By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12. Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month. But it did not happen. Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).
While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move. The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .” The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent. Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.
In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit. The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.
The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.
The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did. The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations. The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism. From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society. We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles. The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church. And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”
The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic. First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason. But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.
The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law. This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.
Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience. This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements. And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.
Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage. But they are also patient and vigilant. The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.
DavidM: As a simple illustration for how there is nothing inherently wrong with racism or gender discrimination, consider the game of football.
What you are talking about is not racism or sexism. Racism is pre-judging people by their race, sexism is pre-judging people by their gender, not by the merit of their talent or skill or as MLK put it, by the content of their character.
And by the way, historically the “best” at sports has been drawn from the rank of minorities that experience discrimination in the work place; it used to be that many professional basketball players were Jewish. Sports allows a way out of poverty for the few born with physical talent and few realizable alternatives due to the imbalance of resources and opportunities available to them versus the classes above them on the societal ladder.
The predominance of blacks in sports is not necessarily a result of their genetics, as some of the other races in sports, playing the same positions, obviously have the same genes for fast-twitch musculature or enhanced peripheral vision or outlier fast reaction times or uncanny proprioception (which allows the mind to position hands, feet, and body parts correctly without relying on sight).
It is more a result of a racial filter imposed by society, lessened opportunity for blacks due to racism (historical or present) and the resultant self-perpetuating poverty and desperation pushes many into venues where discrimination is much less of a factor; such as music, sports, and other entertainment. Not all of them succeed, but the greater numbers of them that are trying out, with more motivation (because of their fewer alternatives) results in a predominance.
Choosing people because they have talent is not racism.
It probably is sexism that females are not football players; I am not sure what the official rules are. But I’m pretty sure the largest males (in frame and muscularity, not weight) are more than 50% bigger than the largest females; so the female physiology may not be suited on merits to professional level football against relative giants.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/19/portland-a-citizen-can-be-handcuffed-locked-into-car-and-driven-to-a-different-location-but-still-not-be-under-arrest/#comment-614163
Still clinging to the scientifically ignorant proposition that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and people are out to “recruit” others into it, I see.
Homosexuality is a biological imperative and, like other forms of sexual behavior, shaped in expression by society.
Apparently the shape you want is “back in the closet” and “at the back of the bus”.
Hung yourself with your own “cute” story about how you stood up for your right to be a bigot, David.
Well, the good news is you do indeed have a right to be a bigot and even spew bigoted nonsense in public so long as it isn’t defamation, incitement or threats. The bad news is that others have the right to think your views suck and even express the opinion that you suck for holding them.
That free speech. She is a two-edged sword.
Gene H wrote: “Homosexuality is a biological imperative and, like other forms of sexual behavior, shaped in expression by society.”
Yeah, yeah. That is the propaganda most superficial thinkers accept without question. It just makes life simpler. Nice little stereotypes, like the erroneous view that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual and not anything else in between. Ridiculous nonsense.
How do you deal with someone like Clive Davis who was 50 before he ever had sex with a man nor even had a desire to do so? This was his biological imperative?
I would deal with Clive Davis by saying he’s probably being untruthful. In my opinion, the only people who say being gay is a choice are people who are making a choice to deny who they are.
Juliet wrote: “I would deal with Clive Davis by saying he’s probably being untruthful. In my opinion, the only people who say being gay is a choice are people who are making a choice to deny who they are.”
Unbelieveable. You twist the facts and data to preserve your belief and theory of sexuality.
Clive Davis says he had never been repressed or confused during either of his two marriages. He had a great sexual relationship with women. He had never fantasized about men. Thirty years ago (he is now 80), after imbibing enough alcohol, he responded to the sexual overtones of another man. He was nervous, and the heavens didn’t open up, but it was satisfying. After that he began a bisexual stage. Later a monogamous relationship with another man. After that, yet another monogamous relationship with a man.
There are so many people in life who have changed their sexuality in both directions, and some choose to become celibate, but for whatever reason, so many people like to create this imaginary idea about how there is some kind of rigid biological determinism for people to be born either homosexual or heterosexual. The way they talk about it, you would think that it was as discrete as being born male or female. Bring up evidence to the contrary, and they find ways to dismiss the data. Anything to preserve their precious theory of sexuality. It is just so nice to be able to know that we are forced to have sex by biological determinism, and if anybody judges us for having sex or judges us for who or what we have sex with, they are evil people motivated by phobia. The concept that we have a choice about who or what we have sex with, and that those choices shape our resulting psyche, well, those thoughts are so irrational and evil only an idiot would even consider such an idea.
