If Everyone Believes It.

[Eyeron]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

After all, if a large group of people believes something, how can it be wrong?

If a large group of people say, "hey, we don't want gays to be married because it's against the tradition", well, what's wrong with that? After al, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And one person or a few just don't matter and should just bow down to the needs of the majority. Right?

[MetalPig]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?
No.

[Limbo]

Needs or wants? You have both of these words in your OP.

[steve s]

Argument from popularity. (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Popularity)

[madurobob]

50 million Elvis Presley fans can't be wrong, right?

[decojuicer]

50 million Elvis fans can not be wrong.

Fortunately, in America, we are not a true democracy. We are a republic, and that means that we have rights to protect the minorities from the will of the majority. Some times it just takes a little while to get there.

Once we stop saying things like "gay rights" and "African-American rights" and "Latino rights", and just start talking about human rights, then we will truly all be equal in the eyes of the law.

[Marduk]

wrong, totally and utterly
theres even a name of it because its so wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
also, people do not make decisions based on their own understanding of the evidence, they follow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
;)

[decojuicer]

50 million Elvis Presley fans can't be wrong, right?

You were just a bit faster than me. LOL

[Pure Argent]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

No. That's the argument ad populum (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html).

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

After all, if a large group of people believes something, how can it be wrong?

If a large group of people say, "hey, we don't want gays to be married because it's against the tradition", well, what's wrong with that? After al, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And one person or a few just don't matter and should just bow down to the needs of the majority. Right?

1. A majority of people once believed the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was flat. Popularity is not equal to truth.
2. Why is tradition a reason?
Slavery was a tradition too, didn't make it right.
3. The needs? No the wants...
4. It's suppression of rights, which is wrong.

That's the immediate answers that come to mind.
Your question makes a lot of assumptions as well.

Here's the answer I typically give people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbuBvHuEHk0
Put up with Mannix's jokes and it's actually a pretty good idea.

[Gawdzilla]

Yep, Susan Boyle can sing.

[madurobob]

You were just a bit faster than me. LOL

Great minds...

[TimCallahan]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

After all, if a large group of people believes something, how can it be wrong?

If a large group of people say, "hey, we don't want gays to be married because it's against the tradition", well, what's wrong with that? After al, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And one person or a few just don't matter and should just bow down to the needs of the majority. Right?

I assume you're posting this to provoke responses and that you don't actually believe such nonsense. Of course, the Bill of Rights stands in stark opposition to such a sentiment, since the rights most often in danger of being violoated are those of dessenting minorities.

As to gay marriage, how does this affect anyone's needs?

[decojuicer]

As to gay marriage, how does this affect anyone's needs?


Is it because some people feel the "need" to push their bigotry and hatred on others??? Just a guess.

[Eyeron]

As to gay marriage, how does this affect anyone's needs?

Well, people say it is an attack on the institution of marriage and that tradition must not be messed with. I'm guessing though it's more about money and resources under the guise of those arguments. But, also, when people are imbued (sorry I don't know the right way to express this point) with tradition, it's hard to see any other possibilities and become resistant to change.

Here's what I mean by resources.

Traditional marriage comes with special privileges and benefits that nobody else gets. Here's a list from the wiki:

* Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
o wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]

* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

So I've come to believe that the primary resistance to allowing homosexuals to marry and that it is an attack on marriage is out of fear of losing these benefits. I believe that it's these benefits that are referred to when people are talking about "the institute of marriage".

And no, I don't believe in the "if everybody believes it it must be true" adage. But I still like to hear other people's thoughts on things from time to time, regardless of what I believe.

And getting back to the marriage question, I personally have no real problem if they want to get married and have the same access. I just don't see why they should be denied access to these same benefits.

[drkitten]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

After all, if a large group of people believes something, how can it be wrong?

If a large group of people say, "hey, we don't want gays to be married because it's against the tradition", well, what's wrong with that? After al, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And one person or a few just don't matter and should just bow down to the needs of the majority. Right?

You're confusing factual, descriptive statements with legal, normative ones.

You're right. The idea that smallpox is caused by a virus or that the Earth is flat is not decided by popularity or under the control of the legislature.

