GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED BY HEDONISTIC COASTAL STATE... Iowa?

[_JohnStuartMill]

First, it says that gay marriage is generally suboptimal for children because of the observed high incidence of turnover in partners.

On average, African-Americans have high incidence of turnover in partners as well. I guess we'd better go back to the old jump-over-the-broom method for them darkies!

On this point, it concedes that better studies could be made of this. The response to this point is usually anecodotal -- "well, I know so-and-so and he's been with his partner for 30 years" and the like.

Those anecdotes aren't intended to show that gay people don't have more partners on average, so the usual disparagements of "anecdotal evidence" do not apply.

Second, the report was signed by over 40 persons each of significant status. Its veracity in debate on the subject is based in large part upon the reputations of those who endorsed it. For instance, it was signed by the then current chair of Harvard Law School's Judge Learned Hand Chair.

Wow, the anti-equal rights crowd is admitting to arguments from authority now. At least they're being honest.

[_asbestosman]

Wow, the anti-equal rights crowd is admitting to arguments from authority now. At least they're being honest.

I recall that not too long ago, the other crowd was talking about how the slim majority of California justices who voted to allow gay marriage somehow validated their arguments. I said something about how it was only a one vote difference but somehow that didn't seem to matter to them.

Anyhow, I think there is a fine line between arguments from authority and the use of experts. We need experts because frankly we can't all know sufficient in every area. While I wouldn't use an expert to prove I'm right, I would pull one in to help show that my ideas deserve more consideration instead of a quick dismissal.
.
.
.

[_harmony]

Reader's Digest version please.

The report has two salient features -- it is very lengthy and talks much more than about gay marriage.

Which is why I asked for the Reader's Digest version. Thanks for the summary.

First, it says that gay marriage is generally suboptimal for children because of the observed high incidence of turnover in partners. (The report doesn't address gay marriages which don't have children.)

How can anyone observe a high turnover in gay marriages, when gay marriage has, until just the last couple of years, been nonexistent?

On this point, it concedes that better studies could be made of this. The response to this point is usually anecodotal -- "well, I know so-and-so and he's been with his partner for 30 years" and the like.

Anecdotes are not suitable for sociological research.

It states other reasons.

Are they equally without foundation?

Second, the report was signed by over 40 persons each of significant status. Its veracity in debate on the subject is based in large part upon the reputations of those who endorsed it. For instance, it was signed by the then current chair of Harvard Law School's Judge Learned Hand Chair.

Status means nothing to me. Authority means nothing to me. If they can't even see the lack of foundation for this report, then they should be the students, not the leaders of their fine institutions.

[_asbestosman]

How can anyone observe a high turnover in gay marriages, when gay marriage has, until just the last couple of years, been nonexistent?

One word: Scandanavia.

I have talked about my own doubts about the legitimacy of such studies on Holland, but there you have it. It's been around for a while in some places.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Wow, the anti-equal rights crowd is admitting to arguments from authority now. At least they're being honest.

I recall that not too long ago, the other crowd was talking about how the slim majority of California justices who voted to allow gay marriage somehow validated their arguments. I said something about how it was only a one vote difference but somehow that didn't seem to matter to them.

I've been following this issue for a while, and I don't recall a pro-equality poster relying on mere authority as much as rcrocket did in his explication of that article. If you find an example, though, I'll concede that point.

(Not that it really matters, because the pro-equality case does not rely on appeals to authority in the first place.)

Anyhow, I think there is a fine line between arguments from authority and the use of experts. We need experts because frankly we can't all know sufficient in every area. While I wouldn't use an expert to prove I'm right, I would pull one in to help show that my ideas deserve more consideration instead of a quick dismissal.

Sure -- there's absolutely rhetorical value in attaching a famous name to your argument. I'm not saying that's bad. In rcrocket's case, however, the famous names were one of two main legs of the argument. THAT's over the line.

[_JohnStuartMill]

How can anyone observe a high turnover in gay marriages, when gay marriage has, until just the last couple of years, been nonexistent?

One word: Scandanavia.

I have talked about my own doubts about the legitimacy of such studies on Holland, but there you have it. It's been around for a while in some places.

Again, there was high turnover in black marriages during Reconstruction. That there appears to be some kind of correlation between the recent attainment of marriage rights and the rate of marriage failure is not a convincing argument against marriage equality.

[_EAllusion]

Re: Incest

1) We allow people will genetic defects to have sex and marry despite the risk of them passing on their defects. I think that's Ok.
2) It's possible to have sex with little to no risk of procreation
3) It actually takes a fair amount of inbreeding to result in a substantial increased risk of genetic defect. ' Takes time to multiply them recessives.

I don't know if I'm buying the common justifications for anti-incest laws concerning consenting adults.

[_EAllusion]

If you are going to discriminate who has the right to marry based on whether that marriage will be part of a demographic group that has more or less optimal conditions for child rearing, then you basically have no recourse but to oppose poor blacks getting married well before you do gays. There are many other demographic slices you could go after too, but that one will suffice. I mention it because people instinctively revile at the notion and often reveal a hypocrisy that suggests this is all a sham argument. I think that instinct is correct in this case because people recognize the unfairness of this sort of discrimination based on crude generalizations rather than individual circumstances. Plus I, like many, see marriage as a voluntary, loving contract between consenting adults the state merely recognizes and not a tool of the state to socially engineer child rearing. The latter purpose is not a proper function of state.

[_asbestosman]

I've been following this issue for a while, and I don't recall a pro-equality poster relying on mere authority as much as rcrocket did in his explication of that article. If you find an example, though, I'll concede that point.

(Not that it really matters, because the pro-equality case does not rely on appeals to authority in the first place.)

link 1

link 2

The real funny thing about the second link is that I think Bardman has an uncanny resemblance to you. It's almost as though it was you and me discussing this last year.

[Guest]

I've been following this issue for a while, and I don't recall a pro-equality poster relying on mere authority as much as rcrocket did in his explication of that article. If you find an example, though, I'll concede that point.

(Not that it really matters, because the pro-equality case does not rely on appeals to authority in the first place.)

link 1

link 2

The real funny thing about the second link is that I think Bardman has an uncanny resemblance to you. It's almost as though it was you and me discussing this last year.

Bardman and I are talking about two different things: he's talking about the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban given the California constitution at the time, and I'm talking about the defensibility of gay marriage more generally. The question of whether laws against gay marriage are constitutional is amenable to the introduction of legal authorities; there are no analogous authorities regarding the question of whether laws against gay marriage are desirable or morally defensible.