California's Proposition 8

[Realitycheck]

...

 

Anything but marrriage between male and female is, by definition, psychobabble. Differentiation is mandatory. This is not dictionary.com, this is Webster's.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps the definition should be changed to allow for more modern times, then.

 

Why shouldn't it be?

[Mr Skeptic]

You just betrayed your own ignorance on this topic. With a single comment, you have blanketly dismissed all homosexuality, love, connection, emotion, caring, and compassion as "personally disgusting."

[...]

So what? Grow up if you are not comfortable enough with your own sexuality to look at the picture above.

 

What of it? I find farts disgusting too. Am I ignorant about farts? Am I blanketly dismissing the digestive process? Do you think I am going to try to ban farts? When I was younger I thought girls were icky too. What right do you have to tell me what I should or shouldn't find disgusting?

 

I'm not going to lie nor allow lies just to be politically correct.

 

You are also clearly biased. If you had asked instead for reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed and I answered that, you and others wouldn't be going over my answers with a fine-toothed sledgehammer. And yet no one has shown any of my statements false, nor even irrelevant. Only that they don't find them very important differences, or they use strawman arguments or move the goalposts.

 

[...]

Validity depends on context. Nobody asked "what are some differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples."

 

The question was if there were valid reasons for the state to allow a right to heterosexuals and deny it to homosexuals, specifically on the subject of legality of union. Your points do not hold up to this criterion. While they are valid in one context, they are not in this arena.

 

If people are to be treated differently and have the laws applied differently based on their sexuality alone, I want to know what specific reasons other than ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination support such an approach.

 

What you originally asked was slightly different.

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

Obviously my answers might not be valid if you change the question.

 

They should be viewed as different because they are different. Not viewing them as different is like falsifying data. Some of these differences would matter to the government, such as the difference in number of children between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. To what extent we should allow the state to treat different people differently, is up to us.

 

It's been shown that it's genetic, so I fail to see the difference between amending the constitution to ban homosexual unions and amending the constitution to ban brunettes from getting married.

 

And if you'll check earlier in the thread, you will see that I said that as well. (Except the comparison to brunettes, of course.) Keep in mind that not all genes are created equal. I believe that you support the fact that the state treats some individuals differently due to their genetic makeup.

This is your problem. There are indeed genetic factors, in humans and various animals from Drosophila (fruit flies) to primates, that cause gay behavior. While gay people may choose to counter their genetic predispositions (just like straight people could choose to have sex with guys, or monks may choose not to have sex at all, or some people may choose to refuse to eat until they starve to death), it is quite different than a choice with very little or no genetic factors (eg someone who chose to learn how to make buggy whips). Now you could argue that wanting to have sex or wanting to eat are simply choices regardless of the genetic factor, but good luck trying to prevent people from making choices that have genetic predispositions.

 

I want someone on the "pro-ban" side to detail the reasons why the laws should be applied differently to homosexual couples, and why they should not share the same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

Then it'll have to be someone other than me. I am not on the pro-ban side, I just answered the question you asked.

 

This isn't about religious concepts of marriage. This isn't about children, and population. This isn't about anything except the unequitible application of the laws and discrimination of rights based on genetic traits, and it's absolutely dispicable that it's almost 2009 and we're still debating such iron age bigotries.

 

There are a lot of complications of calling it marriage. That gets the religious people and the lexicographers involved. Both of us agree that discrimination based on genetic traits is a good idea.

[iNow]

instead for reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed and I answered that, you and others wouldn't be going over my answers with a fine-toothed sledgehammer. And yet no one has shown any of my statements false, nor even irrelevant.

I am guessing that you either didn't read, didn't comprehend, or chose to ignore doG's response in post #144 . He pretty well laid out flatly where your assertions failed to address the question asked, and articulated clearly where they were invalid and why.

 

 

What you originally asked was slightly different.

My question has been consistent. I'm sorry you had such a hard time with the word "view" in this context. Since the "State" doesn't have "eyes" I thought it would be alright.

 

 

They should be viewed as different because they are different. Not viewing them as different is like falsifying data.

For someone who accused me of a strawman, you sure were willing to argue against one yourself.

 

I don't know how much more clear I can make this, as I've said this explicitly in at least three different posts now.

Nobody is arguing that there are no differences. The argument is that the state has no basis to withhold rights based upon sexuality.

 

 

 

There are a lot of complications of calling it marriage. That gets the religious people and the lexicographers involved. Both of us agree that discrimination based on genetic traits is a good idea.

 

 

I think you may have accidentally misspoke. My entire premise throughout this thread has been that discrimination based on genetic traits is a BAD idea.

 

And frankly, I couldn't give two shits what gets the panties of religious morons who believe in purple unicorns and leprechauns in a wad. This biased restriction of rights based on genetically determined sexual preference is wrong, and bigotted, and should have ended decades ago. One of the only reasons it persists to this day is because of the ignorance still being taught to our children and adults in churches and religious groups across the land. If people weren't so willing to be spoon-fed their in-group/out-group mentalities and iron age fairy tales then perhaps we could have upheld the principles of equality espoused in our nations founding documents long ago... But no, these dark aged "witch-burning" frenzies continually block the progress of the enlightened every time we try to move our culture forward.

