Along with Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter is one of those rare advocates of gay marriage who can make a compelling case for “this expansion of the meaning of marriage” (as the editors of the LA Times puts it) to a conservative audience. (Basically, if you see Dale’s name on a column, just read the piece.)
Going through my accumulated e-mail (and finally emptying out all my e-mail boxes), I discovered a draft of a column Dale had written two weeks ago on the impact of the California Supreme Court decision mandating the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages. When I wrote him to commend him on the piece, he wrote back, pointing out that it (long since) been published.
Observing that “proposed amendment [defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman] was going to be on the ballot in November anyway,” Dale finds the “the main effect of the court’s decision has been to change the context in which the vote will occur:”
The question is, what effect will this reality have on voters? On the one hand, whatever they think of gay marriage, some voters may feel that it would be unfair to strip existing married couples of their rights. Voters may also be reassured by seeing that nothing bad happens when gay couples wed.
On the other hand, seeing gay couples actually marry may anger some voters. The sight of two men or two women kissing, no matter how joyous the occasion to those involved, is still shocking to a lot of people. They may vote “yes†as a way to stave off what they see as growing decadence and immorality. Five months just isn’t a lot of time to normalize what people have spent their entire lives believing is abnormal.
Other voters will be angry at what they see as judicial activism and vote “yes†as a way to rebuke the courts.
It’s impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are.
Rather than have me tell you how Dale sees the stakes, click here and read it yourself. You may not agree with everything he has to say, but you will agree he understands the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling — and the ballot initiative.
“The Right to Love?”
Loving v Virginia?
“See, they’re using hyperbole! That means they’re wrong.”
equal protection? due process?
…these are not good arguments, with all due respect, they are crap. They’re the same exact arguments liberals have been making in their comments.
1. No one is infringing on anyone’s right to love
2. There is no significant difference between races. Skin color is insignificant. There is a very significant difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
3. Cherry picking hyperbolic statements so he can knock them down is actually what is a very good “indicator of a bad argument.”
4. As has been established countless times there is no equal protection issue.
Here’s an idea. If gay marriage proponents want to make a convincing argument for gay marriage, they should try answering this question:
If society values and wants to encourage the nuclear family. how does it do so when people keep insisting that the institution that exists to encourage the nuclear family should encourage something else instead?
I have yet to see one good argument for gay marriage.
Whew! American Elephant, I have copied your post for my files. I particularly support your question.
I can not imagine that teenaged angst is fortified with the skills to cope with adoptive tranny “parents.” Perhaps it is just my homophobic bigotry, but I keep remembering my first grade exercises when I had to circle the drawing that didn’t belong. It stuck in my memory and has become a basic question in all things considered: What’s wrong with this picture?
No child should be purposely raised in a single parent home. No child should be an unwanted child. No child should be raised in an abusive environment. No child should an emotional crutch for his parents. No child should be a social experiment.
As a society, we have sent a mess of problems to our public schools and they have entirely redefined the assumptions of public education. The spiral of decay in public education accurately reflects the expansion of single parent homes, loosening adoption rules, making divorce an easy out and the rise of moral relativism.
I think the time may be ripe for a rebound of the enthusiasm of the nuclear family. I am surrounded by men and women in their thirties who have never been married. They would like to have a marriage, but they have had too many experiences with the impact of divorce around them. We are a confused society and in transition to who knows where.
Just one irritated reply. This quote: “Voters may also be reassured by seeing that nothing bad happens when gay couples wed.”
What the hell did they expect? Lightning from heaven and plagues?
If a policy decision is a bad one, it takes time for the consequences to develop. Did anyone foresee the damage to the black community when the first welfare checks were handed out?
Whether you are for or agin’ gay marriage, to expect either Nirvana or Armageddon the next day is just stupid. There, I’m done.
Heliotrope:
I think you overstate the case when you refer to your “homophobic bigotry” (unless you think a gay couple such as my husband and myself are unfit parents simply because we are a gay couple or that children raised by a gay couple are part of a “social experiment.”).
I too have many friends who want to be married, but their experiences with their biological, heterosexual parents was so horrific that they are not sure that marriage is for them. Having being abused, they are not eager to return to the fray (which is understandable).
One of the questions I have is if the “nuclear family” is so good, why does it produce so many abused and damaged children? Why have divorce rates skyrocketed? I presume people only seek to leave a marriage if it is bad.
It is the quality of the parenting that counts and not the gender of the parents. I have a friend who was beaten by his biological father while his biological mother did nothing to stop it. My husband and I do not beat our children. Who are the better parents?
One of the questions I have is if the “nuclear family†is so good, why does it produce so many abused and damaged children?
In that case, Brian, if gay parents are so good, why do they produce so many abused and damaged children?
Now watch as the leftist gay Brian tries to spin that that is an exception, that the vast majority of gay parents don’t abuse their children, and that it’s wrong to claim that gay parenting is not good because it produces so many abused and damaged children.
Notice again the logic. Brian cannot answer AE’s question, so he tries to tear down the nuclear family and insist that it isn’t any good, that it produces damaged and abused children, and that therefore society should allow other inferior structures because the nuclear family is not absolutely perfect. Again, his only arguments for gay marriage involve tearing down and belittling heterosexuals — using standards that he would never apply to other gay people.
Carpenter’s article sums up the situation nicely, although I think he downplays the judicial activism angle. There is little question that California was moving toward same sex marriage even though it appeared to have stalled lately. The actions of the California Supreme Court may actually have an adverse effect.
Had the Court ruled that same sex marriage was legal and then had they stayed their ruling under after the November election when the initiative is on the ballot and waited for the electorate to have their voice, the results might have be very different. Same sex marriage is a completely new concept and the electorate needs time to think about it. A few more months, with the results being known what would happen if the amendment passes of doesn’t pass would have been a clear signal as to the voters’ intent.
Now the situation is totally muddied. As usual, Gays expect and the Courts have done all the heavy lifting. What’s worse, while the California Supreme Court routinely rules on the constitutionality of initiative statues like Prop22 all the time, the arrogance of this ruling and complete disregard of the will of the people isn’t likely to be overlooked.
The Bradley Effect appears to be in play on this issue and polling isn’t going to be reliable. And the Dykes on Bikes in SF wearing bridal veils and throwing bouquets to onlookers probably didn’t go over well with Californians. You know, the 51 other counties besides SF and LA that need to be won over.
