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

[CIAagent11]

I don't 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 a right under the constitution to get what you want.
If the majority did vote against gay marriage, there is no reason to take the right of voters to have their vote count.

Long version: Same sex marriage activists say, that because heterosexuals have the right to marry, gays should too, their version of it. Gays are similarly situated to heterosexuals and should have rights to equal privileges.
The 14th amendment protects gays against discrimination, whether it should, I will not comment on here.
That leads to gays having the right to equal privilege, which is fine, nobody should be discriminated against.

Gays do have the right to heterosexual marriage. Which is a right nobody wants to take from them.
The right they don't have, is demanding something else, than what the similarly situated group,
they demand to be equal to, gets.
So gays have (1) a right to heterosexual 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.
If the public vote goes in favour of gay marriage, that state or country should have same sex marriage, because a right is not needed to do so. But in states that voted otherwise, the right of the majority to have their votes count can't be taken away, because a right would be needed to do so.

Someone demanding same sex marriage instead of heterosexual 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.
Same sex marriage and getting a car both cost the state money. Both are demanding an alternative to what a similarly situated individual (heterosexuals) wants as an equal privilege (marriage).
The only difference is, that nobody will take me seriously, because I don't have a pressure group behind me.

 

[XTE]

Here is that Constitutionalist argument again.... Simple-minded and unfounded...

Look, the idea of two men together makes me sick at my stomach. For some reason, my brain won't let me process an image of it. However, I choose to understand things rather than hate them.

Why would you deny two people that love each other the right to get married?

"Traditional Marriage" is a religious argument BTW!

 

[CIAagent11]

"Traditional Marriage" is a religious argument BTW!

Fair enough. That's just wording. Lets call it heterosexual marriage then.

Here is that Constitutionalist argument again.... Simple-minded and unfounded...

Please tell me why.

Look, the idea of two men together makes me sick at my stomach. For some reason, my brain won't let me process an image of it. However, I choose to understand things rather than hate them.

No need for unfair assumptions about me.

Why would you deny two people that love each other the right to get married?

I'm not. I argue wether there is a right. Is there is one. They should get it.

 

[DieHappy]

Here is that Constitutionalist argument again.... Simple-minded and unfounded...

Look, the idea of two men together makes me sick at my stomach. For some reason, my brain won't let me process an image of it. However, I choose to understand things rather than hate them.

Why would you deny two people that love each other the right to get married?

Like billy bob and his 9 year old daughter? Or Cletus and his pack mule?

"Traditional Marriage" is a religious argument BTW!

Of course it is, which is the point. Marriage is a religious institution and should be defined and carried out by religious institutions. The "benefits" of marriage like next of kin rights and insurance sharing are government intrusions on a religious institution. Get the government out of it, and the argument goes away.

 

[CIAagent11]

Marriage is a religious institution and should be defined and carried out by religious institutions. The "benefits" of marriage like next of kin rights and insurance sharing are government intrusions on a religious institution. Get the government out of it, and the argument goes away.

Agree. But we don't even need that argument.
Please let's leave that out for now.
Don't let the opposition back you into a corner, defending something that they think they will win.

 

[JustOneWay]

Like billy bob and his 9 year old daughter? Or Cletus and his pack mule?

It is assumed that the union would be between two consenting adults.

 

[DieHappy]

It is assumed that the union would be between two consenting adults.

Why?

 

[CIAagent11]

It is assumed that the union would be between two consenting adults.

Why?

Yes. It's between consenting adults. That it is two of them is not assumed,
but let's go with that for now.
My car example is a better one to take the logic reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Corey]

I dont think the logic in saying there is a "right" to Gay marriage holds up.

I'm guessing you missed the day in rhetoric class where they noted that in order to refute an argument you must state it first, so everyone is clear on what you're refuting.

It doesn't even have anything to do with religion or it being immoral or not.

This should interesting...

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

Hmm. Strawman fallacy right up front. That is not the argument.

Long version: Same sex marriage activists say, that because heterosexuals have the right to marry, gays should too, their version of it.

Version of it? Again...straw man. There is no difference. The current state of affairs bans two people of the same sex from getting married. There's no such thing as gay or straight marriage, only marriage.

Gays are simmilarly[sic] situated to heteros and should have the rights to equal privileges.

You're mixing concepts. There are rights and there are privileges. Moreover, you're not very clear in what you're saying. What is "similarly situated?"

The 14th amendment protects gays against descrimination [sic], wether it should, I will not comment on here, let's accept that for the sake of the argument.

Actually, the 14th amendment specifies that all people have equal protection before the law, not just gays. It's far broader than you imply.