Edited November 14, 2008 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

Now, why should your points not apply to heterosexual couples if you think they are valid arguments against gay couples.

 

A matter of extent. For example, health insurance companies discriminate against old people, despite the fact that young people can get all or at least most of the diseases that old people get.

 

Because a marriage is a union between mates, nothing more. I can't believe how shortsighted everyone on this forum is.

 

Because gay marriage sounds THAT STUPID.

 

I like traditional definitions too. I wonder, does anyone know whether gay individuals in monogamous species will mate for life? Now there's some historical precedent.

 

I think you may have accidentally misspoke. My entire premise throughout this thread has been that discrimination based on genetic traits is a BAD idea.

 

Really? How cruel of you. I support the fact that Downs Syndrome children are treated differently due to their genetic traits.

[iNow]

Really? How cruel of you. I support the fact that Downs Syndrome children are treated differently due to their genetic traits.

 

Stop equivocating. They may be treated differently by the populace, but the rights granted by the State should be the same. If a Down's Syndrome person wanted to marry, they would be allowed.

 

Your slipperly slope arguments are growing right tiresome, and further diminish the effectiveness of your arguement.

[Pangloss]

I think we've kinda exhausted the arguments here and I'm kinda sensing that we should wrap this up before it gets too heated. Consider the thread on 24-hour suicide watch unless I hear a lot of objecting.

[Realitycheck]

I was already out the door.

[iNow]

I think we've kinda exhausted the arguments here and I'm kinda sensing that we should wrap this up before it gets too heated. Consider the thread on 24-hour suicide watch unless I hear a lot of objecting.

 

That would provide too easy of an out for the group arguing against the ability of homosexual unions. I think thread closure would rob them of the privilege to justify for everyone why the State has any basis whatsoever to grant or withhold rights based only upon sexuality.

[doG]

A matter of extent. For example, health insurance companies discriminate against old people, despite the fact that young people can get all or at least most of the diseases that old people get.

 

I've yet to see any reason why not. Simply asserting something is invalid doesn't make it invalid.

 

Simply asserting something is valid does not make it valid. I repeat, all of your alleged valid points are not supported.

[Mr Skeptic]

Stop equivocating. They may be treated differently by the populace, but the rights granted by the State should be the same. If a Down's Syndrome person wanted to marry, they would be allowed.

 

And gay people are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. And straight people are not allowed to marry a person of the same sex, just like gay people. So in the case of a ban on gay marriage, the rules apply equally to everyone as well. The rules might affect gay people more than straight people, but how is that different than the rules about disability affecting Down's Syndrome children more than regular children? The rights granted are the same, but the effect is different.

 

Your slipperly slope arguments are growing right tiresome, and further diminish the effectiveness of your arguement.

 

Where have I made a slippery slope argument? You should look up the definition. I should say that people have been making many strawman arguments against me, since they keep arguing against something different than what I said and then saying they proved me wrong.

 

Simply asserting something is valid does not make it valid. I repeat, all of your alleged valid points are not supported.

 

Are you saying that I am wrong, or are you saying that something that I didn't say is wrong?

 

Let's put a stop to the strawmanning. You should own up to what you are saying, cause as I said you have yet to disprove something I said. What exactly are you saying?:

 

Are you saying that it is possible for gay people to produce children with each other?

Are you saying that gay couples have, on average, as many children as straight couples?

Are you saying that the state does not care about its population size?

 

Are you saying that male gay couples can breastfeed?

Are you saying that breastfeeding has no effect on the health of the children?

Are you saying that the state doesn't care about children's health?

 

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong?

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong, compared to how they view straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care what its people think?

 

 

Are you saying that the laws for gay marriage are the same in all states?

Are you saying that the differences in laws about gay marriage are less or equal to the differences in laws about straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care that its laws may be in conflict with those of other states in important ways?

 

Are you saying that because some individuals in one group are like most of the individuals in a different group, that that makes the groups the same?

Edited November 14, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Simply asserting something is valid does not make it valid. I repeat, all of your alleged valid points are not supported.

 

If there is a difference between hetero and homo marriage, then his points are valid. Not supported with great logic, because that's irrelevant. They are merely, and only, valid.

 

I love this academic exercise that most of you are failing on, miserably. Skeptic is making a terrific point here, and most of you have missed it by a country mile. Emotion sure does twist one's sensibilities. Come on, turn on your logic circuits and turn down that emotive potentiometer in your head.

 

That would provide too easy of an out for the group arguing against the ability of homosexual unions. I think thread closure would rob them of the privilege to justify for everyone why the State has any basis whatsoever to grant or withhold rights based only upon sexuality.

