whatever grounds/basis God decides. Which would include our sins, as well as our good works.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM

.
“By whatever grounds/basis God decides” sounds mysterious, and ubiquitous.

Can’t we know of certainty before hand, on what basis we’re being judged?

Where does ‘grace’ fit into that? … Does ‘grace’ fit into that?

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

That the ‘intelligent designer/creator’ designed and created the male and female to be specifically complimentary, in the context of the institution of marriage.

Implication: ‘same sex marriage’ is a perversion in the eyes of the original designer/creator.

I’m on record here numerous times saying any church, for any reason, should never, ever be forced to perform or recognize SSM. I’m only for it under the secular state. Period.

No, I don’t belong to the “Vatican faithful”.

Wait a minute … gotta back-up ……… what is the “church” to you?

That was a rhetorical question, of course. In Catholicism, we believe that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, who appointed St. Peter the first head of His Church, and the unbroken papal succession has continued ever since…and rather well documented.

And there’s an obvious reason why Christ would provide for His Church as the one, true, apostolic and universal Church…one need only see the over 30,000 Protestant denominations out there, all teaching something different than the others, and all interpreting scripture differently, as a good reason.

But this leads us down a totally new topic of discussion. So I digress.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 1:32 PM

“By whatever grounds/basis God decides” sounds mysterious, and ubiquitous.

Can’t we know of certainty before hand, on what basis we’re being judged?

Where does ‘grace’ fit into that? … Does ‘grace’ fit into that?

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Of course grace, or more specifically one’s state of grace at the time of our death, fits in. We know what guidelines God will use to judge us, as they’re pointed out in scripture. But we cannot say unequivocally those will be the only criteria.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

You already conceded that marriage increases fidelity amongst heterosexuals yet you’re postulating that marriage won’t increase fidelity amongst homosexuals. What’s your basis for thinking the two groups will behave differently?

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM

lol. Nope you are right. Homosexuals and heterosexuals absolutely do not behave differently. You got me.

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The crux of your objection comes down to the belief that the courts won’t view sex between two homosexuals as consummation of the marriage. To my knowledge that’s never been the case in any state where homosexuals are allowed to get divorced (there are some states who don’t grant marriage licenses but will still divorce them), and in fact there is a case before the Texas Supreme Court right now where the couples wants a divorce but the state won’t grant them one. If it was as simple as getting the marriage annulled because it had never been consummated I think they probably would have tried that already.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM

I think we need to stop using the phrase “consummate the marriage” to mean sex, whether we’re talking about gays or straights. A marriage is complete when two people say “I do” and sign the papers. Enough of this overemphasis on sex. Just like there’s much more to people being gay than having sex…

bmmg39 on November 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

There is a legal definition of consummation. In many states, the act of consummation is required for it to be a legal marriage. Just because you don’t want it to be that way, doesn’t mean that it is not currently the law.

I think they haven’t tried it because they want to force states to recognize their marriages (for the cause) and then get divorced. Or they don’t have very good lawyers.

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Or Texas does not require a marriage to be consummated.

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

There is a legal definition of consummation. In many states, the act of consummation is required for it to be a legal marriage. Just because you don’t want it to be that way, doesn’t mean that it is not currently the law.

I think they haven’t tried it because they want to force states to recognize their marriages (for the cause) and then get divorced. Or they don’t have very good lawyers.

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 1:45 PM

There are states with consummation laws where gay marriage is legal (Minnesota, Vermont, Connecticut and Delaware) and as far as I can find there hasn’t been a single example anywhere of consummation being an issue in any gay divorce. I know the Catholic Church requires consummation but they don’t think gay marriages are valid to start with so what they think of consummation isn’t really relevant in this matter.

As an aside, if you’re reduced to “They can’t consummate the marriage!” then you’re grasping at straws. Consummation is something we’ve arbitrarily defined and arbitrarily required, and on the off chance it ever does become an issue then either the definition or the requirement can be changed as needed. Sodomy is already legal in all 50 states so we wouldn’t be breaking any new ground.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Since you think the term “marriage” is arbitrarily defined and can and should be changed at any time 3% of the population gets it feelings hurt, I can see why you think consummation is also arbitrarily defined and required and can and should be changed as well.

Requiring consummation is a way to protect inheritance and protect against fraud. A way for heirs to challenge an invalid marriage. A way for someone to get out of a marriage that is a sham without losing half of their net worth to divorce. A way to protect against fraud.

I guess those considerations mean nothing, so long as ‘Merica is forced to accept SSM?

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Since you think the term “marriage” is arbitrarily defined and can and should be changed at any time 3% of the population gets it feelings hurt, I can see why you think consummation is also arbitrarily defined and required and can and should be changed as well.

First that’s a straw man. The legal definition of a civil marriage is arbitrarily defined as whatever we’ve decided to define it as, but I don’t necessarily favor changing it any time 3% of the population gets its feelings hurt. It can and should be changed if the current definition is abridging the rights of a certain group of people for no good reason that anyone can articulate. Hurt feelings alone don’t cut it.

Requiring consummation is a way to protect inheritance and protect against fraud. A way for heirs to challenge an invalid marriage. A way for someone to get out of a marriage that is a sham without losing half of their net worth to divorce. A way to protect against fraud.

I guess those considerations mean nothing, so long as ‘Merica is forced to accept SSM?

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 3:23 PM

The 35-40 states where consummation is not required all seem to get along just fine without that legal requirement. And honestly it’s a pretty stupid legal requirement to begin with. Do the states that do require consummation also require proof of consummation?

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM

You have abandoned reality.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Hahahahahahahah….Oh, my….irony, hypocrisy, sheer stupidity…I can’t decide which. But I do know that your arrogance is truly impressive. Well done in that at least. The arrogance to say YOU are putting the argument to rest…NO, sorry. YOU do not get to determine that. You also do not get to slither away from the rest of my comment as if it isn’t there. Our First Amendment rights do not apply merely to a CHURCH or clergy, but to each and every individual in this country, so for you to say, ‘See, the Constitution will not permit a Church to be forced to do this,’ is every bit as dishonest as I’ve come to expect from you. Christians are already being forced to chose between their livelihoods or their FAITH. You and your fellow homosexualists are no different from the constant stream of persecutors throughout history. You and Antiochus, Nero, Diocletian, Henry VIII…the only difference so far, is that you haven’t quite got the confidence yet to make the persecution bloody. You are content with starting to chip away with fines and bullying into closing their shops. Just like with the evil HHS mandate with its contraception/abortion funding, and the recently passed in the Senate so-called Non-discrimination Act which will certainly discriminate against Christian business owners by forcing them to hire those whose behavior is contrary to the owners’ Faith. Clearly, the First Amendment, the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF means nothing to you and your kind. So don’t tell me priests will never be forced. You tell that to St. John Fisher. You are either incredibly ignorant of world history or a LIAR.

“I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison and his will die a martyr in the public square.” ~Francis Cardinal George, Chicago IL 2010 upon passage of Civil Unions Law.

JetBoy, is that really the side you want to take?

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM

JetBoy, is that really the side you want to take?

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Is your tirade there directed towards me, or alchemist19?

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I look at it like debugging code. You change one thing in one place, and it cascades. There were reasons these other protections were put in place. Have SSM proponents thought through all the laws previously enacted? Why they were enacted? How adding another law will have an effect on those protections? Have SSM proponents even identified those cascading changes?

If you change one line of a law, does that invalidate another person’s inheritance? Another person’s expectation of having their marriage consummated? If it is no longer a requirement, you just took a protection away from someone who might need it to protect themselves.

If someone lies about being knowingly infertile, that is also fraud and will allow one party to get the marriage legally annulled. (I haven’t once said what religion I am, btw, so I don’t know why you commented on what the Catholic Church thinks). If a lesbian is infertile and doesn’t tell her partner, and the partner wants the first woman to have children, and they go through the expense of IVF or whatever, isn’t that fraud if the first woman KNOWS she is infertile? If you take away that provision, then what about heterosexual couples who have one couple who is infertile and lies about it? That is another protection each of the partners have that you want to take away?

cptacek on November 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM

You’re obviously not Catholic. The Church is very important.

lol

Murphy9 on November 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Is your tirade there directed towards me, or alchemist19?

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Ah, the truth is a tirade, is it? Fine, the Truth I spoke was directed towards anyone with an ear to hear it. :)

The arrogant LIAR part is specifically for alchemist19, though, just to be clear.

You are on the wrong side of this, JetBoy. You are counting for a pleasure the delights of a day.

Saint Peter pray for us.

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Sure. You’re just a libertarian who accepts every liberal argument for same-sex marriage,

I accept the argument that stands up to facts and historical scrutiny. Very rarely is that the argument made by liberals but on this one issue the blind squirrels appears to have found a nut.

Nothing in your argument is based on facts and historical scrutiny. It’s made on a patchwork of assumptions and assertions without evidence. Your statement is a lie.

wants the government to force the issue, believes the Constitution means things it doesn’t say

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about due process and equal protection?

Did anyone who voted for the 15th Amendment consider it to apply to homosexuals being able to marry others of the same sex? You know they answer. And that’s why I correctly tag your claim as a lie.

even though nobody thought it said that for a hundred years,

Again, the face we made a mistake in the past is not a reason to keep repeating it.

First, it wasn’t a mistake. And second — and the point — is that you decided what meant one thing in the past now meant something different.

Redefinition at will. It’s the main thing that shows you’re not a libertarian at all, but a liberal.

believes that homosexual relationships are morally and socially equal to heterosexual relationships,

They are. There hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary beyond unsubstantiated personal opinion.

You have no evidence to substantiate your personal opinion, but you want to criticize me for “unsubstantiated personal opinion.

applies the term homophobia to the people you disagree with,

The term has a generally agreed upon meaning. Take it up with the dictionary if you don’t like it.

Homophobe is a word made up to apply stigmatization to those who don’t accept the politically correct viewpoint of homosexuality. I reject the term. But liberals love it.

Homophobe is, in fact, an ad hominem attack every time it’s used.

thinks same-sex marriage would magically have the exact same effect as marriage because, er, you want it to be true,

What, no facts and historical scrutiny to support your assertion that same-sex marriage would somehow have the exact same affect as normal marriage? I guess it’s hard to find factual support for magical thinking. No wonder you skipped right past that to the next point.

claims that “all reputable science” agrees that children do as well in homosexual homes when the evidence shows the contrary,

What evidence? For the love of all things sacred, present this evidence! I’ve been asking for it for months now in threads like this but people keep refusing to do so, or they present science that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, nor does anyone on your side seem able to offer academic criticism of the mountain of evidence that is contrary to your beliefs.

First, multiple studies have shown children do better with a father and mother, which is necessarily impossible for homosexual “parents.” Homosexuals tend to dismiss these studies as irrelevant because they don’t specifically compare heterosexual to homosexual parents. But since homosexual parents by definition don’t include a mother and father, the dismissal is artificial.

Second, studies that purported to show no harm to the “children of homosexuals” have repeatedly been shown to be statistically flawed because of the lack of a decent representative sample.

Third, there’s this: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Once again, the evidence is out there. You pretend it’s not, because it suits your ideological purpose, and so you can pretend to be only interested in the facts.

and ignores that homosexuality is widely recognized as “risky” behavior because of its risks.

Widely recognized by whom? Are these risks inherent?

Wow, are you full of it! Medically, homosexuality has always been considered risky behavior. Inherent? Obviously. The anus is not only a non-sterile environment for the male partner, but the lining of it is not thick enough to stand up as an intercourse substitute, which leads to tears in the lining and fecal matter being introduced to the bloodstream of the male recipient. And that is about as delicately as I can put it.

Don’t all libertarians think like that?

I can only speak for myself.

Sure.

No, you’re not a libertarian. You’re a liberal. You even use the exact same terminology like “marriage equality.”

Let’s suppose for a second that this is true. It isn’t but just for the sake of argument we can pretend that it is. If I’m a liberal then it should be easy for an informed conservative like yourself to present evidence that knocks down my beliefs and exposes them for the irrational musings that they are. Yet despite my supposed liberal intellectual handicap nobody seems to be able to present anything in opposition except their personal supposition. Some of you have spent too much time arguing with actual liberals; their ideas are so easy to kick over that some of us seem to have forgotten what it’s like to be intellectually challenged by someone who has facts, will stake out a position and defend it. Fat, dumb and happy is not the way we want to be competing in the arena of ideas.

You don’t have facts, you stake out an emotional position rather than an intellectual one, and you claim everyone else is ignorant while claiming your opinions are simple facts. Your argumentation fits the liberal profile perfectly.

And like the typical liberal, you redefine terms at will,

Which term did I redefine and where did I redefine it?

Look a few sentences up, and there you are disputing that homosexuality is risky, or that the risk is inherent. Apparently you’re like Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass,”

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

And of course the attempt to redefine marriage so that, rather than being a union of two members of the opposite sex that leads to reproduction and families, it would mean any two people (but only two!) who “love each other.”

and make any argument to support your claim that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

I was asked my opinion about whether my parents marriage was the moral equivalent of a same sex marriage and I said that I believed it was. Or do you mean no difference in the sense that they’re immutable characteristics?

Every part of your argument is based on the premise that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

You’re unmasked. Anyone who reads what you’ve posted here can tell you’re a liberal.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 1:46 AM

God help the conservative movement the day any voice of dissent on any issue is automatically branded a liberal and dismissed because of it. Remember when the Democrats didn’t let Bob Casey, Sr. speak at their convention because he had the nerve to be pro-life, and how we pilloried the left for their intolerance and demand for 100% fidelity to the liberal orthodoxy? Yeah, you have now become those Democrats. And you’ve chosen to do it on an issue that is already a minority viewpoint that loses support every day.

This is why they call us the Stupid Party.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 2:41 AM

I’m not talking about any voice of dissent on any issue, so you can pull out the nails and climb down from the cross.

I’m talking about your attempt to pretend to be a libertarian while spouting the 100% liberal viewpoint. Based on the evidence, you’re no more a libertarian than Bill Maher is. Which means you’re probably claiming to be a libertarian because you think it makes you more credible.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I talked about churches and clergy, nothing more and nothing less.

You’re asking for a pretty liberal definition of what constitutes a church if you want that kind of exemption for businesses. If you want to start allowing exemptions for religious reasons for florists or bakers or whatever person doesn’t want to render their services for a same sex couple because of that florist’s or baker’s deeply held beliefs then you’re opening the door to a return to “Whites Only” lunch counters if a business owner’s religion doesn’t believe races should mingle, or a similar “No Jews Allowed,” or “Catholics Not Welcome,” statement from anyone who has a similar religious belief about dealing with those groups of people. If that’s your position then stake it out and take on the anti-discrimination laws that are involved.

But the big thing is your whole argument about business owners and what they can and cannot be compelled to do is a red herring when it comes to the gay marriage debate. It’s pretty clear from your comments that you oppose anti-discrimination laws, and that’s a fine position to hold but the question of granting same sex couples access to the legal status of married is wholly separate. If same sex marriage was the law of the land right now and there were no anti-discrimination laws on the books then any florist, photographer or baker could refuse service to anyone they and suffer no legal consequences whatsoever. Why are you trying to confuse the same sex marriage debate by bringing discrimination laws into it?

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 4:46 PM

To this day being the key words there. Only someone with a lousy knowledge of history would argue that it could not happen…

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I’m very glad you brought this up so I can put this notion to bed. I might have gone here sooner if I had realized anyone was still laboring under this false notion.

The legalization of same sex marriage will not mean your or any other church that doesn’t wish to will be forced to perform ceremonies. The First Amendment protection for churches and clergy has proven through history to be extremely robust in this regard. Gay people can be granted marriage licenses in 14 states right now. By and large those fourteen are our most liberal jurisdictions. The Massachusetts case that really got the ball rolling on this was over ten years ago. There is a track record and what we’ve seen thus far in our most liberal states is that no church has been compelled to perform any service, no clergy has been compelled to perform any service, and no church has had their tax-exempt status threatened. Not one. Anywhere. Ever. After the Supreme Court tossed the interracial marriage laws there were churches whose understanding of the Bible was that it forbade such marriages and they refused to perform them. In all the history from then to now no church has ever been compelled to perform any ceremony they objected to, no clergy has ever been compelled to perform a service, no church has had their tax-exempt status threatened. If you’re truly concerned about that then you’re worried about something that there is no… zip, zero, nada…. evidence to support despite ample opportunity for such evidence to arise. You have abandoned reality.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

For crying out loud. pannw said, “to this day” You can’t possibly say it would never happen based on the fact that it hasn’t happened yet.

Furthermore, it’s typical of liberals (not that I’m saying anything, ya know…) to talk about freedom of religion as if it only applies to the churches themselves. If you’re only free to practice your religion inside a church, you don’t have religious freedom at all.

We already in fact have a church that had to allow same-sex marriages in a pavilion they owned. Religious freedom has already been trampled.

We have photographers sued for politely declining to photograph a same-sex wedding, and a baker sued for not making a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In all these cases, religious beliefs were considered an insufficient reason to withhold approval of same sex weddings.

