Yeah... that's not a good reason. That's a pretty stupid reason actually. Let's come up with a word for red ants, because otherwise people won't know whether we're talking about red ones or brown ones!

Come on Joe, who do you think you're kidding? You oppose gay marriage not because you're a bigot, but because the people you are politically aligned with are bigots. You're coming up with all these nonsense apologies for their blatant attempts to bring religion into government because in return they will support you and your social darwinist views.

That's like saying buildings make bricks.

No, it's nothing like that. Actually, I see Avedomni over there has put it better than I can -- you're conflating description with definition.

Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable.

Accept it? No, I don't think you will ever accept it. Your mind is closed. But I do want to force you to tolerate it. We forced racial integration onto people who didn't want it, and that was a good thing. We should force gay marriage onto people for similar reasons.

early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing

I wouldn't say it's a good thing. It just is. Are you honestly suggesting a large number of people should repress their sexuality for their entire lives?

Problems such as depression and suicide are caused by a lack of tolerance, and we should work to change society's attitude. That's a separate issue though.

Also, American Physicians and Surgeons is a political organization. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. If you want to have an honest debate, cite neutral third parties.

I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.

Can't be done. Homosexuality is not a choice.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

Well the word marriage is used in two senses. There's the sense that people use it in normal conversation, and then there's the legal sense. We obviously can't force people to stop being bigoted assholes, but we obviously can change the legal meaning of the word. And we should do that. Because there's no good reason not to.

Society as a whole should accept gays. That would be best.

But if it refuses to, we should still legally allow gay marriage. Because law should be based on reason, not popular prejudices. There's just no logical reason to disallow it.

"By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy."

Haha, I like you added the word "not" in there. I haven't heard such a devastating rebuttal since first grade.

If we give gay love a lower status than straight love, we are saying it is less worthy. How is that not obvious?

You should stick to make witty comments Joe, you're no good at this big people stuff. ;)

Lucky Ducky strikes again I see.

........................

Agreed. Guantanamo is a dark stain on the honor of the US. It needs to be closed down. And we need to do something with the detainees.

I mean come on people, it's not like we're buying them a home in the suburbs. They're gonna be kept in maximum security prisons.

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.

(btw, your link is broken.)

Whatever.

................................................

You affirm that there are no stones that are white.

No. When I say economists in general can be trusted I'm obviously not referring to every economist in existence. I'm saying in general -- on average -- for the most part. You already stated that you understood this.

You have affirmed that there are at least a few unscrupulous economists on planet Earth. This is a reasonable claim. You then suggest that we should not rely on the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. This is not a reasonable claim. Without a logically sound measurement of the ratio of unscrupulous to scrupulous economists we can draw no conclusions about the trustworthiness of the consensus opinon of the profession as a whole.

To continue beating this analogy to death... there are white stones and there are non-white stones. We can make no sound assertions about the ratio of white to non-white stones without some logically sound measurement. Grabbing a bunch of white stones and saying "Just look at 'em!" is called cherry-picking, and it is not a logically sound measurement.

Further, since we're talking about human beings and not stones, it is reasonable to assume that they are, for the most part, acting in good faith. To suggest that unscrupulous economists outnumber scrupulous economists, or to suggest that the body of unscrupulous economists is sufficiently powerful so as to render untrustworthy the consensus opinion of the profession as a whole... This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence... Such as a random sampling of predictions made in a major journal or newspaper.

...a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations...

The keyword there is "consistently". You have not demonstrated they consistently get things wrong and cannot do so with cherry picked anecdotes.

Explain to me why it is obvious.

It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.

I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.

This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.

However, you would then argue that...

Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth?

there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.

How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted.

there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class...

You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend.

Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same?

They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here.

"transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose.

One glaring problem with this assessment:

"Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006."

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm

Seems to me economists aren't the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.