11.02.2009

2009 Elections Preview: Maine Question 1 (Gay Marriage)

Maine -- Question 1 -- "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" .

The Positions: A 'Yes' vote overturns same-sex marriage, which the state legislature approved in May. A 'No' vote preserves same-sex marriage.

The Polls: As in the other elections this cycle, recent polling shows somewhat contradictory results. A Research 2000 / Daily Kos poll shows Question 1 losing by one point. A Pan Atlantic SMS poll shows the initiative losing by 11 points. But a fresh PPP poll shows it passing by 4 points. The Research 2000 and Pan Atlantic polls showed slight movement toward the 'No' side from their previous surveys, while the PPP poll showed movement toward the 'Yes' side. The only other pollster to have surveyed the race is Democracy Corps, which had shown Question 1 losing by 9 points among both registered and likely voters, although that poll is now five weeks old.

Analysis: All the polls show a very low number of undecideds, so like most close elections, it's a question of turnout. And the pollsters have different opinions about what turnout is liable to be. PPP has people under 45 representing about 38 percent of the electorate, whereas Research 2000 has them at 51 percent of the electorate. PPP's figures are a closer match for Maine's 2006 electorate, when 36 percent of voters were 45 or under.

On the other hand, PPP shows conservatives outnumbering liberals 36-23, whereas those numbers have been about evenly split in exit polling of Maine's elections in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Were the liberal-conservative split to match 2006, for example, when Maine's electorate was 26 percent liberal, 26 percent conservative, and 48 percent moderate, then Question 1 would fail 46-53, according to PPP's internals.

While an electorate that favorable to liberals might be somewhat unlikely in an off-year election, there is also not a lot of evidence that conservatives have the edge in terms of organization or enthusiasm. On the contrary, the No-on-1 campaign has received contributions from 9 times as many Mainers as the Yes-on-1 side, and Yes-on-1's messaging has been haphazard, to put it generously. With that said, the gay marriage question is one on which conservatives have typically had an enthusiasm advantage, although that may be changing, with conservatives devoting more of their energies to abortion and fiscal policy.

One last methodological issue worth mentioning may be cellphone-only households, which continue to make up a higher and higher percentage of the survey base and which none of these pollsters, to my knowledge, are including in their surveys. Some previous studies have found a particularly strong split on the gay marriage question based on cellphone usage, with the younger and perhaps more sociable cellphone-only crowd tending to be more supportive of gay marriage.

The Odds: A statistical analysis I conducted last month, which was based on the results from previous gay marriage referenda in other states, gave the Yes on 1 side just an 11 percent chance of prevailing, although the fraction rises to 32 percent after an ad-hoc adjustment for the fact that this is an off-year election. In spite of the PPP poll, I'm not especially persuaded to deviate substantially from those numbers: the polling average still favors the 'No' side, albeit narrowly; the 'No' side seems to have run the superior campaign, and the cellphone issue may be worth a point or two. The tight polling, certainly, should keep everybody on their toes, and gay marriage could quite easily be overturned. But I'd still put the Yes on 1 side as about a 5-to-2 underdog.

337 comments

Nick G said...

Don't get complacent Maine, turn out to preserve equality!

Stew Henderson said...

Nate -- Why aren't you looking at Washington State, with a similar initiative on the ballot?

DCM in FL said...

thanks, Nate

I hope Maine does vote NO.

Heber said...

Nate- did you take into effect a possibly "Bradley" effect on support for gay marriage? Would this add some points to the yes side?

Bryce said...

@Heber

Is it 2008 again here? I think that question has been settled by now, Heber.

Ivan said...

I remember when Maine passed the (first?) bottle bill, mandating returnables. The bottlers put a repeal on the ballot; the repeal failed 52/48. Next election they put it on again; that repeal failed 56/44. They tried one more time (61/39) and gave up.

Mainers are alarmingly sensible.

EmonOkari said...

I personally view it a tragedy that its even possible (in 21st Century USA) for one portion of the population's citizens to arbitrarily 'vote out' the equal rights and benefits already given to another. Whats next, a voter-initiative to repeal all mixed-race 'non-traditional' marriages? Lets say that actually passed...would it be upheld, or thrown out as 'unconstitutional'?

Dwight said...

@Bryce

That was for The Black, this is for The Gay. Same concept, difference bigotry to be embarassed of. It might be applicable.

All you need is a non-trivial number of people that don't like same-sex equal rights but feel shame for saying so publicly. It is arguable the social public pressure is there, it's a matter of whether or not society is still in "fake it till you make it" territory for homosexual equality.

I don't recall it being present on Prop 8 though?

Just John said...

Stew-
I'm in Seattle, I'm very interested in Ref 71 and I'm hoping for it to be approved by 20 or more points... but SSM is not technically on the ballot out here. So we're not as high profile because we don't really fit the national narrative of "gay marriage is sweeping the nation" or even fall under the purview of Nate's analysis of how attitudes toward gay marriage have been changing incrementally.

Ref 71 doesn't compare on the surface to what Vermont, Iowa and Maine have done/are doing this year. It's not as glamorous as last year's Prop 8 debacle. Sadly, we're stuck in a second-rate race this time around. (Not second-rate for those of us who live here and would like to see equal rights for all citizens.)

But if Ref 71 passes handily, look for legalization of SSM here within 4-5 years. I'd wager 2013.

Matt said...

@Dwight and Heber:

The "Gay Bradley" effect, if it exists at all, may work in the opposite direction. It's possible that some voters would tell a pollster that they're against gay marriage--for fear of appearing gay or bi-curious--and then vote in its favor in the privacy of the voting booth.

Leland Traiman said...

Washington state's Referendum 71 is much more important. Same-sex marriage has never won an election. Domestic Partnerships have never lost. Maine is different than all the other elections because it is the first election where SSM was passed by the legislature, not forced by the courts. None-the-less, if we win it will only mean one win and 32 losses for SSM. However, if Referendum 71 in Washington state fails that will be a much more significant loss for the rights of marriage (specifically because 71 does not include the rites of marriage). A win in Washington and a loss in Maine might reshape federal marital rights legislation so that it has a chance of passing Congress. Unfortunately, if we win in Maine, national marital rights legislation will be all about the word "marriage" which will be doomed to failure in the US Congress. Our strategy for achieving the rights of marriage has been significantly damage by our leadership's obsession with the rites of marriage.

planetspinz said...

Obama supporters voted against equality in Florida, Arkansas and California. Heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRATs cross party lines. Hopefully another New England state voters will vote for unconditional constitutional equality, though.

Ellen said...

They make the wording of those questions very confusing. So a "no" vote is a vote in favor of gay marriage?

Jacob said...

How is it that so many states have provisions that allow a simple majority on a ballot question to overturn legislation (or in CA's case, amend the Contitution)?

It seems to flaunt the very idea of representative government if a majority can change the law in any way they want and at any time.

At least in IA, overturning marriage equality will have to pass two consecutive legislatures (so no sooner than 2011).

Leah said...

As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.

Many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.

Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.

So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don't forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.

Thank you, and God Bless America.

Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
Blog site: http://blog.democraticreformparty.com

Joe said...

@Jacob: In California's case, the "you can amend the Constitution with a majority vote) came from attempts to stem corporate corruption of politicians by the railroads (early 20th Century?)

(California went further than that in explicitly allowing voters to amend the state guarantee of equal protection (which is how the court describes it's own actions.) I believe the Court was wrong about to interpret "inalienable" to mean "alienable" in Article I, Section 1, I think their decision was more about saving their jobs and preventing riots than rational legal argument.)

Charles said...

Thank you, Leah.

Jacob said...

@Leah,

First of all, corruption is a problem within every major party in the world, and tends to be worse among those parties holding positions of power. All parties should seek to root out corruption amongst their elected and appointed officials.

But the Democratic Party has believed in large-scale solutions to large-scale social problems for the past 80+ years. Moderate incremental approaches to address income inequality, jobs, health care costs, environmental protection, education, etc are a mainstay of Democratic philosophy.

This cautious moderate problem-solving approach is the opposite of socialism (within the realm of trying to solve the problem).

If you really believe that the center-left politicians leading "your" Democratic Party are Socialists, then the first thing you need to do is go to your local Board of Education and demand a refund for the cost of your social studies education, since you clearly learned nothing from it.

The next thing you should do is found a party that opposes moderate incrementalist approaches to large social problems and instead favors doing nothing (come to think of it you could join the GOP).

But don't treat real Democrats like traitors to the party for acting like Democrats.

Charles said...

I could vote for a pro-life, anti same-sex "marriage" Democrat.

shrinkers said...

@Leah

Thanks for posting that! It made me giggle. A whole website run by concern trolls! Just too funny.

Their push poll says all that needs to be said - it's a transparent and obvious bit of Orwellian political manipulation.

Charles said...

For instance, Dan Boran, Bart Stupak, Lincoln Davis, or Marcy Kaptur. They are Democrats who still follow in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. JFK was the last such great Democrat.