A real shame that the Court displayed such arrogance in not staying the ruling and at least listening to the voice of the people. So far it’s quiet. It has been awhile since a really ugly initiative has hit here. We’re overdue. This one has all the potential of being a really ugly battle.
Here’s an idea. If gay marriage proponents want to make a convincing argument for gay marriage, they should try answering this question:
If society values and wants to encourage the nuclear family. how does it do so when people keep insisting that the institution that exists to encourage the nuclear family should encourage something else instead?
American Elephant, I’ll give it a shot. If the only thing we need to worry about is to encourage the nuclear family, then same sex marriage wouldn’t be worth anyone’s time. But there is more to perpetuating the human species and making society better than just procreation.
So if the only (current) purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation in a nuclear family, then why is marriage of a heterosexual couple not only tolerated, but encouraged? Yes, most heterosexual couples plan to procreate, but why encourage couples who cannot or have no intention to procreate, if that’s the sole purpose of marriage? Is it because there is still some other good reason to do so? I think so. For the same reasons that we encourage these committed couples to get married, we should encourage committed gay couples to marry as well.
But there is more to perpetuating the human species and making society better than just procreation.
Sure.
The question is, though, whether marriage should be cheapened in an attempt to prevent gay promiscuity, especially when marriage has been proven completely ineffective in doing so.
A better option would be to confront the promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors in the community directly; that would not only be good for gay people, but for society as a whole, and it would accomplish the same thing without having to cheapen or redefine marriage.
Wow, nuclear family good; Gay and or lesbian families bad. Most of these comments are hurtful and misguided. That fact that I, as a gay man, desire to have the same legal rights and recognitions as my parents had by marrying my partner with which I share a loving, committed and monogamous relationship with. Being able to legally marry my partner will not hurt hetrosexual marriage. I don’t care what you others think. You haven’t had to live life in my shoes so how can you understand? I am tired of having to justify my relationship to strangers who believe that they are somehow morally superior because they are not gay or lesbian.
Want to support the nuclear family? Try outlawing divorce or forcing all unwed mothers to marry the father of their child. (what happens when there is more than one father of several different children involved?). Of course it would not be possible or realistic to try and impose these kinds of laws on to heterosexuals because they are the majority of citizens. People would say “what the f—!” I am amazed that fellow citizens think the majority can discriminate against the minority. Last time I checked, the United States is democratic in process but a republic to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Oh, and dear North Dallas Forty: your quote “if gay parents are so good, why do they produce so many abused and damaged children?” you site two sources – one being one gay couple in England. ONE. There are abused and neglected children in many family sturctures be they gay, straight, or whatever.
Secondly, the link to the article about parents taking their children to the Folsom Street Fair in San Fran I’m sure that some heterosexuals brought their children to it as well. While I agree that children should not be allowed in an adult event, attempting to use this one situation to attack all gay parents is unfair and biased.
That fact that I, as a gay man, desire to have the same legal rights and recognitions as my parents had by marrying my partner with which I share a loving, committed and monogamous relationship with.
Your parents’ relationship produced you.
Your relationship will do and can never do anything of the sort. Nor can any other same-sex relationship.
Why should they be treated the same when they are so obviously different?
You haven’t had to live life in my shoes so how can you understand?
You’re right. I’ve never needed marriage to have a committed relationship, have legal protections for myself and my partner, avoid irresponsible behavior, or earn respect from people — so I really don’t understand gays who can’t do any of the above without marriage.
Want to support the nuclear family? Try outlawing divorce or forcing all unwed mothers to marry the father of their child.
Are you planning to demand the same of gay couples yourself?
If not, then why are you criticizing heterosexuals for not implementing something that you yourself oppose and refuse to do?
And along those lines:
While I agree that children should not be allowed in an adult event, attempting to use this one situation to attack all gay parents is unfair and biased.
Sort of like how your fellow gay liberal Brian above used “abused and damaged children” to attack all nuclear families.
Thank you for so elegantly demonstrating the double standard of gay and lesbian liberals — twice — in imposing and demanding of heterosexual couples what they scream is “unfair and biased” when imposed upon them.
Where the hell does some straight guy get off on talking about homophobic bigotry any way. And if it angers the voters, so what? I am more angry about having some rubes and stupid Evangelicals trying to dictate the policy for everyone based on their imaginary god.
I am more angry about having some rubes and stupid Evangelicals trying to dictate the policy for everyone based on their imaginary god.
Sure you are, Pinky Bear.
Now, you have a choice; either bash Obama as a “rube and stupid Evangelical”, admit that he’s lying through his teeth and that he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying, or make excuses for why it’s a GOOD thing when he does it.
Brian, from what I read here from commenters, the marriage right is being asked for gays, lesbians, transgendered, and bi-sexuals. Ditto for adoption “rights.” I have not been entirely open in my feelings about all of this, because I don’t look for reasons to be called homophobic.
There are too many (my opinion) gays who are guilty of carrying on a public freak show. I would not ask a responsible (my definition) group of gays to take the blame for what the jerks among the gays do.
I read comments from gays who would be my good friends, because we would not let our sexual differences come between us. And then, I read the comments of people who want to justify any type of flammer on steroids kind of stuff.
I am really bothered by being asked to take the entire gaylesbianbisexualtrangendered bundle as one issue.
Until most gays, like so many on Gay Patriot, become serious about the ramifications of the “gay agenda” I am not anxious to promote either gay marriage or gay adoption.
There is a perfectly good word that comes to mind: reprehensible. If two humans who have grown breasts and saved their male genitals appear before a judge for a marriage license, I favor the judge telling them to make up their minds and come back. Is that reprehensible? Or is it reprehensible to pat them on the back and pretend they are not overwhelmed with fundamental psychological problems?
Brian, you have made your points personal and I am delighted to believe that you will make your marriage and your parenthood work to the best of your ability. However, you certainly do not need my blessing. You and your partner could live as if married and mentor hundreds of kids. You can be excellent role models. If your kids are “straight” I hope you will seek help in raising them in the same way “straight” parents need to reach out in helping raise their gay kids.
The odds of the gay couple adopting a “straight” child are statistically huge. I would guess you have memories of being a gay teen. That is a turbulent period in the lives of many children. It is a very difficult life period to try to manage by social engineering. It requires a lot of patience, wisdom and the help of others.
