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

[LightHorseman]

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.

I never said "because its a right." I told you off the bat, I don't believe people should be stopped from doing pretty much whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cause unreasonable harm to a non-consenting third party.

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.

You know, if I encountered anyone who used the "gays can't have kids, thus can't get married" argument who also accepted that childless heterosexual couples should be denied the same priveliges, I'd accept their argument. I might disagree with it, but accept it nonetheless. I'll also point out that homosexuals CAN have children, through surrogacy, adoption, or children from prior heterosexual relationships. But anyway, you accepted my point, so we can leave it at that if you like.

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.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuals want to encourage anyone who isn't already a homosexual to become one? Also, think about it... even if homosexuality were completely accepted, with no reservation, no stigma, and complete equality... do you think you would be more any likely to "decide" to be gay? Of course not.

Also a lot of gayness will lead to fall of birth rates, which in turn will leave the state without taxpayers or military recruites.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that acceptance of homosexuals will actually effect birth rates? Also, remember, we're talking about homosexual marriages here, not homosexuality per ce. Are you seriously suggesting that any gay couple who would get married if they were allowed to, will get married and have kids with a heterosexual if gay marriage isn't allowed?

As for military recruitment? See Sparta...

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.

Anything other than hysterical wowserism to think this likely? Allowing approximately 20% of approximately 5% of the population to get married is going to open the flood gates to Islamic extremism? Really?

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

I don't believe in FORCING an opinion on anyone. Including forcing the opinion that homosexual marriage is wrong onto homosexuals. I believe in open and rational discussion.

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?

Did I say anything remotely like that?

I'm pretty sure the arguments about that vote being unconstitutional were floating around long before the vote was actually taken.

Like I said, if a vote is taken, and a sizeable minority disagrees with the outcome, it is perfectly reasonable and proper for that minority to attempt to win hearts and minds, so that a later vote on the same issue will have a different result. Don't you agree?

 

[CIAagent11]

Like I said, if a vote is taken, and a sizeable minority disagrees with the outcome, it is perfectly reasonable and proper for that minority to attempt to win hearts and minds, so that a later vote on the same issue will have a different result. Don't you agree?

Okay. I agree.

Really?I don't believe in FORCING an opinion on anyone.

Well, revoking the California vote would be "forcing" an opinion on someone,
if that is not backed up sufficiently by more than opinion.
Something that no one has been able to show me as of yet...

For me to go with overturning a state ballot, I would have to be shown two things,
the first in my opinion being neccesary under the law, the second to convince me personally:
1) How to call gay marriage a right without using personal opinion to back it up and
2) How that thinking not just makes anything the state has no interest in regulating a right equal to heterosexual marriage.

I never said "because its a right." I told you off the bat, I don't believe people should be stopped from doing pretty much whatever they want, so long as it doesn't cause unreasonable harm to a non-consenting third party.

Yes. I'm in favor of that. But we have to figure out, in which instances not being able to prove a negative means the majority vote doesn't count.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuals want to encourage anyone who isn't already a homosexual to become one?

I concede it's only subjective observation, this for example:
...I'm not allowed to post links yet, because of postcount. It was a link entitled "Pro-Homosexual Booklet to Be Distributed to All 16,000 US School districts". Copying that into google will return it as the first hit.
I think this disagreement will hijack any discussion, thats why I didn't want to make the argument.

 

[reverend C]

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?



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.

this is why i call your logic naive, not because i disagree with it. you base your whole argument on the idea that gays are asking for something different than the rights that are already established, but then can point to no documentation that shows they are not simply asking to be treated the same under the existing statute. the vote came after the established statute. you base your whole claim on something you have absolutely no knowledge of.
when you do that, and then sprinkle the myriad of errors that you are prone to in written english, your credibility goes swirling down the toilet.

 

[Grizzly]

Any two people who are capable of entering into a legal contract should be able to do so regardless of the gender.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What ever happened to "limited government" republicans?

 

[CIAagent11]

this is why i call your logic naive, not because i disagree with it. you base your whole argument on the idea that gays are asking for something different than the rights that are already established, but then can point to no documentation that shows they are not simply asking to be treated the same under the existing statute.