Jacob said...

And Charles,

Leah's post had nothing to do with choice or marriage equality. Even imaginary socialism feared by concern trolls doesn't really relate to the social freedoms that you so vehemently oppose.

Charles said...

Anyone else want to argue that "following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation" includes same-sex "marriage"?

shrinkers said...

@Charles
Anyone else want to argue that "following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation" includes same-sex "marriage"?

I will so argue. It includes same-sex marriage to the same extent that it includes mixed-race marriage.

Charles said...

Luckily for my argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has only recognized race as immutable.

shrinkers said...

And that relates to my response.... how?

And same-sex marriage relates to socialism.... how?

Charles said...

Marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (Loving v. Virginia, citing Skinner, 316 US at 541), a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. Leftists and socialists alike are attacking the very institution of marriage which, as I have previously pointed out, same-sex "marriages" cannot naturally produce children. The Supreme Court has recognized that race (but not homosexuality) is immutable. Therefore, it has reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law". YOUR argument fails since homosexuality (and ALL sexual deviancy) is controlable and NOT immutable. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Does that answer your "how" questions?

Jacob said...

@shrinkers

Well back in the 50's there were people who thought mixing races was communism (though they never articulated how). Maybe Charles wants to provide a defense for that argument.


@Charles

So when the SCOTUS or Congress recognize marriage equality as a right will homophobes such as yourself back down and accept it as Constitutionally protected?

Jacob said...

Chucky said...

"YOUR argument fails since homosexuality (and ALL sexual deviancy) is controlable and NOT immutable. Sorry to burst your bubble."


So for example, would hair color be immutable under your definition? I could dye my hair and pretend it's a different color but the natural color would still be the same.

If the powerful intrusive government you anti-socialists favor denied marriage between people with naturally blonde hair, would I be forced to marry a brunette? Or would I be forced to dye my hair?

Charles said...

I will NOT be defending anti-miscegenation statutes (as I agree with Loving v. Virginia, but none of those Justices would have ruled the same as to gay "marriage"), nor will I be defending wrong-headed Supreme Court cases such as Dred Scott, Plessy, or Korematsu. If the leftists on the Supreme Court issue another wrong-headed decision granting Constitutional protection to same-sex "marriage", I will NOT recognize its moral validity.

Charles said...

Nor will I be defending Aryan concepts of blonde-hair, blue-eyed Eugenics.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
Does that answer your "how" questions?

In a way. It tells me that you understand neither socialism nor the limits of SCOTUS rulings.

SCOTUS has not addressed the issue of mixed-race as it relates to marriage. It's ruling bears on that, and that alone. It has not addressed the issue of homosexuality as it relates to marriage. Even if you were correct in your assertion of homosexuality as a "choice" and a "perversion" (which you are not), a SCOTUS ruling that does not address a given issue means that the issue has not been addressed by SCOTUS.

My argument is that the original Constitution dealt with immutable rights - and left black people out. Following too closely in the "footsteps of the founders" would mean allowing black people to remain slaves, and preventing them from marrying whites. We have wisely gone beyond that, and will continue to advance in that same direction.

As for socialism - it's an economic theory (which differs markedly from the theories and actions of the current Democratic administration, by the way), not a theory of social justice. The possibility that a given group supports both a given economic theory and a given social theory does not mean the two theories are related. (I like both cheeseburgers and Beethoven - does that "prove" Ludwig liked cheeseburgers?) Any simple logic class would tell you that.

Try again.

Charles said...

Why aren't you leftist so concerned about the "powerful intrusive government" punishing murder or incest?

Persuter said...

Anyone else want to argue that "following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation" includes same-sex "marriage"?

:facepalm: The "time-honored footsteps" are the Constitution and the general process of American government. Not what they personally believed. When we follow the Constitutional process to enact laws, we are following in their footsteps, regardless of what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the laws.

I think perhaps the best example of how to follow in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers is George Washington's leaving the Presidency after two terms. Lionizing the Fathers into perfect philosopher-kings who could make all decisions for the country is exactly what they DON'T want - it's about using the rules they laid down to make decisions FOR OURSELVES.

Honestly, Charles, I find it very hard to believe that you actually think this is a reasonable argument. Are you seriously trying to say that all laws that were not on the books in 1792 are going against the Founding Fathers? Or that any political movement that seeks to change a law within the Constitutional process is going against the Founding Fathers?

shrinkers said...

Sorry, error - "SCOTUS has not addressed the issue of mixed-race as it relates to marriage" should have been "SCOTUS has addressed the issue of mixed-race as it relates to marriage"

Persuter said...

I will NOT be defending anti-miscegenation statutes (as I agree with Loving v. Virginia

lol, pretty much says it all there, doesn't it? Anti-miscegenation statutes ARE following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers... because you agree with it.

Sure is convenient that the Founding Fathers agree with everything you say.

Charles said...

shrinkers (you need to actually READ these cases then):

"SCOTUS has not addressed the issue of mixed-race as it relates to marriage ..."

Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

"It has not addressed the issue of homosexuality as it relates to marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

Charles said...

No, Persuter, anti-miscegenation statutes violate the very ideals the Founding Fathers established (even though they themselves fell short by owning slaves). Same-sex "marriage" is completely different. If enough people voted to repeal the First Amendment, that would not be in their "footsteps" either (even though it would be perfectly allowed under our system, just as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Fergeson, or Korematsu were). Maybe YOU should re-read the Declaration of Independence for a refresher course. At some point, a government too far to the left is subject to being over-thrown.

shrinkers said...

Charles -

As I said, I made a typo in regards to mixed-race ruling. SCOTUS has indeed ruled on that, and that is what I had meant to say.

On the other hand, SCOTUS has not ruled on whether a state law that recognized same-sex marriages violates any Constitutional principles.

Charles said...

No apology needed, shrinkers. Read the Baker case though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

shrinkers said...

And you have still shown no link between same-sex marriage and socialism - or between socialism and the current Democratic administration, for that matter.

Charles said...

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Jacob said...

@Charles,

No Baker v Nelson, shameful decision though it was, was not decided by SCOTUS. The Court of the era claimed that it lacked a "substantial federal question."

And I have never met a leftist who didn't believe the government could punish murder and incest. That idea is absurd on its face.

All your bitching about sexual orientation being a choice is ferkakdeh too. Let me ask you this, have you ever actually asked a gay person whether they choose whom they are attracted to? I mean I'm straight but I didn't choose to be attracted to women. Why should it be any different for gay people?

Charles said...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that (I AmJured Con Law though ; )

Persuter said...

No, Persuter, anti-miscegenation statutes violate the very ideals the Founding Fathers established (even though they themselves fell short by owning slaves). Same-sex "marriage" is completely different.

Again, it's very convenient that the Founding Fathers seem to use you as their designated spokesperson to distinguish between what is and is not in line with their ideals.


If enough people voted to repeal the First Amendment, that would not be in their "footsteps" either

I love that you insist that there's no comparison to be made between mixed-race and same-sex marriage... and then make the First Amendment comparison. Yes, having same-sex marriage would be approximately the same as abolishing freedom of speech altogether. Good call.


Maybe YOU should re-read the Declaration of Independence for a refresher course

Roger that. Let me check...

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Yup. Still says that the power of the government rests with the governed, not with guys two hundred years ago.

shrinkers said...

Thanks for the link, Charles. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a law which limited marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate Federal rights as listed in the 14th Amendment. It did not rule on the question of how a law that permits same-sex marriage would relate to any Constitutional question. These are two different issues, and the Minnesota court only addressed one of them.

SCOTUS denied there were any Federal issues here - which is sensible, because states, not the Federal government, make rulings on marriage issues. There is no federal definition of "marriage", so there is no federal question involved here. That is, they ruled that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The upshot of this is that the relationship between a law allowing same-sex marriages and Constitutional rights has still not been addressed by SCOTUS.

Charles said...

I just said that same-sex "marriage" would be perfectly allowed under our system (and I was referring to the religious freedoms in the First Amendment, not speech).

Charles said...

No, shrinkers, the "upshot" is that SCOTUS has addressed the issue of homosexuality as it relates to marriage (there is no 14th Amendment guarantee to gays). Now, you and Persuter are free to try to change that, just as I am free to "to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another ... whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Persuter said...

I just said that same-sex "marriage" would be perfectly allowed under our system

Yes, it would. Which is why it's following in the footsteps of the Fathers who instituted that system so that we could make decisions like this for ourselves.


(and I was referring to the religious freedoms in the First Amendment, not speech).

:rolleyes: That would not change your point or mine, except to replace the word "speech" in my post with "religion". Comments like this just seem to be deliberately wasting everyone's time.

Jacob said...

Blogger Persuter said...

"I love that you insist that there's no comparison to be made between mixed-race and same-sex marriage... and then make the First Amendment comparison."


And yet marriage equality does relate to the First Amendment.