 

Ah, but who's arguing against the ability of homosexual unions? I certainly am not. I haven't seen that from Skeptic either. I know you think you've seen that from him, but you haven't. All he's been doing is providing valid arguments for the opposition, since you asked. Not good ones. Not ones we agree with.

 

You know how Pangloss likes to say someone has a valid point, yet he disagrees with it? Think on that...

 

-----

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to invalidate an argument would require that facts don't support the conclusions. Opinions, of course, are free from "validation" as they are just an assessment against one's value system. So, how are Sketpic's arguments "invalid"?

 

Oh, and I, too, find homosexuality "icky". I'm quite sure many of them feel the same of my heterosexuality. That's called preference. I also find little kids with food all over their face kinda "icky" too. Oh, and peas and lima beans - yuck! Also overweight people kind of gross me out when they're eating. And yeah, I have no interest in passing legislative judgement on these things. Kinda weird to even suggest the connection actually.

Edited November 14, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Emotion sure does twist one's sensibilities. Come on, turn on your logic circuits and turn down that emotive potentiometer in your head.

You may sense passion in my tone, but that doesn't negate the validity of my points, nor the objectivity of my question.

 

I am not missing Skeptics points. I simply find them absolutely irrelevant to the concept of marriage, as he is not equally applying those same tests to heterosexual marriages.

 

I don't disagree that I'm biased on this one. What I disagree with is your implicit suggestion that my bias is causing my points to become somehow invalid.

 

 

 

Ah, but who's arguing against the ability of homosexual unions? I certainly am not. I haven't seen that from Skeptic either. I know you think you've seen that from him, but you haven't.

The argument against the ability of homosexual unions is both implicit in the proposition itself, and explicit in the text it adds to the constitution of the state. From wiki:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Proposition 8 was a California State ballot proposition that amended the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It overrode a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right.

The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "

Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution was: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

 

This is the argument. Two men or two women joined in a union will not be recognized as having a valid marriage in California, even though one man and one woman joined in union will.

 

Ergo, anyone who argues in favor of the proposition is arguing against the ability of homosexual unions.

 

You may say that homosexuals can still be in a union, just that it won't be recognized by the state, but that's the entire point here. The state is discriminating based on sexuality alone. This is about much more than semantics, it's about basic civil rights, and how bigotted thinking is stripping those rights away from citizens of our nation.

 

 

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to invalidate an argument would require that facts don't support the conclusions. Opinions, of course, are free from "validation" as they are just an assessment against one's value system. So, how are Sketpic's arguments "invalid"?

My question: What valid basis is there for the State to deny rights to homosexual couples which they allow to heterosexual couples?

 

Mr Skeptics response: They can't make babies without help, they can't breastfeed, some people find it yucky, religious people would have a coronary.

 

Why it's Invalid: Those same criterion are not used for State recognition of heterosexual couples. Infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples who use baby formula instead of breast feeding are allowed to marry. Some heterosexuals are considered yucky, but they are still allowed to marry. Religious people have coronaries about many marriages (like a Jew marrying a Catholic), but they are still allowed to marry.

 

 

The above debunking of validity rests not on emotion, but simple equal application and mapping of Mr Skeptics own criteria on to heterosexual couples and the rights they are granted. Since those same criteria do not apply to heterosexual unions and their ability to be recognized as valid by the state, then they cannot possibly be used to support why the state choooses to disallow validity and recognition of homosexual unions. It is completely non-sequitur... a smoke screen being used to distract everyone from the real reasons and motivations for granting rights to some and denying them to others... bigotry and ignorance.

 

 

Per your comments on my emotive nature, I think anyone who doesn't get a chapped ass over this level of ignorance is either a bigotted fool themselves, or is in too much of a mental coma to care about the ideals of our society.

 

Some things are just flat out wrong, and I express a strong degree of conversational intolerance toward anyone who tries to support such things.

 

This isn't debate class. This isn't some academic exercise. This is a battle over the fact that there is absolutely no reasonable basis for selective allowance or restriction of State rights toward recognition of marrigae based on out-dated and bigotted views regarding homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And gay people are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us. And straight people are not allowed to marry a person of the same sex, just like gay people. So in the case of a ban on gay marriage, the rules apply equally to everyone as well.

Ah, I see. They're granted the same rights as everyone, and since nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same gender, there is no bias. Super argument, champ.

 

 

"You are welcome to eat ANYTHING you want, as long as it's beef."

"But, I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat beef."

"Well, sucks to be you, then, doesn't it. As I said, we can all eat anything we want, as long as it's beef."

Edited November 14, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[pioneer]

The traditional definition of marriage was based on an old fashion version of genetics and evolutionary theory. It has a biological parallel. One man and one woman is the best way to generate off spring plus care for the children, with the least amount of artificial prosthesis. It is the most green in terms of nature and nurture, with the minimum social mop. This is green marriage.

 

Back in the early days, marriage also had class distinctions. This was early genetic theory with blue bloods thought to be superior to red bloods, as far as breeding stock. They didn't understand it was more nurture than nature, but assumed full nature. They didn't call it DNA but they thought genetics was in the blood, i.e., blood line.

