Devils Advocate:
Gay marriage pleases my client… SATAN!
You suggested a very remote possibility that there might, just maybe be some long term negative effect for which there is zero amount of evidence, and almost the same amount of sound reasoning and logic, to support.
You basically rehashed and reworded the same argument used against interracial marriage which has been shown to be completely false. {I’m aware you deny it}
So, considering our own and others history of civil rights for minority groups there is evidence and reason to support SSM but none to denounce it.
Your side has zero support for their claims. That being the case no negation is required.
An assertion with the backing of history and logical reasoning, in sharp contrast to yours.
Even though you refuse to see it and acknowledge it as a civil rights issue it remains exactly that. The similarities in the arguments in opposition are easy to see and now, decades later ,we have the benefit of history to show us the fears that caused some to oppose civil rights for others were unfounded and false.
All you’re doing is trying to cloak those unfounded fears in something that resembles a logical argument.
I repeat, the guess that SSM will have no negative effect on society as a whole is backed by our history of struggle and civil rights which has consistently shown unfounded fears that formed the basis of resistance to extending equal rights to minorities were proved false repeatedly. That’s what the pro side has to support it’s assertion. What do you have to support yours? Anything? Anything at all?
repetition of flimsy arguments and empty assertions is not a great defense. That’s all I saw from both you and mswas in the other thread. The fact that some posters kept responding doesn’t add weight to your points.
Simple. There’s too many of 'em.
Well, fuck 'em. They’ll die off soon enough. Just promote more pro-wrestling and monster-truck shows, get them back to their TV sets where they belong and put politics back into the hands of grown-ups.
I know I commented on this before, but I have another observation.
Unless magellan01 is at least 100 years old (i.e., old enough to have been paying attention in 1920), his opinion that women’s suffrage is a good thing is of trivial significance. Assuming he’s American-born, women have always been able to vote in his world.
magellan01 would have to be at least 65 (i.e., old enough to have been paying attention in 1954) to have observed the controversy surrounding the collapse of legal racial segregation. It’s likely that racial segregation has never been legal in his world, either.
Why am I bringing this up? I’m bringing it up because in every thread in which he participates, magellan01 tells us that allowing same-sex couples to be legally united and to call it “marriage” would be a serious blow to society. He tells us that it would damage the ancient and important concept of marriage, and that this in turn would be a Very Bad Thing for people.
And in every thread where he says this, other posters say, (I’m paraphrasing), “OK, this is worth discussing. Same-sex marriage would make a lot of people really happy, and most of us here don’t think anyone would be harmed by it. But if you believe it’s got the potential to cause damage, let’s hear your case.” Then they sit back, waiting for magellan01 to describe what he thinks might happen if same sex couples are allowed to call their legal unions “marriage.”
And then, of course, nothing happens. I don’t mean, “nothing bad happens, society goes on as normal.” I mean, magellan01 has nothing to offer, except perhaps he assertion that he already explained himself elsewhere (but he can never say where).
So here’s what I think is going on. magellan01 is same kind of person who didn’t like women’s suffrage (not sure why, it just didn’t seem right) or desegregation (not sure why, it probably just would have seemed wrong somehow). The only difference is that he’s actually living through same-sex marriage.
What’s my proof? I don’t have 100% proof, of course, since I don’t have magellan01’s head and a can opener right here. But I can observe that in all of these threads and posts, he’s never been able to tell, even in the most general of terms, just what he things will happen if same-sex marriage becomes a reality in the United States.
cwthree,
I’ve asked you a few times now to back up the assertions you’ve made in your OP. Please refer to Post #6. Another poster ventured a few answers, but I find them inadequate. Since you’re the one who made them, I really think it falls to you so back them up.
Thank you.
Just hold the tomatoes and you’ll be fine.
magellan01, Could you please give one example of a negative consequence that would occur (either in the long or short term), if SSM was made legal throughout the USA.
Thank you in advance.
Ha! And we’ll also have to get TBN on HiDef. 
I’ve made and backed up the same assertions elsewhere (since you’re so fond of invoking this privilege for yourself, I shall use it here). Kindly review the other thread(s) in which you and I have played.
