FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban (Page 9)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Lalo, leave my name out it and stop lying and speculating about me. You know nothing. Stop claiming that you do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Lalo,

Since you're finally addressing something I actually said...

quote:

Preaching non-violence does not engender non-violence, whereas preaching hateful attitudes often does. The two don't cancel each other out. To quote what I said before, there were plenty of segregationists who were in no way violent, but it's completely dishonest to claim their policies didn't enable, encourage, and excuse violence. And this is segregation, these discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

So you really are saying that bad things which have roots in religion can be attributed to religion and its followers, but good things that happen with their roots in religion cannot be attributed to religion and its followers?

That's a strange but completely unsurprising argument for you to make.

Of course preaching non-violence engenders non-violence! Unless you believe no one nowhere was swayed away from violence because of what someone else convinced them was right and wrong?

I wouldn't say that preaching non-violence is as effective at promoting non-violence as preaching violence is at inciting violence.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I am not involved in this discussion.

?

You seem to understand the meaning of the word 'involved' as well as you understand the word 'lies.'

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Katharina-
"I have not taken a public stand of any kind on this issue."

"I oppose same sex marriage."

http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=044058;p=0&r=nfx#000013

I guess you have taken a public stand on the issue.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Janitor
Member
Member # 7795

 - posted      Profile for Papa Janitor           Edit/Delete Post 
This thread is getting a time-out. Several of you are over the line. As I've said before, I don't like locking threads where important subjects are discussed just because some people can't keep within the rules. After the thread is unlocked, please stop the bickering, name-calling, etc.

(Apologies if anyone loses a post because the thread got locked.)



Edit -- I'm unlocking this now. Hopefully tempers have cooled a bit, and can remain cool. If I feel it necessary to lock the thread again, it will remain locked.

--PJ

[ April 11, 2009, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]

Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Let's all redirect our rage at Papa Janitor! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Papa Janitor, you allegedly suck! AHAHAH!!!!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
We could throw moon-pies, maybe make some fluffernutter sandwiches.

Er, that isn't about ona-- ... you know.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
But that's an ugly arguement to make openly, hence a lot of other arguments that fall apart when you examine their consequences closely.
My take:

99.999999999999999% of all arguments made against gay marriage that claim to be 'secular arguments' are basically fronts for religious objections, in the same way that Intelligent Design was a thin coat of paint over an obviously Christian creationist agenda. They are given the 'secular' veneer in an attempt to be made constitutionally/legally palatable, much in the way that ID was designed explicitly to try to escape the establishment clause that would have otherwise kept it out of schools because the U.S. government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

it is the SAME thing with the vast, vast, almost total majority of 'secular' arguments against SSM. It is a cloak over a desperate attempt to keep gays from gaining equal social legitimacy. Anti-SSM folk default to the 'secular' objections because they know that 'secular' arguments against SSM are the tool that the constitution forces them to rely upon if they wish to keep same sex marriage from being eventually guaranteed by law.

I could point to a hundred anti-SSM pundits and organizations and find the biblical objection to homosexuality to be the core motivation behind all of them.

It is the case in all but freak instances; whenever someone comes peddling a 'compelling secular argument' against SSM, it is reliably neither secular nor compelling.

In nearly all cases, what you have is a person who undeniably has a religious objection to gay marriage, and who desires either to find or to craft an argument that does not rely on their real objections, but crafts new ones to 'legitimize' the argument in a way that furthers continued political and legal repression of gays.

In fact, you could use Orson Scott Card as a poster-boy example of this.

I think 99.999999999999999% is a bit exaggerated. Certainly many arguments are biblically based, but there are legitimate arguments that are secularly based. The question in these arguments then becomes whether or not the research they are based on is legitimate, but they are not biblical arguments. They are arguments that have to do with the emotional and physical health of homosexuals and the children they raise.

As evidence that other arguments are happening, here is a page that discusses a variety of arguments against same-sex marriage. I am not Catholic, but this is a Catholic page, so obviously many of their arguments are biblically-based, but they don't hide this. Here is one part (among others), however, that addresses secular evidence:

quote:
Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3˝ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are.62 Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Again, these arguments come down to whose research is more reliable, but it really bugs me when people say: 1) this is only a religious argument and 2)all of your research that outlines the harms of same-sex marriage is bad.

