U.S. hostage Johnson apparently beheaded
- Thread starter Ericnmel99
- Start date
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='PsyClerk']Are you saying only gay people have cats?[/quote]
Finally someone gets it.
Finally someone gets it.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a dumb argument. "Veteran" is a title that is earned by military service and entitles the veteran to certain benefits. It would harm veterans because there would be less money to go around for benefits.[/quote]
Okay, forget about the benefits for a minute; don't you think that veterans would still be harmed if anyone were able to apply for veteran status, without having to fight in a war?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Being "married" is different. A gay couple and a straight couple who get married have both made the same commitment, one is just with the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
They can make a commitment to each other, and they can even have the same legal benefits. I don't have a problem with that. But they are not married, in either the legal, historical, traditional, or religious senses of the word.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If a husband or wife decides that since gay people can get married, that his or her marriage doesn't mean as much, that person is an idiot and was looking for an excuse anyway.[/quote]
I'm saying that yes, marriage as a whole gets devalued. It gets devalued by the high divorce rate. It gets devalued when Britney Spears decides to get married and divorced in a weekend. And it gets devalued when it is redefined to include gay couples. And if polygamy is legalized, it will get devalued even further. All you have to do is allow an individual to get married all by himself, and you will have removed everything that defines marriage, and it will be reduced to just a title.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Does it affect me now that the definition of "dog owner" has been broaden to include gay people? Nope.[/quote]
Oh please, will you get off the definition of "dog owner," "voter," and so on? The definition of "voter" has never included any specifics about class, gender or race. When black people were allowed to vote, or women were allowed to vote, the definition of "voter" did not change. However, the definition of "marriage" has always been specifically a man and a woman, and allowing gay couples to get married will specifically change that definition.
Okay, forget about the benefits for a minute; don't you think that veterans would still be harmed if anyone were able to apply for veteran status, without having to fight in a war?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Being "married" is different. A gay couple and a straight couple who get married have both made the same commitment, one is just with the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
They can make a commitment to each other, and they can even have the same legal benefits. I don't have a problem with that. But they are not married, in either the legal, historical, traditional, or religious senses of the word.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If a husband or wife decides that since gay people can get married, that his or her marriage doesn't mean as much, that person is an idiot and was looking for an excuse anyway.[/quote]
I'm saying that yes, marriage as a whole gets devalued. It gets devalued by the high divorce rate. It gets devalued when Britney Spears decides to get married and divorced in a weekend. And it gets devalued when it is redefined to include gay couples. And if polygamy is legalized, it will get devalued even further. All you have to do is allow an individual to get married all by himself, and you will have removed everything that defines marriage, and it will be reduced to just a title.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Does it affect me now that the definition of "dog owner" has been broaden to include gay people? Nope.[/quote]
Oh please, will you get off the definition of "dog owner," "voter," and so on? The definition of "voter" has never included any specifics about class, gender or race. When black people were allowed to vote, or women were allowed to vote, the definition of "voter" did not change. However, the definition of "marriage" has always been specifically a man and a woman, and allowing gay couples to get married will specifically change that definition.
Grave_Addiction
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PsyClerk']Are you saying only gay people have cats?[/quote]
Finally someone gets it.[/quote]
Whoa, you know what, I think there is some truth to that statement. Now how many single, straight men out there really own a cat? Most men opt for the dog because they can help pick up chicks and they drink beer.
But only a gay man would want to have a cat, right?
Finally someone gets it.[/quote]
Whoa, you know what, I think there is some truth to that statement. Now how many single, straight men out there really own a cat? Most men opt for the dog because they can help pick up chicks and they drink beer.
But only a gay man would want to have a cat, right?
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']Okay, forget about the benefits for a minute; don't you think that veterans would still be harmed if anyone were able to apply for veteran status, without having to fight in a war?[/quote]
It's still not a good analogy because real veterans did something to earn their title while neo-veterans did not. A gay couple will make the same kind of commitment to each other that a straight couple does. They want equal rights. That's never been a bad thing.
If we have learned one thing from the civil rights struggle it is that separate is never equal. You can try to say they are the same thing, but they will never be. People will use "civil union" as a second-class status to deny benefits like joint ownership, inheritance, tax breaks, etc.
Here's where we agree. But if just 10% of the people who are up in arms over gay marriage had ever spoken up against the increasing divorce rates, I would have some respect for them. But the vast majority I have seen arguing against it are just homophobic. I guarantee more straight couples will get divorced this year than gay couples will marry.
No one in this forum is arguing for polygamy or unigamy (if that's what you even call it).
I'll get off of definitions when you get off of my mom... wait... that didn't come out right.
So what if the definition changes? My point has always been that definitions do change and it can be for the better.
If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't go to a church that supports it, don't send them a wedding gift. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.
The smartest thing I have ever heard Al Sharpton say (and believe me, I'm no fan of his since Tawana Brawley) was that no group in America has been "given" any rights. They've had to fight for them and demand them.
It's still not a good analogy because real veterans did something to earn their title while neo-veterans did not. A gay couple will make the same kind of commitment to each other that a straight couple does. They want equal rights. That's never been a bad thing.
If we have learned one thing from the civil rights struggle it is that separate is never equal. You can try to say they are the same thing, but they will never be. People will use "civil union" as a second-class status to deny benefits like joint ownership, inheritance, tax breaks, etc.
Here's where we agree. But if just 10% of the people who are up in arms over gay marriage had ever spoken up against the increasing divorce rates, I would have some respect for them. But the vast majority I have seen arguing against it are just homophobic. I guarantee more straight couples will get divorced this year than gay couples will marry.
No one in this forum is arguing for polygamy or unigamy (if that's what you even call it).
I'll get off of definitions when you get off of my mom... wait... that didn't come out right.
So what if the definition changes? My point has always been that definitions do change and it can be for the better.
If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't go to a church that supports it, don't send them a wedding gift. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.
The smartest thing I have ever heard Al Sharpton say (and believe me, I'm no fan of his since Tawana Brawley) was that no group in America has been "given" any rights. They've had to fight for them and demand them.
[quote name='abates17']However, the definition of "marriage" has always been specifically a man and a woman, and allowing gay couples to get married will specifically change that definition.
[/quote]
That is one definition, not THE definition. Marriage can be a close union or intertwining of 2 formerly seperate entities. Company mergers are sometimes refered to as a 'marriage'.
And what's wrong with changing definitions anyway? Definitions change everyday with no harm to most people.
In a free society, everyone is supposed to have the right of free association. Freedom to enter into contracts with anyone else of their choosing. Legal definitions of marriage only truly pertain to issues of ownership and property, just like any other contract or transaction. Then again, if you are arguing from a religious standpoint then the issue is between YOU and YOUR GOD, and has nothing to do with me and MY free will.
[/quote]
That is one definition, not THE definition. Marriage can be a close union or intertwining of 2 formerly seperate entities. Company mergers are sometimes refered to as a 'marriage'.
And what's wrong with changing definitions anyway? Definitions change everyday with no harm to most people.
Sorry, the definition of voter in the US used to be white property owner. Then it changed to white male citizen and 3/5 of a black person. Then again, it changed many more times as the circle of voters became more encompassing.
In a free society, everyone is supposed to have the right of free association. Freedom to enter into contracts with anyone else of their choosing. Legal definitions of marriage only truly pertain to issues of ownership and property, just like any other contract or transaction. Then again, if you are arguing from a religious standpoint then the issue is between YOU and YOUR GOD, and has nothing to do with me and MY free will.
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's still not a good analogy because real veterans did something to earn their title while neo-veterans did not.[/quote]
So change "veterans" to "black," or some other characteristic that is well defined. Why should only black Americans have the right to be black? They have a right that I don't! Shouldn't I be able to apply for government status to be recognized as black?
[quote name='MrBadExample']A gay couple will make the same kind of commitment to each other that a straight couple does. They want equal rights. That's never been a bad thing.[/quote]
Again, great, fine. They have the commitment, let them have the rights. Just call it something other than marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If we have learned one thing from the civil rights struggle it is that separate is never equal.[/quote]
"Separate but equal" referred to physical separation, not separate definitions. If you want to go by definitions, then males and females are two separate groups, as are whites and blacks, handicapped people, and so on. Those groups are all separate, but still equal. So why should a married couple be unequal to a couple that got a civil union?