Well, if Clive says it, it must be true, because people never lie about their sexuality, do they?
Still not grasping how an MOE works, are you David? Or that the Loess smoothed trend backs precisely what I was saying? Namely that support for far outweighs those against. Do you even know the difference between descriptive and inferential statistical analysis? If you think Nate Silver’s data backs your contention, then your grasp of statistics is even weaker than I previously thought. You apparently dismiss Silver’s closing remarks as well:
Since polls show religiosity in decline in the U.S., I cordially invite you to hold your breath until you get your way.
At least you weren’t dumb enough to say Nate doesn’t know what he’s talking about on statistics. But you do claim to be able to do the same quality of work as a professional statistician which is in itself amusing. And that you can explain the results due to propagandizing children totally discounting that a generation raised around bigotry and stupidity might just have come to the conclusion that it is wrong all on their own. After all, you are the only rational actor, aren’t you, David? And anyone who doesn’t think what you want them to think is a liar or crazy or they “just don’t understand you”. After all, there can’t be another explanation. Can there?
Debate is allowed. Debate is even encouraged. However, over the couple of different threads you’ve tried to debate this topic, you’ve lost miserably and uniformly. “Debate” doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed victory. You lost this debate the instant you started it. You chose the losing side of the argument from an ethical, legal and even sociologically and biologically factual basis. See, that’s one of the benefits of arguing all sides of an argument before engaging in verbal battle: you know which strategies and tactics are losers out of the gate. Debate is a martial art. You brought a pointed stick to a gunfight, grasshopper. Me, Tony and OS? We’re Lee Van Cleef, Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson in this movie. And the part of Juliet is being played by Claudia Cardinale.
You?
You’re Gumby.
Your evasion and generally substandard debate and science skills grow tedious and your verbose flailing speaks volumes. No amount of fumbling about and sputtering is going to compensate for what you’ve revealed about yourself: that you are for unequal treatment and unequal rights.
Yep.
Barring some actual miracle or divine intervention, equal rights for homosexuals is on the way.
Whether you like it or not.
OS,
Why bother to read the data from one of the world’s leading statisticians (if not foremost statistician) when your mind is already made up? Especially when that information contradicts your assertions? To paraphrase Roger Waters, “Who needs information? When you’re that far underground.” Apparently David has the same backwards understanding of the scientific method that Bron often displays: letting his theories inform his facts instead of the facts informing his theories. I’d say its confirmation bias, but I think that kind of backwardness in thought goes beyond simple fallacious logic.
DavidM,
Did you read Nate Silver’s analysis of the data? You seem fixated on one or two single polls. Anyone who knows the first thing about statistical analysis knows a single poll represents a datum, not data.
In order to have predictive validity, it is necessary to put all the available data into the formula, not just a few cherry picked polls. That is the beauty of the LOESS (sometimes referred to as LOWESS) smoothing method. Nate went back seventeen years to every available mainstream poll. Not all those polls were of equal quality. One of the things about Nate, he has such a massive database of poll takers histories, that he is able to weight the values of their polling methods. He can tell you to within a few fractional percentage points how one polling company stacks up against another for predictive validity. He uses a technique called his “Secret Sauce,” which is actually a variation of the “Monte Carlo” statistical method. His baseball stats are ‘must reading’ for every manager, batting and pitching coach and team owner in pro baseball.
OS wrote: “Did you read Nate Silver’s analysis of the data? You seem fixated on one or two single polls.”
I am not fixated on one or two polls. I have taken the exact same approach as Nate. Yes, I read his article from the link you provided. It was good analysis and interesting information. Your link to it was one of the best things done in this thread.
Did you notice how Nate’s graph represents exactly what I have said about the polls in general? Nate’s graph shows a consolidation above the 40% line, in complete agreement with my original statement, but it shows Gene’s 36% being a lonely outlier. Did you notice that lonely red X representing Gene’s statistic on the graph? It is somewhat humorous to me how you all apply criticism to me that is more aptly applied to what you do in ignoring polls that do not say what you want them to say.
Nate’s article said, “… the polls differ in the exact numbers, showing 46 percent to 58 percent of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage (and anywhere from 36 percent to 46 percent against it) making it uncertain whether supporters of same-sex marriage now constitute an outright majority.”
