New survey on sexual orientation in the US

[roguenuke]

The time you argue your point, you are not arguing to feed starving children or similarly worthy causes. Time is a major resource. And when you are tired from fighting for gay rights, you will find it hard to muster the energy to take up the issue of mass murder here or there. Issues that are then less important and so get less energy and resource dedicated.

I can do more than one thing at a time. I alone cannot feed most small children of the world, nor is it my responsibility to do so. However, I can argue this point to my heart's desire.

You are attempting to paint only those fighting for equal rights as "heartless" screaming "think about those children you could be feeding right now instead of doing this". Yet, this argument fails in many aspects because a) that would be the same for you arguing about this and anyone who is anti-ssm or anti-gay rights fighting to prevent same sex marriage or prevent equality, b) it assumes that it is possible or probable that every single person fighting for gay rights is capable of doing something to help feed those children, and c) it assumes that this is important to those people. There are actually many more.

I don't find it hard to muster energy for anything at the moment. I just got selected for Chief in the Navy reserves, have a part time job, am taking online classes, taking care of/raising two sons, being a wife, running errands for our household, trying to work in learning how to drive/getting a license, doing household chores, and getting a knee problem handled. I'm pretty sure after juggling all this (which should level off in the near future), and still having energy left to debate, I can find energy after this debate is over to help in other causes that I find important and worth my time. Pretty sure plenty of other people feel the same way.

 

[Lursa]

But that is not what I was thinking about. And as an group that I was quite partial to and which was as natural to my environment as any other gets badly on my nerves and has lost a good of sympathy with its loudness.

Yeah, I bet the men that hosed women's suffragette marches and threw rotten fruit at them had 'lost a good of [sic] sympathy' at their loudness too. I'm sure they looked back with pride at their resistance tho! /sarcasm

Just like other civil rights marches, protests, not moving to the back of the bus, etc....*fighting* for your civil rights can be a little inconvenient for other people. Shucks.

 

[Lursa]

It was never something that registered as worth supporting. I have really known a lot of gays, but never any that had the type of problems talked about here. Once or twice in smaller cities very viable gays I knew were uptight about outing themselves. But it was never any problem once they had. No. It always seemed an also there question without any real significance. Better use the energy fighting for starving kids or better schools.

There are 10s of thousands, outside your personal acquaintance apparently, that can attest to being fired, being kicked out of places, losing custody of their kids, being socially shunned, not being able to adopt, being beaten...including beaten to death. I remember a couple of teens in high school that were regularly beaten for being gay. I dont even think one of them was.

 

[Lursa]

The time you argue your point, you are not arguing to feed starving children or similarly worthy causes. Time is a major resource. And when you are tired from fighting for gay rights, you will find it hard to muster the energy to take up the issue of mass murder here or there. Issues that are then less important and so get less energy and resource dedicated.

This is a ridiculous straw man.

From that perspective, why bother fighting for anything? And who is the arbiter of what should be the ONE thing to fight for? Or who should create the list of priorities?

Please. Weakest claim I've ever seen made for resisting SSM.

 

[joG]

This is a ridiculous straw man.

From that perspective, why bother fighting for anything? And who is the arbiter of what should be the ONE thing to fight for? Or who should create the list of priorities?

Please. Weakest claim I've ever seen made for resisting SSM.

Not at all. It is a well tried and tested way of putting a comparative price on your preferences.

 

[Lursa]

Not at all. It is a well tried and tested way of putting a comparative price on your preferences.

Really? Have any sources that support that?

It's like arguing for the pro-life side of abortion...plenty of voices, plenty of outrage, but it costs those people NOTHING because they take no action besides that. They dont adopt, they dont care about the unborn once born, they want to refuse to contribute to welfare, etc (generalizations of course).

Even now you are avoiding answering actual questions and points regarding the OP and SSM and using it as a diversion because you've run out of rope.

 

[joG]

Really? Have any sources that support that?

It's like arguing for the pro-life side of abortion...plenty of voices, plenty of outrage, but it costs those people NOTHING because they take no action besides that. They dont adopt, they dont care about the unborn once born, they want to refuse to contribute to welfare, etc (generalizations of course).

Even now you are avoiding answering actual questions and points regarding the OP and SSM and using it as a diversion because you've run out of rope.

Just read up on opportunity costs and how they are applied in social sciences.

 

[Lursa]

Just read up on opportunity costs and how they are applied in social sciences.

So no answer.

Still avoiding the actual topic.

Cool.

 

[joG]

So no answer.

Still avoiding the actual topic.

Cool.

Which question?

 

[Lursa]

Which question?

Here's one I was particularly interested in:

Jews are 1-2% of the population of US, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to pass a law that they can't marry who they want to.

That would be somewhat different, of course. But you know that.... at least if you stop to think about it.

I thought about it.

Why is it 'somewhat different?'

 

[joG]

Here's one I was particularly interested in:

One would stop reproduction of the species or at least of the Jewish part of it would be one difference. But you know that....at least if you stop and think about it.

 

[Lursa]

One would stop reproduction of the species or at least of the Jewish part of it would be one difference. But you know that....at least if you stop and think about it.

What? ROFLMAO

Despite how huge a joke that response is, when did stopping people from marrying ever stop them from reproducing?