There is research out there suggesting that there is no harm from same-sex marriages, and there is research that suggests it is harmful. The secular arguments on this stuff are not closed, just because people want to look at part of the research, but blaming it all on religious reasons makes an easy excuse for ignoring all of the research.

I am a family therapist, and if there is one thing I have learned repeatedly, human behavior is complicated and there are a multitude of consequences in human mental and emotional health that stem from factors people did not consider or don't yet know about.

So, I have my own religious views on this subject, but just because I have beliefs, don't discount my secular arguments by saying they are just based on my faith. In my mind, this whole movement regarding same-sex marriage is happening too quickly, before we have had time to be sure of the consequences. Unless the above evidence (and other evidence not cited in that article) has been proven to be false, it is irresponsible of us to start pushing for social measures that will make fundamental changes for families and children, because if we are wrong, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

In a nutshell, the secular arguments on this subject are not closed, but I hear so many people say that "there is no evidence that same-sex marriage is unhealthy for adults or children", when, in fact, there is evidence. In science, when you have evidence that falls on both sides of the argument, you keep doing your research until you figure out the discrepancy, before you start making conclusions, theories, and policy changes.

Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think 99.999999999999999% is a bit exaggerated
in addition, completely fabricated!

quote:
As evidence that other arguments are happening, here is a page that discusses a variety of arguments against same-sex marriage. I am not Catholic, but this is a Catholic page, so obviously many of their arguments are biblically-based, but they don't hide this. Here is one part (among others), however, that addresses secular evidence:
That 'secular section' component of the Catholic group actually acts as a perfect example of what I am talking about, right down to the correlative flubs; they bring up homosexuals having a higher incidence of suicide and psychiatric disorder without bringing up factors such as societal persecution.

What it address (albiet in the wrong way) is that homosexuals have it tougher in life. But these Stern Warnings are based on a series of bald and oft pseudoscientific premises that the catholic site runs off of: that because of these negative associations with the homosexual lifestyle, we need to 1. prevent them from 'making the mistake' of allowing themselves the ability to marry each other, and 2. encourage them to stop being homosexual, as if it were a choice. I could go on, and on. I could sit down and write an essay on how bad the argument that site presents is. If I had time, I might. I am especially appalled that it mixes its scientific data seamlessly and non-professionally with the views of individual pundits such as Andrew Sullivan, as though the words of political opinion-writers can be cited as the final word in determining that homosexuals 'cannot achieve monogamy.' It's bonkers.


so, to recap, that site is essentially a perfect example of what I mean when I say

quote:
whenever someone comes peddling a 'compelling secular argument' against SSM, it is reliably neither secular nor compelling.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
It is bizarre to me that those who would deny legitimacy to SS relationships are using the fact that homosexuals lack legitimate relationships to justify that denial. And that they seem to do it with no awareness of irony.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
If I extrapolate the arguments that the catholic site is using to say that 'and this is really why they shouldn't be allowed to get married,' then if they were to apply those justifications without adding artificial caveats, it's incumbent upon them to not allow anyone with bipolar disorder to marry either. It's absurd.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marlozhan:
The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.

Uh. Aside from the whole question of why, in the face of promiscuous sex, you wouldn't want to promote monogamy -- if promiscuity really makes one unfit for marriage, I know a lot of sorority girls who should be banned for life. Let's see some hilarious equal application.

That said, the Church is spot-on. If you want to limit a population's promiscuity, why not shame public homosexuals and drive them to fleeting and secretive sexual relationships? It's worked fantastically for Larry Craig and Ted Haggard.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, Marlozhan, though the evidence you've provided in no way backs the Church's wacky conclusions, it is evidence of some sort. I'd rather have something meaty to discuss than vapid semantical or religious complaints.

Seriously, thanks. If more opponents of homosexual marriage put the effort into at least trying to back up their opinions, this would be a better world.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Er, that isn't about ona-- ... you know.
It's not? [Wink]

quote:
Certainly many arguments are biblically based, but there are legitimate arguments that are secularly based.
Hmm. I'll say this: I've never heard a secularly-based argument that was both legitimate and sufficient to justify denying equal treatment under the law to homosexuals, Marlozan.