 

If one was a carpenter, they came from a long line of carpenters and their sons would be carpenters, sort of like a species that is slowing evolving but also has a specific place in the social ecosystem, with only small selective tweaks between generations. It was a natural ecosystem model. Again, they had their own pseudo-genetic and evolutionary angle but didn't understand that nurture was playing a bigger part in human evolution.

 

Although one may argue other combinations, beyond one male and one female, are possible, but they all fall short on one or the other aspects of green marriage. Gays would make wonderful parents, but they require synthetic on the front end. Promiscuous is green on the front end and may increase genetic diversity more than green marriage, but it usually falls short on the second aspect or nurture. This usually requires a mop even though nature doesn't have mop. That is why it is synthetic. The children don't always have the benefit of the availability of the direct parental connection which makes child raising easier due to instinct (all else equal).

 

Maybe one way is to allow gays to use marriage but define a relative green scale of marriage. At the top of the green scale would be one male and one female that stays married their whole life, through children of children of children. etc.. since this is the most difficult version of green. But it also provides the foundation of nurture as well as its evolving layers. If one can't have children the time element is the only factor.

 

The second tier green marriage doesn't make it this duration, but lasts through the time duration equal to the amount of time for the maturity of children. If one has no children, the time is the only factor. The third tier semi-green marriage don't make it to the duration of the maturity of children, with sub scales based on the amount of social mop to compensate. The gays should start at third tier marriage, allowing individual couples the option to supersede tier three depending on the duration of marriage.

[ParanoiA]

You may sense passion in my tone' date=' but that doesn't negate the validity of my points, nor the objectivity of my question.

 

I am not missing Skeptics points. I simply find them absolutely irrelevant to the concept of marriage, as he is not equally applying those same tests to heterosexual marriages.

 

I don't disagree that I'm biased on this one. What I disagree with is your implicit suggestion that my bias is causing my points to become somehow invalid. [/quote']

 

Your points aren't invalid - they're irrelevant in the context.

 

Here's what's happening...

 

Person A: Name a valid difference between white folk and black folk

Person B: Uh...skin color?

Person A: Oh, sorry, we don't judge people based on their skin color dude! Why is it ok for you to be a bigot? How are we supposed to come together and advance past our differences when you can't even work yourself around skin color? Sorry, that's invalid.

 

If that looks like a sensible exchange, then you have some internal work to do. If that looks like Person A missed the point, then scroll back and rethink your replies to Skeptic's answers to your questions about valid arguments. Again, not sound arguments, valid ones.

 

The argument against the ability of homosexual unions is both implicit in the proposition itself, and explicit in the text it adds to the constitution of the state. From wiki:

 

See, you're proving that you're lost here. We're not talking about the ability of homosexual unions. We're talking about valid arguments that you asked for. You then presumed those valid arguments were Sketpic's position on the matter, and further you then refuted those arguments in the face of ZERO opposition - NO ONE is advocating those arguments as good reasoning. The only thing we're accepting is that they're valid. In fact, most of the disagreements we have on this forum are valid disagreements.

 

My question: What valid basis is there for the State to deny rights to homosexual couples which they allow to heterosexual couples?

 

Mr Skeptics response: They can't make babies without help' date=' they can't breastfeed, some people find it yucky, religious people would have a coronary.

 

Why it's Invalid: Those same criterion are not used for State recognition of heterosexual couples. Infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples who use baby formula instead of breast feeding are allowed to marry. Some heterosexuals are considered yucky, but they are still allowed to marry. Religious people have coronaries about many marriages (like a Jew marrying a Catholic), but they are still allowed to marry.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think you have a point here. Since this battle is more about semantics, he should have said homosexual marriages cannot produce offspring that is the biological result of both parents. And heterosexual marriages are far more likely to produce offspring, hence higher procreation, and are more likely to include breast feeding. And it is true that religion deems it wrong and sinful. Those are all valid, factual statements.

 

Per your comments on my emotive nature' date=' I think anyone who doesn't get a chapped ass over this level of ignorance is either a bigotted fool themselves, or is in too much of a mental coma to care about the ideals of our society.

 

Some things are just flat out wrong, and I express a strong degree of conversational intolerance toward anyone who tries to support such things. [/quote']

 

Sorry, I'm tolerant. I practice it. On a personal level I agree, but more importantly I enjoy watching this because it's exactly why I keep going on and on about subjective governing. It's hard for me to get chapped when I feel like you're getting exactly what you deserve. You wanted democracy to echo the consent of the people, well...you got it.

 

About tired of institutionalized moral codes yet?

 

This isn't debate class. This isn't some academic exercise. This is a battle over the fact that there is absolutely no reasonable basis for selective allowance or restriction of State rights toward recognition of marrigae based on out-dated and bigotted views regarding homosexuality.

