Why the logic in saying there is a "Right" to Gay marriage doesn't hold up

[CIAagent11]

No, but I do not think people who do not educate themselves about issues and who fail to make reasoned political decisions should not vote.

I agree. But they have the right to do so.

This is not even a complete sentence. What are trying to say.

You not understanding it does not make incomplete.
Alabama can vote to have gay marriage, if the majority wants it there.
California did vote against gay marriage.
The only argument to revoke that vote would be, that it alienates the rights of gays.
The ones who want gay marriage in California, have the burden of proof, they have to show that there is a right to gay marriage. It is not enough that the other side can't show that there is no right.

Why? Isn't the point of the Constitution that rights are inherent unless specifically ceded to the government?

Yes. That does not mean that everyone can have what he wants.

Apparently not. The marriage license requirements I posted did not contain this requirement. This surprised me, but your "should be" is not a basis for legal discrimination.

Fair enough. See above.

 

[Allahuakbar]

You not understanding it does not make incomplete.

No, your sentence as you wrote it...

"If your side wants the California vote, that keeps marriage between a man and a woman revoked, that that can only happen, if it alienates a right."

...was incomplete. Either you put a comma where it did not belong, or you left out some necessary nouns and verbs.

Alabama can vote to have gay marriage, if the majority wants it there.
California did vote against gay marriage.

Not really. No state can limit legal rights to groups based on their dislike of those groups. Entering into legal contracts is a legal right.

The only argument to revoke that vote would be, that it alienates the rights of gays.

Again this is an incomplete sentence. Try to slow down.

The ones who want gay marriage in California, have the burden of proof, they have to show that there is a right to gay marriage. It is not enough that the other side can't show that there is no right.

You're making a bizarrely convoluted argument. Marriage exists. It is in its most legal form little more than a contract. By what method does the state restrict the application of that contract? Is this method valid? This is the core issue. As it is, restricting access to legal contracts based on sexual preference is discrimination.

Yes. That does not mean that everyone can have what he wants.

Non sequitur. We are talking about an express right that is recognized as existing, and the attempt to limit that right to a majority while excluding a minority. This is no way, shape or form means "everyone can have what he wants." Such a statement is nonsensical.

 

[CIAagent11]

Not really. No state can limit legal rights to groups based on their dislike of those groups. Entering into legal contracts is a legal right.

Listen, you keep resetting the discussion to avoid my arguments.
I said in the first post, that gays should have the same rights as straights.
They do. Now the burden of proof is on them to show that this right includes what they want.

You're making a bizarrely convoluted argument. Marriage exists. It is in its most legal form little more than a contract. By what method does the state restrict the application of that contract? Is this method valid? This is the core issue. As it is, restricting access to legal contracts based on sexual preference is discrimination.

There is no discrimination based on sexual preference.
This is not like blacks being denied the use of "white" water fountains.
Gays can have what straights have. They want something else.
They have to show, that they have a right to what they want.
Just declaring the law in favor of your opinion does not mean you have a right.
Being able to clutter the discussion with flawed semantics is the only thing that you have to offer.

Non sequitur. We are talking about an express right that is recognized as existing, and the attempt to limit that right to a majority while excluding a minority. This is no way, shape or form means "everyone can have what he wants." Such a statement is nonsensical.

Non sequitur. It's not about wether gays should have equal rights.
Its about wether they can have what they want as that right.

No, your sentence as you wrote it...

"If your side wants the California vote, that keeps marriage between a man and a woman revoked, that that can only happen, if it alienates a right."

...was incomplete. Either you put a comma where it did not belong, or you left out some necessary nouns and verbs.

Maybe I missed a comma. That does not make it an incomplete sentence!
You should learn the difference. All you do is creating red herrings.

Again this is an incomplete sentence. Try to slow down.

If you lecture me about minor errors, at least be right about it.
Red herring fallacy.

 

[Corey]

Fair enough. But that does not make me wrong. Don't play smart because you read wikipedia.
That being said, as I noted above, I want this to be friendly and constructive, so lets please quit with the semi-insults.

No...I paid attention in rhetoric; not to wikipedia.

