The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[LittleNipper]

Can someone translate this into natural language?

Logical arguments are being applied to illogical behavior in order to make such behavior seem credible ---- which it isn't.

 

[fated]

Can someone translate this into natural language?

After I've heard this 'argument' enough I ussually leave. I try and respect people enough that I don't pretend they're impossible to understand.

Simply put, the California Supreme Court wasn't about seperate but equal, but about substantially equal under the law, but not logically, and then the protected class gets its last desire. But, because the equality isn't logical, Prop 8 could be upheld.

Indeed, you snip and reject, and 'I don't understand' arguments amount to a shaming tactic. Did you know that?

 

[KCKID]

It's easy to say 'easy' as long as the fable of Adam and Eve is accepted merely by rote, devoid of any use of reason. God appears to have been making everything up as He went along in early Genesis. Even when God seems to realize that a helper is necessary for Adam, a female (Eve) is not the first and obvious choice. God instead searches for a helper among the livestock, the birds, and the animals. Alas, none of them were found to be suitable.

Eventually it occurs to God that perhaps Adam might prefer a helper that is a similar species to himself. Bingo! Then comes Eve. Not a bevy of females from which Adam can choose to be his helper, mind, but just one, Eve. And, isn't that generally the way that it was in the days of yore, the authority figures choosing wives for the sons?

I find it inconceivable that anyone would actually expect a 'gay' couple to conclude that their relationship should come to a grinding halt and forthwith remain celibate after reading Genesis ...or Paul, for that matter.

Sorry. At times I realize that I'm guilty of injecting far too much sound reasoning into this issue.

By the way, it wasn't God who said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' It was Moses, the human author.

It is hard to believe that pedophiles can get over having sex with babies, but they can and have... Social acceptence and rejection, in addition to spiritual guidance goes a long way to repairing a warped mind...

What the ...?

 

[CaDan]

No, that's another substantial weakness, because the pro-family people are typically for marriage reform, which draws from their premises, and is precisely a reason to exclude gays from marriage.

What is "marriage reform"?

 

[CaDan]

After I've heard this 'argument' enough I ussually leave. I try and respect people enough that I don't pretend they're impossible to understand.

Simply put, the California Supreme Court wasn't about seperate but equal, but about substantially equal under the law, but not logically, and then the protected class gets its last desire. But, because the equality isn't logical, Prop 8 could be upheld.

Indeed, you snip and reject, and 'I don't understand' arguments amount to a shaming tactic. Did you know that?

I am trying to figure out your argument. You throw around bits of legal terminology somewhat randomly.

Your second paragraph, f'rinstance, refers to "protected class", which is a term of art that takes us into an Equal Protection analysis. In the same paragraph, however, you also refer to "substantially equal", which hints at a substantive Due Process analysis. I know where you are going--"no gay marriage!"--but I have no idea how you get there.

 

[fated]

What is "marriage reform"?

Reforms that have the intent of keeping couples who sign a contract together, especially for the benefit of children. This is the system that was in place and being reformed and improved before no-fault divorce was enacted. It was changed to a Bolshevik type system for the feminists by reason of violence. I disagree strong with their jurisprudence, because their objective wasn't to improve society, instead it was based on extreme circumstance, which results in bad civil laws. In this case they prefer women and lawyers. At least they profess to prefer women, when in actuallity they make women poor. Just like abortion makes women with marginalized and 'to blame.'

People don't want to know that this logic is continuous and integrated, but they often use that fact to attempt to seek a weakness somewhere, because people can't be expected to understand the entire internally logical and positive for society philosophy.

 

[fated]

I am trying to figure out your argument. You throw around bits of legal terminology somewhat randomly.

Your second paragraph, f'rinstance, refers to "protected class", which is a term of art that takes us into an Equal Protection analysis. In the same paragraph, however, you also refer to "substantially equal", which hints at a substantive Due Process analysis. I know where you are going--"no gay marriage!"--but I have no idea how you get there.

When California's elitist judges trumped the votes of the people, they accepted a philosophical argument, just like those you'll find in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The wrinkle in Califonia's law was that civil unions were substantially equal to marriage in the state law, which allows are peculiar claim of seperate but equal.

That's the lead in. Anyway, because the gays were defined as the protected class they got what they desired, which was actual equality under the civil law.

The people disagreed, asserting their right to make a distinction between gay couples and married persons, and the court had to uphold that, because it was not definitively discriminatory.