Such a comment is diametrically opposed to Gene’s analysis, but completely supportive of what I said, the gist of which is that our country is split on this issue. Do you agree with me now that you see that your friend Nate Silver agrees with me? I doubt it.
Let me also express agreement with what Nate pointed out about the trend. It is significant. Whether the trend continues or not will depend more with how open society is to debate and the democratic process. If we keep going along the authoritarian lines of President Obama’s leadership, it may very well continue as Nate projects from his model.
The generational turnover Nate mentions is probably mostly due to the way public education has increasingly indoctrinated our children with a certain perspective, so they come to adopt the ideology in the same way that children in an Islamic Madrassa might agree with Jihad. It also reflects a sexually permissive society that is bombarded with accepting it because of the way movies and television series portray it and talk about it, always from one perspective rather than representing the way others in society think about it. Children are always going to side with that which is constantly portrayed in a popular light, especially when no debate is allowed and the opponents are always portrayed as religious nuts who believed a falsehood long ago discredited. Unfortunately, popularity is not always right. Even Adolf Hitler was elected by popular vote, and his ideology was accepted by the majority of society. The best protection from errant ideology is to allow debate and free speech with a sincere appreciation for dissenting voices. Our courts record dissent on this principle, that sometimes the majority gets a verdict wrong.
DavidM: You did not find out I was dishonest, like everything else you claim to deduce, it is grounded in your belief in magic. This time the magic of you claiming to know what is in my mind and therefore what I should say, then when I say something different than that, you “deduce” I must be lying about what I think.
That’s a handy trick you have; albeit a completely dishonest one.
Tony C wrote: “You did not find out I was dishonest, like everything else you claim to deduce, it is grounded in your belief in magic. This time the magic of you claiming to know what is in my mind …”
My conclusion is not based upon my alleged belief in magic or upon my alleged ability to read your mind. My conclusion is an inference based upon a presumption of your ability to understand standard scientific principles of inference. I was very patient and explained to you that if you could not state that claiming the CNN data did not support saying that 78% of America were pro choice, then I would consider you dishonest. You went on to explain that everybody who believed in any exceptions to abortion were basically really pro choice, including me. I sincerely think you know better. I have seen you explain proper inference from data in other situations. The most logical conclusion is that you were being dishonest in order to be supportive of your friend Gene H. Do I know this with absolute certainty? No. But there are very few if anything we can know with absolute certainty. My certainty passes the standard 95% confidence level used in statistics. Unless you were to clarify that dialogue for me, I have basically marked you in my mind as a dishonest person which affects how I interact with you and how much trust I put in the things you say which would require me to take time to research.
I’m like the rest of the folks here David…..you’re like a greased pig…. Not quite feral….. But clse….. Have you ever tried to catch a greased pig, much less a feral one? Almost impossible….it can be done…. These gentlemen have trapped you and then to go off in a different direction…. The problem with you doining that David….it exposes more of your hypocrisy….. Now m paying attention to what you’re not say…. Which shows me your truths….
Anon wrote: “These gentlemen have trapped you and then to go off in a different direction…”
I understand your perspective, but from my perspective, they just keep repeating the same objections I have answered several times before, so when they raise the same objection more than three times without acknowledging my previous rebuttal, I just skip over those points and deal with the newer issues that arise. I can understand how that might look to you like me being trapped and then going off in another direction, but if you were able to look back you would find my responses to those objections elsewhere. My goal here is to thoroughly deal with the issue within my own mind, to expose to myself potential blind spots within my thinking. For the most part, I am not engaged here to convince them that I am right or that they are wrong. Learning is a process. We never really arrive at perfect knowledge.
Good stuff, OS.
Now I’m waiting for David to tell us Nate Silver doesn’t understand statistics.
And I’m gonna laugh!
BREAKING NEWS: the city of Detroit becomes the 1st major city in America to officially file for bankruptcy.
Very good points Gene. David has made it abundantly clear he does not understand the importance of constructing the poll question. Any poll can be skewed simply by deliberate or inadvertent selection of key words. I am not even talking dishonest push polling such as done by political hacks and marketers.