Currently, progressive and inclusive churches, synagogues, etc in 44 states cannot exercise their power to legally marry same-sex couples if they so choose. They must arbitrarily restrict legal marriage based on a parameter set by hate-mongering religious institutions.

That does seem to be a government intrusion on religious freedom.

Charles said...

It's not a "waste" when leftist are, in fact, attacking the sanctity of marriage and my religious rights. Again, you may not like my example, but repealing the First Amendment would be "following in the footsteps of the Fathers who instituted that system" -- technically following the letter of the law, as long as the proper amendment procedures are met -- but (I would argue) violate the spirit of the law. I really don't know how to explain my position any better, so I apologize in advance if you still don't understand it.

Charles said...

Jacob:

We don't let Native-Americans do drugs in the name of "religion" either. Sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
No, shrinkers, the "upshot" is that SCOTUS has addressed the issue of homosexuality as it relates to marriage (there is no 14th Amendment guarantee to gays).

You missed my point. I said that the Minnesota ruling held that a state law which disallowed same-sex marriage did not violate 14th Amendment rights. It said nothing about the constitutionality of a low that allows same-sex marriage. This question has not been addressed.

And you still have shown no connection between any of these questions and socialism, nor between socialism and the current Democratic party.

(Oddly enough, the site Leah showed us links socialism to Hitler - very strange, as he was a fascist, not a socialist. Clearly, they have no idea what "socialism" is, either.)

Charles said...

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Charles said...

shrinkers:

Your ORIGINAL point was that the Supreme Court "has not addressed the issue of homosexuality as it relates to marriage." Was that now a typo too? That's what I was refuting.

As for socialism, Obama taking over banks, insurance and car companies, housing, healthcare industry, etc. is getting fairly close.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
It's not a "waste" when leftist are, in fact, attacking the sanctity of marriage and my religious rights.

In what way does someone else's marriage affect your religious rights? That's absurd.

In what way does same-sex marriage "attack the sanctity of marriage", whereas allowing divorce does not?

We don't let Native-Americans do drugs in the name of "religion" either. Sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Illegal drugs are illegal. Homosexuality is not. This is a false comparison. (Besides, in many cases, there are indeed concessions to Native America rights.)

Jacob said...

Chucky, allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way infringes your religious rights, unless you consider the power of one religious belief to oppress others a "right."

In my religion, marriage equality is considered fundamental. So before bitching about your religious rights to oppress, you and your ilk should stop infringing on the right of my synagogue to marry loving couples regardless of gender.


And btw, the use of many illegal drugs is indeed sanctioned on tribal lands.

Just John said...

Persuter, shrinkers-
For a couple guys who spend a fair amount of time on the interwebs, you sure have a hard time spotting mr charles for what and who he is... and what and who he isn't.
Cheers.

Charles said...

shrinkers:

I would be happy outlawing "no-fault" divorce, but that's not the topic today, is it? One small step at a time. If my church is forced to perform same-sex "marriage" or lose tax-exempt status, why don't you think that would be affecting my religious rights?

Charles said...

If the State gets out of the marriage "business" altogether, how doesn't that impact our rights?

Persuter said...

Now, you and Persuter are free to try to change that, just as I am free to "to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another ... whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

:roooooooooolleyes:

Yeah, enacting laws within the Constitutional process is APPROXIMATELY the same as armed revolution against a tyrannical foreign government. I'm done feeding the troll, guys.


Currently, progressive and inclusive churches, synagogues, etc in 44 states cannot exercise their power to legally marry same-sex couples if they so choose. They must arbitrarily restrict legal marriage based on a parameter set by hate-mongering religious institutions.

That does seem to be a government intrusion on religious freedom.


You are conflating two different things, I think. Churches in all 50 states can and do hold marriage ceremonies for gay people. The state cannot prevent them from doing that, any more than they could force a church to marry a same-sex couple in a state where it is legal. "Legal marriage", on the other hand, is not the church's domain and should not be -it's the state's.

A marriage ceremony performed in a church should not have any legal ramifications whatsoever - anything else seems to violate the separation between church and state. The church's decision on who to marry or not marry should have no effect on the state's decisions. (All IMHO, and keep in mind IANAL. :P)

Charles said...

If you think that the gay activists will be content with CIVIL marriage, you are mistaken. No church will be spared the pressure to "marry" homosexual couples. Why do you think the Mormons are so upset?

Just John said...

Jacob-
Thanks for your second paragraph. It had been a while since I'd heard that argument, and it bears repeating. Can you elaborate slightly on which strand of Judaism permits ssm so I can use it in arguments on my own blog?

Persuter said...

We don't let Native-Americans do drugs in the name of "religion" either.

That is completely false.

United States federal law (and many state laws) protects the harvest, possession, consumption and cultivation of peyote as part of "bonafide religious ceremonies" (the federal statute is 42 USC §1996a, "Traditional Indian religious use of the peyote sacrament," exempting only Native American use, while some state laws exempt any general "bonafide religious activity").

Charles said...

The government "infringes" on the "rights" of your synagogue, coven, whatever, to marry loving couples who are underaged, related by blood, and/or cross-species. Get over it.

Persuter said...

In my religion, marriage equality is considered fundamental. So before bitching about your religious rights to oppress, you and your ilk should stop infringing on the right of my synagogue to marry loving couples regardless of gender.

Note that in Islam, the second largest religion in the world, polygamy is perfectly legal.

Also note that Catholicism, the largest denomination in the largest religion in the world, expressly forbids divorce.

Using varying religious laws to direct state laws gets wonky really quickly.

Charles said...

Persuter (you need to stop "feeding" me):

42 USC §1996a was enacted AFTER Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Although States have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. That was my point above.

Charles said...

Obama has decided to stop prosecuting marijuana offenses as well. Does that make it right? Hardly.

shrinkers said...

Well, we've gone on about all the arguments here, and we're simply repeating several previous threads.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the ME vote. As is not unusual in these situations, the question is worded confusingly - but, with luck, most voters will read it with care, and most who care about the issue are probably already aware of how the wording goes.

It's a fascinating election night tomorrow, lots of interesting stuff happening. I've got popcorn,

Jacob said...

@JustJohn

The UAHC (the central organization of Reform Jewish congregations) expressly supports marriage equality. So does the Reconstructionist Movement. Although individual Rabbis in both movements may decide what marriages they will choose to perform.

The Conservative Movement does not authorize marriage equality explicitly but does allow Rabbis to marry same sex couples if they so choose.

All three movements endorse full civil rights for homosexuals in society.

Orthodox movements all explicitly ban same-sex marriage to my knowledge and oppose civil marriage equality, but generally oppose other sorts of discrimination against homosexuals in civil society. There are even a few openly gay Orthodox Rabbis.

This article by Rabbi Amber Powers goes into greater detail:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality/Same_Sex_Marriage.shtml


Also, could you provide a link to your blog? I would like to read it.

Chris said...

Charles,
Just curious, but would you reconsider your position on equal rights for homosexuals if your own son or daughter told you he or she were gay and interested in getting married and starting a family (by adoption, IVF, use of a surrogate, etc.)?

Just John said...

Thanks for the link Jacob. I'll use it. I live in WA, where Ref. 71 is trying to undo rights granted to gay couples and other dp's. So the issue is burning over here.
www.phood4thot.blogspot.com is where you'll find lots of my half-baked posts about gay rights, Taoism and politics.

Charles said...

Chris:

No.

shrinkers said...

@Just John -

I read your Socialist Networking and Bumpersticker blogs. Brilliant stuff. Hats off to you.

Charles said...

Chris:

Do you think it is appropriate for someone to be fired because they don't believe same-sex "marriage" should be legalized?

http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/11/02/massachusetts-man-fired-from-corporation-over-christian-belief-in-traditional-marriage/

Matt said...

Charles said...
The government "infringes" on the "rights" of your synagogue, coven, whatever, to marry loving couples who are underaged, related by blood, and/or cross-species. Get over it.

Oh yes, let's equate gay marriage with incest, pederasty and bestiality...

Charles said...

Matt:

I never equated them. Same-sex marriage is much worse IMHO.

Matt said...

Charles:

Thank you for the clarification.

shrinkers said...

I never equated them. Same-sex marriage is much worse IMHO.

Says it all. What more is there to add?

Charles said...

You're welcome.

Charles said...

"Get over it."

http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/11/02/massachusetts-man-fired-from-corporation-over-christian-belief-in-traditional-marriage/

just_looking said...

YOUR argument fails since homosexuality (and ALL sexual deviancy) is controlable and NOT immutable

That is an illuminating argument. As more people accept the notion that sexuality is primarily immutable, it will easy to convince them that same-sex marriage is just.

just_looking said...

Although States have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. That was my point above.

I missed what that point was, and how it relates to same-sex marriage.

shrinkers said...

A correction:

The man Charles refers to as being fired "fired because they don't believe same-sex 'marriage' should be legalized" was actually fired for harassment.

His beliefs were not the issue. His mode of expressing them was the issue.