The argument I want to refute is: Heterosexual marriage is currently a right. Homosexual marriage is currently not a right. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated under the constitution. Same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. Therefore same sex marriage is a right too.

As stated earlier, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal contract. Moreover, marriage is essentially freedom of association, a natural right. You need to review Enlightenment philosophy on natural rights. Contracts are a component of the social compact and some rights are derived from that as well. There is, in fact, a well developed body of law regarding contracts. Since contracts are enshrined in law, that means the 14th amendment applies to them. QED, gays have the same rights to enter the same contracts as straights, including marriage.

It's not a strawman fallacy, as I didn't declare this to be the other sides position and didn't try to refute this position.

It was still not the position of gay marriage supporters. That said, it was meant more as a preemptive declaration of fallaciousness to prevent its use later in thread.

It was a reminder, that the side that demands a right, has to back that up with more than declaring it a right.

Which has been done more than sufficiently. You just appear to not like the facts.

It is a fact, that it's not your right in america to get anything you want.

Indeed. Some people want their bigotry and religion enshrined into law.

"There's no such thing as gay or straight marriage, only marriage." - In saying so, you have the burden of proof.

Already demonstrated it is so-see above and earlier posts.

Not the other side. It doesn't want a change. Your side does.
The public, for example in California, voted on what marriage is and what not.

Natural rights exist regardless of public opinion. Where the social compact defines rights...those rights exist as well regardless of public opinion (with caveats). Marriage contains elements of natural rights and those created by social compact (specifically the Constitution and the 14 amendment).

Your side must show that there is no difference to be able to revoke that vote.
Declaring so is not enough.

Asked and answered.

I'm not. The right to the privilege of marriage.

No. Some of the benefits given to married couples by the state are privileges (e.g., tax breaks). Other are rights given to them as a part of the social compact. However, marriage itself is a natural right as a part of the freedom of association. Again, you demonstrate that you don't fully understand the arguments you're making.

A consenting adult is similarly situated if there is no legitimate state interest in regulating his right to equal privilege of another individuals right, that is not regulated by the state.

This makes absolutely no sense in any way whatsoever. I'm trying to parse it, but it looks like you're saying people have similar situations if the state shouldn't be regulating his 14th amendment right to equality before the law when it is not regulated by the state. That makes no sense at all.

I accepted that this does not matter to this discussion.

Well. The 14th amendment does in fact apply to this discussion because we are talking about matters of law, natural rights, and rights accrued through the social compact.

I don't appeal to tradition.
You yourself appeal to tradition. Let's leave that out of it.

Yes. You did. "Traditional marriage." The implication is clear--marriage has a tradition and your arguments make clear you want to keep it that way but without giving reasons the tradition is superior. That's the heart of appeal to tradition.

By the way, your second comment is a You Too fallacy (i.e., you did it too so I'm not wrong) compounded with a no evidence that I had.

I'm saying, that in wanting a change from the current situation, your side has the burden of proof.

Amply demonstrated viz., contract law, natural rights, and the 14th amendment.

Your side wants a change. Your side has to prove there is a right, to be able to overturn numerous state propositions, as in California.

Asked and answered; see 14th amendment.

Your side has to prove that your definition of marriage is more valid than the other sides[sic].

Define valid and the other side's definition and we'll talk. Otherwise, you can make a goalpost argument without me knowing the goalposts. However, I will note that you can replace "gay" with "interracial" and you get the same arguments used by the segregationists and other bigots in the 1950s and before for banning interracial marriage.

I disagree. Gays want something different.
They have the same right. They are not excluded from heterosexual marriage for being homosexual.
A statement of opinion as fact does no equate to it being a fact.

Indeed it doesn't. You say it's different; I tell you how it's not and you keep repeating the claim; it's a fallacy I like to call argumentum ad repetitum (argument by repetition). Merely repeating a statement makes it neither more nor less true than before. You need to state how it is different. Moreover, I've defined marriage as being between two people who wish to commit to physical and emotional fidelity with one another, regardless of race or gender.

You seem to think it's acceptable for people to live a lie.

