| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2008 02:24:37 AM · #426 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but what is the moral argument against such a relationship aside from the "EWWWWWW Gross" factor? |
Possibly that, given lifelong mutual influences on each other, there might be some doubt as to the "freely consenting" part -- much the same reasoning that makes children younger than a certain age considered not competent to make certain decisions. |
Huh? So you're saying because two people of the same sex grew up together they couldn't freely consent to a relationship when they are adults? What about childhood friends of the opposite sex? Wouldn't their judgements be equally affected?
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 02:25:58. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:28:41 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by pidge:
and once again I am reminded why I stopped posting in the first place. Nobody reads anymore anyways. And I was going to make a quip about sisters marrying, but Spaz did it for me. Thanks, spaz |
I'm sorry I neglected you pidge. I wasn't sure going down the path of your post was productive. The reason I assumed that a brother/sister union would have kids is mainly because that is where the harm of incest is viewed. Because the Liberty argument has the clause that activities are allowed that "do not cause harm", I thought it too complex to judge whether or not a brother-sister union would have kids or not. One would logically conclude that a brother/sister union, under the Liberty argument, should also be legitimate as long as no offspring were produced.
To conclude this portion of the argument, I would end by saying that those who felt it was ok for the brothers in love to marry have "won the battle, but lost the war". The argument is logically consistent and I cannot rationally counter it, but the position is so far outside the mainstream as to be irrelevant in today's society. I would argue the large majority of Americans would consider some limit on liberties even if no harm is caused to be reasonable. (Now where that limit should actually be is probably something with little agreement.)
Anyway, I'm out of fight for the night and probably the weekend. I've just finished a great heartfelt movie called The Visitor and it doesn't make me want to argue. :) I highly recommend it for those who like independent film. Maybe on Monday we can pick up with the other major argument supporting Gay Marriage which is Discrimination. There may be more fruit for you all there because I honestly think the Liberty argument has been shown to be either flawed or far outside the mainstream. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:35:53 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would argue the large majority of Americans would consider some limit on liberties even if no harm is caused to be reasonable. (Now where that limit should actually be is probably something with little agreement.) |
Today sure but that's only because we are still affected by the past due to our parents' influences and great grand parents and so on. History has shown though that the trend is for less and less limitations, no doubt due to the increase diversity we have in society in general.
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 02:37:21. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 07:54:26 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
If as Jason says, the word "marriage" is rooted in religion, and marriages that take place at the courthouse are not "marriages in the eyes of the church", then I still want to know why California thinks it can legislate the definition of a religious activity. If I were a religious person in California, I would be outraged. The State defining my religion for me?? And hey, I'm all for brothers getting married if that's what they want, or at least I'm not for the state telling them they can't because they're both male. As for cousins? The world's monarchies were all built that way, were they not? Doesn't mean it's a good idea, but there's precedent.
Edit to add that if the State can define "marriage", a religious term, what's next? Defining God? And what if the State determines that definition to be other than a Christian God? |
Though the word MAY have roots in religion it has been centuries, if ever, since it was the sole domain of religious institutions and civil marriage has been a part of US culture since the Puritans.
Only now, when civil marriage is being asked to expand beyond what religion is comfortable with, is the argument brought that the word belongs to the religious and the secular have no right to it.
As for "Marriages in the eyes of the church"; which church gets to say? Some churches accept and perform gay marriages.
eta a missing phrase
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 07:56:08. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 08:17:42 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh, you guys just aren't willing to follow the logical conclusion to the argument (actually I can't say that you two in particular ever used the Liberty argument to start with). Well, K10 now admits that he IS for allowing the brothers to get married. OK, that takes some guts to say, but I hear ya. |
Specious.......NOT necessarily a logical conclusion. I refute that
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't know we were talking about "world-wide". Perhaps we may get into hundreds of thousands then, but we may not. The argument, up until now, has been centered on legal rights in the US, so warn me when you change gears. |
Massachussetts and Connecticut both have legal gay marriages now.
California has them but there is the Prop8 thing going on....
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 08:28:56 AM · #431 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You keep saying I'm getting desperate, but I think you feel backed in a corner. If you want to leave the Liberty argument out of the conversation, we can leave this be, but I want to know the answer to the hypothetical question. It allows us to see potential contradictions in your position. If you don't want to answer that question directly, then answer this more sanitized version: "Do you feel that the liberties of two consenting adults can be limited by society if no harm is found by their action?" |
The problem with this sort of mis-direction is that it is a classic debating technique to obfuscate the issue.