My side of the argument does not want to overturn a state ballot. My side the argument does not have the burden of proof.

the vote came after the established statute. you base your whole claim on something you have absolutely no knowledge of.
when you do that, and then sprinkle the myriad of errors that you are prone to in written english, your credibility goes swirling down the toilet.

Attacking opponents knowledge and credibility instead of the argument logical fallacy.

 

[LightHorseman]

For me to go with overturning a state ballot, I would have to be shown two things,

What if the vote itself was condicted illegally?

1) How to call gay marriage a right without using personal opinion to back it up and

How can you define ANYTHING as a right without using personal opinion to back it up?

2) How that thinking not just makes anything the state has no interest in regulating a right equal to heterosexual marriage.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please rephrase?

Yes. I'm in favor of that. But we have to figure out, in which instances not being able to prove a negative means the majority vote doesn't count.

I've never said the majority vote shouldn't count. However,
A. The vote must be conducted in a constitutional fashion
B. A vote that decides an issue today, can be debated tommorrow and another vote taken later. If those oposing the result of the initial vote make their case sufficiently, then the second vote can go a different direction.

I concede it's only subjective observation, this for example:
...I'm not allowed to post links yet, because of postcount. It was a link entitled "Pro-Homosexual Booklet to Be Distributed to All 16,000 US School districts". Copying that into google will return it as the first hit.
I think this disagreement will hijack any discussion, thats why I didn't want to make the argument.

I think I know the booklet in question.

Do you mean this? http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022106.html

The booklet says its OK to be homosexual. It doesn't say that people should be homosexual if they aren't. Just because it says its OK to be homosexual doesn't mean it condemns heterosexuality, it affirms BOTH orientations. About the most "homosexual agenda" thing about it is that apparently it discourages teachers from saying homosexuality should or can be changed, and rightly so. Not even the Catholic Church claims that homosexuals should or could be changed!

So I ask again, do you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuals want to "convert" anyone?

 

[CIAagent11]

What if the vote itself was condicted illegally?

You mean because the rules weren't followed? For example the ballot questions being unfairly phrased?
Yes, but I have not heared anybody on your side making that argument.
Only that it should be overturned because it alienates rights.

This is not something that matters here, but I think the vote was fine as long as the gay marriage crowd had
the upper side in the polls. And then beause of losing, they suddenly figured out that its unconstitutional.
I would call that immoral and undemocratic tactics, but it's legal.

How can you define ANYTHING as a right without using personal opinion to back it up?

That's what I'm saying.
If you do use personal opinion to overturn a vote, you force minority opinion on the majority because it's "better".

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please rephrase?

How streching marriage to include gay marriage would make gay marriage any different from my car example.
Lets leave that out for now.

I've never said the majority vote shouldn't count. However,
A. The vote must be conducted in a constitutional fashion
B. A vote that decides an issue today, can be debated tommorrow and another vote taken later. If those oposing the result of the initial vote make their case sufficiently, then the second vote can go a different direction.I think I know the booklet in question.

Agree.

Do you mean this? [...link]

The booklet says its OK to be homosexual. It doesn't say that people should be homosexual if they aren't. Just because it says its OK to be homosexual doesn't mean it condemns heterosexuality, it affirms BOTH orientations. About the most "homosexual agenda" thing about it is that apparently it discourages teachers from saying homosexuality should or can be changed, and rightly so. Not even the Catholic Church claims that homosexuals should or could be changed!

So I ask again, do you have any evidence to suggest that homosexuals want to "convert" anyone?

Yes. That one.
I don't have evidence, but I believe so. Let's leave that out for now.

 

[trunks2k]

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?

In the case of prop 8 in California, there were attempts to stop the vote from the get-go under the same logic that it's being argued against it in its current lawsuit. But the court said it can't prevent the vote as there's no standing until the vote actually passes.

 

[CIAagent11]

In the case of prop 8 in California, there were attempts to stop the vote from the get-go under the same logic that it's being argued against it in its current lawsuit. But the court said it can't prevent the vote as there's no standing until the vote actually passes.

Fair enough. I don't believe it, but it doesn't matter.

The problem you are having is that you are failing to address the legal aspect of government marriage. Until you address that, and abandon the already discredited concept that the majority determines legal rights for the minority, your argument will continue to be simplistic and erroneous..