[quote name='MrBadExample']You can try to say they are the same thing, but they will never be. People will use "civil union" as a second-class status to deny benefits like joint ownership, inheritance, tax breaks, etc.[/quote]
Right, just like people use "female" as a second-class status to deny benefits to women, pay them less, and discriminate against them...oh, wait...are you saying that's illegal? They can't do any of those things? What about black people? They can't discriminate against them either? So then, why would people be able to discriminate against civil unions?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Here's where we agree. But if just 10% of the people who are up in arms over gay marriage had ever spoken up against the increasing divorce rates, I would have some respect for them.[/quote]
You know what? People HAVE been speaking out against increasing divorce rates, for quite a long time now. Some are even doing their part to change that. However, just because one battle looks hopeless, doesn't mean that other battles can't be fought.
[quote name='MrBadExample']But the vast majority I have seen arguing against it are just homophobic.[/quote]
And I object to being called "homophobic" just because I disagree with someone else's beliefs. It's a catch phrase that is used to dismiss someone's arguments as irrational or based on hatred on fear.
[quote name='MrBadExample']No one in this forum is arguing for polygamy or unigamy (if that's what you even call it).[/quote]
But every argument that is used in support of gay marriage can also be used in support of polygamy: it doesn't affect other people, people should have the right to marry whoever they want, and so on. So unless you can come up with a reason that gay marriage can be allowed, but polygamy can not, then you have to accept both, and all the consequences. After all, if the "man and woman" part of marriage isn't really important anymore, then why is the "two people" part important? After all, isn't the commitment the most important part of it?
[quote name='MrBadExample']So what if the definition changes? My point has always been that definitions do change and it can be for the better.[/quote]
Because it devalues the meaning of the word. You have yet to show me a definition that has changed for the better, and no, "voter" or "population" don't count.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't go to a church that supports it, don't send them a wedding gift. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.[/quote]
If you don't support murder, then don't kill anyone, don't get killed, and don't pay money to have people killed. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.
[quote name='MrBadExample']The smartest thing I have ever heard Al Sharpton say (and believe me, I'm no fan of his since Tawana Brawley) was that no group in America has been "given" any rights. They've had to fight for them and demand them.[/quote]
That's great. And gay people deserve to have the same rights as everybody else. However, being married is not a right. I know many people who would like to be married, but aren't.
So change "veterans" to "black," or some other characteristic that is well defined. Why should only black Americans have the right to be black? They have a right that I don't! Shouldn't I be able to apply for government status to be recognized as black?
[quote name='MrBadExample']A gay couple will make the same kind of commitment to each other that a straight couple does. They want equal rights. That's never been a bad thing.[/quote]
Again, great, fine. They have the commitment, let them have the rights. Just call it something other than marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If we have learned one thing from the civil rights struggle it is that separate is never equal.[/quote]
"Separate but equal" referred to physical separation, not separate definitions. If you want to go by definitions, then males and females are two separate groups, as are whites and blacks, handicapped people, and so on. Those groups are all separate, but still equal. So why should a married couple be unequal to a couple that got a civil union?
[quote name='MrBadExample']You can try to say they are the same thing, but they will never be. People will use "civil union" as a second-class status to deny benefits like joint ownership, inheritance, tax breaks, etc.[/quote]
Right, just like people use "female" as a second-class status to deny benefits to women, pay them less, and discriminate against them...oh, wait...are you saying that's illegal? They can't do any of those things? What about black people? They can't discriminate against them either? So then, why would people be able to discriminate against civil unions?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Here's where we agree. But if just 10% of the people who are up in arms over gay marriage had ever spoken up against the increasing divorce rates, I would have some respect for them.[/quote]
You know what? People HAVE been speaking out against increasing divorce rates, for quite a long time now. Some are even doing their part to change that. However, just because one battle looks hopeless, doesn't mean that other battles can't be fought.
[quote name='MrBadExample']But the vast majority I have seen arguing against it are just homophobic.[/quote]
And I object to being called "homophobic" just because I disagree with someone else's beliefs. It's a catch phrase that is used to dismiss someone's arguments as irrational or based on hatred on fear.
[quote name='MrBadExample']No one in this forum is arguing for polygamy or unigamy (if that's what you even call it).[/quote]
But every argument that is used in support of gay marriage can also be used in support of polygamy: it doesn't affect other people, people should have the right to marry whoever they want, and so on. So unless you can come up with a reason that gay marriage can be allowed, but polygamy can not, then you have to accept both, and all the consequences. After all, if the "man and woman" part of marriage isn't really important anymore, then why is the "two people" part important? After all, isn't the commitment the most important part of it?
[quote name='MrBadExample']So what if the definition changes? My point has always been that definitions do change and it can be for the better.[/quote]
Because it devalues the meaning of the word. You have yet to show me a definition that has changed for the better, and no, "voter" or "population" don't count.
[quote name='MrBadExample']If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, don't go to a church that supports it, don't send them a wedding gift. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.[/quote]
If you don't support murder, then don't kill anyone, don't get killed, and don't pay money to have people killed. But you are trying to hold back a tidal wave with a tin cup if you think you can stop it altogether.
[quote name='MrBadExample']The smartest thing I have ever heard Al Sharpton say (and believe me, I'm no fan of his since Tawana Brawley) was that no group in America has been "given" any rights. They've had to fight for them and demand them.[/quote]
That's great. And gay people deserve to have the same rights as everybody else. However, being married is not a right. I know many people who would like to be married, but aren't.
Lil Stinky
CAGiversary!
Jesus Cracka I see your still here! I'm starting to think your one of those fanatics. Thats the problem with this country right now. Too many conservative fanatics causing problems.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Okay, I'm tired of making the same argument for the past couple of days so I am going to quit arguing about definitions.
The great thing about this country is that you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
I am confident that history is going to prove me right. Gay marriage will happen and it won't be the end of civilization. After a couple of years most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Abates17, I wasn't calling you homophobic. I meant most of the argument against gay marriage was by homophobes. You have some weird definition-based argument going on that I just don't understand anymore. If it makes you feel better, call it "gaymarriage" so you don't have to mess up your Funk & Wagnal's with white-out.
The great thing about this country is that you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
I am confident that history is going to prove me right. Gay marriage will happen and it won't be the end of civilization. After a couple of years most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Abates17, I wasn't calling you homophobic. I meant most of the argument against gay marriage was by homophobes. You have some weird definition-based argument going on that I just don't understand anymore. If it makes you feel better, call it "gaymarriage" so you don't have to mess up your Funk & Wagnal's with white-out.
I doubt that civilization will end if gay marriage is legalized; it will just continue the trivialize and diminish the meaning of "marriage" even further, and our society will suffer as a result. And mark my words, it will open the door for polygamous marriages. No one on this forum has been able to refute my points about polygamy, besides saying, "well, it's different." All of the arguments that were used in favor of gay marriage can be equally used to support polygamy, so if you support one, you must support the other. I'd really like to see someone address that point.
My point about the definition of marriage is that marriage actually means something to most people in this country. You can’t claim to support marriage on the one hand, while dismissing part of its definition on the other hand. It just doesn't work that way, and it's a slap in the face to those of us who believe in marriage as it has been practiced for thousands of years.
My point about the definition of marriage is that marriage actually means something to most people in this country. You can’t claim to support marriage on the one hand, while dismissing part of its definition on the other hand. It just doesn't work that way, and it's a slap in the face to those of us who believe in marriage as it has been practiced for thousands of years.
Cracka
CAG Newbie
[quote name='Lil Stinky']Jesus Cracka I see your still here! I'm starting to think your one of those fanatics. Thats the problem with this country right now. Too many conservative fanatics causing problems.[/quote]
i came back to post that the thread should be locked so that makes me a fanatic? riiight.
i came back to post that the thread should be locked so that makes me a fanatic? riiight.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']I doubt that civilization will end if gay marriage is legalized; it will just continue the trivialize and diminish the meaning of "marriage" even further, and our society will suffer as a result. And mark my words, it will open the door for polygamous marriages. No one on this forum has been able to refute my points about polygamy, besides saying, "well, it's different." All of the arguments that were used in favor of gay marriage can be equally used to support polygamy, so if you support one, you must support the other. I'd really like to see someone address that point. [/quote]
1. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are two different things and you can't argue that they are the same.
