The Gay Marriage Referendum Bullsh1t Detection Thread.

Peanut Butter Jelly · 06-07-2014 7:25pm #1

Basically, the idea of this thread is to collate all the counterarguments to people who are against Same-Sex Marriage, and some tips for debating those that want to keep marriage as it is. So a couple of points to get us started:

It's unnatural.

It's bad for the children.

Marriage is a sacred thing that God made for man and woman.

seamus · 06-07-2014 7:26pm

"Why do we need to redefine marriage, why can't teh gheys have their equivalent legal partnerships, just not called 'marriage'?"

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 7:28pm

Its unnatural: So is living in a house with internet and indoor plumbing.
Its bad for children: Gay people can adopt already and will be able to adopt with or without SSM
Marriage is a sacred thing that God made for man and woman: Im not a Christian. Then about divorce, contraception etc etc

Mark Hamill · 06-07-2014 8:03pm

It's unnatural.

So is marriage.

It's bad for the children.

Single gay people can already adopt.
Marriage has nothing to do with having kids, hence sterile, old and uninterested couples can marry.

(DO NOT bother to point to studies showing that gay couples are as good as straight parents. Yes, it is true, but it drags the argument down the route of both sides arguing studies at each other, which is just going to alienate the fence sitters who at this stage in the debate can't be expected to put in the effort of reading the studies themselves and seeing anti-SSM studies as full of crap).

Marriage is a sacred thing that God made for man and woman.

No, Christian marriage is a sacred thing that God made for man and woman. And no-one is trying to redefine Christian Marriage.

lazygal · 06-07-2014 8:36pm

"Here's Paddy, he's ghey and hasn't a notion of voting in favour of marriage equality, so none of the gheys should want to get married".

Because straight people who don't want to get married mean no straight couples should be able to marry.

"I suppose you'll agree with polygamy too and people marrying their dogs if the gheys can get married, sure where will it end??????".

Because two people getting married is the same as polygamy and marrying your pets.

oscarBravo · 06-07-2014 8:37pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(DO NOT bother to point to studies showing that gay couples are as good as straight parents. Yes, it is true, but it drags the argument down the route of both sides arguing studies at each other, which is just going to alienate the fence sitters who at this stage in the debate can't be expected to put in the effort of reading the studies themselves and seeing anti-SSM studies as full of crap).

Fair point, but I'd tend to counter an argument of "it's bad for children" with "leaving aside the fact that that's not true..." and continue as you've described.

Geomy · 06-07-2014 10:39pm

Why are some atheists obsessed with all things ghey ?

Isn't this thread better off in the lgbt forum or after hours.

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 10:42pm

Geomy wrote: »

Why are some atheists obsessed with all things ghey ?

Isn't this thread better off in the lgbt forum or after hours.

We have an alliance with the Gay Agenda to destroy religion.
You should see how obsessed the religious are! They even try to tell them how to live.

Geomy · 06-07-2014 10:59pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

We have an alliance with the Gay Agenda to destroy religion.
You should see how obsessed the religious are! They even try to tell them how to live.

Im obsessed with atheism, religion, spirituality and all things woooooo....
this sh!t is dangerous ground lol
Seeking professional help for my obsession lol

I've no problems with gheyes, lesbians, transsexual's, trannies....

oscarBravo · 06-07-2014 11:44pm

Geomy wrote: »

Why are some atheists obsessed with all things ghey ?

I can speak only for myself: I'm an atheist because I prefer my world to be informed by logic and reason than by superstition and claptrap. Accordingly, when I see a section of society discriminated against on the basis of religious woo and very little else, it offends the same sense of reason that informs my atheism.

Atheists tend to believe in equal rights because their morals are dictated by empathy, not by magic books.

Turtwig · 06-07-2014 11:50pm

Changed the title.

Think it would be best if we preserved this thread for solely refuting the bullsh1t arguments put forward by the anti-SSM side. You know the distortion of scientific studies that sort of stuff.

Basically something like so.

In the op we'll have a list of claims.
Then we link the user to a particular post which refutes that claim.

It'll be a thread for everyone's reference.

3wayswitch · 06-07-2014 11:57pm

There was a high-profile civil rights case in Iowa that held the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

During the case the court asked for reasons against SSM and they got these five replies, which presumably are the best that a large, well-funded legal effort could muster and will more than likely be similar to what we'll hear over here:

Tradition is important, and banning gay marriage maintains tradition (The court rejected this as circular reasoning, rather than an actual reason.)
Children are important, and banning gay marriage promotes an optimal environment for raising them. (Evidence shows otherwise.)
Banning gay marriage will raise birth rates somehow. (Rejected for not making a lick of sense.)
Banning gay marriage will promote the stability of straight marriages. (Rejected for not having any evidence to support it.)
Marriage costs the government money, so banning gay marriage is thrifty. (This argument applies equally well to banning marriage among any group of people.)

The court ruled unanimously that there was no rational reason for banning gay marriage. If you want to read the finer details there's a PDF here:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

The arguments are on page 52.

Peanut Butter Jelly · 07-07-2014 12:05am

Turtwig wrote: »

Changed the title.

Think it would be best if we preserved this thread for solely refuting the bullsh1t arguments put forward by the anti-SSM side. You know the distortion of scientific studies that sort of stuff.

Basically something like so.

In the op we'll have a list of claims.
Then we link the user to a particular post which refutes that claim.

It'll be a thread for everyone's reference.

Liking the new name

I was gonna collate the best responses and get a mod to edit it into the OP.

lynski · 07-07-2014 12:07am

Tradition seems to be the new flavor of the month for the anti-equality brigade. 'Marriage is traditionally between man and woman why change it? '

Turtwig · 07-07-2014 3:40am

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Liking the new name

I was gonna collate the best responses and get a mod to edit it into the OP.