Unsurprisingly, the man involved denies acting in the ways he has been accused of acting. But in any case, Charles (and the site he links) misrepresents the situation for propaganda purposes.

Charles said...

just_looking:

States have the power to make ANY crime "legal" (even murder). The U.S. Constitution does not require States to do so. It's a very clear distinction that I am making to prove that the 14th Amendment (as just one example) does not mandate -- pun intended -- same-sex marriage.

shrinkers:

Stating "My Christian beliefs do not accept same-sex marriage" is now "harassment"? That's what he got fired from (regardless of whether he also said homosexuals are "deviant"). I'd better stop harassing you then.

Matt said...

shrinkers:

I'm shocked! You mean that crazy-ass website misrepresented the facts of the situation to make it seem like someone was being persecuted for their religious beliefs?

Charles said...

Matt:

As described on the video you can watch for yourself, the assistant manager Peter Vadala came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to "he" but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter’s discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage. At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after some further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.

Brookstone’s termination letter to Peter states that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.” It goes on to describe Peter’s actions as constituting “harassment” and that his comments were “inappropriate and unprofessional.” It further accuses him of “imposing” his beliefs upon others.

(So it begins)

just_looking said...

States have the power to make ANY crime "legal" (even murder). The U.S. Constitution does not require States to do so. It's a very clear distinction that I am making to prove that the 14th Amendment (as just one example) does not mandate -- pun intended -- same-sex marriage

Yes, the states have the option not to criminalize actions, but I don't follow the connection to same-sex marriage since the latter has nothing to do with crime.

Charles said...

just_looking:

I thought you and I discussed Lawrence v. Texas in depth on a prior thread? Maybe it was someone else posting as "just_looking". Sorry I don't have the time to repeat everything in those 525 comments.

Chris said...

Charles,
Fair question. Generally speaking, I don't believe a person should be fired for his or her beliefs. However, if he or she chooses to express those beliefs in a manner that makes the workplace unproductive or harmful, then a firing may well be justified.

JonTheLyrik said...

For fuck's sake, gay marriage isn't taking away your religious rights. I know of no law forcing priests to marry gay people in a Catholic Church, for example. And gays aren't busting down your door and forcing you to marry other men.

Charles said...

Chris:

Take a look at the facts I posted at 2:19 PM, and I would be interested if you think that Peter's one statement qualifies as "mak[ing] the workplace unproductive or harmful".

BostonBoy said...

Regarding the article cited by Charles at the following link: http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/11/02/massachusetts-man-fired-from-corporation-over-christian-belief-in-traditional-marriage/

Note the source of the information is MassResistance, which is classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Charles said...

JonTheLyrik:

Obscenities aside, it's not to hard to imagine that's exactly where we are headed if those like Peter (see 2:19 PM post) get fired for simply stating "My Christian beliefs do not accept same-sex marriage".

Robert said...

Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage.

If he wasn't looking to start something, he could have just said "I'd rather not discuss your marriage." Instead, he chose to say something that would obviously cause friction.

Similarly, if an employee came in dressed inappropriately, the correct action is not to say "you look so hot that I cannot get any work done" but rather "I don't think that your attire is appropriate for a this environment."

There is an art to civil disagreement that Mr Vadala clearly lacks, or isn't interested in learning. Maybe this is just indication that he's not management material.

Charles said...

BostonBoy:

What are you going to do when the Catholic Church is classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Matt said...

Charles:

It's another piece of proganda BS; persecutors trying to play the persucted.

W

Charles said...

Robert:

I take it that there will be an entire museum wing devoted to civil disagreement once same-sex "marriage" is legalized in all 50 States. Or, can I not use scare quotes with the word "marriage" either?

BostonBoy said...

Charles, with all due respect, your response is diverting from the point. The article is heresay until proven, and the Southern Poverty Law Center is very respected. No chance of classifying the Catholic Church as hate group.

Do you live in Massachusetts?

JonTheLyrik said...

The Catholic Church? A hate group would be a stretch, but a place that covers up molestations then denounces gay marriage...

Charles said...

Matt:

I take it that Peter in the Bible wasn't martyred either?

Matt said...

Charles:

The Bible is completely irrelevant when discussing and creating civil laws.

just_looking said...

I'm the only just_looking. We briefly touched upon Lawrence, but there was no debate on crime and Employment Division. Plus, I don't see where Lawrence fits in to the crime argument.

Charles said...

BostonBoy:

I don't live in Massachusetts, but it's a legitimate hypothetical to explore how same-sex "marriage" will impact other States. Assuming the account is correct as stated in 2:19 PM post, is that "harrassment" or not?

Charles said...

Matt:

I just want to see how much you can deny.

just_looking:

Homosexual acts WERE illegal before Lawrence v. Texas. I'll be happy to continue with why that decision should be overturned after lunch ; )

Robert said...

I take it that there will be an entire museum wing devoted to civil disagreement once same-sex "marriage" is legalized in all 50 States.

If you can't discuss something without deriding someone's entire being (and whether or not you accept it as legitimate, when you attack homosexuals, you are attacking their existence), then you probably aren't capable of discussing it in a civil manner. But that's not relevant in Vadala's case.

He was at work. Everyone whose ever had (maybe I should say 'kept') a job that involves dealing with other employees and with customers knows that this is a situation in which you sometimes must keep your opinion to yourself. Vadala chose not to keep his opinion to himself, and instead decided to inform his coworker of what he thought of her lifestyle. This creates workplace tension, and frankly, gives his employer every right to terminate his employement at their discretion.

In this case, it wasn't a question of Vadala's belief, it was a question of his (itentionally) creating problems in the workplace. I've seen people get fired for the exact same thing, even though it wasn't a question of their beliefs, but rather their inability to co-exist non-confrontationally with their coworkers.

Vadala should have kept his mouth shut until he left the premesis, where he wouldn't have made it his employer's problem. Then they would have had no grounds to fire him.

Matt said...

Charles:

The real question is how much are you and your kind willing to accept. Gay marriage will be legal sooner or later, it's really just a matter of time.

And there is no equivalency between what is legal and what is moral.

BostonBoy said...

I am a strong supporter of same sex marriage, and I agree that someone should not be fired if they disagree with same sex marriage. It works both ways, a person should be disciplined if they harrass someone about support of same sex marriage...and a person should be disciplined if they harrass someone about opposition to same sex marriage. I am sure an overwhelming majority of people here in Massachusetts would agree.

My point is to be sure that readers of this blog know about the source of the article that you posted, so that they have all the information to make an informed judgement. Specifically that such claims are heresay until proven, especially coming from a source that has been classified as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC.

Chris said...

Charles,
I see your post at 2:19, but it seems to be only one side of a story, as opposed to actual "facts". I'd be interested in hearing the manager's side of the story. I'm sure the "facts" lie somewhere in between. As far as Peter's statement regarding his beliefs, I think it was definitely rude, but on its own not grounds for firing. A more reasonable resolution probably would have involved some sort of HR-mediated conflict resolution between Peter and the manager. It's hard to comment on the appropriate disciplinary measures without access to personnel files or even the other party's account of the interaction. And that, more than anything, leads me to believe that Peter's representation of both the encounter and the basis for his dismissal might not be entirely honest or accurate.

just_looking said...

Homosexual acts WERE illegal before Lawrence v. Texas

I gotcha - your argument that requires the reversal of Lawrence. By all means, make that non-starter your argument.

Of course if the facts in the case are as you describe them, Vadala has a strong case he was impermissibly fired for his religious beliefs.

Jacob said...

Wow. Leave it to Charles to pull out the enormous threads.

Nothing like a homophobic Limbaugh-sycophant to excite the commentary on this site.

Johan said...

Charles,

Your source for the so-called "persecution" is one employee who hasn't even filed a wrongful termination suit yet if I read the article correctly.

Of course, he has a vested interest in denying the reasons given for his termination. What company would hire someone who refers to co-workers as sexual deviants and tells them that their way of life is immoral and inferior to his? Certainly that can't be good for morale. So of course, whether true or not, he will deny these accusations: he most likely views it as in his best interests to do so. He also might have been so blinded by his sense of rectitude that he's unable to see that how he allegedly responded was inappropriate.

If you want to look at hard data about the "impacts" of same-sex marriage in a state where it's been recognized for half a decade, this article from Johns Hopkins (yes, that Johns Hopkins)is fairly concise and not long-winded:
http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2009/10/29/Opinion/Protect.Your.Children.The.Gays.Are.Marryin-3818252.shtml

My favorite quote from it?

Boston College Law Professor Scott Fitzgibbon predicts a, "flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups." [but] ...the Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter has identified zero cases of the nature he describes since 2004, the year civil marriage was granted to homosexuals in the state.

shrinkers said...

Hey, folks,

Charles has made it plain that he dislikes homosexuality. All of his opinions on related issues are related to that, and flow from that. There is no logic, and there are no facts, that will convince him of any other point of view. He dislikes (probably also fears) The Gay, and his world is colored by that. Period.

