Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[A Tripolation]

And this gets to the root of this discussion. Why? Second, why are your thoughts on this subject more relevant or valid than those who see marriage as the union of two people in love, regardless of which genitalia they have?

 

 

 

This is a false comparison. There is measurable harm which can be caused with a gun, and having a gun pointed at us is usually done without our consent. Two same sex partners who wish to be married does not cause measurable harm to others, nor are their issues of consent (since the two partners are adults who consent to be in the relationship with one another).

 

Why? Because that's how it has always been. I can't readily explain it. My thoughts aren't any more valid, than theirs. Once again though, many people that are pro-SSM are anti-incest and anti-polygamy, and that is exceedingly hypocritical. Isn't that right? Once same-sex "MARRIAGE" is approved, then won't we have to give proponents of incest and polygamy the VERY same rights? That's mainly my opposition. I'm not opposed at all to ANYONE being together, I just think we ought to call it a Civil Union. That applies to EVERYONE.

 

And no, iNow, it wasn't a false comparison. If I carried a gun, it wouldn't be a modded AK-47, which is ONLY used for mowing down people, as you seemed to imply that most people would. I would carry a medium-caliber pistol, which would be a self-defense weapon...and most people would carry something similar. But I'm not allowed, even though the second amendment guarantees me that right. Violation of my civil rights. I was intending to show that we ALL have our rights violated at some point.

[iNow]

Why? Because that's how it has always been. I can't readily explain it. My thoughts aren't any more valid, than theirs.

Doesn't this directly reinforce the points I've been making that there are no relevant secular reasons motivating the opposition?

 

 

 

Once again though, many people that are pro-SSM are anti-incest and anti-polygamy, and that is exceedingly hypocritical. Isn't that right? Once same-sex "MARRIAGE" is approved, then won't we have to give proponents of incest and polygamy the VERY same rights? That's mainly my opposition.

Well, I don't see the logical fallacy of a slippery slope to be a relevant or valid reason. I can expand on this if needed.

 

 

 

And no, iNow, it wasn't a false comparison. If I carried a gun, it wouldn't be a modded AK-47, which is ONLY used for mowing down people, as you seemed to imply that most people would. I would carry a medium-caliber pistol, which would be a self-defense weapon...and most people would carry something similar. But I'm not allowed, even though the second amendment guarantees me that right. Violation of my civil rights. I was intending to show that we ALL have our rights violated at some point.

Okay, I appreciate the clarification, however, I still see it as an invalid comparison. In your example, our rights are only allowed to be "violated" if it is to protect against some measurable harm, or if there are issues of consent (such as with pedophilia or bestiality, whereby consent cannot be mutual nor agreed upon). Same sex marriage does not cause any measurable harm to others, hence there is no relevant secular reason to oppose it.

 

Further, let me ask... Are some people being allowed to carry those firearms, but you are not? Is the allowance to carry those weapons being differentially applied to groups, where one group CAN carry the weapons, but another cannot, and for no relevant secular reason (like men with blond hair CAN carry them, but men with red hair CANNOT)? If not, and the prohibition applies equally to all citizens, then I still see the comparison as a false one (since some people CAN get married while others CANNOT, without a relevant secular reason for the differential conferment of state recognition and the benefits and privileges which come with that recognition).

 

 

Also... just a note that I'd really like to avoid getting into a debate about gun rights, as those are even harder to keep on track than debates about same sex marriage.

Edited September 13, 2009 by iNow

[JillSwift]

It was not a red herring. It was meant to show that EVERYONE has their civil rights violated at some point. I wasn't trying to make a point on gun control. I probably should have elaborated on that point a bit more.

That other's civil rights are also being violated isn't relevant. That's why I called it a red herring, it's a distraction from the point.

 

Each is unjust on its own; both the infringement of the right to bear arms and right to equal treatment.

[padren]

I would carry a medium-caliber pistol, which would be a self-defense weapon...and most people would carry something similar. But I'm not allowed, even though the second amendment guarantees me that right. Violation of my civil rights. I was intending to show that we ALL have our rights violated at some point.

 

Not to go down this road of debate in a SSM thread (one controversial topic in a thread is a enough to fear the Blue Text Of Death could appear at any moment) but I would like to highlight a few differences:

 

1) Whether you like it or not, the 2nd amendment is debated still to this day in terms of the limitations of the right. Some of the reasons to deny someone a concealed weapon may be sound (they are in court, on chargers of murder, and have threatened the judge) and others are quite debatable - but they are being debated.