Only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I talked about churches and clergy, nothing more and nothing less.

You’re asking for a pretty liberal definition of what constitutes a church if you want that kind of exemption for businesses. If you want to start allowing exemptions for religious reasons for florists or bakers or whatever person doesn’t want to render their services for a same sex couple because of that florist’s or baker’s deeply held beliefs then you’re opening the door to a return to “Whites Only” lunch counters if a business owner’s religion doesn’t believe races should mingle, or a similar “No Jews Allowed,” or “Catholics Not Welcome,” statement from anyone who has a similar religious belief about dealing with those groups of people. If that’s your position then stake it out and take on the anti-discrimination laws that are involved.

Freedom of Religion is not an exemption applied to churches and clergy, or to businesses.

It’s a fundamental right for people. People do not lose that right when they go to work, or when they open a business.

But the big thing is your whole argument about business owners and what they can and cannot be compelled to do is a red herring when it comes to the gay marriage debate.

Boy, you would sure think so, wouldn’t you. And yet what context does it come up in?

Not exactly a red herring, is it?

It’s pretty clear from your comments that you oppose anti-discrimination laws, and that’s a fine position to hold but the question of granting same sex couples access to the legal status of married is wholly separate.

All evidence to the contrary.

If same sex marriage was the law of the land right now and there were no anti-discrimination laws on the books then any florist, photographer or baker could refuse service to anyone they and suffer no legal consequences whatsoever. Why are you trying to confuse the same sex marriage debate by bringing discrimination laws into it?

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Is there an honest bone in your body, that you can sit there and pretend the two have nothing to do with one another?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Ah, the truth is a tirade, is it? Fine, the Truth I spoke was directed towards anyone with an ear to hear it. :)

I called it a “tirade” because it was so characteristic of the stereotypical angry, fire and brimstone preacher waving a bible around and tossing out judgement and ridiculous, baseless accusations about HHS mandates, Christian businesses, birth control. Your entire style flies in the face of how Jesus preached and acted. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The arrogant LIAR part is specifically for alchemist19, though, just to be clear.

You haven’t shown alchemist19 to be a liar. You’ve only thrown out accusations with no explanations of what he’s actually lied about.

You are on the wrong side of this, JetBoy. You are counting for a pleasure the delights of a day.

Wrong side of what?

Saint Peter pray for us.

pannw on November 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM

I can’t argue that.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Nothing in your argument is based on facts and historical scrutiny. It’s made on a patchwork of assumptions and assertions without evidence. Your statement is a lie.

If there’s anything that I’ve said that you would like supporting evidence for then just say the word.

Did anyone who voted for the 15th Amendment consider it to apply to homosexuals being able to marry others of the same sex? You know they answer. And that’s why I correctly tag your claim as a lie.

I assume you meant to reference the 14th Amendment and not the 15th because it’s clauses in the 14th that get cited on this issue. 15th Amendment is about the right to vote not being abridged on race.

I never claimed the Congress or legislatures had in mind anything about the rights of homosexuals when they passed the 14th Amendment. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that they didn’t. But nonetheless the amendment they wrote into the Constitution did guarantee things like due process and equal protection for everybody. I guess that’s a lesson in writing narrowly-worded amendments. But the plain text of the amendment that passed is what we have to go off of.

First, it wasn’t a mistake. And second — and the point — is that you decided what meant one thing in the past now meant something different.

Redefinition at will. It’s the main thing that shows you’re not a libertarian at all, but a liberal.

See above. The way it’s being applied might not have been what they had in mind but it is what they wrote. Watch your wording in future amendments.

You have no evidence to substantiate your personal opinion, but you want to criticize me for “unsubstantiated personal opinion.

My posts are overlong without me providing links for substantiation. Like I said, if you want the facts to back up anything I’ve said then ask.

Homophobe is a word made up to apply stigmatization to those who don’t accept the politically correct viewpoint of homosexuality. I reject the term. But liberals love it.

Homophobe is, in fact, an ad hominem attack every time it’s used.

Then tell me what word you would prefer me to use to describe people with a negative attitude towards gay people or people who don’t believe gay people deserve the full protection of the law and I’ll make an effort to use that term instead.

What, no facts and historical scrutiny to support your assertion that same-sex marriage would somehow have the exact same affect as normal marriage? I guess it’s hard to find factual support for magical thinking. No wonder you skipped right past that to the next point.

You’re using some very vague terms here. What exactly is “the exact same affect (sic) as normal heterosexual marriage”?

First, multiple studies have shown children do better with a father and mother, which is necessarily impossible for homosexual “parents.” Homosexuals tend to dismiss these studies as irrelevant because they don’t specifically compare heterosexual to homosexual parents. But since homosexual parents by definition don’t include a mother and father, the dismissal is artificial.

Which studies and how do they quantify “better”? Links please. Someone did attempt to do this a couple pages by when they linked to some of Douglas Allen’s work but the study had some major flaws in it so if you’ve got something better then I’m all ears.

Second, studies that purported to show no harm to the “children of homosexuals” have repeatedly been shown to be statistically flawed because of the lack of a decent representative sample.

Okay. Which studies specifically are you talking about?

Third, there’s this:

I’ll see your that and raise you this:
http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

That’s the American Sociological Association stating the summation of the current literature in plain English as of February of this year in their amicus brief for the Supreme Court before the Windsor case. It’s more up to date that the criticism of the body of work that Regnerus called into question in the FRC link that you posted, and as an added bonus it unpacks and excoriates Regnerus’s own error-filled studies that the FRC is relying on.

Once again, the evidence is out there. You pretend it’s not, because it suits your ideological purpose, and so you can pretend to be only interested in the facts.

I admit there are a few studies out there that make claims like Allen’s previously cited study did, but as the ASA states in their brief those studies all seem to have some major flaws in them that render their conclusions basically worthless.

Wow, are you full of it! Medically, homosexuality has always been considered risky behavior. Inherent? Obviously. The anus is not only a non-sterile environment for the male partner, but the lining of it is not thick enough to stand up as an intercourse substitute, which leads to tears in the lining and fecal matter being introduced to the bloodstream of the male recipient. And that is about as delicately as I can put it.

Even if I were to stipulate that everything you say is true that wouldn’t change the fact that it’s 100% irrelevant to the SSM debate. The sodomy issue has been settled by the courts. And why do you insist on punishing lesbians for the issues you have with gay men?

You don’t have facts, you stake out an emotional position rather than an intellectual one, and you claim everyone else is ignorant while claiming your opinions are simple facts. Your argumentation fits the liberal profile perfectly.

I hadn’t linked to the ASA brief when you wrote this so I’ll forgive you for it.

Look a few sentences up, and there you are disputing that homosexuality is risky, or that the risk is inherent. Apparently you’re like Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass,”

Based off your earlier diatribe against sodomy I assume you’re still stuck on that and that’s what you’re referencing here. Sodomy occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it’s no riskier for one that it is the other. There is no risk for contracting STDs for any disease-free monogamous couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual. And again, any discussion of sexual relations is 100% irrelevant to the SSM debate because sodomy is already legal and that’s not going to change. If you’ve got problems with SSM then talk about that; there is no need to bring sodomy up at all.

And of course the attempt to redefine marriage so that, rather than being a union of two members of the opposite sex that leads to reproduction and families, it would mean any two people (but only two!) who “love each other.”

Two people who would otherwise be qualified but for the gender of one of the parties, really. They aren’t hurting anybody, they’re not a detriment to society and they have no realistic opportunity to access the legal status of marriage otherwise.

Every part of your argument is based on the premise that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

There isn’t, at least in the moral sense. There shouldn’t be one in the legal sense either but that’s the battle we’re fighting.

I’m not talking about any voice of dissent on any issue, so you can pull out the nails and climb down from the cross.

I’m talking about your attempt to pretend to be a libertarian while spouting the 100% liberal viewpoint. Based on the evidence, you’re no more a libertarian than Bill Maher is. Which means you’re probably claiming to be a libertarian because you think it makes you more credible.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I have no reason at all to lie about being a libertarian. Besides, whether the argument comes from a libertarian, a liberal or a conservative is totally irrelevant to the worth and merit of the argument itself. I’m not the issue so there’s no point in discussing me no matter how much you seem to want to.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:40 PM

For crying out loud. pannw said, “to this day” You can’t possibly say it would never happen based on the fact that it hasn’t happened yet.

If you want me to prove it would never happen then you’re asking me to prove a negative. There is no evidence to believe it but pannw does anyway despite that fact. Are you in the same boat?

Furthermore, it’s typical of liberals (not that I’m saying anything, ya know…) to talk about freedom of religion as if it only applies to the churches themselves. If you’re only free to practice your religion inside a church, you don’t have religious freedom at all.

Do you believe the freedom of religion means you get to do anything you want so long as it’s part of your religious beliefs?

We already in fact have a church that had to allow same-sex marriages in a pavilion they owned. Religious freedom has already been trampled.

Nope! First off, an outdoor boardwalk pavilion is a far cry from a church. Secondly, they did not allow the ceremony to take place. The Methodist church in question was given a government subsidy for making their boardwalk available to the public in accordance with New Jersey anti-discrimination laws. When the church attempted to discriminate in violation of their agreement they were given the choice to give up their government subsidy or allow the ceremony. They gave up the subsidy and the ceremony was not held there. But you knew that, right?

We have photographers sued for politely declining to photograph a same-sex wedding, and a baker sued for not making a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In all these cases, religious beliefs were considered an insufficient reason to withhold approval of same sex weddings.

I agree that none of those people should have been sued, and that the anti-discrimination laws they ran up against should be repealed.

Only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM

“There’s no evidence of this whatsoever but you’d be a fool not to believe it!”

Yep, seems reasonable to me!

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Is there an honest bone in your body, that you can sit there and pretend the two have nothing to do with one another?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

They don’t.

The Methodist Pavilion case you mentioned before was from 2009 in New Jersey and they didn’t have gay marriage until about a month ago. The wedding photographer case started years ago in New Mexico where only a few counties have been issuing marriage licenses for a couple months and the state Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue. The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued their gay marriage ruling over a decade ago and there have been no churches compelled there yet. The marriage laws and the anti-discrimination laws are totally separate, and the churches have proved immune from doing anything they don’t want to do.

For as much as you seem to care about this issue I would think you would know more about it.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:52 PM

“By whatever grounds/basis God decides” sounds mysterious, and ubiquitous.

Can’t we know of certainty before hand, on what basis we’re being judged?

Where does ‘grace’ fit into that? … Does ‘grace’ fit into that?

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

.
Of course grace, or more specifically one’s state of grace at the time of our death, fits in. We know what guidelines God will use to judge us, as they’re pointed out in scripture. But we cannot say unequivocally those will be the only criteria.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

.
My apologies that I couldn’t stay on computer any longer than I did …
.
How, and on what basis, can or does a person fall from grace?

How, why, and in what way … is a “state of grace” not an absolute ‘constant’?

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 8:55 PM

That the ‘intelligent designer/creator’ designed and created the male and female to be specifically complimentary, in the context of the institution of marriage.

Implication: ‘same sex marriage’ is a perversion in the eyes of the original designer/creator.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

.
I’m on record here numerous times saying any church, for any reason, should never, ever be forced to perform or recognize SSM. I’m only for it under the secular state. Period.

JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 1:32 PM

.
Claiming to ‘divide, and separate’ church from secular, as pertains to “recognition of same-sex-marriage”, is an invalid dodge.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Claiming to ‘divide, and separate’ church from secular, as pertains to “recognition of same-sex-marriage”, is an invalid dodge.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM

It would be an invalid dodge in a theocracy but we do not have a theocratic government in this country.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Someone can hold a “liberal” opinion on one issue and “conservative” opinions on many other issues, and easily qualify as a libertarian.

bmmg39 on November 19, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Of course grace, or more specifically one’s state of grace at the time of our death, fits in. We know what guidelines God will use to judge us, as they’re pointed out in scripture. But we cannot say unequivocally those will be the only criteria.

There is absolutely no reason to listen to this discuss any aspect of christianity.

Murphy9 on November 19, 2013 at 11:24 PM

Someone can hold a “liberal” opinion on one issue and “conservative” opinions on many other issues, and easily qualify as a libertarian.

bmmg39 on November 19, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Given the widespread use of those terms as tribal pigeonholes, instead of their actual meanings, it’s pretty much a requirement.

S. D. on November 19, 2013 at 11:27 PM

I never claimed the Congress or legislatures had in mind anything about the rights of homosexuals when they passed the 14th Amendment. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that they didn’t. But nonetheless the amendment they wrote into the Constitution did guarantee things like due process and equal protection for everybody. I guess that’s a lesson in writing narrowly-worded amendments. But the plain text of the amendment that passed is what we have to go off of.

There was never a due process claim for same-sex marriage, and never an equal protection claim. That’s because marriage was always between a man and a woman. To claim “equal protection” because homosexuals weren’t interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex was recognized as an absurdity.

Then, suddenly, it was claimed that homosexuals were excluded from marriage by the definition of the word, and that the definition of the word was therefore violating equal protection.

Due process has nothing to do with it, and is one of the more stunning examples of dishonesty in this whole argument. They invoke due process to claim that homosexuals were deprived of equal protection because without any law having been passed specifically saying so. A moment’s thought would show that if there was an equal protection issue after all, then no due process would have been considered sufficient to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Any such “due process” would necessarily have been ruled unConstitutional.

So why claim due process if it’s irrelevant? Two reasons: 1) it sounds good to say your advocacy group was not given due process 2) it answers the reasonable objection that you can’t add a new interpretation to equal protection without some law, because judges can only interpret laws, not make them. But if you claim equal protection was violated without due process, then you can plausibly claim that the judge has the right to create a remedy without waiting for any laws to be passed.

Typical liberal thinking to take a term that was well understood and applied to classes of people that were well understood, and decide that homosexuals who want to marry someone of the same sex were now a new class that had to get equal protection.

The sleight of hand was to declare that marriage by its definition was discriminatory to homosexuals. Since the definition of marriage had not changed from the passage of the 14th Amendment to now, the fraud in the reasoning should be obvious.

But special interest groups don’t care, as long as they get what they want.

What, no facts and historical scrutiny to support your assertion that same-sex marriage would somehow have the exact same affect as normal marriage? I guess it’s hard to find factual support for magical thinking. No wonder you skipped right past that to the next point.

You’re using some very vague terms here. What exactly is “the exact same affect (sic) as normal heterosexual marriage”?

I’m not more specific, because I’m referencing your own arguments that same-sex marriage would necessarily create a more stable home, a stable family, and a monogamous relationship just because that seems to happen in real marriages.

It won’t. Those things don’t happen in real marriages just because they’re married. It happens in real marriages because there is already a commitment to those things before the marriage happens. There’s no reason to assume the same will hold true for same-sex marriages.

First, multiple studies have shown children do better with a father and mother, which is necessarily impossible for homosexual “parents.” Homosexuals tend to dismiss these studies as irrelevant because they don’t specifically compare heterosexual to homosexual parents. But since homosexual parents by definition don’t include a mother and father, the dismissal is artificial.

Which studies and how do they quantify “better”? Links please. Someone did attempt to do this a couple pages by when they linked to some of Douglas Allen’s work but the study had some major flaws in it so if you’ve got something better then I’m all ears.

Too many studies to count or link here. Hopefully, you’re not playing the same old game as when you questioned whether homosexual behavior was risky. That is, pretending to need proof of what was already very well known to anyone who had been paying attention.

But here’s a decent link that summarizes some of those studies found in a few seconds of googling.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/30-years-of-research-that-tells-us-a-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father/

Excuse me if I find this tiresome. I’ve been seeing this game played out since at least the 70s, where an advocacy group sponsors some very bad studies to try to claim their position is on the side of science. In some cases, such as the notorious Kinsey sex studies, the research was completely fraudulent.

The simple fact is that liberal advocacy groups have long since figured out the advantage of suborning social science to promote their cause. Global Warming advocates were not the first to have that idea.

In the case of same-sex marriage, an article by Loren Mark analyzed those studies and showed how ridiculously small the sample sizes were, and those were often self-selected. A short summary of that with a link to the original article is http://familyscholars.org/2012/06/12/loren-marks-how-the-apa-got-it-wrong/

The Regnerus study was not flawless, but it was better and more authoritative than virtually all of the previous studies.

Wow, are you full of it! Medically, homosexuality has always been considered risky behavior. Inherent? Obviously. The anus is not only a non-sterile environment for the male partner, but the lining of it is not thick enough to stand up as an intercourse substitute, which leads to tears in the lining and fecal matter being introduced to the bloodstream of the male recipient. And that is about as delicately as I can put it.

Even if I were to stipulate that everything you say is true that wouldn’t change the fact that it’s 100% irrelevant to the SSM debate. The sodomy issue has been settled by the courts. And why do you insist on punishing lesbians for the issues you have with gay men?

You support the argument for SSM by claiming there’s no evidence that homosexuality is in any way not as good or as healthy as normal sexuality. I show you a big difference, and it’s 100% irrelevant?