 

Actually, it is an academic exercise. This is a forum. Not the capital. We're not testifying in front of congress and nobody but us in this thread gives a rat's ass what we think. And further, this particular context is a battle about "valid" arguments, not what we all personally think on the matter. You'll find my comments quite in line with yours if you scroll back to the beginning. Except I'm even more liberal than you - I think incest and polygamy are fair unions too. Take that.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am not missing Skeptics points. I simply find them absolutely irrelevant to the concept of marriage, as he is not equally applying those same tests to heterosexual marriages.

 

Except I am. Just because I make a statement about two different groups, does not mean that you can invalidate that statement as if it were made about individuals in the groups. Attempting to do so is an example of making a strawman.

 

I don't disagree that I'm biased on this one. What I disagree with is your implicit suggestion that my bias is causing my points to become somehow invalid.

 

No one has said that your bias makes your points invalid. We are saying that your bias is making you blind to the validity of arguments you do not like.

 

The argument against the ability of homosexual unions is both implicit in the proposition itself, and explicit in the text it adds to the constitution of the state. From wiki:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Proposition 8 was a California State ballot proposition that amended the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It overrode a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right.

The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "

Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution was: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

 

I agree with the statement made. It is merely defining the word marriage with respect to California law, and the new definition. This does not mean I oppose gay unions, nor that I think that gay unions should have less rights. However, in my opinion they need to pass new laws, to grant them these new rights.

 

If you can show that the word "marriage" meant, to the people who originally wrote marriage laws, included both homosexual and heterosexual union, then I will change my mind on this matter. If not, then I will continue to support that laws cannot be changed by changing the meaning of words.

 

This is the argument. Two men or two women joined in a union will not be recognized as having a valid marriage in California, even though one man and one woman joined in union will.

 

Ergo, anyone who argues in favor of the proposition is arguing against the ability of homosexual unions.

 

Not really. I just gave an example of how I can favor this proposition but not be against gay rights. I wonder how lexicographers voted for proposition 8?

 

You may say that homosexuals can still be in a union, just that it won't be recognized by the state, but that's the entire point here. The state is discriminating based on sexuality alone. This is about much more than semantics, it's about basic civil rights, and how bigotted thinking is stripping those rights away from citizens of our nation.

 

And at the time the Constitution was written, they also discriminated based on sexuality alone. Then they made new laws to prevent discrimination against women.

 

My question: What valid basis is there for the State to deny rights to homosexual couples which they allow to heterosexual couples?

To be fair, you said:

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

You are completely changing the question; and in addition you are adding a negative bias against homosexuals to the question. This is called "moving the goalposts". Also, this is why we are saying your bias is blinding you to logic, as normally you do not make strawmen or move goalposts.

 

Instead of accepting that I answered your question as you said it, and asking the question the way you meant it, you are changing the question and denying that I answered the original question in a valid manner.

 

Mr Skeptics response: They can't make babies without help, they can't breastfeed, some people find it yucky, religious people would have a coronary.

 

Why it's Invalid: Those same criterion are not used for State recognition of heterosexual couples. Infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples who use baby formula instead of breast feeding are allowed to marry. Some heterosexuals are considered yucky, but they are still allowed to marry. Religious people have coronaries about many marriages (like a Jew marrying a Catholic), but they are still allowed to marry.

 

Again, you are misrepresenting my argument as if it were about individuals. If the state had laws to allow discrimination in heterosexual couples based on these things, then your argument would be valid. As it is, the laws apply to groups, so it is the differences between groups that matter.

 

The above debunking of validity rests not on emotion, but simple equal application and mapping of Mr Skeptics own criteria on to heterosexual couples and the rights they are granted. Since those same criteria do not apply to heterosexual unions and their ability to be recognized as valid by the state, then they cannot possibly be used to support why the state choooses to disallow validity and recognition of homosexual unions. It is completely non-sequitur... a smoke screen being used to distract everyone from the real reasons and motivations for granting rights to some and denying them to others... bigotry and ignorance.

 

Unless you are denying the differences between groups, you are again confusing individuals and groups.

 

Per your comments on my emotive nature, I think anyone who doesn't get a chapped ass over this level of ignorance is either a bigotted fool themselves, or is in too much of a mental coma to care about the ideals of our society.

 

Some things are just flat out wrong, and I express a strong degree of conversational intolerance toward anyone who tries to support such things.

 

I am also applying conversational intolerance. I do not tolerate lies, even when they are politically correct.

 

This isn't debate class. This isn't some academic exercise. This is a battle over the fact that there is absolutely no reasonable basis for selective allowance or restriction of State rights toward recognition of marrigae based on out-dated and bigotted views regarding homosexuality.

 

That is some pretty strong language. Prove it, or admit that you're wrong.

 

Ah, I see. They're granted the same rights as everyone, and since nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same gender, there is no bias. Super argument, champ.

 

 

"You are welcome to eat ANYTHING you want, as long as it's beef."

"But, I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat beef."