If you find opponents that simply use the statement "I just think the 2nd amendment is for non-concealed weapons. That's just how I will always see it. " then please do point out they are a bigot! Keep in mind very few gun regulation proponents are like that - they have heaps of data that may or may not apply but are ready and open to debate and defend their stance, which can be overturned.

 

2) What is the point of citing examples of the bigotry you have had to suffer? It sounded like an attempt to say "The other side does it too, just on other issues" so as to be more dismissive and more apathetic in a "hey, it happens, what ya gonna do?" sort of way. At least, that's what I heard. I'd prefer to stamp out bigotry on SSM as well as in firearm regulation. The only reason anyone should have to fight for a right is to overcome a difficult debate based on reason - never to overcome bigotry.

[abskebabs]

right to equal treatment.

 

I'm curious, is this a right to equal treatment by the state or by other people?

 

I think it is important to realise this is not a "rights issue" but a priveliges issue. We are arguing over ultimately the ratio of priveliges accorded to one group as opposed to another of the state's "loot."

 

One can certainly make egalitarean arguments about it, but as there are no objective definitions with regard to the delineation of human affairs or personal relations, so the boundaries can be stretched arbitrarily as we are witnessing with this debate.

 

Also, do we have a right to be treated equally? Is this consistent? If a girl chooses to kiss me at a disco, is she mandated to kiss everyone esle in order not to offend their right to equal treatment? Can a businessman not hire an employee for his own private pruposes without hiring all other applicants in order to avoid offending their equality?

 

I see this as nonsense, because all human decisions are a demonstration of preference, not equality.

[JillSwift]

I'm curious, is this a right to equal treatment by the state or by other people?

 

I think it is important to realise this is not a "rights issue" but a priveliges issue. We are arguing over ultimately the ratio of priveliges accorded to one group as opposed to another of the state's "loot."

 

One can certainly make egalitarean arguments about it, but as there are no objective definitions with regard to the delineation of human affairs or personal relations, so the boundaries can be stretched arbitrarily as we are witnessing with this debate.

 

Also, do we have a right to be treated equally? Is this consistent? If a girl chooses to kiss me at a disco, is she mandated to kiss everyone esle in order not to offend their right to equal treatment? Can a businessman not hire an employee for his own private pruposes without hiring all other applicants in order to avoid offending their equality?

 

I see this as nonsense, because all human decisions are a demonstration of preference, not equality.

My statement was a truncated "right to equal treatment under the law". Equal treatment under the law is something we've already established in the US as a basic human right.This argument was part of women's suffrage, and the desegregation of African-Americans and their suffrage as well.

 

There are times when following preference is rational. Hiring a person with better qualifications is rational. Choosing who you generate relationships with is rational. Being rational is recognizing reality and acting on it.

 

However, there are also times when following preferences is irrational. Preventing two women from marrying and getting the same privileges granted by the state as a man and a woman would should be done because... what? Where is the reason? Being irrational is ignoring reality in favor of emotional response.

 

So, again, what are the secular, rational arguments against allowing gay marriage?

[padren]

I'm curious, is this a right to equal treatment by the state or by other people?

 

I think it is important to realise this is not a "rights issue" but a priveliges issue. We are arguing over ultimately the ratio of priveliges accorded to one group as opposed to another of the state's "loot."

That "state's loot" is a pool that exists by the labor of heterosexual and homosexual individuals alike, to provide a safety net to the state's citizens. If firefighters refused to put out the burning buildings of gay couples "cuz they're the devil's own" would that be any different?

 

One can certainly make egalitarean arguments about it, but as there are no objective definitions with regard to the delineation of human affairs or personal relations, so the boundaries can be stretched arbitrarily as we are witnessing with this debate.

And debated it should be. With arguments and logic and facts - not bigoted immobile declarations of what is sacred and what is not.

 

Also, do we have a right to be treated equally? Is this consistent? If a girl chooses to kiss me at a disco, is she mandated to kiss everyone esle in order not to offend their right to equal treatment? Can a businessman not hire an employee for his own private pruposes without hiring all other applicants in order to avoid offending their equality?

 

I see this as nonsense, because all human decisions are a demonstration of preference, not equality.