Since my point was to answer your own argument, it can only be irrelevant if your argument was irrelevant in the first place.

Look a few sentences up, and there you are disputing that homosexuality is risky, or that the risk is inherent. Apparently you’re like Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass,”

Based off your earlier diatribe against sodomy I assume you’re still stuck on that and that’s what you’re referencing here. Sodomy occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual couples and it’s no riskier for one that it is the other. There is no risk for contracting STDs for any disease-free monogamous couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual. And again, any discussion of sexual relations is 100% irrelevant to the SSM debate because sodomy is already legal and that’s not going to change. If you’ve got problems with SSM then talk about that; there is no need to bring sodomy up at all.

What I said was in reference to your willingness to redefine terms at will, to pretend known facts are not known at all, and to basically deny what you find inconvenient. You ignore that and dismiss it as a “diatribe against sodomy.”

While the risks of sodomy are true, my point was that you deny those well-known and undeniable risks. Someone points them out, and you say there are no risks. I prove there are, and now they’re irrelevant.

And of course the attempt to redefine marriage so that, rather than being a union of two members of the opposite sex that leads to reproduction and families, it would mean any two people (but only two!) who “love each other.”

Two people who would otherwise be qualified but for the gender of one of the parties, really. They aren’t hurting anybody, they’re not a detriment to society and they have no realistic opportunity to access the legal status of marriage otherwise.

Which one of the two is being discriminated against for being the wrong gender? The wife, or the husband?

Wait, you mean there might be two wives? Or two husbands? Or just two partners.

That is exactly how far you have to go to prove that marriage is being redefined. Suddenly, speaking of husband and wife no longer makes sense.

Every part of your argument is based on the premise that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

There isn’t, at least in the moral sense. There shouldn’t be one in the legal sense either but that’s the battle we’re fighting.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Right. This might be a good time to take you up on your offer.

If there’s anything that I’ve said that you would like supporting evidence for then just say the word.

So where’s your supporting evidence that there is no difference between homosexuality and normal sexuality in the moral sense?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM

For crying out loud. pannw said, “to this day” You can’t possibly say it would never happen based on the fact that it hasn’t happened yet.

If you want me to prove it would never happen then you’re asking me to prove a negative. There is no evidence to believe it but pannw does anyway despite that fact. Are you in the same boat?

I think you lost track of your position. You were the one saying confidently that it could never, ever happen. I pointed out that you have nothing to stand on to make that claim. And now you’re replying that I’m the one demanding you prove a negative.

Furthermore, it’s typical of liberals (not that I’m saying anything, ya know…) to talk about freedom of religion as if it only applies to the churches themselves. If you’re only free to practice your religion inside a church, you don’t have religious freedom at all.

Do you believe the freedom of religion means you get to do anything you want so long as it’s part of your religious beliefs?

We’re not talking about “anything you want.” The First Amendment says that Congress shall not establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion certainly includes the ability to make moral judgements, and to refuse to endorse what Christianity from the beginning has considered sinful.

We already in fact have a church that had to allow same-sex marriages in a pavilion they owned. Religious freedom has already been trampled.

Nope! First off, an outdoor boardwalk pavilion is a far cry from a church. Secondly, they did not allow the ceremony to take place. The Methodist church in question was given a government subsidy for making their boardwalk available to the public in accordance with New Jersey anti-discrimination laws. When the church attempted to discriminate in violation of their agreement they were given the choice to give up their government subsidy or allow the ceremony. They gave up the subsidy and the ceremony was not held there. But you knew that, right?

Yeah, a church-owned facility is a far cry from a church. No attempt by the government to pressure a church to do what violated their faith. None at all.

And they didn’t lose a subsidy. They lost a tax exemption normally given to them for allowing public use of their private property. The rest of their facilities they allowed the public to use was eligible for the tax exemption, but the government revoked it for the pavilion.

We have photographers sued for politely declining to photograph a same-sex wedding, and a baker sued for not making a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In all these cases, religious beliefs were considered an insufficient reason to withhold approval of same sex weddings.

I agree that none of those people should have been sued, and that the anti-discrimination laws they ran up against should be repealed.

Only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM

“There’s no evidence of this whatsoever but you’d be a fool not to believe it!”

Yep, seems reasonable to me!

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I said, “only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.” I made no claim that it would happen, since we don’t know the future. But it would be very foolish to say it was not possible.

And yet there you are making confident predictions that it would never, could never happen because … it never has.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Someone can hold a “liberal” opinion on one issue and “conservative” opinions on many other issues, and easily qualify as a libertarian.

bmmg39 on November 19, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Obviously. But when someone claims to be a libertarian, but argues everything like a liberal, skepticism is in order.

Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it’s not really a dog….

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Is there an honest bone in your body, that you can sit there and pretend the two have nothing to do with one another?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

They don’t.

The Methodist Pavilion case you mentioned before was from 2009 in New Jersey and they didn’t have gay marriage until about a month ago. The wedding photographer case started years ago in New Mexico where only a few counties have been issuing marriage licenses for a couple months and the state Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue. The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued their gay marriage ruling over a decade ago and there have been no churches compelled there yet. The marriage laws and the anti-discrimination laws are totally separate, and the churches have proved immune from doing anything they don’t want to do.

For as much as you seem to care about this issue I would think you would know more about it.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 5:52 PM

So, that would be a no. No matter how obvious that the one is not irrelevant to the other, you won’t admit it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM

“Argues everything like a liberal” — or just this one issue?

bmmg39 on November 20, 2013 at 12:48 AM

“Argues everything like a liberal” — or just this one issue?

bmmg39 on November 20, 2013 at 12:48 AM

I spent a lot of time already documenting how often he argues like a liberal. I see no point in saying it all over again.

In fact, I think my basic point that he sounds a lot more like a liberal than a libertarian is far better substantiated than anything he had to say about same-sex marriage. That is, I can point to actual evidence rather than unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Ultimately, it’s possible that he’s a libertarian on other issues. But quite unlikely.

You see, one of the most consistent signs of liberals is that they almost always lie about what they are.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 1:16 AM

Claiming to ‘divide, and separate’ church from secular, as pertains to “recognition of same-sex-marriage”, is an invalid dodge.

listens2glenn on November 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM

.
It would be an invalid dodge in a theocracy but we do not have a theocratic government in this country.

alchemist19 on November 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM

.
My fault ….. I should have added the words;

“… for all those persons claiming to be Christian believers”

irregardless of denominational differences.

Theocracy not required (nor desired).

listens2glenn on November 20, 2013 at 1:32 AM

There was never a due process claim for same-sex marriage, and never an equal protection claim. That’s because marriage was always between a man and a woman. To claim “equal protection” because homosexuals weren’t interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex was recognized as an absurdity.

.
.
.

But special interest groups don’t care, as long as they get what they want.

What you’re overlooking is the recent advancements in biological and social sciences have elucidated things about the nature of sexual orientation that we didn’t know even a few years ago. The due process and equal protection claims in the Baker v. Nelson era weren’t taken seriously because we didn’t know then what we know now. In retrospect we can see now were wrong to do what we did, and as I’ve said the fact we can see we did wrong in the past is no reason to continue to do wrong now.

I’m not more specific, because I’m referencing your own arguments that same-sex marriage would necessarily create a more stable home, a stable family, and a monogamous relationship just because that seems to happen in real marriages.

It won’t. Those things don’t happen in real marriages just because they’re married. It happens in real marriages because there is already a commitment to those things before the marriage happens. There’s no reason to assume the same will hold true for same-sex marriages.

Are you doubting the benefit of married couples to society like, for example, the increased financial stability of a married couple?

Too many studies to count or link here. Hopefully, you’re not playing the same old game as when you questioned whether homosexual behavior was risky. That is, pretending to need proof of what was already very well known to anyone who had been paying attention.

But here’s a decent link that summarizes some of those studies found in a few seconds of googling.

(link)

Excuse me if I find this tiresome. I’ve been seeing this game played out since at least the 70s, where an advocacy group sponsors some very bad studies to try to claim their position is on the side of science. In some cases, such as the notorious Kinsey sex studies, the research was completely fraudulent.

The simple fact is that liberal advocacy groups have long since figured out the advantage of suborning social science to promote their cause. Global Warming advocates were not the first to have that idea.

In the case of same-sex marriage, an article by Loren Mark analyzed those studies and showed how ridiculously small the sample sizes were, and those were often self-selected. A short summary of that with a link to the original article is:

The Regnerus study was not flawless, but it was better and more authoritative than virtually all of the previous studies.

You just stepped in it big time! I know you’ll ignore what I’m about to say because it cuts the legs out from under your beliefs but, what the heck, I’ll do it anyway!

Your first link is from Focus on the Family, a well-known source of unbiased information when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. If you read what the studies that author cites say they draw comparisons between married two-parent households vs. single, step, or unmarried couples. If they don’t carve out and examine children in same-sex couples specifically then we can’t draw any conclusions about same sex couples. Duh. I guess that’s the kind of mistake you make when you’ve got an axe to grind.

Then you bring me Loren Marks. Little history of Loren Marks for you if you didn’t know the sources you’re citing as relevant.

Marks was supposed to testify in the District Court in the Prop 8 case in California but got dropped after it came out that he hadn’t actually read all of the studies he was talking about, that his reports defined adoptive parents as “biological”, that he never researched same sex couples, and that his conclusions about same-sex parenting weren’t supported by the evidence.

Needless to say, Loren Marks got dropped as a witness really fast.

But let’s play this out just for kicks. The Marks thing you quote is a criticism of an APA brief from 2005. I presented an ASA brief from 2013. If you read that ASA brief and look at their references most are more recent than 2005 so even if Marks’s criticisms are valid for the older stuff they don’t apply to most of what the ASA presented to SCOTUS earlier this year.

*lights a cigarette* Was that as good for you as it was for me?

You support the argument for SSM by claiming there’s no evidence that homosexuality is in any way not as good or as healthy as normal sexuality. I show you a big difference, and it’s 100% irrelevant?

Since my point was to answer your own argument, it can only be irrelevant if your argument was irrelevant in the first place.

What I said was in reference to your willingness to redefine terms at will, to pretend known facts are not known at all, and to basically deny what you find inconvenient. You ignore that and dismiss it as a “diatribe against sodomy.”

While the risks of sodomy are true, my point was that you deny those well-known and undeniable risks. Someone points them out, and you say there are no risks. I prove there are, and now they’re irrelevant.

It looked to me like you were trying to sidetrack the discussion onto another issue, and given how poor the science you tried to bring is I can’t say that I blame you.

But fine, sodomy is practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It’s not practiced by all heterosexual couples or all homosexual couples but it is by some. Amongst those that do practice it there is no difference between the two groups practicing it. You cited the fairly minor issue of a tear in the lining that can occur in both heterosexuals or in homosexuals, and to the best of my knowledge it’s not a significant health risk. If that’s the “harm” you want to go for you’re grasping at straws, though from the looks of things straws might be all you have to grasp at.

Which one of the two is being discriminated against for being the wrong gender? The wife, or the husband?

Wait, you mean there might be two wives? Or two husbands? Or just two partners.

That is exactly how far you have to go to prove that marriage is being redefined. Suddenly, speaking of husband and wife no longer makes sense.

Semantics issues? The straw grasping pattern continues unabated!

So where’s your supporting evidence that there is no difference between homosexuality and normal sexuality in the moral sense?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM

And so it’s come to this. You present junk science while not even attempting to refute the science I presented to you. Your quest to find any harm whatsoever leads to something that’s just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. You just hung up on inconsequential things like “Who’s the husband?” Now to top it off you want me to present evidence of my personal code. This is pure intellectual laziness on your part.

Is this the best you’ve got?

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 3:49 AM

My fault ….. I should have added the words;

“… for all those persons claiming to be Christian believers”

irregardless of denominational differences.

Theocracy not required (nor desired).

listens2glenn on November 20, 2013 at 1:32 AM

That makes a lot more sense. No worries, just checking. :)

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 3:51 AM

I think you lost track of your position. You were the one saying confidently that it could never, ever happen. I pointed out that you have nothing to stand on to make that claim. And now you’re replying that I’m the one demanding you prove a negative.

My position is totally consistent. Just to be clear for you, it’s as likely to happen as the First Amendment is likely to be repealed. Nonzero but just barely.

We’re not talking about “anything you want.” The First Amendment says that Congress shall not establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion certainly includes the ability to make moral judgements, and to refuse to endorse what Christianity from the beginning has considered sinful.

No one is interfering with anyone’s ability to make moral judgments or personally refusing to endorse something contrary to their religion. Baking the cake someone paid you to bake doesn’t exactly constitute an endorsement.

Yeah, a church-owned facility is a far cry from a church. No attempt by the government to pressure a church to do what violated their faith. None at all.

And they didn’t lose a subsidy. They lost a tax exemption normally given to them for allowing public use of their private property. The rest of their facilities they allowed the public to use was eligible for the tax exemption, but the government revoked it for the pavilion.

The church made a deal with the government and then violated it.

A tax exemption is just another form of a subsidy, and you’re right that in that case they did keep that subsidy for the other 99% of the boardwalk. You seem to have changed your tone on this in regards to who exactly had to do what, too. I’ll take that as a tacit admission that you were wrong before and I was right.

I said, “only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.” I made no claim that it would happen, since we don’t know the future. But it would be very foolish to say it was not possible.

And yet there you are making confident predictions that it would never, could never happen because … it never has.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:13 AM

By the standard you’re attempting to apply here we couldn’t say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, nor can anything else concretely be said about what will happen in the future. If that’s the standard you want then fine, but I’ll bet you a Barack Obama deficit that in 20 years same sex marriage will be legal nationwide and no churches or clergy will have been compelled to perform a service against their wishes.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:10 AM

So, that would be a no. No matter how obvious that the one is not irrelevant to the other, you won’t admit it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Look at what you did here. You made a statement that two issues (in this case: marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws) have something to do with each other. I point out that they don’t and cite three specific examples to buttress my point. You then repeat your point, still without evidence, and were unable to take on any of my points that basically proved you were wrong. You would get laughed off a high school debate team for something like that.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:17 AM

“Argues everything like a liberal” — or just this one issue?

bmmg39 on November 20, 2013 at 12:48 AM

Thanks.

I think his insistence that I’m really a liberal when it’s neither true nor relevant is just another example of unhinged and out of touch with reality some conservatives can get on this issue.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:18 AM

I just don’t believe that homosexuality is normal, natural, or genetic in nature. I truly believe that it’s a disorder caused by social and/or environmental factors. Further, it is clear to any honest person that engaging in anal sex is a dangerous activity because the anal cavity is very susceptible to infection. This creates a public health hazard. I don’t think that encouraging this behavior is positive for any society. It’s as if the government started sanctioning the taking poison. For these reasons, I’m against homosexual marriage

Dollayo on November 20, 2013 at 7:43 AM

And so it’s come to this. You present junk science while not even attempting to refute the science I presented to you. Your quest to find any harm whatsoever leads to something that’s just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 3:49 AM

Akzed on November 20, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Your quest to find any harm whatsoever leads to something that’s just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 3:49 AM

“Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men–San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.

Ulysses Torassa, “Some With HIV Aren’t Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher’s 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference,” The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).

Jon Garbo, “Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers,” GayHealth News (January 3, 2001).

“Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women With HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000).

“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

“Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer,” The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000).

Akzed on November 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Homosexuality is not a sin…not in the Catholic faith, to which I belong. Extramarital sex, gay or straight, is a sin. Simply being gay is no sin.

You selectively quote Leviticus, and omit all the other “abominations” like eating shellfish and pork, wearing blended fabric, men shaving their beards, etc etc.

JetBoy on August 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Proper 1st Corinthians:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10

Jetboy’s re-written 1st Corinthians:

That’s a perfect example of mistranslation.

Here’s the more accurate text in 1 Cor. 6:9-10:

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

And 1 Cor. 6:11:

“That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

But again, scripture and secular state law are two separate things. Not every is Christian, nor is anyone required to be under Christian doctrine.

JetBoy on August 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I remembered him lying about this as well. No one owes him an apology for anything. Gwelf, you were correct.

njrob on November 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM

“Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men–San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.

Ulysses Torassa, “Some With HIV Aren’t Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher’s 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference,” The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).

Jon Garbo, “Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers,” GayHealth News (January 3, 2001).

“Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women With HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000).

“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

“Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer,” The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000).

Akzed on November 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Wow.

Sure seems like encouraging monogamous relationships for gays will be a lot healthier…

bmmg39 on November 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Akzed on November 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM

bmmg39 beat me to it.

All those ills you list are related to having multiple sexual partners. If you’re really concerned about those then the way to combat them is encourage gay men to enter exclusive, committed, faithful relationships (i.e.: get married). If two people, even two gay men, don’t have gonorrhea and are in a faithful marriage then the odds of either of them ever contracting it is zero. The odds of them ever getting HIV is zero. And while everyone, male and female, heterosexual or homosexual, is at some risk for anal cancer, the increased risk of anal cancers experienced by gay men is caused by HPV, just like with cervical cancer in heterosexual women. Do you know what the odds of contracting HPV is for a gay man in an exclusive, committed, faithful marriage with a man who doesn’t carry the virus? Yep, it’s zero!