I realize that's not quite what you said, though. I don't recall offhand the secular arguments against legitimizing SSM (because, honestly, they don't get made very often) well enough to say firmly that none of them are legitimate.

quote:
Again, these arguments come down to whose research is more reliable, but it really bugs me when people say: 1) this is only a religious argument and 2)all of your research that outlines the harms of same-sex marriage is bad.
Certainly some people say all of the research is bad...I don't know whether it is or not. What I will say comfortably, though, is that no legitimate research I've ever heard of comes close to being substantial enough to justify the conclusions people who cite it support.

quote:
...because if we are wrong, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.
The trouble is, there is already a price being paid. It's not as though we've got zero price being paid now versus the possibility of a price being paid in the future. We've got a price being paid right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Just as a caveat, that site is not an "official" site of the Church. That is not to say that the opinions stated are in disagreement with the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Just as a caveat,

I totally seeded your mind with that word, didn't I [Smile]
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post 
First of all, I am suggesting that more research needs to be done, not that the research on that Catholic page is infallible. And they do at least bring up social persecution as a factor, but albeit only in passing. One side says the psychological problems exist because they are inherent in homosexuality, and the other side says it is because of social persecution. My point is, the argument is not over.

Now, let's say that one day it is shown that homosexuality brings inherent psychological and emotional problems with it for individuals and the children they raise, that brings us to another question, namely:

Since homosexuality is unhealthy for society and families, does the government get to have a say as to whether or not to allow same-sex marriages?

If yes, I assume it is because the government has decided that marriage is an institution that is designed for the welfare of society and that it has a right to maintain that welfare. If no, then it means the government has no right to dictate whether or not any given marriage is healthy for society, and it simply must allow anyone to get married because it is a right. This is related to the comment about not restricting people with bipolar disorder from marrying.

See, I have always believed that the question regarding same-sex marriage came down to whether or not same-sex marriage was ultimately good for society or harmful to society. This is based in the idea that the marriage institution was established by the government to benefit society, else why would the government even get involved in marriage licenses? Why would the government even care whether or not you were married? You may say that it is because marriage was originally instituted due to religious traditions, which if that is the case, then I guess we need to get rid of marriage altogether on a governmental level, because the government has no right to decide who should and should not be allowed to marry. There should not even be government marriage licenses. The whole reason for a license is to regulate things. I had to get a nursery license from the department of agriculture, so they can regulate whether or not the plants I grow are healthy enough to be propagated and sold. Business licenses allow the government to regulate business, etc.

I suppose another alternative is to say that the government has marriage licenses to strictly manage marriage from a financial standpoint, namely for tax purposes and such. But again, why would the government have any right to decide whether or not marriages get more or less tax advantages, unless the government had reason to show that marriage benefited society and its government? Again, if marriage does not benefit society, what right does the government get to have a say in it? Perhaps the government needs to manage marriage licensing to keep track of who is married, or polygamous behavior and such, but this is all based on the notion that the government has a say in the health of marriages.

If, on the other hand, the government does have the right to decide what does and does not constitute healthy marriage, then my main argument has been that there needs to be more research before reform. The Catholic church may cite bad research or opinion articles, but this happens on both sides. The subject is not conclusive. And, this also raises the argument of who does and does not get to be married, such as in the example of a bipolar person. I don't claim to have an answer to that problem, which is precisely why I think this argument needs to be researched and discussed more before policy change.

Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Since homosexuality is unhealthy for society and families, does the government get to have a say as to whether or not to allow same-sex marriages?
Okay, so your hypothetical is one where it is conclusively judged that homosexuality is, in fact, a mental disorder. And the question is, because it is a mental disorder, is this appropriate cause for the government to bar them from marriage and/or adoption, etc?

Let's take some data that is real and not hypothetical: the fact that people with bipolar disorder, another mental disorder, overall and with much greater statistical regularity than gays, 'bring inherent psychological and emotional problems' that overall statistically greatly negatively impact their marriages and childrearing. In response to this understanding, does the government exclude people diagnosed with bipolar disorder from being allowed to marry? If the goal is to inhibit a group with certified negative impacts on children and families from being enabled or legally encouraged to organize into families and raise children, the bipolar parents are certainly more statistically 'dangerous' than the danger gays are hypothesized to have. If you're legally prohibiting gays from marrying based on these rationales and yet you still let people with more serious disorders get in on the institution of marriage, this is a neglectful double standard, at best.

