Gay Marriage

[True_Avery]

I was driving at: that for someone so grateful to have any of these rights (even if it isn't everything you want), you sure don't seem to act it. Considering especially what other nations may or may not do to gays. Just saying.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

Anything relevant to the topic now?

 

The question still stands: You want to change it and override the vote now? That just doesn't seem very...democratic.

I deleted my previous post because I thought it was inflamatory, but you've hit a nerve.

 

You told me to "get over it".

 

Oh, thank you. All my troubles are now gone now that you've told me to "get over it".

 

I'm sure the slaves back in the day would just stop asking for rights if you told them to "get over it". I'm sure women would have stopped asking for voting rights as well.

 

I could give a **** that it was democratic or not. It was deemed unconstitutional, and then a vote was forced on us to place a ban that had already been deemed unconstitutional.

 

The constitution exists to make sure things like this don't happen. If everything was democratic, we'd be a Direct Democracy, not a Republic like we are now.

 

This is not rudeness: You are entitled to your opinion (no matter how hot headded). All's I'm saying is that as bad is it may seem... it could *always* be worse. That's all.

Excuse me, but WTF does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[EnderWiggin]

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.

 

1. They cannot produce children in all cases. Some people are just sterile.

 

2. Saying something is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong in multiple ways, which I will now prove using a logical syllogism:

 

FTR, saying something is unethical because it is unnatural is a fallacy unto itself, but I'll explain an actual counterargument for you since you seem to gloss over any posts talking about fallacies.

 

I. What is natural?

 

A. Definition: 'Natural' can be defined in one of many ways: something normal in nature, or something that is not man-made (ie grass instead of clothing), or something that occurs within the laws of nature (ie conforming to Newtonian physics).

 

1. Natural in the 'law' sense

a. Since these laws merely describe events and do not prescribe behavior, homosexual behavior can in no way break natural 'law.' Any scientist will tell you that if it is observable, then it conforms to a law. Gases do not act as Boyle's Law commands; Boyle's Law describes how gases act. If homosexuality in fact did break a law, the law would be proven false, and thus, rewritten to include the observable phenomena.

 

2. Natural in the 'not artificial' sense

a. This is a rather easy one. You would never say that clothing should not be used because it needed man's influence in order to exist. You would not actually be typing anything, since in this sense, computers and even the running of electricity to houses would be artificial and thus unethical.

 

----Obviously, people arguing this do not believe one of the first two. They usually are referring to this:

 

3. Natural in the 'normal' sense (or, as a corollary, that any use of organs in a way contrary to their primary purpose is unnatural)

a. If you are saying that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't happen in nature (or is not required by nature for a purpose) then I'd like to first direct you to the list of species that sometimes practice homosexuality. You can find this list on Wikipedia, or by simply using Google. Also, the uncommonness of an action does not make it any more or less ethical. Shakespeare's works were of uncommon quality - they are usually praised for this very same reason. Same holds true for breaking a world record, etc.

b. If you are saying that homosexuality is against primary natural purpose, ie no child is developed, you've opened a can of worms. Things that fall into this category include: sterile people having sex, old people having sex, sex for pleasure, oral sex, masturbation, and etc. I hope that you're not going to tell us that you feel all sex that does not result in the formation of a zygote is immoral? Therefore, if you do believe this, you would also view IVF as moral, since in that case, a zygote is formed? Do not fail to see all of the repercussions of this argument. A woman's eyes are for seeing. Is it unethical for her to use them for flirting? or for her profession, as in modeling?

 

 

Summary: Things that are unnatural (in the second and third definitions) can actually be more beneficial than the things that are natural. Thus, saying that Gay Marriage is "unnatural" is a specious argument.

 

_EW_

 

 

Source:

Some pieces of argument based off of the following:

 

Leiser, Burton M. "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" Liberty, Justice, and Morals: Contemporary Value Conflicts, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986. pp. 51-57.

[Totenkopf]

He did, actually. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' without directly refuting his points. It's a most Garfield-esque tactic.