 

That is nonsense because it's a series of nonsense examples - a businessman can refuse to hire a man because he's under qualified, but not because he's black. Occasionally you get sticky situations where ethnic background, physical capacity or gender impacts qualifications... a person with lower grades from Kenya may be a better "liaison to the Kenyan office" than a guy with slightly higher marks from New Jersey.... a woman may be less physically capable of meeting the demands as a firefighter than a larger, stronger male... a paraplegic may not be qualified to be a lifeguard.

However, there are discrimination lawsuits brought out when someone is qualified and is discriminated against solely due to their ethnic background or gender.

 

I can't help but to call the "girl at the disco" a red herring of such a deep shade as to require IR goggles to see clearly - are you saying that all discrimination law has no more merit than an argument that a girl should be forced to kiss everyone if she kisses anyone?

Do you truly believe all discrimination and movements for equality (suffrage, anti-slavery) are as ludicrous as that example? Or do you feel they are sound in merit, and that girls should kiss everyone?

 

I would like some clarification on where you stand there.

[abskebabs]

That "state's loot" is a pool that exists by the labor of heterosexual and homosexual individuals alike, to provide a safety net to the state's citizens. If firefighters refused to put out the burning buildings of gay couples "cuz they're the devil's own" would that be any different?

 

 

And debated it should be. With arguments and logic and facts - not bigoted immobile declarations of what is sacred and what is not.

 

 

 

That is nonsense because it's a series of nonsense examples - a businessman can refuse to hire a man because he's under qualified, but not because he's black. Occasionally you get sticky situations where ethnic background, physical capacity or gender impacts qualifications... a person with lower grades from Kenya may be a better "liaison to the Kenyan office" than a guy with slightly higher marks from New Jersey.... a woman may be less physically capable of meeting the demands as a firefighter than a larger, stronger male... a paraplegic may not be qualified to be a lifeguard.

However, there are discrimination lawsuits brought out when someone is qualified and is discriminated against solely due to their ethnic background or gender.

 

I can't help but to call the "girl at the disco" a red herring of such a deep shade as to require IR goggles to see clearly - are you saying that all discrimination law has no more merit than an argument that a girl should be forced to kiss everyone if she kisses anyone?

Do you truly believe all discrimination and movements for equality (suffrage, anti-slavery) are as ludicrous as that example? Or do you feel they are sound in merit, and that girls should kiss everyone?

 

I would like some clarification on where you stand there.

 

lol:D. Just for the record, I don't think the girl has to kiss everyone at the disco, I used the examples I used to show the arbitrariness and logical symmetry of what you seem to be in favour of, and the examples I gave. They're only ridiculous from your own subjective value judgements and prejudices, realise that.

 

As for discrimination lawsuits, this practice would be discouraged in a free market anyway, without having to encroach upon the rights of employers.

 

If I'm a racist that only wants white labour, then hiring less competent whites will not only increase the price of their labour on the market through my bidding for them, it will increase the profit margin for a rival entrepreneur who hires the subsequently cheaper black labour. This means employers that do indulge in arbitrary racism that doesn't help their bottom line, will either be outcompeted away, or have to be satisfied with a far more diminished market share than they would otherwise have had. That's their choice, it's the price they pay to indulge in bigotry.

 

Also, it's still a decision he/her makes with his own private property and has not violated anybody else's person or property. By assuming some sort of equality law, you are appropriating yourself(or the state) as some sort of ultimately knowledgeable arbiter with regards to the productivity of each worker. How can you definitely "know" whether every decision not to hire a black person is out of racism or not?

 

An interesting case related to this is with the end of slavery in America. Large amounts of blacks entered the labour market able to outcompete unionised white labourers and contractors. As the unions realised this as a fatal threat to their inflated position in the labour market, and once they realised that violence and intimidation would not be enough to get rid of their labour competition, they lobbied for minimium wage laws. The obviously paternalistic government granted them.

 

Hence the black labourers lost their competitive advantage to the unionised white labour with regard to these kinds of jobs, and their social progress was stumped as to their acquirement of social and intellectual capital. History may have been completely different, without justifying state interference in the labour market had these interventions never been adopted in both the US and South Africa.

Edited September 13, 2009 by abskebabs

[Sisyphus]

abskebabs, what does any of that have to do with equality under the law?

[abskebabs]

abskebabs, what does any of that have to do with equality under the law?

Nothing much. I did ask earlier however in what sense the term equality was used, to which it was later elaborated the poster meant "equality under the law."

