Drama Over Obama Inaugural Prayer

[Mr Skeptic]

So, iNow, are you going to support your statements or concede them? I'm getting tired of asking, and tired of telling you that I have been refusing to try to disprove you because you think it absolves you from the burden of proof. I note that once again, you have nothing to say in support of your statement, only that I didn't disprove your statement.

[iNow]

So, iNow, are you going to support your statements or concede them? I'm getting tired of asking, and tired of telling you that I have been refusing to try to disprove you because you think it absolves you from the burden of proof. I note that once again, you have nothing to say in support of your statement, only that I didn't disprove your statement.

 

I am at a bit of a loss here, Mr Skeptic. You have not quoted the text of any laws in support of your position, and you have asked me to clarify statements I've made, but you have not been specific on what you want me to support.

 

I really don't know where to go from here. I'll be glad to support any assertions I've made so long as you quote specifically what you'd like me to address. However, that doesn't let you off the hook for finding the text of the laws which support your position.

 

Really, I don't know why you've made us go around and around this point for over 3 pages of thread now, and would like you to please cite the text of the laws which support your points, or retract/concede your position. Again, I will be more than happy to support or clarify any comments I've made as long as you are specific about what you want supported.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am at a bit of a loss here, Mr Skeptic. You have not quoted the text of any laws in support of your position, and you have asked me to clarify statements I've made, but you have not been specific on what you want me to support.

 

I really don't know where to go from here. I'll be glad to support any assertions I've made so long as you quote specifically what you'd like me to address. However, that doesn't let you off the hook for finding the text of the laws which support your position.

 

Really, I don't know why you've made us go around and around this point for over 3 pages of thread now, and would like you to please cite the text of the laws which support your points, or retract/concede your position. Again, I will be more than happy to support or clarify any comments I've made as long as you are specific about what you want supported.

 

I am not providing good evidence because I am not supporting my "position". And if ever I offer some support of that position, you completely ignore my requests for you to provide evidence for your position.

 

You said, in different words, and among other things,

"Marriage is between a man and a woman" is either not a secular argument, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage.

 

Whenever I challenge that statement, you insist that it is I who must prove that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is secular and constitutionally relevant (presumably by being true). And you pretend that you never made the initial statement, yet after a little while always repeat it again.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was "All arguments against gay marriage (except that marriage is between a man and a woman) are not secular or not constitutionally relevant"? If so, you forgot to include the exception, so I naturally presumed you meant all with no exception. If not, I have been waiting months for you to prove what you said, and so far you have not even tried.

 

If you'd like, I can count the different times you repeated that statement, or words to that effect, and provide direct quotes of it.

[iNow]

I am not providing good evidence because I am not supporting my "position".

This much is obvious, and that's been my point for the last several pages.

 

 

And if ever I offer some support of that position, you completely ignore my requests for you to provide evidence for your position.

You just conceded that you haven't offered support of your position. Further, you never clarified what position I have that requires support.

 

 

 

You said, in different words, and among other things,

"Marriage is between a man and a woman" is either not a secular argument, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage.

That's not a quote of mine. I just searched the site for those words, and I never said them. You're just making stuff up now. I never said that, nor did I ever allude to such a thing, which is probably the best reason ever why I haven't provided evidence in support of it.

 

 

Can a third party perhaps come in and help clarify the issue through their eyes? I've said what I mean so many times and in so many ways that I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

 

Mr Skeptic - I don't think the law says what you think it says, and I want you to either prove that the law as originally written restricts same sex marriage or retract your statement/concede the argument.

Edited December 28, 2008 by iNow

[npts2020]

Not to jump in the middle of a scholarly debate or anything, but here is what a famous gay activist, who has actually met Rick Warren, has to say about him participating in the inauguration ceremonies.

[Mr Skeptic]

You just conceded that you haven't offered support of your position. Further, you never clarified what position I have that requires support.

 

No, I said that what I shared does not disprove your position. You still have not proved it by virtue of me not having disproved it. And the evidence that I provided supports (but does not prove) a position opposite to yours.

 

You said' date=' in different words, and among other things,

"Marriage is between a man and a woman" is either not a secular argument, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage.