The idea that the fastest speed you are allowed to drive on this street is 40mph, however, is.

Gay marriage, like it or not, is closer to speed limits than the shape of the earth.

[Eyeron]

You're confusing factual, descriptive statements with legal, normative ones.

I've never heard of this. Could you explain this to me please?

[Ron_Tomkins]

If Everyone Believes It.

Only thing is, no. Not everyone believes it.

[drkitten]

I've never heard of this. Could you explain this to me please?

The statement "the Earth is flat" is a simple description of the state of (part of) the Universe. We can confirm or refute it experimentally, but we can't change its truth value.

The statement "the speed limit on this road is 40mph" is not a description of the Universe, but of our expectations of human behavior. And we can certainly change that, by a stroke of the governmental pen.

[Hux]

At the last count, the world population was reckoned to be in the region of 6.8 billion people. At the last count (as I understand it) the Chritian population in the world was 3.3 billion.

There are clearly more non Christians in the world than Christians. This means, apart from all the other good reasons, Christianity must be wrong - according to you.

[Ladewig]

So I've come to believe that the primary resistance to allowing homosexuals to marry and that it is an attack on marriage is out of fear of losing these benefits. I believe that it's these benefits that are referred to when people are talking about "the institute of marriage".

I am having a hard time agreeing with your conclusion. In 2000, the number of homosexuals living as a couple was 1% of the population. Does the electorate really think that adding 1% of the population to that list will "break the bank"?

I think what we have is closer to the arguments that were used against laws allowing inter-racial couples to marry. Simply put: some combination of close-mindedness, unfounded fear, and bigotry

[Egg]

You're confusing factual, descriptive statements with legal, normative ones.

You're right. The idea that smallpox is caused by a virus or that the Earth is flat is not decided by popularity or under the control of the legislature.

The idea that the fastest speed you are allowed to drive on this street is 40mph, however, is.

Gay marriage, like it or not, is closer to speed limits than the shape of the earth.
That said (and I'm surprised it took 16 posts) there is an element of the truth being decided by popularity within scientific discovery, even if it is not necessarily describing reality as it actually is. Some fringe scientist might well be hypothesising something which reflects reality better than mainstream science, but until that theory is confirmed and accepted by scientific consensus, it may as well be false as far as the scientific community is concerned.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, how do people think it should be decided if not by popularity?

[Eyeron]

I am having a hard time agreeing with your conclusion. In 2000, the number of homosexuals living as a couple was 1% of the population. Does the electorate really think that adding 1% of the population to that list will "break the bank"?

I really don't know. But people seem to be really invested in upholding the status quo (which is marriage must be only for men and women) and usually it is reasons of money. Otherwise, why else would it be considered an attack against the institution of marriage and what would actually be considered the institution of marriage if it weren't for having these resources? Could it be that if it weren't for these resources there would be no institution of marriage of marriage and if so wouldn't that mean that their argument of "attack on the institution of marriage" have no merit to it? Otherwise, uphold the status quo simply for tradition is probably a very weak argument to not allow homosexuals to marry.

[paximperium]

I really don't know. But people seem to be really invested in upholding the status quo (which is marriage must be only for men and women) and usually it is reasons of money. No it isn't.

Otherwise, why else would it be considered an attack against the institution of marriage and what would actually be considered the institution of marriage if it weren't for having these resources? Religious bigotry

Could it be that if it weren't for these resources there would be no institution of marriage of marriage and if so wouldn't that mean that their argument of "attack on the institution of marriage" have no merit to it? Religious bigotry
Otherwise, uphold the status quo simply for tradition is probably a very weak argument to not allow homosexuals to marry.Religious bigotry

[gambling_cruiser]

According to the believers marriage is holy and gay sex a sin.
Allowing gay marriage is the attempt to make a sin allowed by an holy act.
Or some other nonsense like this.

[Ladewig]

As far as gay marriage is concerned, how do people think it should be decided if not by popularity?

By government fiat. We don't allow issues like slavery or equality of the races to be decided by popularity. Equality of homosexuals should fall into the same category as other civil rights.