 

Actually, you're incorrect. He merely pronounced sentence on Garf and called him ignorant. There was effectively nothing to refute. Garf can defend himself. Seeing as how you ignore points/arguments that are inconvenient and then proceed to move on to name calling/flaming, you're hardly in a postion to bitch about technique.

 

Again, you don't just get to say 'no' without backing it up. Allowing gay marriage does not logically cause the legalization of polygamy. You have yet to show how it does because that is the entire crux of your argument. Until you do so, you have committed a fallacy and are wrong.

 

Once again, you (and that *asshat* _EW_---coming from him that's probably a compliment ) are quick to slot people's arguments into your little pigeon hole w/regard to what they said. I've no obligation to defend myself against such strawmen. Read what I wrote and stop imposing your agenda driven inferences about what I said and then we can continue. Till then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

I understood your point about societal norms. It is true that most of society doesn't consider 'homosexuality' normal and that change will likely come slowly. But this is still not a reason to deny homosexual marriage.

 

Then you clearly missed the point. My point wasn't whether or not societal norms were a reason to legalize anything. I demonstrated that as well. You're clearly viewing everything only through the lens that it's a direct argument for or against. Given that you never set really tight parameters for the discussion in your initial post, you'll have to forgive me for thinking the conversation was a little more nuanced than that.

 

If I am, in your eyes, using cheap shots, how is this not hypocritical?

 

What does that have to do with anything? You started off your diatribe with a cheap shot and I noticed. What of it?

 

I would be inclined to disagree. Perhaps you would like to explain how ""Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there"" is not a slippery slope argument?

 

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply. The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

 

Ahh, of course. It wasn't that I read and understood your argument, and then ascertained that it was impertinent, it must be that it went over my head. By all means, continue with what you berated me for, your grace.

As Niner said - it wasn't an incorrect point, but it is irrelevant to the argument progressing.

 

Oh, it was inconvenient to your collective diatribe. So sorry, m'lord.

 

You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality.

Fail to see how this is... even important, actually. You do know this thread is discussing why gay marriage should be legalized (or not) right?

Or is this supposed to be going somewhere?

 

Merely explaining my position, exalted professor.

 

EDIT:: Also, the jury came back....

 

As if the verdict of a kangaroo court were somehow relevant. Priceless.

 

if you look at it from another perspective, heterosexuals are able to marry the person they love/want to get a tax break with/get drunk enough to love/in a vegas chapel with an elvis impersonator with for an hour and homosexuals aren't, which kind of brings me to my next point that marriage is far from sacred now anyway so uh **** it why not

 

Well, from yet another perspective, even heteros aren't always allowed to marry those people. He/she could already be married to someone else, underage, etc... Big freaking deal. Life's unfair sometimes.

[Rogue Nine]

Actually, you're incorrect. He merely pronounced sentence on Garf and called him ignorant. There was effectively nothing to refute.

Except for when SkinWalker showed how one does not logically cause the other, rendering Garfield's arguments fallacious? Logic does not hold that polygamy follows gay marriage, which was Garfy's entire argument.

 

Once again, you (and that *asshat* _EW_---coming from him that's probably a compliment ) are quick to slot people's arguments into your little pigeon hole w/regard to what they said. I've no obligation to defend myself against such strawmen. Read what I wrote and stop imposing your agenda driven inferences about what I said and then we can continue. Till then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

Then you clearly missed the point. My point wasn't whether or not societal norms were a reason to legalize anything. I demonstrated that as well. You're clearly viewing everything only through the lens that it's a direct argument for or against. Given that you never set really tight parameters for the discussion in your initial post, you'll have to forgive me for thinking the conversation was a little more nuanced than that.

Please restate your arguments for me, then. Clearly I missed them somehow. Thanks.

 

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply. The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

Again, gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. If you'd like to discuss polygamy there is a thread on it already, so please do it there. Any further mention of polygamy in this thread will be deleted as spam.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well, from yet another perspective, even heteros aren't always allowed to marry those people. He/she could already be married to someone else, underage, etc... Big freaking deal. Life's unfair sometimes.