So now that the concerns you raised have been shown to actually be a reason to support marriage rights for homosexuals does that mean you’re maybe starting to reconsider your position on the issue?

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I called it a “tirade” because it was so characteristic of the stereotypical angry, fire and brimstone preacher waving a bible around and tossing out judgement and ridiculous, baseless accusations about HHS mandates, Christian businesses, birth control. Your entire style flies in the face of how Jesus preached and acted. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Because you know Him so well, right? You, the one who doesn’t like to see His word written? So how did Jesus preach and act? Do you mean when He made a scourge of knots (aka whip) and used it to chase the money changers out of the temple? When He picked up their tables and chairs and threw them out after them? Sounds like Jesus had a bit of a temper, doesn’t it? Maybe I shouldn’t call alchemist19 an arrogant liar and follow Jesus’ lead and call him an evil generation, or a serpent, that he is of a brood of vipers? Would you like that better? Or is that too much for your delicate sensibilities, too? Should Jesus be ashamed for being so hell fire and brimstone all the time when He talked about weeping and gnashing of teeth or threatened to say, ” Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”? You do mean acting like that Jesus, right?

Or are you referring to that imaginary doormat Jesus that all Catholic dissidents like to throw at people? You know the one who doesn’t care if people sin, accepts everyone just as they are, never said, “Go and sin no more.” Well, He accepts all except faithful Catholics who dare call sin a sin, right, JetBoy? Those are the only people He doesn’t approve of, right? Your imaginary Jesus must have despised Saint Paul. /s

So it is my style you take issue with over the subject? Somehow I doubt you would mind if I was supporting your agenda. I haven’t seen you rebuke alchemist for his lies and sickening arrogance, (‘I hadn’t linked to the ASA brief when you wrote this so I’ll forgive you for it.”) but okay, you don’t like my style. Fine; I’m not particularly a fan of the passive aggressive thing you have going either. Of course, it’s nothing to the way I feel about the Scandal you bring. You know it really is quite rich to be told I should be ashamed of my style by a well known Heretic. I think you have a sequoia sized plank in your eye.

You haven’t shown alchemist19 to be a liar. You’ve only thrown out accusations with no explanations of what he’s actually lied about.

Well, clearly you missed his story/lie about his imaginary Catholic fiancé, and the lie he used about the Church to push your agenda. I won’t go over the whole thing again. You see what you want to see anyway.

Wrong side of what?

Oh, please…playing stupid is really unbecoming, JetBoy.

I can’t argue that.
JetBoy on November 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Great, but did you read his words? Pretty judgmental, no? I mean comparing people to a dog returned to its vomit? How do you feel about his style?’

One of the spiritual works of mercy is telling people the truth. You may not like hearing it, (and like less the way I present it) but you are placing your immortal soul in danger, and trying your damndest to take others with you, scandalizing them by spewing your heresy. You are also showing yourself perfectly okay, like alchemist19, with Christians suffering persecution for standing up for the Truth as revealed by God. You will not defend their rights to conduct their lives according to God’s law. You have taken the side of Nero and those who follow in his wickedness. Do you think that is offensive? Well, there is more than one reason the first Christians thought Nero was the Antichrist. It wasn’t just his cruelty, which is unsurprising considering sodomy is by its very nature sadomasochistic, but also because of the description of Antichrist in Daniel as one who ‘will be in the concupiscence of women’ as translated in the original Douay OT, or ‘shall follow the lust of women’ in the Haydock and Challoner Douay… That ‘wedding’ Nero had dressed up as the bride probably convinced them. But you don’t like scripture, do you? Well, it is what it is, and I am not ashamed of the Gospel.

Did I get a little passionate in my post to alchemist19? Absolutely, because it makes me sick to see him lie, especially about the Church, to support an evil agenda that will bring about more persecution.

It is coming, JetBoy and only an intentionally blind person refuses to see it. I am worried about people I love. My priest, God bless him, is a wonderful orthodox priest of Christ, and he knows it is coming. Francis Cardinal George knows it is coming. Fr. Z knows it is coming. Archbishop Leonard of Belgium knows it is coming, all too well. The vile hatred thrown at him, along with other things is sickening, but the way it is reported in the leftist media is most disturbing, as if he somehow deserves it, with headlines like Topless FEMEN Protesters Drench Belgian Archbishop André-Jozef Léonard, Protest Homophobia In Catholic Church. Homophobia, homophobia, homophobia….

That is the side you’re aligning with, JetBoy. And they will get violent, or more violent as in the case with Archbishop Leonard. I don’t want to see my priest and his orthodox friends who fill in for him, or the wonderful orthodox seminarians that assisted him this summer, or Archbishops Leonard or Sample or Paprocki or Beloved Benedict XVI or Pope Francis…become martyrs for your cause, but I feel certain that at least some of them will. They know it is coming. It is clear in their homilies, and postings, and addresses such as spelled out clearly by Francis Cardinal George. You may like to think it is hysteria, but learn your Church’s history, JetBoy. It has happened often, and the US is no different, regardless of our Constitution which is already being shredded. We have chosen death. If we will brutally murder our most innocent by the MILLIONS do you really doubt we would martyr a few troublesome priests?

Which reminds me, how dare you accuse me of making up things about the evil HHS mandate? Do you really deny that it is evil and forcing Christians to violate their consciences or face persecution in the form of massive fines? Are you a liar, too, as well as a heretic? I suppose the bishops and faithful Catholic organizations and business owners are suing the government for no reason? Pathetic, JetBoy.

What are you going to say to defend the homosexualists when they no longer accept merely fining people and start having them dragged off for ‘rehabilitation’? Yep, Fr. Z. knows it is coming. What happens when the persecution turns bloody, JetBoy? How will you defend that? Will you attack the people who report it because you don’t like their style?

It is coming.

Oh, and just so you know, that is a tirade, and I am not one iota ashamed of it.

All you Holy Martyrs, pray for us!

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Well, clearly you missed his story/lie about his imaginary Catholic fiancé, and the lie he used about the Church to push your agenda. I won’t go over the whole thing again. You see what you want to see anyway.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM

This is insulting.

OK, anonymous person on the internet, how would you like me to go about proving details of my personal life to your satisfaction?

The fact you would be so interested in those details is disgusting, insulting, voyeuristic and rude. My personal life also has nothing to do whatsoever with my opinion on this issue, or the arguments I’ve made in support of my position. The argument stands or falls on its own merits regardless of whether it’s from a man or woman, young or old, heterosexual or homosexual. I point that out because we both know I can’t “prove” anything about my personal life to you in this forum, and because it exposes the intellectual vacancy of you making an issue of my or anyone else’s personal life instead of combating the point directly. For doing what you’ve done you’re a pretty sorry human being with a pretty sorry, weak position.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I am insulted when someone makes up falsehoods about what my Church does and does not permit. You were caught in your lie and and suddenly you don’t know if she’s actually Catholic, and then you conveniently have a broken engagement so you don’t have to discuss it anymore. You are offended, well so am I. I guess we are even.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM

And just so anyone who might still be reading this is clear, YOU are the one that made your personal life part of the issue when you made up claims about your personal ‘experiences’ and interjected them into the debate to prove an erroneous point.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I am insulted when someone makes up falsehoods about what my Church does and does not permit. You were caught in your lie and and suddenly you don’t know if she’s actually Catholic, and then you conveniently have a broken engagement so you don’t have to discuss it anymore. You are offended, well so am I. I guess we are even.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM

I took my then-mother-in-law-to-be at her word who, like my ex-fiancé, is Catholic. If what I repeated from her was incorrect then it either a mistake on her part or a misunderstanding on mine, I don’t know which. If I just wanted to make a point I wouldn’t have personalized it.

And none of that changes the fact that it’s not relevant in the slightest to a discussion of a political issue. Do you have anything to say about the issue or are you just going to continue with the personal attacks in the absence of substance?

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Wow.

Sure seems like encouraging monogamous relationships for gays will be a lot healthier…

bmmg39 on November 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Homosexual activists Kirk and Madsen speak about how “open relationships” are so appealing to homosexual lovers. They speak about the “wayward impulse” as being “inevitable in man-to-man affairs, as in man-to-woman, only, for gays, it starts itching faster”.

They go on to say that:

“… the cheating ratio of “married” gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%. Men are, after all, as said earlier, more easily aroused than women, who tend to act as a relatively stabilizing influence; a restless gay man is more apt to be led astray by a cute face in the subway or the supermarket. Two gay men are double trouble, arithmetically squaring the probability of the fatal affairette.”

http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/dismantling-a-homosexual-marriage-myth/

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 3:07 PM

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Always someone else’s fault for leftists isn’t it? Whatever you say.

As to the issue of same sex ‘marriage’, I have made my argument clear on the issue though you continue to ignore them and only address the part about your bogus personal claims. That you made erroneous claims is a minor side note. You are all for the quashing of the First Amendment and I am not. Many others have refuted your bogus claims of the perfectly healthy wonderful alternative lifestyle of homosexual sex and you arrogantly dismiss them and the wealth of evidence they provide while holding out your own biased ‘studies’ as some sort of gospel. Like thuja and his bogus rejection of 2000 years of history, it is a waste of finger strength to argue with someone like that. Not to mention your revolting arrogance and condescension (*lights a cigarette…gag). All the arguments are made. Continue to reject the truth if you wish. Free Will will be the downfall of many.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM

http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/dismantling-a-homosexual-marriage-myth/

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 3:07 PM

And here again we see the perils of someone bringing something of highly questionable veracity into the discussion.

The link states things like

Article titles such as “How to Stay Married and Still Be a Slut” are not all that uncommon.

Not all that uncommon? So there should be many such articles written with that title. Well for the life of me I can’t seem to find them. I was able to turn up something along those lines in a Canadian magazine back in mid 2001 when the only place civil marriage for homosexuals was legal anywhere in the world was in the Netherlands, and only so there for a couple weeks. The magazine was not an academic source either, it looks like it’s nothing more than the personal opinion of the author, though I suspect there might be a former president or two who are interested in this concept of remaining slutty even after marriage.

Moving on from there to the excerpt you selected, the author also quotes something from two people named Kirk and Madsen, though he never gives a citation for this. There is no list of references and I admit I’ve never come across the names Kirk and Madsen before but if my Google-fu is strong I believe he’s referring to Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. I can’t find where exactly Kirk said that or in what context; I just see the blurb reposted constantly in several other similar articles to the one you linked and none that I’ve found can provide a reference. Kirk’s been dead for years anyway so I’m really curious about whether the statement was a finding based on a scientific study or just an opinion. Saying that the cheating ratio approaches 100% given enough time needs some explanation. 70% of married heterosexual men cheat on their wives so it wouldn’t exactly be new or groundbreaking to point out that some proportion of married men, be they heterosexual or homosexual, are going to be unfaithful at some point.

Do you have anything better that contains actual science and references to the works cited?

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Always someone else’s fault for leftists isn’t it? Whatever you say.

As to the issue of same sex ‘marriage’, I have made my argument clear on the issue though you continue to ignore them and only address the part about your bogus personal claims. That you made erroneous claims is a minor side note. You are all for the quashing of the First Amendment and I am not. Many others have refuted your bogus claims of the perfectly healthy wonderful alternative lifestyle of homosexual sex and you arrogantly dismiss them and the wealth of evidence they provide while holding out your own biased ‘studies’ as some sort of gospel. Like thuja and his bogus rejection of 2000 years of history, it is a waste of finger strength to argue with someone like that. Not to mention your revolting arrogance and condescension (*lights a cigarette…gag). All the arguments are made. Continue to reject the truth if you wish. Free Will will be the downfall of many.

pannw on November 20, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I’m not for quashing yours or anybody else’s First Amendment rights. Like I’ve said any time it’s come up, I’m in favor of letting florists and bakers and whatnot refuse service to gay couples for any reason they see fit. But it’s a separate issue.

I’ve seen very few people actually present anything scientific (and you’re on the list of people who as of yet have not) and the few that have done so have presented information that has been discredited. Also note they weren’t discredited because I said they were discredited, I went into them and pointed out specific flaws in the sampling and analysis. The things I’ve presented have received no such refutation. You can say the scientific claims I made or that the ASA made were bogus yet you can offer nothing in the way of evidence to that effect. If a study is biased and flawed then point out the flaws like I did it Marks and Allen’s biased, flawed work. If it’s really biased and flawed it should be easy for you. It certainly was for me when I knocked down the scant amount of science your side has presented thus far. Saying something is bogus because it doesn’t fit your worldview or because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean that things is bogus, no matter how much you wish that it was.

thuja speaks for thuja. I’m totally disinterested in that.

The *lights a cigarette* gag was an attempt to add a bit of levity to a discussion that was starting to turn nasty. For all your insistence that I’m really a homosexual, what I did to There Goes the Neighborhood’s argument in that particular section of that particular post is about the closest I’ve ever come to having sex with a man. :D

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Here is the book he wrote:
http://books.google.com/books/about/After_the_ball.html?id=1deGAAAAIAAJ

Here is another article he wrote:
http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

Some excerpts:
[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.
[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.
[3] GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.
[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.
[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.
[6] SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality. It is quite easy to find fault with such a campaign. We have tried to be practical and specific here, but the proposals may still have a visionary sheen.

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM

How about these excerpts? They are footnoted and everything:

Few “gay” relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. Source: Pollack, M. ” Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25.

50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.

In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. ” Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women ” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

Another large survey found that only 7 % of male homosexuals had been in a relationship that had lasted more than ten years. Source: K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report, (New York: Summit, 1979), pp. 339-40.

Homosexual author Seymour Kleinberg: “The prodigiousness of sex really depends deeply on change, and promiscuity is the easiest kind of change for gay men.” Source: Seymour Klienberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980), p. 171.

In a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., ” Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38.

A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.

Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexual males for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual author Dennis Altman even admitted: ” now there is a move toward claiming that this (promiscuity) is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships… (t) he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of gay life style.” Source: Dennis Altman, ” The Homosexualization of America, The Americanization of the Homosexual, (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982) pp. 16-7.

According to the American Psychological Association, after the AIDS epidemic the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year. Source: Sally Ann Stewart, ” AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men,” USA Today, 21 November 1984.

The 1984 book the “The Male Couple ” was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D, who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that “gay” couples lacked stability and long-term relationships. Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

A Los Angeles study conducted in the late 1980s found that male homosexuals averaged over 20 partners per year. Source: L. Linn et al., ” Recent Sexual Behaviors Among Homosexual Men Seeking Primary Medical Care,” Archives of Internal Medicine 149 (December 1989): pp. 2685-90.

Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: ” gay men aren’t very good at having and holding lovers…(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men.” And according to them, the average homosexual male first “seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. ” The cheating ratio of ‘married’ [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.” Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen,” After the Ball,” (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.

In Spain, the average homosexual sexual encounters for men were 42 per year in 1989. Source: Rodriguez-Pichardo, A., et al ” Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain,” Genitourin Med, 1990; Vol. 66, pp. 423-27.

“Gay” monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., ” Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.

A three-year study in Boston found that 77% of 481 male subjects had had more than 10 partners in the previous 5 years, 34% more than 50 partners in the previous 5 years. Source: G. R. Seage III et al., ” The Relation Between Nitrite Inhalants, Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Risk of Immunodeficiency Virus Infection,” American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (January 1, 1992), p. 5.

Between 17% to 54% of “gay” men continue to practice high-risk sex post-AIDS, suggesting an addictive drive. Source: Whitehead, NE., Whitehead, Bk., Submission to the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee on the Human rights Commission Amendment Bill 1992 ( Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Lion of Judah Ministries, 1993 ).

The Washington Post reported in 1993 that despite all the AIDS education for almost a decade ” increasing numbers of gay men…are lapsing into previous patterns of unsafe sexual practices…� Source: Andriote, John-Manuel, ” Gay Men and Unsafe Sex: Bridging a Gap Between Knowledge and Behavior,” The Washington Post, August 10, 1993, Z14.

Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).

The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported ” of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they’ve had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again.” Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.

A survey of 239 gay and bisexual males between the ages of 13 to 21 found that despite accurately understanding the odds of HIV infection, 63% participated in behavior that put them at “extreme high risk.” Source: Ramafedi, Gary, ” Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Beliefs and Behavior,” Pediatrics, August 1994, vol. 94, no.2, pp. 163-168. Cf., Lemp, George F., et al, ” Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men – The San Francisco/Berkeley Young Men’s survey,” Journal of the American Medical Association, August 10, 1994, vol. 272, no.6, pp.449-454.

Another story in The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term “monogamous” relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a “primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. ” The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men,” The Advocate, August 23, 1994.

A Los Angeles Study of young homosexual males in 1996 revealed that about 50% of those between 15 to 22 years of age had engaged in ” high-risk, unprotected sex” during the previous 6 months. Source: Bettina Boxall, ” Young Gays stray from Safe Sex, New Data Shows,” Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1996, sec. A.