That's not a quote of mine. I just searched the site for those words, and I never said them. You're just making stuff up now. I never said that, nor did I ever allude to such a thing, which is probably the best reason ever why I haven't provided evidence in support of it.

 

I present iNow, the best example of "fundamentalist atheist blindness". Can't recognize something he has said relatively recently at least 18 different times and argued about incessantly, when asked to prove it:

 

I found that fascinating, as these laws banning same sex marriages are truly supported by nothing more than personal morality, they do NOT have any identifiable secular purpose, and that seems counter to the spirit of of the Establishment Clause... the very first amendment to our constitution.

Translation: "Marriage means between a man and a woman" is supported by nothing more than personal morality, it is not an identifiable secular purpose...

 

There is, however, no legitimate secular reason to apply state rights differently based solely on ones sexuality. To do so is an attempt to invocate morality with no reasonable secular purpose, which stands in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause in our constitution.

Translation: "Marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a legitimate secular reason...

 

• There is no legitimate nor relevant secular reason to have such a law since homosexual union does not harm anyone, and therefore it appears to be an invocation of religiously motivated morality, hence clearly against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Translation: "Marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a legitimate nor relevant secular reason...

 

Etc, etc. All of these are statements that say "Marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a [insert modifiers] secular reason to ban gay marriage.

 

There is no relevant secular reason for a law preventing homosexual unions from being equivalent to heterosexual unions in the United States, and no harm is being done to others, so such a law is not in place for reasons of protection or avoidance of harm to our citizens. With that said, the only remaining foundation for such a law is the invocation of morality. Since it is the invocation of morality, it has no place being viewed by due process, and is best analyzed under the Establishment Clause in the first amendment to our constitution.

 

What I am struggling most with, I suppose, is how they seem to see some clear difference between race and sexuality, and how the 14th amendment applies to one, but not the other. I'm searching for the secular reason this is so.

 

That's the difference which makes the comparison invalid. One is about perception, the other is about rights and privileges offered to the majority, but restricted to the minority for no relevant secular reason.

 

Here, states are recognizing some marriages as legal, but not others, for no relevant secular purpose. You are free to regard same sex or opposite sex unions in any way you want, but the state must offer rights to its citizens without discrimination, and when disallowing members of its populace rights and privileges which others enjoy it must have a relevant secular reason for doing so.

 

I have assumed no such thing. I only state that, as a matter of rights and privileges granted to the populace by the state, that differential application and allowance of these rights based only upon sexuality has no relevant secular purpose. I have also repeatedly welcomed relevant examples to the contrary, and none have been provided.

 

Again, there is no relevant secular reason why two people of the same gender should not be allowed the same rights and privileges that two people of opposite gender are allowed, whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, suffering from XYY (Klinefelters) or XO (Turner) syndrome, are infertile, hyperfertile, or otherwise.

 

Marriage, a basic civil right as defined by the Supreme Court of the United states, is being offered as a right by the state, and recognized as legal to some segment of the populace. If they wish to prevent this right from applying, and legal recognition from being allowed, to all citizens equally, then they must demonstrate a relevant secular reason for this differential and discriminatory behavior, as expressly indicated in the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, and reinforced by the Equal Protections Clause in the fourteenth amendment.

 

there is no relevant secular purpose for restricting marriage rights which are allowed to heterosexual couples from applying equally to homosexual couples.

 

This is not an appeal to incredulity (I see no relevant secular purpose) as I've welcomed examples to the contrary and have not received any (any of those thus far offered have been, in terms of the law and our constitution, wholly irrelevant).

 

However, the issue is that marriage IS currently a basic civil right in the United States being offered to heterosexuals (the majority), and it is being restricted from homosexuals (the minority) for no relevant secular purpose.

 

How about instead of throwing feces, you remind me what those arguments providing relevant secular reasons for the differential application of rights were, since I seemed to have missed them. Also, which of my statements have been untrue? There is a nice little quote feature here on SFN that will allow you to be precise with your substantiation.

 

I have not found any such relevant secular reason for prohibing homosexual marriages, and I welcome examples.

 

As anyone who argues this issue as one of non-discrimination and equal protections can plainly see, it is those who oppose gay marriage who are ultimately trying to redefine the existing laws and the very concept of marriage, and my stance is that their arguments suggesting otherwise reek of hypocrisy.