 

welp, **** it then i guess life's unfair that's that we should just stop trying to make things better because **** it totenkopf says ****'s unfair

[SD Nihil]

As far as gay marriage is concerned we need to have an amendment that every eight to twelve years, or however long it'd be till a new group of voters that have turned eighteen would vote on it. All at once every state individually would vote to either have gay marriage or not. If you marry in a state, are of the same gender, and lets say that state were to afterwards ban gay marriage. It shouldn't mean your marriage is invalid. And you should be able to re-marry in all states regardless of a ban on gay marriage. Besides re-marrying is simply a reafirming of the decision you both already made. You both already have a civil union. It'd make no sense to say your married at one point and not at others.

 

But if you want to marry and do not before the ban of course you cannot marry in that state to which it is banned. But like I said if you are re-marrying then you should in all states. Let people live their lives. No government official state or national officials should dictate the will of the people. The American public should vote and decide. The only thing the elected officials have a part in this amendment is signing into law for that state for the eight to twelve years whether gay marriage is legal or not in that state.

 

I mean guys I at least think this makes sense. I think we should be fair to both sides as best as we can. Let's say a couple of the same gender in California wants to remarry in Hawaii while on vacation. They are already married. So let's not say they can't reafirm a decision that was already approved of. Let the people decide. Not the state or federal government. An elected official has their one vote. They shouldn't take their one vote and run over the will of the people. But in this case to be fair one side should be given time for their decision to count and the other can have their turn too. But lets not disenfranchise those who made their decision prior to a ban. I'm trying to be fair. Does this sound fair? Regardless of your moral stance you should uphold the law and Constitution. I mean that's the job of the elected official when they take the oath. Just trying to be fair.

[kipperthefrog]

welp, **** it then i guess life's unfair that's that we should just stop trying to make things better because **** it totenkopf says ****'s unfair

 

Punctuation is your freind!

[EnderWiggin]

What does that have to do with anything? You started off your diatribe with a cheap shot and I noticed. What of it?

 

And I then noticed that you did the same. What of it?

 

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply.

...oh, okay then. I guess you operate above rules of logic?

 

The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

 

Actually no, that's not the point. My opinion on polygamy is moot since the argument is fallacious and based on an incorrect premise.

 

Thus, even if I were a proponent of polygamy, I would not use that argument. I tend to try to stay away from logical fallacies when making a logical argument. Sorry that you don't.

 

Perhaps you could get back to the topic (ie gay marriage?)

 

Oh, it was inconvenient to your collective diatribe. So sorry, m'lord.

 

Didn't say that it was inconvenient. I said it was useless.

 

 

Merely explaining my position, exalted professor.

Irony abounds. How interesting that you begin grading people based on posts and then turn around and use 'professor' as a tongue-in-cheek title.

 

Well, from yet another perspective, even heteros aren't always allowed to marry those people. He/she could already be married to someone else, underage, etc... Big freaking deal. Life's unfair sometimes.

 

So your argument is "Let's not push for any advancements in policy at all?"

 

Wow.

 

Again, gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. If you'd like to discuss polygamy there is a thread on it already, so please do it there. Any further mention of polygamy in this thread will be deleted as spam.

 

^^AKA why your argument is both useless and annoying, Totenkopf.

 

_EW_

 

 

 

welp, **** it then i guess life's unfair that's that we should just stop trying to make things better because **** it totenkopf says ****'s unfair

[RoxStar]

As far as gay marriage is concerned we need to have an amendment that every eight to twelve years, or however long it'd be till a new group of voters that have turned eighteen would vote on it. All at once every state individually would vote to either have gay marriage or not.

 

This is the most backward and asinine idea I have ever encountered.

 

If you marry in a state, are of the same gender, and lets say that state were to afterwards ban gay marriage. It shouldn't mean your marriage is invalid. And you should be able to re-marry in all states regardless of a ban on gay marriage. Besides re-marrying is simply a reafirming of the decision you both already made. You both already have a civil union. It'd make no sense to say your married at one point and not at others.

 

I stand corrected.

 

So ever.****ing.year you would would vote to either make gay marriage legal or illegal? That is in no way how lawmaking is made. How on earth is that idea

 

a) Valid

b) Based on the legal precedents of the USA

c) not completely contrived??

