Liberal Fallacies

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What you've just said is effectively "That only works if a black man marries a black woman."

No. Gay man + lesbian (I know of one such marriage) is a mixed-gender couple, just like white man+white woman, black man + white woman, Asian man + black woman, etc.

 

[ehcks]

No. Gay man + lesbian (I know of one such marriage) is a mixed-gender couple, just like white man+white woman, black man + white woman, Asian man + black woman, etc.

What makes requiring that a marriage have two different genders different than requiring that a marriage have two of the same race?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It's an argument for contraction if you believe marriage must produce progeny to be valid.¹ But it is, unless I worded it very badly, an argument that marriage is more about what we decide a family is than about who does or does not reproduce when, and that whatever group results cannot be drawn on lines of orientation without leaving a significant number of families out.²

1. Dunno 'bout "valid". I suggest that the custom evolved in response to the costs of single parenthood and the benefits that supportive families confer on children and, through those children, on society. Also, monogamous marriage reduces competition between males for mates and reduces the costs that single males inflict on society.
2. Some agreement, here. It's possible that male-to-male and female-to-female marriage would also reduce some social costs relative to the current legal regime. I don't make that assumption automatically, though.

 

[RandFan]

Good place to point out that (IIRC) the defendants in the Prop 8 trial promised evidence of social harm. The judge was expecting it to be provided and kept chiding the defense to provide it. Here is the reenactment for those who want to see this in action.

I hate to spoil the ending but the evidence is never, NEVER provided.

• Gays and lesbians can and do adopt children.
• Gays and lesbians can and do form families.

There are a number of nations and states that allow men to marry men and women to marry women and to date there is no evidence that allowing gays the right to marry the person they love will do anything other than allow gays and lesbians to marry.


Oh, I almost forgot, the only so called "expert" for the defense said that the lives of the families of gays and lesbians would be improved if they were allowed to marry.


No demonstrative downside. Lot's of upside.


Now, let me ask you a question, are you against that? If so then please go look in the mirror, now you know what an irrational bigot looks like. 's okay. I was an irrational bigot myself. It's curable.



Start seeing these people more and more as human beings. To steal from Henry Wadsorth, if you could read the secret diaries of gays and lesbians you should find in each of their lives sorrow and suffering enough to disarm your bigotry.

 

[quadraginta]

1. Dunno 'bout "valid". I suggest that the custom evolved in response to the costs of single parenthood and the benefits that supportive families confer on children and, through those children, on society.

<snip>

I don't think it was all that warm-hearted. That's a relatively recent social development. The traditional callous disregard for "illegitimate" offspring suggests that children's' welfare was not a particularly high priority.

In Western European culture it has always been more about control and inheritance of property. Not surprisingly this is among the more serious of the securities denied same-sex partners because of marriage bans.

 

[Travis]

My hypothesis: at some point Bill became a Liberal and decided to help the cause by becoming some sort of strawman conservative.

 

[Spindrift]

My hypothesis: at some point Bill became a Liberal and decided to help the cause by becoming some sort of strawman conservative.

The Colbert of JREF?

 

[SezMe]

And two books written by MD's present a good case that it is a mental disorder and is not even political.

Authors and book titles, please.

 

[rustypouch]

Liberal Fallacies is not a "USA Politics" issue.

The biggest liberals I have met are from Northern Europe.

</snip>

I can see that.

Did you notice that the Northern European countries are some of the most liberal in the world, and also have some the highest standards of living, and lowest inequality in the world?

Of course, as we all know, correlation doesn't equal causation.

But then, how do countries with a conservative government and low to no taxes rank in such surveys?

 

[332nd]

Whenever a Conservative gets something wrong, gay marriage, for example, it has been my experience that I can outline and explain to them why they are off the mark, and I can get them to change their mind.

& Instead of taking a trip to DC & getting the GOP to change, you post here... Equal rights for gays not worth your time?

 

[bruto]

1. Dunno 'bout "valid". I suggest that the custom evolved in response to the costs of single parenthood and the benefits that supportive families confer on children and, through those children, on society. Also, monogamous marriage reduces competition between males for mates and reduces the costs that single males inflict on society.
2. Some agreement, here. It's possible that male-to-male and female-to-female marriage would also reduce some social costs relative to the current legal regime. I don't make that assumption automatically, though.

I don't think you have to make any assumptions automatically in favor of gay marriage, but I do think we all need to make sure we are not making many assumptions automatically against it.

If social costs are decreased by monogamous marriage as you put it, then the argument does not appear to require heterosexuality. In fact, if you think about it, it would seem to argue the opposite. Suits me fine. I'm very pro-marriage. I think it's the bee's knees and everyone should have a shot at it.

If supportive families and their concomitant good to society are the issue, then one might well, as the good old Vermont Supreme Court did, conclude that excluding homosexual based families from the law is an issue of equal protection for the families outside the narrower issue of equal rights for the parents.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, as we all know, correlation doesn't equal causation.

True. But negative correlation would tends to rule out Bill's hypothesis.

But then, how do countries with a conservative government and low to no taxes rank in such surveys?

I've been asking for that for a long time. In this instance bias and preconception trump evidence every time.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I don't think you have to make any assumptions automatically in favor of gay marriage...