The whole idea that heterosexuals, and only heterosexuals are “worthy” of marriage solely because they can procreate is a form of heterosexual supremacy. Where does this leave non-procreating heterosexuals who don’t have kids because they choose not to (paging Pat and Bay Buchanan)?
There is no such thing as a “gay agenda,” but there is most certainly a “straight” agenda. Why is no one worried about that? This is not separate but equal. This is separate and unequal.
Oh, and this country is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic.
Something tells me that if a legislature or the voters in a state approved gay marriage unanimously, you would still try to undermine it.
The rights of a minority must never, ever be left to the whims of a majority, nor vice versa.
#15 – Good point, Attmay. That is why both the Federalist Papers and the Framers pointed to “tyrrany of the minority” when drafting the Constitution.
Of course, trying to point out original intent and facts to libtards is akin to trying to teach a three-year-old how to perform calculus. Neither has the intelligence or patience to grasp it.
Regards,
Peter H.
#16: There are times when my fellow conservatives need to be reminded of it as well.
If gay marriage were made legal in all 50 states tomorrow, no church would be forced to perform it, just as no church or synagogue is forced by law to perform interfaith marriages, even though they are legal.
The whole idea that heterosexuals, and only heterosexuals are “worthy†of marriage solely because they can procreate is a form of heterosexual supremacy.
Actually, it’s an acknowledgement of a) biological fact and b) that said biological fact carries social and legal implications that don’t exist with same-sex couples.
Your screaming “heterosexual supremacy” is roughly on the same level as Al Sharpton screaming “racist”; bluntly put, it’s an attempt to throw verbal grenades in order to scare your opponent into surrendering.
Where does this leave non-procreating heterosexuals who don’t have kids because they choose not to (paging Pat and Bay Buchanan)?
Again, the key word “choose”; in short, heterosexuals can, and homosexuals can’t. That is a rather remarkable difference, and thus justifies treating the two differently.
Something tells me that if a legislature or the voters in a state approved gay marriage unanimously, you would still try to undermine it.
On the other hand, we KNOW legislatures and the voters in states have DISAPPROVED gay marriage, and you are still trying to undermine that.
In short, you are accusing others of doing in the hypothetical what you are already CLEARLY doing in the present.
The rights of a minority must never, ever be left to the whims of a majority, nor vice versa.
Then, since you insist marriage is a guaranteed right and that the majority should never be allowed to pass laws limiting it, you should be agitating against bans on polygamy, incestuous, and child marriage.
Pat,
You set out to answer the question I asked, but didnt, and like NDT observed, instead try to tear down heterosexual marriage.
The answer to your question is simple.
1. We encourage everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex, because regardless of individual fertitlity or intention, if all men and women are married, all children will be born into a nuclear family. And the more men and women are married to each other, the more children will be born into nuclear families. And
2. We are not the Soviet Union: we are not communist China. We don’t tell people how many children they must or must not have. The government has no business being that intrusive. We encourage what we deem beneficial with incentives.
It is the difference between a general test and a specific test. The general test is that the marriage include one member of each sex required to make nuclear families. You are proposing that we should have a specific and intrusive test, requiring people to prove their fertility and their intentions to have children for no better reason than because gays feel bad that they can’t even pass the general test. The problem with your argument is that, like my sister who is currently pregnant, couples who never intended to have children change their minds. Other couples who never intended to have children get pregnant accidentally and, thank God, decide to have and keep the child. And likewise, countless couples who have fertitlity problems end up having children. I think we’ve all heard stories of couples who try and try to have kids for years to no avail, and then one day, after theyve long given up, they get pregnant. Your test would exclude these people.
Now I challenge you to answer my question again: How do we encourage nuclear families if people like you keep insisting that we cant have an institution to encourage nuclear families?
Attmay, I put “gay agenda” in quotes because I fully understand that gays are not a monolithic group and thus there is no single “gay agenda.”
Some gays strongly desire that the marriage definition be expanded to include them. Many of those particular gays feel comfortable attacking and branding those gays who do not agree with them. For me, this is a squabble among gays.
As a heterosexual, I can relate to any gay as a fellow human except in terms of sexual intimacy. I have no opinion on how anyone gets his sexual gratification so long as it is not foisted on others or is physically or psychologically damaging to others. That load of words would include rape, trolling for the mentally incompetent and all forms of pedophilia. (If consenting adults agree to strip the skin off of one another, I will stand back, so long as they do not want me to pay the medical bill. I do not want to subsidize unprotected sex when AIDS is at stake, either.)
You live in a world where gays are in the low single digits as a per cent of the total population. By default, you live in a heterosexual world.
I am willing to speak for my heterosexual self, but I certainly don’t speak for the millions of other heterosexuals. I believe that I am the odd duck, because I make a concerted effort to have a dialog with the gay community. I am not unilaterally opposed to gay happiness. I have never seen why gays being left alone to follow the marriage pattern are better served by being married.
If we need to amend the laws so that gays can have visitation, guardianship, inheritance, etc. rights, then we should do so.
I use polygamy as my benchmark. History and culture is rife with examples of societies which have successfully accommodated polygamy. Also, history and culture is rife with societies which have successfully accommodated marriages between children and children and adults. But anyone attempting to wheel out the homosexual model has thin pickings. In fact, most of the examples are based on anthropological interpretations which are enormously subjective.
We are living in the most liberal times in hundreds of years. That we will even have this dialog speaks volumes about where we stand. To appeal for homosexual marriage on the basis of individual right or the grand concept of equality is a tribute to the effectiveness of our representative democracy.
“Then, since you insist marriage is a guaranteed right and that the majority should never be allowed to pass laws limiting it, you should be agitating against bans on polygamy, incestuous, and child marriage.”
Why? There is proven harm caused by all three of these. To equivocate them with gay marriage is false.
I am sorry you are hurt by having the irrefutable fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are different pointed out to you.
You’re not asking for the same legal rights and recognitions, you are asking for different legal rights and recognitions. Your parents did not, as is proven by your existence, marry persons of the same sex.
Obviously you do care very much what others think if you are trying to justify your relationship to others. No one is asking you to justify your relationship. You are free to have your relationship, and like John McCain, most Americans wish you every happiness in the world.
