Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[padren]

Then that would make you a hypocrite, because you and others here have based your entire case for SSM on its constitutionality.

 

If you disagree with a point, voice it. You asked the same question earlier and I addressed it - it is not unusual or hypocritical to disagree with the opinion of the supreme court! Anti-abortionists have been doing just that since Roe vs Wade as I pointed out, and it's their right to feel that judgment was in error.

 

Seriously, that's about as off base as saying "If you believe the legal system is a good thing to have, and you still think OJ Simpson killed his wife and her lover after he was acquitted then you must be a hypocrite. There was a ruling - you must change your mind!"

 

Since I already made this point and you didn't address it I thought you let this errant tangent go. If you think it actually has merit though, would you mind explaining exactly how disagreeing with a ruling makes one a hypocrite? I think I just made a decent case as to how it does not.

[ParanoiA]

Now you see why I kept asking him why he thought we suddenly would stop following the rule of law? I couldn't and still don't understand the idea that my mind must agree with the rule of the state. Governing is about regulating actions, not thoughts.

 

So, yeah, our actions will comply with the SCOTUS ruling. My thoughts may or may not.

 

Right now, my thoughts reject half of our laws, if not more.

[padren]

It was at one time, and it was just as wrong as opinions favoring cannibalism were in their time. Civilization has moved on, at least in America and Canuckistan. The problem now is that the analogy of prohibiting blacks from drinking at white drinking fountains, or of blacks marrying whites, to prohibing SSM cannot be convincingly demonstrated to enough people to make a legal difference. Whose problem is that? Who needs to get real? Whose reality matters?

I don't think we ever started talking about how many people could be convinced of what - we've been talking about what is in line with constitutional law, what is discriminatory and what is not. There's a pretty big difference. Also keep in mind the supreme court is not supposed to even take popular opinion into account but solely consider arguments on legal qualifications and constitutional interpretations.

 

Lets stick with the topic, shall we?

If gays got their full legal rights to DPs, and all “facts and logic” were equal, then who is right and who is wrong about the titular issue of “marriage.” The straights claim it as their own; the gays want them to share it. No facts or logic from either side can settle this matter; it can only be settled on the fearsome landscape of opinion.

 

Those straights (not the straights) can keep their narrow definitions, just allow others to have their definitions. It's a simple, clean, elegant solution. Your comments about "can only settled by opinion" are an oversimplification of the issue. We do use facts and logic in deciding what is constitutional. You can pretty much do what you want on your property minding your own business yes? That is an opinion - one based on our constitutional protections of liberty. Now, if your "business" that you are minding just happens to be dumping large amounts of arsenic into the ground water, facts about arsenic and logic regarding it's potential to contaminate other people's drinking water come into effect, and your liberties are curtailed to protect the general public.

 

Can you take a moment to consider this subtlety: We have opinions about the role of government and individual rights, that are long established and went into the drafting of the constitution and bill of rights. We also introduce facts and use logic to deduce if a person's liberties should be curtailed as a necessity to safeguard the welfare and liberties of other citizens. In absence of such facts, we err on the side of individual liberties instead of constraints. That's how it's always worked, it hasn't always been done flawlessly - but that is how it works.

 

What‘s left but opinion if the gays are not in any way disadvantaged by the legality of their DPs?

 

Reread my comments, as I am rather tired of restating them. Read them, address them, but don't just repeat questions if you feel the answers already provided have holes in them - challenge the answers. I've bolded the most relevant answer to that question in my above comments just to point you in the right direction.

 

 

 

Would you object if I decided to marry myself? And on what grounds? Would it be a “same-sex marriage”? Does this seem ridiculous to you? Why? Who is harmed by it?

I really wouldn't care, though I don't see how a legal marriage could be applied as it wouldn't change anything about your legal status. You already can't testify against yourself, you already make your own medical decisions and you already share all your property with yourself. But honestly, I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't mess with others unwarrantedly.

