NY Times: US, In Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights

[Alaskan]

Funny, liberals wanst separation of church and state as far as religion being in schools, but now they are trying to say it's OK for the government to mandate to churches what they can an cannot do

Hypocracy at it's best

Who ever said that churches would be mandated to perform gay marriages? Simply not true. Chuches can and do refuse to perform marriages for straight couples that do not meet that criteria. That's not going to change. Gay's will have to shop around for a church that accepts gay marriages.

 

[Goaldeje]

Just to echo what Alaskan said, you can get married in Vegas. by Elvis. Pretty sure that's not exactly how scripture describes the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with the church anymore. Homosexuals aren't looking to demand that a super conservative denomination marries them. They are looking to get married in a Unitarian church or whatever, and have it be legally upheld. Don't see how that affects the church.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Just to echo what Alaskan said, you can get married in Vegas. by Elvis. Pretty sure that's not exactly how scripture describes the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with the church anymore. Homosexuals aren't looking to demand that a super conservative denomination marries them. They are looking to get married in a Unitarian church or whatever, and have it be legally upheld. Don't see how that affects the church.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

why isn't a civil marriage enough?

and that's not end game. get real.

 

[fansince62]

"The argument that legalizing gay marriages would lead to legalizing Polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest and any number of sexual deviants is fallacious. If the law outlaws one of these acts for all people, there is no discrimination and therefore no violation of civil rights. The fact is that society has a compelling interest in outlawing all of the above for all people."

that's not demonstrating a fallacious argument and someone as bright as you should be ashamed. in fact...it's the grossest form of obfuscation. it shifts a moral argument to a legal plane...which as most of us know has been so thoroughly corrupted/politicized in this country as to barley demand any kind of respect. look at the running comedy that is Obamacare: 2 judges say it's un-Constitutional, 3 say it isn't. care to venture a guess which political party each belongs to? care to guess why Obama reached for an average legal mind like Sotomayor?

and the telling point...especially in the age of activist judges, "social justice" and Obama...is that "the law" is about as mutable as it gets. Society has no compelling interests...these daze there are only competing interests.

if the law outlaws one of these acts for all people.....I wasn't aware that laws could be applied selectively. ooops...I forgot...this is the age of Obama.

 

[Alaskan]

"The argument that legalizing gay marriages would lead to legalizing Polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest and any number of sexual deviants is fallacious. If the law outlaws one of these acts for all people, there is no discrimination and therefore no violation of civil rights. The fact is that society has a compelling interest in outlawing all of the above for all people."

that's not demonstrating a fallacious argument and someone as bright as you should be ashamed. in fact...it's the grossest form of obfuscation. it shifts a moral argument to a legal plane...which as most of us know has been so thoroughly corrupted/politicized in this country as to barley demand any kind of respect. look at the running comedy that is Obamacare: 2 judges say it's un-Constitutional, 3 say it isn't. care to venture a guess which political party each belongs to? care to guess why Obama reached for an average legal mind like Sotomayor?

and the telling point...especially in the age of activist judges, "social justice" and Obama...is that "the law" is about as mutable as it gets. Society has no compelling interests...these daze there are only competing interests.

if the law outlaws one of these acts for all people.....I wasn't aware that laws could be applied selectively. ooops...I forgot...this is the age of Obama.

Congratulations on your ability to justify a slippery slope logic fallacy with a red herring logic fallacy. Now that is impressive.


First of all the slippery slope: If gay marriage is permitted, the same argument can be applied to polygamy et al. As I have demonstrated, if those arguments were used they would be false arguments because in polygamy et al, there is a compelling state interest in controlling those behaviors (or at least not providing those who engage in them the benefits of marriage.) A compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage has not be demonstrated in this thread. In fact, Elephant’s effectively admitted that there was no state interest in preventing gay marriages through his support of civil unions and no one seemed to object. If the benefits are effectively equal then there can’t be any compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage but allowing civil unions except to assuage the moral sensitivities of those who object to homosexual relationships. Limiting rights based upon nothing more than someone’s moral outrage is poor legal reasoning in my opinion.

So you decided to go with the red herring. I.E. we have judges that frame the law to achieve their personal desired result rather than putting the personal feeling aside and interpreting the law. While the actions of judges is an interesting topic it is a red herring in support of Ax’s slippery slope. Certainly a judge could conceivably use the 14th amendment to support the right of someone to marry his dog. One would hope, that at least 5 of the Supremes would have enough common sense to overrule the judge. Even if they weren’t, the founders wisely included the ability to amend the constitution, so we could overrule the Supremes that way. However, using the theoretical possibility that gay marriage might become the basis for unrelated (and incorrect) legal opinions as a justification to not allowing gay marriage is simply illogical. That is as logical as saying that we shouldn’t have passed the 14th amendment because over 100 years later, Harry Blackmum would use it to justify his legislating from the bench in Roe verses Wade. The fault in that lies not in the 14th, but in Blackmum’s legal reasoning (or lack thereof.) Likewise, if some judge decides that Joe can marry Fido, the fault lies in that judge’s legal reasoning not in gay marriage.