They already have the currently granted right. They want something else.
In declaring your definition more valid than the current majority definition, you have the burden of proof.

Wrong. They are being denied their natural right of freedom of association.

According to you, which kind of "different marriage" is the same, and which is different?
Where does the line go?

This makes no sense with respect to what I wrote. Try again.

Same sex marriage, heterosexual marriage, and getting a car are all positive rights, the state does not just have to tolerate them, but give you something.
Where is the difference?

Well the difference is that no one right now received a car from the state for free "just because." To compare the restriction of a natural right for one group to receipt of a commercial good is ridiculous beyond comprehension and indicative that you are inexperienced at argumentation or mendacious.

I don't have the burden of proof. I don't want my personal minority definition of marriage to be regulated by the state. Your side does.

Yes you do apparently (i.e., heterosexuals only).

To clarify, because you asked: Person A gets right A from the state. There is no reason for the state to deny person B or person C a right to equal privilege. Person B demands right B. Person C demands right C. All as equal privilege to right A. They have to back their demands up.

You really don't know how to construct an argument do you. Let's clarify some variables.

Right A = marriage to loved one
RIght B = new car from state
Right C = right to smack idiots upside the head

Person A = heterosexuals
Person B = gays

PA currently has RA. Under the Constitution, PB must also receive RA. However, neither PA nor PB has RB nor RC. Moreover, there are legal and financial barriers to RB and RC that prevent implementation. Neither of the barriers truly apply to RA.

My spelling has nothing to do with my arguments. - Your fallacy.
Quit with the-semi insults.

Spelling would be a minor concern if it wasn't a pervasive problem throughout the post. However, your arguments are poorly constructed and worded; a much more major issue.

 

[CIAagent11]

I ran out of time so I will continue this later...

Alright Corey. I will wait for it to respond.

Edit: Actually, all that this is about was already said. See my answer next post.

 

[CIAagent11]

You just appear to not like the facts.

Actually, I dont personally care about the outcome. I switched sides a few times on this issue
and I attack both sides logic, if I see it as jumpig to conclusions.
Frankly, in contrast to the gay marriage crowd, I think my arguing is not adjusted to fit a pre-defined outcome.
But reasons have nothing to do with being right, so lets let that go.

Indeed. Some people want their bigotry and religion enshrined into law.

And I don't think they should be allowed to.

Already demonstrated it is so-see above and earlier posts.

I don't think so. All I hear from your side on that, is reasoning for why gays should have the right to
marriage, which is not even in question, or why it is self-evident that your side is right about it's opinion about marriage. That is not enough for me.

So we agree, that this thing boils down to who is allowed to define marriage in it's favor.
I might make a mistake, as I have done before on this issue, I'm not a gay marriage expert,
but then you can just point out my mistake please.

So please tell me why your sides definition of marriage is sufficiently true,
to deny the right of the majority of Californians to have their votes count.

 

[reverend C]

since this is your thread, the burden of proof is on you, actually. you said that gays in california want something different than heteros there already have. have you read the marriage code? does it specify the sexual preference of the couple, or that they have to be of different genders? please cite a link to the california code stating this to be the case. since your entire argument is based on this notion, i am sure you have researched the statutes in california and can quickly point us in the right direction. we have seen how alabama's code does not specify such a distinction. show us how california is different. don't tell us. show us.

 

[CIAagent11]

i had no idea you could become a cia agent at the tender age of 11, but that would explain the repeated grammatical, spelling and syntax errors and the naive logic.

Quit with the insults and dont call my logic naive bacause you disagree with it.
And why does my english grammar and syntax matter? How many languages do you speak?

since this is your thread, the burden of proof is on you, actually. you said that gays in california want something different than heteros there already have. have you read the marriage code? does it specify the sexual preference of the couple, or that they have to be of different genders? please cite a link to the california code stating this to be the case. since your entire argument is based on this notion, i am sure you have researched the statutes in california and can quickly point us in the right direction. we have seen how alabama's code does not specify such a distinction. show us how california is different. don't tell us. show us.