How about looking at a study done by somebody who makes his living aggregating and analyzing polls and other statistics. Nate “Poblano” Silver is a statistical whiz kid. Long before he got into studying political and social issue polling, he made his name and reputation analyzing baseball statistics. He addressed the issue of same sex marriage in his New York Times piece last March 26. It is important to scroll down and not only look at the end results, but the trend lines as well. An aggregate of polls tells a lot more than a single poll. One of the more interesting things about the data Nate collected is his use of the Loess regression trendline. This is a powerful non-parametric regression tool that smooths out the data, blending outliers into the trendline.
Nate’s money quote is here, where he discusses briefly the significance of the Loess trendline:
When one looks at the Loess trendline, it does not take a rocket scientist to see where this is headed. That trendline is straight as an arrow and heading upwards. It is relatively easy to extrapolate that line into the future several years. Read the whole article and see the graphs at the link:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/
Well, once I found out you were a someone who would engage in wild irrational gyrations, poor evidence and even poorer argumentation to justify his bigotry, I didn’t need to discredit you.
You did a fine job of that all by yourself, David.
Congratulations!
By the way, you’ve picked a poll, yet again, that doesn’t ask the pertinent question.
That Gallup poll asks “Do you think same-sex marriages should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”
Not salient question which is “[D]o you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?” asked by the ABC/Washington Post poll.
The qualifier on the Gallup poll totally skews the basic question. If you are such an expert, you would have picked up on that very basic fact. That qualifier allows wiggle room for people like you who want unequal right and unequal protections but just don’t want to appear bigoted.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still the cherry picker. And quite the budding propagandist although you’ve only mastered the sales pitch and not the magic trick. That whole Rove tactic won’t work here, genius. I’ve written a series of columns here on the subject matter of propaganda for educational purposes. They are ongoing. I have a reputation as an anti-propagandist who tears apart veiled bullshit like yours for said educational purposes.
Just like has been done here by me, Tony and OS.
And the best you can do in response is flail and throw weak ad hominem when your arguments are turned to dust.
You’re welcome.
Gene H wrote: “By the way, you’ve picked a poll, yet again, that doesn’t ask the pertinent question.”
Why is it so important for you to discredit me? I made no serious argument about specific polls. I made an off-the-cuff statement about 40% and 50%, which was just my sense of things based upon past reading, and you found a poll that dropped below that 40% and tried to use it to discredit my understanding. You asked for me to substantiate my figures, and so I presented results from TWO polls that fell in that range. You gave old data for the Gallup poll and asked me to provide you a link to more information, so I gave you updated Gallup poll by going to your link, then searching the site for the more recent poll. I encouraged you to look yourself for the other polls. Look, here’s a link to several polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
I don’t have the time or desire to examine how all these polls were done, what their questions were, or any of the other minutia that you are focused upon. I am certain we could find all manner of problems with all the polls. How about we just agree that the newer data suggests that between 35% and 45% of people do not agree with treating same sex unions as marriage. Would that pacify you? It does not change my position that a substantial number within our society are not yet onboard. I have read that there was only about 35% of our country that wanted to lead a revolution against Great Britain at the time our country was formed. My point is that a democracy should welcome debate and dialogue about same sex unions being treated as marriage rather than having elitists force it upon all of society. You don’t think that is a fair approach because you are prejudiced by the idea that it is illegal discrimination.
Juliet,
For the record, I’ve never made my mother cry to make a point. I have, however, made my father almost apoplectic with rage to make a point. 😀
Provide your sources.
I’m not willing to take your word on anything, David.
One of the first things I did was look at Gallup. Their latest data is from 2011. It is here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
It’s old data.
I also looked at Pew’s data here:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters-and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable/
Then I provided the ABC/Washington Post Poll above. Why? Because it had better construction and was more to the point than Pew’s. The primary focus of Pew’s poll was the inevitability of homosexual marriage. They did not provide their question on that topic, only the results and the survey itself was all over the map regarding subject matter. In a word, it was a poorly constructed survey to answer the question at hand.
The ABC/Washington Post poll used the specific question: “On another subject, do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?”
Very straight forward and to the point.
The results are cited above.
All used valid sample spaces by size and valid survey techniques.