[commandlinegamer]

Yep, Susan Boyle can sing.

Robbie Williams, on the other hand...

[drkitten]

By government fiat. We don't allow issues like slavery or equality of the races to be decided by popularity.

Well, we do. Nothing about anti-discimination law is set in stone; Congress could vote to overturn Title VII tomorrow. Congress could vote to overturn the 13th amendment tomorrow, too, and it would go to a popularity contest in the various States.

[I Ratant]

Best wishes..

[Egg]

By government fiat. We don't allow issues like slavery or equality of the races to be decided by popularity. Equality of homosexuals should fall into the same category as other civil rights.
How should it be decided that civil rights should be protected if there is no general agreement that they should be? How should it be decided what counts as a civil right? You and I may agree that gay marriage should fall into that category, but what if nobody else does?

[ProbeX]

If everyone believes it, it must be true right?

After all, if a large group of people believes something, how can it be wrong?

If a large group of people say, "hey, we don't want gays to be married because it's against the tradition", well, what's wrong with that? After al, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And one person or a few just don't matter and should just bow down to the needs of the majority. Right?

This consensus fallacy is the argument Orthodox Jews use when they illogically proclaim that one can only be Jewish if the mother (not the father) is "Jewish" (as if Judaism is genetically inherited, rather than just a set of beliefs and behaviors based on that belief system) ... or is a convert.

Gosh, that's as ridiculous as people declaring that Obama must be Muslim because in Islam a Muslim father somehow makes you automatically a Muslim. Sure, Obama the Muslim Christian. Okay. And there are actually a few people on this skeptical site that try and defend these type of divisive fallacies.

[Ryokan]

Fortunately, in America, we are not a true democracy. We are a republic, and that means that we have rights to protect the minorities from the will of the majority. Some times it just takes a little while to get there.

We've had this discussion before. America, or USA, is a democracy. Most western liberal democracies have rights to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161724

[Eyeron]

But why should the rights of the minority be protected? And should the term minority be applied only to different ethnic groups? Or can it be applied to other people as well?

[Ladewig]

But why should the rights of the minority be protected?
John Rawls's Veil of Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance)is a good enough reason for me.
And should the term minority be applied only to different ethnic groups? Or can it be applied to other people as well?

I don't see any reason why it cannot apply to minority religions. Do you?

[paximperium]

But why should the rights of the minority be protected? It depends. What rights?

And should the term minority be applied only to different ethnic groups? No. Scientists are a minority. Baha'i are a minority. Atheists are a minority.

Or can it be applied to other people as well?
It depends.

[Ladewig]

How should it be decided that civil rights should be protected if there is no general agreement that they should be?

In such a situation, either Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court could make that decision.

How should it be decided what counts as a civil right? You and I may agree that gay marriage should fall into that category, but what if nobody else does?

Then we are left with little more than petitioning the elected officials in this republic to adopt a more inclusive position when it comes to ensuring rights.

[Ladewig]

No it isn't.
Religious bigotry
Religious bigotry
Religious bigotry

I second each point.

[Eyeron]

It depends. What rights?

Those defined in the Bill Of Rights.

[Ladewig]

Well, we do. Nothing about anti-discimination law is set in stone; Congress could vote to overturn Title VII tomorrow. Congress could vote to overturn the 13th amendment tomorrow, too, and it would go to a popularity contest in the various States.

I'll change my response to we don't always do it by popularity. When H.S. Truman integrated the U.S. military, he did not survey American opinion to determine what should be done. When E. Warren led the SCOTUS in the Brown v. Board of Education decision, he did not ask the public to give their opinion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, Susan Boyle can sing.Yes, the woman can sing. Quite well as a matter of fact. What is your problem?

[HansMustermann]

Well, I still think that the modern heterosexual marriage is an attack on the traditional idea of marriage and family. The family unit as described by Aristotle clearly consists of a male, a female and (at least) a slave :p

[Beerina]

I'll change my response to we don't always do it by popularity. When H.S. Truman integrated the U.S. military, he did not survey American opinion to determine what should be done. When E. Warren led the SCOTUS in the Brown v. Board of Education decision, he did not ask the public to give their opinion.



