Gay Marriage

[SkinWalker]

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with just making all "marriages" into Civil Unions, cuts out religion altogether.

 

Marriage is a lot like bingo.

 

There are people who win some and lose some. Some are better than it than others. Winners generally play their cards right. The priestly class makes a lot of money off of it. But neither marriage or bingo actually belong to religion. They're both secular activities exploited by religious cults.

[Rogue Nine]

Argument cuts both ways, kip. Do you believe that everyone who opposes it are only "fundies"?

Everyone who opposes it is wrong, I know that much.

[Totenkopf]

Everyone who opposes it is wrong, I believe that much.

 

fixed.

 

Marriage is a lot like bingo.

 

There are people who win some and lose some. Some are better than it than others.

 

There is undeniable truth in that much.

[Rogue Nine]

fixed.

When you believe that someone should be denied a fundamental right based on their sexual orientation, then I don't care what rationale you have, you are dead wrong.

[Totenkopf]

Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.

[GarfieldJL]

When you believe that someone should be denied a fundamental right based on their sexual orientation, then I don't care what rationale you have, you are dead wrong.

 

So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

 

Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed.

(Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead)

 

I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.

[mur'phon]

So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

 

Nope, because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.

 

I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.

 

Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.

[GarfieldJL]

Nope' date=' because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.[/quote']

 

Then you can't say that there aren't incidents that a person can be denied something based on their sexual orientation.

 

 

Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.

 

How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.

[Rogue Nine]

Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.

Yes and the consequences of certain laws deny fundamental rights to certain people based on unfair criteria.

 

It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.

 

So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Pedophiles prey on children and take away their rights and by doing so commit crimes. Gay couples in love do not violate anyone's rights by being homosexual. This is a terrible and inaccurate analogy. I expected something low out of you, Garfy, but not this low. Good job.

 

Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed.

(Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead)

As I told you a page ago, gay marriage does not lead into polygamy or pedophilia and no lawyer worth their degree would argue that in court. So just shut the hell up with your horribly bigoted thinking.

[SkinWalker]

There simply is no rational argument for disallowing marriage to someone of the same gender. Superstitious reasons exist, but these aren't rational reasons and, thus, are not valid. Marriage is a secular process and social construct that has been perverted and exploited by religious cults in order to ensure the survival of the individual cult. This much is clear in both the archaeological and historical records and (only the truly ignorant maintain that marriage is solely a religious construct).

 

The argument that allowing same sex partners to marry is akin to pedophilia is ignorant and irrational fallacy meant only to malign and argue ad hominem with a straw man rather than to demonstrate a rational reason for disallowing same-sex marriage. One does not permit or allow the other and only the ignorant or the disingenuous would maintain such a position.

[Totenkopf]

It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.

 

Specifically which ones? And if you can get a judiciary to sanction "gay marriage", how is it that they can't make the two equal by judicial fiat (or at least in states where the judges have decided it's ok)? They've proven in CA that they are pretty adept at overriding the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. It's also not unheard of for "activist" judges to override legislatures when they think they've gone too far for that judges taste. So, if civil unions are made equal under the law to marriages in terms of legal rights, what harm (legally)? What you're really battling for is not just acceptance but societal norming of certain behavior. That will take longer than the acts of a few judges or even legislators. You need to change an entire culture(or significant majority of it) for that to take place. I'm sure the polygamists and others are watching this with baited breath. Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there.

[Rogue Nine]

You need to change an entire culture(or significant majority of it) for that to take place.

Appeal to Tradition. Fail.

 

I'm sure the polygamists and others are watching this with baited breath. Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there.

I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.

 

In any case, slippery slope fallacy. Fail.

[mur'phon]

How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.

 

Wonderfull, then let's go for my favored solution. Mariage/civil unions are no longer providing any benefits, legal or otherwise as far as the govt/judicary is concerned. People are free to call their relationship with another person whatever they like, while other people are free to call said relationship whatever they like. No government involved.

[mimartin]

How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.

Yet, you WANT the government involved in and complicating other people’s lives. I applaud you; it takes a lot to make such a selfish and self-centered statement on a public forum.

[Totenkopf]

Appeal to Tradition. Fail.

I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.

In any case, slippery slope fallacy. Fail.

 

Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

 

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

[Darth Avlectus]

Appeal to Tradition. Fail.

 

MMM, not exactly. Good try, though.

=========================

Facts:

1) We all saw how things were voted upon and voted against last November.

 

This would imply the "culture" is largely still against it, no matter how 'secularized' and "diversified".

 

2) In reaction, the gays are so outraged they are on the tirade now taking it to higher judicial authorities claiming/arguing this is not an issue to be voted upon.

 

Interestingly in contradiction their hopeful stance of earlier that it would be voted in I might also add.

=========================

 

Sorry, but you're going to have to do a little better than that.

[Rogue Nine]

Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.

 

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

 

MMM, not exactly. Good try, though.