But you aren’t trying to justify your relationship, you’re trying to convince society that your relationship is just as important and beneficial to society as the type of relationship that produces nuclear families and reproduces society. And most people know that’s crap.
We used to do both those things, but liberals passed “no-fault” divorce, and have worked very hard to remove the stigma against single motherhood. Remember Murphy Brown vs. Dan Quayle? Murphy and liberals were wrong, and Quayle was right.
Society discriminates every day. Blind people are not allowed to drive, children are not allowed to vote, women are not allowed in combat roles on the front lines, men arent allowed to determine if their children live or are aborted. Like gay couples, they are all legally and constitutionally discriminated against because they arent able to fulfill the requirements of those institutions.
Pinkybear,
Probably the same place white liberals get off preaching about racism.
Thats right Comrade! Where do these bourgios capitalist pigs get off saying voters should decise what the purpose of marriage is! it is for the party to decide! Send them to the labor camps!
Sixty-two percent of Californian voters opposed gay marriage last time it came before them. Sorry, thats not evangelicals, thats mainstream. And quite frankly, evangelicals have just as much right to vote based on their values as you do based on yours.
I have an idea! Liberals love to experiment, lets do an experiment! Let’s put 100 heterosexual couples on one island, 100 lesbian couples on another island, and 100 gay male couples on a third island, then lets come back in 100 years and see just which relationship proved “supreme.”
Where is the proven harm caused by polygamy? Where is the proven harm caused by non-reproductive relationships between related adults?
the truth is that the restrictions on polygamy, incestuous relationships and same sex relationships all exist because they all conflict negatively with the institution’s purpose which has to do with the nuclear family and reproduction. If you take those out of the equation there is no logical reason for any of those restrictions.
American Elephant: I have long admired your logic and suave calm. Personally, I have lost the the link in trying to respond to Pinky Bear. I bow to your ability to find a thread to grasp and respond with great reason and restraint. Kudos.
Well thats very flattering indeed coming from you! I dunno about the suave calm bit, I think i’ve been known to go off, but I at least try to be logical.
I wanted to say though, the reason no one is able to answer the question I posed is because the very root of this entire argument is that gays dont want an institution that encourages the nuclear family, they want an institution that tells them, dishonestly, that gay relationships are just as important and valuable to society as heterosexual realtionships.
“Your screaming “heterosexual supremacy†is roughly on the same level as Al Sharpton screaming “racistâ€; bluntly put, it’s an attempt to throw verbal grenades in order to scare your opponent into surrendering.”
No it isn’t. I have found this to be a more apt term than “homophobia” to describe anti-gay animus.
Believing that homosexual relationships should not have the same benefits as heterosexual marriages because they are physically unable to make babies falls under that heading.
“Where is the proven harm caused by polygamy? Where is the proven harm caused by non-reproductive relationships between related adults?”
There is plenty of proven harm caused by polygamy, mainly the reduction of available spouses. There is no harm between non-reproductive relationships between adults.
Society discriminates every day. Blind people are not allowed to drive, children are not allowed to vote, women are not allowed in combat roles on the front lines, men arent allowed to determine if their children live or are aborted.
These are not analogous to gay marriage. Blind people are not allowed to drive because they cannot see the road. Children are not allowed to vote because they are not of the age of consent. Women are not allowed in combat roles on the front lines because they are not as physically capable as men. Men are not allowed to determine if their children live or are aborted because they’re not the ones carrying the baby. They can, however, influence the decision if they accept the responsibility for knocking up their girlfriends/wives.
If society values and wants to encourage the nuclear family. how does it do so when people keep insisting that the institution that exists to encourage the nuclear family should encourage something else instead?
You seem to hold a zero-sum view of marriage. I agree with Pat that there is more than just the encouragement (via social engineering) of the so-called “nuclear family” (a term which dates back to 1947). You are not required to have children even if you are married.
The question is, though, whether marriage should be cheapened in an attempt to prevent gay promiscuity, especially when marriage has been proven completely ineffective in doing so.
Gay marriage has not been around for very long. A short time ago many gays scoffed at it as being an affront to gay liberation “values.” It will be decades before its true effect on gay male promiscuity (lesbians don’t seem to be as promiscuous) is known. But there does seem to be a bit of a gay generation gap regarding marriage, monogamy, and promiscuity.
There are still promiscuous heterosexuals, even with centuries of marriage. If the cheapening of marriage has already occurred, it’s entirely because of heterosexuals. The so-called “sexual revolution” cheapened marriage more than removing one requirement (difference in gender) and no others.
Believing that homosexual relationships should not have the same benefits as heterosexual marriages because they are physically unable to make babies falls under that heading.
Correction, Attmay; it is because they are ALWAYS physically unable to make babies, without exception.
And hence the cheapening process begins.
Marriage used to be about protecting children and their rights and needs; now, since gays and lesbians can’t produce children, they insist that’s not important.
Marriage used to be about monogamy; now, since gays and lesbians don’t want to give up promiscuity, they insist that’s not important.
Marriage used to be about perpetuating society through children; now, since gays and lesbians can’t, they insist that’s not important.
In short, when gays and lesbians can’t meet the rules and demands of marriage, they denigrate them, insist they’re not important, and demand that they be thrown out.
THAT is what cheapens marriage.
As AE brilliantly put it:
I wanted to say though, the reason no one is able to answer the question I posed is because the very root of this entire argument is that gays dont want an institution that encourages the nuclear family, they want an institution that tells them, dishonestly, that gay relationships are just as important and valuable to society as heterosexual realtionships.
Marriage used to be about monogamy; now, since gays and lesbians don’t want to give up promiscuity, they insist that’s not important.
Marriage used to be about perpetuating society through children; now, since gays and lesbians can’t, they insist that’s not important.
In short, when gays and lesbians can’t meet the rules and demands of marriage, they denigrate them, insist they’re not important, and demand that they be thrown out.
Marriage used to be merely a business contract. Love has come into the equation only recently.
I have never demanded that they be thrown out, especially not monogamy.
Saying that child-rearing is not the only goal of marriage is not the same as saying that child-rearing is not a goal of marriage.
