Rational, fallacy-free case for Prop 8?

[not_alice]

That will be between 1 and 3PM PDT.

[Ludovic]

@Strassia

An argument is a formal structure of presenting ideas.

No, it’s not.

[not_alice]

@Cyn

Where is the California Bible Belt?

Hmm, I lost track of updates to this when Sam Clem moved it to IMHO, so just catching up now.

The Central Valley, arguably absent Sacramento and the surrounding suburbs, is the California Bible Belt, likely as red as anyplace in the nation.

[not_alice]

@Bosstone

Honestly, I know it would never fly, because it involves changing the current basic concept of marriage in American society and you know the majority of Americans wouldn’t go for it. But it is the first viewpoint I’ve seen that can’t quickly and easily be boiled down to discriminating based on sexual preference.

This silly argument was addressed at length in In Re: Marriage Cases. Addressed, as in thoroughly shot down and destroyed.

If it made a lick of sense, then Proponents would have brought it up at trial. As it is, they tried the “Marriage is for procreation” argument alone, and all of their witnesses were found to be not credible.

It’s a dead end argument, wishful thinking, tried in two courts and eviscerated by each decision.

[not_alice]

@raspberry_hunter

but in the interest of good faith, here goes for a couple of pro-prop-8 arguments I find understandable even if I don’t find them “fallacy-free.”

I know a lot of pro-Prop-8 people because I am Mormon, and my observation is that the particular people I know, at least, are working from a very different definition of marriage than the anti-Prop-8 people.

We are talking about marriage in a court of law. No one gives a rat’s patootie what people do civilly. Also addressed and eviscerated in In Re:Marriage Cases, to the point that in the Federal trial, it was not even mentioned.

[not_alice]

@MeanOldLady

@Cyn

Where is the California Bible Belt?

Orange County.

No, that is an area that votes reliably conservative, but it is not the Bible Belt.

[not_alice]

@jtgain

Be real: you know what the argument against SSM is, you just disagree with it…

Yes, and I am asking if there is another argument, an actual good one, that is being lost in the noise of all the nonsense anti-ssm arguments. Because it didn’t seem to be presented in Court, which strikes me as odd, but then maybe I am misreading the courts decision.

[not_alice]

@Bosstone

Rational: Marriage is historically based on producing offspring.

The former is as sensible as saying SSM will cause aliens to attack. There is no factual basis for it and is just panicky fearmongering. The latter actually has some grounding. It argues from a historical standpoint and in doing so ignores the current function of marriage in modern society, but it’s a good deal more rational.

What is the evidence that was presented to the Court of this, and why didn’t the Court accept it as even credible, let alone persuasive?

[not_alice]

@raspberry_hunter

b) extremely bad strategy (like I said before, this actually changed people’s minds the *opposite way *).

That is wishful thinking. The demographic evidence is clear, it is primarily old folks who care about this. Younger folks, as a whole, don’t see what the big deal is, and as they are enfranchised on reaching 18, and as old folks fall off the voting roles, this will be settled.

So the only real issue is, why wait and cause hurt? Talk about bad manners!

[not_alice]

@Bosstone

That’s due to DOMA. But you’re missing the point greatly. My reference to FF&C was pointing out why civil unions are not a good substitute for marriage, regardless of the genders of those involved. FF&C covers marriages, but not civil unions. Clearer?

Clearer, but still incorrect: Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia for starters. Google is your friend for more/better sources if you need them.

[not_alice]

@raspberry_hunter

Let me just ask for clarification for starters: do you really not believe that in the absence of reliable, widely-available birth control, there needs to be some social mechanism that (at least to some degree-- I know it’s not perfect) protects pregnant women and the resulting children? And that marriage, for hundreds/thousands of years, functioned as this social mechanism? (And not just in the US in the 1800’s, either, or even just in Christian countries.)

I don’t have the foggiest clue what you mean by “protect” here.

But maybe in US law, you are referring to coverture, which, has not been in effect for a long time?

[not_alice]

Oh cripes. Sorry for the zombie resurrection.

I meant to post in a more recent Prop 8 thread - no wonder I didn’t recognize the posts here!

[Bosstone]

I was gonna say, I’m a little shocked at seeing hot replies to stuff I don’t even remember posting!