 

Since nobody on the side opposing gay marriage has offered any constitutionally relevant (and secular) reasons for such bans to be allowed, I am left to conclude (barring new information) that opposition to gay marriage is an attempt to invocate religiously motivated personal morality into our laws. Again, this interpretation is undisputed (and will remain as such) until a constitutionally relevant secular reason for banning same sex marriage is provided (and I've already countered the "original meaning" position above in numerous ways, so I move that this can no longer be offered in response to the request). If you have a relevant secular reason that gay marriage should not be allowed, I welcome hearing from you (and others) on those points so we can move this dialog forward.

 

However, despite the blaring vacuousness of your request, I can (in fact) support that opinion by reminding you (as I have repeatedly) that there have not been any constitutionally relevant secular reasons for a ban on gay marriage being offered by those opposing it. My position is further reinforced by the fact that secular individuals (and those who care about nondiscrimination and equal protections) tend not to argue the "opposition to gay marriage" side of the debate.

 

 

 

Can a third party perhaps come in and help clarify the issue through their eyes? I've said what I mean so many times and in so many ways that I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

 

Yes, please...

 

Mr Skeptic - I don't think the law says what you think it says, and I want you to either prove that the law as originally written restricts same sex marriage or retract your statement/concede the argument.

 

I don't think "all" and "there is no..." mean what you think they mean.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Mr Skeptic

[Pangloss]

I would like for Jackson33 and Mr Skeptic to answer my questions, please. I am increasingly appalled at both of your behavior in this thread.

 

This is the one jackson33 dances around in post #125:

But you haven't addressed the issue of equality; you're actually ignoring it. You state that they have equal protection under law, and yet in this thread it's been demonstrated that they do not. The government certificate/contract allows non-gays access to protected advantages/benefits that gays do not have access to -- they don't enjoy that protection. How do you explain that discrepancy?

 

Here's the last one I asked Mr Skeptic before he decided it was more important to marginalize iNow than to talk about gay marriage:

Well setting aside the obvious effort to ridicule the opposition' date=' I think he's asking a reasonable question, which is whether tradition, predisposition and precedent is the only valid legal argument that should be allowed on this issue.

 

Put another way, is it legally reasonable for individuals to go before a judge and ask for a marriage that doesn't fall under the narrow conditions of "man and woman", and if not, why not?

 

Or are we all agreed at this point that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that the reason it's not allowed is pretty much a matter of judicial interpretation in the favor of conservatives?[/quote']

 

If you two cannot answer those questions I'm going to ask for this thread to be placed on 24-hour suicide watch. All I see here is endless, pointless last-wording, and that is contrary to our purpose here.

[iNow]

Translation: "Marriage means between a man and a woman" is supported by nothing more than personal morality, it is not an identifiable secular purpose...

 

Okay, I think part of the issue here is a basic misinterpretation, as your translation above does not present my position the way I've intended it. Most of your quotes are from the other thread, and you are correct that over there I was suggesting that there is a lack of constitutionally relevant secular reasons for allowing state recognized marriage to opposite sex couples, but restricting state recognized marriage to same sex couples. For the record, I maintain this position at present.

 

What I sense from your post, however, is that you feel you have offered a constitutionally relevant secular reason for this, in that you suggest that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman, and that the marriage laws when written support this position.

 

Is this a fair interpretation?

 

If so, you seem to be missing that I have been challenging that the laws when written suggested any such defintion, and I have asked you to prove that they do. This would entail quoting exact legal text or codes which demonstrate that the meaning of marriage is for one man and one woman. Not a dictionary, but the actual text of the original laws which you said say something specific... I want you to demonstrate that they do say marriage is restricted to one man and one woman.

 

 

In the interest of transparency, I am pretty sure that those original laws just say "marriage," and that they could easily apply to same sex couples were it not for the passage of laws like DOMA or Prop 8. In fact, I have argued that laws like DOMA and Prop 8 would not be necessary if the laws when written say what you continue to assert they do.