Heliotrope,
Are you a guy? I had always assumed that because heliotrope is a flower that you were a girl. (There’s my old-fashioned, sexist, gender bias showing)
The question is, though, whether marriage should be cheapened in an attempt to prevent gay promiscuity, especially when marriage has been proven completely ineffective in doing so.
Wow, that was loaded, NDT. By the way, when did you stop beating your husband?
Sorry, but I don’t regarding marrying my partner as “cheapening” marriage. If you feel that your doing so, that’s your problem, not mine.
A better option would be to confront the promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors in the community directly; that would not only be good for gay people, but for society as a whole, and it would accomplish the same thing without having to cheapen or redefine marriage.
Marriage or not, eliminating promiscuity and irresponsible behaviors is a great goal. I’ve advocated a two-sided approach for it. You still advocate excusing those who excoriate their children for being gay.
And your claim that it has been proved that same sex marriage will not lessen promiscuity is false. We haven’t had any tradition of same sex marriage in this country or elsewhere yet. We still have parents telling their children that they’re awful for being homosexual let alone have marriage. So, if I’m right, it will take time to tell if the promiscuity gap will close or not.
A better option would be to confront the promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors in the community directly; that would not only be good for gay people, but for society as a whole, and it would accomplish the same thing without having to cheapen or redefine marriage.
Pat,
You set out to answer the question I asked, but didnt, and like NDT observed, instead try to tear down heterosexual marriage.
AmericanElephant, where did I tear down heterosexual marriage in my post?
The answer to your question is simple.
1. We encourage everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex, because regardless of individual fertitlity or intention, if all men and women are married, all children will be born into a nuclear family. And the more men and women are married to each other, the more children will be born into nuclear families. And
That’s fine. Except we should NOT encourage everyone to marry a person of the oppositie sex. We should not encourage those who cannot commit to another person to marry, even if the wife can have lots of children. We certainly shouldn’t encourage gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex.
2. We are not the Soviet Union: we are not communist China. We don’t tell people how many children they must or must not have. The government has no business being that intrusive. We encourage what we deem beneficial with incentives.
That’s fine. If a couple gets married, then I agree we shouldn’t be intrusive and demand deadlines on when they should have children. But you’ve made the point of what you believe the reason for encouraging marriage is, having children. And you believe that this is the reason that same sex couples should be banned from being married. But, as far as I can see, (and correct me if I’m wrong) you are fine with hetersexual couples who cannot or will not have children from being married. I haven’t seen you say anything like, “Look, I don’t want to change the laws and I don’t want to be intrusive, but I really don’t think heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children should marry. We should, at the very least discourage it, because these couples are attempting to take away an institution that encourages nuclear families.”
It is the difference between a general test and a specific test. The general test is that the marriage include one member of each sex required to make nuclear families. You are proposing that we should have a specific and intrusive test, requiring people to prove their fertility and their intentions to have children for no better reason than because gays feel bad that they can’t even pass the general test. The problem with your argument is that, like my sister who is currently pregnant, couples who never intended to have children change their minds. Other couples who never intended to have children get pregnant accidentally and, thank God, decide to have and keep the child. And likewise, countless couples who have fertitlity problems end up having children. I think we’ve all heard stories of couples who try and try to have kids for years to no avail, and then one day, after theyve long given up, they get pregnant. Your test would exclude these people.
I get all you’re saying here. But I’m not the one who is making the ability to procreate in order to marry a condition.
But if I did share your procreation for marriage condition, then I would discourage any couple in which, for any reason, at least one is infertile (no chance of having children), or the couple has no intention from having children. Sure, couples can change their mind. And if and when they do, at that point, they can then get married.
But again, I don’t advocate these measures, as I believe there is more than the purpose of procreation for marriage. And for the same reasons we do encourage heterosexual committed couples to marry, even if they cannot or will not have children, IMO, we should do the same for same sex couples.
Now I challenge you to answer my question again: How do we encourage nuclear families if people like you keep insisting that we cant have an institution to encourage nuclear families?
I’m not insisting anything. I guess we disagree that marrying same sex couples and having an institution to encourage nuclear families are mutually exclusive. I don’t believe that when we see a couple in their 80s get married, that that somehow means we don’t have an institution to encourage nuclear families. Same for same sex couples.
You apparently believe that if same sex couples do get married, that we no longer have an institution to encourage a nuclear family. If that’s your premise, then I or anyone else can answer your question. I believe that this premise is incorrect.
Oops, that should be “cannot” in the second to last line above.
AE, this heliotrope is a heterosexual male, 66, and very interested in getting to understand our social issues. My handle comes from a nickname my father gave to me. I was quite young when he died and spent a lot of years without a family, so it is one of my treasured possessions.
Pat, I find you arguments to be quite well reasoned. There are two points I think need to be addressed: 1) Why, in your opinion, should the state regulate marriage at all? 2) What should a gay couple hope to achieve from being married that they cannot achieve by living together?
If you feel that the state should regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) What should the state regulations be? 1b) And why should gay marriage be included and not other forms? 1c) On what authority do these regulations rest?
If you feel that the state should not regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) Has marriage been reduced to anarchy?
See! Thats what I get for making assumptions. Well, now I know.
Attmay,
I believe heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples and I am neither a self-loathing homosexual nor do I have animus towards gays. Indeed, I think that my recognition and acceptance of the fact that children come from heterosexuality which absolutely makes it better and more valuable to society makes me a more well balanced and realistic person than most gays. The animus and self-loathing I see comes from gays who are trying desperately to believe the falsehood that their relationships are just as important and valuable as the relationships that create life and renew society. They arent! Period. Deal.
All marriage reduces the number of available spouses, so, sorry, that one doesn’t fly.
Fabulous, so we’ve just proven that if the purpose of marriage isn’t reproduction, or isnt solely reproduction, as it would have to be to allow gays, that there is no longer any logical reason to prohibit polygamy or the marriage of relations. As I’ve said 100 times, if the purpose of marriage centers around reproduction, and promoting the nuclear family, then the restrictions against same sex couples, polygamist marriages, and marriages between relatives all make sense. Once the purpose is no longer centered on procreation, and the nuclear family, all logical restrictions on those become instead arbitrary and illogical.
And no same sex couple has both testicles and a womb. I’m afraid they are perfectly analogous.