 

I can agree with this, if we want to take a minarchist line with things, by which we would include laws that are actually constitutional(for example, weak one I know) and don't encroach on the personal and commercial affairs of private individuals through binary or tertiary intervention, especially not that which attempts to enforce some false sense of equality in these spheres!

 

But then again, I'm not a minarchist so I don't view the state as either a necessary or beneficial institution.

[Moontanman]

iNow quotes;

 

 

First; What's relevant to you or the next person are going to be different. In the US, many folks today still believe Homosexual Sex, can be harmful to health, for a variety of reason, not always AIDS. Others, though you'll try to link to Religion, is the natural desire for their kids to marry, have their grandchildren, maybe even to carry on their blood line. Maybe THEY desire their offspring's to be considered respectable members of the society with in the norm as THEY perceive it. Others may feel the sexual attraction is a choice, whether it be red heads of the opposite sex or thin members of their own sex. Since Boys or Girls are segregated naturally into groups of each almost from birth, this attraction may or could be an unintended causal effect.

 

Second; All Law, everyplace on this planet that exist, are made up, judged and enforce by people. You can't expect a society, who is charged with these duties to ignore their moral and religious foundation, whether it's SSM, or any other issue you'll rail against for in ANY manner being based on religion.

 

Third; Most important to this discussion and a couple others ongoing here or recently on ANOTHER FORUM, is this notion, your opinions are NOT BIGOTED, you opinions are pure, unbiased and your advocacy for atheism is simply coincidental. Russia, China and several other governments and their law, are in fact PRIMARILY from a secular society, each of which, not only do not tolerate 'Homosexuality', but have few laws to protect those that may be truly attracted by the same sex.

 

 

 

This is pure nonsense; Americans have gone out of their way, for centuries to equalize all humans into their National Culture. Blacks, Native Indians, each migration of legal immigrants, Women, and all people with other than their traditional family values, into their culture as best possible. Many cultures, in fact would rather this had not be so effective, believing they have lost some of their traditional culture in the process. Sure religious people are for good reason concerned about what they feel is the Sanctity or institution of their term for marriage, but they are for the most part more helpful to these folks than most any other segment of society, well maybe other than atheist. Go to one of these Church's, profess your atheism, claim to BE Gay (not an advocate) and you'll probably be the honor quest of the day.

 

There is no need to reply to this post; I've been around long enough to write your response or already know exactly how you would respond. It's just so disheartening for me to see yet another couple Moderator's (whom put up with this for free) try to soften your blows to the average poster and get blasted into submission. UNLESS you care to challenge me...

 

"Not only were you completely unable to support that, but I disproved that ages ago."

 

and give permission to bring up quotes from other forums, as well as this one.

 

Since I am a "Native Indian" as you put it. I want you to know it's mighty damn white of you to think that way. I can and will challenge you on this issue, your posts here and elsewhere are full of hate vitriol for anyone who doesn't share your religious world view. You have been shut down on this issue elsewhere and I expect you will be here as well since you only back up your views with your own special bullshit. Get over your self Jackson, your not that damn influential.

[Dudde]

I fail to see how a huge number of minority groups having to fight their way to becoming equal, and maybe in the last century, not multiple, provides a case for why gay marriages should be illegal.

 

I love how marrying someone of the same sex has already been referred to as marrying furniture, many people, and your own family.

 

And please, please tell me why everytime we have a discussion on this, we have a group who wants to tear marriage out of law. There's no reason for that, it's kinda like setting your neighborhood on fire because someone else wants to move in and you don't want them to.

 

Two guys or two gals getting married won't affect (most) any of you in the least, it won't keep you up at night, it won't make you afraid for your or your family's well-being in public (i.e. carrying guns), what point is there in trying to prevent it?

 

if there is any group or few who'd be affected, like for real and no BS "because it affects what I believe," I'd love to hear what they had to say.

[Pangloss]

Moontanaman, let's try and keep things civil please. Thank you.

[bascule]

To address the OP (as I've been too busy in Europe to read these forums lately): no, there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. The closest you can come is a semantic argument (marriage is by definition between a man and a woman) which, as far as I can tell, is little more than thinly veiled bigotry. There's little reason to concern yourself with the precise definition of the word otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

How does one prove there are no relevant secular reasons for being against gay marriage?

