|
How about freedom from religion?
It's not a religious issue at all. It's a cultural (this can encompass religion) issue and the contract part is a legal issue. The state has no right imposing legal restrictions based on sexuality and it certainly doesn't have a have a say in what cultural activities gay people are allowed to engage in. Hence the ban on gay marriages is idiotic and if there are tax related issues then it's obvious that the state has no right distinguishing between contracts based on sexual orientation.
EZ
51 pages of comments?? please..
|
On August 08 2010 12:25 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:24 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 12:17 jalstar wrote:On August 08 2010 12:07 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:You know, I used to wonder how well homosexual parents would be able to raise their children, considering how freudian psychology is pretty much based entirely on one's relationships with one's parents and how it's unnatural in the animal kingdom for children to be raised by homosexual couples. However I have found this site saying that More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parentsThen later in the article I see the In cross-examination, Protect Marriage lawyer David Thompson labeled Lamb a "committed liberal," citing his membership in such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, and his financial contributions to the Public Broadcasting System.
Thompson also said scientific research is not immune from political influence and that "history is littered with scientific theories universally accepted and proven to be wrong." I could care less for whether or not prop 8 is passed and I probably won't follow it, however I would like to hear people's arguments on why or why not, homosexual parents would raise more psychologically fit children. I would also like to know why there are so many more documented cases of gay humans than there are gay animals. Is it a social thing? That humans care more about pleasure than breeding? Or is it completely genetic? Probably a combination of both I suppose. My personal beliefs are unimportant but I thought that I would like to point out that I think that people should have the right to marry whomever they want, as long as doing so doesn't horrendously increase the risk of birthing children with medical conditions and less genetic variation (incest). I'm incredibly skeptical of that study, just because all the "problem kids" I have had to deal with as a camp counselor had single parents, split up parents, or homosexual parents. I don't think gay marriage/adoption is any worse for the traditional family than divorce, I think they're equally bad for kids. That's just from my own experience though. Also, you can look at history and see that all this worrying about kids and diagnosing them with everything from ADHD to Aspergers' only began at around the time that family structures began to break up with the legitimacy of divorce, gay relationships, multiple partners, etc. in the 60's and 70's. Your skepticism is warranted, but don't draw causation from the data at the end of your post. A lot of things happened in that period that may have had effects on the diagnoses. I think society's changed for the worse since the 50's, but you're right in that there are a lot of other reasons. I'm not drawing conclusions, just speculating. I'm also fine with gay marriage (it's just a word, really) but not gay adoption. Also, social science tends to skew towards political correctness, just look at the reception of The Bell Curve
I would like to know why you wouldn't want to allow gays to adopt other than anecdotal experience. Because any anecdotal experience you have can be completely countered by other's own anecdotal experience.
-----
As for the overturning of Prop 8 people should make an attempt to read the full decision http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling it's very long and I myself haven't gotten through all of it but from what I've seen it is incredibly well reasoned.
|
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument.
It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else).
|
On August 08 2010 13:09 Blanke wrote:
A triumph for incestuous/polygamous partnerships in the least likely of places! Times are finally changing, and we are one step closer to creating communities free of the hate and prejudice our world mercilessly targets incestuous or polygamous adults with.
This is what I'm afraid of.
|
On November 05 2008 05:56 CDRdude wrote:People get married to have kids. For a society to function, there have to be children to ensure a new generation. Part of our obligation as human beings, is to ensure the health and safety of all children in any way possible. In addition to making children (sexual intercourse is the traditional method), parents have a special obligation to care for their child by providing them with their basic needs. Perhaps the most important part of caring for a child's basic needs is protecting their mental health. A marriage between a man and a woman is the tried and true method for producing the maximum number of healthy children. With heterosexual marriage as the standard, the mental health of a child from this union can be measured against the mental health of children from nonstandard marriages. However we can't just experiment on children. That would be testing non-consenting humans in experiments where their mental health could be irreparably damaged. So we have to make do with the data we already have. One of the few abnormal marriage types most people are aware of is polygamy. If we open the door to gay marriage, are we also opening the door to polygamy? Isn't it discrimination to tell someone how many people they can love? How is it any different from discrimination against gay marriage? The answer is that polygamy has been shown to harm childrens mental health. If you google 'effects of polygamy on children', you'll come up with some behavioral studies that paint polygamy in quite a poor light. For better results you can search Google Scholar, here. If you don't go look it up yourself, what these articles say is that polygamy is bad for kids.
For your first argument: A. I am a child of two fathers who are now married, in California. I have a brother, a half sister, a half brother and a sister. How? Insemination. My two half siblings are the son and daughter of a lesbian couple. As my family IS an example, you can have kids through insemination, and although that may not be natural, as you say, we must ensure a new generation.
For the argument against mental health: I see myself as being much more conscientious about bullying, and being nice to everyone in general. Whether you have two fathers or two mothers instead of one of each is less important than social class. I would be much worse off if I was born into a rural, straight family in China vs if I was born into a gay upper middle class family in the bay area. Also, I am one of the most sane people in high school. I have no enemies, no people who I especially dislike or particularly dislike me.