You may agree with pat til you are both blue in the face, but you and pat don’t define the purpose of marriage — the people do. And the people, through initiative and their legislatures have made it clear that the reason government gets involved in marriage is to encourage the nuclear family:
Now are they mutually exclusive? Of course they are. If the intention is to encourage as many people as possible to marry a person of the opposite sex and start nuclear families, offering the same incentive to do something entirely different is counter-productive. Its as if you want to encourage more people to drive hybrids because “its good for the environment” by giving them a tax break if they buy one, and then giving the same incentive to people who drive Hummers, because, after all that stimulates the economy too.
And yes, the term “nuclear family” may only go back to 1947, I’ll take your word for it, but I assure you, the concept goes back millenia.
That’s correct. But the beauty of the institution is that it doesnt require men and women to have children if they dont want to, by simply getting men and women to marry it ensure that when children ARE born, they are born into a nuclear family.
Beautiful in its simplicity. And yet gays are adamant that they WILL pound their square peg into that round hole no matter what — even if it destroys the institution.
By trying to assert that encouraging the nuclear family can’t be the purpose of marriage because we encourage all men and women to marry even though some of them cant or have no intention to have children.
Sure we should, and we do. We don’t require it, it’s not compulsive — but we encourage it because we deem it beneficial to society. And we leave it up to individuals to decide if its the right choice for them.
No, I’ve asserted what the people have said the reason for encouraging marriage is…
Sarcasm duly noted, but the problem with your point is that couples who never intend to have children often change their minds (like my sister who is due any time now), or get pregnant by accident. And we’ve all heard plenty of stories of couples who have tried and tried to have children to no avail who suddenly get pregnant after they had long since given up hope. We want to encourage all these children to be born into nuclear families as well.
But as I said above, gays want to destroy the general test of one member of each of the sexes required for procreation, NOT because it doesnt work, but because it excludes them.
You are. You just got done saying we should discourage some men and women from marrying because they cant procreate. The fact remains though, that as long as we encourage ALL men and women to marry, the more children will be born into legally bound, nuclear families. And that is good for society.
That is all well and good, and no doubt there are countless individual reasons for getting married, but as far as society is concerned, the people get to determine if and why there is reason for government to encourage marriage. and they get to decide what those reasons are. And I am aware of no state that has said the reason society should subsidize marriage is for any other reason than procreation and the best interests of children.
You can disagree all you want, but if we elevate same sex couples to the same level as the nuclear family, then by definition we cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal.
Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. It is simple logic. If we start giving all the same incentives to people who intend to have and raise children outside the nuclear family ideal as we give to people to encourage them TO have children within the nuclear family ideal, then we can no longer claim the purpose of the institution is to encourage the ideal of the nuclear family because we are encouraging “contra-nuclear” families just as much.
In other words gay families and nuclear families are at odds with eachother. We cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal if we put gay families on the same level.
Which of course is exactly what this argument is all about in the first place. Gays WANT society to say that their relationships are just as important and just as valuable to society as the relationships that bring life into the world and replenish society.
In other words, gays want society to lie to them. That is what the gay marriage debate is all about.
Wow, that was loaded, NDT. By the way, when did you stop beating your husband?
I think AE has the best response to that.
If the intention is to encourage as many people as possible to marry a person of the opposite sex and start nuclear families, offering the same incentive to do something entirely different is counter-productive. Its as if you want to encourage more people to drive hybrids because “its good for the environment†by giving them a tax break if they buy one, and then giving the same incentive to people who drive Hummers, because, after all that stimulates the economy too.
Furthermore, I would point out the logic being used here to argue for gay “marriage”; basically, they claim that, because some heterosexuals are imperfect, i.e. infertile, that gays and lesbians that are all imperfect should be allowed to participate. Again, the analogy is arguing that because some sighted people are bad drivers, that all blind people should be allowed to drive.
Pat, I find you arguments to be quite well reasoned. There are two points I think need to be addressed:
Thanks, heliotrope, I appreciate it.
1) Why, in your opinion, should the state regulate marriage at all?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Some (on both sides of the argument) have said it would be best if the state got completely out of the marriage business, and just have civil unions (for gay and straight couples), then leave it up to the church if they want to marry the couple. I would be fine with that, and that is probably the best solution (but it seems unrealistic that would happen). Even if it did, I believe the state would still need to regulate civil unions, so that we don’t have adults having a civil union with a 10 year old, a dog, or a close relative.
2) What should a gay couple hope to achieve from being married that they cannot achieve by living together?
For one thing, they would then get the same legal benefits that a married straight couple would have. Sure, you could argue that with time, effort, a good lawyer, and a few bucks, you can get many of the same benefits, and that’s fine and works for some couples who can afford to do so. But to me, it’s almost like telling a class of citizens that they can only vote if they take the time, effort, a good lawyer, and a few thousand bucks or so, where as the rest of the citizens simply have to turn 18 in order to vote.
The other reason is for gay children and teens growing up. Straight kids see that getting married as a goal at sometime after becoming an adult. Right now, gay kids don’t see that. It is something, that at this moment, is something that they will always fall short on. If it was just marriage, maybe this wouldn’t be a problem. But with the acceptance of same sex marriage (hopefully) there will be an overall acceptance of our gay teens. Hopefully, we’ll get passed the days where gay teens are no longer ridiculed and/or excoriated by their peers, their parents, etc., simply for being gay. Yes, it’s possible that we can have this without having same sex marriage, but I see these two things as being connected.
If you feel that the state should regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) What should the state regulations be? 1b) And why should gay marriage be included and not other forms? 1c) On what authority do these regulations rest?
Again, I’m not sure I understand your questions here, so I’ll do my best and try to answer.
For 1a, the only thing that I advocate at this point is to simply change the definition of married is to eliminate the “of the opposite sex” requirement and keep everything else the same. (Actually, the only other thing I would change, whether or not same sex marriage happens, is to require all states to have 18 as the minimum age for marriage, but perhaps this should be a debate in some other forum).
For 1b, when you say “other forms,” I assume your referring marriage between close relatives, with children, non-human animals or plants, or polygamy. Personally, I believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is as valid as heterosexuality. I don’t find anything immoral about it, and, as with heterosexuality, is fine when expressed responsibly. As such, allowing and encouraging gay persons to find that special someone to marry, and all the other things that encompass marriage, such as monogamy, would be beneficial to gay persons and society as a whole.
