What is holy and sacred about marriage when 60 percent wind up in divorce? Then a bunch more are miserable. If those defending it on grounds that it is sacred, actually believed it ,they would not divorce so casually. Marriage is a legal contract that can be broken. Nothing sacred about it.
100 percent of marriages end in either divorce or death. 100 percent.
Kind of sobering, huh?
Thinking on this I have to disagree.
People are asked to go to a poll and vote on this. As such they need to make a decision (or abstain which is a decision) and pull a lever for or against SSM. If the person truly does not care one way or another or knows they lack the information to make a rational choice then abstaining from the vote is proper (and rational). However, going ahead and pulling a lever one way or another without a clue about the issue is irrational.
It is irrational to make a decision without having a basis to form that decision. This is particularly so when the person is being asked to make a decision that has an impact on others (a dramatic one at that). This is not deciding between whether to have a ham or chicken sandwich.
Now, unless you are talking to raindog the arguments for both sides are out there. They are not a secret and available to anyone who bothers to look. How can a proper (as you see it) decision be reached without an exploration of what each decision entails?
Let’s try an example that I hope clarifies this:
Me: “I think Assault Weapons should be banned and I am going to vote to ban them.”
Other: “Why?”
Me: “Because guns are bad and Assault Weapons are big black scary guns so are especially bad.”
Other: “Err, ‘assault weapon’ is a meaningless term. You want to ban something for cosmetic purposes. They are no more lethal than any other gun and even at that are rarely used in crimes.”
Me: “Of course you’d say that. You like guns but they are bad and these big black scary guns are worse.”
Other: “Look, here is a pile of evidence that shows this is not so. If you’d just look at…”
Me: (sticks fingers in ears) “La la la Can’t hear you!”
We have been through debates about assault weapons here before. Would any of the pro-gun people deem that I am making a rational choice taking the stance above then going to a polling booth to vote to ban assault weapons?
I think not and I cannot see how you could paint me as making a rational decision in such a case. So too with SSM.
As for future evidence we are not irrational because some new evidence presents itself down the line. I offered you a ham or chicken sandwich earlier. I now cannot say that is an irrational decision because I say you could have chosen a burger. You did not have that choice when you made your choice. Doesn’t the legal system make the same assessment? Say they convict someone based on available evidence. Ten years later technology allows them to test DNA that conclusively proves the convicted person is innocent. The court does not see its original decision as wrong because it was right based on the evidence at hand at that time.
I’m kinda curious how the “gay marriage will hurt the traditional bonds of hetero marriage” reconciles with urban black populations where such bonds are pretty much thoroughly broken (absent fathers) and yet are also firmly hostile to gay marriage. I see a community that does not accept gay marriage and is not likely to accept gay marriage anytime soon… and yet for decades has been suffering the family breakdowns that we’re warned gay marriage will cause.
My god… are black people from the future?!
Tachyon exposure affects melanin generation! Who knew?
I think I have thought of a way in which the “vote the majority” might be seen as rational and reasoned and not simply the same as abstaining…
Imagine a situation where the government determines gay marriage will be legalized if referenda in 26 of the states and DC indicate a majority for it. States vote alphabetically. After 50 states have voted, 25 have supported gay marriage, 25 have opposed it. We are down to Wyoming. However, the 25 states that opposed gay marriage did so by a 90-10 margin. The 25 that supported it did so by a 51-49 margin. Nationally then, the anti-SSM vote massively outweighs the pro-SSM vote, enough so that even if every resident of Wyoming votes pro-SSM (hey, its a hypo, roll with it) there will still be a national majority against SSM.
Could it not be considered rational and reasoned (though still wrong) to vote against-SSM if you live in Wyoming, giving as the reason that you think the majority of people are against-SSM? Here then your vote is very different to abstaining…
Well, I would say taking a stance that majority rule is the ideal goal regardless of other considerations is irrational. Plenty of examples throughout history where the majority made a bad choice.
That said if your goal is to achieve the irrational goal of seeing the majority get its way (that is your sole criteria) then voting as you suggest is the rational choice.
Taken as a whole though I would regard this as irrational.
Well, first, that’s a hypothetical that, by its own terms, only helps makes voting, rather than abstaining, rational if same-sex marriage is legalized using the system you’re talking about. So I don’t think it changes anything to me–because it only applies if such a voting system is used–which isn’t true for any foreseeable popular vote on SSM (since they will all be state-level).