 

I take issue with the charge that it is those in favor of allowing same sex marriage who are the ones trying to "redefine marriage," as they are simply arguing for equal application and protection of existing laws, laws which I posit simply use the term marriage without any clarification on intended gender (this point is clearly conditional on your ability to cite those legal texts). Readers should note, however, that it is those pushing legislation like DOMA and Prop 8 who who are working hard to pass such "definitional" laws, not those in favor of freedom and equality.

 

As I just alluded to above, my supposition is that the laws when written simply used the term "marriage" with no qualifiers based on sexuality or genitals, securing my point that same sex marriage should already be allowed and it is only the interpretation of conservative judges preventing it (barring legislation like DOMA and Prop 8).

 

Now, you've ignored my requests for over 3 pages to supply evidence in support of your position that the laws when written defined marriage to be between one man and one woman. I hope you will at least respect Pangloss enough to respond to his.

 

Alternatively, you can apologize to the community for wasting everyones time, acknowledge that you are not able to prove that the laws when written restricted marriage to one man and one woman (that you retract your assertion due to lack of evidence), and bow out of the argument gracefully.

Edited December 29, 2008 by iNow

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Not noted for my dancing abilities, I don't think my attitudes toward the Gay community are appalling, even remotely.

 

1- It is my opinion, this movement and it has been a movement for no less than 50 years (I have been involved with) is directed at 'Religious Concepts' of what Society should accept (Agnostic myself).

 

2- It is my opinion, that all such final resolutions to social issue should come from States or the people in those States (not the Federal). That at some point (has always happened), when it gets down to where a few States, continue to hold out against the majority, THEN the Federal via Congress or SC actions should get involved to support the majority of States, not EVER to support a minority of States or of individuals (Courts) in any number of States. This is not the current situation.

 

3- It is my opinion, sexual orientation, is most certainly a moral issue, religiously opposed to and in the US up to 80% of the people believe in some entity as their God and belief their leaders to what constitutes moral issues. I would also suggest the vast majority of CURRENT Gay couples, oppose the actions of fringe groups trying to legitimize homosexuality, their own preference, rather wishing they had made other choices, knowing of reasons they in fact chose that lifestyle (Almost always first sexual experience).

 

4- It is my opinion there is most certainly a slippery slope argument, not only to moral issues but any issue pertaining to rights. Arguments on the slippery slope have not changed in my years and will not change in the future. Rights inherently are removed by such activity, generally quietly as the movements progress, as equalization of the individual are granted. Imagine what the Country would look like if the Amish Society was an active movement, if the Mormons original doctrine had trumpeted, the KKK had prevailed or a thousand other movements had seceded in our history or if Islam or the hundred other segmented societies NOW in the US succeed in the future.

 

5- You will not find one quote where I oppose the rights of Gays, to the limits of current laws or that I oppose changes in law to permit benefits. I do oppose the methods being used and activist judges or politicians trying to make others feel they are somehow compassionate to the issue, when in most cases they are anything but.

 

6- To repeat the gut of my post #125; No LAW, regarding people or there actions can be justly equal to application in this country. This in fact is what generates the 'slippery slope scenario', in the first place, trying to include as many as possible under one law. Suffrage and its history, a very good example. One movement very much alive is a 16YO voting age, which came from the 18 YO (from 21yo). Law granted by States differ today from State to State on what the Marriage Contract means to their State, especially along the lines of inheritance and with out a 'Last Will' they can be as destructive as any problem a 'Gay Union' would encounter today.

 

.

Aside from all this; We are a nation of laws...No law treats every person the same, NONE. A person in one State can do many things, that in another State are punishable in another and if you take this to sentencing the differences can be extensive. Our Federal System can set guidelines for all States and set standards for benefits however they please. SS for instance, awards the estate of a deceased a death benefit and the State determines who is in charge of that estate. If an employed person is in a recognized union, for 9 years 11 months and twenty nine days, the surviving partner is entitled to nothing under law and if 10 years (40 quarters) they are eligible for survivors befits. The two friends (sex not the issue) or siblings that cohabitate in a deceased parents home or all those unions never recorded are no more qualified for those benefits than 'same sex' partners and in this case, my point to how laws work....

 

For the record, and I entered the current case in Louisiana for this purpose...