For the argument against polygamy: It is still one person loving another person, which is the definition of polygamy. It is COMPLETELY different from polygamy.
Also, on the note of the church that was in the OP's statement: The Bible had nothing bad to say against polygamy. Jesus ACCEPTED polygamy! But we know now that it is wrong, so why not the same for heterosexual marriage?
|
On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument.
You have never studied an ounce of logic in your life, have you?
Go study logic, then ethics, and then come back.
If you won't accept the arguments FOR marriage equality, then explain to me the inverse: Tell me why it's ok to deny people the right to bind themselves to the people they love because they have the same chromosomes.
And btw, many of those against gay marriage are bigoted at least when it comes to this issue. The comparisons stand because there are so many parallels. They are in fact just different flavors of discrimination along arbitrary lines.
Find an impartial, rational basis for this discrimination, and then you might have a case, and then you can have a well-reasoned conversation.
All you've done is engage in one fallacy after another, feigning rationality (and insulting it by doing so) the entire time.
Go study.
|
The fact that this has even remained an issue absolutely amazes me. Theres honestly no good reason against gay marriage. None. Can we accept this and move on? There are way more important things to argue about.
|
On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else).
"Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? What about 2 brothers marrying? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality?
Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there).
|
I think a guy having sex with another guy is gross, but I also think that about foot fetishes and transsexuals. Does that make me 3 times as bigoted? Oh wait, I also think people who do sexual stuff with piss/shit is gross. 5 times as bigoted?
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there).
Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people.
I think a guy having sex with another guy is gross, but I also think that about foot fetishes and transsexuals. Does that make me 3 times as bigoted? Oh wait, I also think people who do sexual stuff with piss/shit is gross. 5 times as bigoted?
Just thinking something is gross doesn't make you bigoted, but thinking they deserve less than you because they like something you consider gross does. I also think gay sex is gross, but I don't think that means they deserve less rights than I do.
|
On August 08 2010 14:02 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. You have never studied an ounce of logic in your life, have you? Go study logic, then ethics, and then come back. If you won't accept the arguments FOR marriage equality, then explain to me the inverse: Tell me why it's ok to deny people the right to bind themselves to the people they love because they have the same chromosomes. And btw, many of those against gay marriage are bigoted at least when it comes to this issue. The comparisons stand because there are so many parallels. They are in fact just different flavors of discrimination along arbitrary lines. Find an impartial, rational basis for this discrimination, and then you might have a case, and then you can have a well-reasoned conversation. All you've done is engage in one fallacy after another, feigning rationality (and insulting it by doing so) the entire time. Go study.
You haven't given me a need to study. Your claim is that we should change the rules for ethical improvement. This implies that you can factually tell me that your ethical standard is greater than mine and that you know right and wrong better than me. Good luck with that.
You also continually bring up parallels between blacks+whites marriage and slavery which I have already shot down. And this is kind of off topic to the argument, but coincidentally did you know that blacks overwhelmingly shot down gay marriage in every vote that has ever been cast on it? Interesting stat...
|
On August 08 2010 14:27 jalstar wrote:
I think a guy having sex with another guy is gross, but I also think that about foot fetishes and transsexuals. Does that make me 3 times as bigoted? Oh wait, I also think people who do sexual stuff with piss/shit is gross. 5 times as bigoted?
Who and what are you addressing with a post like this? Being a bigot means you are intolerant of something. If you think gay sex is icky that's fine, but do you tolerate it? I think that piss/shit sex acts are gross too but I definitely wouldn't deny someone's rights based on their involvement in such things.
So no you aren't 5 times as bigoted because that's not the definition of bigot. Unless of course you don't want foot fetishists to be allowed to adopt either, then you are "3 times as bigoted".
|
On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? What about 2 brothers marrying? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there).
You bring up polygamy as a nightmare scenario, but have you actually thought about what makes polygamy intrinsically wrong? I can see there being a resource distribution problem and it dominating towards one male to many females, but other than that, it's not going to create a zombie apocalypse if it did happen.
The United Church in Canada wanted to marry gays. The Unitarians wanted to marry gays. So then why should they be restricted from marrying gays. They are Christian religions, or is it impossible for Christian religions to be liberal.
I've exposed a counter argument per paragraph in your post. That means you're still engaging in logical fallacies. Please concede.
|
This defense of Prop 8 really had no legs to stand on.
One of the pieces about the proponents of Prop 8 (from http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling)
During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” .When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.”
Hilarious.
|
On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:
"Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality?
Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there).
First of all, what's wrong with polygamy? It's been a functional marital tradition since at least Jewish tribal times, and probably earlier. It gets a bad rap now because American polygamists are all cult leaders who procreate with 14 year old girls who believe the man is god incarnate. No, I don't capitalize 'god'.
Marriage is and always has been the 'word' for such a union, whether performed by a religious official or not. I'm an agnostic, and vehemently reject the Abrahamic religions, so I sure as hell won't be at a church in front of a priest when my fiancee and I tie the knot.