You also stated above that my argument “shifts a moral argument to a legal plane…” But we are talking about the legal definition of marriage, so it has the be discussed on the legal plane. You are free to wag your finger in condemnation of gay peoples life style all you want. The question is can you deny them the same rights you enjoy (including the symbolism of the word) simply because you disapprove of their lifestyle? I don’t think you should be allowed to. I believe in setting a very high bar for governments involvement in individuals choices whether I agree with those choices or not.

Of the people who have weighed in here in opposition to gay marriage, I believe that big Mike has the soundest argument from the logic standpoint. Elephants was based entirely on his appeal to antiquity fallacy and Ax went skiing down the slippery slope, but Mike did pretty well. I think he got his facts wrong but the facts are not indisputable and based upon the facts he believes, his logic was pretty sound.

Elephant and Ax both, I believe, started with the conclusion based upon their moral judgment, homosexuality is wrong and then worked backward trying to craft an argument in support of it. When you do that you end up with logic fallacies. Elephant hung his hat on 6,000 years of traditional marriage but that required him ignoring that for most of that 6,000 years women were chattel and that even within my lifetime, spousal rape was legal. I presume that he doesn’t support those aspects of traditional marriage, so he has instead chosen to pick and choose which aspects of traditional marriage he supports and then says that those aspects cannot be changed even as he (presumably) supports the other changes.

My approach to this question is different and thus I got different results. I started with one of my core overriding principles, that government involvement in individual decisions should only be made for the most compelling reasons even if the individuals might make bad choices. That there must be a very high bar when the government decides that the benefits to the common welfare override individual’s freedoms. Then I apply whatever facts are available, in this case what I have read about homosexuality and it causes. Then I ask myself am I hurt by allowing gays to marry?. Except for applying some minor government benefits to same sex couples the answer was no. Then I ask is society hurt by allowing them to marry? The answer again was no and in fact encouraging stable relationships between gays may actually help society. So the conclusion I have reach was both clear and relatively easy. You might not like my conclusion. If so please feel free to dispute my logic. I thinks it’s pretty sound.

 

[Ax]

Just want to discuss one of Ax’s points before I head out.



You are correct that you said that the same arguments could be used to justify any number of deviant or unusual behaviors or justify different marriage relationships.

So I responded to it in a serious manner.

No, you dismissed it, as being fallacious. And not to me specifically, but to everyone. Then cited your own opinion, as fact.

Although you responded to the post that was in, you simply ignored that point.

I see. I picked a certain part of a post you made, directed at no one in particular, and responded to it, and nothing else. And the problem is?

I also said this in a response to Mike:



Again no response.

" in a response to Mike". MIKE! Did I miss something?

But Ax again went to the well again with this:

So I responded, again in a serious manner.

Yes you did. You gave a $500 answer to $10 question.

Again no response to this argument except to say there was a lot to talk about. But you did manage to bring up the same point in a response to Lanky

"Again no response to this argument except to say there was a lot to talk about."
Repeat that line until it registers that I did indeed, respond. Just not in the detail that you, or I, wanted to. Hence, the full response was, "Lots to talk about here Alaskan. I just don't have the time right now. I'll get to it later tonight or tomorrow."
I thought the post was long, overly detailed, and mostly irrelevant. But I appreciated the thought that went into it, and figured it deserved a more serious response than I had the time for while at work.

I responded to Lanky because being more familiar with him and his style, and both of us being more prone to quick hitter statements while on the job. If you took that as me dissing you, I can only assure you that I wasn't.

So I again responded by pointing out the difference and pointing out that trying to use the state to control individual moriality is just another form of nannystaeism. (new word?)

Yeah, that's where I had asked if the laws barring same sex marriage can be changed, then why can't the others as well. So you cherry picked bestiality as the poster child for your ridiculous "mass uprising in support of" fantasy.

Although you continued to post in the thread and managed to accuse me of being obsessed with the animal issue, when you were the one that keeps bring it up, you never countered my refutation of your slippery slope argument, you simply repeated it getting more and more personal.

I already explained why I didn't immediately respond to your self described "refutation."
And, one of my earlier posts clearly show you spent more time and verbiage on the beasty boys.