 

Would it be discriminatory if I decided to call myself a woman? Why not? Why can’t I call myself a pink unicorn if I want to? Well, I suppose I could do all that, but why?

I am not 100% up on the current status of transgendered rights, but it is worth noting that a person can be born one gender, and be called another legally. Should someone who is born male and undergoes surgery to become a woman be called a "surgically altered male" or a woman? I mean, their chromosomes haven't changed. But hey, if you follow a religion that says if you are born a male it doesn't matter what you do with the plumbing - you'll always be a male to God? Believe that, it's fine as long as you don't try to mess with other people's beliefs to the otherwise. We do protect that despite very strong traditional definitions. Honestly your argument works more in my favor - thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't thought about that one.

 

As to the unicorn deal:

 

The Dali Llama goes around calling himself the reincarnated leader of Tibet. Priests call themselves "servants of God" and the Pope calls himself the closest mortal to God on Earth. Knock yourself out pinky.

Answer: Because prevailing opinion (forget about the facts and logic) would not allow either one to occur on the legal level where the rubber of opinions meet the road of political reality.

A discussion about legality and constitutionality is not the same as a discussion on whether something is politically viable in light of prevailing public opinion.

Then you agree that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

I have already made that very clear in a ton of posts in this thread. It doesn't happen to address what to do while government is in the business of marriage though.

 

Aside from the issue of gay rights however, there is the issue that a segment of society has claimed the right to usurp and monopolize a legal term to a narrow definition on the basis that "sacredness" trumps personal liberties for nonsecular reasons.

No one group no matter the size should get away with that. It's a battle that gets fought over in many different facets of culture and law. Personally I have no problem claiming human life begins at conception if the science demonstrates this but any politician attempting to claim this (and thus afford rights to a cluster of cells) solely based on scripture making this claim is something I consider dangerous. I would hope you would agree with that.

 

I’m sorry about the conjecture remark. You are a sincere poster and I didn’t mean to blow you off. But “the original definition” of marriage is relevant here, because politics is relevant if SSM is to be actualized. So far, that “original definition” prevails in 96% of the states and DC. How are you going to lift your 4% up to something that has any meaning for your cause? You have to change opinions, however terrible they might seem to the 4% minority.

I am only arguing on the issue of the constitutional legality of Prop 8, which exists in a nation where marriage is a legal term. It doesn't matter to me how you get states to change their minds (since you are talking about states, not people... far more than 4% of people support gay marriage), or at least while I find the topic interesting it's also outside the scope of this thread.

 

All that having been said, I still don’t know where the harm is if gays are granted their fully comprehensive and legal rights to DPs. Not being able to call it “marriage” would not harm even a child conceived from such a CU…oh, sorry, that’s biologically impossible, I forgot. Well, then where IS the harm?

If we call gay marriages marriages, then there is no double standard. If we don't and give them those rights via DPs, then while they have rights we have a double standard in place. Double standards are bad. They allow harmful things.

Doing something once legally makes it far easier to do again later, even when it's unpopular. I had a client who had a dating website that received a legal notice from a company claiming to hold the patent on "sending video over the internet" demanding he shut down all online video or begin paying royalty fees. Failure to do so would result in legal action and an increase in royalty percentages. Essentially it was extortion. Sadly, it was all legal. Yes, he could have gone to court, but he didn't have a large enough legal budget. How did this happen? Well, the company bought a badly issued patent (that actually claimed all digitally compressed visual and audio data that was ordered so it could begin decoding before the last byte of data had been received by the recipient) and proceeded to make legal claims against porn sites. Why? Because judges love shutting down porn. They chose not to go after big companies with legal teams that would crush them, only small ones that judges would be biased against.

Then, after establishing some legal precedent they went after other small companies using video on the internet, such as my client who after investing many thousands of dollars, closed down his entire site. This is why legal precedent is dangerous when we only ask "what's the big deal?" whether it's gays getting "a lot better deal than they had" or "who's going to miss some smut peddlers?"