” The facts, enough gay men are once again having enough unsafe sex that the rates of HIV infection, gonorrhea and syphilis are returning to frightening heights. “ Source: Kramer, Larry, ” Gay Culture, Redefined,” The New York Times, December 12, 1997, op ed page.

An upscale homosexual men’s magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. Here are some of the results: ” One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples.” 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. Source: LaBarbera, Peter, ” Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners,” The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.

Some men who have sex with men (MSM) may be recruiting sex partners in anonymous venues more often now than in the recent past. Source: Sowell Rl, Lindsey C, Spicer T, “Group sex in gay men: its meaning and HIV prevention implications,” Journal of Association of Nurses AIDS Care, 1998; Vol. 9: pp.59-71.

Studies consistently show age differences in the sexual activities of gay men. Younger men have more partners, a greater frequency of sex, “cruise” more and have shorter relationships than older men, while older men are more likely to pay for sex. Source: Gilmore, MR, Schwartz, P, Civic, D, (1999), The social context of sexuality: The case of the United States, In KK Holmes, PA Mardh, PF Sparling, SM Lemon, WE Stamm, P Piot, & JN Wasserhelt (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 23 (2). pp.109-114.

When STDs are introduced into the gay community, the size of the subsequent outbreak depends on the sexual mixing patterns of the gay community, the numbers of sex partners, concurrency of sexual partnerships, condom use, and frequency of partner change which at times can be great in the gay community. Source: Aral SQ., ” sexual network patterns as determinants of STD rates: paradigm shift in behavioral Epidemiology of STDs made visible,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 26; pp. 262-264.

Judy Wieder, editor in chief of The Advocate, wrote that according to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively – (males) are much more interested in causal sex and non monogamous relationships. In the same article, Gretchen Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff writers wanted to “even cruise for sex as gay men do.” Source: ” Do gay men and lesbians get along?� XY Magazine, July 1999, no.20, p. 77.

Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in “steady relationships”. 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed “clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification” between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, ” the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year.” In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, ” Now they know the other half,” Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.

The following study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) July 26th issue. A Cross-sectional survey conducted September 1999 through April 2000 with a total of 856 clients of the Denver Public Health HIV Counseling and testing Site in Colorado. 69.2% of the survey were men, 34.7% were homosexual or bisexual, and aged 20 to 50 years represented 84.1% of participants. The results show that 21.8% of those seeking sex over the internet had a history of STDs, 88.7% solicited oral sex, 41% had anal sex and 16.8% reported being sexually exposed to a person known to have HIV infection. Table 3 showed 135 (15.8%) of clients reporting that they had logged on to the internet to seek sex partners, and 88 (65.2%) of these having successfully initiated sexual contact: of those who had sex with more than 3 different Internet partners over a 6 month period was 34 (38.7%). Table 4 showed the majority of online seekers were men (65.2%), white (76.2%), and between the ages of 20 to 39 (63.2%). Also table 4 revealed that 67.7% of on line sex seekers were either homosexual or bisexual and that 76.7% meet and had homosexual sex encounters via the Internet. This led the researchers to conclude the following: Online seekers were more likely to be homosexual than offline clients and online partners were more likely to be homosexual than the online-no partner group. Finally, Table 5 reveals that online sex seekers were more likely to have had an STD and that 28.9% of online seekers reported exposing themselves to known HIV-positive partners. 63.4% and 72.9% respectively were homosexual sex encounters with 97% being oral sex and 69.4% being anal sex. Source: M. McFarlane, PhD., S.S. Bull, PhD., MPH., C.A. Rietmeijer, MD.,MPH., ” The internet as a newly Emerging Risk Environment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Journal of American Medical Association, July 26, 2000: pp. 443-446.

Men’s Health magazine reported in June that (heterosexual) men, on average, have 12.4 sex partners (in a lifetime), and have sex 1.5 times per week. These numbers may seem low to many gay men, who generally exercise greater sexual freedom than their heterosexual counterparts. But for a person who is sexually compulsive these numbers may seem shockingly low. Frequent sexual encounters may be accompanied by feelings or guilt and minor consequences. Ken (a gay man) suffers from Sexual Addiction, “It’s just so much easier to have anonymous sex with someone I don’t know. There is this buildup of excitement and a sexual rush, hoping the other guy will notice me…want me. After we connect, I just lose myself in the sex. It’s really not about knowing the guy. I rarely even want to know his name. When it’s over, I can simply walk away, ” said Ken. Among the problems caused by sexual addiction in “gay” men is one of the most common of contracting frequent and/or multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) ( i.e., HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, etc.). Source: Shaun Bourget, M.A., M.F.T., ” Sexual Addition: On a Road to Nowhere,” GayHealth.com; July 26,2000.

http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/05/the-monogamous-male-marriagefidelity-promiscuity-and-gay-marriage.html

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM

FINALLY! It sucks that it took this long until the post was off the first page but, hey, I’m glad someone out there is finally bringing me something that looks like science. I commend and appreciate you for taking the time to argue in good faith the right way.

Now, to the meat of your post.

Most if not all of the references you copied and pasted carry the same general message: gay men are promiscuous. If you believe promiscuity is bad then the simple thing to do is to allow and incentivize people not to be promiscuous by maybe, I don’t know, letting them get married. Create a positive and welcoming culture that tells people that rather than sleeping around all the time that it would be better if they found someone they liked, put a ring on them, went to Ikea to pick out some furniture then stayed in on weeknights and watched Mad Men on Netflix. For as much as social conservatives complain about cultural rot and the need for people to be exposed to positive role models instead of Miley Cyrus, they seem really resistant to affording gay people something good to aspire to.

As to the references themselves, you’re throwing up a lot of old stuff there. The culture has changed a lot in the last decade for gay people, especially since the Lawrence decision when the sodomy laws were struck down in 2003. The most recent reference you brought up is even older than that, with some stretching back to the time when homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. And if you actually start looking at what those references say instead of just a few carefully cherry-picked sentences you see a different picture emerge. For example when you talk about the book “The Male Couple” from 1984 what you neglect to mention is the authors also stated that in the groups of men they looked at who ranged in age from 20 to 69 (they were that age in 1984, remember) that they saw the groups of older men who had been in relationships for over 20 years lived in very dissimilar social and political circumstances in the early stages of their relationships than the younger couples who were at the time where those older couples were more than two decades before. The older men lived in a time where their sexual orientation was totally socially unacceptable and the researchers said they internalized a lot of those anti-gay sentiments which affected them later on. So like I said, what we really need are some positive role models for gay people in a positive, welcoming culture.

And some of those reporting methods are just bizarre. Take for example this

A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.

So if a person can’t keep their pants on for a year then falls in love with someone and are together and faithful for the next five decades they won’t be counted as monogamous because in one very brief stretch of time they had a few too many sexual partners? What kind of sense does that make? The last article you cite is from Men’s Health and it says the average heterosexual male has 12.7 sexual partners in his life so by that metric heterosexuals aren’t monogamous either.

The reference before that is also… interesting. They did a profile of people at a Colorado HIV testing center. A sampling of people at an HIV testing center isn’t going to be representative of the homosexual population at large. If a homosexual couple is committed and monogamous then there’s no need for them to show up at an HIV clinic to get tested and thus won’t appear in the study. You pick a testing method that omits a subgroup and then you’re surprised when that subgroup doesn’t show up? That might not have been intentional because the researchers might not have been trying to study fidelity and monogamy in the gay community at large but if that’s what they did then you can’t then pull data out of the study of a select subset and pretend it’s representative of the whole.

If you feel I’m being unfair with any of the specific references you cited then point them out and I’ll go back to it, and again I truly do appreciate you making an effort to elevate the discourse on this issue.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM

cptacek on November 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Basically what I see there is a suggested roadmap for showing heterosexual that homosexuals aren’t a threat to them. They look to me like they’re advocating using basically the same playbook that was used to win racial equality in the 50′s and 60′s, which is more or less what we’ve seen play out in the roughly 25 years since the book was published. For a group of people still smarting from the then-recent Bowers decision it was a brilliant move, and one that has proven effective. The social values of America towards homosexuals at the time the book was written were by and large pretty bad. Kudos to them for working to change it.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 1:29 AM

There was never a due process claim for same-sex marriage, and never an equal protection claim. That’s because marriage was always between a man and a woman. To claim “equal protection” because homosexuals weren’t interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex was recognized as an absurdity.

.
.
.

But special interest groups don’t care, as long as they get what they want.

What you’re overlooking is the recent advancements in biological and social sciences have elucidated things about the nature of sexual orientation that we didn’t know even a few years ago. The due process and equal protection claims in the Baker v. Nelson era weren’t taken seriously because we didn’t know then what we know now. In retrospect we can see now were wrong to do what we did, and as I’ve said the fact we can see we did wrong in the past is no reason to continue to do wrong now.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re still plugging away at this.

But not with any more effect. You talk of “recent advances” in biological and social sciences, and of “what we know now,” as if sexuality has all been reduced to a science. But it’s just an appeal to authority. Worse, it’s a false appeal, because science has not so advanced as you claim, and it’s a false authority, because social science has no real authority. In fact, virtually every recommendation by social science has turned out to be counterproductive. The sexual revolution was driven by often fraudulent social science, and has led to less stable marriages, higher divorce, and worse outcomes in child-rearing.

I’m not more specific, because I’m referencing your own arguments that same-sex marriage would necessarily create a more stable home, a stable family, and a monogamous relationship just because that seems to happen in real marriages.

It won’t. Those things don’t happen in real marriages just because they’re married. It happens in real marriages because there is already a commitment to those things before the marriage happens. There’s no reason to assume the same will hold true for same-sex marriages.

Are you doubting the benefit of married couples to society like, for example, the increased financial stability of a married couple?

You’re basing this on the benefits of marriages between members of the opposite sex, who often have children together. There is simply no reason to assume that the same applies to same-sex couples.

This is a basic begging-the-question logical fallacy. You want to argue that same-sex marriage will have the same benefits because it’s the same as marriage, but that assumes that it actually is the same as marriage, which is exactly the point you are claiming to prove.

Too many studies to count or link here. Hopefully, you’re not playing the same old game as when you questioned whether homosexual behavior was risky. That is, pretending to need proof of what was already very well known to anyone who had been paying attention.

But here’s a decent link that summarizes some of those studies found in a few seconds of googling.

(link)

Excuse me if I find this tiresome. I’ve been seeing this game played out since at least the 70s, where an advocacy group sponsors some very bad studies to try to claim their position is on the side of science. In some cases, such as the notorious Kinsey sex studies, the research was completely fraudulent.

The simple fact is that liberal advocacy groups have long since figured out the advantage of suborning social science to promote their cause. Global Warming advocates were not the first to have that idea.

In the case of same-sex marriage, an article by Loren Mark analyzed those studies and showed how ridiculously small the sample sizes were, and those were often self-selected. A short summary of that with a link to the original article is:

The Regnerus study was not flawless, but it was better and more authoritative than virtually all of the previous studies.

You just stepped in it big time! I know you’ll ignore what I’m about to say because it cuts the legs out from under your beliefs but, what the heck, I’ll do it anyway!

Your first link is from Focus on the Family, a well-known source of unbiased information when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. If you read what the studies that author cites say they draw comparisons between married two-parent households vs. single, step, or unmarried couples. If they don’t carve out and examine children in same-sex couples specifically then we can’t draw any conclusions about same sex couples. Duh. I guess that’s the kind of mistake you make when you’ve got an axe to grind.

Then you bring me Loren Marks. Little history of Loren Marks for you if you didn’t know the sources you’re citing as relevant.

Marks was supposed to testify in the District Court in the Prop 8 case in California but got dropped after it came out that he hadn’t actually read all of the studies he was talking about, that his reports defined adoptive parents as “biological”, that he never researched same sex couples, and that his conclusions about same-sex parenting weren’t supported by the evidence.

Needless to say, Loren Marks got dropped as a witness really fast.

But let’s play this out just for kicks. The Marks thing you quote is a criticism of an APA brief from 2005. I presented an ASA brief from 2013. If you read that ASA brief and look at their references most are more recent than 2005 so even if Marks’s criticisms are valid for the older stuff they don’t apply to most of what the ASA presented to SCOTUS earlier this year.

*lights a cigarette* Was that as good for you as it was for me?

You made a fool of yourself with all that.

First, you want to dismiss the study because it was quoted by Focus on the Family. Most of these pro-homosexuality studies you quote were heavily promoted and quoted on homosexual advocacy web sites. You’re going to have to go further than who quotes the study to prove or disprove it.

Second, you can’t even criticize them cogently. The link introduced the Regnerus study by pointing out the multiple studies showing that children did better in families with a father and mother, and that those same studies, however, did not compare to homosexual parents, and so did not apply directly to a comparison between homosexual and normal parents.

Your big gotcha was something that the same link had already pointed out.

That was the relevance of the Regnerus study. For the first time, a serious attempt was made to compare the results of children of homosexual parents to more normal families. And the results did not look good for the children of homosexual parents.

Now, you want to make hay of the fact that the Regnerus study was not conclusive. Of course it wasn’t, because it’s virtually impossible to find enough same-sex couples with children to compare to normal households.

Obviously. Children can’t be born to same-sex couples. When you find a same-sex couple with children in the household, it’s usually because one or the other parent had children before deciding they were homosexual. All children are born to opposite-sex couples originally. There simply is no apples-to-apples comparison between same-sex and opposite sex couples having children, because same-sex couples don’t have children.

As for Loren Marks, his article examined the statistical strength of multiple studies that had been uncritically acclaimed as proving that there was no difference in the results of raising the children of homosexuals and of normal parents. And found that they were drawing these conclusions based on statistically insignificant samples.

Therefore, the massive attempt to destroy his credibility rather than admit that the results of social science were not scientifically credible.

He didn’t even draw conclusions about same-sex parenting, but pointed out that the conclusions previously drawn were not backed by the science claimed.

Now here you were claiming that there was no evidence that children raised by homosexuals fared any worse than normal homes. Obviously, that was wrong. Note, you didn’t just claim there was a preponderance of evidence for your side, but that there was no evidence to the contrary.

You support the argument for SSM by claiming there’s no evidence that homosexuality is in any way not as good or as healthy as normal sexuality. I show you a big difference, and it’s 100% irrelevant?

Since my point was to answer your own argument, it can only be irrelevant if your argument was irrelevant in the first place.

What I said was in reference to your willingness to redefine terms at will, to pretend known facts are not known at all, and to basically deny what you find inconvenient. You ignore that and dismiss it as a “diatribe against sodomy.”

While the risks of sodomy are true, my point was that you deny those well-known and undeniable risks. Someone points them out, and you say there are no risks. I prove there are, and now they’re irrelevant.

It looked to me like you were trying to sidetrack the discussion onto another issue, and given how poor the science you tried to bring is I can’t say that I blame you.

A double ad hominem. Accuse me of trying to sidetrack the discussion when I was answering your claim that you had never tried to redefine any terms. And then claim I “tried to bring in poor science.”

I suppose someone finds this sophistry impressive.

I don’t derive my opinions on moral and social issues from social science, because it simply has not advanced enough to be relied upon. Given the nature of the social sciences, it may never reach that point. But it certainly isn’t at that point now.

But it was easy to find studies that contradicted what you claimed “all reputable scientists” believe.

But fine, sodomy is practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It’s not practiced by all heterosexual couples or all homosexual couples but it is by some.

Amazing. You try to draw equivalences here that don’t exist. It’s true that not all heterosexual couples practice sodomy. And you could say that not all homosexual couples do it, in the sense that lesbian couples generally don’t. But virtually all male homosexual couples do, obviously. Which gives the lie to the false equivalence between the small number of heterosexual couples that do, and the near universal male homosexual couples that do.

Amongst those that do practice it there is no difference between the two groups practicing it. You cited the fairly minor issue of a tear in the lining that can occur in both heterosexuals or in homosexuals, and to the best of my knowledge it’s not a significant health risk.

If sodomy is a nasty and unhealthy business, then it’s nasty and unhealthy for whoever does it. That just happens to be male homosexuals far more than any other group in existence.

Obviously it’s a known health risk, and a significant one. It’s probably one of the big reasons why male homosexual populations are prone to a number of rather nasty diseases.

If that’s the “harm” you want to go for you’re grasping at straws, though from the looks of things straws might be all you have to grasp at.

Oookay.

Which one of the two is being discriminated against for being the wrong gender? The wife, or the husband?

Wait, you mean there might be two wives? Or two husbands? Or just two partners.

That is exactly how far you have to go to prove that marriage is being redefined. Suddenly, speaking of husband and wife no longer makes sense.

Semantics issues? The straw grasping pattern continues unabated!

Semantics issues? You mean, like redefining terms? Amazing how I can sidetrack a discussion onto semantic issues when it was originally about … redefining terms.

So where’s your supporting evidence that there is no difference between homosexuality and normal sexuality in the moral sense?