=========================

Facts:

1) We all saw how things were voted upon and voted against last November.

 

This would imply the "culture" is largely still against it, no matter how 'secularized' and "diversified".

All it shows is that California still has a way to go. And I'd hardly consider that the culture is 'largely' against it given the 52/48 split on the issue. Hopefully by the time it comes up again, the balance will have shifted.

 

2) In reaction, the gays are so outraged they are on the tirade now taking it to higher judicial authorities claiming/arguing this is not an issue to be voted upon.

 

Interestingly in contradiction their hopeful stance of earlier that it would be voted in I might also add.

Yeah, how dare the gays be outraged that their rights have been taken away from them based on the vote of the majority. How dare they be angry that they are not able to receive the same benefits under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. Honestly, how dare they.

 

Sorry, but you're going to have to do a little better than that.

Right back 'atcha.

[Totenkopf]

Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.

 

Wrong (again ). Skin didn't debunk anything. All he managed to do was gainsay Garf's point in an attempt to slap it aside. Even falls prey to your "appeal to the masses logical fallacy". I daresay that given that both subjects--gay marriage and polygamy--seem taboo to most of society, it'd have similiar responses to both. It's not rational for a society to say it's ok now for gays to marry, but not polygamists. It reflects nothing more than another arguable unjustifiable bias vs consenting adults who, as Skin pointed out, aren't involved in the relationship anyway. Try to be less messy with your "logic".

That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.

 

Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

Take your own advice and read more carefully. What I said was that the agenda is driven not toward merely forcing/getting society to accept gay marriage but to see it as a societal norm. In order to achieve that, society has to come to the conclusion that the position is acceptable. It's not a question of logic at that point, but human nature. If you weren't blinded by your own political position on the subject you might have understood that. The person engaging in fallacious thinking here is you, not me.

[kipperthefrog]

Totenkopf has a point. The same arguments used to defend gays can be used to defend Polygamists. Lets substitue polygamists as an expirement:

 

-Polygamists are consenting adults as well as gays.

-Polygamists are someone else's buisness and don't effect others.

-If you don't like polygamy, dont take more than one spouse

-etc

[mimartin]

You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.[/Quote] Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why can’t you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.

[EnderWiggin]

Are you ****ing kidding me? Pedophiles prey on children and take away their rights and by doing so commit crimes. Gay couples in love do not violate anyone's rights by being homosexual. This is a terrible and inaccurate analogy. I expected something low out of you, Garfy, but not this low. Good job.

 

So just shut the hell up with your horribly bigoted thinking.

 

QFE.

The argument that allowing same sex partners to marry is akin to pedophilia is ignorant and irrational fallacy meant only to malign and argue ad hominem with a straw man rather than to demonstrate a rational reason for disallowing same-sex marriage. One does not permit or allow the other and only the ignorant or the disingenuous would maintain such a position.

Also QFE.

I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.

Unfortunately, Niner, you were indeed mistaken.

Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again?

Sorry, but that still doesn't do your argument any good.

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth.

 

Doesn't make it 'misplaced'. Just because your fallacy may have some truth to it does not make it a logically sound argument. Sorry though.

 

Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

Luckily that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about whether or not gay marriage should or should not be legalized. Whereas you are discussing why it has not yet been nationally legalized.

 

_EW_

[Q]

Totenkopf has a point. The same arguments used to defend gays can be used to defend Polygamists. Lets substitue polygamists as an expirement:

 

-Polygamists are consenting adults as well as gays.

-Polygamists are someone else's buisness and don't effect others.

-If you don't like polygamy, dont take more than one spouse

-etc

You are correct; they do apply, and for the same reasons it can also be said that there is no logical reason why polygamy between a group of consenting adults should be illegal, either.

[kipperthefrog]

You are correct; they do apply, and for the same reasons it can also be said that there is no logical reason why polygamy between a group of consenting adults should be illegal, either.

 

Exactly my point. Also, I heard that Polygamy is already accepted in Islam.

[True_Avery]

You are correct; they do apply, and for the same reasons it can also be said that there is no logical reason why polygamy between a group of consenting adults should be illegal, either.

Moral issues aside, polygamy is a legal nightmare.

 

What if one of them wants to divorce? Well, then how to you split up the belongings? How do the children get split?

 

Once you introduce another party or more, suddenly things are not as easy as 50/50.

 

Now, I've seen couples who have been together, but had a third person in the household. While I have nothing against polygamy that works, I just fear for the American legal system when it has to deal with 6 people trying to divorce and split children, belongings, etc.

 

If we can figure out a way that works, then I'm fine with it. But, as it stands, polygamy just puts too much strain on the legal side of the issue. With the current legal system, it just can't be done. It would require a complete overhaul, which would be expensive, time consuming, and the end result would be legally questionable.

[Q]

You know, I was just saying to myself that a divorce involving a polygamous marriage would indeed be a legal nightmare.