The real issue is that using this rationale to say 'see, this is why gays can't marry' is as absurd and, really, terrible, as if the government was to prohibit people with bipolar disorder from marrying for the same rationale. It's not a perfect comparison (someone could say 'well, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is equivalent to a bipolar sufferer staying on their meds, its an attempt to hold back the disorder' or they could argue that homosexuality, unlike bipolar disorder, is a 'choice') but hopefully you get the point I'm getting at; that I think it's a bogus criteria for mandating these societal restrictions against gays.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marlozhan:
First of all, I am suggesting that more research needs to be done, not that the research on that Catholic page is infallible. And they do at least bring up social persecution as a factor, but albeit only in passing. One side says the psychological problems exist because they are inherent in homosexuality, and the other side says it is because of social persecution. My point is, the argument is not over.

Maybe not, but that's moot for legal purposes. I can argue that dysfunction and disorder are inherent to the Negroid race, and back it up by pointing out that black people have overwhelmingly larger proportions of venereal disease, imprisonment, homicide, infidelity, and domestic violence. But even if I feel black people should be barred from equal rights, the government doesn't get to deny it to them.

Now, what you're saying isn't without merit -- I would love it if people were forced to apply for licenses to reproduce, based on literacy, IQ, criminal record, etc. There are absolutely monstrous heterosexual parents everywhere, and our country would be enormously better if they weren't popping out spawn every year. But even if such licenses existed, how would homosexuality qualify as a restriction? If it should, then homosexuals should not only be barred from marriage and adoption, but also from voting and civil participation. If they're not mentally stable enough to have healthy relationships, they're certainly not stable enough to help run the country.

So let's ban gays from voting.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Marlozhan,

quote:
One side says the psychological problems exist because they are inherent in homosexuality, and the other side says it is because of social persecution. My point is, the argument is not over.
I can understand someone believing it's inherent. What I can't understand is someone attempting to suggest, scientifically, that it's inherent. Isn't the only way to even attempt to discover the answer to that question to examine homosexuals in an environment where the social persecution is absent?

Or, as has been said, to suggest that problems possibly stemming from persecution are why persecution shouldn't be ended is pretty strange.

quote:
Since homosexuality is unhealthy for society and families, does the government get to have a say as to whether or not to allow same-sex marriages?
Not unless the government gets to have a say in whether or not a host of other very damaging social practices - such as adultery, for example - must become criminal.

quote:
If no, then it means the government has no right to dictate whether or not any given marriage is healthy for society, and it simply must allow anyone to get married because it is a right. This is related to the comment about not restricting people with bipolar disorder from marrying.
It's not about the government declaring anything. It's about the government restricting something.

quote:


See, I have always believed that the question regarding same-sex marriage came down to whether or not same-sex marriage was ultimately good for society or harmful to society.

The trouble I have with understanding this is simple: we as a society permit (legally speaking) a great deal of behaviors that are dreadfully damaging to children and families. Like, for example, alcoholism. I'm not talking about a guy who gets a few brews with his buddies every weekend, but for instance a guy who drinks to become drunk many times a week. He's not violent, he doesn't drive, and he's able to be functional so he doesn't lose his job - such people are not uncommon.

But if he's not violent, if he doesn't drive, if he doesn't lose his job, he's simply never going to come under society's welfare-of-children radar.

Or, hell, just being a terrible parent. Many examples.

Why must homosexual marriage, out of all the frowned-upon but permitted things which do or may damage, be the one which is legally restricted?

quote:
Business licenses allow the government to regulate business, etc.
Instead of asking whether the government could - obviously it could - why not ask whether it should regulate on this particular issue?

quote:

If, on the other hand, the government does have the right to decide what does and does not constitute healthy marriage, then my main argument has been that there needs to be more research before reform.

Right now we have a denial of rights. It seems distinctly unfair to me, unjust even, to continue that state of affairs until 'more research' is done. Don't we as Americans have it as an implicit part of our culture that we don't restrict rights until we have a reason, rather than we wait to stop restricting rights until we learn if there's a reason or not?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
In fact, as I read that catholic site further. I think a full rebuttal of it would have to circle in slowly but firmly onto this particular part.

quote:
Our society is at a turning point. Are we going to undo the mistakes of the past thirty years that have given us an epidemic of divorce, fatherlessness, drugs, and violent and promiscuous children? Or are we going to continue the legitimization of same-sex unions by giving them the same status as heterosexual marriages?
When you analyze the context and the arguments that lead up to this statement, and then you observe the question as is, it is straight-out no jokes textbook example of a false dichotomy fallacy. It is difficult to find purer, more blatant examples. You could literally use it as a study in a textbook about fallacies.