I cannot say the same thing for the other relationship forms. There is, in my view, inherent dangers in allowing close relatives to marry, and not just genetic problems that result from children from these relationships. The problem with pedophilia and bestiality is that it does not involve two consenting adults. The problem with polygamy is, well no monogamy. Of course, simply banning marriage for these types of relationships is not going to stop incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and promiscuity. But we shouldn’t be encouraging these types of relationships by allowing these types of marriages to occur.
1c, ultimately, it’s the people of the state. I am fully aware that despite my advocating same sex marriage, it isn’t going to happen unless the majority of voters (or at least a significant minority of voters) believe that marriage should have this modification to its definition. I believe I (and others) have made an excellent case. But unless there are enough people who also feel that way, I realize it isn’t going to happen.
If you feel that the state should not regulate marriage, then question #1 has another part. 1a) Has marriage been reduced to anarchy?
I don’t think so. I’m probably alone here, even among those who support same sex marriage. I believe that marriage is stronger today than it was in the past. Sure, things looked better in the past, because marriages lasted longer, less divorces, and all. But if the only thing that was holding a couple in which one or both were miserable, was that it was too tough to dissolve the marriage, doesn’t make marriage strong. I’m impressed today when people stay married for a long time, despite the relative ease it is to get a divorce today. Perhaps the solution here is some middle ground.
Anyway, I hope I answered your questions. If you think I misunderstood, please clarify, and I’ll try again to answer your questions.
By trying to assert that encouraging the nuclear family can’t be the purpose of marriage because we encourage all men and women to marry even though some of them cant or have no intention to have children.
AmericanElephant, I’m not sure how this tears down heterosexual marriage, but if you really feel that, I guess I can’t change your mind.
Sure we should, and we do. We don’t require it, it’s not compulsive — but we encourage it because we deem it beneficial to society. And we leave it up to individuals to decide if its the right choice for them.
I disagree, though, that a gay person getting married to a person of the opposite sex is beneficial to society. The problem is a culture that makes a young gay adult believe that they should marry a person of the opposite sex.
You are. You just got done saying we should discourage some men and women from marrying because they cant procreate.
As you noted later on, that is not the case. I’m just noting what I believe is an inconsistency on your part. I know you believed you addressed it, but I still disagree with your argument here.
Sarcasm duly noted, but the problem with your point is that couples who never intend to have children often change their minds (like my sister who is due any time now), or get pregnant by accident. And we’ve all heard plenty of stories of couples who have tried and tried to have children to no avail who suddenly get pregnant after they had long since given up hope. We want to encourage all these children to be born into nuclear families as well.
No sarcasm intended. I’m still trying to understand what I see as an inconsistency. Yes, I understand that couples change their mind about not having children. But what if they don’t? My brother and his wife have no intention of having children, and at this point, it soon won’t matter if they change their mind. Is their marriage not at the same level as one with children?
Let’s say we have a couple who gets married that has no intention of having children because the woman does not want children (or is infertile). Shouldn’t they not get married, and encourage the man who does want children to find another suitable woman who also wants children? As you suggested, you would say it’s that man’s ultimate choice to get married (to the woman who doesn’t want to have children). I simply argue the same regarding a gay man who would choose to marry another man as opposed to marry a woman simply because they are physically able to have children (even if they chose not to have children).
The fact remains though, that as long as we encourage ALL men and women to marry, the more children will be born into legally bound, nuclear families. And that is good for society.
Okay, we disagree here. I agree with you that we should encourage nuclear families and all that. But encouraging ALL men and women to marry (persons of the opposite sex) is NOT good for society.
That is all well and good, and no doubt there are countless individual reasons for getting married, but as far as society is concerned, the people get to determine if and why there is reason for government to encourage marriage. and they get to decide what those reasons are. And I am aware of no state that has said the reason society should subsidize marriage is for any other reason than procreation and the best interests of children.
That may be so. Just giving my opinion here like you are. Suppose in the near future same sex marriage is allowed (so that, according to you, society would then see an additional purpose of marriage), is your opinion going to change?
In other words gay families and nuclear families are at odds with eachother. We cannot claim that the nuclear family is the ideal if we put gay families on the same level.
I don’t see this as some zero-sum thing. It’s not like I’m advocating that if 1000 same sex couples get married, that means that 1000 opposite sex couples who would otherwise get married now can’t.
I think AE has the best response to that.
NDT, I disagree that AE’s analogy is valid here.
basically, they claim that, because some heterosexuals are imperfect, i.e. infertile, that gays and lesbians that are all imperfect should be allowed to participate.
I disagree with your notion of imperfect to describe couples in which one or both are infertile, couples that do not intend to have children, or same sex couples.
Pat,-
Thanks for your thoughtful and complete answers. We may not agree, but you have clearly thought these things through and I fully respect your opinions.
Too many folks who are on both sides of the issue are not particularly thoughtful of the questions I asked.
The state has strong reasons to regulate marriage. How we arrive at modifying those regulations is the challenge for those who wish to change them as well for those who want to hold fast to what is in place.
I hope you do not feel patronized by my questions. I think you have given excellent responses and you have provided an honest example of how this social debate should be conducted.
“Nuclear family”. Thats a good one. I was raised in such a family. and yep it was Nuclear.
My parrents divorced, My father beat my mother, My father molested me. did I forget to say he was ” christian”. So you want to talk about Nuclear families, let me explain. The war is over. Gay Men and women want equality. We have had shoved down our necks all our life ” do this, do that”, “love this and that”. Nonetheless, Gay men and women are no less American than anyone else is.
What the crime here is, most Americans can only identify with the Gay community by what they see at ” Pride” day.
That does not represent the Gay community at large, and never should be thought of as such.
Well, I do support full marriage rights for Gays and Lesbians. I have no problems with it, but I do however have issues with narrow minded, not so right people who would rather shoot you than to extend the same rights to all.
Robert, I’m sorry about the bad experience of your childhood. Having strong and healthy nuclear families are important and should be encouraged. My position is that this and advocating same sex marriage are not contradictory. I would say that the type of nuclear family you were apart of should clearly not be encouraged. Also, I would say that thankfully, molesters are not reflective of all Christians.
Heliotrope, again, thanks for your comments. I think I’ve stated before that you have made a good argument for your position, and I’ll repeat it now. I respect yours and others’ position on this issue, even if we disagree.