I think it really stands out that you deflect, deflect, deflect instead of engaging with evidence. You have no evidence that SSM will hurt society. You simply have your gut instinct. So what?
You’ve been asked perhaps dozens or hundreds of times for some evidence of the detriment of SSM to society.
Without evidence that it is a threat, there is no reason to deny the right to millions of people. At least that is my assertion. Please tell me why, without any reason to believe it would be a detriment to society it would be a good idea to not allow gays to marry.
Sum up your case here or stop posting here. Please?
Come off it. You never back up anything you say. It’s your turn.
I don’t think he knows of any. He’s saying is that if SSM was made legal throughout the USA, it’s possible that there might be some currently unforeseeable negative effect in several generations.
This is clearly a true statement. It is, however, a trivial statement.
Quoth EJsGirl:
If anything, I would expect that societal acceptance of homosexuality would decrease the number of gay children. Sexuality seems to be at least partly genetic (there is a higher correlation of sexuality between identical twins than there is between fraternal twins), so gay people having biological children would naturally lead to an increased chance of those children being gay. In the situation as it is now, many gays pass as straight so as to avoid the social stigma attached to homosexuality, even going so far as to marry members of the opposite sex and have children. If, however, homosexuality were fully socially acceptable, those same people would be entering into same-sex marriages, and their children, if any, would be adopted and not carry their parents’ gay genes.
I don’t recall you doing so, but if you say so. But what I don’t get is why you would go through the trouble to create a thread, compose an OP in which you state some plain assertions, and not welcome the opportunity to share the support for said assertions. Odd that.
But hey, to each his own. If you change your mind and want to grant others the benefit of why you believe those assertions—you know, the ones that begin with “I assert”—I’ll check back from time to time. I’m afraid I won’t be able to address what you request without a fuller understanding of where you’re coming from. Also, I’d hate to derail the thread with me defending my positions (again!) when I, and no doubt others, are quite curious about the support you have for yours.
If you don’t feel that you can support them, or just don’t feel like it, no problem. Alternatively, may I ask you to share why you would create an OP, boldly state certain assertions, then not welcome the opportunity to share the support for them? I find that quite curious.
Thanks.
Your lack of comprehension is showing. Again.
This thread isn’t about the OP supporting his assertions. It’s a thought exercise designed to get people with your POV to actually provide specific examples of what you think might happen after 40+ years of legalized SSM. As the OP has reiterated a number of times now.
Is that another way of saying “fuck you; i’m just gonna keep shitting on your thread”? That’s how it reads to me.
For the umpteenth time you utterly fail to comprehend what this thread is about. If you want to see people back up those assertions, start a thread for people to do that.
This thread, as the OP keeps saying, is for your side to actually come forth with specifics. Which you, nor anyone else, has yet offered.
And no, I’m not going to read the other thread. I’m only interested in this thread.
Wait. He stated certain assertions in his own OP. Certainly an interlocutor is free to question those assertions. I’ve asked a few times now. If he is unwilling to do so, I’ll have to conclude that he is not serious about the debate. Or about fair debate, anyway.
I’m of the mind that any thread is about questioning the assertions made in the OP. Do you disagree? If so, please explain. I thought that’s pretty much part of this whole debate thing.
I can support you here. You, like all of us, are free to read—or not read—any thread.
Usually, yes. Sometimes threads are about asking for a specific side’s view on an issue, and thus the OP’s opinion is not particularly relevant. We care about what you think and the reasoning behind it, not cwthree’s stance.
Because it was the introduction to the main topic of the OP, which was (all together now!):
I invite you to describe the specific anticipated negative effects of legalized same-sex marriage and/or the use of the work “marriage” to describe the legal union of same-sex couples, as you foresee them. I am explicitly not interested in philosophical discussions of the meaning or definition of the word “marriage;” I am interested how you believe people’s behavior would change if the law were changed expand the legal definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples.
But I’m pretty sure you knew that. Want to try again? Second (third, fourth, fifth…Nth) chances are free.
That’s what it looks like to me too. SInce I have no desire to rehash the “same old same old”, that’s all I see fit to say in this thread.