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 19, 2013 at 11:42 PM

And so it’s come to this. You present junk science while not even attempting to refute the science I presented to you. Your quest to find any harm whatsoever leads to something that’s just as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. You just hung up on inconsequential things like “Who’s the husband?” Now to top it off you want me to present evidence of my personal code. This is pure intellectual laziness on your part.

Is this the best you’ve got?

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 3:49 AM

So, you don’t have any supporting evidence for the claim that homosexuality is morally and legally equal to normal sexuality.

Thought so.

And that’s why you want to attack “semantics” and accuse me of “grasping at straws,” and conflate the relatively rare incidence of sodomy among normal couples with the near-universal incidence of sodomy among male homosexuals.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM

I think you lost track of your position. You were the one saying confidently that it could never, ever happen. I pointed out that you have nothing to stand on to make that claim. And now you’re replying that I’m the one demanding you prove a negative.

My position is totally consistent. Just to be clear for you, it’s as likely to happen as the First Amendment is likely to be repealed. Nonzero but just barely.

You said it could never happen. That is claiming to be able to prove a negative.

I said that you have no real grounds for making that statement. IOW, you can’t prove a negative.

You protested that I was trying to make you prove a negative.

That’s not consistent at all.

We’re not talking about “anything you want.” The First Amendment says that Congress shall not establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion certainly includes the ability to make moral judgements, and to refuse to endorse what Christianity from the beginning has considered sinful.

No one is interfering with anyone’s ability to make moral judgments or personally refusing to endorse something contrary to their religion. Baking the cake someone paid you to bake doesn’t exactly constitute an endorsement.

No one paid them to bake a cake. They declined to take the job. They even provided names of people who might take the job.

Yeah, a church-owned facility is a far cry from a church. No attempt by the government to pressure a church to do what violated their faith. None at all.

And they didn’t lose a subsidy. They lost a tax exemption normally given to them for allowing public use of their private property. The rest of their facilities they allowed the public to use was eligible for the tax exemption, but the government revoked it for the pavilion.

The church made a deal with the government and then violated it.

Even here, you can’t be fair. The church had long been allowing public use of its facilities, but had never considered that to mean they didn’t still own those facilities, and didn’t have the right to control them.

And if you really want to call it a “deal with the government,” then it was the government that unilaterally changed the terms of that deal, and violated it.

A tax exemption is just another form of a subsidy, and you’re right that in that case they did keep that subsidy for the other 99% of the boardwalk. You seem to have changed your tone on this in regards to who exactly had to do what, too. I’ll take that as a tacit admission that you were wrong before and I was right.

So first, it was a deal, but now, it was a subsidy? Are you admitting that you were wrong before? Or is it a deal when you want to paint them as violating a deal, but “the loss of a subsidy” when you want to dismiss the loss they suffered?

And the church still retained ownership, as I said before.

I said, “only a fool would believe it could never happen to churches in the future.” I made no claim that it would happen, since we don’t know the future. But it would be very foolish to say it was not possible.

And yet there you are making confident predictions that it would never, could never happen because … it never has.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:13 AM

By the standard you’re attempting to apply here we couldn’t say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, nor can anything else concretely be said about what will happen in the future. If that’s the standard you want then fine, but I’ll bet you a Barack Obama deficit that in 20 years same sex marriage will be legal nationwide and no churches or clergy will have been compelled to perform a service against their wishes.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:10 AM

The difference between the possibility of the loss of religious freedom and the possibility of the sun failing to rise in the east is several orders of magnitude, I would think.

But again, you speak only of “churches or clergy” specifically, while I speak of Christians being limited in the free exercise of their religion.

Which, incidentally, actually IS in the Constitution.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:07 AM

So, that would be a no. No matter how obvious that the one is not irrelevant to the other, you won’t admit it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Look at what you did here. You made a statement that two issues (in this case: marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws) have something to do with each other. I point out that they don’t and cite three specific examples to buttress my point. You then repeat your point, still without evidence, and were unable to take on any of my points that basically proved you were wrong. You would get laughed off a high school debate team for something like that.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:17 AM

You assert that they have nothing to do with one another. And yet, here we have 3 specific examples where someone is accused of discrimination for not endorsing same-sex marriage: The Methodist Pavilion, the photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex wedding, and the baker who declined to do a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

Even the use of the term “marriage equality” is meant to imply that not endorsing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:14 AM

The *lights a cigarette* gag was an attempt to add a bit of levity to a discussion that was starting to turn nasty. For all your insistence that I’m really a homosexual, what I did to There Goes the Neighborhood’s argument in that particular section of that particular post is about the closest I’ve ever come to having sex with a man. :D

alchemist19 on November 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM

You mean where you confused the Family Research Center with Focus on the Family (they’ve been independent of each other since 1992.), badly mischaracterized what the link in question said, pretended to have proof that the study was not credible by … citing what was clearly stated about the study at the link, rejected it because there was not a direct comparison just between the children of same-sex couples and the children of normal couples, even though same-sex couples can’t actually have children, and the children by definition came from opposite-sex couples, and then launched an ad hominem attack against Loren Mark while ignoring the central question of the quoted article, which was to show that the studies cited by advocates for homosexual parenting are typically based on tiny samples that are not statistically significant enough to draw conclusions.

I think you may be the only one impressed by that effort.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:40 AM

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re still plugging away at this.

But not with any more effect. You talk of “recent advances” in biological and social sciences, and of “what we know now,” as if sexuality has all been reduced to a science. But it’s just an appeal to authority. Worse, it’s a false appeal, because science has not so advanced as you claim, and it’s a false authority, because social science has no real authority. In fact, virtually every recommendation by social science has turned out to be counterproductive. The sexual revolution was driven by often fraudulent social science, and has led to less stable marriages, higher divorce, and worse outcomes in child-rearing.

Science has helped us understand a lot more about sexuality than we did in the past. Here you’ve either misunderstood the argument to authority fallacy or you’re applying it in an absurd way because current scientific understanding exposes the lie of your beliefs. It’s a fallacy to cling to a conclusion simply on the basis of it coming from an expert when the conclusions of said expert are contrary to current evidence. By the standard you’re trying to set here it would be inappropriate to ever believe anything any expert in any field ever said about anything. You’re flat out saying that’s what we should do in the case of the social sciences. So if we can’t trust the body of carefully controlled scientific inquiry we should instead rely on what exactly? Your personal opinions?

You’re basing this on the benefits of marriages between members of the opposite sex, who often have children together. There is simply no reason to assume that the same applies to same-sex couples.

This is a basic begging-the-question logical fallacy. You want to argue that same-sex marriage will have the same benefits because it’s the same as marriage, but that assumes that it actually is the same as marriage, which is exactly the point you are claiming to prove.

Since you’ve already disqualified any and all social science research on the matter then perhaps we should start at a base level here. What’s the threshold of proof for demonstrating a same sex marriage is “the same” as an opposite sex marriage? And what authority figures am I allowed to quote?

You made a fool of yourself with all that.

First, you want to dismiss the study because it was quoted by Focus on the Family. Most of these pro-homosexuality studies you quote were heavily promoted and quoted on homosexual advocacy web sites. You’re going to have to go further than who quotes the study to prove or disprove it.

Reading comprehension fail. I didn’t dismiss something just because it came from Focus on the Family, I merely pointed out that with their track record it was worth keeping a salt shaker with a few thousand grains of salt in it nearby because you might *might* need those to take with whatever they put out.

Second, you can’t even criticize them cogently. The link introduced the Regnerus study by pointing out the multiple studies showing that children did better in families with a father and mother, and that those same studies, however, did not compare to homosexual parents, and so did not apply directly to a comparison between homosexual and normal heterosexual parents.

.
.
.

Obviously. Children can’t be born to same-sex couples. When you find a same-sex couple with children in the household, it’s usually because one or the other parent had children before deciding they were homosexual. All children are born to opposite-sex couples originally. There simply is no apples-to-apples comparison between same-sex and opposite sex couples having children, because same-sex couples don’t have children.

You CLEARLY didn’t read that ASA amicus brief I linked earlier. You also either very carefully worded what you said here in a way to make a deliberate false impression (Michael Moore would be proud), or you inadvertently screwed up. Whichever it is, I caught it and I’m going to call you on it.

You talked about the Regnerus study dealing with homosexual parents. The thing is there’s a difference between being raised by a same-sex couple and having a homosexual parent. The Regnerus study only looked at the latter. The ASA explained this very clearly in their brief why this is a problem. A child with a homosexual parent would include children whose parents divorced and then has one of them become romantically involved with a person of the same sex. If you’re including the children of divorce in with the “children with a homosexual parent” lot but omitting all children of divorce from the married heterosexual group then you’re stacking the deck, and that’s exactly what Regnerus did and why his study isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. He also did a bunch of other shoddy things like base his study of the children’s recollection of their parents sex lives, which they may or may not have been totally privy to.

It’s also pretty easy to do the apples-to-apples comparison you say can’t be done when looking at children being raised by same-sex couples, and that’s to look at same-sex couples who either adopt babies or use surrogates. I wonder what the data shows for them. Hmmm……

And before we go any farther, is social science bad except when it comes from Mark Regnerus?

As for Loren Marks, his article examined the statistical strength of multiple studies that had been uncritically acclaimed as proving that there was no difference in the results of raising the children of homosexuals and of normal parents. And found that they were drawing these conclusions based on statistically insignificant samples.

Therefore, the massive attempt to destroy his credibility rather than admit that the results of social science were not scientifically credible.

He didn’t even draw conclusions about same-sex parenting, but pointed out that the conclusions previously drawn were not backed by the science claimed.

Now here you were claiming that there was no evidence that children raised by homosexuals fared any worse than normal homes. Obviously, that was wrong. Note, you didn’t just claim there was a preponderance of evidence for your side, but that there was no evidence to the contrary.

Here’s that not reading the ASA brief coming back to bite you and make you look stupid again. Once again: the ASA summarizes in laymen’s terms and using a bunch of studies that weren’t included in the ones that Marks commented on. They provide an easy to understand summation of the current state of science that I’m sure you’re about to ignore simply because it’s full of inconvenient facts that expose your beliefs for the discredited nonsense that they are.

A double ad hominem. Accuse me of trying to sidetrack the discussion when I was answering your claim that you had never tried to redefine any terms. And then claim I “tried to bring in poor science.”

I suppose someone finds this sophistry impressive.

I don’t derive my opinions on moral and social issues from social science, because it simply has not advanced enough to be relied upon. Given the nature of the social sciences, it may never reach that point. But it certainly isn’t at that point now.

But it was easy to find studies that contradicted what you claimed “all reputable scientists” believe.

It appears that you derive your opinions on moral and social issues from whatever feels good to you, even if it contradicts the facts.

Disreputable studies from Mark Regnerus might contradict the claims I’ve brought forward, but since the criticism is coming from a disreputable study it’s something that should be ignored.

Amazing. You try to draw equivalences here that don’t exist. It’s true that not all heterosexual couples practice sodomy. And you could say that not all homosexual couples do it, in the sense that lesbian couples generally don’t. But virtually all male homosexual couples do, obviously. Which gives the lie to the false equivalence between the small number of heterosexual couples that do, and the near universal male homosexual couples that do.

If sodomy is a nasty and unhealthy business, then it’s nasty and unhealthy for whoever does it. That just happens to be male homosexuals far more than any other group in existence.

Obviously it’s a known health risk, and a significant one. It’s probably one of the big reasons why male homosexual populations are prone to a number of rather nasty diseases.

It’s not really the sexual act in and of itself that causes those rather nasty diseases like gonorrhea, warts and HIV, it’s the having sex with people who have those ills that causes them. So just like I explained to cptacek, if your goal is really to promote public health then you should be doing everything possible to encourage homosexuals to form stable, committed, exclusive relationships by letting them marry each other.

Semantics issues? You mean, like redefining terms? Amazing how I can sidetrack a discussion onto semantic issues when it was originally about … redefining terms.

Concern over who’s the husband and wife and whether those terms will have meaning is fretting semantics. The issue is about equal protection of the law.

So, you don’t have any supporting evidence for the claim that homosexuality is morally and legally equal to normal heterosexuality.

Thought so.

And that’s why you want to attack “semantics” and accuse me of “grasping at straws,” and conflate the relatively rare incidence of sodomy among normal couples with the near-universal incidence of sodomy among male homosexuals.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM

Morality is always a personal thing. There’s no evidence that can be presented that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, and there’s no evidence that can be presented that they are not moral equivalents. Right now given our current legal code they are not yet legally equivalent, but hopefully someday soon they are.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:23 AM

You said it could never happen. That is claiming to be able to prove a negative.

I said that you have no real grounds for making that statement. IOW, you can’t prove a negative.

You protested that I was trying to make you prove a negative.

That’s not consistent at all.

I had assumed you were smart enough to understand the relatively basic concept of something being so far beyond the realm of realistic possibility that a person could say something was “never” going to happen and be understood. In the future I will make an effort not to overestimate your intelligence.

No one paid them to bake a cake. They declined to take the job. They even provided names of people who might take the job.

And the couples in question should have taken the names of those people who might take the job and ran with them.

Even here, you can’t be fair. The church had long been allowing public use of its facilities, but had never considered that to mean they didn’t still own those facilities, and didn’t have the right to control them.

And if you really want to call it a “deal with the government,” then it was the government that unilaterally changed the terms of that deal, and violated it.

So first, it was a deal, but now, it was a subsidy? Are you admitting that you were wrong before? Or is it a deal when you want to paint them as violating a deal, but “the loss of a subsidy” when you want to dismiss the loss they suffered?

And the church still retained ownership, as I said before.

You’ve stepped back from your earlier lie that the pavilion was forced to host a ceremony they didn’t want to host and I commend you for that.

It was a deal for a tax exemption, which, at least in my libertarian eyes, is a form of government subsidy. What actually happened was the pavilion owners applied for a tax exemption which they were granted on the condition that it be open to the public on an equal basis. That makes sense because all of New Jersey is giving up tax revenue that would have otherwise been collected so all of New Jersey should have free and equal access. The owners violated that agreement when they sought to restrict the open access they had agreed to when they took the tax exemption. The same thing would have happened if they had denied the pavilion to a Catholic group, a Jewish group, or an African-American group. It just so happened the group they denied that cost them the exemption for that 1% of their property was a lesbian couple who wanted to have a civil union ceremony there.

The difference between the possibility of the loss of religious freedom and the possibility of the sun failing to rise in the east is several orders of magnitude, I would think.

But again, you speak only of “churches or clergy” specifically, while I speak of Christians being limited in the free exercise of their religion.

Which, incidentally, actually IS in the Constitution.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:07 AM

Let me try it like this.

You have a First Amendment right to free speech, but the courts have ruled that doesn’t mean you can go into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!”

In 1878 in the case Reynolds v. United States a Mormon man claimed the First Amendment protected his right to free exercise of his religion and engage in polygamy. The Supreme Court ruled against him unanimously. Was that decision correct? If it was then where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there? You’ve also never told me if you’re okay with “Whites Only” lunch counters or a store with a “No Jews Allowed” sign.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:41 AM

You assert that they have nothing to do with one another. And yet, here we have 3 specific examples where someone is accused of discrimination for not endorsing same-sex marriage: The Methodist Pavilion, the photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex wedding, and the baker who declined to do a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

Even the use of the term “marriage equality” is meant to imply that not endorsing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:14 AM

No one was asked to personally endorse anything.

The New Mexico photographer and the Methodist Pavilion all occurred in states where gay marriage was not legal at the time those cases were brought. The New Mexico case didn’t even involve a government-sanctioned union of any kind; it was a couple throwing an event they called a marriage but the state of New Mexico did not. The question of whether or not same sex couple will be granted access to the legal status of marriage has nothing at all to do with those in the slightest way. It’s not illegal in any state for gay people to hold a ceremony, and it’s because those ceremonies can take place that the anti-discrimination claims pop up regardless of whether or not the state is also recognizing the union. And I do disagree with the gay couples who bring those lawsuits. But it’s a separate issue.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:47 AM

You mean where you confused the Family Research Center with Focus on the Family (they’ve been independent of each other since 1992.), badly mischaracterized what the link in question said, pretended to have proof that the study was not credible by … citing what was clearly stated about the study at the link, rejected it because there was not a direct comparison just between the children of same-sex couples and the children of normal couples, even though same-sex couples can’t actually have children, and the children by definition came from opposite-sex couples, and then launched an ad hominem attack against Loren Mark while ignoring the central question of the quoted article, which was to show that the studies cited by advocates for homosexual parenting are typically based on tiny samples that are not statistically significant enough to draw conclusions.

I think you may be the only one impressed by that effort.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:40 AM

I wish I had badly mischaracterized what that link said but, nope, that link was that bad.

If you still haven’t done it please do read the ASA amicus brief from the SCOTUS cases earlier this year. They have the studies that you and Marks claim don’t exist. I know they probably won’t change your mind but it might lead you to make some better arguments.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:52 AM

If you believe promiscuity is bad then the simple thing to do is to allow and incentivize people not to be promiscuous by maybe, I don’t know, letting them get married.

