Study shows Prop 8 exit polls wrong about level of support amongst Blacks.

[Alcon]

I find it hilarious how they refer to it as "marriage equality" instead of gay marriage. The issue isn't whether different marriages are equal or not, its whether marriage should be extended to cover gays as well.

I take it to mean equality of marriage rights between heterosexual and homosexual couples, not whether different marriages are or aren't equal.

This is one of the inherent flaws of exit polling.  How do you choose precincts that are not only representative of the state, but have sub-groups representative of the state's sub-groups?  It's impossible.

[Alcon]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for exploiting the issue of children being married off to someone for financial gain and using it as justification for gays to be allowed to marry one another. 

Anyone with any common sense should realize that exploiting children for the purpose of financial gain or for that matter exploiting children for any puirpose is completely deplorable and reprehensible and cannot under any circumstances be compared to the gay marriage issue.

You know what you should be ashamed of?  Your repeated inability to understand what a reductio ad absurdum argument is. 

Either you're remaining willfully ignorant, or you're intentionally slurring Joe to try to win an argument.

[Alcon]

My kind sir, I am not slurring anyone, as you put it, nor am I willfully ignorant as to the facts and circumstances surrounding this very serious issue facing America today.

I simply do not believe that the tragic issue of child exploitation, in any of its' hideous forms, should be raised to justify same sex marriage.  It is that simple.

Now, I realize that you are very fond of throwing out sophisticated sounding words and phrases, and latin terms here and there, in order to prove your self perceived intellectual superiority, however, that does not change the fact that my arguments and statements are just as valid as anyone else's. 

Or you could search reductio ad absurdum and actually find out what it is.  Now that we have this whole Google thing, I guess that gives you the opportunity to learn what new phrases mean.  Kind of like how I did, since I wasn't born "intellectually superior" or whatever.  I didn't say anything about you not knowing about the history of racial conflict in America.

Your arguments are just as valid as anyone else's?  And yet you just called out some other arguments as being so morally horrific.  I don't think you have any idea of what is or isn't valid, just what gives you an emotional reaction.  That's underballing your intellect, obviously.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Are you going to Google reductio ad absurdum so you can understand what I'm saying, or keep accusing me of something I'm not doing?  Here's a direct link to an explanation; only the definitional portion is important.  If your issue is with my substance, point out the flaw in my argument.  If your issue is that you feel my cadence borders on race-baiting, let me reiterate:  I'm trying to convince you that your argument is poor specifically because it can be used to defend something I think you believe is wrong.  If anything, my argument is eager to assume that you're not a bigot, so you may want to consider not calling me a baiter.

I should have said "shameless" and "shameful," the terms you actually used, instead of "morally horrific."  But that doesn't change the substance of what I said (you could substitute anything negative for "morally horrific" and it wouldn't change the substance), which you completely ignored.  You've corrected me accurately, but not contradicted anything I said in the process.  The point stands.

[Alcon]

Not surprising the pro gay marriage side has been winning the PR battle pretty handled.   I guess they figured by giving blacks a good bit of press they gain their votes/support after dragging their history threw the mud.

I directly explained to you once what I was trying to say, and you told me that you didn't think I was being hateful.  You've changed your mind, or is your conviction more important to you than your humanity?

Edit: That's probably hyperbolic, but still, que pasa?.

[Alcon]

Hyperbolic like exaggerated.  I'm not Ivy Tower enough to not be too sh**t at geometry to know what the math 'hyperbolic' means. 

I'm sure a lot of people use the black issue to cast a shadow of bigotry over the anti-gay marriage side.  That's wrong.  There are some bigoted anti-gay marriage people, but those who aren't bigoted don't deserve to be tarnished with that label.

