• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by CIAagent11, Mar 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +318
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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...
    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 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.
    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?
     
  2. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    Okay. I agree. :)

    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.

    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 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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  3. reverend C

    reverend C Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  4. Grizzly

    Grizzly Enemy of Christmas Supporter

    +1,610
    Atheist
    Married
    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?
     
  5. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    My side of the argument does not want to overturn a state ballot. My side the argument does not have the burden of proof.

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

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +318
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    What if the vote itself was condicted illegally?
    How can you define ANYTHING as a right without using personal opinion to back it up?
    I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please rephrase?
    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.

    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?
     
  7. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.

    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".

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

    Agree.

    Yes. That one.
    I don't have evidence, but I believe so. Let's leave that out for now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  8. trunks2k

    trunks2k Contributor

    +1,777
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  9. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  10. Allahuakbar

    Allahuakbar Well-Known Member

    +163
    Muslim
    Private
    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.

    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.
     
  11. AirPo

    AirPo with a Touch of Grey

    +7,091
    Atheist
    Married
    Are you implying that there is no right to enter into a marriage contract?
     
  12. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +1,474
    Methodist
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  13. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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?

    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".
     
  14. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    No sir,
    I am implyingthat equal privilege to this right does not include what a minority wants it to be.
     
  15. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +1,373
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  16. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  17. AirPo

    AirPo with a Touch of Grey

    +7,091
    Atheist
    Married
    It doesn't include what the majority wants either. It includes what the law says it includes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2009
  18. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  19. CIAagent11

    CIAagent11 Regular Member

    145
    +6
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  20. AirPo

    AirPo with a Touch of Grey

    +7,091
    Atheist
    Married
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...