And it is a major line of reasoning that people are falling to in today's society. A major one.

Forget diversity courses. Perhaps the best way to expedite gay rights is to engage in expanding people's exposure to logic courses.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If it should, then homosexuals should not only be barred from marriage and adoption, but also from voting and civil participation. If they're not mentally stable enough to have healthy relationships, they're certainly not stable enough to help run the country.
Once again, you are misunderstanding the argument from the anti-SSM side here. They are perfectly fine with gay people marrying, as long as they aren't marrying a person of the same sex.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Out of curiosity, what would they consider to be possible harms that could result from a marriage of two homosexuals that would be *greater* than a marriage formed with a homosexual forced to marry a heterosexual through government policy?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It is bizarre to me that those who would deny legitimacy to SS relationships are using the fact that homosexuals lack legitimate relationships to justify that denial. And that they seem to do it with no awareness of irony.

This is the thing that bothers me most about so many anti gay marriage/ anti gay arguments. They are in effect saying gays don't form life long monogamous relationships. Then they oppose every attempt to help gays form those relationships.

Like back when they used to deny gays employment in the federal government. They would say openly gay people can't work for us because they may be blackmailed. But if they are allowed to serve openly then what could they be blackmailed with? It was the secrecy that made them vulnerable.

They are using a very similar argument today. They say "Gays can't be married because they are promiscuous" What do they expect if gays have to sneak around with the ones they love? If gays being promiscuous is a problem then the logical solution is to encourage monogamy.

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
You get that whole cyclical cause thing going too with the whole 'they're more likely to be depressed/commit suicide/have emotional breakdowns' part.

Yes, and a big part of this is the discrimination they face. Using it as a reason to continue discrimination is the same sort of dark and unintentional irony.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's really squicky that people care so much what is in other people's pants and what they do with it and with whom.

The whole argument makes no logical sense to me. I just... really?

Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Tresopax: I think a very good response to that was in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision (emphasis mine).

quote:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.
Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.


Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
If it should, then homosexuals should not only be barred from marriage and adoption, but also from voting and civil participation. If they're not mentally stable enough to have healthy relationships, they're certainly not stable enough to help run the country.
Once again, you are misunderstanding the argument from the anti-SSM side here. They are perfectly fine with gay people marrying, as long as they aren't marrying a person of the same sex.
Yeah, and racists have no problem with black people, as long as those black people act, sound, dance, dress, talk, and think like white people- what's your point?

I for one, *do* have a problem with gay people marrying members of the opposite sex. I find the idea quite repugnant actually, for all involved.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the same argument was used to defend laws against inter-racial marriages. Of course they could legally marry-- within their own race. Also, the same sort of societal arguments were used. Breakdown of society, blah, blah, social apocalypse, blah, blah, won't somebody think of the children. (People actually argued that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because of the social stigma that their biracial children would face. Not that it doesn't happen, sometimes, but it is an extremely thin rationale for supporting a law.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tresopax: I think a very good response to that was in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision (emphasis mine).

The Iowa Supreme Court's reasoning is wrong on that point. A right is definitely still a right even if you have no desire to use that right.

For instance, the fact that I have no desire to own a firearm does not negate the fact that I have the right to own firearms; nor does it mean the government is obligated to give me some other right in order to make up for the right that's not useful to me.

quote:
Well, the same argument was used to defend laws against inter-racial marriages. Of course they could legally marry-- within their own race.
Yes, and so it would be just as incorrect to say an inter-racial marriage ban takes away the right to marry from people who want to marry people from another race. It doesn't take away the right; it limits the right. In the case of inter-racial marriages, it limited the right in a way that was technically equal to all races, but also in a way that was bad for society overall and promoted a racism that we are now hoping to eliminate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The Iowa Supreme Court is using a more useful and less pedantic definition of right than you are. Specifically, one that realizes that something restricted by class of person in certain ways is not, in fact, a right. That is, equal protection is a necessary quality of rights.

Your right to own a firearm is not being restricted to a class of person in one of those ways. Thus, it is not an effective counterexample.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
The Iowa Supreme Court's reasoning is wrong on that point.