I do feel, Gays and especially Lesbian association issue's should be addressed and society should be tolerant to their emotional problems which come from being seen as 'outcast' with in the society. There are far to many inconsistency in State Laws or even Supreme Court Decisions or what the heads of Federal Government say/comment on. I don't know the solution or pretend to know, but one thing is for sure; These inconsistencies, as I see them are headed for a brick wall and should become resolved before that wall is hit...

[Mr Skeptic]

Well setting aside the obvious effort to ridicule the opposition, I think he's asking a reasonable question, which is whether tradition, predisposition and precedent is the only valid legal argument that should be allowed on this issue.

 

No, he is not, and that is what bothers me. He is stating, not asking. When asked to support what he says, he instead says the burden of proof is on me. If I said something like "There is no secular arguments in favor of gay marriage that are constitutionally relevant" you would ask me to support what I said, would you not? If not, then that is what I am going to be answering every time iNow repeats that there are no arguments against it. And if so, perhaps you should ask iNow to support what he has repeated about 18 times already but never supported.

 

Put another way, is it legally reasonable for individuals to go before a judge and ask for a marriage that doesn't fall under the narrow conditions of "man and woman", and if not, why not?

 

Of course, that is the purpose of a judge. That is not to say that the judge should grant their request, only that if the law is unclear, the judge decides how it gets applied.

 

Or are we all agreed at this point that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that the reason it's not allowed is pretty much a matter of judicial interpretation in the favor of conservatives?

 

I think that a legislated ban against gay marriage implies that the law does specify man-and-woman, at least in some places. Judges had nothing to do with the writing of these laws. If you want to claim that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that that is just biased judicial interpretation, I will have to ask you for some evidence. Please note that I am not saying that this is how it should be, only how it is. Of course, since you are a mod, you could just use your super mod powers to ignore me asking you or someone who agrees with you to support their position, and instead tell me to disprove your position. Whatever rocks your boat.

[Sayonara]

If you want to claim that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that that is just biased judicial interpretation, I will have to ask you for some evidence. Please note that I am not saying that this is how it should be, only how it is.

Or someone could just point to a part of the relevant legislation which gives the legal definition of marriage. I think this is all iNow has been asking for for what seems like weeks, and it's a perfectly reasonable request.

 

Of course, since you are a mod, you could just use your super mod powers to ignore me asking you or someone who agrees with you to support their position, and instead tell me to disprove your position. Whatever rocks your boat.

That's not how it works. Stop being disingenuous.

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, I think part of the issue here is a basic misinterpretation, as your translation above does not present my position the way I've intended it. Most of your quotes are from the other thread, and you are correct that over there I was suggesting that there is a lack of constitutionally relevant secular reasons for allowing state recognized marriage to opposite sex couples, but restricting state recognized marriage to same sex couples. For the record, I maintain this position at present.

 

Maintain it if you want, what I am asking is that you offer some sort of defense if you do.

 

What I sense from your post, however, is that you feel you have offered a constitutionally relevant secular reason for this, in that you suggest that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman, and that the marriage laws when written support this position.

 

Yes. I'd note that you yourself quoted the definition of marriage argument as the justification for passing Prop 8, and so in saying that there are no constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage after that, I assumed you were specifically aware of this argument and were stating that it was invalid.

 

Is this a fair interpretation?

 

Sure.

 

If so, you seem to be missing that I have been challenging that the laws when written suggested any such defintion, and I have asked you to prove that they do.

 

That is exactly what I have not been missing. You make a claim that there aren't any constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage. Since that doesn't have exceptions, it naturally includes the claim that the definition of marriage is not a constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage. Since you made that claim, I asked you to defend it. And yet instead of defending your statement, you are asking me to take the burden of proof.

 

This would entail quoting exact legal text or codes which demonstrate that the meaning of marriage is for one man and one woman. Not a dictionary, but the actual text of the original laws which you said say something specific... I want you to demonstrate that they do say marriage is restricted to one man and one woman.

 

Again, I never said I proved that marriage means between a man and a woman. What I said is that if you want to say that it is not a secular constitutionally relevant argument, you should prove it. If that is not what you wanted to say, you should stop saying it.