"Well, sucks to be you, then, doesn't it. As I said, we can all eat anything we want, as long as it's beef."

 

Correct. They are granted the same rights, and if they want new rights they need new laws to grant those rights. (Incidentally, that law would be unconstitutional due to infringing on the right to life of people with phenylketonuria).

 

As I said, some laws may affect different people differently, even based on their genetics. I support this, since I think that, for example people with Down's Syndrome should be treated differently by the government. I think you support it too, since you want to grant people who are genetically predisposed to liking someone of the same gender, the new right to marry them. (Obviously, this law would also allow straight people to have gay marriages if they for whatever reason wanted to)

[doG]

Are you saying that I am wrong...

 

Yes. You are asserting reasons that the State should see homosexual marriages differently than heterosexual marriages that are not measures the States use to validate heterosexual marriages in the first place. The "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment means exactly that, equal protection.

 

Now if you want to claim that the inability to reproduce is a valid reason to reject a marriage license then admit that it should apply equally to everyone, including impotent and infertile partners in a heterosexual relationship. If not applied equally then IT IS NOT A VALID REASON.

 

The same is true of breastfeeding. Apply the law equally and deny all women that are unable to breastfeed the privilege of marriage.

 

The same is true of the values you listed. Apply them equally to all people or they are not valid reasons.

 

Apply the same measure where State laws differ. Show that they are valid reasons to dent heterosexual marriages and that will validate them as a reason against homosexual marriage.

[Saryctos]

"You are welcome to eat ANYTHING you want, as long as it's beef."

"But, I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat beef."

"Well, sucks to be you, then, doesn't it. As I said, we can all eat anything we want, as long as it's beef."

 

This analogy misses that the gov't is paying for the beef. You can still be a vegetarian, but the gov't is paying for beef.

[Mr Skeptic]

To doG:

Please answer these. All you need is 13 words, yes or no.

 

Let's put a stop to the strawmanning. You should own up to what you are saying, cause as I said you have yet to disprove something I said. What exactly are you saying?:

 

Are you saying that it is possible for gay people to produce children with each other?

Are you saying that gay couples have, on average, as many children as straight couples?

Are you saying that the state does not care about its population size?

 

Are you saying that male gay couples can breastfeed?

Are you saying that breastfeeding has no effect on the health of the children?

Are you saying that the state doesn't care about children's health?

 

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong?

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong, compared to how they view straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care what its people think?

 

 

Are you saying that the laws for gay marriage are the same in all states?

Are you saying that the differences in laws about gay marriage are less or equal to the differences in laws about straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care that its laws may be in conflict with those of other states in important ways?

 

Are you saying that because some individuals in one group are like most of the individuals in a different group, that that makes the groups the same?

[doG]

You're the one strawmanning by claiming your points should apply to homosexuals differntly than heterosexuals.

 

It's obvious that gay people cannot reproduce children with each other but neither can heterosexual couples where the man is impotent or the woman is infertile. Do you get it? BOTH are examples of couples that CANNOT have children. To VALUIDATE your point show why the State should VIEW THEM DIFFERENTLY.

 

Obviously men cannot breastfeed, gay or not. To VALIDATE your point show why the State should allow heterosexual men that cannot breast feed to marry, even if they're marrying a woman that cannot breastfeed either, and why the State should not allow a gay man that cannot breastfeed to marry, even if they plan to have no children.

 

Some people view gay marriage as wrong and some do not. Why should the State apply this to gay marriage and not heterosexual marriage. Some people think black and white marriages are wrong too. Why should the State use one wrong versus another?

 

Are you saying the laws for heterosexual marriages are the same in all States? If not then why should the States use that as a reason against gay marriage and not against heterosexual marriage?

 

Your reasons are just that reasons. That does not make them valid reasons that the States should see gay marriage differently than heterosexual marriages since there are heterosexual marriages that have EXACTLY the same defects. You are advocating a double standard.

 

I am guessing that you either didn't read, didn't comprehend, or chose to ignore doG's response in post #144 . He pretty well laid out flatly where your assertions failed to address the question asked, and articulated clearly where they were invalid and why.

 

I think it's pretty clear by now that he can't see why his assertions failed.

[waitforufo]

If there is a difference between hetero and homo marriage, then his [Mr Skeptic] points are valid. Not supported with great logic, because that's irrelevant. They are merely, and only, valid.

 

I love this academic exercise that most of you are failing on, miserably. Skeptic is making a terrific point here, and most of you have missed it by a country mile. Emotion sure does twist one's sensibilities. Come on, turn on your logic circuits and turn down that emotive potentiometer in your head.

 

Mr. Skeptic has indeed raised valid points. Whether or not his points are applicable to determining just law is another matter. In my opinion there applicability depends on what set of principals you measure them by. I would argue that different principals apply in different areas of human thought and action. Below is a list of various principals that could be applied. This list should not be considered all inclusive.