Secondly, to me, here, our voter doesn’t seem to be protecting the agreed-upon system of voting, but acting to subvert it. And that to me, is irrational–it’s acting not to “fix”, but to “break” the decision that would otherwise be made under the rules as to how laws are made (and hence how SSM is legalized).
Why? Under the legal system being used, the overall popular vote doesn’t matter. That is, presumably, a rule in our hypothetical system for a reason (to, for example, prevent the more populous states from imposing their will on the less populous states). If the voter doesn’t like that, well and good–but it seems to me to be unreasonable to both say you’re agnostic on SSM, and just going with the conclusion that would be reached otherwise, and to vote as you suggest— since, under the rules in play, without our voter’s tactical voting, pro-SSM wins.
Is it any different if the law said “national majority wins,” and our voter decides that it’s more important to him that 48 sparsely populated states are 90-10 for, but the two densely populated states are 51-40 against (such that it’s a close race?, but SSM would be rejected without our voter choosing to vote “tactically”), and so to vote for same-sex marriage?
That is an internally consistent argument–but I find it at least questionable, if not unreasonable, because it involves choosing to vote, not because our voter supports or opposes same-sex marriage, but because he feels the decision should be made on some other standard than the law uses (States vs. majority, or majority vs. states?)
In other words, to me, the “majority” (under this argument) ought to be defined by how we make the decision–since the argument is based in going with the decision that would prevail, based on the opinions of those who do hold opinions on SSM. It seems to me to be hard to say you’re really agnostic about the result (which is necessary for the argument under its own terms), and at the same time, to vote to reach a different decision than would be reached had you not voted–that is to me, by definition, taking a position on the matter.
Well yes, but it would still be rational and reasoned, wouldn’t it?
Just for laughs, I ran the numbers. If the 25 most populous states (California through Louisiana) voted 51% in support and the 25 least populous states (Kentucky through DC, which gets counted though Wyoming does not) voted 90% against, the total popular vote would be about 55% against. Wyoming might have the state tiebreaker, but as the least populous state, will have no significant effect on the popular vote total.
If the 25 most populous states vote 58% in favour, though, the popular vote totals are about even and Wyoming might have an effect on the popular vote total.
Anyway, the hypothetical Wyoming voter will have to make an arbitrary decision about which “majority” is more important - popular vote or electoral-style state vote. The chances of them being about the same are slim approaching none.
Again, first, it’s only even possibly rational and reasoned if the vote in question is using the system you suggest, and comes out split the way you suggest So even if your contention makes it reasonable, it only makes it reasonable under those circumstances. Since those circumstances don’t now exist, it can’t apply to the decision made by any actual SSM opponent.
But secondly, I think it’s internally inconsistent–both with starting out agnostic on the issue, and with the reasoning behind Bricker’s argument (which is based on a popular-majority wins voting system).
(emphasis mine). This clearly shows the argument justifies supporting the majority because that is how our society makes such decisions. Bricker’s argument doesn’t make sense if you have a system where (say) a 3/4 majority is required–then, it would require you to (say) support SSM if 51% of the population supports it–even though, under the law, SSM will be prohibited. Then you have the dilemma his argument avoids–you’re in a position where the outcome under the law is X, and the argument says you should believe Y.
Secondly, by definition, what our voter is doing is voting in a way that determines if SSM is legalized or not (i.e. he is voting against because a majority opposes, but under the voting system, SSM would be legalized unless he votes to support the majority.
To me, it is inconsistent to say both that you are agnostic on the issue, only choosing to support a settled result, and that it’s reasonable to vote in a way that changes the otherwise-settled outcome.
Let me put it another way–what if the population was 50/50 split, such that your vote did decide the issue–there, you obviously can’t make a “majority rules” argument–because you define the majority. Same applies here–if voting one way means SSM is permitted, and voting the other way means SSM is prohibited, voting cannot be agnostic–it is determining if SSM should be permitted or prohibited.
So I think it’s inconsistent. I also think what it really is an unreasonable attempt to subvert the voting process.
26 states are needed to change the law. That was agreed upon, presumably by a vote. You lost that vote when you wanted to support popular majority rulemaking. Voting here is trying to impose the result of a popular majority vote onto a system that opposes popular majority vote deciding, and (2) where your opinion would be insufficient to actually change the rule. It’s trying to get around the framework of how laws are made–and that, to me, may be rational, but is unreasonable within that framework.