 

In the interest of transparency, I am pretty sure that those original laws just say "marriage," and that they could easily apply to same sex couples were it not for the passage of laws like DOMA or Prop 8. In fact, I have argued that laws like DOMA and Prop 8 would not be necessary if the laws when written say what you continue to assert they do.

 

And I have agreed with you, so what is the problem here? However, since there are plenty of laws passed that are not necessary in the least, I don't see how that is evidence the evidence you claim it is. I am asking you to demonstrate that the definition of marriage means what you are continually (18 times and counting) say they do.

 

I take issue with the charge that it is those in favor of allowing same sex marriage who are the ones trying to "redefine marriage," as they are simply arguing for equal application and protection of existing laws, laws which I posit simply use the term marriage without any clarification on intended gender (this point is clearly conditional on your ability to cite those legal texts). Readers should note, however, that it is those pushing legislation like DOMA and Prop 8 who who are working hard to pass such "definitional" laws, not those in favor of freedom and equality.

 

Both sides claim that the other is trying to redefine marriage. The side against gay marriage has successfully passed laws in favor of their definition, whereas the side in favor of gay marriage seems to be asking judges to rule the definition of marriage in existing laws in the way they like. I am not siding with either side in this, though again if you take a side you should defend it.

 

As I just alluded to above, my supposition is that the laws when written simply used the term "marriage" with no qualifiers based on sexuality or genitals, securing my point that same sex marriage should already be allowed and it is only the interpretation of conservative judges preventing it (barring legislation like DOMA and Prop 8).

 

I'd agree that they passed the law without qualifiers as to genitals, but my interpretation is different. I think that they did not include any qualifiers, because they did not think they were needed since any such qualifiers would be included in the definition of marriage. Now, if you know what the definition of marriage at that time was or wasn't, please share. If not, than don't say you do. The reason I suspect your idea of what the definition of marriage was is incorrect, is because the attitudes of that time would have made gay marriage impossible.

 

Now, you've ignored my requests for over 3 pages to supply evidence in support of your position that the laws when written defined marriage to be between one man and one woman. I hope you will at least respect Pangloss enough to respond to his.

 

Here is where you misunderstand me. While you correctly inferred that that is what I believe they meant, I have not intended to state that as a fact (I may have, by mistake. If so, I retract that), only as a counterargument to your more general statement that there aren't any secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage. All I have offered as proof are current dictionary definitions that hint at previous definition, and prevailing attitudes of the time, which you correctly note do not prove that to be the definition of marriage. However, you have not even managed to provide as much proof in favor of your position, as I have against your position.

 

Alternatively, you can apologize to the community for wasting everyones time, acknowledge that you are not able to prove that the laws when written restricted marriage to one man and one woman (that you retract your assertion due to lack of evidence), and bow out of the argument gracefully.

 

I apologize for my lack of communication skills. Now iNow, I must ask you to apologize for wasting everyone's time, and acknowledge that you are not able to prove that "marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a secular, constitutionally relevant argument against gay marriage. If you are feeling up to it, you can even prove your more general statement, that there aren't any secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage.

 

Or someone could just point to a part of the relevant legislation which gives the legal definition of marriage. I think this is all iNow has been asking for for what seems like weeks, and it's a perfectly reasonable request.

 

I already shared something similar, though in a dictionary. I'd also point out that in law, Proposition 8 provides a legal definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples. If people think the Oxford Dictionary is wrong, please provide some evidence of that.

 

The Oxford Companion to American Law

Same-Sex Marriage.

All American states prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

While this bar has been challenged on constitutional grounds a number of times, only two challenges have succeeded in part. In Baehr v. Lewin (1993), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that statutes that prevent a person from marrying someone of the same sex might violate the state constitution. While the case was still in the courts, however, the Hawaii legislature proposed an amendment to the state constitution to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, but also enacted a law allowing couples ineligible to marry to register as reciprocal beneficiaries and to receive many of the benefits formerly available only to married couples. In State v. Baker (1999), the Vermont Supreme Court held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have access to the same benefits under state law that married couples have. In response, the state legislature enacted a civil union law that gives same-sex couples the same rights as married couples but does not allow them to marry formal (see homosexuality and the law).

 

Oxford Dictionary of Law

marriage n. 1. The relationship between

husband and wife

.