I agree, that the majority opinion doesn't have the right to vote on anything in a republic.
However, if the minority wants to overturn such a vote on the base of it alienating rights, it must show there are such rights.
They have to address the legal aspect of government marriage.
They can't claim there is a right until proven otherwise.
Do you see what im getting at here?
If a minority wants women not to have the right to drive, because they think women are of less value than men, they can't just say women are of less value, and the opposition hase to prove otherwise.

Your comments are, unfortunately, very naive and poorly developed.

Your poor grammar, spelling, and overall presentation are only aggravating the poor argument you are starting with

So me being stupid makes me wrong. Argumentum ad hominem.

 

[Allahuakbar]

I agree, that the majority opinion doesn't have the right to vote on anything in a republic.
However, if the minority wants to overturn such a vote on the base of it alienating rights, it must show there are such rights.

Unfortunately establishing legal contracts is already an established right. For whatever reason you are ignoring this. The problem is that some people are claiming that it is illegal for two people of the same sex to establish a legal contract. This is the same argument used against civil rights.

So me being stupid makes me wrong. Argumentum ad hominem.

Incorrect application of Argumentum ad hominem. I said your comments and arguments were naive and poorly developed and that your poor grammar, spelling, and overall presentation are only aggravating the poor argument.

None of this addresses you individually, but your arguments. The point of an ad hominem fallacy is to claim the argument is wrong because of some personal flaw with the individual, while ignoring the argument.

I am saying your argument is wrong because it is a poor argument, and that poor spelling, grammar, and presentation only aggravate the argument's problems.

This really exemplifies the problems you are having. You are forming arguments without the requisite level of study and research. You incorrectly applied the ad hominem fallacy because you did not take the time and effort to research the fallacy and understand its application. Take time and actually research and form an argument, considering strengths and weaknesses before posting it.

 

[AirPo]

Fair enough. I don't believe it, but it doesn't matter.



I agree, that the majority opinion doesn't have the right to vote on anything in a republic.
However, if the minority wants to overturn such a vote on the base of it alienating rights, it must show there are such rights.
They have to address the legal aspect of government marriage.
They can't claim there is a right until proven otherwise.
Do you see what im getting at here?
If a minority wants women not to have the right to drive, because they think women are of less value than men, they can't just say women are of less value, and the opposition hase to prove otherwise.



So me being stupid makes me wrong. Argumentum ad hominem.

Are you implying that there is no right to enter into a marriage contract?

 

[jgarden]

The Civil Marriage (C-38) - "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes")

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable

4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act
**********************************************************
Legislation recognizing same sex marrige in Canada received Royal Assent on July 20, 2005, and came after the Supreme Court ruled that it was as an extension of "the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

It also recognizes that different religious are not obligated to perform "same sex" marriages if it violates their religious beliefs.

 

[CIAagent11]

Unfortunately establishing legal contracts is already an established right. For whatever reason you are ignoring this. The problem is that some people are claiming that it is illegal for two people of the same sex to establish a legal contract. This is the same argument used against civil rights.

Nice. Made me think for the first time in this thread. Why wait five pages to do so?
So which legal contracts count as equal privilege to heterosexual marriage?
Where is that defined?
And why does using subjective opinion to back up that a right is part of this equal privilege not make that wanting to force this opinion on everybody else?

Incorrect application of Argumentum ad hominem. I said your comments and arguments were naive and poorly developed and that your poor grammar, spelling, and overall presentation are only aggravating the poor argument.

None of this addresses you individually, but your arguments. The point of an ad hominem fallacy is to claim the argument is wrong because of some personal flaw with the individual, while ignoring the argument.

I am saying your argument is wrong because it is a poor argument, and that poor spelling, grammar, and presentation only aggravate the argument's problems.

This really exemplifies the problems you are having. You are forming arguments without the requisite level of study and research. You incorrectly applied the ad hominem fallacy because you did not take the time and effort to research the fallacy and understand its application. Take time and actually research and form an argument, considering strengths and weaknesses before posting it.

Making any assumptions about the validity of someones arguments, based on (wrong) assumptions about the person because of (made up) critic of spelling, grammar and presentation, is exactly an argumentum ad hominem.
Why else bring it up?
I might as well say that you don't know what you are talking about because you are muslim.

Btw. a few missed commas and disagreeing with you does not equate "poor spelling, grammar, and presentation".

 

[CIAagent11]

Are you implying that there is no right to enter into a marriage contract?