 

Legal precedent matters. Setting a bad precedent is harmful to our society and legal system. This precedent would be bad because it allows for a group to set arbitrary limitations on another without just cause. It also sets a double standard. Those things are bad. (Unless of course, you are of the opinion that they are great things in a constitutional republic.)

Agreed, opinions are the element.

Already addressed above, so I won't repeat my comments on this.

This debate is about pride, on both sides. If there are no legal differences between a marriage between one man and one woman and a DP between two gays then what else do we have but prideful opinion. That’s why we have courts, to interpret the Constitution.

Did you even understand what I was saying about the deconstruction of arguments? It's not a pride issue. Demonstrate that it is or stop repeating it.

The big question is this: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

 

I addressed this in my previous post to you regarding your comments to Sayonara³.

Edited March 26, 2009 by padren

[jackson33]

Not trying to speak for scrappy; His point I feel is three is no Constitutional Basis for the acceptance of SSM in federal law TODAY. If it were were to be argued today and as Barnie Franks said, it would ruled against. I would add the SC has TODAY no authority to even hear a simple SSM case, where it's not specifically addressed in the Constitution and add the 'Founders sentiments' would not help the movement.

 

If Mr. Franks, can get a couple openly gay judges appointed in the next few years, I would further suggest the Congress would amend the Constitution, to either prevent a decision or override one made.

 

As I have, he is arguing from a legal standpoint to an audience based on an emotional point of view. Decision/ruling made by Congress and or THE ENTIRE Judicial System, should never be made on emotions.

[padren]

Just an addendum to the "Pink Unicorn" comment:

 

Go for it. Change your legal name to "Scrappy the Pink Unicorn." Prince changed his name to "The Artist formerly known as Prince" and used a symbol to write it that doesn't even exist in the alphabet. Have at it - knock yourself out. Describe yourself as a Pink Unicorn, people do a lot stranger things. "I am a pink unicorn that looks like a normal human male" - good for you, no one will care. Change your legal name and the state will even let you sign your checks that way. Get a driver's license that has "Scrappy the Pink Unicorn" and when you get a speeding ticket you'll demonstrate on your proof of registration you are in fact "Scrappy the Pink Unicorn" and he may blink but he'll fully respect your legal right of your chosen name. So do it - enjoy your legal rights, and be glad your options aren't limited due to legal double standards.

[iNow]

I would add the SC has TODAY no authority to even hear a simple SSM case, where it's not specifically addressed in the Constitution and add the 'Founders sentiments' would not help the movement.

Actually, it IS addressed in the Constitution, in the 9th Amendment, the Enumeration Clause. In sum, just because a right is not explicitly protected in the constitution does not mean that the citizens do not have that right.

 

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

 

So, yes... It IS specifically addressed in the Constitution.

[jackson33]

The reason most our amendments 11-26, have been written, ratified and tested, was to clarify/alter or change the first 10. When this SC or any since the first, review/hear a case, they are/have been concerned with intent of the authors. I can guaranty you in 1791 (A #9 ratified) you would not like my interpretation or any historians of that intent. Remember the penalty in 3 of those 13 Colonies was death for an act of sodomy. Further, Women and Blacks were also not intended. This is why I believe only an amendment to the Constitution will clear up this matter and do not feel (Opinion) this could be done today. In the meantime States still have rights and can decide this issue. Blacks were free people, different races married and women held State Offices, long before their liberating amendments/laws were enacted...

[iNow]

Well thanks, but that has Jack, and also his other brother shit, to do with my post.

[scrappy]

I don't much like being called a hypocrite without any kind of justification.

What more justification do you need? You’re a hypocrite because you would claim that SSM is constitutional, even if the SCOTUS were to decide that it isn’t. (How can let yourself get caught in such an embarrassment? Answer: emotional overload.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

…would you mind explaining exactly how disagreeing with a ruling makes one a hypocrite?