2. *Shocker* I don't mind if polygamous marriage is legal. As long as everyone in the marriage is of the age of consent and are happy with the relationship, good for them. Considering how we still have problems dealing legally with just two people, I don't envy them but it's their choice and it doesn't hurt me.
I believe that consensual crimes should not be outlawed. If you are not harming anyone else, you should not be breaking any laws. This includes gambling, drug use and prostitution (but not pimping because that's exploitive in its current form - sorry Snoop).
Consider yourself slapped then, put your big girl panties on and stop whining about it.
1. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are two different things and you can't argue that they are the same.
2. *Shocker* I don't mind if polygamous marriage is legal. As long as everyone in the marriage is of the age of consent and are happy with the relationship, good for them. Considering how we still have problems dealing legally with just two people, I don't envy them but it's their choice and it doesn't hurt me.
I believe that consensual crimes should not be outlawed. If you are not harming anyone else, you should not be breaking any laws. This includes gambling, drug use and prostitution (but not pimping because that's exploitive in its current form - sorry Snoop).
Consider yourself slapped then, put your big girl panties on and stop whining about it.
[quote name='MrBadExample']1. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage are two different things and you can't argue that they are the same.[/quote]
I never said that they were the same; I said that the same arguments could be applied to both of them, so if you agree with one, you must either agree with the other, or show how they should have different legal status. Many people (including some on this group) have said that they agree with gay marriage, but not with polygamy. Those are the people I am addressing with the "slippery slope" argument.
[quote name='MrBadExample']2. *Shocker* I don't mind if polygamous marriage is legal. As long as everyone in the marriage is of the age of consent and are happy with the relationship, good for them.[/quote]
Fine. At least you're being consistent.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I believe that consensual crimes should not be outlawed. If you are not harming anyone else, you should not be breaking any laws. This includes gambling, drug use and prostitution[/quote]
Two problems with this: 1) We live in a country of laws, where the local population gets to vote on what is or isn't legal; 2) It can be argued that some "consensual" crimes DO hurt other people, albeit indirectly.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Consider yourself slapped then, put your big girl panties on and stop whining about it.[/quote]
I have as much right to "whine about it" as you do to disagree with me. But the argument that gay marriage does not harm anyone else is simply wrong. It's funny how people are so quick to support the rights of some groups, but ignore the rights of others.
I never said that they were the same; I said that the same arguments could be applied to both of them, so if you agree with one, you must either agree with the other, or show how they should have different legal status. Many people (including some on this group) have said that they agree with gay marriage, but not with polygamy. Those are the people I am addressing with the "slippery slope" argument.
[quote name='MrBadExample']2. *Shocker* I don't mind if polygamous marriage is legal. As long as everyone in the marriage is of the age of consent and are happy with the relationship, good for them.[/quote]
Fine. At least you're being consistent.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I believe that consensual crimes should not be outlawed. If you are not harming anyone else, you should not be breaking any laws. This includes gambling, drug use and prostitution[/quote]
Two problems with this: 1) We live in a country of laws, where the local population gets to vote on what is or isn't legal; 2) It can be argued that some "consensual" crimes DO hurt other people, albeit indirectly.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Consider yourself slapped then, put your big girl panties on and stop whining about it.[/quote]
I have as much right to "whine about it" as you do to disagree with me. But the argument that gay marriage does not harm anyone else is simply wrong. It's funny how people are so quick to support the rights of some groups, but ignore the rights of others.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']But the argument that gay marriage does not harm anyone else is simply wrong. It's funny how people are so quick to support the rights of some groups, but ignore the rights of others.[/quote]
You don't have the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. It is not enough legally to claim that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage and therefore keep it illegal.
You don't have the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. It is not enough legally to claim that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage and therefore keep it illegal.
The Successful Dropout
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 101 (100%)
this thread is still going on? cant we all just agree that gays are gay and its gay to be gay???
[quote name='MrBadExample']You don't have the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. It is not enough legally to claim that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage and therefore keep it illegal.[/quote]
Then by that argument, if gay people are allowed to have civil unions that provide all the same legal rights as marriage, then they do not have the right to be upset, just because it's not called "marriage." It is not enough legally to claim that gay civil unions are somehow less valid than marriage.
Then by that argument, if gay people are allowed to have civil unions that provide all the same legal rights as marriage, then they do not have the right to be upset, just because it's not called "marriage." It is not enough legally to claim that gay civil unions are somehow less valid than marriage.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='MrBadExample']You don't have the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. It is not enough legally to claim that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage and therefore keep it illegal.[/quote]
Then by that argument, if gay people are allowed to have civil unions that provide all the same legal rights as marriage, then they do not have the right to be upset, just because it's not called "marriage." It is not enough legally to claim that gay civil unions are somehow less valid than marriage.[/quote]
Separate is not equal and it never has been. Right now civil unions are not equal to marriage in every state. There are problems with custody, guardianship, next of kin, inheritance, joint ownership, etc. When civil unions are akin to marriage in every way, then you can argue all day over what to call it. But right now gay people do not have a marriage equivalent and they should.
Then by that argument, if gay people are allowed to have civil unions that provide all the same legal rights as marriage, then they do not have the right to be upset, just because it's not called "marriage." It is not enough legally to claim that gay civil unions are somehow less valid than marriage.[/quote]
Separate is not equal and it never has been. Right now civil unions are not equal to marriage in every state. There are problems with custody, guardianship, next of kin, inheritance, joint ownership, etc. When civil unions are akin to marriage in every way, then you can argue all day over what to call it. But right now gay people do not have a marriage equivalent and they should.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Separate is not equal and it never has been.[/quote]
Wrong.
Black. White. Male. Female. Handicapped. All separate groups, but given equal rights under the law.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Right now civil unions are not equal to marriage in every state. There are problems with custody, guardianship, next of kin, inheritance, joint ownership, etc.[/quote]
Guess what? The Defense of Marriage Act, that is a possible amendment to the Constitution, has civil unions as one of its provisions, and guarantees that civil unions are given the same rights as marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']When civil unions are akin to marriage in every way, then you can argue all day over what to call it. But right now gay people do not have a marriage equivalent and they should.[/quote]
Then it sounds like you and I both support the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Wrong.
Black. White. Male. Female. Handicapped. All separate groups, but given equal rights under the law.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Right now civil unions are not equal to marriage in every state. There are problems with custody, guardianship, next of kin, inheritance, joint ownership, etc.[/quote]
Guess what? The Defense of Marriage Act, that is a possible amendment to the Constitution, has civil unions as one of its provisions, and guarantees that civil unions are given the same rights as marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']When civil unions are akin to marriage in every way, then you can argue all day over what to call it. But right now gay people do not have a marriage equivalent and they should.[/quote]
Then it sounds like you and I both support the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']Black. White. Male. Female. Handicapped. All separate groups, but given equal rights under the law.[/quote]
I can't park in a handicapped space therefore they aren't equal.
Try this quote:
Not a chance. I like the Constitution the way it is right now.
I can't park in a handicapped space therefore they aren't equal.
Try this quote:
Not a chance. I like the Constitution the way it is right now.
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='abates17']Black. White. Male. Female. Handicapped. All separate groups, but given equal rights under the law.[/quote]
I can't park in a handicapped space therefore they aren't equal.[/quote]
So wait a minute…are you saying that handicapped people have the right to park in a handicapped space, but you don't have that same right? How is that fair? How is that constitutional? Shouldn't all Americans have the same rights?
So , if "separate is never equal" as you say, then how is it that the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so on? And if equal protection can be applied to those separate but equal groups, then why could equal protection not be applied to civil unions?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Not a chance. I like the Constitution the way it is right now.[/quote]
And I like marriage the way it is right now. If there is a way to give gay couples the exact same rights as married couples, without redefining marriage, then why is that not a valid option? Oh, right...because "separate is never equal," right? Just like how women don't have the same rights as men, blacks don't have the same rights as whites....
I can't park in a handicapped space therefore they aren't equal.[/quote]
So wait a minute…are you saying that handicapped people have the right to park in a handicapped space, but you don't have that same right? How is that fair? How is that constitutional? Shouldn't all Americans have the same rights?
