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

[_rcrocket]

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

on appeals to authority

In rcrocket's case, however, the famous names were one of two main legs of the argument. THAT's over the line.

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.

I wonder why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; after all, expert sociological studies are used by courts to justify legal rulings, politicians to justify legislation, and companies to justify personnel policies, all the time. Doesn't it rather suggest ignorance to dispose of an argument simply because it relies upon expert statistical sociological studies.

Are they equally without foundation?

You haven't even read the report to reach a conclusion there is no foundation for it.

Again, perhaps you can cite me to authority which suggests that the incidence of partner turnover in gay relationships is not different than that for straight relationships. [I'm ready for your usual rejoinder -- "I'm not going to do your homework for you." I suspect you don't do much homework, ever.]

[_rcrocket]

the question of whether laws against gay marriage are desirable or morally defensible has no analog.

Nor any standard for answering the question if you have no standard.

The Bible is my standard. It is not morally defensible.

[_rcrocket]

there are no analogous authorities regarding the question of whether laws against gay marriage are desirable or morally defensible.

What standard do you employ to determine whether laws against gay marriage are "desirable" or "morally defensible"? Something you make up? Where can I read this standard?

[_JohnStuartMill]

rcrocket, I don't think anyone is disputing the studies that say that gay people are more promiscuous, on average, than straight people. The dispute is over whether that fact is important to the debate. The Witherspoon Institute seems to think so, but we have offered reasons as to why that wouldn't be the case, which the authority of the Institute does not rebut.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Nor any standard for answering the question if you have no standard.

The Bible is my standard. It is not morally defensible.

Genocide, mass rape, purposed pestilence, eternal damnation... you're goddamned right the Bible isn't morally defensible.

[_JohnStuartMill]

there are no analogous authorities regarding the question of whether laws against gay marriage are desirable or morally defensible.

What standard do you employ to determine whether laws against gay marriage are "desirable" or "morally defensible"? Something you make up? Where can I read this standard?

http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm

Also, how hilarious is it that the guy who thinks that morality comes from a magic man in the sky is accusing me of deriving my moral standard from something I made up?

(Answer on the back: "Very.")

[_asbestosman]

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.

Wait, should that latter question be decided by the legislative branch instead of the judicial?

Just sayin'.

[_harmony]

Again, perhaps you can cite me to authority which suggests that the incidence of partner turnover in gay relationships is not different than that for straight relationships.

Gay partnership is not gay marriage. The correlary to gay partnership is men and women living together without marriage.

So... let's compare apples to apples, okay? Gay marriage has not been shown to have significant divorce issues, because, in this country anyway, it's too new to have the phenomena develop yet.

From what I've read, which granted isn't a whole lot, since there isn't a whole lot out there yet since the phenomena is so new, is that gay partners who make the step of getting married usually have been in a long standing relationship, and thus are committed to each other to far greater degree than the norm within the gay community.

So your argument works for gays in general, but not for gays who take the extra step of getting married.

[_JohnStuartMill]

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.

Wait, should that latter question be decided by the legislative branch instead of the judicial?

Just sayin'.

There is significant overlap between what's immoral or undesirable and what's unconstitutional, but those terms are not congruent.

[_harmony]

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.

Wait, should that latter question be decided by the legislative branch instead of the judicial?

Just sayin'.

What other examples of institutionalized discrimination has the legislative branch actually tackled?