It seems your and my disagreement comes down to this and our argument about the definition, usefulness and legalness of consummation.

I’ve tried to give you evidence that homosexuals are not faithful in the traditional sense of the word and that putting a ring on it won’t cure that. You state that it will, but provide no statistics to back that up. Can you dig some up from countries/states where they are legally sanctioned and show that the promiscuity rate has dropped?

cptacek on November 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

It seems your and my disagreement comes down to this and our argument about the definition, usefulness and legalness of consummation.

I’ve tried to give you evidence that homosexuals are not faithful in the traditional sense of the word and that putting a ring on it won’t cure that. You state that it will, but provide no statistics to back that up. Can you dig some up from countries/states where they are legally sanctioned and show that the promiscuity rate has dropped?

cptacek on November 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

It occurs to me that we might be talking past each other here. So let me a couple things just to make sure we’re on the same page.

A lot of men cheat regardless of their sexual orientation. If you want to believe MSNBC then the rate is almost half, and if instead you prefer Fox as your news source then it’s 70%. Does marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, ensure near 100% sexual fidelity? Of course not. There are cigars and stained blue dresses out there that confirm this. There’s not much reason to believe marriage will ensure completely faithfulness for homosexuals any more than it has for heterosexuals.

While, for a host of reasons, the elimination of infidelity would be a very good thing, the fact is that we probably can’t get all the way there for any group regardless of orientation. But just because we can’t to that goal doesn’t mean we won’t reap a lot of benefit for getting partway there. Look at the numbers in the studies you cited. You gave references that said gay men were having either 50 partners per year or 110 in six months. Whether it’s one a week like the first study or one every other day like the second, it’s going to be difficult to maintain that pace if you’re married to someone and thus stand to be on the bad end of a nasty divorce settlement on account of your sleeping with a new person almost every day. Cheating once is bad, but it’s a no-brainer to me that having someone who’s unfaithful once in a lifelong relationship is better than someone going out and having 110 sexual partners in six months. Legal and cultural acceptance is the counter to the gay counterculture.

A fair argument could be made that gay male relationships will experience a greater amount of infidelity that a heterosexual relationship will. Both the Fox and MSNBC studies I linked showed a much lower rate of infidelity among women. Maleness, it seems, is a big factor in determining how likely a given person is to cheat. It flows from that that a two-male couple is more likely than a heterosexual couple to have one partner be unfaithful at some point. A two-female couple would then be more likely than a heterosexual couple to be faithful.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 12:55 PM

But not with any more effect. You talk of “recent advances” in biological and social sciences, and of “what we know now,” as if sexuality has all been reduced to a science. But it’s just an appeal to authority. Worse, it’s a false appeal, because science has not so advanced as you claim, and it’s a false authority, because social science has no real authority. In fact, virtually every recommendation by social science has turned out to be counterproductive. The sexual revolution was driven by often fraudulent social science, and has led to less stable marriages, higher divorce, and worse outcomes in child-rearing.

Science has helped us understand a lot more about sexuality than we did in the past. Here you’ve either misunderstood the argument to authority fallacy or you’re applying it in an absurd way because current scientific understanding exposes the lie of your beliefs. It’s a fallacy to cling to a conclusion simply on the basis of it coming from an expert when the conclusions of said expert are contrary to current evidence. By the standard you’re trying to set here it would be inappropriate to ever believe anything any expert in any field ever said about anything. You’re flat out saying that’s what we should do in the case of the social sciences. So if we can’t trust the body of carefully controlled scientific inquiry we should instead rely on what exactly? Your personal opinions?

No, basic biology hasn’t changed, and this attempt to claim that “science” has uncovered a lot more about sexuality isn’t true.

I’ve got you pegged exactly on the appeal to authority you keep making. There have been no great scientific developments in understanding sexuality that change the way we understand homosexuality. You just hope by saying, “science,” people will assume, “he must know what he’s talking about.”

This is the very essence of an appeal to authority: to make people accept something as true by implying the authority of some great expert — or of “science” generally.

But let’s take that last question: “If we can’t trust the body of carefully controlled scientific inquiry we should rely instead on what?”

If it can’t be proven by science, then you shouldn’t rely on science. That, in a nutshell, is why social science has been so destructive to this nation. There’s nothing wrong with using scientific methods to try to gain more understanding of a subject. But if the scientific methods don’t lead to reliable conclusions — and in most social sciences, that is the case — then to adopt the latest theories just because they’re “scientific” is madness.

You’re basing this on the benefits of marriages between members of the opposite sex, who often have children together. There is simply no reason to assume that the same applies to same-sex couples.

This is a basic begging-the-question logical fallacy. You want to argue that same-sex marriage will have the same benefits because it’s the same as marriage, but that assumes that it actually is the same as marriage, which is exactly the point you are claiming to prove.

Since you’ve already disqualified any and all social science research on the matter then perhaps we should start at a base level here. What’s the threshold of proof for demonstrating a same sex marriage is “the same” as an opposite sex marriage? And what authority figures am I allowed to quote?

Rhetorical questions don’t change the fact that you’re making a circular argument. You’re assuming they’re the same, then arguing it should be done that way based on the assumption you already made.

You made a fool of yourself with all that.

First, you want to dismiss the study because it was quoted by Focus on the Family. Most of these pro-homosexuality studies you quote were heavily promoted and quoted on homosexual advocacy web sites. You’re going to have to go further than who quotes the study to prove or disprove it.

Reading comprehension fail. I didn’t dismiss something just because it came from Focus on the Family, I merely pointed out that with their track record it was worth keeping a salt shaker with a few thousand grains of salt in it nearby because you might *might* need those to take with whatever they put out.

That goes both ways. And note that I didn’t dismiss the homosexual advocacy sites because they’re homosexual advocacy, but because they claim the authority of science without solid statistical background.

Second, you can’t even criticize them cogently. The link introduced the Regnerus study by pointing out the multiple studies showing that children did better in families with a father and mother, and that those same studies, however, did not compare to homosexual parents, and so did not apply directly to a comparison between homosexual and normal heterosexual parents.
.
.
.

Obviously. Children can’t be born to same-sex couples. When you find a same-sex couple with children in the household, it’s usually because one or the other parent had children before deciding they were homosexual. All children are born to opposite-sex couples originally. There simply is no apples-to-apples comparison between same-sex and opposite sex couples having children, because same-sex couples don’t have children.

You CLEARLY didn’t read that ASA amicus brief I linked earlier. You also either very carefully worded what you said here in a way to make a deliberate false impression (Michael Moore would be proud), or you inadvertently screwed up. Whichever it is, I caught it and I’m going to call you on it.

Now there’s some projection.

You talked about the Regnerus study dealing with homosexual parents. The thing is there’s a difference between being raised by a same-sex couple and having a homosexual parent. The Regnerus study only looked at the latter. The ASA explained this very clearly in their brief why this is a problem. A child with a homosexual parent would include children whose parents divorced and then has one of them become romantically involved with a person of the same sex. If you’re including the children of divorce in with the “children with a homosexual parent” lot but omitting all children of divorce from the married heterosexual group then you’re stacking the deck, and that’s exactly what Regnerus did and why his study isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. He also did a bunch of other shoddy things like base his study of the children’s recollection of their parents sex lives, which they may or may not have been totally privy to.

Before the Regnerus study, the APA published an amicus brief to the Supreme Court claiming that there had been multiple studies that had found absolutely no difference in result between children of same-sex “parents” and normal parents. And yet they quite clearly ignored all studies showing that children did better with a mother and father. Since same-sex couples do not have a mother and father, any sincere, honest inquirer would not claim confidently that there was no difference. The problem we have is dishonest people pushing an agenda, while making false claims that the science is on their side, even though it’s obviously inconclusive at best.

The Regenerus study was not conclusive, and didn’t claim to be. But it had a solid statistical backing, and came much closer to the apples-to-apples comparison that was needed.

It’s also pretty easy to do the apples-to-apples comparison you say can’t be done when looking at children being raised by same-sex couples, and that’s to look at same-sex couples who either adopt babies or use surrogates. I wonder what the data shows for them. Hmmm……

And before we go any farther, is social science bad except when it comes from Mark Regnerus?

Here’s the simple problem with their and your criticism of the Regnerus study: they dismiss the study, just like you do, because it was of children who had a homosexual parent rather than specifically children who were raised entirely by same-sex parents.

You demand an apples-to-apples comparison that can’t exist due to the nature of the beast. Same-sex couples don’t have children. They can’t. They have to adopt children that were produced by opposite-sex couples. If you want a true apples-to-apples comparison, you would have to get a statistically significant number of same-sex couples who adopt children specifically when they’re too young to have ever known their birth parents, and compare them to a statistically significant number of opposite-sex couples who have also adopted children of that age.

If this is so easy to accomplish, then why was the Regenerus study the first one to even attempt to compare children of homosexual parents to children of normal parents? And yet the homosexual advocacy groups claiming to be on the side of science haven’t done it. But they have criticized the Regnerus study for only doing partway what they haven’t done at all.

As for Loren Marks, his article examined the statistical strength of multiple studies that had been uncritically acclaimed as proving that there was no difference in the results of raising the children of homosexuals and of normal parents. And found that they were drawing these conclusions based on statistically insignificant samples.

Therefore, the massive attempt to destroy his credibility rather than admit that the results of social science were not scientifically credible.

He didn’t even draw conclusions about same-sex parenting, but pointed out that the conclusions previously drawn were not backed by the science claimed.

Now here you were claiming that there was no evidence that children raised by homosexuals fared any worse than normal homes. Obviously, that was wrong. Note, you didn’t just claim there was a preponderance of evidence for your side, but that there was no evidence to the contrary.

Here’s that not reading the ASA brief coming back to bite you and make you look stupid again. Once again: the ASA summarizes in laymen’s terms and using a bunch of studies that weren’t included in the ones that Marks commented on. They provide an easy to understand summation of the current state of science that I’m sure you’re about to ignore simply because it’s full of inconvenient facts that expose your beliefs for the discredited nonsense that they are.

Can’t resist the ad hominems. Get over yourself.

The ASA brief you quote so fondly does the exact kind of mischaracterization of the Regnerus study you do, on the exact same grounds. It’s an advocacy paper, dismissing any science which doesn’t support their goal, and insisting that social science proves there would be no harm to children being raised by same-sex couples.

But same-sex child-rearing is far too new a phenomenon to have even been properly addressed by social science, which is inherently one of the least reliable areas of science in existence. There’s a lot we don’t even understand about the way our minds work, and yet they claim to KNOW that there will be no adverse effects?

A double ad hominem. Accuse me of trying to sidetrack the discussion when I was answering your claim that you had never tried to redefine any terms. And then claim I “tried to bring in poor science.”

I suppose someone finds this sophistry impressive.

I don’t derive my opinions on moral and social issues from social science, because it simply has not advanced enough to be relied upon. Given the nature of the social sciences, it may never reach that point. But it certainly isn’t at that point now.

But it was easy to find studies that contradicted what you claimed “all reputable scientists” believe.

It appears that you derive your opinions on moral and social issues from whatever feels good to you, even if it contradicts the facts.

Disreputable studies from Mark Regnerus might contradict the claims I’ve brought forward, but since the criticism is coming from a disreputable study it’s something that should be ignored.

It’s possible, and reasonable, to dispute the conclusions from the Regnerus study on the basis of whether the study as performed is really sufficient to answer the questions about same-sex “parenting.”

But it’s hardly “disreputable.” You simply don’t like that the evidence from the Regnerus study undercut the conclusions you wanted.

Amazing. You try to draw equivalences here that don’t exist. It’s true that not all heterosexual couples practice sodomy. And you could say that not all homosexual couples do it, in the sense that lesbian couples generally don’t. But virtually all male homosexual couples do, obviously. Which gives the lie to the false equivalence between the small number of heterosexual couples that do, and the near universal male homosexual couples that do.

If sodomy is a nasty and unhealthy business, then it’s nasty and unhealthy for whoever does it. That just happens to be male homosexuals far more than any other group in existence.

Obviously it’s a known health risk, and a significant one. It’s probably one of the big reasons why male homosexual populations are prone to a number of rather nasty diseases.

It’s not really the sexual act in and of itself that causes those rather nasty diseases like gonorrhea, warts and HIV, it’s the having sex with people who have those ills that causes them. So just like I explained to cptacek, if your goal is really to promote public health then you should be doing everything possible to encourage homosexuals to form stable, committed, exclusive relationships by letting them marry each other.

I don’t think there’s anything that better encapsulates your deny-everything approach to this subject than the continued effort to dismiss the health risks of homosexual activity.

It’s been pretty well established by now that male homosexuals tend to be far more sexually promiscuous than other people. There is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will actually change that.

So not only is male homosexual activity more prone to disease, but it’s also more prone to the spread of disease.

Semantics issues? You mean, like redefining terms? Amazing how I can sidetrack a discussion onto semantic issues when it was originally about … redefining terms.

Concern over who’s the husband and wife and whether those terms will have meaning is fretting semantics. The issue is about equal protection of the law.

The first thing opponents of same-sex marriage said was that the government was trying to redefine marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage has always rejected that. The fact that the partners in a same-sex marriage are no longer husband and wife makes it clear that redefinition by government fiat is exactly what is going on. You insist that marriage now means what it never meant before.

And if the semantics really don’t matter, then why have advocates for SSM been rejecting civil unions? On the contrary, they demand the “semantics” of the word “marriage.”

Civil unions can offer equal protection of the law. But the SSM advocates clearly want the “semantics” you try to dismiss.

So, you don’t have any supporting evidence for the claim that homosexuality is morally and legally equal to normal heterosexuality.

Thought so.

And that’s why you want to attack “semantics” and accuse me of “grasping at straws,” and conflate the relatively rare incidence of sodomy among normal couples with the near-universal incidence of sodomy among male homosexuals.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM

Morality is always a personal thing. There’s no evidence that can be presented that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, and there’s no evidence that can be presented that they are not moral equivalents. Right now given our current legal code they are not yet legally equivalent, but hopefully someday soon they are.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:23 AM

If morality is strictly personal, then there is no morality.

But I’m encouraged to at least get the admission that you can’t prove in some way that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. Therefore, when you demand that someone prove to you that homosexuality is NOT morally equivalent, you demand of them what you could never do for your own position.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM

You said it could never happen. That is claiming to be able to prove a negative.

I said that you have no real grounds for making that statement. IOW, you can’t prove a negative.

You protested that I was trying to make you prove a negative.

That’s not consistent at all.

I had assumed you were smart enough to understand the relatively basic concept of something being so far beyond the realm of realistic possibility that a person could say something was “never” going to happen and be understood. In the future I will make an effort not to overestimate your intelligence.

It’s not far beyond the realm of realistic possibility. In fact, it’s rather easy to imagine exactly that happening within a generation. We’re already seeing the first evidence, where personal moral beliefs that homosexuality is immoral are assumed not to matter if a homosexual alleges discrimination.

Before, you would be considered guilty of discrimination if you refused to sell or to rent to a homosexual. With SSM, even if you have no problem selling, renting, or doing business with homosexuals, the moment you decline to participate in a same-sex marriage, you’re considered to be guilty of discrimination.

Even here, you can’t be fair. The church had long been allowing public use of its facilities, but had never considered that to mean they didn’t still own those facilities, and didn’t have the right to control them.

And if you really want to call it a “deal with the government,” then it was the government that unilaterally changed the terms of that deal, and violated it.

So first, it was a deal, but now, it was a subsidy? Are you admitting that you were wrong before? Or is it a deal when you want to paint them as violating a deal, but “the loss of a subsidy” when you want to dismiss the loss they suffered?

And the church still retained ownership, as I said before.

You’ve stepped back from your earlier lie that the pavilion was forced to host a ceremony they didn’t want to host and I commend you for that.

They had to allow same sex marriages or lose the tax exemption they had for years. They stood on principle, and gave up the tax exemption.

So they were, in the common vernacular, “forced” to allow same sex marriages in their church-owned pavilion. That is, government force was applied to make them do it, and their refusal cost them a penalty.

When we talk about government force, that’s how we usually mean it. Not that guards stood over them with drawn guns and whips, but that some form of government force was applied, whether threat of criminal punishment, or fine, or, as in this case, financial penalty.

I find the fact that it was a church, and a church-owned pavilion, that was forced — pressured, if you prefer — to allow same-sex weddings to be more significant than the question of whether the financial penalty of loss of their tax exemption constituted government force.

It was a deal for a tax exemption, which, at least in my libertarian eyes, is a form of government subsidy. What actually happened was the pavilion owners applied for a tax exemption which they were granted on the condition that it be open to the public on an equal basis. That makes sense because all of New Jersey is giving up tax revenue that would have otherwise been collected so all of New Jersey should have free and equal access. The owners violated that agreement when they sought to restrict the open access they had agreed to when they took the tax exemption. The same thing would have happened if they had denied the pavilion to a Catholic group, a Jewish group, or an African-American group. It just so happened the group they denied that cost them the exemption for that 1% of their property was a lesbian couple who wanted to have a civil union ceremony there.