On the same token, there's plenty of anti-gay marriage people who are too willing to associate gay marriage with incestuous marriage or dog-marriage, or whatever.  Does that mean that "I'm worried that gay marriage will open the door for ____" is an invalid or inherently hateful argument?  I think it's a bad argument, but it's not automatically calling me a bigot just because it mentions something (incestuous marriage, human-dog marriage) that I find offensive.  Winfield needs to recognize that the same is true of arguments that happen to mention race somewhere.

Anyway: All I'm trying to do is show how supporting gay marriage is more compatible with Winfield's pre-existing moral beliefs than opposing it.  That involves showing that opposition of gay marriage is less compatible.  But it's all about recognizing the strength of his (and your) moral beliefs, not tarnishing someone as a bigot.  Like I said, there are some bigots.  And while a few of Winfield's comments have struck me as offensive, I gather that a bigot he is not.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

You still don't seem to know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is.  You just repeated the same complete mutilation of my argument after introducing it with your first sentence, which made no sense whatsoever.

Nothing I'm doing communicates "flying off the handle."  I understand your position.  I'm trying to argue that your position on gay marriage is not compatible with your position on positive rights.  You've argued in the past that I'm attempting to compare your position to bad things.  You're right.  I think your position is immoral.  I am trying to show what bad things your position entails.  Isn't that what you do to supporters of the "gay agenda" that you have so much vitriol for?

Or maybe you believe that it's only your moral beliefs that are worth respect.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

You still don't seem to know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is.  You just repeated the same complete mutilation of my argument after introducing it with your first sentence, which made no sense whatsoever.

Nothing I'm doing communicates "flying off the handle."  I understand your position.  I'm trying to argue that your position on gay marriage is not compatible with your position on positive rights.  You've argued in the past that I'm attempting to compare your position to bad things.  You're right.  I think your position is immoral.  I am trying to show what bad things your position entails.  Isn't that what you do to supporters of the "gay agenda" that you have so much vitriol for?

Or maybe you believe that it's only your moral beliefs that are worth respect.

Alcon, you have it all wrong.

The only immoral things, to use your word, in this whole discussion, is what the gay community is attempting to do to the institution of marriage, and the fact that the gay community has been exploiting blacks, the race issue, and the civil rights issue for decades, in order to further their radical agenda and to change the definition of marriage.

Was your father a brick wall and your mother a press release?

You ignored the substance of everything I said and just re-iterated your opinion.  Again.  Hell, not just again.  Again again.

[Alcon]

You seem to have a complete inability to appreciate or to comprehend what I have been saying.

I just said I understand your argument, but that it isn't a response to my reductio ad absurdum argument.  It isn't a response to my rebuttal of your misunderstanding of my argument.  I understand that your opinion is that "my position isn't immoral, the gay agenda is."  That's an opinion; not a counter-argument to anything I've presented.

If you understand what my argument is, why not point out the specific flaw for me?  If you don't, are you so convinced that you couldn't be wrong that you're unwilling to give it hearing?

And with your slurs against my parents, both deceased, I see that you really can be an ingnorant sap.

I wasn't "slurring" your parents.  I was using a colorful turn of phrase to say I think you're acting like a brick wall/press release.

I'd be a lot more offended if I were being called an "ignorant sap" by someone who had any sense of responsibility for his own moral decisions.  If you think my last post was more offensive than my last sentence -- well, that speaks for itself.

[Alcon]

I see this thread has turned into like all the other gay marriage threads.

opposing side offers a good argument against it - The pro gay side says what about blacks civil rights-  opposing side points out its not about racial civil rights - pro side calls the opposing side brick walls and or appealing to fallacies - Opposing side points the name calling out - pro side denys it. 

But I'm not here to argue that anymore ( hell with my current relationships i can't really speak on the issue any longer)

But I can say this about the thread/subject at hand.  Blacks are very offended by the ideal that their history is being used a tool for gay marriage debate and if I'm the gay community it may be wise to back off that.  They will make you pay at the polls when its said and done.  The gay marriage issue can be won without the use of this comparison.  Obama sure as hell know this and thats why he's backing off the issue. 