One would be a hypocrite if one were to argue the SSM case on its constitutionality and then deny its unconstitutionality after the SCOTUS ruled against it. Not only would one be a hypocrite, one would be abysmally ignorant of the principles of a constitutional republic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Did you even understand what I was saying about the deconstruction of arguments? It's not a pride issue. Demonstrate that it is or stop repeating it.

When all other legalities concerning real marriage an same-sex civil unions are equal in every relevant detail of the law, there is nothing left to complain about except wounded pride...on either side of the argument. The Constitution is not about people's emotions; it's about people's rights as interpreted by the SCOTUS. If you don't like that system then you need to go join one that is not a constitutional republic.

Edited March 27, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

One would be a hypocrite if one were to argue the SSM case on its constitutionality and then deny its unconstitutionality after the SCOTUS ruled against it.

 

No, one would be of a different opinion than the justices as to it's unconstitutionality. It is not a conflict of purported virtues and princples, it is a conflict of application of those virtues and principles. Personal opinion that differs from SCOTUS is not a repudiation of the concept of our republic, and does not even remotely imply, by any stretch, any fraudulent statement of belief in the principles and virtues associated with it.

 

Countering actions would prove hypocrisy, not opinions and thoughts.

 

Not only would one be a hypocrite, one would be abysmally ignorant of the principles of a constitutional republic.

 

It's the opposite. One would be fabulously informed about the principles of a constitutional republic when one embraces their power to disagree with everyone else, SCOTUS, god, and anything else you can imagine, yet follow the rule of said republic.

[Sayonara]

What more justification do you need? You’re a hypocrite because you would claim that SSM is constitutional, even if the SCOTUS were to decide that it isn’t.

But Scrappy, that is not what I said I would do. This is YOUR failing because YOU asked a wide-open question but deliberately interpreted narrow and specific meanings from the answer; inferences which you intended to draw before you had even asked the question.

 

[edit]In fact, I did not actually say that I would positively take any action. I said "Well, that'll depend on if I agree with the wording of the ruling. As it would for any ruling about legislation."

Your utterly transparent objective here is to label people as hypocrites or over-emotional, and write off arguments as dented pride. For that you get nominated for a persistent logical fallacies infraction, and a trolling infraction.[/edit]

 

Even if the quote of yours above could be inferred from what I said, it would not make me a hypocrite. It would simply mean that I disagreed with SCOTUS on a point of law. I don't know what your experience of legal process is but I can assure you that is no rare occurrence.

 

If SCOTUS determine that same-sex marriage is not constitutionally protected, and the ruling shows exactly why, then obviously that would change my opinion of the situation. I might not agree with their interpretations, but unless there is a legal argument against the ruling I will have to physically abide by it (insomuch as it would affect me, that is).

 

Having said that, I find it difficult to imagine a compelling argument which could be used as the basis of a SCOTUS ruling against the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage, seeing as none has ever come up here in thousands of posts on the topic over half a decade.

 

(How can let yourself get caught in such an embarrassment? Answer: emotional overload.)

If you would not try to lay such ill-advised and obvious traps for people in this thread nobody would be getting "caught" in anything.

 

The only emotional overload going on here is in response to your bungled attempts at underhand tactics.

 

I for one am growing tired of you very quickly. You haven't even asked me what my specific stance is yet but you are quite happy to call me a "hypocrite" after posing a loaded question. I am guessing you also think I am on a "side". Sigh.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Sayonara³
Closed with quote tag instead of edit tag! Duh.

[scrappy]

I do not see how anything but pride is driving this discussion—pride on both sides. I have made it clear too many times already that I support fully legal, equal and fair same-sex domestic partnerships. But I don’t support calling them “marriages.” Why? Because they don’t fit my definition of the term, that’s why. Am I prideful because of this? Well, yes, to the extent that my pride counters the pride of the same-sexers who hold the opposite opinion. Wounded pride is all there is here…if same-sex DPs were fully legal, equal and fair.