He grasps at any straws - misinterpretations of the bible, misrepresentations of SCOTUS rulings, tortured logic, dogmatic hyperbole, false or questionable assertions, anything at all - to rationalize his position. Pointing out the misstatements and illogic serves only to make him adjust the volume to 11 or 12 and to stick his fingers in his ears.

There may be a purpose in disputing his positions, for the benefit of people reading who might not know any better. But then, uninformed people (other than rightwing nutbats) probably don't read 538 anyway. There also is something to be said for not remaining silent in the face of hatred - but do remember Friedrich Schiller, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Warren said...

Hey Charles, imagine this scenario for a moment:

The muslim community in your area manages to get a law passed that requires all women to wear full-length dresses and the hijab anytime they go outside of their houses into public.

Since you have no problem with standing behind laws based on your own beliefs, you'll have no problem supporting this one either, right?

shrinkers said...

@Chris
I see your post at 2:19, but it seems to be only one side of a story, as opposed to actual "facts".

True, dat. The facts, as are known, are these:

A guy was fired. The reason given for his firing was that he was harassing a co-worker in violation of company policy. Homophobic rightwing nutbats are claiming he was fired because of his being a homophobic rightwing nutbat, and we should therefore feel sorry for him.

That much is known. All else is conjecture.

Charles said...

Darn, I just got back from lunch, and sadly Lawrence v. Texas was not yet overturned.

Seriously, though, if just_looking or anyone else is still around from this morning and wants to discuss that, let me know.

P.S. to Warren: wrong, I would still protest such a law (just as I am protesting against Lawrence v. Texas). As I said before, I am not defending wrong-headed Supreme Court cases such as Dred Scott, Plessy, or Korematsu either. Nice try though.

Charles said...

See how easy it is to answer hypothetical questions? No one, above, except "just looking" would even answer mine.

Jacob said...

@ Chucky,

Even though you oppose the decision in Lawrence, which broadened rights and harmed no one, don't you find it odd to equate it with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu, which restricted rights and harmed many?

You may feel justified in your homophobia, but why is homophobia so different on its face than misogyny or racism?

We don't cite racial examples to say that you are racist, just that your position is the moral equivalent of racism--hating a group of people for being different than you.

Warren said...

But why not, Charles? After all, it was you who said this:

"If the leftists on the Supreme Court issue another wrong-headed decision granting Constitutional protection to same-sex "marriage", I will NOT recognize its moral validity."

Any faithfully practicing Muslim will tell you that a woman going out uncovered in public is just as morally invalid as same-sex marriage; why wouldn't you support it?

Charles said...

Because I know what is right vs. wrong-headed.

shrinkers said...

... and any religious beliefs other than Charles' are wrong-headed.

Jacob said...

Blogger Charles said...

"Because I know what is right vs. wrong-headed."


And that's exactly it, Chucky boy. We all know what is right or wrong-headed for our moral universes.

So don't marry another man. Don't attend a church that performs same-sex weddings.

But don't restrict what the rest of us may do with our lives. No matter what bogus arguments you cite, marriage equality will not harm you or anyone else one iota.

Understand that others are just as capable of determining right and wrong as you are (and probably more so), and support giving them the same rights to live their lives that you have to live yours.

Charles said...

The First Amendment to the United States allows for all religious beliefs to be practiced without government interference (short of some specific examples like the peyote distinction I brought up above). While I personally believe that non-Christian religious beliefs are not the way to Heaven, the GOVERNMENT cannot impose such a structured theocracy. Every law, therefore, must have a valid secular reason (just as the ban against homosexual acts does) separate and apart from the religious reasons. If anyone else wants to discuss that, please let me know.

Mike in Maryland said...

Chucky?

A friend of mine at work is Roman Catholic. She wanted to marry a man who was divorced. According to the Roman Catholic theology, a Roman Catholic in good standing cannot get married in a Roman Catholic church, and a Roman Catholic priest cannot officiate at such a marriage no matter where it is held.

The priest at my friend's church followed the RC theology, but not quite to the letter. He suggested to my friend that she discuss the situation with the priest at a neighboring RC church. The priest at the neighboring church not only allowed the marriage to take place in his parish, he made it clear that the church would be where the marriage would be held, and he would be honored to be the officiating priest at that marriage.

Guess where that Roman Catholic held her wedding?

Another case - One of my uncles (an Episcopalian at the time, thus a non Roman Catholic) married a Roman Catholic woman. This was in the late 1930s, when the Roman Catholic church, theoretically and under no circumstances, allowed a Roman Catholic to marry a non-Roman Catholic. My uncle had to 'convert' to Roman Catholicism in order to marry the person he wanted to marry. Another part of the Roman Catholic theology at the time was that ALL children were to be raised in the Roman Catholic faith. My uncle and aunt, after their marriage, decided that the children would attend whatever church they wanted to attend.

After the marriage, my uncle 'unconverted' from Roman Catholicism, and again attended the Episcopalian church he had been attending. Of the five children my uncle and aunt had, the three boys attended the Episcopalian church and the two girls attended the Roman Catholic church. When my aunt's priest threatened to ex-communicate her from the church, she joined another congregation, which had a priest who didn't want to excommunicate her.

Another example - when my first step-father died, our closest neighbor planned on attending the funeral. My step-father was a member of the Church of the Brethren, our neighbor was Roman Catholic. When our neighbor's parish priest heard that he was going to attend my step-father's funeral in a Protestant church, our neighbor was told he would be excommunicated if he stepped foot in the Protestant church. Our neighbor told the priest he would be attending the funeral as my step-father was not only a neighbor, but a life-long friend, and if the priest attempted to excommunicate him, he would leave the church and take many parishoners with him. He didn't tell the priest that he was a personal friend with the bishop, and the bishop told our neighbor that if the parish attempted to excommunicate him, the priest would be told in no uncertain terms that the excommunication would be denied, AND the priest would be reassigned to non-priestly duties.

So don't give any of us the line that 'your' religious rights will be trampled by the government, and imply that churches don't trample at all on any individual's rights.

Mike in Maryland

Charles said...

Anyone ELSE?

Jacob said...

Blogger Charles said...

"The First Amendment to the United States allows for all religious beliefs to be practiced without government interference (short of some specific examples like the peyote distinction I brought up above). While I personally believe that non-Christian religious beliefs are not the way to Heaven, the GOVERNMENT cannot impose such a structured theocracy. Every law, therefore, must have a valid secular reason (just as the ban against homosexual acts does) separate and apart from the religious reasons. If anyone else wants to discuss that, please let me know."


Wow. If you just change that one clause to "the ban against homosexual acts does NOT," Chucky would have a perfectly logical post. There's a first.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
Every law, therefore, must have a valid secular reason (just as the ban against homosexual acts does) separate and apart from the religious reasons. If anyone else wants to discuss that, please let me know.

The fact that you feel a "ban against homosexual acts does" "have a valid secular reason" is why you are unlikely to get many people willing to discuss your thesis. I disagree with your postulates - therefore, we will disagree on conclusions. Thus, there is little point in discussing your argument - it is based on false assumptions.

Charles said...

Allow me to go get the dictionary definition of "anyone else" ...

Warren said...

.....and my work here is finished. Thanks Charles; it normally takes me several hours to get someone to incriminate themselves as a fundamentalist religious hypocrite.

I now return the rest of you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Mike in Maryland said...

Chucky?

Exactly WHAT is the 'valid secular reason' for not allowing two people in love with each other to marry?

And you know the context of the above, to respond to the question, don't divert it off into a tangent.

Mike in Marylsnd

Charles said...

Warren:

You're welcome. I am proudly a religious fundamentalist (so you just had to ask about that). "Hypocrite", however, I am not.

Warren said...

Yes, I'll play along as well -- what is this 'valid secular reason'?

Charles said...

Warren:

ReasonS (plural) include the physical / emotional damage to the individuals involved all the way to the cumulative effect on families and society as a whole. Shall we start with whether reduced life expectancies for homosexual men is a "good" or "bad" thing for society?

shrinkers said...

Mike, Warrnen -

Charles said there was a 'valid secular reason' to 'ban ... homosexual acts'. That's slightly different. He wished to conclude from this that there was no 'valid secular reason' to enact a law allowing same-sex marriages.

His contention is that homosexuality itself has no excuse - and is, in fact, so bad that there is a good "secular" reason to ban it - and, therefore, it is unjustified, and probably harmful, to allow same-sex marriages.

ohiovoter said...

shrinkers, you are probably right about Charles, so this is for the benefit of other readers who might
be misled by his comment at 1:11:

If my church is forced to perform same-sex "marriage" or lose tax-exempt status, why don't you think that would be affecting my religious rights?

I think we all know that that's not a concern. Plenty of churches, synagogues, etc. refuse to perform all kinds of marriages that are constitutionally protected. There are plenty of rabbis (I think most) who won't perform an intermarriage or a marriage of a divorced person with no get , and many who won't perform a marriage of a Koheyn and a divorcee. I have never heard of a legal action, even an unsuccessful one, to force them to do so.