In the absence of clear evidence against them, I make assumptions in favor of personal freedom, markets, federalism, and limited government. Since these are not synonymous, there will be tension. I suppose that morality, such as the marriage tradition, is a product of biological and social evolution and the supposition that a custom we don't understand has no purpose and can be dismissed is as risky as the supposition that an organ we don't understand has no purpose and can be surgically removed without cost would have been in the days before scientific physiology.

The entire gay marriage argument originated in State intrusion into labor markets. If governments paid their employees in cash (no employer-funded medical plans, no workmen's comp, no retiree benefits) and left private-sector compensation to employers and employees (no State-mandated benefits), the legal definition of "marriage" would not matter. Any number of people could set up house and promise to love, cherish, and obey each other without imposing costs on others. Currently, spousal benefits put taxpayers on the hook for costs of dependants of government employees. That's my principal objection to the court-mandated redefinition of "marriage". Redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is a tax increase.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... bias and preconception trump evidence every time.

All human behavioral traits are heritable.

 

[bruto]

In the absence of clear evidence against them, I make assumptions in favor of personal freedom, markets, federalism, and limited government. Since these are not synonymous, there will be tension. I suppose that morality, such as the marriage tradition, is a product of biological and social evolution and the supposition that a custom we don't understand has no purpose and can be dismissed is as risky as the supposition that an organ we don't understand has no purpose and can be surgically removed without cost would have been in the days before scientific physiology.

The entire gay marriage argument originated in State intrusion into labor markets. If governments paid their employees in cash (no employer-funded medical plans, no workmen's comp, no retiree benefits) and left private-sector compensation to employers and employees (no State-mandated benefits), the legal definition of "marriage" would not matter. Any number of people could set up house and promise to love, cherish, and obey each other without imposing costs on others. Currently, spousal benefits put taxpayers on the hook for costs of dependants of government employees. That's my principal objection to the court-mandated redefinition of "marriage". Redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is a tax increase.

We're straying into a different political area, and one in which I do not care to travel. I would just point out that it seems to me a blind alley at best and a purposeful deception at worst to use the excuse that we don't understand marriage well enough to change it, especially if that understanding is based on questionable assumptions in the first place.


The second half of your argument, which really belongs in its own thread, seems to amount to the basic idea that because you believe marriage laws are a bad idea at all, but you can't get rid of them, the next best solution is to exclude people you don't like.

 

[Spindrift]

In the absence of clear evidence against them, I make assumptions in favor of personal freedom, markets, federalism, and limited government. Since these are not synonymous, there will be tension. I suppose that morality, such as the marriage tradition, is a product of biological and social evolution and the supposition that a custom we don't understand has no purpose and can be dismissed is as risky as the supposition that an organ we don't understand has no purpose and can be surgically removed without cost would have been in the days before scientific physiology.

The entire gay marriage argument originated in State intrusion into labor markets. If governments paid their employees in cash (no employer-funded medical plans, no workmen's comp, no retiree benefits) and left private-sector compensation to employers and employees (no State-mandated benefits), the legal definition of "marriage" would not matter. Any number of people could set up house and promise to love, cherish, and obey each other without imposing costs on others. Currently, spousal benefits put taxpayers on the hook for costs of dependants of government employees. That's my principal objection to the court-mandated redefinition of "marriage". Redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is a tax increase.

But as previously noted the CBO says you are wrong and that same sex marriage would actually lower taxes.

 

[Tricky]

All human behavioral traits are heritable.

Not all are genetically heritable. But people can learn almost anything.

 

[Tricky]

In the absence of clear evidence against them, I make assumptions in favor of personal freedom, markets, federalism, and limited government. Since these are not synonymous, there will be tension. I suppose that morality, such as the marriage tradition, is a product of biological and social evolution and the supposition that a custom we don't understand has no purpose and can be dismissed is as risky as the supposition that an organ we don't understand has no purpose and can be surgically removed without cost would have been in the days before scientific physiology.

The entire gay marriage argument originated in State intrusion into labor markets. If governments paid their employees in cash (no employer-funded medical plans, no workmen's comp, no retiree benefits) and left private-sector compensation to employers and employees (no State-mandated benefits), the legal definition of "marriage" would not matter. Any number of people could set up house and promise to love, cherish, and obey each other without imposing costs on others. Currently, spousal benefits put taxpayers on the hook for costs of dependants of government employees. That's my principal objection to the court-mandated redefinition of "marriage". Redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is a tax increase.

Even if what you said were true, and so far, I can't see that you've shown it to be so, your position would boil down to, "I don't care if tax laws are fair, I just want everyone else to pay more so I pay less." You're a real compassionate guy... about your money.

 

[A'isha]

I do like how Malcolm insists he's "in favor of personal freedom, markets, federalism, and limited government", then argues that the government needs to keep regulating marriage to keep gay people from marrying each other.

His attempt to justify this continued government intervention in and restriction of personal freedom by blaming "State intrusion into labor markets" is just icing on the cake.

 

[Dancing David]

1. Dunno 'bout "valid". I suggest that the custom evolved in response to the costs of single parenthood and the benefits that supportive families confer on children and, through those children, on society. Also, monogamous marriage reduces competition between males for mates and reduces the costs that single males inflict on society.

It does I wonder what kinds of adultery there were before gay marriage.

How many other animals have marriage ?