The only assertion made in the OP was that legalizing gay marriage would have no negative impacts on society as a whole. How is he supposed to support that?
I’ll give it a try, though:
[ul]
[li]Legalizing gay marriage will not lead to flooding in the midwest.[/li][li]Legalizing gay marriage will not lead to increased rates of breast cancer[/li][li]Legalizing gay marriage will not reduce the GNP of the United States[/li][li]Legalizing gay marriage will not cause an increase in the number of hurricanes making landfall in the southeast[/li][li]Legalizing gay marriage will not reduce the amount of water available for agriculture in the western states[/li][li]Legalizing gay marriage will not cause California to fall into the Pacific.[/li][/ul]
That’s by no means an exhaustive list, but I’ll be happy to defend any of those if you take issue with them. Now, if you were to offer a specific example of just one potential negative effect of gay marriage, an actual discussion might result from this thread.
Your explanations consists of things you can’t prove, which you admit you can’t prove, which you admit can’t be proved but will definitely be demonstrated decades from now.
Is that about right?
There actually is a very big difference. If you have “proof”, the argument is over. Lacking that the greater the evidence, in both quantity and quality, the greater the likelihood that others will see things your way. Lacking those two, or even if the second is weak, showing a rationale can still be persuasive.
He doesn’t. Proof would be the best, of course. But I understand that it’s not always possible. But evidence, logic, would both be helpful, no?
And you keep demanding this from him and refusing to do it yourself, despite the fact that the input of people like you was explicitly requested in the OP and is in fact the entire point of this thread, because…
magellan, cwthree is totally wrong, I’ll stipulate. Every assertion he’s made in the OP is nonsense, easily picked apart by a four-year-old. We can all join hands and agree on that, right?
Awesome, you win that point. I know you can’t see it, but I’m over here giving you a standing ovation, and I’m sure everyone else in the thread–cwthree included–is joining in. You rocked that point. Devastating, old chap.
Now, what do you see as potential negatives of gay marriage? Specific bad things that might happen?
Devil’s Advocate position, really trying here:
-Marriage is the fundamental building block of society. It’s how kids are raised, and without strong marriages to support children’s growth into responsible adults, our society will fall apart as the next generation becomes increasingly undisciplined, unloved, and immature.
-Although not all straight marriages do (or can) produce children, there’s social value in having them all look as though they could or (at one point) could have: it keeps that social structure strong, keeps the link in folks’ minds between marriage and childrearing.
-If we allow same-sex marriage, it means that marriage is clearly not about childrearing, but is rather about love or lust or financial convenience or something. Everyone will get that message, and folks who would otherwise get married to raise children will no longer have such a clear model of what that looks like: their choices will be muddied by the many different shapes of marriages out there.
-We’ll therefore see increasing out-of-wedlock children, and that means children will increasingly be raised in unstable households with one parent or with passing-through adults. This will be less than beneficial for those kids.
-The next generation won’t know how to form stable relationships. They won’t have self-discipline. They won’t have been reared well, since they were reared in unstable households by unmarried parents.
-Dogs will lie down with cats.
That’s probably the best I can do. I repeat it’s devil’s advocacy, and I believe what I just wrote was hateful nonsense, but it’s the closest I can get to expressing the best anti-SSM arguments that I’ve heard.
He’s responded to post #6 and so have I. In your very first words regarding the OP you repeat the assertion that negative affects will not be seen for 40 years. That is a totally baseless, illogical, assertion for which you have zero evidence. In order for the OP to be required to defend the OP with more evidence than already provided you have to mount some kind of reasonable opposing argument with evidence of your own. You haven’t and you can’t.
I’ve pointed out one real life 40 year example that is evidence against your assertion and there are others in our civil rights history. In my book that equals all the available evidence supporting SSM and no evidence supporting your stance.
Oh I’ve thought it through and spelled it out clearly. It’s not bias. It’s looking at the arguments and weighing them against available evidence and the weight of history. The OP has offered some examples as evidence to support the OP. You’ve offered nothing. So what it is exactly you think the OP needs to defend against what you’ve offered? Why is the OP obligated to offer more evidence opposing your complete lack of evidence and a sound argument?
You can say the OPs evidence is inconclusive and I and probably the OP would agree. It’s inconclusive. That doesn’t change the fact that** all ** available evidence supports SSM and it’s opponents{you in this case} have none.
I’d say that shifts the burden to those that oppose SSM to offer anything in the way of actual evidence to support their baseless fears about society being harmed. You have none, while I can point to history to show several examples of similar baseless fears being dead wrong.
Conservatives sure seem to be ruled by their own fears. To deny people civil rights over some fear of some nebulous potential future repercussions is not the most brave behavior.
Evidence and logic are on his side not yours since in quantity, all evidence supports his completely logical assertion and no evidence supports your less rational one.
I’ve done that numerous times in numerous threads. Now, instead of me making an assertion and me being required to defend it, someone else has made some assertions. I’m amazed that he wouldn’t seize the opportunity to share with others the benefit of his thinking. And even more amazed that not one other poster has called upon him to do what is incumbent upon him to do. This is Debate 001. Yet, I, having made no assertions on the subject—and certainly not in the OP—am the one getting elbowed to spill the beans.
Maybe it’s because you guys, most of whom share his point of view, feel there’s nothing to explain. Maybe you accept his assertions as fact. I don’t. And when that happens, a poster normally asks for support for said assertions. i can’t believe I have to explain this. But I think it’s telling.
I have to go in a few minutes anyway. While I’m away, maybe the OP will realize what rightly falls to him. At this point, I am not optimistic. As to not get sucked into another vortex, from here on out I’ll probably restrict my response to the OP. If he won’t support the assertions he makes in his own OP, I don’t think there’s much value hanging around while he shirks his duty.
That’s actually pretty good. Unfortunately, it was pretty thoroughly rebutted, (with facts and citations and everything), in one of our previous outings, (although the point was steadfastly, nay, emphatically ignored by those who wished to imagine that “something” bad “might” happen).
He did not support his assertions. He just spouted what he would or would not deem worthy of answering. He doesn’t seem to grasp that his first responsibility is to back up his own bold assertions.
As I said, I’ll wait to see his answers and deal with them at that time. Why is it you and others are so quick to allow him to slough off on his responsibility and prop him up?
Here’s a request: let him handle this on his own. Let it be just me and him. No help from anyone else. If you guys are so sure of your position and have even halfway faith in the abilities of the OP, it should still be a lopsided fight, right? I mean, he’s got all kinds of evidence and logic on his side, right? Not to mention the self-evident righteousness of his enlightened position. And what do I have? Just little old me with some wacky, throwback notions about society and shoddy logic. Should be easy. Of course, I’m assuming that he feels confident in being able to support his assertions when held to scrutiny.
He obviously has great interest in debating me about this and feels equipped to do so, having started this thread, not to mention post two Pit threads about me.
You’re just not going to get it, are you? This thread is (supposed to be) about what you believe. cwthree’s opinions on the matter are really irrelevant, and were only posted in the OP as a contrast to your views.
Just for giggles, can we pretend that the OP, in its entirety, consisted only of the following?
And then can you take it from there? Because I think that’s the meat of it, and many people would be interested in reading your thoughts regarding the specific invitation proffered above.