 

Philosophical

Scientific

Religious

Legal

Personal

 

So for example if I say "green beans are bad, because green beans are icky" is this a valid point about green beans? Well, I don't like green beans, I think they are icky, eating them makes me unhappy, so based on my personal principals they are indeed bad, and therefore my statement is a valid point. Scientifically the point is completely wrong.

 

When it comes to gay marriage however, the yardstick used should not be personal principals or even a collective of personal principals. We should use the founding principals of our legal and governmental system. These principals were dominantly articulated by modern or enlightenment philosophers like John Locke. They are based on the idea that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. So how do these principals apply to marriage?

 

First, instead of gay marriage, let's try to apply them to polygamy. In our modern times, society tries to protect children from poverty. Doing so gives children an opportunity at the life to which they have a right. Polygamous marriages produce large families with poor financial support thereby requiring governmental social support. The property of non polygamous people is confiscated by government and given to polygamous people. The people from whom that property (money) is confiscated have a right to their property and therefore also have recourse in law. So the government has a choice to make. It can stop providing social support to polygamous people, or it can stop polygamous marriage. Our country chooses to ban polygamous marriage.

 

In the above example, the valid points are that children must be protected from poverty because children have a right to live, and the people who would be coerced by law to surrender their property to support those children have a right to their property. It is therefore just to restrict the liberty of those who would participate in polygamous marriage because their liberty impacts the liberty of others.

 

From our founding legal principals it would not be just to ban polygamous marriage because one or some find it icky.

 

Back to gay marriage. How does it impact the life, liberty, or property of others? If you have a valid argument when compared to the legal principals of our country please make it.

 

Finally, this is a science forum and therefore perhaps scientific principals should be mentioned. Most of those I'm sure would be based on psychology or genetics. Arguments derived from these scientific endeavors could and would likely be valid and add weight to ones position, but such arguments would be moot if gay marriage was found to have a meaningful impact on the life, liberty, or property of those that do not participate.

 

I just don't see how gay marriage impacts the life, liberty, or property of those who choose not to so marry.

Edited November 14, 2008 by waitforufo

[Pangloss]

Okay, I'm either going to close this thread or I'm going to stand in the middle of it and post an impartial analysis of every post from this point forward. And I promise you if I do the latter then neither side is going to like it. Mr. Skeptic, the inherent hypocrisy of that post should embarrass the hell out of you, and yet you repeated it. And iNow, do you actually want to win hearts and minds, or just paint scarlet letters on people's foreheads?

 

You guys rock when you're on point and looking deep into arguments. That's not the case at the moment -- you're way down in the gutters. Clean up the arguments, look for common ground, and see if you can make some real sense of of this.

 

I insist.

 

---

line[/hr]

PANGLOSS'S LINE OF DOOM

CROSS AT YOUR OWN PERIL

---

line[/hr]

 

(BTW, there are also some really good and interesting posts up there, like waitforufo's thoughtful post above, and I applaud those efforts.)

 

(broop!)

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, I'm either going to close this thread or I'm going to stand in the middle of it and post an impartial analysis of every post from this point forward.

 

Thanks, Pangloss. I am sick of people making strawman arguments against me, and/or moving the goalposts.

 

The post I originally answered was this:

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

Unless my premises are wrong, or my logic faulty, then my argument is by definition a valid argument. So, anyone who wants to show that my argument is not valid, had better be able to point out some false premises or some faulty logic.

 

Afterward, iNow wanted to change the question that was being asked. That is all well and good, but before moving the goalposts, he should acknowledge that I scored a goal.

 

People have been repeating again and again that I am wrong. However, as evidence they give faulty arguments. The latest faulty argument is the claim that a statistical difference between two groups can be shown to be invalid by showing that some individuals in both groups share the same attribute. Why I should be defending against such an absurd claim, I don't know, but I'm glad a mod is on the case.

 

Also, following are some questions I would like doG in particular to answer. They are yes or no questions, so it shouldn't be much trouble. If he wants to answer more than yes or no, he is welcome to, but I'd like him to stop avoiding the questions.

 

----

To doG:

Are you saying that it is possible for gay people to produce children with each other?

Are you saying that gay couples have, on average, as many children as straight couples?

Are you saying that the state does not care about its population size?

 

Are you saying that male gay couples can breastfeed?

Are you saying that breastfeeding has no effect on the health of the children?

Are you saying that the state doesn't care about children's health?

 

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong?

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong, compared to how they view straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care what its people think?

 

 

Are you saying that the laws for gay marriage are the same in all states?

Are you saying that the differences in laws about gay marriage are less or equal to the differences in laws about straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care that its laws may be in conflict with those of other states in important ways?

 

Are you saying that because some individuals in one group are like most of the individuals in a different group, that that makes the groups the same?

 

---

In addition, I think that there is some misunderstanding as to whether gay marriage is a new right they are asking for, or a right that they already had but is now being curtailed? I think it best to answer that question in a new thread.

[Sisyphus]

I'm probably going to regret getting in the middle of this, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. If you're all more interested in proving particular people wrong than finding agreement, feel free to ignore me.