And I think you would find very few -- if any -- of those rabbis who do refuse to perform intermarriages that would support a law refusing to recognize those who do intermarry as legally married. In fact, I think most of them would fight like mad against it.

A state official could not refuse to marry any legally qualified couple, but a clergy member can. I think even a military or other government chaplain could refuse; I'd represent him/her, and I bet I'd win. I have no trouble supporting both equal rights for GLBT and First Amendment rights. I've worked in this area a long time, and I truly see no conflict.

In fact, as a First Amendment/civil rights attorney, I was very interested in the story about Peter Vadala. I tried to find out more -- and I cannot find even a single mention of the story on any mainstream media source, or even any source that does not seem to have an anti-gay agenda, or to have gotten the story from some such site.

(Oh, and by the way, Charles, if you are listening: I, too, "AmJured" Constitutional Law -- and I've taught it, too. I doubt you are really open to persuasion, but you seemed to think the achievement bolstered your own credibility, so ...)

Mike in Maryland said...

Chucky?
Homosexual acts WERE illegal before Lawrence v. Texas

In Texas and certain other states. But not in all states. And in each of those states, those homosexual acts were prohibited by state law, not federal law.

Oh, and did you know that at one time, and in some states, the only legal position for sex was the missionary position (male on top, woman on her back)? Hetero married people could not engage in, for example, cunnilingus. Hetero married people would not engage in sex where the female was in the 'superior' position. Herero married people could not engage in vaginal sex in a 'spooning' position. Etc., etc., etc.

What 'valid secular reason' was the basis for those civil (i.e., non-religious) laws?

Mike in Maryland

ohiovoter said...

I should add, not only do I think there is no danger of legal action to force churches to perform same-sex marriage, I do not see any danger of their losing their tax-exempt status. That hasn't happened for churches, mosques, and synagogues that won't perform interfaith or interracial marriages.

Charles said...

ohiovoter:

Doug Kmiec taught my Con Law class (so now I know TWO such professors). Big surprise that no State-run media outlet has picked up on the sotry. Maybe you can answer my hypothetical, however, assuming that the facts are as stated?

Warren said...

hypocrite n. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

You claim a strong moral stance, and yet you wouldn't support a law that would improve the moral virtue of women everywhere.

You claim to support the basic principles of the Constitution, but would fight to prevent a gay couple from practicing their own personal religious beliefs by getting married.

Either way -- you, sir, are a hypocrite by direct definition. This is a fact that has been established by your own words in this thread, and it is irrefutable.

Charles said...

Warren:

Satanism is a "religious belief" too. Just because I don't believe in that (or burkas for women) does not make me a hypocrite.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
Satanism is a "religious belief" too. Just because I don't believe in that (or burkas for women) does not make me a hypocrite.

No one is asking you to "believe in it". The question is, given that these are valid religious beliefs of other people, do you feel justified in interfering with them?

Charles said...

(from Dictionary.com):

"Anyone else" n. Being the remaining ones of several who are not "Mike in Maryland", Jacob, shrinkers, Just John, and/or shiloh.

In the interest of not "harassing" those offended by the mere statement that "My Christian beliefs do not accept same-sex marriage", I would therefore be happy to discuss with ANYONE ELSE the many secular reasons why homosexual acts should be outlawed. Same exact reasons why Maine should vote YES on Question 1 to outlaw same-sex "marriage" as well protect individuals and religious groups who refuse to perform these marriages.

shrinkers said...

@Charles -

It also is telling that you equate Islam to Satanism.

Charles said...

I did not equate them. Anyone else?

Warren said...

You're right -- not believing in Satanism does not, in itself, make you a hypocrite -- but I wasn't talking about Satanism. I was talking about how you claim to support those things that, to you, are morally virtuous, and yet you wouldn't support a law that would ensure that women remain morally virtuous while in public. That's what makes you a hypocrite. You claim to support an individual's right to practice their own faith as they see fit, and yet have no problem with supporting a law that forces the beliefs of one religion onto someone who doesn't share those beliefs. That's what makes you a hypocrite.

Next time you want to refute something I've said, you need to refute what I've actually said. Attempts at derailing and sidetracking will not work on me.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
I did not equate them

Within the context of the argument, yes you did. You claimed the reason you would not defend the rights of Muslims was the same as the reason you would not defend the rights of Satanists. For the purposes of this discussion, you claimed they have the same standing.

Charles said...

Warren:

The Satanism was just to make a point. To use your words then, I don't believe that forcing women to wear burkas in public ensures that they will "remain morally virtuous". I also don't allow complete religious freedom to "practice their own faith as they see fit" (neither does the First Amendment, just ask ohiovoter). Therefore, NO hypocrisy.

Robert said...

@Warren

Friend, don't bother. Charles has repeatedly shown that he adjusts the facts to fit his truth. If you keep pointing out flaws in his adjustments, he will either add you to the "anyone else list" (btw, that's a real cute way of pretending you haven't been beaten in an argument Charles), or just flat out ignore you. In this thread, Charles didn't respond to my point about Vadala choosing the wrong place to voice his beliefs, because he knows its a losing argument. In this and other threads, he has demonstrated this with my arguments, and others', when it's obvious that his fact-shifting, "truth"-preserving self-delusions would be too ridiculous for even him for present.

In short, you know Charles has conceded your correctness when he pretends you aren't worth responding to, and it's not really worth your time to argue him to silence.

Jacob said...

Calling Charles a hypocrite does not help anything. No one will get him to admit he is a hypocrite just as no one got him to admit that Rush Limbaugh is a racist scumbag, though both statements remain demonstrably true.

The point is that Charles seems to admit that banning marriage equality requires a valid secular reason, yet he refuses to provide any valid secular reason that is supportable and not easily debunked. It seems that's where the focus of the thread should be.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
ReasonS (plural) include the physical / emotional damage to the individuals involved all the way to the cumulative effect on families and society as a whole. Shall we start with whether reduced life expectancies for homosexual men is a "good" or "bad" thing for society?

I dispute every one of your claims, and ask for proof (from a neutral, i.e., non-anti-gay website) before continuing.

I will offer this, to also dispute your logic, in addition to your undocumented assumptions:

Given that people who drive cars have a lower life expectancy than people who do not drive cars, should be ban driving cars?

Given a) that someone who was born a man has a lower life expectancy than women, and b) we are nearly able to chose the sex of our offspring, and c) in-vitro fertilization and cloning will rapidly make males unnecessary for reproduction, should be ban men?

Given that people who drink alcohol or take baths have a lower life expectancy than people who do not drink alcohol or take baths, should be ban alcohol and bathtubs?

Given that Republican presidential administrations have proven to have a detrimental "cumulative effect on families and society as a whole," should we ban Republicans?

Charles said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Charles said...

Robert:

I don't see where you asked me ANY question, but you did refuse to answer MY question to you: can I not use scare quotes with the word "marriage" either? Since you are the master on the art of civil disagreements?

Charles said...

Of course, if you'd rather pretend that I am not "worth responding to, and it's not really worth your time to argue him to silence" be my guest.

Robert said...

@Charles

No, I did not ask you a question, but I did make a point that you did not substantively address (never said I asked you a question). My response was a response to your "scare quotes" question. Basically, since you seem to have difficulty with the reading comprehension, it's that I don't care if you use scare quotes, although I doubt I would consider it civil disagreement since it's obviously mocking your opponent, but rather that there's a time and a place for espousing one's personal beliefs, and usually somewhere that you are employed is not that place.

You claim/insinuate/whatever that Vadala was fired for having a particular viewpoint, and I say he was fired for expressing it in the wrong place. And before you accuse me of discriminating against people who hold his view, if the woman in question was aware of Vadala's discomfort with the subject (I'm not going to that link from work, and I can't tell from the commentary), then by intentionally bringing it up, she was harrassing him, and the employer would be within their rights to fire her as well.

The bottom line is that when you are at work, you have to learn to keep your thoughts to yourself sometimes in order to maintain a productive atmosphere. Vadala definitely seems to have failed to do that. Perhaps the female manager did too. But it has nothing to do with discriminating against Vadala for his views.

If you're not at your place of employment, I really couldn't care less what you want to scare quote, but don't expect me to concede that it's civil.

Charles said...

Robert:

Perhaps you should get back to work then?

Mike in Maryland said...

Chucky?

In posts at 5:18 pm, and again at 5:32 pm, I asked you to give us a 'valid secular reason' for several different situations.

I see that you are not responding to that request.

Why not, Chucky? Painted yourself into a corner, and can't escape?

Poor Chucky. I'd feel sorry for you, poor Chucky, except I can't bring myself to feel sorry for a Conservatard, any Conservatard, and especially a bigoted Conservatard.

Mike in Maryland

BTW Chucky? When did you choose (not determine, but choose) to be a heterosexual? Date, time and other circumstances are requested. After all, if members of the GLBT community have, in your absurd opinion, chosen to be G, L, B or T, then the same principle MUST apply to heterosexuals such as you.

shrinkers said...