Well we are clearly in whacko hypo land here…
If the situation is one where the voting system exists such that a simple majority of states is enough, yet the individual disagrees with that system - believing instead that rather than an electoral college, it should be nationwide majority of voters - does that get around the problem? The voting system wasn’t the result of a simple majority vote, either…
I am having trouble seeing the internal inconsistency if that is the case, but I could be missing something…
Remember, you are the one unwilling to support your assertions in a debate forum. You are simply stomping your feet and saying your argument is so.
I perfectly understand what Bricker is saying. In fact, I understand it so well I’ve shown he’s wrong. You’re the one who is convinced by his rubbish argument and hopping on his bandwagon because his rubbish sounds more coherent than the utterly farcical attempts at debate you’ve been presenting.
You believe that there are rational arguments against SSM as a matter of faith. You have not demonstrated it and are unwilling to address the fact that you cannot find evidence of such. You aren’t debating.
I’m not talking about the merits of SSM. I’m talking about the merits of the arguments against SSM.
That’s the trouble, you are arguing. You aren’t debating. You are unwilling to admit that your position has no evidence supporting it and you simply glom onto it based on personal preference.
Okay, let me get this straight:
Referring to people who pass laws narrowly tailored to negatively effect only homosexuals as homophobes is an unacceptable insult.
Comparing people who support SSM to Al Qaeda is perfectly okay.
Does that about sum it up?
We are indeed in crazy hypo land, and adding assumptions by the minute. But that’s fine from a logical point of view–I would, however, question whether it makes the argument less and less compelling (since it narrows more and more the possible situations in which it could actually apply–and since we’re already beyond the point at which its assumptions effectively rule out it applying to any actual voter).
The question I’m pointing out isn’t if it’s unreasonable to disagree with the system. It’s whether it’s unreasonable to subvert the system, without being able to change it.
Again, with an example using a straight majority: 49% of the population oppose SSM, 51% approve. You know this. Is it reasonable to act to try to ensure some of those supporters don’t vote (when they would otherwise do so), so that what would otherwise be the minority position wins the vote? That is what I see your voter doing here.
It may be rational–winning at any cost. I don’t see it as reasonable.
the internal inconsistency comes in in three places: first, in Bricker’s hypo, the voter goes with the majority because that’s how we decide things. If it isn’t how we decide things (as in your example) then the argument, at least, requires more–it must be reasonable to choose to support a majority vote over the other system (including whether it is reasonable, given the reasons a majority-system was not adopted).
That can be fixed, but requires more explanation.
Second, one great virtue of Bricker’s argument is that the position it leads our voter to take is consistent with the result. That is, to me, a big boost to its claim of reasonableness. Your system, on the other hand, (framing it as “I believe in majority rule, and will support the majority position even if that’s not how we make rules” seems designed (absent a very weird vote split) to leave our voter supporting the position that is rejected by the lawmaking process–unless all states have equal population, or if we move away from a straight number of states vote (each of which moves us back, effectively, towards a majority-vote system), then the position supported by 26 states does not necessarily coincide with, and (assuming random distribution of voters), more often than not, will not coincide with the majority position.
So your argument seems designed to have the voter pick the “wrong” side as measured by the result of the election. That is troubling on its own–and is troubling when you think about the reasons bricker has offered.
Again, you could assume a voting system and population distribution that fixes this. But that makes the argument less likely to ever apply–and at some point, that makes it unreasonable to actually adopt–because it will never apply in the real world.
Finally, and I’ve said this before, in your example, our voter in effect determines if same-sex marriage will be permitted. It’s hard to say he’s just following the crowd, and is actually agnostic if he also defines what the result is. In fact, I would argue that if you are actually agnostic on an issue, it is irrational to make a decision that determines the result–since so doing isn’t being agnostic about the result–it’s choosing what the result is–inherently favoring one side over the other, by deciding that one side should win and the other lose.
On this topic, a banal discussion of voting strategy isn’t even within miles of whacko hypo land.
You’ll know you’re in whacko hypo land when a post begins: “Suppose we make gay marriage legal, and then President Jocelyn Elders decides we must teach our kids that it’s mandatory…”
Let’s review what you say your point in this thread is: that you shouldn’t deliberately insult your opponent in debate - you shouldn’t “demonize” them.
