Posted: May 17, 2012 6:48 am
For someone acting as a spokesperson asserting gay rights, my opponent sure seems to lack awareness of his constituency.
Let’s review his authority on the topic.
(Q5) Homophobia?
[Oh NOW definitions matter? “pros hen legomenon”]
(Q4) What differentiates marriages (regulated by the State) from (gay) romantic associations which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State?
“.............................”
[I can hear crickets chirping in the background.]
(Q3) Unbalanced gender SSM from a child’s point of view. Any biological difference, long term developmental/welfare outcomes?
[was that a yes or a no?]
(Q2) Estimate how many or how few gay people feel so stigmatized that they’d give anything to be “straight” if they thought they could change. [SSM as a palliative for depression/mental illness?]
(Q1) Any good reason to discriminate against bisexual/transgender/polygamous marriage (MMF/MMM/FFM/MFFF) and not monogamous (couples only) gay marriage?
[LOL What slippery slope?]
Arguments in favour of SSM? (Other than...permit everything if you can’t decide whether or not it’s bad)
Even the area he seemed to know most about was detrimental to his own case
The only thing presented in terms of evidence from SSM jurisdictions was an ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.
(Come back in 50 years and show how these gay marriage ghetto jurisdictions have fared.)
Sorry Croc, I didn’t find you a very articulate/authoritative spokesperson for the cause you are representing.
But you did your best and I thank you for stepping up to this debate – unlike some other forum members who declined the invitation. Thank also to rationalskepticism.org (LIFE) and Durro for agreeing to host and Moderate such a contentious albeit worthwhile debate.
In this debate I have challenged Croc’s notion of discrimination. Homosexuality/bisexuality/bi-curious is not a gender. And matrimonial laws exist to regulate the gender balance of that institution for a very specific reason. It’s the same reason why matrimonial law also regulates identity, consanguinity, age and committed monogamous intent.
I presented a well-evidenced example of short-sighted governments in the 60/70’s changing marriage laws, (redefining commitment,) and the related link to social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness, etc. as marriage breakdown increases. No religious/morality arguments. Just reminding readers that State (and private sector) funding pays for these social pathologies when the definition of marriage isn’t taken seriously
– especially by MEN.
The children of all those broken marriages, growing up amid that social dysfunction (go back and look at the stats) are now, in their adulthood, answering surveys about the definition of marriage.
Growing up in contentious, sub-minimal, single-parent, divorcing households - in a gender-imbalanced family, lacking familiar role models – they are now the very people whose views on the value/definition of marriage amount to…“I cant think of any good reason…”
And I didn’t play the “God-card” once. (Shame on me.)
The UN concept of religious “rights” isn’t about the existence of God(s) – it’s about the very real existence of HUMAN RELIGIOUS CULTURE and there’s an obvious head-on collision when competing forces are mutually exclusive
...in logic, in biology and at law.
Let’s review his authority on the topic.
(Q5) Homophobia?
“...depends on what you mean by homophobia...”
[Oh NOW definitions matter? “pros hen legomenon”]
(Q4) What differentiates marriages (regulated by the State) from (gay) romantic associations which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State?
“.............................”
[I can hear crickets chirping in the background.]
(Q3) Unbalanced gender SSM from a child’s point of view. Any biological difference, long term developmental/welfare outcomes?
“...Not necessarily...”
[was that a yes or a no?]
(Q2) Estimate how many or how few gay people feel so stigmatized that they’d give anything to be “straight” if they thought they could change. [SSM as a palliative for depression/mental illness?]
“...I truthfully do not have a clue what percentage of gay individuals may wish to be straight...”
(Q1) Any good reason to discriminate against bisexual/transgender/polygamous marriage (MMF/MMM/FFM/MFFF) and not monogamous (couples only) gay marriage?
“No.”
[LOL What slippery slope?]
Arguments in favour of SSM? (Other than...permit everything if you can’t decide whether or not it’s bad)
“...I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage...”
“...the information that I have long been searching for - could there possibly be a worthwhile reason not to allow gay marriage?”
Even the area he seemed to know most about was detrimental to his own case
The problem is that people LGBT community are more likely to have mental health issues, ranging from depression to suicide. The National survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that homosexual/bisexual people are:
•more likely to have had a chronic condition in the last 12 months (51.3% v. 46.9%)
•twice as likely to have a high/very high level of psychological distress (18.2% v. 9.2%)
•almost 3 times as likely to have had suicidal thoughts (34.7% v. 12.9%)
•5 times as likely to have had suicidal plans (17.1% v. 3.7%)
•4 times as likely to have attempted suicide (12.6% v. 3.1%) .
The only thing presented in terms of evidence from SSM jurisdictions was an ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.
(Come back in 50 years and show how these gay marriage ghetto jurisdictions have fared.)
Sorry Croc, I didn’t find you a very articulate/authoritative spokesperson for the cause you are representing.
But you did your best and I thank you for stepping up to this debate – unlike some other forum members who declined the invitation. Thank also to rationalskepticism.org (LIFE) and Durro for agreeing to host and Moderate such a contentious albeit worthwhile debate.
In this debate I have challenged Croc’s notion of discrimination. Homosexuality/bisexuality/bi-curious is not a gender. And matrimonial laws exist to regulate the gender balance of that institution for a very specific reason. It’s the same reason why matrimonial law also regulates identity, consanguinity, age and committed monogamous intent.
I presented a well-evidenced example of short-sighted governments in the 60/70’s changing marriage laws, (redefining commitment,) and the related link to social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness, etc. as marriage breakdown increases. No religious/morality arguments. Just reminding readers that State (and private sector) funding pays for these social pathologies when the definition of marriage isn’t taken seriously
– especially by MEN.
The children of all those broken marriages, growing up amid that social dysfunction (go back and look at the stats) are now, in their adulthood, answering surveys about the definition of marriage.
Growing up in contentious, sub-minimal, single-parent, divorcing households - in a gender-imbalanced family, lacking familiar role models – they are now the very people whose views on the value/definition of marriage amount to…“I cant think of any good reason…”
And I didn’t play the “God-card” once. (Shame on me.)
The UN concept of religious “rights” isn’t about the existence of God(s) – it’s about the very real existence of HUMAN RELIGIOUS CULTURE and there’s an obvious head-on collision when competing forces are mutually exclusive
...in logic, in biology and at law.