That leads to gays having the right to equal privilege, which is fine. We should not discriminate against any group in a republic.

Agreed with the stipulation that discrimination is appropriate when the just laws are broken (e.g., murder).

Gays do have the right to traditional marriage. Which is a right nobody wants to take from them.

It looks like you're making an appeal to tradition...a logical fallacy. Please try again. In addition, you appear to be very unaware of the history of marriage. The definition you're most likely using only came into use in the 20th century--there is no such thing as "traditional marriage."

The right they don't have is demanding something else, than what the simmilarly situated group, they demand to be equal to, gets.

This is covered above. What they want is what straight people have--namely the ability to marry the person of their choice. Also, this statement doesn't parse well.

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.

Again...already covered. There is no qualitative difference between straights and gays getting married--only an artificial legal barrier.

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.

Huh? Since this is a comparison, that means this is technically an apple-oranges fallacy. Gays and lesbians are fighting for the opportunity to get married just like straights. And again, married is married. There are only artificial legal barriers preventing gays and lesbians from married the person of their choice. There is currently no group that receives a new car from the state because they are getting married.

It's completely the same. Same sex marriage and getting a car both cost the state money.

Maybe inside your head, but in reality, those are two completely different things. And if same-sex marriage costs the state money, then so would straight marriage as it's marriage as well. So that's one less objection you should have.

Moreover, I'm guessing your not 18 yet or own your own vehicle--you pay the state for the privilege of driving and owning a vehicle.

Both are demanding an alternative to what a simmilarly situated individual (heteros) wants as my equal privilege (marriage).

This statement makes no sense at all. It's vague and ill-defined. Please clarify.

The only difference is, that nobody will take me seriously, because I don't have a screaming pressure group behind me.

No...we won't take you seriously because you've constructed poorly thought out arguments and used poor spelling and syntax.

 

[Corey]

Yes. It's between consenting adults. That it is two of them is not assumed,
but let's go with that for now.
My car example is a better one to take the logic reductio ad absurdum.

Your car example fails on an epic level. I'd suggest dropping it. Reductio ad absurdum requires that the situations be an apple-to-apple comparison.

 

[CIAagent11]

Hi Corey. Let's keep this constructive, shall we?
I will concede to mistakes, and I will be fair.

I'm guessing you missed the day in rhetoric class where they noted that in order to refute an argument you must state it first, so everyone is clear on what you're refuting.

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.

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.

Hmm. Strawman fallacy right up front. That is not the argument.

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 a reminder, that the side that demands a right, has to back that up with more than declaring it a right.
It is a fact, that it's not your right in america to get anything you want.

Version of it? Again...straw man. There is no difference. The current state of affairs bans two people of the same sex from getting married. There's no such thing as gay or straight marriage, only marriage.

"There's no such thing as gay or straight marriage, only marriage." - In saying so, you have the burden of proof.
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.
Your side must show that there is no difference to be able to revoke that vote.
Declaring so is not enough.

You're mixing concepts. There are rights and there are privileges.

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

Moreover, you're not very clear in what you're saying. What is "similarly situated?"

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.

Actually, the 14th amendment specifies that all people have equal protection before the law, not just gays. It's far broader than you imply.

Agreed with the stipulation that discrimination is appropriate when the just laws are broken (e.g., murder).

I accepted that this does not matter to this discussion.

It looks like you're making an appeal to tradition...a logical fallacy. Please try again. In addition, you appear to be very unaware of the history of marriage. The definition you're most likely using only came into use in the 20th century--there is no such thing as "traditional marriage."

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

I'm saying, that in wanting a change from the current situation, your side has the burden of proof.
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.
Your side has to prove that your definition of marriage is more valid than the other sides.

This is covered above. What they want is what straight people have--namely the ability to marry the person of their choice. Also, this statement doesn't parse well.

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.

Huh? Since this is a comparison, that means this is technically an apple-oranges fallacy. Gays and lesbians are fighting for the opportunity to get married just like straights.

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.

And again, married is married. There are only artificial legal barriers preventing gays and lesbians from married the person of their choice. There is currently no group that receives a new car from the state because they are getting married.

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

Maybe inside your head, but in reality, those are two completely different things. And if same-sex marriage costs the state money, then so would straight marriage as it's marriage as well. So that's one less objection you should have.

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?

This statement makes no sense at all. It's vague and ill-defined. Please clarify.

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.

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.

No...we won't take you seriously because you've constructed poorly thought out arguments and used poor spelling and syntax.

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

 

[Allahuakbar]

Marriage, in a governmental sense, is a legal contract between two consenting adults, which is recognized by the government and provides certain legal benefits and obligations.