It's not germaine to the issue at hand, and LOGICALLY, it can make the OTHER trap......"Why do you have to have the whpole ball of wax and call it marriage when we'll at least give you civil unions, but marriage is ours?" argument sort of hold water, thereby making it another trap of flawed argument.
The gay marriage issue wasn't resolved at the same time as racial issues were tackled, and that was/is a rights & equality issue......the issue is NOT whether or not brothers should not be discriminated agains, it's what the OP and the rest of us are discussing.
Why do you feel that trying to win irrelevant points is the way to go?
It's clouding the issue for sake of debate anbd not particularly helpful.
We're discussing an issue of worldwide, yes, worldwide because you know the rest of the world watches what we do, and brothers who want to marry is simply NOT a part of it.
If you want to champion their rights, fine, but here and now isn't the time or place.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 08:37:16 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
As for "Marriages in the eyes of the church"; which church gets to say? Some churches accept and perform gay marriages. |
I'm not sure why, but that keeps getting blown by.....I personally know a couple who mas married in the church I belong to by one of our ministers.
And UUs routinely marry gay couples, sometimes not at the behest of the state.
Realistically, the aspect of church/religious marriages not being acceptable or endorsed is a non-issue.
There are also Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, at least here in central Pennsylvania that are opening their doors, hearts, and minds to the Welcoming Congregation way of being.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2008 08:39:49 AM · #433 |
Going back to the original question. I think it's clear that all restrictions on marriage, lately gay marriage, is evolving. This debate would not have been imaginable twenty years ago.
Fifty years ago I would not have been allowed to marry my wife in many states since we are an interracial couple. The supreme court only overturned such anti-miscegenation laws as recently as 1967. Religion was used as an excuse then too by the way. In the lower court ruling that supported bans on interracial unions the judge used this reasoning:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
I can also remember as a child asking my mother why people of different races shouldn't marry and she said, "You don't put a robin in a blue jay's nest." She also explained her somewhat more practical concern that children of interracial couples would be ostracized by the rest of society because they would look different.
So yes, I think the issue is evolving and I'm optimistic that the illogical and clearly bigoted arguments against gay marriage will eventually be overturned by the courts in the same way anti-interracial marriage laws were. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 09:15:42 AM · #434 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For your debate lesson of the day, let it be shown that most of the arguments opposed to my "brothers in love" dilemma are what we call "ad hominem". |
And what you are attempting to do with your example is called, in logical fallacy circles, a red herring. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 09:27:15 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Also, I personally only called you desperate once. Same with boring. What is the debate term for "twisting things to your own purpose"? |
Could be straw man. The "brothers in marriage" and polygamy arguments, in addition to being red herrings, resemble a cute fallacy called a "parade of horribles". Kind of like the schlubs hanging around here. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 11:38:55 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Also, I personally only called you desperate once. Same with boring. What is the debate term for "twisting things to your own purpose"? |
Could be straw man. The "brothers in marriage" and polygamy arguments, in addition to being red herrings, resemble a cute fallacy called a "parade of horribles". Kind of like the schlubs hanging around here. ;-) |
I'm surprised at your Louis. You know how to debate. I don't think I'm utilizing a straw man, I'm trying to explore the ramifications of a moral hypothesis to reveal that perhaps something that looks good on the surface may lead to results we don't agree with.
We could back up and take it step by step.
The first step would be to get some agreement that one of the arguments posed for gay marriage is what I've been calling the Liberty argument:
If their action causes no harm, society should not limit the activity of two consenting adults.
I am open to two avenues of rebuttal. One, people could argue this is not relevant to the conversation at hand and then explain why. Two, people could attempt to modify the above statement. What I'm not open to is people simply saying it's a red herring without explaining themselves. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:06:27 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first step would be to get some agreement that one of the arguments posed for gay marriage is what I've been calling the Liberty argument:
If their action causes no harm, society should not limit the activity of two consenting adults. |
This "generic" version of the question is irrelevant, because the courts, the legislature, and the American Psychiatric Society have all decided that the particular actions involved in this issue -- the ability to engage in a committed emotional, legal, physical, and financial relatonship, causes no harm to society, and is permitted. This issue is solely one of whether or not to limit certain rights and responsibilities solely on the basis of gender.
Church morality has no place in this argument, as the government is prohibited from devising its laws to conform to any particular religious doctrine, and we are only talking about secular laws and their application here. Congregations are free to celebrate or condemn same-sex marriage as they desire, but the state is not allowed to discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their gender.
Most people agree that societies are more stable, prosperous, and peaceful when more people are in committed, loving, responsible family relationships. As long as your neighbors conform to this standard, why should it matter to you what they look like naked?