So , if "separate is never equal" as you say, then how is it that the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so on? And if equal protection can be applied to those separate but equal groups, then why could equal protection not be applied to civil unions?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Not a chance. I like the Constitution the way it is right now.[/quote]
And I like marriage the way it is right now. If there is a way to give gay couples the exact same rights as married couples, without redefining marriage, then why is that not a valid option? Oh, right...because "separate is never equal," right? Just like how women don't have the same rights as men, blacks don't have the same rights as whites....
[quote name='abates17']And mark my words, it will open the door for polygamous marriages. No one on this forum has been able to refute my points about polygamy, besides saying, "well, it's different." All of the arguments that were used in favor of gay marriage can be equally used to support polygamy, so if you support one, you must support the other. I'd really like to see someone address that point. [/quote]
You want a difference between gay marriage and polygamy? Fine. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle -- homosexuality isn't. This whole "if you support one, you must support the other" thing is bull.
You want a difference between gay marriage and polygamy? Fine. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle -- homosexuality isn't. This whole "if you support one, you must support the other" thing is bull.
[quote name='trq']You want a difference between gay marriage and polygamy? Fine. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle -- homosexuality isn't. This whole "if you support one, you must support the other" thing is bull.[/quote]
Look, you’re missing the point entirely: The point is that the exact same arguments that are used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy.
"It doesn't hurt anyone": check.
"The government shouldn't get involved in what people do privately": check.
"They just want to be treated the same": check.
"Everyone should have the right to get married, no matter what their lifestyle choice": check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to support polygamy. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments in support of gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments in support of polygamy as well. So if you're against polygamy, but for gay marriage, then you are being hypocritical.
THAT is the point that I have not seen addressed on this forum.
Look, you’re missing the point entirely: The point is that the exact same arguments that are used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy.
"It doesn't hurt anyone": check.
"The government shouldn't get involved in what people do privately": check.
"They just want to be treated the same": check.
"Everyone should have the right to get married, no matter what their lifestyle choice": check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to support polygamy. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments in support of gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments in support of polygamy as well. So if you're against polygamy, but for gay marriage, then you are being hypocritical.
THAT is the point that I have not seen addressed on this forum.
Royale_w/Cheese
CAG Veteran
Quick question:
Is there some association between Johnson, gay marriage, and Duke Nukem besides this thread?
Is there some association between Johnson, gay marriage, and Duke Nukem besides this thread?
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']So wait a minute…are you saying that handicapped people have the right to park in a handicapped space, but you don't have that same right? How is that fair? How is that constitutional? Shouldn't all Americans have the same rights?[/quote]
It's called being decent to your fellow human beings and that's why it doesn't bother me. However awkward the attempts are sometimes, it's about trying to level the playing field so everyone has an equal chance to be successful and happy. And yeah, it's a little socialistic. Otherwise with straight capitalism, you have a Darwinian fragfest where the weaker are cast aside and trampled over.
Maybe you didn't read the quote in my last message, but civil unions only provide 400 state benefits, but there are 1000 federal marriage benefits that would be denied to civil unions because of the Defense of Marriage Act (a truly Orwellian title).
So then enjoy your marriage and treasure it and I'm happy for you. Right now marriage is a swanky little country club that some straights are afraid will be tarnished if they let gay people join. If that's the best argument you have, we'll see how that holds up in court.
It's called being decent to your fellow human beings and that's why it doesn't bother me. However awkward the attempts are sometimes, it's about trying to level the playing field so everyone has an equal chance to be successful and happy. And yeah, it's a little socialistic. Otherwise with straight capitalism, you have a Darwinian fragfest where the weaker are cast aside and trampled over.
Maybe you didn't read the quote in my last message, but civil unions only provide 400 state benefits, but there are 1000 federal marriage benefits that would be denied to civil unions because of the Defense of Marriage Act (a truly Orwellian title).
So then enjoy your marriage and treasure it and I'm happy for you. Right now marriage is a swanky little country club that some straights are afraid will be tarnished if they let gay people join. If that's the best argument you have, we'll see how that holds up in court.
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='trq']You want a difference between gay marriage and polygamy? Fine. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle -- homosexuality isn't. This whole "if you support one, you must support the other" thing is bull.[/quote]
Look, you’re missing the point entirely: The point is that the exact same arguments that are used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy.
"It doesn't hurt anyone": check.
"The government shouldn't get involved in what people do privately": check.
"They just want to be treated the same": check.
"Everyone should have the right to get married, no matter what their lifestyle choice": check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to support polygamy. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments in support of gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments in support of polygamy as well. So if you're against polygamy, but for gay marriage, then you are being hypocritical.
THAT is the point that I have not seen addressed on this forum.[/quote]
No, trust me, I get this point -- topic aside, it's just broken logic. Let's tackle this from a different angle: all of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage can be (and were) applied to interracial marriage.
"It's isn't the traditional definition of marriage." Check.
"Making marriage more inclusive devalues it for everyone who already takes it seriously." Check.
"It'll lead to other abberent behavior." Check.
"It could be used to 'scam the system.'" Check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to oppose interracial marriage. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments against gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments against interracial marriage as well. So if you're against one, but for the other, then you are being hypocritical, right?
Look, you’re missing the point entirely: The point is that the exact same arguments that are used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy.
"It doesn't hurt anyone": check.
"The government shouldn't get involved in what people do privately": check.
"They just want to be treated the same": check.
"Everyone should have the right to get married, no matter what their lifestyle choice": check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to support polygamy. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments in support of gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments in support of polygamy as well. So if you're against polygamy, but for gay marriage, then you are being hypocritical.
THAT is the point that I have not seen addressed on this forum.[/quote]
No, trust me, I get this point -- topic aside, it's just broken logic. Let's tackle this from a different angle: all of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage can be (and were) applied to interracial marriage.
"It's isn't the traditional definition of marriage." Check.
"Making marriage more inclusive devalues it for everyone who already takes it seriously." Check.
"It'll lead to other abberent behavior." Check.
"It could be used to 'scam the system.'" Check.
All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to oppose interracial marriage. Therefore, if you conclude that they are valid arguments against gay marriage, then you MUST concede that they are valid arguments against interracial marriage as well. So if you're against one, but for the other, then you are being hypocritical, right?
Grave_Addiction
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
How could interracial marriage be used to scam the system?
[quote name='trq']No, trust me, I get this point -- topic aside, it's just broken logic.[/quote]
No, it's perfectly valid logic. It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's been used as a method of debate for thousands of years.
[quote name='trq']Let's tackle this from a different angle: all of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage can be (and were) applied to interracial marriage.
"It's isn't the traditional definition of marriage." Check.[/quote]
See, you can stop right there. There is nothing in the traditional definition of marriage that says anything about race. Some people may have claimed that, but they were wrong, and that's why the arguments against interracial marriage fell flat.
[quote name='trq']"Making marriage more inclusive devalues it for everyone who already takes it seriously." Check.[/quote]
And again, it's not a matter of it being "more inclusive." It's a matter of definition; marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Nothing about race in there anywhere, so by definition it can include interracial marriage.
[quote name='trq']All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to oppose interracial marriage.[/quote]
Nope, not even close. Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.
So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?
No, it's perfectly valid logic. It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's been used as a method of debate for thousands of years.
[quote name='trq']Let's tackle this from a different angle: all of the arguments AGAINST gay marriage can be (and were) applied to interracial marriage.
"It's isn't the traditional definition of marriage." Check.[/quote]
See, you can stop right there. There is nothing in the traditional definition of marriage that says anything about race. Some people may have claimed that, but they were wrong, and that's why the arguments against interracial marriage fell flat.
[quote name='trq']"Making marriage more inclusive devalues it for everyone who already takes it seriously." Check.[/quote]
And again, it's not a matter of it being "more inclusive." It's a matter of definition; marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Nothing about race in there anywhere, so by definition it can include interracial marriage.
[quote name='trq']All of these arguments...ALL of them...can also be used to oppose interracial marriage.[/quote]
Nope, not even close. Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.