Yes, except he's given an opinion, not a counter-argument; I didn't say anything about "what about blacks?", but rather argued that he had an inconsistent view of positive rights; I didn't call him any names (although he did call me one), although I did sarcastically point out that he still wasn't bothering to understand what a reductio ad absurdum is.  Unless you think calling him out for outright ignoring my arguments ("throwing a curve by using the reductio  argument is in and of itself absurdum") is wrong, or actually think I was trying to slur his parents, what have I done wrong?

And apparently you didn't bother to find out what it means, or remember my explanation from previous threads, either.  My argument isn't as ridiculously simplistic as "what about blacks?!"  And you're doing that generalized "gay marriage proponents do ____" thing, too.  I'm the one debating here, not Gay Marriage Proponents.  Finally, you can reasonably oppose gay marriage even if you were having gay orgies on the weekend.  I'm not going to invoke your personal life, as it's materially irrelevant.  I do care that you respond to my arguments in an intellectually honest way instead of dumbing them down to "what about black people?!"

Black civil rights just happens to be the only recent, major debate over positive rights I can think of.  What would you prefer I analogize to?  Honest question.  Because if you and Winfield are unwilling to accept it as an analogy instead of an explicit point of argument, I need you to do one of two things:

1. Give me an alternative positive right I can use for my argument; or,

2. Explain to me how the analogies I've used are not positive rights.

That goes to both you, Mike, and Winfield.

[Alcon]

In fact, Alcon, because of my views on gay marriage and the gay agenda, you have called me bigoted and incredibly ignorant.

So don't pull that holier than thou attitude with me.

To be fair, you're not making the phrases up.  You're just shamelessly misrepresenting their context.

I called the argument that gay people are intentionally out to "debase and demean" marriage "bigoted...or incredibly ignorant" (emphasis mine, source here.)  "Ignorant" means "lacking knowledge."  It's not a personal attack.  How can you be offended at someone accusing you of lacking knowledge, while you argued that:

America should not have to cow tow to the twisted, radical, gay agenda, just because the gay community wants to subvert, debase, and demean real marriage.

So, those of us who support the "radical gay agenda" (gay marriage, apparently) should be OK with you saying that we want to "subvert, debase and demean real marriage," but if I call your argument lacking in knowledge, that's a personal attack?  What.  The.  Heck.

This is poisoning the well, anyway.  You or I could be the worst human being in the world, and still have our position be morally just while the other's isn't.  Arguments are about substance.  And for whatever reason, based on your failure to respond to this...

I just said I understand your argument, but that it isn't a response to my reductio ad absurdum argument.  It isn't a response to my rebuttal of your misunderstanding of my argument.  I understand that your opinion is that "my position isn't immoral, the gay agenda is."  That's an opinion; not a counter-argument to anything I've presented.

If you understand what my argument is, why not point out the specific flaw for me?  If you don't, are you so convinced that you couldn't be wrong that you're unwilling to give it hearing?

...you are reluctant to defend your argument on its substance.

[Alcon]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

I wouldn't be any less willing to donate my sperm to a lesbian couple I thought would make good parents, than a straight couple I thought would make good parents.  If I didn't have a way to judge their quality as parents, I probably wouldn't donate my sperm.  I haven't exactly thought through the ethics of sperm distribution in great detail, but "lesbian/not lesbian" wouldn't be an important variable in my moral math.

I don't know what answer you expected...

[Alcon]

Alcon, when you used the terms bigoted and incredibly ignorant, you were aiming them directly at me, because I was the one who made the statements that you took exception to, and I was the one who put into writing the ideas that you found so objectionable.

And by the way, I make no apologies for my statements about the gay agenda and gay marriage, but at the same time, let me be clear, I bear no personal ill will towards gays and lesbians.