 

[CaDan]

Reforms that have the intent of keeping couples who sign a contract together, especially for the benefit of children.

Are you sure you want to go for a contract analysis of marriage here? I think it weakens you position substantially. We allow all sorts of persons to enter into contracts, including legal persons such as partnerships and corporations. If marriage is a contract, then there is no reason to restrict it to only opposite sex couples.

This is the system that was in place and being reformed and improved before no-fault divorce was enacted.

No fault divorce seems to me to be a reform and improvement of the prior system. It certainly makes it more like a contract.

It was changed to a Bolshevik type system for the feminists by reason of violence.

Not an argument--just name-calling.

I disagree strong with their jurisprudence, because their objective wasn't to improve society, instead it was based on extreme circumstance, which results in bad civil laws.

They had bad motives? That's the best I can pull out of this sentence. If that is your meaning here, then what were their motives--they being "feminists"?

In this case they prefer women and lawyers. At least they profess to prefer women, when in actuallity they make women poor. Just like abortion makes women with marginalized and 'to blame.'

Hold on--I thought the problem was bad motives. Now it's bad economic results. Is it both?

People don't want to know that this logic is continuous and integrated, but they often use that fact to attempt to seek a weakness somewhere, because people can't be expected to understand the entire internally logical and positive for society philosophy.

Translation--people disagree with fated! Those people sometimes even argue against fated!

 

[CaDan]

When California's elitist judges trumped the votes of the people, they accepted a philosophical argument, just like those you'll find in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The wrinkle in Califonia's law was that civil unions were substantially equal to marriage in the state law, which allows are peculiar claim of seperate but equal.

That's the lead in. Anyway, because the gays were defined as the protected class they got what they desired, which was actual equality under the civil law.

And that was a bad thing precisely why?

 

[fated]

And that was a bad thing precisely why?

That's a loaded question. For the civil system it was bad because they judges trumped the logical choice of the people, they got skunked by that with prop 8, which is the part of my post you conveniently edited out. It's amazing you present yourself as respectful, then edit my post, and then ask for me to repeat the part you edited out.

 

[fated]

Are you sure you want to go for a contract analysis of marriage here? I think it weakens you position substantially. We allow all sorts of persons to enter into contracts, including legal persons such as partnerships and corporations. If marriage is a contract, then there is no reason to restrict it to only opposite sex couples.



No fault divorce seems to me to be a reform and improvement of the prior system. It certainly makes it more like a contract.



Not an argument--just name-calling.



They had bad motives? That's the best I can pull out of this sentence. If that is your meaning here, then what were their motives--they being "feminists"?



Hold on--I thought the problem was bad motives. Now it's bad economic results. Is it both?



Translation--people disagree with fated! Those people sometimes even argue against fated!

When you do this, it is not respectful. You ask questions continuously that are answered later.

I can understand doing this to some extent, but as a sole manner of debate it's very disingenuous. You don't really care what's logical, you just want to win or for me to go away.

 

[DeathMagus]

I'm still waiting, Fated. You need to explain the following, as it seems to be your effective position in this thread:

P1: Marriage is an institution to support procreation and the effective raising of children.
C1: Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
C2: Couples that are sterile, elderly, or who have no intention of having children should be allowed to marry.

C2 does not follow from P1, and thus your position is either illogical - or you are not including all of the premises in your argument.

 

[fated]

I'm still waiting, Fated. You need to explain the following, as it seems to be your effective position in this thread:

P1: Marriage is an institution to support procreation and the effective raising of children.
C1: Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
C2: Couples that are sterile, elderly, or who have no intention of having children should be allowed to marry.

C2 does not follow from P1, and thus your position is either illogical - or you are not including all of the premises in your argument.

Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.

 

[Chazemataz]

The reason these debates on thread are so heated is because those who are pro-marriage generally know actual logical arguments regarding the issue. It is then that gay marriage activists are taught to avoid reason and use either an emotional appeal or shaming to avoid any discussion of procreation.

Also, they the emotional appeal often shows that they don't have a logical argument and appeals that allows should be awarded marriage to help them with their differences.

Also, I read a recent article, wherein it is indicated that the best need to identify themselves as gay first, and then indicates that anyone who is against gay marriage therefore hates them, which, as I have indicated is not a logical conclusion, but a malignant type of rhetoric.