If you haven't read the entire decision, you should.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:
Well, the same argument was used to defend laws against inter-racial marriages. Of course they could legally marry-- within their own race.
Yes, and so it would be just as incorrect to say an inter-racial marriage ban takes away the right to marry from people who want to marry people from another race. It doesn't take away the right; it limits the right. In the case of inter-racial marriages, it limited the right in a way that was technically equal to all races, but also in a way that was bad for society overall and promoted a racism that we are now hoping to eliminate.
You are voicing the argument against your point. "Limiting" or whatever other euphemism you care to use is inappropriate. The right to freedom of speech is "limited," but it is not limited in such a way as to afford only some people equal protection under the law. You can't have a "limitation" of a right only for some people- that is institutional bigotry. So don't massage the language to make it sound any better than it was, which was a full on breach of individual rights. Just because people were still allowed to marry certain other people does not, I repeat *does not* indicate to me that their rights were even partially respected. They were not.

Rather like feeding your children dog food, and then claim to child protective services that you never starved them. They still had to eat dog food.


Aside from this, what disturbs me about you, and people like you, is the limp-wristed, wishy-washy way in which you cling to these feeble and wretched old canards that you pass back and forth to each other like bouts of cold. Does it never bother you, never stick in your craw, that the arguments you persistently put up against same-sex marriage, or in favor of ID being taught in schools, or whatever other infringement of the 1st Amendment you have as a pet cause this week, are so obviously rotten and weak? I mean really, we see links here all the time, as we have again recently, to arguments against SSM that commit the most egregious logical fallacies, practically daring the reader not to laugh or wretch in disgust at the ham-handedness of the deception. Honestly, it's pathetic. It's been pathetic for a long time, and sooner than you think, (I believe Sam has his prediction in at under 5 years) it will be such a shame to so many people that they ever indulged in this silly, tragically silly, debate.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
In general, I think it's pointless to pretend that each thread on hatrack is its own universe. Instead, it is one moment of conversation of a very very long conversation in which many of us have voiced opinions. Editing out things we said several years ago is disingenuous. Accepting that we typed those words before is part of being a mature member of this community.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For instance, the fact that I have no desire to own a firearm does not negate the fact that I have the right to own firearms; nor does it mean the government is obligated to give me some other right in order to make up for the right that's not useful to me.
Tresopax, it all depends on how you define the 'right' to marriage.

If you look at it from the, "We've all got the right to marry someone of the opposite sex," well then you're technically right. Though that's not really a very useful 'right'.

If, however, you look at it the way the right to marriage is actually practiced, it's more like this: we've all got the right to marry who we want to marry if we can get them to say 'yes'.

Only a specific desire to restrict marriage away from homosexuals would lead someone to say, "The only actual right we have is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and homosexuals have that right too." It's a technicality.

We shouldn't be in the business of legislating people's happiness and what they do in their own personal lives when it doesn't hurt anyone else on mere technicalities. Especially not if those same people are also expected to shoulder an equal load of the responsibilities we all have as citizens.

I'm not sure if you're speaking for yourself against SSM, or if you're rather defending the PoV of those who are against it. Either way, though: why do you think we should restrict marriage to heterosexuals?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
he Iowa Supreme Court is using a more useful and less pedantic definition of right than you are. Specifically, one that realizes that something restricted by class of person in certain ways is not, in fact, a right. That is, equal protection is a necessary quality of rights.

Your right to own a firearm is not being restricted to a class of person in one of those ways. Thus, it is not an effective counterexample.

The Court is using the same definition that I am. The right to marry is not being restricted by class of person; the restriction of not being allowed to marry a member of the same sex applies equally to both homosexual and heterosexual people. The only difference is that heterosexual individuals don't normally ever want to marry someone of the same sex.

quote:
"Limiting" or whatever other euphemism you care to use is inappropriate.
We've already established in this thread that there are limitations to marrying - you can only marry someone who consents, you can't marry your sibling, etc. So it is appropriate in at least some ways.

quote:
I mean really, we see links here all the time, as we have again recently, to arguments against SSM that commit the most egregious logical fallacies, practically daring the reader not to laugh or wretch in disgust at the ham-handedness of the deception. Honestly, it's pathetic. It's been pathetic for a long time, and sooner than you think, (I believe Sam has his prediction in at under 5 years) it will be such a shame to so many people that they ever indulged in this silly, tragically silly, debate.
I agree with you that this whole debate is somewhat silly. But just because it seems to make sense to alter the legal definition of marriage for the sake of gay couples doesn't mean it's okay to use bad reasoning to justify that position. A right is still a right even if you have no desire to use that right - I really think that is fairly clear, and I suspect the only reason people would argue otherwise is because they've decided beforehand that they like the conclusion that restricting gay marriage is unfair and are looking for an emotionally convincing way to argue in favor of their conclusion. Saying "you're taking away their right to marry!" is emotionally convincing, but in the case of gay marriage it is not rationally correct.