 

Well if you can't prove it perhaps you should realize that it is quite possible to disagree with it... For you to despise people who do not accept by faith what you believe, is your own privilage. But to attack them for it, that is uncalled for.

 

Retaining a belief after its been disproven is also your privilage.

 

One such is that people may define marriage as between a man and a woman, so gay marriage simply wouldn't be marriage. Such people may even be in favor of gay rights but just don't think they should be called marriage.

Right, but why? What is their relevant secular reason for the differential use/application of the word?

 

Red herring. Definitions are arbitrary. So then, given (for arbitrary reasons) a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, a relevant secular reason to oppose "gay marriage" is that it doesn't fit in the term "marriage".

 

And if you think that the only possible reason to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is being bigoted/homophobic, then you need to have your head examined. And even if it were, using a definition is a relevant and secular thing to do.

 

Finally, why in your posts do you call it a "marriage" (simply adding the adjective "gay" in front of it) if it's NOT a marriage? Can you clarify that for me?

 

No I didn't. Anyhow, another red herring. What I personally believe has no bearing on the argument.

 

There are others who do not use the word "marriage" for same sex unions if that is what you were wondering. As for myself I am openminded as to the definition (or redefinition) of marriage.

[JillSwift]

Well if you can't prove it perhaps you should realize that it is quite possible to disagree with it... For you to despise people who do not accept by faith what you believe, is your own privilage. But to attack them for it, that is uncalled for.

 

Retaining a belief after its been disproven is also your privilage.

Straw man, no claim was made that it's impossible to disagree. Straw man, no claim was made that any stance should be taken on faith.

 

 

 

Red herring. Definitions are arbitrary. So then, given (for arbitrary reasons) a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, a relevant secular reason to oppose "gay marriage" is that it doesn't fit in the term "marriage".

 

And if you think that the only possible reason to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is being bigoted/homophobic, then you need to have your head examined. And even if it were, using a definition is a relevant and secular thing to do.

Internally conflicting argument. If a definition is arbitrary then a definition can not be used to defend a position - because it is arbitrary.

 

Ad hominem, implying he's crazy does not invalidate his argument.

 

No I didn't. Anyhow, another red herring. What I personally believe has no bearing on the argument.

 

There are others who do not use the word "marriage" for same sex unions if that is what you were wondering. As for myself I am openminded as to the definition (or redefinition) of marriage.

What it's called is a quibble. It is a set of privileges given to a couple who commit to a long term relationship, relative to their bond of trust (that is, being allowed to legally make medical decisions for one another, joint finances and real-estate business, taxation, etc.)

 

The state chose to call this social contract a marriage, and as such the term is secular in this context (not only are definitions arbitrary, but a word can carry multiple definitions).

[Pangloss]

Straw man, no claim was made that it's impossible to disagree.

 

This is not the case.

[mooeypoo]

Since I am a "Native Indian" as you put it. I want you to know it's mighty damn white of you to think that way. I can and will challenge you on this issue, your posts here and elsewhere are full of hate vitriol for anyone who doesn't share your religious world view. You have been shut down on this issue elsewhere and I expect you will be here as well since you only back up your views with your own special bullshit. Get over your self Jackson, your not that damn influential.

Agreeing or disagreeing with you aside, the attitude of this post is unacceptable, Moontanman.

 

As someone who happens to find quite a lot of merit in the CORE of what you're trying to say, I think your ideas would have been delivered (and probably accepted) much better if you would have avoided the instinctive shoot-from-the-hip response and criticized the points that were made instead of the person making them.

This is a touchy subject to many of us in many aspects (me included). I recommend we all take a few deep breaths before we post replies so we can continue this discussion in a civil manner.

~moo

[JillSwift]

This is not the case.

You best point the claim out, then, because reading over the thread again I can't find it.

[Pangloss]

Posts 1 and 9. I decided to interpret iNow's position as an opinion strenuously made rather than dwell on semantics. Mr. Skeptic's reply is not a straw man, but IMO it is nit-picking; I agree with iNow that we should move forward rather than splitting hairs on who needs to prove what.

[JillSwift]

Posts 1 and 9. I decided to interpret iNow's position as an opinion strenuously made rather than dwell on semantics. Mr. Skeptic's reply is not a straw man, but IMO it is nit-picking; I agree with iNow that we should move forward rather than splitting hairs on who needs to prove what.

This is the thing about politics, interpretation gets awfully muddy.