When I get time this week or next week I'll put together the ones from the past and other sources.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 3:51am

When you quote, it'd be great if you could state the name of who said what. It'd be very handy when quickly referencing and calling them up on things latter on in the campaign.

Like Ronan Mullen's interview there the last day, for example. Plenty to drag him up on, and since it'll be his exact quote, he won't be able to deny or weasel his way out of it!

Turtwig · 07-07-2014 3:57am

Not sure but I think we'll have to discuss it first. Not sure if we could mention who says these things directly in case the indirect implication is there that they're being dishonest.

Nodin · 07-07-2014 4:08am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

When you quote, it'd be great if you could state the name of who said what. It'd be very handy when quickly referencing and calling them up on things latter on in the campaign.

Like Ronan Mullen's interview there the last day, for example. Plenty to drag him up on, and since it'll be his exact quote, he won't be able to deny or weasel his way out of it!

O, I thought was a "thing said in threads" effort. Soz. I'll delete my entry.

Turtwig · 07-07-2014 4:12am

Nah dude this will be a definitive resource, a la talk origins, for bullsht claims made regarding LGBT folk, parenting, marriage etc. For quick handy reference.

Pherekydes · 07-07-2014 7:24am

lynski wrote: »

Tradition seems to be the new flavor of the month for the anti-equality brigade. 'Marriage is traditionally between man and woman why change it? '

Tradition is great:

Traditionally:

Women weren't allowed vote
Women weren't allowed work after marriage
Blacks weren't allowed marry whites
Unmarried mothers had their children abducted
Unmarried mothers were enslaved
The catholic church were the arbiters of all morality

Tradition: kill it with fire!

Vivisectus · 07-07-2014 9:23am

Mullen wrote:

I think many of those people will take the view that the definition of marriage works for a particular social reason, that the meaning of marriage itself has to do with the relationship between men and women because that is a socially preferred context for the upbringing of children. With great respect for other situations, that something we want to protect.

First off, there is the nebulous "changing the definition of marriage" part that we are going to hear a lot. It seems to be the preferred way to hide the fact that they are in fact arguing for inequality and give their point of view a veneer of respectability and tradition.

In response, we could say that we changed the definition of important institutions many a time: we changed the definition of a voter by giving women the vote, for instance. Some people argued against that too, using amazingly similar arguments.

We changed the definition of marriage already by allowing divorce... shockingly late, but we did so nonetheless. There is nothing wrong with changing the definition of social institutions, especially when (as they were in the case of divorce) they no longer reflect the reality in society.

In fact, when these institutions become as outdated as they were in '96 when we signed the 15th amendment into law, they tend to do a lot more harm than good: just think of how much harder it was for women to escape abusive relationships.

Secondly, there is the claim that by continuing to exclude gay people from the institution of marriage we are somehow "protecting" straight marriages. This is a very odd argument indeed, but one that very few people in the media ever seem to pick up on. Exactly how does allowing gay people to marry threaten straight marriages and their ability to raise children? What, when we get right down to it, are they protecting marriage from?

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 9:50am

lynski wrote: »

Tradition seems to be the new flavor of the month for the anti-equality brigade. 'Marriage is traditionally between man and woman why change it? '

That argument seems also to suggest or claim marriage has never changed. Thats completely untrue.

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 9:51am

Turtwig wrote: »

Not sure but I think we'll have to discuss it first. Not sure if we could mention who says these things directly in case the indirect implication is there that they're being dishonest.

I think personally there is no harm in saying D Quinn said such and such and lets dissect what he said and what the counter arguments are

Vivisectus · 07-07-2014 10:03am

Mullen wrote:

The definition of marriage works because the international supported evidence is that the, the preferred context, with great respect for other situations is the two biological parents. That’s what the data says. I think we lose this if we go changing the definition of marriage that may, frankly, deprive a child of their rights starting off. We can’t go talking about children’s rights after they’re born if we don’t care about the circumstances in which they’re brought into the world.

First we can ask if the data says any such thing: I am not aware of any data that does myself. The only "data" mr Mullen has ever brought to the table to my knowledge has been the repeatedly debunked Regnerus study.

But that aside, how is gay marriage affecting the rights of children "starting off" and the circumstances in which they are brought into the world?

This is where we hit some interesting ground. Let us assume that there IS data for a moment - would that even mae a difference?

If we could prove that marrying someone with a different skin color means that your kids have a statistical disadvantage compared to marriages where this is not the case, do this give us the moral right to legislate against marrying people who have a different skin color, or would we consider that racist?

The answer is immediately obvious to anyone.

So what is the difference between that scenario and this one? There must be one: after all, we are assured again and again that mr Mullen has the greatest respect for gay people and does not have a homophobic bone in his body!

Links234 · 07-07-2014 12:02pm

Geomy wrote: »

I've no problems with gheyes, lesbians, transsexual's, trannies....

Mr. CooL ICE · 07-07-2014 2:55pm

"Straight men pretending to be gay will adopt children to molest them" is another one.

Brian Shanahan · 07-07-2014 3:58pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Tradition is great:

Traditionally:
Women weren't allowed vote

Women weren't allowed work after marriage

Blacks weren't allowed marry whites

Unmarried mothers had their children abducted

Unmarried mothers were enslaved

The catholic church were the arbiters of all morality

Tradition: kill it with fire!

Also, gay men could marry! You can't get much more traditional than medieval roman catholic ceremonies, except for maybe, Imperial Rome (from whence the rcc sprung)

The Gay Marriage Referendum Bullsh1t Detection Thread.

Comments