 

2. A ceremony, civil or religious, that creates the legal status of husband and wife and the legal obligations arising from that status (see marriage ceremony). All marriages must be registered by an authorized marriage registrar. The minimum age for marriage is 16 with parental consent (18 without), and capacity to marry in general is governed by the law of domicile of both parties before the marriage. Relationships within which marriage is prohibited are specified in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 (see prohibited degrees of relationships).

Parties to a marriage must be respectively male and female

(see civil partnership; gender reassignment), must not be already married to someone else (see bigamy; polygamy), and must enter into the marriage freely. See also marriage by certificate.

 

Keep in mind that I have not accepted the burden of proof and see no reason why I should, which is why I have been focusing on asking iNow to support his position rather than providing evidence of a position counter to his.

 

Specifically, when iNow says that there are no secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage, he is saying that, among other things, that the argument that "marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a secular, constitutionally relevant argument against gay marriage. I should note that iNow has yet to try to prove that statement when I called his attention to it.

 

Sayonara³, if I am mistaken in that iNow has the burden of proof here, could you please explain how so?

[Sayonara]

Sayonara³, if I am mistaken in that iNow has the burden of proof here, could you please explain how so?

Step 1: People make the argument "gay marriage cannot exist because marriage is between a man and a woman".

 

Step 2: Onus is on them to demonstrate their argument.

 

Step 3: Profit!

 

Specifically, when iNow says that there are no secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage, he is saying that, among other things, that the argument that "marriage means between a man and a woman" is not a secular, constitutionally relevant argument against gay marriage.

Yes, iNow is saying that. He is saying that because those people trying to present it as an argument have failed to fulfil Step 2 above. He is rationally, morally, and legally correct to take a sceptical view of their reasoning.

 

 

I am not certain what legal status the Oxford Dictionary of Law has with regards to defining terms, but I somehow doubt that it is referred to in court rooms. I also note that it pertains to UK legislation and do not see how that is relevant to a discussion of legislation in the USA. The origin of your definitions must be consistent with the legal framework you are applying them to, or they are worthless.

 

I'd also point out that in law, Proposition 8 provides a legal definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.

I don't think iNow stated this explicitly, but he certainly implied it: that is begging the question.

[Mr Skeptic]

Step 1: People make the argument "gay marriage cannot exist because marriage is between a man and a woman".

 

Step 2: Onus is on them to demonstrate their argument.

 

Step 3: Profit!

 

 

Yes, iNow is saying that. He is saying that because those people trying to present it as an argument have failed to fulfil Step 2 above. He is rationally, morally, and legally correct to take a sceptical view of their reasoning.

 

I see. However, for that interpretation, iNow left out the word "proven". It is my understanding that an argument is different from a proof, in that it is not necessarily known to be correct or incorrect.

 

However, by similar token to what you say, then I will state the following: There is no secular, proven, constitutionally relevant argument in favor of gay marriage. In fairness, if you say that saying the above requires me to disprove any argument in favor of gay marriage, then I don't see how what iNow said does not require him to disprove any argument against gay marriage.

 

I am not certain what legal status the Oxford Dictionary of Law has with regards to defining terms, but I somehow doubt that it is referred to in court rooms. I also note that it pertains to UK legislation and do not see how that is relevant to a discussion of legislation in the USA. The origin of your definitions must be consistent with the legal framework you are applying them to, or they are worthless.

 

Hm, I've always know that the Oxford Dictionary was highly reputable, but I forgot about it being from UK. However, I'd say that the Oxford Companion to American Law would still count. Anyone know what dictionary is used in American Law?

 

I don't think iNow stated this explicitly, but he certainly implied it: that is begging the question.

 

I'd agree. However, I'd also say that if everyone sits on their thumbs and does nothing about it, that is how it will remain. Hence, whoever disagrees had better do something about it.

[Sayonara]

I think that the inclusion of the term "proven" is muddying the waters, and making an unfair requirement.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that the inclusion of the term "proven" is muddying the waters, and making an unfair requirement.

 

I included it because people are requesting me to provide a proven counter argument to iNow's argument, rather than just one that is secular and constitutionally relevant. I thought it actually made things clearer and more fair to include "proven" if that was a requirement.