So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='abates17']So wait a minute…are you saying that handicapped people have the right to park in a handicapped space, but you don't have that same right? How is that fair? How is that constitutional? Shouldn't all Americans have the same rights?[/quote]
It's called being decent to your fellow human beings and that's why it doesn't bother me.[/quote]
Okay, so you have no problem with being decent to your fellow human beings when it comes to being handicapped. But when it comes to respecting other people's personal beliefs, you don't care.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe you didn't read the quote in my last message, but civil unions only provide 400 state benefits, but there are 1000 federal marriage benefits that would be denied to civil unions because of the Defense of Marriage Act (a truly Orwellian title).[/quote]
Those same benefits could be extended to civil unions. You're acting as if it's impossible to give benefits to a group that has been denied those benefits in the past. Hasn't our country proved that that is simply not true?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Right now marriage is a swanky little country club that some straights are afraid will be tarnished if they let gay people join.[/quote]
Right now being handicapped is a swanky little country club that some handicapped people are afraid will be tarnished if they let non-handicapped people join.
Right now being black is a swanky little country club that some black people are afraid will be tarnished if they let white people join.
Right now being male is a swanky little country club that some men are afraid will be tarnished if they let women join.
See how ludicrous those all sound? By definition, a woman can not be a man, a white person can not be black, and a gay couple can not be married. Having rights in America is about having the right to DO things, not the right to BE things. If gay couples are given the same rights as married couples, then they can not complain that they are not also given the title of "married." Black people did not get equal rights by declaring themselves as white.
It's called being decent to your fellow human beings and that's why it doesn't bother me.[/quote]
Okay, so you have no problem with being decent to your fellow human beings when it comes to being handicapped. But when it comes to respecting other people's personal beliefs, you don't care.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe you didn't read the quote in my last message, but civil unions only provide 400 state benefits, but there are 1000 federal marriage benefits that would be denied to civil unions because of the Defense of Marriage Act (a truly Orwellian title).[/quote]
Those same benefits could be extended to civil unions. You're acting as if it's impossible to give benefits to a group that has been denied those benefits in the past. Hasn't our country proved that that is simply not true?
[quote name='MrBadExample']Right now marriage is a swanky little country club that some straights are afraid will be tarnished if they let gay people join.[/quote]
Right now being handicapped is a swanky little country club that some handicapped people are afraid will be tarnished if they let non-handicapped people join.
Right now being black is a swanky little country club that some black people are afraid will be tarnished if they let white people join.
Right now being male is a swanky little country club that some men are afraid will be tarnished if they let women join.
See how ludicrous those all sound? By definition, a woman can not be a man, a white person can not be black, and a gay couple can not be married. Having rights in America is about having the right to DO things, not the right to BE things. If gay couples are given the same rights as married couples, then they can not complain that they are not also given the title of "married." Black people did not get equal rights by declaring themselves as white.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']Okay, so you have no problem with being decent to your fellow human beings when it comes to being handicapped. But when it comes to respecting other people's personal beliefs, you don't care.[/quote]
I respect other people's beliefs as long as they don't try to make everyone else live by them. You have your beliefs and as long as they work for you, have at 'em. In a diverse culture you have to give a little bit. I am not going to agree with everything some other group does. The good news is I don't have to. As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care. Live and let live.
I can see how quickly the politicians that pushed the DOMA are about making sure that civil unions are equal in EVERY way except name.
Funny, but i think my arguments always sound saner when I make them.
And gay people are not saying they are straight. They just want to be married.
And since you love definitions, I bet the original definition of sex was between a man and a woman too. Do you want to tell me that gay sex denigrates straight sex? Should we call it civil fornication now?
Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.
I respect other people's beliefs as long as they don't try to make everyone else live by them. You have your beliefs and as long as they work for you, have at 'em. In a diverse culture you have to give a little bit. I am not going to agree with everything some other group does. The good news is I don't have to. As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care. Live and let live.
I can see how quickly the politicians that pushed the DOMA are about making sure that civil unions are equal in EVERY way except name.
Funny, but i think my arguments always sound saner when I make them.
And gay people are not saying they are straight. They just want to be married.
And since you love definitions, I bet the original definition of sex was between a man and a woman too. Do you want to tell me that gay sex denigrates straight sex? Should we call it civil fornication now?
Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
MrBadExample I see you are still fighting the good fight, for truth justice and the American way
[quote name='abates17'] No, it's perfectly valid logic. It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's been used as a method of debate for thousands of years.[/quote]
I know what reductio ad absurdum is, but you're not accomplishing it. I had hoped to avoid this (since I'm sure everyone is fascinated by logic diagrams... ), but the classical example is Socrates and his accusers. They accused him of both godlessness and being divinely inspired, which is contradictory. If they had accused him of being godless and, say, a traitor, it wouldn't be impossible or reductio ad absurdum. That's where your argument goes wrong.
Say:
"abberant behavior" = A
gay marriage = G
polygamy = P
restriction = R
All you're "proving" is:
G = A
P = A
A = R
therefore
G = R.
But the key assumption you're making is that G and P are both A.
They're not.
And let's keep in mind that I used "abberent behavior" to act as an umbrella, representing whatever it is you think makes them identical -- I don't mean to say that's an accurate description, or to imply that you think the same.
The bottom line: you equate homosexual mariage with polygamy/etc., and that's incorrect. See below.
[quote name='abates17'] See, you can stop right there ... Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.[/quote]
I'm going to zoom over this, because this is exactly my point. Of course you're justified is seeing a difference between them -- they're not the same thing. It shows that you can apply an argument about almost anything to an argument about almost anything else ... if you ignore the things that make the differences, which is what you're doing.
[quote name='abates17']So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?[/quote]
I'm not avoiding anything -- I already did it. It's not my fault if you choose to dismiss them, rather than refute them. One is a simple, conscious, lifestyle choice, and one is no more changeable or "wrong" than the color of your skin. They have fundamentally different natures, and the "I can apply any argument about the legalization of X to the legalization of Y" doesn't somehow make them the same -- it's only valid in the first place if they are ALREADY the same. Your argument is self-justifying.
I know what reductio ad absurdum is, but you're not accomplishing it. I had hoped to avoid this (since I'm sure everyone is fascinated by logic diagrams... ), but the classical example is Socrates and his accusers. They accused him of both godlessness and being divinely inspired, which is contradictory. If they had accused him of being godless and, say, a traitor, it wouldn't be impossible or reductio ad absurdum. That's where your argument goes wrong.
Say:
"abberant behavior" = A
gay marriage = G
polygamy = P
restriction = R
All you're "proving" is:
G = A
P = A
A = R
therefore
G = R.
But the key assumption you're making is that G and P are both A.
They're not.
And let's keep in mind that I used "abberent behavior" to act as an umbrella, representing whatever it is you think makes them identical -- I don't mean to say that's an accurate description, or to imply that you think the same.
The bottom line: you equate homosexual mariage with polygamy/etc., and that's incorrect. See below.
[quote name='abates17'] See, you can stop right there ... Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.[/quote]
I'm going to zoom over this, because this is exactly my point. Of course you're justified is seeing a difference between them -- they're not the same thing. It shows that you can apply an argument about almost anything to an argument about almost anything else ... if you ignore the things that make the differences, which is what you're doing.
[quote name='abates17']So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?[/quote]
I'm not avoiding anything -- I already did it. It's not my fault if you choose to dismiss them, rather than refute them. One is a simple, conscious, lifestyle choice, and one is no more changeable or "wrong" than the color of your skin. They have fundamentally different natures, and the "I can apply any argument about the legalization of X to the legalization of Y" doesn't somehow make them the same -- it's only valid in the first place if they are ALREADY the same. Your argument is self-justifying.
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']How could interracial marriage be used to scam the system?[/quote]
Any more than non-interracial marriage? It can't. But then, neither can gay marriage, and it is frequently the recipient of that particular criticism. I just said that "an argument in favor of X must be in favor of Y" is flawed for just that reason -- I didn't say the argument was any good in the first place.
Any more than non-interracial marriage? It can't. But then, neither can gay marriage, and it is frequently the recipient of that particular criticism. I just said that "an argument in favor of X must be in favor of Y" is flawed for just that reason -- I didn't say the argument was any good in the first place.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I respect other people's beliefs as long as they don't try to make everyone else live by them.[/quote]
No, you're just happy to respect someone else's beliefs long enough to co-opt them, twist them into something different, and act surprised when they get upset.