I can show you no such documents, exept that the people of California voted twice
to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Their right to have their vote count can not just be taken away without a reason.
According to your logic, whenever the majority can't prove a negative,
the fringe opinion can alienate their right to decide.
So please, prove to me that women are not of less value than men and therefore have the right to vote.

 

[CIAagent11]

So Allahuakbar, you just insult me for misunderstanding me,
and when you have no arguments left, you quit responding?

 

[LightHorseman]

People should be allowed to do what they want, unless it can be shown that non consenting third parties will be adversely effected to an unreasonable degree.

Thus, homosexuals who want to be married should be allowed to be married. And if you need a written out constitutionalist type reason... doesn't the "right to life liberty and pursuit of hapiness " cover that?

 

[Allahuakbar]

So Allahuakbar, you just insult me for misunderstanding me,
and when you have no arguments left, you quit responding?

Sorry, it's my wife's Gray's Anatomy/Private practice night. I don't post, you will have to wait.

 

[CIAagent11]

Sorry, it's my wife's Gray's Anatomy/Private practice night. I don't post, you will have to wait.

Sorry for that.
Please dont leave the discussion, I will try to be fair.

 

[LightHorseman]

New page bump

People should be allowed to do what they want, unless it can be shown that non consenting third parties will be adversely effected to an unreasonable degree.

Thus, homosexuals who want to be married should be allowed to be married. And if you need a written out constitutionalist type reason... doesn't the "right to life liberty and pursuit of hapiness " cover that?

 

[CIAagent11]

People should be allowed to do what they want, unless it can be shown that non consenting third parties will be adversely effected to an unreasonable degree.

Thus, homosexuals who want to be married should be allowed to be married. And if you need a written out constitutionalist type reason... doesn't the "right to life liberty and pursuit of hapiness " cover that?

You are the first one who actually responded to my point.

Now, I agree with that. But I don't think that everything that the state has no legitimate interest in regulating constitutes as a equal privilege, and the majority vote can therefor be ignored.

And how would that thinking make me demanding a car any different from demanding gay marriage?

 

[LightHorseman]

You are the first one who actually responded to my point.

Now, I agree with that. But I don't think that everything that the state has no legitimate interest in regulating constitutes as a equal privilege, and the majority vote can therefor be ignored.

And how would that thinking make me demanding a car any different from demanding gay marriage?

Because you demanding a car requires undue expense on the part of the state, or car providers, or someone. Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't make such a demand, it is simply allowing people to do what you want. You would be more than welcome to obtain a new car for yourself, so why not allow other people to obtain the spouse they want for themselves?

As for equal privelege, it seems pretty straight forward to me... if one group of people, (heterosexuals) are given a special status due to the nature of their relationships (marriage), then it only seems fair to me that other people who's relationships are similar should be given the same recognition.

Loving, committed, sexual relationship is marriage, if the partners are heterosexual

Loving, committed, sexual relationship is not marriage if the partnbers are homosexual. Sorry, that doesn't look like equality to me.

 

[CIAagent11]

Because you demanding a car requires undue expense on the part of the state, or car providers, or someone. Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't make such a demand, it is simply allowing people to do what you want. You would be more than welcome to obtain a new car for yourself, so why not allow other people to obtain the spouse they want for themselves?

On the contrary. Same sex marriage is a positive right (one that the state not only has to tolerate).
Giving marriage benefits to gays is an expense to the state, loss of tax revenue from fewer new taxpayers is also.
And keep in mind that we look at this from the selfish perspectve of the state and the current theory seems to be that pumping money into the economy will benefit the state. According to that, buying me a car will benefit the state.
It may sound different because of the way we phrase it, but I really don't see a difference in kind.

As for equal privelege, it seems pretty straight forward to me... if one group of people, (heterosexuals) are given a special status due to the nature of their relationships (marriage), then it only seems fair to me that other people who's relationships are similar should be given the same recognition.

Loving, committed, sexual relationship is marriage, if the partners are heterosexual

Loving, committed, sexual relationship is not marriage if the partnbers are homosexual. Sorry, that doesn't look like equality to me.

The state does not care about love. Only to the degree that someone isn't unhappy enough to hurt others.
And how is that definition of marriage not just a personal opinion?