 

I can't see iNow making a claim that it's impossible to disagree, rather that the disagreements are not rational, evidence supported disagreements.

 

I find myself agnostic about any rational stance against homosexuality in general, and same sex marriage in particular. I have seen no evidence to support it, but I also see no contrary evidence. So, I just stand that, like anything claimed but unsupported, it's something I don't worry about until there is reason to. The question I asked is just and invitation to those who think there are rational reasons to stand against SSM to present their evidence, and is not a claim that there is none.

 

Meanwhile, we're left with religious, faith-based, and flatly irrational reasons to stand against SSM. I reject that these reasons should be enshrined in law for the same reasons Muslims don't want Christians to dictate who they worship, and for the same reasons artists don't want to be told what they can create, etc.

 

Which is to say, so long as an activity does not have any real negative impact on others, freedom reigns supreme.

[iNow]

For you to despise people who do not accept by faith what you believe, is your own privilage.

Listen. Quit making things personal with me and deflecting away from the topic. Answer the question. What relevant secular reasons are there for the opposition to same sex marriage?

 

 

Retaining a belief after its been disproven is also your privilage.

Where has anything been disproven? If you wish to continue asserting that something has been disproven, then you need to provide a link evidencing that this is the case (i.e. where exactly this happened). You should note that this was explicitly requested of you by ydoaps way back in the third post of this thread, and you dismissed his request for a citation/link.

 

 

One such is that people may define marriage as between a man and a woman, so gay marriage simply wouldn't be marriage. Such people may even be in favor of gay rights but just don't think they should be called marriage.

Right' date=' but why? What is their relevant secular reason for the differential use/application of the word? [/quote'']Red herring.

No, actually, it's not. I think you need to look up what a red herring is. You made a statement that some people define a marriage as one man and one woman. I asked why.

 

You think that's a logical fallacy? Give me a break.

 

 

 

Definitions are arbitrary.

And, as Jill already noted, this assertion shows that your argument is not internally consistent. If definitions are arbitrary, then you cannot successfully use the definition itself as the foundation and basis of your debating position.

 

Now, can you please address the question which was explicitly posed in the title of this thread and either provide relevant secular reasons for opposition to same sex marriage, or concede that you are unable?

 

 

 

And if you think that the only possible reason to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is being bigoted/homophobic, then you need to have your head examined.

Why? Was it really necessary to make yet another personal attack against me? Seriously... I am being sincere here. Since nobody can present even a single relevant secular reason for their opposition, I am truly left with no choice other than to conclude their opposition stems from nothing other than bigotry, homophobia, and/or ignorance.

 

All of the MRIs, PET, and CAT scans in the world won't change that. But... Do you know what WILL change that? Somebody answering the question and providing a relevant secular reason for their opposition.

 

 

Finally, why in your posts do you call it a "marriage" (simply adding the adjective "gay" in front of it) if it's NOT a marriage? Can you clarify that for me?

 

No I didn't.

Errrm... Yes, you did, actually. You called it a marriage in your own posts, all the while arguing that it is NOT a marriage. Here... This is what you said:

 

 

One such is that people may define marriage as between a man and a woman, so

gay marriage[/b'] simply wouldn't be marriage. Such people may even be in favor of gay rights but just don't think they should be called marriage.

 

Again, your argument is not internally consistent whatsoever. Your argument is that it is not a marriage, yet that's what you keep calling it in every post you make.

 

 

It doesn't matter, though... All you need to do is answer the question posed at the start of the thread.

 

What relevant secular reasons are there to oppose same sex marriage? All of this other stuff is off-topic and lacks relevance.

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Posts 1 and 9. I decided to interpret iNow's position as an opinion strenuously made rather than dwell on semantics. Mr. Skeptic's reply is not a straw man, but IMO it is nit-picking;

 

Jill's right, Pangloss. You're completely misrepresenting my posts. I never even suggested it's impossible to disagree, let alone saying such a thing.

Edited September 14, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

Originally Posted by iNow

Finally, why in your posts do you call it a "marriage" (simply adding the adjective "gay" in front of it) if it's NOT a marriage? Can you clarify that for me?

No I didn't.

 

 

Even so, I think it's easier for the context of the argument to use a simple defined term, it doesn't necessarily mean they're conceding their arguments. I hate to see this thread fall the way of the previous by focusing on specific people instead of providing valid reasons not to allow same sex marriages.