[quote name='MrBadExample']As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care.[/quote]
What if they ARE harming you, but no one else agrees with you? What then? Here's the situation we are in: The gay people feel like they are being harmed by not being allowed to marry, and the straight people feel like they are being harmed when marriage is redefined. You agree that people can have different beliefs, but you don't really mean that, do you? If you did, you would respect my (and others') beliefs that redefining marriage hurts the institution of marriage, and try to find some middle ground that satisfies everyone. But instead, you dismiss my beliefs as illogical and unfounded. How is that respecting someone else's beliefs?
[quote name='MrBadExample']I can see how quickly the politicians that pushed the DOMA are about making sure that civil unions are equal in EVERY way except name.[/quote]
But it could be done. It's like you're arguing that equal rights for blacks isn't happening fast enough, so black people should be redefined as white.
[quote name='MrBadExample']And gay people are not saying they are straight. They just want to be married.[/quote]
Read it again. By definition, a gay couple can not be married, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Sure, they be married if you change the definition of marriage, just like I can be a handicapped black woman if you change those definitions. After all, that would make those groups more inclusive, and isn't that always a good thing?
[quote name='MrBadExample']And since you love definitions, I bet the original definition of sex was between a man and a woman too. Do you want to tell me that gay sex denigrates straight sex?[/quote]
I think that gay sex is different from straight sex, and I don't think that anyone, gay or straight, would argue otherwise. However, people want to equate same-sex marriage with marriage, and they are just two different things.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.[/quote]
I'm glad to see that you have so much respect for other people's beliefs.
And the nice thing about the world? It's never going to pass me by. I'm always part of it, whether or not you agree with or respect my beliefs.
No, you're just happy to respect someone else's beliefs long enough to co-opt them, twist them into something different, and act surprised when they get upset.
[quote name='MrBadExample']As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care.[/quote]
What if they ARE harming you, but no one else agrees with you? What then? Here's the situation we are in: The gay people feel like they are being harmed by not being allowed to marry, and the straight people feel like they are being harmed when marriage is redefined. You agree that people can have different beliefs, but you don't really mean that, do you? If you did, you would respect my (and others') beliefs that redefining marriage hurts the institution of marriage, and try to find some middle ground that satisfies everyone. But instead, you dismiss my beliefs as illogical and unfounded. How is that respecting someone else's beliefs?
[quote name='MrBadExample']I can see how quickly the politicians that pushed the DOMA are about making sure that civil unions are equal in EVERY way except name.[/quote]
But it could be done. It's like you're arguing that equal rights for blacks isn't happening fast enough, so black people should be redefined as white.
[quote name='MrBadExample']And gay people are not saying they are straight. They just want to be married.[/quote]
Read it again. By definition, a gay couple can not be married, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Sure, they be married if you change the definition of marriage, just like I can be a handicapped black woman if you change those definitions. After all, that would make those groups more inclusive, and isn't that always a good thing?
[quote name='MrBadExample']And since you love definitions, I bet the original definition of sex was between a man and a woman too. Do you want to tell me that gay sex denigrates straight sex?[/quote]
I think that gay sex is different from straight sex, and I don't think that anyone, gay or straight, would argue otherwise. However, people want to equate same-sex marriage with marriage, and they are just two different things.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.[/quote]
I'm glad to see that you have so much respect for other people's beliefs.
And the nice thing about the world? It's never going to pass me by. I'm always part of it, whether or not you agree with or respect my beliefs.
[quote name='trq']I know what reductio ad absurdum is, but you're not accomplishing it.[/quote]
Okay, let's break it down.
[quote name='trq']Say:
"abberant behavior" = A
gay marriage = G
polygamy = P
restriction = R
All you're "proving" is:
G = A
P = A
A = R
therefore
G = R.
But the key assumption you're making is that G and P are both A.
They're not.[/quote]
Let's drop the whole "aberrant behavior" thing, because it is just mucking things up. Let me add a few new terms:
L(X) = legalization of X
R(X) = restriction of X (opposite of L(X))
S(X) = arguments in support of X
So, here's what I'm proving:
Assume:
0. L(X) and R(X) can not both be true for X
1. R(P) (people believe that polygamy should be restricted)
2. A(G) (people make arguments in support of gay marriage)
So, if:
3. A(G) => L(G) (the arguments in support of gay marriage imply that gay marriage should be legalized)
I am claiming that:
4. A(G) = A(P)
Which implies:
5. A(P) => L(P)
Contradiction: L(P) and R(P) are both true. So either you have to show me how A(G) is different from A(P), or you have to concede L(P), or you have to concede R(G). And yes, it is reductio ad absurdum: The argument leads to a conclusion that is contradictory, so you must question one of the assumptions.
[quote name='trq']The bottom line: you equate homosexual mariage with polygamy/etc., and that's incorrect. See below.[/quote]
Not at all. I equate the arguments used in support of gay marriage with the arguments used in support of polygamy.
[quote name='trq'][quote name='abates17']See, you can stop right there ... Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.[/quote]
I'm going to zoom over this, because this is exactly my point. Of course you're justified is seeing a difference between them -- they're not the same thing. It shows that you can apply an argument about almost anything to an argument about almost anything else ... if you ignore the things that make the differences, which is what you're doing.[/quote]
The part that you "zoomed over" is where I delineated the differences between gay marriage and interracial marriage, and specifically WHY the arguments against one don't apply to the other. But saying that X is different than Y is not sufficient to prove that A(X) is different than A(Y).
[quote name='trq'][quote name='abates17']So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?[/quote]
I'm not avoiding anything -- I already did it. It's not my fault if you choose to dismiss them, rather than refute them. One is a simple, conscious, lifestyle choice, and one is no more changeable or "wrong" than the color of your skin.[/quote]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that if something is a simple lifestyle choice, then it is okay for the government to restrict it. But if it is something that is part of your nature, something that you can't change, then the government should not restrict it. Right?
So if, for example, I want to choose to marry a black woman, the government should feel free to restrict that, since it's just a lifestyle choice. But if, say, I'm a heroin addict, then the government should step out of the way and let me abuse heroin. Right?
[quote name='trq']They have fundamentally different natures, and the "I can apply any argument about the legalization of X to the legalization of Y" doesn't somehow make them the same -- it's only valid in the first place if they are ALREADY the same. Your argument is self-justifying.[/quote]
Look, I never said that applying the same argument to X and Y makes them the same! I just said that you can apply the same argument to both. And it is valid to apply the same arguments to both of them, if you look at the arguments and they make rational sense.
For example, you can argue for a newspaper publisher because of the First Amendment. And you can argue for a web site because of the First Amendment. Now, if you want to tell the web site that he has to shut down, but the newspaper publisher can keep printing his paper, then you either have to A) show how the First Amendment applies to the newspaper but not to the web site, or B) concede that both get to stay up.
So that's the argument I'm making: No one has shown me yet that the arguments in support of gay marriage do not also to apply to polygamy. Whether it's genetic or a lifestyle choice, it's still a personal decision that doesn't affect anyone else, people should be allowed to be with the one they love, people should have equal rights, and so on. So either show me how those arguments don't apply to polygamy, or concede that your position is contradictory.
Okay, let's break it down.
[quote name='trq']Say:
"abberant behavior" = A
gay marriage = G
polygamy = P
restriction = R
All you're "proving" is:
G = A
P = A
A = R
therefore
G = R.
But the key assumption you're making is that G and P are both A.
They're not.[/quote]
Let's drop the whole "aberrant behavior" thing, because it is just mucking things up. Let me add a few new terms:
L(X) = legalization of X
R(X) = restriction of X (opposite of L(X))
S(X) = arguments in support of X
So, here's what I'm proving:
Assume:
0. L(X) and R(X) can not both be true for X
1. R(P) (people believe that polygamy should be restricted)
2. A(G) (people make arguments in support of gay marriage)
So, if:
3. A(G) => L(G) (the arguments in support of gay marriage imply that gay marriage should be legalized)
I am claiming that:
4. A(G) = A(P)
Which implies:
5. A(P) => L(P)
Contradiction: L(P) and R(P) are both true. So either you have to show me how A(G) is different from A(P), or you have to concede L(P), or you have to concede R(G). And yes, it is reductio ad absurdum: The argument leads to a conclusion that is contradictory, so you must question one of the assumptions.