And rights are not granted to groups, but individuals.

 

[LightHorseman]

On the contrary. Same sex marriage is a positive right (one that the state not only has to tolerate).
Giving marriage benefits to gays is an expense to the state, loss of tax revenue from fewer new taxpayers is also.
And keep in mind that we look at this from the selfish perspectve of the state and the current theory seems to be that pumping money into the economy will benefit the state. According to that, buying me a car will benefit the state.
It may sound different because of the way we phrase it, but I really don't see a difference in kind.

I contend there is a difference between passive and active cost. Granting an homosexual couple recognition means that the state will exempt them from certain taxes, sure, but it won't actually require the state giving them anything. Then there is the consideration that committed couples are seen as a beneficial element in society, which offsets any lost revenue the state may have to source elsewhere due to the marriage. If a monogomous happy heterosexual couple is productive and worth a tax offset, why isn't a homosexual couple worth the same offset?

The state does not care about love. Only to the degree that you someone isn't unhappy enough to hurt others.

Soooo... how does homosexual marriage hurt anyone else?

And rights are not granted to groups, but individuals.

That isn't correct, consider for example, universal suffrage. But either way, as an individual or a group, who are heterosexual unions worthy of special recognition, but homosexual ones aren't?

As for the rest of your argument, thats kind of a rough splice of the issue. If you think the state should buy you a car, well, thats really an issue for you to take up with your representative, but I honestly don't see any similarity between two people wanting to do something for themselves, and you wanting someone else to provide you something for nothing.

 

[CIAagent11]

I contend there is a difference between passive and active cost. Granting an homosexual couple recognition means that the state will exempt them from certain taxes, sure, but it won't actually require the state giving them anything. Then there is the consideration that committed couples are seen as a beneficial element in society, which offsets any lost revenue the state may have to source elsewhere due to the marriage.

I could start to argue with those benefits you mention and find more examples of how gay marriage is expensive to the state.
You would disagree with what I say, and I would disagree with what you say.
And all the while we argue how big this cost to the state is, it does not matter.
The state does not deny a right because of the amount it costs, where would the cut-off line be?
It can only be a difference in kind, not degree, that allows one right and denies another.
So from the pro same sex marriage logic it follows, that you can claim a lot of stuff as your right to equal privilege to marriage.
The difference is having a pressure group, so you will be taken seriously, and it sounding nice.

If a monogomous happy heterosexual couple is productive and worth a tax offset, why isn't a homosexual couple worth the same offset?

Because they can't have children. And because that is your personal definition of marriage, that you can't force on everybody else, who voted otherwise.
the state doesnt care about your happyness, it does give marriage benefits to unhappy hetero couples too.

Soooo... how does homosexual marriage hurt anyone else?

I could come up with a few things. But we would get lost with that.
Lets say it doesn't. So now were at 0, and the public vote decides.

That isn't correct, consider for example, universal suffrage. But either way, as an individual or a group, who are heterosexual unions worthy of special recognition, but homosexual ones aren't?

Because the majority of Californians voted that way.
And personal opinion is not enough to revoke that.

Edit: Is this reputation thing bugged? I'm new here and I have like one rep, and it says "reputation beyond repute".

 

[LightHorseman]

I could start to argue with those benefits you mention and find more examples of how gay marriage is expensive to the state.
You would disagree with what I say, and I would disagree with what you say.
And all the while we argue how big this cost to the state is, it does not matter.
The state does not deny a right because of the amount it costs, where would the cut-off line be?
It can only be a difference in kind, not degree, that allows one right and denies another.
So from the pro same sex marriage logic it follows, that you can claim a lot of stuff as your right to equal privilege to marriage.
The difference is having a pressure group, so you will be taken seriously, and it sounding nice.

I'M not homosexual. I merely respect the rights of others and realise diversity is not an inherently bad thing.

Because they can't have children. And because that is your personal definition of marriage, that you can't force on everybody else, who voted otherwise.
the state doesnt care about your happyness, it does give marriage benefits to unhappy hetero couples too.