 

It seems to me there's a lot of cross-arguing going on. There's a lot of accusations and bickering about what is and is not "valid." I don't care about that. I'm going to treat all arguments as "valid," and simply answer the ones I disagree with. Since Mr Skeptic is playing the Devil's Advocate to my own beliefs (or maybe he believes those things - I don't care), I'll address his most recent post.

 

The latest faulty argument is the claim that a statistical difference between two groups can be shown to be invalid by showing that some individuals in both groups share the same attribute. Why I should be defending against such an absurd claim, I don't know, but I'm glad a mod is on the case.

 

That is, indeed, a faulty argument. However, I'm pretty sure that's not the argument being made. The anecdotal stuff does not show there's no statistical difference, but it does show there is no absolute difference and at most a statistical one. And that is no basis for a just law. Analogously, men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women, and black people more likely than white people, but it would be unjust to, for example, use that as justification for revoking the second amendment rights of anyone with a Y chromosome or excessive melanin. People are judged by their actions, not the actions of their demographic.

 

I don't really know where these questions you're asking come from (this thread is far too tedious to read through carefully), and it's not clear whether you mean them to be arguments on their own (they're not) in the form of rhetorical questions, but if you're so eager, I'll give it a shot. In return, I'd ask you to explain why you think each presupposed answer is an argument against gay marriage.

 

Are you saying that it is possible for gay people to produce children with each other?

 

No. Or at least, not without help. Of course, straight people would be extremely foolish to do it without help, either, and some can't even do it then.

 

Are you saying that gay couples have, on average, as many children as straight couples?

 

Certainly not. Of course, that's not the relevant statistic. It should be, do gay couples who would get married if it were legal WANT to have as many children as married straight couples. If gay men are less likely to want to settle down (and I'm guessing they are), that's irrelevant, since it's only the marriage-inclined ones who enter into it. Also, the system is biased against gay adoption, so you would also have to estimate data if it weren't biased instead of using present figures.

 

Are you saying that the state does not care about its population size?

 

I don't know. I don't think so, honestly. Should it? Is underpopulation a problem? For that matter, would allowing gay marriage affect population growth in any way?

 

Are you saying that male gay couples can breastfeed?

 

Nope.

 

Are you saying that breastfeeding has no effect on the health of the children?

 

Probably not. Though I'm not sure what the point of this question is, since it's never a question of breastfeeding vs. formula, it's a question of getting formula from a gay man vs. from a foster parent.

 

Are you saying that the state doesn't care about children's health?

 

It seems to care, and I'm ok with that. (But again, I would argue that gay adoption, over all, would help children's health.)

 

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong?

 

Clearly, lots of them do.

 

Are you saying that people do not view gay marriage as wrong, compared to how they view straight marriage?

 

Again, they do.

 

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care what its people think?

 

Now that seems fallacious. "Not caring what they think" is one hell of a way to frame it. I would characterize it more as "tempering the tyranny of the majority." People's rights or lack thereof are not contingent on not being deemed icky by a large number of people. That is a foundation of an ethical society, and the rationale behind, for example, the Bill of Rights.

 

Are you saying that the laws for gay marriage are the same in all states?

Are you saying that the differences in laws about gay marriage are less or equal to the differences in laws about straight marriage?

Are you saying that the state shouldn't care that its laws may be in conflict with those of other states in important ways?

 

I admit I don't know what you're talking about here. Presumably this was a very specific argument that you're responding to. But it is the case that states have to honor the laws of other states.

 

Are you saying that because some individuals in one group are like most of the individuals in a different group, that that makes the groups the same?

 

You might see this as overly pedantic, but what do you mean by "the same?" You can say that members of one group are statistically more likely to act a certain way than members of a different group. But the fact that there is nothing necessarily different about individuals in the different groups, that necessitates a just law treat them equally.

[Pangloss]

It seems to me there's a lot of cross-arguing going on. There's a lot of accusations and bickering about what is and is not "valid." I don't care about that. I'm going to treat all arguments as "valid," and simply answer the ones I disagree with. Since Mr Skeptic is playing the Devil's Advocate to my own beliefs (or maybe he believes those things - I don't care), I'll address his most recent post.

 

You really have a talent for cutting to the heart of things sometimes.

 

To be more blunt about it than you were, I don't think Mr Skeptic's questions there deserve a response, because they were in fact examples of the very kinds of straw men he was complaining about (this is what I meant when I said that his post should have embarassed him). I don't believe those points are relevant to a discussion about gay marriage, and I was going to cut them off completely for that reason, but since you've responded to them I'll wait for his reply. (I do like the fact that you're trying to encourage a better response and I'm happy to play bad cop to your good cop.)

 

But in the end that's a strawman or it's moving the goalposts from Mr Skeptic there, and either way I think it's just inviting more of the same BS from the other side. Like I said, when I get in the middle of this, neither side is going to like it. I was talking to YOU, Mr Skeptic, every bit as much as your opponents.