 

[joG]

What? ROFLMAO

Despite how huge a joke that response is, when did stopping people from marrying ever stop them from reproducing?

You mean you want to forbid Jews marriage, but allow them to reproduce?

 

[Lursa]

You mean you want to forbid Jews marriage, but allow them to reproduce?

How is either of those decisions up to me? Or you? Or anyone?

So I see you have run out of answers. So much for you and your "opportunity costs" and "social sciences."

*snicker*

 

[joG]

How is either of those decisions up to me? Or you? Or anyone?

So I see you have run out of answers. So much for you and your "opportunity costs" and "social sciences."

*snicker*

Well, it was your parable.

 

[Lursa]

Well, it was your parable.

So you are out of answers then, we're clear? I mean, I was asking you to clarify your statements regarding a comparison to Jews marrying vs gays, but you choose not to or cannot.

 

[joG]

So you are out of answers then, we're clear? I mean, I was asking you to clarify your statements regarding a comparison to Jews marrying vs gays, but you choose not to or cannot.

And I did, even if you have problems understanding the obvious.

 

[Lursa]

And I did, even if you have problems understanding the obvious.

Yes, attacking me works better. Noted.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

All conservatives need to learn about Berry Goldwater. He was one hell of a conservative.

Barry Goldwater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its Barry Goldwater, not Berry as written in your signature. Apparently those quoting him should learn how to spell his name.

 

[CLAX1911]

Its Barry Goldwater, not Berry as written in your signature. Apparently those quoting him should learn how to spell his name.

Yes, Barry Goldwater. I misspell a lot of things. As often people do

 

[chromium]

Sure, there are lots of rights to go around. It is the energy and resources that are missing for other challenges.
It is called "opportunity cost". What you expend on one thing is no longer there to spend on another. In effect you rank the importance of right by choosing to use up your resources on one and not the other.

Don't you get how easily this could and will be resolved. A simple court decision then it's over. And actually you're quite misapplying opportunity cost, as they are patently separate issues with separate advocacy groups and funding. Maybe in your personal case that's true, you can't manage to sympathize or support more than one cause. But you somehow manage to find the energy to complain much.

Throwing in the towel in gay marriage fights - which you've admitted to never expending any efforts on anyway, so your bitching that we've lost your sympathy means nothing btw - will not end world hunger. That is such an enormously complex problem by comparison that your cost/benefit assessment is similar to those who come on here and vomit "but if we show any support to gays next people can marry their horse!"

 

[Gipper]

Lots of us can't marry who we want. Shakira still hasn't responded to any of my proposals. I deal.

 

[chromium]

Lots of us can't marry who we want. Shakira still hasn't responded to any of my proposals. I deal.

At least you can ask her. The equivalent would be you can only marry dudes.

Lots of us don't even want to marry. The point is you might need it someday. There's plenty horror stories of someone not allowed to visit their longtime partner in hospital, or has to testify in court against their partner, unable to have kids and so on. Personally at this time in life, it's just the 2nd class status and what could make that more clear than laws just recently passed to discriminate. What is your point even? "I set my sights too high so it's cool if this entire group of people can never marry."

 

[joG]

Don't you get how easily this could and will be resolved. A simple court decision then it's over. And actually you're quite misapplying opportunity cost, as they are patently separate issues with separate advocacy groups and funding. Maybe in your personal case that's true, you can't manage to sympathize or support more than one cause. But you somehow manage to find the energy to complain much.

Throwing in the towel in gay marriage fights - which you've admitted to never expending any efforts on anyway, so your bitching that we've lost your sympathy means nothing btw - will not end world hunger. That is such an enormously complex problem by comparison that your cost/benefit assessment is similar to those who come on here and vomit "but if we show any support to gays next people can marry their horse!"

Where you certainly err is in the assumption that there be no tradeoff between causes. You choose your cause and invest the time and energy and it is used up.
Seeing you speak of 'we' it is not very probable that your point of view would be indifferent to the criticism implicit in the opportunities cost argument. As you say, I am not an activist.

 

[chromium]

Where you certainly err is in the assumption that there be no tradeoff between causes. You choose your cause and invest the time and energy and it is used up.
Seeing you speak of 'we' it is not very probable that your point of view would be indifferent to the criticism implicit in the opportunities cost argument. As you say, I am not an activist.

Yes but not the same people are dedicated to each cause. People specialize in things. Yourself is one example, since you never expended time or energy supporting marriage rights but might be tempted to do so to help end poverty. People donate to this or that charity or group, same thing. They do so with no awareness of many other charities out there. Imagine poverty is over and done with. Will you then spend your time and energy to make gay marriage reality? Didn't think so.

There would be *some* tradeoff but there's no reason at all a few lawyers here and there can't stick around 1 more year to defeat gay marriage bans *and* the country improves at fighting poverty. I mean come on. I could also just turn around and say "These gun nuts need to stop wasting their time and resources and instead help the gay rights cause." But i've no right to decide that for others and neither do you.

If gay advocates were spending public funds, then you might have a point, but it's instead those states *resisting* gay marriage who spend millions appealing the court decisions and ensuring their place as institutes of hate to future generations. Talk about opportunity cost. That money could go to food stamps so kids don't have to live off ramon noodles and dollar menu, but no, being a gigantic sore loser is more essential.