At that point I (rightly) concluded that your only basis for opposing gay marriage (like Elephant) is your personal religious beliefs

Well, before you hurt something patting yourself on the back for being "right", please reread this, near the bottom of post#13.
"And, for the record, I do not follow, or believe in, ANY currently known religion."
Let me know which words you don't understand, and I'll try to help you.

and the desire to impose them on others even though you are not really hurt by gays getting married.

I've led no protest. Organized no march. Sent no donations. I simply voiced my opinions about it, on a message board, where conversations generally tend to take place. The nerve of me.

Furthermore, since you were unable to do anything other than repeating the same argument over and over all the while running away from the points I made, I also came to the conclusion that you were a one trick pony and not someone interested or capable of serious debate.

Likewise, in the time before I would have been able to give you the type of response I initially thought you deserved, your dishonest tactics and snobbishly condescending style, towards me, and others, made me realize you didn't serve such consideration, either.

Good day, sir.

And to you, as well.

 

[Alaskan]

Likewise, in the time before I would have been able to give you the type of response I initially thought you deserved, your dishonest tactics and snobbishly condescending style, towards me, and others, made me realize you didn't serve such consideration, either.

I suppose I could call you a dick like you called me. That would lower myself to your level and therefore I could not be accused of being condescending. Would that be acceptable to you?

 

[Ax]

Yes. Not only acceptable, but preferable.

You've implied, inferred, and, using your own made up scenarios, set out to label people in this thread who don't agree with you, as a lot of things.

Just because you mostly beat around the bush in doing so, it's still, at times, a personal attack, and you should know it.

 

[Sarge]

Hmmm. Maybe this one has come to an end...............

 

[Alaskan]

Yes. Not only acceptable, but preferable.

You've implied, inferred, and, using your own made up scenarios, set out to label people in this thread who don't agree with you, as a lot of things.

Just because you mostly beat around the bush in doing so, it's still, at times, a personal attack, and you should know it.

I think what has really got you upset is that I showed how you were using the same argument over and over, how the argument was flawed and how you never defended it. You’re upset because your own arguments made you look silly and I’m the one that pointed it out.

And Fan, I’m not ashamed of anything. Why should I be ashamed of holding opinions derived through principles I believe in (limited government involvement in personal matters) and applied with logic and then forcefully defending them?

 

[Ax]

I think what has really got you upset is that I showed how you were using the same argument over and over, how the argument was flawed and how you never defended it. You’re upset because your own arguments made you look silly and I’m the one that pointed it out.

Looks like I'll have to add, "Full of himself" to your folder as well.

All you've done is try to elevate a financial inconvenience for gays into something more magnanimous than it deserves to be.

Equating some group of people not being able to use a certain word (married) to describe themselves, with a group of people who suffered the years of rape, lynchings, slavery, beatings, murder, etc.. that blacks did is an insult to their suffering. Yet you, and others, try to attach your cause to it because you desperately need more of an argument to promote your position, and the equal rights fallacy makes you feel better about yourselves.

My positions are clear, and don't need page after page of the psychobabble mumbo jumbo you use, written in long lecture form to make it seem like more than the insignificant and useless information that it is, trying to defend deviant behavior. Common sense defends most of my opinions for me.

Homosexuality is a perversion of nature. It is unnatural. Male + Female = Reproduction. At the core of it all, that is what nature designed. I see that as indisputable fact. Until someone can get around that, the rest is just window dressing.

 

[Alaskan]

Looks like I'll have to add, "Full of himself" to your folder as well.

All you've done is try to elevate a financial inconvenience for gays into something more magnanimous than it deserves to be.

Equating some group of people not being able to use a certain word (married) to describe themselves, with a group of people who suffered the years of rape, lynchings, slavery, beatings, murder, etc.. that blacks did is an insult to their suffering. Yet you, and others, try to attach your cause to it because you desperately need more of an argument to promote your position, and the equal rights fallacy makes you feel better about yourselves.

My positions are clear, and don't need page after page of the psychobabble mumbo jumbo you use, written in long lecture form to make it seem like more than the insignificant and useless information that it is, trying to defend deviant behavior. Common sense defends most of my opinions for me.

Homosexuality is a perversion of nature. It is unnatural. Male + Female = Reproduction. At the core of it all, that is what nature designed. I see that as indisputable fact. Until someone can get around that, the rest is just window dressing.

This post just oozes with condescension, hate and intolerance. Not just for gays but for anyone who dares disagree with the great AX. You were never really concerned that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality or any other number of deviant behaviors. You simply don’t like gays, don’t want them around, think they are abnormal and can’t stand it if anyone disagrees with you.