 

Regardless of it's a personal belief or not, it's obviously a personal belief held by many that they should be able to be married, or we wouldn't have this discussion. There are also people who believe they shouldn't be able to. I don't see why one belief impedes another, and by default our country should move forward with the greater freedom, rather than holding them back arbitrarily.

[Mr Skeptic]

Listen. Quit making things personal with me and deflecting away from the topic.

 

Your inability to prove your claim is relevant to the topic. And it concerns me when you repeat it countless times and use it as a justification for your intolerance and behavior based on that intolerance.

 

Answer the question. What relevant secular reasons are there for the opposition to same sex marriage?

 

I did, both in the previous post and the post you are answering.

 

Where has anything been disproven? If you wish to continue asserting that something has been disproven, then you need to provide a link evidencing that this is the case (i.e. where exactly this happened). You should note that this was explicitly requested of you by ydoaps way back in the third post of this thread, and you dismissed his request for a citation/link.

 

In the post you are answering. Also earlier, but I figured it would be easier to restate the debunking than link to an earlier example.

 

No, actually, it's not. I think you need to look up what a red herring is. You made a statement that some people define a marriage as one man and one woman. I asked why.

 

You think that's a logical fallacy? Give me a break.

 

A red herring is exactly what it is. There need not be any reason why a word is defined as it is, nor is said reason or lack thereof relevant to its usage as a word.

 

And, as Jill already noted, this assertion shows that your argument is not internally consistent. If definitions are arbitrary, then you cannot successfully use the definition itself as the foundation and basis of your debating position.

 

Definitions are arbitrary, but people tend follow them once defined. To do otherwise would be chaos -- the total undoing of all language. (for an individual word the chaos would be localized) For example, electric current was defined to flow from positive to negative by an unlucky guess. Turns out, the actual flow is negative charges in the opposite direction. This has been known for decades, and yet electronics books retain the old definition and choose to explain to the student that things are done backwards.

 

For similar reason, people who's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman can be opposed to calling same sex couples married. And some people are really anal about definitions.

 

I'm not aware of how the legal system defines or redefines words, but I imagine that like everything else they do it's rather long and messy.

 

Now, can you please address the question which was explicitly posed in the title of this thread and either provide relevant secular reasons for opposition to same sex marriage, or concede that you are unable?

 

Why concede that I am unable when I already did? As for you, even if you are unable to actually prove your claim, you can show evidence for it, or concede that you lack even that.

 

Why? Was it really necessary to make yet another personal attack against me? Seriously... I am being sincere here.

 

Poorly worded, perhaps, but it is rather presumptuous of you to insult billions of people over millenia and feel self-righteous about it. I'll take your feeling offended as agreeing with the "if" clause, and present an alternate suggestion: perhaps the people who first defined marriage weren't even aware of homosexuality, let alone bigoted against them.

 

Since nobody can present even a single relevant secular reason for their opposition, I am truly left with no choice other than to conclude their opposition stems from nothing other than bigotry, homophobia, and/or ignorance.

 

By all means, continue living in your own world.

 

Errrm... Yes, you did, actually. You called it a marriage in your own posts, all the while arguing that it is NOT a marriage. Here... This is what you said:

 

Oh, you mean like how we were discussing red herring earlier? How can an argument be a type of crimson fish?!? You know damn well that putting two words together like that does not automatically make one a subset of the other, rather they can take on a completely different meaning. It's "gay marriage" not "gay" "marriage". It's a label for what we are discussing. There are other labels that are longer, use abbreviations, or are more ambiguous, none of which I am a fan of.

 

Jill's right, Pangloss. You're completely misrepresenting my posts. I never even suggested it's impossible to disagree, let alone saying such a thing.

People who oppose gay marriage ARE bigots or homophobes,

 

You didn't say that they can't disagree, only that they are bigots or homophobes if they do. Incidentally, this lowers the bar for what I need to show to disprove you.

[iNow]

Sigh... More personal bullshit and off-topic deflection....

 

I did, both in the previous post and the post you are answering.

<...>

In the post you are answering. Also earlier, but I figured it would be easier to restate the debunking than link to an earlier example.

<...>

Why concede that I am unable when I already did?

 

Okay. I missed it. Please kindly quote the relevant part. I did not see relevant secular reasons for the opposition, and would welcome you taking a moment to explicitly quote where you provided them, or at least restate them clearly. Thanks.