I was calling your position incredibly ignorant, sure.  I'll take responsibility for it.  I stand by it, and it's not a personal attack.  It means I think your position is incredibly misinformed, and ignores information.  And you seemingly claimed that I'm out to destroy marriage on purpose.  So, I say that you are (intentionally or recklessly) ignoring information, and you say that I am intentionally destroying the institution of marriage.  How is the latter not a personal attack, and how is the former?

Now, unless you want to terminate the discussion on that point, you still need to answer the question you have now been dodging for three straight posts:

This is poisoning the well, anyway.  You or I could be the worst human being in the world, and still have our position be morally just while the other's isn't.  Arguments are about substance.  And for whatever reason, based on your failure to respond to this...

I just said I understand your argument, but that it isn't a response to my reductio ad absurdum argument.  It isn't a response to my rebuttal of your misunderstanding of my argument.  I understand that your opinion is that "my position isn't immoral, the gay agenda is."  That's an opinion; not a counter-argument to anything I've presented.

If you understand what my argument is, why not point out the specific flaw for me?  If you don't, are you so convinced that you couldn't be wrong that you're unwilling to give it hearing?

...you are reluctant to defend your argument on its substance.

...and you could answer Joe, too.  I know you are capable of addressing more than one point at a time.  That begs the question of why you are dodging and pretending to have been victimized instead.

[Alcon]

Alcon, did you not see on page 4 wherein I replied forthrightly to Joe's question?

I did not.  My apologies.

However, you still have not replied to my question about what on earth your "your use of reductio is absurdum" post meant.  How is it "absurdum"?  You got so upset about it, and this is the fifth time you have dodged explaining how it was flawed in any formal logic.

This is the fifth post you have made without responding to that issue.  You also did not respond to the rebuttal of your accusation that I was personally attacking you.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Not to further encourage your evading my reply (seven posts and running now), but what specific studies have you found most compelling?  And what in the white papers (I assume you read more than the abstracts/press releases) most influenced your position?  I have seen meta-studies on this, including one regarded widely as definitive, and they seem to come to conclusions that are incompatible with your position.

Also:  Maybe you would have time to be involved in a lengthy discussion of substance if you spent less time taking offense at phantom personal attacks and repetitively reiterating your opinion.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

I appreciate that.  I'm sorry if my cadence was off, although admittedly, you still haven't withdrawn the whole "attempting to destroy marriage" thing.  I don't know how I can take that as anything but a personal attack, but whatever.  That's not my point.  My point is:  You have not replied to my question, now for eight posts.

---

As for your FRC link, do you notice that they are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual couples who aren't necessarily even in a long-term relationship?  Look in the white paper for their working definition of "relationship" for gays.  Why are they comparing married heterosexuals to gays who are in any sort of relationship whatseover?

It was also written by a man who is not accredited in sociology.  I also checked its citations.  Several of them are over 30 years old, and contain caveats about sample issues (it was 1978 -- how many steady gay couples did you expect?) that Dailey outright ignored.  The authors of numerous quoted studies have claimed that Dailey distorted their findings.  His central claim is based on part around a study in Amsterdam, which was an intentionally non-random sample, which he completely failed to disclose.  Can you tell me that isn't manipulative, shoddy science?

There are certainly a few reputable studies that point to qualms with homosexual parenting.  However, they are the minority.  And this study was conducted unscientifically and with a clear bias in mind.  Even if it weren't a horrible study, on what basis do you prefer the FRC's studies to the meta-studies available or the sort of studies that Joe listed?  Because you want its conclusions to be true?

---

But, please, actually explain the flaw in my reductio ad absurdum first.  Let's not make this nine posts in a row.  Thank you.

[Alcon]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that points out flaws in positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

You didn't link me to a scientific study.  You linked me to a 193-page book.  The fact that you called this book a "scientific study" (it is not) makes me ask the obvious question.  Have you actually read it? 