 

This is why it makes no practical sense for the LGBT people to demand their “marriages,” per se, as long as they get their fully legal, equal and fair DPs. Take this one word off the table—”marriage”—and see what happens. All those stupid, bigoted and traditional people who live in all those stupid, bigoted and traditional states—all 94 percent of them—might belly up the bar of same-sex DPs like farmers at a hoedown.

[ParanoiA]

In other words, he can't support his hypocrisy charges - at all.

 

We've made ourselves clear as well, pages ago - but that didn't stop scrappy from asking loaded questions and returning unsupportable charges. This is just an arbitrary stopping point since he's frustrated.

[YT2095]

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[jackson33]

I can understand the frustration with scrappy's posts, but I think to some degree what's frustrating you guys is that he won't change his MIND. When he does make a reasonable post that is consistent with the spirit of "we can agree to disagree", you charge in en masse and demand that he change his opinion on this issue, which then gets his hackles up and leads to what some of you have decided just HAS to be trolling.

 

Well, we (yes we) don't see it that way, and I'm also concerned with the repeating pattern of minor abuse toward minority opinion holders on this forum. I don't think you guys realize how lucky you are to have those opinions represented here. What good is having a hometown baseball team if no visiting teams ever show up to play?

 

So relax. Have fun with it. Be respectful. Or we'll get all umpire-y on you.

 

Was going to commend you, when this was first written, but thought would start something, I would not finish. In my years on these forums, including strict 'Conservative' Political forums, piling on has always bothered me. Your analogy (hometown team) was perfect and should be listened to...This is the most active forum today on politics, where politics is not the main topic of the general forum...FOR A REASON.

 

As for the TARGET,' scappy' is a rather mild mannered debator where religion and homosexual activity is discussed. I don't see a dimes worth of difference between most his adversaries on the basic issues of equality and has consistently STUCK WITH THE THREAD THEME, Government to or not to change the one word 'marriage'. I have seen no replies by him that were evasive to his obvious viewpoints and seen a good many ignoring his just as obvious compasion for those that marriage a religious concept.

 

YT2095; I understand any forum must have rules and those rules should be honored and/or enforced. However having you entered the 'standard warning' or if Ophie had, would and does dissapoint me. Passion is a requirement IMO on political, social and religious issues. Why else would any person spend the time to discuss or argue their opinions. I have seen your passion in action, Ophie, bascule, iNow and many others and accept it as passion, not some diversionary action to avoid anything, other than a possible tactic often used on a debate format.

 

The thread starter, has recieved an answer with the 30 that participated in the poll, frankly the results a bit of a surprize to me. Note also that 11 (2nd place) voted to KEEP the word (marriage) with or without explanation, scrappy just one and voiced his reasons...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually, it IS addressed in the Constitution, in the 9th Amendment, the Enumeration Clause. In sum, just because a right is not explicitly protected in the constitution does not mean that the citizens do not have that right.

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

So, yes... It IS specifically addressed in the Constitution.

 

Yes, my post # 306 had everything to do with with this post and in short SSM could not have been intended, implied or addressed in A9 USC.

 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=106

 

Constitutional Law Degrees, which 99% of all those that argue before the SC have and requires study generally to an additional degree in US/World History under Law and the history of the those that wrote or had input into the Constitution. Even then they will seek out historians to review anything current to the case at hand. The above DC Gun case, gives a brief understanding of the process.

 

If SSM were to make it to and somehow be accepted for review or a hearing, IMO they could not rule, the founders intended for individuals of the same sex to marry. I would say until 2003, other individual rights which have been granted under other amendments, were not possible.

 

Anyway the only point of my argument is to eliminate the word 'marriage' from the Federal Governments vocabulary and that what any union means to anyone, is for the States to decide and honor. You are arguing that marriage itself is an inherent right of individuals and to who (still a limitation, two of same sex) and basically a Federal obligation to enforce. To extend the point, it's my belief, Marriage itself is a religious term, meaningful to religious people and of no business to the US Government, restricted by the First A.

