[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Oh, so what you were REALLY saying when I made a secular argument is "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to tell you you haven't produced what I originally asked for (a secular argument)." And when I don't put up with your changing the meaning of words, you say it isn't a GOOD secular argument. Again, not very honest of you, Cali.

I'm not presenting a three-year researched, thoroughly exhaustive and logically airtight, fully data-driven treatise. (These don't exist in the real world when it comes to social sciences, BTW). And I think in the end, that is what you are going to require to satisfy your now-changing definition of what you are asking for. Because I suspect you have made up your mind already that no "GOOD" secular arguments exist for not allowing homosexual marriage, and thus, any argument I put forth isn't "GOOD".

What I HAVE presented is an argument that lays the basic logical and philosophical groundwork, as well as a few data points, that provide the framework for understanding why gay marriage might well be destructive and undesirable. Everyone can recite the reasons why we ought to have gay marriage, because the media harps on them incessantly. But the reaction of most people who I have given this argument to say something like "I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense." They seem to think it is a good argument, so I don't buy your "provide a GOOD secular argument" comeback. (Almost all of them are college-educated, BTW - but obviously, not as educated as Cali).

lol! No, it isn't a bad argument because I say so. It is a bad argument for the very specific reasons I presented (which I note you haven't even attempted to address). This post of yours is the equivalent of saying "my argument about cows eating grass is only a bad argument because you said so." That isn't the case at all. It is a bad argument because it is logically deficient, assumes causation without any evidence that gay marriage is the causitive effect, etc. I would assume from your board name that you are a statistician. Can you honestly not see the very clear flaws of the "evidence" you presented?