#45: “What the crime here is, most Americans can only identify with the Gay community by what they see at †Pride†day. That does not represent the Gay community at large, and never should be thought of as such.”
Sorry, Robert, but annual gay pride festivals are the most visible public expression of current gay culture, its values, interests, priorities, political beliefs, identity and behavior, period. The festivals are planned by armies of gays starting the day after the previous festival concludes, and its primary objective is to attract as much media attention (and scrutiny) as possible. The message of “pride” is unmistakable–it seeks to convey to everyone else in the community that this is who the gays are and whatever is expressed is to be uniformly celebrated as positive and nothing to be hidden or ashamed of. In short, this is how the millions of gay people who participate WANT to be perceived by the community and the greater the visibility the festivals attract from people outside the gay community, then the more successful the event has been.
So, your argument that the festivals do not “represent the gay community at large” is just plain wrong. The festivals by their very nature “represent the gay community at large” because it is planned, staffed, performed and attended by millions of gays “in the community,” and the fact that they become larger and crazier and have greater attendance every year proves that the gay community is perfectly happy with how it has CHOSEN to represent itself to the public. The fact that you may not identify with anyone involved with the events is irrelevant and at most proves that you are detached from “the community” and what it stands for.
Thus, your admonition that the gay community “never should be THOUGHT OF as such” is completely misdirected. The gay community has absolutely no right to be “thought of” by outsiders as anything greater or lesser than what is on full display on the floats coming down main street, or worse, whatever is nakedly skanking around in public on Folsom Street in SFO. If the gay community would prefer to be “thought of” differently, then maybe someday the spectacles currently displayed with “PRIDE” every year will be changed. But until then, they can expect to be sized up by exactly what they enthusiastically put out there in the public’s collective face.
And speaking of perceptions, it’s pretty hypocritical of you to be indignant that society might actually perceive gays in the precise way that they choose to present themselves in public, but then gripe about “people who would rather shoot you than to extend the same rights to all.” I’m sorry, but I must have missed the EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO WOULD RATHER BLOW HOMOS AWAY THAN LET THEM GET MARRIED float in the parade this year. Apparently in your world, if a gay man walks down Folsom Street in a leather jockstrap and then climbs up on a table and gets gang-plowed by 17 guys while an audience of 200 watches, then it’s totally unacceptable for anyone to dare to even “think” of gays as being somewhat promiscuous. But if a Christian conservative expresses opposition to same-sex marriage, then it’s perfectly fine and dandy for you to cavalierly say that his beliefs include killing you with a firearm with impunity if it would keep you from having a right to marry.
Because youre claiming that if the people want the purpose of marriage to be encouraging the nuclear family they have to kick everyone who doesnt have kids out of the institution, which is, of course, tearing down the institution just because it doesnt include you.
no one is saying gay people should marry a person of the opposite sex
There is no inconsistency. Encouraging men and women to marry furthers the goal whether they have children or not. the more men and women marry, the more children will be born into legally binding nuclear families. The more men and women dont marry the more children will be born out of wedlock. it really is a very simple formula. Youre just hacked off that it doesnt include homosexuality, so youre trying to pick it apart and tear it down and find some reason why it cant be allowed to exist as it does.
holy cow, you just dont get it do you? Its not necessary for the government to go sticking their nose in everyones business to find out if and when theyre going to have kids. Just getting men and women to marry is enough to ensure that when children are born they are born into wedlock. And yes, people decide not to get married for precisely those reasons all the time. But the government doesnt need to meddle in peoples decisions and has no business doing so. getting men and women married furthers the goal all by itself.
You really need to learn the difference between the words “encourage” and “force”. We already encourage ALL men and women to get married to a person of the opposite sex by offering incentives. No one is saying anyone should be made to marry someone they dont want to. Just that marriage is good for society, so here, if you marry someone we’ll give you a cookie.
And Stalin was an atheist who killed millions. And jeffery Dahmer was a homosexual who ate young men. I win.
Do try not to make ridiculous meaningless anecdotal arguments.
WHat war? You have equality. What you WANT is for society to tell you that anal sex is just as valuable to society as reproduction and children. You are asking for two very unequal things to be declared equal. They are not. Period.
Nobody ever said they were. What we said is that reproduction is more valuable to society than anal sex. And it is. grow up. drop the victimhood. Youre free. Youre equal. But quit asking society to declare same sex relationships as valuable to society as bringing new life into the world. Its not. It never will be. Get over it.
Because youre claiming that if the people want the purpose of marriage to be encouraging the nuclear family they have to kick everyone who doesnt have kids out of the institution, which is, of course, tearing down the institution just because it doesnt include you.
AmericanElephant, again, that was never my point. I think we should encourage all committed couples to get married whether or not they have children. The genders of the couples do not matter to me. Further, I’ll be okay whether or not I can get married. My argument is that I believe it will better the gay community and society as a whole, and will not hurt in encouraging the nuclear family. Obviously, you disagree. So it seems like there isn’t much more to say here.
no one is saying gay people should marry a person of the opposite sex
We agree. I’ll just go further and say a gay person SHOULD NOT marry a person of the opposite sex.
holy cow, you just dont get it do you? Its not necessary for the government to go sticking their nose in everyones business to find out if and when theyre going to have kids.
No. I do get your argument. I really do.
Just getting men and women to marry is enough to ensure that when children are born they are born into wedlock.
And that’s your argument. Fine. I respect it. I simply believe there is more to the argument than what you give. Sure, it’s up to the people to decide what marriage is, the purpose, and who gets married. This has been changing over time. So we’ll see in the next few years or so, what the people will decide what marriage is, the purpose, and who gets married. We simply disagree whether or not it should include same sex couples or not.
You really need to learn the difference between the words “encourage†and “forceâ€.
I get the difference. For example, I’m saying not only should we not “force” gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex, we should not “encourage” it either. However, I also believe that we should “encourage” a gay person to marry someone of the same sex.
Do try not to make ridiculous meaningless anecdotal arguments.
Actually, I agree with you here. Not that I think anecdotes are ridiculous or meaningless. But they do not make the argument for either side of the issue. And I’ve seen people on both sides making such claims as “proof” of their argument. Some will even provide links to their anecdotes, as if that somehow bolsters their case, and repeatedly do so. Yikes!