[Pangloss]

I think we should probably let the suicide watch stand this time.

[scrappy]

What I don’t understand is why this forum’s “home team” would offer a debate on the topic Should the government drop the word "marriage" and then be intolerant of opposing opinions. What’s so scary about opposing opinions in a debate, anyway? What’s to be learned in a debate if everyone holds the same opinion?

 

Should I assume that holding a minority opinion here automatically makes one a pariah on the forum?

[Sayonara]

What I don’t understand is why this forum’s “home team” would offer a debate on the topic Should the government drop the word "marriage" and then be intolerant of opposing opinions.

I don't know what you think the "home team" is but the thread and poll were started by one member. This was not a "let's all draw scrappy in" honey-pot adventure.

 

We're not intolerant of your opinion; we're intolerant of the way in which you have chosen to conduct yourself in this debate. And that has been made quite, quite clear.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Sayonara³

[Dudde]

To extend the point, it's my belief, Marriage itself is a religious term, meaningful to religious people and of no business to the US Government, restricted by the First A.

 

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

 

 

SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without

discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of

conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent

with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion.

 

Unless you want legal rights taken from all marriages, the government will need to use some form of the word, and I don't see why or how they should honor religious institutions - atheists don't, and they're still married. Nobody owns the word, as has been discussed, so why can't everyone use it? I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, but I could care less about religious beliefs when they think they're being offended.

 

to my last understanding, the OP of the thread actually doesn't think Same Sex marriage should be in effect either, but would go for another term, it's one of the reasons this thread spun out of the other.

 

Should I assume that holding a minority opinion here automatically makes one a pariah on the forum?

Indeed not, minority opinion is how everyone learns and grows - I'm not about to start flaming your posts, but a lot of what's been said against Same Sex marriages have been ridiculous and irrelevant, and still haven't given a solid example of a good reason to prevent them... regardless of the insane notion that some hold that, had the founding fathers known about same sex marriages, they would have outlawed them. Which is also ridiculous, and presumptious

[Daecon]

Why should the government be the one to drop the word "marriage"?

 

Marriage has been around long before Christianity was invented.

 

[edit] I've not read the other 15 & 1/2 pages of this thread, because it would take me all day. I just wanted to ask that question in response to the thread title.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Transdecimal

[iNow]

Why should the government be the one to drop the word "marriage"?

 

Marriage has been around long before Christianity was invented.

Can you elaborate a bit on this point? It's a new one on me, and I'd like to read more. Thanks in advance for any clarification or sources.

[scrappy]

We're not intolerant of your opinion; we're intolerant of the way in which you have chosen to conduct yourself in this debate. And that has been made quite, quite clear.

I doubt you would like any debating "conduct" that defeats your position. It’s as if you want to play rugby but you don’t want to get tackled. Don’t you want to go to the mat in a debate, as long as it’s fair, honest and civil? Don’t you want a worthy opponent to bring out your best debating skills? Don’t you enjoy the sport of it?

 

btw: I didn’t say you were a hypocrite. I said you would be a hypocrite if you refuted a ruling on constitutionality by the SCOTUS while claiming that constitutionality is the fundamental reason for legalizing SSM.

[Daecon]

Can you elaborate a bit on this point? It's a new one on me, and I'd like to read more. Thanks in advance for any clarification or sources.

If the church thinks it can force the government to drop the word marriage, then the government can force the church to drop it instead.

[Sayonara]

I doubt you would like any debating "conduct" that defeats your position. It’s as if you want to play rugby but you don’t want to get tackled. Don’t you want to go to the mat in a debate, as long as it’s fair, honest and civil? Don’t you want a worthy opponent to bring out your best debating skills? Don’t you enjoy the sport of it?

Are you having a laugh?

