Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

When you can't win the argument, create a meta-discussion about the argument itself, and deflect.

Quote:

They are insulated from the big picture yet making conclusions about it

Impossible, individuals who don't agree with the Gay rights agenda are not insulated from the human race, they look out upon the collective and make their own evaluation of what is best for the collective. Unless Thomas wants to argue that all who don't agree with the pro gays rights side are hermits his reasoning is nonsense, life as a human among the human collective and intellectual theory at the academy are not at all the same thing.

Insulated from evidence contrary to their claims. Claims such as gay being bad for children will be insulated from data about what will happens to children raised by gays already. The same applies for the claims of religious oppression by the granting of marriage rights to gays.

Quote:

Insulated from evidence contrary to their claims. Claims such as gay being bad for children will be insulated from data about what will happens to children raised by gays already. The same applies for the claims of religious oppression by the granting of marriage rights to gays.

If we had the evidence by way of scientific evaluation such that it was clear that the gay rights lobby claims are true then I would agree with you. Those who oppose gays rights at that point could fairly by said the be insular and not willing to consider facts and evidence. However, as I said a few months ago in my opinion this question has not been answered yet by evaluation. You can disagree with me on that, but in that case we should be arguing the quality of evidence so far accumulated instead of calling each other derogatory names.

what we have so far is some poorly conducted studies, and a lot of gum flapping about rights and why gays can't be denied what they want no matter what evaluation of the effects of gay behaviour on the collective shows.

there is no good evidence either way, science in inconclusive right now. We could change that in a decade or less if we wanted to.

Your argument is crap, because you yourself have strenuously argued that the evidence does not matter, that gays must get what they want on equal rights grounds, that the majority has no right to make any decision because equal rights supersedes any other claims.

ya you have, but I am not going to sift through 75+ pages to find it.

So if what you say about your position is true then scientific based evidence that homosexual behaviour damages society would to you be a compelling state interest that would if serious enough trump the equal rights claims of the homosexual rights political groups. Are you willing to so stipulate?

Extensive and specific science showing a harm to 'society' is the only way that people's rights can be limited, when it is perfectly clear that nobody is being put in any sort of immediate danger by a behavior. The default position is for people to have rights, not for them not to have them; it is the bigot's duty to prove that people should not have rights.

ya you have, but I am not going to sift through 75+ pages to find it.

Quote:

Extensive and specific science showing a harm to 'society' is the only way that people's rights can be limited, when it is perfectly clear that nobody is being put in any sort of immediate danger by a behavior. The default position is for people to have rights, not for them not to have them; it is the bigot's duty to prove that people should not have rights.

that is trumped by precedence. The entire history of the USA is one where it was accepted fact that homosexuals should not have all of the rights and privileges of those who are not. In this case the onus is upon those who desire the change, and if they can't show good cause then the correct action is to make no change.

Right now the claim is that we can **** all over the beliefs and claims of all of those who came before us, without even taking the time or trouble to prove that they were wrong. This is unacceptable.

I could just as well demand that you document other than what I claim, but thankfully I am not as big of an ass as you are.

Quote:

Extensive and specific science showing a harm to 'society' is the only way that people's rights can be limited, when it is perfectly clear that nobody is being put in any sort of immediate danger by a behavior. The default position is for people to have rights, not for them not to have them; it is the bigot's duty to prove that people should not have rights.

that is trumped by precedence. The entire history of the USA is one where it was accepted fact that homosexuals should not have all of the rights and privileges of those who are not. In this case the onus is upon those who desire the change, and if they can't show good cause then the correct action is to make no change.

Right now the claim is that we can **** all over the beliefs and claims of all of those who came before us, without even taking the time or trouble to prove that they were wrong. This is unacceptable.

No, it is not. A history of religious-fueled bigotry means nothing before the law

Quote:

No, it is not. A history of religious-fueled bigotry means nothing before the law

Wow, so your claim is the up till now US Constitutional Law was directed by religous bigotry, but we magically are reasonable rational creatures??

Again, the complete lack of respect for your ancestors, the ones who where smart enough to build America into a super power and that was till recently the most free society on earth.

Nobody cares whether you find it 'acceptable' or not. The problem is that you think that because things were done a certain way in the past, this provides justification for doing them this way in the future. It does not. Actions and laws have to be justifiable based on solid legal and ethical principles at any point, regardless of what happened in the past.

that is trumped by precedence. The entire history of the USA is one where it was accepted [blah, blah, blah]....