[Sayonara]

I don't just mean when it's included by you. In this sort of discussion everyone needs to be very careful how they use the word "proven".

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, well if "proven" is not a requirement, then "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is an argument that is secular, constitutionally relevant, and against gay marriage. So I'd say I've disproven iNow's statement. So he should retract it.

[Sayonara]

Hm, I've always know that the Oxford Dictionary was highly reputable, but I forgot about it being from UK. However, I'd say that the Oxford Companion to American Law would still count. Anyone know what dictionary is used in American Law?

Well... none. Those dictionaries are reference books for the layperson, not court-approved lexicons.

 

Ah, well if "proven" is not a requirement, then "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is an argument that is secular, constitutionally relevant, and against gay marriage. So I'd say I've disproven iNow's statement. So he should retract it.

I thought iNow was asking that the argument "Marriage is between a man and a woman" should be supported in some way?

 

Otherwise you are basically taking it on faith.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Sayonara³
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

I thought iNow was asking that the argument "Marriage is between a man and a woman" should be supported in some way?

 

Otherwise you are basically taking it on faith.

 

It was supported, however weakly. What he is asking is that I prove it. However, what I am arguing is that he has taken on the responsibility to disprove it, since he said that it is false (when he claimed that there are no secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage) before I said that it might be true (when I asked him to try to disprove it). If he does not need to prove what he says, why should I? Why should I be asked to prove something when all I am doing is asking him to support what he said?

[Sayonara]

Because of the consequences in the "true" case, presumably.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, basically, iNow doesn't have to prove what he says, because the consequences of it being true are "acceptable", but if I want to challenge iNow, I have to prove him wrong because the consequences of him being wrong are "unacceptable"?

[Pangloss]

Two wrongs don't make a right. But that's all you've been doing for the last four fuggin pages. Total waste of time.

[jackson33]

It was supported, however weakly. What he is asking is that I prove it. However, what I am arguing is that he has taken on the responsibility to disprove it, since he said that it is false (when he claimed that there are no secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage) before I said that it might be true (when I asked him to try to disprove it). If he does not need to prove what he says, why should I? Why should I be asked to prove something when all I am doing is asking him to support what he said?

 

I should know better by now and I do agree with much of your arguments on this issue, even others but; If you go back over iNow's post on this or other threads relating to 'Same Sex Marriage' he most certainly has offered an interpretation of law, which the Courts in California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and to some degree others have agreed with. The link of 'Race Bias' and 'Sexual Orientation', has been made by these State Courts and under the law, then become the Law of the State. You probably know this already and also know State Courts or in fact State Legislatures are not bound to popular opinion. That is as close to proving or disproving anything on this issue...

 

As for what I call 'cop out' (strawman) arguments, often used to when some one is tired of arguing the same things over and over, I also find them annoying. Frankly I don't post on many forums, where even the Administrators will request 'Sources', the 'Peer Review' or some nonsense to validate an opinion that formed over 30-40-50 years on any topic I might otherwise join in on. Many older folks, as I am, have lived through changes in Science and/or Social Issues, which have gone both ways and in some cases back again in my lifetime. 'Sodomy to Same Sex', is just one example...and reasonably NEW to the US Social Structure, for whatever reason.

 

As for Obama and Mr. Warren, it will be interesting to see the response and/or follow up by both, after the inauguration. I personally believe Obama, at least has studied Islam (Koran), adamantly opposes 'Same Sex Marriage', which is very much acceptable to his and the Democratic Party very 'BASE'.

[Mr Skeptic]

Two wrongs don't make a right. But that's all you've been doing for the last four fuggin pages. Total waste of time.

 

You mean one wrong doesn't make a right. I don't understand why it is "wrong" not to have to disprove something someone else said, just because you asked them to support or retract it. If it is such a waste of time, ask iNow to support or retract what he said, and I will stop asking him to. I'm sure he'd listen to you more than he'd listen to me.

 

One Source Arguments

If you can't provide more than one source, don't try to argue that position. Substantiating an event/opinion/theory requires more than just one source, even if the source happens to be the President/Prime Minister.

 

I'm guessing no-source blanket statements are also discouraged?