No sir,
I am implyingthat equal privilege to this right does not include what a minority wants it to be.

 

[NotreDame]

I dont think the logic in saying there is a "right" to Gay marriage holds up.
It doesn't even have anything to do with religion or it being immoral or not.

Short version: It's not your right under the constitution to get what you want.

Long version: Same sex marriage activists say, that because heterosexuals have the right to marry, gays should too, their version of it. Gays are simmilarly situated to heteros and should have the rights to equal privileges.
The 14th amendment protects gays against descrimination, wether it should, I will not comment on here, let's accept that for the sake of the argument.
That leads to gays having the right to equal privilege, which is fine. We should not discriminate against any group in a republic.
Gays do have the right to traditional marriage. Which is a right nobody wants to take from them.
The right they don't have is demanding something else, than what the simmilarly situated group, they demand to be equal to, gets.
So gays have (1) a right to traditional marriage.
And (2) a right to be with the person they love.
There is no basis for a right to connect those two into a right to same sex marriage.

Someone demanding same sex marriage instead of traditional marriage as an equal privilege is like me demanding the state to buy me a new car as part of my traditional marriage, because I declare that to be my right.
It's completely the same. Same sex marriage and getting a car both cost the state money. Both are demanding an alternative to what a simmilarly situated individual (heteros) wants as my equal privilege (marriage).
The only difference is, that nobody will take me seriously, because I don't have a screaming pressure group behind me.

It is a concept called "liberty." You have the liberty to marry any adult of the opposite sex you desire, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political affiliation, and so forth. Same sex couples are asking for the same liberty you enjoy, and while I cannot stand the behavior, they certainly should have the liberty to marry any adult of the same sex. Why exactly you are depriving them of this liberty is a mystery to me.

The equal protection claim is grossly misrepresented here. Same sex couples assert they are being discriminated against on the basis of "gender" and "gender" is a protected class under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. If a state discrminates on the basis of gender, then it must justify its laws under what is called an "intermediate level of scrutiny." Intermediate level of scrutiny requires the state to show the gender classification serves an important state interest and the classification is substantially related to serving the interest.

Here, the state is examining the gender of the people seeking to get married, and asserting on the basis of gender, whether someone can or cannot be married. Hence, laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying are based on a classification of gender. Ergo, this classification must be justified under the standard announced above.

Of course this ignores the other Equal Protection argument under the 14th Amendment. Strict Scrutiny is applied to state laws which discriminate on the basis of a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, regardless of the gender of those involved, then the state is discriminating and in doing so burdening a fundamental right and under the Equal Protection Clause this means strict scrutiny is applied. Good luck surviving a strict scrutiny analysis.

 

[CIAagent11]

Legislation recognizing same sex marrige was legally in Canada came after the Supreme Court ruled that it was as an extension of "the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

If the Supreme Court votes to support one opinion, so be it.
As long as tha is not the case, all opinions are equal, and the majority vote counts.

Btw. don't quote wikipedia, it's basically the gay marriage activism headquarters.

 

[AirPo]

No sir,
I am implyingthat equal privilege to this right does not include what a minority wants it to be.

It doesn't include what the majority wants either. It includes what the law says it includes.

 

[CIAagent11]

It is a concept called "liberty." You have the liberty to marry any adult of the opposite sex you desire, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political affiliation, and so forth. Same sex couples are asking for the same liberty you enjoy, and while I cannot stand the behavior, they certainly should have the liberty to marry any adult of the same sex. Why exactly you are depriving them of this liberty is a mystery to me.

I'm not depriving them of any liberty, that another group has.
Im depriving them of the liberty to force their minority opinion about this right on the majority.
Every gay male is free to marry a woman and every gay woman is free to marry a man.
There is no discrimination based on sexual preference.

 

[CIAagent11]

It doesn't include what the majority wants either. It includes what te law says it includes.

Yes. And the law is not in favor of gay marriage yet, saying so is a personal opinion, so the majority vote counts, until judges are intimidated by the gay lobby to change that.

 

[AirPo]

Yes. And the law is not in favor of gay marriage yet, saying so is a personal opinion, so the majority vote counts.

Where those laws have been challanged, they haven't stood up. It's not about mob rule, it's about the rule of law. The law does not allow for discrimination based on gender. It's that simple.