Yes, I've seen this argument before... it fails because we grant heterosexual couples the benefits of marriage when they get married, NOT when they have children... indeed, there are heterosexual couples who never have children, yet no one suggests they should loose access to the benefits of being married. So why treat heterosexual couples without chil;dren differently to homosexual couples without children?

I could come up with a few things. But we would get lost with that.

No offence, but I suspect this means you CAN'T actually come up with an example of how homosexual marriage hurts anyone else. Nothing personal, just I've been asking for a long time how, exactly, homosexual marriage is supposed to hurt others and, as yet, no one has been able to give me a coherent response.

Lets say it doesn't. So now were at 0, and the public vote decides.

A. I don't believe the public is alweays the best mediator in the rights and ethics of how to treat minorities.
B. Once a vote is taken, that doesn't mean that the issue is decided and never to be discussed again. If a vote is made that a substantial minority disagrees with, it is perfectly right and proper for that minority to continue campaigning in favour of their viewpoint. Otherwise we wouldn't have elections or changes of government.

Because the majority of Californians voted that way.
And personal opinion is not enough to revoke that.

However the question of whether or not the vote was correctly formatted in accordance with your constitution is a valid one. Further, even if it were a cvompletely valid vote, every i crossed and t dotted, that does not mean that the issue is never to be diuscussed again, or that a subsequent vote may not have a different result.

Edit: Is this reputation thing bugged? I'm new here and I have like one rep, and it says "reputation beyond repute".

Sorry, I don't know what to tell you

 

[CIAagent11]

I'M not homosexual. I merely respect the rights of others and realise diversity is not an inherently bad thing.

Puh... did you happen to read what I wrote to Corey about not really being interested in the outcome?
I just dont like the logic of the pro gay marriage side. If I keep questioning the reason for the right to gay marriage, at some point the reasoning returns to "because it is a right", like you just did.
Fine, if you want to believe it, but thats circular logic.

Yes, I've seen this argument before... it fails because we grant heterosexual couples the benefits of marriage when they get married, NOT when they have children... indeed, there are heterosexual couples who never have children, yet no one suggests they should loose access to the benefits of being married. So why treat heterosexual couples without chil;dren differently to homosexual couples without children?

I wouldnt say it fails. But I'm willing to let it go.
It would be impractical to figure out which couples may get marriage benefits because they cant have children for this or the other reason.
It would be an impossible bureauacracy.

No offence, but I suspect this means you CAN'T actually come up with an example of how homosexual marriage hurts anyone else. Nothing personal, just I've been asking for a long time how, exactly, homosexual marriage is supposed to hurt others and, as yet, no one has been able to give me a coherent response.

Okay. I don't like to spell it out, because you pro gay marriage people tend to just declare it untrue, but: Gay marriage being accepted will open the doors for the gay lobby, that is just so eager to do so, to teach their propaganda in schools. Even when the gay lobby wants everyone to believe so, it is not a fact that gayness isn't just behavior. So a lot of children would be convinced of being gay, because it's cool and because you are a protected victim group. I think that alone is enought of damage to others.
Also a lot of gayness will lead to fall of birth rates, which in turn will leave the state without taxpayers or military recruites.
Leaving the state open to conquest, mainly from militant islam. I would say the destruction of the state is somewhat of a damage to the state.

A. I don't believe the public is alweays the best mediator in the rights and ethics of how to treat minorities.

I agree. So we should force our minority opinion on them?

B. Once a vote is taken, that doesn't mean that the issue is decided and never to be discussed again. If a vote is made that a substantial minority disagrees with, it is perfectly right and proper for that minority to continue campaigning in favour of their viewpoint. Otherwise we wouldn't have elections or changes of government. However the question of whether or not the vote was correctly formatted in accordance with your constitution is a valid one. Further, even if it were a cvompletely valid vote, every i crossed and t dotted, that does not mean that the issue is never to be diuscussed again, or that a subsequent vote may not have a different result.Sorry, I don't know what to tell you

So its all right to make a vote, that the gay marriage crowd thinks it will win, and then end up losing it, and suddenly decide that it's unconstitutional?