[SD Nihil]

Thanks for your input. That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance, but at the same time doesn't disenfranchise same sex couples already married. I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

[Achilles]

No wait, I think he's on to something here. The problem is that the idea doesn't go far enough.

 

I think if we want to do this right, we should vote regularly on every law. That way we can have no consistency. That way our foundation as a nation of laws can be utterly undermined, leaving the door completely open for mob rule (aka anarchy). I'm actually a little surprised that no one thought of this before.

[True_Avery]

Thanks for your input. That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance, but at the same time doesn't disenfranchise same sex couples already married. I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

How is this unfair for the other side?

 

How about... just let same-sex marriage pass and stay?

 

I think its plenty fair considering opposite sex couples are literally losing nothing in law.

 

Moral and religious reasons I don't think the Government should cater to. The people being treated "unfairly" are those who's personal beliefs are getting in the way of the law and constitution and frankly, Separation of Church makes many of those opinions void anyway.

 

So you'll have to clear up for me what exactly the other side is losing in this situation.

[SD Nihil]

Well because when a new generation comes along the idea of marriage for that state might change because there is a new group that might think differently. I don't want to disenfranchise them. I want the new generation to be given a chance to reafirm or change the prior ruling.

 

And yeah people should live their lives. But since people want to vote on the issue shouldn't their wishes of it being voted on be granted?

 

And for it being an amendement that is to put up a stop sign to elected officials who would want to overrule the voters. That's the thing. Elected officials are voters too. They shouldn't have a vote that counts more than any other one individual. So the only people I want involved in this decision should be everybody. Not an elected official telling us what to do.

[Achilles]

Moral and religious reasons I don't think the Government should cater to.

I disagree that governments should not cater to moral considerations.

 

Luckily, for the sake of our discussion on this topic, there aren't any moral considerations for the prevention of equal rights. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that none have been brought forth.

 

Critism is good. But if you just have that then you've not contributed to a solution.

The solution has been "contributed" ad nauseam: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

If you have a better idea that makes it fair for both sides, and doesn't disenfranchise already married gay couples please tell me.

Sure thing: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

It'd be great if we can come up with some good ideas.

I'm just gonna throw this one out there for discussion. Tell me what you think: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

I'm perfectly fine with being critisized. It doesn't bother me. It's how we learn what ideas are good and what ones are dumb. That's cool.

Sounds so good, on paper. The hard part is where people don't abandon their faulty positions once they've been shown that they lack merit (see: contents of my ignore list).

[True_Avery]

And for it being an amendement that is to put up a stop sign to elected officials who would want to overrule the voters. That's the thing. Elected officials are voters too. They shouldn't have a vote that counts more than any other one individual. So the only people I want involved in this decision should be everybody. Not an elected official telling us what to do.

We live in a Republic for a reason:

 

Direct Democracy has never worked on a country wide scale. It works about as well as True Socialism, or True Communism.

[mimartin]

For those that believe it should be up to the voters and not the Constitution: Are you still going to agree with the voters when they take away your Constitutional rights?

[SD Nihil]

I didn't say say if I was for or against gay marriage anyway. I simply think that voters if the majority on both sides want to vote on something shouldn't we honor their decision to vote. Yes people should live their lives. If we don't allow gay marriage for all we are disenfranchising the individuals who want to marry the same sex. But if we also allow gay marriage for all and a large group wants to vote that out of their state and we don't allow for it then are we not disenfranchising their right to vote.

[Achilles]

Non-sequitur, mimartin. If we're going to make the rules up as we go along and change them every year, then a constitution can't exist. Inherent rights will be ignored because we're arguing that mob rule should be the mechanism by which rights are established.

 

For anyone interested in learning what such a scenario might look like, I recommend checking out the French Revolution. Good times.

[SD Nihil]

Exactly. Why have a Constitution if it says a marriage is between a man and a woman and you change it at the state level. Are you not then doing something unconstitutional. So if you are for following the Constitution and it says marriage is between a man and a woman and you want to overturn it then like you said the what is the point of the Constitution if you can just change it when you want.

 

So that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise here.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Punctuation is your freind!