Quite the opposite. Those kind of things cannot be done until "the time is right".

Only then can the fiction of doing it without public approval, i.e. by fiat, proceed.

Same goes for the abortion decision in 1972.


Wait a hundred and fifty or two hundred or more years until 50%-ish of the population is with you, then declare it done rather than wait a few more decades to get most of the population behind you and do a constitutional amendment.

Anything that can be done by fiat can be undone by fiat. Repealing an amendment is a lot harder.

Clinton tried to force gays into the military by fiat without Congress' approval, and got some of the heaviest resistance from southern Democrats. One need not believe either way on this issue to see "by fiat" is exactly about the population being, perhaps, barely ready to accept it.

[Ladewig]

Quite the opposite. Those kind of things cannot be done until "the time is right".


Wait a hundred and fifty or two hundred or more years until 50%-ish of the population is with you, then declare it done rather than wait a few more decades to get most of the population behind you and do a constitutional amendment.

Are you saying that 50%-ish percent of the nation was in favor of desegregating the armed forces 1948?

[I Ratant]

Yes, the woman can sing. Quite well as a matter of fact. What is your problem?
.
Listening to Kim Karnes right now. Opposite appearance, but heavenly voice.

[TimCallahan]

Well, people say it is an attack on the institution of marriage and that tradition must not be messed with. I'm guessing though it's more about money and resources under the guise of those arguments. But, also, when people are imbued (sorry I don't know the right way to express this point) with tradition, it's hard to see any other possibilities and become resistant to change. . . .

When dealing with those who seem outraged that gay marriage is going consume monyey and resources, point out to them that according to the latest scientific polls 1% of men in the U.S. are homosexual, which means they constitute 0.5% of the popuation. Only 0.5% of women are lesbians, making them 0.25% of the entire polpuation. Thus, male and female homosexuals constitute 0.75% of the total population of the United States. If as many as two thirds of them wanted to marry, that would be 0.5% of the adult population of the U.S. Is a potential increase in marrages of one half of one percent, 1/200 of the adult population really going to constitute such a financial burden?

[Ladewig]

according to the latest scientific polls 1% of men in the U.S. are homosexual, which means they constitute 0.5% of the popuation.

I'd like to see your sources for that claim.

As I said in post #21, the U.S. Census bureau determined that in 2000, 1% of the population consisted of homosexuals living as a couple. While I disagree with your numbers, I agree with your conclusion. The numbers are not enough to break the bank.

[TimCallahan]

I'd like to see your sources for that claim.

As I said in post #21, the U.S. Census bureau determined that in 2000, 1% of the population consisted of homosexuals living as a couple. While I disagree with your numbers, I agree with your conclusion. The numbers are not enough to break the bank.

I was probably a bit off. These were statistics I had heard some number of years ago. If you go to www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html, the statistics given there are that gay men constitute 0.7% of the population, while lesbians constitute 0.32%. Together, they make up slightly over 1% of Americans, rather than the 0.75% I quoted. Thus, if 2/3 of them decide to get married, it would amount to about 0.66 % of the total U.S. population. As you say, hardly enough to break the bank.

[KingMerv00]

Traditional marriage comes with special privileges and benefits that nobody else gets. Here's a list from the wiki:

Don't forget spousal privilege in court.

[Eyeron]

point out to them that according to the latest scientific polls

I bet you that they would simply dismiss out of hand or deny or dance around the issue or ignore it.

[Beerina]

"99.999% of Canadians and Europeans absolutely adore their government health care!"


It all depends on whether the argument supports your side or not, as to whether it carries weight. If your ears burn upon reading the above sentence, I'm talking to you.

[INRM]

If everybody believes it, it simply means that everybody believes it. It does not make it reality. Reality is simply what is.

[The Norseman]

Well, I still think that the modern heterosexual marriage is an attack on the traditional idea of marriage and family. The family unit as described by Aristotle clearly consists of a male, a female and (at least) a slave :p

No, nothing wrong with that. The male and slave are just subsumed under the concept of "husband." :p