I believe the real logic (by "real logic" I mean the line of reasoning that in my view seems to follow from correct assumptions) for the pro-SSM side is simpler and rational, but also less emotionally compelling. The reason is this: Civil marriage is just a definition we've set, which we altered in the past, and can alter now. It would make the lives of gay couples better if we do so, and it won't hurt anything to do so. So why not do it? I think that argument is very convincing - but it also isn't the sort of argument that will get people up in arms.

One of the downsides to how our political system works is that groups advocating a given side are motivated to use more emotionally but ultimately incorrect arguments to back their view, rather than giving arguments that actually follow. That's why the anti-SSM side makes claims that allowing SSM will destroy the institution of marriage, when it's fairly obvious there's no reason to believe that. It's the same deal - it's not a rational reason to believe what they believe, but it sounds good and fires up the base so they go with it.

[ April 12, 2009, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
he Iowa Supreme Court is using a more useful and less pedantic definition of right than you are. Specifically, one that realizes that something restricted by class of person in certain ways is not, in fact, a right. That is, equal protection is a necessary quality of rights.

Your right to own a firearm is not being restricted to a class of person in one of those ways. Thus, it is not an effective counterexample.

The Court is using the same definition that I am. The right to marry is not being restricted by class of person; the restriction of not being allowed to marry a member of the same sex applies equally to both homosexual and heterosexual people. The only difference is that heterosexual individuals don't normally ever want to marry someone of the same sex.
[Added: This makes possession of the "right to marry" utterly meaningless for homosexuals. The effect of defining a right in a a particular way matters; you're only considering the definition, not the effect of having a right defined in a particular way.]

From the Iowa decision:
quote:
First, the County argues the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” This argument is straightforward and has superficial appeal. A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
"Limiting" or whatever other euphemism you care to use is inappropriate.
We've already established in this thread that there are limitations to marrying - you can only marry someone who consents, you can't marry your sibling, etc. So it is appropriate in at least some ways.
But not in the way that you used it, certainly not.

There are appropriate boundaries to every right- that is what was established. These are not always express limitations, but merely the point at which an individual right cannot be applied- mainly and most often because it would infringe on the rights of another person. However, to lump incest and slavery in with interracial marriage (I hope it pains you to see what you've done there) does not an equivalence establish.


quote:
Saying "you're taking away their right to marry!" is emotionally convincing, but in the case of gay marriage it is not rationally correct.
It is not semantically correct. In every way that really matters however, it is quite correct.

I've seen you play this game so many times, it's sad. It reminds me of Michael Scott at the end of an episode of the office, finding a way to make things seem as if they've turned out well, and because of what he has done.

Tres, this is an emotional issue. It has everything to do with emotion- you go ahead and sit in your ivory tower and play with your porcelain dolls and statues, and I'll live down here in the real world, where people's feelings actually matter. [QUOTE]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Tresopax, without Orincoro's sneer, could you tell me why you appear to be suggesting that your technical correctness on this issue is relevant?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
He's not technically correct- he's just convinced that his fallacious reasoning sounds a whole lot better than stating the core issue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
He is technically correct that marriage is not a right being denied homosexuals. They can, after all, still marry provided one very (for homosexuals) unfair and unjust condition is met.

I just don't think it matters.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tresopax, without Orincoro's sneer, could you tell me why you appear to be suggesting that your technical correctness on this issue is relevant?
First: Because I think it's going to be difficult or even impossible for one side to understand the other side if they aren't willing to limit themselves to what they strictly know to be true and if they aren't willing to grant the other side any ground. In this case specifically, I don't see how the pro-SSM side could feel any empathy towards or understand the anti-SSM position as long as they view that position simply as "taking away the right to marriage from gay people." Both sides are going to just talk past eachother - which is exactly what is going on.

Second: Because, as an individual, I believe I make better decisions if I distinguish between what is technically true versus what just seems true-ish. On this particular issue, it feels true-ish to say gay people are losing rights if they can't marry their partner, but it also feels true-ish to say marriage as a tradition has always been about men marrying women and that traditions like that are important. Those feelings directly contradict, so if I hope to figure it out I have to stop and say "Okay, what's really true here?"