[quote name='trq']The bottom line: you equate homosexual mariage with polygamy/etc., and that's incorrect. See below.[/quote]
Not at all. I equate the arguments used in support of gay marriage with the arguments used in support of polygamy.
[quote name='trq'][quote name='abates17']See, you can stop right there ... Therefore, I am being completely consistent in opposing gay marriage, but supporting interracial marriage.[/quote]
I'm going to zoom over this, because this is exactly my point. Of course you're justified is seeing a difference between them -- they're not the same thing. It shows that you can apply an argument about almost anything to an argument about almost anything else ... if you ignore the things that make the differences, which is what you're doing.[/quote]
The part that you "zoomed over" is where I delineated the differences between gay marriage and interracial marriage, and specifically WHY the arguments against one don't apply to the other. But saying that X is different than Y is not sufficient to prove that A(X) is different than A(Y).
[quote name='trq'][quote name='abates17']So now, can you please tell me why the arguments in support of gay marriage do not apply to polygamy, or are you just going to keep avoiding the fact that you can't?[/quote]
I'm not avoiding anything -- I already did it. It's not my fault if you choose to dismiss them, rather than refute them. One is a simple, conscious, lifestyle choice, and one is no more changeable or "wrong" than the color of your skin.[/quote]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that if something is a simple lifestyle choice, then it is okay for the government to restrict it. But if it is something that is part of your nature, something that you can't change, then the government should not restrict it. Right?
So if, for example, I want to choose to marry a black woman, the government should feel free to restrict that, since it's just a lifestyle choice. But if, say, I'm a heroin addict, then the government should step out of the way and let me abuse heroin. Right?
[quote name='trq']They have fundamentally different natures, and the "I can apply any argument about the legalization of X to the legalization of Y" doesn't somehow make them the same -- it's only valid in the first place if they are ALREADY the same. Your argument is self-justifying.[/quote]
Look, I never said that applying the same argument to X and Y makes them the same! I just said that you can apply the same argument to both. And it is valid to apply the same arguments to both of them, if you look at the arguments and they make rational sense.
For example, you can argue for a newspaper publisher because of the First Amendment. And you can argue for a web site because of the First Amendment. Now, if you want to tell the web site that he has to shut down, but the newspaper publisher can keep printing his paper, then you either have to A) show how the First Amendment applies to the newspaper but not to the web site, or B) concede that both get to stay up.
So that's the argument I'm making: No one has shown me yet that the arguments in support of gay marriage do not also to apply to polygamy. Whether it's genetic or a lifestyle choice, it's still a personal decision that doesn't affect anyone else, people should be allowed to be with the one they love, people should have equal rights, and so on. So either show me how those arguments don't apply to polygamy, or concede that your position is contradictory.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']MrBadExample I see you are still fighting the good fight, for truth justice and the American way[/quote]
What can I say? I have some free time and i don't like to give in.
What can I say? I have some free time and i don't like to give in.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']No, you're just happy to respect someone else's beliefs long enough to co-opt them, twist them into something different, and act surprised when they get upset.[/quote]
If I didn't respect your beliefs I would have just called you a
ing idiot by now.
[quote name='MrBadExample']As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care.[/quote]
Here's something to chew on - maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're not being harmed at all. If no one else agreed with me, I would re-examine my stance. It would be very arrogant to think you were the only one who was right.
No, the correct analogy would be: when equal rights weren't happening fast enough for blacks, they demanded to be treated equally with the Civil Rights March. There was no need for them to be considered white
In hopes of moving this debate along, I will agree that gay people cannot be married by your narrow definition of marriage. But we, as a society, are not bound by your definition.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.[/quote]
I'm glad to see that you have so much respect for other people's beliefs.
And the nice thing about the world? It's never going to pass me by. I'm always part of it, whether or not you agree with or respect my beliefs.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to dis your beliefs, but gay marriage is going to happen and soon whether you want it to or not.
If I didn't respect your beliefs I would have just called you a
ing idiot by now.[quote name='MrBadExample']As long as they are not harming me in any way, I don't care.[/quote]
Here's something to chew on - maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're not being harmed at all. If no one else agreed with me, I would re-examine my stance. It would be very arrogant to think you were the only one who was right.
No, the correct analogy would be: when equal rights weren't happening fast enough for blacks, they demanded to be treated equally with the Civil Rights March. There was no need for them to be considered white
In hopes of moving this debate along, I will agree that gay people cannot be married by your narrow definition of marriage. But we, as a society, are not bound by your definition.
[quote name='MrBadExample']Gay marriage is coming. Look out the window. The world is passing you by.[/quote]
I'm glad to see that you have so much respect for other people's beliefs.
And the nice thing about the world? It's never going to pass me by. I'm always part of it, whether or not you agree with or respect my beliefs.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to dis your beliefs, but gay marriage is going to happen and soon whether you want it to or not.
[quote name='MrBadExample']
Here's something to chew on - maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're not being harmed at all. If no one else agreed with me, I would re-examine my stance.[/quote]
The problem with that in cases of personal belief, you don't need anyone else to agree with you. If you feel that it harms your beliefs, then it does.
[quote name='MrBadExample']
No, the correct analogy would be: when equal rights weren't happening fast enough for blacks, they demanded to be treated equally with the Civil Rights March. There was no need for them to be considered white[/quote]
Exactly. And gay couples can demand to be treated equally to straight couples. There is no need for them to be considered married.
[quote name='MrBadExample']In hopes of moving this debate along, I will agree that gay people cannot be married by your narrow definition of marriage. But we, as a society, are not bound by your definition.[/quote]
Last time I checked, we as a society agree with my definition. Even in California, arguably the most liberal state in the union, voted by an overwhelming 90% that marriage is between a man and a woman.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I wasn't trying to dis your beliefs, but gay marriage is going to happen and soon whether you want it to or not.[/quote]
So you keep saying. Meanwhile, I'm going to do my part to stop it from happening. But even if it does become mainstream, it doesn't make it any more valid. It's just another sign of the degradation of the institution of marriage. Then polygamy ("why can't redefine marriage as between multiple people? isn't the commitment the most important part?"), and soon, marriage will just be a word, stripped of any meaning whatsoever. I shudder to imagine what society will be like when that happens.
Here's something to chew on - maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're not being harmed at all. If no one else agreed with me, I would re-examine my stance.[/quote]
The problem with that in cases of personal belief, you don't need anyone else to agree with you. If you feel that it harms your beliefs, then it does.
[quote name='MrBadExample']
No, the correct analogy would be: when equal rights weren't happening fast enough for blacks, they demanded to be treated equally with the Civil Rights March. There was no need for them to be considered white[/quote]
Exactly. And gay couples can demand to be treated equally to straight couples. There is no need for them to be considered married.
[quote name='MrBadExample']In hopes of moving this debate along, I will agree that gay people cannot be married by your narrow definition of marriage. But we, as a society, are not bound by your definition.[/quote]
Last time I checked, we as a society agree with my definition. Even in California, arguably the most liberal state in the union, voted by an overwhelming 90% that marriage is between a man and a woman.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I wasn't trying to dis your beliefs, but gay marriage is going to happen and soon whether you want it to or not.[/quote]
So you keep saying. Meanwhile, I'm going to do my part to stop it from happening. But even if it does become mainstream, it doesn't make it any more valid. It's just another sign of the degradation of the institution of marriage. Then polygamy ("why can't redefine marriage as between multiple people? isn't the commitment the most important part?"), and soon, marriage will just be a word, stripped of any meaning whatsoever. I shudder to imagine what society will be like when that happens.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='abates17']The problem with that in cases of personal belief, you don't need anyone else to agree with you. If you feel that it harms your beliefs, then it does.[/quote]
But "harming your beliefs" is not enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage.
When civil unions are 100% completely identical to marriage, then the above statement will be valid. But not now.
I meant "narrow" in the sense of being less inclusive. And the popularity of your opinion does not validate it. If so, then Civil Rights would have never passed.
It'll be the same as it is now, only gay couples will be registering for china patterns. Don't be so melodramatic.
But "harming your beliefs" is not enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage.