Also, you have yet to demonstrate you understand statistics. In fact, you’ve demonstrated quite the opposite. I work and associate with scientists. I deal with statistics all the time and have for 20 plus years. Tony is a research scientist and his life literally revolves around statistical analysis. He couldn’t do his job without a firm grasp of statistics. OS is a science professional – a forensic psychologist – as well and quite accomplished in understanding both statistics and test design. He’s forgotten more about either of those subjects than you’ve ever known. I’m certainly not impressed with either your statistical acumen or your general science knowledge. As I’ve said before, you’re well spoken – to the point you almost sound like you know what you’re talking about at times. Almost. I’m willing to bet that neither of them are impressed with your statistical science skills either given they’ve both called you out on them at one time or another.
What exactly is your specialty, David?
Other than bigoted bullshitter extraordinare?
Gene H – Once I found that Tony C was dishonest, I don’t really care what you guys think about me. All you want to do is find some way to discredit me, but you end up discrediting yourself. I know you argue for fun, but I debate to learn truth. At this point, if you think I’m a confused idiot who doesn’t know anything, fine, I don’t really care. We are pretty much done here anyway.
A quick search shows that the more recent Gallup poll data is here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx
If you try just a little bit, you can find the data for other polls. The poll you reported had the lowest percentage of them all. I think you know that already.
In regards to the poll question you think is to the point, I do not agree. I would be heavily inclined to answer that poll question in the “make it legal” box, or I would refuse to take the poll complaining that the question is biased. The question makes it sound like I don’t want the law to allow for same sex unions. I would have a conscience problem with that.
Here we are talking about whether my 40% to 50% comment was way out of the ballpark, with a focus on my accuracy or correctness, when we should be discussing principles of democracy and how we resolve legal issues which the country has been split about. It seems like your perspective is that the tide is turning toward your viewpoint, so hallelujah, forget those falling into the minority, they need to wake up and get with the new program. I don’t think that is good democracy. I think all should welcome dialogue and debate. Apparently you disagree. In this particular issue, most people are grossly uninformed. They hear the news that the President’s position has evolved and he now supports gay marriage, or they hear that the SCOTUS supports it, and so they join the bandwagon, not because they are convinced it is the right direction, but because they believe the authority over them is convinced that it is the right direction. I had hoped this forum would have some intellectuals who were serious about applying logic to the issue, but clearly this is not the case. Getting the propaganda right and promoting it at all costs is the modus operandi here.
Tony,
There you go. I had to make a small editorial change.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1147a5GayMarriage.pdf
Do you know what statistical significance means, David? That was a rhetorical question. Statistical significance means (in the context of this kind of polling), without going too deep into the mathematics of it and for practical interpretation, that a change in the percentage relative to past data points beats the MOE by a factor of 2, indicating that the change in data denotes a substantive change rather than a fluke created by statistical outliers.
The above poll is from 2013, conforms to the scientifically acceptable methodology for polling and has a MOE of +/- 3.5%.
It shows support for homosexual marriage at 58% versus opposition at 36%. Discounting for MOE ((58 – (3.5*2)) – 36 = 15), the quantifiable substantive difference between those who approve over those who don’t is +15%. That’s a statistically significant disparity in relative positions that belies your assertions, David.
P.S. Sorry, raff. I had to resort to some math. 😀
Gene H wrote: “That’s a statistically significant disparity in relative positions that belies your assertions, David.”
Save it, Gene. Both you and Tony have convinced me that you both do not understand statistics and experimental design. You understand enough to be dangerous and that is all. You might fool most of the public, but not me. I have always scored exceptionally high in math and have been well trained in statistical analysis and experimental design.
Polls are subject to many problems. One should be especially suspicious if there is a liberal news organization tied to it like the Washington Post. In the past Tony has pointed out these problems. Unfortunately he has proven that he is dishonest when dealing with such problems when it involves one of his friends.
Pew Research reported in 2012 that 48% favored gay marriage legislation and 44% opposed it. The new stats for 2013 shows a bump to 50% in favor and 43% oppose. A Gallup poll for 2013 puts those who oppose at 45%. My off-the-cuff statement of 40% to 50% opposing it is not that far off, your biased cherry-picked poll notwithstanding.
Friends? You have clearly not been paying attention. These people would make their own mothers cry to prove a point. You’re just not making any sense.
Gene (or OS), could you pull my comment out of moderation (at 1:36 pm)?
DavidM: [my concern is] about how children will grow up and understand marriage to be nothing more than a contract between two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to live together.
First, this “for the children” ploy is ludicrous. Children that grow up are called “adults,” and adults are capable of making their own decisions and quite capable of understanding where and why their parents were wrong and choosing to reject their parent’s teachings on any number of subjects. If that were not true, we would still have slavery and women would still not be voting. Your idea that children will just accept any crackpot theory and be stuck with it for life is patently false.