 

You haven't addressed my points (or anyone else's that I can see), you haven't backed up your points on which you've been challenged, and you've used a series of logical fallacies, so no I can't say that I have enjoyed "the sport of it" debating with you at all.

 

btw: I didn’t say you were a hypocrite. I said you would be a hypocrite if you refuted a ruling on constitutionality by the SCOTUS while claiming that constitutionality is the fundamental reason for legalizing SSM.

I think it's pretty clear that you said I am a hypocrite because I would. Right here:

You’re a hypocrite because you would claim that SSM is constitutional, even if the SCOTUS were to decide that it isn’t.

Despite the fact, of course, that (a) I never said I would do any such thing, and (b) disagreeing on a point of law is not hypocrisy.

 

The proper thing to do here Scrappy is to apologise for either being rude or being mistaken, not argue the toss for another hundred posts.

 

In any case, this thread needs to move on or it's going to be closed.

[padren]

What I don’t understand is why this forum’s “home team” would offer a debate on the topic Should the government drop the word "marriage" and then be intolerant of opposing opinions. What’s so scary about opposing opinions in a debate, anyway? What’s to be learned in a debate if everyone holds the same opinion?

 

Should I assume that holding a minority opinion here automatically makes one a pariah on the forum?

 

1) I understand your opinion about that a DP should be a constitutionally appropriate solution for granting gays the same rights as married people. That is understood, it's just disagreed with.

 

2) I understand you feel it's just a matter of pride that some people fell that constitutionally, the legal definition of marriage should be open to same sex couples. I also feel that assertion is unsupported.

 

3) I understand you feel that a Supreme Court ruling makes something constitutional or not and apparently you feel that to disagree with a Supreme Court decision is hypocritical, though I have the hardest time understanding this.

 

 

So in distilled responses to the above:

 

1) I respect your opinion, I am just going to continue to challenge that opinion, and ask you to defend it. It's not a personal attack. Every opinion is based on something. Some opinions are based on something: sometimes it's based on a solid understanding of constitutional law, sometimes on a flawed understanding of constitutional law, sometimes on pure emotion - but they are always based on something.

I have simply been trying to deconstruct your opinions as I feel the basis of this opinion is based on flawed logic. I feel there are considerations you have not taken into account. Of course, you are more than welcome in defending the basis of your opinions and counter-argue. That's one aspect of how a debate works.

 

2) You have continually asked "where's the harm?" and treated it as if both sides are equally "prideful" on the issue, and that either has a case for changing anything thus it should remain with the status quo of marriage being between a man and woman.

I've tried to demonstrate numerous times that:

A) Fighting to keep marriage limited runs against the overall nature of our society where we regularly allow differing positions on a term to co-exist by requiring the legal position on that term to be inclusive to both views. That way no one gets cut out, both are simply let in.

B) I have also demonstrated that narrowing the scope of a term that inhibits a group's freedoms is a very bad precedent to set, and does our society harm. I have not read any examples from you to counter this argument - just a re-iteration of your feelings on the matter.

 

3) Again, this appears to logic on your part that is faulty and thus easily attacked. We have always held as a society that the Rule of Law is to be upheld as to what limits our actions - yet never acquiesced to the idea that those decisions are infallible or even right, and that we should somehow stop voicing our opinions when we feel they are wrong. We still have the right to disagree vocally with any decision by any aspect of our legal system or government. As such I have no idea what you are basing this "hypocritical" thing on, only that you are repeating it without stating a case for your position.

 

 

 

If you find people are getting "tetchy" in this debate it has nothing to do with your opinions or what side they fall on. It's those instances where you repeat positions without countering the counter-positions people have taken the time to argue. It's when you make a brief statement as to something being hypocritical or prideful or "just your opinion" without countering or challenging a single thing in their argument and instead dismiss it all outright with a one line decree. When you do that people feel disrespected and bugged at you, and it's quite understandable when they get short. This is a very easy thing to break down and understand - it is not in any way "they disagree so they disrespect you" or such.

 

Just so you know.