When civil unions are 100% completely identical to marriage, then the above statement will be valid. But not now.
I meant "narrow" in the sense of being less inclusive. And the popularity of your opinion does not validate it. If so, then Civil Rights would have never passed.
It'll be the same as it is now, only gay couples will be registering for china patterns. Don't be so melodramatic.
The Successful Dropout
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 101 (100%)
Q:Who would win in a race to the beach, 2 lesbians or 2 fags?
A:The lesbians because they would be outta they're house lickity split and the fags would still be at home packing their shit.
A:The lesbians because they would be outta they're house lickity split and the fags would still be at home packing their shit.
[quote name='MrBadExample']But "harming your beliefs" is not enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage.[/quote]
Okay, let's break this down and sum it up:
1. Last time I checked, it WAS enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage. Most states still do not recognize gay marriage. The legal argument is on the side of marriage, not the side of gay marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']When civil unions are 100% completely identical to marriage, then the above statement will be valid. But not now.[/quote]
2. Civil unions do not have to be 100% equal to gay marriage, and gay marriage does not have to be made legal. Please find me the place in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where it promises people the right to be married. Hey, I know plenty of straight people who would love to be married, but they can't. Marriage is not a right that is automatically granted.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I meant "narrow" in the sense of being less inclusive.[/quote]
Then why don't they open up laws about parking in handicapped spaces? By limiting them to handicapped people, they are just being less inclusive. Why should we have to suffer with their narrow definition of "handicapped"?
3. We as a society can enact laws that treat certain groups more preferentially than other groups. There are laws that favor the handicapped, the poor, the rich, the middle-class, the unmarried, the married...name just about any group, and there is a law that deals specifically with that group. We do not have to treat gay couples just like married couples, if we as a society decide that married couples are beneficial to society, and thus should be given certain advantages. There is nothing that says that all laws have to apply equally to all groups.
[quote name='MrBadExample']And the popularity of your opinion does not validate it.[/quote]
Funny, that's just what I was thinking when you were spewing your "gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not" mantra.
Okay, let's break this down and sum it up:
1. Last time I checked, it WAS enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage. Most states still do not recognize gay marriage. The legal argument is on the side of marriage, not the side of gay marriage.
[quote name='MrBadExample']When civil unions are 100% completely identical to marriage, then the above statement will be valid. But not now.[/quote]
2. Civil unions do not have to be 100% equal to gay marriage, and gay marriage does not have to be made legal. Please find me the place in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where it promises people the right to be married. Hey, I know plenty of straight people who would love to be married, but they can't. Marriage is not a right that is automatically granted.
[quote name='MrBadExample']I meant "narrow" in the sense of being less inclusive.[/quote]
Then why don't they open up laws about parking in handicapped spaces? By limiting them to handicapped people, they are just being less inclusive. Why should we have to suffer with their narrow definition of "handicapped"?
3. We as a society can enact laws that treat certain groups more preferentially than other groups. There are laws that favor the handicapped, the poor, the rich, the middle-class, the unmarried, the married...name just about any group, and there is a law that deals specifically with that group. We do not have to treat gay couples just like married couples, if we as a society decide that married couples are beneficial to society, and thus should be given certain advantages. There is nothing that says that all laws have to apply equally to all groups.
[quote name='MrBadExample']And the popularity of your opinion does not validate it.[/quote]
Funny, that's just what I was thinking when you were spewing your "gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not" mantra.
Alright, this is getting bogged down in minutae, so to summarize and wrap up:
[quote name='abates17'] Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that if something is a simple lifestyle choice, then it is okay for the government to restrict it. But if it is something that is part of your nature, something that you can't change, then the government should not restrict it. Right?[/quote]
Wrong. In some cases, matters of choice are restricted, and in other cases they aren't, and likewise issues of "inherent traits." The point is that they are considered different enough for that reason alone to be considered worthy of legal and rhetorical separation, without the implication that anything else that meets such general criteria be met in the same way. Any statute regarding race or gender -- even when going counter to "traditional definitions" or, yes, lack of ability to perform the exact same task in the exact same way, is a suitable example of this. Most womens rights issues and rulings follow this principle -- it doesn't matter if a woman can't engage in hand-to-hand combat or play football as well as a man -- they still have every right to engage in those activities. If you don't recognize that inherent traits and behavioral choices can be, should be, and are legislated differently, there's nothing more to be said.
[quote name='abates17'] So if, for example, I want to choose to marry a black woman, the government should feel free to restrict that, since it's just a lifestyle choice. But if, say, I'm a heroin addict, then the government should step out of the way and let me abuse heroin. Right?[/quote]
Interracial marriage isn't a matter of simple choice, unless you're telling me you can just choose who to love based on ethnic background, in which case I'll tell you you're not describing love -- nobody chose to be a particular color (well, maybe Jacko, but otherwise...). A heroin addict on the other hand certainly wasn't (in most cases) born a heroin addict. Addiction is a disease, but nobody injected the smack into your veins for you in the first place.
[quote name='abates17'] So that's the argument I'm making: No one has shown me yet that the arguments in support of gay marriage do not also to apply to polygamy. Whether it's genetic or a lifestyle choice, it's still a personal decision that doesn't affect anyone else, people should be allowed to be with the one they love, people should have equal rights, and so on. So either show me how those arguments don't apply to polygamy, or concede that your position is contradictory.[/quote]
Well, this is pretty much your argument and its flaws in a nutshell. You dismiss significant differences between the two issues because, you say, you can still apply the rationales for one to the other, and then when the legitimacy of that tactic is questioned, you say it's because nobody has come up with differences. Like I said: self-justifying.
I pretty much give up at this point, but I'll make sure I read your last word, if you chose to have one. And as a final note, it should be clear that I disagree with you -- vehemently -- and I assume the feeling is reciprocated, but I commend you on keeping this exchange a discourse, rather than the usual internet flamewar.
[quote name='abates17'] Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that if something is a simple lifestyle choice, then it is okay for the government to restrict it. But if it is something that is part of your nature, something that you can't change, then the government should not restrict it. Right?[/quote]
Wrong. In some cases, matters of choice are restricted, and in other cases they aren't, and likewise issues of "inherent traits." The point is that they are considered different enough for that reason alone to be considered worthy of legal and rhetorical separation, without the implication that anything else that meets such general criteria be met in the same way. Any statute regarding race or gender -- even when going counter to "traditional definitions" or, yes, lack of ability to perform the exact same task in the exact same way, is a suitable example of this. Most womens rights issues and rulings follow this principle -- it doesn't matter if a woman can't engage in hand-to-hand combat or play football as well as a man -- they still have every right to engage in those activities. If you don't recognize that inherent traits and behavioral choices can be, should be, and are legislated differently, there's nothing more to be said.
[quote name='abates17'] So if, for example, I want to choose to marry a black woman, the government should feel free to restrict that, since it's just a lifestyle choice. But if, say, I'm a heroin addict, then the government should step out of the way and let me abuse heroin. Right?[/quote]
Interracial marriage isn't a matter of simple choice, unless you're telling me you can just choose who to love based on ethnic background, in which case I'll tell you you're not describing love -- nobody chose to be a particular color (well, maybe Jacko, but otherwise...). A heroin addict on the other hand certainly wasn't (in most cases) born a heroin addict. Addiction is a disease, but nobody injected the smack into your veins for you in the first place.
[quote name='abates17'] So that's the argument I'm making: No one has shown me yet that the arguments in support of gay marriage do not also to apply to polygamy. Whether it's genetic or a lifestyle choice, it's still a personal decision that doesn't affect anyone else, people should be allowed to be with the one they love, people should have equal rights, and so on. So either show me how those arguments don't apply to polygamy, or concede that your position is contradictory.[/quote]
Well, this is pretty much your argument and its flaws in a nutshell. You dismiss significant differences between the two issues because, you say, you can still apply the rationales for one to the other, and then when the legitimacy of that tactic is questioned, you say it's because nobody has come up with differences. Like I said: self-justifying.
I pretty much give up at this point, but I'll make sure I read your last word, if you chose to have one. And as a final note, it should be clear that I disagree with you -- vehemently -- and I assume the feeling is reciprocated, but I commend you on keeping this exchange a discourse, rather than the usual internet flamewar.
bread's done