Second, what evidence do you have that marriage will be thus redefined as “only” a contract between two people? Is it now “only” a contract between two people of the opposite sex?
There is no reason marriage cannot have all the meaning it does now for the vast majority of modern Americans that GET married: They could already (out of wedlock) have children together if they wanted them; the stigma of unmarried childbearing is gone and the primary meaning of the term “b@stard” is no longer its literal meaning. They are already (out of wedlock) having sex and probably have had sex with more than one partner. The marriage is not even necessarily about personal reproduction but companionship, partnership, and perhaps raising a family, by previous reproduction, new reproduction or adoption.
There is no rational reason to believe there will be any sea change in how people perceive marriage just because homosexuals that feel exactly the same about their partners as heterosexuals feel about theirs would be able to legally enter the same legal relationship commitment. Your argument is essentially that homosexual marriage diminishes heterosexual marriage, which is just bigotry, it is believing that homosexual love is fundamentally less valuable or less pure or less real than heterosexual love.
The only change in the perception of marriage would be to stop focusing on irrelevant gender and start focusing on what really matters, which is in fact an emotional bonding and trust in another person; usually with underlying sexual attraction and reinforced by sharing sexual experiences. The fact that homosexuals can only feel that attraction and romantic bond with members of the same gender is as irrelevant as the fact that heterosexuals can only feel that attraction and romantic bond with members of the opposite gender.
I think most children will come to adulthood understanding that, and that their parents were wrong to think differently. That has certainly been the path that diminished pervasive racism and sexism, I see no reason to believe homophobia won’t become a fringe bigotry as well, to the betterment of mankind.
I hardly know where to start. How about this: “It will perpetuate the lowering of the special place women have in society, devaluing them even more.”
OMG! Special place in society? If I did not know better, I would think that was snark. We pay women less, and they have fewer chances for advancement in the workplace than men. Men tell them they have no choice over their own bodies. Men tell women they must have invasive and degrading medical procedures they neither want nor need, based on the men’s religious beliefs. Women are the victims of domestic violence at rate far higher than that of men. Far more women are the victims of sex crimes such as rape than men will ever be. Divorce is often, or even usually, the first step into poverty for many women. And oh yes, sometimes women who love other women want to marry their partner. We sure do a good job of giving women a special place all right.
Then you say, “Such leads to fewer men choosing to marry women.”
Where exactly do you get that piece of information? I do not know a single straight guy who is interested in marrying another guy, nor do I know any homosexual the slightest bit interested in marrying a person of the opposite gender. Making stuff up and pulling it out of your ass wins no debate points.
I have more but that is all for now.
DavidM: A bigot is basically a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. Deducing that the biological differences that exist in same sex unions and opposite sex unions provide a rational basis for treating them differently …
Except that your “deduction” is based upon a pre-existing irrational and bigoted belief, therefore the deductive fruit of that belief inherits the irrational and bigoted character of that belief.
For example, there are clearly physical differences between me and my cousins, who happen to have inherited the morphology of their African American father. However, it is irrational to use that physical and biological difference to treat us unequally under the law (and it always has been irrational for the many centuries in which it was thus used).
Any “deduction” based on the premise that such physical differences ARE relevant is simply bigotry, and will result in unfair discrimination based on appearances alone.
The same goes for denying women the vote: Sure, there are physical differences, there are even measurable psychological and emotional differences caused by genetics or culture. But those differences are irrelevant when it comes to voting, and basing decisions on irrelevant matters of appearance was irrational in 1775, irrational in 1875, and would be irrational now, and led to (and would lead to again) unfair discrimination based on irrelevancies.
You do not ever show, except by your repeated appeals to mysticism, why physical differences in the make up of non-reproductive couples are any more relevant than their skin color, height, IQ or possession of all their limbs.
For the law, I believe relevance of that difference must include a clear path by which this creates some sort of probable threat to the rights or liberty of others that is uniquely attributable to that difference; i.e. it cannot be simply giving them equal benefits since those benefits are awarded to other couples, it cannot be simply giving them adoption rights or custody rights since those exist regardless of sexual orientation (e.g. a man can have a child by a woman, gain custody after a divorce or death of the woman, and then engage in a long term cohabiting homosexual relationship without losing custody of his child).