Should our union, and all others performed by a non-religious officiant be dubbed 'civil unions'? If so, then what becomes the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'? A footnote that it was performed under the blessing of a religious official? The terms then become legally interchangeable, but societally a 'separate but equal' issue.
You haven't given me a need to study. Your claim is that we should change the rules for ethical improvement. This implies that you can factually tell me that your ethical standard is greater than mine and that you know right and wrong better than me. Good luck with that.
You also continually bring up parallels between blacks+whites marriage and slavery which I have already shot down. And this is kind of off topic to the argument, but coincidentally did you know that blacks overwhelmingly shot down gay marriage in every vote that has ever been cast on it? Interesting stat...
I never said anything about slavery. Go read my posts again.
You haven't 'shot down' anything. I, and several others, have given you a need to study by pointing out the fallacies you've vomited into this thread, sometimes by name.
I'm a utilitarian in the vein of Peter Singer. As far as I, and rationality, are concerned, that's about as good an ethical theory as it gets right now. Should a better theory be developed, I will be glad to accept it.
You imply that you actually have an ethical standard, would you like to share that with us?
|
On August 06 2010 17:48 Mystlord wrote:
8-1? Lol if only. Who's the 1? Scalia?
If the Conservatives want to, they could definitely get cert for the case. The problem would be ensuring Kennedy's vote for their side, which is tenuous at best, especially considering the groundwork that's been laid. A more likely course of action would just be to deny cert to the case. But that's years off anyway, and certainly not something to be worried about right now.
Cert. will be granted. (It only takes four justices. I think it will get all nine. And, I think it will happen quicker than you think.)
Scalia is grounded more than anyone in the constitution. I think he will vote to affirm gay 'marriage' in some form; possibly deny the Equal Protection claim as to 'marriage' specifically defined by the Cal initiative. But, that does not preclude a 'civil union' (provided the 'civil union' doesn't disallow a straight to marry a gay.)
Everyone has the same access to marriage (it just has to be between a women and a man according to most state law.) If, for example, you banned a black guy from marrying a white women, then it would be overturned as a violation of Equal Protection. But there is nothing preventing a gay man from marrying a straight women.
The Mass case, state vs federal rights disturbs the issues even more.
The one 'no vote' will likely be Thomas. He is a maverick.
|
On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people.
Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married.
As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from.
We stop when we no longer have rules enforcing inequality between people based on choices that don't directly harm others(regardless if homosexuality is choice or not, this also applies to polygamy, drugs, social views, ect)
|
On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument(as others seem to be implying) [we're not implying that it's an end to an argument, we're explicitly saying that it is a logical fallacy]. I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from.
I applaud you for being able to see where the other side is coming from, it's a valuable ability. But in doing so you're dismissing everything we've been saying by simply repeating the same question: "when do we stop changing the rules, or the definition of marriage?", and then ignoring what we've had to say in response.
Regarding the bold in the quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A vital part of this discussion is, oddly enough, how we define marriage. We should get on this-- making sure we're talking about, and evaluating, the same concept can streamline the process.
To me, it's nothing more than a contract between consenting parties of legal age, which brings together their taxes, assets, etc.
The 'classic' definition is a union between a consenting man and a consenting woman of legal age, which brings together their assets, taxes, etc.
I reject the classic definition because it is an arbitrary determination present due to tradition. At one time it was necessary for marriages to produce many offspring-- the case could then be made that the purpose of marriage was such. However even in the days of 5, 10, 15 children families, there were undoubtedly some who could not procreate. They were able to wed, even if they faced a social stigma as a result of their complications.
The religious aspect of marital tradition cannot be ignored, either. Our laws are buried heavily in the Abrahamic mythos. However, as the judge pointed out, the proposition, which calls for the definition of marriage as 'one man and one woman' imposes upon all people a private (read: religious fundamentalist) ethical standard only practiced by some, which has no basis in impartial evaluation.
I support gay marriage because I feel that if people want to marry they ought to be able to, free from arbitrary discrimination based on outdated tradition. Each person has interests, and each interest has a certain strength or importance to that person, and the consequences of these interests being allowed or not are of different degrees depending on what that interest is.
There are few interests I can think of that match up with being able to tie yourself to the person you love, and few pains I can think of that are equal to having it denied based on any arbitrarily determined lines. This is why I draw the parallels between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. Someone else, with no interest whatsoever in the outcome, and with an antiquated set of ideals, comes in and says "no" because they think it's gross. They can try to prove it's harmful, but they will fail because in the end we are all people, with the same sets of flaws and the same sets of gifts.
What changes for each side of homos are allowed to wed? They get what they want-- a ceremony serving some kind of psychological function that is intensely gratifying, and more importantly, equality. Heteros get nothing. Absolutely nothing changes. The 'sanctity of marriage' is still there-- who can wed has nothing to do with the value of your marriage-- it's not a market good. Will my marriage feel or actually be any different if and when I get married that the homosexuals were allowed to marry as well? Hell no. It's all the same stuff.
That is, in very short terms (trust me I can write for days, and have) why I reject the classic definition of marriage and its gender qualifications.
Does anyone have anything to contribute? Let's try to define before we move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