Let’s look at what you’re doing: deliberately insulting your opponents in debate.
So yeah. Pot meet kettle, indeed.
And I’m pretty sure I understand Bricker just fine. I’m less sure that you do - which would be at least somewhat okay if you weren’t spouting off about other people’s comprehension.
This arguing against one minor detail and completely missing (or avoiding) the point of how it relates to the main point? I do it myself sometimes. I like the cheap thrill of attacking a statement out of context as much as the next guy.
But it’s not good for the debate.
The question is, how much contradiction is too much contradiction? I’d say, objectively, “very little”. And in fact I’d say that we’ve reached the point where it’s implausible that people still exist who 1) are presenting their opinions in any forum where debate can occur so others can hear about them, and 2) are unaware that there are objections to their arguments and what some of those counterarguments are. I really think that we’re past the point where people can proselytize from a safe and secure bubble of ignorance. And of course in places like the SDMB, your proselytizing will last for about two seconds before you are made aware of counterarguments, so even if you were virginal upon entry, you get ‘tainted’ pretty fast.
What does this mean? It means that nobody can rationally defend these arguments in debate past a couple of posts without leaving it going off to deliberate on it, and that increasingly they can’t even present the argument, because they will have heard the refutation somewhere. So threads like this? This wrong position is held irrationally.
Why is it held irrationally? Must it be bigotry or homophobia or religion or instinctive conservativism? No. It could quite easily instead be stubbornness, and/or a reluctance to admit you held and argued a wrong position, and/or a heightened reluctance to concede the argument to that jerk that’s calling you an irrational homophobic bigot. Heck, I wouldn’t expect a person to concede the argument under such circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it’s not irrational. (And it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t rethink their argument later once they’d calmed down, even if they never publicly come out and admit they did so.)
If he’s not irrational, he must be illogical or ignorant, because a person who knows how voting works knows that you’re not supposed to vote your guess about what the other guy wants.
Like virtually* all of the other non-irrational arguments for voting anti-SSM, this argument is internally flawed, failing on its own lack of merit rather than requiring arguments on the other side to override it through superior merit of their own.
*the one exception I can think of is if you live in Talibanistan, and reasonably expect the entire populace to literally rise up in violence in reaction to SSM to the degree that society would enact a “justice” more unjust than the governmental ban, like say killing all the gay people. Of course, this argument can only be applied in specific locales.
There are two reasons to insult people in debate: to release personal stress, and to turn people away from supporting your opponent. (Smear campaigning, in other words.) There is a magical ephemeral third reason, to get them to see the error of their ways, but in practice this can only occur if you manage to criticise their actions without pissing them off and making them go defensive, which is tricky under the best of circumstances and nigh-impossible to do simultaneously with the pursuit of the first or second goal.
So yeah. Insulting doesn’t help persuasive debate. It can sure feel good, though!
In this case, like with the Nader situation, the complaint is that the voting method does not accurately represent the wills of the people it is trying to poll. The complaint isn’t with SSM. So, while this might be an argument for deliberately trying to subvert the voting system (to warp its result into one you feel more accurately represents the will of the people), which might result in you voting againt SSM if SSM marriage is the issue at hand, it is not an argument for opposing SSM itself.
The difference is, you would apply the argument and resulting behavior to all topics effected by the real problem - so you’d vote for anything, regardless of topic, if you felt it was necessary to do so to correct the flaw in the voting system. Similarly, if people actually were worried about SSM’s effect on children, they would also apply the argument to issues of divorce, single parenthood, and poor parenting - with equal vehemence. If they do not do so, then they don’t believe their own argument, and are being absolutely dishonest if they ever present it.
You are familiar with the definition of hypocrisy, right?
I mean, even if I were to concede to all of this, it wouldn’t be hypocritical.
:smack:
It sure does!
Never mind that this is a juvenile, simplistic, and distorted summary of my posts in this thread.
It just reads so well!
I am bemused at the dismissal of several variants as “not about SSM.”
It seems to me that any viewpoint that has as a consequence the opposition to SSM at the present time is sufficient to meet the criteria discussed at the start of this little digression. The argument was that there’s no rational argument on the side of those opposing SSM. This surely was meant to encompass those who oppose SSM for reasons that would ALSO lead them to oppose or support other measures as well.