More than anything I could ever write, this post exposes exactly what you are.

 

[Sarge]

This post just oozes with condescension, hate and intolerance. Not just for gays but for anyone who dares disagree with the great AX. You were never really concerned that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality or any other number of deviant behaviors. You simply don’t like gays, don’t want them around, think they are abnormal and can’t stand it if anyone disagrees with you.

More than anything I could ever write, this post exposes exactly what you are.

I would venture to say this post expresses the views of a large majority of Americans, that homosexuality IS abnormal. If it were the other way around, 95% of the population would be homosexual and the other 5% would be hetero

WHere your side gets bent is that fact that you KNOW you are in the minority, dispite your assertations that homosexuality is somehow "normal". Again, I assure you, it is not.

 

[Goaldeje]

Sarge, being homosexual and approving of it are two different things. Most Americans are not gay, but I would venture to say an awful lot of Americans either approve or are ambivalent towards homosexuality.

Besides which, I have not once said I approve of homosexuality, only that I don't think the government needs to be regulating marriage.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Boone]

And this thread is perfect testimony that those that disagree eventually take it to personal nastiness. As to the topic at hand, I'll never understand why anyone cares what another free human being does with their own genitals, as long as it's not directed at a minor? I just don't get it.

 

[fansince62]

Congratulations on your ability to justify a slippery slope logic fallacy with a red herring logic fallacy. Now that is impressive.


First of all the slippery slope: If gay marriage is permitted, the same argument can be applied to polygamy et al. As I have demonstrated, if those arguments were used they would be false arguments because in polygamy et al, there is a compelling state interest in controlling those behaviors (or at least not providing those who engage in them the benefits of marriage.) A compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage has not be demonstrated in this thread. In fact, Elephant’s effectively admitted that there was no state interest in preventing gay marriages through his support of civil unions and no one seemed to object. If the benefits are effectively equal then there can’t be any compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage but allowing civil unions except to assuage the moral sensitivities of those who object to homosexual relationships. Limiting rights based upon nothing more than someone’s moral outrage is poor legal reasoning in my opinion.

So you decided to go with the red herring. I.E. we have judges that frame the law to achieve their personal desired result rather than putting the personal feeling aside and interpreting the law. While the actions of judges is an interesting topic it is a red herring in support of Ax’s slippery slope. Certainly a judge could conceivably use the 14th amendment to support the right of someone to marry his dog. One would hope, that at least 5 of the Supremes would have enough common sense to overrule the judge. Even if they weren’t, the founders wisely included the ability to amend the constitution, so we could overrule the Supremes that way. However, using the theoretical possibility that gay marriage might become the basis for unrelated (and incorrect) legal opinions as a justification to not allowing gay marriage is simply illogical. That is as logical as saying that we shouldn’t have passed the 14th amendment because over 100 years later, Harry Blackmum would use it to justify his legislating from the bench in Roe verses Wade. The fault in that lies not in the 14th, but in Blackmum’s legal reasoning (or lack thereof.) Likewise, if some judge decides that Joe can marry Fido, the fault lies in that judge’s legal reasoning not in gay marriage.

You also stated above that my argument “shifts a moral argument to a legal plane…” But we are talking about the legal definition of marriage, so it has the be discussed on the legal plane. You are free to wag your finger in condemnation of gay peoples life style all you want. The question is can you deny them the same rights you enjoy (including the symbolism of the word) simply because you disapprove of their lifestyle? I don’t think you should be allowed to. I believe in setting a very high bar for governments involvement in individuals choices whether I agree with those choices or not.

Of the people who have weighed in here in opposition to gay marriage, I believe that big Mike has the soundest argument from the logic standpoint. Elephants was based entirely on his appeal to antiquity fallacy and Ax went skiing down the slippery slope, but Mike did pretty well. I think he got his facts wrong but the facts are not indisputable and based upon the facts he believes, his logic was pretty sound.

Elephant and Ax both, I believe, started with the conclusion based upon their moral judgment, homosexuality is wrong and then worked backward trying to craft an argument in support of it. When you do that you end up with logic fallacies. Elephant hung his hat on 6,000 years of traditional marriage but that required him ignoring that for most of that 6,000 years women were chattel and that even within my lifetime, spousal rape was legal. I presume that he doesn’t support those aspects of traditional marriage, so he has instead chosen to pick and choose which aspects of traditional marriage he supports and then says that those aspects cannot be changed even as he (presumably) supports the other changes.