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't see how the pro-SSM side could feel any empathy towards or understand the anti-SSM position as long as they view that position simply as "taking away the right to marriage from gay people."
I don't know how many on the pro-SSM side view the anti-SSM side as 'taking away' a right that, by and large, doesn't exist for them yet; the only people who say that are probably referring to the repeal in cali, which would be a correct appraisal?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Tresopax,

quote:
In this case specifically, I don't see how the pro-SSM side could feel any empathy towards or understand the anti-SSM position as long as they view that position simply as "taking away the right to marriage from gay people."
So in your opinion, anti-SSM folks generally feel that a fair response to complaints against their position is, "But homosexuals aren't denied any rights; they have the right to marry, too." Is that correct?

If it's correct, I have to say I disagree, and wonder how many people opposed to SSM you actually know well and have spoken with. In my experience, "Homosexuals can still get married," if it comes up at all, doesn't come up until a variety of other more important (to them) reasons are discussed at length.

quote:
On this particular issue, it feels true-ish to say gay people are losing rights if they can't marry their partner, but it also feels true-ish to say marriage as a tradition has always been about men marrying women and that traditions like that are important.
Except here's the thing: homosexuals are losing rights if they can't marry their partner. Granted, that's a subjective opinion - 'rights' - but from the American perspective it's the correct opinion, plain as day. As Americans, we're not supposed to care what folks do in their own personal lives so long as they're not hurting anyone and they're living up to their obligations as citizens. There is no evidence existing on purely secular grounds that is potent enough to justify us as Americans actively caring - and stopping - what homosexuals do in their lives.

That's not just 'true-ish', that's the truth-is there anything there you dispute, Tresopax?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
If it should, then homosexuals should not only be barred from marriage and adoption, but also from voting and civil participation. If they're not mentally stable enough to have healthy relationships, they're certainly not stable enough to help run the country.
Once again, you are misunderstanding the argument from the anti-SSM side here. They are perfectly fine with gay people marrying, as long as they aren't marrying a person of the same sex.
Speaking from genuine curiosity, why would you want gay people to marry the opposite gender? Are you interested in marrying a woman who has no sexual interest in you?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
kmbboots,

quote:
I wouldn't say that preaching non-violence is as effective at promoting non-violence as preaching violence is at inciting violence.
I forgot to respond to this, but I agree, though with a qualifier: the question being discussed wasn't one of promoting violence vs. promoting non-violence, but rather between promoting non-violence specifically and promoting discrimination against homosexuals generally.

The question Lalo has (still) not answered is if religion is to be blamed, in whole or in part, for violence against homosexuals because of the attitude of discrimination against them it promotes, does it not get any credit for preaching non-violence?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Tresopax, without Orincoro's sneer, could you tell me why you appear to be suggesting that your technical correctness on this issue is relevant?
First: Because I think it's going to be difficult or even impossible for one side to understand the other side if they aren't willing to limit themselves to what they strictly know to be true and if they aren't willing to grant the other side any ground. In this case specifically, I don't see how the pro-SSM side could feel any empathy towards or understand the anti-SSM position as long as they view that position simply as "taking away the right to marriage from gay people." Both sides are going to just talk past each other - which is exactly what is going on.

Yes, we realize that your intellectually bisexual- some of us are interested in changing the law to expand the freedoms of our friends and neighbors. I'm really not willing to engage in a debate with someone who bases their thinking, in this matter, solely on the Christian party line.

See, most of us have this knack for figuring out when we're talking to dumb people. So far, and without exception in my personal experience, the anti-SSM arguments have been dumb, dumb, intolerably dumb. That's it- it's that simple. I get three sentences into these things, and I'm falling into huge gaps in reasoning. But hey, I'm a self-righteous atheist, so it's not like I've never been ignored before.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm really not willing to engage in a debate with someone who bases their thinking, in this matter, solely on the Christian party line.
Time will tell if this is true or not, Orincoro:)

quote:
So far, and without exception in my personal experience, the anti-SSM arguments have been dumb, dumb, intolerably dumb.
If you're looking at the argument on purely secular grounds, I agree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"If you're looking at the argument on purely secular grounds, I agree. "

In terms of law, are there other grounds that matter?

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2