If I sell a piece of land to the government and they pay me $10K, have they given me a form of government subsidy, or have we made a deal? If the government gives me something of value in exchange for something of value, is that a subsidy?

The land and the pavilion belonged to the church. The church allowed public use of their property. The government rewarded them with a certain amount of tax exemption on the land they were allowing the public to use.

Now, I suppose you could call that a subsidy, if perhaps the value of the land to the public was much less than the amount of the exemption. But it sounds like a basic quid pro quo deal, and that’s not what we usually think of as a subsidy.

At any rate, this was a fairly long-standing agreement between the church and the government, until the government objected because they allowed public use of their property, but drew the line at something they considered contrary to their religion.

You’ve certainly labored hard to paint the picture of the church violating their agreement, when the agreement appears to have been broken by the government imposing new conditions.

The difference between the possibility of the loss of religious freedom and the possibility of the sun failing to rise in the east is several orders of magnitude, I would think.

But again, you speak only of “churches or clergy” specifically, while I speak of Christians being limited in the free exercise of their religion.

Which, incidentally, actually IS in the Constitution.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:07 AM

Let me try it like this.

You have a First Amendment right to free speech, but the courts have ruled that doesn’t mean you can go into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!”

In 1878 in the case Reynolds v. United States a Mormon man claimed the First Amendment protected his right to free exercise of his religion and engage in polygamy. The Supreme Court ruled against him unanimously. Was that decision correct? If it was then where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there? You’ve also never told me if you’re okay with “Whites Only” lunch counters or a store with a “No Jews Allowed” sign.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:41 AM

The remarkable thing about the polygamy case is how long it took before the subject even came up. But even there, polygamy had been long considered illegal and contrary to morality in the US. The Mormon religion and its adoption of polygamy grew up in a nation which had outlawed it. Furthermore, polygamy is not really required by Mormon doctrine, even though it was sanctioned by Mormon doctrine for quite some time. And according to classic Christian doctrine, we have a duty to follow the law.

So it’s not really the best example.

Still, there will inevitably be some conflicts. For example, no Muslim in the US would be able to justify murder by calling it jihad.

So I don’t think you would find that a Christian would be considered to have religious freedom to harass a same-sex couple, regardless of their freedom of religion. But neither should you be able to demand a Christian keep quiet about the moral issue of homosexuality, even if you don’t accept his viewpoint. And neither should a Christian be compelled to give support to a same-sex marriage, or to offer facilities for a same-sex marriage, or to take photographs of a same-sex marriage, or anything that would lead to the perception that he is offering support or taking part in a same-sex marriage.

At any rate, the inevitable conflict is not a bug, but a feature to the homosexual advocates.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM

You mean where you confused the Family Research Center with Focus on the Family (they’ve been independent of each other since 1992.), badly mischaracterized what the link in question said, pretended to have proof that the study was not credible by … citing what was clearly stated about the study at the link, rejected it because there was not a direct comparison just between the children of same-sex couples and the children of normal couples, even though same-sex couples can’t actually have children, and the children by definition came from opposite-sex couples, and then launched an ad hominem attack against Loren Mark while ignoring the central question of the quoted article, which was to show that the studies cited by advocates for homosexual parenting are typically based on tiny samples that are not statistically significant enough to draw conclusions.

I think you may be the only one impressed by that effort.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 21, 2013 at 3:40 AM

I wish I had badly mischaracterized what that link said but, nope, that link was that bad.

If you still haven’t done it please do read the ASA amicus brief from the SCOTUS cases earlier this year. They have the studies that you and Marks claim don’t exist. I know they probably won’t change your mind but it might lead you to make some better arguments.

alchemist19 on November 21, 2013 at 4:52 AM

The amicus brief you quoted was in fact less impressive than the Regnerus study you dismiss. Faced with contrary, if incomplete, evidence from the Regnerus study, they simply dismissed it because it didn’t address same-sex versus versus normal parenting strictly enough, while ignoring the fact that the Regnerus study did offer evidence that children of homosexual parents did worse in many measures than other children.

But then, the amicus brief was not a scientific paper, but an advocacy paper that only quoted the studies favorable to its position.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 3:09 AM

No, basic biology hasn’t changed, and this attempt to claim that “science” has uncovered a lot more about sexuality isn’t true.

I’ve got you pegged exactly on the appeal to authority you keep making. There have been no great scientific developments in understanding sexuality that change the way we understand homosexuality. You just hope by saying, “science,” people will assume, “he must know what he’s talking about.”

This is the very essence of an appeal to authority: to make people accept something as true by implying the authority of some great expert — or of “science” generally.

But let’s take that last question: “If we can’t trust the body of carefully controlled scientific inquiry we should rely instead on what?”

If it can’t be proven by science, then you shouldn’t rely on science. That, in a nutshell, is why social science has been so destructive to this nation. There’s nothing wrong with using scientific methods to try to gain more understanding of a subject. But if the scientific methods don’t lead to reliable conclusions — and in most social sciences, that is the case — then to adopt the latest theories just because they’re “scientific” is madness.

You’re correct that basic biology hasn’t changed, it’s just that we know more about it more than we used to.

Your problem is that just because you’re unaware of science it doesn’t mean that science doesn’t exist. Here’s a clip of a Ph.D. molecular biologist testifying before the Hawaii State Legislature during that body’s debate on legalizing same sex marriage earlier this month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8H5hJz52E

What’s your threshold for a reliable conclusion for social sciences? Does Regnerus clear it? Does anyone besides him? If not, why just him?

Before the Regnerus study, the APA published an amicus brief to the Supreme Court claiming that there had been multiple studies that had found absolutely no difference in result between children of same-sex “parents” and normal heterosexual parents. And yet they quite clearly ignored all studies showing that children did better with a mother and father. Since same-sex couples do not have a mother and father, any sincere, honest inquirer would not claim confidently that there was no difference. The problem we have is dishonest people pushing an agenda, while making false claims that the science is on their side, even though it’s obviously inconclusive at best.

The Regenerus study was not conclusive, and didn’t claim to be. But it had a solid statistical backing, and came much closer to the apples-to-apples comparison that was needed.

“Dishonest people pushing an agenda”? That’s a bold assertion on your part. An assertion with no support behind it at all whatsoever beyond the fact is fits your narrative.

Which studies did the APA omit in 2005? Please provide a list of scholarly references and I’ll check them. But please don’t bother with any Allen- or Regnerus-style papers that have been discredited since they were published.

Here’s the simple problem with their and your criticism of the Regnerus study: they dismiss the study, just like you do, because it was of children who had a homosexual parent rather than specifically children who were raised entirely by same-sex parents.

Yes, that’s why the Regnerus paper is dismissed. You can’t say anything about the universe of children raised in same sex households by investigating households where a child after the fact remembered a parent having a homosexual relationship. Those are two different groups. Apples, oranges.

You demand an apples-to-apples comparison that can’t exist due to the nature of the beast. Same-sex couples don’t have children. They can’t. They have to adopt children that were produced by opposite-sex couples. If you want a true apples-to-apples comparison, you would have to get a statistically significant number of same-sex couples who adopt children specifically when they’re too young to have ever known their birth parents, and compare them to a statistically significant number of opposite-sex couples who have also adopted children of that age.

If this is so easy to accomplish, then why was the Regenerus study the first one to even attempt to compare children of homosexual parents to children of normal parents? And yet the homosexual advocacy groups claiming to be on the side of science haven’t done it. But they have criticized the Regnerus study for only doing partway what they haven’t done at all.

Another reading comprehension failure! I don’t demand an apples-to-apples comparison by looking at the biological children of two same-gender people. The one accurate thing in your whole post might be your pointing out that there are none of those for obvious reasons. If we’re going to for some odd reason link the issue of letting gay people get married to their performance as a group raising children then we can examine how a stable gay couple that raises a child either produced through a surrogate or adopted when the child was very young will do compared to a heterosexual couple, either with their own biological children or with a child they have adopted (I assume you’re not throwing heterosexual adoptive parents under the bus, too. Please correct me if that is not the case). What’s seen is that if a child is raised by same sex parents they are no more likely to do poorly in school, have poorer cognitive or social skills, are equally psychologically healthy, and are no more likely to use drugs or engage in early sexual activity. Kids in same-sex households do just fine.

The ASA brief you quote so fondly does the exact kind of mischaracterization of the Regnerus study you do, on the exact same grounds. It’s an advocacy paper, dismissing any science which doesn’t support their goal, and insisting that social science proves there would be no harm to children being raised by same-sex couples.

But same-sex child-rearing is far too new a phenomenon to have even been properly addressed by social science, which is inherently one of the least reliable areas of science in existence. There’s a lot we don’t even understand about the way our minds work, and yet they claim to KNOW that there will be no adverse effects?

Look at you with the ad hominems! And it’s nice to know my prediction was right.

What science did that ASA deliberately leave out?

Child rearing by same sex couples (and I still don’t understand why we’re talking about this in the context of letting gay people get married) is too new to be properly addressed?

I went into the Regnerus paper and very specifically picked it apart. I didn’t just say “He’s got an agenda!” and move on; I looked at his methods and his data, located the flaw and enunciated it. So please explain how the following papers are similarly inadequate:

Potter, Daniel. Same-sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement, Journal of Marriage & Family, 74 566 (2012).

Fedewa, A. & Clark, T. Parent Practices and Home-School Parternships: A Differential Effect for Children with Same-Sex Parents?, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 5 312 (2009).

Lavner, J. Can Gay and Lesbian Parents Promote Healthy Development in High-Risk Children Adopted from Foster Care?, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 465 (2012).

van Gelderen, L. Quality of Life of Adolescents Raised from Birth by Lesbian Mothers: The US National Longitudinal Family Study, Journal of Development & Pediatrics, 33, 1 (2012).

I’ve got more but that’s probably enough to get you started. I’ll even save you a little time and tell you none of those were included in the APA brief that Marks was critical of so you’re on your own trying to give those starters the same smackdown Regnerus got.

The strength of my position and the weakness of yours is illustrated by what’s happening in the courts now when people have to present evidence. The state of Michigan will be in court early next year defending their state ban on gay marriage against a lesbian couple who wants to jointly adopt the children they’re raising in their household. The state already conceded that the couple are good parents.

It’s possible, and reasonable, to dispute the conclusions from the Regnerus study on the basis of whether the study as performed is really sufficient to answer the questions about same-sex “parenting.”

But it’s hardly “disreputable.” You simply don’t like that the evidence from the Regnerus study undercut the conclusions you wanted.

It’s disreputable if you’re trying to use it to say anything about parenting in the universe of parenting by stable same-sex couples. The one thing Regnerus did show was that stability was important for the development of children, but we already knew that.

I don’t think there’s anything that better encapsulates your deny-everything approach to this subject than the continued effort to dismiss the health risks of homosexual activity.

It’s been pretty well established by now that male homosexuals tend to be far more sexually promiscuous than other people. There is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will actually change that.

So not only is male homosexual activity more prone to disease, but it’s also more prone to the spread of disease.

But the risks I keep hearing about for STDs go away if two homosexuals are faithful to each other. Like I said to cptacek, it would seem to me that since homosexuality can’t be done away with and because sodomy between two consenting adults has been protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that the most logical thing to do to promote public health is to counter the gay counterculture by doing everything possible to encourage homosexuals to form monogamous, faithful relationships, and that includes access to the legal status of marriage.

If morality is strictly personal, then there is no morality.

But I’m encouraged to at least get the admission that you can’t prove in some way that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. Therefore, when you demand that someone prove to you that homosexuality is NOT morally equivalent, you demand of them what you could never do for your own position.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Morality is strictly personal, and that’s why we ought not be governed by any person, or small group of person’s moral code.

alchemist19 on November 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

The amicus brief you quoted was in fact less impressive than the Regnerus study you dismiss. Faced with contrary, if incomplete, evidence from the Regnerus study, they simply dismissed it because it didn’t address same-sex versus versus normal opposite-sex parenting strictly enough at all,

FIFY

while ignoring the fact that the Regnerus study did offer evidence that children of homosexual parents did worse in many measures than other children.

Are you deliberately obfuscating on not being able to see the difference between a child who recalls that at some point one of their parents had a same-sex relationship versus a child raised by a same-sex couple, or do you really not understand it?

But then, the amicus brief was not a scientific paper, but an advocacy paper that only quoted the studies favorable to its position.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 3:09 AM

The amicus brief was like a review article written in layman’s terms which should be easier for a general public audience like this to understand. If you have scientific criticism or know papers that should have been included but weren’t then point them out.

alchemist19 on November 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

It’s not far beyond the realm of realistic possibility. In fact, it’s rather easy to imagine exactly that happening within a generation. We’re already seeing the first evidence, where personal moral beliefs that homosexuality is immoral are assumed not to matter if a homosexual alleges discrimination.

Before, you would be considered guilty of discrimination if you refused to sell or to rent to a homosexual. With SSM, even if you have no problem selling, renting, or doing business with homosexuals, the moment you decline to participate in a same-sex marriage, you’re considered to be guilty of discrimination.

I can imagine flying pigs or the Cubs winning the World Series pretty easily too. That doesn’t make it likely.

They had to allow same sex marriages or lose the tax exemption they had for years. They stood on principle, and gave up the tax exemption.

So they were, in the common vernacular, “forced” to allow same sex marriages in their church-owned pavilion. That is, government force was applied to make them do it, and their refusal cost them a penalty.

When we talk about government force, that’s how we usually mean it. Not that guards stood over them with drawn guns and whips, but that some form of government force was applied, whether threat of criminal punishment, or fine, or, as in this case, financial penalty.

I find the fact that it was a church, and a church-owned pavilion, that was forced — pressured, if you prefer — to allow same-sex weddings to be more significant than the question of whether the financial penalty of loss of their tax exemption constituted government force.

I earnestly disagree with your choice of the appropriateness of the word “forced” but on some level I can imagine what you meant and it doesn’t seem beyond the realm of realistic possibility that what you’ve stated was your intention so I guess I can live with it.

If I sell a piece of land to the government and they pay me $10K, have they given me a form of government subsidy, or have we made a deal? If the government gives me something of value in exchange for something of value, is that a subsidy?

The land and the pavilion belonged to the church. The church allowed public use of their property. The government rewarded them with a certain amount of tax exemption on the land they were allowing the public to use.

Now, I suppose you could call that a subsidy, if perhaps the value of the land to the public was much less than the amount of the exemption. But it sounds like a basic quid pro quo deal, and that’s not what we usually think of as a subsidy.

At any rate, this was a fairly long-standing agreement between the church and the government, until the government objected because they allowed public use of their property, but drew the line at something they considered contrary to their religion.

You’ve certainly labored hard to paint the picture of the church violating their agreement, when the agreement appears to have been broken by the government imposing new conditions.

Selling isn’t the best analogy because it’s a one-time payment a transfer of ownership, the New Jersey deal with the state and the church was more akin to the state paying rent. If the state was going to continue paying rent in the form of favorable tax treatment the church had to make their pavilion available to the entire state. When the church refused the state was going to stop paying rent for the people of the state. In the end they came to an equitable agreement and the church didn’t have to violate its conscience.

The remarkable thing about the polygamy case is how long it took before the subject even came up. But even there, polygamy had been long considered illegal and contrary to morality in the US. The Mormon religion and its adoption of polygamy grew up in a nation which had outlawed it. Furthermore, polygamy is not really required by Mormon doctrine, even though it was sanctioned by Mormon doctrine for quite some time. And according to classic Christian doctrine, we have a duty to follow the law.

So it’s not really the best example.

Still, there will inevitably be some conflicts. For example, no Muslim in the US would be able to justify murder by calling it jihad.

So I don’t think you would find that a Christian would be considered to have religious freedom to harass a same-sex couple, regardless of their freedom of religion. But neither should you be able to demand a Christian keep quiet about the moral issue of homosexuality, even if you don’t accept his viewpoint. And neither should a Christian be compelled to give support to a same-sex marriage, or to offer facilities for a same-sex marriage, or to take photographs of a same-sex marriage, or anything that would lead to the perception that he is offering support or taking part in a same-sex marriage.

At any rate, the inevitable conflict is not a bug, but a feature to the homosexual advocates.

There Goes the Neighborhood on November 23, 2013 at 3:02 AM

So you’re conceding that the freedom of religion protects of the First Amendment aren’t absolute and are subject to restriction by the government at some arbitrary standard. Wonderful!

You still never weighed in on the prospect of someone putting up a “Whites Only” sign at their lunch counter because their interpretation of the Bible is that races should mingle, or a Protestant who hangs a “Jews not served here” sign in their store because they don’t want to provide service to people who don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah. Should we allow that to happen?

You have me at something of a disadvantage on this because I do stand opposed to anti-discrimination laws in the private sector so I support the position of the bakers and the photographers, but as we saw in the New Mexico photographer example you opted not to comment on, anti-discrimination laws and opening up the legal status of marriage to same sex couples are wholly separate issues.

alchemist19 on November 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8