My approach to this question is different and thus I got different results. I started with one of my core overriding principles, that government involvement in individual decisions should only be made for the most compelling reasons even if the individuals might make bad choices. That there must be a very high bar when the government decides that the benefits to the common welfare override individual’s freedoms. Then I apply whatever facts are available, in this case what I have read about homosexuality and it causes. Then I ask myself am I hurt by allowing gays to marry?. Except for applying some minor government benefits to same sex couples the answer was no. Then I ask is society hurt by allowing them to marry? The answer again was no and in fact encouraging stable relationships between gays may actually help society. So the conclusion I have reach was both clear and relatively easy. You might not like my conclusion. If so please feel free to dispute my logic. I thinks it’s pretty sound.

this does get tiresome. let me explain in BIG BLOCK LETTERS: that is a legal argument. And no one has to accept it. Compelling State interest my arse. The last 60 years have demonstrated with great precision just how easy the law can be changed to suit prevailing orthodoxy or special interests. That is an argument that rings hollow in my ears. Comically...100 years ago arguments were being made against sodomy which...no doubt ....included "compelling State interest" as a punch line.

I don't subscribe to the underlying Utilitarian balderdash that apparently is your moral philosophy. First, it presents no standard for morality at all (hence, the incessant reliance on manipulated and impermanent legalisms). Second, flowing from the first, it's entirely subjective. Third, there's no analysis anyway on consequences....just a sequence of conclusions. Fourth, and I don't know where you fall on this, there is a bigger picture to this than just a bride and groom each sporting adams apples. This is one step toward a larger political objective of normalizing a lifestyle YOU and some others find unobjectionable....and in the process trampling on the rights of others (see the elimination of DADT for reference material). That there have been no consequences for society, btw, is a laughable assertion - live in CA in the 1980s by any chance?

That this is coming I have no doubt. And, at least in the work place, I can live peacefully and interact professionally with anyone who is marginally competent and trustworthy...including "alternative lifestyle" individuals. But...I see fewer and fewer reasons to play along with this social reengineering. The political, judicial and legal processes have all been co-opted and corrupted. At some point...much like with Wisconsin Democrats....a large cut of folks like me are going to act on the growing frustration with a group of interests whose every impulse is to
simply abrogate all responsibility when they don't get what they want and (as in CA) to vitiate any expression of the will of the people when it disagrees with their ascendant, progressive view of the natural order of things. we will simply refuse to play along...and actively disrupt or disobey the "law" - that, after all, is exactly what has been underway for the last two years by the apostles of virtue.

but I digress. I get it. the standard in play is whether Alaskan..through deep, introspective soul searching...decides that there are no deleterious consequences to a proposed change in social standards/norms. that's a game, btw, many can play.

 

[Ax]

This post just oozes with condescension, hate and intolerance. Not just for gays but for anyone who dares disagree with the great AX.

Condescension, maybe. Hate and intolerance is once again fabricated by you, and attached to someone else, then criticized by you. At least you're consistently dishonest about making things up about others. I'll grant you that.

Oh, and "great" might be a bit much. Damn good, will suffice.

You were never really concerned that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality or any other number of deviant behaviors.

Again, I never said it would, should, or should not. I said the same arguments used to justify one perversion, could then be used for some others, and that IMO, it would be hypocritical to deny others the same claim of normalcy you want to bestow upon one. But, yet again, you choose to invent my position so it suits your needs. Bravo, my dear boy.

You simply don’t like gays, don’t want them around, think they are abnormal and can’t stand it if anyone disagrees with you.

I couldn't care less about the gay lifestyle. They are abnormal, but two consenting adults can do what they want, for the most part. But that doesn't mean I have to accept it as normal. And, as I said before, I don't want, or need, anyone to agree with me in order to form and hold an opinion. You may need the extra assurance of the group. I don't.

 

[fansince62]

Again, I never said it would, should, or should not. I said the same arguments used to justify one perversion, could then be used for some others, and that IMO, it would be hypocritical to deny others the same claim of normalcy you want to bestow upon one. But, yet again, you choose to invent my position so it suits your needs. Bravo, my dear boy.

exactly. Alaskan has attempted to mute this line of thought by advancing a legalistic argument about compelling State interests, social harm, etc., without ever acknowledging that these "control structures" incessantly change. it's not a convincing rationalization.

 

[Neophyte]

Sorry gents, but I think this discussion has outlived it's usefulness and passed to realms into which we (the owners and management of BGO that is) really don't want this site going. I will grant you this is a "hot" topic for some reason and brings out strong feelings on both sides of the issue. For that reason alone I am choosing to close this thread rather than take any direct action against any of the membership participating in it.

That doesn't mean you can't have political discussions here but let us remember that this place is about civil discourse, first and foremost. There are plenty of other locations on the WWW for you to go and hurl crap at each other. Please, don't do it here.