The central complaint for this book, as far as I can tell, is that the sampling of the studies about homosexual parenting are non-random.  However, I searched the entire book and found no reference to the most intensive study conducted on the matter (it may have been conducted after the book was started ca. 2000), which included an effectively random sample of 12,000.  The book simultaneously attacks studies for measuring in-depth variables insufficiently, and also for having small samples.  It's kind of a paradoxical attack.

I care a lot about this subject, morally.  But if you're expecting me to write a full rebuttal of a 150-page book not even published by a neutral group (it's from an anti-gay marriage think tank), that is not reasonable.  If you've read the book, raise the arguments you found most compelling individually.  Tell me what an acceptably-designed study (to you) would be, and we can hash out an agreement and try to see if one has been conducted that way.  If you haven't read the book, or can't independently identify the arguments therein that shaped your belief, what is your intent here?

In the meantime, you still haven't even answered my question about your statement that my "reductio" was "absurdum."  This is now the tenth time you have ignored this question.  I get the feeling that you're hoping I'll give up if you throw the kitchen sink at me until I relent, or don't realize that your debate etiquette is becoming inordinately impolite.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Fair enough point on the matter of the study.  I usually think of a "study" as being shorter and measuring a few variables, not being a advocacy thesis/review like this.  But you're right, that's what it calls itself.  My error.

Either way...did you read it?  If you have, I want to analyze it in detail, because it certainly has substance behind it.  I'm not dismissing the authors out of hand.  It's from an advocacy organization, which means it's even harder to detect insidious bias, and such bias is even more likely.  But it's a scholarly work and worth considering.  However, if the contents have no pull on your opinion on this issue, I'd be wasting my time since -- to be honest -- my primary goal is to change minds.  (When I'm researching myself, a think tank review like this is usually a secondary priority at best.)

I do really like the idea of you presenting what you see as a model for a meaningful study of the effect of gay marriage on society.  If you tell me the variables you're interested in, the sort of sample you want, etc., I can see how close research has come to it, and what conclusions that research came to.  If you're not comfortable with using research to make this decision, I guess we can drop the issue for now.

Now:  You're not going to hurt my feelings.  Even when you outright declared that I was part of a movement to destroy an institution I'm trying to apply my idea of social justice to, you didn't hurt my feelings.  The only thing that scares or offends me is the idea that I would be insufficiently vigilant, biased or ignorant, and resultingly arrive at a morally unjust or irrational belief.  So, if being challenge bothered me, it would be my responsibility to suck it up and accept the challenges to my logic.  Now, please, go ahead -- challenge me.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Why did you respond to Joe's post, made before you linked to that paper, and ignore my new one?  It brings up (very valid) questions about the paper's analysis and objectivity. It also asks a question that could move the debate somewhere productive...

About the paper:  You haven't answered whether you've read the work enough to understand the methodology.  If not, you're essentially just trusting the last accredited argument you hear on  the matter, which is a little weaksauce to me if you really want to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.  There are also some rebuttals posed to this work by accredited people.  If you don't understand the methodology in this work enough to dismiss the rebuttals, why are you accepting it as the final argument?

About the productivity:  I really would like to hear what form of study you would accept as valid, so I can see if there are any studies that line up with it.  Then this conversation could, like, progress, and maybe we could get an agreement on something empirical instead of arguing what we assume to be true.  I'm sure you'll agree that that's less important than what is actually true.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

You've responded to the same post by Joe twice now, even though that was made before your post on Lerner's work, which I addressed in my post.

There is a constant dichotomy between personal freedom and societal good.  You obviously fall on its more restrictive end; you think that we should ban any substance where, in the vast majority of cases, the impact on the user is negative.  It makes me wonder how often you choose to eat hamburgers or have desserts, but that is a separate matter.  I understand your argument.  Now, I want to prove, within the structure of that argument, if it is true, that gay marriage is a moral positive -- before I even bother to challenge the philosophical grounds for your litmus test.

But to do that, I need a response to my post.  I think we're good on Joe's.