I do not believe such relevance can be shown; therefore I reject your “deductions” as springing from an irrationally bigoted and prejudicial premise. You are a bigot in your assumptions, this entire irrational mystical belief that mankind is created (by a God) in two halves “meant” by that God to be joined into a whole.
Not only do you believe in an unprovable deity, you believe you can deduce its intent with such accuracy that, despite the fact that the deity is presumably entirely capable of enforcing its will as it sees fit, you are willing to usurp its power and step in to help it out by denying others marriage, because YOU don’t like it.
Next I suppose you will argue that the deity is whispering in your ear and you are just an instrument of its will.
Tony C wrote: “Except that your “deduction” is based upon a pre-existing irrational and bigoted belief, therefore the deductive fruit of that belief inherits the irrational and bigoted character of that belief.
For example, there are clearly physical differences between me and my cousins, who happen to have inherited the morphology of their African American father. However, it is irrational to use that physical and biological difference to treat us unequally under the law (and it always has been irrational for the many centuries in which it was thus used).
Any “deduction” based on the premise that such physical differences ARE relevant is simply bigotry, and will result in unfair discrimination based on appearances alone.”
My reasoning is not irrational just because it does not conform to your prejudice that that the law cannot recognize gender or racial differences. You are falling prey to a fallacy of inference known as confirmation bias. You have accepted the idea that racism and gender discrimination are evil, so any logic that would lead to laws that allow such must be irrational. The truth is that there is nothing irrational in my logical syllogisms.
As a simple illustration for how there is nothing inherently wrong with racism or gender discrimination, consider the game of football. Ever notice that professional football teams tend to have no female players, or that there are more black players than white ones, and or that there are more white quarterbacks than black quarterbacks? Is this the result of ingrained hatred for one gender over another, or hatred for one race over another? No, the reason it is this way is because there are inherent differences between males and females, and between blacks and whites, in regard to their ability to play the game of football. All the coaches are focused on building the best teams possible, and this is what is responsible for the racial and gender discrimination that exists in football.
Consider racism for a moment. There really is nothing inherently wrong with distinguishing between race. The term racism has a very negative connotation today because historically, politically powerful people created stereotypes based upon race, and then used both emotional and intellectual arguments to hurt all people who fit that stereotype. Some like Hitler carried it to such extremes that he literally tried to exterminate what he called inferior races. The operation of such is so contrary to love and so egregious that it became rightly condemned by future generations. However, the problem is not really racism per se, but the act of creating a stereotype for hatred and animus. Now our laws for the last 150 years have begun creating protections for these stereotypes. We recognize the wrong of the past, so we want to fix it. We have laws against racism or gender discrimination or religious discrimination, etc. It would be prudent not to continue adding to this list of identified stereotypes in society but rather deal with the general issue itself which is the creation of any stereotype toward which people direct animus. I would argue that our discrimination laws are very imperfect and the way that they are now being applied are leading to a societal unrest that could parallel the kind of societal unrest before these laws were created.
Back to football. We have not forced anti-discrimination laws upon the game because for the most part, most people recognize the discrimination there is based upon legitimate gender and racial differences that directly affect the game. Some have tried to create anti-discrimination laws that would affect the game, but they did not gain much traction. Instead we are left with an incongruence between law and nature that everybody pretty much accepts.
In regards to the issue of same sex unions being treated as marriage, I said:
“Deducing that the biological differences that exist in same sex unions and opposite sex unions provide a rational basis for treating them differently under the law suggests the opposite, that I am not a bigot.”
In other words, rather than being motivated by prejudice against homosexuals, I am dealing with the issue in a logical and rational way. I have reasons for my opinion based in biology and inherent gender diversity. You are convinced that there must be some magical or mystical reason even though I have mentioned none. You reason in your mind that my thinking must be irrational, not because you can point to an error in my application of logic, but because it does not reach the conclusion which you firmly hold to be the absolutely truth. You firmly believe that the law must treat all people equally, whether male or female, white or black, religious or nonreligious, heterosexual or homosexual, etc. Maybe it is time for you to question whether your absolute truth about discrimination laws is not so absolute. Maybe there is a better way to articulate the underlying principles that would better conform with the views of everyone in society. After all, democracy is about plurality.
Wow. Homophobia and racism often go hand-in-hand, but I’m still always shocked when people are so open about it.