Charles, I have an additional question for you -

Given the historical physical / emotional damage to the individuals who have chosen to be Christian, should be ban Christianity?

Or, under your system of Constitutional law, would it be wiser to allow Christians such as yourself to dictate which First Amendment rights are granted to non-Christians?

Should people who are born into Lutheran families be allowed divorces?

Should people with red hair be allowed to marry, given that they have proven to be destructive to the marriages of people they are not married to? (I have no evidence of this, but my religious beliefs dictate that it must be true, and that is enough for me to maintain that there is a secular reason for it to be so.)

Charles said...

As I said (above), there are MANY valid "secular" reasons to ban homosexual acts and, therefore, marriage; just one of the more obvious that I mentioned is the "reduced life expectancies for homosexual men". If anyone ELSE wants to discuss those valid "secular" reasons, just let me know.

Jacob said...

Well despite your lack of evidence for the "reduced life expectancies" theory, why do you have any reason to believe that closeted gay men live longer than out gay men?

And why should this dictate whether lesbians can marry?

In places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, where "homosexual acts" are forbidden and punishment is brutal, do gay men live the same length as their straight counterparts?

Come to think of it, Charles, why not move to Iran or Saudi Arabia? You'd love it--they have rigid theocracies that forcibly dictate morality to the population. And hatred of homosexuals is not just accepted but required.

Robert said...

Perhaps you should get back to work then?

A) Thank you for precisely proving the point of my 6:11 post.

B) When you're my boss, you can try to tell me what to do with my time. Of course, that would require you to have the ability to be objective about things, so I'm not worried about that possibility.

Charles said...

LOL, Robert. You let me know when / if you have the time / inclination to discuss then.

shrinkers said...

@Charles
If anyone ELSE wants to discuss those valid "secular" reasons, just let me know.

Ah. So the only people who are allowed to dispute your reasoning and assumptions are the ones who have not yet proven they are able or willing to dispute your reasoning and assumptions.

As you have not yet provided any evidence that there are secular reasons to ban same-sex "acts" - though you have been given opportunity to do so - it is safely assumed you have no such evidence.

Though you have no offered any arguments against the absurdities that have been illuminated in your logic, we can safely assu,e you have no such arguments.

Robert said...

You let me know when / if you have the time / inclination to discuss then.

As soon as you grow the cajones to respond to all the arguments against you, and not just the ones that are made by people who aren't on your "anyone else but" list. For the record, this includes responding substantively to, at least, '"Mike in Maryland", Jacob, shrinkers, Just John, and/or shiloh.' Not to mention a substantive response to my point that Vadala was not fired for anything having to do with his views, but rather for his inability to discern the proper location to express them.

Charles said...

Robert:

It doesn't matter to me. I am not going to waste my time responding to anyone who is just going to assume that I "dislike (probably fear) The Gay" and that "there is no logic, no facts" that can convince me otherwise. Those people are looking for any excuse to disregard the truth. There are only so many minutes in a day.

And, I have already addressed YOUR point. What you haven't done is answer my simple hypothetical if the facts are as set forth, Peter Vadala was wrongly dismissed. Now, if you want to answer that, then we can discuss any other point, even the specific scientific studies PROVING reduced life expectancies for homosexual males.

Charles said...

As a good faith offer of proof, however, here's just one such SECULAR scientific study:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?ijkey=61c99a111c5b3b4d3857b6cdfb430e25ab5c9b22&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Robert said...

Charles

re: para 1, I made it pretty clear that I think that. Dunno why you're responding to me, except for what leads into:

re: para 2, I did answer, your reading comprehension is teh suck.

But maybe this will get me on the anyone else list? Don't really care, I'm gonna go get drunk now.

Charles said...

But, of course, if you are among those who would deny the OBVIOUS truth that homosexual men with HIV/AIDS die sooner than heterosexual men without HIV/AIDS, then there's no need for me to waste my time with you either.

Charles said...

Be sure to drive too.

Charles said...

Now that "Robert" is off drinking, perhaps someone else can take a look at the scientific literature which states the obvious. Yes, I am well aware that Hogg, Strathdee, Craib, O'Shaughnessy, Montaner, and Schechter "do not condone the use of [their] research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group". Nonetheless, they pursuasively prove that actively-homosexual men cut their lives down by 8-20 years.

Now, if I really "disliked" (or even "feared") The Gay, wouldn't I say: BUILD MORE BATH HOUSES?! To the contrary, society as a whole has a vested interest in preventing homosexual men from premature deaths (that are NOT outweighed by any benefit like automobiles, other men in general, alcohol, baths, Republicans, freedom of religion, or even red-heads). I would be happy to discuss these points with anyone who is going to be civil in debate.

Charles said...

Good. Hearing no such argument, and simply using your side's own "logic": though you have been given ample opportunity to do so, we can safely assu,e [SIC] that there are no valid counter arguments to be had.













Just kidding; I will be back tomorrow ...

shrinkers said...

Charles -

The issue is HIV/AIDS, not homosexual activity. Do you have data on the expected lifespan of gay men who do not contract this disease? Do you have data on the life expectancy of people who are not gay or bisexual men, but who contract this disease?

Summary: You have made no argument concerning the health of gay or bisexual men - and certainly none concerning the health of gay or bisexual women - and certainly none concerning same-sex marriage (which would actually reduce the opportunities for gay men to contract the disease, if they were in exclusive relationships with one and only one partner).

Your argument concerns a specific disease, not same-sex marriage.

Jacob said...

Interestingly enough, Chucky, it turns out that gay men without HIV live longer than straight men with HIV on average, and longer than straight women with HIV (straight women are the largest segment of people living with HIV, as you have no doubt learned from your "research").

Should we ban female heterosexual activity? Must all women live as lesbians because they are the lowest risk group for HIV?

As a matter of fact, white people statistically live longer than black people. Does the government have the power to ban being black? Should all black people have to go the Michael Jackson route?

And women live longer than men. Should half the population be forced to change their gender?

If you're going to make absurd arguments, at least take them to their logical conclusions.

clandestinephemera said...
This post has been removed by the author.
caredwen said...

Gay men would also have higher average life expectancies if straight men would stop beating them to death.

Mike in Maryland said...

Chucky?

Can't respond to my post at 5:32 pm, November 2, 2009, on this thread?

BTW - My actual name is Mike (given name is Michael, but I go by Mike), and I live in Maryland (within the city limits of Baltimore). Why do you insist on placing my name in quotes?

Since the nicknames for Charles include Chuck, Chucky and Chuckie, do you take offense to being called Chucky?

Awwwww, poor Chucky. Be glad most of us don't slip in an occasional typo, and address you as Chunkie (as an indication of your over-inflated ego).

Mike in Maryland

nefarium123 said...

Wow, Charles. You have defeated your self numerous times here.

Just reading along and your horrible comprehension of the First Amendment and current law is more than just a bit mildly embarrassing.

And, for the record, Native Americans ARE allowed some illegal drugs due to religious purposes. Or are you just blissfully unaware of peyote?

shrinkers said...

This just occurred to me - Charles may be unaware that AIDS is not caused by gay sex. It is a sexually-transmitted disease, caused by the HIV virus.

Men seem to be particularly vulnerable to the virus (not that women aren't - just that men seem to be more so) and particularly able to spread it. So perhaps the solution is to outlaw sex involving men.

Men are no longer allowed to have sex, with anyone. Women, on the other hand, are allowed to have as much sex as they want - as long as it's with other women.

Clearly, this would be in the best interests of society. There is a definite secular reason to pass such a law. Write your congressperson today.

bburgastros82 said...

Just so Charles' "Christian" view of anti-gayness doesn't prevail, I want to state that as a devout Christian who believes in full marriage equality, I find it ironic that so many people are yelling about "religious freedoms being violated" by gay marriage. Where is the religious freedom for marriage supporting churches to perform same sex marriages? I also find it ironic that Charles is quoting a scientific study, while no doubt ignoring the ever growing scientific studies and consensus in psychology and psychiatry and genetics and biology that homosexuality is indeed genetic to an extent, and also immutable and fixed by very early childhood. Its fun to pick and choose scientific studies, eh? However, people of that stripe are trained very carefully how to argue themselves out of situations and contradict reality, as well as turn anything and everything into a claim that fits their "truth", so beware on that front, kids. Fundamentalists of all stripes, be it Christian, Atheist or Islamic, are convinced that they have ultimate access to truth and that (for the non Atheists at least) God conveniently agrees with them on EVERYTHING they believe. For the rest of us, who realize the world isn't black and white, we have to struggle with issues.
Anyway, I hope for the sake of equality and as an example of Christ's overwhelming love and compassion, Maine votes NO tomorrow.

Warren said...

Yes Charles, I took a look at the scientific literature you posted, and here's what's wrong with it...