I grew my hair long in the Sixties, when "Hippies" were still exotic renegades (before they invented California Cuisine and the personal computer), when I was in my early teens. One of the common expressions of derision at the time was "I can't tell if you're a boy or a girl," to which my dad pointed out that unless the jerk was contemplating having sex with me it shouldn't matter ... |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 12:33:18 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I grew my hair long in the Sixties, when "Hippies" were still exotic renegades... |
Commie perv... |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:04:24 PM · #439 |
Let's try this - somewhat tangential to the original topic but follows the preceding discussion:
From wiki, here is what it says about California Proposition #8:
Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The measure was submitted for the ballot by petitioners with the title "California Marriage Protection Act."The title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure." The Superior Court of California ruled in favor of these changes, stating, "The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."
Who benefits from this legislation and how? |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:08:30 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I grew my hair long in the Sixties, when "Hippies" were still exotic renegades... |
Commie perv... |
Sycophant ... ;-) |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:31:01 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This "generic" version of the question is irrelevant, because the courts, the legislature, and the American Psychiatric Society have all decided that the particular actions involved in this issue -- the ability to engage in a committed emotional, legal, physical, and financial relatonship, causes no harm to society, and is permitted. This issue is solely one of whether or not to limit certain rights and responsibilities solely on the basis of gender. |
You keep saying this Paul, but I'm afraid legally you are wrong. The 1996 DOMA established that in the eyes of the federal government a marriage is between a man and a woman. You keep saying the courts and the legislature "have all decided" differently, but you are wrong. It's like me somehow saying based on certain principles that the federal government has mandated that abortion is illegal. Clearly that would be wrong. Clearly you are wrong to say the federal government does not allow the prohibition of gay "marriage". We see clear examples at the federal level and at the state levels. We don't have to agree with it, but to deny it's the current legal landscape is either ignorant or pure denial. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 01:39:17 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Let's try this - somewhat tangential to the original topic but follows the preceding discussion:
From wiki, here is what it says about California Proposition #8:
Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The measure was submitted for the ballot by petitioners with the title "California Marriage Protection Act."The title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure." The Superior Court of California ruled in favor of these changes, stating, "The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."
Who benefits from this legislation and how? |
Good question Deb. Really, I'm not sure. It seems to simply define a word so it seems to benefit people who want the term "marriage" to remain with a traditional meaning. I don't know. Like I've said many times, it's trite. It probably reflects the attitude of many people in the country that "liberty has limits". Many people seem to not want the generic term "marriage" to apply to same-sex couples. This is coming from a state that already affirms that same-sex couples CAN for unions.
I'm probably not the one to try to answer it. Like I've said, personally this is low on the list of priorities for me. Because it merely seems to define a word, I'm happy enough to let the populace decide via majority. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:13:03 PM · #443 |
Completely ignoring the content (ie gay marriage), does it not bother anyone else that this is a piece of legislation designed SOLELY to eliminate rights? I would think legislation would be to protect a class or classes of people, to provide benefits, to ensure the safety of the populace... that sort of thing. Not simply to eliminate or deny rights based on a subset (gender, race, religion, etc). Somehow I can't get past the discrimination aspect of that, regardless of the content.
Insert a few other options in the title:
Eliminates Right of non-Same Race Couples to Marry.
Eliminates Right of non-Christian Couples to Marry.
And yet, apparently it is a legal enough bill to be placed on the ballot.
I work for the US government. This kind of thing is enough to make me consider applying for citizenship elsewhere sometimes...
Oh, and the wiki article cites a source estimating $40M will be spent on attempting to get this bill to pass or fail. Forty million dollars.
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 14:20:32. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:31:41 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This "generic" version of the question is irrelevant, because the courts, the legislature, and the American Psychiatric Society have all decided that the particular actions involved in this issue -- the ability to engage in a committed emotional, legal, physical, and financial relatonship, causes no harm to society, and is permitted. This issue is solely one of whether or not to limit certain rights and responsibilities solely on the basis of gender. |
You keep saying this Paul, but I'm afraid legally you are wrong. The 1996 DOMA established that in the eyes of the federal government a marriage is between a man and a woman. You keep saying the courts and the legislature "have all decided" differently, but you are wrong. It's like me somehow saying based on certain principles that the federal government has mandated that abortion is illegal. Clearly that would be wrong. Clearly you are wrong to say the federal government does not allow the prohibition of gay "marriage". We see clear examples at the federal level and at the state levels. We don't have to agree with it, but to deny it's the current legal landscape is either ignorant or pure denial. |
No, Jason, you're missing the point: Paul is saying that the courts, the legislature, and the psychiatrists have all established that it is OK to be homosexual, that in and of itself homosexuality is not a threat, basically. His point is that, given this awareness, the denial of "marriage" to same-sex couples constitutes gender discrimination, and that it is unconstitutional.