Finally, you can see by going through these thread the lack of respect for children and families that is taught to gay marriage activist. As if I'm abhorrent just because I'm different than? And that is were the unnatural argument comes in, when you don't respect natural mothers and fathers, and comprehend natural differences, then you aren't in reality.

In fact, many of the arguments aren't even logical. And among those that are logical they fail to see that logic has many paths, and many of them are false.

Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.

You should be a politician, you are doing very well in dodging people's arguments and "talking around" issues. Not an accusation, just an observation.

And, as I've said before- love is a human emotion. The gay rights issue is FILLED with emotion (the same thing can be said for the pro-life movement); it's not like having an opinion on say, the free market or something. You're talking about what is classified as "human rights" here and we need to look at it from an emotional perspective BECAUSE we are discussing the humane treatment of living human beings. You wouldn't know what it would feel like to be called names or beaten up because you look differently or talk differently or love differently. My best friend of many years is openly lesbian and she gets dirty looks every day from some (not all, btw, a sign of things improving) people because of how she is. It makes me sick that people wouldn't treat their fellow human beings with respect. On the other side, my uncle is a hellfire fundamentalist preacher and I love him just the same and would never dream of taking his rights away just because I disagree with him, myself being a liberal christian.
Everybody deserves to be treated with respect; imagine how better off the world would be if we all did just that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.

Non answers are intellectually dishonest.

 

[CaDan]

That's a loaded question.

No, it is not. It does force the querant to assume facts in order to answer it.

For the civil system it was bad because they judges trumped the logical choice of the people,

I've read In re Marriage cases. I just don't see that in there. What I see is an equal protection argument.

they got skunked by that with prop 8, which is the part of my post you conveniently edited out.

Proposition 8 was a reaction to In re Marriage Cases. It is not particularly relevant to the reasoning of the court.

It's amazing you present yourself as respectful, then edit my post, and then ask for me to repeat the part you edited out.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[CaDan]

Why don't you draw yourself a Venn, and give up this pretext.

I am not sure set theory is a good way to approach this. What sets are we discussing?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am not sure set theory is a good way to approach this. What sets are we discussing?

Apparently the sets of:

A: Fertile heterosexual couples
B: Infertile heterosexual couples
C: Homosexual couples

All three would, of course, overlap on a Venn diagram showing that all three can possibly raise children. So I don't know what Fated's point is.

 

[CaDan]

When you do this, it is not respectful. You ask questions continuously that are answered later.

It's called "on the line by line". It's a method of responding to an argument.

I see no reason to respect arguments; only persons.

I can understand doing this to some extent, but as a sole manner of debate it's very disingenuous. You don't really care what's logical, you just want to win or for me to go away.

To the contrary, I am very interested in your logic. That is why I am trying to draw it out.

 

[fated]

Apparently the sets of:

A: Fertile heterosexual couples
B: Infertile heterosexual couples
C: Homosexual couples

All three would, of course, overlap on a Venn diagram showing that all three can possibly raise children. So I don't know what Fated's point is.

Here, I've been inundated with people saying that I'm evading, or illogical. I'm not trying to.

The reality is that the current system is not entirely fair to anybody based on a series of prudential judgments.

Also, its disingenuous to claim I'm illogical. I've explained the logic in terms of court rulings and philosophy itself.

If authentic equivalence is not proven, and it isn't even true(!), then there is no necessity to let same sex persons into the marriage system. That is the point.

The division is perfectly reasonable. There is an obvious difference between two men and a man and a woman and two women. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

The theory of discrimination is based not on something objective like a person's sex, which is objectively legally knowable in all but the rarest cases, but by a preference... innate or not, that is mutable... because its a desire to partake in an action.

If this was the determinate of what marriage is, then the law is bad jurisprudence, that is to say, it makes no sense to have the law. It simply discriminates on the basis of nothing. Roommates should have full protection, caregivers should have full protection.

Therefore, it is clearly the case that the law is on the basis of heterosexuals having sex and staying together.

And the argument is that some homosexuals live together too. Society has much less interest in their behavior than those who produce children.

And what about people who are married and have no children? Well, good deal for them. Who give a crap, they highlight the fact that the system is based on heterosexual sex having. If they can't or don't get pregnant, then perhaps we can take their civil marriage away. But, again, they are a man and a woman, so we can clearly make this judgment, even though I'm not I sure I agree with it.

A significant part of me would love to see a tiered system or a couple seperate systems, but, again, adding gays just makes the possibility of reform more remote.