Religion does not matter in the slightest in this.

When I was married, no one at all cared what the religious ceremony was, be it Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, etc... Religion did and does not matter other than the priest in question must be licensed by the government to perform this legal responsibility.

All gay couples want is the ability to enter into the same legal contract. Denying them this, is discriminatory. DieHappy's correlation between adults and children, or animals is completely absurd because it ignores the basic facts of the legal arrangement, that it must be between consenting and rational adults.

This is not a matter of religious mores, but of whether or not we, as Americans, want to restrict the legal rights of people who lives lifestyles different from our own.

 

[allhart]

.[/quote

 

[allhart]

Marriage, in a governmental sense, is a legal contract between two consenting adults, which is recognized by the government and provides certain legal benefits and obligations.

Religion does not matter in the slightest in this.

When I was married, no one at all cared what the religious ceremony was, be it Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, etc... Religion did and does not matter other than the priest in question must be licensed by the government to perform this legal responsibility.

All gay couples want is the ability to enter into the same legal contract. Denying them this, is discriminatory. DieHappy's correlation between adults and children, or animals is completely absurd because it ignores the basic facts of the legal arrangement, that it must be between consenting and rational adults.

This is not a matter of religious mores, but of whether or not we, as Americans, want to restrict the legal rights of people who lives lifestyles different from our own.

It's not a Gov. issue. It's a religious one and a state issued license..... If Judges want to marry Gays in Massachusetts as contract. Whatever, but if in California marriage licenses is only by a priest and with a covenant with God, so be it. Move to Massachusetts!

 

[CIAagent11]

Religion does not matter in the slightest in this.

I agree. Then why do you bring it up?

All gay couples want is the ability to enter into the same legal contract.

Gays want their minority opinion to be regulated by the state as opposed to the majority opinion.
Your side has the burden of proof in showing that gay and straight marriage is the same legal contract.

 

[Allahuakbar]

It's not a Gov. issue. It's a religious one and a state issued license..... If Judges want to marry Gays in Massachusetts as contract. Whatever, but if in California marriage licenses is only by a priest and with a covenant with God, so be it. Move to Massachusetts!

Religion has no legal standing in marriage. A marriage license is issued by the state and the state allows ecclesiastical authorities to sign them, as it allows secular authorities to sign them. It is still, at its essence, a state license. So, no, it is not a religious issue at all. To continue to assert otherwise is to demonstrate significant unfamiliarity with the topic.

Gays want their minority opinion to be regulated by the state in favor of the majority opinion.

This is a nonsensical statement, since opinions have no bearing on the issue. What are you trying to say?

Your side has the burden of proof in showing that gay and straight marriage is the same legal contract.

Very well. Here are the requirements for a marriage license in Alabama, Autauga County.

http://www.marriagelicense.com/cgi-bin/marriage_licensing.cgi?go=county&County=al, Autauga County#

Gay couples want to use the same license for the same obligations and benefits. This is the same contract, correct?

 

[CIAagent11]

This is a nonsensical statement, since opinions have no bearing on the issue. What are you trying to say?

If it's not about opinions, why is your opinion better thatn that of the majority?

Very well. Here are the requirements for a marriage license in Alabama, Autauga County.

Gay couples want to use the same license for the same obligations and benefits. This is the same contract, correct?

How does rephrasing the licence in favor of gay marriage in Alabama make gay marriage a right in California?

 

[Allahuakbar]

If it's about opinions, why is your opinion better thatn that of the majority?

Well, my opinion is usually educated and intelligent. They are also generally well written. Most opinions do not meet these simple requirements.

How does rephrasing the licence in favor of gay marriage make gay marriage a right in California?

Who rephrased a license? Also, why do homosexuals need to prove they have a legal right to enter into legal contracts? Heterosexuals have the right, so it seems unreasonable to restrict a legal right based on sexual orientation.

 

[CIAagent11]

Well, my opinion is usually educated and intelligent. They are also generally well written. Most opinions do not meet these simple requirements.

So you can deny the right of the people to have their vote count, because your opinion is educated and intelligent?

Who rephrased a license? Also, why do homosexuals need to prove they have a legal right to enter into legal contracts? Heterosexuals have the right, so it seems unreasonable to restrict a legal right based on sexual orientation.

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.
So your side needs to show there is a right.

The licence is rephrased, because marriage licences should be for one man and one woman.

 

[Allahuakbar]

So you can deny the right of the people to have their vote count, because your opinion is educated and intelligent?

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.

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.

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

So your side needs to show there is a right.

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

The licence is rephrased, because marriage licences should be for one man and one woman.

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.