 

and spelling's yours

[SW01]

That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance

 

Personally, I am highly sceptical that such a thing could ever be achieved. Where there are 'sides' opposed to such a right, where one side desires its implementation and the other is opposed to its implementation, it will be impossible without creating some useless and ineffective breed of law - one that would do harm to the need for legal certainty. Either the right should be granted, with all certainty that it will be active and relevant for the forseeable future, or it should not be granted. Though, as discussed at great length, more and more now the latter would be consistent with denying a fundamental right.

 

Withdrawing a right at a later stage would be, if anything, worse than never acknowledging it. All that would come out of it would be a large group of enraged people.

 

I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count

 

Which is admirable, but possibly fundamentally unworkable. Had it been two groups at odds over an issue of construction or some issue of legal framework, compromise would possibly be available. However, as I wrote above, where the argument is over the very existence of the right in the first place, compromise would seem impossible.

 

Should the will of the majority be able to override the rights of the (growing) minority? It is an awkward question, for the sole reason that it involves the claim of a right held by another group. I find the argument of discrimination to be a powerful one - and whether I personally agree with it or not (it is an issue that I am uncertain of at this time), it seems to be becoming indefensible from a legal standpoint to continue to deny it.

 

at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

 

I think allowing the country to vote once every four years for a person that shares their opinions over the matter is sufficient. Rule by plebiscite is interesting as an exercise in pure democracy, but it doen't always help provide a coherent legal perspective.

 

My suggestion would be that the government should take a bold stance one way or the other. Though that is unlikely. The next option would be the courts, but they did take a bold step and were swiftly overruled by plebiscite.

 

All other possibilities - including the EU model (if a marriage is legally binding in the State of origin of a couple, any other State to which they move must also recognise their union) seem to be rather weak half-measures. At least to me.

[Achilles]

Exactly. Why have a Constitution if it says a marriage is between a man and a woman and you change it at the state level.

The United States Constitution provides the framework for our federal government. If gay marriage is a state's rights issue (as the constitution would indicate) then it would make sense that it would be decided at the state level, no?

 

Are you not then doing something unconstitutional.

Nope.

 

So if you are for following the Constitution and it says marriage is between a man and a woman and you want to overturn it then like you said the what is the point of the Constitution if you can just change it when you want.

The Constitution doesn't say that.

 

And if the legislature passes something unconstitutional and the executive signs it into law, the judicial branch can still override it. It's called "judicial review". It's part of the checks and balances of power that the Framers built into our system to keep us from doing stupid things to ourselves.

 

So that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise here.

Why do we need such a compromise for gay marriage, but not for other things...like slavery?

[EnderWiggin]

So that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise here.

 

Umm... perhaps you missed this:

 

 

The solution has been "contributed" ad nauseam: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

Sure thing: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

I'm just gonna throw this one out there for discussion. Tell me what you think: allow consenting adults to marry.

 

_EW_

[RoxStar]

@ SD Nihil

 

I still do not understand why you think future generations should be given the opportunity to take rights away from their fellow citizens ever few years. That is like saying that "people born in the 90s hate alcohol so they should have a referendum in case some want it banned once more". Why not do that with ever law?

[Doomie]

I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.

 

It would be 'fair' if the opinions of the bigoted majority were simply disregarded. Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be protected. That's fair. A compromise will just make both sides unhappy and accomplish nothing.

 

If a fat kid (anti-gay marriage) and a skinny kid (pro-gay marriage) are fighting over a cake (marriage), and the fat kid wants the entire cake while the skinny kid wants an equal share, would you say it is a fair compromise to give the skinny kid a few crumbs and let the fat kid have the rest? Would it be fair to give the fat kid the opportunity to bully the skinny kid into giving up his share?

No, the fat kid is being greedy and irrational, this is where the parents step in and give each kid their equal share.

 

Then the fat kid starts whining about 'activist parents' who don't respect the majority's will...

 

(It's not even that accurate of an analogy come to think of it, because if gay marriage becomes legal, there is now an extra cake just for the skinny kid and the fat kid can have the entire original cake, just like he wanted. He just seems so opposed to the idea of the skinny kid having a cake as well...)