I have to admit, I’ve never seen or heard anything of the sort from any of them. Can you provide an example of this “contempt”? And an explanation for your use of the word “normal” there?
Really? Example?
Use of fertility as a qualifying criterion for marriage continues to be an inapplicable example, because neither law nor actual practice refers to it, nor have they ever. So can we expect you to drop it?
Use of race as an analogy for sexual orientation is *highly *applicable, in that essentially all social-impact arguments made at the time regarding interracial marriage are now being applied to homosexual marriage as well. So can we expect you to address it?
But it doesn’t really matter if it is or not-the question asked, which mswas is dodging is this:
If the race example is on point (as I think), it supports the conclusion that there is no evidence for #2. Even if it isn’t on point, that isn’t affirmative evidence for how #2 works (or that #2 exists)–#2 is an affirmative contention by SSM opponents. They have the burden of showing that contention is accurate, or represents what will actually happen in the real world. Especially as there’s no dispute that gay couples are harmed by being denied the rights that come along with marriage.
So mswas–other analogies may or may not be on point–but either way, the question is whether there is positive evidence to support the claimed harm that will result. Cannydan sets out what is needed clearly.
Since SSM opponents are arguing that this kind of harm ought to overwhelm the strong argument for equal rights, they ought to have the burden of supporting that contention. Since you’re arguing that side, what is the evidence? (This isn’t about which side you actually support–you’ve made a contention in a debate, and I’m asking you to support that contention.)
Five years on in Massachusetts (a tenth of the way to Judgment Day already!), and the sky hasn’t fallen. There are several fine examples in that AP story about children being raised by gay couples benefiting from social recognition and acceptance (grudging at times, but acceptance) of their parents’ marriages.
Ideas are non-issue by default, and remain so until they are proven to be issues. Please demonstrate how gay marriage will be a society-hurting issue in 50 years, or even a plausible chain of events by which it might be a society-hurting issue in 50 years.
How gay marriage will affect the birthrate is unclear, at best. Hence the repeated requests for clarification.
Do gay people really have contempt for “breeders”? I always had the impression that was sitcom fodder.
The only way the analogy doesn’t fit that I can see is that there’s actually a logical chain of progression behind the anti-miscegenation argument that does not exist for the anti-SSM argument. If two guys get married and decide to raise a kid, the odds of that kid not being straight are no different than if he had been raised by straight parents. On the other hand, if a white guy and a black woman get together and have a kid, the kid is going to be mixed-race. So if SSM is being opposed because of concerns over how much of society is heterosexual, it’s a non-issue. Gay parents don’t automatically lead to gay kids. But if mixed-race marriage is being opposed because of concerns over how much of society is white, then there’s definitly a concern there, because mixed-race marriages lead to mixed-race kids, which changes the racial demographics of the country.
This is, of course, ignoring the question of whether we should be concerned over the changes of the racial or sexual demographics of the country. I’m just pointing out that, unlike SSM opponents, there is step 2 between, “Make it legal” and “Everything is ruined forever.”
Interesting points as to whether the analogy is accurate–I think that it is, but that we shouldn’t let the discussion shift away from trying to get Mswas to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to same-sex marriage.
Let’s ask **magellan01 **to actually state how he thinks Step #2 works as to SSM.
Let’s ask **mswas **to state how those people he claims to be speaking for but whose views do not actually entirely parallel his own think Step #2 works as to SSM.
With all due deference lest we reinvigorate another worthless tangent-- remember, **mswas **is playing Devil’s advocate here.
I do remember that mswas claims to be playing devil’s advocate–that’s why I’m asking him to support the position he’s asserting–as you clarify, without regard to whether he believes that support or not.
If he is taking the role for the purposes of furthering debate (as he states), he ought to understand the need to support the positions he’s asserting–doing so is the very core of the formal debate he says he’s here to engage in.
If sexual orientation has anything to do with the birthrate (unclear) isn’t it more likely that the acceptance of homosexuality has more to do with it than marriage? A closeted gay might produce children to blend in - not as likely for someone who is out. I’m thinking men mostly here -it might be the opposite for women.
In any case improved standards of living, birth control, and more women in the workforce (thus, later marriages) have far more to do with the decline in the birthrate than sexual orientation.
Yes, acceptance and gay marriage go hand in hand though. Basically what gay marriage represents is nothing other than a full 100% normalization of homosexuality in our society. Something I am very curious about is whether or not it will lead to a decline in homosexuality as fewer homosexuals breed, or if it will lead to a culture of homosexual parents having homosexual children as they opt for artificial insemination.
Yes, and decoupling sex from reproduction in general.
All of which is happening already. When there is a political consensus behind SSM (which is going to happen) it will indicate acceptance. The same acceptance allows gay couples to live together not being married, and to have or adopt children. I should have added the acceptance of single parent families to my list, though that may increase the birthrate.
It’s always been decoupled to a certain extent. We’ve just reduced the consequences of sex, making it less likely that sex will lead to reproduction when it is not desired.
That would knock out the choice argument, wouldn’t it? I have the impression that the uterine environment is involved also. I suspect it is complicated, as these things usually are.
The acceptance of single parent families is probably irrelevant as there was always birth out of wedlock, only difference is we no longer treat the Mothers or the children like dogshit.
I disagree, it was decoupled in the middle of the twentieth century.
A fast read on the history of contraception demonstrates otherwise - while safe and consistently effective methods of separating sex from conception might only have come into being in the mid-20th century, the desire to do so (and numerous unsafe or ineffective methods) go back to antiquity. Had the Pill existed in ancient Rome, they would certainly have used it - it’s a result of modern science, not modern hedonism.
And when attempts at contraception failed, there was always infanticide.
The consequences aren’t new, either. People have been wanting sex without babies for a very very very long time.
I imagine it’s worse for the newborn, but in any case people have wanted to avoid inconvenient pregnancies and children for quite some time. In any case, how gay marriage affects any of this remains unclear.