Paul's not saying that the courts have (generally) said that same-sex marriage is legal; he's saying that any laws forbidding it are unconstitutional.
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:37:12 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I grew my hair long in the Sixties, when "Hippies" were still exotic renegades (before they invented California Cuisine and the personal computer), when I was in my early teens. One of the common expressions of derision at the time was "I can't tell if you're a boy or a girl," to which my dad pointed out that unless the jerk was contemplating having sex with me it shouldn't matter ... |
I grew my hair a generation or so later than you did, but I have to say that I received much of the same reaction.
 |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 02:51:53 PM · #446 |
Say you and your partner have a contruction company, constituted as an LLP. You want to bid on a state construction job, but find that the bid specifies that bids will only be accepted from companies owned by a partnership consisting of one man and one woman -- that companies owned by two men or by two women were ineligible to apply. Does that pass the "equality under the law" contitutional test for you? It doesn't for me.
Marriage is a civil contract establishing a partnership relationship betweeen two citizens governed by certain statutes and regulations -- systematically limiting anyone's choice of partner based on gender is illegal, as is being repeatedly demonstrated by the judges who are actually interpreting the (various) constitution(s) in a literal, constructionist way.
BTW, before I hear about "activist judges legislating from the bench" please remember that the California judges -- including the Chief Justice who wrote the decision -- are Republican appointees ... |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 05:30:39 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Also, I personally only called you desperate once. Same with boring. What is the debate term for "twisting things to your own purpose"? |
Could be straw man. The "brothers in marriage" and polygamy arguments, in addition to being red herrings, resemble a cute fallacy called a "parade of horribles". Kind of like the schlubs hanging around here. ;-) |
I'm surprised at your Louis. You know how to debate. I don't think I'm utilizing a straw man.... |
K10D was asking how to define his words being twisted. I suggested straw man, not for the "brothers in marriage" argument, but for the larger tendency you have for finishing people's thoughts for them, or suggesting conclusions others might draw when the person has drawn no such conclusions themselves.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am open to two avenues of rebuttal. One, people could argue this is not relevant to the conversation at hand and then explain why. Two, people could attempt to modify the above statement. What I'm not open to is people simply saying it's a red herring without explaining themselves. |
Well, he did explain himself. That you don't accept his explanation, which is perfectly satisfactory and which I would accept for any argument no matter which side I might fall on, is irrelevant. To restate it: "brothers in marriage" is not the huge social issue that gay marriage is, and we would defy you to find one such couple scandalized by the inequality of their inability to marry. Your hypothetical is easy to dismiss because it's irrelevant; we don't need to consider every single possibility that might come up as a result of engaging the possibility that two same-sex, non-sibling partners might marry. We are in danger of entertaining a "parade of horribles" otherwise, and scenarios that are never likely to appear are in themselves simply red herrings. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 05:37:58 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Who benefits from this legislation and how? |
Good question Deb...It seems to simply define a word... |
Really? Read it again:
"...If passed, the proposition would 'change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California... 'The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry" in California...'"
It's not just defining a word, it's quite literally eliminating people's rights based on their sexuality. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 07:04:33 PM · #449 |
Just as people have been ignoring your liberty argument, you've been ignoring my argument: the only reason to be offended by same sex marriage is because you are offended by homosexuality. If homosexuality is considered unnatural, wrong, & sinful by society, the way incest is, then it makes sense to be against same sex marriage. What other argument is there? History and tradition are not enough, as I have discussed previously.
Surely you understand that polygamy and incest are illegal for reasons deeper than merely a simple majority being against them? Legislators and judges have a duty to decide what is moral behavior. They overwhelmingly decide against both activities. Morality is not left up to popular vote. Gay marriage cannot be banned simply by popular vote. Legislators must have the balls to say that homosexuality is morally wrong, or shut up.
So, yes, the liberty argument is not enough. That makes it a morality argument, something you seem to be trying to avoid.
Message edited by author 2008-10-18 19:06:19. |
|
|
|
10/18/2008 10:51:04 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've already given you a solid reason. I've told you the idea of marriage is rooted in religion and those religions mainly do not agree with homosexuality. |
...AND what would you say to those religions that do recognize these as marriages? Would you have them ostracized also?
Ray |
|