It's outdated. This article was originally published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1997, and was based on data from 1987-1992. This time period was the initial height of HIV/AIDS awareness, a time when general public knowledge about the disease was minimal and misinformation and confusion was abound. Much has changed in the world of HIV awareness and education since 1992; it is now well known exactly how it can be spread and, more importantly, how to protect yourself against it. As a result, HIV infections have gone down drastically since then.

Don't believe me? Let's check out the rest of the other article that Charles quoted this from but didn't link: "...do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group." It can be found here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

As you will read, the research team from the first article discovered that people just like Charles were misusing their data to draw inaccurate conclusions for the sole purpose of denying human rights to homosexuals, and in 2001 felt compelled to update their information: "...if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

Your argument, Charles, is a weak, pathetic attempt to "prove" a "secular" reason for not allowing gays to marry, and is based on the misuse of outdated data. Your argument is completely without scholarly merit of any kind, and is therefore void.

Unless you have anything else that is of scholarly and intellectual worth and comes from the last decade, you're finished here.

Charles said...

Warren:

As I told you, that was just a start. Keep in mind that a three-fold decrease is still 2 1/2 to 7 years that actively-homosexual men cut off their lives. The lack of accurate records is not a reason to just leap heads first without knowing the possible consequences. It's also not just the men that society is legitimately concerned about (cumulative costs, loss of productively, etc.) but also loss to families and potential off-spring. Fine, who cares about the devastating physical and emotional impact on the homosexuals themselves? I won't anymore. Let's discuss the logical end result if EVERY marriage were same-sex. Since none of those marriages can naturally procreate, how long before the entire human civilization completely disappears? Now, I agree that is the worst-case scenario, but if you are so gung-ho for same-sex "marriage" then defend it all the way!

sarasotajoe said...

Anyone mind a post about polls?

Since it's so close, if we split the undecideds between yes and no equally (risky, I know, but it seemed the best assumption of a lot of bad choices), then take the highest yes polls and subtract the MoE. Take the lowest Yes polls and add the MoE. Do the same for No. You find every single poll is within or close to it's MoE if No wins 51/49.

You get the same result if you take the actual number of yes responses (51% of 1133 respondents in the latest PPP poll for example) and add them up, and then do the same with the nos. You end up with a huge sample of 4826 Mainers who told a pollster either Yes or No on 1. And 51% told them no.

51% is actually a bit lower than the poll average because some of the best numbers for no came from Pan Atlantic, with its tiny sample sizes of 401.

Still, the PPP poll is disturbing, especially since it is the final poll, has the fewest undecideds, and a large sample. But I'm having a hard time imagining Maine actually passing this thing. I predict No wins by 2 points, though I hope it's more.

Ok, back to the argument with the frightening reactionaries...

Charles said...

OK, it's "tomorrow". I'm back!!!!!

Charles said...

sarasotajoe:

I can do polling too. Here in California, polling showed Prop. 8 going down to defeat for a long time too. Perhaps poll recipients are too concerned about being called "bigots" to reveal how they are really going to vote. I think someone above called it the gay-Bradley Effect.

Steven D. Keirstead said...

Same sex marriage is likely to lead to improved public health, because promiscuity will decrease in gay men who marry. It would also be very helpful if all young adults and teenagers were made fully aware of the risks of unprotected sex, STDs and HIV.

Charles said...

Steven D. Keirstead:

We don't care if every homosexual lives or dies anymore. Please address my worst-case scenario now.

DCM in FL said...

CHARLES = TROLL

please DNFTT

Kevin Bateman Smith said...

Charles, I'm looking for more information about that fired employee ... could you repost or post something printed please?

Jason said...

Charles

I still don't understand your argument. Could you explain more please? Ty.

Charles said...

Kevin:

The link that I provided above is the only info I have. Did you try "Peter Vadala" in Google?

Jason:

The worst-case scenario would be every "marriage" being same-sex. Even with all the IVF in the world, there's no way human civilization lasts more than a few more generations. That's simply a biological fact of life.

Charles said...

There's a "Peter Vadala" in Glouster, MA who gave $300 to Barack Obama (according to Huffington Post).

Oshtur Vishanti said...

that Charles thinks 'the logical end' is all marriages being same sex says it all.

Charles, we are the most advanced creatures on the planet. Unlike the others we don't need need to go into rut to make babies, we understand the process just fine. If 'every marriage were same sex' we would figure out a way to make that continue to happen have no fear.

'Logical'. Right.

Persuter said...

There's a "Peter Vadala" in Glouster, MA who gave $300 to Barack Obama (according to Huffington Post).

Assuming you mean Gloucester, it's probably not him.

However, interestingly, there is a Peter Vadala who looks and sounds vaguely like him who has been interning at various radio stations around the Boston area for a few years. His website. Check out the "College Radio" and "Resume" links.

I would also note that that Peter Vadala donated thirty-three cents to the YesOnMarriage.com campaign supporting Prop 102 in Arizona (banning gay marriage). So I'm guessing that's him.


(By the way, if anyone wants to see some HILARIOUS parody, go to http://www.prop102.com. Poe's Law is in full effect - took me a while to figure out it was parody.)

Persuter said...

Oh my good God, you guys HAVE to check this video starring Peter Vadala. Comedy gold.

(It's definitely him again - the number on the video is the same as on his resume.)

Mike in Maryland said...

Chunkie said...
OK, it's "tomorrow". I'm back!!!!!

Good! Now Chunkie can respond to the post I made at 5:32 pm on November 2.

Refusal and/or failure to respond in a sane and logical manner will indicate an inability to respond.

Mike in Maryland

Robert said...

Since none of those marriages can naturally procreate, how long before the entire human civilization completely disappears?

The correct answer is never, of course. Ignoring whatever you consider to be included in "natural" procreation, there are many forms of successful procreation that don't involve intercourse. Besides that, even in your insanely ridiculous worst case scenario (for which there is, of course, no data to back up any plausibility of it occuring), there's nothing stopping "natural" procreation between people who aren't married to each other.

But, naturally, I don't expect you to willingly comprehend these facts, because they don't fit with your pre-defined view of homosexual anything = destruction of the human race. Nice try with the strawman though (not really).

Charles said...

Oshtur and Robert:

I didn't say that every "marriage" will be same-sex if Maine 1 fails to pass. It's a hypothetical WORST-CASE scenario. If same-sex "marriage" is so great, then let's ponder the logical consequences if EVERY person could only be married to someone of the same sex. No one would be allowed to mate with someone of the opposite sex in this scenario. What would happen then? I think the answer is obvious, but I am still willing to here how human civilization survives under that scenario.

Also, it's not a strawman argument because I am the proponent. If YOU were bringing up the worst-case scenario, in order to simply shoot it down, that would be a strawman argument. What I'm asking is clearly within the Socratic Method. Just ask law professor, OhioVoter, if you don't believe me. Again, if you don't want to answer my simple question, that's O.K. too.

Robert said...

You have (not surprisingly) changed your worst case scenario. Initially, you proposed "Let's discuss the logical end result if EVERY marriage were same-sex. Since none of those marriages can naturally procreate, how long before the entire human civilization completely disappears?". However, now that Oshtur and I have correctly pointed out that this would not be the end of the human race, because there are ways of reproducing that don't require the parents to be married (to each other, or even anyone) or even to have intercourse, you have added a new stipulation, "No one would be allowed to mate with someone of the opposite sex in this scenario.". Well certainly Charles, if you're going to keep changing the rules on your ridiculous strawman, you will eventually come up with a set of rules where you are correct.

However, it's still a strawman. Via wikipedia "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic." As I pointed out, there is zero reason to believe even your original strawman, without the added rule, would ever exist, because there is no evidence to suggest that anywhere near 100% of the human race is homosexual (highest figure I've ever heard from anyone claiming to cite a study is 10%). Therefore, it's a strawman, because you are proposing something that would never happen (everyone in the human race gets gay married) to prove that something entirely different (allowing the relatively small percentage of the population that is gay to get married) is destructive. You only prove this further by adding the new stipulation about how people can have sex.

Extremes are never going to prove anything, because they're all strawmen. Prove that allowing the small percentage of the population that is actually homosexual to marry each other will result in the end of the human race (of course, if you could, you would have by now), and maybe you will have a point. Pointing to extremes that have no basis in reality only show how desperate you are to find a winning argument.

Frankly, it's sad.

Charles said...

I didn't change anything. You were simply operating under a different definition of "marriage". Nice try though. It's really an easy question to answer (even with your caveat that it won't likely happen). Last time I will ask you though.

Charles said...

You are also confusing "strawman" argument with "red herring". I could get all Latin with each logical fallacy, but what's the point?

Robert said...

You were simply operating under a different definition of "marriage".

Oh, my bad, I didn't realize you were gonna get all Bill Clinton up in here. Just what exactly is the definition of marriage we are using for your strawman (and your mention of red herring was hilariously, a red herring, but your scenario is still a strawman).

And please, get all latin. I love it when actual attornies try and intimidate me with their use of latin, I'm sure your use of it will be even more humorous.